Saga What plotline, character or scene in the entire Saga irritates you the most?

Discussion in 'Star Wars Saga In-Depth' started by Hudnall, Mar 3, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Moderators: Darth_Nub
  1. Lord Tyrannus Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 18, 2012
    star 4
    Correct. Palpatine did a lot of evil things, like invade Naboo and start the clone wars, and the massacre of the Jedi, just to get to his goal, so his moral nature was definitely messed up.

    But that doesn't explain why the Sith themselves are evil., and why the rebels were justified in overthrowing the Galacitc Empire.

    If Anakin turned his back against Palpatine in episode 3, not turning away from the darkside, still being a dark-side force user, but helped the last remaining Jedi against the Emperor, they would still reject him and consider him to be an evil person, just because he was a Sith. Even if sith vader/anakin helped them out, he would still be evil, just because he was a Sith.

    When obi wan told padme that anakin turned to the darkside when he visited her house on Coruscant, the reaction and dialogue wasn't "Oh, Anakin became evil because he did terrible things against the Jedi and betrayed them". Padme and obi wan's reaction at first was "Oh, no, he now uses the darkside of the power and has evil superpowers". Which, according to the film, he was evil for just that. The Sith were evil because they had dark powers. Doesn't make sense to me.
  2. Iron_lord Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 2, 2012
    star 5
    Padme's horror seems to come from the realization that Anakin's "killed younglings".

    It's not clear if Mon Mothma, the leader of the Rebels (the red-haired lady in Return of the Jedi) even knew Palpatine was Sith. Her reason for rebelling was that he'd turned the Republic into a dictatorship, then an Empire. Add in the Empire's atrocities (in the EU) and the future rebels concluded "Palpatine is either insane or totally evil- either way, he must be overthrown for the good of everybody".
  3. Lord Tyrannus Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 18, 2012
    star 4
    Does that imply that the EU explains the empire's atrocities and the films don't mention it? I guess the movies don't have time to explain all the details. How does that explain George lucas's statements, such as there being no story after ROTJ, the EU being a different universe than the films? The EU is canon, but it's a different canon than the films.

    Also, Padme didn't care about the sandpeople, ad what anakin did to them, in AOTC. Even before obi wan mentioned the younglings, she was shocked and in horror, implying that anakin was evil just for being a sith and having darkside powers, not just because of evil deeds. Padme thought the Sith were evil just because they were sith. The younglings were a contributing factor, though.

    The Death Star. Had alderaan not rebelled, that planet would have survived. I'm not justifying the empire at all. It was definitely very evil. However, the issue is not whether the bad guys do evil things and are evil, but the question is-are the good guys justified in their quest to defeat them and against them? Would alderaan have survived if the rebels didn't exist. Why did Palpatine have plans for making the death star in AOTC? What were his plans then?

    Also, what others planets did the Empire use the death star against, in between episodes 3-4? Were they planning to use the death star on other planets in the galaxy? If the rebels didn't defeat them, or if the rebels never existed in the first plan, what would they have done with the death star, to what extent, and why?
  4. Iron_lord Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 2, 2012
    star 5
    The EU does list some of the Empire's atrocities, yes.

    Lucas's company, LFL, seems to take a different view from Lucas himself.

    They were planning on using the Death Star II against other planets, yes. In The Essential Guide to Warfare we find out that the reason the Imperial Fleet at Endor is so small (only just big enough to trap the Rebel Fleet for the Death Star to destroy) is that two huge fleets have been despatched to Mon Mothma's homeworld, and Ackbar's, to keep their populations from evacuating, so once the Death Star is ready to go into hyperspace- it can go and destroy both worlds, to send a message to the rest of the galaxy that this is what the Empire does to the worlds of rebel leaders.

    "Is it justified to fight evil rather than try and change it peacefully?" is a question that's been raised numerous times by philosophers- with the answer usually being "It depends how evil it is". In the EU, the empire is shown to be very evil.

    in the EU, Padme knows that the Sith were behind the attack on her planet- the Jedi told her about Maul after the events of The Phantom Menace.
  5. Lord Tyrannus Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 18, 2012
    star 4
    What happened to Naboo, was "what's done is done".
    How does LFL or lucas take a different view? Does that mean the EU's information about the empire's atrocities is not canon?
    The empire only wanted to use the deaths star against rebels and planets who had rebels on them- like mon mothma's planet and ackbar's planet. It was built against the rebellion. Just because the empire does evil things in retaliation doesn't make the rebel's cause to defeat them right or justified. Had the rebels never rebelled, the empire wouldn't use or attempt to use the death star against rebel planets. I'm not defending the evil actions of the Emperor, that's not the issue. The issue is-are the rebels justified, or is their cause a self fullfilling prophecy?
  6. Iron_lord Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 2, 2012
    star 5
    The Empire does evil things.

    The Rebels rose in order to stop the Empire from doing evil things, and "Restore the Republic"

    The Empire attempts to crush the Rebels by blowing up their planets.

    The Rebels eventually defeat the Empire- and we see lots of celebrations when the news gets out- in the closing minutes of the RoTJ movie.

    Lucas would not have called it "the evil Galactic Empire" in the opening crawl, if he didn't have in mind that the Rebellion not be justified in coming into being.
    WIERD_GREEN_MAN likes this.
  7. Valairy Scot Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 16, 2005
    star 5
    Going by the movies alone (as I think you're doing) who says Alderaan was rebelling? Oh, sure, we can postulate that Bail Organa (one person) is aiding and abetting the Rebels, but the entire planet? All we know for sure is that an Alderaanian princess was on a diplomatic ship with stolen plans and presumably also tasked with bringing Obi-Wan out of exile and to Bail/the rebellion. Would you wipe out one country/planet for what ONE leader was doing?

    I'll grant you one thing: if there was NO opposition to the Empire, it's likely the Death Star would have remained an used threat.

    As for justification, if good men stand by and do nothing in the face of evil and injustice, are they aiding and abetting said evil and injustice or should they stand up and take a stand? Should we have let Hitler take any country he wanted so we didn't have to "stand up" and "force him to come against 'us'"? If The Donald militarily took over the US and jailed "the 47% who leech off America" (and yes, I AM deliberately mixing things up on purpose) should the rest of the country applaud or protest this subversion of the Constitution and American values?
  8. Iron_lord Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 2, 2012
    star 5
    The Empire has exterminated species purely for its own convenience before. In Crimson Empire, Yinchorr is described as a planet "with a timid reptilian race which were exterminated so there would be a training ground for the Royal Guard".

    If Palpatine saw a benefit for him in it, he'd probably use the Death Star even in the absence of any rebellion. Maybe for planets with a high degree of mineral resources, that would take too long to get at the normal way. Even populated ones.

    The Death Star was (to the Imperial public) claimed to be a "mining instrument" after all.
  9. DRush76 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 25, 2008
    star 4
    I may have mentioned this before, but the one plotline that really irritates me is Luke's Jedi training. I had no problem with Obi-Wan trying to start his training in ANH. But in ESB, it gets all muddy. And it doesn't get any better by the beginning of ROTJ. How long did Yoda train Luke in ESB? The movie never reveals how long the training took. And how did Luke become so highly skilled by the beginning of ROTJ, without a Jedi mentor to personally teach him? After all, he didn't return to Dagobah after the incident on Bespin. I have grave doubts that a book - even one written by Obi-Wan could have effectively achieve this.
  10. Lord Tyrannus Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 18, 2012
    star 4
    Did Luke or leia or han or any of the rebels in the OT mention speciesm? Was it important to the plot? Was it one of the rebel's main goals? Also, when did the rebel alliance truly form? The end of episode 3? In between ROTS and ANH?
  11. Valairy Scot Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 16, 2005
    star 5
    There was no speciesm in the MOVIES and thus not an important story element. It probably played a role in the Rebels, considering it was made up of humans and non-humans. It almost grew from the Petition of 2000 organizers (pretty much cut out of the PT) - Bail, Mon Mothma, etc. It probably stayed low and built up resources between the trilogies.
  12. Lord Tyrannus Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 18, 2012
    star 4
    What pettition are you talking about? Are you saying the empire didn't commit oppression or slavery to the galaxy's aliens? That was very important to the story! Read any of the books. They mention it. How can such an important story element be "not important"? It was probably one of the most important plot points in the entire saga.
  13. Danzo Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 20, 2012
    star 1
    My biggest complain is this;

    Episode II Anakin (to Padme) - " I killed them. I killed them all. They're dead, every single one of them. And not just the men, but the women and the children too."

    Episode III Obi-Wan - "I have seen a security hologram...of him...killing Younglings."
    Padme - "No! Not Anakin! He couldn't..."

    I know it can be explained away in various ways but it just really irritates me. A child is a child regardless of how they would be raised. It's acceptable to slaughter Tusken Raider kids but not little Jedi?
  14. anakinfansince1983 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Mar 4, 2011
    star 6
    Yeah, it can be explained, and I don't feel like explaining it any more than you probably feel like hearing the explanation. But regardless, Padme never once said or even implied that Anakin's revenge extending to the Tusken Raider kids was "acceptable."

    As far as the Emperor oppressing the galaxy's aliens: of course he did. He locked them up in tiny cells on the Death Star and forced them to watch Dora the Explorer 24/7.
  15. Valairy Scot Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 16, 2005
    star 5
    Tyrannus, do you read your own posts? Important story elements are not necessarily IN THE MOVIES, like specieism. A lot of those points ARE in the BOOKS. Don't tell me to read the books; I have.

    And if you've seen the movies and read the books, you would know about the Petition of 2000. You would know about the Clones. You would know that Palpatine was once the Senator from Naboo so he lived there. You would know that an intergalactic invasion did not take place and the Sith plotted to take over the galaxy and destroy the Jedi.

    It's been fun...
    Zeta1127 and anakinfansince1983 like this.
  16. anakinfansince1983 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Mar 4, 2011
    star 6
    As he's contradicted himself in posts made on the same page of a thread before, I doubt it.
    Zeta1127 likes this.
  17. Zeta1127 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 2, 2012
    star 4
    I am seriously considering avoiding the Movie forum for the time being, because this is getting ridiculous.
  18. Lord Tyrannus Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 18, 2012
    star 4
    They are important because they are part of the storyline of the OT. The rebels wanted to free aliens from the empire. How is that not important? thats the main plot of the story. Whats pettition 2000? They destroyed the jedi because the jedi wanted to destroy tehm.
  19. WIERD_GREEN_MAN Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Dec 16, 2010
    star 4
    OH HELL NO. Freeing aliens from slavery is NOT the main point ot the OT. The main point of the OT is the redemtption of Anakin Skywalker. The main point of all 6 movies is the story of Anakin Skywalker. Sourced from George Lucas himself.
    Yes, Sith tried to destroy Jedi and Jedi tried to destroy Sith. But guess what? I support destroying really bad people like Sith. Why, you don't support the fact that mass murderers should be destroyed? I suppose you are confused why all those Nazis who ran concentration camps were executed at Nuremberg, then.
    Last edited by WIERD_GREEN_MAN, Oct 26, 2012
  20. Lord Tyrannus Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 18, 2012
    star 4
    Why are you arguing? I'm not trying to argue, I was just saying what happened in the movies. Have you read the EU? The empire was a dictatorship that used the death star, enslaved aliens, stuff like that. It was part of the movie storyline, but you dont have time to show that in a 2 hour movie.

    You said the sith are bad people. And you said the Jedi were good in destroying the Sith. Yes, there is no question the sith are evil.

    Yes, i study history. I know about nuremburg. They were executed at nuremberg for being tyrants who did atrocities against innocent people.

    The redemption of anakin skywalker? From what? From being a sith lord, obviously. Becoming a jedi again. The sith are evil, why? Because they were evil dictators. They did things like enslave aliens, etc. If freeing aliens wasn't part of the OT, then what if anakin redeemed from?
  21. WIERD_GREEN_MAN Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Dec 16, 2010
    star 4
    Every Sith who has had the opportunity has been a tyrant who commited atrocities against innocent people. There, you've answered your own question!
    Anakin was redeemed from the dark side. The dark side is bad. I don't like bad things. I hope you don't like bad things.
  22. Lord Tyrannus Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 18, 2012
    star 4
    Why are we arguing if we agree? I said that anakin was redeemed from being a dictator who did atrocities against innocent people, because he repented in the end. Read the rise and fall of darth vader.

    Anakin being a dictator meant he enslaved aliens and had plans to use the death star on countless planets had the rebels not stopped the empire. He was redeemed from that.

    So the focus of the OT was redeeming anakin skywalker from being a tyrant, and doing the stuff said above.
    Last edited by Lord Tyrannus, Oct 26, 2012
  23. WIERD_GREEN_MAN Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Dec 16, 2010
    star 4
    I did read The Rise and Fall of Darth Vader. I'm not trying to flame. Maybe I should go try to sleep, or something.
  24. CoolyFett Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Feb 3, 2003
    star 4
    Its the favorite thing in the 6Part Saga
  25. Lord Tyrannus Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 18, 2012
    star 4
    Are you saying that Luke was glad that they died? That sounds kinda messed up and selfish and ungrateful on Luke's part.
Moderators: Darth_Nub
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.