The “death” problem

Firstly I think these have to be taken on a case-by-case basis. Not all 'resurrections' are made equal, and some like Cobb Vanth or Ahsoka for instance merely require a bit of patience to let the story play out to get more context, since the initial 'death' was ambiguous to start with.

But in the cases of actual bringing back from the dead, I think it can work when it leaves lasting consequences. Look at Maul for example. Obi-Wan's victory was allowed to stand, reducing Maul to a pathetic wretch. He didn't slot into anything like the role he held before, opening up new avenues for storytelling that relied on how low he'd been brought in the past and the changed status-quo of other characters who assumed he'd died for real. He doesn't just slip back into doing his old routine. Sure, it's a little vauge on the precise details of how he endured without his legs, but there's enough context from the episodes given to how his current state of living was affected by his prior 'death'. There was an actual new plot purpose to bringing in a character like Maul, able to push established relationships into new territory.

When you just bring back someone like Palpatine, in a position of equal power, doing all the exact same things he used to do, it removes the relevance of the prior defeat entirely. So it's definitely something with a sliding scale.

 

So it was a split decision to bring him back?

 

Obviously if Vader wanted Reva dead, she would be dead.

Which begs the question, why doesn't he want her dead?

I also think her surviving his attack twice is ridiculous.

 

The in-universe explanation is that he is so much stronger than her that he doesn't even care whether she lives or dies.

 

Which is the same explanation I've given to people that think Vader and the Inquisitor are acting stupidly.

However, we all know the reason has little to do with Vader. It has everything to do with the writer. This is one of the key reasons Kenobi falls short of excellence: arbitrary action.

 

Darth Vader leaving Reva to die and not securing her death by chopping her, is the exact opposite of arbitrary execution. It's staying consistent to the point of the entire episode. Anakin's obsession with victory, has been his undoing in many situations , with the last one being Kenobi slipping away with a spaceship. As Anakin/Vader remembers Kenobi's lesson, he realizes he doesn't have to kill Reva. This is not what victory is. It plays really well as a contrast to what happened in the sparring of the flashback.

Where does this idea of necessity for Vader to kill anyone and everyone stem from? He has literally told someone that the Emperor may not be as forgiving as he is, in the past. In his mind, this is him being forgiving And it's not like this is the only time he hasn't killed someone and has let them be.

 

@DarthFixxxer
Sorry but this is some of the wildest grasping at straws I have ever seen.

 

You're absolutely not alone in believing that about death. It actually has me shrugging whenever someone "dies" in Star Wars. I'm like "Oh they're dead. How long before resurrection?" At this point what it takes for someone to really die is nothing short of having their heads cut off and being thrown into a star.

I mean, if I was working at LucasFilm, I would encourage them to resurrect Padmé so that she can interact with young Leia (no, "very young" is not the same as "one minute old"). It's not that big a stretch, I already know how it can be done.

 

We still don't know what happened to Holdo and the Raddus after the lightspeed jump

 

Well, they either left her to die in agony or think she can still be useful if she survives and believes that they left her to die in agony.
Both would be fine by me. And one of them is true.

 

u all would hate superhero comics (where death truly doesn't matter ) if u are complaining this much bout injuries that weren't even deaths I.E inky and Reva

 

Nah, grasping at straws is forgetting that Vader has spared people that failed him before, but somehow demanding that he kills Reva or the "writing is bad"

 

“Master Yoda you can’t somehow return”

“Watch me”

 

Aaaah I'm going to make it worse. Vader has contempt for some ppl and not for others. He betrayed Reva again, as he had before... But as a survivor himself I can't believe he doesn't respect her for it. But he'll never tell her that because he's a sadist now. And it's okay she needs to get away from him, divorce herself from him, he's the person who hurt her before and continues to hurt her now. She's basically an abuse victim...

In Part 4 after he nearly strangles her to death her hand falls to her abdomen... is it where he stabbed her before?

 

It was a nice detail, that when Fifth Brother used the Force to overpower Reva, she put her hand where Vader´s lightsaber had cut her as a youngling. I wondered about that gesture then, and now it has context.

I will certainly wait until chapter 6 to see what happens with her. I'm not under the impression that she will be depicted as perfectly fine after being stabbed in the guts, and perhaps we could even get to see/hear more about her surviving her wounds as a child. It seems safe to assume that her story is not over.

 

I'm not interested in OOU options
I regard what we have from an in-universe perspective and that, to my mind, leaves two options.

 

Individual people can rationalize bad writing however they like, if they can't stop themselves (America is a nation of rationalizers), but the reality is this story has a number of arbitrary moments that only exist to serve the writer's desired narrative goals.

Some of the most egregious moments include the glass breaking so easily in the Fortress Inquisitorius, Vader letting Kenobi go when he doesn't have to, the Inquisitor surviving Reva, Reva surviving Vader not once but twice (neither of which are likely, but surviving as a youngling makes little sense). And a great number of smaller problems that ultimately suffocate the fictional dream.

Whether or not you personally buy these moments or not isn't the issue, in my view. It's how it affects the integrity of SW storytelling for others (if you only care about yourself, there's no need to even participate in the discussion) and how it contributes to a lack of narrative integrity. If you review the reactions people have to such moments (I enjoy reviewing a great number of such reactions), it becomes clear that such moments break the fictional dream for them, pulling them out of the story, making them ask questions that aren't the kind of questions storytellers want the audience to ask (storytellers want questions about the story's themes and direction, not whether something is really possible, not about believability).

And although I focus on how these problems affect others, I have to admit, although I'm willing to fanwank (rationalize) almost anything I like, if I see another pointless gut stab or bacta scene, I may have to give up. Certain actions just become so overused and useless that they tear the soul out of a story.

 

I think Mace Windu will be brought back from the dead soon, but I think his original death is a lot better because I got the impression that if he hadn’t been caught off guard he may have been powerful enough to end Palpatine’s plans. Bringing him back would just downplay the character really because he can’t win and in the grand scheme of things can’t have much of an effect on the Empire.

Recent events have made the Padme death problem a lot worse, I mean her death was arguably illogical anyway, but given all the characters that have been saved/brought back from death it just seems ridiculous that Anakin/Vader one of the most powerful and intelligent characters is incapable of bringing her back to life despite his best efforts.

 

100%. ...and it was pretty clear Cad Bane is going to still be alive too. It's a terrible state of writing. I forgave Maul's rebirth because he was such a cool character, but it should have ended there.

 

Why would you believe Maul is dead during RotS?

Btw, Maul wasn't resurrected between Post-TPM / AotC, so everyone knew he was dead in Episode II as he wasn't resurrected yet. He was resurrected between Episode II and Episode III during the Clone Wars. So they could only mention about him being dead in Episode III, but there was no scene in Episode III where they said Maul is dead or not in the film, he was never mentioned in Episode III. So that kind of helped the idea of Maul's resurrection since no one even talks about Maul in that film.

If there was a small mention like ''the zabrak Sith Lord who died on Naboo did this or did that'' kind of thing in Episode III, then they would close the way to resurrecting him in Episode III by confirming his dead, but as I said there wasn't a scene like that.

I believe Jinn's wound is bigger as he also falls over Maul's blade and he wasn't a darksider, Grand Inquisitor wanted revenge as a dark sider. He says ''revenge does wonders for the will to live''. So Jinn needed to be a dark sider to survive I guess, Jinn was a Jedi.

Also we don't know how long time has past since Grand Inquisitor received a medical help after receiving the wound, while we know because of Maul, no one could help Qui-Gon at the time, Kenobi needed to pass Maul first, then he could help Qui-Gon.

That too. Maul couldn't die from blood lost.

And his ability to sustaining himself by using the dark side made him lose his mind during the process. There was a price for him to pay at the time even though his mastery of the dark side was the main factor for his survival.

Nightsister Talzin fixed his mind when they found him.

 

You shouldn't. This is the original sin. Literally every single other death in the entire Star Wars saga is less extreme than his. If he can come back, there's no one that cannot. At some point there has to be some sort of visual signal to the audience that people who "die" are actually dead. His resurrection really robs us of that.