Go-Mer's Debate Thread

Now we're getting somewhere: this is not an exact science, and it's certainly not the magical solution to something that already worked. We're dissecting it way too much...

For the "fan of the future" this will just serve as a hunch that something may be boiling beneath the surface, that there may be more going on than just recruiting a new ally. It's not like there's only one interpretation that rules out all others...

 

I don't know if this is the right thread to post this in, but...
About the rule of two thing:

The thing that doesn't make sense is that Yoda knows about it.
* The Sith had been thought to be extinct for a thousand years - from before Yoda was born.
* According to the TPM novel (if i remember correctly) the Sith instituted the Rule of Two after the Jedi thought the Sith were destroyed. So no Jedi could know about it.

But now that the Jedi do know about the Rule of Two, it only makes things worse.
* In TPM, the Jedi are convinced (in the end, at Qui-gon's funeral) that the mysterious warrior was a Sith.
* So the Jedi know that the Trade Federation was working together with the Sith.
* Thanks to Yoda's knowledge of the rule of two, the Jedi also know that there still has to be one Sith left and that in some time there will be two again.
* According to Dooku (when he talks to Obi in AOTC) the Trade Federation viceroy (Nute Gunray) told the Jedi about their involvement with the Sith (which they already knew by then). The Jedi Council would not believe him!!!!! What?! That's a contradiction!
The Federation probably told the Jedi about Sidious and Maul. Why wouldn't they believe it if they had already figured out that Maul was a Sith and there are always two Sith lords?! Why wouldn't they listen?!
* At the end of AOTC the Jedi must realise Dooku is a Sith. And they must realise he (as separatist leader) set out to start a war against a more powerful army - the republic clone army - which he ordered himself in name of the Republic. So obviously there is another Sith lord...and he's working from within the Republic!!
* And they can figure out Dooku can't be Sidious, because Nute was betrayed by Sidious and more or less knows what he looks like. And Nute now works with Dooku.

The Jedi really should have listened to Nute Gunray. It doesn't make sense that they didn't. Everything Nute would have told them should have made sense to them after what happened in TPM and what Yoda knew.
And after AOTC the Jedi really have no reason not to believe Dooku.
It may not 'feel right', but everything points to it being correct.

It should be so obvious that there is a Sith lord named Sidious with influence in the Republic, and who would gain by war and chaos.
Palpatine should be a prime suspect.

The Jedi should stab Palpatine by accident with a letter opener and then test his blood on Midichlorians.
That's your Sith lord right there!!

By itself the Sith discussion between Yoda and Mace in TPM seemed cool, but now it should really be cut from the saga completely, because it makes little sense and it makes the Jedi look impossibly stupid.

 

This was taken from some AOTC interview and posted in the BS.

---

Dear Mr. Lucas,

We all really like Star Wars. It's a great story and we cherish it each and every day. We have all purchased lots of Star Wars merchandise, and have helped make you very rich.

Now it's payback time.

You see Mr Lucas, you suck as a writer. Really awful. And your directing...it's not very good either. So here's the deal. You write up an outline (no dialogue allowed) of Episode Three. You then hire a competent and hip writer, someone younger than, say, fifty. Said writer writes Episode Three, based on your notes. Then, you go and hire yourself a hot, fresh director--or Steven Spielberg, he'd do. You let them direct the movie while you sit back and collect lots of money. Everybody wins.

If you do that, we promise to go see it. And we will not burn you in effigy.

Does this seem preposterous? You've done it before.

Here are the credits for Star Wars Episode Five: The Empire Strikes Back

Directed By: Irvin Kershner
Story by: George Lucas
Written by: Leigh Brackett and Lawrence Kasdan

Many, many people think that Empire is the best of the original trilogy, and it's the only one that you didn't write or direct.

Get the picture?

So get it in gear. If not, well, we can always look forward to the upcoming Matrix sequels with equal glee.

Sincerely,
The People[hr][/blockquote]I took the liberty of sending it to Lucas for them and here is his response...[blockquote][hr]Dear Critics,

It's too bad you don't like my new Star Wars movies. Unfortunatley, I could care less if you see my movies in the future. I have enough fans that I don't need to please you. But have fun watching the Matrix sequels, I hear they are going to be good.

-Lucas[hr][/blockquote]I swear this is real! ;)

 

Darth_sillyname, I agree...

that this is the right thread.

 

Yeah right Gomer.

 

Seriously, the Jedi are not too bright in these movies. I always thought they would be very wise and intelligent.
I guess that was my fault. There was nothing in the OT to suggest that the Jedi were clever

Ok, but surely you must agree that the Jedi should stab Palpatine with a letter opener and check his midi count?

That would be clever.


They should also stab Jar Jar.

Just stab him

 

Come on, people, stop trying to break the movies for yourselves. Poke at any movie long enough and you're bound to turn up all kinds of holes. This applies to the original films as well.

 

Durwood, once again... it's not a matter of us trying to "ruin the movie for ourselves" or whatever you keep insisting we're doing. Sloppy continuity is sloppy continuity, no matter what little stories one invents to justify it to oneself. It's not a question of trying to invent problems... it's about NOTICING continuity problems and not then being to suddenly UN-notice them.

"I think it's pretty clearly spelled out that Vader would like to dispatch with the Emporer in TESB, and it's pretty clear that the Emporer sees Luke as the shiny new toy in ROTJ."

Would like to, sure. Compelled to by some ancient Sith law? That simply isn't borne out by the events in the OT. The subtext in the scenes between Vader and the Emperor involve their keeping up a pretense of working together to turn Luke... a pretense which would be completely and utterly unnecessary and nonsensical if they were beholden to a law that says that when one of them brings a new potential apprentice home for dinner, one of them has to die.

Unless Anakin himself is shown in Episode III to be unaware of this rule... which wouldn't make a LOT of sense since Yoda makes this "rule of two" thing sound like a fundamental rule of the Sith order and not some obscure little thing that the Emperor would simply never get around to telling his black-masked apprentice. But even so, showing Anakin as being kept in the dark about this would at least make a lot more sense than to have an apprentice declare war on his master and have there be absolutely NO acknowledgement of that fact, and furthermore to have the apprentice present the idea of training a third Sith as if it were a project that would benefit them both.

 

I agree with a lot of what you just posted, Patrick. I never stated that the line *had* to be in TPM, just that it gave a more formal structure to the motivations we see made explicit in TESB and ROTJ. The "Rule of Two" doesn't really add too much to the story, beyond giving a name or reason for a few lines of dialogue.

Besides, it seems like there is no real *need* for the rule of two in the OT - all of the other Force users have been wiped out.

 

Personally, I think the only reason why Lucas put the "rule of two" line in there was to justify why he wasn't going to have the whole "Clone War" revolve around cloned dark Jedi (Which would seem to have been a more dynamic choice than "The Droid War", which is what the Clone War seems to actually be at this point.)

My problem is that it really just doesn't resonate with what happens between the Emperor and Vader in the OT. I agree with you that it's not necessary as a plot addition... I feel the same way about the midichlorians.

 

Here's the real reply from Lucas:

You guys spend more time thinking about SW than me! It is only natural that you know the saga better than myself. But since you keep filling my pockets, I won't change. And I really don't care anymore.

 

Well actually Hawk, he sent me a bunch. That one was among them. I tried to pick the one that was the least sarcastic.

Patrick,

Where does one get the idea that at one point Lucas was going to have the clone war center around "cloned dark Jedi"? Just because he didn't do something doesn't mean he meant to at one point.

To be completely frank, the very idea of an army of "cloned Dark Jedi" makes me cringe. It just screams "marketing think tank". I think the story is more important than "wow" factor motivations. Would it be cool to see a bunch of light Jedi fighting a bunch of dark Jedi? Sure. But how would that benefit the story? How would that fit into a post clone war galaxy that thinks the Jedi were fruads? How does that get us to Storm Troopers?

 

it's about NOTICING continuity problems and not then being to suddenly UN-notice them.

It's more like creating a problem because you refuse to want to reconcile the prequels with the "perfect" original trilogy.

Trust me, there is not a single contradiction between the films, only misunderstandings and refusal to admit that one's OT interpretations are wrong.

 

It's a shame Patrick can't be bothered to actually debate the point. Despite the fact that it has been exhaustively pointed out to him how it fits, he just robotically posts "It isn't bourne out by the OT." yet can't be bothered to actually say why or refute what else has been said.

Again, did Vader just forget the plan to rule as 3? Did the Emperor just forget the plan to rule as 3? If the conversation between them is such an ironclad arguement against the rule of 2, how come they can't be bothered to follow that plan and each try to recruit Luke to replace the other and rule as 2?

Can anyone refute my previous arguement with proof from the films? Here it is again for those of you who missed it:

"Why would it be open warfare? It's all done slyly through manipulation of each other. I think both reckognize the potential for backstabbing, but it's still very conditional on Luke being turned and is only happening because of the potential power that he posesses. There's a huge IF in the situation that is presented: Luke turning. "A" has to happen before "B" can even take place. Although B will take place very shortly after A.

Vader only wants him alive if he can be turned. Why does he want him turned? As we see at the end of ESB, to overthrow the Emperor and rule as father and son.

The Emperor is presented with a kid who could potentially be even more powerful than his old man. He just unconditionally wants him dead, no question asked? Please. He was trying to gauge Vader's reaction with the "death proposal" and goad him into volunteering to get Luke and bring Luke to him. Because the Emperor NEEDS Vader to get Luke in the first place.

Both are trying to get the other to participate in getting/turning Luke without saying "Hey can I/you go get Luke?" Because that would basically be an open declaration of war. In this case, both thinks the other is stupid and that they just got away with something. Vader thinks he tricked Palpy into keeping his son alive and allowing him to get Luke. Palpy thinks he just tricked Vader into to volunteering to capture Luke to bring him right to his clutches.

The kink in Vader's plan is that at the end of ESB he can't get Luke to turn so they can go kill the Emperor as father and son. So if Vader can't do it, who can? Palpatine. So now Vader has to bring Luke in front of the Emperor if he wants him turned. Luckily Luke turns up alive and starts talking about Anakin, redepmtion, has acknowledged Vader as his father and has formed some sort of attachment to Anakin/Vader. An attachment he doesn't have to the Emperor. So Vader takes the chance that if the Emperor turns Luke, Vader can still get him on his side or at the very least kill Luke (he beat Luke's ass pretty bad already and has acknowledged that Luke will die if he isn't turned) if he comes after him.

The Emperor on the other hand basically gets Vader to bring Luke to him, uses Vader to try and turn Luke (which is really his only option), sufficently gets them into a battle and when he thinks Luke has turned tried to get him to kill Vader. Even though all Vader really needs is to catch his breath and a new robotic hand.

This isn't even a minor stretch given what we've seen of Palpatine's manipulation and his behind the back meddling and attempt at an upgrade for a young apprentice when he already had a successful older one. Nor his overconfidence that it would work, nor his straining of the relationship by questioning Vader's loyalty/abilities.

If they aren't scheming against each other in ESB, there is no rule of 2, and they have a stated, agreed upon objective for 3 Sith's, then why do each try to get Luke to kill the other and rule as 2? What is the motivation that the movies show?"

 

Who's being robotic? Practically all I keep seeing in response to my posts on this matter is "It all fits... it all fits... trust us, it all fits... it all fits... George doesn't make continuity errors... it all fits."

I DO keep trying to debate the point, but all I keep hearing is "You're just trying to ruin the movie for yourself" and "The fact that Vader and the Emperor schemed against one another PROVES that the Rule Of Two fits perfectly" when neither of these claims are accurate, nor do they address the point I've been trying to make, which is that at NO point in ESB or ROTJ do either Vader or the Emperor acknowledge the 400 pound "rule of two" gorilla in the room, and in fact act in ways which suggest that this wasn't a factor between them and that their individual scheming was just something they chose to do and not the result of any ancient Sith rule.

So how about debating THAT point and not just throwing out the tired old gusher standard "You just WANT to hate Star Wars" or ignoring the point with the leap of logic that "since there was scheming, that proves the rule of two"...

Or not... I'm not gonna twist anyone's arm.

 

...which is that at NO point in ESB or ROTJ do either Vader or the Emperor acknowledge the 400 pound "rule of two" gorilla in the room, and in fact act in ways which suggest that this wasn't a factor between them and that their individual scheming was just something they chose to do and not the result of any ancient Sith rule.

First of all, you're trying to argue without taking Episode I into account. Why do I say this? Because Episode I establishes that there is a rule of two. No ifs, ands, or buts. End of story. You must then take this irrefutable information and apply it to the rest of the saga. That's just how these things work. Sorry. I mean, can't you accept the fact that their scheming is something they chose to do as a result of an ancient Sith rule?

Secondly, what exactly do you want Vader and the Emperor to say in their already tense conversation?

"My Lord, need I remind you of the RULE OF TWO?"

"Of course not, my dear Vader. I'm well aware of the rule, as are you. I just want to use young Skywalker for my own gain."

"As do I, my master."

"Good, it's settled then. Carry on."

Third, Vader and the Emperor only talk about turning Luke to the darkside so that he could "become a powerful ally." This is not the same as making him a Sith. No doubt the Sith have employed dark Jedi in the past as well as other individuals to do their dirty work. This is pretty clearly established in the films through the hiring of bounty hunters. Besides, it wouldn't have been too clever of the Emperor to say, "Yes, he would make a powerful apprentice...er, I mean, ally. I said ally." Once Luke was turned, it is clear that each wanted to use him to kill the other. Thus, the rule of two is maintained.

Finally, a whole new dynamic could be introduced in Episode III that will reveal more clearly the process in which a force user becomes a Sith apprentice. So until then, let's let Lucas finish telling the story, then we can debate about so-called contradictions till the cows come home.

 

Durwood, thank you for at least trying to address what I'm saying instead of just dismissing me as some crank who dearly wants to hate Star Wars. I appreciate that.

"First of all, you're trying to argue without taking Episode I into account. Why do I say this? Because Episode I establishes that there is a rule of two. No ifs, ands, or buts. End of story. You must then take this irrefutable information and apply it to the rest of the saga. That's just how these things work. Sorry. I mean, can't you accept the fact that their scheming is something they chose to do as a result of an ancient Sith rule?"

I understand where you're coming from, but the fact of the matter is that ESB and ROTJ were written long before TPM ever was. Whether you like it or not, the onus is on the PT to fit with what was already written and filmed 20 years ago. It doesn't matter if the new films are set a generation before the old films, the PT still has to be written in such a way that it takes into account everything that is already filmed and done with in the OT. Episode I had the unenviable duty of having to fit in with what had already been established in the OT. To say that the onus is on the viewer to ignore shaky story continuity is IMHO just another way of saying that there IS shaky story continuity.

It's not as if these PT stories were already written 20-25 years ago when Lucas was making the OT. Most of it wasn't even conceived of until the mid-late 1990s when Lucas began writing TPM, and he's still making it up as he goes along. We aren't having information suddenly revealed that Lucas kept locked in a vault for a quarter-century. If we were, and all this stuff had been written at the same time with a grand master plan in mind years and years ago, I could see where you'd be able to insist that TPM "establishes" things. But it doesn't. Those things were established when the OT was made, and TPM's job is to fit in with what already was.

What you're saying seems to be "It can't be a continuity problem, because it was right there being established in TPM, end of story." That's the same sort of circular logic I get from fundamentalist Christians who try to convince me that the Bible is the infallible word of God because it says so right there in the Bible! (No offense to any Christians here... whatever resonates with you spiritually is cool for you, I'm just talking about folks who try to convert me using circular logic like that.)

Back to the question at the end of that paragraph, Durwood. You ask why I can't just accept that the scheming was the result of the rule of two. My answer to you is that the manner in which the scheming was carried out, and particularly the manner in which bringing Luke into the fold was presented in ESB, do not indicate that there was an understanding between them that "Of course, this means that one of us must die."

And isn't that the necessary result of the rule of two? That the second a potential second apprentice comes along, both Master and Apprentice must accept that, barring the death of the potential second apprentice, this means the end of their relationship?

And yet, in ESB, how did Vader present the idea of turning Luke to the Dark Side to the Emperor? What was Vader's pledge to the Emperor at the end of that conversation?

"He will join us or die, Master."

Think about that line for a moment. He will join US or die. Clearly, Vader is under the impression that there CAN be three. Can't you see that?

As for how the rule should have been addressed in ESB when Vader proposes that they turn Luke, well first off Vader shouldn't have been talking as if Luke was going to join them both, which is the way he presented the idea. Also, when he suggested that Luke be turned to the Dark Side, if the "rule of two" was such a primary part of the Sith code, the exchange should have included something simple like:

Emperor: "You realize what this means, do you not?"

Vader: "I do, my Master."

Emperor: "So be it."

Not some obvious exposition... mer

 

I think Patrick spelled it out perfectly with the example "he will join us or die master". If Vader were taking the rule of two into consideration, this comment does not make sense. This suggests that, at the very least, Vader did not know of the rule.

 

Once again, Patrick is only trying to force his interpretations onto the saga even if that means contradicting what's going on in the saga. Lucas has always said that the prequels will force you to see things in the original films differently, and this is just one example. But now we have people saying, "I can't be wrong because I have interpreted it as such and such, and if the prequels contradict my interpretations (not the films, mind you, but only my interpretations) then it's the prequels that have it wrong."

There have been many excellent explanations in this thread reconciling the rule of two with The Empire Strikes Back, yet Patrick (and others) still insist that the prequels must conform with their interpretations of the original trilogy.

Like it or not, the prequels are taking everything you thought you knew about Star Wars and turning it on its head. Get over it.

 

May I join this thread?

 

Durwood, is it possible for you to talk about the "film" rather than the board members. I think Patrick has clearly spelled out what his problems are and it does have to do with his interpretation...his interpretation that the PT contradicts the OT.

If all you can do is resort to the tried and tested "let's play the blame game" gusher response then why don't you take a breather and come back to these forums when you have learned to be civil at least to the members who are doing their best to do the same.

 

hawk,

Seriously, it has been like two years since you started posting here and you still need to express how you feel about this film. GET OVER IT! Leave it for the true fans who actually like 100% of Star Wars. I didn't like most of ANH and TESB until I talked myself into liking them. I did the same with TPM and I feel your time would be better spent doing the same. Lucas doesn't care about you and your ideas. He's doing fine without you.

 

You had to talk yourself into liking ANH and ESB? That's messed up.

 

Only parts of it but, yeah, I did. That's all you need to do too. Just go against your first gut reaction. If you don't like Jar Jar then just say to youself "he was needed and important" and work from there. Give it a try before you knock it.

 

ANH was nominated for best picture in the academy awards, alec guiness was nominated for best supporting actor. TPM was nominated for a turd. Seriously evilhawk, "Just go against your first gut reaction" Thats not being true to oneself. My first gut reaction of TPM was...well I cant say because I was too busy chucking my guts out due to the awful material I paid $6.50 for. And "Jarjar being needed and important" Is this a sick joke? Ive never seen a movie character trashed so much than that of jarjar. There was NO importance to him. He ruined practically every scene he was in. He was just video fodder and an advertisement for kiddies. So no I wont try it...Ill just continue to knock it.