Discussion in 'Television' started by Boba Frett, May 9, 2012.
Why is that a problem? If he didn't want people playing in his sandbox, he would have said "no."
I already mentioned that he could mean Leia, but I think it's more likely he's talking about Luke's family. It just makes more sense. I'm not saying he's telling Luke to have kids, but the story opportunity is definitely there.
That is not accurate. On a case-by-case basis he may often have no involvement, but he has been involved to some degree with specific projects.
The worst thing post-Rotj could have done was resurrect Palpatine. When the whole point of the Saga (the story of Anakin Skywalker; the Chosen One) was to destroy the Sith.
Yeah, well, we all know there is two sandboxes? Don't we? His and theirs.
The nonsense about chosen ones wasn't added until 1997 and has no barring on this.
Remove the prequels as a whole and I still think the cloning of Palpatine is a terrible idea that destroys the point of the films. It still makes Luke's victory meaningless as does it Vader's sacrifice.
He did destroy the Sith. That doesn't mean the Sith can never return, that wouldn't be realistic. Anakin's actions in RoTJ sure didn't destroy evil and the darkside, which are big ingredients for having sith. Also Anakin did not destroy the sith ideology....how can you destroy an ideology?
You just don't understand. You can't see the big picture. The death of Vader and Palpatine was the straw that broke the camels back for the Empire. Because of their deaths, the Rebels eventually defeated the Empire and created the New Republic. So when Palpatine did return, he not only was not as strong as he was before, but that includes political and military resources because his empire was crumbling. Also if Vader never made his sacrifice, Luke would have died, and with it the New Jedi Order. Because of his sacrfice, not only was Luke allowed to train more jedi, but Luke himself grew into a strong jedi, so when Palpatine was able to return, Luke was able to defeat him (though it wasn't him that finally killed him).
Palpatine's temporary return does not invalidate Anakins sacrifice. That's like saying the existence of Nazi's now (neo nazi's) somehow makes destroying Nazi Germany not as important. Sure Nazi's still exist, but they will never reach the power or destruction level they had in the past because of people's sacrifices.
You could also say that if Vader didn't sacrifice himself to save Luke, Luke couldn't have defeated Palpatine's clone years later. I understand the complaints about having Sith around after the films though. Might've been best to leave that alone.
Bringing back Palpatine is just so lame. It's just like Maul. He's supposed to be dead. Period. Make up something new, for crying out loud.
What about Palpatine's illegitimate son?
Vertech got brought back in a more explainable belief suspendable fashion with the body surfing this being Sci-Fi and what not. They just were lazy and went, "Hey he didn't die actually die from being sliced in half on Naboo" with Maul.
And where did we say we wanted Dark Empire anyways?
It does completely undercut Anakin's story and it even hurts Luke's character.
A key theme of ROTJ is that Luke was able to do what his father couldn't and reject the darkside, Dark Empire takes a complete dump on that.
^How? I don't remember Luke turning to the dark side in DE, or the Palpatine clone winning..
Luke did turn to the dark side in Dark Empire, and it was Leia who brought him back.
He didn't actually give in, he joined the Emperor so he could screw over his invasion plan and had to play Vader for a while. Only until after he lost his duel to Palpatine on Byss could it be argued he was giving in to it.
IIRC it quickly became not just an act.
I guess I should've said "turned to the dark side permanently".
Vader didn't turn to the dark side permanently.