Return of the Jedi - your opinion? — Page 5

Shopping Maul said:

yotsuya said:

MalàStrana said:

It reminds me that my main issue with the Vader’s plot in ROTJ is the line “I MUST obey my Master”, whereas he explicitly told his son (and his wife !) that he would rather like kill the Emperor and rule the galaxy himself. Just removing that line and leaving only “you don’t know the power of the dark side” would make things work better I guess.

It’s just a slight complain: I know ROTJ is not the same top quality as ANH and TESB and has many problems here and there, but it still is a very good movie (and still the third best SW in my opinion), as a SW and as a fantasy flick.

It is the beginnings of the rule of two. The only way out from under Palpatine is to take his place. That is what Vader suggests. It is kinda the Sith mantra - come with me and we can rule the galaxy together. Palpatine changed it up by telling Anakin that if he followed him that they could save Padme together.

But even the Sith ‘rule of two’ is dumb (sorry to be such a contrarian but my motives are pure!). Vader suggests luring Luke into the fold in TESB, clearly as a way of keeping Luke alive. Palps says “yes, he would be a great asset” and Vader says “he will join us or die”. There’s no indication that the ‘rule of two’ exists. It seems like a prequel thing that doesn’t really apply to the OT (unless you accept that Vader is a complete idiot in RoTJ).

Note I said it is the beginnings of that rule. I didn’t say it was that rule. I think the idea developed out of what we saw in the OT.

yotsuya said:

Shopping Maul said:

yotsuya said:

MalàStrana said:

It reminds me that my main issue with the Vader’s plot in ROTJ is the line “I MUST obey my Master”, whereas he explicitly told his son (and his wife !) that he would rather like kill the Emperor and rule the galaxy himself. Just removing that line and leaving only “you don’t know the power of the dark side” would make things work better I guess.

It’s just a slight complain: I know ROTJ is not the same top quality as ANH and TESB and has many problems here and there, but it still is a very good movie (and still the third best SW in my opinion), as a SW and as a fantasy flick.

It is the beginnings of the rule of two. The only way out from under Palpatine is to take his place. That is what Vader suggests. It is kinda the Sith mantra - come with me and we can rule the galaxy together. Palpatine changed it up by telling Anakin that if he followed him that they could save Padme together.

But even the Sith ‘rule of two’ is dumb (sorry to be such a contrarian but my motives are pure!). Vader suggests luring Luke into the fold in TESB, clearly as a way of keeping Luke alive. Palps says “yes, he would be a great asset” and Vader says “he will join us or die”. There’s no indication that the ‘rule of two’ exists. It seems like a prequel thing that doesn’t really apply to the OT (unless you accept that Vader is a complete idiot in RoTJ).

Note I said it is the beginnings of that rule. I didn’t say it was that rule. I think the idea developed out of what we saw in the OT.

Oh absolutely. I just think it’s one of Lucas’ sillier retcons. It makes the events/motivations in the OT somewhat redundant. If Vader and Palpatine knew they intended to replace one another, then why all the song and dance about recruiting Luke? Why didn’t Vader just let Luke kill Palpatine in that first instance?

The Rinzler book makes it pretty clear that Marquand had a contribution, was a team player and often a hood ornament. Sorry, wook, I no longer have the cassettes or Super 8 film from the 70s or 80s. Chucked that all when they came out on VHS.

Shopping Maul said:

SilverWook said:
If you’ve ever seen the documentary Star Wars To Jedi:The Making Of A Saga, Lucas implies they made Leia the other at the last moment. When they came to shoot the throne room scenes, they still had not figured out what Vader should say to make Luke fight him.

The irony is that if Lucas had allowed the ‘noble death’ of Han Solo, he would’ve had the answer to the ‘why does Luke snap’ conundrum. Vader/Palpatine could have been offering to halt the battle if Luke were to agree to turn (an actual temptation as opposed to simply making Luke mad) before Luke suddenly senses Han’s death through the Force. Luke kicks Vader’s butt and no-one has to be anyone’s shoehorned sister!

In my fanedit of RotJ I cut out the Ben scene entirely, he really doesn’t say anything new other than nudge Luke forcewise into intuiting that Leia is his sister and then confirming his epiphany. The scene of Luke revealing the same to Leia goes as well as he doesn’t know it at this point.

His father uses the the force to put two and two together during their duel, now Vader reveals his fatherhood in TESB and the identity of the sister in RotJ, causing Luke to lose his s***. I think it plays much better this way.

Shopping Maul said:

I should get off my backside and read those books, although I do admit to a slight concern about revisionism.

The Rinzler books are goldmines of information and, despite coming out of the Lucasfilm sausage factory, are pretty impartial. I realize folks on these boards may have some trepidation about them from how the handling of the GOUT has gone but the purpose of these books is to document the making of these movies and he doesn’t really pull punches throughout all three.

Shopping Maul said:

If Vader and Palpatine knew they intended to replace one another, then why all the song and dance about recruiting Luke? Why didn’t Vader just let Luke kill Palpatine in that first instance?

This is something I have also been thinking about lately. I think Vader and Palpatine always knew that they would both want to use Luke to take out the other, but they both didn’t necessarily want to reveal their hand either. For them, it’s like playing a game of chess.

And while I don’t think either of them ever had the intention of ruling the Empire as a triumvirate, even with the existence of the Rule of Two, it hasn’t stopped the Sith from having dark side acolytes before, such as Ventress or the Inquisitors.

But I think after Luke chose death over joining Vader in ESB, Vader no longer believed he could turn Luke on his own. He needed the Emperor, and the Emperor says as much in his first scene with Vader in ROTJ.

And I think Vader’s extreme loyalty to the Emperor in ROTJ is partly because he may not want to reveal his intentions while the Emperor might be close enough to easily sense them. On the other hand, it may just simply be that Luke’s decision to fall to his death over joining his father may have affected Vader’s own confidence in his power. Maybe at this point Vader truly feels what he says about the Emperor, especially after being his servant for so many years, and the events at the end of ESB set him back into that mindset.

But my question, like you brought up, is why didn’t Vader just let Luke kill the Emperor when Luke took that first swing at him? I mean, the Emperor even says that if he killed him, his journey toward the darkside would be complete. My only guess is that Vader knew that it would require more than that to turn Luke, and the Emperor was just toying with him in order for him to initiate aggressive combat. Luke really needed to see that the darkside was power, and he wasn’t there yet.

regularjoe said:

Shopping Maul said:

SilverWook said:
If you’ve ever seen the documentary Star Wars To Jedi:The Making Of A Saga, Lucas implies they made Leia the other at the last moment. When they came to shoot the throne room scenes, they still had not figured out what Vader should say to make Luke fight him.

The irony is that if Lucas had allowed the ‘noble death’ of Han Solo, he would’ve had the answer to the ‘why does Luke snap’ conundrum. Vader/Palpatine could have been offering to halt the battle if Luke were to agree to turn (an actual temptation as opposed to simply making Luke mad) before Luke suddenly senses Han’s death through the Force. Luke kicks Vader’s butt and no-one has to be anyone’s shoehorned sister!

In my fanedit of RotJ I cut out the Ben scene entirely, he really doesn’t say anything new other than nudge Luke forcewise into intuiting that Leia is his sister and then confirming his epiphany. The scene of Luke revealing the same to Leia goes as well as he doesn’t know it at this point.

His father uses the the force to put two and two together during their duel, now Vader reveals his fatherhood in TESB and the identity of the sister in RotJ, causing Luke to lose his s***. I think it plays much better this way.

That sounds cool. It seems to reduce the awkwardness of the whole thing and make it sound more natural and ‘thought out’. Funnily enough the Leia revelation plays out well in the famous ‘machete order’ too. Like in your version, it comes across as part of the narrative rather than just a tacked on idea awkwardly explained by log-sitting Obi Wan.

RogueLeader said:

Shopping Maul said:

If Vader and Palpatine knew they intended to replace one another, then why all the song and dance about recruiting Luke? Why didn’t Vader just let Luke kill Palpatine in that first instance?

This is something I have also been thinking about lately. I think Vader and Palpatine always knew that they would both want to use Luke to take out the other, but they both didn’t necessarily want to reveal their hand either. For them, it’s like playing a game of chess.

And while I don’t think either of them ever had the intention of ruling the Empire as a triumvirate, even with the existence of the Rule of Two, it hasn’t stopped the Sith from having dark side acolytes before, such as Ventress or the Inquisitors.

But I think after Luke chose death over joining Vader in ESB, Vader no longer believed he could turn Luke on his own. He needed the Emperor, and the Emperor says as much in his first scene with Vader in ROTJ.

And I think Vader’s extreme loyalty to the Emperor in ROTJ is partly because he may not want to reveal his intentions while the Emperor might be close enough to easily sense them. On the other hand, it may just simply be that Luke’s decision to fall to his death over joining his father may have affected Vader’s own confidence in his power. Maybe at this point Vader truly feels what he says about the Emperor, especially after being his servant for so many years, and the events at the end of ESB set him back into that mindset.

But my question, like you brought up, is why didn’t Vader just let Luke kill the Emperor when Luke took that first swing at him? I mean, the Emperor even says that if he killed him, his journey toward the darkside would be complete. My only guess is that Vader knew that it would require more than that to turn Luke, and the Emperor was just toying with him in order for him to initiate aggressive combat. Luke really needed to see that the darkside was power, and he wasn’t there yet.

You’re right - I guess there’s no reason the ‘rule of two’ can’t accomodate the occasional third wheel! I just think it’s a shame Lucas made it so blatant. It detracts from the obvious but still terrifying idea that Palpatine intended for Luke to replace Vader all along. But I like your assessment of the whole situation.

I guess my beef is that there’s no subtlety in any of this. We praise Luke for resisting the Dark Side, but it’s not such a big deal when the bad guy is repeating “yes, yes, turn to the dark Side, good, good”. Similarly with Vader, Palps spends the whole exercise taunting the guy and saying “see? He will never be turned, it’s too late for him” before stating outright that Vader’s job is up for grabs. I mean what was Vader going to do once Luke was dead? “So, uh, all that stuff about replacing me? You didn’t actually mean that…did you?”…

It would have been so cool if all of this had been more like the prequel temptation - with Palpatine offering Luke power and an end to war in exchange for total allegiance. Vader would be trying to get Luke on his side and seize power as well (before his change of heart). The whole ‘just make Luke angry’ thing is so disappointing to me. If the Dark Side really is as simple as ‘don’t get mad’, then Jedi in any form are a liability and shouldn’t be encouraged! Jake Skywalker might not have been so wrong…

Shopping Maul said:

RogueLeader said:

Shopping Maul said:

If Vader and Palpatine knew they intended to replace one another, then why all the song and dance about recruiting Luke? Why didn’t Vader just let Luke kill Palpatine in that first instance?

This is something I have also been thinking about lately. I think Vader and Palpatine always knew that they would both want to use Luke to take out the other, but they both didn’t necessarily want to reveal their hand either. For them, it’s like playing a game of chess.

And while I don’t think either of them ever had the intention of ruling the Empire as a triumvirate, even with the existence of the Rule of Two, it hasn’t stopped the Sith from having dark side acolytes before, such as Ventress or the Inquisitors.

But I think after Luke chose death over joining Vader in ESB, Vader no longer believed he could turn Luke on his own. He needed the Emperor, and the Emperor says as much in his first scene with Vader in ROTJ.

And I think Vader’s extreme loyalty to the Emperor in ROTJ is partly because he may not want to reveal his intentions while the Emperor might be close enough to easily sense them. On the other hand, it may just simply be that Luke’s decision to fall to his death over joining his father may have affected Vader’s own confidence in his power. Maybe at this point Vader truly feels what he says about the Emperor, especially after being his servant for so many years, and the events at the end of ESB set him back into that mindset.

But my question, like you brought up, is why didn’t Vader just let Luke kill the Emperor when Luke took that first swing at him? I mean, the Emperor even says that if he killed him, his journey toward the darkside would be complete. My only guess is that Vader knew that it would require more than that to turn Luke, and the Emperor was just toying with him in order for him to initiate aggressive combat. Luke really needed to see that the darkside was power, and he wasn’t there yet.

You’re right - I guess there’s no reason the ‘rule of two’ can’t accomodate the occasional third wheel! I just think it’s a shame Lucas made it so blatant. It detracts from the obvious but still terrifying idea that Palpatine intended for Luke to replace Vader all along. But I like your assessment of the whole situation.

I guess my beef is that there’s no subtlety in any of this. We praise Luke for resisting the Dark Side, but it’s not such a big deal when the bad guy is repeating “yes, yes, turn to the dark Side, good, good”. Similarly with Vader, Palps spends the whole exercise taunting the guy and saying “see? He will never be turned, it’s too late for him” before stating outright that Vader’s job is up for grabs. I mean what was Vader going to do once Luke was dead? “So, uh, all that stuff about replacing me? You didn’t actually mean that…did you?”…

It would have been so cool if all of this had been more like the prequel temptation - with Palpatine offering Luke power and an end to war in exchange for total allegiance. Vader would be trying to get Luke on his side and seize power as well (before his change of heart). The whole ‘just make Luke angry’ thing is so disappointing to me. If the Dark Side really is as simple as ‘don’t get mad’, then Jedi in any form are a liability and shouldn’t be encouraged! Jake Skywalker might not have been so wrong…

Anger is the quickest path to the dark side so making Luke angry was just a short cut. Neither Vader nor Palpatine knew that Luke had been trained by Yoda.

yotsuya said:

Shopping Maul said:

RogueLeader said:

Shopping Maul said:

If Vader and Palpatine knew they intended to replace one another, then why all the song and dance about recruiting Luke? Why didn’t Vader just let Luke kill Palpatine in that first instance?

This is something I have also been thinking about lately. I think Vader and Palpatine always knew that they would both want to use Luke to take out the other, but they both didn’t necessarily want to reveal their hand either. For them, it’s like playing a game of chess.

And while I don’t think either of them ever had the intention of ruling the Empire as a triumvirate, even with the existence of the Rule of Two, it hasn’t stopped the Sith from having dark side acolytes before, such as Ventress or the Inquisitors.

But I think after Luke chose death over joining Vader in ESB, Vader no longer believed he could turn Luke on his own. He needed the Emperor, and the Emperor says as much in his first scene with Vader in ROTJ.

And I think Vader’s extreme loyalty to the Emperor in ROTJ is partly because he may not want to reveal his intentions while the Emperor might be close enough to easily sense them. On the other hand, it may just simply be that Luke’s decision to fall to his death over joining his father may have affected Vader’s own confidence in his power. Maybe at this point Vader truly feels what he says about the Emperor, especially after being his servant for so many years, and the events at the end of ESB set him back into that mindset.

But my question, like you brought up, is why didn’t Vader just let Luke kill the Emperor when Luke took that first swing at him? I mean, the Emperor even says that if he killed him, his journey toward the darkside would be complete. My only guess is that Vader knew that it would require more than that to turn Luke, and the Emperor was just toying with him in order for him to initiate aggressive combat. Luke really needed to see that the darkside was power, and he wasn’t there yet.

You’re right - I guess there’s no reason the ‘rule of two’ can’t accomodate the occasional third wheel! I just think it’s a shame Lucas made it so blatant. It detracts from the obvious but still terrifying idea that Palpatine intended for Luke to replace Vader all along. But I like your assessment of the whole situation.

I guess my beef is that there’s no subtlety in any of this. We praise Luke for resisting the Dark Side, but it’s not such a big deal when the bad guy is repeating “yes, yes, turn to the dark Side, good, good”. Similarly with Vader, Palps spends the whole exercise taunting the guy and saying “see? He will never be turned, it’s too late for him” before stating outright that Vader’s job is up for grabs. I mean what was Vader going to do once Luke was dead? “So, uh, all that stuff about replacing me? You didn’t actually mean that…did you?”…

It would have been so cool if all of this had been more like the prequel temptation - with Palpatine offering Luke power and an end to war in exchange for total allegiance. Vader would be trying to get Luke on his side and seize power as well (before his change of heart). The whole ‘just make Luke angry’ thing is so disappointing to me. If the Dark Side really is as simple as ‘don’t get mad’, then Jedi in any form are a liability and shouldn’t be encouraged! Jake Skywalker might not have been so wrong…

Anger is the quickest path to the dark side so making Luke angry was just a short cut. Neither Vader nor Palpatine knew that Luke had been trained by Yoda.

Simplistic moralizing at its “finest”.

The way I have always tried to explain it is that the dark side is like a drug. It’s hard for us to understand, but once Luke really taps into that raw power, an ability where he can bend the universe to his own will at his very fingertips, he’ll be hooked. Once he gets a taste of it, he’ll just want more and the Emperor would be like his drug dealer. The Emperor so firmly believes in the temptation of that power that Luke turning is without question. So when he doesn’t, it is a complete surprise. And who knows, Luke might have turned if he had not noticed the parallels between Vader’s robotic hand and his own, seeing in an instant that he was becoming his father.

And speaking of this scene, as well as Return of the Jedi in general, I think Luke being vulnerable for the briefest moment and allowing Vader to read his mind and learn the truth about Leia actually serves a really great purpose.
To me, this really is the biggest reason why Obi-Wan and Yoda had to lie to Luke about the truth about his father, and why he wasn’t “ready” for it. Yes, I think there is a simple answer, Luke wasn’t emotional mature enough, but also imagine if Luke had told Vader from the beginning and then Luke had an encounter with Vader. That would be all Luke would be thinking about, and a young, novice Luke would practically be holding a sign above his head reading “I’m your son!”

Luke needed to be prepared to “bury his feelings deep down”, and I think they would have eventually told him if things had gone differently. I just don’t think they ever expected Luke to become a hero so quickly as to have Vader try to find out who he was. In a different scenario, I think they would have tried to train Luke in hiding until he was ready to face him, but the Force obviously had other plans.

yotsuya said:

Shopping Maul said:

RogueLeader said:

Shopping Maul said:

If Vader and Palpatine knew they intended to replace one another, then why all the song and dance about recruiting Luke? Why didn’t Vader just let Luke kill Palpatine in that first instance?

This is something I have also been thinking about lately. I think Vader and Palpatine always knew that they would both want to use Luke to take out the other, but they both didn’t necessarily want to reveal their hand either. For them, it’s like playing a game of chess.

And while I don’t think either of them ever had the intention of ruling the Empire as a triumvirate, even with the existence of the Rule of Two, it hasn’t stopped the Sith from having dark side acolytes before, such as Ventress or the Inquisitors.

But I think after Luke chose death over joining Vader in ESB, Vader no longer believed he could turn Luke on his own. He needed the Emperor, and the Emperor says as much in his first scene with Vader in ROTJ.

And I think Vader’s extreme loyalty to the Emperor in ROTJ is partly because he may not want to reveal his intentions while the Emperor might be close enough to easily sense them. On the other hand, it may just simply be that Luke’s decision to fall to his death over joining his father may have affected Vader’s own confidence in his power. Maybe at this point Vader truly feels what he says about the Emperor, especially after being his servant for so many years, and the events at the end of ESB set him back into that mindset.

But my question, like you brought up, is why didn’t Vader just let Luke kill the Emperor when Luke took that first swing at him? I mean, the Emperor even says that if he killed him, his journey toward the darkside would be complete. My only guess is that Vader knew that it would require more than that to turn Luke, and the Emperor was just toying with him in order for him to initiate aggressive combat. Luke really needed to see that the darkside was power, and he wasn’t there yet.

You’re right - I guess there’s no reason the ‘rule of two’ can’t accomodate the occasional third wheel! I just think it’s a shame Lucas made it so blatant. It detracts from the obvious but still terrifying idea that Palpatine intended for Luke to replace Vader all along. But I like your assessment of the whole situation.

I guess my beef is that there’s no subtlety in any of this. We praise Luke for resisting the Dark Side, but it’s not such a big deal when the bad guy is repeating “yes, yes, turn to the dark Side, good, good”. Similarly with Vader, Palps spends the whole exercise taunting the guy and saying “see? He will never be turned, it’s too late for him” before stating outright that Vader’s job is up for grabs. I mean what was Vader going to do once Luke was dead? “So, uh, all that stuff about replacing me? You didn’t actually mean that…did you?”…

It would have been so cool if all of this had been more like the prequel temptation - with Palpatine offering Luke power and an end to war in exchange for total allegiance. Vader would be trying to get Luke on his side and seize power as well (before his change of heart). The whole ‘just make Luke angry’ thing is so disappointing to me. If the Dark Side really is as simple as ‘don’t get mad’, then Jedi in any form are a liability and shouldn’t be encouraged! Jake Skywalker might not have been so wrong…

Anger is the quickest path to the dark side so making Luke angry was just a short cut. Neither Vader nor Palpatine knew that Luke had been trained by Yoda.

Yes, but how would that help Palpatine? Luke’s anger was entirely directed at Palpatine (for killing Luke’s allies and friends) and then at Vader (for threatening his sister). If Luke were to ‘turn’ evil and stay angry, doesn’t it logically follow that he would kill Vader outright, kill the Emperor, and then rule the galaxy on his own terms? There’s just no logic to the notion that he would submit to Palpatine as a result of this. Anakin was at least bound by the fact that he’d crossed a line in killing Windu, and this played into his self-delusion about the righteousness of opposing the Jedi (which in turn was fed by the notion of saving Padme). Now that’s a seduction. Why would Luke - now driven by supposedly evil passions - suddenly think teaming up with Palpatine was a good idea? “Sure, I’ll be your apprentice. Why not? Could you stop killing my friends please?”

In TESB Vader at least offered an “end to this destructive conflict”. That’s temptation. Palpatine had nothing to offer Luke beyond “hey kid, be evil with me” even as he was obliterating Luke’s friends. There could’ve at least been some dialogue along the lines of “be my apprentice - I will end this war immediately and we can usher in a new era of peace” or something similar.

Anger alone is unsustainable. That’s why Anakin had to be groomed until he finally did something that he felt he couldn’t go back on. You can see it in his eyes when he turns that he’s not convinced of his own actions, but he’s gone too far to turn back. Even if Luke had killed Vader and regretted it, it doesn’t follow that he would sign up for Vader’s old gig. If anything he would have continued his rampage in despair - killing Palpatine and then allowing himself to go boom with the DS. Again, I can’t see how he would be convinced/inclined to team up with the Emperor, even if he had ‘submitted’ to anger and killed Vader.

RogueLeader said:

And speaking of this scene, as well as Return of the Jedi in general, I think Luke being vulnerable for the briefest moment and allowing Vader to read his mind and learn the truth about Leia actually serves a really great purpose.
To me, this really is the biggest reason why Obi-Wan and Yoda had to lie to Luke about the truth about his father, and why he wasn’t “ready” for it. Yes, I think there is a simple answer, Luke wasn’t emotional mature enough, but also imagine if Luke had told Vader from the beginning and then Luke had an encounter with Vader. That would be all Luke would be thinking about, and a young, novice Luke would practically be holding a sign above his head reading “I’m your son!”

Luke needed to be prepared to “bury his feelings deep down”, and I think they would have eventually told him if things had gone differently. I just don’t think they ever expected Luke to become a hero so quickly as to have Vader try to find out who he was. In a different scenario, I think they would have tried to train Luke in hiding until he was ready to face him, but the Force obviously had other plans.

I really like this explanation. In fact, the Marvel version (and presumably the original script) had Yoda saying “Obi Wan would have told you long ago had I let him” which is a good line. The idea that Vader’s mind-reading act was a truth-deterrent for Yoda and Obi is a nice way of justifying the flexible backstory.

Incidentally a wonderful prequel edit called ‘The Blackened Mantle’ has Anakin begging Obi Wan to kill him (while Anakin’s catching fire on Mustafar) and Obi says something like “my brother is already dead. You killed him”. This gives great credence to Obi Wan’s notion that Vader had ‘murdered’ Luke’s father. Beats the heck out of “from a certain point of view…”