How would you have done ROTJ?

There are little bits of ROTJ that made it not as good as it could have been. It had the potential to be the best Star Wars film but failed. How would you have done it?

Here's my take:

If Endor's moon was actually a moon of Coruscant and if it was actually Kashykk, I would have loved to see Han and Chewie leading an assault on Endor and then Luke and Leia leading a battle on Coruscant, and then Luke fights his way to the Emperor's office on Coruscant in the old Republic Building, now Emperial Palace and Vader is awaiting Luke in the office. Vader then takes Luke with him to the Death Star Orbitting Coruscant. On Kashyyk, Chewie and Han free Wookie slaves to use them as help to take out the Death Star Shield. The Death Star dogfight is lead by Lando. Han has to manually detonate the charges in the shield room on Kashyyk because the remote fails to work and he is hurt by the blast. The Vader Vs. Luke battle should have a faster paced score and then it becomes slow and Dark when the Emperor intervenes. Death Star scene continues until Vader's death. Vader disappears from the suit and there is a funeral pyre on Coruscant. Luke and Leia go to Kashyyk where Han is dying. As they (Lando, Luke, Leia and Chewie) are standing around him, a last speech is given from one of them or Luke, Leia and Han. Han dies as the camera pulls back to reveal the force ghosts watching over. Camera pulls up to show the sky turn to daylight. Fireworks go off. In the morning, we see a montage of celebrations around the Galaxy, and then we get a scene where Luke is in the old Council room (partly damaged and lit only by the window) with the force ghosts sitting in their seats as they have their last words with Luke. Roll Credits.

I honestly wouldn't have changed anything in ROTJ. I know that Harrison Ford and Gary Kurtz wanted Han to die, but it's not like NOBODY important died- Yoda died, Anakin died.....and of course that one Ewok. ;-)

I would have been totally bummed out in '83 if Han had died.

I like the idea of us not seeing the emperor until the end. Also, seeing Vader fight troups on his own would be very nice to watch. I'll add those to how I would have wanted it with the space battle first taken place over Coruscant and then in the Death Star.

Jabba rescue plan would have been improved.

Ewoks would have been Wookies.

Finally battle would have been about something else, not a revisiting of the Death Star. Attacking the Imperial city or a major Imperial ship yard or something. A little bit of creativity could go a long ways here.

I would rather have the 1983 return of the jedi and its minor flaws instead of connecting it to the awful 1997, 2004 special editions changes or the prequels.

The most dumb thing of all was adding Hayden who was 2 years old when Return was released in '83.  Oh and of course Gun gans and jar jar.  Naboo a later invention and coruscant straight out of the EU.  The prequels and special editions are more connected to the current EU than the real trilogy circa 1977-1983.

The prequels should have fit those versions of the films and not gone the video game graphics cartoon route the special editions are directly repsonsible for.  Adding EU things like the outrider and the motorcyle from shadows of the empire was stupidity.  A Jabba the Hutt in 1997 who looks more like the cutesy cartoon version of slimer on the real ghostbusters instead of the big overgrown sluglike gangster we saw in return of the jedi.

I too would have preferred a wookiee battle but the one we got in revenge of the sith was pathetic over the top cgi and bad computer matted in trees and huts instead of the beautiful matte paintings done on return of the jedi.

Most of Mayhews performance appears to be via a cgi double except maybe for one or 2 shots.  That was just another over the top and unecessary use of cgi.  Necessary only to cuts corners and spend less money by not having all the actors costumed or build sets.  When it can all be greenscreened and done fake in a computer.

It is a foregone conclusion that i hate what the prequels did to star wars a once great and mythic saga for our times. 

Though you can never really go home again when it comes to revisiting these franchises even Indiana Jones was destroyed in 2008 by overly comic goofyness and over the top cgi and a bad script.  It was like old home weak prequels style,lol.

The Clone Wars movie was just a mediocre nothing and did not elicit any emotional outrage.  It was "meh" more than anything.  The same with the series on tv.  The spark of life star wars once had has been snuffed out a long time ago Return of the Jedi should have been the last film.  Sometimes less is more.  Intead of beating a dead horse for money only.  That is what star wars has become a merchandising empire only.  The idea of making a good story ended some time i don't know during or after the original trilogy.

The downward spiral was already in evidence on return of the Jedi with Lucas basically writing the story himself.  And all but directing the film.  The absence of a real Lawrence Kasden script like empire strikes back, a good director like Kershner or a producer like Gary Kurtz.

The real problem most people had with Jedi was it was a rehash of 1977 star wars, much like the same critcisms were made over the last crusade being a rehash of raiders of the lost ark.  Once you got to Crystal Skull you got a rehash of a rehash, lol.  The only film that tried to do something different temple of doom met with harsh crticism, unlike empire strikes back the dark second act of star wars which was received with high levels of praise.

Return of the Jedi was a more kid friendly film and more fun than empire.  It was a more popcorn action flick and did not take itself too seriously.  In the end it made more than empire strikes back.  So Lucas added even more kiddie content to the phantom menace and that made even more money than before.

The ONLY thing I would change in RotJ (refering to the undestroyed, pre 2004 version, of course) is to have Han and Leia's roles in the final battle be reversed:

Han gets shot in the shoulder, while Leia leads the final assult on the shield generator. it would affirm that she is indeed a skywalker:

 Her Brother destroyed the first death star, whilst she ensures the destruction of the second.

oh yeah, I wouls also add a big "THE END" to the ending credits before "Directed by Richard Marquaand" appears.

skyjedi2005 said:

I would rather have the 1983 return of the jedi and its minor flaws instead of connecting it to the awful 1997, 2004 special editions changes or the prequels.

The most dumb thing of all was adding Hayden who was 2 years old when Return was released in '83.  Oh and of course Gun gans and jar jar.  Naboo a later invention and coruscant straight out of the EU.  The prequels and special editions are more connected to the current EU than the real trilogy circa 1977-1983.

The prequels should have fit those versions of the films and not gone the video game graphics cartoon route the special editions are directly repsonsible for.  Adding EU things like the outrider and the motorcyle from shadows of the empire was stupidity.  A Jabba the Hutt in 1997 who looks more like the cutesy cartoon version of slimer on the real ghostbusters instead of the big overgrown sluglike gangster we saw in return of the jedi.

I too would have preferred a wookiee battle but the one we got in revenge of the sith was pathetic over the top cgi and bad computer matted in trees and huts instead of the beautiful matte paintings done on return of the jedi.

Most of Mayhews performance appears to be via a cgi double except maybe for one or 2 shots.  That was just another over the top and unecessary use of cgi.  Necessary only to cuts corners and spend less money by not having all the actors costumed or build sets.  When it can all be greenscreened and done fake in a computer.

It is a foregone conclusion that i hate what the prequels did to star wars a once great and mythic saga for our times. 

Though you can never really go home again when it comes to revisiting these franchises even Indiana Jones was destroyed in 2008 by overly comic goofyness and over the top cgi and a bad script.  It was like old home weak prequels style,lol.

The Clone Wars movie was just a mediocre nothing and did not elicit any emotional outrage.  It was "meh" more than anything.  The same with the series on tv.  The spark of life star wars once had has been snuffed out a long time ago Return of the Jedi should have been the last film.  Sometimes less is more.  Intead of beating a dead horse for money only.  That is what star wars has become a merchandising empire only.  The idea of making a good story ended some time i don't know during or after the original trilogy.

The downward spiral was already in evidence on return of the Jedi with Lucas basically writing the story himself.  And all but directing the film.  The absence of a real Lawrence Kasden script like empire strikes back, a good director like Kershner or a producer like Gary Kurtz.

The real problem most people had with Jedi was it was a rehash of 1977 star wars, much like the same critcisms were made over the last crusade being a rehash of raiders of the lost ark.  Once you got to Crystal Skull you got a rehash of a rehash, lol.  The only film that tried to do something different temple of doom met with harsh crticism, unlike empire strikes back the dark second act of star wars which was received with high levels of praise.

Return of the Jedi was a more kid friendly film and more fun than empire.  It was a more popcorn action flick and did not take itself too seriously.  In the end it made more than empire strikes back.  So Lucas added even more kiddie content to the phantom menace and that made even more money than before.

The point was to do your OWN version of ROTJ, not for you to make yet another rant of the SEs and PT.

Skyjedi did what he always does. If his compulsive rants disturb you, I'll remind you of the ignore button.

Oh ya! Thanks, I forgot about that!

I would have had it basically the same except

NO EWOKS

THE ONLY WOOKIE IS CHEWBACCA

Instead of ENDOR they are on a Planet that is just flooded with imperials. I am thinking of something rocky and dark.

Instead of a breakout war it is alot of sneaking around. Then after the Death Star blows up.

Rebel ships come and unleash hell on the empire.

Meanwhile....

Luke is arrested in the middle of this assault on the planet. He is forced to go to the emperor.

Darth and Luke fight .

Then the emperor electricutes luke.

Vader sees his sons agony and Kills the emperor. Force choking him. Palpatine begs for mercy. He looks to luke to help him. Luke walks away. Vader chucks his ass down the main reactor.

Vader's evilness leaves him and he starts to die. as to say his anger was keeping him alive through the will of the force. He dies.

The battle isnt over yet.

Han Leia Chewie and Lando fly the millenium falcon into the battle. Luke flies in a ship vader had on board with his dead father. joins in the battle.

Somehow luke has to die. to save his friends. he blows up and becomes one with the force

Leia and Han stand in the shadows during the rebel celebration

The hold hands.

then han walks away to give her some space.

Lukes force ghost appears with Vaders.

it ends.

Vaderisnothayden said:

Asteroid-Man said:

skyjedi2005 said:

I would rather have the 1983 return of the jedi and its minor flaws instead of connecting it to the awful 1997, 2004 special editions changes or the prequels.

The most dumb thing of all was adding Hayden who was 2 years old when Return was released in '83.  Oh and of course Gun gans and jar jar.  Naboo a later invention and coruscant straight out of the EU.  The prequels and special editions are more connected to the current EU than the real trilogy circa 1977-1983.

The prequels should have fit those versions of the films and not gone the video game graphics cartoon route the special editions are directly repsonsible for.  Adding EU things like the outrider and the motorcyle from shadows of the empire was stupidity.  A Jabba the Hutt in 1997 who looks more like the cutesy cartoon version of slimer on the real ghostbusters instead of the big overgrown sluglike gangster we saw in return of the jedi.

I too would have preferred a wookiee battle but the one we got in revenge of the sith was pathetic over the top cgi and bad computer matted in trees and huts instead of the beautiful matte paintings done on return of the jedi.

Most of Mayhews performance appears to be via a cgi double except maybe for one or 2 shots.  That was just another over the top and unecessary use of cgi.  Necessary only to cuts corners and spend less money by not having all the actors costumed or build sets.  When it can all be greenscreened and done fake in a computer.

It is a foregone conclusion that i hate what the prequels did to star wars a once great and mythic saga for our times. 

Though you can never really go home again when it comes to revisiting these franchises even Indiana Jones was destroyed in 2008 by overly comic goofyness and over the top cgi and a bad script.  It was like old home weak prequels style,lol.

The Clone Wars movie was just a mediocre nothing and did not elicit any emotional outrage.  It was "meh" more than anything.  The same with the series on tv.  The spark of life star wars once had has been snuffed out a long time ago Return of the Jedi should have been the last film.  Sometimes less is more.  Intead of beating a dead horse for money only.  That is what star wars has become a merchandising empire only.  The idea of making a good story ended some time i don't know during or after the original trilogy.

The downward spiral was already in evidence on return of the Jedi with Lucas basically writing the story himself.  And all but directing the film.  The absence of a real Lawrence Kasden script like empire strikes back, a good director like Kershner or a producer like Gary Kurtz.

The real problem most people had with Jedi was it was a rehash of 1977 star wars, much like the same critcisms were made over the last crusade being a rehash of raiders of the lost ark.  Once you got to Crystal Skull you got a rehash of a rehash, lol.  The only film that tried to do something different temple of doom met with harsh crticism, unlike empire strikes back the dark second act of star wars which was received with high levels of praise.

Return of the Jedi was a more kid friendly film and more fun than empire.  It was a more popcorn action flick and did not take itself too seriously.  In the end it made more than empire strikes back.  So Lucas added even more kiddie content to the phantom menace and that made even more money than before.

The point was to do your OWN version of ROTJ, not for you to make yet another rant of the SEs and PT.

 

I don't see why he shouldn't "rant" about the SE's and PT. And you can't say he's bringing "negativity" into a "positive" thread, because this whole thread is one big implied bash of ROTJ, which never deserved the bashing. Much better to bash the PT and SE, which DO deserve the bashing. I applaud skyjedi's post.

You quote "negativity into a positive thread" as if I said that, yet I didn't. And ranting about SE's and PT's are completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. Many people just expected something different from ROTJ after watching SW and ESB and I thought it would be nice if we could share our ideas. I even do this with The Dark Knight which is one of my favorite films. If you like ROTJ exactly the way it is, fine then don't comment in a thread asking you "What you would have done differently?"

I was just pointing out how foolish it would be to remake return of the jedi to fit the prequels, when it should have been the other way around the prequels should have been made to honor the original films and not change things and throw a wrench into continuity.

Lucas could have at least sat down in his screening room and rewatched them and taken some notes.  If he could'nt be bothered to then he could have had an employee do so.

Why would Luke visit the jedi temple on coruscant when neither existed when return of the jedi originally came out?  The name Coruscant created by Timothy Zahn and EU.  The Jedi temple another Lucas addition.  Which makes sense in the context of the story. 

I agree that Coruscant sounds better than Lucas own Had Abbadon for the Imperial Homeworld.  Well at least they did not call it Trantor and draw attention to stolen ideas from Isaac Asimov.

Again in my humble opinion making the lightsaber duel faster paced is Asteroid man wanting the original films to be more like the prequels. 

I for one am glad they are not.  Because i  prefer having 3  good films and 3 bad, in the case the older films were done to mesh with the prequels you have 6 bad films.

ChainsawAsh said:

We're not talking about changing ROTJ to fit the prequels, we're talking about how you would have written it had George given you that task in 1980 after ESB came out.

Oh if that was the case i would have had it more like Empire Strikes Back original 1980 version.  Would have liked having Kasden write the script and not just a script polish of Lucas's story.  Have actual input.  He said the new death  star concept was stupid.  I agree with that but i am on George's side when it comes to having either Luke Or Han killed off.

I would'nt change Marquand as the director unless you could have gotten Kershner back.

In Kids movies you never kill off the heroes or the good guys.  Especially since this might have had a negative effect on boxoffice.  I don't think Lucas was making films to lose money.

In that other rival franchise they killed off Spock.  But negated the whole concept by having him come back to life. Star Trek however was never intended to be kiddie movies based on movie serials where the hero always triumphs over evil.

In science fiction death never is forever.  But in star wars where i am almost pretty sure rebirth or time travel don't exist it is forever.  Unless your a jedi and go to hang out with Yoda in jedi heaven,lol.

The least Kiddie of the star wars movies is Empire Strikes Back.   Which confuses the hell out of people when they look at the other films in the series.  Okay the 2 and 3rd prequel got darker but remained silly anyways.

If you look at the original trilogy as a 3 act play it works well as it is with the 1977 star wars, 1980 empire and 1983 return of the jedi.  The dark second act is empire strikes back.  There was death and darkness in return of the jedi but the movie was lightened by having ewoks and other things thrown into the mix.

I still look on the end of Jedi as bittersweet rather than a happy ending.  It is not the down ending of empire neither the happy ending of star wars.  Its a bit of both.

First of all, undo the "I...am your father" revelation. In my ROTJ, Vader and Anakin are two different people; Vader, having slain his former comrade, has developed a delusion over the decades that they were the same people the whole time. When Luke and Obi-Wan talk about the confrontation, we are informed that it is in fact Vader who lied, not Obi-Wan.

Leia and Luke are not related, but neither are they attracted to each other beyond that of a strong friendship. In a sense, their relationship is indeed sibling-like, but without the embarrasingly tacked-on blood relation.

Why? Consider Luke-Vader II. When Vader says, "... if you will not turn to the dark side, then perhaps she will.", Luke reacts with anger. I'm not so convinced in that moment; Vader has been playing against Luke's feelings for Leia as his sister. Luke has strong feelings for Leia, but they've only been brother and sister for like 20 minutes. This person who I have not known as a sister should not produce such an emotional trigger in that way. In my ROTJ, let's up the ante a little:

After the sabotage team lands on Endor, a skirmish with the Imperials ends with Leia held captive. She is taken to the Death Star, a prisoner of Darth Vader yet again. Han and Luke have an emotional debate over how to approach the situation; Han wants to break from the team and rescue her personally - after all, they are in love and she freed him from the carbonite. He feels personally indebted to her, similar in a way to Chewie's life debt. (Although this is strictly an EU conception, I like the Chewie life-debt thing) Luke argues that Leia would always think first of the mission, and that only a Jedi knight could infiltrate Vader's DSII stronghold, just as Kenobi ventured out into the original DS. Han reluctantly accepts, though he knows Luke is right. In this way, we see Han's arc work more thoroughly - when he is convinced to stay behind and fight, he fights not as a fun-loving space cowboy - he fights with the burden of a man committed to fighting for others. (Besides, this turn of events would have given Harrison Ford something to do)

Luke Kenobi's his way into Vader's stronghold. There is no Emperor, there is only Vader and an unconscious Leia secured to the wall. Vader kidnapped Leia knowing that the act would lure his "son" to him. Vader indeed plans to use Luke's considerable powers to tighten his grip on the galaxy, but if he cannot persuade Luke to join the dark side he will eliminate Luke as the only person in the galaxy capable of opposing him.

The duel is evenly fought early on, but Vader goads Luke towards the dark side the entire time. He reminds Luke that the dark side flowed through him in killing millions on the Death Star. As he slew every one of Jabba's henchman. As he struck down the faux Vader at the tree. Luke responds to this as a Jedi would, shifting himself into a purely defensive mode. Eventually, Luke powers down his lightsaber - he understands what Kenobi had done against Vader in their last duel and tries to do the same - and hops onto a catwalk, just as in the real ROTJ. In the same way as the actual movie, Vader hurls his saber at Luke. Luke's light side mastery is not yet so complete as Obi-Wan's, so he saves himself with a last second dodge. The flying saber destroys the catwalk.

Luke's reasons for rushing to face Vader centered around his friends - and as Vader searches for Luke in the shadows, he invokes Luke's closest friend in order to draw him out. If Luke will not fight, then Leia will suffer unimaginably. Vader begins to describe Leia's coming ordeal when Luke leaps from the shadows and overwhelms Vader, reducing him to a smoking, immobile, helpless heap. Luke is on the edge of fully indulging in the dark side when a barely awake Leia manages to appeal to Luke's better angels. And the circle is closed. Luke, Han, and Leia have already saved each other many times throughout the trilogy, but this intervention of Leia's is by far the most meaningful. Luke would certainly have filled the power vacuum left behind by the slain Vader.

As Vader lies in ruins, Luke and Leia escape in Vader's personal shuttle moments before Lando's attack claims the DSII. In the final scene, Han and Leia reuinte with the fervor of true lovers aware that they might not have seen each other again. Hugs all around for everyone else. Luke sees three Force ghosts: Obi-Wan. Yoda. Someone else. Luke looks astonished and slowly mouths the word, "Father?" (remember, there is no dialogue) Anakin Skywalker mouths in return, "Thank you, son." (The implication here is that Darth Vader was working to keep the spirit of Anakin Skywalker from communicating with Luke and other Jedi)

Oh, and what happened to the Emperor? That's for the next three movies.

vote_for_palpatine said:

First of all, undo the "I...am your father" revelation. In my ROTJ, Vader and Anakin are two different people; Vader, having slain his former comrade, has developed a delusion over the decades that they were the same people the whole time. When Luke and Obi-Wan talk about the confrontation, we are informed that it is in fact Vader who lied, not Obi-Wan.

Leia and Luke are not related, but neither are they attracted to each other beyond that of a strong friendship. In a sense, their relationship is indeed sibling-like, but without the embarrasingly tacked-on blood relation.

Why? Consider Luke-Vader II. When Vader says, "... if you will not turn to the dark side, then perhaps she will.", Luke reacts with anger. I'm not so convinced in that moment; Vader has been playing against Luke's feelings for Leia as his sister. Luke has strong feelings for Leia, but they've only been brother and sister for like 20 minutes. This person who I have not known as a sister should not produce such an emotional trigger in that way. In my ROTJ, let's up the ante a little:

After the sabotage team lands on Endor, a skirmish with the Imperials ends with Leia held captive. She is taken to the Death Star, a prisoner of Darth Vader yet again. Han and Luke have an emotional debate over how to approach the situation; Han wants to break from the team and rescue her personally - after all, they are in love and she freed him from the carbonite. He feels personally indebted to her, similar in a way to Chewie's life debt. (Although this is strictly an EU conception, I like the Chewie life-debt thing) Luke argues that Leia would always think first of the mission, and that only a Jedi knight could infiltrate Vader's DSII stronghold, just as Kenobi ventured out into the original DS. Han reluctantly accepts, though he knows Luke is right. In this way, we see Han's arc work more thoroughly - when he is convinced to stay behind and fight, he fights not as a fun-loving space cowboy - he fights with the burden of a man committed to fighting for others. (Besides, this turn of events would have given Harrison Ford something to do)

Luke Kenobi's his way into Vader's stronghold. There is no Emperor, there is only Vader and an unconscious Leia secured to the wall. Vader kidnapped Leia knowing that the act would lure his "son" to him. Vader indeed plans to use Luke's considerable powers to tighten his grip on the galaxy, but if he cannot persuade Luke to join the dark side he will eliminate Luke as the only person in the galaxy capable of opposing him.

The duel is evenly fought early on, but Vader goads Luke towards the dark side the entire time. He reminds Luke that the dark side flowed through him in killing millions on the Death Star. As he slew every one of Jabba's henchman. As he struck down the faux Vader at the tree. Luke responds to this as a Jedi would, shifting himself into a purely defensive mode. Eventually, Luke powers down his lightsaber - he understands what Kenobi had done against Vader in their last duel and tries to do the same - and hops onto a catwalk, just as in the real ROTJ. In the same way as the actual movie, Vader hurls his saber at Luke. Luke's light side mastery is not yet so complete as Obi-Wan's, so he saves himself with a last second dodge. The flying saber destroys the catwalk.

Luke's reasons for rushing to face Vader centered around his friends - and as Vader searches for Luke in the shadows, he invokes Luke's closest friend in order to draw him out. If Luke will not fight, then Leia will suffer unimaginably. Vader begins to describe Leia's coming ordeal when Luke leaps from the shadows and overwhelms Vader, reducing him to a smoking, immobile, helpless heap. Luke is on the edge of fully indulging in the dark side when a barely awake Leia manages to appeal to Luke's better angels. And the circle is closed. Luke, Han, and Leia have already saved each other many times throughout the trilogy, but this intervention of Leia's is by far the most meaningful. Luke would certainly have filled the power vacuum left behind by the slain Vader.

As Vader lies in ruins, Luke and Leia escape in Vader's personal shuttle moments before Lando's attack claims the DSII. In the final scene, Han and Leia reuinte with the fervor of true lovers aware that they might not have seen each other again. Hugs all around for everyone else. Luke sees three Force ghosts: Obi-Wan. Yoda. Someone else. Luke looks astonished and slowly mouths the word, "Father?" (remember, there is no dialogue) Anakin Skywalker mouths in return, "Thank you, son." (The implication here is that Darth Vader was working to keep the spirit of Anakin Skywalker from communicating with Luke and other Jedi)

Oh, and what happened to the Emperor? That's for the next three movies.

You are entitled to your opinion but not having Luke vader's son makes zero sense. It only makes sense with 1977 star wars but the reason luke has darkness in him and is so succeptable to temptation is the weakness of vader in his blood.  He would not go all dark were he the son of the Perfect holy man skywalker lucas originally envisioned.  Unless he entire motivation is the murder of both his father and kenobi.  Even so a he would not just throw away his discipline and ideals so loosely.  The Jedi ideal is against revenge.  Revenge is selfish and not selfless as a jedi should be.

Would he so easily betray kenobis and his fathers ideals he would be an even weaker character, without moral fiber and too easily led or pushed to do things.  Evil and its agents cannot force you to do anything under free will unless you go along willingly or are slowly tainted by corruption without yourself noticing you have betrayed your own better nature and ideals.

Vader/Anakin was originally tempted by the dark side i would like to believe because of the desire for power to do good at least at first.  To order the cosmos according to his ideal protect those he loves and cherishes and punish the wicked.  In the end the ends justifying the means rob him of his humanity he becomes a servent of a machine government that crushes people beneath its Steel boot and holds the galaxy in its iron fist.

He was never free until Luke saved him on the death star II up until then he was always a slave.  First a slave as a little boy on tatooine.  Then a slave to his ideals and the jedi order and a servent to be called on by the people of the republic in selfless sacrifice.  Then a servent of a tyrant and the evil sith.  Only in death is he freed from his burdens.  He realizes to late that family above all is more important than anything  else.

It doesn't have to be a problem with Skywalker blood. People are imperfect, even Jedi - especially hastily-trained Jedi who have been trained at a much advanced age than milennia of practice has shown to be best. Luke already had those things working against him.

Luke has a soft spot in his personality toward his friends. It nearly led him to ruin in ESB - why wouldn't it work on him again? It's his fatal flaw - all heroes have them. Vader knows that Luke will act rashly when his friends are threatened. But the fact that Leia could pull him back from the brink of the dark side would show that his fatal flaw is also what makes him strong. He was nothing before he met Han, Leia, Chewie, and the Droids - now he saves the galaxy with them in his corner.

I appreciate your feedback, skyjedi.