xhonzi said:
Did we ever get a comprehensive list of things that the Force could and couldn't do? I must have missed that.
I never said we got such a list. But there doesn't need to be any such list for my point to stand. The point is that we never got any indication that the force could do that (transfer minds into clones), so there's no reason why we should assume Palpatine's likely to go transferring his mind into clones.
Did we see any clones in the OT? Did you see a Rancor in ANH or ESB? Did you see Hoth in ANH? Did anyone ever mention Yoda prior to ESB? Did anyone says Vader was Luke's dad and Leia was Luke's sister when the characters were introduced in ANH?
Not the point. You were saying that it naturally followed from the OT that Palpatine would resurrect himself in clones, as if the story elements introduced in the OT would have to lead to Palpatine resurrecting himself in clones that had his mind. No we did not see Hoth in ANH. ANH did did not bar the possibilty of Hoth, but based on ANH we could not say, "well it naturally follows that the rebels will have to end up on a snow planet". In ANH it was not said that Vader was Luke's father, and they found a way to make it possible later, but you could not take ANH and draw from it the conclusion that based on the details of ANH Vader must be Luke's father or Leia must be Luke's sister. Similarly, you could not look at ANH and say that it followed from ANH that there would be a green mentor coming up. Similarly you cannot take the OT and draw from it the conclusion that the Emperor would naturally be resurrected in clones with his mind. To say that that naturally followed you need to have established that clones could be given the original person's mind in the Star Wars universe. Without that we have no reason to think the Emperor's going to get resurrected. Of course, the rebels could end up on a snow planet, but we'd no reason to say it would have to be that way or that there would have to be a green mentor or that Vader and Luke and Leia would have to be related, and I bet none of those things were thought up when Lucas made ANH. It doesn't naturally follow from the OT that the Emperor would get resurrected in clones.
Furthermore, putting the original person's mind in clones and using it to resurrect the person is a distinct level of the unreal. We didn't know that Star Wars would go that far. Sure, there were aliens and hyperspace and laser swords and the force, but the level of unreality only went so far. Resurrection is a very high level of unreal and a lot of fictions are unwilling to go that far. Nowhere in the OT or PT does Star Wars actually go that far. Though the PT does go similarly far with the virgin birth and that has been recognized by a lot of people as going farther than Star Wars went before then. I find it unsurprising that the films have never pulled resurrection. I bet Lucas is unwilling to do it (despite the virgin birth). Resurrection is precisely the sort of thing I'd expect to see in the eu rather than in the films. The eu is always that bit more careless about restricting what it does and watching levels of real. Judging from the carefully judged level of unreal we saw in the OT, resurrection was something that didn't fit and wasn't likely. It was a boundary Star Wars was not likely to go beyond. So if we're going to say it naturally follows from the OT that the Emperor would get resurrected in clones with his mind we need to add in something that gets us past that boundary and there was no such thing in the OT. Star wars is not Dune. Cloning doesn't mean resurrection unless your fictional universe has clearly shown that it does.
Fair enough. Is the point of RotJ any different then? Is the point of any consumable any different?
It's fair to assume ROTJ has a bit more creative point to it. It's part of the core body of artistic work of the franchise, while the EU is just the merchandising to make money off the fans.
So, you don't like the EU. At all.
Incorrect. I like some eu and dislike some eu. But I don't want any eu stuffed into the OT where it doesn't belong.
Fine. This is obviously a thread about the EU. While we (or I alone, as the case may be here) want to get into the weeds and discuss the finer points, we don't really want you to come crashing through our sandbox, knocking down my lovely castle, and telling us you don't like sand.
No, that is not what this thread is. Look at the opening post:
xhonzi said:
This is my attempt to convince you that the Emperor's Clones part of the Dark Empire aren't as bad as you thought. Even that they are good!
Have you ever watched a movie where the bad guy is supposedly undefeatable (as evidenced by the ending to act 1 and especially the ending to act 2) abd then at the end of the movie, they sort of just take him out? This is one of my biggest pet peaves in a movie: when they stop following their own rules.
I think the Prequels sort of do this on the OT with cloning, but perhaps the problem is really much earlier than that. George Lucas opened a door in 1977 with the term "Clone Wars." Introducing Cloning technology into the fantasy world would have lots of implications unless the technology was uninvented, lost, or somehow made obsolete. A veritable closing of the door. But as long as the door is left open, we would expect to see the technology constantly, right?
Certainly, if the technology was still available... why wouldn't Palpatine have focused his efforts and power on a way to live forever? Of course he would.
But then again... that door is still open. Why isn't everybody being cloned? That's probably where Dark Empire II and III went afoul. They tried to close the door on cloning, or cloning the Emperor at least. And that is where they suck.
This thread is a thread to argue that the Emperor being cloned A) Is good and B) Naturally follows from the OT. Now, anybody with any interest in Star Wars has a right to argue against the alarming conclusion that the OT naturally leads to the Emperor being resurrected via cloning. And anybody with an interest in Star Wars has a right to debate the issue of whether it's a good idea to clone the emperor, particularly if (like me) they've read DE and its sequels. You don't have to love all the EU or think the eu belongs stuffed into the OT to have a right to express an opinion on this thread or to be able to say something relevant on this thread. This is not your sandbox for building sand castles. This is the soap box you got up on to argue certain points and anybody who disagrees with those points has a right to come in here and disagree with you.
The question was, and yes this is more articulate here than it was above: "If you accept the EU, how does Vader's sacrifice change in light of Palpatine's clones?" Saying the EU sucks is pretty much a troll answer to that question.
A) I did not say the eu sucks. I said the exists to make money for Lucas and I said the eu doesn't belong in the OT. That is not the same as saying the sucks. B) The question you just asked now is NOT what you said in your opening post at all. You're changing the game at half time. That question you just asked now is not the question this thread is about. Maybe you should make a new thread for your new question. Or else just accept that people will do more on this thread than just discuss your new question, because your new question did not start this thread.
And of course Palpatine's clone resurrection screws up Vader's sacrifice entirely, which is a good reason why Palpatine's resurrection is a load of bullshit and should have been avoided. One of many reasons. I hated it when I first heard of it and I've never changed my mind. The Palpatine resurrection is cheap and cheapens Star Wars. It put a black mark on the new 90s eu right when it was starting. It's the sort of thing you'd expect from a comic book, but the 90s eu was supposed to be a serious eu and thus should have tried to live up to the movies' standards rather than going by comic book standards. Kudos to Lucas for saying Palpatine doesn't get cloned.
VINH- I think you made some great strides in this post. You actually called your opinion an "opinion." As far as I've seen, that's a first. You get into some strange arguments here because you usually saunter in declaring your opinion as fact and casting down anyone who doesn't agree with you. I think you'd get on better here if you were a little more aware of other people's opinions.
Do you realize you're crossing a line in rudeness?
"You actually called your opinion an "opinion." As far as I've seen, that's a first."
No it's not a first.
"You get into some strange arguments here because you usually saunter in declaring your opinion as fact and casting down anyone who doesn't agree with you."
No, I get into arguments here because I think differently and because thinking differently is only acceptable if you're timid and mincing about it. People who think differently aren't supposed to get uppity.
I don't "cast down" anybody. I disagree with people when I don't agree with their viewpoints. And obviously that IS a crime. As for declaring my opinions as fact, all I do is show reasonable confidence in my views (which is of course not acceptable in somebody who thinks differently from most people). But in actual fact, most people treat their opinions as fact, though a lot of people like to pretend to themselves that they're not doing that.