What was Vader's plan for Luke in TESB?

[Irishman]

Okay, the thread on the lightsaber duel got me thinking about The Empire Strikes Back, where Luke and Vader have their first confrontation in Bespin City.

Vader engages in a round of "see what the kid can do" and "try to lure him over", and then we get to the climax scene where Vader tries to sucker in Luke to join him, and reveals the truth of their relationship.

Now, we know that Vader is Emperor Palpatine's lap dog - a viscious rottweiler for anyone else, but lapdog to the big boss. And we know Palpy sent Vader on a mission to turn Luke and bring him back to Palpy to become a new apprentice.

But Vader tells Luke he has a plan, to go back and the two of them conquer the Emperor and rule as Father and Son.

So.... does he really mean it? Did he really meet Luke, decide the kid really does have some skill, and decide that this is his chance to finally step out of Palpatine's shadow and take over - like a good Sith Lord, always looking for the angle for his own personal advancement?

Or is that just a ruse, a story fed to Luke to play on Luke's emotions and ambitions (that he assumes Luke has), but really he is just fulfilling the mission he was assigned, to return a corrupted Luke to the Emperor?

Do we have any way to know? What do you think?

[Sakuma Drops]

I think as far as Palpatine's plan goes, he was perfectly willing to let Luke and Vader duke it out and let the winner be his right-hand man. Remember when he exhorts Luke to kill Vader on the Death Star II in Jedi (he also taunts Luke to kill him of course, but perhaps he was secure in the idea that Vader would defend him). So this might indicate that Palpatine was just using Vader to bring him another adept user of the Force, his logic being that if Vader died, great, because that would mean he would have found an even stronger apprentice.

It's conceivable that Vader was starting to realize that Palaptine wasn't exactly acting in his (Vader's) best interest, but rather, just using him as means to an end. That could explain why he try to seduce Luke into "ruling the galaxy" with him. It's also rather poignant that the thing that finally pushed Vader into renouncing his master (and with him the Dark Side) was his love for his son.

[Push You Down]

As is the tradition of the Sith-- Vader was sincere in his offer to Luke. Together they'd off the Emperor and rule the galaxy until such time as Luke tried to kill Vader or Vader decided to kill Luke and take a new apprentice.
Or Vader thought that he and Luke could get a long and rule with the Sith treachery taking a back seat to family relations.

[fiddlesticks]

The Emperor: The Force is strong with him. The son of Skywalker must not become a Jedi.
Darth Vader: If he could be turned, he would become a powerful ally.
The Emperor: [intrigued] Yes... He would be a great asset. Can it be done?
Darth Vader: He will join us or die, master.

I think it is pretty clear, Vader wanted to turn Luke to allow him the chance to overturn Palpatine. Palpatine knows this too, and probably figures that he can handle both Vader and a half-trained Jedi if they tried to take him out. Palpatine probably imagines that if Luke turns to the dark side, Luke will nicely replace Vader as a new and improved Sith Apprentice because he isn't half machine, thus he grants Vader's request to not kill Luke outright.

[akrako1]

there are only supposed to be two Sith's at any time - master and apprentice. If Luke had turned to the dark side, Vader OR Palpatine had to go! So I can't really see Vader delivering Luke to the emperor, and saying "here's your new apprentice, guess I'm screwed"

[Lord Ashtar]

Despite being a Sith, I believe Vader was sincere. He said basically the same thing to Padme at the end of episode 3, and I doubt he expected her to try to overthrow him. I think he just wanted to feel like he had a family.

[TBG]

I think he meant it, but also had turning Luke over to Palpy as plan B. Luke helps him, great, if not, well, might as well score points with the master.

[AClockworkMelon]

He meant it. He's Sith. Betraying each other is what they do.

For the longest time I was unable to reconcile what he revealed as his plan at the end of ESB and his blocking Luke's lightsaber near the end of ROTJ. If he wanted Luke to help him kill Pappy, why did he prevent Luke from doing so? Of course, now it seems obvious to me. Luke hadn't turned yet. If he'd let Luke kill his master he would have found himself fighting an unturned Luke and there would have been a huge risk of either losing or winding up without an apprentice. He could only let Pappy die once he'd secured Luke. That and I'm sure there was quite a bit of instinct playing a part- he'd served Pappy for years, it was only natural for him to protect him in that moment.

[Superhal]

What's difficult for modern audiences to understand is that the original trilogy wasn't planned as a trilogy like films today. In the 70's, if a movie made money, then they would ask for a sequel. In SW, Darth was supposed to be a minor character, like a super gook on the way to the big boss. However, his runaway popularity made him into a much bigger character in the succeeding films. So, when the 2nd film was written, he was given much more character development. Compare how many spoken lines he has in 4 vs 5. You can also see this effect in how much ass R2D2 kicks in ep1-3 when he barely could walk up stairs in 4-6. Also, you can see how the storyline changes in unusual ways, e.g. Luke kissing Leia and then she is suddenly pushed into Han's arms in 6, as though conflicting plot points were put into later installments.

[Sakuma Drops]

Originally Posted by Superhal

What's difficult for modern audiences to understand is that the original trilogy wasn't planned as a trilogy like films today. In the 70's, if a movie made money, then they would ask for a sequel. In SW, Darth was supposed to be a minor character, like a super gook on the way to the big boss. However, his runaway popularity made him into a much bigger character in the succeeding films. So, when the 2nd film was written, he was given much more character development. Compare how many spoken lines he has in 4 vs 5.

I see what you're saying, but some of the conflicting views on Vader stem from films 5 and 6, not 4 and 5 (such as Vader giving Luke the "father and son" offer in 5 and then not letting Luke kill the Emperor in 6). It's obvious there was some retconning done after 4 was such a huge success, but probably the distinct storylines for 5 and 6 were hashed out at roughly the same time.

What wasn't so much in place at the time that the first trilogy came out was much of the lore involving the Sith. Specifically, the tradition about apprentices overcoming/killing their masters. Of course, Vader's, Luke's and Palaptine's motivations make sense now that we have a lot more backstory on the Sith/Jedi orders, but looking at just the 4-5-6 story, it looks more like Palpatine is an opportunist (who doesn't care if his loyal servant Vader dies), and Vader looks extremely conflicted about whether to do what's best for Luke or his "master".

Also, you can see how the storyline changes in unusual ways, e.g. Luke kissing Leia and then she is suddenly pushed into Han's arms in 6, as though conflicting plot points were put into later installments.

Leia and Han actually do fall for each other in part 5. I've always thought that she kissed Luke not because she had the hots for him, but because she wanted to piss off Han who she really liked but didn't want to admit it. By the end of part 5 she fully realizes it as Han is about to get carbo-frozen.

[Mahaloth]

Originally Posted by akrako1

there are only supposed to be two Sith's at any time - master and apprentice.

Was that true when the original trilogy came out? I thought Lucas made that up for Phantom Menace.

[The Second Stone]

Palpatine could probably have used force lightening to block Luke's attempt to kill him in ROTJ had Vader not stopped the blade. The same way that he used it to slow down Mace Windu in ROTS. That way he gets to see that Vader's loyalties still remain.

What puzzles me is that the Sith don't just go about having children and doing family dynasties. The Jedi don't because they are repressed. But the Sith? They have no inhibitions that way.

[Chimera]

AND it isn't strictly true. There are definitely more than two Sith in episodes 1-3.

[Chronos]

Leia and Han actually do fall for each other in part 5. I've always thought that she kissed Luke not because she had the hots for him, but because she wanted to piss off Han who she really liked but didn't want to admit it.

Right; if Chewie had been in the room at the time, she'd have kissed him instead. But it's pretty clear that the writers had the whole siblings thing in mind in Empire-- Consider also "No... There is another", or Leia's awareness of Luke's predicament during the Cloud City duel.

[Chronos]

Palpatine could probably have used force lightening to block Luke's attempt to kill him in ROTJ had Vader not stopped the blade. The same way that he used it to slow down Mace Windu in ROTS.

That wasn't lightning blocking the blade; that was the blade blocking the lightning. Mace could have killed him there, but didn't, because he wanted him alive and captured to stand trial.

[sparky!]

Originally Posted by Mahaloth

Was that true when the original trilogy came out? I thought Lucas made that up for Phantom Menace.

I believe he did pull that out of his ass for Phantom Menace.

[AClockworkMelon]

Originally Posted by Chimera

AND it isn't strictly true. There are definitely more than two Sith in episodes 1-3.

Sidious and Maul
Sidious and Tyranus
Sidious and Vader

There were always two at a time.

Originally Posted by sparky!

I believe he did pull that out of his ass for Phantom Menace.

While I agree that he pulled that out of his ass for the prequels I think it's noteworthy that even in the original trilogy Sidious didn't want more than one apprentice. By pitting Vader and Luke against each other he was ensuring that he'd wind up with the best possible apprentice- whoever won would take the spot. And Vader of course knew this, so it sort of makes it more twisted knowing that he was bringing Luke back with full knowledge that this would be, in his master's eyes, his test to remain apprentice.

[Sakuma Drops]

Originally Posted by Chronos

Right; if Chewie had been in the room at the time, she'd have kissed him instead.

But of course that wouldn't have made Han as jealous. I mean, she thought Chewie was a walking carpet!

[levdrakon]

Originally Posted by Chimera

AND it isn't strictly true. There are definitely more than two Sith in episodes 1-3.

Has Lucas ever clarified what "there are always two" means?

To me it means, if you find one Sith, you can be sure there's a second. That doesn't mean there aren't more pairs of Sith hiding out in the galaxy. Sith are so backstabby they never form groups or teams or anything. When you find a Sith, that person is always someone's master, or apprentice.

[WarmNPrickly]

I guess I don't understand the confusion. Vader had clearly set a trap for Luke. His plan was to freeze him in carbonite. Han was frozen in carbonate to make certain that the process wouldn't kill Luke. As I remember it, this is explicitly stated in the dialog.

The problem is that Luke was way more advanced than Vader or the Emporer had predicted. Vader pushed him into the freeze chamber, and he just popped out. This left Vader with the realization that he would have to turn Luke right then or lose the chance. His only chance to he with his son, was to offer him the universe. So that's what he did.

[AClockworkMelon]

Originally Posted by levdrakon

Has Lucas ever clarified what "there are always two" means?

To me it means, if you find one Sith, you can be sure there's a second. That doesn't mean there aren't more pairs of Sith hiding out in the galaxy. Sith are so backstabby they never form groups or teams or anything. When you find a Sith, that person is always someone's master, or apprentice.

"There are always two, a master and an apprentice" means just what it says on the tin.

The books and comics (which are canon) confirm this. Bane is the one who came up with the Rule of Two and he did it by killing the shit out of everyone until only he and his apprentice were left. I'm pretty sure you could theoretically trace the line all the way from Bane to Sidious without any breaks- an endless cycle of apprentice killing master.

[Chimera]

Which unfortunately leads to the strong possibility that something will happen whereby both are killed and the line dies out. Overall a very bad plan.

[levdrakon]

Originally Posted by AClockworkMelon

"There are always two, a master and an apprentice" means just what it says on the tin.

The books and comics (which are canon) confirm this. Bane is the one who came up with the Rule of Two and he did it by killing the shit out of everyone until only he and his apprentice were left. I'm pretty sure you could theoretically trace the line all the way from Bane to Sidious without any breaks- an endless cycle of apprentice killing master.

Okay, thanks. I'd heard that story but didn't know it was canon.

[Chronos]

A Sith Lord isn't worried about the line dying out-- He's worried about him dying out. The odds of that are minimized by having only two: That still leaves you with someone to watch your back (until he stabs it), but cuts down on the competition.

[Miller]

Originally Posted by levdrakon

Has Lucas ever clarified what "there are always two" means?

To me it means, if you find one Sith, you can be sure there's a second. That doesn't mean there aren't more pairs of Sith hiding out in the galaxy. Sith are so backstabby they never form groups or teams or anything. When you find a Sith, that person is always someone's master, or apprentice.

I take it to mean there are only ever two Sith at a time, but there may be some larger number of dark side users associated with the Sith. There's a scene in the Clone Wars miniseries cartoon (not the CGI series that's currently running) where Dooku encounters a dark side user named Asajj Ventress, who claims to also be a Sith. Dooku laughs at her claim, kicks her ass, gives her new lightsabers, and then sets her on Anakin. My take-away from that scene is that there are people in the universe who have learned some secrets of the Dark Side, but haven't been initiated into the Sith traditions. The true Sith Lords employ these people, and if they prove themselves strong enough, may groom them as apprentices with the eventual goal of using them to either over throw their master, or to test their current apprentice, depending on which Sith Lord is doing the grooming.

[AClockworkMelon]

Originally Posted by Chronos

A Sith Lord isn't worried about the line dying out-- He's worried about him dying out. The odds of that are minimized by having only two: That still leaves you with someone to watch your back (until he stabs it), but cuts down on the competition.

When Bane implemented the rule of two he wasn't interested in survival. He was interested in strength. He believed (and don't ask me to explain this because it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me) that the way to strengthen the Sith was to limit their number to two at a time. Even if individual Sith are only concerned with themselves (and really, if they weren't it sort of goes in the face of everything the Sith are about), the purpose of the Rule of Two isn't survival.

If Sidious was really worried about "him dying out" he would have killed Vader and, instead of attempting to turn anyone who showed promise to the Dark Side, he'd have just had them assassinated. He already had a stranglehold on the Galaxy. One more Force-user going around in his name would have been like having one more Star Destroyer. It wouldn't have made a difference at all. I mean, really, how useful does Darth Vader show himself to be in the grand scheme of things? There isn't anything he accomplishes that couldn't be done by some ordinary admiral.

But instead what we see in the canon are sith lords who are training their apprentices to one day betray them. They get pissed when they don't try to betray them. Sidious is ready to leave Maul to rot on some uninhabited world but when Maul loses his shit at the idea of his beloved master leaving him to die and tries to kill him Sidious declares his training complete. As selfish as these guys are, they want their apprentices to try to kill them. That's the only way they can ensure that the line stays strong.

Originally Posted by Chimera

Which unfortunately leads to the strong possibility that something will happen whereby both are killed and the line dies out. Overall a very bad plan.

Agreed. But people in the Star Wars universe rarely behave logically.

[AClockworkMelon]

Figured I'd link to Wookieepedia page on the subject.

Even if the idea is dumb, you have to admit Bane's description is pretty epic: "Two there should be; no more, no less. One to embody power, the other to crave it."

[choie]

Originally Posted by AClockworkMelon

"Two there should be; no more, no less. One to embody power, the other to crave it."

"Five... is right out."

[AClockworkMelon]

Originally Posted by choie

"Five... is right out."

Once the number two, being the second number, be reached...

[Voyager]

Originally Posted by Chronos

Right; if Chewie had been in the room at the time, she'd have kissed him instead. But it's pretty clear that the writers had the whole siblings thing in mind in Empire-- Consider also "No... There is another", or Leia's awareness of Luke's predicament during the Cloud City duel.

Some of the earliest stories Lucas wrote were about brothers rescuing sisters, so I do think the sister thing was known in advance. At the time, though, the "there is another" line was thought to be a way of dealing with Hamill if he got too uppity. Leia's supposed ability to use the force was not all that evident in Ep. VI, except the novelization said it let her strangle Jabba.

[Bakhesh]

Haven't there been other sith in the CGI Clone Wars? How about that Force unleashed game, where you start out as Vaders apprentice?

Also, who placed the order for the clones in AOTC? (I've always been a bit confused about this one). Presumably, it was a Sith. I seem to remember that the clones grew at twice the normal rate, so wouldn't this have occurred before the death of Maul in TPM?

[clnilsen]

Originally Posted by Bakhesh

Also, who placed the order for the clones in AOTC? (I've always been a bit confused about this one). Presumably, it was a Sith. I seem to remember that the clones grew at twice the normal rate, so wouldn't this have occurred before the death of Maul in TPM?

I always assumed this was Sidious himself posing as the jedi master, but was it?

[AClockworkMelon]

Wasn't it Tyranus? He'd ordered them before leaving the order.

[Bakhesh]

I think Tyrannus was Dooku's darthy name, but wasn't the name Syfo-dias mentioned as well? I'd assumed this was a mis-pronunciation of Sidious, but according to wookiepedia, he was another jedi master. So wasn't he a Sith too?

[BMalion]

Why do you guys write "Palpy" ? I hate that.

[AClockworkMelon]

Hey.

I call him Pappy.

Originally Posted by Bakhesh

I think Tyrannus was Dooku's darthy name

It is, yes.

[Tom Scud]

Originally Posted by AClockworkMelon

When Bane implemented the rule of two he wasn't interested in survival. He was interested in strength. He believed (and don't ask me to explain this because it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me) that the way to strengthen the Sith was to limit their number to two at a time.

Like many things STAR WARS, Sith philosophy doesn't really stand up to a lot of examination. Knights of the Old Republic was awesome, but I never found the Dark Side arguments remotely compelling & only flipped because I was a completist and had already seen the Light Side ending.

[Irishman]

Originally Posted by akrako1

there are only supposed to be two Sith's at any time - master and apprentice. If Luke had turned to the dark side, Vader OR Palpatine had to go! So I can't really see Vader delivering Luke to the emperor, and saying "here's your new apprentice, guess I'm screwed"

But that wasn't canon in the first three. It didn't come out until the prequels.

Originally Posted by Superhal

What's difficult for modern audiences to understand is that the original trilogy wasn't planned as a trilogy like films today. In the 70's, if a movie made money, then they would ask for a sequel.

I'm well aware of that. I was alive then, you know.

In SW, Darth was supposed to be a minor character, like a super gook on the way to the big boss. However, his runaway popularity made him into a much bigger character in the succeeding films.

I agree he wasn't the big dog, he certainly deferred to Grand Moff Tarkin. But "minor character" is a bit much. He was above minor thug (Stormtrooper), but not pulling the strings (Tarkin, Emperor by extension). He was the heavy that was the nemesis for Kenobi, the challenge to Skywalker, and the bully to Organa. He's the senior henchman of the film.

Also, you can see how the storyline changes in unusual ways, e.g. Luke kissing Leia and then she is suddenly pushed into Han's arms in 6, as though conflicting plot points were put into later installments.

She wasn't suddenly pushed into his arms. Empire is full of the Hollywood "They hate each other because they really love each other" trope.

Originally Posted by Sakuma Drops

What wasn't so much in place at the time that the first trilogy came out was much of the lore involving the Sith. Specifically, the tradition about apprentices overcoming/killing their masters. Of course, Vader's, Luke's and Palaptine's motivations make sense now that we have a lot more backstory on the Sith/Jedi orders, but looking at just the 4-5-6 story, it looks more like Palpatine is an opportunist (who doesn't care if his loyal servant Vader dies), and Vader looks extremely conflicted about whether to do what's best for Luke or his "master".

This is my point. At the time of these movies, there is no "Rule of Two", no Sith lore. What we have to go by is the movies. We have the Emperor who is revealed to actually be a Sith primarily because it became obvious after Empire that there was no way Vader could be so powerful and be subservient to a mere mortal. Somebody with his abilities and personal ambition would not get ordered around, he'd get an audience with the ruler, then force choke him, and coup de etat complete. So the Emperor almost had to be a Sith to keep Vader in check. And it made sense for the Emperor to be old and ugly and twisted as a symbolism for the Dark side of the Force at work.

So why are there only two? Well, remember Vader was actually a former Jedi. Note in Star Wars, Grand Moff Tarkin says something to Vader about being the last of that religion. It wasn't clear to me watching the movies that Vader wasn't still a Jedi. It was only later that I learned that the Jedi and the Sith were two different orders of force users, kinda like Catholics and Baptists. Both are christians, have largely the same Bible and traditions that come from the same source, but they have very different attitudes and approaches. Like the difference in baptism, or the issue of confession, or the approach to communion ("The Lord's Supper"). Both Jedi and Sith use The Force, but how they use it and why they use it is very different. It's captured in the films by the simplistic description of "light" and "dark" sides, but the essence of the difference is more subtle, it's in their aims and goals.

It's plausible to me that the Emperor had Vader as his apprentice, his deputy, tasked with killing or turning any Jedi. Since most Jedi don't turn, Vader is pretty effective at killing them. And is devious and fights unfair, and probably doesn't just engage in a stand up lightsaber duel, but complicates matters with stormtroopers and booby traps and whatever else he can. It's not that the Emperor wouldn't want more force using apprentices, it's just that the other force users get killed off rather than turning evil.

But I can see how the Rule of Two makes some sense from their perspective. Being Sith is all about personal achievement, becoming the ultimate power of the galaxy or whatever. It's a very different thing than being a Jedi.

Think about it - two powerful Jedi from different regions of the galaxy meet up, they will see each other as partners, or at least allies, to the same goals of truth, justice, and the American way peace. They'd have mutual respect, maybe admiration. They'd get a beer and swap stories and compliments.

Two Sith meet up from different regions of the galaxy, they will see each other as competitors for the same goal - being top dog. They will challenge each other, probably to the death, because stopping before that leaves a future opponent who could toughen up and come back again.

But it does make sense to have a follower, someone you train in the force, who you can use as your henchman for tasks you personally can't do for various reasons (maybe like Darth Sidious, you are hiding your true identity and have some other obligation, maybe the task is too small for your personal attention, whatever).

And I can see how the Rule of Two would naturally evolve from Sith culture. There maybe any number of weak dark force users, but if any start to have abilities, they get used in training the Apprentice. And if they succeed, they become the Apprentice.

And that very nature, plus the inherent selfish ambition that drive the dark users, builds the notion that one day the Apprentice will try to take over from the Master. And either the Master slaps him down, which means he's not ready, or he succeeds.

The only fine point I see is I could see a Master deciding that he didn't like the Apprentice trying to take him out, and killing him and taking a new Apprentice. Because the Master isn't trying to train a replacement, merely an assistant. "Know your place."

So deliberately trying to provoke the Apprentice to take over seems off to me. YMMV.

Originally Posted by WarmNPrickly

I guess I don't understand the confusion. Vader had clearly set a trap for Luke.

Either he intended to take Luke to the Emperor and turn him, and have two Apprentices for the Emperor, which would be acceptable under the original movie canon, or he was already thinking of using Luke to take on the Emperor, which is a fair position to take, or else he realized Luke was more capable than he first imagined, and that inspired the idea that he could use Luke's presumed ambition to turn Luke to his side, and then use Luke's surprise abilities to help take on the Emperor. Sort of an inspiration to the plan based upon what happened. Any of those three options make sense to me as possibilities. Or I guess he intended to take Luke to the Emperor, and then kill Luke there to assert is rightful place as apprentice, which doesn't make sense. If he want's Luke dead, he'd just kill Luke right out. If he thinks the Emperor won't accept 2 apprentices, then he wouldn't float that justification to the Emperor to bring Luke to him in the first place. It doesn't really make sense. He has to think the idea sounds plausible of turning Luke and making him a deputy Apprentice. So I don't buy the Rule of Two is an absolute at this time in the movie making.

Originally Posted by Chimera

AND it isn't strictly true. There are definitely more than two Sith in episodes 1-3.

Originally Posted by AClockworkMelon

Sidious and Maul
Sidious and Tyranus
Sidious and Vader

There were always two at a time.

If you recall, Tyranus was a Jedi first (Count Dooku), who got turned. It appears to have occurred after Darth Maul was axed. So it holds up. Similarly, Sidious was courting Anakin, but didn't turn him until after Tyranus was kaput. So the Rule of Two is upheld for the prequels.

While I agree that he pulled that out of his ass for the prequels I think it's noteworthy that even in the original trilogy Sidious didn't want more than one apprentice. By pitting Vader and Luke against each other he was ensuring that he'd wind up with the best possible apprentice- whoever won would take the spot. And Vader of course knew this, so it sort of makes it more twisted knowing that he was bringing Luke back with full knowledge that this would be, in his master's eyes, his test to remain apprentice.

I guess that is one interpretation for the Emperor's actions, and his continued insistance that Luke strike down Darth in anger. He wanted Luke to give in to the rage, to experience the power of the Dark and the loss of control to the Dark, and thus become his own tool. Or else he wanted Luke destroyed so he wouldn't be a threat. I did kind of wonder at that, given that to me it would make sense for turning Luke and having two Apprentices of different levels.

Originally Posted by levdrakon

Has Lucas ever clarified what "there are always two" means?

To me it means, if you find one Sith, you can be sure there's a second. That doesn't mean there aren't more pairs of Sith hiding out in the galaxy. Sith are so backstabby they never form groups or teams or anything. When you find a Sith, that person is always someone's master, or apprentice.

I could see how technically there could be some force user who developed independently, and learned the Dark side because he didn't have a Jedi to guide him in Jedi ways and naturally turned to the power. I could see said dark force user developing his abilities and start to accummulate personal power, until the Sith in the other corner of the galaxy (the Emperor or whomever) noticed him, and decided something needed to be done, because if left alone he could develop enough ability to become a threat. Thus sending his Apprentice. And if the Apprentice lost, then realizing he needed to either subvert the new guy as his own apprentice, or kill him off.

I guess I can see why there are only 2 Sith. Being a Sith is more than being a dark force user, it is being a decendent of a particular school of thought, a disciple of a particular cadre of dark force users. And now it makes sense to me how it would arise that there's only one line of descent, and so only two Sith at any one time (with perhaps a number of adept non-Sith Lords trying to get enough power to challenge their way up).

Originally Posted by Voyager

Leia's supposed ability to use the force was not all that evident in Ep. VI, except the novelization said it let her strangle Jabba.

In the movie, at the end she is able to sense that Luke survived the Death Star destruction. She doesn't demonstrate overt ability, but the sensitivity is starting to emerge.

Originally Posted by BMalion

Why do you guys write "Palpy" ? I hate that.

I picked it up from another thread as a shorthand for Palpatine. I'm a bit iffy on it myself. "Pappy" is right out. This isn't somebody's granddad, it's the fucking Emperor of Ugly. Besides, Pappy could be confused for Vader, who is Luke's "pappy".

[expectopatronum]

Originally Posted by Irishman

She wasn't suddenly pushed into his arms. Empire is full of the Hollywood "They hate each other because they really love each other" trope.

yeah, episode 4 was full of it too, from the moment they meet. the whole trilogy establishes their relationship, definitely not sudden that they end up together by rotj.

Originally Posted by Voyager

Some of the earliest stories Lucas wrote were about brothers rescuing sisters, so I do think the sister thing was known in advance. At the time, though, the "there is another" line was thought to be a way of dealing with Hamill if he got too uppity. Leia's supposed ability to use the force was not all that evident in Ep. VI, except the novelization said it let her strangle Jabba.

it's been awhile since i read some of the expanded universe novels (which are canon as far as i am aware) but i remember mentions that leia never completed jedi training later on and that her force skills lay more with communication and diplomacy rather than in combat, which is why she spends a lot of the time post return of the jedi establishing a new government. so actually, we do see a bit of her force skills in the movies, like in empire when she senses luke is in distress, and in jedi when they witness the death star blowing up, she senses luke made it out in time. i think luke and leia complement each other's skills because while they both have the combat and communication skills, luke excels ast the former, leia at the latter.

[Capitaine Zombie]

Ohhhh the fuck with that "Sith thing". Nowhere in the original trilogy is there any of that bullshit "classic Sith behavior". Keep the shit to the prequels and dont mar the original trilogy, pleaaaaase.

[Irishman]

Originally Posted by expectopatronum

it's been awhile since i read some of the expanded universe novels (which are canon as far as i am aware).

What is canon? Lucas has said he treats the Expanded Universe stuff as an alternate universe.

[Capitaine Zombie]

Originally Posted by Irishman

What is canon? Lucas has said he treats the Expanded Universe stuff as an alternate universe.

He has said the same things about the original trilogy.

[expectopatronum]

Originally Posted by Irishman

What is canon? Lucas has said he treats the Expanded Universe stuff as an alternate universe.

after reviewing this page i see what you mean:

Originally Posted by George Lucas

There are two worlds here," explained Lucas. "There’s my world, which is the movies, and there’s this other world that has been created, which I say is the parallel universe – the licensing world of the books, games and comic books. They don’t intrude on my world, which is a select period of time, [but] they do intrude in between the movies. I don’t get too involved in the parallel universe.

but i also found this:

Originally Posted by Holocron

The Holocron is divided into 5 levels (in order of precedence): G-canon, T-canon, C-canon, S-canon, and N-canon.

G-canon is absolute canon; the movies (their most recent release), the scripts, the novelizations of the movies, the radio plays, and any statements by George Lucas himself. G-canon overrides the lower levels of canon when there is a contradiction. Within G-canon, many fans follow an unofficial progression of canonicity where the movies are the highest canon, followed by the scripts, the novelizations, and then the radio plays.

T-canon[1] refers to the canon level comprising only the two television shows: Star Wars: The Clone Wars and the Star Wars live-action TV series. Its precedence over C-Level canon was confirmed by Chee.[2]

C-canon is primarily composed of elements from the Expanded Universe including books, comics, and games bearing the label of Star Wars. Games and RPG sourcebooks are a special case; the stories and general background information are themselves fully C-canon, but the other elements such as character/item statistics and gameplay are, with few exceptions, N-canon.

S-canon is secondary canon; the story itself is considered non-continuity, but the non-contradicting elements are still a canon part of the Star Wars universe. This includes things like the online roleplaying game Star Wars: Galaxies and certain elements of a few N-canon stories.

N-canon is non-canon. "What-if" stories (such as stories published under the Star Wars: Infinities label), crossover appearances (such as the Star Wars character appearances in Soulcalibur IV), game statistics, and anything else directly contradicted by higher canon ends up here. N-canon is the only level that is not considered official canon by Lucasfilm. A significant amount of material that was previously C-canon was rendered N-canon by the release of Episodes I-III.

which seems to say that most of the expanded universe is in fact canon, although not on the same level of canon as the films. the only difference between the g-canon, which is absolute, and c canon, which the EU novels fall under, is that lucas was not involved in creating them. however, the storylines and characters are still considered to try to keep consistency within the universe. another quote from george:

Originally Posted by George Lucas

"I don't read that stuff. I haven't read any of the novels. I don't know anything about that world. That's a different world than my world. But I do try to keep it consistent. The way I do it now is they have a Star Wars Encyclopedia. So if I come up with a name or something else, I look it up and see if it has already been used. When I said [other people] could make their own Star Wars stories, we decided that, like Star Trek, we would have two universes: My universe and then this other one. They try to make their universe as consistent with mine as possible, but obviously they get enthusiastic and want to go off in other directions."

[Irishman]

The point is, with so many different "levels of canon", you're free to pick and choose what you want.

[Chronos]

Quoth Capitaine Zombie:

Ohhhh the fuck with that "Sith thing". Nowhere in the original trilogy is there any of that bullshit "classic Sith behavior". Keep the shit to the prequels and dont mar the original trilogy, pleaaaaase.

"Why do the Sith in the original trilogy behave this way?"
"Because that's the way Sith behave."
"Bull! We don't see any Sith behaving that way in the original trilogy."

Nope, doesn't quite hold up.

[Capitaine Zombie]

Originally Posted by Chronos

Quoth Capitaine Zombie:"Why do the Sith in the original trilogy behave this way?"
"Because that's the way Sith behave."
"Bull! We don't see any Sith behaving that way in the original trilogy."

Nope, doesn't quite hold up.

I dont understand at all what you wrote. There are no Siths in the original trilogy. Just Jedis,. Light Side users, Dark Side users. Period. Dont reinject poor concepts into something that never used them.

[Maus Magill]

Originally Posted by Capitaine Zombie

I dont understand at all what you wrote. There are no Siths in the original trilogy. Just Jedis,. Light Side users, Dark Side users. Period. Dont reinject poor concepts into something that never used them.

Which is why Darth Vader wasn't referred to as "Lord of the Sith" in the Novelization of Star Wars. "written" by George Lucas.

Oh wait, he was.

[Chimera]

One of the things that occurred to me while watching it last night was this;

The whole "moving objects with the Force" was a big deal in the movie. Luke failed. He had not mastered that skill before leaving off his training to go get his friends.

Then when he gets into a fight with Vader and proves himself adept at the Lightsaber, Vader decides to test his other skills, possibly sensing that he has not mastered other Jedi skills, possibly just wondering how strong he is in other areas. So Vader starts throwing shit at him in the middle of the lightsaber duel. Well, the moment it becomes obvious that Luke is clueless and completely unable to use the force to repel these things, we see Vader STOP trying to fight him and just begin throwing shit at him.

And Luke loses that fight.

[Capitaine Zombie]

Originally Posted by Maus Magill

Which is why Darth Vader wasn't referred to as "Lord of the Sith" in the Novelization of Star Wars. "written" by George Lucas.

Oh wait, he was.

What was it that I wrote exactly, hmm:

There are no Siths in the original trilogy

To which you respond:

Which is why Darth Vader wasn't referred to as "Lord of the Sith" in the Novelization of Star Wars (...)Oh wait, he was.

When you try to sound smart, it helps if you actually are smart. Like able to read. Or understand plain English.


BTW, the SW:A New Hope novelization wasnt even written by George Lucas...

[Irishman]

The word "Sith" was never mentioned in the original trilogy. There are also several other points that confound the issue.

Darth Vader is referred to as a Jedi - "You're the last of that dying religion." (Paraphrased) So, is Darth Vader still a Jedi in Star Wars? Or is he the last just because he was a Jedi before going dark?

As mentioned, Vader is referred to as the last Jedi in Star Wars, but that was before the Empire knew about Kenobi (full Jedi), Luke (guy with force talent), and Yoda (hiding on Degobah). But surely Grand Moff Tarkin knew about the Emperor. Of course, we the audience don't know the Emperor uses the Force at this time - did Lucas? Was this an oops, or actually valid? See Darth Sidious was never a Jedi, just a powerful dark Force user (which the prequels called Sith, based upon some lore determined somewhere other than the original trilogy as run). So this could have been a "I didn't think about that", or it could have been a tell - Vader was a turned Jedi, but the Emperor was a Sith Lord and didn't even need a lightsaber anymore.

And did Sith really use lightsabers, or was that Vader's carryover from being a Jedi? Hmm?

I know that I came out with the notion that "Jedi" was the term for a Force User, and there were lightside and darkside Jedi. I also recall someone dropping the name Sith and "Darth = Dark Lord of the Sith" on me sometime during the years the movies were coming out, too.

It's all as clear as mud.