"Somehow, Palpatine..."

Oh, I totally agree. Maybe too many cooks in the kitchen. That's why I find it so frustrating when every couple of weeks or so we get a news flash that DLF is attaching the "Flavor of the Week" writer/director to a future SW project. I truly hope/wish that JJA is a part of the franchise going forward. We need a custodian very much the way Favereau/Filloni are on the TV side. It goes without saying that a JJ and Lindeloff collaboration could be epic.

As far as the ST, for me, yes it's a mess but it is what it is. I still enjoy it, I just have to mentally "squint" through some of it. I'm convinced it will get better with age, just as the PT did.

 

Okay, I might be wrong here but I got the feeling that originally Johnson was hinting at a final film where there were NO 'supernatural' big bads or 'superweapons'....but the real villain was going to be war itself.
Poe's character was reimagined as a fanatical rebel, willing to get his own people killed if it was 'for the greater good' and I noticed how Holdo described the Resistance as the 'spark that ignited hope' while Poe described them as the 'spark that would burn the FO to the ground'....'scorched earth' type mentality versus ' pacifistic'.

We had already seen 'good' people in the FO - Finn, and Johnson and Driver between them showed Kylo Ren's vulnerability; his regret over murdering his father and the tragic circumstances of his fall. Driver himself said he wanted to show Kylo's humanity, and removing the mask at the beginning gave him the opportunity to use his expressive face to the full.
Johnson then showed a different side to the Resistance both with Poe's actions and also the revelation by DJ that they bought their weapons from the same dealers - interesting fact; Rose Tico loathed Canto Bight - what would she have made of this, I wonder? She was, after all, a bit of fanatic herself.

And finally...that predatory look on Hux's face as he watched Kylo kneeling in the dust at the abandoned rebel base....he looked like a man who would patiently wait until Kylo's unstable mentality made him open to attack - and then he'd get rid of him. Kylo had the Force, but he was one man - and Hux controlled the armies.

I would have loved to have seen something like that - it would have been different. But alas, they preferred to rehash ROTJ only nowhere in the same league.

 

First of all. You need to temper your frustration and wind this patter in.


You claim that the ideological and thematic value of Palpatine's desire to be sacrificed and live on as a spirit possessing the one how strikes him down and takes his place is undermined or confused because they chose to bring him back as a clone in this episode. And you say that you're not interested in the plot justification for using cloning.

Your basic assumption that everything in the story needs to be thematically driven or harmonious with the themes of the episode, the trilogy and the saga, is false. The cloning, just like when it was introduced in AOTC, is an excuse to make things happen in the story. It is not its function to match or enhance the thematic or symbolic value of the character's actual desires and objectives.

Like in Empire Strikes Back. A good 50% of that film's plot is about and is a result of the hyperdrive on the Millenium Falcon not working. Considering the themes and ideologies about what that movie is really about, is the hyperdrive problem harmonious with them? Does it need to be? No. But Han and Leia don't get marooned on an asteroid where their feelings for each other are finally recognised. And they don't seek refuge and repair with an old friend, and Luke doesn't get lured to the trap set there by Vader and so on. And the writer of ESB were sort of obligated to use the hyperdrive malfunction plot, otherwise the audience would be wondering why they don't just use it to escape the Empire.

So if the writers of TROS want Palpatine to appear, walking (sort of) and talking, participating in this movie where his objective is the same as it was since he first groomed Anakin as his apprentice, they need an excuse to make that happen. And they would need an excuse for the villain who rose to power on the back of a clone army not to have considered cloning as a way to perpetuate his existence and his grip on power. The clone is just an excuse to make Palpatine appear in his quest to have the fittest successor do what is necessary for his evil to live on in a vital, powerful force user consumed by darkness. Either before as a result of their deadly confrontation.

You're rather arbitrarily categorizing cloning as a primary thematic element that must be consistent and of equitable thematic/symbolic worth with the thematic element of the expressed rite of Sith Lord succession (Which we need to take Palpatine's word for. We don't even know if it's true. But it sound good so... ). But we are shown that cloning will not succeed in giving the Sith lord what he wants. So it's quite inappropriate to insist that cloning's thematic and ideological worth must be the comparable with Palpatine's wish to be struck down by his successor. The same way hyperdrives don't need to consistent with whatever thematic importance Leia's suppressed emotions being coaxed out by Solo has. Or their betrayal by Lando. Or Vader torturing Solo. And so on, and so on.

Since cloning was introduced in AOTC, there's been a question dangling above the saga. Why just clone Jangos to make troopers? Why not clone a Jedi who can be controlled by an inhibitor chip? Or a Sith lord? The very existence of cloning creates many potential plot holes. But, conveniently, it established that clones have a limited shelf life. As it is with Palpatine's clone. But the writers can exploit cloning so that Palpatine can be in a place at a time where we can be shown what really matters to this story.


In short you're applying a set of criteria which you have arbitrarily decided cloning must meet in order to justify its inclusion in this episode. Even though, like time travel in Back To The Future, it's just an excuse to set a plot in motion which involves what really matters in the story.

Of course there are flms and film-makers who can't help themselves from packing every inch of their scripts with items and ideas that they grab from a pool of concepts that they have brainstormed purely for their ideological, symbolic, aesthetic etc similarities or resonance. But that is not universal standard or mandatory practice. And I don't think it's wise for audiences to impose criteria that demands all movies to be fashioned that way.

(I don't know how you can say Vader hadn't learned anything. Considering how devoted he was to supposed power of the dark side, finding the strenght to chuck his master over the side. Not to usurp him and assume his position and his power in the Sith tradition (as was his and all other Sith apprentice's aim but he needed Luke's help to do it). But simply to save the defiant son of his who has denounced the dark side and chosen death instead of following his father's path. I've read many fans over the years attempt to credit Vader's act at the end of ROTJ to be some sort of philosophical or ideological awakening where he suddenly understood the virtue of altruism and of caring for others more than himself and being so inspired by Luke's compassion for him that he discovered that he should be just as compassionate for Luke. Complete poppycock. I can see why some people desire to embellish it and create some profound moral equation out of it that Vader successfully solves. But they are willfully ignoring the obvious mirroring of the two bookend acts (and Anakin's motives for) which bound him and released him from devotion to Palpatine and the dark side.

Revive means restore to life or consciousness or give new energy to. Palpatine is neither dead or unconscious and is not seeking new energy. He needs a solution to his evil spirit's longevity so that the entire galaxy will be ruled by someone carrying on his legacy. So the only thing being revived, again, would be the Sith's domination over what was the old republic, i.e. the galaxy.)

 

Ladies and Gentlemen... I do hope that none of us are lost in the irony that we have put FAR more thought and debate into this matter than the writers and producers ever put into the Palpatine resurrection to begin with.

 

There's not much thought going into it here. Nor does there need to be.

How much thought is required to acknowledge the elephant in the room that if Palpatine wanted to stay in power, why not clone himself?

 

I've been thinking that ever since I endured TROS....

 

They didn't have to do anything, the Maker already set the table for them...
only, they didn't like the bread, the meal or, the silverware. Their hubris, lol.

Oh well... Palpatine's clone grand daughter won the war, so I'm sure Plagueis would have been proud.​

This x 1000 !!!

 

Nope. Missed it again. I don’t care about the specific plot conceit that justifies his return. It was cloning. Cool. Great. Cloning is a thing Star Wars. Whatever. What I personally care about – what has value to me – is for that plot conceit to underscore the essential thematic elements that this story exists in order to communicate. TROS doesn’t seem to care about a thing that I deeply care about. So I’m disappointed with that outcome. It’s not any more complicated than that.

It’s both. It’s both an artifact of the plot AND a poignant expression of the story’s value system. The clones are a bid to manufacture human beings as disposable weapons of war. There’s an important commentary being made there about the dehumanization of personhood in service of mass violence. It’s not just to move the story along.

Absolutely, yes. The underline arc for all the characters in ESB is about adversity inspiring individual growth. In ANH, Han is the captain of the Falcon, the fastest ship around, able to “outrun imperial ships”. It’s a point of pride for him. His faith in his reliable ship is a defining aspect of his character. It’s an extension of who he is.

To have that splendidly speedy ship of his be rendered so slow and unreliable is a direct challenge to who he is as a person. It’s an adversity he has to overcome that is both an artifact of the plot AAAAANNNNDDDDD a metaphorical representation of the character’s progression in the story.

The Han Solo character is a paragon of individualism and autonomy, “There's no mystical energy field controls my destiny”, and the Falcon is the literal vehicle that enables that freedom. To stifle that vehicle, to force it to stay in first gear, to limit that mobility, is a limitation on his freedom and his autonomy. So, yes, the hyperdrive problem is very much harmonious with the themes and ideologies of the narrative.

Again, you don’t have to engage with the story on this level. Absolutely no one, including me, is demanding that you or anyone else does. It’s OK if you don’t see or care about the thematic stratum of storytelling. It’s totally fine.

Yeah, that’s precisely my point. It’s just an excuse for the plot to happen. I wish it was more than that. I wish it had more on its mind.

But Palpatine DOES ultimately get what he wants. He DOES restore himself. And HOW he actually manages to do that is, if you can believe it, both an artifact of the plot AAAAANNNNNDDDD an allegorical representation of the narrative’s value system.

“The lifeforce of your bond...a dyad in the Force. A power like life itself. Unseen for generations. And now the power of two restores the one, true Emperor.”

Palpatine restores his wicked energy by stealing life from our heroes. The polar opposite act that Rey and Ben perform: “I just transferred a bit of life. Force energy from me to him.”

The Jedi philosophy is about charity. They selflessly give of themselves for the benefit of others. The Sith philosophy is about greed. They selfishly take from others for the benefit of themselves. This idea is beautifully expressed in this movie by juxtaposing these two conflicting ideologies in the form of arch pulp magical concepts.

Palpatine’s separate aims to restore himself in the final scene are both reliant on fantasy conceits that symbolize the saga’s moral stance. THAT’S the stuff I’m here for. That’s what Star Wars has always really exceled at. And that’s what I find so shallow about the ill-defined circumstance of his return.

I freely acknowledge that this a consequence of how I perceive the story. I’ve never claimed otherwise.

“Must meet”? No, I make no demands of anyone else’s art. Ever. There are certain aspects of storytelling that I appreciate and connect to. Just like everybody else. And when a story, which is distinctly regarded for having those aspects, don’t include them when they easily could have, I find unsatisfying.

“Impose”? “Demand”? "All movies"? Where is this coming from?

Well, if he’s (in your interpretation) making the same basic action for the same basic reason, then that demonstrates a lack of growth. It would be a redemption arc . . . without an actual arc. He’d have learned nothing. That’s not what the story is telling you. He makes the same basic action, but for the polar opposite reason. That’s where the redemption comes from.

Dude, it’s called “Return of the Jedi”. There’s multiple meanings for that title, but the biggest one is Anakin’s return to being a ‘guardian of peace and justice’. It isn’t his ‘discovering’ the virtue of altruism. It’s his REdisovery of altruism. It’s his reconnection with what he knows to be noble and true. That’s the good that Luke sensed was still in him. It’s the whole payoff to Luke’s motivation in the film.

I’m sorry, I can’t make any sense of your thought process here. I don’t know what this even means. He was imprisoned by his greed and he was liberated by his charity. An act of selfishness doomed him. An act of selflessness redeemed him. It’s the essential moral to the story that supports the whole thing. It’s the keystone. Pluck that out and the entire thing comes crashing down.

Again, I can’t make any sense of this thought process. The character literally steals energy and then says it “restores” him. That was his goal from the start. He tries multiple tactics to get there, but that’s what he’s ultimately after: restore his power, restore his religion, restore his empire. I’m not sure what we’re even talking about at this point. It’s right there on the screen.

To reiterate, my goal here is to explain, as best I can, why somebody would be invested in the ‘how’ of Palpatine’s return. And why the lack of exploration into that story element would feel unfulfilling. It’s OK if you don’t agree. It’s OK if you can’t relate. Nobody is right or wrong here.

 

And I'm sorry you can't conceive of cloning as anything but a "plot minutia", and not just one among the many concepts of immortality that the entire saga plays with. And that you believe the movie is confused or confusing as a result.

 

You know...the worst thing about Palpatine's return is that it essentially makes everything the heroes did pointless. Anakin's sacrifice was for nothing. Palpatine 'at last got to see the end of the Skywalkers.' Which is what he wanted.

It's why at this moment I can't watch any of the SW films again. PT, OT....all for nothing. And let's face it, if Sheev returned after esssentially being disintegrated....he could come back again.
What is the point?

 

He wanted Anakin or Luke to succeed him.

 

Luke didn't kill his father therefore no one in Star Wars can kill a relative? What kind of argument is this?

Palpatine is the worst Maclunkey person in the Star Wars universe and you're worried about his grand daughter killing him?! This is goofy.

 

I can’t speak for anyone else, but I would have appreciated it a lot more if Rey had at least attempted to reach her grandfather. Tried to appeal to his humanity. And to have his death be a consequence of refusing to accept compassion and rejecting empathy.

If Rey is all the Jedi and Palps is all the Sith, then I’d expect her greatest action to be a gesture of harmony and his to be a gesture of discord. Evil thrives on hatred and pain. But she has no hate in her heart and can endure any pain. His darkness can’t overcome her light and is undone by it. For me, something like that would have felt a little more ‘true’ to the message of Star Wars.

 

This.

--- Double Post Merged, Nov 24, 2022, Original Post Date: Nov 24, 2022 ---

Killing someone who is your own flesh and blood is incredibly sad. No matter what they are.

 

Ok, surely nobody can argue with that. I won't even reflect on Ben/Han to reinforce the point.
However, was that Thing she faced on Exegol really her flesh and blood? He was evil incarnate possessing a genetic copy of a man who was technically her biological grandfather. Who also just happened to be an evil man responsible for the unjust death of millions. Who also had hunted her from birth, not for any familial purpose, but to use her for his own selfish desires. Oh, by the way, he was joyfully killing her friends in front of her and taunting her about it, which you would think he learned his lesson about that many years before. She didn't have much choice.

If anything, I could maybe agree that her motivation for going there wasn't very "Jedi". Ghost Luke seemed to be ok with it, he even helped her. Maybe that was just him realizing that the old Jedi ways were gone...

 

It’s easy to be merciful and compassionate toward someone you consider good. It’s hard to be merciful and compassionate toward someone you consider bad.

Doing the right thing when it’s hardest is when it matters the most.

 

Absolutely.
That's what Rey did. She saved millions of lives and slowed the spread of the Dark Side, presumably ended the Sith, and did it by rekilling some clone/blob from a mason jar, rehydrated version of the most evil person in recent history.

 

Right, because at no point is the Palpatine character presented as something approaching a human life worthy of mercy. He’s just a monster. And monsters don’t deserve mercy. That’s the choice the storytellers made.

 

I'll be careful not to slip in any of the dripping sarcasm.

In this case, mercy is not an option. The human life part is debatable. He is THE monster. Yes, that's the choice the storytellers have made for 40+ years. 9 movies. He never did anything but perpetuate evil and hate. He had to die. Do you really think that Rey, who he thought nothing of, could talk him down? At this point? Was he going to surrender? Ask Mace Windu about that. Any sort of redemption of Palpatine would have completely unwound the entire saga. "All grampy wanted was for someone to love him..." BS!
He would've deserved to die at Windu's hands, he deserved to die when Anakin threw him in the space pit, he deserved to die on Exegol. If they dig him back up again and put him in a wheelchair for Episode 10, he'll deserve to die then.

 

Of course not. But that doesn’t mean she shouldn’t try. It doesn’t mean she shouldn’t take the ‘high ground’.

Palpatine is the manifestation of evil in this parable. He shouldn’t be redeemed. Rey though is his opposing manifestation of good. She should want to.

Ask what would have happened had Mace instead led with mercy. Would Anakin have fallen? Would the Jedi have been massacred? Do you think maybe George was making a point with that?