The Rule of Two is absolutely stupid and completely contradictory to the original trilogy. Both Vader and The Emperor conspire to turn Luke in Empire, and at no point is it insinuated that the plan isn't to have three Sith running around.
Emperor: The Force is strong with him. The son of Skywalker must not become a Jedi.
Vader: If he could be turned, he would become a powerful ally.
Emperor: Yes... Yes. He would be a great asset. Can it be done?
Vader: He will join us or die, master.
I think, though, that Palpatine's plan was to replace Vader with Luke, just like he replaced Dooku with Anakin in the Prequel Trilogy. How much Vader recognized that is up for debate, but Vader's plan was clearly to have Luke tip a battle with Palpatine in Vader's favor. So I think that was more of a case of 'We both want this guy on our side to kill the other'.
I think Palpatine's original plan is just to kill Luke, Vader is the first to suggest turning him, but once it is suggested I think Palpatine immediately recognizes what Vader is planning and decides that he (the Emperor) should use Luke to replace Vader. Either way, there clearly is no "rule of two" here otherwise they wouldn't be talking openly with each other about bringing in a third person.
Correct, Palpatine's original plan was to have Luke killed to prevent him from ever becoming a Jedi.
It is Vader who first tries to convince Palpatine that Luke is not a threat, then tries to convince him that Luke should instead be turned. Which brings me to a key point: Vader's motivation is to save Luke's life. Whether or not Vader consciously realizes it before he throws Palpatine to his doom, Vader acts to save Luke at every turn.
I think Palpatine eventually wants Luke to replace Vader once Luke eclipses Vader's power and usefulness, but I don't think that was necessarily the plan at the beginning. It certainly is in Jedi, as Palpatine wants to drive Luke to the Dark Side and he recognizes that having Luke kill his father out of rage is a way to push Luke past the point of no return, but this is not because of any Rule of Two mandating that only two Sith must exist.
As I'm sure many of us saw, a teaser, slightly longer premiered today. Even for an old, gruff guy like me who hasn't been huge into Star Wars for a while, the music and the end of this trailer kills all cynicism, even for a moment. I don't see how it couldn't.
As I'm sure many of us saw, a teaser, slightly longer premiered today. Even for an old, gruff guy like me who hasn't been huge into Star Wars for a while, the music and the end of this trailer kills all cynicism, even for a moment. I don't see how it couldn't.
It's the opposite for me as well. The trailer says nothing. It does nothing but trying to emulate good moments from the original trilogy, and the music blatantly stolen from there just adds to the hollow feeling of watching someone wearing the skin of your favourite uncle, seeing him try to do the same jokes he always did.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We have laboured long to build a heaven, only to find it populated with horrors.
The Rule of Two is absolutely stupid and completely contradictory to the original trilogy. Both Vader and The Emperor conspire to turn Luke in Empire, and at no point is it insinuated that the plan isn't to have three Sith running around.
Emperor: The Force is strong with him. The son of Skywalker must not become a Jedi.
Vader: If he could be turned, he would become a powerful ally.
Emperor: Yes... Yes. He would be a great asset. Can it be done?
Vader: He will join us or die, master.
I think, though, that Palpatine's plan was to replace Vader with Luke, just like he replaced Dooku with Anakin in the Prequel Trilogy. How much Vader recognized that is up for debate, but Vader's plan was clearly to have Luke tip a battle with Palpatine in Vader's favor. So I think that was more of a case of 'We both want this guy on our side to kill the other'.
I think Palpatine's original plan is just to kill Luke, Vader is the first to suggest turning him, but once it is suggested I think Palpatine immediately recognizes what Vader is planning and decides that he (the Emperor) should use Luke to replace Vader. Either way, there clearly is no "rule of two" here otherwise they wouldn't be talking openly with each other about bringing in a third person.
The "Rule of Two" I think is more of a phenomenon that exists than a literal rule. It definitely exists, especially considering that the Original 3 movies showed the problem of introducing a 3rd party as a Sith. The Emperor feared that Vader was plotting and got the idea to replace him with Luke, and Vader wanted Luke so they could overthrow the Emperor.
I reacted to this new trailer about the same way as I did the other one. "Eh."
I'll believe it when I see it. Lawrence Kasdan's involvement is a source of optimism, Abrams' involvement is a source of pessimism, the latter outweighs the former.
The "Rule of Two" I think is more of a phenomenon that exists than a literal rule.
Then it doesn't exist. It cannot be a rule and not be a rule.
It definitely exists, especially considering that the Original 3 movies showed the problem of introducing a 3rd party as a Sith. The Emperor feared that Vader was plotting and got the idea to replace him with Luke, and Vader wanted Luke so they could overthrow the Emperor.
That the Sith are powerhungry and naturally will turn on one another is something that is established, yes. But that doesn't mean there's some sort of a rule saying, "MUST BE TWO SITH!!!111"
I reacted to this new trailer about the same way as I did the other one. "Eh."
I'll believe it when I see it. Lawrence Kasdan's involvement is a source of optimism, Abrams' involvement is a source of pessimism, the latter outweighs the former.
The "Rule of Two" I think is more of a phenomenon that exists than a literal rule.
Then it doesn't exist. It cannot be a rule and not be a rule.
It definitely exists, especially considering that the Original 3 movies showed the problem of introducing a 3rd party as a Sith. The Emperor feared that Vader was plotting and got the idea to replace him with Luke, and Vader wanted Luke so they could overthrow the Emperor.
That the Sith are powerhungry and naturally will turn on one another is something that is established, yes. But that doesn't mean there's some sort of a rule saying, "MUST BE TWO SITH!!!111"
Yes it can exist without being any sort of decree. I'm suggesting it falls under a type of game theory. It just happens naturally due to the best interests of the "master," and the advantage / balance of power with an apprentice. A phenomenon and strategy amongst surviving and successful Sith.
Yes it can exist without being any sort of decree.
Not if what we're talking about is a decree. Which is what this concept of The Rule of Two is. It's a supposed rule that there only be two Sith.
It's not, "Oh, Sith just so happen to come in pairs due to their natural tendency to backstab each other routinely."
It's the idea that the Sith follow a mandated rule that there only be two Sith. Which is stupid and contradicts the original movies.
Well, yea it is a natural tendency. It can't really be much of a decree if there's no enforcement of it, but they all follow it because it's natural. (Except probably in a some deep lore that I've never heard of) The Sith only follow rules as it benefits them. As far as I'm concerned, this is a thing in lore and it doesn't really contradict the movies from what I see.
And how does it contradict the original movies? Because the Emperor wanted Luke to 'join' them? In Return of the Jedi, the Emperor wanted Luke to replace Vader. Why would he just let a trio happen when it probably ends up with him dead anyways? He wanted Luke or Vader dead from what I understood. It's a real concept and well demonstrated in the movies imo.
Well, yea it is a natural tendency. It can't really be much of a decree if there's no enforcement of it, but they all follow it because it's natural. (Except probably in a some deep lore that I've never heard of) The Sith only follow rules as it benefits them. As far as I'm concerned, this is a thing in lore and it doesn't really contradict the movies from what I see.
No, you still don't understand.
The idea of the Rule of Two is that there is some sort of rule amongst the Sith that there must only be two Sith. As in, the fact that Sidious and Vader were the only two Sith (that we knew of) in Return of the Jedi was because of a mandate within Sith code, as opposed to them just being the only two Sith around.
So when you say, "It's not a hard and fast rule," then you're saying there's no Rule of Two, because the whole point of The Rule of Two is that it IS a hard and fast rule.
And how does it contradict the original movies?
It's abundantly clear that there's nothing that necessarily means Luke has to kill either Sith lord in order to turn to the Dark Side. That contradicts the story completely.
Because the Emperor wanted Luke to 'join' them? In Return of the Jedi, the Emperor wanted Luke to replace Vader.
Yes, but there's no rule that said Luke needed to kill Vader to become a Sith. The Emperor wanted to replace Vader because Luke was more powerful AND Luke killing Vader would be the final act which would turn Luke over to the Dark Side.
It had nothing to do with Luke needing to kill Vader due to some arbitrary Sith code rule.
And how does it contradict the original movies? Because the Emperor wanted Luke to 'join' them? In Return of the Jedi, the Emperor wanted Luke to replace Vader. Why would he just let a trio happen when it probably ends up with him dead anyways? He wanted Luke or Vader dead from what I understood.
So then you think Vader and the Emperor are just morons then? In Empire, Vader suggests to the Emperor that Luke could join them. If there was a "rule of two", then Vader is a moron for suggesting this plan in front of the Emperor instead of trying to recruit Luke in secret. And the Emperor is a moron for not killing Vader on the spot for trying to betray him.
Well, yea it is a natural tendency. It can't really be much of a decree if there's no enforcement of it, but they all follow it because it's natural. (Except probably in a some deep lore that I've never heard of) The Sith only follow rules as it benefits them. As far as I'm concerned, this is a thing in lore and it doesn't really contradict the movies from what I see.
No, you still don't understand.
The idea of the Rule of Two is that there is some sort of rule amongst the Sith that there must only be two Sith. As in, the fact that Sidious and Vader were the only two Sith (that we knew of) in Return of the Jedi was because of a mandate within Sith code, as opposed to them just being the only two Sith around.
So when you say, "It's not a hard and fast rule," then you're saying there's no Rule of Two, because the whole point of The Rule of Two is that it IS a hard and fast rule.
And how does it contradict the original movies?
It's abundantly clear that there's nothing that necessarily means Luke has to kill either Sith lord in order to turn to the Dark Side. That contradicts the story completely.
I understood the Rule of Two more as a teaching. There's time in the lore when there were a bunch of Sith if I recall, so it doesn't mean there absolutely must be two. No, it's just in the best interest of the master. I don't know if there's anybody that would argue that all these Sith kept it just Master and Apprentice simply out of respect for a rule. I think we have common ground here, but I'm not going to say it doesn't exist. On the other hand, I'm not going to say that there's only two because of the simple existence of a rule, because rules shouldn't matter to a Sith if it can be broken for benefit. I'm merely saying that I think it has a definite place in the star wars universe.
And how does it contradict the original movies? Because the Emperor wanted Luke to 'join' them? In Return of the Jedi, the Emperor wanted Luke to replace Vader. Why would he just let a trio happen when it probably ends up with him dead anyways? He wanted Luke or Vader dead from what I understood.
So then you think Vader and the Emperor are just morons then? In Empire, Vader suggests to the Emperor that Luke could join them. If there was a "rule of two", then Vader is a moron for suggesting this plan in front of the Emperor instead of trying to recruit Luke in secret. And the Emperor is a moron for not killing Vader on the spot for trying to betray him.
Vader's play to prevent the Emperor from killing Luke in the background, and maintain the order of the Empire for the time being. And the Emperor wins however it goes this way: He's not going to just kill Vader because he doesn't need to yet and Vader is an excellent leader and powerful enforcer. If he were to get Luke to replace Vader, Luke would be very powerful, but also young and easily controlled if he turned. As long as somebody dies, the Emperor is fine, but Luke is the best option.
I would say they're both ridiculously smart actually, each having plans that maintain the order of the Empire, but taking all of the power for themselves. And if Luke didn't join, there'd be no animosity on either end this way.
Im sorry but i thought that the "rule of two" wasnt actually made until after the OT as part of the added novels, said novels which are now quasi non-canon correct?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from »
Call me old fashioned, but an evil ascension to power just isn't the same without someone chanting faux Latin in the background.
Oreo, Glazing people better than Dunkin' Donuts since 2009
That is not dead which can eternal lie. And with strange eons even death may die.
Im sorry but i thought that the "rule of two" wasnt actually made until after the OT as part of the added novels, said novels which are now quasi non-canon correct?
Edit: From a google search, the expanded universe is no longer canon, so pretty much all of the novels are non-canon as per Disney I assume. So the canon is Star Wars Rebels, The Clone Wars Series, and the Films.
Fun fact though, apparently in episode 13 of Season 6, Yoda meets Darth Bane and acknowledges the Rule of Two. So it's settled then, Rule of Two is canon and very real.
What I'm really looking forward to is the Anakin/Luke lightsaber returning to episode 7 after being lost in the cloud city. Don't know who found it but should be really interesting why they try to get it back
Not always. There was no such thing until the prequels. According to starwars.wikia.com (referencing an article that no longer exists on starwars.com)...
"The character of Darth Bane, and his Rule of Two, were created by George Lucas as part of his backstory of the Sith he developed for the prequel trilogy".
Not always. There was no such thing until the prequels. According to starwars.wikia.com (referencing an article that no longer exists on starwars.com)...
"The character of Darth Bane, and his Rule of Two, were created by George Lucas as part of his backstory of the Sith he developed for the prequel trilogy".
This film is fracking great. Go see it. I saw it last night (because Australian films open on thursdays because reasons). I've been waiting for this film for about 30 years and I pretty much couldn't have hoped for it to be much better.
Not that it is perfect, but it's a big load better than the prequels (not a hard task) and I'd ballpark it as good as empire and Jedi. (I like Jedi much more than the average, TBF).
This is a worthy sequel to the original trilogy. This movie feels like Star Wars in the best way, and I enjoyed every moment of it. It is not perfect. It could have been better. But it is the best damn thing to come out of this franchise in years. Chewie, we're home.
Film was good, not great. There were a lot of tenuous connections in that storyline and there were a lot of things I just kinda hated. That being said there were tons of things I loved. Adam Driver wasn't one of those things; he's awful and I would not complain for a second about continuity if he was recast.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
One of these day I have to get myself organizized.
I really enjoyed the film. It played heavily on nostalgia though. If you weren't already a big Star Wars fan and are just looking at it as a stand alone film, there are several things that could've been better. Still, I'd recommend it.
Also, I agree about the Adam Driver comment. I hadn't seen him before the movie and was definitely expecting someone more... intimidating.
It reminded me of the Star Trek reboot and of Guardians of the Galaxy - that is to say, a good movie, but not a great one, as in an instant classic. It's not A New Hope, but it is fun.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I think Palpatine's original plan is just to kill Luke, Vader is the first to suggest turning him, but once it is suggested I think Palpatine immediately recognizes what Vader is planning and decides that he (the Emperor) should use Luke to replace Vader. Either way, there clearly is no "rule of two" here otherwise they wouldn't be talking openly with each other about bringing in a third person.
It is Vader who first tries to convince Palpatine that Luke is not a threat, then tries to convince him that Luke should instead be turned. Which brings me to a key point: Vader's motivation is to save Luke's life. Whether or not Vader consciously realizes it before he throws Palpatine to his doom, Vader acts to save Luke at every turn.
I think Palpatine eventually wants Luke to replace Vader once Luke eclipses Vader's power and usefulness, but I don't think that was necessarily the plan at the beginning. It certainly is in Jedi, as Palpatine wants to drive Luke to the Dark Side and he recognizes that having Luke kill his father out of rage is a way to push Luke past the point of no return, but this is not because of any Rule of Two mandating that only two Sith must exist.
As I'm sure many of us saw, a teaser, slightly longer premiered today. Even for an old, gruff guy like me who hasn't been huge into Star Wars for a while, the music and the end of this trailer kills all cynicism, even for a moment. I don't see how it couldn't.
It's the opposite for me as well. The trailer says nothing. It does nothing but trying to emulate good moments from the original trilogy, and the music blatantly stolen from there just adds to the hollow feeling of watching someone wearing the skin of your favourite uncle, seeing him try to do the same jokes he always did.
The "Rule of Two" I think is more of a phenomenon that exists than a literal rule. It definitely exists, especially considering that the Original 3 movies showed the problem of introducing a 3rd party as a Sith. The Emperor feared that Vader was plotting and got the idea to replace him with Luke, and Vader wanted Luke so they could overthrow the Emperor.
I'll believe it when I see it. Lawrence Kasdan's involvement is a source of optimism, Abrams' involvement is a source of pessimism, the latter outweighs the former.
Then it doesn't exist. It cannot be a rule and not be a rule.
That the Sith are powerhungry and naturally will turn on one another is something that is established, yes. But that doesn't mean there's some sort of a rule saying, "MUST BE TWO SITH!!!111"
Yes it can exist without being any sort of decree. I'm suggesting it falls under a type of game theory. It just happens naturally due to the best interests of the "master," and the advantage / balance of power with an apprentice. A phenomenon and strategy amongst surviving and successful Sith.
It's not, "Oh, Sith just so happen to come in pairs due to their natural tendency to backstab each other routinely."
It's the idea that the Sith follow a mandated rule that there only be two Sith. Which is stupid and contradicts the original movies.
Well, yea it is a natural tendency. It can't really be much of a decree if there's no enforcement of it, but they all follow it because it's natural. (Except probably in a some deep lore that I've never heard of) The Sith only follow rules as it benefits them. As far as I'm concerned, this is a thing in lore and it doesn't really contradict the movies from what I see.
And how does it contradict the original movies? Because the Emperor wanted Luke to 'join' them? In Return of the Jedi, the Emperor wanted Luke to replace Vader. Why would he just let a trio happen when it probably ends up with him dead anyways? He wanted Luke or Vader dead from what I understood. It's a real concept and well demonstrated in the movies imo.
The idea of the Rule of Two is that there is some sort of rule amongst the Sith that there must only be two Sith. As in, the fact that Sidious and Vader were the only two Sith (that we knew of) in Return of the Jedi was because of a mandate within Sith code, as opposed to them just being the only two Sith around.
So when you say, "It's not a hard and fast rule," then you're saying there's no Rule of Two, because the whole point of The Rule of Two is that it IS a hard and fast rule.
It's abundantly clear that there's nothing that necessarily means Luke has to kill either Sith lord in order to turn to the Dark Side. That contradicts the story completely.
Yes, but there's no rule that said Luke needed to kill Vader to become a Sith. The Emperor wanted to replace Vader because Luke was more powerful AND Luke killing Vader would be the final act which would turn Luke over to the Dark Side.
It had nothing to do with Luke needing to kill Vader due to some arbitrary Sith code rule.
So then you think Vader and the Emperor are just morons then? In Empire, Vader suggests to the Emperor that Luke could join them. If there was a "rule of two", then Vader is a moron for suggesting this plan in front of the Emperor instead of trying to recruit Luke in secret. And the Emperor is a moron for not killing Vader on the spot for trying to betray him.
I understood the Rule of Two more as a teaching. There's time in the lore when there were a bunch of Sith if I recall, so it doesn't mean there absolutely must be two. No, it's just in the best interest of the master. I don't know if there's anybody that would argue that all these Sith kept it just Master and Apprentice simply out of respect for a rule. I think we have common ground here, but I'm not going to say it doesn't exist. On the other hand, I'm not going to say that there's only two because of the simple existence of a rule, because rules shouldn't matter to a Sith if it can be broken for benefit. I'm merely saying that I think it has a definite place in the star wars universe.
Vader's play to prevent the Emperor from killing Luke in the background, and maintain the order of the Empire for the time being. And the Emperor wins however it goes this way: He's not going to just kill Vader because he doesn't need to yet and Vader is an excellent leader and powerful enforcer. If he were to get Luke to replace Vader, Luke would be very powerful, but also young and easily controlled if he turned. As long as somebody dies, the Emperor is fine, but Luke is the best option.
I would say they're both ridiculously smart actually, each having plans that maintain the order of the Empire, but taking all of the power for themselves. And if Luke didn't join, there'd be no animosity on either end this way.
Edit: From a google search, the expanded universe is no longer canon, so pretty much all of the novels are non-canon as per Disney I assume. So the canon is Star Wars Rebels, The Clone Wars Series, and the Films.
Fun fact though, apparently in episode 13 of Season 6, Yoda meets Darth Bane and acknowledges the Rule of Two. So it's settled then, Rule of Two is canon and very real.
What I'm really looking forward to is the Anakin/Luke lightsaber returning to episode 7 after being lost in the cloud city. Don't know who found it but should be really interesting why they try to get it back
http://www.tradehobbies.com/search?user=7
Not always. There was no such thing until the prequels. According to starwars.wikia.com (referencing an article that no longer exists on starwars.com)...
"The character of Darth Bane, and his Rule of Two, were created by George Lucas as part of his backstory of the Sith he developed for the prequel trilogy".
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Darth_Bane#Character_origins
http://www.tradehobbies.com/search?user=7
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Not that it is perfect, but it's a big load better than the prequels (not a hard task) and I'd ballpark it as good as empire and Jedi. (I like Jedi much more than the average, TBF).
PS: No spoilers!!!
This is a worthy sequel to the original trilogy. This movie feels like Star Wars in the best way, and I enjoyed every moment of it. It is not perfect. It could have been better. But it is the best damn thing to come out of this franchise in years. Chewie, we're home.
R Citizen Cane (Feldon of the Third Path)
Also, I agree about the Adam Driver comment. I hadn't seen him before the movie and was definitely expecting someone more... intimidating.