He sounded nothing like Grover.
Fozzy Bear, on the other hand....
Isn't it, though?
Phantom Menace is the best Prequel.
- Thread starter TheLobes
- Start date
He sounded nothing like Grover.
Fozzy Bear, on the other hand....
Isn't it, though?
He sounded more to me like Fozzy Bear and Snoopy had a kid.
Get that out of mind, suckers!
Get that out of mind, suckers!
That's not what "logical fallacy" means. Meanwhile, it is completely absurd to say that two Sith cannot have ruled the galaxy, because they did.
TremblingBluStar said:
That is a contradiction. Cave Vader was not a "legitimate threat" like the clones, that was the whole point. Did Obi-Wan "fail" when he killed Maul?
TremblingBluStar said:
To battle droids. How exactly is that "bloodthirsty"? Perhaps the word you're looking for is oil-thirsty? And how is fighting to save the lives of others in any way out of character or reprehensible for a knight?
TremblingBluStar said:
You are now. But I wasn't talking about interpretations, I was talking about your apparent unfamiliarity with the films' actual content. For example:
TremblingBluStar said:
That's a demonstrably false statement, not something that can be handwaved away as "interpretation" or "opinion". All statements are not equally valid.
TremblingBluStar said:
Which, as you may note, I've never said.
TremblingBluStar said:
Wrong. That's why argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy. Majorities are often wrong. A majority once believed that the world was flat. Was it, in fact, flat at that point?
Last edited:
For the record, Grover was Sesame Street vintage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZhEcRrMA-M
I liked that particular one when I was a li'l 'n'.
A logical fallacy is an error in logic. Saying that a group rules the galaxy when there are only two members is not logical. Hence, it is a logical fallacy.
Vader approaching someone without saying a word isn't threatening? How about Hitler? Or Dracula? Or Jason Vorhees?
All the clone troopers did was raise their weapons, and then it was "off wit' their heads!"
Do the clone troopers have oil for blood?
Starting a war to save the lives of a small group of people seems rather out of character for "keepers of the peace", as the Jedi are called on several occasions.
Ummm.... thanks?
Where is it mentioned that Luke destroyed the Death Star in the subsequent films? I'm not talking the special editions or uber-special editions. The only mention ever made is in the opening crawl of ESB, and then no mention of Luke destroying it was made.
We are talking about a Star Wars film, right? Not a comprehensive worldview or a view of science based on religion. You can't scientifically prove that people who find the prequels flawed are wrong.
There is nothing wrong with liking a film that is fundamentally flawed. Hell, I'm a huge fan of Johnny Nmemonic, and that was a horridly bad movie!
I just find it pointless to try to logically argue that a film so many people were bothered by is not in any way flawed. If the film were a great film, people would have accepted it as such.
Granted, every film has it's detractors. The prequels just have far more than their proportionate share of hardcore fans. There is no large community of people who pick apart A Clockwork Orange, or Alien.
Why do you think the prequels have been targeted?
Ah hah!
I did watch Sesame Street, as most kids growing up in the 80's.
Last edited:
Palpatine and Vader aren't the only ones ruling the galaxy-Palpatine, at least early in his reign, has mas Amedda (The horned blue guy) and Sly Moore (The bald lady) as his vices; as well as the Regional Governors (AKA Moffs) who oversee each sector (Tarkin was one of these). In RETURN OF THE JEDI we see Palpatine conferring with a few advisors and viziers. (The grand Vizier, Sate Pestage, was going to be introduced in THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK but was cut; he plays a role in the Rogue Squadron comics set after ROTJ though). There is also of course the senate until ANH, where Palpatine gives direct control of the Empire's sectors over to the Moffs due to the Death Star.
That being said, the Moffs seem to defer directly to the Emperor at times, and even can command Vader. We see this in the conference room in ANH, and although it might not be part of the finished film's canon, there's a deleted scene included on the blu-rays in which Jerjorodd (The moff seen in the film's opening scene, although referred to in the film as "The commander") states Vader can not enter the Emperor's tower (To which Vader gives him the force choke) due to the Emperor's command. (There's also some interesting deleted scenes in which Jerjorodd questions a command by the Emperor, but that's in a different context).
Jerjorodd, interestingly enough, was in an earlier draft given a much larger role as a more Tarkinesque character who is Vader's rival for the Emperor's favor (Part of this storyline was recycled somewhat for the Shadows of The Empire multimedia event in 1996, which had Vader face a rival).
As for Palpatine managing to hold this all together, it's implied in Timothy Zahn's trilogy that the Emperor had some force influence over the Empire, and when he died, that influenced slipped and the Imperials got sloppy and lost Endor. He could've also influenced the senate this way.
That being said, the Moffs seem to defer directly to the Emperor at times, and even can command Vader. We see this in the conference room in ANH, and although it might not be part of the finished film's canon, there's a deleted scene included on the blu-rays in which Jerjorodd (The moff seen in the film's opening scene, although referred to in the film as "The commander") states Vader can not enter the Emperor's tower (To which Vader gives him the force choke) due to the Emperor's command. (There's also some interesting deleted scenes in which Jerjorodd questions a command by the Emperor, but that's in a different context).
Jerjorodd, interestingly enough, was in an earlier draft given a much larger role as a more Tarkinesque character who is Vader's rival for the Emperor's favor (Part of this storyline was recycled somewhat for the Shadows of The Empire multimedia event in 1996, which had Vader face a rival).
As for Palpatine managing to hold this all together, it's implied in Timothy Zahn's trilogy that the Emperor had some force influence over the Empire, and when he died, that influenced slipped and the Imperials got sloppy and lost Endor. He could've also influenced the senate this way.
Last edited:
It has been working perfectly fine for any royal family in history, so not only is this not a logical fallacy, but I find your refusal to accept this frankly bizarre.
In my viewings of the OT, it seemed that Luke has started to practise a few Jedi tricks prior to TESB (demonstrated in the ice cave) and begun to train in ernest prior to ROTJ (he is much stronger and at ease with his Jedi abilities in the start of that film). The training period in TESB seems more like a "crash course" in Jedi basics and of course doesn't really gel with the decades of tutelage from the prequels, but then again the Jedi order was in a tight spot and couldn't really afford the time!
True, but I was talking about the period of time in ROTS. Padme goes from not very pregnant to very visibly pregnant during the course of the movie - strongly suggesting the passing of several months at least.
There's also Ben's ghost that could've helped him out between ANH and ESB (Although between ESB and ROTJ the two don't seem to have talked at all, judging by Luke's reaction). Zahn's novel "Allegiance" has this be the case, as do a few of the comics.
Interesting that Zahn's first novel also effectively writes out Obi-Wan, Anakin and Yoda's ghosts from the rest of the post-ROTJ EU early in the novel(They apparentally go to a higher plane of existence or something).
Interesting that Zahn's first novel also effectively writes out Obi-Wan, Anakin and Yoda's ghosts from the rest of the post-ROTJ EU early in the novel(They apparentally go to a higher plane of existence or something).
Same here. I get that he doesn't like the prequals but this is not really a great way to make his point. There's nothing off with two Sith ruling the galaxy.
I find it frankly bizarre when people disagree with me too!
It's just a difference of opinion over one line that I found strange, and really not worth arguing over.
Besides which, my original point was that it's strange that Palpatine would identify with a group (the Sith) but have no interest in increasing their number. I can't think of a single example in history where someone sought power for a group of two people but didn't use conversion to expand the size of said group.
^They were looking to convert Luke in the OT, although it's not 100% clear if they wanted him as a Sith Lord or "Dark Jedi". They just state in the film that they want him as a 'powerful ally if he could be turned'. So presumabely, while each wants Luke to usurp the other (Palpatine needs a fresh apprentice since Vader is injured, Vader wants to rule with his son and overthrow the Emperor-a similar temptation is extended to Padme in ROTS although she's not force material) they tell each other he'd just be a dark side ally or something.
There's an interesting bit in the ROTS novel where we get input on Dooku's thoughts and he is thinking of rebuilding the Sith as an army with Anakin as the first convert, and him in charge. However he realizes at the end that Palpatine wants to keep the rule of two.
Sith it seems are always looking either to become the Master, or replace their apprentices with new ones. Although I can't really see Maul leading the seperatists.
There's an interesting bit in the ROTS novel where we get input on Dooku's thoughts and he is thinking of rebuilding the Sith as an army with Anakin as the first convert, and him in charge. However he realizes at the end that Palpatine wants to keep the rule of two.
Sith it seems are always looking either to become the Master, or replace their apprentices with new ones. Although I can't really see Maul leading the seperatists.
Pretty good summary there, Whofan. The only thing I would add is that in Return of the Jedi, once Luke has turned himself in, Vader's ideas of what's going to happen are likely changing. From the script (source):
I've always believed that "It is too late for me" means that Vader thinks himself unredeemable. But perhaps also we're supposed to read it that it's now really sinking in that Luke could end up as the Emperor's new apprentice, with Vader himself dead.
That is the impression I got without ever seeing the PT and being exposed to the "rule of two". Vader explicitly told Luke that they could overthrow the Emperor and rule the galaxy together, while Palpatine pretty explicitly egged Luke into killing Vader.
Yeah. From the same source I just cited:
That seems to be the practically the Rule of Two to a tee.
I don't know. I took it to mean that the Emperor could only have one apprentice, or that he wanted a younger, stronger one. That makes sense.
Not that there can only be two Sith existing at once at any one time anywhere in the galaxy. That is stupid.
Point.
Why would it be stupid? Any more and they'd be noticed by the Jedi and they'd more than likely be plotting against each other for control.
Last edited:
