Theories on what exactly the Knights of Ren are

[Stevil]

Svenn you're answering your own question.

 

It was certain death for Vader if he didn't face Luke in combat. The Emperor would have killed him for not doing as he's told. It was kill or be killed. He couldn't take the Emperor on alone and he was too weak to disobey him.

 

The force lightning indirectly killed him at the end. Imagine what would have happened if the Emperor just turned it on him??

 

The Prequels are like Swear Words in here but in ROTS the Emperor frying poor Mace was the first step in gaining that control over Vader. That's when it dawns that Palpatine is not a defenceless old man and in fact more powerful than Anakin could have imagined. If Anakin had remained whole there was a chance he could have become more powerful and powerful enough to destroy him.

 

But it wasn't to be. Vader instead became enslaved to the Dark Side and in turn his new master.

[Driver]

Honestly-- Vader's motivations and machinations, and Palpatine's in ESB and ROTJ made more sense before the PT. How we saw Vader turn and the rule of two made it overly complicated. Even Lucas knew that which is why he changed the dialog of the Emperor's call in ESB.

 

So REALLY, my point is the PT ruins everything in the universe forever and ever.

[Guest]

Unless they were going to ignore the rule and that's why they died.

 

Rules are cool.

[Driver]

Back on topic sorta-- speaking on who else can use the force besides Jedi and Sith, some interesting info on Maz is circulating:

 

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Maz-Kanata-Big-Secret-Was-Just-Revealed-By-Star-Wars-Deleted-Scene-106007.html

[Svenn]

Svenn you're answering your own question.

 

It was certain death for Vader if he didn't face Luke in combat. The Emperor would have killed him for not doing as he's told. It was kill or be killed. He couldn't take the Emperor on alone and he was too weak to disobey him.

 

The force lightning indirectly killed him at the end. Imagine what would have happened if the Emperor just turned it on him??

 

The Prequels are like Swear Words in here but in ROTS the Emperor frying poor Mace was the first step in gaining that control over Vader. That's when it dawns that Palpatine is not a defenceless old man and in fact more powerful than Anakin could have imagined. If Anakin had remained whole there was a chance he could have become more powerful and powerful enough to destroy him.

 

But it wasn't to be. Vader instead became enslaved to the Dark Side and in turn his new master.

My whole point is that for the rule of two to make sense,Vader should have let Luke strike the Emperor. Your entire post is an argument for that proposition, not an argument against it.

Unless they were going to ignore the rule and that's why they died.

 

Rules are cool.

This is actually the only way it makes sense.

[The Choc]

Back on topic sorta-- speaking on who else can use the force besides Jedi and Sith, some interesting info on Maz is circulating:

 

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Maz-Kanata-Big-Secret-Was-Just-Revealed-By-Star-Wars-Deleted-Scene-106007.html

 

It's interesting, although I'm kinda happy she didn't use the Force in that way. Not that if she had it would have ruined the movie or anything. Just kinda like how she is portrayed, which in the movie seems to be having a knowledge of how The Force works but not being able to actively use it. We don't know if it was cut simply for time and pacing issues or if maybe JJ decided at some point he felt the same way that Maz shouldn't be able to actively use the Force. Obviously if she uses it in future movies, then it makes that moot.

 

It could actually be an interesting story for a book about maybe the Jedi approaching her to join centuries before TFA and she rebukes them saying that The Force shouldn't be institutionalized like the Jedi had done. Or maybe her parents refusing to turn her over. Not that I'd read it, but it wouldn't be a bad story.

[pavonis]

If Vader let Luke strike the Emperor down in ROTJ, wouldn't that make him the master, not Vader? That'd motivate me not to let my whiny brat take over as Sith Lord.

[Stevil]

Maybe you missed the bit where I said it didn't matter if Vader let Luke strike at the Emperor because the Emperor would have just killed him and Vader both?

 

The Emperor was holding all the cards. He was goading Luke to pick up his weapon and use his anger and hatred to try and kill him thus channeling the Dark Side and beginning his turn.

 

He wanted Luke to feel the power and draw of the dark side. He was never going to let himself be killed. His hold over Vader was such that he didn't even have to lift a finger himself.

 

I'm done explaining it now. It's all there for you to work it out yourself.

[Stevil]

Here's a TFA parallel... Kylo Ren is so much in Snoke's pocket that he shived his own Dad in cold blood.

[Svenn]

If Vader let Luke strike the Emperor down in ROTJ, wouldn't that make him the master, not Vader? That'd motivate me not to let my whiny brat take over as Sith Lord.

So it's like Highlander?

[Svenn]

Maybe you missed the bit where I said it didn't matter if Vader let Luke strike at the Emperor because the Emperor would have just killed him and Vader both?

No, I saw that. It's just not believable. If he was that all-powerful, he wouldn't let the injured, one-armed old man in the bio suit pick him up 30 minutes later. I mean seriously, I think that is a pretty good indication that his reflexes weren't all there.

[Guest]

He was prepared for Luke, not Vader.

 

But back on topic - I wonder if Kylo got his name from the Knights or if they took the name from him. Like, if we formed a group called the Annoying ***holes of Jedi Apprentice.

[Driver]

I'd buy it if Vader hadn't told Luke in ESB he wanted him to kill the Emperor.

 

I've always assumed it went like this, (retcons between the OT movies in play):

 

ANH

 

1. Vader has always been Palpatine's personal agent, enjoying a warlord style title inside the Imperial military. Very few people question him, but he holds no official rank and serves as the Emperor's envoy. Cross him at your peril, but the top brass doesn't fear him... until they cross him.

 

ESB

 

1. After most of the top brass was killed on the Death Star, order #1 was to find the rebels. Vader is made top dog of the military to see the plan out. On his own, Vader figures out the name of the pilot that blew up the Death Star.

 

2. Vader wants to find Luke (referenced in the crawl) because he's his son.

 

3. Vader's personal mission is to find Skywalker, but since he's a rebel, finding the rebels makes things handy for him. But at some point, (as evidenced by both the original and SE version of Palpatine's communique) The Emperor discovers who Luke is much later and warns Vader that Luke could destroy them.

 

4. Vader now thinks if he can turn Luke, he has back up to take on The Emperor so he can take over as supreme leader, (as evidenced by what he says during the duel).

 

The question is-- was Vader always looking for Luke to help him take down Palpy, or did he get that idea once even The Emperor said Luke was a danger?

 

Either way it works, but one of my few complaints about ESB was that The Emperor seemingly only knowing about Luke when he does, especially when Vader's Luke-search is referenced in both the crawl, and in dialog between Vader and Ozzel.

 

ROTJ

 

1. After losing Luke ("he will join us or die"), Vader is in a bit of trouble and is back to running errands for the Emperor. After the Death Star schedule is scared into overtime, Vader looking for Luke seems to be known to Palpatine and he forsees Luke will seek them out.

 

2. When Luke and Vader finally meet up, Luke drops all the feels on Vader. He challenges everything Vader stands for and Vader pretty much has to deny everything. But it's clear Vader is conflicted, and Luke knows it.

 

3. From Vader's perspective, at first he WANTS Luke to turn to the Dark Side. That's what he's wanted from the start. Palpatine wants a younger, stronger Sith on his team. I think Vader goes into the fight thinking that he'll get Luke mad, turn him, train him and THEN they can turn on The Emperor. If Luke doesn't turn, he's willing to kill him and everything stays the same. But he can't. Luke gets to him-- so when Palpy goes in for the kill Vader changes his mind and saves his son.

 

 

Here's where the rule of two retroactively messes with things: Palpatine is goading Luke to kill him before Vader even fires up his lightsaber. The idea of giving into anger and darkness-- they are tempting Luke, messing with his head. That's a very personal, and interesting character play.

 

The rule of two makes it seems as though Vader and Palpatine were playing this silent game of secretly-want-to-kill-each-other, but wanting Luke to be their apprentice. When Palpatine tells Luke to kill Vader and take his place, he's goading him. If the rule of two were legit, right then and there Vader could have teamed up with Luke to kill The Emperor. Or at least said-- no join me, not him! I think Vader was being honest about Luke joining him when he said it in ESB-- but he was playing a long game. Turn Luke, get him trained in the dark side, then one day they could assassinate Palpy.

 

But the rule of two makes it more immediate, and less believable that Vader would continue to play things out the way he did-- when the entire OT was written to the moment of Luke almost being dead and Anakin resurfacing in Vader's mind.

[The Choc]

About Palpatine not knowing who Luke is until later. I get the sense he was very isolated as time went on. It doesn't seem like he contacts Vader often when he does contact him in ESB. In ROTJ it seems shocking to both the Imperial officer Vader tells Palpatine is coming to and to the rebels when they find out Palpatine will be on the Death Star. Plus Tarkin doesn't seem to even have to ask him if destroying an entire planet was ok in ANH.

 

I think the Emperor was just so confident he had already won he was just basically enjoying himself (in whatever way a Sith lord enjoys himself) and letting the Empire run on it's own. Then when he finds out about Luke it kind of wakes him from his slumber.

 

That's why I don't think its a problem for even Imperial officers to know about Luke and the Emperor not to. If you are an officer who are you more worried about, the Emperor who is holed on Coruscant lightyears away and who you have never met and never expect to meet or the homicidal maniac who is on board with you choking your fellow officers to death whenever he feels like it?

[Exodus]

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.

Vacuum the house when the wife isn't home. Takes five minutes.

 

Vacuum the house when the wife is home - all furniture must be moved, and the hose and attachments must be used on the baseboards. Takes up your entire day off.

 

Moral of the story? You can get away with shit when you're all by yourself

[Driver]

Now it all makes sense...

[Poe Dameron]

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?

That's always been problematic from the time of the Original Trilogy. Heck, even the staging of the scene doesn't make any sense since Vader was in no position to stop Luke. Luke essentially swung through the Emperor before he was intercepted by Vader's blade.

That glaring error always bothered me about that scene. Probably the biggest technical error of the entire series since it completely undercuts a momentous decision on Luke's part. To the point where my head canon sometimes discounts the idea that Luke was swinging at the Emperor at all.

Anyway, getting back to character motivations. Even without the Rule of Two, Vader had expressed his desire to join with Luke and overthrow the Emperor. Well, as you said, Luke was giving in to his anger and eliminating the Emperor. Exactly what Vader had been hoping to achieve. So, win/win, yet he didn't do it. Which, on the surface is a flaw. So if this isn't a continuity error you need to come up with a reason why it's not.

Which leaves two options for why Vader did this:

1. Palpatine was stronger than both of them and if Vader hadn't stopped him, Palpatine would have.

The first one has some merit. Palpatine was certainly not as helpless as he pretended to be. He could work Luke anytime he wished, and in fact would do so with his Force Lightening later in the scene. If Vader had hesitated to save him in that set-up, Palpatine had plenty of time to save himself. Palpatine was only taken by Vader later by surprise.

All refusing to save Palpatine would have done at that point would have been to expose Vader as a traitor.

2. Vader, for some reason, thought that Palpatine needed to live longer to achieve his goals. That both Vader and Palpatine knew that they wanted Luke for themselves, but both were confident that he would join them in the end.

The second one is a lot more complex and requires assigning wheels within wheels plotting on the part of Vader/Palpatine. And also a lot of assumptions.

Perhaps Vader believed himself unable to turn Luke himself. Vader knows Palpatine's ability to manipulate, having experienced it himself, and believes that Palpatine is Vader's best opportunity to achieve what he wants.

Palpatine always knows that Vader wishes to be disloyal, but plans to turn Luke and dispose of Vader at the same time. So he's willing to let disloyal Vader play out his game.

So Vader saving the Emperor in RotJ is essentially the same motivation as Anakin saving Palpatine in RotS. He needs him to accomplish his greatest desire. Bring his son to his side/save Padme. He's willing to save the Emperor for now, playing the long game in the hopes that once Luke claims his place in the Dark Side, Vader will be able to turn Luke to his side and defeat the Emperor with his help.

Both are slippery, but the Rule of Two doesn't really make much difference in either of their motivations. So, no, the Rule of Two did not harm the Original Trilogy at all.

 

 

No comment on the video that out prequels the prequels?

 

Oh, didn't notice I had a question on the board.

 

The video was fine, if just a quick action sequence. It's method for showing Big Boss Sith still being powerful was closed off in the Prequels though. Essentially portraying that Sith as the most physically dominant player on the field. Ian McDiarmid is a lot of good things. An imposing presence is not one of them. So it wouldn't work for the Prequels.

[Svenn]

Thanks Poe. That's a well thought out response. But it still has the same holes for me. I don't think the rule of two allows for trust between Vader and the Emperor, and I don't think that the throne room scene plays out correctly unless the Emperor trusts Vader. That's the bottom line for me, and the response to both of your possible resolutions.

 

The Emperor clearly trusted Vader, both when Luke was striking, and later when the Emperor was attacking Luke.

 

Luke was within striking distance of the Emperor, but the Emperor doesn't even flinch. If Luke had followed through, then he would have struck the Emperor. You say either Vader or the Emperor could have stopped him. The Emperor no doubt had the ability to stop Luke, but he didn't even flinch (and, therefore, I don't think he had time to stop him). The Emperor chose not to react, because he trusted Vader.

 

I know your answer is that the Emperor still had time. That he has awesome reflexes and was in full control. But it's just not believable. His failure to later react to Vader makes that clear. Unless he's deaf (which I assume you would also argue against), he should have heard Vader yell "Noooo! Nooooooo!!!" twice before Vader ever even turned to pick him up (I realize that he never said "no" in the original version, but it seems that if we should have to take the rule of two as canon for purposes of this scene, then we should also have to take the most recent version of ROTJ as canon). Even if Vader hadn't verbally expressed his displeasure before turning against the Emperor, then (a) the Emperor still should not have trusted Vader under the rule of two, and (b) the Emperor's alleged ability to stop Luke's strike (which would have required him to go from passive to defensive posture in less than a second) doesn't jive with his inability to defend himself from Vader.

 

The other thing that Vader picking him up illustrates is that the Emperor can only direct force lightning by aiming with his hands (which is why he only hits Vader indirectly). That makes it less believable that he could have positioned his hands in time to stop Luke's strike (keeping in mind that, through 2/3 of Luke's swing, his hands were still resting comfortably on his arm rests).

 

The only explanation that makes sense to me is that the Emperor trusted Vader to block Luke. He allows himself to be defenseless.

 

Driver's earlier post is also on point for how the rule of two should have resulted in different dialogue.

 

To me, the rule of two was unnecessary. The prequels wouldn't have had to play out any differently if it had never been uttered, and it unnecessarily complicates too much of the original trilogy.

[Poe Dameron]

I don't think the rule of two allows for trust between Vader and the Emperor, and I don't think that the throne room scene plays out correctly unless the Emperor trusts Vader.

 

Neither does the script of Return of the Jedi. Recall this scene:

VADER: My son is with them.

EMPEROR: Are you sure?

VADER: I have felt him, my Master.

EMPEROR:Strange, that I have not. I wonder if your feelings on this matter are clear, Lord Vader.

VADER: They are clear, my Master.

So the Emperor most certainly does NOT have full faith in Vader. He actively challenges Vader on his loyalty leading up to the Throne Room sequence.

Here's the deal. The Throne Room sequence is very fun to watch from a movie perspective. From a psychological and character motivation standpoint, it's junk and always has been. The Emperor's plan to make Luke fall to the Dark Side and serve him is incredibly thin. It's never properly explained what motivation Luke would ever have to join the Emperor even if he does give in to his anger. Comparatively Anakin was seduced by a promise to save someone he loves. He made a choice, participated in the murder of Mace Windu, and submitted to his new role once his choice was made. And people complained about that not being enough explanation. Compared to Anakin, Palpatine's attempt to seduce Luke to the Dark Side was more or less non-existent.

That the Emperor let Vader, who he knew to be conflicted, slowly walk up to him and then chuck him in a shaft doesn't make sense. And, yes, that Vader saved Palpatine's life even though Luke was submitting to the Dark Side by attacking the Emperor.

These are problems not caused in 1999. These are problems caused in 1983. So we're left the task of either trying to puzzle out the motives, or just calling them bad writing.

 

The Emperor no doubt had the ability to stop Luke, but he didn't even flinch (and, therefore, I don't think he had time to stop him). The Emperor chose not to react, because he trusted Vader.

LUKE: Your overconfidence is your weakness.

Luke correctly points out Palpatine's greatest weakness early in the scene. The Emperor, after decades of having his plans unfold perfectly, is overconfident. He believes that he knows how Vader will react. In this case, he was correct. Later on, he miscalculates after he dismisses Vader. But we'll get to that later.

Furthermore, Palpatine's reaction time to Luke needs to be taken into context that he would not need to move once Vader started moving. Palpatine likely would be attuned to Vader and was looking for his actions. If Vader hadn't moved, Palpatine would have acted much sooner than when Vader's lightsaber met Luke's.

Now, on to why Palpatine didn't react before getting chucked in the hole. From here, it's an entirely separate portion of the fight. And the Rule of Two isn't even operative anymore since Palpatine had ordered Luke to kill Vader and when Luke refused, decided to kill Luke.

So Palpatine turns his back on the minion he'd just ordered killed. That alone constitutes yet another dumb mistake. But it does show that Palpatine has dismissed Vader from his mind as a threat. He no longer has a lightsaber and is physically weakened. Palpatine would no that Vader would be in no condition to attack him without receiving enough of the blast to kill him as well.

More importantly, just minutes earlier, Vader and Palpatine learned of an alternative to Luke. Palpatine heard Vader dismiss Luke and announce his plan to go after Leia. To the Emperor, this is the new plan. Palpatine, having failed to turn Luke just assumes that Vader is on board with the plan.

Psychologically, Palpatine only understands that Luke had just defeated Vader. Why would Vader then save his enemy that had just cut off his hand? To Palpatine, this doesn't make sense. Vader obviously proved that he would not be able to control Luke as the Master, only the Emperor had that power. So, using Rule of Two logic, Luke was a threat to Vader even more than the Emperor.

So, through the power of love (heh) Vader surprises the Emperor who had his attention fully on destroying Luke and did not consider the idea that Vader would essentially commit suicide in order to protect Luke. To the Emperor, it was all power. He didn't trust Vader not to take Luke for his own. But he didn't realize that Vader would be willing to do something selfless to protect his son.

 

Even if Vader hadn't verbally expressed his displeasure before turning against the Emperor, then (a) the Emperor still should not have trusted Vader under the rule of two

What difference does the Rule of Two make at this point? The Emperor decided to kill Luke. Any conflicts with that are cleared up by this point.

And here's the final thing. The Rule of Two isn't really set in stone. It's not a mystical rule, it's a practical one. Made largely for the purpose of staying hidden and for Sith who didn't want to bite off more than they can chew. If Palpatine felt he could control two apprentices, it's not like anything would stop him. Considering they were in charge of the galaxy, and planned to completely consolidate their grip soon, he could have just dangled the possibility in front of Vader. Which he likely did. But had no intention of actually bothering to do.

[Guest El Chalupacabra]

Here's the deal. The Throne Room sequence is very fun to watch from a movie perspective. From a psychological and character motivation standpoint, it's junk and always has been. The Emperor's plan to make Luke fall to the Dark Side and serve him is incredibly thin. It's never properly explained what motivation Luke would ever have to join the Emperor even if he does give in to his anger. Comparatively Anakin was seduced by a promise to save someone he loves. He made a choice, participated in the murder of Mace Windu, and submitted to his new role once his choice was made. And people complained about that not being enough explanation. Compared to Anakin, Palpatine's attempt to seduce Luke to the Dark Side was more or less non-existent.

 

I don't know about that. Even before the PT, I I picked up on the motivations to turn Luke: both Vader's motive, and the Emperor's.

 

In TESB, Vader's motivation can be taken at face value: he wants Luke to join with Vader, and "with their combined strength" they can overthrow the emperor, and the destructive conflict, and rule the galaxy as father and son. If you factor in the PT narrative, he offered this to Padme, too. Vader couldn't prevent Padme from dying, but here is a son he never knew about until recently. Sure he chopped off his hand, but Vader never really intended to kill Luke. Just turn him to the dark side, which in his twisted state of mind, is the right thing to do.

 

The Emperor's motivation is equally clear, if you take what he says at face value. Even in the original version of TESB, the Emperor fears Luke's power, but when Vader suggests he could turn Luke and make him an ally, the Emperor is all for it. the Emperor wants Luke turned. Now it is open to interpretation, but I think it was that moment where the Emperor believed he could finally replace Vader, if he is successful in turning Luke because what would the emperor need with two apprentices? I think its clear he wants Luke instead of Vader, and just is using Vader to do the heavy lifting in turning Luke. When Vader failed to do that, the emperor realized it would take both of them to turn Luke together, but I still believe the Emperor always intended to stab Vader in the back, and replace him with Luke. He even says as much. When Luke still refuses, that is when the Emperor decides to cut his losses, and kill Luke. The only flaw in that plan was the Emperor underestimated how much of Anakin was still in Vader, which caused him to turn on the Emperor, and kill him.

[ShadowDog]

I think the only purpose of the rule of 2 was so that Yoda would have reason to believe there was another Sith out there they should be worried about. So it wasn't an exclusionary rule "THERE CAN BE ONLY 2!!!!" What was instead an inclusionary rule "We only got one of them. There is another."

 

It goes back to what driver was saying about Lucas being lazy. This was the laziest possible way for Yoda to know there was another.

[Jacen123]

The problem with that is that Yoda said "no more" as part of it.

[Poe Dameron]

I don't know about that. Even before the PT, I I picked up on the motivations to turn Luke: both Vader's motive, and the Emperor's.

 

That was just a long way of saying they both wanted Luke. Which we already knew.

 

The problem I'm bringing up is they don't really give Luke a tangible reason why he would ever consider joining them even if Luke did fall to the Dark Side. Their hook has no bait.

 

 

 

It goes back to what driver was saying about Lucas being lazy. This was the laziest possible way for Yoda to know there was another.

 

I can't see how this is lazy. As you said, it was just Yoda making a point that their troubles weren't over. No need to do anything elaborate here.

[ShadowDog]

It's lazy in that you set up a hard and fast rule without thinking out the long term consequences of that rule so because it's the easiest way for your character to know something.

 

"How did I know the bunny did it? We got 1 minute left in the episode so ... bunnies always murder when they see green bananas!!!! Annnnd scene!"

[Poe Dameron]

It's not really a hard and fast rule though. And, as I noted at the beginning, it actually clears up why the Sith are so rare in the Original Trilogy. There really weren't any negative consequences and it was used well throughout the Prequels.