Nope, you seem to forget one crucial element in the original trilogy. That is that “A New Hope” isnt very consistent with how the story unfolds in Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi (might seem strange to write it that way, considering ANH starts the story, but really, you take ESB and ROTJ off, and replace them with films that are on par with ANH on both plots and directing and you dont have the monument that SW as a whole finally became).
Few examples:
-Moffo Tarkin telling Vader to fuck off
-Tarkin ridiculing the Force and Jedis
-Darth Vader in tumbling mode in his Tie Fighter at the end of the space dog fight (way to make one of your main villains look like an idiot)
There are many other examples but I only saw ANH twice in all my life, and have always found it quite dull (btw, I had totally forgotten than in ANH, the Emperor is being described as having just seized power, hence Alderan having a rebellious behavior and talks about the Senate being closed down. Funny how this is quite inconsistent with how ESB and RotJ tend to describe the Empire. Even funnier is that it is completely at odds with what the shitology tells us).
Mr Plinkett defined Vader very well for the first movie, he is essentialy a SS Officer, more First Ltn material that main villain. He isnt that any more in the following movies. Note how we dont have any more Moffo interference in ESB and RotJ.
So, coming back to your quote
As soon as an Imperial officer comes to tell Vader the Emperor wants to talk to him, and we then see Vader (who has been making Imperial officers gag on his Force a part of his act) kneeling and get introduced to the Emperor. Vader is not the Big Bad Villain any more. Though you have to hand it out to the writer, it was a very clever of defining his role to have him be the lieutnant of a desincarnated being (I’m talking about the Emperor) and at the same time the main active villain of ESB.
P.S: will you please stop using Sidious to talk about the Emperor. He’s not a freaking 6 year old trying to figure out a handle to use on his new Christmas given FPS to make him look cool and baddish.
Same goes for all that Sith bullshit, there aint not Sith in the OT, nor any rules about disciples and masters.
Vader, as Vader, is not necessary or central to Episode 4. You could replace Vader with any generic high ranking Imperial military guy and not affected the plot much, just like all the ship commanders and Admirals that Vader force-chokes in Episode 5. (Their names only matter for trivia/Jeopardy questions.)
Only Leia knew he was even around. (Luke never knew he was being pursued down the trench by the best pilot in the galaxy.)
We don’t know that. All we hear in ANH is that the Emperor has just disbanded the Senate, but the Empire could have been in existence for hundreds of years at this point, and the Senate could have been like the Imperial Roman Senate, a sinecure that doesn’t do much (other than having something to do with the Imperial bureaucracy).
Well we can disagree on this… but unseen characters are used as plot devices in many stories, and their lack of presence doesn`t mean that they are not having a direct impact upon the plot … but to compare the emperor, who is a definite living being that will eventually appear on screen to God is a bit silly…
If you go back to the post that started this debate I am not trying to say that the Emperor is the main antagonist… I was asking if not Vader then who… and you responded with Tarkin… And I agree that Tarkin is certainly one of the most important evil characters, but he is not and was not intended to be the primary Villian… Vader is… I only mentioned the Emperor to point that it is his desires that are driving both Tarkin and Vader… Tarkins on real truly evil moment is when he comes up with the idea to destroy Alderaan... It makes him a bad ass that has the authority to destroy and entire planet without consulting his boss first, but it still does not make him the main bad ass... jeez just look at the original movie poster... thats not Grand Moff Tarkin looming ominously above Luke… Certainly any piece of fiction is open to any individuals interpretation… but I think it is clear that Lucas is setting up Vader as the primary Villain…
What scenes in LotR does Sauron directly attack Frodo? He attacks him mentally through the ring, but Sauron never leaves Mordor… Granted it is debatable if Sauron has a corporal being at all… he did, which was destroyed by Isildur, but by the time to the trilogy it is debatable… I agree that his attack on Pippin is a direct attack, but that does not occur until the the two towers, the same as the Emperor only having an indirect effect upon the plot until the second film… Tarkin and Vader speaking about Sidious`control over the empire is evidence that it is him that is directing the actions of Vader and Tarkin… and I acknowledge that the Emperor is mentioned only in two scenes during a new hope, but it is made clear that he is the top dog as far as the empire is concerned…
Absolutely not… Tarkin is a Governor in charge of overseeing the construction of the Death Star… If he was in control of the Empire he would not be on the death star governing the outlands… he would be on Coruscant controlling the empire and some other lackey would replace him on the Death Star, Tarkin would be the one you do not see until the second movie and you could make this same argument for what ever lackey replaced him… because when it comes down to it, that is what he is a lackey to the Emperor… The Emperor is a necessary plot device, without him the story is radically different…
ya you are right I was using a pretty loose interpretation of what a straw man argument is… you weren`t misrepresenting me… I just saw your hypothetical situation as misrepresenting the actual story…
Yes his post-mortem advice to Luke is not the initial reason that he sacrifices himself, but it does become a important and iconic part of the end of A New Hope and the remainder of the trilogy… Him dying in the first movie is vital to plot development and only Vader could have killed him… To remove Vader from the equation makes a radical change in the plot…
Luke taking shot that destroys the Death Star is irrelevant? It is the basis for his status in the Alliance and is one of the most important story developments of the entire movie as well as the trilogy as a whole… he was a nobody son of water farmer before he destroys the Death Star and Hero to the rebels afterward…
That only Luke could make the shot skill wise is debatable, but he was not able to make the shot using the x-wing targeting system that every other pilot was using (Red Leader got off and shot and missed using the targeting system) he had to turn it off and use the force… but as far as story development is concerned only Luke could make the shot… and actually Vaders presence is vital in scene not to easily hand Gold Squadron and most of Red or establish Lukes skill as a pilot (Luke was about to be destroyed by Vader and his wing men) but rather to show Solo`s first true act of Heroism in the story…
Yes I didnt take a look to see if it was the Executor that was the ship I just assumed so because I know that is Vaders ship… Making assumptions is generally not a good thing to do
I completely disagree… A character with Vader`s history, reputation and immense skill as a pilot is necessary to establish the heroism of the Protagonists… While Tarkin is not just another lakey of the Emperor that could be replaced by any guy in a grey suit, to find a replacement for him is a much easier task than to replace someone with the training of both a Jedi and a Dark Lord of the Sith … Remember, Tarkin is only overseeing the construction of the Death Star, the Death Star itself was the idea of the Emperor…
First off Characters are Plot devices… and as I mentioned above I never have tried to establish his position as primary antagonist, rather I was forwarding the idea that even in his off screen role he is as important to the plot as Tarkin`s on screen action… admittedly that is pushing it, but existence does certainly effect the plot of the movie making him an antagonist… as you mention above he is used to establish the immensity and power of the empire, which is a pretty crucial element to the story… without his presence as an evil overlord that must be answered to, Tarkin is just another megalomaniac with a giant space station…
And I guess really this is the point of our disagreement… and while I hate to take the debate this way… frankly it makes you wrong… A New Hope is the fourth part of a six, used to begin the story In medias res and it was always intended to be… no Lucas didn`t know how successful the movie would be allowing him to complete his dream… but you cannot just cherry pick on chapter of a story and analyze it disregarding everything that comes before it or afterward… what happened before is relevant to it and it effects what comes after…
I know there are Fanboys out there that want to remember the original trilogy just as they saw it in the theaters and don`t want to even acknowledged episodes 1-3… But the story does not belong to the fanboys, it belongs to Lucas and he says if is 6 parts…
The big bad in the first movie (before it was part 4, etc) was the Empire - period - Vader, Tarkin, even the (offscreen) Emporer himself were all just agents of it, with a role to play to make the Empire more evil and the Rebel Scum more heroey.
After it became a hit, then they can expand the chars story etc - but at the point of Star Wars (the single, barely got made film) itself - the Empire was the ‘big bad’.
I don’t understand your point, here. I don’t think any of those things are inconsistent with the rest of the original trilogy, and I particularly don’t see how any of that relates to the portion of my post that you quoted.
At no point in Star Wars is the Emperor described as having “just seized power.” He has recently dissolved the Senate, but it’s clear from context that this is the latest in a series of escalating power grabs. If anything, Star Wars makes it seem that he’s been Emperor for much longer than he actually has been.
The SS comparison is apt, but he’s clearly a lot more than a first lieutenant. If Emperor Palpatine is Hitler, Vader is something like his Himmler - a hatchet man he uses to keep his assorted generals and ministers in line. It’s clear he can act with impunity against the very highest echelons of the Imperial military. I believe that’s a major he almost chokes out before Tarkin yanks on his chain.
I disagree. In terms of ESB, he’s the Big Bad, in that he’s the antagonist whose actions and decisions dictate the responses of the heroes. That he’s still part of a hierarchy within the backstory of the film’s universe is a separate issue from what role he plays, structurally, in the plot of the film.
I have no idea what you’re talking about, here.
You know, I’m not sure when the whole “Sith” thing entered into Star Wars. I know it long predates the prequel trilogy. I could have sworn that it was used at least once in the original trilogy, but that doesn’t seem to be the case.
Regardless, no, I’m not going to stop using the term just to suit you.
Miller is correct. The Sith are the opposite of the Jedi. There are Jedi in the OT; there are Sith in the OT.
That’s funny because it sure looked like Obi-Wan was training Luke on the Millenium Falcon. And what about the duel between Obi-Wan and Vader? “When I met you I was but the learner; now I am the master.” This is arguably the most important scence in ANH up to that point. You say that you’ve seen ANH twice. I suggest you watch it again.
True. It’s entirely possible to have a character who never appears on screen, who nonetheless has a direct impact on the plot. In Star Wars, the Emperor is not such a character. There’s not a single plot point in the entire film that is caused by the Emperor’s actions. If, at some point, some flunky ran up to Tarkin and said, “We’ve just received orders from the Emperor. We must go immediately to Yavin IV!” then that would be influencing the plot, even if he doesn’t put in a personal appearance. But that doesn’t happen.
He’s clearly setting him up as the primary villain for the next film, sure. There’s a reason he survives, and Tarkin doesn’t. But it’s obvious that, in the first film, Tarkin is the real threat. It’s actually quite important that Vader not be the primary antagonist, because it gives him a character arc over the course of the trilogy. He starts off in a subservient position to Tarkin. In the second film, he is now second to no one in the service of the Emperor - he has become a more powerful, more effective villain. And then, of course, in the third film, he redeems himself and all of that. But having Vader as the primary antagonist in the first film flattens the beginning of his arc: there would be no change in his character between the first two films. Granted, as it is, the change is not hugely dramatic, but I think it’s still important to show him growing in power as a villain before turning around and throwing it all away to save his son.
Right. That’s what I’m talking about. Plus, at various points in the trilogy, he takes actions that directly influence the plot: sending out the Ring Wraiths at the beginning of Fellowship, besieging Minas Tirith. He’s always a distant figure, but he is still reacting to the events of the story, and influencing how the heroes act in order to counter him.
Return of the King, not Two Towers. And the difference between Sauron and the Emperor is that Sauron is actively effecting the course of events from the very first book, albeit from a distance. The Emperor doesn’t do this in Star Wars: his influence is part of the initial setup, the same way that, say, Morgoth’s betrayal of Iluvitar is part of the initial setup of Fellowship of the Rings, but he has no more direct influence over the plot of the film than Morgoth does over the plot of LotR.
I’m not disputing that. He’s the Emperor. He’s in control of the galaxy. That’s unambiguous from the first movie. But that’s not plot, that’s backstory. I’m talking about plot. The plot is the series of events we see unfolding over the course of the story. While there are plenty of plot twists in Star Wars, none of them are directly instigated by the Emperor. Virtually all of them are directly instigated by Tarkin. That’s what makes Tarkin the main villain of the first film.
Not for the first film. Yes, obviously, if Tarkin were the Emperor, the rest of the trilogy would play out very differently. But for the purposes of the first film, from a structural point of view, you don’t actually need an Emperor for the plot to work.
And again, I’m not talking about the overall arc of the trilogy, I’m talking about the structure of the first film as a stand-alone entity.
That’s not what I said. I said that this:
Isn’t relevant. Whether only Luke could possibly have made the shot, or whether it was an extremely difficult shot, but still possible for a sufficiently skilled pilot, isn’t relevant to the point I was trying to make.
I’m not talking about replacing him “in universe.” I talking about the decisions the writer made about what sort of character Vader would be. If he’d scrapped the concept of Vader entirely, and created a new character to be the right-hand man for the Emperor and/or Tarkin, the plot of the first film wouldn’t have changed much, because Vader’s personality isn’t what drives the plot. Tarkin’s is.
Yes, “plot device” was the wrong word to use there. He’s clearly not a plot device, because at no point does he advance the plot of the story, or provide a difficulty that needs to be over come. I’m blanking on the term I want to use here, though. “Background flavor,” I suppose, is the closest. Mentioning the Emperor is like mentioning the Clone Wars. He doesn’t serve a plot purpose, he exists (again, just talking about the first film here) to give the setting more depth and scope, to give the feeling that the universe we’re seeing into is, indeed, larger than the handful of settings that appear in the movie.
What am I disregarding? I’m not saying that the other movies don’t exist, or aren’t important, or anything like that. I’m just trying to discuss the structure of the first movie. That structure doesn’t change when slotted into the framework of the series as a larger whole. The alterations I’ve suggested (“What if Vader wasn’t in the movie?” and so forth) have been attempts to illustrate how the plot was constructed. Certainly, if you didn’t have Darth Vader at all in Star Wars, it would massively distort everything else in the rest of the series. But it remains a valid observation to point out that it wouldn’t distort too much about the plot of the first film. And that can tell us something about the first film’s plot structure. I keep emphasizing that I’m talking about the first film, because I want to avoid things like, “If there was no Darth Vader, who would cut off Luke’s hand in the second movie?” In talking about the structure of the first film, how a change would effect the structure of a subsequent film isn’t germane.
That’s nice, but what does it have to do with what we’re talking about?
But Obi-Wan’s worried about Luke, not the rebellion, which up untl the events in “Star Wars,” you will note he can’t be arsed to help out with.
There’s unquestionably a different power structure in “Star Wars.” Tarkin is quite obviously in charge - during the movie Ham, Luke and Leia are never concerned with Tarkin personally but they’re also never concerned with Darth Vader personally. Luke doesn’t klnow it’s Darth Vader chasing him down the trench. Tarkin tells Vader what to do in a tone of voice that clearly indicates he’s not afraid of him.
It appears, actually, that Vader lies outside of the Imperial military chain of command in “Star Wars.” He’s the Emperor’s personal atttack dog but the Imperial armed forces has its own power. Vader is analogous (damn you for getting this first, Plinkett) like a senior SS officer who’s doing the dirty work and has Himmler’s ear, but has to maneuvre around the ranking Wehrmacht general.
With Tarkin dead, Vader then becomes the fleet’s commander in “Empire.”
Of course, this makes the prequels quite inconsistent with the original series. In the prequels, the entire Imperial military was created by Palpatine, in the same crisis that elevated Vader. It doesn’t make any sense for Vader to suddenly be equalled by a Tarkin twenty years later, unless something happened along the way to disgrace Vader.
I’m pretty sure that what Zombie is saying is that, while there are evil force users in the OT, the word “Sith” is never applied to them. It appears that he’s correct - although it looks like Lucas was calling Vader a “Sith Lord” in the stage directions to the first film, the term didn’t make it into the movies proper until the prequel trilogy.
However, I think he’s under the impression that the term “Sith” was created expressly for the prequel trilogy, and I know that’s not true. I know I’d heard Vader referred to as, “Dark Lord of the Sith,” ever since I was a little kid, although I’m not sure where I first heard the term.
He’s talking about the “only two Sith at any time” rule, which I’m pretty sure was an invention of the prequel trilogy.
But the collary of that rule is: a master and an apprentice. What I mean is two Jedi at a time; a master (Obi-Wan) and an apprentice (Luke). Two Sith at a time; a master (Vader) and an apprentice (the Emperor).
Watching ANH it would be easy to see that Obi-Wan is the master, and that Obi-Wan is a Jedi. And it would be just as easy to see that Luke becames Obi-Wan’s apprentice, and that Luke might become a Jedi. What is difficult is believing what Darth Vader said, “When I met you I was but the learner; now I am the master.”
At this point, the audience might be thinking, ok, if that old man is the master and that young kid is the apprentice then what is that guy with the black mask?
IIRC, the only mention of Sith (a clear anagram) was in the novelization of “A New Hope”, dont think it ever appeared in the movies. Besides it is completely silly, it makes it appear as if Siths and Jedis are not related, the Dark Side of the Force is a path open to any Jedi, naming them differently doesnt make any sense, or you’d have to come up with a specific name for Jedis that wield the Light/Good side. Jedis is just the name for people that can master the Force, whatever the colour. That was the point, you could get a lot of power through the Force, but it was a dangerous path. The Dark side of the Force is part of the Force, and Jedis can draw on it (Luke certainly does). Sounds a lot like voodun, btw, with the Rada and Petro rites.
P.S: I think “Sith” as used in the ANH novelization might have been to accentuate the inhuman or Alien aspect of Vader and had absolutely nothing to do with Force
P.S.2: Vader was named, in the ANH novelization “the Dark Lord of the Sith”, which sounds a lot like SF mumbo jumbo, but in any case it completely destroys the concept of the Sith as belaboured by “fans”. If he is THE Dark Lord of the Sith, wtf is the Emperor? (on the other hand, there are a lot of glitches in ANH that were smoothed over in he following movies).
Your response has little to do with what I have written. First it details the workings of the Jedis (both Obi Wan/Luke and Annakin/Obi Wan were Jedis relations, no “Siths” here), and to have one mentor is a classic in warrior/martial arts sagas. I was talking about the whole (very badly) made up rule of the Sith: to have an apprentice that can fuck you. Again it separates Jedis and Siths when they are the same thing (dont fanwank me here, the whole story of the Sith was made up long after the movies and had no influence on them) and secondly it doesnt base itself on anything else that the fact only Vader and the Emperor (when was he ever named Darth Sidious in the OT? Wasnt it Vader and Vader only that was using the title Darth?) are operating as Dark Jedis in the OT (a lot of the confusion comes from this: are Sith the same as Dark Jedis? Wouldnt Dark Jedis be a better and more accurate concept than Siths?).
All I can say is that we see in Star Wars, Obi-Wan and Darth Vader, and they both have light sabers. Are they both Jedi? This is where I get lost, can’t get understanding, or anythting.
No, Jedi has always been the name for a specific order of Force-users. It’s never been intended as a generic name for anyone who can use the Force. I don’t know where you got that idea from. It’s not supported by anything in the original trilogy. Jedis can draw on the Dark Side of the Force, but doing so is a violation of the tenants of their order. If a Jedi falls to the Dark Side, he is no longer a Jedi: he’s kicked out of the Jedi order. He’s still a Force-user, and could find a different order to join that does not shun the Dark Side. Like the Sith. This is made pretty abundantly clear in the first movie, when Obi Wan specifically says that Vader turned against the Jedi and exterminated them, which wouldn’t make any sense if Vader was, himself, still a Jedi.
If you’re arguing that the term “Sith” never appears in Star Wars, then you can’t really claim that calling Vader “the” Dark Lord of the Sith is a flaw in the film.
First of all, referring to Vader and the Emperor as Sith isn’t a fanwank. It’s not something that came from the fans, it’s something that came directly from the creator of the series.
You’re correct that the Emperor is never referred to as Darth Sidious in the original trilogy. Of course, he’s never referred to as Emperor Palpatine, either. He’s never referred to by any name in the original trilogy. They just call him “The Emperor.”
I’m not clear on why you think “dark Jedi” is a better term than “Sith.” It’s certainly got less providence in the series than “Sith” does. Neither ever appears in the original trilogy, but Sith has been used for over twenty years in the various expanded universe products. Personally, I like the idea that the Jedi’s opponents don’t define themselves purely in reaction to the Jedi. Makes it seem like they’re an organization in their own right, and not merely a reflection of the other side. YMMV, I guess, but it seems like a really weird thing to get hung up on.
I do, however, join you in not having any clue what Kozmik is talking about.
There used to be a race called the Sith that had a natural ability with the force and were generally pretty evil. A few jedi within the republic turn the dark side and end up conquering the sith. They start referring to themselves as The Dark Lords of the Sith. The whole idea of master and apprentice, and betraya,l pops up, they fight a bunch of civil wars and by about 1,000 years before the prequels, they’ve pretty much disappeared.
I, on the other hand, followed a poorly translated prophecy and conquered a bunch of bamboo eating furballs.
