Why Palpatine returning makes sense.

That's what I was more or less getting at.

In TFA, she's driven to be defined by a lineage - a noble one at that seems particularly of interest.
I agree that she had a traumatic mental block - that's overwhelmingly shown all over the place in TFA, but she never-the-less does want to know who her parents were because she doesn't remember them. She has foggy impressions.

The important bit is that she's absolutely obsessed with being defined by her lineage and can't find value so long as she can't find her family and set her place in the world right again.

And you're dead right about the TLJ thing. That exchange is what fuels her growth and allows her to move past being consumed by being defined by her lineage.
Without TLJ pushing her to be settled in herself just as herself...if we still had the character we see in TFA jumping straight into TROS...she wouldn't last two seconds and would bite the entirety of the narrative that she was evil by definition of her lineage. She wouldn't have faltered and feared she wasn't able to transcend it, refined her center learned in TLJ, and then trascend her evil lineage. She would have just ... plop ... I'm a Palpatine now. Time to go be evil. I suck. I hate my destiny. etc...
Rage, hatred, soul rotting away, emptiness, consumed by darkness.

Cheers,
Jayson

 

I don't consider explaining how a character believed to be dead for 35 years being alive "spoon feeding". Knowing if someone is left handed or right handed or likes chocolate milk over blue milk is spoon feeding unnecessary information. Explaining how a dead person is alive again seems vital to me.

If Jaws II showed the exact same shark terrorizing Massachusetts beach-goers a second time, is it not important to know how this shark is alive after exploding in Jaws or is it only important that it is terrorizing again?

 

You're not wrong here, but I think it's more a matter of form.

Star Wars doesn't really explain a lot of stuff in it - it never really has.
Allegorical stories often don't explain stuff in fine detail.

The implied surrounding of Palpatine being all hooked up to a machine, missing parts of his body, having milky eyes - all that until he starts sucking off the essence out of Rey and Ben implies the how.

Now, it doesn't explicitly say how.
No one's bringing up an exposition of the technological methods, or the metaphysical solutions or loopholes that allowed him to be brought back from the dead, or survive.

And that's really annoying to some folks.

On the other hand, no one really explains in the Dark Crystal how exactly stealing essence works. We just know that there's a crystal thing, these guys use it, it sucks the essence out of creatures, they drink the essence, they keep living.

It's all very fuzzy logic that looks like technology but behaves like magic. Magic that is never really explained.

It's not very different with Palpatine. We have everything there shown to us. How that all works, and why it works is absolutely not explained and we have no clue.
It works because it did. However that works. Cult following. Cyborgish feeding machine. Palpatine stuck to it like a marionette.
Check. He's been pulled back and surviving on extreme life support.

Soul sucking gives him more life and physical regeneration. Check.

Why? How?
No clue.

That will irritate the hell out of some folks, surely.
For me, personally, this isn't a big deal at all. That's par for the course of fairy tale logic.
I actually get bored if things are spelled out in fantasy stories. For me (and I'm not saying anyone is wrong to think otherwise - everyone's experiential enjoyments are different), I enjoy movies that are more paintings than expositions.

Of course, I also love watching movies with the sound turned off, so .... I acknowledge that I'm rather bias towards being perfectly fine with minimal information.

Cheers,
Jayson

 

Personally, I don’t care much at all about the mechanics of Palpie’s resurrection, but I’d have appreciated it if the circumstances had been worked in with the story somehow. Connect it to the dyad maybe? To the death of Rey’s parents? Somehow made it essential to the core characters’ respective journeys rather than empty incident.

Why is the Emperor undead? Because the plot required it. Sure, but that doesn’t mean the conditions couldn’t have been incorporated into the narrative in a meaningful way. That’s a false dichotomy.

 

Star Wars has always relied on "unexplained plot convenience" as a storytelling device. Expecting that to change is a futile exercise, and if you can't stop yourself from obsessing over what has, again, been a hallmark of what SW is, it's probably time for you to stop consuming content related to the property.

 

Having Palpatine return, to me, was an amazing homage to the Legend Books, as well as, adding that extra layer of character building to him. I grasp why people do not like it, but that's also due - imo - the fact people want everything given to them in the movies. The current trend in every avenue of media is having multiple sources for information. I have this argument every time Star Wars is brought up in my household, and it still stands, movies can only carry so much - you need to really get into the other forms of media to have the full story conveyed.

 

Star Wars has never "given everything to audiences in the movies", as I noted, so expecting that is like expecting a fish to walk on two legs.

 

I’m fairly confident that “obsessing” isn’t a very accurate portrayal here. It’s a perfectly valid criticism to question the method a screenwriter choses to depict the conditions of their screenplay. It’s a perfectly valid observation to point out that the details concerning this plot point could have been organically integrated into the narrative had they chosen to. It was an element that was omitted, presumably, because it would have been more work than was worth to them to include. I don’t see where the problem is in acknowledging that and expressing the personal preference that it had been handled differently.

I’m a Star Wars fan, but I’m not a blindly obedient fan practicing unwavering fealty. All the SW movies are flawed in my eyes in some way. I don’t just pretend those flaws aren’t there. I simply accept them as being a part of this thing I love and continue to love it anyway. I’d very much appreciate it if you could be respectful enough to recognize that there’s no ‘correct’ way to “consume” this property and discourage others from engaging. Your perspective does not dictate the reality of others. Just because their personal opinions, based on their own personal preferences, don’t agree with yours, doesn’t make them ‘wrong’.

 

From my perspective, predicating criticism of the Star Wars franchise on it not offering in-depth explanations about every single element of its overarching narrative when it has never done so before makes no sense and strikes me as being indicative of having grown away from being able to enjoy it.

 

@DigificWriter

I don't think that's where @eeprom is coming from.

I know that's where some criticism about it is coming from, but Eepom is more talking about how it's woven into the story.
To him, it felt more shoved into the story and not really sewn into it.

He's not really even talking about the explanation being a wide open exposition.

What he's meaning is that it's independent of any character arc or motive.
By the time the movie has started, Palps' return is already done and involved no character in any way other than himself.

What Eeprom is saying is that it would have been interesting to him to see it included as a character motive rather than just a pseudo-backstory to the film.
For example, using his Dyad idea.

The cult could have made Rey come about, and her "parents" could have been cult followers who went rogue (rather than good), and they made Rey because they wanted to make a "programmed" counterpart to Ben because they needed the power of the Dyad to complete the resurrection of Palpatine.
The cultists could get Palps mostly existing into this realm, but to be fully present would require a powerful Dyad's energy because the Dyad channels its existence in this realm by being connected through the Force ethereally, and that connection is the energy that's needed to connect Palpsy's soul from the great beyond fully back into this one (which we kind of got a hint of when he sucked their souls out of them).

And for this reason, they used a bit of Palpsy they had from some holy "relic" (like churches do - keeping tiny scraps of dead people as holy relics) to create Rey; because they needed a great power.

But, again, the caretakers of her who were to raise her in secret until the great ceremony when her and Ben were powerful enough to generate the needed energy went rogue and wanted to use Rey for their own purposes - which ultimately led to their deaths when hunted down.

Further, to just tidy this up - they could have made Rey "good" and Ben "bad", or at least nudged things that way, because they needed the Dyad to be tormented to get the maximum energy out of it (a very Sithy way of doing things), so they could have been sending Ben influencing thoughts that led to that view that Luke picked up on and freaked him out, and influencing thoughts to Rey to push her towards good - basically the opposite of what their lineage's inherently would suggest for the respective destiny's.
But, again, the plan backfires and they both end up good just like they do in TROS because of their close bond.
​

Something like this would pull the idea more into Rey and Ben's narrative and make the whole thing more "organic" instead of just part of the backstory of TROS.

None of this kind of idea offers more explanation about how Palpsy got back - it doesn't increase the exposition.
However, it does increase the connection between Palpsy's return and the primary two lead's character arcs.

It's not (I don't think, anyway) that Eeprom is saying that the explanation was poor. He was saying that he wished it was more organically tied into the narrative.

Cheers,
Jayson

 

As @Jayson wonderfully articulated, I myself have zero interest in “in-depth explanations about every single element”. I’m sure some do, but that’s not all that interesting to me.

The concept of ‘cheating death’ was a pretty prominent component to this story. I’d have found it valuable to explore how a dark sider was able to achieve this and how it differed from how a light sider managed it: selflessly giving life versus selfishly taking it (one would think). That duality isn’t absent from the narrative, but there was a very pronounced avenue where they could have really delved into this idea and had it enrich the overall story (IMO).

Only BAD exposition is boring exposition. Nobody likes bad exposition. Every story requires explanation of its content in some way shape or form though. The mark of a truly talented storyteller is when they can seamlessly fold the expository details in with the narrative so it feels organic and actually matters to the characters and the audience. I believe doing that with Palp’s revival would have been worthwhile and not inherently excessive. Not for pedantic purposes of lore or whatever, but to better emphasize the core nature of this underlining conflict.

I’m not saying ‘TROS = BAD’ because it didn’t do this. Only that it was a potentially beneficial opportunity that I feel was missed. That’s just in theory though. They could have royally botched the execution and I’d instead be here criticizing THAT. Who’s to say? Maybe I just like to complain

 

@eeprom Ok.

Sorry for misreading what you wanted.

I still don't think this kind of thing was needed, but to each their own.

 

Yeah, it's not needed.
That's why he was saying it was a missed opportunity. Like, it's really a cool idea that could have been explored and made more rich than it was because the version we have is just enough and nothing more in presentation - there's no real flavoring to the cheating death given in any sort of nuance.

I agree as well, it's not needed.
I also agree that it would have been a neat idea to explore further.

However, I think the real pickle is in time.
There's so much going on and things to focus on that it's really challenging to squeeze more in. To do this, it would have had to have been done from the floor up as part of one of the other narratives, and it would have required a tad bit more exposition, than the single line that's given to dialogue in the current version, to correlate the parts together. For example, the Dyad idea I spit balled before would require a few more than a single line. It would take probably a good four or so lines each scene from at least five or six characters in total to tie those two concepts together unless you wanted a super clunky vomit of exposition from Palpsy (and that would not be good), or it would take twice the dialogue time in non-dialogue visual narrative to convey the same concepts without relying on dialogue.

And really...when you're paying attention to all of the moving parts they were paying attention to in this film narratively (and I'm including the thematic chiasms they worked their butts off to do), and the whole side-kick in the knee of writing the script around Fisher's pre-canned footage with a 50/50 shot at a given sequence being able to make it all the way through post like you want it to, I think it's really hard to think of every narrative variation for every modular narrative component, and when you get to a point that causes the whole puzzle to lock into place...really...you just run with that, because let's not forget that Trevorrow, Terrio, and Abrams all have conveyed that this story was not easy to figure out how to write.

We have the luxury of hind-sight 20/20, and I'm quite sure that even Abrams and Terrio look at the film and see a bunch of things they could have done differently, and have had sudden moments of realizations of ideas they wish they had thought of during production.

While I'm mostly guessing with Terrio, I'm absolutely certain of this for Abrams because Abrams has talked about things he has thought of after production wraps on nearly every film he has made, and has actively said that as soon as he gets done with a film he immediately starts tearing it apart and finding faults in it - it's a compulsion that he has.

So, while I agree it would have been cool, it's so very hard for me to imagine how that would have been squeezed in without re-writing a ton of material, and even at that, in this films' case, I feel a bit wrong in holding the lack of taking the opportunity against them considering everything.

I'm mostly just in awe of this film.

Cheers,
Jayson

 

Here’s another scenario: What if Palpatine’s son (Rey’s father) had been sacrificed in some ill-defined dark ritual in order to resurrect him? That’s it. No more granular detail than that. No bulleted lists. No PowerPoint presentation. Just a premise. A specific answer to the specific question that doesn’t waste any time with any of the assorted minutia. Our imaginations do all that like usual.

Like ‘Saturn Devouring His Son’, Palpatine, the darkside father, prized his own life above his child’s and was willing to cannibalize his own flesh and blood (similar to what he eventually intends to do with Rey). That informs the characters, the themes, the philosophies, the motivations - and takes up next to no additional screen time. We just fudge the conditions of Rey’s dead parents a bit to be more significant to the overall story. That’s all.

I’m not saying this is how it should have actually been done. It’s just a proof-of-concept demonstrating that we could have both gotten an answer and also have it be relevant. I’m sure scores of folks would still find this incredibly unsatisfying, but it’s at least a bit more than ‘…something something something, darkside, something something…’

This is probably really nothing more than the ‘bargaining’ step of grief though

I have plenty of empathy for the short turnaround they had to get this mammoth project together. I just wanted to stress that this particular criticism isn’t baseless and unreasonable. Just because it’s being leveraged as a naked excuse to dump on the movie by some, doesn’t mean it’s totally unfounded.

 

Eh, I don't see your issue as related too much to the issue of not having enough explanation.

Yours is more, 'Not enough expression'.

The one about explanation is a bit lost on me because I don't think Star Wars really gives much for the more fantastic stuff...in fact, the more fantastic the moment is, the less well explained it tends to be.
But, further, in all actuality there's plenty of exposition in the film explaining how he came back...it's just almost entirely visual instead of through dialogue.

So I can't really relate to that being an issue, but your issue of expression makes sense.
That I can at least understand and see evident in the film.

So I don't think of you as lumped into the other.

Cheers,
Jayson

 

Question.

If Palpy was siphoning off Ren and Rey's powers to rejuvenate himself. Why did he need Rey to kill him so he could transfer his essence into her form? Why did he not just attack her and siphon off her powers when she first showed up in his throne room? Or was it that Rey on her own wouldn't provide enough juice to get him recharged. So it was just easier for him to bait her into killing him so he could take over her body.

 

His first plan seems to have been to use Kylo as his new host once he’d gotten rid or Rey and fully succumbed to the darkside. When that didn’t work, his plan was to get Rey to succumb to the darkside. When that didn’t work, he conveniently discovered the ‘dyad’ and its wonderful plot-based healing powers. So, opportunity knocked and THAT became his plan.

That’s how it came across to me anyhow.

 

Someone posted on a SW YT channel that it was his plan was to have Ren confront Rey ,

As soon as Rey found out that Palpy killed her parents and the reason for her hellish childhood. She would have lost it and killed Ren...and this might have worked if the film had the fight taken place somewhere more conveninet. While it's noted that he's stronger and more skilled than she is. She's his weakness.. Ren is deeply in love/infatuated with her and does not want to see her permanently harmed. That's why I am guessing she asked him why he didn't kill her when he had the opportunity. He wouldn't give the fight his all and she'd easily slay him.

Then Rey would have gone to Exogol killed Palpy and allowed him to get her essence. It's true that while she , Chewie, Poe and Finn had been tasked with originally being headed to Exegol. She might have not been persuaded to kill the old man on her own, given the fact that she did not have any incentive to end his life and Finn (as we saw in the film) would have talked her down.

The last bit just doesn't make sense to me that if Palpy could reboot himself with Rey and Ben's powers then why didn't he just do so when Rey came before him. I am guessing that Rey's powers on her own weren't enough to give to him the juice he needed. That's why he needed to transfer his essence into her.

 

That's the impression I got. He changed the strategy only after he discovered that dyad thing, or was it the other way around. It's been so long ago that I've seen the movie

 

It didn’t appear to be Palp’s plan to steal anyone’s power until the dyad scenario dropped in his lap. From what was detailed, his plan was to do what every Sith before him had implicitly done: have his apprentice take his life in an act of darkness and then possess them in return.