He's a small dude, not really built for a physical battle. And his character originally seemed more like a peaceful monk who was beyond hitting people with a little sword. Just based on The Empire Strikes Back, you might have assumed that he would've fought with the force exclusively, if anything.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Star Wars: In Production [Rumors/SPOILERS for All Films Past, Present, & Future]
- Thread starter inm8num2
- Start date
He's a small dude, not really built for a physical battle. And his character originally seemed more like a peaceful monk who was beyond hitting people with a little sword. Just based on The Empire Strikes Back, you might have assumed that he would've fought with the force exclusively, if anything.
BlueDogAnchorite
Member
Well I disagree, I think he was able to use the force to his advantage to fight like that. Again I don't see how this is bad thing. Also he only fought when he had to. Like saving Anakin, and Obi Wan from Dooku in Attack of the Clones.
DiipuSurotu
Banned
He certainly didn't went from Padawan to Jedi Master. Knight is the "rank" before you become a Master.
As i got the impressions from all the (now not cannon anymore) books, Jedi Masters were all very good/outstanding with the Lightsaber. Why should Yoda just be exceptional with the force but not with the lightsaber.
Could be stuff for an episode of Big Bang Theory
Padawan is a PT concept... It didn't exist when they wrote ESB. None of that did. I'm pretty sure the OT doesn't even say that Yoda fought in the Clone Wars (it only says Obi-Wan and Anakin did). You're not thinking fourth-dimensionally.
I guess I just like the idea of a guy who is so powerful in the force that he never has to bother actually fighting. Same goes for Palpatine, actually. They seem like the kind of dudes that could tear apart whole planets with their minds. Why use a blade when you have all that power?
Shit, like i said, i better not discuss this on an internet forum with people who can probably recite all the dialog of all movies. Reminds me of my plan to reread all the X-Wing books.
BlueDogAnchorite
Member
Dude the X-Wing Books were amazing.
Well it seemed silly to me, that's all I can say I guess.
I know. I bought them all back then. Read them two times. Last time was like 8 years ago. Would make a nice HBO miniseries.
BlueDogAnchorite
Member
Dude I would totally be down for that. I would also be fine with them doing a spinoff movie based on those books.
GentlemanCrow
Member
Yoda was never meant to fight. He was meant to represent the unknown nature of the force. The spiritual side. This much is obvious from his dialogue and that his stance on the physical side of the force being thoroughly negative in Empire.
George narrowed the idea of what makes a Jedi - by turning them as a group - into a pseudo-spiritual police force with glow stick batons. The OT presented them as a near dead religion that few knew of and even fewer believed in.
I won't go into the absurd idea that an entire culture can be wiped from public consciousness in under twenty years. We still talk about dinosaurs fondly, FFS.
In the OT anyone could be force sensitive - multiple interviews around the time indicated that becoming strong in the force was only a matter of training and time. Rather than there being a blood test. Another simplification that removed the spiritual angle.
Yoda was a powerful being. More or less the living force incarnate. More interested in what Luke felt than rather what he could do. Even when they were training physically it's more to do with him mastering his body than wielding a weapon. The one time he does whip out the saber it's against Yoda's instruction.
The implication is the force is more than just a power up. Not all Jedi should have wielded lightsabers. Why not other weapons? Why not just the force? Why would they have a fucking dress code or a temple in the middle of the republic capital? Especially if they were mostly dried up as the OT suggested.
"The force surrounds us and binds us. Luminous beings are we. Not this crude matter."
In short Yoda represents pretty much everything that's wrong with the prequels.
George narrowed the idea of what makes a Jedi - by turning them as a group - into a pseudo-spiritual police force with glow stick batons. The OT presented them as a near dead religion that few knew of and even fewer believed in.
I won't go into the absurd idea that an entire culture can be wiped from public consciousness in under twenty years. We still talk about dinosaurs fondly, FFS.
In the OT anyone could be force sensitive - multiple interviews around the time indicated that becoming strong in the force was only a matter of training and time. Rather than there being a blood test. Another simplification that removed the spiritual angle.
Yoda was a powerful being. More or less the living force incarnate. More interested in what Luke felt than rather what he could do. Even when they were training physically it's more to do with him mastering his body than wielding a weapon. The one time he does whip out the saber it's against Yoda's instruction.
The implication is the force is more than just a power up. Not all Jedi should have wielded lightsabers. Why not other weapons? Why not just the force? Why would they have a fucking dress code or a temple in the middle of the republic capital? Especially if they were mostly dried up as the OT suggested.
"The force surrounds us and binds us. Luminous beings are we. Not this crude matter."
In short Yoda represents pretty much everything that's wrong with the prequels.
BlueDogAnchorite
Member
The bolded part is my exact thoughts on this subject. Yoda was one of the best things about the Prequels. So we can agree to disagree.
Gotta agree with you on that. Dude was otherworldly and transcendent.
phazedplasma
Member
Wow so much this. Great post
See, the thing is this was all done on purpose. Lucas didn't make the Jedi a "police force with glow sticks" in the prequels because he forgot what Jedi are. He did it to show why the Jedi fell - because they were wrong and were not using the Force correctly - and by the time of ESB Yoda has learned from his faults and changed his views.
You don't like that Yoda and the Jedi aren't archetypes the entire time instead of characters who change and develop. In that sense, Yoda represents everything RIGHT with the prequels.
GentlemanCrow
Member
I never said George forgot. He narrowed the possibilities of what a Jedi could be. It was intentional and it was stupid. This is what a set of films made from the first draft looks like.
The Jedi should have fell because of their obscurity as was suggested not for being nearsighted. Twenty years in exile isn't going to make the 900 year old Yoda all that more capable than he was during the prequels. That is the problem with having him being a prominent member of the council and even having a council at all. You put the blame on the Jedi for no reason.
This weaken them in a way that actually works against George depicting them with the kind of power they are suppose to have. A massive order of telepathic monks that spend all day in a room together sensing trouble. That isn't decadence or pride. They are trying and not succeeding. That's the wrong way to show them as weak.
Surely having them already being semi-defunct and almost self-trained individuals (like Luke kinda is) makes it more plausible that they would be in less of a position to stop the obvious creeping threat of the Empire? Compared to an organisation with every recourse they could need. It's stupid.
They should have just been making their way in the universe, like wondering sages and sometimes dropping in on Dagobah when they need guidance. A young naive knight trains his troubled pilot friend he meets while working for Bail Organa and when everything goes tits up Vader spends twenty years tracking down force nomads.
But no because he didn't get help like he did during the first trilogy, now they all live together in a big city temple shooting the shit and twiddling their greens and blues until one day, one of them is tricked into playing youngling piñata.
It isn't the same as making them corrupt or impotent. They are dumb. These wise wizards don't do their job not because they aren't capable but so George can awkwardly fit the square prequels into the round OT hole.
The triologies really don't fit together.
Tangent over, back to your drinks.
I don't think jedi were wiped out of the public consciousness in the OT. Admiral Ackbar and the Rebel Commander from ANH both say "may the force be with you."
Also besides Tatooine and Bespin, we don't really encounter people that aren't either involved with the Empire or the Rebels. On Tatooine the place is supposed to be remote and detached from the rest of the galaxy, so I can't see them giving a shit about the jedi 20 years later.
Bespin was just a small, low key mining colony. I can't imagine people there would care about the jedi either.
If we actually went to Coruscant or another core former Republic world I could see your point.
Also besides Tatooine and Bespin, we don't really encounter people that aren't either involved with the Empire or the Rebels. On Tatooine the place is supposed to be remote and detached from the rest of the galaxy, so I can't see them giving a shit about the jedi 20 years later.
Bespin was just a small, low key mining colony. I can't imagine people there would care about the jedi either.
If we actually went to Coruscant or another core former Republic world I could see your point.
I don't know why it's supposed to be difficult to believe that the Jedi can have trouble sensing who the villains are. By the time of TPM, the Sith have been thought to be extinct for a thousand years. There's no reason to believe that they are back until Qui-Gon gets killed. Following that, they have zero reason to believe Palpatine would be a Sith until the Clone Wars start and he starts becoming increasingly more powerful. Just because they're telepaths doesn't mean they know everything or can sense everything properly; Yoda tells Luke in ESB that it is difficult to see the future because it is always in motion. Palpatine is incredibly powerful, essentially space Satan, so using the "shroud of the dark side" to obstruct things is only proper and enhances his stature. Sensing that "the dark side surrounds the Chancellor" doesn't necessarily mean "HE MUST BE THE SITH LORD" if he's being manipulated, or it's someone around the Chancellor, etc. They don't even know if Dooku is the Sith master or apprentice.
That said, we're going to have to agree to disagree otherwise because I guess it comes down to opinion. I know that George narrowed the possibilities of what the Jedi could be. That's what makes the story more interesting, at least to me, as it enhances Yoda's character and teachings in the OT. Yoda knows why wars do not make one great. Yoda knows that the emperor is powerful - he duped the entire Jedi order for years and orchestrated a massive galactic civil war so that he would win either way! Yoda knows why Jedi ought not to crave adventure and excitement. Previously we accepted these because they made sense for the archetype that Yoda portrayed. Now there is extra weight to it because Yoda has experienced these things as a character. Likewise, it gives much more gravity to Luke's situation at the end of RotJ, as he is not only now tasked with rebuilding the Jedi, but doing so correctly, in a way much more in alignment with the living Force. Anakin brought balance to the Force by bringing it back to a pure state; he eliminated the bureaucratic space wizard knights who supported a corrupt "republic" and he eliminated the more obviously evil Sith. Luke has to now make sure that the Jedi don't become pawns of a New Republic that has the exact same potential to slide into an empire. It's a very good setup for the sequel trilogy, and I hope that they don't blow it.
edit: In regards to the above, the only common person in the OT to express skepticism about the Force is Han. I don't know if that necessarily points to the idea that Lucas intended the Jedi to be wiped out from the public conscience so much as it's supposed to tell us about Han's character, since - as you noted - Jan Dodonna uses "May the Force be with you" in ANH. The imperial officers may scoff at Vader believing in the Force but that's because of imperial propaganda within the organization.
That said, we're going to have to agree to disagree otherwise because I guess it comes down to opinion. I know that George narrowed the possibilities of what the Jedi could be. That's what makes the story more interesting, at least to me, as it enhances Yoda's character and teachings in the OT. Yoda knows why wars do not make one great. Yoda knows that the emperor is powerful - he duped the entire Jedi order for years and orchestrated a massive galactic civil war so that he would win either way! Yoda knows why Jedi ought not to crave adventure and excitement. Previously we accepted these because they made sense for the archetype that Yoda portrayed. Now there is extra weight to it because Yoda has experienced these things as a character. Likewise, it gives much more gravity to Luke's situation at the end of RotJ, as he is not only now tasked with rebuilding the Jedi, but doing so correctly, in a way much more in alignment with the living Force. Anakin brought balance to the Force by bringing it back to a pure state; he eliminated the bureaucratic space wizard knights who supported a corrupt "republic" and he eliminated the more obviously evil Sith. Luke has to now make sure that the Jedi don't become pawns of a New Republic that has the exact same potential to slide into an empire. It's a very good setup for the sequel trilogy, and I hope that they don't blow it.
edit: In regards to the above, the only common person in the OT to express skepticism about the Force is Han. I don't know if that necessarily points to the idea that Lucas intended the Jedi to be wiped out from the public conscience so much as it's supposed to tell us about Han's character, since - as you noted - Jan Dodonna uses "May the Force be with you" in ANH. The imperial officers may scoff at Vader believing in the Force but that's because of imperial propaganda within the organization.
TheKaeptain
Banned
I think they believe in the force but they also know the jedi religion is dead and gone. Everyone things Vader is the last one left.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
The relevant quotes that people seem to seize on both come from Star Wars: Motti references Vader's sad devotion to that ancient religion, and Han mentions hokey religions and ancient weapons.
Thing is - Just because the Force is an ancient religion doesn't mean everyone's forgotten it exists, or that it's passed into legend or fairytale or whatever. Catholicism is an ancient religion. Buddhism is an ancient religion. People still maintain their devotions to those faiths, too.
In a universe where people can fly spaceships around, go to lightspeed, fire laser guns, and wear jetpacks, not to mention clone each other - putting your faith in an ancient religion that just recently lead to a galaxy-wide civil war responsible for a dictatorship coming to power, you think people are going to be super-respectful of it?
Of course, the twist is that it turns out believing in that ancient religion means something if you practice it correctly. I can suggest that believing in the bearded sky man who turned his kid into a neverending supply of ritz crackers and Carlo Rossi is sorta silly in the face of discovering the higgs boson. But my suggestion might be seen as arrogant when the hardass general manager at work can move shit with his mind and fire lightning out of his fingers.
But in that galaxy, there's like maybe 3 people who can do that. So far as everyone else is concerned, they're perfectly safe in believing that putting your faith in that ancient religion is a foolish proposition, because nothing's going to come of it.
Of course, with this interpretation, the rebel alliance is, essentially, a group of religious terrorists.
Might have been a bit suspicious when your emperor looks like a 500 year old withered skin asshole who constantly mumbles about premonitions and shit too.
I think a lot of the confusion about where the public stands in regards to the Force will be cleared up with Rebels. Obviously the Inquisitor and other Jedi Hunters will be carrying out the continuing Jedi Purge, but what the empire's policy is when it comes to unorganized Force-sensitives canonically remains to be seen.
TheKaeptain
Banned
But everyone knows the Emperor was scarred in an attack.
Never mind that the Jedi were clearly a meaningful force in the galaxy (participants in a major war, the Clone Wars) within Obi's own lifetime according to that same film.
And that this was the movie where Luke and Leia kiss.
krypt0nian
Banned
They fail in one important way, and it's the crux of the story. At no point do they make you believe that Anakin becomes Vader.
Therefore, there are no prequels.
Nah they succeeded at that, the one important thing they failed at was the romance with Anakin and Padme in Episode II.
krypt0nian
Banned
I laugh at the idea that that horrible weak actor could ever be Vader. He lacks a spine.
I don't recall any time Anakin "lacked a spine"...? Sorry that you didn't like the interpretation. It worked for me.
krypt0nian
Banned
I'd say we were watching different movies then. You are the first person I've seen in life or online that ever thought "it worked"
But people accept bad things all the time, I suppose.
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
Yup. Anakin needed to be a great man with a tragic fall. What we got was a petulant adolescent with emotional issues who needed to grow up.
Maybe this comparison is "too real" but honestly, the real world person Anakin reminds me of the most is that Virgin Killer from a couple months back.... Whiny, self entitled little puke with no real problems who goes on to murder over it.
Moff
Member
I am not so sure I can agree with you on that. the OT implied that heavily in my opinion.
obi wan said they were the guardians of peace and justice in the galaxy, before the empire. that they were generals in the clone wars. that really doesnt sonnd like "wandering sages" to me. how could they be guardians of peace and justice if they were even fewer than in the OT? dont Forget, although we deal with lots of them in all the movies, they are still very, very rare. People on tatooine in episode 1 have never seen a jedi.
I dont see them being "guardians of peace and justice" if they were even fewer in a scenario where they would only be lone, wandering sages. and whats even more imporant, if they were only wandering sages, how would the empire be able to destroy that, if they werent a real organisation? I think the OT heavily implies they were.
I agree that ist dumb that they could be wiped out in 20 years. but that fault was already in the OT when it was introduced that both vater and obi wan were part of those "guardians of peace and justice" in their lifetime.
I totally agree though that yoda, just like palpatine should never have fought with lightsabers.
You live pretty secluded from the Star Wars fandom if you've literally never encountered someone with that opinion.
So in other words George Lucas crafted a believably realistic character.
edit: I might as well just quote myself.
krypt0nian
Banned
For very good reason obviously.
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
That Vader was birthed of character flaws is inherent to the story. But if the character does not display sufficient virtue, his downfall is not surprising, or cinematically interesting.
I look at Harvey Dent in The Dark Knight and I see a person of good character, put through sufficient stresses, that goes bad. I believe the transformation, and it makes for a tragic story. We can almost relate to the stresses that caused him to turn. It would really take a hero (like Luke) to withstand them.
I look at Anakin in the prequels and I see a character with insecure, whiny tendencies, who goes on to do something horrible through his insecure tendencies. It's not so much a "fall" as it is the logical extent of being emotionally stunted.
Vader deserved more. And really, I doubt that your justification of how it went down in the prequels was intended, because none of it is really telegraphed through the narrative. I think Lucas unintentionally made Anakin an emotionally immature creep.
DiipuSurotu
Banned
The timeline was very vague originally in "Episode IV". For all we know the Empire already existed during the Clone Wars and Obi-Wan was referring to an even earlier era when he said that Jedi Knights were "guardians of peace and justice".
That's why Lucas decided to portray Anakin as an innocent child in Episode I. The fall comes from "How could such an innocent young boy turn into one of the galaxy's greatest murderers?"
The characters within Episodes II and III talk all the time about how Anakin is arrogant, emotional, makes other characters feel weird (Padme flat out tells him in Episode II that he shouldn't look at her because it makes her feel uncomfortable). I don't know how much more obviously intentional it could be.
"Your father's light saber. This is the weapon of a Jedi Knight. Not as clumsy or random as a blaster; an elegant weapon for a more civilized age. For over a thousand generations, the Jedi Knights were the guardians of peace and justice in the Old Republic. Before the dark times... before the Empire."
The Jedi were protectors of the Old Republic before the Empire. The Clone Wars happened while the Jedi were protecting the Republic. Ergo...
The characters within Episodes II and III talk all the time about how Anakin is arrogant, emotional, makes other characters feel weird (Padme flat out tells him in Episode II that he shouldn't look at her because it makes her feel uncomfortable). I don't know how much more obviously intentional it could be.
"Your father's light saber. This is the weapon of a Jedi Knight. Not as clumsy or random as a blaster; an elegant weapon for a more civilized age. For over a thousand generations, the Jedi Knights were the guardians of peace and justice in the Old Republic. Before the dark times... before the Empire."
The Jedi were protectors of the Old Republic before the Empire. The Clone Wars happened while the Jedi were protecting the Republic. Ergo...
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
Are you sure about that? Because his statements definitely seemed to be connected to "Before the dark times.... before The Empire".
I really think they should make prequels to this franchise. I want to see how Luke's father becomes Darth Vader.
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
I just can't believe you think it's intentional.
That's the untold story of Darth Vader... that he was always a bit of a socially awkward weirdo? He's like the kind of serial killer, who when they ask the neighbors, they say "yeah, that doesn't surprise me".
I think it is far more easily attributed to the fact that Lucas himself is not that intuitive with human emotions (probably on the spectrum), and accidentally crafted an emotionally "off" character when he was trying to create a great hero with a legitimate downfall.
I just can't believe you think it's intentional.
That's the untold story of Darth Vader... that he was always a bit of a socially awkward weirdo? He's like the kind of serial killer, who when they ask the neighbors, they say "yeah, that doesn't surprise me".
I think it is far more easily attributed to the fact that Lucas himself is not that intuitive with human emotions (probably on the spectrum), and accidentally crafted an emotionally "off" character when he was trying to create a great hero with a legitimate downfall.
I think you're projecting your desires about what you want Vader's backstory to be onto the film instead of taking it as it is.
DiipuSurotu
Banned
Nope, the Clone Wars were a totally mysterious conflict in Episode IV. We didn't know anything about it except that Obi-Wan and Anakin took part in it. Back in 1977 it could easily have been a conflict of the Empire vs. clones of some sorts and then Anakin deciding to kill the remaining Jedi for some reason. The whole thing was very vague and open to interpretation back then.
SolVanderlyn
Thanos acquires the fully powered Infinity Gauntlet in The Avengers: Infinity War, but loses when all the superheroes team up together to stop him.
He's a victim of circumstance as much as Harvey Dent is - he was an arrogant sod for his entire adolescence, but he grew up being the Order's golden boy, chosen one, child of prophecy, etc. His ego was huge, but it was inflated to be that way. The Anakin we see in Episodes I - III and the Clone Wars series is a good person. He cares about those he loves, he jokes around, he takes his job as a Jedi Knight seriously. Episode II shows us his worst side - Padawan Anakin is characterized almost completely by his arrogance and stubborn attitude, and it's hard to like him in this movie because of it. And while he does ultimately carry these traits with him as a Jedi Knight, they're clearly subdued by that point. Another trait that's typical of "good" characters is naivety, which Anakin has in spades. Couple this with his impulsiveness and the Jedi Council's own off-putting attitude towards him, and it's no wonder that Sidious was able to play him like a fiddle.
Anakin was written to be an ultimately good, but hugely flawed character. Yes, his transformation into Vader is the ultimate realization of his flaws, but he was also clearly pushed along that path, and wouldn't have pursued it if not for the cocktail of bad events and shady characters surrounding him.
I don't disagree with what you say about his downfall not being surprising - it isn't - but I also don't think that means that all the blame can be placed on him. You do have a point with it not being as tragic of a story, but was it ever meant to be? I always pictured Vader as someone good who was seduced by, rather than fell or was forced into, the dark side. I never once got the implication we weren't supposed to look down on him for his defection. That said, in the OT it was really all up to interpretation, so I digress.
You're not connecting the dots. Obi-Wan says the Jedi were guardians of peace and justice in the Old Republic. In the Clone Wars, the Jedi are still around, still have not been hunted down yet by Darth Vader, and it the Empire is explicitly stated to not be around yet. The implication is that the Jedi fight for the Republic. Obviously who the clones are is unstated and everyone assumed for years it meant the Jedi fought the clones, but the Empire is not around during the days of the Republic - which is stated to be the "more civilized" era; that much is certain. Tarkin later states that when the senate is dissolved "the last remnants of the Old Republic have been swept away", meaning that the Republic turned into the Empire. The Clone Wars happened while the Jedi were still extant, therefore it happened during the days of the Old Republic (before the "dark times"), therefore there was no Empire yet.
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
The same could be said for any bad film.
I would accept a myriad of origins for how Vader came to be. But the one we got was not of cinematic importance. The downfall of a petulent wierdo is not something you package as a big Joseph Campbell style myth, and if you did, you would have to communicate that through clues in the narrative. Nothing in the prequels tells the audience "this guy is a creep and that's going to be a problem". They treat him like a great hero narratively, but all of us humans in the audience have a completely different take.
I actually like Episode III and I think it's better than RotJ, so this is who you're taking to here. But I think the character of Anakin through Episode II and III is just NOT the hero-with-a-downfall that the character of Vader clearly deserved. Scenes toward the end of Episode III, I can almost pretend I am watching the ascent of Vader - everything looks right, taken in a vaccum. But Anakin's whole characterization and the reasons for his turn are silly if i look at the greater story.
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
That's an interesting question to raise. Let's examine what was implied by the character of Vader in the OT.
Darth Vader is a bad guy, so I think it's ok to "look down" on whatever reasons he had for going bad. But stated a different way, I do think it was inherent to the revelation of Darth Vader = Anakin that his fall was necessarily the understandable transformation of a good man into a bad one. We should almost think we'd be tempted to go bad if we were in the same situation.
We see Luke tested by the same issues, but Luke prevails. It's all about the temptation in every man's soul.... not just the weaknesses of character that certain bad apples have.
So yes, I think its implicit in the promise of Darth Vader that he is a normal man tempted by the good/bad that we are all tempted by, and he succumbs.
Nothing about Vader implied that he was a man who was sort of good but had inherent weaknesses that would inevitably lead to him being a bad guy. And if that's what Lucas thought all along? He didn't get why "I am your father" was compelling (it wouldn't be the first time he didn't understand why his films resonated).
We heard the legend of Anakin being a great man. We heard that Vader was actually Anakin. That's what was compelling. How could a truly good man go bad?
So to learn that Anakin was actually not a great man is an inherent betrayal of the character.
Moff
Member
it is vague, but it wouldnt make sense, unless you want to construct something just to defend the very poor setup the OT provided. I certainly didnt imagine it like that and I doubt many did.
also, there is obi wans comment about lightsabers, they were used before the dark times, before the empire. clearly implying that he (and anakin, because he is talking about his lightsaber) were jedi knights before the empire was there.
there is also the scene where an officer explains to vader that the emperor has just dissolved the senate, another implication that the empire doesnt exist long at that point. in the prologue of the first novel (ANH) this is even confirmed, although they might not be canon anymore.
but we dont even need implications, obi wan straight up explains to luke that vader, another pupil of his, so surely younger than obi wan, was responsible for the jedi extinction.
so there is no way around it, ANH established that the jed were wiped out in a very short time.
it is a poor setup in the OT, the PT couldnt change that.
WadiumArcadium
Member
Hundreds of Stormtroopers. Got me all excited there.
Aw yiss. I love the more practical approach to Star Wars. I have no idea why Lucas decided to make every trooper CGI in the prequels.
