Why Vader blocks Luke's strike against the Emperor

No. I don't doubt Vader was fated for redemption by the time TESB completed production. But as Kurtz says, Vader was to redeem himself. TESB establishes him as the Khrushchev to Palpatine's Stalin, and we needed to see that carried over to ROTJ.

 

drg4, even if Vader's tone in the ROTJ version of his "power of the dark side" line is depairing, or resigned, this is not conclusive evidence that he's given up on overthrowing the Emperor. Vader's inclination toward dissent is a minor note in ESB, but it is inarguably present in his character in that film (not just in his offer to Luke, but also in his, Vader's, suggestion to the Emperor that they turn Luke to the dark side). Nothing in ROTJ -- no line of dialogue nor action by any character -- specifically refutes this goal of Vader's. A barely perceptible shift in stress from one word to another in an exactly worded phrase is not sufficient to remove this plot point from the progression of the story.

In ROTJ, Vader still has a secret agenda, voiced in ESB but unspoken in ROTJ, to kill the Emperor and take Luke as his own apprentice.

 

I ask again: If the ROTJ Vader was plotting to kill Palpatine, why does he hobble to his side and twiddle his thumbs--well, his one thumb--for THIRTY SECONDS while his son is being tortured to death? He looks at Luke, turns to Palps; looks at Luke, turns to Palps. What on earth is going through Vader's head? Is he comparing their dental work? No. He's liberating himself. From his Master.

Implying that he's a slave.

Which is a retcon.

Because he wasn't a slave in TESB. That Vader would have buried his fist into Palpy's skull if he could get close enough.

(Tomorrow, we'll discuss the impetus for Leia thrusting her tongue down her brother's throat even though...she's always known.)

 

Palpatine always played a situation to benefit no matter how it turned,he likely was aware of the feelings going on in his apprentice and would be apprentice.

Vader was also betting on both sides until the power play showed who was the one with the upper hand.

If Luke could take out the Emperor then he was more powerful than Vader and hence a threat to Vader himself - Father or no.

As a Jedi: Luke may decide to do what Obi-Wan tried to do if Vader wouldn't turn back to the light side.

As a Sith: Luke would see Vader possibly as an unnecessary part of his sith plans and do away with him.


Could Luke take out Palpatine in that DS2 throne room?

Not likely in my opinion... Palpatine was goading Luke knowingly towards something that would only benefit Palpatine.


Before seeing the prequel trilogy in it's entirety I always thought that Vaders'offer to Luke to "rule the galaxy as father and son" was fairly logical as he could have a hereditary bloodline take over the galaxy from Palpatine.

With the introduction of the 'rule of two' how would Vader handle that?

Luke as a Sith would be no doubt interested in achieving power and not necessarily be so interested in the whole family thing (except for advancement of his own position).

Whilst it's known that the Sith expect and anticipate a stronger apprentice taking power when that is possible and that the ability to take power is the passing of that test,how would that play out as Luke is apparently able to overcome and take out Vader there on DS2?

So,with the whole rule of two logic in play,Luke would be the master quite soon after the events of DS2 if Palpatine was out of the picture.

Vader at the early part of the throne room scene wanted to have what he offered Padme - the Skywalker Empire or as he put it "His empire".

All along Anakin was not destined to be anything but what he became as was Luke.

 

Vader hesitates to act for the simple reason that Luke has refused to turn to the dark side. Vader's plan to take Luke as his Sith apprentice has been forestalled. There can be no ruling the galaxy as father and son, now. All that remains is Vader's dark side persona and Anakin's good side, which are in conflict with each other for those all-important thirty seconds. Anakin wins the struggle, and Vader destroys the Enperor, which deed also destroys Vader himself.

I fail to understand what is so difficult or invalid or retconnish about any of this. In ESB Vader calls the Emperor "my master", and inquires as to the latter's bidding. Vader is clearly in a position of servitude to the Emperor.

 

It's not a retcon, it's nothing that calculated. It's just a subplot not getting the time it should have in an effort to wrap things up in 2 hours. "Only TOGETHER can we turn him" says Palpatine. Hey, he's not wrong, so Vader agrees, that's it.

 

Why should Luke's refusal even matter at that juncture? The Dark Side plan wasn't forestalled; it was quashed. There wouldn't be any ruling-the-galaxy-as-father-and-son, period. Ergo, Vader had two options: save Luke, or remain Palpatine's whipped puppy. That he actually agonized over this indicates he didn't harbor imperial ambitions but was, in fact, indentured. Body and soul.

That's just it--there shouldn't be a conflict between the two personas. For the duration of TESB, we only saw Vader, and the Vader persona was clear set on (1) killing Palpatine and (2) forging a Skywalker dynasty. Since Luke destroyed all hope for fulfilling the latter ambition in the Throne Room, wouldn't Vader AND Anakin be in accord for shafting the old geezer?

The producer of Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back pretty much deemed it a retcon. And he's right.

You've read Julius Caesar, no? It's obvious Vader was just putting on a performance for the guy he's planning to backstab. He wasn't servile. The ROTJ Vader is, but that's because Lucas forgot to carry through with his own bloody subplot.

Interesting that Lucas and Kasdan saw fit to pad this flick with a 30 minute muppet show on Tatooine and a 15 minute teddy bear jamboree, but couldn't quite find time to expound on an integral element to TESB. Of course, who can blame them? Why base a film on human conflict when it's so much easier to produce a 2-hour Kenner commercial?

Their story meetings must have been something to behold:

"There's just too much story here. We can either have a two minute exchange between Vader and Piett about their coup, or we can give an appropriate introduction for Wicket the Ewok."

"Let's go with Wicket. I love that little furball."

Which still doesn't explain why Vader even considered siding with Palpatine AFTER the plan proved a washout.

Unless he was a slave.

 

We are of the same mind thus far. By "forestalled" I mean "stopped before it could come to fruition." In other words, we agree on this point!

And here is where we diverge in our thinking. My position is that, since as we see the Emperor's lightning ultimately destroys Vader, what Vader is hesitating about is whether to continue with the Imperial program, serving the Emperor as his apprentice and military henchman, or to sacrifice his own life for the sake of saving his son. He opts for the latter, but it takes him thirty seconds to do so... which since it entails his own demise I find to be a reasonable (and dramatically poignant) span of time.

Personally, as a proponent of the idea that Vader and Anakin were not originally united as one character, and as a general supporter of the "Secret History of Star Wars" viewpoint as advanced by zombie in his fine e-book of that name, I understand where your opinion that "there shouldn't be a conflict" between Anakin and Vader derives. However, like it or not, this is what the Saga has become, beginning with ROTJ, and what it means now that we have the PT: the fall and redemption of Anakin Skywalker. It seems like you only give the first two films credence, drg4, and that's fine -- but then, why post in Saga forum, where the PT and OT are conceived of as a unified work? If you wish to dismiss ROTJ and the PT as being out of step with the concepts and ideas put forth in 'ANH' amd ESB, that's fine; but I suggest you try this other thread to air your grievances instead.

The present thread is concerned with the motivations for Vader's action in blocking Luke's strike against the Emperor, and matters attendant to that discourse. It is not intended as a place to criticise Lucas' perceived 'retconning' of the storyline (which in any case I would term 'story development').

 

Actually, I give the prequels tremendous credence. (I'm unique in all of SW fandom, insofar as I fancy ROTJ the "bad" one.) As stated in my second post, I think Vader's ROTS/ANH/TESB arc has a marvelous logic that falls apart with Episode VI, where, instead of tramping through the narrative as a proactive penitent, our favorite Sith Lord is reduced to passivity. For the better part of a decade, I had my suspicions there was something compromised in all this; you can imagine my elation when I happened upon the Kurtz interview.

Fair enough. Since I've already averred Vader's action was borne out of blind allegiance and not ulterior motive, it's best I step away for a while. Please understand this retcon business was not broached to hijack your thread, but to (hee!) forestall any who'd think I was ignorant to Vader's shady maneuverings in TESB.

 

Which implies Anakin is in fact emerging. Does the ESB Vader strike you as the kind of fellow who'd mull over Piett's complicity? "Don't fail me again...Admiral!" is a pretty stark warning.


If Vader is going to kill anyone for Luke and gang getting away he might as well kill himself since he is the one who failed here. If he is going to kill Peitt he might as well kill the entire bridge crew, the Captain's of all the other SDs, the pilots, the gunners, the tarctor beam operators, and so on. I think this sort of "Vader is nothing more than a killing monster" mentality is false, is not in the films and comes from Tim Zahn's books while he tried to make Thrawn seem cool.

The retcon to which Kurtz referred was stripping Vader of his imperial ambitions. The ESB (and ROTS) Vader harbored them; his character was a backstabber. As Kurtz indicated, this was to have profound implications in ROTJ. But that didn't prove to be the case, as the ROTJ Vader was nothing but a slave.

That's called a retcon.


ROTJ Vader was a slave who was not ready to take over. He is planting the seeds in TESB, and would have implemented the killing of Palpatine either there or after ROTJ with Luke. But he got his ass handed to him by Luke. Imperial ambitions? What's vader gonna do, kill the Emperor and then not take over the Empire? He would rule the galaxy with Luke. Kurtz has it wrong. Vader has every intention of taking over and all three of the beings involved in the fight on the 2nd DS know this. There is no retcon.

Of course it was tossed out the window. Vader tells Luke outright: "The Emperor will show you the true nature of the Force. He is your Master now." Does this sound like Cassius to you?

He is trying to turn Luke, he will use everything he has. It is not until after TESB that Palaptine and Vader relize they must both be involved with turning Luke..."Only together can we turn him to the Darkside of the Force."

This matter is addressed by others above and they are right.

Why should Luke's refusal even matter at that juncture? The Dark Side plan wasn't forestalled; it was quashed. There wouldn't be any ruling-the-galaxy-as-father-and-son, period. Ergo, Vader had two options: save Luke, or remain Palpatine's whipped puppy. That he actually agonized over this indicates he didn't harbor imperial ambitions but was, in fact, indentured. Body and soul.


AS I said, Vader fails to turn Luke in TESb and both Vader and Palpatine will work together to turn Luke. There is no retcon.

That's just it--there shouldn't be a conflict between the two personas. For the duration of TESB, we only saw Vader, and the Vader persona was clear set on (1) killing Palpatine and (2) forging a Skywalker dynasty. Since Luke destroyed all hope for fulfilling the latter ambition in the Throne Room, wouldn't Vader AND Anakin be in accord for shafting the old geezer?


No.

The producer of Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back pretty much deemed it a retcon. And he's right.


If they labeled red as blue would you start calling red anything other than red? This is sort of like when West End Games said the Executor was 5 miles long but you can use your thumb and finger to measure it in ROTJ as ~10 miles long as compared to the other SDs. Even the creators can get it wrong.

You've read Julius Caesar, no? It's obvious Vader was just putting on a performance for the guy he's planning to backstab. He wasn't servile. The ROTJ Vader is, but that's because Lucas forgot to carry through with his own bloody subplot.

Vader has not turned Luke yet, Vader will still call him Master because that's what Palpatine is right up until Vader grabs him by the spine.

Interesting that Lucas and Kasdan saw fit to pad this flick with a 30 minute muppet show on Tatooine and a 15 minute teddy bear jamboree, but couldn't quite find time to expound on an integral element to TESB.

Thi is just wrong as we have shown.

Which still doesn't explain why Vader even consid

 

Vader isn't "siding" with the emperor, he's standing next to him so as to be not-killed by him.

 

*visually* he is siding with him.

 

VadersLaMent, I'll respond once and read whatever you post. After that, I'll make good on my promise and step away.

Which implies Anakin is in fact emerging. Does the ESB Vader strike you as the kind of fellow who'd mull over Piett's complicity? "Don't fail me again...Admiral!" is a pretty stark warning.

Well, it's obvious Vader could have benefited from therapy, but such things are irrelevant. TESB established his predilection for doling death out to officers whenever the poodoo hit the fan. The Falcon?s escape all but guaranteed Piett was next. That Vader spared him demonstrates there was something brewing under that helmet. In essence: a little bit of Anakin was emerging.

Vader was very much a monster in TESB. In every other scene, he could be found engaging in murder or some form of torture (e.g., the table-shocker, the carbon freezing, the hand severing).

But the plan was a washout. Luke wasn't going to convert; he was dying. So if ROTJ Vader truly wanted to waste Palps--not my conjecture--why not do it while the old man's distracted? Would he himself get killed in the process? Possibly. But once Luke dies, the window of opportunity's closed. What other options did he have? Poison the Emperor's food? Hum Across the Stars ad infinitum? No. He only had that one moment, and if he didn't capitalize on it, he would've lost everything. So what does he do? He waits for thirty long seconds. This is not the mentality of a would-be assassin, but rather, spiritual paralysis.

If Palps knew Vader had this aim, then he's a complete and utter moron for letting that hulk stand beside him when assaulting his son. He sure seems surprised when Vader hoists him up; and that's because he was under the assumption Vader was his slave. ("You, like your father, are now...MINE!")

Of course it was tossed out the window. Vader tells Luke outright: "The Emperor will show you the true nature of the Force. He is your Master now." Does this sound like Cassius to you?

He also laments ?It is too late for me, son.? The tone suggests he's had the fight knocked out of him. He's a squeaking gerbil. Hence, his interest lies only in converting Luke, not killing Palpatine, to whom he's tethered.

The producer of Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back pretty much deemed it a retcon. And he's right.

 

The reason for this requires abit of anaylsis since it does seem strange on the surface. But early on , in ROTJ, the Emperor tells Vader that Luke has grown strong and only together can they turn him. AS we now know, Vader has seen the Emperor clean house for a while now, so it's a pretty good chance he's right about this one too.
Vader as a Sith, would find himself in abit of a fix if the Emperor is killed by Luke before Luke has converted, anotherwords Luke being a jedi or close to one-and the boy's become quite powerful as the Emperor said. SO if he's not yet in Sith land, to let him kill Sidious is to agree to what Luke asked him about early on in the film and he had turned down Luke's offer then, and what Sidious said about Luke turning requiring them both to do it, since Vader had tried and failed with a Luke far less strong as a jedi then what he's facing now.
So Vader was acting as a Sith and for his own ends that he revealed in TESB if it is accpeted that Luke striking down the un-armed Emperor was not enough to turn him to the dark side?
Would Mace have become a Sith by striking down the un-armed Emperor? Anakin probably thought not, quite the opposite, that's what Jedi do, after all, Mace was a text book Jedi; and he(Anakin) was a jedi himself when he executed Dooku although he admitted it's not the jedi way. The imagery is an exact duplicate in the two situations as well, so the link is definitely there.
Perhaps Vader actually did stop Luke from becoming a Sith, for if he had struck down the un-armed emperor in rage, then further down the track he would have transgressed again as did Anakin. That's what the imagery suggests, as well as "not the jedi way" comment. Also, once again Vader/Annakin needed the Emperor, with Mace it was to save Padme, with Luke it was to help turn him to the darkside that Vader firmly believed was the best way.
Wether this was intentionally originally embedded in ROTJ like that, or if only through the extra reinforcement of the prequel trilogy, it certainly makes the somewhat odd defence and especially crossed sabers defending the Emperor make a lot more sense. What do you think?

 

Up until he turns, Luke is an obstacle for Vader's intentions to replace Sidious.

He is engaging Luke because Luke is against the totalitarian system Vader is trying to gain control of.

 

He blocked Luke because he knew that the Emperor would explode.

 

The answer is very simple:

If Vader hadn't moved to protect Palpatine then Palpatine would have likely killed Vader for it. It's not like Palpatine was defenseless. He'd have had his saber out and dropped Luke before Luke even knew what was happening, then Palpatine would have turned to Vader and said, "Were you expecting your son to get in a lucky shot? You really think you can be rid of me that easily? You will pay for your treason!" And then he probably would have smoked Vader with the force lightning.

That's how I see it.

 

Long time no see, Durwood!

Anyway, the only problem I have with that theory is that Luke's saber got too close without Palpatine even flinching. Had Vader not reacted, I don't see that Palpatine could have moved fast enough (since he wasn't already in motion at the point that Vader reacted). We saw how fast he moved in ROTS, and it was fast, but I don't think that fast. And, even if he had, then it would be two-on-one, and Luke was getting pretty powerful by that time. They would have had a fighting chance of removing Palpatine, I think.

 

Ah yes, another Zahnism. Sith Lords always explode when killed...

 

Perhaps part of the dark side strength is being able to see the future when it relates to dark side actions. What I mean is, if the Emperor can see an attack coming when influenced by the dark side of the force; then it would serve him to tempt Luke through anger and hatred. This would pretty much give him control over his apprentices. It would explain why Vader didn't make an attempt and why the Emperor doesn't flinch at Luke's attack. It would also explain why Vader is able to destroy the Emperor at the final moment; because the motive was selfless; to save his son. It's funny how the Emperor can sense Vader in trouble on Mustafar but doesn't sense Yoda when he's just outside his office. Also he questions Vader's motives when Luke lands on Endor undetected to himself but is sensed by Vader. Perhaps being intuned with the darkside only allows greater sesitivity to other dark side forces and not so much the good side and vice versa.

What this theory alludes to is, maybe Vader blocks Luke out of fear of the Emperor. Because he knows that if he does not, the Emperor will sense it before it even happens and strike Vader down.

Or it could just be a part of Anakin's sense of justice. I mean he defends Palpatine against Mace when he is 'defenceless' and does so again against Luke. Also when the tables are turned and Luke is defenceless and the Emperor chooses to kill him in an honorless fashion, Anakin again defends the helpless. It might just be a charactersitic engrained in the character and not much more than that.

 

I believe from the moment Luke boarded and began speaking directly to the Anakin inside of Vader that Vader was trying desperately to submerge, Vader/Anakin was at war with himself. All of his reactions probably were a result of what every one said here. That may not seem possible because posters have said opposing things But Vader/Anakin was in deep conflict.

Vader was thinking of ruling with Luke and destroying Palpatine and every action Vader did was with that in sight. At the same time, Anakin was at war - he would sense the time of the chosen one was near at hand. But he was very weak and Vader was very strong. Vader's purpose was personal and it took Anakin's purpose to become personal to defeat him. Once that was achieved, Anakin could once more shine in the force and as a re-newed Jedi Knight, he could destroy the last of the Sith and bring balance to the force.

So when he blocked the strike, I think you had BOTH Vader and Anakin going at it there. Vader protecting the Emperor and protecting his goal of bringing Luke to his side to rule (which would not have happened as a result of that strike). Anakin was protecting his son from the dark side and starting down the path he'd taken...plus sensing that Luke was his only Jedi ally at the present - if you get what I mean.

 

Perhaps part of the dark side strength is being able to see the future when it relates to dark side actions. What I mean is, if the Emperor can see an attack coming when influenced by the dark side of the force

Good point. The Emporer is always talking about having "foreseen". Maybe he's speaking literally. If so, this could explain why he wouldn't act against the Emporer unless\until Luke converted and could help him. With Luke as a sith, he might hope the two could find a way around the Emporer's foresight powers, something Vader could not do on his own.

An interesting theory.

 

I have no idea what that means.

 

Yeah the killing machine ideology does not wash and in fact is not in the movies at all, only in the non-canon books. It would make no sense at all for Vader to go from a automated steel killing machine to the redeemed Anakin in ROTJ. I just wrote in some other thread that I believed that was why Lucas minimized a showing in that regard. For example, Tarkin came up with the idea for wiping out the planet and Vader went along - but Lucas could have easily made Vader demand that Tarkin destroy the planet...why not? He could have had Vader kill Leia or Hans - heck, he could have had him kill chewie because the only one that had to live was Luke to make the story work. But he didn't because those things would have made the ending totally unfathomable to the watcher. As it was, he was playing with fire with the torturing and killing of the generals - and chopping Luke's hand off. But a line had to be drawn. That wasn't the case in the PT where everyone knew where the story was going - Anakin's (and Vader's) sins increased in number, but by then you had the backstory.

So I agree with those who said that Vader didn't believe that Luke would turn by just killing Sidious (plus I don't think Sidious would have actually allowed it). Vader knew there was still work to do to turn Luke. But if the storyline is to make any sense, Vader said "you were right about me" indicating Luke was right that Vader/Anakin had been conflicted. Well if that was the case, then he was conflicted when Luke struck - so Vader was stopping Luke because he was not ready to turn; but the conflicted part, call it Anakin or whatever, didn't want Luke to take that road at all.

 

why is it that if Luke kills the Emporer it will "destroy" him and he will go to the darkside? i know Palpatine says it will, but thats not worth much. Obi-wan kills Maul, Anakin kills Dooku, and i don't recall it destroying either of them, Mace was going to kill Palpatine, am i to believe that he would have fallen had he not been killed?

the only thing i can think of is the "forever will it dominate your destiny" thing when it comes to the darkside. it didnt seem to work that way with Obi-wan however, and mace seemed pissy all the time. i just can't see Luke killing Palpatine and shoving his body to the side to sit in his throne is all.