It's cracking me up watching them dual and hearing him continually just refer to him as Darth...
share"You can't win, Anakin. If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine."
Yeah, that would be more comprehensible and suitable for the storyline.
[deleted]
[deleted]
One of many signs that Lucas didn't have the sequels as mapped out as he claims.
shareDarth was simply his first name back then. xD
shareAnd Vader wasn't Lukes father. And Leia was genuinely from Alderaan. And Obi Wan didn't lie. ESB ruined the franchise by making Vader the father. It wasn't Ewoks. It set the whole(everyone is related bs) that sadly sucked Leia into the mix. Then R2 was their mothers droid on her ship? Their father built C3PO? Boba Fett was a clone? Same as the ones from the once fabled Clone Wars. And now we have to wait to see how Rey fits into the Maury in Space episode of whose the father.
shareESB ruined the franchise
While I agree that "ruining the franchise" is alittle harsh, ESB retroactively hurt ANH and set the stage for three very inferior prequels as they're all about Anakin becoming Vader. It wasn't George Lucas making Vader Luke's father that bothered me as much as it was making Leia Luke's sister. It just felt so contrived.
shareI don't think these 'relationship details' matter that much - there's _SO_ much nonsense (things that do not make sense) in all of the three movies, this is basically just one of the smaller problems.
It would've been more interesting, if Darth hadn't suddenly been Luke's dad, Leia wouldn't have been Luke's sister (why the heck would they be so unfair to Luke as to make HIM a farmer, but let Leia become a damn PRINCESS?! Why not at least attempt equality?), Obi-Wan hadn't been a stupid liar, but I guess george knew better..
.. what sells.
Having Luke and Leia as siblings was the best idea in any Star Wars movie
shareI disagree.
I think the best ideas were 1) Luke finding out he's Vader's son at a critical moment, and 2) having Leia fall for Han and not Luke.
The latter is the single most believable thing in a sci-fi-fantasy series that's full of spaceships and magic! Because if a princess is going to slum it up and get with someone who's socially beneath her, she's going to go for the sexy grownup guy, not the nice farmboy. The farmboy is just a boy, after all.
The only mistake they made was not building up Leia's force sensitivity more of a driver of the plot in Return of the Jedi and not just a last minute "Hey, you're my sister!" / "Oh, really? Ain't that somethin'!".
shareApparently they were planning to introduce another character entirely but then switched it over to Leia because they didn't have the time to do fit in the whole plotline. Don't remember where I read that, though.
shareI heard that story too. Not that I hate the idea of Leia being Luke’s sister, I agree it's rushed and a little too coincidental. Besides it makes it seem like Leia would have chosen to be with Luke if not for that instead that she was in love with Han.
shareI like it the way it is; I don't hate it, either. But as a little thought experiment - a fun "what if" - just imagining that I had the keys to the car back in the '80s, what would I have done?
I think I'd have had it so that Luke's sister was not Leia. I'd have that arc resolve where Luke saw Leia and Han getting closer, wished he could fight for her love, but knew he could either try to win Leia's hand or save his father's soul, and he makes the sacrificial choice. I'd probably make these revelations and tensions woven throughout the Jabba's palace sequence. I've always felt that section of the film was a little disconnected from the rest.
Of course, with that, the problem becomes what to do with Yoda's dangling line, "No...there is another..." in The Empire Strikes Back.
Some possibilities:
1. The line isn't referring to a family member. Give Leia Force powers, anyway, and have them manifest in crucial ways during Endor. Give Luke a scene or two where he's trying to train Leia, throw in the romance angle, Han's jealousy, and so forth.
2. The line isn't referring to another sibling, but Vader himself. You add some dialogue, maybe even with Yoda's spirit at the end, about how the goodness that dwelt within Luke reignited Anakin's goodness and made him the last hope.
3. Introduce a new character who is Luke's sister. I don't like this angle because then you have to do something with that character. Luke dies, she takes over? Not really a satisfying ending. You can't introduce a new character at the 11th hour and have them become the hero of your story. If this was the approved path, what I would do is have Luke searching for her for the whole movie only to find her in the throne room of the Emperor. She is dressed in red robes and standing guard, already turned to the Dark Side. She is too close to Luke when the Emperor starts frying him and is knocked down the pit. This adds to Vader's decision to betray the Emperor: seeing his master's callous reaction.
Yes, absolutely. Less Ewoks, more of Leia's powers.
shareWhat interests me, though, is that there WAS supposedly some 'treatment' that had a full story.
Why did they have to retcon SO MUCH, if they already had a full story, boggles my mind. I mean, in 1977, they already had a 'treatment' that George probably bought from someone, and they decided to do the middle part, which would become three movies, but wanted to make the first one a 'standalone' just in case it doesn't sell - or something. I think this is the way the story goes, but then why would they have to retcon a ton of stuff in the very next movie, is beyond me.
Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back is the best Star Wars-movie for sure, maybe even top three best 'space movies', basically due to the Luke's training and the iconic 'valiant knight fights the dark knight'-scenes, although so much boring and useless and nonsensical filler and fluff is also included. The original, DESPECIALIZED EDITION-version of the Emperor looks so cool and sounds more majestic and menacing, I can't understand why they had to feebleize that as well. The weak-sounding, wrinkly emperor is nothing like the hologram shown ORIGINALLY with the monkey eyes, which make him look so creepy (and it was a woman's face, if I remember correctly, not that that matters).
George always goes where the money is, so whatever the story requires doesn't matter, anything will be changed to get more merchandizing opportunities.
Isn't it amazing that pretty much everything was retconned into oblivion? 'Illuminate beings are we, not of this crude matter' was changed to 'MIDI-chlorine' [SIC] (I think Lucas just takes existing words and twists them a bit and puts them together), so now even that's gone. All the wisdom of Yoda? Gone.
BTW, ANH wasn't even ANH originally. It was just Star Wars - a name that doesn't even make any sense,since stars do NOT go to war in these movies, let alone multiple wars. There's just a 'tiny rebel struggle' at best in any of these movies, not ever a full-blown WAR(S).
Back in the day, everyone expected the next movie to simply be called 'Star Wars 2', but it wasn't. I read an old MAD Magazine of the era which confirms this..
..don't ever watch any 'youtuber reactions' to any of these movies, as all of them (sans maybe two) watch the 'special editions' and such WITHOUT REALIZING what they're watching, so then they're complimenting that the 'effects were pretty good for the seventies' while they're looking at the slowly meandering CGI added in the 1990s and 2000s or whatever.
It's SO groan-inducing that people today can't even REALIZE what 1970s effects would look like, and what bad CGI looks like. That they can even ENTERTAIN the thought that _THAT_ came from the 1970s, makes me lose ALL HOPE.
Maybe reality should give us a new hope that someone might actually make a movie that makes sense, and youtubers would actually RESEARCH what the F they are friggin' watching so they would know to give appropriate commentary, not look at some modern CGI and say 'that looks pretty good for the seventies'. Groan.
Also, seventies practical effects look better than any modern CGI, but what do I know.
I've never felt that way but I am biased as I was born after the 3 original Star Wars movies came out. I can understand someone who is way older than me and having seen the first one in 1977 thinking that way though. It must have been a bit weird for audiences back in 1980 when The Empire Strikes Back came out. I admit though I dislike the way they wrote the explanation scene in Return of the Jedi by Obi Wan with him saying he didn't lie when he very clearly did. If I had written it, it would've gone like this.
"I did lie. But it was for your own protection. I felt you would've gone immediately gone after Vader to confront him if I'd told you this. Then you'd probably have gotten killed by him."
I agree in spirit that making Darth, Luke's father was a mistake, but it wasn't Empire I blame. It was RotJ. The Ghost of Obi-Wan could have simply revealed that Darth had lied.
In the kingdom of the blind, you're the village idiot.
probly just busting his balls
shareI admit Vader would sound better but it also was what everyone else in the movie called him. So they had Obi Wan call him Darth instead.
shareIt is his title, but it would be strange to call someone mister all the time. Maybe the Death Star people thought Darth was his first name? Maybe Sith had other titles than Darth? I mean they don't call Count Dooku, Darth.
share