So then... back to the ghost thing... (SPOILERS)

Okay, Ush, it's true that the BURNING as key is not clear from this. But what is clear that (if this is in the movie as well) that DISAPPEARING is not essential for ghostness... It comes from somehwere else.... ergo: neither is linked and it still doesn't prove anything that Anakin disappears in ROTJ. That was one of the key points of the argument. This proves the ghostness is caused by something else.

Anakin does disappear, just not on camera. All that is burned by Luke is the Vader outfit.

yes, that's the discussion point too, because it's not clearly visible

Fernando- this place is for speculation as well as fact discussion, see? In fact, speculation is the primary reason for it. Queeq and myself happen to like to talk this over, and its not good if we simply wait for the answer, is it?

Helmet, the debate about whether Anakin disappeared in his armour rages on; I say yes, queeq says no, the official site says yes, yet it was never seen on camera... yadda yadda yadda... and ;ets not go over it again.

Back to the main subject... I think you will find, queeq, thsat the disappearing WILL still be linked to ghost form. Especially as Liam isn't appearing as a ghost; I think he will be a special case. Like I always said.

It will be fixed when the DVD's come out. I wouldn't be surprised if those shots of Anakin dying in front of Luke were re-shot using Hayden.

Oh, well, maybe. Like I say, it's fun to guess before the facts are fully known.

According to my new issue of SW insider;

Liam Neeson recorded NO dialogue for AOTC.

He didn't do anything for Episode II according to Lucas and McCallum.

And Lucas has already said that Anakin disappeared, just not on screen. It's a way to cover his butt.

Originally posted by Gundark
According to my new issue of SW insider;

Liam Neeson recorded NO dialogue for AOTC.

Actually, Helm, I do not believe that GL has ever said that. If he has, can your provide the quote?

I have Steve Sansweet and Rick McCallum saying it, but not the man himself.

Yerss... what do you mean?

I find it better if he wasn't, like something ended in TPM, it was final, no return, like Maul

No, my point was, I thought it had been established that he ISN'T in ep. ii.

in that case I'm happy

I'd rather just have him mentioned. I think it's smart to not have him come back, unless they plan on having all of the Jedi standing there at the end of ROTJ.

Which would be completely unneeded.

Is there such a quote, Helm?

It;s be a shame if Qui-Gon's contribution towards the final victory in ROTJ is never further recognised at all.

Why would they need to put Qui-Gon in ROTJ at all? He had nothing to do with the OT!

It's the only way to add the ultimate link to both trilogies.

No it's not!

The ultimate link is Darth Vader, Plapatine!!!

Why would they put Qui-Gon in there if Luke doesn't even know who he is? Why would he show up to cheer their victory over a war he wasn't around to see???

Because the whole thing was of his construction.

Not essentual, of course, But I would still like at least one more reference to Qui-Gon, somehwre.