Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
StillKirok

General Star Wars Discussion

1,164 posts in this topic

As for Vader slaughtering children?  That scene not only ruined Vader for me, but undid any shred of sympathy I might've ever had for Anakin.  He's a d!ck, and a lecherous, stalking, killer of children.  He doesn't deserve a happy ending partying in the afterlife.  If there were a 'force hell' he needs to be shoveling bantha pooh-dooh in it for eternity....

Right.  Up until that scene was revealed in Episode III, I don't know if you could truly say that Anakin was irredeemable.  How many people did Darth Vader actually kill in the OT?  I'm guessing people can list them. 

I don't think he killed ANYONE in Episode IV.  Force choked a guy but that guy was being a prick.  He may have killed a few rebel soldiers, but those were military targets in a war, so you could argue that was a war thing.

When we first meet Vader, he wanted people alive.

Yes, he wasn't a nice guy in Empire and Jedi, but who did he actually KILL?  I think he killed an Admiral in the Empire, but I say we go with the notion that if you rise to the level of admiral in the Empire, you're kind of a jerk.

Even killing Jedi would not necessarily be irredeemable.  Vader turned because he wanted to save Padme.  Selfish?  Yes.  Wrong?  Yes.  But his motives were not so terrible, and again, it was a war, and Vader chose a side.

No one killed by Vader was truly innocent.

Except those kids.

I know Greedo shooting first is a source of anger, but for me, it makes no difference.  Han didn't murder an innocent man.  In both versions, Han acts out of self preservation.  It looks a little "neater" for Han if Greedo shoots first, but I don't think it makes Han less moral if he pulled the trigger first.  I think Lucas' logic is way off here.  I think that most people would shoot first if in that position.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't he choke Captain Antilles on the Tantive IV?  He also killed Piett because he was incompetent and Captain Needa for losing track of the Millennium Falcon (which, actually, is kind of noble - Needa knew he was likely going to his death but owned up to it anyway.  Most other imperials would try to pawn the blame off on an underling).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't he choke Captain Antilles on the Tantive IV?  He also killed Piett because he was incompetent and Captain Needa for losing track of the Millennium Falcon (which, actually, is kind of noble - Needa knew he was likely going to his death but owned up to it anyway.  Most other imperials would try to pawn the blame off on an underling).

 

Choke and cracked his neck.  

But... and I know this sounds like I'm justifying his action, but it WAS a civil war.  

Those kids he slaughtered were total innocents; in fact, when he came in the room, they were asking HIM for guidance.   I could almost understand Vader doing atrocities to soldiers in wartime (he IS a Sith Lord after all, but slaughtering innocent children puts him in John Wayne Gacey territory, as far as I'm concerned.  I used to see Vader as an honorable villain; a monster, granted, but an honorable monster.  Kind of like a Klingon war lord sort of thing.  

But now?  He's a child-killing piece of s#!t. 

I know Greedo shooting first is a source of anger, but for me, it makes no difference.  Han didn't murder an innocent man.  In both versions, Han acts out of self preservation.  It looks a little "neater" for Han if Greedo shoots first, but I don't think it makes Han less moral if he pulled the trigger first.  I think Lucas' logic is way off here.  I think that most people would shoot first if in that position.

Greedo was seconds away from killing Han.  Han jumped the gun (excuse the pun) and killed him first.  It was cold-blooded but arguably justified.  If/when a guy (or bug-eyed Rodian) is holding a gun on you and threatening to kill you any second?  Then ANY and ALL actions taken to save your life (minus harming innocents) is justified.  Greedo got careless; Han got lucky.   That's an open/shut case as far as I'm concerned. 

But even if Greedo wasn't going to kill him right away?  I'm still kind of OK with it. 

Han is an antihero who becomes a hero.   He is seeking redemption.  He has an arc.  Throwing in his lot with the rebel alliance is where he finds his long-buried humanity (Leia has something to do with that, too).   That, to me, was the whole point of Han's arc; going from cold-blooded mercenary who'd just as soon shoot you under the table to the honorable General Solo in ROTJ who learns to be selfless for a higher cause (freedom for the galaxy).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't he choke Captain Antilles on the Tantive IV?  He also killed Piett because he was incompetent and Captain Needa for losing track of the Millennium Falcon (which, actually, is kind of noble - Needa knew he was likely going to his death but owned up to it anyway.  Most other imperials would try to pawn the blame off on an underling).

 

I don't remember who that is.  What movie?  Without looking it up, just by calling him CAPTAIN Antilles tells me that he's either in the Empire or the Alliance.  If he's in the Empire, he's a jerk, and evil, so Vader didn't kill anyone good.  If he was in the Alliance, he was a war enemy and a military target, and that doesn't make Vader irredeemable.

 

I don't think Han shooting Greedo first was ARGUABLY justified.  I think it simply WAS justified.  If you feel your life is in immediate danger, it's almost textbook self defense.  If Han were put on trial for killing Greedo, I think he is found not guilty due to self defense.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't remember who that is.  What movie?  Without looking it up, just by calling him CAPTAIN Antilles tells me that he's either in the Empire or the Alliance.  If he's in the Empire, he's a jerk, and evil, so Vader didn't kill anyone good.  If he was in the Alliance, he was a war enemy and a military target, and that doesn't make Vader irredeemable.

 

Capt. Antilles... most decidedly NOT an Imperial goon.   

v

antilles.jpg

He was also briefly seen (as a younger man) at the end of "Revenge of the Sith" (he was also C3PO and R2D2's 'last master' before Luke's uncle).

56180-25814.jpg

I don't think Han shooting Greedo first was ARGUABLY justified.  I think it simply WAS justified.  If you feel your life is in immediate danger, it's almost textbook self defense.  If Han were put on trial for killing Greedo, I think he is found not guilty due to self defense.

I say arguably only because there was always the option of having the blaster set to 'stun'; with Greedo unconscious, he could've just walked away.   But the pre-redemption Han Solo wasn't the type of guy who used the stun setting very often I imagine... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did Solo's blaster have a stun setting?  I'm not talking from specs you might find, but from an actual line in the movies.  It's not Star Trek, where it's established.

I know they do have stun guns, but that doesn't necessarily mean Solo's particular model had that.  Plus, unless the gun was set to stun automatically, he didn't have time to change anything.  I also think that this was a situation where deadly force was justified.

Now that you showed the picture, I recognize Antilles.  However, I would call him a casualty of war, and that's not irredeemable. 

I can't think of a single example of Vader killing or doing bad things that wasn't redeemable--until Episode III.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't think of a single example of Vader killing or doing bad things that wasn't redeemable--until Episode III.

Well... if one wanted to nitpick (hehe) he did torture his own daughter, cut off his son's hand, and stood by while Alderaan was blown to hell (men, women AND children died; granted, Vader wasn't the trigger man, but he had the power to forcibly stop Tarkin if he wanted to do so)..  But... as you say, it was a civil war (albeit a somewhat lopsided civil war). 

Did Solo's blaster have a stun setting?  I'm not talking from specs you might find, but from an actual line in the movies.  It's not Star Trek, where it's established.

If the stormtroopers had a stun setting, I'd bet that it'd be a feature common on most weapons in the SW universe; like the safety on a pistol.  I'm just guessing, but I agree that Solo really had no choice but to shoot first; Greedo was there to kill him.  He made that very clear when he said, "I've been looking forward to this for a long time."   That was Solo's cue to act.  

No harm, no foul (to anyone other than Greedo's family, of course... :giggle:).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He didn't know she was his daughter, and he was torturing a spy to get back stolen data and learn where the enemy was in a war situation.  You could argue he was doing his duty for the Empire and saving lives of his allies.

As for Luke, that's just tough love.  He was trying to explain to Luke that he was his father, with the hope that he could reunite.  Ok, it didn't go as well as planned, but Vader was acting in self defense, again, against an enemy combatant.

Given that I never really thought about how Vader did nothing irredeemable until Episode 3 until today, this is kind of a fun little game.  Everyone Vader killed was an enemy combatant or an evil bastard.

 

And maybe Solo's blaster did have a stun setting, but unless the thing was set to it, he didn't have time to change anything.  A guy is about to kill me, and I'm not going to change the setting to spare him.  Either way, we don't know. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He also killed Piett

I believe you're thinking of Admiral Ozzel, after which Vader promoted Piett from Captain. :P

Here's a list I can think of off-hand of everyone Vader's either choked or killed in the originals:

- Captain Antilles. Dead.

- Admiral Motti. Choked, but spared at Tarkin's insistence. Died on the Death Star.

- Admiral Ozzel. Dead due to incompetence.

- Captain Needa. Dead due to losing the Falcon.

- Moff Jerjerrod would've been briefly choked in Return of the Jedi, but was spared thanks to it being a deleted scene in which he forbade Vader from seeing the Emperor in his tower.

 

Piett didn't die until the Battle of Endor when a crashing A-wing kamikazed into the bridge of the Executor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If that's it, then Vader wins until Episode III.  It's actually ironic that Lucas, who allegedly changed Greedo's death so Han would "look better because he was the hero," had Vader do something so heinous that redeeming him could not be possible. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Piett didn't die until the Battle of Endor when a crashing A-wing kamikazed into the bridge of the Executor.

bill-lumbergh-gary-cole-office-space.jpg

"Yeah, if you could just intensify those forward batteries so that nothing gets through?  That'd be great...."

arvel-crynyd-star-wars-20090105050114418

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He also killed Piett

I believe you're thinking of Admiral Ozzel, after which Vader promoted Piett from Captain. :P

Here's a list I can think of off-hand of everyone Vader's either choked or killed in the originals:

- Captain Antilles. Dead.

- Admiral Motti. Choked, but spared at Tarkin's insistence. Died on the Death Star.

- Admiral Ozzel. Dead due to incompetence.

- Captain Needa. Dead due to losing the Falcon.

- Moff Jerjerrod would've been briefly choked in Return of the Jedi, but was spared thanks to it being a deleted scene in which he forbade Vader from seeing the Emperor in his tower.

 

Piett didn't die until the Battle of Endor when a crashing A-wing kamikazed into the bridge of the Executor.

You're right, it was Ozzel - I am ashamed of my "lack of vision"...:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Piett was just one of my absolutely favorite characters, though. I don't think I can explain why, maybe it's because he survived Vader's ire. Then again, I'm a big fan of General Veers as well. If you don't flinch when Vader gets in your face, barking orders, you must be one tough sonofabitch. :P

Edited by Happy Russia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Piett was just one of my absolutely favorite characters, though. I don't think I can explain why, maybe it's because he survived Vader's ire. Then again, I'm a big fan of General Veers as well. If you don't flinch when Vader gets in your face, barking orders, you must be one tough sonofabitch. :P

I liked Admiral Motti in New Hope; that cat has serious balls.  
He stares down Vader, ridicules his belief in the force, and even after being force-choked (!) he still gives him an angry glare.   Serious courage there...

motti-4_3.jpg  <<  Serious sass...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And Richard LeParmentier relished in the role. He really embraced it way after Star Wars, as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And Richard LeParmentier relished in the role. He really embraced it way after Star Wars, as well.

Still cherish my autograph of him... RIP, Motti. :(

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Working my way through the original trilogy as a prep for Episode VII.

 

Here's a random Star Wars thought--I wonder what happened in between Episode IV and V.  The opening crawl said that Vader was obsessed with Luke Skywalker.  But there's some inconsistencies.

This obsession could go from a mild curiosity from the Death Star battle.  Vader noted to himself that the Force was strong in the pilot in front of him.  So he clearly detected the Force sensitive nature of Luke, which isn't that big of a deal.  Given what Luke accomplished, that would certainly lead Vader to research what pilot destroyed the Death Star.

I don't know how he would find that out, but we do know that after that battle, the Empire well, struck back, and got the rebels on the run where they retreated to Hoth. 

Presumably, Vader was involved in that, and I think it's safe to say that maybe he captured someone who knew who Luke was and Vader was able to get a name.

Of course naturally, once he hears the last name Skywalker, he realizes that Luke would be his son.

That would therefore fuel the obsession in the opening crawl.

But here's my question--early in the movie, when the probe finds the rebels at Hoth, Vader clearly says that Skywalker must be with them.  That of course confirms he knows who Luke is.

Later in the movie though, the Emperor talks about feeling a disturbance in the Force, and that the EMPEROR believes that the guy who blew up the Death Star is the son of Anakin Skywalker, and Vader was like, "no way! That's kick ass!  Let's turn him!"

What gives?  That's very inconsistent with earlier in the movie when Vader knew exactly who Luke was.

The only explanation I can think of is that somehow, Vader didn't report any of his findings to the Emperor and lied during that phone call.

Oh and one more random thought--why didn't Owen and Beru raise Luke with a different last name?

Like Luke Smith?

One would think that letting Luke keep his last name would be a red flag for Anakin to eventually find out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Working my way through the original trilogy as a prep for Episode VII.

 

Here's a random Star Wars thought--I wonder what happened in between Episode IV and V.  The opening crawl said that Vader was obsessed with Luke Skywalker.  But there's some inconsistencies.

This obsession could go from a mild curiosity from the Death Star battle.  Vader noted to himself that the Force was strong in the pilot in front of him.  So he clearly detected the Force sensitive nature of Luke, which isn't that big of a deal.  Given what Luke accomplished, that would certainly lead Vader to research what pilot destroyed the Death Star.

I don't know how he would find that out, but we do know that after that battle, the Empire well, struck back, and got the rebels on the run where they retreated to Hoth. 

Presumably, Vader was involved in that, and I think it's safe to say that maybe he captured someone who knew who Luke was and Vader was able to get a name.

Of course naturally, once he hears the last name Skywalker, he realizes that Luke would be his son.

That would therefore fuel the obsession in the opening crawl.

But here's my question--early in the movie, when the probe finds the rebels at Hoth, Vader clearly says that Skywalker must be with them.  That of course confirms he knows who Luke is.

Later in the movie though, the Emperor talks about feeling a disturbance in the Force, and that the EMPEROR believes that the guy who blew up the Death Star is the son of Anakin Skywalker, and Vader was like, "no way! That's kick ass!  Let's turn him!"

What gives?  That's very inconsistent with earlier in the movie when Vader knew exactly who Luke was.

The only explanation I can think of is that somehow, Vader didn't report any of his findings to the Emperor and lied during that phone call.

Oh and one more random thought--why didn't Owen and Beru raise Luke with a different last name?

Like Luke Smith?

One would think that letting Luke keep his last name would be a red flag for Anakin to eventually find out.

The simple answer as to why Luke didn't have his name changed is that Lucas didn't really think of the Dad thing until he was making Empire.  And originally the Emperor doesn't mention Anakin and that Luke is the offspring of him.  That came with the tweaking. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What was the original dialogue in the movie? 

"There is a great disturbance in the Force."
"I have felt it."

"We have a new enemy: Luke Skywalker."
"Yes, Master."
"He could destroy us."
"He's just a boy. Obi-Wan can no longer help him."

"The Force is strong in him. The son of Skywalker must not become a Jedi."
"If he could be turned, he would be a powerful ally."
"Yes... yes. He would be a great asset. Can it be done?"
"He will join us, or die, Master."

 

Lucas' insistence at tying the OT to the prequels mucks nearly everything up, and manages to make Darth look like a complete moron.

Edited by Happy Russia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What was the original dialogue in the movie? 

"There is a great disturbance in the Force."
"I have felt it."

"We have a new enemy: Luke Skywalker."
"Yes, Master."
"He could destroy us."
"He's just a boy. Obi-Wan can no longer help him."

"The Force is strong in him. The son of Skywalker must not become a Jedi."
"If he could be turned, he would be a powerful ally."
"Yes... yes. He would be a great asset. Can it be done?"
"He will join us, or die, Master."

 

Lucas' insistence at tying the OT to the prequels mucks nearly everything up, and manages to make Darth look like a complete moron.

The shoehorning of Anakin Skywalker's name and Vader's seemingly ignorant response ("How... is that possible?") in TESB SE feel awkward as hell, to say the least.

I'm OK with the digitized insertion of Ian McDiarmid's Palpatine into the scene for continuity's sake, but that awkward "search your feelings... you know it's true" line in the revised version of that scene feels tacked on and stupid.  

I'd always assumed that Vader knew he had a son, but didn't 'feel' his presence until Luke attacked the Death Star (when he said, "The force is strong with this one").   In the original version of TESB, Palpatine wasn't telling Vader anything he didn't already know.

As it is now (in the SE of Empire), Vader comes off like a damn fool; basically carrying water for the Emperor, who just admitted to him (20 years later!) that his kids survived their mother's death.   Maybe Vader should've realized that Palpatine also lied about the circumstance of Padme's death, too?  So you'd think Vader would've turned on Palpatine during that TESB holo-conference, after realizing that the last two decades of his life (and servitude) were all based on Palpatine's lies to him about his own kids.  

Also, why would Vader be "obsessed with finding young Skywalker" (as said in Empire's opening crawl) if he didn't even know Luke's LAST NAME (!) or the fact that his kids survived their mother's death (!?!).  

Palpatine should also know that you don't just drop news like that, especially when it MIGHT cause your most loyal servant to turn on you like a hive of killer bees.   "Oh by the way, Vader: your dead kids?  You know, the ones whose passing crushed your soul and helped make you my bitch?  Yeah, funny thing.  Seems that they survived and now we gotta kill them or turn them to evil.   Your check's in the mail, buddy..." 

So yeah, I very much agree that the prequels (and their necessitated, awkward retconning of the OT) pretty much took a big, smelly, messy s#!t all over the the saga.

The overall memory (and health) of Star Wars would've been much better served if the prequels never existed, IMO. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The overall memory (and health) of Star Wars would've been much better served if the prequels never existed, IMO.

Agreed. I realize this isn't gonna sound politically correct on this board but I recall thinking that the Star Wars movies had sunk down to the mediocre levels of the Star Trek movies after watching TPM. 

Sometimes I wish they wouldn't have bothered with the prequels and instead concentrating on sequels. However,  given Lucas' involvement, most likely those would have been crap anyways. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The overall memory (and health) of Star Wars would've been much better served if the prequels never existed, IMO. 

cheeringstarterfor10.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0