I guess it can go beyond that. If the Jedi are "slaves" to the Jedi order, and the Sith are "slaves" to the dark side, and he's a slave his whole life, then Anakin's line in Episode I is correct about his dream where he freed all the slaves.
Except the Wookiees. Please, will somebody think of the Wookiees?
He probably thought he would then kill Darth Sideous, and make himself Emperor
That's his plan all along. He tells Padme that they can rule the galaxy together, and when that falls through he tries to recruit Luke for ruling-the-galaxy duty. He just doesn't want to rule the galaxy alone. His main character flaw is his inability to be alone. He was upset enough from losing his mother to commit a minor atrocity, but luckily for him, he can in a way replace her with Padme. He's obsessed with saving Padme, and when he ultimately loses her, only Palpatine is there to be a father figure. And he's loyal, at least until he finds Luke and figures he can off Palpatine and rule the galaxy with his son.
Probably comes from the fact he never had a father. Interesting, eh?
1. It starred Warren Beatty and Dustin Hoffman, two of the biggest movie stars at the time.
2. It had an obscenely high budget.
Those are the main two reasons. I mean, Episode I wasn't that bad either. The reason people dogpile on movies like Ishtar and Episode I, for that matter, is because of the high expectations they most heinously failed to meet.
In fact, every film George Lucas has ever directed has been a pile of festering crap. Two of his films, Howard the Duck and Ishtar, have become synonymous with bad films in pop culture.
Palpatine: "Kill him".
Anakin: "No, it's not the Jedi way."
Palpatine: "Come on, just do it."
Anakin: "Ah.. well, ok"
From the way Anakin was seething and the way he said "I shouldn't", you could tell that he wanted to finish him off, but was restraining himself from doing so. Palpatine was just egging him on.
As for turning to the dark side, he spent an eternity in the Jedi Council chambers brooding over the possibility that only Palpatine could save Padme.
It was poorly executed, but if you were paying attention you can tell that was the main thrust of the story at that point.
KOTOR tells the story of Revan and Malak during the War of the Star Forge. That's about 4000 years before the battle of Yavin. Firstly, it's definitely not the very first plotline, as it makes references to the War of Exar Kun happening before it, and the War of Exar Kun has been explored in comics.
This prequel would be about the war in which Darth Bane became the only surviving Sith Lord. Bane then began the one-apprentice-one-master rule and took on an apprentice, who took on an apprentice, until we finally get to Sidious (Palpatine) and Maul at the beginning of Episode I.
I don't think the Empire has problems with labor management. I'm pretty sure they practice slavery, and in the extended universe it's established that they enslaved the Wookiees.
When he learns in ep4 that his sons are alive he should have realized that the emperor lied to him, since Padme wouldn't have delivered if he had killed her in Moustafar.
Here's one interpretation: Padme died of a broken heart, so in a way, Vader did kill her. Besides, Vader already knew the Emperor was lying to him. The Emperor lied when he said he had the secret to preventing death ("working together we can discover it"). And Vader didn't like Palpatine. He wanted to overthrow him and rule the Empire with Padme (and later Luke) at his side.
SPOILER ALERT
Everyone else has replied to this but I wanted to add that, for the record, Vader does get his remaining natural arm sliced off, as well as his legs at the knee. He leaps at Obi-Wan and Obi-Wan takes all three limbs off with one clean sweep.
Also, just because the emperor and Vader are dead doen't mean that all of the Sith are.
Actually, it pretty much does, because there's only supposed to be two Sith at a time. Yeah, yeah, I know, and the Expanded Universe made a bunch more Dark Jedi just so they could come up with some semblance of conflict, but there's a difference between what's needed in order to make a cool lightsaber fight game/FPS and what's needed in order to make a decent movie.
Obviously no business should be *excessive* when engineering for safety, or else all cars would be engineered to Formula 1 safety standards and cost $200,000. But at the same time, anything that could be perceived as negligence would be avoided by a wise corporation because of the immense cost in public relations.
As for the World Trade Center, I believe it was not the impact but rather the heat that led to their eventual demise. The WTC was built at the time when the dangers of asbestos were first discovered, and so they chose not to use it. I understand, however, that our information about the WTC is incomplete.
My point is, there is a difference between making reasonable engineering decisions to engineer something short of the safest design possible and negligence. My point is that, even assuming a company full of people who have no concern for the safety and wellbeing of others, the Fight Club scenario wouldn't apply to any company that keeps in consideration its image and the possible damage to future sales--i.e. any company that takes marketing seriously. I'm not saying that negligence never happens. I am saying that negligence of the sort in the Fight Club scenario is not a profitable long-term business option. Businesses know this.
Yes, and Ford suffered dearly for that. It didn't help matters that this was at the beginning of the Japanese invasion, but the Pinto illustrated every reason Americans turned to Japanese automakers in the 1970's.
Looks like there's something missing in that analysis--lost business if the consumer ever discovers you doing that. Just ask Firestone, or former Ford CEO Jacques Nasser.
A rebuttal, written by Glenn Lamont of Sense of Life Objectivists (a website for Ayn Rand enthusiasts, but still...)
No Case for the Empire by Glenn Lamont
I have been a Star Wars fan for as long as I can remember. The original Star Wars motion picture was the first film I ever saw "at the pictures" (i.e. a movie theater) at the age of five or six. My father and I made the rare journey from the northern suburbs of Auckland across the Harbor Bridge to the city's downtown area where the movie was screening. I remember queuing in Queen Street before we finally managed to get in -- late, unfortunately -- but in time to see our first introduction to Luke Skywalker on the desert planet of Tatooine. That night, when the Star Wars magic had been staved off by a young boy's tiredness, my father came into my room just as I was falling asleep. He had brought me a present: toy figurines of Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader. That was enough for the magic to return, much to my mother's displeasure.
Years later, with the advent of video, I hired the movie and watched it in full on the small screen. I remember one scene in particular speaking to me. Luke storms from his aunt and uncle's table in frustration, yearning to leave his desolate, bleak planet. He walks up a small dune and casts his eyes to the horizon to watch the twin suns of that world set as John Williams' score crescendos in the background. I could relate strongly to Luke's desire to leave home and establish himself as his own person.
Star Wars has captured the hearts and imaginations of millions of people worldwide, in part because the saga celebrates heroism and the limitless potential of the individual. For an entire generation Star Wars has been a defining cinematic moment, inspiring countless young men and women into pursuing creative and scientific careers of all kinds.
Like almost all epics, Star Wars excites us because it's about conflict between good and evil. What would The Fountainhead be without the philosophical conflict between Roark and Toohey? And like The Fountainhead, the distinction between good and evil in Star Wars is very clear. Which is why I was surprised to read an article posted on an Objectivist forum entitled 'A Case for the Empire,' by one Jonathan V. Last, which some members had sympathy with. This article attempted to reverse the morality of Star Wars, asserting that the heroes of the saga (the Jedi, the peaceful Galactic Republic and the freedom fighting Rebel Alliance) were, at best, misguided, at worse, criminals and traitors. Even worse, this article made the case that the villains (the Galactic Empire with its complement of stormtroopers and planet-destroying Death Stars) were somehow benevolent keepers of the peace.
'A Case for the Empire' was not written from an Objectivist perspective and is relatively easy to debunk. Regarding the pre-Empire Galactic Republic, the author writes:
In The Phantom Menace, Queen Amidala admits, "It is clear to me now that the Republic no longer functions." In Attack of the Clones, young Anakin Skywalker observes that it simply "doesn't work."
This was a significant moment in the movie that had me tugging on the sleeve of the friend sitting next to me. It presents the classic false alternative between democracy and dictatorship; between a paralyzed mixed economy where lobby groups vie for legislated favors (represented by the bureaucratic Galactic Senate) and a totalitarian tyranny (represented by the Empire that Anakin, as Darth Vader, eventually leads.) One alternative is ineffectual and corrupt, the other, clearly evil. The scene leaves viewers wondering if there isn't another way, which, as Objectivists, we know there is.
In defense of Palpatine, who later becomes the Emperor, the author writes:
When Palpatine is still a senator, he says, "The Republic is not what it once was. The Senate is full of greedy, squabbling delegates. There is no interest in the common good." At one point he laments that "the bureaucrats ar
Slashdot Mirror
Killing the baby 2 minutes before birth is your constitutional right. Killing her 2 minutes after birth is a capital offense.
I guess it can go beyond that. If the Jedi are "slaves" to the Jedi order, and the Sith are "slaves" to the dark side, and he's a slave his whole life, then Anakin's line in Episode I is correct about his dream where he freed all the slaves. Except the Wookiees. Please, will somebody think of the Wookiees?
If THAT was the origin, than it would be spelled "WPOT" for We Pwn the Other Team.
Lucas might have, but Anakin hasn't, and neither has Padme.
He probably thought he would then kill Darth Sideous, and make himself Emperor
That's his plan all along. He tells Padme that they can rule the galaxy together, and when that falls through he tries to recruit Luke for ruling-the-galaxy duty. He just doesn't want to rule the galaxy alone. His main character flaw is his inability to be alone. He was upset enough from losing his mother to commit a minor atrocity, but luckily for him, he can in a way replace her with Padme. He's obsessed with saving Padme, and when he ultimately loses her, only Palpatine is there to be a father figure. And he's loyal, at least until he finds Luke and figures he can off Palpatine and rule the galaxy with his son.
Probably comes from the fact he never had a father. Interesting, eh?
1. It starred Warren Beatty and Dustin Hoffman, two of the biggest movie stars at the time.
2. It had an obscenely high budget.
Those are the main two reasons. I mean, Episode I wasn't that bad either. The reason people dogpile on movies like Ishtar and Episode I, for that matter, is because of the high expectations they most heinously failed to meet.
In fact, every film George Lucas has ever directed has been a pile of festering crap. Two of his films, Howard the Duck and Ishtar, have become synonymous with bad films in pop culture.
Ishtar was directed by Elaine May. [1]
Star Wars (i.e. "A New Hope"), American Graffiti, and arguably THX-1138 were all good films Lucas directed.
Palpatine: "Kill him".
Anakin: "No, it's not the Jedi way."
Palpatine: "Come on, just do it."
Anakin: "Ah.. well, ok"
From the way Anakin was seething and the way he said "I shouldn't", you could tell that he wanted to finish him off, but was restraining himself from doing so. Palpatine was just egging him on.
As for turning to the dark side, he spent an eternity in the Jedi Council chambers brooding over the possibility that only Palpatine could save Padme.
It was poorly executed, but if you were paying attention you can tell that was the main thrust of the story at that point.
KOTOR tells the story of Revan and Malak during the War of the Star Forge. That's about 4000 years before the battle of Yavin. Firstly, it's definitely not the very first plotline, as it makes references to the War of Exar Kun happening before it, and the War of Exar Kun has been explored in comics.
This prequel would be about the war in which Darth Bane became the only surviving Sith Lord. Bane then began the one-apprentice-one-master rule and took on an apprentice, who took on an apprentice, until we finally get to Sidious (Palpatine) and Maul at the beginning of Episode I.
I would have taken Scotland, but perhaps Captain Kirk had a special fondness for the Welsh.
True. Nor is Slashdot Wikipedia.
neutral point of view
Can we mod this, "+1 Wikipedia Reference"?
I don't think the Empire has problems with labor management. I'm pretty sure they practice slavery, and in the extended universe it's established that they enslaved the Wookiees.
Wrong. "Episode IV: A New Hope" was added after "Empire Strikes Back" was greenlit.
When he learns in ep4 that his sons are alive he should have realized that the emperor lied to him, since Padme wouldn't have delivered if he had killed her in Moustafar.
Here's one interpretation: Padme died of a broken heart, so in a way, Vader did kill her. Besides, Vader already knew the Emperor was lying to him. The Emperor lied when he said he had the secret to preventing death ("working together we can discover it"). And Vader didn't like Palpatine. He wanted to overthrow him and rule the Empire with Padme (and later Luke) at his side.
SPOILER ALERT
Everyone else has replied to this but I wanted to add that, for the record, Vader does get his remaining natural arm sliced off, as well as his legs at the knee. He leaps at Obi-Wan and Obi-Wan takes all three limbs off with one clean sweep.
Also, just because the emperor and Vader are dead doen't mean that all of the Sith are.
Actually, it pretty much does, because there's only supposed to be two Sith at a time. Yeah, yeah, I know, and the Expanded Universe made a bunch more Dark Jedi just so they could come up with some semblance of conflict, but there's a difference between what's needed in order to make a cool lightsaber fight game/FPS and what's needed in order to make a decent movie.
ZAHHHHHHHHHN!
Obviously no business should be *excessive* when engineering for safety, or else all cars would be engineered to Formula 1 safety standards and cost $200,000. But at the same time, anything that could be perceived as negligence would be avoided by a wise corporation because of the immense cost in public relations.
As for the World Trade Center, I believe it was not the impact but rather the heat that led to their eventual demise. The WTC was built at the time when the dangers of asbestos were first discovered, and so they chose not to use it. I understand, however, that our information about the WTC is incomplete.
My point is, there is a difference between making reasonable engineering decisions to engineer something short of the safest design possible and negligence. My point is that, even assuming a company full of people who have no concern for the safety and wellbeing of others, the Fight Club scenario wouldn't apply to any company that keeps in consideration its image and the possible damage to future sales--i.e. any company that takes marketing seriously. I'm not saying that negligence never happens. I am saying that negligence of the sort in the Fight Club scenario is not a profitable long-term business option. Businesses know this.
Yes, and Ford suffered dearly for that. It didn't help matters that this was at the beginning of the Japanese invasion, but the Pinto illustrated every reason Americans turned to Japanese automakers in the 1970's.
Looks like there's something missing in that analysis--lost business if the consumer ever discovers you doing that. Just ask Firestone, or former Ford CEO Jacques Nasser.
A rebuttal, written by Glenn Lamont of Sense of Life Objectivists (a website for Ayn Rand enthusiasts, but still...)
No Case for the Empire by Glenn Lamont
I have been a Star Wars fan for as long as I can remember. The original Star Wars motion picture was the first film I ever saw "at the pictures" (i.e. a movie theater) at the age of five or six. My father and I made the rare journey from the northern suburbs of Auckland across the Harbor Bridge to the city's downtown area where the movie was screening. I remember queuing in Queen Street before we finally managed to get in -- late, unfortunately -- but in time to see our first introduction to Luke Skywalker on the desert planet of Tatooine. That night, when the Star Wars magic had been staved off by a young boy's tiredness, my father came into my room just as I was falling asleep. He had brought me a present: toy figurines of Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader. That was enough for the magic to return, much to my mother's displeasure.
Years later, with the advent of video, I hired the movie and watched it in full on the small screen. I remember one scene in particular speaking to me. Luke storms from his aunt and uncle's table in frustration, yearning to leave his desolate, bleak planet. He walks up a small dune and casts his eyes to the horizon to watch the twin suns of that world set as John Williams' score crescendos in the background. I could relate strongly to Luke's desire to leave home and establish himself as his own person.
Star Wars has captured the hearts and imaginations of millions of people worldwide, in part because the saga celebrates heroism and the limitless potential of the individual. For an entire generation Star Wars has been a defining cinematic moment, inspiring countless young men and women into pursuing creative and scientific careers of all kinds.
Like almost all epics, Star Wars excites us because it's about conflict between good and evil. What would The Fountainhead be without the philosophical conflict between Roark and Toohey? And like The Fountainhead, the distinction between good and evil in Star Wars is very clear. Which is why I was surprised to read an article posted on an Objectivist forum entitled 'A Case for the Empire,' by one Jonathan V. Last, which some members had sympathy with. This article attempted to reverse the morality of Star Wars, asserting that the heroes of the saga (the Jedi, the peaceful Galactic Republic and the freedom fighting Rebel Alliance) were, at best, misguided, at worse, criminals and traitors. Even worse, this article made the case that the villains (the Galactic Empire with its complement of stormtroopers and planet-destroying Death Stars) were somehow benevolent keepers of the peace.
'A Case for the Empire' was not written from an Objectivist perspective and is relatively easy to debunk. Regarding the pre-Empire Galactic Republic, the author writes:
In The Phantom Menace, Queen Amidala admits, "It is clear to me now that the Republic no longer functions." In Attack of the Clones, young Anakin Skywalker observes that it simply "doesn't work."
This was a significant moment in the movie that had me tugging on the sleeve of the friend sitting next to me. It presents the classic false alternative between democracy and dictatorship; between a paralyzed mixed economy where lobby groups vie for legislated favors (represented by the bureaucratic Galactic Senate) and a totalitarian tyranny (represented by the Empire that Anakin, as Darth Vader, eventually leads.) One alternative is ineffectual and corrupt, the other, clearly evil. The scene leaves viewers wondering if there isn't another way, which, as Objectivists, we know there is.
In defense of Palpatine, who later becomes the Emperor, the author writes:
When Palpatine is still a senator, he says, "The Republic is not what it once was. The Senate is full of greedy, squabbling delegates. There is no interest in the common good." At one point he laments that "the bureaucrats ar
"Humorous quip" != "non-sequitur".
This is one of the greatest villians of our time.
"Not really. That honor goes to Mr. Lecter..."
I think you need to look up the definition of "one of".
Have you ever tried installing AIM from AOL?
No.