Revenge of the Sith Easter Eggs

Ant writes "Via TheForce.Net, a StarWars.com article with a great list of Easter Eggs from the third prequel movie, Revenge of the Sith. There were many cameos and hidden images." From the article: " It's tiny, but visible enough to send a warm fuzzy through the hearts of original trilogy fans. In the establishing shot of the expansive Senate docking bays, there's a tiny Millennium Falcon easing into frame. And it's not just a non-descript Corellian freighter; it's on good authority -- namely George Lucas -- that this is the infamous hunk-of-junk before it came into the ownership of either Lando Calrissian or Han Solo."

Comments

What bothered me about Anakin's downfall

[nurhussein]

(Warning : spoilers)

He went straight into "evil mode" right after Palpatine gives him the Darth Vader title. It's like there's a "good/evil" toggle switch he pushed (maybe that's what the buttons on Darth Vader's suit is) to turn him evil. No conflicted feelings. Nothing. He could have at least said "I'm sorry for what I'm about to do" to the younglings. Anakin wasn't evil enough yet to slaughter children. He should have been obeying his new master's orders but hating them, and hating himself too... it would have been much much more tragic that way.

In the end, Obi-Wan should have tried to bring him back to the good side much the way Luke did ("Obi-Wan once thought as you do"). The fight would have been much more personal then. They should be not wanting to fight each other, but both are compelled to... that would have made awesome drama. But no....

Re:What bothered me about Anakin's downfall

[sg3000]

>> He should have been obeying his new master's orders but
>> hating them, and hating himself too

> Did you notice the tear running down his check after he killed
> the separatist leaders? I think he was hating himself.

That's exactly what I saw. He had tears running down his face after he killed the younglings and after he killed the Separatist leaders. Note that before he decided to interfere with Mace Windu confronting Sideous, he brooded in the Jedi Temple for what looked like hours.

He was doing what he had to do to become powerful enough to learn how to keep Padme from dying. He probably thought he would then kill Darth Sideous, and make himself Emperor (since eliminating the Senate would make things more efficient to ensure stability for the galaxy)

Re:What bothered me about Anakin's downfall

[Paralizer]

Remember "the force is a powerful influence on weak minds"? By that point in the movie, Anakin had already killed Jacksons character after being tricked by Palpatine. He was crying help, Anakin stepped in and Palpatine quickly got up and killed Jackson. Anakin was probably stunned, and with the combination of killing a Jedi and his previous admitted "being lost", Palpatine moved in and pretty much took him over. Anakin never really had a chance, he was weakened by his hate (as Yoda said in one of the eariler movies), and Palpatine just picked him up and put him in his pocket.

Re:What bothered me about Anakin's downfall

[sg3000]

> Luke never met his father until he discovered the truth and he
> still tried to bring him to the good side of the force. Obi-Wan
> trained Anakin from the start, created a strong bond between
> both and he just gives up on him.

It's not a flaw. That's the whole point of the movie. Lucas talks about the duality of nature and the circular nature of violence. In each character, there is good and evil. More specifically, evil exists in good and good exists in evil. At the same time, violence begets violence, so the only way to end the cycle of violence is to refuse to fight. The only character who knows this as true is Luke Skywalker.

Obi-Wan tells Yoda he can't kill Anakin even after what Anakin had done (killed Younglings and aligned himself with Darth Sideous). Yoda tells him that Anakin is dead ("consumed by Darth Vader"). Obi-Wan accepts that reluctantly, and he confronts him. Obi-Wan tries to bring Anakin back, but he is too quick to use violence as his solution.

Luke on the other hand, throws away his lightsaber, and refuses to kill his father, which brings Anakin back (the spark of Anakin that was left in Vader). Anakin then kills Sideous (sacrificing himself) instead of allowing Sideous to kill Luke, and completes the fulfillment of the prophesy.

What people see as inconsistencies are often illustrations of the greater themes in the movies. Yoda was wise in Episode V, but he acted foolishly in Episodes II and III. Of course that makes sense, because how does one gain wisdom except by learning from one's mistakes? Yoda figures out that by Episode V that wars do not make one great. The events of Episode II and III taught him that. Except, Yoda did not learn one lesson between Episodes II and III: that he should not have given up on Anakin.

Luke for all his poor formal Jedi training understood that and that's why he prevailed in the end.

Re:What bothered me about Anakin's downfall

[be-fan]

Women and children are just people. People die in wars. In fact, they die all the time. Sometimes, them dying in wars can prevent other women and children fro dying as a result of the status quo.

Besides, you're not supposed to forgive Vader. You're supposed to realize that Vader and Anakin aren't the same person.

Re:What bothered me about Anakin's downfall

[chriso11]

People seem to forget that Palpatine had been screwing with Anakin's mind for a decade or so. He was always twisting things, and so that Anakin was never really sure of anything.

Re:What bothered me about Anakin's downfall

[SensitiveMale]

Luke for all his poor formal Jedi training understood that and that's why he prevailed in the end.

Ahh, you had me until that last sentence.

Luke received very good training. Yoda knew exactly how to train him for the reasons you mentioned.

Remember the jedi training and the "cave" scene? That was to teach Luke not to kill Vader because if he did he would kill himself.

On the bright side

[Jesus IS the Devil]

Anything to take your mind off the awful acting can't be a bad thing...

Re:On the bright side

[be-fan]

So true! That was exactly my reaction to Episode III. Now, it's not like I expect great acting in a Sci-Fi movie, but I expect passable acting. I expect good enough acting that I'm not continuously drawn out of the action by bad it is (or how cringe-worthy the dialogue is).

I watch Sci Fi channel, for god's sake, so I'm not a movie snob by any means. The acting in those movies is bad, but they are also filmed on $10. In a $200m major blockbuster with well-known actors, I expect the acting and dialog to at least keep up with something like Stargate, a series filmed for a fraction of a fraction of that cost.

Just a coincidence

[sg3000]

> You forgot about the references to Bush in the Darth Vader
> dialog.

The dialog is superficial. Calls for dramatic absolutes are common when dictators are trying to gain power, as well as anyone with extreme viewpoints. It helps them manage the cognitive dissonance.

Actually all the Star Wars movies are describing, among other things, how Democracy can fall to fascism.

In summary, Palpatine starts a fake war[1] (where he controlled both sides[2]) in order to get elected and stay in office[3] by appealing to people's fear and rallying nationalism [4]. He convinces the Senate to vote Emergency Powers to him [5] in order to consolidate more power under himself. He finally declares the end of the Republic [6] in order to bring "peace" to the galaxy.

The movies are not intended to directly catalog Bush or his policies. The original plot was written in the 1970s, and it was inspired by a number of events in history, including Hitler's rise to power and the Vietnam War. The way we humans move from democracy to fascism happens in roughly the same way each time.

It just so happens that it can be argued that Bush has been following the same pattern as any drive towards fascism. Thus, any parallels to the current state of the U.S. is purely coincidental.

-----

[1] Whoops! No weapons of mass destruction found. Our bad.

[2] Didn't we used to fund and support Saddam Hussein?

[3] Tom Ridge finally admits that the Department of Homeland Security twice questionably raised the terror alert status in order to prop up Bush's poll ratings during the election.

[4] Freedom fries, anyone?

[5] Secret sneak and peek searches via the PATRIOT Act, anyone?

[6] "If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier," Bush said, pausing and then joking, "just so long as I'm the dictator."

Re:Just a coincidence

[Artifakt]

"unlike hitler and other fascists in history"

We really can't tell how much anyone wants power in and of itself, and how much they have goals that "justify" their quest for power. I'm sure Hitler thought there were good things comeing that made a few sacrefices necessary. We can't really tell by racial doctrines either, unless you include racial superiority arguements without always requiring megadeaths to accompany them. It's worth remembering that the Italians under Mussolini were practically the epitomy of fascism, but they didn't round up their local Jews and other ethnic types nearly as much as the Germans did (near the very end of the war, the Italians did turn over about 4,500 Jews to Gestapo representitives, under strong pressure from Germany. That's a lot of individual tragedies, but when you look at it against the background of WW2, it almost disappears.).
Fascism seems to require telling your chosen audience they are special, and in some poorly defined way, superior to everyone else, and in blameing every complex problem on scapegoats that are well defined enough to make the problems look simple and solvable. Trotting out the Scapegoats whenver there's a reversal of fortune is one of the clearest signs of it.

Easter Eggs??

[fm6]

Easter Eggs are, by definition, hidden. These are inside jokes, or references, or whatever, but they're certainly not Easter Eggs. Especially not the Wilhelm Scream, which has been an inside Hollywood joke for decades.

Re:Bush

[BigGerman]

so "do or do not.. there are no try" and now "only the Sith see things in absolutes".. Hmmm.

Re:huh?

[NanoGator]

"the kessel run, allegedly, was a test of maneuverability -- not of speed. a ship that could navigate a shorter route through a mess of spatial anomalies, asteroids, black holes, etc., was an admirable ship."

The author who wrote that bit into his book was trying to cover for George's mistake.

Re:huh?

[nacturation]

No doubt that was an after-the-fact explanation of why the script was wrong. In context, Kenobi asks if it's a fast ship, to which Han replies asking if he's never heard of the Millenium Falcon... and then gives the Kessel run quote followed by "She's fast enough for you, old man."

So we have two scenarios... George Lucas, who isn't an astrophysicist, writes a script with what he thinks are correct terms but they turn out to be incorrect and everybody agrees that not all movies are perfect. Or, Star Wars is *never* wrong, man... must... find... alternate explanation! Han, uh... *knew* that the info was wrong and did it to test them or something. Or maybe when talking about fast ships, you give an example about maneuverability, something which a space barge going in a straight line and plowing the asteroids out of the way could have bested.

Cognitive dissonance at its finest.

Re:What's Wrong with New "Star Wars" Trilogy?

[Jace of Fuse!]

Was anyone bothered by this fundamental change in one of the themes of SW?

What bothered me most about the whole thing wasn't that aspect of it. It was that they bothered to explain any aspect of the force at all.

I really enjoyed the SW movies much more when the Force was some mysterious, unexplainable power that certain people learned to tap into. But the moment they start talking about blood tests and midichlorians then suddenly it becomes techno-bable BS.

It's like any other force of nature or technology. The more unrealistic it is, the more I would prefer them not try to explain it with stupid crap to further drive it home to me that what I'm seeing isn't possible.

I have many other serious gripes with Star Wars. RotJ, TPM, and AotC all did me in for even liking Star Wars at all.

Even if III is really that good, I probably won't enjoy it because it's still built on those other piles of crap.

Re:huh?

[Chess_the_cat]

There is an alternative explanation I'm willing to accept: Han doesn't know wtf he's talking about but likes to sound like he does. In fact, if you gauge Obi Wan's reaction to that line--a glance and a raised eyebrow to Luke--it seems feasible that this is the correct explanation.

Re:What's Wrong with New "Star Wars" Trilogy?

[BRSloth]

It is really sad when someone say "you are jumping into conclusions" and find explanations to the original complain jumping into conclusions...

Nowhere is said that Darth Vader/Anakin gets weaker losing limbs. What is the midichlorian just jumped from the limbs to his head? He would be strong anyway. But I would be jumping into conclusions, don't I?

Crossovers are fun : )

[Scrameustache]

Did anyone else feel the scene where Yoda leaves Kashyyyk was entirely reminiscent of the last scene in ET? Even Yoda's little pod looked a lot like ET's ship to me. I could even swear I heard the ET theme playing in the background.

You are not alone.

Remember, in ET, it's halloween and ET sees a kid in a Yoda mask and gets all excited, saying "Home! Hoooome!"... and the reciprocal ETs in one of ep1's Galactic Senate scenes.