jlee562
Sr Member
Yes, we are all sharing and discussing our subjective opinions on this movie. "I like TLJ because XYZ" or "I hate TLJ because of 123" for instance. So thanks for pointing out the obvious.
Said the guy who felt compelled to point out that films in a trilogy are related to one another...
I don't know what you want from me, I've already shared my criticisms of the Canto Bight sequence. If you're expecting me to "defend" the sequence as such, I've pretty much already shared my thoughts.
Spell/grammar-checking is a poor debaters tactic
Said the guy who gave me flak for misstating bell hooks' pen name (and then made the same exact mistake a few months down the line)
My argument is as stated. Your reply was a strawman. If you don't understand that your reply was a strawman, then I stand by my statement about sentence structure.
So first you argue that Palpatine's history would have made ESB, specifically, convoluted. Now only ANH exists in a vacuum. That's a contradiction.
Also, why doesn't Palpatine's history make ANH convoluted? It is in there, brief as it was.
My argument is that Palpatine's backstory is not relevant to the narrative of ESB. It's not relevant to Luke's arc of training to become a Jedi. It's not relevant to Han's arc with Leia. It's not relevant to Vader and Luke. Inserting ANOTHER story thread into ESB about the Emperor is simply not necessary. ROTJ doesn't explain the background of the Emperor either. It's not relevant to the plot, it doesn't push the action.
I don't really think the one sentence about Palpatine disbanding the Imperial Senate is really any great insight into his "background."
If you're going to come back and say "well, they could have added a line." Ok, they could have added a line. Too bad they didn't.