C3PX said:Vaderisnothayden said:You guys are trying to read ROTJ as a realistic adult film that makes a priority out of logic. It wasn't that. It was a kids' fairytale with a happily ever after ending that implied the conflict was over. I think you want ROTJ to be that realistic adult film, so you can't accept that it wasn't and thus won't let yourself see the message the fairytale ending gave. No offense, but I think you guys are in denial about being fans of a kids' thing. I've seen this sort of attitude before, in fans of the original Doctor Who show, who tried to compensate for the fact that they were fans of a kids' show.
C3PX said:And by cold hard evidence, I do not mean things like, "it is an illogical fantasy story, and instantly ending the Empire is illogical, therefore that was the original intention".
No offense, but that is just a really, really lousy argument. You can take my word for it, I am not in denial about being a fan of some kids movie. That isn't even an issue here. Stop trying to psycho analyze us to prove your point.
It is a fantasy story, which allows for some degree of illogical things to take place. That doesn't by default require that all logic be thrown out the window. Again, I see nothing in the original ROTJ that indicates the Empire was completely finished after the battle of Endor.
And while the post of Zombie's you quoted has some excellent points, I must respectfully disagree with it. I see no reason why the "Happily Ever After" ending is incompatible with there still being more of the enemy out there. The Hobbit has a very "And they all lived happily ever after" sort of ending to it, and yet we'd be dumb to think that once the dragon was defeated, and the hoards of orcs were beat back, that it had to mean they were all gone for good in order to have the happy ending that it had. And yes, The Hobbit is very much a children's book, I am aware of that, and I am not in any sort of denial on that front.
Actually, at the end of the Hobbit the dragon WAS gone for good. The dragon was DEAD. As such the conflct was over. The dwarves were happily ensconced in their regained kingdom and Bilbo had no more conflict to be occupied in. There was peace. Yes there were still goblins in Middle Earth, but goblins were not the major foe of The Hobbit the way the empire was the major foe of the OT. They were a side enemy, like Jabba was in the OT, except that while Jabba had a personal conflict with the main characters, there was no special personal conflict with the goblins of Middle Earth in general. The major foe of the book was gone for good at the end (dead) and old dwarven realm was set to be restored. Just as the empire was gone at the end of ROTJ and the door was opened for the rebuilding of the republic. There were sure to be troublemakers and crime lords left in the Star Wars universe like there were goblins left in Middle Earth in The Hobbit, but there was no immediate need to fight them, just as there was no immediate need to fight goblins after the end of The Hobbit. But if the empire was still around as you think there would have been an immediate need to fight them.
No there couldn't be a happily ever after ending in ROTJ if the empire was still fighting. If the empire was still there would be a good chance of the main characters being killed off in the fight after ROTJ. A happily ever after ending requires the major conflict to be over. Like the conflict with the dragon was over in The Hobbit.
My argument is hardly lousy. All you have to do is open yourself up to seeing the emotional message at the end of ROTJ. You shouldn't need something to be spelled out on the screen to see it. By insisting on the story following logic you are refusing to accept that the story could follow another path and thus not letting yourself pick up on the emotional communication of the end of the film. Not until I came to this board did I find anybody who thought the empire didn't fall at the end of ROTJ. Zombie84 similarly says everybody he knew (back then at least) thought the empire ended.
I'm sorry if my psychoanalyzing you bothers you. I found it hard to avoid doing that, seeing as you seemed to be so clearly going down the path I described. But I didn't do it to prove my point. My point rests on emotional message of the end of ROTJ, which (no offense) you are shutting yourself off from reading. Backed up by the evidence of Lucas's statement on the set of ESB (showing that his intention back then matched the intention expressed by the celebrations in the SE) plus the novelization showing that the Lucasfilm view back then matched the message I get from the end of ROTJ plus the 80s EU writers clearly getting the same message. All clues that the SE message was not in fact a revisionist take.
No offense, but that is just a really, really lousy argument. You can take my word for it, I am not in denial about being a fan of some kids movie. That isn't even an issue here. Stop trying to psycho analyze us to prove your point.
You may not be in denial about it being a kid's movie, but you do seem unwilling to acknowledge that it works by the rules of a kids fairytale.
It is a fantasy story, which allows for some degree of illogical things to take place. That doesn't by default require that all logic be thrown out the window.
No, it is not just a fantasy story. It is a KID'S fantasy story, of the fairytale sort, and thus things don't necessarily have to follow logic. That means that you can't say the story goes a certain way just because logic dictates that it should. Logic is not the primary power in the story. Thus when the film's ending gives an emotional message about the empire's fall that is at odds with logic, we go by that emotional message rather than saying "the story has to folow logic therefore the what emotional message says should be ignored."
C3PX said:Also, what is this, "emotional message" of which you speak? What makes you so positive the emotional message is what you believe it to be? I suppose the emotional message you speak of would be the Rebel's partying it up like it was 1999 on Endor with their teddy bear pals. I have a hard time taking any emotional message that prattles on about celebrating the love and what not seriously, but I still feel the celebration is more than warranted considering they just blew up the Imperial superweapon and killed both the Empires two highest leaders, as well as a whole slew of the Imperial Navy's best and brightest. I'd be partying it up if I were in their shoes as well. Who cares if the Empire is still out there, the day is won in a very big way.
The specific tone of the celebration and the way everybody acted at the end implied more than celebration over a victory. It implied celebration of the end of the war and that the conflict was over.
I'll also remind you of what you said at the end of our original debate about this:
Vaderisnohayden, this conversation is not worth wasting so much time on. We could go on forever. Obviously I am wrong. I was very young when ROTJ came out, and I obviously misunderstood it, and honestly, who can blame me since it was an unfinished version of the film I grew up with. George's original vision all along was to shows the entire galaxy celebrating the end of the Empire, but it simply wasn't possibly due to technology limitation of the eighties.
I get where you are coming from, and understand what you are saying. I concede that you are right, I am sure that was George's original intention to have the Empire be 100% finished at that point, the story is just a hell of a lot more interesting to me if this isn't the case. Just as Star Wars is a lot more interesting to you if Hayden is not Darth Vader.