logo Sign In

What do you think of The Prequel Trilogy? A general discussion. — Page 24

Author
Time

JadedSkywalker said:

I don’t believe in the doctrine of attachment it was made up on the prequel. It exists literally nowhere in the original trilogy or the expanded universe before episode II. In fact Luke wins because he doesn’t follow what Ben and Yoda told him, his attachment to his father turns the tide of the war bringing Anakin back to the light.

I disagree. Luke rejects allowing his connections be used to control him in ROTJ. He literally throws his lightsaber down rather than allow Palpatine and Vader to use those he cares about to get him to compromise. Palpatine taunts Luke using the deaths of those he cares about, arguably his attachments. Vader taunts Luke with the idea of him getting to Leia. Both moments lead Luke to lash out and act in compromise. Luke’s moment of heroism is him rejecting that being used against him.

Vladius said:

You’re correct that it was made up in 2002 for Attack of the Clones. But nothing about what Obi Wan or Yoda told Luke in the OT applies to it either.

They both suggest to Luke that it’s more important for him to focus on the mission than allow his feelings for his friends to compromise him. They don’t use the word attachment, but I think the idea of it is there.

Personally, I think this addition to the story harms nothing, but adds to it and makes the Jedi specific in their focus and goals.

Author
Time

Dagenspear said:

JadedSkywalker said:

I don’t believe in the doctrine of attachment it was made up on the prequel. It exists literally nowhere in the original trilogy or the expanded universe before episode II. In fact Luke wins because he doesn’t follow what Ben and Yoda told him, his attachment to his father turns the tide of the war bringing Anakin back to the light.

I disagree. Luke rejects allowing his connections be used to control him in ROTJ. He literally throws his lightsaber down rather than allow Palpatine and Vader to use those he cares about to get him to compromise. Palpatine taunts Luke using the deaths of those he cares about, arguably his attachments. Vader taunts Luke with the idea of him getting to Leia. Both moments lead Luke to lash out and act in compromise. Luke’s moment of heroism is him rejecting that being used against him.

Vladius said:

You’re correct that it was made up in 2002 for Attack of the Clones. But nothing about what Obi Wan or Yoda told Luke in the OT applies to it either.

They both suggest to Luke that it’s more important for him to focus on the mission than allow his feelings for his friends to compromise him. They don’t use the word attachment, but I think the idea of it is there.

Personally, I think this addition to the story harms nothing, but adds to it and makes the Jedi specific in their focus and goals.

I think there’s an argument either way - Luke is warned by Obi-wan to bury his feelings deep, lest they be used by the Emperor, and they are indeed used that way. Luke tossing away his sword could be read as a rejection of his attachment to his friends, and this reading would vindicate Obi-wan’s warning.

However, I think it’s important to note Luke’s words in this moment. He doesn’t say anything about giving up his friends, accepting their deaths, or acting as an emotionless island of calm; no, his words are ‘I am a Jedi…like my father before me.’ He is standing over the body of his father, still believing in the ultimate goodness of the man despite all of Vader’s actions to the contrary.

I would argue that while Vader and the Emperor have been threatening Luke’s friends in general and Leia in particular in order to goad Luke into attacking, the true test has always been whether Luke loses faith in his father. This is because Luke’s entire journey to becoming a Jedi was predicated on the myth of his father, the heroic Jedi Knight. If this myth can be shattered, if Luke comes to believe that even the greatest Jedi can be corrupted, then Luke himself must fall.

And so when Luke declares ‘I am a Jedi…like my father before me’, he is affirming that some core of Anakin Skywalker was never corrupted by the Emperor, and thus Luke is impervious to the Emperor’s tricks as well. Luke is choosing to place his faith in his father, declaring a connection in that moment between father and son that none of his mentors believed could still exist.

This reading, I think, even adds depth to the precept of ‘no attachments’ in the prequels. One interpretation of events is that Anakin’s selfish love turned him to evil, and that Anakin should have listened to his mentors and abandoned Padme to her fate. But in another reading, it was the Jedi’s teaching of non-attachment that caused them to become isolated and vulnerable, and that led Anakin to reject the Jedi when their teaching conflicted with his love. In this reading, Yoda’s teaching was in the wrong, and when Yoda repeats his mistake with Luke, it is only Luke’s independence and relative lack of training that saves him from the pitfall that doomed his father.

In the end, I think the question to ask is, what is more likely: that Luke, whose primary character trait throughout the OT is that he will do anything to save his friends, is suddenly able to emotionally distance himself from those friends enough to defy the Emperor? Or is it more likely that Luke, who has been proclaiming the goodness of his father the entire film, is able to persevere in that faith until the end? I think that the latter interpretation is more valid, and I think if you asked a random viewer in 1983, you would probably hear the same.

You probably don’t recognize me because of the red arm.
Episode 9 Rewrite, The Starlight Project (Released!) and Terminator Ultimatum,

Author
Time

Superweapon VII said:

Spartacus01 said:

Vladius said:

JadedSkywalker said:

I don’t believe in the doctrine of attachment it was made up on the prequel. It exists literally nowhere in the original trilogy or the expanded universe before episode II. In fact Luke wins because he doesn’t follow what Ben and Yoda told him, his attachment to his father turns the tide of the war bringing Anakin back to the light.

You’re correct that it was made up in 2002 for Attack of the Clones. But nothing about what Obi Wan or Yoda told Luke in the OT applies to it either.

Personally, I like the way the old EU handled it. There was a time when Jedi were totally free to get married and have families. Then, somewhere between Tales of the Jedi and the KOTOR comics, the no-marriage rule was introduced. But later on, Luke got rid of that rule when he started his own Jedi Order. I think this kind of development adds depth to the lore, and makes the Jedi feel more organic and grounded. It shows that the Order evolved over time, made mistakes, and tried to learn from them.

Children of the Jedi heavily implied that the Jedi during the Clone Wars/Great Jedi Purge were allowed to have romantic partners and children.

I feel the best way to have incorporated a forbidden romance into the PT without overturning previously established EU lore would’ve been to have made the prequel-era Jedi endogamous.

Children of the Jedi is a terrible book anyway, so who cares?

“I know that all of you like to dream about space and are a little bit of envious of us. But you know what? We’re also envious of you. We are exploring space, but it’s only the beginning. Planets and unknown worlds are awaiting you. You will continue to storm the Universe.”

— Yuri Gagarin

Author
Time

NeverarGreat said:

Dagenspear said:

JadedSkywalker said:

I don’t believe in the doctrine of attachment it was made up on the prequel. It exists literally nowhere in the original trilogy or the expanded universe before episode II. In fact Luke wins because he doesn’t follow what Ben and Yoda told him, his attachment to his father turns the tide of the war bringing Anakin back to the light.

I disagree. Luke rejects allowing his connections be used to control him in ROTJ. He literally throws his lightsaber down rather than allow Palpatine and Vader to use those he cares about to get him to compromise. Palpatine taunts Luke using the deaths of those he cares about, arguably his attachments. Vader taunts Luke with the idea of him getting to Leia. Both moments lead Luke to lash out and act in compromise. Luke’s moment of heroism is him rejecting that being used against him.

Vladius said:

You’re correct that it was made up in 2002 for Attack of the Clones. But nothing about what Obi Wan or Yoda told Luke in the OT applies to it either.

They both suggest to Luke that it’s more important for him to focus on the mission than allow his feelings for his friends to compromise him. They don’t use the word attachment, but I think the idea of it is there.

Personally, I think this addition to the story harms nothing, but adds to it and makes the Jedi specific in their focus and goals.

I think there’s an argument either way - Luke is warned by Obi-wan to bury his feelings deep, lest they be used by the Emperor, and they are indeed used that way. Luke tossing away his sword could be read as a rejection of his attachment to his friends, and this reading would vindicate Obi-wan’s warning.

However, I think it’s important to note Luke’s words in this moment. He doesn’t say anything about giving up his friends, accepting their deaths, or acting as an emotionless island of calm; no, his words are ‘I am a Jedi…like my father before me.’ He is standing over the body of his father, still believing in the ultimate goodness of the man despite all of Vader’s actions to the contrary.

I would argue that while Vader and the Emperor have been threatening Luke’s friends in general and Leia in particular in order to goad Luke into attacking, the true test has always been whether Luke loses faith in his father. This is because Luke’s entire journey to becoming a Jedi was predicated on the myth of his father, the heroic Jedi Knight. If this myth can be shattered, if Luke comes to believe that even the greatest Jedi can be corrupted, then Luke himself must fall.

And so when Luke declares ‘I am a Jedi…like my father before me’, he is affirming that some core of Anakin Skywalker was never corrupted by the Emperor, and thus Luke is impervious to the Emperor’s tricks as well. Luke is choosing to place his faith in his father, declaring a connection in that moment between father and son that none of his mentors believed could still exist.

This reading, I think, even adds depth to the precept of ‘no attachments’ in the prequels. One interpretation of events is that Anakin’s selfish love turned him to evil, and that Anakin should have listened to his mentors and abandoned Padme to her fate. But in another reading, it was the Jedi’s teaching of non-attachment that caused them to become isolated and vulnerable, and that led Anakin to reject the Jedi when their teaching conflicted with his love. In this reading, Yoda’s teaching was in the wrong, and when Yoda repeats his mistake with Luke, it is only Luke’s independence and relative lack of training that saves him from the pitfall that doomed his father.

In the end, I think the question to ask is, what is more likely: that Luke, whose primary character trait throughout the OT is that he will do anything to save his friends, is suddenly able to emotionally distance himself from those friends enough to defy the Emperor? Or is it more likely that Luke, who has been proclaiming the goodness of his father the entire film, is able to persevere in that faith until the end? I think that the latter interpretation is more valid, and I think if you asked a random viewer in 1983, you would probably hear the same.

This is overcomplicating it and it seems contradictory only because the attachment thing was made up in 2002 to create a “forbidden love” angle for Anakin, like I’ve been saying.

Author
Time

NeverarGreat said:

I think there’s an argument either way - Luke is warned by Obi-wan to bury his feelings deep, lest they be used by the Emperor, and they are indeed used that way. Luke tossing away his sword could be read as a rejection of his attachment to his friends, and this reading would vindicate Obi-wan’s warning.

However, I think it’s important to note Luke’s words in this moment. He doesn’t say anything about giving up his friends, accepting their deaths, or acting as an emotionless island of calm; no, his words are ‘I am a Jedi…like my father before me.’ He is standing over the body of his father, still believing in the ultimate goodness of the man despite all of Vader’s actions to the contrary.

I would argue that while Vader and the Emperor have been threatening Luke’s friends in general and Leia in particular in order to goad Luke into attacking, the true test has always been whether Luke loses faith in his father. This is because Luke’s entire journey to becoming a Jedi was predicated on the myth of his father, the heroic Jedi Knight. If this myth can be shattered, if Luke comes to believe that even the greatest Jedi can be corrupted, then Luke himself must fall.

And so when Luke declares ‘I am a Jedi…like my father before me’, he is affirming that some core of Anakin Skywalker was never corrupted by the Emperor, and thus Luke is impervious to the Emperor’s tricks as well. Luke is choosing to place his faith in his father, declaring a connection in that moment between father and son that none of his mentors believed could still exist.

This reading, I think, even adds depth to the precept of ‘no attachments’ in the prequels. One interpretation of events is that Anakin’s selfish love turned him to evil, and that Anakin should have listened to his mentors and abandoned Padme to her fate. But in another reading, it was the Jedi’s teaching of non-attachment that caused them to become isolated and vulnerable, and that led Anakin to reject the Jedi when their teaching conflicted with his love. In this reading, Yoda’s teaching was in the wrong, and when Yoda repeats his mistake with Luke, it is only Luke’s independence and relative lack of training that saves him from the pitfall that doomed his father.

In the end, I think the question to ask is, what is more likely: that Luke, whose primary character trait throughout the OT is that he will do anything to save his friends, is suddenly able to emotionally distance himself from those friends enough to defy the Emperor? Or is it more likely that Luke, who has been proclaiming the goodness of his father the entire film, is able to persevere in that faith until the end? I think that the latter interpretation is more valid, and I think if you asked a random viewer in 1983, you would probably hear the same.

The question here is, to me, what is Luke’s character arc about and how does his situation play out? Luke doesn’t have to say what he’s doing in the scene to do it. As what he’s doing is still refusing to allow those he cares about to be used to get him to compromise.

I think Luke can choose to not see his dad as a total monster, see his humanity, and also choose to resist the pull of his emotions being used against him. Luke refers to being a Jedi in that moment, and resisting those things is what Jedi are supposed to try to do. That is what Luke does in that scene, refuse Vader and Palpatine threatening his loved ones to control him. That’s, at least, part of what drives him in these scenes to me.

Vladius said:

This is overcomplicating it and it seems contradictory only because the attachment thing was made up in 2002 to create a “forbidden love” angle for Anakin, like I’ve been saying.

What’s contradictory? What Yoda and Obi seem to speak on in TESB and in ROTJ seem moreso consistent with that idea, than not, to me.

What does it change? Yoda didn’t exist until TESB was developed. It doesn’t change that the story has him there.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Dagenspear said:
What’s contradictory? What Yoda and Obi seem to speak on in TESB and in ROTJ seem moreso consistent with that idea, than not, to me.

What does it change? Yoda didn’t exist until TESB was developed. It doesn’t change that the story has him there.

In ESB they’re specifically warning Luke against running into a trap. It’s not that they don’t want him to have friends, it’s that they don’t want him to get killed or turned by Vader. Which is almost what happens, he gets his hand cut off and he has to jump into a bottomless pit to get away from Vader. It’s debatable whether Luke showing up gave his friends a chance to escape, but either way, Yoda and Obi Wan were right to warn him against going. Their warnings are more about turning to the dark side, Vader, and his lack of training (“don’t give in to hate,” “remember your failure in the cave”) and not really about “don’t have friends.”

In ROTJ the position is reversed, they’re telling him he needs to confront Vader because he’s ready and trained enough. The message isn’t “kill Vader because he’s your father” because they hate family and friends, it’s that he has to be willing to confront Vader and the Emperor because that’s his duty and his final Jedi trial. Obi Wan says to bury his feelings for his sister because they could be made to serve the Emperor (again, this almost happens), but he also says they “do him credit.” Obi Wan is the one who brought the subject of his sister up in the first place (after Yoda brings up “another Skywalker”), so they weren’t trying to hide her like they were trying to hide Vader’s identity before. They hid Vader’s identity because they believed Luke wasn’t ready for the burden and didn’t have enough training yet, and because of Ben’s own wounded feelings.

Not a single EU author, or seemingly Lucas himself, ever interpreted either of these two scenes as “Jedi aren’t supposed to have families, romantic partners, or spouses.” Not even after Phantom Menace in 1999, all the way up until 2002. Quite the opposite, they treated families of Jedi as completely normal and even expected.

Author
Time

Definitely. A lot of Yoda’s teachings are about being afraid which leads to poor decisions. Fear led him into the path of Vader who was waiting to twist his mind, and letting Han die might have prevented it. It’s not “if you get married you’ll be afraid to be alone, so never get married or have attachment to anybody, and don’t feel anything for your family either”. If anything Anakin’s stupid love taboo plot cheapens Luke’s arc because it’s compassion over fear that saves the day. Unfortunately now the Jedi Order looks like a real life cult that takes kids and teaches them to forget their parents.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Mocata said:

If anything Anakin’s stupid love taboo plot cheapens Luke’s arc

How so?

“I know that all of you like to dream about space and are a little bit of envious of us. But you know what? We’re also envious of you. We are exploring space, but it’s only the beginning. Planets and unknown worlds are awaiting you. You will continue to storm the Universe.”

— Yuri Gagarin

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Vladius said:

In ESB they’re specifically warning Luke against running into a trap. It’s not that they don’t want him to have friends, it’s that they don’t want him to get killed or turned by Vader. Which is almost what happens, he gets his hand cut off and he has to jump into a bottomless pit to get away from Vader. It’s debatable whether Luke showing up gave his friends a chance to escape, but either way, Yoda and Obi Wan were right to warn him against going. Their warnings are more about turning to the dark side, Vader, and his lack of training (“don’t give in to hate,” “remember your failure in the cave”) and not really about “don’t have friends.”

In ROTJ the position is reversed, they’re telling him he needs to confront Vader because he’s ready and trained enough. The message isn’t “kill Vader because he’s your father” because they hate family and friends, it’s that he has to be willing to confront Vader and the Emperor because that’s his duty and his final Jedi trial. Obi Wan says to bury his feelings for his sister because they could be made to serve the Emperor (again, this almost happens), but he also says they “do him credit.” Obi Wan is the one who brought the subject of his sister up in the first place (after Yoda brings up “another Skywalker”), so they weren’t trying to hide her like they were trying to hide Vader’s identity before. They hid Vader’s identity because they believed Luke wasn’t ready for the burden and didn’t have enough training yet, and because of Ben’s own wounded feelings.

Not a single EU author, or seemingly Lucas himself, ever interpreted either of these two scenes as “Jedi aren’t supposed to have families, romantic partners, or spouses.” Not even after Phantom Menace in 1999, all the way up until 2002. Quite the opposite, they treated families of Jedi as completely normal and even expected.

How does that make it a contradiction? I never mentioned that they tell him to not have friends. And none of the PT say that the Jedi can’t have friends either. The Jedi are telling him to not let his feelings about his friends control him.

That changes nothing about what I said and doesn’t, to me, contradict anything in the PT, as feelings are never said to not be something Jedi are allowed to have. Anakin outright says in AOTC that compassion is essential to a jedi’s life. Qui-Gon tells Anakin to feel, not think in TPM. Obi is shown to be friendly with Dexter Jettster. Anakin and Obi are shown to be friendly with each other. Obi banters with Cody in ROTS. Yoda is shown to be friendly with the children in AOTC. Obi and Yoda are both shown to feel emotions in the PT. Obi says he loves Anakin.

Basically saying that no one before the PT saw it as Jedi not being supposed to have those things doesn’t make it contradiction of the OT to have it be what happens in the movies. I never argued it wasn’t a retcon. I just don’t think it contradicts anything within the OT. Particularly anything more than what the OT does with itself.

Mocata said:

Definitely. A lot of Yoda’s teachings are about being afraid which leads to poor decisions. Fear led him into the path of Vader who was waiting to twist his mind, and letting Han die might have prevented it. It’s not “if you get married you’ll be afraid to be alone, so never get married or have attachment to anybody, and don’t feel anything for your family either”. If anything Anakin’s stupid love taboo plot cheapens Luke’s arc because it’s compassion over fear that saves the day.

No one in the movies ever says to not feel anything about your family.

How does the Jedi not wanting romance to be something that can be used against them, cheapen a story about having compassion? I think you can not have romance and have compassion for someone. Especially considering it’s said that compassion is essential to a jedi’s life.

that takes kids and teaches them to forget their parents.

Are you trying to argue that Jedi take children away without the consent of the parents? If so, where is that in the movies? And if not, how is it any different than in real life when parents give up their kids to be raised by others and those other people give them lessons and skills? Also, where do the Jedi make the kids forget their parents, and that not just be a consequence of the kids being young enough to not remember them?

Author
Time

It doesn’t contradict the OT, it (according to a fan interpretation) retroactively adds an unnecessary part to it that gets tied in with something unrelated. It muddles the message and apparently causes some viewers to think that the Jedi telling Luke not to get himself killed in a trap, or to go and fight a necessary spiritual battle, is some kind of moral failing on the Jedi’s part, and not something that is genuinely wise.

It goes from common sense and truth about the virtues of restraint, patience, self-control, perseverance, etc. to “oh I remember this, they got mad when Anakin wanted to have a girlfriend or save his mom. This is more of that.” It’s a cheap oversimplification of the factors going into the story. It becomes less about the impetuousness and vigor of youth vs. the patience and experience of old age, and more about the weird stereotypes people project onto the prequel Jedi.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Vladius said:

It doesn’t contradict the OT, it (according to a fan interpretation) retroactively adds an unnecessary part to it that gets tied in with something unrelated. It muddles the message and apparently causes some viewers to think that the Jedi telling Luke not to get himself killed in a trap, or to go and fight a necessary spiritual battle, is some kind of moral failing on the Jedi’s part, and not something that is genuinely wise.

It goes from common sense and truth about the virtues of restraint, patience, self-control, perseverance, etc. to “oh I remember this, they got mad when Anakin wanted to have a girlfriend or save his mom. This is more of that.” It’s a cheap oversimplification of the factors going into the story. It becomes less about the impetuousness and vigor of youth vs. the patience and experience of old age, and more about the weird stereotypes people project onto the prequel Jedi.

I don’t think that’s a failing on the Jedi, so I disagree. I actually think the PT suggests the Jedi were correct about this the whole time, by showing Anakin as an example of someone who allows his attachments to control him. Maybe others will disagree, but I still think the movies suggest otherwise. Even if I think the Jedi were flawed in their approach to Anakin and his situation.

The Jedi didn’t get mad when Anakin wanted to have a girlfriend or rescue his mom, so I don’t think it does any of that.

I think that’s the choice of those who project that onto them.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Dagenspear said:

The Jedi didn’t get mad when Anakin wanted to have a girlfriend or rescue his mom, so I don’t think it does any of that.

I agree with you when you say that the Jedi were right about Anakin letting his emotions control him. But it’s not true that they weren’t upset about him wanting to have a girlfriend or wanting to save his mother.

Anakin had been having nightmares about his mother for a long time, and he told Obi-Wan about them. All Obi-Wan said was “Dreams pass in time.” So when it comes to his mother, it’s not like Anakin never talked to the Jedi about what was going on. He did, and they gave him bad advice.

This whole thing could’ve been solved so easily by just letting Anakin visit his mother to make sure she was okay. I mean, yeah, you shouldn’t let your emotions take over. But if you’re someone with Force abilities who starts having prophetic dreams about your mother suffering, it’s only natural to wonder if something bad is actually happening, and it’s only reasonable to check if everything’s fine. If you found out there’d been an explosion in your mom’s neighborhood, wouldn’t you call her or go see her to make sure she’s okay? It’s not even about letting your emotions control you, it’s just about having compassion for your mother.

And when it comes to Anakin having a girlfriend, the Jedi explicitly forbade romantic relationships, which is something Obi-Wan reminded Anakin of when Anakin told him that being around Padmé was intoxicating. So they didn’t approve the idea of him having a girlfriend.

“I know that all of you like to dream about space and are a little bit of envious of us. But you know what? We’re also envious of you. We are exploring space, but it’s only the beginning. Planets and unknown worlds are awaiting you. You will continue to storm the Universe.”

— Yuri Gagarin

Author
Time
 (Edited)

By mad I just mean that they thought it was negative and told him not to do it, and didn’t like it when he did. It was slight hyperbole.

Author
Time

Vladius said:

It muddles the message and apparently causes some viewers to think that the Jedi telling Luke not to get himself killed in a trap, or to go and fight a necessary spiritual battle, is some kind of moral failing on the Jedi’s part, and not something that is genuinely wise.

Does it muddle the message? I think if someone comes away from the movie thinking Obi-Wan and Yoda don’t want Luke running off to Cloud City because it’s against the Jedi rules to have friends, and not any of the things you mentioned, it’s such a large misreading of the movie they’d have to have been looking at their phone the whole time to think it. I don’t think you can blame the prequels for it. It’s also not what Dagenspear is saying about this scene.

Author
Time

SparkySywer said:

Vladius said:

It muddles the message and apparently causes some viewers to think that the Jedi telling Luke not to get himself killed in a trap, or to go and fight a necessary spiritual battle, is some kind of moral failing on the Jedi’s part, and not something that is genuinely wise.

Does it muddle the message? I think if someone comes away from the movie thinking Obi-Wan and Yoda don’t want Luke running off to Cloud City because it’s against the Jedi rules to have friends, and not any of the things you mentioned, it’s such a large misreading of the movie they’d have to have been looking at their phone the whole time to think it. I don’t think you can blame the prequels for it. It’s also not what Dagenspear is saying about this scene.

It’s a specific reading of the prequels that a gigantic portion (possibly most) fans have right now, which is that the Jedi forbidding attachment is:

  1. their major flaw that causes Anakin to fall and screws everything up
  2. directly connected to when they tell Luke not to go to Cloud City to help Han and Leia, and to when they tell Luke to kill Vader (note they don’t actually tell him to kill Vader but that’s a separate bugaboo I have)

I blame the prequels for changing the Jedi and causing confusion with poor writing. The Jedi are written as morons, so when people who like the prequels watch the OT, they assume it’s just more of the same and it’s Yoda and Obi Wan filling Luke’s head with nonsense. Sometimes with the added thing (people here have said this including very recently) that Luke deciding to redeem Vader is him rejecting the attachment thing they taught him.

Another example would be the concept of “Balance in the Force” which has been interpreted to mean equal good and evil in the universe or equal Jedi and Sith. That’s silly, but it is something that the word “balance” suggests if you take it out of context, and it was never really explained in the movies themselves. It gets further muddled by Mortis Filoni material including the Ahsoka show.

Author
Time

Spartacus01 said:

I agree with you when you say that the Jedi were right about Anakin letting his emotions control him. But it’s not true that they weren’t upset about him wanting to have a girlfriend or wanting to save his mother.

Anakin had been having nightmares about his mother for a long time, and he told Obi-Wan about them. All Obi-Wan said was “Dreams pass in time.” So when it comes to his mother, it’s not like Anakin never talked to the Jedi about what was going on. He did, and they gave him bad advice.

This whole thing could’ve been solved so easily by just letting Anakin visit his mother to make sure she was okay. I mean, yeah, you shouldn’t let your emotions take over. But if you’re someone with Force abilities who starts having prophetic dreams about your mother suffering, it’s only natural to wonder if something bad is actually happening, and it’s only reasonable to check if everything’s fine. If you found out there’d been an explosion in your mom’s neighborhood, wouldn’t you call her or go see her to make sure she’s okay? It’s not even about letting your emotions control you, it’s just about having compassion for your mother.

And when it comes to Anakin having a girlfriend, the Jedi explicitly forbade romantic relationships, which is something Obi-Wan reminded Anakin of when Anakin told him that being around Padmé was intoxicating. So they didn’t approve the idea of him having a girlfriend.

I wouldn’t call that upset. Distanced moreso to me.

As far as we saw Anakin never pursued seeking to visit his mom in the movies, until he thought she was suffering. This could be an interesting thing to build around, and I think the movie doesn’t do that, and it’s a flaw in the movies that we don’t see it be brought up. This is among the kind of thing that I think for me could have filled out the story more.

But Obi is never developed to think those dreams are those things. I think it’s played like he thinks they’re dreams. In ROTS, I think Yoda seems to be a little uncertain about it to me.

The Jedi council never found out that as he was still working for them. I think they wouldn’t be pleased, maybe that’d be upset in a way.

Vladius said:

By mad I just mean that they thought it was negative and told him not to do it, and didn’t like it when he did. It was slight hyperbole.

The Jedi never told him to not rescue his mom in the movies. Not have a girlfriend, yes, but for both things Anakin could quit and do what he wanted. He’s not coerced. It’s suggested in AOTC that quitting is an option.

Vladius said:

It’s a specific reading of the prequels that a gigantic portion (possibly most) fans have right now, which is that the Jedi forbidding attachment is:

  1. their major flaw that causes Anakin to fall and screws everything up
  2. directly connected to when they tell Luke not to go to Cloud City to help Han and Leia, and to when they tell Luke to kill Vader (note they don’t actually tell him to kill Vader but that’s a separate bugaboo I have)

I blame the prequels for changing the Jedi and causing confusion with poor writing. The Jedi are written as morons, so when people who like the prequels watch the OT, they assume it’s just more of the same and it’s Yoda and Obi Wan filling Luke’s head with nonsense. Sometimes with the added thing (people here have said this including very recently) that Luke deciding to redeem Vader is him rejecting the attachment thing they taught him.

Another example would be the concept of “Balance in the Force” which has been interpreted to mean equal good and evil in the universe or equal Jedi and Sith. That’s silly, but it is something that the word “balance” suggests if you take it out of context, and it was never really explained in the movies themselves. It gets further muddled by Mortis Filoni material including the Ahsoka show.

I think that’s their choice. Because I disagree.

How is this moronic of the Jedi when they’re shown to be accurate about how attachments lead to those things, for both Anakin and Luke?

I’d also disagree about how Luke interacts with the Vader situation.

The movies explain it, I think straight forward, which is: Destroy the sith and bring balance. That’s what said in the movies.

And I didn’t mention this before, but you did refer to it as “seems contradictory” here:

Vladius said:

This is overcomplicating it and it seems contradictory only because the attachment thing was made up in 2002 to create a “forbidden love” angle for Anakin, like I’ve been saying.

Unless I misinterpreted what you were saying here? Because afterwards you did say this:

Vladius said:

It doesn’t contradict the OT

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Dagenspear said:

As far as we saw Anakin never pursued seeking to visit his mom in the movies, until he thought she was suffering. This could be an interesting thing to build around, and I think the movie doesn’t do that, and it’s a flaw in the movies that we don’t see it be brought up. This is among the kind of thing that I think for me could have filled out the story more.

Anakin never went to see his mother before Attack of the Clones because the films heavily imply that the Jedi weren’t allowing him to. You can say whatever you want about Anakin, but one thing we know for sure is that he’s impulsive, rebellious, and doesn’t hesitate to take risks or rush to save the people he cares about. That’s his core trait and also his biggest flaw. If he had been physically able to visit his mother whenever he wanted, and if the Jedi really weren’t stopping him, then you’d expect him to go see her every chance he got. And as soon as he started having those nightmares, he would have immediately run to check on her. The fact that he didn’t, even while being haunted by those visions, means that something was holding him back. And since he was part of the Jedi Order, it makes sense to conclude that it was the Jedi themselves who were preventing him from going.

for both things Anakin could quit and do what he wanted. He’s not coerced. It’s suggested in AOTC that quitting is an option.

Yes, it’s true that Anakin could technically have walked away from the Jedi Order whenever he wanted. But it’s not that simple. If he’d left before Attack of the Clones, he’d basically be on the streets. Everything he owned belonged to the Order, so leaving would mean giving all of that up. He’d end up wandering the lower levels of Coruscant, trying to scrape together some crappy job just to survive. And if he’d left after marrying Padmé, sure, he could’ve lived with her, but Anakin wasn’t the kind of guy to sit around doing nothing all day. He’d still need a purpose, something meaningful to do, a goal to chase, and that’s not something you just figure out overnight. After spending over a decade in an institution that gave him structure and something to focus on, walking away isn’t exactly simple.

“I know that all of you like to dream about space and are a little bit of envious of us. But you know what? We’re also envious of you. We are exploring space, but it’s only the beginning. Planets and unknown worlds are awaiting you. You will continue to storm the Universe.”

— Yuri Gagarin