skyjedi2005 said:
Sonnyboo's argument is very valid imho, when viewed through the saga 1-6 mentality Lucas has been using since the later 1990's.
My Star Wars Saga i grew up with is 1977-1983 and that is the valid way i watch the films.
Not really, because, all the inconsistencies aside, the prequels actually show an Anakin who was originally good (a bit douchey, but overall a quite alright chap), so, say, Vader having something good in him doesn't come as that much of a surprise.
Didn't bother me that much, to be honest - you could already see some brand of "affection" towards his son when he tried to turn him after hacking off his hand (hey, it was a fair duel), and then even more when they were communicating telepathically after that.
We already knew that Vader was originally good, and now that he's the protagonist's father and ESB sort of paved the way, having Luke believe that "something good is in him" isn't in any way absurd.
At any rate, I don't think it makes sense because I cannot reasonably comprehend how someone can consider ROTJ worse than the prequels.
And I'm saying this as someone who probably liked more stuff in the prequels than most others here.
Ford may have been phoning it in in a few scenes, but nothing in Jedi even compares to the horrendous stiffness and boringness of prequel acting at its worst, or even average.
ROTJ still had a clear character arc, even if sort of flawed (Vader suddenly stopping being rebellious, retcons etc.), but consistent with itself.
The prequels' plots were badly communicated and way too disjointed, the main characters sucked most of the time, and well, COME FRIGGIN' ON.
As people tend to say, the clear matters tend to be resolved with hard evidence, and the less clear (but not entirely subjective) ones with rhetorics and discourse.
I don't see how you could make a solid case for ROTJ being worse than the prequels.