You’re absolutely right - after making my point about prequel Anakin being ‘Conan’, I was referencing the ‘certain point of view’ in RoTJ. So yeah, I am technically off-topic in that regard.
That said, I still think the ‘promise to Padme’ thing would be an improvement with RoTJ as is.
In RoTJ Obi Wan says “I took it upon myself to train him as a Jedi”. We now know that Qui Gon made him promise to do so, but Obi Wan keeps that detail to himself and doesn’t whine about this additional fact - taking the responsibility himself. Which is noble. Similarly, had he vowed to Padme that he would not tell the truth to the kids, his vague explanation in RoTJ would come across the same way. He’d be taking all the responsibility in the context of that conversation, but we would all know that it was much more complicated. There would be a dramatic scene in RoTS where Padme expresses that Anakin is dead, Vader is a separate entity as far as she’s concerned, and that she wants Obi Wan to never tell her kids the awful truth. Obi Wan would express that he agrees with her perspective, Anakin is indeed ‘dead’, and vows to honour her wishes regarding the children.
Again, this makes his lie in '77 much more plausible. He’s expressing his ‘certain point of view’ but with the added weight of his vow to Padme. And again, this also justifies his being tight-lipped about the truth when Luke jets off for Bespin. By that stage he would arguably be inclined to spill the beans right? But his vow remains.
I just think this would make all the ‘point of view’ stuff - which very few folks find convincing - much more plausible and indeed rather poignant.
But again, I think that’s closer to expecting ROTS to fix what the OT established.
Again, I don’t see too much of a difference here. Not only do I think that doesn’t connect to Luke, as Padme’s pursuit of the idea that Anakin is still capable of changing back I think is reflected in Luke more personally (Padme and Luke to me have an engaging, yet tragic, comparison in ways), to me, in ROTJ, but also I’m not sure I buy that someone like her may view it in those terms of someone being dead because they turned evil, and I don’t think it makes it more honoring of her or sensible that Obi chooses instead to tell Luke that Vader killed his dad. If anything, I think that kinda makes it look, to me, like he’s kinda twisting Padme’s dying wish to get what he wants. I don’t think that makes him look better and kinda leaves his twisting of Padme’s wish just untouched.
You’re right in the sense that I think the prequels should have ‘fixed’ the flaws in RoTJ. For those who feel that RoTJ is great, then I guess the prequels are fine just reiterating the points made by RoTJ in more detail.
For me RoTJ makes some pretty outrageous claims and, even worse, betrays the obvious fact that Lucas was making this thing up on the fly. Granted, this is because George thought it would be epic to have Vader claim to be Luke’s father, as well as float the notion that Luke had a rival in the hero-stakes. All well and good but he had absolutely no follow-up in mind when he dropped these bombs. So what we got was “uh, well, from a certain point of view” and “surprise! Leia’s your sister” - both claims being entirely incongruent with the previous films and even blatantly contradicting them (not to mention the claim that the twins were ‘hidden’ in the most ridiculous way).
So yes, to return to crux of the thread, I did want the prequels to explain why Obi Wan felt compelled to lie so blatantly to Luke. The actual truth would have been less traumatic - “your Uncle, to his credit, did not want you to know this but your father became an Imperial agent. I’m sorry Luke”. Done! Luke says “no, I can’t believe that!” and Obi says “come with me to Alderaan, the royal family will explain it all to you”. How is “he was betrayed and murdered” - a blatant lie - more helpful than what I just outlined? Of course this is all because Vader was just a bad dude who killed the Jedi and was never Luke’s dad in the first place.
I wanted the prequels to explain why Luke still had his father’s surname while he was ‘hidden’ on the family farm. Or why Yoda thought Leia was next in line for the hero-job when he’d just whined about Luke being too old for training. All of this could have been resolved easily. Owen Lars could have been stubborn in his refusal to hide from Vader and insisted on Luke keeping the family name out of reverence for his former brother (hence a vigilant Obi Wan residing nearby). The Jedi could have been depicted as a boys’ club that refused to train women, with Yoda being the lone progressive voice of dissent - hence Leia coming up as a late option in TESB. And yes, Obi Wan could have been bound by a shared vow with Luke’s mother to push the ‘murdered by Vader’ narrative for the benefit of the kids.
I’m not saying these are the greatest ideas on earth by any stretch. I just personally wish the writing had striven for consistency rather than floating all these vague notions that we, as the audience, have to then twist and turn in our minds to make them cohere.