couple of RotS questions (spoilers)

[bolen]

Why did the Emperor save vader? I thought that the Dark Side says that only the weak die. It seems that Obi One beat him, so doesn't saving a weakling violate the dark side?

Was general Sideous in AotC? Or was he invinted in novels or was this movie his first introduction?


Did they have to show Vader killing children? I really think Star Wars is first and farmost a kid's movie and I dont understand why Lucus violated that in this one?

 

[Captain Tagon]

Why did the Emperor save vader? I thought that the Dark Side says that only the weak die. It seems that Obi One beat him, so doesn't saving a weakling violate the dark side?

Because Vader is powerful and because Palpatine had no one in place to become his new apprentice. Palpy at this point was, except for extreme need as shown in the film, past the point of fighting his own battles and would rather work through a surrogate anyway. That's why in the original trilogy he doesn't actually do much.

Was general Sideous in AotC? Or was he invinted in novels or was this movie his first introduction?

Darth Sideous was in all three prequels. General Grievous however didn't appear in any of the other films. He did however appear in both the Clone Wars microseries on Cartoon Network (which was awesome by the way) and in the novel Labyrinth of Evil, which I haven't read.

Did they have to show Vader killing children? I really think Star Wars is first and farmost a kid's movie and I dont understand why Lucus violated that in this one?

Well, up to that point it was the most evil thing he'd done. That's the moment when it really hits home that Anakin really has become Vader.

 

[wingsandsword]

Did they have to show Vader killing children? I really think Star Wars is first and farmost a kid's movie and I dont understand why Lucus violated that in this one?

Lucas said in no uncertain terms that this was not a kids movie. He made no doubt about that in many interviews and commentaries, this was going to be dark and wasn't for little kids. You may think that Star Wars are kids movies (and some of them may even be), but III was never meant to be. There is a reason it had PG-13 rating, which Lucas agreed with, which means that parents should strongly consider young children not see the movie.

Anakin had to be shown as completely evil. From a moviemaking standpoint, it was one completely unambiguous way to show that Anakin had fallen to the Dark Side and was a villain now.

 

[Kesh]

Is it a bad thing that the two darkest SW movies (III and V) are my favorites?

 

[Jdvn1]

Is it a bad thing that the two darkest SW movies (III and V) are my favorites?

No, because they're also the best.

 

[Flyspeck23]

Because Vader is powerful and because Palpatine had no one in place to become his new apprentice. Palpy at this point was, except for extreme need as shown in the film, past the point of fighting his own battles and would rather work through a surrogate anyway. That's why in the original trilogy he doesn't actually do much.

Some additional thoughts:

Palpatine has been losing apprentices for three movies - Anakin is more or less is last option.

Additionally, it's hinted that Palpatine (or his master) are responsible for Anakin's birth/creation. If that's true, he won't let his son/creature die if possible - Anakin has been too much of an investment.

 

[Wayside]

I really think that's less of a hint and more of a very creative misinterpretation. Is there something in one of the books leading people in this direction? I dismiss it out of hand on the principle of charity: the only thing more ridiculous than midichlorians is a Sith Lord with the ability to manipulate them at will in other peoples' bodies and produce an army of Chosen Ones. There are other problems besides the sheer silliness, of course: why create only one, especially after the first gets his legs cut off? Why play into a Jedi prophecy you're most likely aware of--which predcits your doom? Etc.

 

[BrooklynKnight]

The whole prophecy itself could have been a manipulation.

Remember, even Yoda claimed that it was possible the Jedi misinterpreted the Prophecy.

Now, lets forget midi-chlorians for a second.

Imagine, someone, regardless of light or dark, had the power/wisdom to fuse the force into an actual life. Wouldnt that life, being created FROM the force in its most direct form be exceptionally force strong/sensetive?

Anakins "attunement" to the force was stronger then even Yodas. At least biologically. It makes perfect sense that the Jedi would "assume" that he was their "chosen one".

There are two possible scenarios here. Plagus created Anakin, perhaps to take advantage of a misinterperted prophecy. Sideous kills him and takes over plotting over 20 years. OR It was Sideous all along. He could have impregnated Anakins mother, (hell he could have done it "normally" and simply whiped her memory with the force).

The point is, we dont know what exactly the prophecy is. I dont belive it was ever spelled out except that "someone exceptionally strong in the force will bring balance to it.

That doesnt exactly spell out the doom o the sith. Key word is Balance. That means Good AND Evil. A world full of light is not in balance.

As for why creating only one? Well, do you really want an army of super strong force babies getting the attention of the jedi? Definatly not. The whole plan worked cause it was Subtle. Plus who knows just how much energy Plagus or Sideous expended to create Anikin.

 

[Wayside]

Do you realize how much you're having to add to the story to make that interpretation work? A Sith might have made Anakin (no support for this), if the Jedi misinterpreted the prophecy (no real support for this, since Anakin does put an end to the Sith), if your interpretation of balance is right (the fact that you use "good" and "evil" to describe polarity does not bode well), if it required an expenditure of power that was prohibitive of creating more (once the Jedi were finished there was no reason not to), and so on? People should stop talking about it before Lucas gets wind, decides it's a great idea and canonizes it ex post facto, as he sometimes does. Charity principle. It's the sort of plot we expect from a Star Wars comic.

 

[Eosin the Red]

Do you realize how much you're having to add to the story to make that interpretation work? A Sith might have made Anakin (no support for this), if the Jedi misinterpreted the prophecy (no real support for this, since Anakin does put an end to the Sith), if your interpretation of balance is right (the fact that you use "good" and "evil" to describe polarity does not bode well), if it required an expenditure of power that was prohibitive of creating more (once the Jedi were finished there was no reason not to), and so on? People should stop talking about it before Lucas gets wind, decides it's a great idea and canonizes it ex post facto, as he sometimes does. Charity principle. It's the sort of plot we expect from a Star Wars comic.

I don't know that I agree with the premise of the Plagius Creation factor. HOWEVER, it is at least a reason for Anakin's birth besides messianic prophecy. Right now, you are the one streching since by your arguement we must believe that the force spontaniously birthed him? And for once, I have no theories I may not like the Plagius one but I won't be dismissive if I can't offer up something to take its place.