Shopping Maul said:
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.
To each their own. I personally thought it was very obvious from the movie. Luke is warned by Yoda that Palpatine is too powerful for him to defeat, which means he can’t just kill the guy. Instead, he chooses to use his hopes of redeeming his father as a way to help kill Palpatine. He has the same mindset as Vader in ESB, but uses it for good instead of evil.
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.
Once again, I feel like you’re thinking in terms of “real life”, rather than in terms of story and themes. The whole philosophy of the Jedi (at least before the EU turned them into badass lightsaber-wielding ninjas) is that you should always choose the nonviolent option. Instead of Force choking Vader and Palpatine, or helping the Rebels kill stormtroopers, he chooses to find a way to both definitively end Palpatine’s reign and bring his father back to the light in one fell swoop. That’s one of the saga’s best illustrations of the Jedi philosophy, which is much more in the style of mythic fantasy rather than macho action.
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.
But that’s not what the movie is saying at all. Palpatine was the one who thought that showing anger once leads to eternal darkness, and he turned out to be wrong when Luke professed himself to be a Jedi and Vader turned back to the light. The core message of the movie (and the saga in general) is that everyone can change, that your mistakes don’t define your life. If you think the villain’s motivation is the main message of the movie, then you’re interpreting it wrong.
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.
But Rey’s defeat of Palpatine is an entirely different situation. Palpatine was the only person there, and Ben only showed up for 2 minutes before being incapacitated. At that point, her only choice was violence. Also, the reason she was able to defeat Palpatine by her own was because the Jedi of the past gave their power to her. Without that, she would have died. Since Luke didn’t have that kind of power boost, his only hope was to redeem Vader.