I know this idea has been thought of before, so I'll just ask how quickly it was shot down.

What if the Emperor on the Second Death Star was a clone?

This disregards the prequels, as Anakin/Vader would have known the difference, but if Vader of the OT had only ever seen the Emperor in holograms, how would he know if he was talking to the real Emperor on the Death Star? Also, the Emperor changes dramatically in appearance in both the original trilogy and the special edition, so it could very well be a rapidly aging decoy placed on the Death Star to test Luke and the rebels, as well as Vader's loyalty, without ever exposing himself or even risking a completed battle station. The Emperor's "Best Troops" seem inferior to even generic stormtroopers, perhaps implying that the clone Emperor wasn't aware of the real condition of his troops. The Imperial fleet flees after the battle, even after it still seemed to outnumber the rebel fleet. Was it an unexpected retreat, or a calculated move to make the rebels think that they won and lower their guard?

It's just that if the EU is going to be thrown out, why not go crazy? Everyone agrees that cloning the Emperor is a bad idea, but that's because the real McCoy was already killed off, leading to cheap imitations. But if Luke was overpowered and Vader killed by a cheap imitation of the Emperor, how powerful would the real deal be?

SilverWook said:

georgec said:

Quick google search (thanks pat man!) shows they killed him in Fate of the Jedi. Is that the EU to which you're referring?

The following has been done, too, but in the film maybe they can have Dark Luke. I love how Mark describes his ideas for ROTJ here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAYwQIERib4#t=11m40s

Interestingly enough JJ is at the table as well. It's a nice video.

I meant killing Luke off mirrors Obi Wan a bit too much. When Lucas originally did it, it was a last minute script change, (which Sir Alec reportedly wasn't too thrilled about) and then he had to create a new Jedi master to train Luke in the sequel.

When I read this I immediately thought of that famous line said by George to Harrison during the filming of ROTJ: "There's no future in dead Han toys" yet I remember owning a ghost Obi Wan action figure growing up. I love George but sometimes he says such stupid things although now I'm glad he made that decision though becaus we'll probably get to see Han get his "heroic sacrifice" scene we've all been waiting for (at least me anyways). In a lot of the interviews and docs Kasden said he was adamant about killing off Han in ROTJ and I bet now he's going to get his wish. It makes so much damn sense and I imagine that Harrison would be thrilled by the idea.

double post

 I guess opinions are mixed:

http://www.pvponline.com/amazrible

It would have made sense if there were no lightsaber fights or Jedi onscreen in Episodes 1-3. After all, Luke doesn't seem to know what a lightsaber is, or what the Jedi do exactly. We get to learn with Luke in the OT.

I expect that the audience knows what Jedi are by the sequels, and fully expects them to be there, lightsabers flashing. However, I think it would be a mistake to focus on the lightsaber battles as big events like they were in the OT. By this point, wielding a lightsaber would be like flying a spaceship; lots of people can do it, so we need to raise the stakes.

Have the new Jedi be united in a quest for something, something worthwhile at that. At the same time, have the story grow beyond the Jedi, so that the hero must undergo a paradigm shift to understand how to save the day.

Exactly. After all, once Arthur had brought all of his knights to the round table, he then had to give them the grail quest to keep them occupied.

It would also be cool to see more spiritual connectivity in the sequels. The Ewoks mistook 3PO for a god, and that was played for comedy. But the entire idea of mechanical beings being part of the Force is something that the movies really haven't touched on. Could a droid be a Jedi? What constitutes a person? Maybe not answer these questions, but it would be nice to get the audience to think.

Tyrphanax said:

Gregatron said:

I think a big reason that the Nolan Batman films (which, in my opinion, are largely terrible BATMAN films--pretentious, dark, violent, and embarrassed by the source material) have been so successful is because of the public's name-brand recognition of Batman, and because self-loathing fans were all too eager to forget the campy Schumacher films, and wanted to see Batman be "dark" and "cool" so that they would look "cool" for liking it. "See? See? We're cool! We don't like those stupid, campy comics! We like this dark and violent Batman! See how cool we are?"

Same with TREK. "See? See how cool we are? We don't like that goofy, cheesy old TV show! TREK is finally cool now, because it's dark and fast and sexy and funny and big-budget!"

I genuinely hate this argument whenever anyone uses it. I can never roll my eyes hard enough.

Roll your eyes until the blood comes, but that's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it.

I'm convinced that Nu-TREK wouldn't have been anywhere near as successful if it was released as Generic Summer Sci-Fi Film X. Same with Batman. And maybe even the same with the SW prequels.

I've grown very weary of Hollywood hotshots coming along and twisting intellectual properties that I love into brainless action-fests that could not be more different than the source material.

But self-loathing fans--and general audiences who don't care--keep voting with their wallets. I guess fans are willing to accept even the most ridiculous perversions of various IP, because they're just happy to be getting it on the big screen to begin with.

As bashed as it was by fans and critics, STAR TREK- THE MOTION PICTURE was an honest attempt to make a TREK film. And I think it's a much better TREK film than Abrams' ode to STAR WARS.

And, God help me, I think that freaking BATMAN AND ROBIN is a better Batman film than THE DARK KNIGHT RISES. 

Batman is not a quitter!