Return Of The Jedi - a general Random Thoughts thread — Page 8

StarkillerAG said:

Shopping Maul said:

BedeHistory731 said:

Shopping Maul said:

imperialscum said:

Shopping Maul said:

I’ve said this before but a simple dialogue tweak would fix this. If Luke had said to Leia “I have to turn myself in, I’m endangering the mission. The Sith can feel my presence and know that we’re here. I’ll allow myself to be captured - Vader will take me to the Emperor himself and I will make sure he’s on the Death Star when the attack is launched”.

That would just make Luke a “captain obvious” to those in the audience who cannot make 1+1=2 on their own. On the other hand, it would ruin things in-universe. Luke probably knew and accepted that it was a suicide mission and that he would most likely die if the Death Star was blown off (whether or not Vader was redeemed). Why the hell would he tell such a thing to Leia and make her upset before such a crucial mission she was about to undertake? The way he handled it was very wise; he did not lie but he did not tell her that he is going off on a suicide mission either.

I’m not sure telling her that the guy who tortured her and stood by while her homeworld was obliterated was a) her father and b) strangely worthy of a crack at ‘the good side’, was much better than Luke taking on a heavy mission.

I must be the audience who can’t add 1+1. Luke’s only stated mission is the redemption of Vader. While insane violence is occurring outside, Luke’s primary focus is not losing his cool and avoiding a confrontation with Vader. When he finally kicks Vader’s butt - rather than follow through by doing anything proactive in terms of the war - Luke throws his weapon aside and declares himself a Jedi. People are being incinerated by a super-laser by order of the man standing before him and Luke chooses to disarm himself and declare his own enlightenment. How is any of this remotely helpful to the thousands of sentient beings suffering at the hands of the Imperial juggernaut? What in all this makes anyone think that Jedi Knights are a good idea, especially in a war situation?

Indeed you are the audience member that can’t add 1+1. I’m pretty sure Leia knew that Tarkin and The Emperor had more to do with what happened to her and her homeworld than Vader did (acting within their orders, not questioning them due to extensive brainwashing/basically being their slave). Remember how Vader criticized the Death Star at the meeting? If he was calling the shots, Tarkin and The Emperor wouldn’t have their plaything.

Also, for the “Luke could save so many lives thing,” what’s to say that killing The Emperor will stop the battle? The Star Destroyers, Death Star personnel, and Endor ground troops will still act under their initial orders to fight. Whatever Luke does, many will die in the fight. What he will do really doesn’t impact the battle outside and that’s fine.

Again, I maintain that you’re engaging in bad-faith criticism that really misses the point of the movie and the series, so I respectfully disagree with you.

You seem to be forgetting - as does this movie - who Darth Vader is. This is a guy whose first act in ANH was to lift a man up by his neck and crush his larynx. Vader wasn’t some misunderstood kindly old man. He was a brute and a killer. Sure, he may have questioned the value of the Death Star, but he was by means just an unwilling spectator. Look at the way he murdered everyone who disagreed with him in TESB, or had Han screaming in genuine agony on a torture rack purely to get Luke’s attention.

I know, that’s the entire point. The message of the movie is that anyone can change, even the most feared person in the galaxy. His previous atrocities only reinforce how shocking it is that he was able to return from darkness. It’s very much a hopeful conclusion, not the messed up thing you’re painting it as.

So if you were in Luke’s situation you wouldn’t try to get the Emperor in a headlock and order him to call off the battle? I know I would. So would Han or Chewie or Wedge or Leia or just about anyone who isn’t hung up on space-Buddhism.

Once again, that’s the whole point. The Jedi aren’t like other people in the galaxy, they’re more selfless and nonviolent. Any normal person would just kill Palpatine, but Luke held out hope in Vader until the end, and it paid off. This reinforces Yoda’s teachings in ESB: “A Jedi uses the Force for knowledge and defense, never for attack.” It would be against the spirit of the OT for Luke to just kill Palpatine.

It’s not about what Luke could have done so much as what he should have intended. Again I return to my Ewok party scenario. Let’s say Wedge asks “hey Luke, what happened up there man?”. Luke says “well, I was in the throne room with Vader and the Emperor when Palpatine started blowing our ships up”. Wedge would be like “damn, so you kicked his ass right? 'cos I would’ve kicked his ass man!”. Luke would have to admit “uh, well no, 'cos as a Jedi I’m not really allowed to get angry. I mean I did lose my temper and bring Vader to his knees at one point…”. So Wedge would be like “oh cool, so then you stopped the bad guys right?”. Luke - “uh, not exactly 'cos Vader’s my dad and again, violence is just not in keeping with where I need to be spiritually, so I threw my lightsaber away.” Wedge looks dumbfounded. “But” Luke says “on the plus side this does make me a Jedi so…every cloud…”

Yeah, Luke having to explain all this to his friends would be awkward. But I think they would understand that Luke’s philosophy requires him to be nonviolent whenever possible, and they would take comfort in the fact that Vader and Palpatine are dead, no matter how they died. I certainly don’t think he would be branded a war criminal for it.

Yes, all of this (except like having to explain to his friends being awkward, as I explained in my post earlier).

I also forgot another point I meant to make regarding Luke throwing his lightsaber away. As I mentioned, it’s a way of him checking himself for being tempted to go down the dark path as well as an emotional Hail Mary to appeal to Vader. And it’s an extreme chance to take in his situation, but taking extreme chances is a major trait of the Jedi, OT, PT, and on. Just a few examples: Luke turning off his targeting computer, obi-wan and Yoda trusting Luke to defeat the empire, Luke’s force projection on Crait, Ohio-wan agreeing to train Anakin, etc etc. The Jedi take chances a LOT.

BedeHistory731 said:

StarkillerAG said:

Shopping Maul said:

ray_afraid said:

Shopping Maul said:

ray_afraid said:

Shopping Maul said:

I still maintain that Luke didn’t actually save the galaxy - a fact that renders his entire ‘new hope’ journey somewhat meaningless to me.

Luke was the only one who could get through to Vader. Vader was the only one who could destroy the Emperor.
Without Luke, there’s no hope. He saved the galaxy by redeeming his father. (or, by Returning the Jedi, if you will)

I also hate the sister thing. Luke should have gone off alone in search of “The Other” at the end.

I’ve beat this drum several times in these forums, but the best way to explain my unease wth Luke’s actions is to boil it down to the following - what exactly did Luke tell everyone at the Ewok after-party?

If he’d said “I defeated the Emperor” that would’ve been a lie. He didn’t beat the Emperor. He surrendered and circumstances luckily prevailed in a way that led to Palpatine’s demise. That’s it. What Luke actually did was a) refuse to fight (after a brief and justifiable tantrum), b) spare the life of the second most evil guy in the galaxy because…well, he’s dad, and c) declare himself a Jedi and throw his weapon aside. All of this, by the way, while countless innocent beings were being slaughtered outside.

He probably said “I redeemed my evil father, Just like I told Leia I would & he killed the Emperor.”
All of those actions, or inactions, saved the galaxy. *shrug

And he would’ve found himself hanging from the nearest redwood. How many rebels would’ve lost loved ones and/or had their lives ruined under the jackboots of Vader and his buddies? How thrilled would such folk be to hear that, while Palpatine was killing people by the hundreds with his new weapon, Luke was hiding under a staircase because he didn’t want to lose his temper and risk Vader not going to Jedi Heaven?

Nor can I see why anyone would even consider the possibility of a new Jedi Order based on these actions.

That’s EU anyway. Nowhere in the film does Luke even hint towards restarting anything.
[EDIT- I guess the ST says that Luke went on to do whatever, but that’s not in this film]

Yoda says “pass on what you have learned”. The implication is that Luke will go on teach younglings how to hide under staircases in order to spare the bad guys.

Okay, now it just seems like you’re deliberately misinterpreting the movie. The message the movie was trying to get across was that everyone can change, not that you should hide under a staircase or whatever you said. And the whole “war criminal” thing doesn’t apply, because Star Wars shouldn’t be taken that seriously. It’s a mythic fantasy, not a true story.

Indeed. Shopping Maul’s take sounds like a CinemaSins-level bad-faith interpretation of the movie, fundamentally misunderstanding the whole point about redemption and Luke’s connection to his father. It’s not meant to be a strict reflection of reality, nor should we want it to be. This is a fantasy story, not gritty realism.

Sounds like the best way to interpret ROTJ. The movie isn’t worthy of good faith.

V.I.N.Cent said:

imperialscum said:

oojason said:

imperialscum said:

oojason said:

imperialscum said:

oojason said:

imperialscum said:

oojason said:

Kurtz was also asked to produce Revenge Of The Jedi - which he turned down for the reasons we all know…

That seems extremely unlikely. After falling out with Lucas, it would be ludicrous to think that Lucas would ask him to do anything for him after that.

Like Lucas asking him to stay around until the film was finished? As stated below in your reply to Wook? 😉

I did not want to imply that he was asked to stick around. I implied that they just let him stick around in order not to cause any trouble, like making a complaint to PGA, which could easily doom already fragile situation. 😉

The information that “he was asked to produce ROTJ” only ever came from Kurtz during his interviews (and of course secondary sources that refer to him saying so). I have not seen any other independent source confirming that information. Also, he never specified by WHO he was asked. Maybe by a voice in his head? Unless he was asked by Lucas (which is more or less impossible), it makes the whole thing completely irrelevant.

A ‘voice in his head?’ - no, somebody from Lucasfilm had obviously obviously spoke with Kurtz and offered him Producing work (or credit) on ROTJ - as of 1981, in the official Lucasfilm press release below… to which Kurtz must have agreed to.

This seems like a thing for the public not to question and wonder why he was removed and replaced. Lucasfilm always seemed to have tried to make it look like everything was fine and dandy. We did not even know he was removed until many years afterwards when people investigated behind-the-scenes for books and documentaries. Same goes for many other key figures and events of OT that we had only learned about many years after.

Even if this “Production Consultant” was an actual job (which it was not for sure) instead of just a make-up for the public, it is still by no means any kind of proof that he was offered to actually produce ROTJ. I mean you do not remove a producer in the middle of the film only to then offer him to produce a sequel.

oojason said:

oojason said:

• https://www.jeditemplearchives.com/specialreports/banthatracks/archives/banthatracks11.pdf

^ Bantha Tracks: Issue 11 (official Star Wars Newsletter), dated February 1981, re Revenge Of The Jedi and an official Lucasfilm press release:-

“Gary Kurtz, who produced ‘Star Wars’ and ‘Empire Strikes Back’ will serve as a Production Consultant on ‘Jedi’, while he prepares two of his own projects.”
 

So, not so ‘ludicrous’ as you think or claim, yes? 😉

As to ‘Independent source’? who are you expecting to know outside of Kurtz and high-end Lucasfilm employees that would have know he been offered the job of producing ROTJ? Do we need ‘independent sources’ to confirm Lynch was offered the chance to direct ROTJ, or Cronenberg etc?

The who and the when are irrelevant in the context of Kurtz stating he was asked to produce ROTJ - the statements came the man himself - to which nobody from Lucasfilm has challenged any of them - including George. You believe a professional and highly regarded producer (a job which requires inordinate levels of trust & professionalism) and would make continuous false claims he was offered the producer job for a famous film… when at any time the said employer - or employees - could turn around and deny it? His reputation and credibility would likely be ruined.

In fact, would a be a ‘ludicrous’ thing for Kurtz to claim… if it was not true, yes? 😉

Like said above, Lucasfilm extremely rarely challenged anything or anyone in order to keep things appear fine and dandy. In his later interviews, Kurtz seemed very resentful of his removal, so it would not surprise me if he made it up. After all, he did use ideas from Lucas’ pre-SW drafts and tried to present them as if they were ROTJ draft (when it actually did not exist in any form at the time). Also, he tried to claim that he left because he did not like the direction in which the saga was going in order to try to cover the fact that he was fired because the production was hugely over-budget and over-schedule. 😉

‘Seems’ is a word - often a guess - people use when they wish to use / value a narrative or opinion etc over or contrary to fact or evidence.

As for your book claims… most strange… as you stated previously it is also years after the event that Kurtz gave his, so far, undisputed account.

And we know for a fact that Rinzler’s ‘Making Of’ books contained retcons & revisionism (at the request of George himself, according to Rinzler) - and also omitted or downplayed people’s contributions to the making of the films (even the author himself as to the Lippincott interviews / archive).

You also stated it would be ‘ludicrous’ for Lucasfilm to have anything to do with Kurtz (after your claim of him being removed and replaced / Kurtz sending in his resignation letter) - and yet when presented with a document of Lucasfilm crediting Kurtz as a Production Consultant just two years later for ROTJ… you now claim this is ‘just a make-up for the public’.

Not forgetting the official ‘Once Upon A Galaxy: Making of Empire Strikes Back’ book… which has Kurtz involved in post-production on Empire - you should really give that a read as to Kurtz’ work on Empire throughout the whole process, it is quite illuminating.
 

Available evidence and facts don’t cease to exist because they are ignored. For many, they also remain above opinion and speculation - though you are most to welcome to your opinion 😉
 

(I’ll have to leave it there - though found it fun; especially the gap-filling guesswork and dismissal of statements and documents contrary to it. Let me know if you do ever find proof to back up your opinions to continue this 😃 )
 

In return, you provided some obscure fan club newsletter material to base your conclusions on (btw “Production Consultant” or whatever is not a Producer by any means) along with a bunch of opinions of your own that you claim as facts. In response to that fan club newsletter material, I can provide the film credits of ROTJ. I am sure if they listed just about every assistant of an assistant, he should be there somewhere, right?

At least we agree that this debate is pointless to continue. 😉

Dude, ooj provided a link to image of an official Lucasfilm press release from 1981 where Kurtz was credited as a ‘Production Consultant’ at the time - within a Bantha Tracks fan club article. ooj links to content like that so you know what you are going to be clicking on.

Of course Kurtz didn’t appear in the credits in ROTJ, becuase things changed over time - ooj never claimed otherwise. He was illustraing how ‘ludricous’ and wrong your earlier claim was that Lucas would have nothing do with Kurtz after ‘removing and replacing’ (your words and claim) him on Empire, and there was a working relationship there between them.

Are you trying to rubbish the actual Lucasfilm press release, or ooj posting a link to it via Bantha Tracks?
 

Considering he has highlighted how you use your opinion as a narrative, while ignoring statments and documents that conflict with them, and also twist words to give credence to your claim, it does appear you are bent on doubling down and carrying on.

I hope you do - this IS fun!

I see you’ve meet imperialscum.

DuracellEnergizer said:

BedeHistory731 said:

StarkillerAG said:

Shopping Maul said:

ray_afraid said:

Shopping Maul said:

ray_afraid said:

Shopping Maul said:

I still maintain that Luke didn’t actually save the galaxy - a fact that renders his entire ‘new hope’ journey somewhat meaningless to me.

Luke was the only one who could get through to Vader. Vader was the only one who could destroy the Emperor.
Without Luke, there’s no hope. He saved the galaxy by redeeming his father. (or, by Returning the Jedi, if you will)

I also hate the sister thing. Luke should have gone off alone in search of “The Other” at the end.

I’ve beat this drum several times in these forums, but the best way to explain my unease wth Luke’s actions is to boil it down to the following - what exactly did Luke tell everyone at the Ewok after-party?

If he’d said “I defeated the Emperor” that would’ve been a lie. He didn’t beat the Emperor. He surrendered and circumstances luckily prevailed in a way that led to Palpatine’s demise. That’s it. What Luke actually did was a) refuse to fight (after a brief and justifiable tantrum), b) spare the life of the second most evil guy in the galaxy because…well, he’s dad, and c) declare himself a Jedi and throw his weapon aside. All of this, by the way, while countless innocent beings were being slaughtered outside.

He probably said “I redeemed my evil father, Just like I told Leia I would & he killed the Emperor.”
All of those actions, or inactions, saved the galaxy. *shrug

And he would’ve found himself hanging from the nearest redwood. How many rebels would’ve lost loved ones and/or had their lives ruined under the jackboots of Vader and his buddies? How thrilled would such folk be to hear that, while Palpatine was killing people by the hundreds with his new weapon, Luke was hiding under a staircase because he didn’t want to lose his temper and risk Vader not going to Jedi Heaven?

Nor can I see why anyone would even consider the possibility of a new Jedi Order based on these actions.

That’s EU anyway. Nowhere in the film does Luke even hint towards restarting anything.
[EDIT- I guess the ST says that Luke went on to do whatever, but that’s not in this film]

Yoda says “pass on what you have learned”. The implication is that Luke will go on teach younglings how to hide under staircases in order to spare the bad guys.

Okay, now it just seems like you’re deliberately misinterpreting the movie. The message the movie was trying to get across was that everyone can change, not that you should hide under a staircase or whatever you said. And the whole “war criminal” thing doesn’t apply, because Star Wars shouldn’t be taken that seriously. It’s a mythic fantasy, not a true story.

Indeed. Shopping Maul’s take sounds like a CinemaSins-level bad-faith interpretation of the movie, fundamentally misunderstanding the whole point about redemption and Luke’s connection to his father. It’s not meant to be a strict reflection of reality, nor should we want it to be. This is a fantasy story, not gritty realism.

Sounds like the best way to interpret ROTJ. The movie isn’t worthy of good faith.

I beg to differ. Your posts reek of toxicity. Whenever I read your posts here, the general attitude is that you think you’re better than people who like media that you dislike. You may have some good points, but I find you utterly insufferable.

BedeHistory731 said:

Your posts reek of toxicity.

Forced to live in a capitalist hellscape can do that to a person.

Whenever I read your posts here, the general attitude is that you think you’re better than people who like media that you dislike.

If I felt that, I’d say that. Don’t mistake my contempt for the art for comptempt for those who like the art.

You may have some good points, but I find you utterly insufferable.

Very well.

DuracellEnergizer said:

BedeHistory731 said:

Your posts reek of toxicity.

Forced to live in a capitalist hellscape can do that to a person.

Whenever I read your posts here, the general attitude is that you think you’re better than people who like media that you dislike.

If I felt that, I’d say that. Don’t mistake my contempt for the art for comptempt for those who like the art.

You may have some good points, but I find you utterly insufferable.

Very well.

Point one: fair, but you don’t have to take it out on us. There are healthier ways to handle it.

Point two: I firmly remember you belittling people who liked SC. 38 Reimagined. You apologized, but I thought it was a true indication of your character. That may be unfair, but your posts have such a smug sense of superiority to them that I believe it.

SilverWook said:

canofhumdingers said:

StarkillerAG said:

Shopping Maul said:

BedeHistory731 said:

Shopping Maul said:

imperialscum said:

Shopping Maul said:

I’ve said this before but a simple dialogue tweak would fix this. If Luke had said to Leia “I have to turn myself in, I’m endangering the mission. The Sith can feel my presence and know that we’re here. I’ll allow myself to be captured - Vader will take me to the Emperor himself and I will make sure he’s on the Death Star when the attack is launched”.

That would just make Luke a “captain obvious” to those in the audience who cannot make 1+1=2 on their own. On the other hand, it would ruin things in-universe. Luke probably knew and accepted that it was a suicide mission and that he would most likely die if the Death Star was blown off (whether or not Vader was redeemed). Why the hell would he tell such a thing to Leia and make her upset before such a crucial mission she was about to undertake? The way he handled it was very wise; he did not lie but he did not tell her that he is going off on a suicide mission either.

I’m not sure telling her that the guy who tortured her and stood by while her homeworld was obliterated was a) her father and b) strangely worthy of a crack at ‘the good side’, was much better than Luke taking on a heavy mission.

I must be the audience who can’t add 1+1. Luke’s only stated mission is the redemption of Vader. While insane violence is occurring outside, Luke’s primary focus is not losing his cool and avoiding a confrontation with Vader. When he finally kicks Vader’s butt - rather than follow through by doing anything proactive in terms of the war - Luke throws his weapon aside and declares himself a Jedi. People are being incinerated by a super-laser by order of the man standing before him and Luke chooses to disarm himself and declare his own enlightenment. How is any of this remotely helpful to the thousands of sentient beings suffering at the hands of the Imperial juggernaut? What in all this makes anyone think that Jedi Knights are a good idea, especially in a war situation?

Indeed you are the audience member that can’t add 1+1. I’m pretty sure Leia knew that Tarkin and The Emperor had more to do with what happened to her and her homeworld than Vader did (acting within their orders, not questioning them due to extensive brainwashing/basically being their slave). Remember how Vader criticized the Death Star at the meeting? If he was calling the shots, Tarkin and The Emperor wouldn’t have their plaything.

Also, for the “Luke could save so many lives thing,” what’s to say that killing The Emperor will stop the battle? The Star Destroyers, Death Star personnel, and Endor ground troops will still act under their initial orders to fight. Whatever Luke does, many will die in the fight. What he will do really doesn’t impact the battle outside and that’s fine.

Again, I maintain that you’re engaging in bad-faith criticism that really misses the point of the movie and the series, so I respectfully disagree with you.

You seem to be forgetting - as does this movie - who Darth Vader is. This is a guy whose first act in ANH was to lift a man up by his neck and crush his larynx. Vader wasn’t some misunderstood kindly old man. He was a brute and a killer. Sure, he may have questioned the value of the Death Star, but he was by means just an unwilling spectator. Look at the way he murdered everyone who disagreed with him in TESB, or had Han screaming in genuine agony on a torture rack purely to get Luke’s attention.

I know, that’s the entire point. The message of the movie is that anyone can change, even the most feared person in the galaxy. His previous atrocities only reinforce how shocking it is that he was able to return from darkness. It’s very much a hopeful conclusion, not the messed up thing you’re painting it as.

So if you were in Luke’s situation you wouldn’t try to get the Emperor in a headlock and order him to call off the battle? I know I would. So would Han or Chewie or Wedge or Leia or just about anyone who isn’t hung up on space-Buddhism.

Once again, that’s the whole point. The Jedi aren’t like other people in the galaxy, they’re more selfless and nonviolent. Any normal person would just kill Palpatine, but Luke held out hope in Vader until the end, and it paid off. This reinforces Yoda’s teachings in ESB: “A Jedi uses the Force for knowledge and defense, never for attack.” It would be against the spirit of the OT for Luke to just kill Palpatine.

It’s not about what Luke could have done so much as what he should have intended. Again I return to my Ewok party scenario. Let’s say Wedge asks “hey Luke, what happened up there man?”. Luke says “well, I was in the throne room with Vader and the Emperor when Palpatine started blowing our ships up”. Wedge would be like “damn, so you kicked his ass right? 'cos I would’ve kicked his ass man!”. Luke would have to admit “uh, well no, 'cos as a Jedi I’m not really allowed to get angry. I mean I did lose my temper and bring Vader to his knees at one point…”. So Wedge would be like “oh cool, so then you stopped the bad guys right?”. Luke - “uh, not exactly 'cos Vader’s my dad and again, violence is just not in keeping with where I need to be spiritually, so I threw my lightsaber away.” Wedge looks dumbfounded. “But” Luke says “on the plus side this does make me a Jedi so…every cloud…”

Yeah, Luke having to explain all this to his friends would be awkward. But I think they would understand that Luke’s philosophy requires him to be nonviolent whenever possible, and they would take comfort in the fact that Vader and Palpatine are dead, no matter how they died. I certainly don’t think he would be branded a war criminal for it.

Yes, all of this (except like having to explain to his friends being awkward, as I explained in my post earlier).

I also forgot another point I meant to make regarding Luke throwing his lightsaber away. As I mentioned, it’s a way of him checking himself for being tempted to go down the dark path as well as an emotional Hail Mary to appeal to Vader. And it’s an extreme chance to take in his situation, but taking extreme chances is a major trait of the Jedi, OT, PT, and on. Just a few examples: Luke turning off his targeting computer, obi-wan and Yoda trusting Luke to defeat the empire, Luke’s force projection on Crait, Ohio-wan agreeing to train Anakin, etc etc. The Jedi take chances a LOT.

Ohio-Wan??

Autocorrect. darn iphone

BedeHistory731 said:

I firmly remember you belittling people who liked SC. 38 Reimagined. You apologized, but I thought it was a true indication of your character. That may be unfair, but your posts have such a smug sense of superiority to them that I believe it.

A lot of people have taste for things I dislike or an indifferent towards. Sometimes I simply fail to understand how they could derive any enjoyment from those things. Overall, though, I’m content to say “different strokes for different folks”. Yeah, there are times when I have an especially bad day, when I let my cheekiness devolve into cantankerousness and I’m needlessly rude/cruel towards those people. I’ve made an concentrated effort to avoid those slip-ups, but they still happen time-to-time.

But hey, you want to assume the worst of me? Go right ahead. It’s only par for the course.

SilverWook said:

Ohio-Wan??

Yes, the highly-acclaimed padawan of Qui-Gon Jinndiana

ray_afraid said:

Duracell is good people, Bede.
You seem to be too. I think you just got the wrong idea.

Fair enough. I’ve just had bad experiences on fan forums. It leads me to lash out.

“Fan Forums” are one of the worst possible ways to “know” anyone, or build any sort of accurate picture of a person. Conversations about Star Wars aren’t a great basis for determining what a person’s character is like, and there’s not a lot of upside to looking at those conversations in that light, anyway. It doesn’t really make the conversation any better, usually doesn’t increase any understanding of the movies, and mostly just leads you to put way too much weight on something (disposable conversations with strangers about space movies) that just isn’t built to carry that much weight.

I don’t know that I agree that ‘toxic’ needs to stop being used as a descriptor, if only because it CAN apply very well… the problem is that a huge part of WHY it applies is because people DO approach disposable conversations with strangers about space movies with such misplaced energy and importance that it ends up warping perspective, to the point where real toxicity can occur. But usually it’s a pretty long walk between “jeez, that guy is annoying” to “jeez, that guy is TOXIC.”

But even then, that doesn’t mean anyone here can paint a really accurate picture of anyone else’s personality based solely on the very small, focused, and mostly inconsequential (and anonymous) glimpses being given through “Star Wars” talks. Most everyone here has a whole LIFE outside of liking Star Wars that is bigger, and way more important than this, and we’ll never really know about it beyond the surface. Toxicity can be a temporary condition, too, and if you find yourself getting upset at other people’s opinions on Star Wars, in my experience, that just means its time to stop and reflect on what you’re putting into this, and what you’re getting out of it, and whether there’s an imbalance that needs to be tended to on YOUR end.

Apologies for being off topic. Just wanted to speak a little from my perspective, having seen (and been in) so many of these sorts of scuffles and fights over the years.

To sum up: Ewoks are awesome, Yub Nub is the best, “Return of the Jedi” is referencing Luke, celebrate the love, keep balance in the Force.

Dek Rollins said:

Broom Kid said:

I don’t know that I agree that ‘toxic’ needs to stop being used as a descriptor, if only because it CAN apply very well… the problem is that a huge part of WHY it applies is because people DO approach disposable conversations with strangers about space movies with such misplaced energy and importance that it ends up warping perspective, to the point where real toxicity can occur. But usually it’s a pretty long walk between “jeez, that guy is annoying” to “jeez, that guy is TOXIC.”

But even then, that doesn’t mean anyone here can paint a really accurate picture of anyone else’s personality based solely on the very small, focused, and mostly inconsequential (and anonymous) glimpses being given through “Star Wars” talks. Most everyone here has a whole LIFE outside of liking Star Wars that is bigger, and way more important than this, and we’ll never really know about it beyond the surface. Toxicity can be a temporary condition, too, and if you find yourself getting upset at other people’s opinions on Star Wars, in my experience, that just means its time to stop and reflect on what you’re putting into this, and what you’re getting out of it, and whether there’s an imbalance that needs to be tended to on YOUR end.

That word is almost always used when someone has a negative opinion about something someone else likes. DE calls ROTJ bad, he must be TOXIC. It’s meaningless at this point. Anyone who calls someone else toxic immediately looks like someone I don’t want to talk to anymore, even if that isn’t really the case.

OK, I apologize for using that word and rushing to judgment.

BedeHistory731 said:

Dek Rollins said:

Broom Kid said:

I don’t know that I agree that ‘toxic’ needs to stop being used as a descriptor, if only because it CAN apply very well… the problem is that a huge part of WHY it applies is because people DO approach disposable conversations with strangers about space movies with such misplaced energy and importance that it ends up warping perspective, to the point where real toxicity can occur. But usually it’s a pretty long walk between “jeez, that guy is annoying” to “jeez, that guy is TOXIC.”

But even then, that doesn’t mean anyone here can paint a really accurate picture of anyone else’s personality based solely on the very small, focused, and mostly inconsequential (and anonymous) glimpses being given through “Star Wars” talks. Most everyone here has a whole LIFE outside of liking Star Wars that is bigger, and way more important than this, and we’ll never really know about it beyond the surface. Toxicity can be a temporary condition, too, and if you find yourself getting upset at other people’s opinions on Star Wars, in my experience, that just means its time to stop and reflect on what you’re putting into this, and what you’re getting out of it, and whether there’s an imbalance that needs to be tended to on YOUR end.

That word is almost always used when someone has a negative opinion about something someone else likes. DE calls ROTJ bad, he must be TOXIC. It’s meaningless at this point. Anyone who calls someone else toxic immediately looks like someone I don’t want to talk to anymore, even if that isn’t really the case.

OK, I apologize for using that word and rushing to judgment.

Maybe we should say. “Bantha Poodoo”?

DE calls ROTJ bad, hes “Bantha Poodoo”.

I am joking, mostly.

I suppose it’s time to make a permanent exit from this thread. My low regard for ROTJ is clear by now; there’s no point continuing my snarky remarks. I’ll try keeping to the areas of the forum where my cynicism is less liable to flare up.

canofhumdingers said:

Chalk me up as another respectful disagree-er, Mr. Maul. I feel like you’re intentionally twisting things to make your interpretation work.

Luke was warned multiple times to be wary of the emperor and his power. I think the movie makes it pretty obvious he goes in there knowing his only chance of beating the emperor is by turning Vader back so they can work together (just as Vader argued in ESB, but with both of them on the light side rather than the dark). His focus is on turning Vader because that’s both important to him personally AND crucial to his plan. And he takes the huge gamble at the end by throwing his weapon away. It’s his Hail Mary pass to get Vader to turn, and it works. Which also serves multiple purposes.

This is a nice interpretation (I’m not being sarcastic) but there is nothing in the movie that indicates this is what Luke is thinking. He states very plainly to Leia that his intentions are a) to turn himself in because he’s a liability and b) to bring Vader back to ‘the good side’. Everything he does bears this out. There’s nothing about distracting Palpatine or defeating the Sith.

He had just lost his temper and beaten his father in anger, and stepped very close to the edge of turning dark himself. Throwing away his weapon was also him checking himself in that moment and stepping back from the edge.

Had he lost his temper? Or had he acted in self-defence (or more specifically defence of Leia and the rebellion)? This is where the ROTJ version of the Dark Side becomes silly. In the prequels Anakin was tempted by fear and power, and made choices that he felt he couldn’t retreat from. In TROS Rey is tempted by the acceptance of power as an only means to save her friends. In ROTJ the Dark Side is merely getting angry. Luke had every right to kick Vader’s butt. He also had every right (and I’d say an obligation) to do everything he could to stop these monsters from killing more people. Just throwing his weapon aside and saying “ha ha you can’t make me angry” might be a nice piece of Zen, but it’s completely useless as a means to defeat evil and is of no value whatsoever to the thousands being slaughtered outside. Even if Luke was hoping Vader would pitch in (there’s nothing to indicate this is the case) he was taking an awful gamble with people’s lives just so he could get Vader a bedside conversion.

As for his plan to help the rebellion, I see no major fault. He’s kind of the ace in the hole in a sense. If they blow up the DS2, then he’s made a noble self sacrifice. If they don’t, then he may still be able to cut off the head of the snake, so to speak, which would be a huge blow to the Empire even if it’s not a total defeat.

Again I see nothing to indicate Luke considers himself an ace in the hole. His words and actions bear out his intentions - he wanted to save Vader above all else. He threw his weapon away. This is not the action of someone whose desire is to cut off the snake’s head.

But as others have pointed out, there’s no way Luke would’ve succeeded or even survived a straight up face-to-face fight with Palps. And as I mentioned, Luke knew that. This was a game of chess, not dodgeball. It was far more a mental fight than physical. And Luke distracting the emperor from the battle outside and successfully appealing to the conflict within Vader was the master play. And he succeeded.

I do like this interpretation but again, I don’t think this is what the film is saying. Everything about ROTJ is kind of dumbed down - the Dark Side is reduced to mere anger, Palpatine’s seduction is absurd (why would Luke take Vader’s place? Even if Luke had killed Vader in anger, there was absolutely no reason to assume he’d then be pals with the Emperor), and the film entirely forgets that Vader was a bad guy. Other posters here keep saying it’s an indication of how much someone (ie Vader) can change - and I get that - but it ignores the injustice of Vader being given this chance even as he is complicit in a slaughter occurring right at that very moment. That’s why I keep giving the Ewok party mock-scenario - not because I actually believe Luke would have told his story, but because it shows how this whole thing would actually appear to someone who doesn’t have this emotional connection to Vader and/or this ludicrous need to never show anger lest it impede religious doctrine.

He wouldn’t tell wedge “I hid under the stairs and threw my weapon away”. He’d tell him about the intense cerebral fight he was in to outsmart the emperor and the emotional roller coaster he went thru to get his father (one of the most evil people in the galaxy at that point) to repent from his evil ways, rejoin the light, and defeat the evil before them. If he told wedge anything at all, b/c as others have stated, Luke had no reason to need to justify his actions to anyone by that point.

Yes, but if he did happen to to tell the stairs story he’d get some pretty quizzical looks, and with good reason. Because a normal person would hold Vader and the Emperor accountable. A normal person would go down fighting. This “yeah but he was my dad” thing coupled with the “as a Jedi I’m not allowed to get mad” thing would not sit well with normal people, especially people who had lost loved ones and lives to these monsters. That’s the point. If Jedi really are so constrained, then perhaps Jedi aren’t a great idea after all.

I can extend the Ewok party analogy to Rey and come out squeaky clean. Let’s say Rey’s partying on not-Yavin after the battle of Exigol. Hobbit-boy asks her what happened. She says “I fought Palpatine and by the grace of the Force I won”. Now Luke could say the same I guess. But then Hobbit-boy asks for details. Rey comes out shining. No ‘stairs’, no “I hesitated 'cos anger is bad”, no “I spared everyone and threw my weapon aside”. And more importantly Rey’s actions absolutely impacted the battle. At best Luke prevented Palpatine’s early escape form the exploding DS, but this was more or less by virtue of how things played out, not because of any plan or actions on Luke’s part. I know you say that Luke had a chess-like master plan but there’s nothing in the film that indicates this is true.

I do like your interpretation though and I wish ROTJ reflected this more strongly.