CT Last Names

[Daniel Krispin]

It's actually fairly well-known in the SW community.

like I said: where did you get this info?

... More importantly... why are we analyzing the utterly boned New Trilogy like it's anything resembling literature?  :-p  You know what the best thing about the new star wars is?

Lego Star Wars.

Oh yes.

You know why?

No dialogue.

OH YES!

Actually, Ian McDiarmid had some good lines, and it was in that that the idea begins, with his legend of Darth Pelegus, who was presumably his master. But I get you with the whole dialogue thing. Not that Star Wars ever had stellar dialogue, but the old cheesiness worked. The new ones crossed some line. The best Episode III offered was Anakin's little tirade before the last lightsabre fight. Now, I actually rather like the new ones as far as movies go, but they have no where near the strength of the old trilogy, and could have been done better.

Maybe it's just that long ago I read a fanfiction of Episode III which forever gave me a bit different view of it. It essentially had Anakin being a lord, and his wife no secret thing. The screenplay (it was set out as such) began on the volcanic world, where the two knights Anakin and Obi-Wan were both seeking the legendary Kaiburr crystal. And that's the crucial point. To me, the knights truly seemed knights. That's what I thought they were. Lucas instead diminished them: they became galactic police officers. But, maybe because of that old fanfiction, I still like to think of it otherwise. You see, the way that writer set it out... the Jedi order was like Arthur's knights of the round table. They were thus aristocracy, maybe even regional lords, and Anakin thus would have borne more resemblance to Lancelot (or to go older, Achilles) than to what he does. The search for the Kaiburr crystal, the quest of the holy grail. Anakin, I think, could then have been seen like a great hero - not just a powerful Jedi knight, but really revered by troops (I also considered him a lot older, more a peer of Obi-Wan.) He could bring down enemy ships and armies almost single-handedly, a warrior of high reknown. Moreover... Clones and droids? Would it not have been better to have real troops with faces dug in (a la Empire Strikes Back.) Can you not see it? The armies of Field Lord Anakin Skywalker dug in deeply, mud and dirt everywhere, the enemy entrenched across a noman's land of a forsaken planet. A few sub-knights lead out affrays, but are driven back. At last a cry echoes along the trenches 'the Correllian's have come!' and from the sky a hundred Correlian cruisers come and land, dropping the reinforcements of the fearless Correllian fighters, led by another Jedi Lord. But then a fear: the Mandalorians come to aid the enemy. Like the hammerfall of destruction, the news seems to crush the new hopes. And so the battle goes. Well, that's the Star Wars I had wanted to see. Not these metaphysical knights flourishing laser swords - I'd rather that the fighting had been slower, like in Empire or Return of the Jedi.

That's my thoughts on Star Wars. At least we have Knights of the Old Republic, which is a blessing. That has that old and serious feel that Star Wars needs.

[but2002]

I know this is off, but Daniel Krispin, your signature reminds me SHARPLY of R.O.S.E Online, is that what it's based off of?

[Chrono'99]

It's actually fairly well-known in the SW community.

like I said: where did you get this info?

As GreenGannon said, it's common knowledge. It was deliberately made ambiguous just so that it's more interesting (was it Plagueis or Palpatine, when exactly was it, etc.), and so that you can still believe that Anakin was really the Messiah sent by the Powers That Be to save the universe from the Evil (since that's kinda what he does in Episode VI, better late than never eh?)... But just google and you'll find this written in every (decent) SW site. Every SW site, including the OFFICIAL site:
http://www.starwars.com/databank/character/darthvader/index.html

[grey_the_angel]

It's actually fairly well-known in the SW community.

like I said: where did you get this info?

As GreenGannon said, it's common knowledge. It was deliberately made ambiguous just so that it's more interesting (was it Plagueis or Palpatine, when exactly was it, etc.), and so that you can still believe that Anakin was really the Messiah sent by the Powers That Be to save the universe from the Evil (since that's kinda what he does in Episode VI, better late than never eh?)... But just google and you'll find this written in every (decent) SW site. Every SW site, including the OFFICIAL site:
http://www.starwars.com/databank/character/darthvader/index.html

it nevers states it as fact. I hate to say this, but I  think you guys are just reading into a pull too much. it never states it anywhere as a fact.

[GreenGannon]

Nor is it disproved anywhere, as you seem to think.

[Chrono'99]

it nevers states it as fact. I hate to say this, but I  think you guys are just reading into a pull too much. it never states it anywhere as a fact.

I did not say this was a clear-cut fact. I know you could say what you just said, so I have stressed that the fact was that Anakin's birth was deliberately left ambiguous, but I guess I still didn't stress it enough (particularly in my first post). But let's summarize:

1/ In the original script, Palpatine precisely revealed to Anakin that he created him. 2/ In some interviews, Lucas stated he deleted this scene from the shootings to make the subject more ambiguous, NOT because he changed the story. 3/ The official website mentions both the prophecy and the conspiracy, with the same ambiguity.

This ambiguity was a really clever thing to do because the Jedi prophecy and the Sith conspiracy can actually BOTH be true. There are evidences pointing towards the validity of the conspiracy and the fakeness of the prophecy, but at the same time, the prophecy is kind of indirectly valid since Anakin did destroy the Siths... although 20 years later than expected, and did give a new breath to the Jedi order... although by actually killing them all except Luke, the creator of the New Jedi order (new order not seen in the movies though).

That's all I wanted to argue. Lucas purposely made NO fact, he planned one in the original script but said he eventually decided to just put 2 ambiguous possibilities which sound exclusive to each other but can actually both work simultaneously. I only tried to explain this situation, not state that one possibility or the other was the fact.

You, on the other hand, started your reasoning with this statement:

uh, no. that's completely wrong.

Do you really think it's "completely wrong" when it's clearly written on the official website? (and you know what "it" refers to, the 2 ambiguous facts, not one of them exclusively)

[grey_the_angel]

it nevers states it as fact. I hate to say this, but I  think you guys are just reading into a pull too much. it never states it anywhere as a fact.

I did not say this was a clear-cut fact. I know you could say what you just said, so I have stressed that the fact was that Anakin's birth was deliberately left ambiguous, but I guess I still didn't stress it enough (particularly in my first post). But let's summarize:

1/ In the original script, Palpatine precisely revealed to Anakin that he created him. 2/ In some interviews, Lucas stated he deleted this scene from the shootings to make the subject more ambiguous, NOT because he changed the story. 3/ The official website mentions both the prophecy and the conspiracy, with the same ambiguity.

This ambiguity was a really clever thing to do because the Jedi prophecy and the Sith conspiracy can actually BOTH be true. There are evidences pointing towards the validity of the conspiracy and the fakeness of the prophecy, but at the same time, the prophecy is kind of indirectly valid since Anakin did destroy the Siths... although 20 years later than expected, and did give a new breath to the Jedi order... although by actually killing them all except Luke, the creator of the New Jedi order (new order not seen in the movies though).

That's all I wanted to argue. Lucas purposely made NO fact, he planned one in the original script but said he eventually decided to just put 2 ambiguous possibilities which sound exclusive to each other but can actually both work simultaneously. I only tried to explain this situation, not state that one possibility or the other was the fact.

You, on the other hand, started your reasoning with this statement:

uh, no. that's completely wrong.

Do you really think it's "completely wrong" when it's clearly written on the official website? (and you know what "it" refers to, the 2 ambiguous facts, not one of them exclusively)

can I ask you something: you keep saying "in the original script."
now, as a writer, I know that ideas vary from the final product, that their are lots of things I didn't add that I wanted to, among other things.

so, the question is: if it was deleted from the storyline, does it still count as fact?

answer: no.

Lucas is trying to pull a comic retcon for a mistake on his part: "well, here's what's Really going on." Frankly, he didn't have to try much, cause starwars junkies are almost as bad as star terk junkies.
as for point three: It DID change the story. there a huge difference between what palpatine said then what is being retcon. a master of death is not the same as being able to infuse life and save people from dying.
I'm not going to take as fact, cause he erases it from the factual timeline. Frankly, it's just bad writing trying to get out something worthwhile.

Ambigous my ass. Lucas needs to watch his own damn movie. its nowhere near ambigous. Magus's trigger ending/Cross is flipping ambigous, star wars is just plain shitty writing and editing.

[Chrono'99]

I did precise he said he deleted the scene to make it ambiguous, not because he actually changed the storyline. In CC for instance, Kato deleted the Magus subplot and did change the story accordingly (as he stated in an interview), but on his part Lucas didn't (as he stated in an interview).

But I'm not going to continue debating anymore, since you're not. You're just trying to get away from the situation by claiming that "it doesn't matter, SW is shit anyway". How ironic that you're taking CC as an example, Cross haters would say the same thing about CC (it's shit anyway, it's not even the sequel to CT and Magus isn't even present)... I don't care if Lucas made mistakes or not, I'm not a SW fan, I just wanted to point out the ambiguity (again, not the outright fact) that Lucas has put in his story, whether he put it awkwardly or carefully. If you don't give a crap about this SW tidbit, you should have said it sooner. One can't argue with someone who doesn't want to listen.

[Daniel Krispin]

I know this is off, but Daniel Krispin, your signature reminds me SHARPLY of R.O.S.E Online, is that what it's based off of?

My signature?! No. Which part, exactly? The picture, actually, is a painting of mine. The picture is a Greek-style hoplite circa 500BC - some of it is cut off, but it's based off a scene in the Iliad where Menelaos grabs Alexandros by the crest of his helm and is about to drag him off. By and large, though, the armour is a realistic historical array. As for the the words, if that's what you meant, it's emulating the beginning of the Iliad (ie. Sing, goddess, the anger of Peleus' son Akhilleus...). And the subject matter (ie. the Nephilim) is of my own writing project.

By the way... what IS R.O.S.E, anyway?

[GreenGannon]

It's funny how you tell us that we're "completely wrong" and then ask us to back up our facts.

[grey_the_angel]

I did precise he said he deleted the scene to make it ambiguous, not because he actually changed the storyline. In CC for instance, Kato deleted the Magus subplot and did change the story accordingly (as he stated in an interview), but on his part Lucas didn't (as he stated in an interview).

But I'm not going to continue debating anymore, since you're not. You're just trying to get away from the situation by claiming that "it doesn't matter, SW is shit anyway". How ironic that you're taking CC as an example, Cross haters would say the same thing about CC (it's shit anyway, it's not even the sequel to CT and Magus isn't even present)... I don't care if Lucas made mistakes or not, I'm not a SW fan, I just wanted to point out the ambiguity (again, not the outright fact) that Lucas has put in his story, whether he put it awkwardly or carefully. If you don't give a crap about this SW tidbit, you should have said it sooner. One can't argue with someone who doesn't want to listen.

uh, when did I ever say star wars was shit. I said "plain shitty writing and editing." that means, the writing and editin blew. the plot, and everything related, maybe not/ maybe so.
why: cause it was plain shitty writing and editing. if he was going for ambigous, he missed by a god damn mile and a half. if he wanted to make it ambigous, he should have at least HINTED somewhere that palpatine did it. he didn't, and cut out what could give it out as such. As it stands, palpatine looked like he did a bang up good job hiding acknowledgement then: going through 2 damn appertentices then finally having to woo over ani to save his life.

Good job lucas.  The most ambigous deception ever! "I made him, to be evil, but I gave no hint, nor was even seen near him till episode 3 and ran through two others before even thinking about using ani!" Right. Ambigous.

I call bullshit on lucas.

[GreenGannon]

Except, you know, they were seen together in Episode II, and it was kinda refrenced near the beginning of the movie.

[Zaperking]

By the way... what IS R.O.S.E, anyway?

It was this really fun online game by Gravity. But it got hacked so bad because the GM's didn't pay attention to us, and just left us. It was so bugged and glitch, and when it became P2P, nothing changed so Gravity lost over 100mil in that investment.

[Chrono'99]

Bear in mind that the possibility is for both Plagueis or Palpatine. That doesn't matter if you don't see some stuff, you don't even see Plagueis anywhere also, not even in flashbacks. But the creation was explained by Lucas in interviews, and hinted on the official website and in the goddamn movie:

    Did you ever hear the Tragedy of Darth Plagueis the Wise? No? I thought not. It's not a story the Jedi would tell you. It's a Sith legend. Darth Plagueis was a Dark Lord of the Sith, so powerful and so wise he could use the Force to influence the midi-chlorians to create life.... He had such a knowledge of the dark side he could even keep the ones he cared about from dying.

    He became so powerful the only thing he was afraid of was losing his power, which eventually, of course, he did. Unfortunately, he taught his apprentice everything he knew, then his apprentice killed him in his sleep. Ironic, isn't it;
He could save others from death, but not himself.

If those 3 sources (I didn't bother to find the interview but it exists) don't hint towards a Sith conspiracy possibility, then I don't know what you mean by "hint". But this is the last thing I'll say about it anyway. After all, you're free to think that Lucas is "completely wrong" about his own story if that's what you want to think.

[grey_the_angel]

Bear in mind that the possibility is for both Plagueis or Palpatine. That doesn't matter if you don't see some stuff, you don't even see Plagueis anywhere also, not even in flashbacks. But the creation was explained by Lucas in interviews, and hinted on the official website and in the goddamn movie:

    Did you ever hear the Tragedy of Darth Plagueis the Wise? No? I thought not. It's not a story the Jedi would tell you. It's a Sith legend. Darth Plagueis was a Dark Lord of the Sith, so powerful and so wise he could use the Force to influence the midi-chlorians to create life.... He had such a knowledge of the dark side he could even keep the ones he cared about from dying.

    He became so powerful the only thing he was afraid of was losing his power, which eventually, of course, he did. Unfortunately, he taught his apprentice everything he knew, then his apprentice killed him in his sleep. Ironic, isn't it;
He could save others from death, but not himself.

If those 3 sources (I didn't bother to find the interview but it exists) don't hint towards a Sith conspiracy possibility, then I don't know what you mean by "hint". But this is the last thing I'll say about it anyway. After all, you're free to think that Lucas is "completely wrong" about his own story if that's what you want to think.

come on chrono: how does this even count as ambigous towards ani's birthrights. he's sounds like he's trying to talk him into saving padma (sp), not "I made you by having invis-sex with your mom!..." wait! brain imagery... ow ow ow... okay.

Its really falls down to what I said: It's a loose retcon that hardly falls into the story line the way lucas wanted. If you were to ask anybody about it who didn't read that before hand, they wouldn't have known that at all.

Like I said: shit writing, shit editing.

anyways! lets get back onto topic. I don't feel like arguing starwars:unless its bout chewy *hugs his chewy doll.*