Why couldn't Luke and Leia of been the result of violence? An obsessive anakin being spurned by his crush tips over the edge goes dark side and forces himself upon her, she flees into hiding and has the children in secrecy.

Unpleasant sure but you wouldn't find Vader to be such a pathetic and whiny cry baby, as portrayed in the PT you don't fear him he's just a petulant child.

A **** would be much more dramatical and if they made her reject his feelings for years before that it would really be an actual reason for him to turn to the dark side in the first place (at least a better one than wanting to raise the dead or eternal life or whatnot he wants...) it would also explain much better why Padme does not want to live on. They could have made her give birth, and take her own life afterwards or something similar.

But honestly. A **** by a psychopathic wannabe Sith in a series of movie that is not only supposed to be for grown-ups but that has millions of children and adolescents for fans. That would just not feel right either!

(at least a better one than wanting to raise the dead or eternal life or whatnot he wants...)

Immortality is one of the driving forces behind people turning to the Dark Side. It was the motivation behind just about everything Palpatine did.

That would just not feel right either!

I agree, that's way too dark for Star Wars.

Yanks, if you aren't involved your never taught it because there's nothing out side the state's, and when it comes to movies you take credit for our bloody accomplishments like Ben Affleck winning the battle of Brittan or U571 where Americans got the enigma machine.

And you wonder why Europeans are so snooty with you

Brits, still smarting over the loss of the US Revolution and their Empire in general, or busy condemning themselves for the things their Empire did.

But feel free to tell off anyone/everyone on the internet whenever you get a chance: Rule Brittania!

Dont forget Red Tails. That was seriously bad. What people forget is that the first movies were good because of the people working with him. Back when they could say "Bad George, no biscuit for you" And Dykstra is the one responsible for ILM Admittedly put together for SW but Dykstra was the one who made it all work. Only for George to throw a hissy fit when Dykstra wanted to go and work on Galactica

The later films were what happens when there is obody to tell him 'No George for the love of god stop'

Dont forget Red Tails. That was seriously bad. What people forget is that the first movies were good because of the people working with him. Back when they could say "Bad George, no biscuit for you" And Dykstra is the one responsible for ILM Admittedly put together for SW but Dykstra was the one who made it all work. Only for George to throw a hissy fit when Dykstra wanted to go and work on Galactica

The later films were what happens when there is obody to tell him 'No George for the love of god stop'

Ha! Red Tails was comically bad. Ironically he made Star Wars dogfights look like WW2 and the WW2 dogfights in Red Tails like Star Wars/ Sci-fi. Huge overuse in CGI too. I see a pattern.

Oh yeah and that Jones movie with the aliens. I kind of try to pretend that one never happened.

Why couldn't Luke and Leia of been the result of violence? An obsessive anakin being spurned by his crush tips over the edge goes dark side and forces himself upon her, she flees into hiding and has the children in secrecy.

Unpleasant sure but you wouldn't find Vader to be such a pathetic and whiny cry baby, as portrayed in the PT you don't fear him he's just a petulant child.

I know it would be a real expression of him turning to the dark side and maybe a better reason than: "I dreamt of Padmes death so i decide to believe everything the emperor tells me like an 8 year old..." Also the way he kills Padme is really dumb. He strangles her for 2 seconds. She seems fine but then despite star wars medical droids and bacta tanks and whatnot, she dies giving birth? I don't get it!

A **** would be much more dramatical and if they made her reject his feelings for years before that it would really be an actual reason for him to turn to the dark side in the first place (at least a better one than wanting to raise the dead or eternal life or whatnot he wants...) it would also explain much better why Padme does not want to live on. They could have made her give birth, and take her own life afterwards or something similar.

The whole story arc was badly written and half-assed. Her dying because of a broken heart was just plain stupid. Anakin turning evil and acting on rejected feelings is more believable. Padme then moving to Alderaan, having the kids, raising Leia for a bit before getting murdered or committing suicide would fit, because Leia says " A little... she died when I was very young." Who remembers things when they're a baby? Leia would've been a toddler when mommy was murdered/offed, so that sentence would've fit.

And yes, it would've been dark, but hey, they had a battle station blow up a planet full of innocents, and then the empire massacred a bunch of monkey bears with walkers before getting murdered by said monkey bears. Never mind the sex slavery of Leia by Jabba....

Man, those prequels were just one botched thing after another.

Yanks, if you aren't involved your never taught it because there's nothing out side the state's, and when it comes to movies you take credit for our bloody accomplishments like Ben Affleck winning the battle of Brittan or U571 where Americans got the enigma machine.

And you wonder why Europeans are so snooty with you

Brits, still smarting over the loss of the US Revolution and their Empire in general, or busy condemning themselves for the things their Empire did.

But feel free to tell off anyone/everyone on the internet whenever you get a chance: Rule Brittania!

we were all subjects of the crown it was a civil war, and as mel gibson taught me you only won because of the french

And we just re-branded the empire to a comonwealth, market testing showed it got a better response.

we were all subjects of the crown it was a civil war, and as mel gibson taught me you only won because of the french

And we just re-branded the empire to a comonwealth, market testing showed it got a better response.

Yeah, Mel is not kind to you guys. On the plus side, whenever he feels like slamming you all, he generally makes egregious historical mistakes like people running around in kilts HUNDREDS of years before they should, so you can just dismiss the whole mess in its entirety.

Mind you, you're conversing with a "Yank" who can sing your national anthem, and Rule Brittania, as well as "And Did Those Feet", so I'm not taking your shots personally. Thanks for taking mine in the same way.

Well mel's not kind to anyone when he's drunk...which is like most of the time, also as a descendent of some criminal we exiled to the hell known as Australia he probably holds a grudge or something

I own parts of your country i don't hate it by any means, here in England its very common to take the Pee out of your friends, you throw punches at your enemies not words.

we were all subjects of the crown it was a civil war, and as mel gibson taught me you only won because of the french

And we just re-branded the empire to a comonwealth, market testing showed it got a better response.

Yeah, Mel is not kind to you guys. On the plus side, whenever he feels like slamming you all, he generally makes egregious historical mistakes like people running around in kilts HUNDREDS of years before they should, so you can just dismiss the whole mess in its entirety.

Mind you, you're conversing with a "Yank" who can sing your national anthem, and Rule Brittania, as well as "And Did Those Feet", so I'm not taking your shots personally. Thanks for taking mine in the same way.

Ugh, please don't sing our national anthem, it's embarressing (I'm a republican). I say we replace it with Always Look on the Bright Side of Life (and I thought that long before the last London Olympics).

I think the rejection and **** story would have been miles better than the story we got, in which Anakin's fall was completely unconvincing. I'm not saying they'd have to show the actual ****, obviously, but imply it, and show Padme's reaction afterwards. And like someone else said - it would explain Lais's comment about her mum, both knowing her and her being sad (presumably she was also sad because one baby was taken from her). I also like what it would say about Anakin. He'd have to be part on the path to the dark side before he did it, but not necessarily all the way there, not at all. It could partly be the regret and self hatred he feels afterwards that pushes him over the edge, which would also explain how there was enough good in him for him to come around.

Remember early on in the films Luke finds the charred remains of his family, so it's not like they've always been afraid to go somewhere dark with Star Wars (plus, obviously, all the genocide and casual murder of your own troops).

Yeah gotta agree the royal family is defunct these days but the colonies still seem to like them.

But I am in general progressive and have little time for things that no longer have a purpose, traditions done just for the sake of it are pointless.

There was an interesting story that could of been told about the rise of the empire but we never got it, certainly padame dying was stupid no one's ever died of a broken heart at that age, she should of gone to alderaan with Leia and then into seclusion in order to fit with leias account.

You could of bought anakin going dark for love if there had been a genuine connection between the actors but it was so bleedin sterile it just fell flat on its face.

what the hell is going on in here

I think people always forget that while the end of the British Empire *had* to happen it happened too fast and it caused so much upheaval.

You cant govern countries for hundreds of years and then just f*** off and say 'here you go here are the keys to the continent... try not to kill each other'

Obviously you cant fight WWII to liberate Europe and then hold dominion over India, the far east and other 'colonies', they *had* to have independance or choose to stay part of the 'crowns group'. You also cant fight a war to remove groups like the gestapo, institutions like concentrations camps, arrests withouth trial and torture suspects who have not even been charged.... superpower secret services please take note here if you're reading this.

with the revolutionary war.... if you think about it if it *hadnt* had gone the way it had odds are the USA would have been an undeveloped colony. Industrial development and armanents industry and sales to europe really *build* the USA during WWI and WWII.

Before that it was a fairly minor country tbh. The reason the British never really fought really hard for the states is that it simply *wasnt* important then. We had 'unrest in a colony that doesnt really contribute much to the empire (compared to say India) or we can settle the worry of Napoleon romping through europe conquering russia and Austria (and anyone he meets) a mere 20 miles across the channel!

Its why we sent 3rd rate units and reservists to the US to fight the revolution, its all we could spare. its why there were so many hessian and silesian mercenaries. Before trenton washington was getting hammererd by the British and on the verge of giving it all up, its only the fact the german mercenary commander decided the forzen river couldnt be crossed and went to sleep and ignored all warnings he was about to be attacked that gave washington a *critically* needed victory.

The whole reason given for the revolution is a lie too. it wasnt about tea taxation. The tea was pushed into the sea by organised crime groups of smugglers. A surplus of Indian tea meant that 'legal' tea was actually cheaper than smuggled tea and it outraged the criminals.

But thats all by the by. Like i say domninion isnt cool whoever is doing it. People should be free to do what they want to doits the reason we sailed 3000 miles to fight for a rock in the south atlantic because those 100 or so sheep farmers *chose* to be british not agentinian... in the same way you chose to be americans and had every right to.

But the reason why in the UK we really dont care about the revolutionary war is because we didnt technically lose... it was really a civil war between two groups of British people. Once one group of British people had won they could legally be recognised as a different country but you know essentially you cant lose a war to yourself....well i mean actually everyone loses you cant *win* a war agains yourself

But as a wwii/coldwar historian I always believe that WWII would have been won *without* the involvement of the states but by the RUSSIANS and it probably would have gone on til about 1950 or even 1960 and it would have resulted in a totally soviet europe, possibly with an independant britain but far more likely with britain as a part of the cccp.

Whats for sure is by 1941 WWII was unwinnable for the germans.

So im glad the US was independant and strong enough with enough resources to arm and feed us during WWI and WWII. Im greatful for that.

Most people in the UK like the US, NO ONE gives a s*** about the revolutionary war, perhaps 1 in 100 even knows about it, maybe one in every thousand knows any detail of it or could tell you the name of a battle, know who the minutmen were were etc... i do because im a historian. But how many US people know why the British Army went to Northern Ireland in the late 60s/early 70s?

what most people in the UK do really really really hate is US foreign policy which just seems to be dragging us into wars, committing disgusting acts of human abuse and lying to the world.

Thats not a dislike of the US or Americans (we love you guys on the whole), we hate the things your military and secret services are doing.

Rant over.

Sorry about that chaps

THIS

http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/wars_firstcoalition.html

was globally the focus of world attention and worrying every european nation

Thats why we made little effort to keep the Americas

that and George III was frikking bonkers!

The Napoleonic Wars should really be called WW1 for their impact and scope.

Beyond that, this thread is probably overdue for closure.

Agreed.

I tend to see WWI to the end of the cold war as largely one big conflict of ideology with big pauses/ceasefires at times.

Im not entirely serious about that but you can see from 1918 to 1990 in those terms at least.

Well, the Cold War started well before WWII, that's for sure.

It must've started about the 1860's when the USA had its war of capitalism and the Russian Empire freed their serfs while the industrialisation started seeing socialists rising for workers rights like salaries and healthy environments.

Then during WW1 the Germans plucked Lenin out of exile and put him on a train to Russia to collapse the government there and take out their main opponent on the eastern front so they could concentrate on the western one, which they didn't really, which is why they ultimately lost the entire war. The Germans had more armies on the east in the end, trying to grab land, than on the western front where they would've been more useful.

Then there was the Red Scare in the US in the 20's and the deep seeds of mistrust between the east and west were sown, only to be briefly set aside, kinda sorta not quite, during WW2.

So basically the ideological war started way way earlier. You might even make a case to set the starting point at the time of the most important human event in the past 500 years, and possibly longer: The French Revolution, which really upset the status quo in geo- and sociopolitics. Possibly the only event in the past 1000 years that rivals that is the Reformation and the rise of Protestantism.

Of course, the 19th century is such an interesting age, more than it looks, you've got Napoleon, you've got Bismarck uniting Germany and isolating the French, there's the simultaneous end of slavery and serfdom, all sorts of new philosophy, industrial revolution necessating social change all ending in the colossal cluster bleep that was the 20th century.

WW1 the result of the failure of Germany to continue Bismarck's policies of isolating France, WW2 the direct result of too heavy (or not heavy enough) punitive damages levied on Germany leading to its collapse and destabilization where a charismatic dictator and disgruntled military ended up in Hitler's Third Reich, the conflict in the middle east the result of too abrubt decolonization and the end of the Ottoman Empire and with total disregard for local populations the foundation of a new country. And there's still more! Not even touching on Africa, India and Pakistan (with Kashmir and Bangladesh on the sidelines) and the mad kingmaking in Middle and South America for fun and profit.

Is there a more interesting subject than history?

Oh quick, make it relevant to X-Wing!

George Lucas used the trade federation as a surrogate for the beginning of WW1 which would make Palpatine a thinly veiled Hitler, that might mean that we should see new ships arriving in game that would give us blitzkrieg tactics.

How did I do?

Speaking of History and Star Wars, check out this picture from a recent Age of Rebellion news piece:

OK, you've got E-Wings, and something shooting at E-Wings that looks like a fancy TIE of some sort, but what are those cruisers? They look like the Republic proto-Star Destroyers to me. What's going on in this scene, and does it presage Prequel ships coming to X-Wing?

That looks like a Trade Federation droid control ship of the type baby Anakin blows up in the background too. In fact, isn't that what the ship in he foreground is too?

Oh quick, make it relevant to X-Wing!

George Lucas used the trade federation as a surrogate for the beginning of WW1 which would make Palpatine a thinly veiled Hitler, that might mean that we should see new ships arriving in game that would give us blitzkrieg tactics.

How did I do?

Pretty **** good...

Is there a more interesting subject than history?

Nope and i love being able to discuss it with erudite and informed chaps like yourself.

Many people since SW is a 'revolutionary' war analogy but if anything its WWII. I think the RW belief comes from the way in that the Empire officers are generally 'received pronunciation' English accent types.

But if anything the 'set up' we have is as you say to a degree (and you tie the prequels in nicely) like the destability caused by WWI leading to WWII.

As long as EPVII isnt 40 years of rebels and imperials glaring at each other across the 'space wall' i'll be happy.

Is there a more interesting subject than history?

YES.

How about the history of bacon?

Hah! got you there.

Speaking of History and Star Wars, check out this picture from a recent Age of Rebellion news piece:

OK, you've got E-Wings, and something shooting at E-Wings that looks like a fancy TIE of some sort, but what are those cruisers? They look like the Republic proto-Star Destroyers to me. What's going on in this scene, and does it presage Prequel ships coming to X-Wing?

That looks like a Trade Federation droid control ship of the type baby Anakin blows up in the background too. In fact, isn't that what the ship in he foreground is too?

It looks like someone just made a picture with random ships. All those prequel ships do look like destroyed and abandoned debris. I don't think they are actually participating in the combat.