When did Anakin pass the point of no return?
atomic
interested what the general belief is about what event/time was REALLY
the point of no return for Anakin?
Was it when he slaughtered the Tuskins?
Or when he stopped Mace's attack on Sidious?
Perhaps when he slaughtered the younglings?
Or was it the point when Sidious told him about Plageous' power to
keep people form dying?
Maybe when the Jedi council refused to give the title of Master?
All contributed, but when was the point where "that was it", he was
on the dark side?
Darth Mura
atomic wrote:
> All contributed, but when was the point where "that was it", he was
> on the dark side?
When he was created by Plageouis the Wise.
"Plagueis had uncovered a path to immortality through the manipulation
of the dark side of the Force. Plagueis could, it was said, coax the
midi-chlorians present in all living cells to create life from
nothingness."
http://www.starwars.com/databank/character/darthsidious/
Anybody
"Darth Mura" <shri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
That's a pure guess. There is no proof that Plagueis (or Sidious) had
any influence at all in creating Anakin ... especially since Palpatine
is always telling lies to get what he wants.
All we know is that Anakin was created by the Force / Midichlorians.
It's completely unknown whether that was directly due to Plagueis /
Sidious, or was the Midichlorians themselves reacting to Plagueis /
Sidious' "tinkering", or simply the Midichlorians creating Anakin
themselves for some reason.
Darth Mura
Anybody wrote:
> In article <1130454735....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Darth Mura" <shri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > atomic wrote:
> >
> > > All contributed, but when was the point where "that was it", he was
> > > on the dark side?
> >
> > When he was created by Plageouis the Wise.
> >
> > "Plagueis had uncovered a path to immortality through the manipulation
> > of the dark side of the Force. Plagueis could, it was said, coax the
> > midi-chlorians present in all living cells to create life from
> > nothingness."
> > http://www.starwars.com/databank/character/darthsidious/
>
> That's a pure guess.
More like informed speculation, which is what the op asked for.
Tom
news:281020051226591320%any...@anywhere-anytime.com...
You are correct in saying there is no proof as to the exact explanation of
Anakin's creation, but now, we do have proof that Plagueis did have the
power. We are stepping closer to an answer that has weight.
atomic
Actually it is NOT what was asked for.
We have already been down this whole path - it is not conslusive (by a
long shot) that Anakin's creation was a result of any other person's
influence, except his mother. In fact Lucas has already stated
otherwise, but nobody seems to believe that he actually said it on 60
minutes when Ep.1 was realeased.
Stick to the topic!
DKM
When he stopped Mace's attack on Sidious.
That's when, IMO, he choose saving his wife (a form of greed) over defeating
evil.
DKM
DKM
"Tom" <moo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MYd8f.11491$Ix3.6411@dukeread05...
> You are correct in saying there is no proof as to the exact explanation of
> Anakin's creation, but now, we do have proof that Plagueis did have the
> power. We are stepping closer to an answer that has weight.
What is the proof?
DKM
Sean Walsh: Piettus Worshipus
While many will say "when he was created by the Midichlorians," I will
say - for the sake of the story - that his killing the younglings was
what cemented his turn to the Dark Side.
Everything up to that point was done because he thought it was the
right thing. Avenging his mother's death, saving his mentor Palpatine,
wanting to spare his wife Padme from dying......but killing the kids
was what fully set him astray from the light side.
Until he saved the life of *his* kid about 25 years later, that is...
--
Sean
Me
>interested what the general belief is about what event/time was REALLY
>the point of no return for Anakin?
When he was ironically flame burned just like Sidious
was electrically burned
To quote Khan - "burned alive, burned alive..."
Tom
news:UKe8f.8763$tV6....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
If you read the post I replied to, you would have seen it.
atomic
> While many will say "when he was created by the Midichlorians," I will
> say - for the sake of the story - that his killing the younglings was
> what cemented his turn to the Dark Side.
>
> Everything up to that point was done because he thought it was the
> right thing. Avenging his mother's death, saving his mentor Palpatine,
> wanting to spare his wife Padme from dying......but killing the kids
> was what fully set him astray from the light side.
I agree with this one!
IMO that was the defining moment. As Sean said, everything else was
either out of sense of duty, or what he thought was the right or
justified thing to do.
Killing the Sand People was revernge for his mother, and something he
thought was right.
Executing Dooku, although wrong in Jedi terms, seemed the right thing
to do.
Stopping Mace from killing Sidious was an attempt to do the right
thing.
The info about Plageous and the denial of his mastership was just fuel.
However, when he killed the kids, that was just plain murder. Can't
really be justified at all.
Anybody
<moo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "DKM" <dkm...@nospam.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:UKe8f.8763$tV6....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
> >
> > "Tom" <moo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:MYd8f.11491$Ix3.6411@dukeread05...
> > > You are correct in saying there is no proof as to the exact explanation
> of
> > > Anakin's creation, but now, we do have proof that Plagueis did have the
> > > power. We are stepping closer to an answer that has weight.
> >
> > What is the proof?
>
> If you read the post I replied to, you would have seen it.
>
> "Plagueis had uncovered a path to immortality through the manipulation
> of the dark side of the Force. Plagueis could, it was said, coax the
> midi-chlorians present in all living cells to create life from
> nothingness."
> http://www.starwars.com/databank/character/darthsidious/
Ah, but if you had read that quote you would have seen that it says "it
was said". That implies that nobody actually knows whether he really
could or not, ie. people like Sidious (or even Plagueis himself) have
said he could create life, but nobody has actually seen him do it. If
Plagueis could definitely create life then "it was said" wouldn't make
sense being in there.
atomic
> Ah, but if you had read that quote you would have seen that it says "it
> was said". That implies that nobody actually knows whether he really
> could or not, ie. people like Sidious (or even Plagueis himself) have
> said he could create life, but nobody has actually seen him do it. If
> Plagueis could definitely create life then "it was said" wouldn't make
> sense being in there.
That's right!
Plagueis could keep himself alive, he could cheat death - but it was
NEVER confirmed that he actually DID create life.
And that "it was said" statement is VERY important! Gives a clear
indication IMO, that Sidious was merely trying to lure Anakin, while
protecting himself from a recoursive where Anakin might say "you
said......blah".
Evidence to corobrate this is when Sidious says "we'll learn it
together" (the ability to create life). Why would he say that if he
already knew how??
Nowhere does anything Sidious says imply an involvement in his creation.
Anybody
"atomic" <stereo...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> There was also when he executed Dooku - i forgot that one!
>
> > While many will say "when he was created by the Midichlorians," I will
> > say - for the sake of the story - that his killing the younglings was
> > what cemented his turn to the Dark Side.
> >
> > Everything up to that point was done because he thought it was the
> > right thing. Avenging his mother's death, saving his mentor Palpatine,
> > wanting to spare his wife Padme from dying......but killing the kids
> > was what fully set him astray from the light side.
>
> I agree with this one!
>
> IMO that was the defining moment. As Sean said, everything else was
> either out of sense of duty, or what he thought was the right or
> justified thing to do.
>
> Killing the Sand People was revernge for his mother, and something he
> thought was right.
He didn't think it was right, that's why he threw a temper tantrum as
soon as he was back with Padmé. He killed the Sandpeople while in an
emotional cloud - he wasn't thinking at all.
Anakin's inability to control his emotions is the biggest reason he
"failed" as a Jedi and was so easily corrupted by Palpatine. Palpatine
used that when telling him he could save Padmé.
> Executing Dooku, although wrong in Jedi terms, seemed the right thing
> to do.
> Stopping Mace from killing Sidious was an attempt to do the right
> thing.
> The info about Plageous and the denial of his mastership was just fuel.
> However, when he killed the kids, that was just plain murder. Can't
> really be justified at all.
Anakin killed kids in the Sandpeople camp.
Anakin's turn to the Dark Side was completed with the "betrayal" by
Padmé and Obi-Wan, but his resignation to his fate was when he was told
he had killed Padmé - at that point he simply gave up.
Anybody
"atomic" <stereo...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > Ah, but if you had read that quote you would have seen that it says "it
> > was said". That implies that nobody actually knows whether he really
> > could or not, ie. people like Sidious (or even Plagueis himself) have
> > said he could create life, but nobody has actually seen him do it. If
> > Plagueis could definitely create life then "it was said" wouldn't make
> > sense being in there.
>
> That's right!
>
> Plagueis could keep himself alive, he could cheat death - but it was
> NEVER confirmed that he actually DID create life.
Unless Plagueis turns out to be Qui-Gon, we have no proof that Plagueis
could "cheat death" either ... after all, he IS dead. :-)
> And that "it was said" statement is VERY important! Gives a clear
> indication IMO, that Sidious was merely trying to lure Anakin, while
> protecting himself from a recoursive where Anakin might say "you
> said......blah".
>
> Evidence to corobrate this is when Sidious says "we'll learn it
> together" (the ability to create life). Why would he say that if he
> already knew how??
>
> Nowhere does anything Sidious says imply an involvement in his creation.
Sidious is a liar. Very little that he says (if anything) is actually
true. It's all designed specifically to help get what he wants - both
the position of power and Anakin as his apprentice.
atomic
Darth Mura
atomic wrote:
> > More like informed speculation, which is what the op asked for.
>
> Actually it is NOT what was asked for.
>
Actually, you are wrong. The op said:
"This is one of those 'opinion only' types of questions. I'm just
interested what the general belief is about what event/time was REALLY
the point of no return for Anakin?"
He asked for opinions about the defining event in Anakin's turn to the
darkside. And that is what I gave.
No go find someone else to bother.
Ken Maeda
Sean Walsh: Piettus Worshipus wrote:
>
> While many will say "when he was created by the Midichlorians," I will
> say - for the sake of the story - that his killing the younglings was
> what cemented his turn to the Dark Side.
>
> Everything up to that point was done because he thought it was the
> right thing. Avenging his mother's death,
That was just out of anger and cold-blooded revenge. Lucas *could* have
had Anakin claim he did it to prevent the sand people from killing
other innocents, but that definitely wasn't what Anakin had in mind.
> saving his mentor Palpatine,
By that point he seems to accept that Palpatine was a bad guy (he
voluntarily informs Mace and later says he should be put on trial). He
only wanted him alive so he could have access to what he knew about the
Dark Side, and how to save Padme. In the end, he doesn't care about
Palpatine, Obi-Wan, or anyone else, just her. And, of course, losing
his mom paved the way for his obsession over not losing Padme too.
> wanting to spare his wife Padme from dying......but killing the kids
> was what fully set him astray from the light side.
For me, it would have to be when he helps kill Mace, and essentially
betrays the Jedi and the light side. I guess killing the kids, and
later the Separatists, were the first acts that officially sealed his
fate.
Although, when he commits those acts, they're more out of blind loyalty
to the Republic than they are out of any devotion to Padme. He does
dedicate himself to Palpatine in order to learn about the Dark Side,
but how does that also convince him that "the Jedi are evil," and that
all of them, including the kids, deserve to die? Palpatine claims that
the "Jedi are taking over," but Anakin clearly doesn't believe him at
that point.
> Until he saved the life of *his* kid about 25 years later, that is...
Ah, that's sweet.
Ken
Darth Mura
atomic wrote:
>
> Evidence to corobrate this is when Sidious says "we'll learn it
> together" (the ability to create life). Why would he say that if he
> already knew how??
The statement inidicates Sidious himself doesn't know how to create
life. That does not mean that Plagueis did not, only that Sidious
never learned this knowldege/skill from Plageuis.
>
> Nowhere does anything Sidious says imply an involvement in his creation.
imply: to convey an idea by indirect, subtle means
There is plenty of implication _suggesting_ Plageius created Anakin.
If you choose to ignore it, that's your problem. But please don't make
ridiculous statements posing as undisputed fact.
Darth Mura
Anybody wrote:
>
> Sidious is a liar. Very little that he says (if anything) is actually
> true.
This seems to be a common refrain among those who don't want to even
consider that Anakin _might_ have been created by Palgueis. But where
does this idea come from that "very little" Palpatine/Sidious says is
true? Like any clever politician, _most_ of what he says is true -
that's why he's trusted. Here, for example, are a few lines from RotS
that show Palpatine/Sidious speaking quite truthfully:
--------------------------
DARTH SlDIOUS (to Grievous) : The end of the war is near, General, and
I promise you, victory is assured.
GENERAL GRIEVOUS: But the loss of Count Dooku?
DARTH SlDIOUS: His death was a necessary loss, which will ensure our
victory. Soon I will have a new apprentice . . . one far younger and
more powerful than Lord Tyranus.
--------------------------
DARTH SlDIOUS (to Yoda): You will not stop me. Darth Vader will become
more powerful than either of us.
--------------------------
DARTH VADER: (continuing) Where is Padme? Is she safe, is she all
right?
DARTH SIDIOUS: I'm afraid she died. ... it seems in your anger, you
killed her.
--------------------------
PALPATINE: (continuing) Anakin . . . I'm appointing you to be my
personal representative on the Jedi Council.
ANAKIN: Me? A Master? I am overwhelmed, sir, but the Council elects its
own members. They will never accept this.
PALPATINE: I think they will . . . they need you more than you know.
--------------------------
PALPATINE: Anakin, if one is to understand the great mystery, one must
study all its aspects, not just the dogmatic, narrow view of the Jedi.
PALPATINE: Remember back to your early teachings. Anakin. "All those
who gain power are afraid to lose it." Even the Jedi.
Nobody
> This is one of those 'opinion only' types of questions. I'm just
> interested what the general belief is about what event/time was REALLY
> the point of no return for Anakin?
Each of the events you mention build upon each other. If Anakin had not
killed the Sandpeople, killed Dooku, and been so impatient, he never
would have protected Palpatine from Mace. He would have stayed in the
temple like he was told. Killing would be a foreign object to him and he
never would have killed the younglings. Killing the sandpeople (animals)
& Dooku (evil sith) made it easier to do.
Lucas has been very careful to show that it wasn't just one event that
turned Anakin to the dark side. It was a series of things.
--
"[Your] pathological hatred of Bush is so fierce it has disabled [your]
ability to reason. I have no problem with critics of the war. I have a
problem with leftists who have declared war on their own country in the
midst of a war; who recognize no responsibility to accept the results of
the democratic process or to protect their fellow citizens from the
monstrous enemy that is seeking to destroy them." - David Horowitz
Nobody
> To quote Khan - "burned alive, burned alive..."
The quote is, "Buried alive... buried alive..."
Tom
news:1130495344....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Darth Mura, you are my new hero. I thought Grue and I were alone in this
one.
Solon
> atomic wrote:
>>> More like informed speculation, which is what the op asked for.
>> Actually it is NOT what was asked for.
>
> Actually, you are wrong. The op said:
He /is/ the OP. ;-)
--
usene...@gmail.com
Sean Walsh: Piettus Worshipus
> Sean Walsh: Piettus Worshipus wrote:
> >
> > While many will say "when he was created by the Midichlorians," I will
> > say - for the sake of the story - that his killing the younglings was
> > what cemented his turn to the Dark Side.
> >
> > Everything up to that point was done because he thought it was the
> > right thing. Avenging his mother's death,
>
> That was just out of anger and cold-blooded revenge. Lucas *could* have
> had Anakin claim he did it to prevent the sand people from killing
> other innocents, but that definitely wasn't what Anakin had in mind.
True enough.
> > saving his mentor Palpatine,
>
> By that point he seems to accept that Palpatine was a bad guy (he
> voluntarily informs Mace and later says he should be put on trial). He
> only wanted him alive so he could have access to what he knew about the
> Dark Side, and how to save Padme. In the end, he doesn't care about
> Palpatine, Obi-Wan, or anyone else, just her. And, of course, losing
> his mom paved the way for his obsession over not losing Padme too.
Ditto.
> > wanting to spare his wife Padme from dying......but killing the kids
> > was what fully set him astray from the light side.
>
> For me, it would have to be when he helps kill Mace, and essentially
> betrays the Jedi and the light side. I guess killing the kids, and
> later the Separatists, were the first acts that officially sealed his
> fate.
The kids much moreso over Nute and the Gang, IMHO. Sure, they were
hapless dupes, but.......kids, man, kids! :p
> Although, when he commits those acts, they're more out of blind loyalty
> to the Republic than they are out of any devotion to Padme. He does
> dedicate himself to Palpatine in order to learn about the Dark Side,
> but how does that also convince him that "the Jedi are evil," and that
> all of them, including the kids, deserve to die? Palpatine claims that
> the "Jedi are taking over," but Anakin clearly doesn't believe him at
> that point.
Dammit, again your sense overwhelms mine. So "true enough" again. :p
> > Until he saved the life of *his* kid about 25 years later, that is...
>
> Ah, that's sweet.
Hey, you agreed at least once (with praise, it sounds like). Me am
content. :)
--
Sean
Ruud Bergs
> This is one of those 'opinion only' types of questions. I'm just
> interested what the general belief is about what event/time was REALLY
> the point of no return for Anakin?
>
>
> Or when he stopped Mace's attack on Sidious?
>
> Perhaps when he slaughtered the younglings?
>
> Or was it the point when Sidious told him about Plageous' power to
> keep people form dying?
>
> Maybe when the Jedi council refused to give the title of Master?
>
> All contributed, but when was the point where "that was it", he was
> on the dark side?
I would say that when he had stopped mace's attack on Sidious, he was at
first beyond the point of no return. I felt this way the first time i
watched ROTS.
Before this, IMO, he would have been able turn from the dark side and come
back to his senses. After the 'mace'-event he could anymore.
Ruud
Nobody
> All contributed, but when was the point where "that was it", he was
> on the dark side?
Now that I think of it, since he DID return at the end of "Jedi" there
was no "point of no return." ;-)
M
news:jNidnUWGCYa...@giganews.com...
ROFLMAO
--
M
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
...why, other guards, of course!
Anybody
"Darth Mura" <shri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Anybody wrote:
>
> >
> > Sidious is a liar. Very little that he says (if anything) is actually
> > true.
>
> This seems to be a common refrain among those who don't want to even
> consider that Anakin _might_ have been created by Palgueis.
It's not so much that Plagueis / Sidious DIDN'T create Anakin, but that
the only "proof" that one / both of them did create Anakin comes from a
two minute speech by Palpatine who is a known liar and manipulator.
Anyone who believes that is definite proof is blinkered.
> But where
> does this idea come from that "very little" Palpatine/Sidious says is
> true? Like any clever politician, _most_ of what he says is true -
> that's why he's trusted. Here, for example, are a few lines from RotS
> that show Palpatine/Sidious speaking quite truthfully:
Very little of what Palpatine says is pure truth. It's all lies and
manipulations carefully planned to get what he wants ... and yes, that
unfortunately is what most politicians do as well, which is why most
are useless, greedy idiots who rarely keep any of the made up promises
they make to get you to vote for them. Most people know that and vote
for the best of a bad bunch, while most people simply don't bother
voting at all since one fool is no better than the next.
Of course there are things that Palpatine says that are true. It's
difficult to say simple and obviously false things like "the sky is
green and the grass is blue" and have people believe you. Plapatine is
cunning, not stupid.
DKM
"Darth Mura" <shri...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1130495344....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>>
>> Evidence to corobrate this is when Sidious says "we'll learn it
>> together" (the ability to create life). Why would he say that if he
>> already knew how??
>
> The statement inidicates Sidious himself doesn't know how to create
> life. That does not mean that Plagueis did not, only that Sidious
> never learned this knowldege/skill from Plageuis.
But that is not what he was talking about. Anakin asked him to help him
save Padme'. Sidious responds by saying "To cheat death is a power only one
has achieved, but if we work together, I know we can discover the secret",
which directly contradicts when he told Anakin "Unfortunately, he taught his
apprentice everything he knew, then his apprentice killed him in his sleep."
So Palpatine is lying at some point.
I do believe that Palpatine does imply that Plagueis created Anakin and that
it is possible, but there is no proof that he did.
DKM
Ken Maeda
> > For me, it would have to be when he helps kill Mace, and essentially
> > betrays the Jedi and the light side. I guess killing the kids, and
> > later the Separatists, were the first acts that officially sealed his
> > fate.
>
> The kids much moreso over Nute and the Gang, IMHO.
"Let's take a walk together, near the lava shore. Hand in hand, you and
I..."
> Sure, they were
> hapless dupes, but.......kids, man, kids! :p
Everything we do here, we do for the kids.
Speaking of the hapless dupes, it dawned on me that since they never
knew that Dooku was a Sith Lord, he might not've been able to pull out
his saber in the Geonosis arena fight. Unless he could explain away the
red blade?
And speaking of the arena, I heard they got yet another sponsor, so now
they're changing the name from "Corporate Alliance Arena" to "IGBC
Arena." Sheesh!
> Dammit, again your sense overwhelms mine. So "true enough" again. :p
I dunno, I'm just guessing out loud.
> > > Until he saved the life of *his* kid about 25 years later, that is...
> >
> > Ah, that's sweet.
>
> Hey, you agreed at least once (with praise, it sounds like). Me am
> content. :)
Let's agree to agree.
Ken
Darth Mura
Anybody wrote:
> In article <1130497121.9...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Darth Mura" <shri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Anybody wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Sidious is a liar. Very little that he says (if anything) is actually
> > > true.
> >
> > This seems to be a common refrain among those who don't want to even
> > consider that Anakin _might_ have been created by Palgueis.
>
> It's not so much that Plagueis / Sidious DIDN'T create Anakin, but that
> the only "proof" that one / both of them did create Anakin comes from a
> two minute speech by Palpatine who is a known liar and manipulator.
>
> Anyone who believes that is definite proof is blinkered.
>
There are other clues, within and without the text, suggesting Anakin
was the experiment of a dabbler in black arts. No one is claiming that
this scene alone is the _only_ evidence pointing to such a conclusion.
>
> Very little of what Palpatine says is pure truth.
You'll have to define "pure truth" and how it differs from plain old,
unmodified "truth." Are you suggesting there are shades of truth?
Different kinds of truth?
> It's all lies and
> manipulations carefully planned to get what he wants ...
I agree that he is a consumate manipulator, but I disagree that
everything he says, or even most of what he says, is untruthful. I
would say just the opposite, that most of what he says is true, but
framed in such a way as to elicit certain action from his
interlocuters.
And for that reason, you cannot summarily dismiss _everything_
Palpatine/Sidious says as unreliable. You have to look a little more
carefully at the text - and even outside the text - to weigh which
statements are more likely true, and which more likely false.
Darth Mura
DKM wrote:
> "Darth Mura" <shri...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1130495344....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > atomic wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Evidence to corobrate this is when Sidious says "we'll learn it
> >> together" (the ability to create life). Why would he say that if he
> >> already knew how??
> >
> > The statement inidicates Sidious himself doesn't know how to create
> > life. That does not mean that Plagueis did not, only that Sidious
> > never learned this knowldege/skill from Plageuis.
>
>
> But that is not what he was talking about. Anakin asked him to help him
> save Padme'. Sidious responds by saying "To cheat death is a power only one
> has achieved, but if we work together, I know we can discover the secret",
> which directly contradicts when he told Anakin "Unfortunately, he taught his
> apprentice everything he knew, then his apprentice killed him in his sleep."
> So Palpatine is lying at some point.
>
When you use the "everything" or "all," do you always use them in a
literal sense, meaning "every last one, without exception"?
"He taught me everything he knew" is a coloquial expression and
"everything" obviously doesn't mean "_every_thing_."
> I do believe that Palpatine does imply that Plagueis created Anakin and that
> it is possible, but there is no proof that he did.
There is no smoking gun. But there is plenty of circumstantial
evidence.
DKM
>
>> Very little of what Palpatine says is pure truth.
>
> You'll have to define "pure truth" and how it differs from plain old,
> unmodified "truth." Are you suggesting there are shades of truth?
> Different kinds of truth?
>
Your asking this question in a coversation about a movie series that notes
that truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view?
DKM
DKM
>
> DKM wrote:
>> "Darth Mura" <shri...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1130495344....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > atomic wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Evidence to corobrate this is when Sidious says "we'll learn it
>> >> together" (the ability to create life). Why would he say that if he
>> >> already knew how??
>> >
>> > The statement inidicates Sidious himself doesn't know how to create
>> > life. That does not mean that Plagueis did not, only that Sidious
>> > never learned this knowldege/skill from Plageuis.
>>
>>
>> But that is not what he was talking about. Anakin asked him to help him
>> save Padme'. Sidious responds by saying "To cheat death is a power only
>> one
>> has achieved, but if we work together, I know we can discover the
>> secret",
>> which directly contradicts when he told Anakin "Unfortunately, he taught
>> his
>> apprentice everything he knew, then his apprentice killed him in his
>> sleep."
>> So Palpatine is lying at some point.
>>
>
> When you use the "everything" or "all," do you always use them in a
> literal sense, meaning "every last one, without exception"?
Most of the time. My second grade teacher very much enforced on us.
>
> "He taught me everything he knew" is a coloquial expression and
> "everything" obviously doesn't mean "_every_thing_."
And you know this how? Because it fits your belief?
Lets look at the lines he spoke.
First Papatine says "Darth Plagueis was a Dark Lord of the Sith, so powerful
and so wise he could use the Force to influence the midi-chlorians to create
life ... He had such a knowledge of the dark side that he could even keep
the ones he cared about from dying."
He added "He became so powerful . . . the only thing he was afraid of was
losing his power, which eventually, of course, he did. Unfortunately, he
taught his apprentice everything he knew, then his apprentice killed him in
his sleep. (smiles) Plagueis never saw it coming. It's ironic he could save
others from death, but not himself."
So your saying even though the lines basicly say Plagueis taught his
appentice the power he learned, that's not what he was really saying,
however, even though he never claims the either Sith was responsible for
creating Anakin we should take those lines as being strong circumstantial
evidence?
>> I do believe that Palpatine does imply that Plagueis created Anakin and
>> that
>> it is possible, but there is no proof that he did.
>
> There is no smoking gun. But there is plenty of circumstantial
> evidence.
I don't even believe that.
What other circumstantial evidence is there?
If you are will to accept things that didn't make it into the movie, we know
the line about being able to save others is a lie. "The ability to defy
oblivion can be achieved, but only for oneself. It was accomplished by a
Shaman of the Whills. It is a state acquired through compassion, not greed."
Also consider under your theory that Sidious wasn't taught "everything",
then he probably wasn't taught how to create life since he didn't know the
ability to "cheat death." So he wasn't the one to create Anakin. Plagueis
couldn't have created Anakin as Maul seems to be in his mid to late 20's and
he had been trained by Sidious since he was a young child and Anakin was
only 9 when we met him. Even if Maul was Sidious first apprentice and
started being trained as late as 10, there are still five or more years
between Plagueis death and Anakin's birth.
DKM
Tom
Actually, we have no idea how old Maul is. I'm not even aware of any info on
his species' life span. But, I'm gonna check out the databank in a minute to
see if anything new has been posted.
If we are talking EU material in this specific discussion, Sidious does
cheat death. There was a book that illustrated how he was able to let his
consciousness flow into the force. Since I haven't read the book, I don't
know the specifics. Let's just call this heresay until someone else can
verify the book. Anyway, if this is true the Sith can cheat death but in a
different way from the Jedi.
Solon
> It's not so much that Plagueis / Sidious DIDN'T create Anakin, but that
> the only "proof" that one / both of them did create Anakin comes from a
> two minute speech by Palpatine who is a known liar and manipulator.
>
> Anyone who believes that is definite proof is blinkered.
Just to add to this:
Even if everything Palpy said was true, he never connects it to Anakin's
creation. In order to believe Plagueis created Anakin, one would have to
believe every part of Palpatine's speech, *and* assume even more on top
of that (ie. jumping to conclusions).
--
usene...@gmail.com
DKM
"Tom" <moo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:GmP8f.12472$Ix3.6998@dukeread05...
> If we are talking EU material in this specific discussion, Sidious does
> cheat death. There was a book that illustrated how he was able to let his
> consciousness flow into the force. Since I haven't read the book, I don't
> know the specifics. Let's just call this heresay until someone else can
> verify the book. Anyway, if this is true the Sith can cheat death but in a
> different way from the Jedi.
Here is catch for you. That the Sith are not able to "cheat death" or
become one with the force or what ever IS EU. It's not anywhere in the
movie.
DKM
Tom
You are the one who mentioned EU during this discussion. Who cares if the
movie didn't cover it? That's like saying anything that happened outside
"Gone with the Wind" is meaningless. Sure, this is comparing fantasy to real
life, but the point is that the movie can't provide the entire picture.
There is simply too much information.
DKM
> "DKM" <dkm...@nospam.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>> Here is catch for you. That the Sith are not able to "cheat death" or
>> become one with the force or what ever IS EU. It's not anywhere in the
>> movie.
>>
>> DKM
>>
>
> You are the one who mentioned EU during this discussion. Who cares if the
> movie didn't cover it? That's like saying anything that happened outside
> "Gone with the Wind" is meaningless. Sure, this is comparing fantasy to
> real
> life, but the point is that the movie can't provide the entire picture.
> There is simply too much information.
I know I brought it up. I guess I should have been clearer tht my comment
wasn't to you personally, but to the group as a whole. I think a lot of
people haven't realized that since Qui-Gon's voice is never heard in the
move his lines about the Sith not being able to become one with the force is
actually an EU source. So any EU source that claims Plagueis or Sidious did
create Anakin is equally as valid.
DKM
Darth Mura
DKM wrote:
>
> >
> > "He taught me everything he knew" is a coloquial expression and
> > "everything" obviously doesn't mean "_every_thing_."
>
> And you know this how?
Becasue I read and I listen and I study. That's how I _know_ that "He
taught me everything he knew" is colloquial and cannot always be taken
literally.
Palpatine's use of the phrase could possibly be literal. But since he
later admits to not having the power to create life, it must be
therefore be presumed to be colloquial. That's how I know.
> So your saying even though the lines basicly say Plagueis taught his
> appentice the power he learned, that's not what he was really saying,
> however, even though he never claims the either Sith was responsible for
> creating Anakin we should take those lines as being strong circumstantial
> evidence?
You seem to see some logical contradiction here. I don't.
>
> What other circumstantial evidence is there?
Intramovie
+ The introduction of the midichlorians as a means through which a dark
lord could manipulate the force to create life
+ Anakin's mother does not know who Anakin's father is; in fact she
seems quite clueless about her entire pregnancy
+ Anakin is born on a remote world outside the influence of the Jedi,
where his immense force power cannot easily be discovered
+ Palpatine predicts that Anakin will be the strongest Jedi ever.
+ Paltpatine refers to Anakin as his "son."
Literary
+ The story of Anakin's life is more compelling as the creation of a
dark lord, a Frankenstein monster set loose in the world who tries to
do right, is steered toward a life of wrong, but in the end destroy's
his maker (once removed) in order to save the only good thing left of
him in the world - his son.
EU
The recently published "Vader: The Ultimate Guide" says:
"Plagueis revealed to Sidious an experiment he'd conceived to create
life directly from the midi-chlorians found in one's blood, potentially
yielding a being of astounding power. Comprehending that any such being
would amount to Sidious' replacement, the Sith apprentice murdered his
master.
Darth Sidious had multiple pupils, beginning with the feral Sith Lord
Darth Maul, whom Sidious raised and trained without Plagueis'
knowledge."
Tom
asking or telling "me" something in a discussion instead of it being more
like an open forum post. No harm done. I enjoy the debates.
James Willmott
> + Paltpatine refers to Anakin as his "son."
This wasn't meant literally, an older man can often refer to a younger
one as 'son' without it being true.
jw.
Darth Mura
That's certainly possible, and that's no doubt how Anakin recevied it,
but within the context it has an added level of meaning for Palpatine.
Rocinante
> This is one of those 'opinion only' types of questions. I'm just
> interested what the general belief is about what event/time was REALLY
> the point of no return for Anakin?
>
> Was it when he slaughtered the Tuskins?
>
> Or when he stopped Mace's attack on Sidious?
>
> Perhaps when he slaughtered the younglings?
>
> Or was it the point when Sidious told him about Plageous' power to
> keep people form dying?
>
> Maybe when the Jedi council refused to give the title of Master?
>
> All contributed, but when was the point where "that was it", he was
> on the dark side?
We don't know because the acting was not good enough to project through
different degrees of conflict for Anakin.
--
"Teamwork is essential -- it allows you to blame someone else."
Rocinante...@gmail.com
10/30/2005 11:12:33 AM
Grue
> Unless Plagueis turns out to be Qui-Gon, we have no proof that Plagueis
> could "cheat death" either ... after all, he IS dead. :-)
He could be connunicating with Palpy / Sidious as a disembodied spirit
like Qui-Gon, or maybe he actually appears as a Force ghost like Obi-Wan.
True, we never see it, so there is no proof, but it could happen. It'd be
a little weird for him to communicate or appear to the guy who killed
him....
At the time when it was said "Only one has ever learned the secret"....it
was true as far as Sidious' knowledge was concerned, in my opinion, and
the one he was speaking of, in my opinion, was Plagueis. The fact that he
actually says "Only one has ever learned the secret" would seem to
indicate that Sidious *had* been contacted by Plagueis, proving that,
indeed, Plagueis *had* learned the secret to life after death. Otherwise
he might have said something like "It's said that only one *might* have
learned the secret" or "There was only one who *claimed* to know the
secret", or "*thought* he knew the secret".
Its never really made clear at what point Yoda begins communicating with
Qui-Gon, though his voice does come through while Yoda is meditating
after Anakin slaughters the Tuskens; its not clear that Yoda realizes
that it actually *is* Qui-Gon. If Yoda wasn't aware until well later on
into the events of ROTS, its possible that Sidious wasn't aware of his
continued existance, either, in my opinion, in which case the story about
the "only one" during the theater scene would be about Plagueis, in my
opinion.
> Sidious is a liar. Very little that he says (if anything) is actually
> true. It's all designed specifically to help get what he wants - both
> the position of power and Anakin as his apprentice.
WE don't know for sure if what he said was true or not. IT could be, it
might not be. To call him a liar is too broad a stroke right now when we
don't know for sure if what he was saying was lie or fact. To say that he
was manipulative would be an understatement, though. If it was true, he
only told Anakin as a means of persuasion, and only told him what he
wanted him to hear; what he felt he needed to hear.
--
-Grue
-------------------------------------------------------------------
An unbreakable toy is good for breaking other toys.
Grue
> the only "proof" that one / both of them did create Anakin comes from a
> two minute speech by Palpatine who is a known liar and manipulator.
>
what exactly did he lie about. Most of what he says, we have no way to
prove or not, and the rest is worded so cunningly that its hard to tell
if he's lying or just omitting all the bad parts. He's decietful,
manipulative, and cunning, to be sure.
We have no proof either way, if he was lying or telling the truth in a
really decietful way.
You just as guilty assuming he was lying as others are for assuming he
told the truth.
Solon
> Anybody wrote:
>
>> the only "proof" that one / both of them did create Anakin comes from a
>> two minute speech by Palpatine who is a known liar and manipulator.
>
> what exactly did he lie about.
Ep1
- not knowing what happened to the Chancellor's Ambassadors [TPM].
- being pleased to see Queen Amidala alive
- promising that if he were elected, he would put an end to corruption
Ep2
- stating the objective during negotiations was peace, not war
- telling Anakin that he didn't need guidance
- telling Anakin that he will be invincible
- "It is with great reluctance that I have agreed
to this calling. I love democracy... I love the Republic.
But I am mild by nature, and I do not desire to see the
destruction of democracy. The power you give me I will lay
down when this crisis has abated, I promise you."
That's what he lied about.
--
usene...@gmail.com
DKM
"Grue" <a...@a.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96FF9D8...@209.210.176.62...
> We have no proof either way, if he was lying or telling the truth in a
> really decietful way.
>
> You just as guilty assuming he was lying as others are for assuming he
> told the truth.
He contradicts himself, at one point he claims Plagueis taught his
apprentice every thing he knew, later he claims only one ever learned the
secret.
DKM
Earth Feeling
So maybe "he taught his apprentice everything he knew" is not to be
taken literally.
Ken Maeda
Sean Walsh: Piettus Worshipus wrote:
> The kids much moreso over Nute and the Gang, IMHO. Sure, they were
> hapless dupes, but.......kids, man, kids! :p
I forgot to mention that one reason I included the Gunray Gang along
with the kids was because, well, Anakin cries afterward. <sniff>
I'm guessing that slight emotional breakdown was a reaction to *all*
the killing he'd just done, but it would've nice to see how he felt
just after finishing up at the Temple (angry? proud? torn?). He's a
little too calm when he meets up with Padme afterwards.
Ken
Solon
> DKM wrote:
>
>> He contradicts himself, at one point he claims Plagueis taught his
>> apprentice every thing he knew, later he claims only one ever learned the
>> secret.
>
> taken literally.
His entire description of Plagueis is that Plagueis figured out how to
cheat death. When Palpatine says "he taught his apprentice everything he
knew," that implies that Plagueis taught his apprentice how to cheat
death. Maybe not everything he knew, but that was the only thing we were
told that he knew.
--
usene...@gmail.com
Michael Chubb
Sidious. Once you turn to the dark side, forever your destiny will it
consume. Well, until you save your son by killing your master, that is.
For the record, I don't think Plagueous or Sidious created Anakin.
Palpatine simply provided just enough informtion in the right context
for Anakin (and some moviegoers) to draw the wrong conclusion.
And, though this is purely speculative, when Sidous says "Only one has
acheived the ability to cheat death..." I think he may actually be
referring to Qui-Gon Jinn. If Yoda sensed his "return" through the force
in AOTC, isn't possible Sidious did as well?
Jill Marie Fritsche
It also occured to me that Anakin's eyes don't turn yellow in the temple,
just when killing the Federation guys.
Isn't the yellow eyes supposed to be Evil (tm)? Shouldn't true Evil (tm)
have been at the Temple killing kids?
~~jm
Darth Mura
Solon wrote:
How to cheat death and the ability to create life ("the secret") are
not necessarily the same skill or knowledge. The refernce you cite is
to the former; the earlier reference is to the latter. So, yes,
Plagueis taught him how to cheat death - but not how to create life.
Darth Mura
Darth Mura wrote:
> Literary
> + The story of Anakin's life is more compelling as the creation of a
> dark lord, a Frankenstein monster set loose in the world who tries to
> do right, is steered toward a life of wrong, but in the end destroy's
> his maker (once removed) in order to save the only good thing left of
> him in the world - his son.
>
It also makes for a nice bit of thematic symmetry - two three-part
stories about father-son relationships, the first
Sidieous-Plagueis/Anakin, the second Anakin/Luke.
Darth Mura
Michael Chubb wrote:
> For the record, I don't think Plagueous or Sidious created Anakin.
> Palpatine simply provided just enough informtion in the right context
> for Anakin (and some moviegoers) to draw the wrong conclusion.
>
How about this conclusion then?
Ken Maeda
Jill Marie Fritsche wrote:
> It also occured to me that Anakin's eyes don't turn yellow in the temple,
> just when killing the Federation guys.
>
> Isn't the yellow eyes supposed to be Evil (tm)? Shouldn't true Evil (tm)
> have been at the Temple killing kids?
We never see him actually killing anyone in the Temple, do we?
The eyes must be a temporary thing, since I assume he looked back to
normal when he meets up with Padme again on Mustafar. Or it could just
be that her beauteous countenance and tender heart has the ability to
counter Evil (tm) with Love and Happiness (tm).
Tip your wait staff.
Ken
atomic
>
>
> Actually, you are wrong. The op said:
>
> "This is one of those 'opinion only' types of questions. I'm just
> interested what the general belief is about what event/time was REALLY
> the point of no return for Anakin?"
>
> darkside. And that is what I gave.
>
> No go find someone else to bother.
HE asked - HE being ME!
I know what I asked, and the turning point HAD to involve an event in
Anakin's life.
So you are mislead to assume you gave a valid answer.
Is this all to hard for you?
atomic
>
> We don't know because the acting was not good enough to project through
> different degrees of conflict for Anakin.
>
Spot on there!
Darth Mura
atomic wrote:
> >
> >
> > Actually, you are wrong. The op said:
> >
> > "This is one of those 'opinion only' types of questions. I'm just
> > interested what the general belief is about what event/time was REALLY
> > the point of no return for Anakin?"
> >
> > He asked for opinions about the defining event in Anakin's turn to the
> > darkside. And that is what I gave.
> >
> > No go find someone else to bother.
>
> HE asked - HE being ME!
>
> I know what I asked, and the turning point HAD to involve an event in
> Anakin's life.
His birth is an event and the defining one in his turn to the darkside.
He was an experiment, the creation of a darklord, which fairly
guaranteed that he would from the very beginning not grow up like other
human children, that his life would be the subject of continual
interference and experimentation.
That is my _opinion_ about _the defining event_ that leads Anakin to
the darkside. And that is what you asked for.
Perhaps you should be more careful next time in how you ask your
questions.
atomic
Darth Mura
atomic wrote:
> Perhaps you should stick to thing we KNOW to be true!
The recently published "Vader: The Ultimate Guide" says:
"Plagueis revealed to Sidious an experiment he'd conceived to create
life directly from the midi-chlorians found in one's blood, potentially
yielding a being of astounding power. Comprehending that any such being
would amount to Sidious' replacement, the Sith apprentice murdered his
master.
Darth Sidious had multiple pupils, beginning with the feral Sith Lord
Darth Maul, whom Sidious raised and trained without Plagueis'
knowledge."
http://www.starwars.com/community/fanclub/mag/news20050711.html
This is not "true"?
Solon
> Perhaps you should be more careful next time in how you ask your
> questions.
I understood him, just fine. :-)
Perhaps you should keep track of who each poster is. ;-)
--
usene...@gmail.com
Darth Mura
Solon wrote:
> _Darth Mura_ spoke thusly:
> > Perhaps you should be more careful next time in how you ask your
> > questions.
>
> I understood him, just fine. :-)
Me, too. :-)
DKM
"Darth Mura" <shri...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1130799509....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I think you have your arguments reversed. Sidious claimed only one learned
the secret to cheat death, which again contradicts the idea Plagueis taught
his apprentice "everything" in relation to the story.
DKM
atomic
Darth Mura
atomic wrote:
> Just the facts Mam!
By all means.
Here are some facts from "Vader: The Ultimate Guide":
atomic
br...@ele.ita.br
Ken Maeda wrote:
> Sean Walsh: Piettus Worshipus wrote:
>
> > wanting to spare his wife Padme from dying......but killing the kids
> > was what fully set him astray from the light side.
>
> For me, it would have to be when he helps kill Mace, and essentially
> betrays the Jedi and the light side. I guess killing the kids, and
> later the Separatists, were the first acts that officially sealed his
> fate.
>
> Although, when he commits those acts, they're more out of blind loyalty
> to the Republic than they are out of any devotion to Padme. He does
> dedicate himself to Palpatine in order to learn about the Dark Side,
> but how does that also convince him that "the Jedi are evil," and that
> all of them, including the kids, deserve to die? Palpatine claims that
> the "Jedi are taking over," but Anakin clearly doesn't believe him at
> that point.
The ironic thing is that Anakin tries to justify all his acts in terms
of "loyalty to the republic/empire", but, at the same time, he tells
Padmé that his real plan is actually to overthrow Palpatine and become
the new ruler of the galaxy. Would you call that "blind loyalty" and
"devotion" to the emperor ? Likewise, Anakin's rationale for not
allowing Mace to kill Palpatine is that summary executions are not
right, even though Anakin himself had summarily executed Dooku before
and, later, would summarily execute Nute Gunray and the other
separatists. In the end, the truth is that, Anakin's excuses
notwithstanding, he is simply acting like a genuine Sith as he himself
described to Palpatine in the opera house, i.e., relying on his
emotions (not reasoning) for his strength, looking inward, and thinking
only about himself!
>
>
> > Until he saved the life of *his* kid about 25 years later, that is...
>
> Ah, that's sweet.
>
>
>
> Ken
atomic
>
> Anakin killed kids in the Sandpeople camp.
>
Not the same - sandppl were scumbags.
> Anakin's turn to the Dark Side was completed with the "betrayal" by
> Padmé and Obi-Wan, but his resignation to his fate was when he was told
> he had killed Padmé - at that point he simply gave up.
Last point is valid - I think he would have given up at that point.
Although his quest for power took him beyond the PONR well before that.
IMO the fact that he sobs after killing the younglings tends to lead us
to believe that THIS is the point when he acknowledges the resolve of
his commitment to Sidious.
Darth Mura
atomic wrote:
> >
> > Anakin killed kids in the Sandpeople camp.
> >
>
> Not the same - sandppl were scumbags.
You forgot to add "...whose children deserved to die."
Jack
interested what the general belief is about what event/time was REALLY the
point of no return for Anakin?
>>Was it when he slaughtered the Tuskins?
>>Or when he stopped Mace's attack on Sidious?
>>Perhaps when he slaughtered the younglings?
>>Or was it the point when Sidious told him about Plageous' power to keep
people form dying?
>>Maybe when the Jedi council refused to give the title of Master?
>>All contributed, but when was the point where "that was it", he was on the
dark side?
He had not reached the point of no return.
He did turn to the Dark Side but he had not reached the point of no return
because, as Padme points out at the end of Episode III before she dies and
as Luke points out in Episode VI, "There is still some good in Anakin/Vadar"
and as we see at the end of Episode VI, Anakin did return to the Light Side.
If he really did go past the point of no return then this would mean at the
end of Episode VI, Vadar would never have saved his son and then turned back
to Anakin.
The item 'point of no return' only applies when there is no chance of
anything coming back.
atomic
> anything coming back.
Actually that's not quite correct, and I'll explain in a moment. First
let me say, I ambeing driven insane by a few morons that for some
reason have been emailing with exactly this statement. FFS get a life
people. I'll send an email TO you if I want an email FROM you.
The point of this question was his JOURNEY to the DS. We all know he
came back, we all saw ROTJ - but there was his journey to the DS. Along
that journey (like any), there is a "point of no return". A point
when it is too difficult, or less economical, or less likely to return
to the point of origin. Not impossible to return, as you have tried to
imply. When a ship travelling from England to America passes the 'point
of no return', is it NEVER able to come back? tick tick tick
tick..........
So the whole point of this was to determine what was the defining
moment on his JOURNEY TO THE DARK SIDE, when you would stop and
think......oh that's it, he's reached the dark side.
I realize people like to think they are smart, and try to get all
technical about the wording of a statement or question. However, if you
read my original post again, take note of the very last line "All
contributed, but when was the point where "that was it", he was on the
dark side?"
I don't think I'm being presumptuous to assume that people realize
I'm talking about the journey to the dark side, and NOT his entire
life. Hell, the VAST majority of people got it!
Darth Mura
atomic wrote:
> So the whole point of this was to determine what was the defining
> moment on his JOURNEY TO THE DARK SIDE
When he was created by Plagueis. His fate was sealed.
atomic
Darth Mura wrote:
Which is your fantasy only!
Darth Mura
"His fate was sealed" is my opinion.
Doc Martian
mustafar.
cheers!
Doc
atomic
Doc Martian wrote:
Didn't he cut the heads off the parking meters?
Sometimes nothing is a real cool hand!
SpammersDie
He passed the point of no return when he talked out loud in the opera. (He
must have spawned those two bitches that were yakking constantly when I went
to see ROTS.) Doesn't this arrogant Jedi realize that people have PAID GOOD
MONEY to see those Calamari perform?
Carin
"atomic" <stereo...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:1132016912.9...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I hate the mumbo-jumbo they inserted in the prequels about virgins births
and Plagueis etc and so on. It was more fun to think he was just a Jedi who
craved more power and became evil in the pursuit of that power. If he was
created from evil to be evil - why did he become good in the end?
I'm not asking because I want an answer... I'm just stating my thoughts.
atomic
>
> I hate the mumbo-jumbo they inserted in the prequels about virgins births
> and Plagueis etc and so on. It was more fun to think he was just a Jedi who
> craved more power and became evil in the pursuit of that power. If he was
> created from evil to be evil - why did he become good in the end?
> I'm not asking because I want an answer... I'm just stating my thoughts.
And you are right - it was appealing to simply look at his good, to
bad, to good life. However I also like the whole talk of a prophecy and
his creation. Even without GL confirming the preconceived intention of
parallels with the bible, the whole concept of Anakin being created by
an evil being is totally ridiculous. The force is essentially good, it
is only PEOPLE that seek personal gain that exploit the power of the
force.
He started life as a good person, and ended as a good person. His
temporary stint on the dark side was mostly due to the deceitful luring
of Sidious. No denying Anakin wanted more power, not just to save Padme
- through growing he simply became more powerful, and no Jedi was
equipped with the knowledge to sufficiently guide him.
It was guidance he needed, not the restrictions that ordinary Jedi had
to follow. He would have realised his own power, and how to use it.
Instead the council treated him like every other Jedi, and he became
frustrated.
I believe if Qui-gon had not been killed, the best course for the Jedi
council would have been for 3 or 4 of the most powerful Jedi to take
him away to a distant system and focus on letting him develop himself,
under guidance - the jedi might have even learned a thing or two.
Darth Mura
atomic wrote:
>
> the whole concept of Anakin being created by
> an evil being is totally ridiculous.
It makes for a great story - birthed by evil, manipulated by evil, tool
of evil, and in the end destroyer of evil.
> The force is essentially good, it
> is only PEOPLE that seek personal gain that exploit the power of the
> force.
The Force is essentially neutral. "Good" and "bad" are contructs of
finite beings.
Oh, and by the way, even though you might not like it, here are the
"facts" from "Vader: The Ultimate Guide":
"Plagueis revealed to Sidious an experiment he'd conceived to create
life directly from the midi-chlorians found in one's blood, potentially
yielding a being of astounding power. Comprehending that any such being
would amount to Sidious' replacement, the Sith apprentice murdered his
master.
Darth Sidious had multiple pupils, beginning with the feral Sith Lord
Darth Maul, whom Sidious raised and trained without Plagueis'
knowledge."
http://www.starwars.com/community/fanclub/mag/news20050711.html
>
atomic
DKM
> Oh, and by the way, even though you might not like it, here are the
> "facts" from "Vader: The Ultimate Guide":
I'm glad you put 'facts' in quotes. "Vader: The Ultimate Guide" simply is
trying to fit the known facts into various assumed ideas. Yes, its a nice
resource but it won't stop other stories from contradicting it or altering
it.
DKM
Darth Mura
With the volume of EU material being published these days, you are very
likely correct.
But for the time being, this seems to stand as an "official"
publication offering in print for the first time details that are only
hinted at in other sources. Anyone who wants to quote EU will, until
it is superseded, have to deal with this.
Let's see if Luceno offers us any more deatils in "Dark Lord: The Rise
of Darth Vader," being released next week.
Jack
anything coming back.
>>Actually that's not quite correct, and I'll explain in a moment. First let
me say, I ambeing driven insane by a few morons that for some reason have
been emailing with exactly this statement. FFS get a life people. I'll send
an email TO you if I want an email FROM you.
It was a mistake. I wanted to reply to your post on the newsgroup but I
clicked on the wrong button on the toolbar. The button I clicked on was
reply to sender. When I figure out what I did, I had to redo the reply and
this time reply on the newsgroup. It was a mistake.
>>The point of this question was his JOURNEY to the DS. We all know he came
back, we all saw ROTJ - but there was his journey to the DS. Along that
journey (like any), there is a "point of no return". A point when it is too
difficult, or less economical, or less likely to return to the point of
origin. Not impossible to return, as you have tried to imply. When a ship
travelling from England to America passes the 'point of no return', is it
NEVER able to come back? tick tick tick
tick..........
A ship heading from England to America can either go back or carry on
towards America until a little more further beyond the halfway point which
is when it reaches the 'point of no return' because it do not have enough
fuel to turn back so all it can do is to carry on towards America. (Of
course it can refuel as soon as it gets to America and then head back.)
But a person do not have a 'point of no return' because everyone can go back
at any time. No matter how far you travel from one thing to another and no
matter how difficult it is. As a matter of a fact, they can ever go back and
then double back and ever double double back or whatever. Like for example:
A man had never ever smoked a single cigarette in his whole life had started
his journey towards becoming a smoker by smoking one cigarette a week, then
a few a week, then a few a day, then a pack a day. He cannot reach a 'point
of no return' because as a matter of a fact, he could've stopped smoking
when he smoked one cigarette a week, or if he didn't, then he could have
stopped while he started smoking a pack a day.
People do not have a 'point of no return' they only have a regard for making
a mistake.
Therefore in my option. Anakin have no 'point of no return' but he can only
regard not turning back sooner and regard ever going all the way to the Dark
Side.
>>but when was the point where "that was it", he was on the dark side?"
Ever if you want to believe that people have a 'point of no return' and if
you want to know when had Anakin reached his 'point of no return' then in my
option, Anakin did reached the Dark Side and became Vader but he *still had
not* reached a 'point of no return' because if he did reach a 'point of no
return' he would've chopped Luke in half instead of cutting his hand off and
then tell him: "I am your father!"
Ever if people do have a 'point of no return', Luke knew that Anakin have
not yet reached his point of no return otherwise Luke wouldn't waste time
trying to turn Vader back to the good side.
DKM
> With the volume of EU material being published these days, you are very
> likely correct.
>
> But for the time being, this seems to stand as an "official"
> publication offering in print for the first time details that are only
> hinted at in other sources. Anyone who wants to quote EU will, until
> it is superseded, have to deal with this.
>
> Let's see if Luceno offers us any more deatils in "Dark Lord: The Rise
> of Darth Vader," being released next week.
Don't get me wrong, there is certainly some EU that I have really enjoyed
and it is "official" to a point. I just don't think it should be quoted as
"proof positive" for anything.
The Bandsaw Vigilante
Good points, but the lion's share of SW literature is not only
"official," it's fully canonical, per Lucas's and LFL's shared policies
(typically "C-canon"-level); this new Luceno book even moreso, due to
George's direct input into its storyline.
Also, considering there aren't to be any further motion picture
projects in the works, this novel's as "real" an immediate post-Episode
III Vader story as anyone's going to get for a time.
(And yes, there're some real wowser-revelations made about Vader and
Sidious's relationship in it, having read the first seven or eight
chapters up to this point. People looking for hardcore answers won't be
disappointed.)
frenchy
and he yells "LIAR!" at Padme. That's when he snapped, tried to kill
her, then Obi, the two closest to him. Before that he still had a tear
running down his cheek even after the killing spree, and would
certainly not have killed her and is debateable if he would have been
able to just start sabering Obi either. Yeah I'm sticking with this
one.
atomic
frenchy wrote:
Good point - to turn on a loved one is definately a BIG change.