51 minutes ago, Vineheart01 said:

Did he?

iirc all he said was "you killed her" referring to padme. Never said anything about losing the baby (which he didnt know was twins at the time).

I thought that implied he killed her at the scene, hence giving no chance of the baby living. I guess it depends very much on your point of view .

In any case, Sith Smackdown is going to be a thing. Good times.

3 hours ago, Katarn said:

I find it hard keeping track of what is canon but I remember reading somewhere about how Vader's offer to Luke was genuine and he intended to turn on the emperor.

It's kinda the Sith thing. I've always posited that Darth Sidious was playing the really long game in the Throne Room. He sees three outcomes ahead of him

Luke kills Vader, but has to turn to do it - best case scenario

Vader kills Luke - status quo

Vader convinces Luke to turn and use the power of the dark side to kill the Emperor. - worst case scenario, but not unexpected. The Jedi order is finally gone forever and the Sith have finally won.

The only outcome he couldn't forsee was the one where his apprentice, so far gone and so long debased gave in to love and protected his son.

As to their conversation

DV: Where is Padme? Is she safe? Is she all right?

DS: It seems in your anger, you killed her.

DV: I? I couldn't have! She was alive. I felt it!

*force tantrum*

NOOOOOOOOO!

God that exchange would have been fine without the "No".

1 hour ago, OccasionallyCorrect said:

God that exchange would have been fine without the "No".

Ive never actually got the critisism of the 'nooooooo'

What was he supposed to say?

16 minutes ago, VAYASAN said:

Ive never actually got the critisism of the 'nooooooo'

What was he supposed to say?

Something less cringe-worthy and poorly delivered?

19 minutes ago, VAYASAN said:

Ive never actually got the critisism of the 'nooooooo'

What was he supposed to say?

Nothing.

No was regret.regret is sadness.

He dhoukd have been angry and in pain.

instead he was SAD

Pain and animal rage, raw without coherency, would have felt more Sith-Worthy in a roundabout way.

Especislly since in depictions, it’s his raw anger is his power.

2 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

Nothing.

No was regret.regret is sadness.

He dhoukd have been angry and in pain.

instead he was SAD

Pain and animal rage, raw without coherency, would have felt more Sith-Worthy in a roundabout way.

Especislly since in depictions, it’s his raw anger is his power.

didnt he wrench himself free of manacles and smash stuff up with the force....tanks crumpling etc...the emperor smiling at the anger?

1 minute ago, VAYASAN said:

didnt he wrench himself free of manacles and smash stuff up with the force....tanks crumpling etc...the emperor smiling at the anger?

Yep, he started to be angry.

Then.

Got.

Sad.

26 minutes ago, VAYASAN said:

Ive never actually got the critisism of the 'nooooooo'

What was he supposed to say?

So you prefer this?

When in your personal life experience, or with anyone you've ever met or known, have you had a bad thing happen and you shout a prolonged "Nooooooo?" It's unrealistically cheesy, like much of the writing in the prequel trilogy.

1 hour ago, Drasnighta said:

Nothing.

No was regret.regret is sadness.

He dhoukd have been angry and in pain.

instead he was SAD

Pain and animal rage, raw without coherency, would have felt more Sith-Worthy in a roundabout way.

Especislly since in depictions, it’s his raw anger is his power.

So you can't be angry at yourself in the realization that the very thing you were trying to stop you caused to happen?

The knowledge that you betrayed every single ideal you ever had and murdered a bunch of kids to stop this very thing?

Trust me, when you have a moment where you realize that you, yourself, are directly to blame for the bad place you find yourself...that can be a real angry kind of sad. That's also despair. which isn't just sad. If that isn't a star wars dark side emotion then I don't know what is.

There was this great star wars one shot comic back in about 2001/2002. In it some Sith acolytes clones Darth Maul and had him fight Vader, because they thought Vader wasn't worthy. At the end of the battle Maul is taunting Vader saying that he doesn't understand the dark side and what could he possibly hate enough to fuel his rage.

As Vader cuts him down he replies "Myself"

And that to me is the essence of Darth Vader. He loathes himself. He's cut off from the world and from everything in armor both physical and metaphorical. He thinks he is a monster, and so he acts like a monster. He can't look himself in the face, he can't ever touch anyone again. He doesn't sound like himself. That can create rage, man....rage like you can't imagine.

As far as the comment that it was poorly delivered....why you gotta bust on James Earl Jones like that?

I've always thought the line was pretty perfect. It's exactly what Anakin would do. He's killed his wife, and his baby, he was humiliated by his best friend, all the skill he relied on came to nothing. It wouldn't be a scream, or a shout, but rather a wail. Broken, sobbing. But the voice modulator doesn't allow for that. It's got mean and meaner. But he's literally had the mask on for 30 seconds.

11 minutes ago, Zrob314 said:

As far as the comment that it was poorly delivered....why you gotta bust on James Earl Jones like that?

James Earl Jones can take the criticism, I'm sure.

In any case, it's down to the director and the editor, not the voice actor. Actors do their best under guidance but film acting is a kind of magic-trick conjured in the editing more than anything else. For example, a very famous shot in From Here to Eternity of Sinatra surveying the dead has often been lauded as a fine example of acting. The truth is, the shot was taken while he was staring off bored on his lunch break, unaware he was being filmed. It was edited in because it was the best take of the reaction. So, a good director can tease out a fine performance from an average actor, and a bad one can wreck a good performance.

The 'no' line felt flat, hollow, and completely unrealistic. I will cut it some slack because I have only seen that bit. I have never seen the prequels but, as a self-contained scene, it comes across as utterly laughable.

For me, the "Noooooooo" scene is ruined not by the line itself, or it's delivery, but by Vader's posture. He throws his arms wide and his head back and yells up to the ceiling. Would have worked much better if, rather, he went the other way, closing his fists and doubling over in anguish. Helpless, introverted anger is better portrayed by something resembling the fetal position than the fabulous ending of a Broadway musical.

15 hours ago, Turan said:

It's unrealistically cheesy, like much of the writing in the prequel trilogy.

It’s intentionally melodramatic. People fail to recognize the intentional cheesiness of the original trilogy and just dismiss that stuff as somehow inconsequential or unintended then agonize over the same things in the prequels as if they define those movies. But the inspiration for all the “Star Wars” movies was old film serials like Flash Gordon. I am a huge fan of the original Trilogy and I certainly see the flaws in the prequels. But I think people fixate and hyper analyze a lot of stuff. The “Nooo” in question is an angry “no” and it is deliberately there to invoke the Frankenstein’s Monster feelings of the scene.

Instead of screaming No, Vader should have just roared in anger as things around him started to explode more in his force tantrum.

To the best of my knowledge, pupil sith turns and kills his master at some point (unless killed first) then takes a pupil - repeating the cycle. So I would love to see a Vader versus Palpatine match.

I thought Anakin's "Nooooo" was meant to be a parallel back (forward) to that uttered in disbelief (reluctant realisation) by Luke in ESB.

On 7/12/2018 at 9:13 AM, Vineheart01 said:

Instead of screaming No, Vader should have just roared in anger as things around him started to explode more in his force tantrum.

Exactly. That would have been in-character. Maybe with Palpatine having to obviously shield himself from a maelstrom of debris as he lashes out.

On 7/11/2018 at 12:59 AM, DerBaer said:

Actually, does he bring anything to the battlefield, that let's you spend 210 points plus upgrades on him? I think, that's his real problem. He seems to be underpowered ...

So what you’re saying is Palp is really just an Imperial version of the air speeder? ?

Well, not exactly. He at least isn't a huge easy to see target. Plus he's got some nifty abilities and force multiplication. So he's gonna see use.

My biggest concern is how is he going to play and how is it going to differ from Vader.

It looks to me like he wants sit on a point even more than Vader does. If Vader seems slow at least relentless kind of makes up for it.

I think Palpatine is going to suffer from terrible action economy. Trading actions with another unit does not seem like something I would want to do with a 210+ point unit.

6 hours ago, NukeMaster said:

My biggest concern is how is he going to play and how is it going to differ from Vader.

It looks to me like he wants sit on a point even more than Vader does. If Vader seems slow at least relentless kind of makes up for it.

I think Palpatine is going to suffer from terrible action economy. Trading actions with another unit does not seem like something I would want to do with a 210+ point unit.

The value of his direction is that you can get multiple attacks per round. Ie palpatine plus Vader x2 (once from Vader’s activation and once from pulling the strings) in one round.

Palpatines action economy is his greatest strength!

18 hours ago, Derrault said:

The value of his direction is that you can get multiple attacks per round. Ie palpatine plus Vader x2 (once from Vader’s activation and once from pulling the strings) in one round.

Palpatines action economy is his greatest strength!

I understand two attacks is the goal but in practicality how often is Palatine going to be in a position for that to be possible? At speed one he's going to be taking more move action than attacks.

On 7/12/2018 at 10:35 AM, BigBadAndy said:

People fail to recognize the intentional cheesiness of the original trilogy

Examples? I grant Ewoks. Aside from that, what intentional cheesiness (not humor, but cheesiness) is there in the original trilogy? Not the special editions that Lucas wrote on the same crack as the prequels, but the original trilogy.

21 minutes ago, Turan said:

Examples? I grant Ewoks. Aside from that, what intentional cheesiness (not humor, but cheesiness) is there in the original trilogy? Not the special editions that Lucas wrote on the same crack as the prequels, but the original trilogy.

"Cheese" may not be the right word. But Star Wars was always meant to be mythic and operatic. Luke for instance, who barely reacts to the death of his family but is broken up by Ben's death. Then once they arrive at Yavin the Rebels plop him into one of their fighter jets on little more than Biggs enthusiasm. Not exactly realistic.

I could go on, but I don't want to belabor the point.

1 hour ago, Albertese said:

"Cheese" may not be the right word. But Star Wars was always meant to be mythic and operatic. Luke for instance, who barely reacts to the death of his family but is broken up by Ben's death. Then once they arrive at Yavin the Rebels plop him into one of their fighter jets on little more than Biggs enthusiasm. Not exactly realistic.

I could go on, but I don't want to belabor the point.

Although I agree that the intention is to mimic a serial, Luke has a ton of time to process the possibility of his aunt and uncle’s deaths before he even makes it home, and it’s clear that many hours have passed before he manages to meet back up with Ben. With Ben’s death he literally sees it happen, which is plausibly far more traumatic.

@NukeMaster fair point, I guess it gives him a lot of flex being able to either move and fire or move and direct an attack by someone further away who can hit someone even further (ie potentially the equivalent of range 6+)