Discussion in 'Prequel Trilogy' started by Lord Tyrannus, Oct 18, 2012.
I don't think he tried to fall down the reactor shaft. Throwing Palps was the only way to save Luke.
Anakin harbors a good deal of self-hatred. Probably the most indicative line on this matter is when he says "it's too late for me, son." His tears on Mustafar are the first indication (chronologically) of his guilt and regret at what he has done and I imagine it only would have gotten worse with the realization that Padmé is dead and it's his fault and the subsequent years.
I think he chose to kill himself along with Palpatine as a way to exorcise his demons. That, and I think that he would have realized how much trouble it would have been for Luke if his father was still alive, given what he has become.
Vader presumably stayed a Sith even after padme died, the original reason he joined the darkside, because he was consumed in anger and hatred-the darkside. "Forever it will dominate your destiny"-frank oz aka Yoda.
Or, because he went mad with grief after she died.
Yet, why did he stay with the Emperor even if he felt remorse and regret-crying on mustafar and saying it was too late? Saying it was too late kind of implies he was sorry, and darth vader crying...... Yes. Another huge plot hole. For 23 years!
I had a theory that darth vader was actually on the good guy's side, but pretended to be on the emperor's side to trick him, and he did a very good job at doing that, and when the emperor tortured Luke, he took advantage of the situation to turn against his master. As a cyborg, he had force lightning that could damage his suit, so he was careful and planned it out. If my theory is true, Vader is like severus snape, he was a spy for the good side, prentending to be evil and doing bad things, to trick bad guy. Is my theory true or false?
He stayed because he still believed in the Empire. He thought it could be a force for good in the galaxy. He wanted to dispose of Palpatine, yes, ("I can overthrow him") but believed that the Empire would make people's lives better ("I have brought peace, freedom, justice, and security to my new Empire!"). Following Mustafar, though, Anakin is emotionally and physically destroyed and no longer has the capacity to kill Palpatine. But he still believes in the Empire, so he throws himself into his work to forget and waits for a day when he can overthrow his Master.
I don't think so. Anakin clearly wanted to rule the Empire himself -- "join me and we can rule the galaxy as father and son." He was just waiting for an opportunity and the strength he required, which Luke would have granted him. I don't think he held any sympathy for the Rebellion, however.
If Vader ruled the galaxy, would he have been an evil dictator? Luke and padme refused his offer to rule the galaxy together with him. Maybe he wanted to rule the Empire to prevent Palpatine from being an evil dictator?
If Vader became emperor, what kind of evil things would he have done as emperor? Would he have been a benevolent ruler, or an evil one? Why exactly was the galactic sith empire a dictatorship in the OT, the reason the jedi didn't want the sith to rule? Would it be tyrannical under Vader's rule? If so, how? If he was a benevolent ruler, the rebel's cause would be unjustified. Wouldn't Luke and padme have mellowed him down, if they ruled with him? What kind of a rule would he be like?
Why did he cry on mustafar?
Your theory is wrong. Sounds plausible, but it's false.
What would Anakin have done as Emperor - Tyrannus, do you think the rest of us fans have a direct line to GL and have the answers you don't? He wasn't Emperor, so no one knows. One can speculate - and he'd probably have stamped out any dissent/opposition because such would be the only way to ensure "peace" for all. No doubt he'd order his troops to wipe out the Hutts and any slavers, maybe bounty hunters as well. Anyone speaking up against his government.
Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Anakin may not have been as bad of a ruler as Palpatine had he been Emperor, but I doubt he would have been a benevolent dictator -- his treatment of his subordinates in ESB is rather indicative of this. He has no tolerance for failure or challenges to his authority and thus he would have likely become tyrannical. He shows that he will not accept dissent in any form -- "you're either with me or you're my enemy."
My interpretation is that he's realized that he's become an evil person. He still believes in his cause and tries to rationalize that he's done the right thing and that his actions will help to make the galaxy a better place. But regardless, I think he is forced to confront that, upon reflection, murdering children and slaughtering the pathetic, begging Separtist leaders are evil acts and he himself has fallen far lower than he ever wanted to. He regrets and feels guilty at what it has come to, but he has to live with it.
What would Anakin have done as Emperor - Tyrannus, do you think the rest of us fans have a direct line to GL and have the answers you don't? He wasn't Emperor, so no one knows. One can speculate - and he'd probably have stamped out any dissent/opposition because such would be the only way to ensure "peace" for all. No doubt he'd order his troops to wipe out the Hutts and any slavers, maybe bounty hunters as well. Anyone speaking up against his government."Here's the second quote."Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Anakin may not have been as bad of a ruler as Palpatine had he been Emperor, but I doubt he would have been a benevolent dictator -- his treatment of his subordinates in ESB is rather indicative of this. He has no tolerance for failure or challenges to his authority and thus he would have likely become tyrannical. He shows that he will not accept dissent in any form -- "you're either with me or you're my enemy."And the 3rd quote."My interpretation is that he's realized that he's become an evil person. He still believes in his cause and tries to rationalize that he's done the right thing and that his actions will help to make the galaxy a better place. But regardless, I think he is forced to confront that, upon reflection, murdering children and slaughtering the pathetic, begging Separtist leaders are evil acts and he himself has fallen far lower than he ever wanted to. He regrets and feels guilty at what it has come to, but he has to live with it."I agree with the 3rd quote. Vader was still evil, but he had some regret in him. An evil person having a bit of regret for everything they've done, is a pretty interesting villian. However, the Seperatist leaders were evil and started the clone wars.I kind of understand the 2nd quote. Anakin wouldn't have been as evil as Palpatine. But what evil things would he do, exactly? Yell at his officers, and force choke them? Doesn't sound like the worst ruler ever. Harsh and cruel, not that bad, compared to how evil certain rulers can be.My response to quote 1. Stamping out dissent/opposition to bring peace to galaxy, have stormtroopers wipe out hutt, slavers, bounty hunters, speaking up against the empire. What? Slavers are not important to an entire galaxy. Either way, they are a small group of people and don't effect entire galaxy. What about hutts? Why would Vader order troops to wipe out hutts? That makes no sense? What and why would vader do to slavers? Aren't bounty hunters a small group too? What do you mean by " anyone speaking up against empire, dissenters/opposition"?
The Separtist leaders were evil, yes, but they were still pathetic and begging for their lives -- they got no opportunity for a trial, they were just slaughtered outright even as they tried to surrender.
As for what evil things Anakin does? Errr...he murders children, chokes his pregnant wife, kills people on a whim, is complicit in planetary destruction, etc. These aren't the actions of a man who is going to be a just and kind leader. When you kill people for "failing" as Captain Needa did, you certainly aren't fit to lead anything, much less a galaxy. Needa did his best, took responsibility, and apologized to Anakin. He was a good man and devoted officer -- and for that he was killed, just because Anakin got angry.
As to Valairy Scot's point about slavers, I think it's only logical, given that Anakin was once a slave, that he would want to stamp out the slave trade. And given how poorly Anakin tolerates dissenting opinions as Vader, I don't think he'd have a problem with trying to exterminate dissenters to his rule.
Who are "dissenters to his rule"?
Obi-Wan -- tries to kill
Padmé -- chokes
The Rebellion -- attacks (and is complicit in the destruction of a planet merely for supposedly supporting the Rebels)
Leia -- tortures
That one admiral he chokes when the guy starts insulting the Force
Have you ever heard about folks living under communism - unable to even criticize their government? No free speech, no freedom of movement oftentimes? Folks don't like to be controlled and Emperor Vader would have controlled them, because "controlled people" obey and life is peaceful for everyone. Happy happy fantasy land.
You don't get Star Wars if you don't get that Anakin wanted to wipe out anything dealing with slavery - that's slavers in any way,shape or form - sellers, buyers... he doesn't want anyone to control anyone else (unless he's controlling them to keep them from controlling anyone else).
If the rebels are rebelling against him being evil, and he is evil in response to their rebellion, then, while his actions are morally bankrupt and evil, they cannot justify the original cause of the rebels, because they provoked him.
If the rebellion never existed, alderaan would still exist. That was evil and unjustified what the empire did to them-but, when mace windu fought palpatine to stop him from taking over and padme was sad that a dictator (palpatine) took over, they had no idea of alderaan, and, even if they did, it makes no sense. We will provoke the Sith, to make them evil, they were saying. Made no sense to me.
I'm sorry, but that doesn't even make sense. Did you forget the part about how the Sith started a galactic-scale war just to grab power? "Everything is proceeding according to plan." Or that Palpatine had the Trade Federation round up the people of Naboo in camps, starve them, and then ordered Padmé and the Gungans wiped out. How in the world are the Sith the victims here? The Sith (Anakin) killed Jedi children. They've done evil and they need to be held accountable and stopped. That's what the Rebellion was trying to do.
How do I quote? Also, why did the empire do order 66? For what reason?
Also, are you saying the rebels started a war to avenge the younglings? That's not true. A war based on vengance of past misdeeds (Naboo, trade federation, order 66) is an unjust war.
An interesting question, is, would the empire have used the death star on alderaan, if the rebel alliance never existed? Leia was a traitor and rebel princess, so was her adopted father. Maybe a few others. Most Alderaanians had nothing to do with the rebellion, and were totally innocent, therefore the empire was definitley unjust and evil and cruel in that. Yet, if the rebels never rebelled, that wouldn't have happened. Therefore, the cause of the rebel alliance and all the people (padme) not wanting the sith to rule is unjustifiable and a self fullfulling prophecy. Unless I'm missing something.
Hit "Reply" on the post you want to quote -- bottom right corner of the post.
Palpatine killed the Jedi because he was destroying any threats to his rule. Also, for revenge -- hence "Revenge of the Sith."
Well there you go. You, by your own logic, just proved the Sith were unjust. They killed the Jedi in revenge. Plus, the rebellion didn't start in order to enact vengeance. It began when people realized just what Palpatine had done to achieve power and what he was doing. Don't forget, Organa helped start the Rebellion and thus would have realized what Palpatine had done against his own people (the people of Naboo). The Rebels wanted to ensure that the rest of the galaxy didn't suffer due to Palpatine's whims as people on his home planet had suffered. Unfortunately, Alderaan was destroyed before they could ensure this.
You are. You're missing the part where the Sith were the ones to initiate hostilities. Not the Rebellion or people like Padmé and Bail Organa.
I noticed that too. What did "revenge of the sith" mean? What kind of vengance did the sith want on the jedi? Darth maul mentioned it in TPM? What's up with that?
Why didn't the Jedi want Palpatine to have power? They didn't care before, but the second they found out he was a sith with dark magic powers, they made a big deal about it. How did the galaxy suffer in general? People on the planets in the OT seemed pretty happy? If the rebels knew what happened to Naboo, what did they fear the empire doing later on. I'm a fan of the EU, that shows the empire treated non-human species like wookies and the mon calamari badly. Is that what the empire did in the OT the rebels were fighting against? You made a good point, the rebels knew what the empire did, so they wanted to prevent suffering in the future.
The Sith once ruled the galaxy but were ousted 1000 years ago and forced to hide in the shadows -- Mace Windu's line of "The oppression of the Sith will never return" is indicative of this. The Sith once had power and used it to oppress the galaxy. With their presumed extinction, however, they were forced to hide and bind their time and wait -- hence Maul's exclamation of "at last we will reveal ourselves to the Jedi, at last we will have revenge." The Sith's revenge was to kill the Jedi and re-take control of the galaxy.
Because the Jedi know that the Sith are responsible for the war (and thus the Rebellion, through Bail Organa, knows as well)-- Dooku is a Sith and has been leading the Separtists and the Sith were involved in the Trade Federation's invasion of Naboo. Before, they thought that Palpatine was merely an ambitious politician with ambiguous motives. With the discovery that he's a Sith Lord, however, they realize that he is behind the war and has committed horrific crimes against the galaxy. He thus must be removed from power in order to protect people and ensure the preservation of democracy.
As Obi-Wan says, after all, "He was deceived by a lie. We all were. It appears that the Chancellor is behind everything, including the war. Palpatine is the Sith Lord we've been looking for." and this pretty much spells out the Jedi's motivations -- they can't leave the Republic in the hands of someone who was willing to let billions of its citizens die just to be an absolute dictator when the Jedi have sworn to protect it.
Palpatine beginning the war alone is enough cause for the Rebellion to be justified in removing him, let along subsequent actions like the genocide of the Jedi and the destruction of Alderaan which only adds to the Sith's crimes.
Are you referring to Palpatine being a part of the Seperatists and the clone wars?
In part, yes -- there's also the situation on Naboo. But with the discovery that Palpatine was a Sith Lord, the Jedi realized that he had been playing both sides and orchestrating the war for his own gain, killing billions in the process. As Obi-Wan notes, Palpatine is behind everything, including the war and the Jedi can't leave such a man in power -- they have a duty to protect the Republic, both from threats internal and external and Palpatine betrayed his constituents' trust and started an illegal war. He needs to be removed from power for such a crime and he is, by any measure, a traitor.
Basking in the Maui sun... their debt to society paid in full.
The empire did evil things no doubt. However, would that have happened if the rebel alliance never existed? Both sides are evil. Empire/Vader/Emperor are evil, and so are the rebels.
The official name of the "Rebels" is the Alliance to Restore the Republic. The Republic was generally good. The Rebellion wanted to get rid to the evil Empire and bring back the good-intentioned Republic.
Killing your enemies in wartime is not being evil. Having ugly hats is not being evil. What are you talking about?
What did him being a sith lord and having dark magic superpowers (darkside of force) have to do with anything? Was that why the Jedi arrested him? Because they had different views on the Force and mysticism? Or was it because he was a traitor? If he was a sith lord, but not a traitor, would they still allow him to have power?
The Rebels would have a moral high ground to stand on if they'd fallen over and played dead, rather than fighting back for their rights.