Info & Ideas: ESB and ROTJ Wishlist — Page 319

Vladius said:

There are, you're not seeing them.
You think that he's turning to the dark side when he attacks Vader, he's not. He's angry at the idea that Vader will try to turn Leia, along with everything else that happened, but that's the thing that makes him actually start attacking. It's well established already that they love each other, romantically or platonically, in all three of the movies. In the same movie, Luke has rescued Leia and showed concern for her well being. There is a scene where he tells her that they're brother and sister.

His "near turn" is within the duel after he starts attacking, when he goes from participating to becoming the aggressor. This is because he is using his anger to help him succeed, which has natural consquences that are also well established. That's why he looks surprised and disturbed with himself after cutting off Vader's hand. He's realizing that he's gone farther than he intended to.

That's fine, but at what point can we suspend our disbelief to think that Luke would actually turn to the darkside here?  If one moment of weakness and anger is truly enough to cause a complete and total fall to darkness without any other motivation for our main character it makes the story feel extremely shallow to me.

Vladius said:

Sepharih said:

 

I'm saying that there should be more established and better developed motivations for Luke's near turn.....and you're saying that it's the emperor's power of persuasion in the force that defies rational.

 

There are, you're not seeing them.
You think that he's turning to the dark side when he attacks Vader, he's not. He's angry at the idea that Vader will try to turn Leia, along with everything else that happened, but that's the thing that makes him actually start attacking. It's well established already that they love each other, romantically or platonically, in all three of the movies. In the same movie, Luke has rescued Leia and showed concern for her well being. There is a scene where he tells her that they're brother and sister.

His "near turn" is within the duel after he starts attacking, when he goes from participating to becoming the aggressor. This is because he is using his anger to help him succeed, which has natural consquences that are also well established. That's why he looks surprised and disturbed with himself after cutting off Vader's hand. He's realizing that he's gone farther than he intended to.

 This.

A turn to the Dark Side (in the OT) is not described as a simple choice based on wanting a specific outcome.

It's seductive, and easy. Dangerous.

Luke's "motivation" is getting him pissed off/scared enough to use the Dark Side. "Why" doesn't matter. (There is no why).

The Dark Side isn't steroids. It's not a shady choice that leads to a goal.

The Dark Side is methamphetamine. Try it and it destroys your soul and takes control.

Sepharih said:

Vladius said:

There are, you're not seeing them.
You think that he's turning to the dark side when he attacks Vader, he's not. He's angry at the idea that Vader will try to turn Leia, along with everything else that happened, but that's the thing that makes him actually start attacking. It's well established already that they love each other, romantically or platonically, in all three of the movies. In the same movie, Luke has rescued Leia and showed concern for her well being. There is a scene where he tells her that they're brother and sister.

His "near turn" is within the duel after he starts attacking, when he goes from participating to becoming the aggressor. This is because he is using his anger to help him succeed, which has natural consquences that are also well established. That's why he looks surprised and disturbed with himself after cutting off Vader's hand. He's realizing that he's gone farther than he intended to.

That's fine, but at what point can we suspend our disbelief to think that Luke would actually turn to the darkside here?  If one moment of weakness and anger is truly enough to cause a complete and total fall to darkness without any other motivation for our main character it makes the story feel extremely shallow to me.

1. It's not complete and total, but it's on the same path ("once you start on the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny," it's gradual but requires a start, this is the start)
2. It's not one moment because the entirety of the scene is the "moments" when he's having inner conflict
3. It's also not one moment because it's already shown that he can recklessly act for his emotions in the previous movie when he goes to Cloud City against the wishes of people wiser than he is

Monroville said:

Also keep in mind guys that the Sith eyes were already established with Ian McDiarmid's make-up:

 Alot more subtly done than in the prequels

muddyknees2000 said:

Monroville said:

Also keep in mind guys that the Sith eyes were already established with Ian McDiarmid's make-up:

 Alot more subtly done than in the prequels

 Yeah, they should be a gradual, permanent thing rather than something temporary whenever you're angry, and they should be sickly, not bright. The villains in Star Wars make things less colorful, not more.

Monroville said:

Also keep in mind guys that the Sith eyes were already established with Ian McDiarmid's make-up:

If you discount the Prequels, who's to say that Palpatine is even human.....with the strange Prune-face forehead looks kind of alien to me.

J

Sith eyes are lazy shorthand. The Dark Side doesn't need to be portrayed as some tangible thing that infects you, like the black oil in The X Files - it should just be there in everyone, ready to be brought out by fear/hate/suffering/credit card bills/the ex-wife.

For me, it takes some of the tragedy out of Annakin's turn (not that there was much to begin with, you'd have to like the whiny little snot first).

DE

Isn't it a bit of both though?  It starts out as choice to use it to reach a specific goal....then it becomes a dependence, and before you know it you are lost.

The problem I have with the meth analogy is I think it undercuts the character's choice and free will by making it have such an overpowering unbreakable influence for such a quick immediate act.

Vladius said:

1. It's not complete and total, but it's on the same path ("once you start on the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny," it's gradual but requires a start, this is the start)

That'd be fine, except this and vader's sacrifice is supposed to be the climax of the movie.  Kinda falls flat for me in that context.

2. It's not one moment because the entirety of the scene is the "moments" when he's having inner conflict

Too much too fast.....at least without proper context.

3. It's also not one moment because it's already shown that he can recklessly act for his emotions in the previous movie when he goes to Cloud City against the wishes of people wiser than he is

Yeah....but it's about the choice.  He chose to try and help his friends against his teachers wishes and it put them both at risk.  His "choice" here feels more like "fall to the darkside" or "don't fall to the darkside" to me.  

In other news, I think it's too unclear that Darth Vader disapproves of the Emperor electrocuting his son. He should say "no," maybe once or twice. And just to be sure we know his suit is malfunctioning after it's zapped, there should be sparks coming out of it.

It's also not clear that the stormtroopers on Tatooine are not on an alien planet. We need to rectify this with dinosaurs. Speaking of which, Tatooine isn't strange enough, there needs to be some cartoony antics in the background with robots and jawas or something, maybe when the landspeeder first goes into Mos Eisley?

It's also unclear what Han Solo's motivation for shooting Greedo is, I mean, how is he going to get him all the way to Jabba without Han escaping? Maybe if Greedo shot at him first it would make more sense.

Oh wow, we could go so far with this. I think it's too unclear that Luke is afraid when falling down a giant pit, he should be screaming a little bit. He should also be crying out in terror when the wampa attacks, and there should be little blue flames coming out of his mouth to show that he's scared. Maybe we can rotoscope in some little "tendrils" of the Force to show that he's using the Force to pick up his lightsaber. And the wampa should be more visible, we should see it a lot so that it's more scarier.

Vladius said:

In other news, I think it's too unclear that Darth Vader disapproves of the Emperor electrocuting his son. He should say "no," maybe once or twice. And just to be sure we know his suit is malfunctioning after it's zapped, there should be sparks coming out of it.

It's also not clear that the stormtroopers on Tatooine are not on an alien planet. We need to rectify this with dinosaurs. Speaking of which, Tatooine isn't strange enough, there needs to be some cartoony antics in the background with robots and jawas or something, maybe when the landspeeder first goes into Mos Eisley?

It's also unclear what Han Solo's motivation for shooting Greedo is, I mean, how is he going to get him all the way to Jabba without Han escaping? Maybe if Greedo shot at him first it would make more sense.

Oh wow, we could go so far with this. I think it's too unclear that Luke is afraid when falling down a giant pit, he should be screaming a little bit. He should also be crying out in terror when the wampa attacks, and there should be little blue flames coming out of his mouth to show that he's scared. Maybe we can rotoscope in some little "tendrils" of the Force to show that he's using the Force to pick up his lightsaber. And the wampa should be more visible, we should see it a lot so that it's more scarier.

Yeah, sorry, but I'm not buying that the scene does what i'm talking about "subtly" when Palpatine's dialogue flat out contradicts what I'm talking about.

Also, I like subtlety.  I made a post about it quite a while ago in reference to palpatine's appearance and a proposed subplot to explain it.

That said, there's a difference between subtlety implying motivation/information, and not saying/implying it at all and/or showing the exact opposite.

Sepharih said:

 

Yeah, sorry, but I'm not buying that the scene does what i'm talking about "subtly" when Palpatine's dialogue flat out contradicts what I'm talking about.

How?

Vladius said:

Sepharih said:

 

Yeah, sorry, but I'm not buying that the scene does what i'm talking about "subtly" when Palpatine's dialogue flat out contradicts what I'm talking about.

How?

.......

They, of course are his weakness....but pointing that out along with everything else he says and does is antithetical to what I'm talking about.  He uses the danger they are in to bring out the anger in luke and get luke to unleash his rage at vader and himself, rather than as a way to tempt luke into playing by his rules.....give in a little and do a little evil ultimately towards a greater good.

 

Sepharih said:

He should have played up on Luke's compassion towards his friends and his desire to save them (mirroring anakin's fall more), trying to convince him to give in to temptation....to do just a little evil to do a greater good.

Instead he pretty much barks about how Luke has already fallen and just doesn't realize it yet, to give into his anger towards palpatine because there is no hope left already, and to strike in vengeance and turn to darkness.

At no point in the entire exchange does palpatine ever imply anything except that luke should just give into his hatred and anger of what palpatine has done, and turn evil.  He even chides luke by declaring his friends are his weakness.

 

They, of course are his weakness....but pointing that out along with everything else he says and does is antithetical to what I'm talking about.  He uses the danger they are in to bring out the anger in luke and get luke to unleash his rage at vader and himself, rather than as a way to tempt luke into playing by his rules.....give in a little and do a little evil ultimately towards a greater good.

Why should it mirror Prequel Anakin?

Why can't he be doing both? He's clearly fine with Luke falling in any way possible. He wants Luke to be his apprentice, but he also wants Luke to kill him in anger, and he's happy when Luke attacks Vader. All of these things would lead to the outcome he wants. This isn't a contradiction, it's just using all of his available options.

He says his faith in his friends is his weakness, not his friends themselves. He's referring to their ability to blow up the Death Star ("soon I'll be dead, and you with me") not Luke's desire to save them.

Vladius said:

Why should it mirror Prequel Anakin?

Doesn't need too, was mostly an observation.  I do like symmetry between the trilogies from a saga perspective though.

Even so, it doesn't change my point.  Palpatine isn't playing Luke's attachment to them in the manner i'm describing, and referencing them in the way he does is counterproductive to what i'm talking about.

He doesn't reference it explicitly because he doesn't need to. Does he need to spell out that killing the leaders of the Empire would help people fighting the Empire?

If Lucas created the sith eyes in the PT as a visual indicator that replaces the need for actual story telling and character development then thats obviously not good.  But if we assume that Luke's step towards the Dark side is portrayed well enough, then the eyes would not we for that reason, they would simply be an extra visual aid. 

That said I would hate this change to be made because in the OT they were a part of Palpatine's look, not a sith look.  I'll be damned if George made Palpatine's eyes that colour because Palpatine was a sith.  It was because he was meant to look creepy, nothing more.  By making all sith have the same characteristics and looks it just makes everything look smaller and lazier.  In the OT lightning was a Palpatine feature, just like the eyes.  A red lightsaber was Vader's thing.  In the PT red lightsabers, yellow eyes, and lightning are all just sith things so they no longer add anything to the individual characters.

Vladius said:

He doesn't reference it explicitly because he doesn't need to. Does he need to spell out that killing the leaders of the Empire would help people fighting the Empire?

Not explicitly, depending on how it's written, but even if that is the thought process that luke has in the scene, it's in spite of what the emperor is saying and not as a result of it......which kind of hurts the emperor's characterization as a master manipulator to me.

has anyone ever suggested killing off leia in ROTJ? i think it would suck, but it could add some level of tragedy, if luke never brings himself to tell her that they are siblings.

someone suggested having a possible cliffhanger moment within the battle of endor when she gets shot. if the scene is followed with han storming the bunker with the rebels, she could be cut out to add to the suspence. 

Sepharih said:

Vladius said:

He doesn't reference it explicitly because he doesn't need to. Does he need to spell out that killing the leaders of the Empire would help people fighting the Empire?

Not explicitly, depending on how it's written, but even if that is the thought process that luke has in the scene, it's in spite of what the emperor is saying and not as a result of it......which kind of hurts the emperor's characterization as a master manipulator to me.

Well, if he tried to do it that way in the open, it would make him look weak. A large part of persuading someone is appearing confident and powerful to them. If the Emperor started talking about friendship and compassion and serving the greater good, it would be even more out of character for someone who's pure evil. He understands the complexities of the situation without having to acknowledge them. That's what makes him the manipulator who's in control.
Another problem with him telling Luke to do a little evil to serve the greater good is that it's not really that evil, either way, to kill the Emperor. He would be doing everybody a service, and doing his job as a military commander. It's just a straightforward good action that can be done for the wrong reasons. The point is what happens afterwards - if he does it in anger, then he will turn to the dark side, so he has to hide and steady himself until he can confront them properly for the right reasons.
I still don't see how what he says is contradictory, even if it is different.

^if anyone else suggests sith eyes in the future i'm just going t quote this. well said sir.