Star Wars: Lucasfilm/Disney Planning Stand Alone Movies

[Lord Tesla]

Darth Vader IS DEAD.

No, he isn't. Darth Vader was a name, or if you prefer more syllables, a persona, adopted by Anakin Skywalker, while giving his allegiance to the Sith. And how can a name die? (Leaving aside two related facts: he's a fictional character, and as such is not mortal as actual, physical beings, who may or may not be characters, are; and, if a film were to be made during the period between ROTS and ROTJ, he would be as alive as alive can be.) Especially when...

Anakin Skywalker IS DEAD.

The man who bore the name isn't dead.

The scripts say "he dies". The novel states he dies. Wookiepedia states he dies. To be a ghost, ONE MUST DIE.

And in the scripts and the books and the movie, etc., etc., etc., he appears at the end of ROTJ, as a complete, very vital-looking luminous being. Again I quote Master Yoda: "Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter." You can lose your body without losing your life.

As someone says in another franchise, only his body was in death. He, Skywalker, was not in death. He might have died, but at the very least he didn't stay dead.

I regret the use of the term "Force Ghost." It was casual. In my defense, I can only say that I was trying to keep this from becoming a chore. Anakin isn't a ghost. He is a luminous being, fully intact--and fully restored, in fact, to judge from the retooled ending of ROTJ.

You're looking at this much too conventionally. You must--what the hell? I'm in a quoting mood: You must unlearn what you have learned. :yoda:

And my point about Vader is that he engages in villainous and unredemptive activities.

In the Original Trilogy? Where? When?

He has one moment of heroism at the end of Return of the Jedi. For JEJ to return means seeing Vader in his prime. Killing Jedi and Rebels and carrying out the Emperor's bidding. Heroic?

1) I do believe I said he was a popular character, and villains have been very popular and been the central characters of films before this. It's been quite entertaining, often enough.

2) I never said everything he did was heroic, only that he was the hero. And he was: Anakin Skywalker, who was, for a time, known as Darth Vader, is the hero. Saving Naboo royalty, destroying Death Donuts, rescuing various important individuals, serving the Republic, saving Luke, balancing the Force. He did all that. It says so, in the books, the scripts, the movies, the comics, the guides to this, that, and the other. Not sure about Wookiepedia, though... :scratchchin:

3) The Rebellion was insignificant. So was the Empire. You'll recall what Darth Vader said about the Death Star, which stood for the Empire: "Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed. The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the Force." That was what was important, and what it all came down to: The Force. So, trying to stomp out the Rebellion and helping Obi-Wan become a luminous being, are not terribly important things, and, considering he was sworn to serve the Emperor, completely in the line of duty, and reasonably done.

[Justin]

Are you justifying the things Darth Vader did in the original trilogy because he was really a good guy on the inside, and the bad things just don't matter compared to the good things? Sorry but that doesn't wash.

[Talcy]

For crying out loud, Tesla. STOP with this! He is dead. The man is dead. What &*&^ing planet do you live on? What villainous an unredemptive activities in the Original Trilogy?? Choking people to death repeatedly, torturing his own daughter (whether he realised who she was or not), a willing participant in the destruction of an entire planet, KILLING THE GOOD GUYS, trying to kill his own son and maiming him.

Darth Vader was, for the most part, not a hero. At the last minute he remembered who he was but that does not wipe away the things he did. You point out that you never said everything he did was heroic, but to make a stand alone film about Darth Vader would, logocally, cover a period of his life when he was outrightly evil and not heroic in the slightest. To do otherwise would be to plant doubt in his mind during that peroid, which would dilute the effect of the character during SW and ESB.

Seriously, this is getting ridiculous.

Also, basing a stand alone film on a villain - so there is the need to introduce a new hero. This isn't Hannibal Lecter we're dealing with. Audiences do go to the movies to see the bad guy win like that.

[Javen]

But he's not dead in my heart. :p

[Talcy]

^This.

:beer:

[thepepgal]

As Obi-Wan said to Luke: "You'll find the truths we cling to depend on our point of view."

For me Vader/Anakin is dead. He is now a Force Ghost. Ghosts don't live they exist. I never heard of them breeding new life.

Finally remember, this universe all evolve from a movie 36 years ago so it isn't real but fiction. You can pick up any book or movie and at that point of the story he will be either alive or dead and either on the light side or dark side of the Force. It is your choice.

[Lord Tesla]

Are you justifying the things Darth Vader did in the original trilogy because he was really a good guy on the inside, and the bad things just don't matter compared to the good things? Sorry but that doesn't wash.

What I'm saying is, in the original trilogy, nothing Vader did needs justifying. As I said somewhere above, these are essentially Samurai movies, and Vader is essentially a Samurai (Vader would be analogous to the Emperor's hatamoto), and there's just nothing he does in the original trilogy that's out of line with the proper conduct of a Samurai's duty to his lord. Pursuing enemies, uncovering and suppressing plots and insurrections, avenging himself on a foe while eliminating a chief enemy of his lord's into the bargain--I mean, where's the Villainy in all that? (And remember, Luke did sense inner conflict as early as ESB, which must also be considered in any attempt to paint Vader as an undiluted Black Hat Villain.)

So it doesn't matter if won't lather up. It doesn't need washing in the first place.

[Lord Tesla]

For crying out loud, Tesla. STOP with this! He is dead. The man is dead. What &*&^ing planet do you live on?

Mars.

No, seriously, I'm as much an Earthman as any man here.

Not sure why I have to stop holding my views, or keep them quiet, or what difference it makes what planet I'm on. (Yes, I know it's a figure of speech.)

What villainous an unredemptive activities in the Original Trilogy?? Choking people to death repeatedly, torturing his own daughter (whether he realised who she was or not), a willing participant in the destruction of an entire planet, KILLING THE GOOD GUYS, trying to kill his own son and maiming him.

Good is a point of view, Talcy. And the particular incidents against his own children you cite are the most nearly villainous, and only remotely villainous, things he does in the whole OT. I've said before, and I'm about to say it again: Samurai. Choking people? To death? Heavens! He would have been within his rights to take their heads with his saber. Destroying a planet? Remember what planets are in this milieu, given its size, and their number: cities, or at most city-states. And Alderaan was eyeball deep in a conspiracy against the Empire. It was razed, as would be any enemy stronghold in such a situation. Of course, with the superlaser, the Empire managed not only to raze it to the ground, but to raze the ground, too. (Hell, if that kind of destruction makes for villainy, maybe we'd better dig up Churchill and Truman and put them on trial for war crimes...)

Darth Vader was, for the most part, not a hero. At the last minute he remembered who he was but that does not wipe away the things he did. You point out that you never said everything he did was heroic, but to make a stand alone film about Darth Vader would, logocally, cover a period of his life when he was outrightly evil and not heroic in the slightest. To do otherwise would be to plant doubt in his mind during that peroid, which would dilute the effect of the character during SW and ESB.

I disagree, which I'm sure comes as no surprise. First, as to diluting the impact of the character in the OT, there's truth to that. However, that's already been done in the Prequels. Second, as I also noted, films centering on villains (shockingly behaving as villains!) are not without precedent. And not unsuccessful. Third, it would be possible to put Vader in a situation inside the OT and PT-OT gap, isolated from any claptrap about the Rebellion, where his OT tactics and his character, would be much more appealing than those of his opponents. He remains a villain, but is, in that special instance, then, the lesser of two evils, and more sympathetic.

Seriously, this is getting ridiculous.

Is it ever.

Also, basing a stand alone film on a villain - so there is the need to introduce a new hero. This isn't Hannibal Lecter we're dealing with. Audiences do go to the movies to see the bad guy win like that.

I'm afraid I don't quite follow you there.

[Talcy]

On my last point there, for there to be a stand alon movie focusing on Darth Vader, who are the audience meant to engage/sympathise with? A mass murdering representative of a tyrannical despot?

Good is a point of view - it certainly is. But an audience knows right from wrong, the good guys from the bad guys. Darth Vader is a villain. There are no two ways about it.

As to my first point, it's your insistence that Darth Vader is "not dead" that is driving me up the wall. Yes, it's your opinion, but as a fact, it is wrong.

[Lord Tesla]

As Obi-Wan said to Luke: "You'll find the truths we cling to depend on our point of view."

Well, yes, but...

Obi-Wan Kenobi was full of crap. "I haven't gone by the name of 'Obi-Wan' since, oh, before you were born"; "A young Jedi named Darth Vader, a pupil of mine until he turned to evil, betrayed and murdered your father"; "Strike me down, and I shall become powerful than you can possibly imagine"; "You will learn from Yoda, the Jedi Master who instructed me"; "That boy was our last hope"; (When Luke declares he can't kill his own father: ) "Then the Emperor has already won"; and the biggest load of all was: "[Your father] ceased to be Anakin Skywalker and became Darth Vader. When that happened, the good man who was your father was destroyed. So what I told you was true...from a certain point of view."

For me Vader/Anakin is dead. He is now a Force Ghost. Ghosts don't live they exist. I never heard of them breeding new life.

But, if they exist, they exist in the Force, and the Force, as we all know, is created by all living things and is bound up inextricably with them; and, not only that, permeates the galaxy, and...once upon a time, it brought into being a wee lad named Anakin Skywalker, without recourse to a father...so, if the Force, of which Anakin is a part and a product, can breed new life in that case, certainly it can in others, and, so it can be inferred, can the living dead Jedi who are, as noted, part of the Force.

So...he's not, and they're not, alive? How's that again?

Finally remember, this universe all evolve from a movie 36 years ago so it isn't real but fiction. You can pick up any book or movie and at that point of the story he will be either alive or dead and either on the light side or dark side of the Force. It is your choice.

With certain reservations about the definition of life and death in this context as noted above, I can't really disagree with this.

[Lord Tesla]

On my last point there, for there to be a stand alon movie focusing on Darth Vader, who are the audience meant to engage/sympathise with? A mass murdering representative of a tyrannical despot?

In the interest of brevity: If that's how you choose to characterize him, yes.

Good is a point of view - it certainly is. But an audience knows right from wrong, the good guys from the bad guys. Darth Vader is a villain. There are no two ways about it.

He's been my hero for thirty-odd years...

And I know I'm not alone.

As to my first point, it's your insistence that Darth Vader is "not dead" that is driving me up the wall. Yes, it's your opinion, but as a fact, it is wrong.

Oh, it's more than an opinion. I've given the reasoning behind my position. It can be debated, but it cannot be declared categorically wrong. Not yet, anyway.

[Vibroblade]

Wiping out an entire population is evil. I refuse to become involved in this argument because I find it silly but certainly don't wish to preclude others from participating regardless of my thoughts on the merits of the discussion.

The one thing I truly take exception with is comparing Vader to Truman or Churchill. Vader is more analogous to Stalin, or Hitler. Destroying a planet, regardless of it being the will of ones superior is wrong. I fail to see any validity to the argument that it falls to " ones point of view ". No one with any semblance of a moral compass can truly defend the extermination of a planet that is " peaceful, we have no weapons ". The Empire was not at war with Alderan. There was no warning, provocation, offer for parlay. That was EVIL. Genocide does not change with ones point of view.

[Talcy]

Tesla, this may be my last point on this, and I really don't care whatever your response is now; In the Star Wars canon, listed in several official articles and databases, Darth Vader/Anakin Skywalker is listed as, and therefore considered by Lucas, dead. Go check for yourself. Wookiepedia, as referred to by the Star Wars Databank, lists him as dead. The screenplay to Return of the Jedi uses the term "dies". If you "want" him to be "alive" then fine, just please stop insisting on it with other people. You are like a brick wall at times.

And if you think his actions are heroic and compare him to Churchill, et all then I suggest you have some serious issues going on. The only way you can possibly consider "a point of view" is in the regard of a villain's psyche, where they do not consider themselves to be evil but evidently are to other people.

[Lord Tesla]

Wiping out an entire population is evil. I refuse to become involved in this argument because I find it silly but certainly don't wish to preclude others from participating regardless of my thoughts on the merits of the discussion.

But what is the definition of "an entire population"? Terms get thrown around, but...people rarely define them. Which leads to ambiguity, which leads to misunderstanding, which leads to friction--it's lot like the road to the dark side.

The one thing I truly take exception with is comparing Vader to Truman or Churchill.

I didn't. First, Vader was never in control of the Empire. Second, I was comparing magnitudes of destruction, and thought the means used was a good way of illustrating the significance of the destruction of Alderaan in terms of terrestrial history. Nevertheless, Truman and Churchill both ordered mass destruction on civilian populations late in the war.

Vader is more analogous to Stalin, or Hitler.

I don't see how. He was never dictator. And the Empire doesn't appear socialistic, at least in the OT.

Destroying a planet, regardless of it being the will of ones superior is wrong.

Vader never destroyed a planet. That was Tarkin. Vader considered it insignificant compared to the Force and its concerns, which, given the nature of planets in the Star Wars milieu, I agree with. It's like razing an enemy position.

I fail to see any validity to the argument that it falls to " ones point of view ". No one with any semblance of a moral compass can truly defend the extermination of a planet that is " peaceful, we have no weapons ".

Unarmed? Peaceful? Sheltering, at least, rebels, fomenting rebellion--to say nothing of the fact that Princess Peaceful was armed, her crew were armed, and...wasn't the ship itself armed?

The Empire was not at war with Alderan.

There are wars, and there are wars, and not all of them are declared and fought by standing armies and mighty armadas.

There was no warning, provocation, offer for parlay. That was EVIL.

That was the element of surprise, and a powerful ally it is. Usually doesn't go over so well with the surprised, though.

Genocide does not change with ones point of view.

Not sure where I came out in favor of genocide... :scratchchin:

[Lord Tesla]

Tesla, this may be my last point on this, and I really don't care whatever your response is now; In the Star Wars canon, listed in several official articles and databases, Darth Vader/Anakin Skywalker is listed as, and therefore considered by Lucas, dead. Go check for yourself. Wookiepedia, as referred to by the Star Wars Databank, lists him as dead. The screenplay to Return of the Jedi uses the term "dies". If you "want" him to be "alive" then fine, just please stop insisting on it with other people. You are like a brick wall at times.

I don't think I ever disputed that the documentary sources say he's dead. I have put forth my (alternative) interpretation. To which people keep responding with the obvious. I have counter-arguments to the obvious. Where is the harm in that? I'm not looking for strife, I'm looking to generate some kind of ongoing discussion, trying to make things a little more lively, a little more interesting.

And this makes me a brick wall?

Persistent, maybe...

And if you think his actions are heroic and compare him to Churchill, et all then I suggest you have some serious issues going on.

I didn't compare him to Churchill, and I'll assume "et.al." is Truman. Hell, there's no comparison--how could there be? I compared the magnitude of the destruction they ordered to the magnitude of destruction ordered by Tarkin via the Death Star. Dresden, Nagasaki, Hiroshima: cities wiped out by Allied attacks. Planets in Star Wars are like cities or city-states. If our own non-evil forces could order destruction on that scale, then the equivalent-scale destruction in the GFFA can't be used as evidence of evil or more precisely villainy--that was what I was getting at.

The only way you can possibly consider "a point of view" is in the regard of a villain's psyche, where they do not consider themselves to be evil but evidently are to other people.

There is also a civilizational or cultural context to be considered, if I understand correctly what you're getting at. And that, too, can make a difference in the point of view, if you adopt it for analytical purposes (not, necessarily, as a way to define your own morality or live your life).