Tyrphanax

The concept of the Death Star did not come about until Raith Sienar conceived of it after Palpatine was elected Supreme Chancellor, which could only be any time after Episode I, and Darth Plagueis was murdered during Episode I (the day before Palpatine became Supreme Chancellor, in fact), so no.

Beyond that, you can have as many fanciful scenarios as you wish about Darth Vader being the suddenly-benevolent Emperor of a suddenly-good Empire. All I know is that the Empire is portrayed as very explicitly and obviously evil in the films.

Again, and this will be the final time I attempt to explain this; no matter how many times you repost that quote, or how many others are like it, no matter what Lucas himself says, the official word from Lucas Licensing is that every piece of Star Wars material is on the exact same timeline. The movies, the books, the comics, the games, all of it. It's all on one timeline, it's all part of the same canon, it's all part of the same continuity. The only parallel universe in Star Wars continuity is anything that is marked with the "Infinities" label; if it does not have that label, it is officially on the same timeline, in the same universe, as the films, and therefore part of the same continuity.

The first four paragraphs of this article make that all very clear.

Again, you are welcome to create your own canon in your head; many people here have done so. But the official story is that it is all on one timeline, and that is what I will refer to for all discussions pertaining to the Star Wars canon, whether I like it or not.

Father Skywalker said:

adywan said:

I'm starting to realise that father Skywalker is actually a 12 year old girl, which would explain the immature posts and the fact that they thing that episode 3 is better than the OT. Puberty can do strange things to people ;)

Im not a 12 yr old girl. Im neither of those two adjectives.........

I am actually interested in your real age, from a demographic standpoint.

Father Skywalker said:

Tyrphanax said:

There is also always the chance that, well, there could be a mental component to this situation as well. Which is why I am being as gentle as I can and attempting to explain things clearly.

What Do U mean by a "Mental component to this situation"???

I mean differences in our mentalities; our perception of things versus yours are very different.

Everyone here is very staunch in our defense of the Original Trilogy, dislike of the Special Editions, and consensus about the canon (whether we agree with the official canon or not), the morality of the factions, and whether a character died or not; and you are very staunch in your love of the Prequels and Special Editions, defense of your hypothetical situations, and obsession with Hayden Christensen's looks and hair.

Father Skywalker said:

...episode 3 is the best of all of the 6 star wars films/movies!!!!!!

Not even close, man.

Yeah, I've never had a big problem with the designs of the prequels (they weren't McQuarrie, but they passed).

Naboo was cool, Kamino was cool, Jango was cool, the blasters and ships and other stuff were all neat.

Just the execution of the films blew. Once again it comes down to writing and directing: great components (design, the most basic plot elements, et cetera), all spoiled by bad execution.

Found this quote while I was looking for stuff to refute our pal FS with, might have been discussed before, but yeah:

TOTAL FILM: "Are you happy for new Star Wars tales to be told after you're gone?"

LUCAS: "I've left pretty explicit instructions for there not to be any more features. There will definitely be no Episodes VII-IX. That's because there isn't any story. I mean, I never thought of anything. And now there have been novels about the events after Episode VI, which isn't at all what I would have done with it. The Star Wars story is really the tragedy of Darth Vader. That is the story. Once Vader dies, he doesn't come back to life, the Emperor doesn't get cloned and Luke doesn't get married..."

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE TREATMENTS?! =P

Oh, Lucas.

SilverWook said:

I take issue with Jill Masterson being labelled an actual enemy of Bond though.

Thought this, too. Pretty obvious (especially in the book) that she "changes sides" (it's also pretty obvious that she was never on Goldfinger's side).

Look man. I dunno what else to tell you. I'm coming here with facts from various sources, trying my best to patiently explain everything to you the way it is meant to be interpreted and understood according to the books and movies and various other sources that are all canon, and all a part of the timeline, and you're just not hearing it.

That's cool, if you want to interpret stuff differently than what's intended, then you're perfectly entitled to do so; but I can't explain every single minute detail of the entire Star Wars universe, because a lot of it is just inferred. I can't tell you every planet that the Empire subjugated, all I can tell you is that the books and movies and video games and comics and everything infer that it happened.

If you want to interpret both sides of the Force as evil, that's also just fine. A lot of people have come to interpret that the Jedi Order was very corrupt and bordering on bad by the time of the Great Jedi Purge once the prequels came out and complicated what was before a very simple Light/Dark, Good/Evil, White/Black thing. I can't make you see that the Jedi Order is intended to be the good side and that they fight for justice and that means freeing the enslaved and rescuing the oppressed as well as fighting the evil influence of the Dark Side in all its forms.

If you want to interpret the Empire as good just because they didn't show everything they did that was bad and instead just inferred that they were bad (something which I don't think anyone else in the history of Star Wars has ever questioned), then that's fine; even though it's wrong.

If you want to interpret Moff Jerjerrod or any other person who died in Star Wars as having not died just because Lucas didn't pop up on the screen and say "Yep, he's dead forever!" every time someone croaked, that's fine, too; even though it's wrong.

If you want to interpret aliens being on a lesser plain than Humans in Star Wars, even though Admiral Ackbar outranked General Madine and was therefore his superior, then that's fine; even though it's wrong. Perhaps sentient was not the correct word to use in my last post, since apparently that extends now to animals in many areas; sapient however, is. My point with the comment about race is that, in Star Wars, a Mon Calamari, or a Bothan, or a Zabrak, or a Twi'lek, or a Wookiee, or any other alien species is equal to a human.

Ergo, a Wookiee is to a Human in Star Wars as a black person is to a white person in real life; and the same extends to any other sapient alien in the Star Wars universe.

Dolphins and cows or any other non-human animal are not sapient beings in real life; they do not possess "wisdom" or abstract thought or anything of the sort that makes humans human.

Again, and I know I can't make you understand this, but no matter what that Lucas quote says, there is only one Star Wars universe (except in the case of Infinities and overwritten canon) and all materials are a part of it.

Here is a quote:

"'Gospel,' or canon as we refer to it, includes the screenplays, the films, the radio dramas and the novelizations. These works spin out of George Lucas' original stories, the rest are written by other writers. However, between us, we've read everything, and much of it is taken into account in the overall continuity. The entire catalog of published works comprises a vast history—with many off-shoots, variations and tangents—like any other well-developed mythology."

And another:

"We've stuck to a very clear branding strategy for the past decade. This is Star Wars. Individual movies come and go, as do TV shows, video games, books. They all contribute to the lore of Star Wars, but in the end it is one saga and that saga is called Star Wars. We've wanted to send a clear message to our fans that everything we do is part of that overall saga."

And another:

"GL is certainly not bound by the EU, though he's certainly open to using things created in it (Aayla Secura and the Coruscant name, for example). On the other hand, the quote you provide makes it sound like the EU is separate from George's vision of the Star Wars universe. It is not. The EU must follow certain tenets set by George through the films and other guidelines that he provides outside of the films."

And here's one from Lucas himself:

"After Star Wars was released, it became apparent that my story—however many films it took to tell—was only one of thousands that could be told about the characters who inhabit its galaxy. But these were not stories I was destined to tell. Instead they would spring from the imagination of other writers, inspired by the glimpse of a galaxy that Star Wars provided. Today it is an amazing, if unexpected, legacy of Star Wars that so many gifted writers are contributing new stories to the Saga."

I realise these quotes will not make a lick of difference, but still.

Also, I know a lot of people who feel like the James Bond movies are all part of the same universe and the same continuity, as well.

The last true Sith Empire before the Republic was the one featured in the game Star Wars: The Old Republic, but after that there was The Brotherhood of Darkness, which was a very large Sith cult that was built from parts of the Sith Empire, and was eventually destroyed by the Thought Bomb, along with many Jedi, leaving only Darth Bane and his apprentice as the final Sith; Bane restarted Darth Revan's Rule of Two which would go on from Darth Bane, through many other Sith Lords, and end with Palpatine and Vader, afterwards, Darth Krayt would bring about a Sith Empire more akin to The Brotherhood of Darkness.

But I'm not sure if that matters because you so often flip between the EU being part of the canon and not being part of the canon. Your mind is so made up on all of this stuff that I just can't explain things well enough for it to make any difference, though, so we're at an impasse here; like I said earlier, I'm giving you all the proof anyone should need to see how Star Wars is supposed to be taken, interpreted, and understood, and you're just not hearing any of it, so I don't know how much longer I'm going to try.

There is also always the chance that, well, there could be a mental component to this situation as well. Which is why I am being as gentle as I can and attempting to explain things clearly.

Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:

Jaitea said:

Just maybe.....he escaped

J

No - the logic (as per FS's analogous thread) goes as follows:

Is there any actual evidence that Tarkin died?  Does any source actually say that he died?  If you can't produce some actual quote that says specifically that he died, then it is reasonable to imagine that he survived.

The good news about this, is that the same logic can be used for each of the remaining thousands of inhabitants of the Death Star, which in turn means that maybe the Rebels didn't kill anyone at all.  In fact, the only person we know anything at all about who was on the Death Star was Vader, and we saw him survive.  So the Rebels really are good, all they destroyed was the Death Star itself... all the people survived because there is no specific mention anywhere of any particular person dying.  Empire=bad, Rebels=good.  QED

I'm sorry but FS also believes that the Empire is good for reasons unknown.

Father Skywalker said:

The destruction of the Jedi Order, the jedi council and the younglings, order 66, operation knightfall, was undoubtley evil, I can agree with you on that;thousands died in it.

Here's is one thing that I do not understand about all of that. Why did Darth Sidious want to wipe out all of the jedi knights??? For revenge; the title is called Star Wars Episode 3 The Revenge of the Sith... Darth Maul said that at last the Sith lords will have their revenge against the Jedi. But what kinda revenge, for what??? I mean, I always believed that the destruction of the jedi order was to eliminate political rivalries. I don't get that; it kinda contradicts itself now.

Besides, starting a revenge war is totally pointless....

Yes, the Empire is evil. I'd say I'm glad you finally get that, but I'm sure later on we'll go over it again.

Palpatine wanted to destroy the Jedi Order because they would never let a Sith Lord control the galaxy if they were around; I was fairly sure the films made that very obvious. The Jedi and the Sith have been locked in an eternal struggle against one another forever; the Jedi want to destroy the Sith, and the Sith want to destroy the Jedi because their orders are diametrically opposed, the Dark Side and the Light Side are polar opposites. I'm not sure how you could have trouble not understanding why they want to destroy one another.

Maul is talking about a more abstract revenge, a revenge for the Sith as an institution, as neither Maul nor Palpatine were alive when the last Sith Empire was destroyed a thousand years before the events of The Phantom Menace. Palpatine doesn't really care about revenge so much as he cares about ruling the galaxy.

Father Skywalker said:

This is why the expanded universe (the EU) has to be canon. It explains all of the stuff that the films leave out. For instance, on Tattoine, Biggs darklighters joined the rebels, and luke skywalker said that he hated the galactic empire, long before Luke ever saw the second death star, and it wasn't because he was "persecuting the Sith", because that was long before he had any idea about the Force (the lightside or the darkside)...

Why don't the movies tell us more though??

If the EU isn't canon, which it hopefully is, then the empire isn't evil. By canon, I mean part of the same storyline as the movies. Which this quote kinda contradicts that....

Also, when George Lucas wrote the Star Wars movies, he never once mentioned what life was like in the empire, as if it wasn't an important plot point

 

"I don't read that stuff. I haven't read any of the novels. I don't know anything about that world. That's a different world than my world. But I do try to keep it consistent. The way I do it now is they have a Star Wars Encyclopedia. So if I come up with a name or something else, I look it up and see if it has already been used. When I said [other people] could make their own Star Wars stories, we decided that, like Star Trek, we would have two universes: My universe and then this other one. They try to make their universe as consistent with mine as possible, but obviously they get enthusiastic and want to go off in other directions."

?George Lucas, from an interview in Starlog #337^[src]

I knew we'd come back to the Empire being good eventually... sigh. I don't know how or why you keep going back to this point even after I compiled a whole list of all the atrocities that the Empire committed before the Death Star was even completed that have actual, canon sources.

But I digress.

Here is an interesting Wookieepedia about the Star Wars timeline, and canon, showing how it all fits together. No matter how many times you repost that same quote, the fact of the matter is that all Star Wars stories (aside from the Infinities series) fall on the same timeline, unless they are explicitly overwritten by a "higher order" of canon, otherwise they will be made to work alongside one another by someone like Leland Chee, who oversees the canon and makes sure everything works together.

Id est, a book written about what happened during The Clone Wars is canon and fits in the Star Wars timeline as though it were the same as a movie; however, if The Clone Wars TV show wanted to do an episode about the same characters doing different things and it happened at the exact same time, The Clone Wars TV show episode would overwrite the book, and the book would no longer be canon.

By that same token, if Lucas wanted to write a movie about the same characters doing different things than The Clone Wars TV show episode, that movie would be the definitive event, and The Clone Wars TV show episode would be overwritten and no longer be canon.

Those are the simplest terms I can put it in: until something is overwritten by a higher order of canon, it is the definitive canon for that event.

Now, on the subject of why the movies don't tell us more; that's because not every single aspect of everything in the Star Wars universe (or any other movie universe) needs to be described in minute detail for it to have happened. Can you imagine how boring it would be to watch an entire movie about a people going about their normal, boring lives at their office jobs on Coruscant?

Movies have a story to tell, and diluting that story with a lot of other aspects that have nothing to do with the story makes the movie boring and too long. If there was a huge scene in the middle of Star Wars that went on to show how every aspect of every part of everything in the Star Wars universe, the movie would never end and once it got back to the story of Luke, Han, and Leia, nobody would remember what was going on.

Plus the movie would never be released because it would take forever to make, and nobody would be able to pay to make the whole thing.

Father Skywalker said:

Also, I disagree with you putting galactic alien humanoid species on the same level as humans. By that logic, the U.S government is evil for growing cows on farms, which is "slavery", and people who hunt animals are "evil". I believe in animal rights strongly, animal cruelty is sickening and just plain pure evil, however, I don't believe that farming or hunting is wrong. By criticizing Darth Vader and the galactic sith empire for "specisim", it just doesn't make any sense, in my opinion. I am willing to hear your opposing POV, a diversity of opinions....

Uh, what? Cows are not sentient, many aliens (as they appear in Star Wars) are. Aliens (like the Mon Calamari, or Bothans, or Chiss, or Taung, or Wookiees) in Star Wars are equal to humans, they are not animals. I hate to get all up-in-arms about racism towards fictional races, but what you're saying is like saying black people or Mexicans shouldn't have the same rights as white people.

The Galactic Empire is widely known for its xenophobia, as this article states.

Father Skywalker said:

The Seperatist Council needed to be slaughtered in order to end the Clone Wars. They were evil people. Darth Vader ended the Clone wars while he was on Mustafar; what else would be the point of what he did to the Seperatist Council???

At the end of Revenge of the Sith, you should realize that it was not The Separatists who were evil, it was Palpatine's Republic that had become evil. The Separatists just wanted the war to be over at the end of the film, and then they were murdered.

It's very complex, because, yes, initially, it was the Separatists that were evil, when Palpatine was leading them through Count Dooku and General Grevous; but then the roles reverse and the Republic as led by Palpatine becomes the Evil Galactic Empire.

Father Skywalker said:

One last thing. Luke Skywalker "redeeming his father", was more of a spiritual thing, not about stopping him enslaving aliens or destroying planets or anything else like that; which is where the religious spiritual Jedi philosophical mumbo jumbo comes in........

That is partially true, yes, but the goal of the Rebel Alliance was to end the tyrannical, oppressive rule of the Empire through a revolution in order to replace democratic values more in line with the Republic.

But you're getting off-topic again, as usual.

There was no clone, there never was and never will be (you can look it up on Wookieepedia if you don't believe me); Tarkin very obviously died on the Death Star when it blew up.

Are you reading any of these posts? Does everything have to be documented in the most minute detail for it to have or have not happened?

I don't think he is a troll, I just don't think he understands the mindset of the people on this site and our dislike of the changes to and new films of the Star Wars franchise since 1983.

I think he is just an average Star Wars fan of the newer generation who just has no concept of what Lucas has done wrong (from most of our points of view) to the Star Wars franchise with the Prequels, and what Lucas has done wrong (which should be from anyone's point of view) to the OT with the suppression of the theatrical editions of the films and the replacement of them with the Special Editions.

No. Tarkin is deader than a doornail.

Father Skywalker said:

I guess he could have. But, remember what he told admiral conan antonio motti???

He wasn't impressed with the first original, or the second, death star for that matter too. He viewed the death star as overkill, cheesy, and totally worthless in comparison to the power of the darkside of the Force..... In a new hope, he didn't seem like such a big fan of it.... That was all the idea of tarkin and the emperor.....

Maybe Emperor Darth Vader would have destroyed Alderaan and despayre with the Force Storms. 

However, how many planets would they have destroyed if the rebels alliance didn't defeat them???

Vader was not above using technology as a means to an end; he loved the Executor, and was all about being a pilot. Plus, Vader respected Tarkin, and the Tarkin Doctrine relied heavily upon fear-inspiring technology; overpowering, overwhelming, "over-kill" weapons in order to make people think twice before they opposed the Empire. The Death Star was the keystone of the entire Tarkin Doctrine.

If Tarkin was still part of the Empire under Vader's command, it is likely that things like the Death Star would still exist, whether Vader agreed with them entirely or not, they were still useful instruments.

I am unsure if Vader was ever steeped enough in the Dark Side (as there was always good in him, however deep down it was) to be able to conjure a Force Storm.

Father Skywalker said:

If darth vader had never used any of the death stars, the quadrillions of average joes living in his empire would live totally happy and totally unaffected by his rule. the only reason that the empire was so "evil" was because they dissolved the senate and democracy and their/the leader had absolute power, which is not evil in and of itself......

The quadrillions of imperial citizens lived happy lives, only a few billion or so were affected by it, a very tiny and a small percentage of them.......

I'm pretty sure that the destruction of the Jedi Order and the murder of not only most of the Jedi Council, but also the Jedil Younglings, as well as the Seperatist council (which at the time was suing for peace) counts as evil.

And there's even more evidence that the Empire is evil if you look at EU sources (which you are asking for, because you won't accept that the Empire is just evil as it is in the films): Palpatine murdered many officers and political rivals and other elements from the Republic that might oppose him; he also had the planet of Caamas devastated and turned into a poisoned wasteland as he saw the Caamasi as a threat; he had The Eye of Palpatine created to destroy the Jedi Enclave on Belsavis; he allowed Tarkin to land his ship on top of peaceful protesters on the planet Ghorman; he ordered the enslavement of the planet Kashyyyk and the Wookiees who lived there, as well as the murder of surviving Jedi on the planet; the further murder of surviving Jedi by Darth Vader on Kessel; the manipulation and enslavement of the Noghri; the genocide of the Falleen by Darth Vader in order to contain an outbreak of a biological weapon the Empire had been secretly developing on the planet; not to mention the forceful acquisition of resources from many planets; the subjugation of alien species and the replacement of alien governments with Imperial human governments; and the forceful and violent subjugation of any planet that opposed them in order to make an example of them for other star systems. This is all before the Death Star blew up Alderaan.

There's probably a million other atrocities out there that I haven't read about, but the Empire was certainly not "good" by any stretch of the imagination just because not every citizen wasn't brutally murdered by stormtroopers.

The original thread was a joke because it's pretty obvious to everyone that the dude blew up like a Roman candle.

So, yeah, James Bond movies. I'm gonna make these quick and condensed so as to not take up too much space.

Connery's films were awesome, as always.

Dr. No was one I watched many a time growing up, I always liked Quarrel and it interesting to see how they "refined" the series in later movies, at times it doesn't even feel like a Bond film. Dr. No himself (when you finally get to him!) is a cool villain.

From Russia With Love is one of my favourites, it introduced the Red Grant archetype, expanded on SPECTRE, Kerim Bey was awesome, and I always thought Romanova is probably one of the most attractive Bond girls. Desmond Llewelyn always makes me smile as Q. I've always loved his relationship with Bond, and how it's different, but familiar, for each one; Connery was always very flippant and almost childish with him.

Goldfinger is obviously a classic. The DB5 is a sexy car, Oddjob is a great henchman, Pussy Galore is a great name for a Bond girl, and Goldfinger is the quintessential Bond villain, truly the beginning of the really over-the-top villain schemes with crazy gadgets.

Thunderball I've always had a soft spot for. Bond blasting that clay pigeon while not even aiming, let alone looking, always gets a grin. Domino is great as well, and so is the underwater fight.

You Only Live Twice was one of my favourites growing up because I first saw it right as I was deep in my ninja/samurai/feudal Japan phase. Finally we get to see Blofeld, as well. Though as his involvement increases, his coolness decreases...

Lazenby's stint in On Her Majesty's Secret Service has really become one of, if not the, favourite Bond film for me. It's like The Empire Strikes Back of the Bond franchise, you don't appreciate it as much as a kid, but you really grow into it. Lots of emotion, and very un-Bond as a film; the last scenes always make me hurt for Bond: finally everything was going right for the guy and Teresa... Teresa is probably my favourite "Bond girl": I'm not sure the description fits her, though, because, she's really his match.

Diamonds are Forever isn't bad, but it's not great. Connery is getting old, Blofeld has reached the heights of his lameness. It's pretty mediocre. Tiffany Case is a different sort of girl, though, which is a nice change, and you can't beat Mr. Wint and Mr. Kidd for plain creepyness as henchmen. It also suffers from Return of the Jedi Syndrome, in a way, as any film following OHMSS would have trouble, though, unless it really felt like a direct sequel in a Casino Royale/Quantum of Solace way.

Roger Moore's movies always seemed to have a more "fun" vibe to them, even though they really started to kill off the girls with him. Certainly very campy and with a lot more goofy humour than Connery or Lazenby.

Live and Let Die was always fun. The blaxpoitation element is kinda neat as I was always a fan of that genre. Young Jane Seymore was fantastically pretty, and I always thought that Kanaga and Teehee and Baron Samedi were really great villains. Kanaga is a very interesting character, I always thought.

The Man With The Golden Gun was also a "fun" one. It had the kung fu element that was popular at the time, much like the blaxploitation of LALD. Christopher Lee is great as always, the golden gun itself is a really cool weapon, the premise is interesting and original, and Nick Nack is a nifty character. Plus the corkscrew jump with that amazing slide whistle. =|

The Spy Who Loved Me introduces Jaws, who is one of my favourite recurring Bond characters. I also thought the idea of the KGB and MI6 working together to fight a greater evil was cool, and the big fight in the submarine pen on the tanker is reminiscent of YOLT in a good way. Stromberg is a perfect villain (he's got webbed hands for crying out loud) with a cool hideout and a good henchman in Jaws. Major Amasova isn't too hard on the eyes, either, always liked Barbera Bach growing up, because of this film.

Moonraker is another one of the "theme-y" Moores, like LALD and TMWTGG, this time drawing on the successes of movies like Star Wars. Also the return of Jaws. I always liked Drax as at bad guy. He's very suave, confidant, classy and plays my favourite Chopin piece at the ol' pianny. I kept thinking about Bingo, though, thanks to his Drax avatar. Bond managing to nail the sniper in the tree with birdshot was a pretty swell shot, and the glass shop fight always makes me cringe as a lover of history. Goodhead is a great name, she's got way more gadgets than Bond, her acting, though... The space music in the film is great, and the Mayan temples remind me of the level in Goldeneye (I died a lot when I first played because they lock you in the rocket blast conference room and I hadn't seen Moonraker at the time, so I could never figure out how to get out). Moonraker is really the culmination of the huge, over-the-top setpieces. One of my favourites.

Some serious detail salvaged there. Good work.

Bingowings said:

Her hair is green.

Also, why don't people like Skyjedi and such ever get into it with people like Father Skywalker?

Lucas really did ruin Boba with Episode II. Now I know that  every appearance he'll have in any movie or show or from now is going to remind me that he's just some lame clone, and because he's such a hugely popular character, you know he'll be back as often as they can manage, and that means I'm going to have to put up with Daniel Logan's voice instead of someone doing a Jason Wingreen impression (and that's another damn thing, if the guy was cloned from Temeura Morrison, why is Daniel Logan always being looked at to be Boba Fett? He looks and sounds nothing like Temeura, obviously, because he's not a clone. Ugh.)

I would say he's still technically a Mandalorian, though, because he's Jango, and Jango is Mandalorian. And beyond that, in EU terms, Mandalorian is more of a culture than a race or people, so as long as he was brought up like a Mandalorian, he is.

Darth Maul should never have been killed in the first place. After the super hype machine of TPM plastered his visage on everything, he should have been the main villain of the Prequels. I know this point has been run into the ground over and over, but it's true; after three movies, people would be fine with him being dead for good, but since he was only in TPM for like ten minutes total, people got the Boba Fett Syndrome with him and he had to be brought back by Lucas because he's can never commit to killing a character that becomes popular.

Thankfully, Dave Filoni is making it all bearable so far and it's not as incredibly stupid as it could be, since Dave actually gives a shit about Star Wars.

skyjedi2005 said:

I mean come on Chris Lee gives great performances in b movie schlock Horror films from Hammer, and also in 007 the man with the golden gun even if they were somewhat cheesy movies.  But the way he is used in the star wars prequels is almost criminal.

Yeah, it's pretty sad when you can't even surpass those schlocky (but awesome!) Hammer films in one of the biggest blockbusters of all time.

I wish it was 2015 now so that I wouldn't have to agonize over the possibility of it being as bad as the prequels anymore.

The Chuck Norris one was great.

So he couldn't have completed the prototype at the end of ROTS himself and used it?

Alright then. I guess Vader would have given everyone in the galaxy a puppy.

WHY IS IT STILL HAPPENING?!

DON'T WE HAVE DEDICATED THREADS AND PMS FOR THIS STUFF?!