Theories on what exactly the Knights of Ren are

[Driver]

Like I said, I DO think it overkill. This is an army of Mary Sues fighting another army of Mary Sue's aided by Mar Sue starships and Mary Sue droids. I also don't love that it takes every visual cue it can from the PT-- but yeah.

 

If this was the beginning of The Phantom Menace I think I would have died of excitement.

[ShadowDog]

As for the Rule of 2, I took that to mean in each grouping. Like there could be dozens of sets of 2 in the universe, not just 2 in the entire universe.

[Driver]

I had HOPED that's what it meant after TPM and come AOTC we'd see that Palpatine's greatness was uniting the Sith, which hadn't been done in a 1000 years.

[Poe Dameron]

 

2. I think the fact you enjoy the PT blanks your mind against considering other ways it could be done.

 

Not at all. I'm well aware that there are multiple ways to tell a story whenever you open a blank page. But, as I said, you're complaining about one of better written and the more successful aspects of the Prequels.

 

 

3. Scores and scores of Jedi didn't water down Obi-Wan or Yoda, why would more Sith water down Palpatine?

 

Well, for one thing, there was no way around that. But to a degree, sure it did. Hence Anakin gets his nifty Chosen One title to make him super special above all the other merely regular old special people already running around.

 

Contrast that with Luke, who was special merely by virtue of being unique.

 

With the Sith, there was no need to water down the exclusivity of the club. And, indeed, there was a valid continuity reason to avoid such a scenario.

 

 

If you replace Sith warriors for battledroids in the exact same story it doesn't make Palpatine less special. His minions, be they Stormtroopers or dudes with red lightsbers, don't effect the merit of his character in the hands of a skilled writer.

 

Sure, it can be done. Even terrible ideas can be made to work if you take the right angle and what you're proposing isn't the terrible idea. Just not as good a one as what we got.

 

 

but what we did get was disapiinting for mot people.

 

Back to this again?

[Driver]

Back to what? My rage typos or bringing up majority rules?

 

Look, we have a disconnect here. You're never going to convince me the prequels worked on any level. Everything that's in there can be done better. You liked them, they worked for you-- so you're on the defensive against everything I say.

 

Which is fine-- you're my karmic just desserts. I've been running in circles yelling about the prequels for years so somebody who actually likes them, and can complete full sentences (which is rare) is a good dissenting opinion to have.

 

I'm annoyed you challenge every criticism I have-- but I've been that guy to pretty much everyone else so I have to take it. That's cool.

 

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

....but you're wrong. Those movies are poop.

 

No comment on the video that out prequels the prequels?

[Driver]

Sure, it can be done. Even terrible ideas can be made to work if you take the right angle

That's George Lucas' writing mantra.

[Odine]

That clip is rad. In fact all the cinematics from The Old Republic are fantastic. The opening one with the bounty hunter and two Jedi vs two Sith is great too.

[Guest El Chalupacabra]

I hated how the rule of two changed the dynamic of the Emperor and Vader both trying to turn Luke. If there could only be two sith, then why would Vader have bothered stopping Luke from cutting the Emperor in half in ROTJ? Seems like that would have been just what he wanted. I feel like the rule hurts more than it helps.

 

It always seemed convenient. Even when Yoda announced the rule. It's a big surprise that the Sith reemerged, and it catches them totally off guard, but WAIT, it's okay, Yoda has the Official Guide to Being a Sith tucked in his back pocket.

Yeah, the rule of two stinks.

 

Now, I had no problem with there only being two Sith at the start of TPM, like basically the jedi were almost extinct by ANH. I also don't have a problem with the Jedi having assumed the sith were wiped out ages ago, and were surprised they returned. But like midichlorians, they didn't need to get as granular as they did with the "rule of two." There were no "rule of two" for jedi by ANH, so it wasn't necessary for the sith, either.

 

 

The fact that by the time Palpatine is chancellor, the rule of two is abandoned, at least in action. The sad thing is they have to dance around that technicality by splitting hairs, like saying Ventriss isn't "really" a sith. Or the inquisitors aren't really sith. Just an example of having been painted into a corner because of a stupid, and unnecessary plot point.

 

 

5. Watch this video. I'm no huge fan of the EU or Star Wars video games-- but this sells both the Sith returning from obscurity in great numbers, gives us epic lightsaber battles, but doesn't make the lead villains seem any less evil than we'd expect.

 

 

 

Again-- I do think this suffers a bit from PT style over-kill in giving us too much awesome in one place-- but it does illustrate that more Sith does not equal less compelling or evil Sith.

 

that clip was better than all the prequels combined ad mulitplied by a factor of five

When TOR came out with the various clips, I was like "YES! THAT was what the PT was SUPPOSED to be!"

 

To be honest, and this idea TOTALLY changes the whole point of TFA and its narrative, but I have to admit part of me was a little let down that the Jedi are already all but extinct yet again by TFA. I was hoping for a Braveheart style battle between the Jedi and a dark side force, like the Knights of Ren. Who knows, maybe we will see a bit of that in a flashback, as Luke tells Rey of the fall of his order.

[Dark Wader]

Look at it this way, it's set up so we get to see the creation and evolution of a new Jedi Order. It's not something we'll miss because of the thirty year gap. Who knows, we might get to a spin off film dedicated to a Jedi/Sith war at some point ala the Old Republic.

[Stevil]

I hated how the rule of two changed the dynamic of the Emperor and Vader both trying to turn Luke. If there could only be two sith, then why would Vader have bothered stopping Luke from cutting the Emperor in half in ROTJ? Seems like that would have been just what he wanted. I feel like the rule hurts more than it helps.

 

It always seemed convenient. Even when Yoda announced the rule. It's a big surprise that the Sith reemerged, and it catches them totally off guard, but WAIT, it's okay, Yoda has the Official Guide to Being a Sith tucked in his back pocket.

It doesn't change things if you understand it. The rule of two means there is a master and apprentice right??

 

In ROTJ the emperor wanted Luke to kill Vader and take his father's place as his apprentice. That leaves two.

 

Similarly in ESB Vader wants Luke to join him so together they could overthrow the Emperor and rule the galaxy as father and son. Again leaving two.

 

The rule describes the relationship between them only. There's nothing to stop the apprentice taking an apprentice for example but revealing it to his master might be a bad move as it may signal your intentions to overthrow your master or give your master ideas to kill you and take your apprentice as your own.

 

It's all about power

[Zerimar Nyliram]

A ripoff of the One Sith.

[Odine]

^how so? Do you mean one Sith as in the Sith'ari? cause the Sith'ari was Darth Bane and he invented the rule of two. I don't get how it's a ripoff.

 

The only reason the rule of two kinda sucks is that your limited to two lightsaber wielding bad guys per film.. Which is a bit stink when you wanna see some sweet battles between armies. But from "lore" based perspective the rule of two works perfectly for the Sith philosophy and totally makes sense.

 

But meh.. I don't care either way if they implement that bit of lore for the next two films.

[Guest]

He means the One Sith, the group that worked around the Rule of Two by saying they're all one even if they have a million dudes.

[The Choc]

I tried telling a girlfriend something similar to that once, it didn't work.

[Driver]

That braveheart style lightsaber battle is all I've wanted since I was a kid.

 

I remember a pre AOTC fan trailer that literally took a braveheart scene and rotoed lightsabers over it.

[Svenn]

 

I hated how the rule of two changed the dynamic of the Emperor and Vader both trying to turn Luke. If there could only be two sith, then why would Vader have bothered stopping Luke from cutting the Emperor in half in ROTJ? Seems like that would have been just what he wanted. I feel like the rule hurts more than it helps.

 

It always seemed convenient. Even when Yoda announced the rule. It's a big surprise that the Sith reemerged, and it catches them totally off guard, but WAIT, it's okay, Yoda has the Official Guide to Being a Sith tucked in his back pocket.

It doesn't change things if you understand it. The rule of two means there is a master and apprentice right??

 

In ROTJ the emperor wanted Luke to kill Vader and take his father's place as his apprentice. That leaves two.

 

Similarly in ESB Vader wants Luke to join him so together they could overthrow the Emperor and rule the galaxy as father and son. Again leaving two.

 

The rule describes the relationship between them only. There's nothing to stop the apprentice taking an apprentice for example but revealing it to his master might be a bad move as it may signal your intentions to overthrow your master or give your master ideas to kill you and take your apprentice as your own.

 

It's all about power

 

No I understand it. It just doesn't work. Watch the scene in the throne room in ROTJ. This is a paraphrase from memory, but you will recall the Emperor says:

"Take your Jedi weapon. Strike me down. I am defenseless. With each passing moment you will become more my servant." The implication is that if Luke uses his weapon and strikes in anger, that he will be turning to the dark side.

 

So... several minutes later, Luke uses the force to grab his weapon and strike the Emperor in his hatred.

 

This moment in time should have been a win for Darth Vader if we are to follow the rule of two. Luke is giving in to the dark side, setting him up to be Vader's apprentice, and simultaneously destroying Vader's master. Win win. So... why does he stop Luke from killing the Emperor?

 

It just doesn't work.

[Stevil]

"You don't know the power of the dark side. I must obey my master."

[Driver]

That's not what he said in Empire.

 

It's not consistent. In ESB it seemed like Vader was going around the Emperor's back to find Luke and turn him to take down Palpy. But in ROTJ If Vader wanted that he could have not blocked Luke's first swipe at Palpatine.

[Guest El Chalupacabra]

"You don't know the power of the dark side. I must obey my master."

 

That's not what he said in Empire.

 

It's not consistent. In ESB Vader it seemed like Vader was going around the Empire's back to find Luke and turn him to take down the Empire. But in ROTJ If Vader wanted that he could have not blocked Luke's first swipe at Palpatine.

 

 

 

 

But what master was he referring to? Sidious, or the Dark Side? If the latter, it IS consistent. We've seen evidence in the films that the Force almost acts as semi-sentient.

[Jacen123]

There is also a huge difference between Luke deciding to explicitly join Vader and Luke just killing the Emperor in anger. The latter accomplishes the goal of killing Palpatine, but doesn't necessarily result in a Vader/Luke team-up to rule the galaxy.

[Stevil]

That's not what he said in Empire.

 

It's not consistent. In ESB Vader it seemed like Vader was going around the Empire's back to find Luke and turn him to take down the Empire. But in ROTJ If Vader wanted that he could have not blocked Luke's first swipe at Palpatine.

You have to understand Vader's position in ROTJ. He had no other choice but to defend the Emperor. Fast forward to after Luke throws down his lightsaber and defies the Emperor. The big reveal comes...

 

"Young fool... Only now do you truly understand"

 

Did you think the Emperor powerless in that chair? Luke couldn't have cut the Emperor down if he wanted to. The Emperor would have owned him like a bitch. And probably Vader too for not lifting a finger to defend his master.

 

Which brings us back full circle... Vader had no choice he had to defend his much more powerful master or face being cast aside for a younger apprentice. It was self-preservation. Of course the Emperor knew this and was happy to sit back and enjoy the show.

 

I really shouldn't be having to explain this to you though.

[Driver]

Don't get rude.

 

I know what you're all saying perfectly well. Just offering evidence that things are not always clear.

[3 & 6 years to go...]

Back to what? My rage typos or bringing up majority rules?

 

Look, we have a disconnect here. You're never going to convince me the prequels worked on any level. Everything that's in there can be done better. You liked them, they worked for you-- so you're on the defensive against everything I say.

 

Which is fine-- you're my karmic just desserts. I've been running in circles yelling about the prequels for years so somebody who actually likes them, and can complete full sentences (which is rare) is a good dissenting opinion to have.

 

I'm annoyed you challenge every criticism I have-- but I've been that guy to pretty much everyone else so I have to take it. That's cool.

 

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

....but you're wrong. Those movies are poop.

 

No comment on the video that out prequels the prequels?

Hey, I can complete full....

 

Wait, what?

[Svenn]

 

There is also a huge difference between Luke deciding to explicitly join Vader and Luke just killing the Emperor in anger. The latter accomplishes the goal of killing Palpatine, but doesn't necessarily result in a Vader/Luke team-up to rule the galaxy.

 

To me that makes it more awkward. So they had to have an official Sith ceremony where Luke declares himself beholden to the dark side before Vader and the Emperor can try to supplant each other? It seems kind of odd for super-evil Sith who supposedly trip over themselves in their lust for power to have nice and tidy rules of engagement about when the apprentice can replace the master. It seems more likely that Vader would let Luke kill the Emperor, and then take his chances against Luke. He could always find another apprentice as a failsafe. Once the fight becomes about Luke vs. Vader (which is what happens as soon as Vader intervenes to save the Emperor), it's clear that the Emperor is going to maintain his authority. If Vader is really trying to turn Luke to the dark side, and there can really only be two sith total, then this doesn't make any sense.

 

I mean the whole idea that the rule of two creates is that Vader and the Emperor knew that each were trying to replace each other. That's what doesn't make sense in how the throne room scene played out. The Emperor never would have trusted Vader to protect him in that context.

 

 

 

That's not what he said in Empire.

It's not consistent. In ESB Vader it seemed like Vader was going around the Empire's back to find Luke and turn him to take down the Empire. But in ROTJ If Vader wanted that he could have not blocked Luke's first swipe at Palpatine.

You have to understand Vader's position in ROTJ. He had no other choice but to defend the Emperor. Fast forward to after Luke throws down his lightsaber and defies the Emperor. The big reveal comes...

"Young fool... Only now do you truly understand"

Did you think the Emperor powerless in that chair? Luke couldn't have cut the Emperor down if he wanted to. The Emperor would have owned him like a bitch. And probably Vader too for not lifting a finger to defend his master.

Which brings us back full circle... Vader had no choice he had to defend his much more powerful master or face being cast aside for a younger apprentice. It was self-preservation. Of course the Emperor knew this and was happy to sit back and enjoy the show.

I really shouldn't be having to explain this to you though.

 

I disagree for the above reasons. If Vader has no choice but to protect the Emperor.... then why would he have brought Luke to meet him? If everybody gets their wish of turning Luke to the dark side, then that sounds like certain death for Vader. It only makes sense without the rule of two.

[Stevil]

I'm not being rude.

 

Just we're all fans here and we really should have a grasp of a 30 odd year old movie by now.

 

I don't get it when people say they don't rate ROTJ though. You can bitch about Ewoks and Jabba's palace and all that stuff. But that climax is amazing. Just the things happening in that Throne Room are so cerebral it's insane. It's the pivotal point in all six movies and it's set to the backdrop of a space battle against insurmountable odds and a ground battle that shows a real struggle against oppression. A primitive race and a rag-tag bunch of rebels against the might of the Empire's ground forces.

 

Breathtaking stuff.