1. Notification emails are working properly again. Please check your email spam folder and if you see any emails from the Cantina there, make sure to mark them as "Not Spam". This will help a lot to whitelist the emails and to stop them going to spam.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. IMPORTANT! To be able to create new threads and rate posts, you need to have at least 30 posts in The Cantina.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Before posting a new thread, check the list with similar threads that will appear when you start typing the thread's title.
    Dismiss Notice

Why Palpatine returning makes sense.

Discussion in 'Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker' started by Adam812, Jan 23, 2020.

  1. RoyleRancor

    RoyleRancor Jedi General

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2016
    Posts:
    5,258
    Likes Received:
    29,980
    Trophy Points:
    155,167
    Credits:
    22,380
    Ratings:
    +37,836 / 149 / -96
    People are much more interested in having a theory confirmed than a good story these days
     
    • Like Like x 4
    • Wise Wise x 2
    • Great Post Great Post x 1
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  2. GingerByte

    GingerByte Jedi General

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Posts:
    2,508
    Likes Received:
    62,607
    Trophy Points:
    169,867
    Credits:
    34,198
    Ratings:
    +67,285 / 73 / -26
    Clever? Having him do the exact same thing he did to himself last time (on purpose), except this time dying from it (by accident)? It has been demonstrated so many times in canon that force lightning can be countered, and turned back against its caster. The fact that Palpatine ignored Anakin's saber on the ground and continued shooting lightning is illogical.

    Palpatine would rather just continue ineffectively throwing pebbles, instead of grabbing a log and smashing Rey over the head.
    You are clearly missing their point then. It doesn't matter whether he did indeed die or not, it is the fact that he's still alive that's their issue. It is the creator's original intention that matters, and Lucas specifically said to Abrams that Palpatine was still dead at the time of the ST when he was writing TFA. The prophecy was specifically written to mean the end of the Sith, this is the exact reason why Palpatine surviving cheapens the ending of ROTJ. Because the Sith are still alive!
     
    • Great Post Great Post x 3
    • Disagree Disagree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
    • Wise Wise x 1
  3. Messi

    Messi Force Sensitive

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2015
    Posts:
    2,715
    Likes Received:
    6,813
    Trophy Points:
    14,167
    Credits:
    10,126
    Ratings:
    +8,789 / 184 / -29
    No. The worst Palpatine is the one from ROTS, completly out of character. Nothing to do with the old decrepit and menacing from ROTJ. A great lord of Darkness does not needs a saber (Snoke doesn't have one also), a saber just diminish his presence and put him at the level of the ordinaries sith or jedi. Palpatine is arrogant and he is above all.
    That's why I dislike him in ROTS. Saber on his hand and Jumping around was silly. The also ruined Yoda doing the same thing in AOTC and ROTS.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Trolling Trolling x 1
  4. Porco Azzurro

    Porco Azzurro Force Attuned

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2019
    Posts:
    418
    Likes Received:
    8,222
    Trophy Points:
    15,942
    Credits:
    3,923
    Ratings:
    +8,893 / 1 / -1
    There is no spoon... that is why we must trust in the Forks.

    (sorry everyone)
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
    • Like Like x 1
    • Wise Wise x 1
  5. SegNerd

    SegNerd Rebel General

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2015
    Posts:
    486
    Likes Received:
    821
    Trophy Points:
    4,467
    Credits:
    1,768
    Ratings:
    +1,272 / 32 / -4
    My theory about this is that, prior to his death (?), Palpatine was immune to his own lightning. Yeah, it LOOKS like he zapped himself silly in ROTS - but there’s no question that this was a ruse to confuse Anakin, and it’s possible he was just revealing his true form rather than getting fried.

    After his death, his weakened form is now vulnerable to his own lightning, and he may not have been aware of it.

    This is pure speculation but it feels right to me. ;)
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Hopeful Hopeful x 1
  6. GingerByte

    GingerByte Jedi General

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Posts:
    2,508
    Likes Received:
    62,607
    Trophy Points:
    169,867
    Credits:
    34,198
    Ratings:
    +67,285 / 73 / -26
    That's your interpretation. The Emperor being 'saberless' in ROTJ was for dramatic effect, not to infer that he didn't use a lightsaber. The whole scene he plays himself off as a defenceless old man, which is why it's all the more shocking when he shoots lightning from his fingertips.
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Great Post Great Post x 2
    • Wise Wise x 1
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  7. Too Bob Bit

    Too Bob Bit Force Attuned

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2018
    Posts:
    387
    Likes Received:
    6,725
    Trophy Points:
    15,267
    Credits:
    1,813
    Ratings:
    +7,284 / 6 / -0
    If we think Palpatine's resurrection cheapens the end of ROTJ then doesn't the presence of Snoke and indeed Kylo Ren since TFA also cheapen the end of ROTJ? To all intents and purposes are they not Sith? In other words it's already been cheapened! (I'm not saying I think they did - I've enjoyed the ST overall).

    Sure - maybe they don't call themselves 'Sith', but isn't that just arguing semantics? They're just another religious order built around following the dark side. But it amounts to the same thing. 'The Force' doesn't care what they call themselves.

    In the past and in the prophecy Sith was perhaps just used synonymously with 'dark side user' because there was only the Sith.

    Personally, I'm at best mixed on how I feel about the return of Palps, but I can't say it had anything to do with any thoughts on what the prophecy said.
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Informative Informative x 1
  8. RoyleRancor

    RoyleRancor Jedi General

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2016
    Posts:
    5,258
    Likes Received:
    29,980
    Trophy Points:
    155,167
    Credits:
    22,380
    Ratings:
    +37,836 / 149 / -96
    It's less arguing semantics and more a comment on how complacency and thinking winning one big fight means an end to all fights can lead to the rise of another power and often times a worse one.

    WW1 was "The War To End All Wars" and WW2 was 20 years later. We didn't just suggest the same exact problems arose with a new name, it was a whole new kind of evil.

    So I don't think it's semantics, there's just a limit on bad guys in the Star Wars universe and what you can make them without it being "just the Sith though, right?"
    In any situation, if they're bad and use the force, the Sith comparison is inevitable. So make the main baddie of the first two LOATHE the Sith. Resent them. Which he does. Let the past die.

    Now, I feel differently about Palps because he is directly a Sith and references Sith relics, ideology etc. I feel like that is more backtracking than using a real world problem of power vacuums and post-war arrogance to allow a new evil to rise.
     
    • Like Like x 4
    • Wise Wise x 2
    • Informative Informative x 1
  9. DigificWriter

    DigificWriter Rebel General

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2019
    Posts:
    730
    Likes Received:
    1,135
    Trophy Points:
    4,742
    Credits:
    1,262
    Ratings:
    +1,841 / 90 / -29
    Being a Sith is no more a matter of 'semantics' than being Catholic.

    You're either Catholic or you're not, just as you're either a Sith or you're not. Period.

    Also, Anakin destroying the Sith and restoring the balance can be compared to a person having battled cancer into remission; even if the cancer comes back, the person had still been in remission and beaten cancer for however long their period of remission lasted. Likewise, Anakin still destroyed the Sith and restored the balance even though Palpatine was able to resurrect himself and return.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Wise Wise x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  10. Jayson

    Jayson Force Sensitive

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2015
    Posts:
    1,334
    Likes Received:
    3,893
    Trophy Points:
    11,667
    Credits:
    5,128
    Ratings:
    +5,854 / 29 / -13
    Palpatine speaks to Rey in her Force vision in TFA.

    Obi-Wan is in the middle of saying "The Force will be -"
    And is cut off.
    The next voice heard is Palps who says
    "-Any Jedi."

    Palps is the only dark side user to speak in Rey's Force vision.

    When I heard that in the theater in TFA, I jumped a bit in my seat because of how cool it was for what it implied for our little British accented heroin. ;)
    I didn't know exactly what - just had to hope it was good ol Palpsy coming back and doing his thing.


    Cheers,
    Jayson
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Informative Informative x 2
    • Hopeful Hopeful x 1
  11. Too Bob Bit

    Too Bob Bit Force Attuned

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2018
    Posts:
    387
    Likes Received:
    6,725
    Trophy Points:
    15,267
    Credits:
    1,813
    Ratings:
    +7,284 / 6 / -0
    In a way you're making my point for me.

    Not being a Catholic does not mean someone is not a Christian.

    Surely it is the Sith's use of the dark side of the Force which brings the unbalance - not that they call themselves Sith. It doesn't matter what any future dark-siders choose to call themselves. They are still the same.

    'Sith' are just the name given by the people who use it. They don't 'own' it (to sort of paraphrase Luke in TLJ).
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Wise Wise x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  12. Deukaliwn

    Deukaliwn Guest

    Credits:
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    All the sins of humankind were washed way at Golgotha. 5 minutes later, a dude walking down the Golgotha hill pickpockets another passerby. +1 in the humankind sin counter. Here we go again.

    Would anyone say, that what Jesus endured and His actions were for nothing, cheapened or retconned by the pick-pocketing dude ? He ended evil and all it's work, fair and square. That was the prophecy.

    Anakin is Space Jesus from birth, and Palpatine is evil incarnated. Jesus killed evil that later on rose again as it always does, and off we go from 0 to 360 again.

    All good. Come on you liked that wordplay :)
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Wise Wise x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  13. Too Bob Bit

    Too Bob Bit Force Attuned

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2018
    Posts:
    387
    Likes Received:
    6,725
    Trophy Points:
    15,267
    Credits:
    1,813
    Ratings:
    +7,284 / 6 / -0
    I wonder if my own views are getting lost in the chatter.

    Any issues I may or may not have with the return of Palpatine have nothing to do with him being a returning Sith - because as far as I am concerned that boat already sailed with the arrival of both Snoke and Kylo Ren. And I have no real issues with that either (although at the time some people did for the very reason that they thought it restored imbalance).

    I suppose what I'm trying to say is that I don't think it makes a lot of sense to dislike Palpatine's return on the basis of 'he's Sith and the Sith were supposed to be vanquished to bring balance to the Force!'. Because the Sith had already returned in everything but name in The Force Awakens.
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Informative Informative x 1
  14. greenbalrog

    greenbalrog Rebel General

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2016
    Posts:
    217
    Likes Received:
    489
    Trophy Points:
    3,657
    Credits:
    952
    Ratings:
    +626 / 1 / -1
    Yes, we now know that Palpatine was behind Snoke, and therefore behind Kylo Ren's rise.

    The difference is that we only knew this in TROS. So, until TLJ Snoke could be anything. It could come from a different cult, be an even older being that predated the Sith, a being from another galaxy, and some speculated he could be the Prime Jedi. There was a sense that he was not a Sith, so all seemed good for the "no more Sith" argument. Anything was possible back then.

    But nope. Snoke was a puppet of Palpatine. So, Kylo suffered the same fate as his grandfather, with Palpatine running the show since the beginning. The Sith were not dead after all. My point being, this was only revealed in TROS, so I think it makes sense to debate the whole Sith thing and I can see why that troubles some people.

    I don't hide that I think Palpatine's return in TROS does cheapen RotJ a bit for me. Because we thought he was dead and the Sith with him. So, there was a big sense of closure and fulfillment with his death. The prophecy was fulfilled, Anakin was redeemed. Good won. That said, I do think it makes sense to see Palpatine return from the point of view of the prequels, the whole "cheat death" thing. So, my feelings are mixed about his return.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Informative Informative x 1
  15. Use the Falchion

    Use the Falchion Force Sensitive

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2015
    Posts:
    1,199
    Likes Received:
    3,022
    Trophy Points:
    10,767
    Credits:
    4,657
    Ratings:
    +3,758 / 21 / -8
    I don't think they are, but they were addressed. It's not the return of the Dark Side that people have a problem with - had the villains been Night Sisters, it would have been fine - it's that specific ideology.
    Why that ideology? Because to many fans it's disrespectful to the intent and creator of the franchise and it's neither creative nor interesting (we're going back to the SAME villains as before; and the Sith already came back in EU). The Knights of Ren were a cool idea because by virtue of being a group they already broke the idea of the Rule of Two, a defining tenant of the Sith. Dark Side doesn't equal Sith, just like how the Light Side isn't simply the Jedi.

    That's one reason I don't like Palpatine's return.

    The other is that it sets up a bad habit of bringing back villains at any time. I don't believe that Rey defeated Palpatine for good, because if he can survive an explosion in a pit, and then the DS2 explosion, and surviving in the vacuum of space long enough to make it to Exogul, Palpatine can survive anything. Star Wars needs a villain for the Sequel Sequel Trilogy? Bring back Palpatine! Need a villain for the comics? Here's good ol' Palpatine! ...okay, maybe I'm being a bit too sardonic here, but the point is still the same.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Great Post Great Post x 1
  16. DigificWriter

    DigificWriter Rebel General

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2019
    Posts:
    730
    Likes Received:
    1,135
    Trophy Points:
    4,742
    Credits:
    1,262
    Ratings:
    +1,841 / 90 / -29
    George Lucas himself helped plot out Palpatine's return, and even gave us new lore/information about the Sith in the process, so this idea that bringing back Palpatine and the Sith is "disrespectful towards him" is a load of bunk.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Great Post Great Post x 1
    • Wise Wise x 1
  17. RoyleRancor

    RoyleRancor Jedi General

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2016
    Posts:
    5,258
    Likes Received:
    29,980
    Trophy Points:
    155,167
    Credits:
    22,380
    Ratings:
    +37,836 / 149 / -96
    She also heard Obi-Wan.
    What role did he play?

    It's a reach at best.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  18. DigificWriter

    DigificWriter Rebel General

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2019
    Posts:
    730
    Likes Received:
    1,135
    Trophy Points:
    4,742
    Credits:
    1,262
    Ratings:
    +1,841 / 90 / -29
    The Sith are a specific sect of Dark Side users, just as the Jedi are a specific sect of Light Side users, and the Jedi Order's Chosen One prophecy specifically pertained to balance being restored through the destruction of the Sith.

    This was and has remained George Lucas' stated intent, and Kathleen Kennedy and the rest of Lucasfilm post-Lucas have adhered ro it.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  19. Too Bob Bit

    Too Bob Bit Force Attuned

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2018
    Posts:
    387
    Likes Received:
    6,725
    Trophy Points:
    15,267
    Credits:
    1,813
    Ratings:
    +7,284 / 6 / -0
    Bringing 'balance to the Force' means the eradication of evil in the Galaxy - that just happens to originally be in the form of the Sith. Choosing to call yourself something different doesn't change that.

    George Lucas said:
    "Which brings us up to the films 4, 5, and 6, in which Anakin's offspring redeem him and allow him to fulfill the prophecy where he brings balance to the Force by doing away with the Sith and getting rid of evil in the universe..."​

    Yes. The 'Rule of Two' - It's always frustrated me as a concept because it's something I consider to be a misinterpretation of what Yoda said, which wasn't meant to be taken literally. He's not talking about a literal ''rule" - rather its a 'rule of nature'. He's talking about a natural sate of being for power craving followers of evil. He's talking about an inevitability, in which there ULTIMATELY can only ever be two, because more than two will not tolerate each other. All apprentices will fight each other to the death until just one remains, and then they will kill the master. If a Darth from the past wrote it down, it's because they observed that's what happens, because it's in their nature. We see stages of the 'rule of two' playing out in the OT and in the ST.

    Basically, the rule of two exists without it being a written rule. In the same way music theory is an observation of what 'works' musically, not a theory that dictates how music works.

    In short: The Rule Of Two happens anyway. Whether you call yourself Sith or not! If the Sith cause imbalance, then so do the Knights Of Ren. Maybe they THINK that means the rule of two doesn't apply to them - but they are wrong!

    I know. I said that - the Sith don't own the dark side - but at the time of the original saga (and before), they are synonymous with each other because there is no other. But it's not being a member of the 'Sith club' that causes 'imbalance' in the Force - it's embracing and using the dark side that does. Even if you're of the Knights Of Ren or any other dark side cult you chose to invent.

    Ah well if I have any issue with the resurrection of Palpatine, then yes, I agree. It just seems a bit lame and lazy! I rolled my eyes when it was first announced, and hoped it was just his ghost haunting the ruins of the Death Star or something, and not the corny, cliched 'back from the dead' from the likes of Dark Empire. But it was and that's what we've got.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Hopeful Hopeful x 1
  20. Jayson

    Jayson Force Sensitive

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2015
    Posts:
    1,334
    Likes Received:
    3,893
    Trophy Points:
    11,667
    Credits:
    5,128
    Ratings:
    +5,854 / 29 / -13
    Of course she heard Obi-Wan.
    The point was that Palpatine was the only dark side voice heard, and Palps is the only character in the films to discuss cheating death.

    Dark Side voices aren't your typical voices communicating from the dead to the protagonists of the series.
    In fact, Palps' voice is the first time that's happened in the saga on screen. In all other cases, it's almost always been Obi-Wan's voice from the beyond speaking.

    When the Force Vision kicks off, it's Yoda and Obi-Wan speaking. That's absolutely unsurprising to anyone. Of course they're the one's speaking.
    But then to hear Palpatine immediately raises questions about why him of all people are appearing as a voice in Rey's Force vision.

    Force visions have always been relevant to the individual. No one speaks or acts in those who doesn't have some sort of relevance to the individual.
    Obi-Wan and Yoda make sense because they're sort of the keepers of the knowledge - the sages of the past. Moses and Solomon, if you will.

    But Lucifer speaking to a soon-to-be prophet in the middle of their prophetic vision should definitely turn heads.
    It would be one thing if Lucifer was just something observed occurring to other people, but when their voice is directed at the prophet directly, that should turn heads.

    I'm not saying that should have clued everyone in on Rey being a Palpatine, but to say it's a reach that his voice was present is not something I can agree with at all, because it's very atypical and immediately raises questions.

    What would be weird and a clear sign of crap writing is if Palp's voice was in Rey's Force vision and then nothing ever happens that addresses Palpatine at all in relation to Rey in some way. If you did that, then you might as well just toss in any old random voice from history for no reason.

    It really only means one thing: Palps is going to have something to do with this trilogy. Whether he comes back is up for grabs, but it's the most logical way to make that voice appearance meaningfully present and related to our protagonist because if it's just a matter of conversation about a guy who once was Emperor, but is now dead, and the Force snuck his voice into her vision as a general bump about the dark side....that's incredibly obscure. Far more obscure than Force visions have ever been before.

    Anakin's (in Clone Wars) is very direct, and Luke's is a bit more metaphorical, but it is never-the-less directly relevant.

    At no point does anyone have visions which contain references of elements or themes which they won't encounter in their story arc.

    So if Palpatine shows up as a voice, and it's unusual for him to do so, then it's not a reach to expect that to imply that he will become relevant at some point.

    Now, honestly, I thought this should be enough, but...

    If you want more foreshadowing, there was the rather large blow up of conversation when Rey and Kylo fought in TFA and a bunch of folks about lost their mind because Rey seemed to be fighting in a style that looked an awful lot like Palpatine's form.
    I have to admit, her "Palpastab" (thrusting like Palps thrusted his saber) didn't go unnoticed to me when I was watching it either.

    Because I did recognize Palp's voice in the Force vision earlier in the film, and because Force visions are always relevant to the protagonist, when she started the "Palpastab", I nodded to myself that indeed Palps was going to come up at some point in some meaningful way.
    I wasn't sure if the dark side was hiding away inside of her and Palpsy's essence was bleeding through that, or if she was related to him, or what exactly - but I knew it wasn't just a throw away accident when literally anything could have been chosen for that voice, and her saber style. She didn't have to fight all raged out and with Palpastabs everywhere.

    As to the general notion of foreshadowing as a whole....
    Well...there's this guy who was went absolutely VIRAL back when he made this video (and I avoided it like the plaque until I had seen TROS because I black-listed all things Star Wars until TROS was over, and now am going backwards and playing catch-up...I don't like spoilers...to the extreme...to me, anything more than a teaser is a spoiler).

    Anway, now...he notes that a lot of his "reason" is wishful thinking, but he bothers to have that wishful thinking because there are elements of foreshadowing.


    Now, there's a LOT of "yyyyeah, OK" going on in his waxing theories, but the point I'm making isn't that he's right. It's that there was enough material in just that one film to provoke the summoning of Palpatine to his mind out of what he was watching....and he didn't even seem to notice the Force vision voice.

    Add on top of that, TLJ where you have this happen...


    And when I saw THAT ... man ... I had to use all willpower to not start following the train of thought and connecting dots into a prediction (I actively resist thinking about what I've seen means for what I will see as much as possible because I LOVE being surprised - so I really try to not even think about what's coming).

    But it still happened as a thought. It hit me fast, and I scrambled to throw that thought in the garbage and not think about it as much as possible (which is probably why I wrote so much about TLJ's narrative structure rather than what occurred in the film and what that means allegorically or narrative within the arc).

    But yeah...I don't know. If you didn't get a notion that Palps was likely to be a thing that was directly brought into the saga, that's fine.
    However, I can't agree that nothing was present that foreshadowed Palpsy showing up. He was all through TFA in foreshadow (not to mention, literally present as a voice in it), and as a result, the "straight to the dark" of TLJ was a further Palpsy foreshadow for me because these films aren't made in a vacuum, so I'm taking the events of TLJ in mind to the events of TFA, and that means if I've got a foreshadowing of Palpsy going on and then I'm shown Rey going "straight to the dark" .... yyyeah.



    Now...I'm not going to get into the debate of whether George Lucas was involved in helping or not helping with bringing back Palpatine - largely because we don't really know the details on this yet. What we do know is that George Lucas was consulted about the story ideas before they wrote the script. What that means exactly, we don't know yet.

    Instead, what I will say is this: I don't really care about the sanctity of "the creator", nor their "intentions".
    I've never cared about that with art of any kind. Hell, I don't even care about that with politics. People say things like, "The forefathers...." to make a compelling argument of creator's intent, but to me...that doesn't mean anything. I don't care what someone meant back when they were doing things.
    I care about what things need now, and what works now.

    I'm not here for Star Wars just because Lucas created it. I hold no sacred vows to any individual in such fashion. No one is king of the intention.
    There's only what I like, and what I don't. Nothing more. Nothing less.

    I like Roddenberry's version of Star Trek, and I hate the new TV series' that have occurred since TNG. It has, for me, progressively become worse with each new series.
    However, I don't dislike them because they don't align with Roddenberry's ideals of story writing.
    It just happens that his ideals of story writing that are no longer employed were the thing that made the show enjoyable to me. In this regard, the issue revolved around the form. Not a single story element in itself.
    Roddenberry designed Star Trek to be a philosophical play instead of a moral play (Andy Griffith, Leave it to Beaver, etc...), where characters didn't fight with each other, and melodrama had no place, and this was because it got in the way of setting up a philosophical dilemma to examine - which was what Roddenberry wanted to use as the focus of the stories - some philosophically social question.

    For the same thing to happen on Star Wars, for me, Star Wars would have to absent its form that Lucas created. And I don't care that Lucas created it as the reason for why I wouldn't like it. I wouldn't like it because that form is pleasing to me. The allegorical refraining theme soap opera is what I show up for.
    If a Star Wars film doesn't have allegory, doesn't employ refraining themes, and isn't a soap opera...then I'm not going to be interested in it.

    But I could care less about individual elements because they are just means to an end - colors on a pallet.

    And, honestly, Lucas is the most wishy-washy guy in the industry. He has changed his mind so many times - about as many times as he's said something's final.
    Remember the whole thing with Darth Maul coming back from the dead?

    In the Press Release version of TPM Maul wasn't cut in half. He just fell down the shaft in one piece.
    Lucas had them go back and cut him in half so people knew he was dead.
    It's in the TPM behind the scenes footage somewhere (I forget exactly where) at one point Lucas says to cut him in half so no matter what, no one can bring him back from being dead.

    And then...Lucas allowed Maul to be brought back.

    Lucas himself has gone back on absolutely a LOT in his time with Star Wars, so even if I did care what the "creator intended" for a specific element, I really wouldn't be able to have any confidence in the idea that Lucas would be against Palps coming back because he was once final on the idea of Palps being dead.

    For example, his plans at one point looked like this:

    "At that time, Lucas always said that he had enough material for three earlier films and three later films, to make a total of nine, and there were outlined materials certainly for the later three that culminated with this big clash with the Emperor in Episode 9." - Gary Kurtz​

    At some point, this was part of his idea. It's unlikely that this was part of his Trilogy of Whills that he would have made had he not sold to Disney.

    And I suppose that's the ultimate thing with this "creator's intent" that I don't quite understand.
    Lucas only really sketched out a basic skeletal version of what we see in TLJ as his number 7 (a crotchety hermit Luke hiding from the Galaxy who refuses to train a young woman who wants his help).

    So by the notion of not what the Lucas wanted, the entire Sequel Trilogy can't be liked if we're being consistent about the idea, because Lucas has talked about the rest of his ideas and they are nowhere close to what we have.

    He wanted to make a trilogy about how the Force really is the Whills, they connect the midichlorians, and use them to use people like vehicles.
    That's his analogy of his ideas.

    Personally - after reading and listening to his ideas...I'm rather happy I didn't get his version.
    I just wish he would release public films still, because I'd really be interested in his pure cinema work he's now doing privately.

    ...Like Darth Maul and Boba Fett?

    My wife has a saying for Star Wars that she's had before the Sequels ever came out, and she's not even a huge Star Wars fan. In fact, until the sequels, she didn't like Star Wars.

    Her position is: "In Star Wars, if you see someone fall off of anything and you never see them again - regardless of anything...don't assume they won't be around anymore."

    This doesn't mean everyone who falls off will come back. It's just basically her way of saying she's never surprised if someone does come back into the film even after they've died.

    And who can blame her for thinking this?
    Obi-Wan, Darth Maul, Yoda, Han, Boba Fett, Kylo Ren, and the Emperor have all been killed, disappeared in some way, and then shown up in other films.
    Now, Obi-Wan and Yoda, true - they are Force Ghosts, and Han is a memory.

    If you're talking about true "nope - still not dead yet", then you're talking about Darth Maul, Boba Fett, Kylo Ren, and the Emperor.

    But her point for herself is that just because someone dies in this series, doesn't mean they won't be in anymore films.

    Because it's a soap opera...like Destiny. Sheesh - I think it's a rule that every character has to die and come back to life in that show. lol

    Star Wars isn't far off from that. Character's have already had a long history of dying, being proclaimed certainly dead and then coming back.
    Again, most notably, Darth Maul and Boba Fett.

    Cheers,
    Jayson
     
    #80 Jayson, Jan 31, 2020
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2020
    • Like Like x 4
    • Informative Informative x 1
Loading...

Share This Page