Basically, in the Gospels, Jesus’ disciples think he is going to violently overthrow the oppressive Roman Empire and lead them to freedom. Instead, Jesus allows himself to be sacrificially killed in order to restore Mankind’s relationship with God, Nature, and other Human Beings by defeating Sin, Death, and Evil on the cross. In STAR WARS, the Jedi in the Prequels and the Rebel Alliance in the OT try to defeat evil politically and through warfare, but the real victory comes when Luke and Anakin both sacrifice themselves to defeat the Emperor.
Of course Star Wars is a myth, and therefore falls under very supernatural logic. I’m very much in agreement that Star Wars needs to be treated more like a myth then pure sci-fi.
There are plenty of times in the Bible where good things happen violently. There’s more violence in the Bible then most stories. The Hebrew God is very violent, and it’s always portrayed as righteous.
Jesus’ sacrifice is entirely about giving people who have sinned a path to heaven, nothing to do with the fall of the Roman Empire.
The two demon space Nazis didn’t stop being demon space Nazis because Luke preached love. He tries with Vader and fails.
Christian mythology isn’t the only one Star Wars is based on. There’s also lots of classical mythology infused into it. And the Greek and Roman gods were anything but pacifists. Heracles (the demigod Son of Zeus, the King of the Gods) proved himself as a hero through violent trials.
I’d even argue Star Wars’ equivalent to demigods (the Skywalkers) harkens a lot more to Heracles then Jesus, with the exception of the Chosen One thing.The OT is still about restoring man and defeating sin (though replace relationship with God with the Force), but it doesn’t wholesale reject violence. And violence can be committed out of loving sacrifice. They’re not mutually exclusive.
Luke wins when he defeats Vader, but refuses to give into the dark side.
The Rebellion ultimate wins when Anakin kills the Emperor. It’s a loving self-sacrifice, but still a violent solution, and it saves the galaxy.Does Luke’s decision to lay down his weapon make sense? No.
I wasn’t criticizing the story, I was pointing out that Luke made a mistake. Which is good writing, it’s consistent with the portrayal of his character.
It wasn’t smart of him to let his guard down in front of the Emperor. If it wasn’t for what was practically a miracle (a genocidal tyrant deciding to be selfless for his son), the Rebellion would’ve lost.
Neither did his decision not to kill the Ewoks that captured him and Han a few scenes prior.
Because he knew he had to win the Ewoks to his side if they were to beat the Empire. He realized there was a higher purpose for them and gained their trust.
Starting a war with the Ewoks whilst already fighting the Empire would be terrible.Both of those irrational decisions lead to the Force being brought back into balance, whereas Anakin’s rational decision to try to save Padme from death, led him down a dark path.
That was not a rational decision. He made that decision out of power-hunger, a desire to cheat death.
And the way it’s portrayed in the Prequels makes him look like a moron. He trusts a guy who admits to lying to him his whole life based on some legend that he has no evidence of.
Meanwhile, when Vader tried to convert Luke, not only did he actually tell him the truth (that he can sense through the Force is true), but Luke actually has reason to believe Vader will hold up his end of the deal.The way to solve this, I think, is to portray it as dark side addiction more broadly (like Luke), and emphasize that the Sith have always been searching for the secret to cheat death.
Anakin would find ancient Sith holocrons and scrolls describing their goal of immortality (for both himself and his loved ones). Intrigued, he starts experimenting with the dark side, and becomes addicted to it.
He knows the dark side is the only path to what he wants, it’s about subverting nature, while the light side is about respecting it (being a Force ghost isn’t what they want, as they “release” themselves, essentially becoming pure agents of the Force).
Also, Palpatine would outright say, “I want the power as much as you do. Join me and we’ll find it together.”There several parallels to Frankenstein and the other Gothic monsters, as well as Doctor Faustus. The dark side is the Devil’s work.
Anakin is both Victor Frankenstein and his Creature: in becoming Darth Vader, he becomes his own monster out of his selfish ambition to cheat death. And like Victor, its done out of ego and greed.
Even Vader’s “If you only knew the power of the dark side!” line is a parallel to the Invisible Man’s power-hungry rant to Flora from the 1933 classic.In this way Obi-Wan’s destruction of Darth Maul wasn’t wrong, but it didn’t lead to the Force being brought back into balance, rather it continued the cycle of violence.
It didn’t bring balance to the Force because Maul wasn’t behind everything, Palpatine was.
It also didn’t continue anything. There’s 10 years of peace after. It actually put a setback in Sidious’ plans, only remedied because a Jedi with Separatist sentiments decided to become evil.The Biblical/Christian narrative logic is that the restoration of loving relationships between God, Man, and Nature, and the destruction of violent cycles doesn’t come through victory in battle or politics, but through loving sacrifice. That is why the “victory” in Lord of the Rings comes through Frodo’s sacrifice, not Aragorn’s victory in battle.
Frodo beats Sauron because he pushes Gollum off a cliff. Nobody could resist the strength of the ring that close to the volcano. Gollum basically accidentally saved Middle Earth.
And Aragon’s violent solution was necessary, otherwise Sauron’s minions would’ve murdered Frodo and Sam the second they entered Mordor. Just like the events of ROTJ couldn’t have happened without the Battle of Yavin or Endor.
Aragorn was going into to battle knowing he could potentially die. He was, for all intents and purposes, lovingly sacrificing himself. He was fighting for love of the people of Middle Earth, for Frodo, not out of hatred for Sauron. It’s honorable.
I think we’re in violent agreement on most things, haha! At least as far as STAR WARS and LotR goes. Your gloss of LotR is absolutely correct. I am merely saying that the sacrificial act of Frodo taking the Ring to Mount Doom was the focus of the reason good triumphed, not the all inclusive reason (Gollum tripping is the final reason that the ring was physically destroyed, but to Frodo’s credit he did get it 99.9% of the way there). The same goes for STAR WARS, Luke and Anakin’s sacrifice is the focus, not the all-inclusive reason that the Empire falls (I mean c’mon Lando and Wedge did their part!). When I edit, I try to shape the narrative around the primary focus and then align all the secondary and tertiary ideas to the main thread. Part of what makes STAR WARS so rich is how George weaves all sorts of myths and references together, which you did a great job laying out. And while George references a ridiculous number of mythologies ala Joseph Campbell, the core logic for the narrative structure is distinctly Christian, so I find it helpful to use that “Christian Scaffolding” to keep the plot and the characters consistent and cohesive, which is exactly what Tolkien did to tie together Gollum/Aragorn/Frodo at the end of LotR.
One of the things I didn’t mention is that I massively overhauled Palpatine and Anakin’s relationship across all 6 films, to make the “main thread” more clear and consistent. It’ll take way too long for me to go through all those changes here, but I look forward to seeing what you think once I finish that episode of the YouTube Show. I think a lot more of what I’m going for will make sense once you have that key change in mind.
From an academic standpoint, we’re gonna disagree on Jesus, lol! But your gloss is the popularly held view (George used a version of Christianity closer to the one I was trying to explain). I have the misfortune of being a Literature Major who accidently minored in Theology (who in their right mind takes a course called “Apocalyptic Literature in Anglo-Saxon England”?), and I would argue that “Going to Heaven” was not something a 1st century follower of Jesus would have been terribly concerned about. His initial followers were much more concerned with the Kingdom of God coming to Earth (where Rome is) as it is in Heaven, but I don’t wanna sidetrack this thread, haha! So if you wanna talk more 1st Century Theology PM me. 😃