krpalmer: (europa)
Dropping in to the discount store across the corner on the weekend, I was wandering around its rack of cheap Blu-Rays when I saw two "previously owned" copies of Star Wars: The Force Awakens on display. A moment I'd imagined might arrive back when I hadn't bought the movie on its home video release had indeed come to pass, but I walked out of the store without a disc, remembering how hearing the special features had gone straight back to "isn't it wonderful there were so many animatronics on set?" had squashed what interest I might have had and how the movie's been available on Netflix up here for months but I've kept putting off making the time to watch it.
Instead of that... )
krpalmer: (europa)
When I got around to watching the Star Wars movies this year and, halfway through "hybrid order," found any possible previous concerns that this time things would be different seemingly overcome by invigoration, I went ahead and posted about it. After I'd done that, though, I did get to wondering if I'd "set myself up at last," if Attack of the Clones in particular would feel "stuck as the middle movie" or something. I got through it in turn just fine, however, and thoughts that maybe Revenge of the Sith would pose personal problems somehow might not have had the chance to get started. On getting back to the old movies with Return of the Jedi, though, I suppose I was at least conscious of the laments of others on interpreting most of the major performances as "burnt out," as much as I tried to bring to mind other, more positive interpretations I've seen. At least since reading the modern "making of" book, I sometimes find myself wondering if George Lucas saw the important part of the movie as "redemption," but with the big secret of The Empire Strikes Back having leaked (if perhaps not to as widespread publicity as might happen nowadays) he tried even harder to keep that part restricted to those who needed to know, only to leave everyone else kind of underwhelmed at the impression the movie was "about" "creatures..."

I was perhaps following more Star Wars discussions in the late 1990s since I've done since, and I'm ready to suppose a "golden age" wasn't "lost" in sudden and shocking fashion in 1999 (or even 1997) because I'm aware of the complaints about Return of the Jedi from back then. It's at least possible I fell away from possible "groupthink" just out of the inarticulate conviction the then-third Star Wars movie was the conclusion and getting upset about it wouldn't make a difference except to yourself, but in since coming to think I could really shock some by declaring the three new movies a more interesting and compelling unit I always feel that also has to face the possibility all the "blame" then falls on Return of the Jedi itself. That, of course, might not even really touch on the unpleasant feeling that the latest of three "official" continuations from that point (and the one that has the apparent advantage of existing in the same medium as the previous movies) involves the celebrated heroes of the apparently beloved movies having failed off-screen in just about every way for the sake of getting new product with a drab ethos and a barrage of snappy dialogue rolling. Still, that hasn't quite stopped me from thinking "roll on Rogue One" so far.
krpalmer: (europa)
A few hours after putting together a post yesterday suggesting it seems at least possible to escape indignation at the conviction that the "battle for Naboo" hinged altogether on a "whoops" moment, I had a "whoops" moment of my own remembering an additional thought I'd had but forgotten to set down in writing. That "not everything depended on Anakin" doesn't have to lead to the smug conclusion he should have just been left with his mother on Tatooine and everyone would have wound up happier; he did also happen to clear some "destroyer droids" out of Queen Amidala and company's path to get his Naboo starfighter moving. (I suppose this could be seen as beginning to set up the suggestion a larger power was guiding him, anyway.)
krpalmer: (europa)
When I made the time last year to watch six Star Wars movies (which can, among other things, leave me aware how often I can't make the time to watch even one old movie), I suppose thoughts of "the end of an era" were at least present. After not managing to work up interest in buying the Blu-Ray of The Force Awakens, though, and after making one excuse after another to not watch it on Netflix this weekend, all of a sudden I'd resolved to get back to the familiar six before the end of the year, almost as if things hadn't changed after all. I did resort to what I can call "hybrid order," with the new movies in the middle as an extended flashback, as if to avoid both a too-strong statement of just where "numerical order" points and the direct lead-in of "production order" to Rogue One (although at the moment each of its successive trailers seem to have impressed me a bit more than before...) While I'd at least imagined accusations of resenting how I'd put all that work into "appreciation" to the point of resisting an effortless barrage of snappy dialogue, when the order rolled around to The Phantom Menace once more I didn't seem troubled at all. I suppose I'd put a bit of thought beforehand into one particular interpretation of one particular moment, though.

I can still wrap my head around to supposing Anakin seeming to fire the shot that blows up the droid control ship "by accident" added to the indignation of some. While there just might be a chance now to point elsewhere at "the Force guiding someone," I happened to think that while "the big explosion" catches attention, the crucial moment that had been mentioned before in the movie was Amidala and company managing to capture the Trade Federation viceroy, an echo perhaps of Palpatine managing at least a partial success in becoming Supreme Chancellor. Anakin would then have definitely helped more pilots survive the battle than otherwise and eliminated the possibility the droid army would eventually execute its captives, but once again the rush to indignation might have overcome some. That thought might not help anyone but me, but it did at least add a bit to getting to the halfway point; I'm looking further ahead yet at the possibility of managing to watch the Clone Wars episodes that featured the younger inspiration for a Rogue One character, anyway.
krpalmer: (europa)

Being invited to mark the shared anniversary of two of the Star Wars movies by coming up with "ten things I like about the prequels" was invigorating, but also challenging. By this point my appreciation of them is pretty far-ranging; the trick was narrowing it down to a few things I could share some hopefully well-chosen words about. With thought, though, I formed a list, and then a list I could and had to pick and choose from. As I did so, I did have to face insisting it isn't a "top ten" list; to say something about the major characters might mean saying a lot, much of which may have been picked up from others. Instead, I hope this is more a personal but wide-ranging summary.

An illustrated summary, too )
krpalmer: (europa)
Today's of course the day people start saying "May the Fourth be with you" to each other with a wink and a nudge. Both the morning and the afternoon radio shows I listen to on the road to and from work mentioned that, but I was already in perhaps that much more of a lugubrious mood than I was a year ago.

For a brief moment just before Christmas, I managed to get over not just all the emphasis on just how much stuff had been put in front of the film cameras for The Force Awakens and the seeming code behind it but also the critical ecstasies that seemed more a matter of recycling old complaints, and articulated the careful reaction that I liked the movie more than I'd been concerned I would. Just a few hours after that, though, with an impression the latest movie hadn't been as "revisionist" as the code had made me worry I seemed to be thinking more about the other side of the saga, the crawling sense deepening the beloved heroes such a big deal had been made of their returning had just been presented as having blown the whole thing, except that we'd never quite know how because of convictions things had been cooler when Darth Vader's origins had been up to the imagination. A few months later, the trailer for Rogue One seemed very much more of the same, save that the mechanical and costume designs wouldn't have slight tweaks to them this time. As for being open-minded enough to go back to The Force Awakens looking for greater depth, hearing the special features on the Blu-Ray were making a big deal of just how much had been put in front of the film cameras in the context of ecstasies that seemed more a matter of recycling old complaints put me right back where I'd started, and in not having bought a disc yet I'm conscious of how I had bought a Blu-Ray player and a HDTV at last, and yet without really waiting for a declared sale, just so I could get to the saga Blu-Rays before it was somehow "too late."

With all of that, though, the latest announcement of "Prequel Appreciation Day" challenged me to come up with "10 favourite things." A bit of thought started bringing ideas to mind (although I can't say they're my top ten, just ten varied things). The only trick will be articulating them in the days remaining.
krpalmer: (europa)
I was pointed to a piece that seemed to concatenate just about all the assorted arguments I've already seen that "George Lucas's Star Wars is more defensible than some endlessly repeated opinions would have it" (including an argument I'd just tried articulating myself, supposing it an "unpopular fandom opinion.") It was somehow invigorating, even if I know it might at best nudge a person or two towards looking at the movies with somewhat less of a compulsion to cut them apart and reinforce well-worn negativity. However, along the way an "effect" was invoked that had me thinking back to another time I'd seen it brought up, and an uncertainty on my own part.

The "Dunning-Kruger effect" seems summed up as "the unskilled can't recognise their own lack of ability and consider themselves more talented than they are." My own uncertainty, though, is whether saying someone else is demonstrating that effect is somehow to demonstrate it yourself. It might only depend here on both of the times I'm thinking about having to do with opinions on fiction (as much as I have my own opinions). Whether "false modesty" or "holding yourself above someone else" ties into things is another question.
krpalmer: (europa)
I've got this journal through two leap years already, and with its use of calendars to organize and access posts the thought of marking each February 29th has been compelling. Assuming I should do something "rare," I've tried articulating "unpopular fandom opinions." This time around, even with the thought not too many "friends" are following this journal any more, taking a risk and bringing up something kind of big for someone to perhaps stumble on has crept up on me.
Partial concealment, anyway )
krpalmer: (europa)
In the past few days, the little group of "prequel appreciators" I count myself among has been very taken up reacting to new reports that the story ideas for continuing the Star Wars movies George Lucas submitted when he sold the franchise hadn't been used. With all of this reaction it does sort of seem some had managed to discount or deny the earlier reports of this happening some months back, but I do have to agree it's dispiriting. After all the casual comments from certain other people that "George Lucas ought to accept his limitations and just be the idea guy," that he's not allowed to be even that, for the apparent sake of loudmouths being primed to react positively to the assembly line of new product about to start rolling just because it'll be very careful to avoid the sort of broad comedy relief that triggered them off in the first place, doesn't make the slightly redesigned stormtroopers and slightly redesigned Star Destroyers and slightly modified Millennium Falcon filling store shelves look much more interesting to me.

Right as that was happening, though, I happened to finish reading the last issue of Creative Computing magazine from 1977 (I'd managed to buy a copy in an online auction before a scanned version of that magazine got added to the Internet Archive), and it just so happened the book review column started with the reviewer bringing up Star Wars. He did lead off "with faint praise," saying "The visual effects are stunning and superbly done, the plot won't confuse you," and invoked 1977's own form of "fan cred" by mentioning "I kept expecting the minions of Boskone and a Gray Lensman or two to pop up at any moment," but then started talking about how the movie "falls kinda flat when you think about it afterward." This seemed to have everything to do with the "world-building," including asking "How can the Millenium [sic] Falcon take off from a planetary surface?" Writing for a computer magazine, he devoted particular space to asking why, with C-3P0's technology available (R2-D2 didn't seem to have the same impact on him), all the spaceships depended on manual controls, and wound up hoping "they listen to some competent technical advice for the sequels."

This extended criticism on objections nobody else ever seems to have thought of may not be quite the same as the work Mike Klimo has done in searching out old movie reviews from more obvious sources, but it does get me thinking that perhaps some people weren't as ready to intuitively accept whatever "Star Wars is (but the 'prequels' weren't)" as some other people have convinced themselves these days. I am as conscious as ever of having been conscious in concentrating on particular things and themes to say "I find enjoyment in the saga." I can also wonder what those ideas George Lucas had were, and if they would have taken an effort all over again to take in and fit into a story previously considered complete, just as a different sort of effort to whoop it up at the new product may not be entirely unconscious for some. It is one more thing to think about, anyway.
krpalmer: (europa)
With Thanksgiving and its trips past, it seemed as good a time as any to start watching the six Star Wars movies, which I figure viewing once a year isn't too much (although I would like to find the time to watch other movies as well...) As I was thinking ahead to that, rumours there'd be another trailer for The Force Awakens with however little more information than "look! Stormtroopers!" added solidified into fact, but by that point I'd already got things under way with The Phantom Menace.

For several years, I'd held back from watching that movie for fear something inside me would come loose and I'd agree with the boundless condemnation. After being lucky and brave enough to find a nucleus of other fans willing to be positive towards all the Star Wars movies, I started watching it again, and now as I watch it my willingness to suppose some people can disagree with it pretty much evaporates and I just wonder how hard they have to work at their negativity. However, I suppose I was contemplating one thought that had happened to me just a little while ago.

In contemplating how one mainspring of the movies is Palpatine exploiting the desires of others to get what he wants, all of a sudden I was thinking a bit of how Qui-Gon uses Watto's cupidity to get not just the hyperdrive parts his money's not good enough for but also Anakin's freedom. I've become interested in considerations of Qui-Gon "a Jedi who should have lived" even as I resist proclamations that Obi-Wan is "the ideal Jedi"; seeing a similarity between him and the "central bad guy" was, perhaps, a bit unsettling. At the same time, I suspect too much a deal can be made of "moral equivalence." Something that might even be called "subtlety" in suggesting that even "the best" isn't "perfect" doesn't seem that bad, though.
krpalmer: (europa)
I was in a nearby dollar store when I saw a good number of trade paperbacks of Dark Horse Star Wars comics on the racks, the "original trilogy-focused" titles they were publishing after the sale of Lucasfilm when they seemed to be trying to get ahead of the obvious curve but before the comics license was brought more in-house. They did all look to be numbered higher than "volume ones," though, so I at least had a different way out than just continuing to dwell on how the comics and novels and video games kept being talked up by certain people as "making up for the movies," such that it became easy to not bother with any of them. I did get to reflecting a bit, however, on just how easily spinoffs can be altered and replaced. It would be a bit too easy to project this into the future, of course.
krpalmer: (europa)
While I approve of a "Star Wars Prequel Appreciation Week," the "pick your favourite" nature of each day of it does more or less just get me thinking of how I always seem to steer clear of that, even if identifying something as "favourite" doesn't have to mean dismissing everything else as "not favourite." However, that doesn't quite mean I've been watching the choices of other people go by, devoid of my own thoughts. When people happen to say Obi-Wan is their "favourite character" with the end of Revenge of the Sith at least included in their discussion, I start wondering again if I'd rather interpret him as something other than "the hero who did what had to be done," someone in fact a bit more "compromised." I can then wonder if it might be accused of "fictional character assassination" to shape and share the thought that to show up when he did in the final confrontation between Anakin and Padme was on some level trying to provoke his old apprentice to do something terrible in front of him, so that he could burn out the last bit of doubt that the person he'd known was gone...

Not every appreciative interpretation of Obi-Wan has to be seen as suspecting everything else in the new movies, of course, so I do keep wondering if I'm "trying to fold in too much complexity." If it ties in with "questioning the authority" he's often seen as in the old movies, there I can both suppose he could be "questioned" from just that one trilogy and wind up asking in a bigger way at what point you stop "questioning authority," or at least acknowledge the answer to your question can be to be convinced by them after all. Perhaps it's more a matter of wanting to indulge in a "tragedy" with no genuine heroes left by the end, something I don't do that often with tragedies at all. There, I suppose, it's a matter of the "happy ending" already existing. It is something I think about, anyway.
krpalmer: (europa)
One of my newspaper's numerous sports-section columns about the ongoing Stanley Cup finals led off by mentioning that Chicago Blackhawks winger Patrick Kane had recently watched all six Star Wars movies. The columnist, though, immediately went from that to an annoyingly familiar two-sentence exaltation of the old three and absolute dismissal of the new three, pointedly not bothering to name them. It's bad enough the entertainment and movie section of my newspaper recycles negative opinions about Star Wars so often (opinions that can leave me wondering what's actually supposed to be so amazing about the old movies beyond that they were implied to use old special-effects technology); for a moment, I wanted to tear the front page loose from the rest of the section or find a black marker and scribble over the text, or something else equally petty. I pass my newspaper on to other people at work, though, so I managed to hold the urge back.

Then, though, it really hit me that Kane had said he'd liked the new three better. (The column mentioned him "shrugging"; I can somehow imagine the columnist venting at him beforehand to provoke such a response.) "They don't speak for everyone" is a familiar comment in the environs of the "Prequel Appreciation Society," but it is sort of nice to have a tiny additional bit of evidence that way. Before handing the newspaper over, I also happened to notice that Kane had watched the movies while sidelined with a broken collarbone; I had been wondering if he'd managed to cram the viewings in between playoff games.
krpalmer: (europa)
I suppose there won't be as quite many people reminding themselves it's "Star Wars Prequel Appreciation Day" today as were saying "May the Fourth be with you" two weeks ago, but then again, for me at least, today doesn't feel quite as arch about the whole thing. (Of course, there are those who follow up "May the Fourth" by mentioning "Revenge of the Fifth"...) I've tried to mark this day before, but at times haven't been able to say too much about it. For this particular day, though, knowing it's been ten years since Revenge of the Sith opened to general audiences has driven me to further efforts.
Things were different for me with that movie. )
krpalmer: (europa)
Today's the day people say "May the Fourth be with you" to each other, but while I know that dates as far back as 1979 (and the use I saw recorded from back then wasn't as "fannish" as you might think) it does sort of feel a bit too much like a winking nudge in the ribs to me; there are, after all, several "anniversary days" later this month. However, today did seem to be a chance to bestir myself to watching the second teaser for The Force Awakens for just the second time.

I'd managed to hear the second teaser had been released while sitting in the airport waiting to fly to England, which is at least a memorable setting. Beyond engaging a Youtube embedded video in a less than perfect presentation for an iPad screen, though, I guess the heavy use of "new Imperials" and continued coyness about just what the sort of story the pointed emphasis on presumably nostalgic visuals might be used in the service added up to something other than the overwrought reactions I heard of second or third-hand. Even when I'd got back from vacation and had access to a bigger screen, the urge to watch the video again still seemed elusive.

On finally watching the teaser for a second time, though, I did seem more charitable towards the whole thing. I've been reminded that having given the new Star Wars movies a chance shouldn't mean preparing to reject some even newer ones out of hand. If the second trailer for JJ Abram's Star Trek was where things started feeling sort of "off" for me, this didn't seem quite so extreme. Against that, however, does remain the thought that with a continuation in comic books and a continuation in novels and comics having both been relegated to "retired" status, it may not be that hard to let a continuation in film remain "another possibility" as I wonder if I'll ever know just was in those ideas that George Lucas had when Lucasfilm was sold but which weren't used in the end.
krpalmer: (europa)
Even if the specific post I saw the news in did include one of those gratuitous slams on The Phantom Menace all the more unappealing for trying to make a light joke of it, it still caught my attention that the manga adaptations of four of the Star Wars movies have become available again, in electronic comic form now as Marvel Comics gets its hands on what Dark Horse Comics used to have. (That does include a great many other comics, in any case.) They're still divided up into four (or two in the case of the one I didn't buy for thinking it would "feel rushed") segments, are still mirrored from the Japanese art to "read the right way" (and put things like the Millennium Falcon's cockpit on the other side), and are still without adaptations of Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith, but it's kind of nice to know that other people have the chance to read them too. While I suppose I'm doubly biased on the subject (and have little to compare them against but the original Marvel versions), they were interesting takes on the subject for me. I did notice their covers now have the "Legends" banner being applied to the old novels; my first reaction to that was to wonder just what an adaptation of the actual movies has to do to not get that (beyond having been made under new management), but I then happened to remember they were based on the 1997 Special Editions, which aren't quite current now either.
krpalmer: (europa)
As I prepared to close out this year's trip through the Star Wars movies, I was thinking about the best way to not just set down one final "personal theory" but also to explain it. Right at the start of Revenge of the Sith, though, I happened to think of something I might have conceived of but not put too much thought into before, the idea that "the kidnapping of Palpatine was a small commando operation; all the other Separatist forces stayed in space."

This thought springs from the old "drawn animation" Clone Wars series shown just before the movie premiered. It had a big "Jedi powers" battle down on Coruscant, but threw in the realization by Yoda and Mace Windu that with no attempt being made to attack the Senate or the Jedi Temple there had to be another target. I suppose this ought to have been reasonable, and yet the commentaries included with the DVD made the point that the planet "should" have been more messed up in the movie itself. Perhaps I'm reacting to an impression of "we'll just fix this problem that never occurred to them."

In any case, I'm done for this year, but I'm wondering about the next. Regardless of when or how I manage to see the first promised trailer for The Force Awakens, by the fall of next year I'm sure we'll be pretty far into the runup for the first of "the new new Star Wars movies," and at the moment I'm still holding myself capable of accepting it as "a continuation" or not. I can also still engage in the luxury of saying "time will tell."
krpalmer: (europa)
Before I made it to Attack of the Clones in my trip through the Star Wars movies for this year, most of my thoughts about what "personal theory" I might set down about it had to do with ideas of just when, how, and why Count Dooku had turned to the Dark Side and become Darth Tyrannus. As I got to thinking about ways to present the three new movies as something other than "Palpatine's precisely premeditated plan," though, I got to remembering the idea he'd only suggested Obi-Wan, and his apprentice, guard Padme because he wanted to get Anakin frustrated at the Jedi over "things he couldn't have." That's not a "personal" theory, though, as I recall first seeing it suggested in a classic look at the movie, "The Shroud of the Dark Side." With that in mind, though, I did remember an idea that does seem to be all mine: "the 'attachment is forbidden' rule, for the ordinary Jedi, doesn't require uncomfortable repression, washing hands afterwards, or even quick cheap flings; the Force can be used to switch off certain biological urges."

A bit of this might well come from the carefully quantified and qualified rules of the role-playing game that got adopted into the early novels as "hibernation trances" and the like, but I suppose more of it comes from my own peculiar habit of not being really interested in "pairing off" fictional characters not undeniably defined as such in their stories. Where some people seem to not want characters to go through life without a defined helpmate, I seem to be content with giving them a bit of privacy. When the romance is undeniable, though, I do seem ready to get gushy over that, and I suppose that leads into the obvious objection of "so what about Anakin?" I try to answer that by thinking that while "biological urges can be switched off," emotional attraction is harder to deal with.
krpalmer: (europa)
As I watched my way through the Star Wars movies this year into the new ones (although in just over another year, I might have to find a different way of saying that), I continued to contemplate the "personal theories" I've hit on over time. The thought has come to me at different times that the new movies just might invite thoughtful engagement with them and even the formation of "personal theories," although some people seem to have missed that (or at least refused it) to complain about things not being explained to them.

I did find myself, however, trying to find ways to not have one "personal theory" seem the "most obvious one." Knowing how things turn out, the thought begins to scratch at me that the movies can be interpreted as "Palpatine has everything planned out from the start," and things only stop going the way he's foreseen in the final reel of Return of the Jedi itself... the problem then becomes "why then?" That one person alone in all the galaxy possesses a diabolical free will (or, perhaps, just sees himself as the "puppet who can see the strings," to quote "Watchmen") somehow seems to interfere with comments from George Lucas that he thought of the saga as a modern attempt to suggest ancient truths about right living. I suppose, too, that I eventually became a little dissatisfied with Grand Admiral Thrawn in the novels knowing, though the study of art, the precise psychological button for each alien species that gets every member of them to freeze up.

The best way out does seem to be to wonder how he might have triumphed much sooner over the course of The Phantom Menace had a team of heroes not (half-unwittingly) interfered. Remembering a comment in the DVD commentary track about the battle droids being "found ineffective" against the Jedi, I do wonder if Qui-Gon's premonitions about Queen Amidala being assassinated had been part of a scheme to provoke a conflict that would swarm the limited numbers of Jedi (it did work in Attack of the Clones), and then create the vacuum in the galaxy to be filled with a new imperial government that eventually opened through a redrafted plan two movies later. If that's a little too hopeful, I suppose I've also contemplated that "Nemoidians find the 'standard human accent' somehow offensive; they hide that because it'll hurt trade." That, of course, may be a little too obvious.
krpalmer: (europa)
As I got to the halfway point in watching through the Star Wars movies this year, I was wondering just what I could share as a "personal theory" this time. At last, some ideas seemed to come together, linking not just a theory or two but even a preference; they seem to have to do with planning.

I remember some people arguing pretty much past each other in the days of the Star Wars Usenet newsgroup about whether the rescue of Han Solo was all according to an elaborate plan. I also recall a line in the novelization, which ties into some discussion in the recent "The Making of Return of the Jedi" book, that Han had to be brought outside Jabba's palace to increase the chances of escape. The hindsight we look back at the events in the movie with could be converted into foresight on the parts of the main characters, with just Threepio unfortunately left out because everyone else knew he couldn't keep a secret. For some reason, though, I do want to believe that "Luke didn't know Jabba could drop people he was angry with into the Rancor pit beneath his throne room before he cast them into the Sarlacc in the desert." Certainly, characters who think ahead are a change that may well be welcome in the face of "they who grit their teeth harder win," and yet when one side has all the plans and everything plays into it that sometimes doesn't seem that exciting than at least a bit of fast thinking being necessary. That, perhaps, may tie in to how I want to interpret the new movies as well.

So far as "plans" go, I'm also inclined to think that "after Luke's discussion with his father on the forest moon of Endor didn't turn Darth Vader away from the Dark Side, he despaired and supposed all he could do now was distract the Emperor until all three of them were caught in the attack on the second Death Star." This, again, may just be a stronger statement of something actually said in the dialogue, but I'm also inclined to think that "Darth Vader, after Luke rejected him in the previous movie, was at an equal loss for ideas of how to turn his son to the Dark Side, and saved the Emperor in the moment of crisis because of concerns on some hidden level Luke might even be able to walk away after that." The Emperor may well have suspected this, but I do wonder if he even would have got a dark kick out of the instant of his death in that moment, sure that "Vader taking a gamble" wouldn't have paid off anyway, and everything could go to pieces so far as he cared because he wouldn't be around for it. Perhaps by that point thoughts about "the Sith are supposed to be entirely selfish" are indeed a "personal theory."

April 2017

2 345678
910111213 1415
161718 19202122
2324 2526272829


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Apr. 27th, 2017 05:11 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios