Sign In

Does Kylo really deserve to be redeemed? Did he deserve to be Reys love interest? — Page 4

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Vader’s redemption kind of comes out of nowhere. But it doesn’t matter unless you expect a fully realised villain, with many facets and deep characterisation. The Empire might seem like fascist super state, but meaningful comparisons to real historical figures are not really appropriate. It’s just Star Wars.

Yub Nub for life

Author
Time

The Empire might seem like fascist super state, but meaningful comparisons to real historical figures are not really appropriate.

They’re 100% appropriate. Can people take them too far, and by extension essentially lose themselves in the forest of symbolism and extrapolated meaning without any storytelling context? Absolutely. It happens all the time, when people are looking to project themselves and their own experiences onto the film in numerous ways.

But even “just” Star Wars allowed for (and was intended to allow for) comparison to real historical figures.

Author
Time

Mocata said:

Vader’s redemption kind of comes out of nowhere. But it doesn’t matter unless you expect a fully realised villain, with many facets and deep characterisation. The Empire might seem like fascist super state, but meaningful comparisons to real historical figures are not really appropriate. It’s just Star Wars.

All the more reason why Trek is the superior Star franchise.

Divergent Universes
Dreams of a Randy Git-Fiend

Make Off Topic great again.

Author
Time

Not that I’ve ever really gone in for comparing the two (oh, remember the days when that was the most contentious question in all of “Fandom?” how little did we know…) but I always felt that the comparison was ONLY fair when you took the very best of each series and measured those two, AT their best, against each other.

I will say this, the only area in which I think there’s no real argument whatsoever is that Star Wars has better music. That’s the only aspect where I don’t think there’s any contest at all.

Author
Time

Broom Kid said:

Not that I’ve ever really gone in for comparing the two (oh, remember the days when that was the most contentious question in all of “Fandom?” how little did we know…) but I always felt that the comparison was ONLY fair when you took the very best of each series and measured those two, AT their best, against each other.

I will say this, the only area in which I think there’s no real argument whatsoever is that Star Wars has better music. That’s the only aspect where I don’t think there’s any contest at all.

Apples and oranges for me.

Star Wars film scores are much more consistent. But Jerry Goldsmith’s score for Star Trek: The Motion Picture is, in my mind anyway, as good as anything John Williams has written.

Author
Time

How are the film scores apples & oranges?

Goldsmith’s score for the Motion Picture is great (and Goldsmith himself is a legend for very good reason) but a whole lot of Star Trek music is just… unremarkable. In some instances it’s actually bad. Especially once you start factoring in the TV shows. I don’t know that I can point to a single bad Star Wars score, though, and many of both series’ scores are trying to do the same thing, using the same musical language in a lot of instances.

I’m not saying there isn’t some timeless Star Trek music. But I can’t see an argument being made for Star Trek having a better musical component.

Author
Time

Shopping Maul said:

Well why the hell did Vader deserve redemption?
He didn’t, we tolerated it because Vader was well written and it was easier for us to feel that his love for his son was enough to make him turn back.

At least Kylo had layers, some obvious conflict.

Mm, this is an odd one. Vader had many more layers than Kylo. Vader was always in conflict, he was a slave to the dark side. Kylo chose to be the monster he became and I honestly don’t think the movies gave us reasons for him to have let darkness grown inside of him.

Author
Time

Wanderer_ said:

Shopping Maul said:

Well why the hell did Vader deserve redemption?
He didn’t, we tolerated it because Vader was well written and it was easier for us to feel that his love for his son was enough to make him turn back.

At least Kylo had layers, some obvious conflict.

Mm, this is an odd one. Vader had many more layers than Kylo. Vader was always in conflict, he was a slave to the dark side. Kylo chose to be the monster he became and I honestly don’t think the movies gave us reasons for him to have let darkness grown inside of him.

The difference is Vader got three extra films to explore his fall, where Kylo starts off bad.

Maul- A Star Wars Story

Author
Time

Wanderer_ said:

Shopping Maul said:

Well why the hell did Vader deserve redemption?
He didn’t, we tolerated it because Vader was well written and it was easier for us to feel that his love for his son was enough to make him turn back.

At least Kylo had layers, some obvious conflict.

Mm, this is an odd one. Vader had many more layers than Kylo. Vader was always in conflict, he was a slave to the dark side. Kylo chose to be the monster he became and I honestly don’t think the movies gave us reasons for him to have let darkness grown inside of him.

But that’s not true according to the OT. Vader was a straight up bad guy in ANH - choking dudes to death, torturing princesses, killing Obi Wan (quite happily I add - “this will be a day long remembered…”), and shooting down X-Wings. In TESB he relentlessly pursues the rebels, kills his subordinates for human error, tortures Han and Leia to get Luke’s attention, and finally gives Luke a ‘join me or die’ ultimatum (“don’t make me destroy you”).

Only in ROTJ is it suggested that Vader had ‘good in him’, and that was purely because Luke (see Lucas) suddenly decided it was so.

I agree Kylo had no backstory whatsoever, but the conflict within him is/was evident from the get-go. Vader had given himself over to darkness and was pretty comfortable with it in the OT. Kylo was not so adept at evil. In fact the way way Adam Driver played Kylo was how I wish Anakin had been played in the prequels, a truly conflicted soul. That “I want to be free of this pain” moment in TFA had more raw emotion in it than all three prequels put together.

By the way I’m not against Vader’s redemption at all, in fact I thought it was a great idea. I just hate Luke’s POV. I do not understand why Luke was suddenly all gushy about Dad in ROTJ, nor do I understand why this took precedence over everything else that was going on. I’d have preferred a darker movie - one where Luke would be disillusioned with the whole Jedi thing (having been lied to by everyone concerned) and Vader’s turnaround would be a nice surprise while Luke was busy doing everything in his power to defeat Palpatine. But that’s just me. I cannot fathom why saving a war-criminal’s soul would make anyone a legend.

Author
Time

Broom Kid said:

How are the film scores apples & oranges?

Goldsmith’s score for the Motion Picture is great (and Goldsmith himself is a legend for very good reason) but a whole lot of Star Trek music is just… unremarkable. In some instances it’s actually bad. Especially once you start factoring in the TV shows. I don’t know that I can point to a single bad Star Wars score, though, and many of both series’ scores are trying to do the same thing, using the same musical language in a lot of instances.

I’m not saying there isn’t some timeless Star Trek music. But I can’t see an argument being made for Star Trek having a better musical component.

Sorry. I meant the franchises themselves are apples and oranges. Star Wars has a better musical component, yes.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Shopping Maul said:

Wanderer_ said:

Shopping Maul said:

Well why the hell did Vader deserve redemption?
He didn’t, we tolerated it because Vader was well written and it was easier for us to feel that his love for his son was enough to make him turn back.

At least Kylo had layers, some obvious conflict.

Mm, this is an odd one. Vader had many more layers than Kylo. Vader was always in conflict, he was a slave to the dark side. Kylo chose to be the monster he became and I honestly don’t think the movies gave us reasons for him to have let darkness grown inside of him.

But that’s not true according to the OT. Vader was a straight up bad guy in ANH - choking dudes to death, torturing princesses, killing Obi Wan (quite happily I add - “this will be a day long remembered…”), and shooting down X-Wings. In TESB he relentlessly pursues the rebels, kills his subordinates for human error, tortures Han and Leia to get Luke’s attention, and finally gives Luke a ‘join me or die’ ultimatum (“don’t make me destroy you”).

Only in ROTJ is it suggested that Vader had ‘good in him’, and that was purely because Luke (see Lucas) suddenly decided it was so.

I agree Kylo had no backstory whatsoever, but the conflict within him is/was evident from the get-go. Vader had given himself over to darkness and was pretty comfortable with it in the OT. Kylo was not so adept at evil. In fact the way way Adam Driver played Kylo was how I wish Anakin had been played in the prequels, a truly conflicted soul. That “I want to be free of this pain” moment in TFA had more raw emotion in it than all three prequels put together.

By the way I’m not against Vader’s redemption at all, in fact I thought it was a great idea. I just hate Luke’s POV. I do not understand why Luke was suddenly all gushy about Dad in ROTJ, nor do I understand why this took precedence over everything else that was going on. I’d have preferred a darker movie - one where Luke would be disillusioned with the whole Jedi thing (having been lied to by everyone concerned) and Vader’s turnaround would be a nice surprise while Luke was busy doing everything in his power to defeat Palpatine. But that’s just me. I cannot fathom why saving a war-criminal’s soul would make anyone a legend.

I mean, Luke’s primary influence from the moment he joins Ben in ANH - is his father’s legacy. He wants to learn the ways of the Force and become a Jedi like his father. From that, he essentially follows the path his dad took, right down to when he brushes with the dark side in ESB. He ignores Yoda and Ben’s warnings by rushing in to confront Vader, and save his friends.

That’s when he sees an outcome of following that quick and easy path - Darth Vader - and is faced with making different choices than his father. By ROTJ, Luke has empathy for Vader because he finds that by following his father, he is Vader. He’s more or less been where he’s been. Everything he believed about his father had to be true at one point, but then he took a wrong turn somewhere, which Luke after ESB understands now more than anyone.

It definitely has potential to be naivete, but Luke ends up being right. The idealism that it is, is what makes him a legend. The fact that you, and probably many others in the galaxy, would become disillusioned where Luke didn’t is the point. That doesn’t really say anything about how you personally would have preferred the movie to go, but that’s the theme. It makes sense and isn’t “sudden.” ROTJ just contextualizes the previous set-up. Not that it couldn’t have gone in a different direction - that who knows, I might have preferred myself - but pretty much all the heavy lifting for it is done in the prior two films.

Author
Time

Also, in ROTJ, Luke has been communing with the force for a year. While it was cut from ROTJ, that includes being in touch with Vader himself. Being in contact like that, even just the short bit we see in TESB, would let Luke past Vader’s guard and let him see the depths. He would sense any conflict. Luke’s entire plan to defeat Vader (and maybe Palpatine in the process) was to pull Vader back to the light side. He utterly failed until he sacrificed himself to Palpatine. We as the audience do not get to see Vader’s conflict, but we do get to see his change of attitude in TESB. He is willing to destroy the Emperor. That isn’t the attitude of a loyal henchman as he was portrayed in ANH. And with the revised Palpatine scene with Ian, Vader outright lies to Palpatine, pretending he doesn’t know Luke is his son already. So there is plenty layered in there to hint that redemption might be possible. Add in the PT and it becomes very clear that Vader is excited to be a father in TESB, but is still trapped in his evil and wants his son to join him. Instead he joins his son. And the only way to believably do that is for Vader to give his life for his son. Leaving Vader alive would result in a trial and execution anyway. Better he has a hero’s death.

Author
Time

NFBisms said:

Shopping Maul said:

Wanderer_ said:

Shopping Maul said:

Well why the hell did Vader deserve redemption?
He didn’t, we tolerated it because Vader was well written and it was easier for us to feel that his love for his son was enough to make him turn back.

At least Kylo had layers, some obvious conflict.

Mm, this is an odd one. Vader had many more layers than Kylo. Vader was always in conflict, he was a slave to the dark side. Kylo chose to be the monster he became and I honestly don’t think the movies gave us reasons for him to have let darkness grown inside of him.

But that’s not true according to the OT. Vader was a straight up bad guy in ANH - choking dudes to death, torturing princesses, killing Obi Wan (quite happily I add - “this will be a day long remembered…”), and shooting down X-Wings. In TESB he relentlessly pursues the rebels, kills his subordinates for human error, tortures Han and Leia to get Luke’s attention, and finally gives Luke a ‘join me or die’ ultimatum (“don’t make me destroy you”).

Only in ROTJ is it suggested that Vader had ‘good in him’, and that was purely because Luke (see Lucas) suddenly decided it was so.

I agree Kylo had no backstory whatsoever, but the conflict within him is/was evident from the get-go. Vader had given himself over to darkness and was pretty comfortable with it in the OT. Kylo was not so adept at evil. In fact the way way Adam Driver played Kylo was how I wish Anakin had been played in the prequels, a truly conflicted soul. That “I want to be free of this pain” moment in TFA had more raw emotion in it than all three prequels put together.

By the way I’m not against Vader’s redemption at all, in fact I thought it was a great idea. I just hate Luke’s POV. I do not understand why Luke was suddenly all gushy about Dad in ROTJ, nor do I understand why this took precedence over everything else that was going on. I’d have preferred a darker movie - one where Luke would be disillusioned with the whole Jedi thing (having been lied to by everyone concerned) and Vader’s turnaround would be a nice surprise while Luke was busy doing everything in his power to defeat Palpatine. But that’s just me. I cannot fathom why saving a war-criminal’s soul would make anyone a legend.

I mean, Luke’s primary influence from the moment he joins Ben in ANH - is his father’s legacy. He wants to learn the ways of the Force and become a Jedi like his father. From that, he essentially follows the path his dad took, right down to when he brushes with the dark side in ESB. He ignores Yoda and Ben’s warnings by rushing in to confront Vader, and save his friends.

That’s when he sees an outcome of following that quick and easy path - Darth Vader - and is faced with making different choices than his father. By ROTJ, Luke has empathy for Vader because he finds that by following his father, he is Vader. He’s more or less been where he’s been. Everything he believed about his father had to be true at one point, but then he took a wrong turn somewhere, which Luke after ESB understands now more than anyone.

It definitely has potential to be naivete, but Luke ends up being right. The idealism that it is, is what makes him a legend. The fact that you, and probably many others in the galaxy, would become disillusioned where Luke didn’t is the point. That doesn’t really say anything about how you personally would have preferred the movie to go, but that’s the theme. It makes sense and isn’t “sudden.” ROTJ just contextualizes the previous set-up. Not that it couldn’t have gone in a different direction - that who knows, I might have preferred myself - but pretty much all the heavy lifting for it is done in the prior two films.

I don’t disagree - I mean even though the OT was written on the fly, the character of Vader is fleshed out as you say ie we learn about the noble father and then discover Vader is that guy (with all that implies).

But the OT wasn’t about saving Dad, it was about Luke Skywalker being the last Jedi hope of the galaxy. And Luke did not save the galaxy. All he did was save Vader. Killing Palpatine was a lucky by-product of an entirely different quest - to save Vader. It’d be like me halting a nuclear holocaust because I just so happened to plug in my hairdryer and blow all the fuses in the bad guys’ bunker.

I think a huge problem with ROTJ is that it dumbs down the Dark Side to a ludicrous degree. It turns the slow-burn corruption of negative emotions and lust for power into a simple “lose your temper and you’ll turn irreversibly evil” thing. Which means Luke just has to stand there while thousands of his comrades are being incinerated, or that just getting angry will somehow lead to Luke joining the Emperor. By extension this implies that Jedi are more trouble than they’re worth.

I said it in a previous post (or three!) but I wish Luke’s POV had been written with an expressed desire to defeat the bad guys, if only by virtue of keeping Palpatine on the exploding DS at all costs. The redemption of Vader should have been a by-product of this quest rather than Luke’s entire MO. I still don’t see why Luke would become a legend for giving a profoundly evil man a bedside conversion while everyone else was fighting a war.

This is why I prefer TROS to ROTJ. Rey’s quest is to defeat Palpatine. Her saving Kylo is a side-issue, but it pays off beautifully in the end. Her temptation by Palpatine is real - she is literally put in the impossible position of having to accept the Dark Side as a way to save her friends, and Kylo helps her. Together they save the galaxy. That’s how ROTJ should have been. Luke should have been crucial to the outcome, not just having his own private family/religious trip while everyone else was fighting and dying outside.

Author
Time

Shopping Maul said:

NFBisms said:

Shopping Maul said:

Wanderer_ said:

Shopping Maul said:

Well why the hell did Vader deserve redemption?
He didn’t, we tolerated it because Vader was well written and it was easier for us to feel that his love for his son was enough to make him turn back.

At least Kylo had layers, some obvious conflict.

Mm, this is an odd one. Vader had many more layers than Kylo. Vader was always in conflict, he was a slave to the dark side. Kylo chose to be the monster he became and I honestly don’t think the movies gave us reasons for him to have let darkness grown inside of him.

But that’s not true according to the OT. Vader was a straight up bad guy in ANH - choking dudes to death, torturing princesses, killing Obi Wan (quite happily I add - “this will be a day long remembered…”), and shooting down X-Wings. In TESB he relentlessly pursues the rebels, kills his subordinates for human error, tortures Han and Leia to get Luke’s attention, and finally gives Luke a ‘join me or die’ ultimatum (“don’t make me destroy you”).

Only in ROTJ is it suggested that Vader had ‘good in him’, and that was purely because Luke (see Lucas) suddenly decided it was so.

I agree Kylo had no backstory whatsoever, but the conflict within him is/was evident from the get-go. Vader had given himself over to darkness and was pretty comfortable with it in the OT. Kylo was not so adept at evil. In fact the way way Adam Driver played Kylo was how I wish Anakin had been played in the prequels, a truly conflicted soul. That “I want to be free of this pain” moment in TFA had more raw emotion in it than all three prequels put together.

By the way I’m not against Vader’s redemption at all, in fact I thought it was a great idea. I just hate Luke’s POV. I do not understand why Luke was suddenly all gushy about Dad in ROTJ, nor do I understand why this took precedence over everything else that was going on. I’d have preferred a darker movie - one where Luke would be disillusioned with the whole Jedi thing (having been lied to by everyone concerned) and Vader’s turnaround would be a nice surprise while Luke was busy doing everything in his power to defeat Palpatine. But that’s just me. I cannot fathom why saving a war-criminal’s soul would make anyone a legend.

I mean, Luke’s primary influence from the moment he joins Ben in ANH - is his father’s legacy. He wants to learn the ways of the Force and become a Jedi like his father. From that, he essentially follows the path his dad took, right down to when he brushes with the dark side in ESB. He ignores Yoda and Ben’s warnings by rushing in to confront Vader, and save his friends.

That’s when he sees an outcome of following that quick and easy path - Darth Vader - and is faced with making different choices than his father. By ROTJ, Luke has empathy for Vader because he finds that by following his father, he is Vader. He’s more or less been where he’s been. Everything he believed about his father had to be true at one point, but then he took a wrong turn somewhere, which Luke after ESB understands now more than anyone.

It definitely has potential to be naivete, but Luke ends up being right. The idealism that it is, is what makes him a legend. The fact that you, and probably many others in the galaxy, would become disillusioned where Luke didn’t is the point. That doesn’t really say anything about how you personally would have preferred the movie to go, but that’s the theme. It makes sense and isn’t “sudden.” ROTJ just contextualizes the previous set-up. Not that it couldn’t have gone in a different direction - that who knows, I might have preferred myself - but pretty much all the heavy lifting for it is done in the prior two films.

I don’t disagree - I mean even though the OT was written on the fly, the character of Vader is fleshed out as you say ie we learn about the noble father and then discover Vader is that guy (with all that implies).

But the OT wasn’t about saving Dad, it was about Luke Skywalker being the last Jedi hope of the galaxy. And Luke did not save the galaxy. All he did was save Vader. Killing Palpatine was a lucky by-product of an entirely different quest - to save Vader. It’d be like me halting a nuclear holocaust because I just so happened to plug in my hairdryer and blow all the fuses in the bad guys’ bunker.

It feels like you’re missing the point here. Obi-Wan and Yoda wanted Luke to save the galaxy by destroying the Sith, but Luke couldn’t bring himself to kill his father. In the end, Luke’s hopefulness pays off. He puts down his weapon and sacrifices himself to Palpatine, resulting in Vader’s redemption and Palpatine’s death. It’s a subversion of the “chosen one” trope. Luke saves the galaxy not by destroying the Sith, but by saving his father.

I think a huge problem with ROTJ is that it dumbs down the Dark Side to a ludicrous degree. It turns the slow-burn corruption of negative emotions and lust for power into a simple “lose your temper and you’ll turn irreversibly evil” thing. Which means Luke just has to stand there while thousands of his comrades are being incinerated, or that just getting angry will somehow lead to Luke joining the Emperor. By extension this implies that Jedi are more trouble than they’re worth.

I have to agree with you on this one. The “strike me down” speech is dumb, but it’s not like TROS is any better since it features the same speech almost word for word.

I still don’t see why Luke would become a legend for giving a profoundly evil man a bedside conversion while everyone else was fighting a war.

To be fair, that’s more of a sequel trilogy thing. Nothing in ROTJ implies that Luke became a legend for redeeming his father, so that argument is invalid when used against ROTJ.

Her temptation by Palpatine is real - she is literally put in the impossible position of having to accept the Dark Side as a way to save her friends, and Kylo helps her. Together they save the galaxy.

That may have been JJ’s intention, but it wasn’t conveyed well at all. Palpatine tells Rey that he wants Rey to kill him so he can possess her. Then he tells Rey that killing him will allow her to save her friends, which blatantly contradicts the thing he said right before. If Rey is possessed by Palpatine, there’s no way she’ll want to save her friends. It’s such a one-sided bargain that any sane person would have refused, and so Rey seems like an idiot for actually going along with Palpatine’s plan until Ben shows up.

Because of that, Luke’s throne room scene is much better in my opinion. Luke isn’t there to kill Palpatine, and he doesn’t fall for any of Palpatine’s “strike me down” speechifying. He actually seems smart, and his intelligence pays off in the end.

My preferred saga experience:
TPM/AOTC/ROTS (Hal 9000), ANH/ESB/ROTJ (Despecialized), The Mandalorian,
TFA (Starlight), TLJ (Fallen Knight), TROS (Resurgence).
May the midichlorians be with you.

Author
Time

StarkillerAG said:

Shopping Maul said:

NFBisms said:

Shopping Maul said:

Wanderer_ said:

Shopping Maul said:

Well why the hell did Vader deserve redemption?
He didn’t, we tolerated it because Vader was well written and it was easier for us to feel that his love for his son was enough to make him turn back.

At least Kylo had layers, some obvious conflict.

Mm, this is an odd one. Vader had many more layers than Kylo. Vader was always in conflict, he was a slave to the dark side. Kylo chose to be the monster he became and I honestly don’t think the movies gave us reasons for him to have let darkness grown inside of him.

But that’s not true according to the OT. Vader was a straight up bad guy in ANH - choking dudes to death, torturing princesses, killing Obi Wan (quite happily I add - “this will be a day long remembered…”), and shooting down X-Wings. In TESB he relentlessly pursues the rebels, kills his subordinates for human error, tortures Han and Leia to get Luke’s attention, and finally gives Luke a ‘join me or die’ ultimatum (“don’t make me destroy you”).

Only in ROTJ is it suggested that Vader had ‘good in him’, and that was purely because Luke (see Lucas) suddenly decided it was so.

I agree Kylo had no backstory whatsoever, but the conflict within him is/was evident from the get-go. Vader had given himself over to darkness and was pretty comfortable with it in the OT. Kylo was not so adept at evil. In fact the way way Adam Driver played Kylo was how I wish Anakin had been played in the prequels, a truly conflicted soul. That “I want to be free of this pain” moment in TFA had more raw emotion in it than all three prequels put together.

By the way I’m not against Vader’s redemption at all, in fact I thought it was a great idea. I just hate Luke’s POV. I do not understand why Luke was suddenly all gushy about Dad in ROTJ, nor do I understand why this took precedence over everything else that was going on. I’d have preferred a darker movie - one where Luke would be disillusioned with the whole Jedi thing (having been lied to by everyone concerned) and Vader’s turnaround would be a nice surprise while Luke was busy doing everything in his power to defeat Palpatine. But that’s just me. I cannot fathom why saving a war-criminal’s soul would make anyone a legend.

I mean, Luke’s primary influence from the moment he joins Ben in ANH - is his father’s legacy. He wants to learn the ways of the Force and become a Jedi like his father. From that, he essentially follows the path his dad took, right down to when he brushes with the dark side in ESB. He ignores Yoda and Ben’s warnings by rushing in to confront Vader, and save his friends.

That’s when he sees an outcome of following that quick and easy path - Darth Vader - and is faced with making different choices than his father. By ROTJ, Luke has empathy for Vader because he finds that by following his father, he is Vader. He’s more or less been where he’s been. Everything he believed about his father had to be true at one point, but then he took a wrong turn somewhere, which Luke after ESB understands now more than anyone.

It definitely has potential to be naivete, but Luke ends up being right. The idealism that it is, is what makes him a legend. The fact that you, and probably many others in the galaxy, would become disillusioned where Luke didn’t is the point. That doesn’t really say anything about how you personally would have preferred the movie to go, but that’s the theme. It makes sense and isn’t “sudden.” ROTJ just contextualizes the previous set-up. Not that it couldn’t have gone in a different direction - that who knows, I might have preferred myself - but pretty much all the heavy lifting for it is done in the prior two films.

I don’t disagree - I mean even though the OT was written on the fly, the character of Vader is fleshed out as you say ie we learn about the noble father and then discover Vader is that guy (with all that implies).

But the OT wasn’t about saving Dad, it was about Luke Skywalker being the last Jedi hope of the galaxy. And Luke did not save the galaxy. All he did was save Vader. Killing Palpatine was a lucky by-product of an entirely different quest - to save Vader. It’d be like me halting a nuclear holocaust because I just so happened to plug in my hairdryer and blow all the fuses in the bad guys’ bunker.

It feels like you’re missing the point here. Obi-Wan and Yoda wanted Luke to save the galaxy by destroying the Sith, but Luke couldn’t bring himself to kill his father. In the end, Luke’s hopefulness pays off. He puts down his weapon and sacrifices himself to Palpatine, resulting in Vader’s redemption and Palpatine’s death. It’s a subversion of the “chosen one” trope. Luke saves the galaxy not by destroying the Sith, but by saving his father.

I just don’t see it. What if Vader hadn’t turned? It’d be a bad thing to make a habit of this. Is this what they teach at Jedi school - always trust a family member no matter what? And Luke never articulates a desire to defeat Palpatine. His only expressed desire is saving Vader. I just don’t see how this is a) moral and b) worthy of legend. If anything Luke should walk away from this saying “well that was lucky but I’m not training another Jedi - they’re way too temperamental”.

People keep saying “Luke destroyed the Sith” but he didn’t. He accidentally destroyed the Sith - the same Sith who were pretty much doomed anyway because the DS was about to explode. Again, at best Luke inadvertently prevented Palpatine’s possible escape. But he can’t claim credit for it - it was just a lucky by-product of his obsession with Vader’s redemption.

I think a huge problem with ROTJ is that it dumbs down the Dark Side to a ludicrous degree. It turns the slow-burn corruption of negative emotions and lust for power into a simple “lose your temper and you’ll turn irreversibly evil” thing. Which means Luke just has to stand there while thousands of his comrades are being incinerated, or that just getting angry will somehow lead to Luke joining the Emperor. By extension this implies that Jedi are more trouble than they’re worth.

I have to agree with you on this one. The “strike me down” speech is dumb, but it’s not like TROS is any better since it features the same speech almost word for word.

I still don’t see why Luke would become a legend for giving a profoundly evil man a bedside conversion while everyone else was fighting a war.

To be fair, that’s more of a sequel trilogy thing. Nothing in ROTJ implies that Luke became a legend for redeeming his father, so that argument is invalid when used against ROTJ.

Yes but Yoda tells Luke to “pass on what he has learned” (which, as I keep arguing, is “do nothing - it’ll work out in the end”!) and Luke tells Leia that she will learn to use the Force as he has. The EU has Luke training new Jedi and the general fan vibe is, as you say, Luke destroyed the Sith and by extension should start a new Jedi Order.

Her temptation by Palpatine is real - she is literally put in the impossible position of having to accept the Dark Side as a way to save her friends, and Kylo helps her. Together they save the galaxy.

That may have been JJ’s intention, but it wasn’t conveyed well at all. Palpatine tells Rey that he wants Rey to kill him so he can possess her. Then he tells Rey that killing him will allow her to save her friends, which blatantly contradicts the thing he said right before. If Rey is possessed by Palpatine, there’s no way she’ll want to save her friends. It’s such a one-sided bargain that any sane person would have refused, and so Rey seems like an idiot for actually going along with Palpatine’s plan until Ben shows up.

Well that’s the gamble, that Palpatine will be true to his word. And the implication is that he’ll spare the rebels’ lives, but then rule them with an iron fist through Dark Rey. It’s a truly impossible situation and Rey opts for sparing their lives (before Kylo intervenes). That has so much more meat to it than “go on, get angry, that’ll make you evil”.

Because of that, Luke’s throne room scene is much better in my opinion. Luke isn’t there to kill Palpatine, and he doesn’t fall for any of Palpatine’s “strike me down” speechifying. He actually seems smart, and his intelligence pays off in the end.

Many sentient beings were ruthlessly killed while Luke stood at the DS window trying not to get mad. Many more died while Luke sat under a staircase trying not to get mad. More and more died while Luke threw aside his weapon and declared that he was now a qualified space-Yoga instructor. I fail to see how this is moral, let alone smart. Smart would have been deliberately doing everything in his power to make sure Palpatine was on the DS when it exploded. If that had been Luke’s expressed intention, the whole thing would make more sense to me.

Author
Time

Anger leads to the dark side. If Luke falls to the dark side, then the battle outside the Death Star is pointless. We see Luke abandon the mission on Endor because he knows Vader is going to find him. He gives himself up and is taken to the Emperor and there tries to avoid giving in to the dark side. He has a moment when his anger takes over and I believe he taps into the dark side, but then he lets it go and is not consumed. He refuses to kill. The scene on the Death Star is a chess match between Palpatine and Luke. The fate of the galaxy rests in the result. If Palpatine successfully turns Luke, all is lost. And somehow Luke hopes to turn Vader, but his primary focus is to keep them occupied while the ground teams destroys the shield and then Lando and Wedge destroy the Death Star. At the point when Palpatine should be focused on the battle, he is instead distracted by Luke and isn’t paying attention to his impending demise. Had Luke fallen to the dark side, the Rebels would have been wiped out.

So Luke’s part in the final battle is not as a bystander, but a distraction. He picks up his lightsaber and distracts with the duel until Vader makes it serious by involving Leia. Palpatine is completely focused on Luke and trying to turn him. So Luke really is a hero for his actions because he prevents Palpatine and Vader from staying involved in the battle raging outside. Palpatine doesn’t even noticed when the shield generator is destroyed. He’d rather kill Luke and ends up being killed by Vader.

If I was Luke I would explain it by saying that Palpatine had been controlling Anakin/Vader all those years and that he was the catalist that Anakin needed to free himself. That puts all the blame for Vader’s actions on Palpatine. And I think that the way Lucas wrote the PT that is what was actually going on. I think Palpatine used the force to tip Anakin to the dark side and then used the force voice on him to make him destroy the Jedi temple. Then after the duel, Palpatine used the force to keep him alive all those years. So when Vader killed Palpatine he killed himself… not just because of the damage from the force lightning.

We know that Anakin wasn’t quite so innocent and that he was teetering and about to fall, but Palpatine did not leave things to chance. Watch that scene in ROTS after Mace is dead and listen to sound effects added to Palpatine’s voice. He is not leaving it to chance but is using the dark side to manipulate Anakin and hasten his fall to the dark side. I think Anakin’s anger at Obi-wan is genuine and that he really did try to kill Padme. And in the end he thinks he did. So when the chance comes to save Luke - Padme’s son - he doesn’t hesitate or think of the cost. What caused him to fall is what ultimately causes his redemption. Luke was the cause of the fall and redemption both. With Leia, of course, but Luke was the child he knew about leading up to that final confrontation. Still, Luke could follow Obi-wan’s example and tell the story from a certain point of view. Not like there are any other witnesses to the events.

But without Luke being where he was, Palpatine’s attention would have been on the battle and he would have sensed what was going on on Endor and could have given orders to prevent the success of the Rebel’s mission. But because he was distracted by his Sith business, he ignored the battle and was destroyed. Luke didn’t destroy the shield or the Death Star, but he facilitated both by being where he was and doing what he was doing.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

yotsuya said:

Anger leads to the dark side. If Luke falls to the dark side, then the battle outside the Death Star is pointless. We see Luke abandon the mission on Endor because he knows Vader is going to find him. He gives himself up and is taken to the Emperor and there tries to avoid giving in to the dark side. He has a moment when his anger takes over and I believe he taps into the dark side, but then he lets it go and is not consumed. He refuses to kill. The scene on the Death Star is a chess match between Palpatine and Luke. The fate of the galaxy rests in the result. If Palpatine successfully turns Luke, all is lost. And somehow Luke hopes to turn Vader, but his primary focus is to keep them occupied while the ground teams destroys the shield and then Lando and Wedge destroy the Death Star. At the point when Palpatine should be focused on the battle, he is instead distracted by Luke and isn’t paying attention to his impending demise. Had Luke fallen to the dark side, the Rebels would have been wiped out.

So Luke’s part in the final battle is not as a bystander, but a distraction. He picks up his lightsaber and distracts with the duel until Vader makes it serious by involving Leia. Palpatine is completely focused on Luke and trying to turn him. So Luke really is a hero for his actions because he prevents Palpatine and Vader from staying involved in the battle raging outside. Palpatine doesn’t even noticed when the shield generator is destroyed. He’d rather kill Luke and ends up being killed by Vader.

If I was Luke I would explain it by saying that Palpatine had been controlling Anakin/Vader all those years and that he was the catalist that Anakin needed to free himself. That puts all the blame for Vader’s actions on Palpatine. And I think that the way Lucas wrote the PT that is what was actually going on. I think Palpatine used the force to tip Anakin to the dark side and then used the force voice on him to make him destroy the Jedi temple. Then after the duel, Palpatine used the force to keep him alive all those years. So when Vader killed Palpatine he killed himself… not just because of the damage from the force lightning.

We know that Anakin wasn’t quite so innocent and that he was teetering and about to fall, but Palpatine did not leave things to chance. Watch that scene in ROTS after Mace is dead and listen to sound effects added to Palpatine’s voice. He is not leaving it to chance but is using the dark side to manipulate Anakin and hasten his fall to the dark side. I think Anakin’s anger at Obi-wan is genuine and that he really did try to kill Padme. And in the end he thinks he did. So when the chance comes to save Luke - Padme’s son - he doesn’t hesitate or think of the cost. What caused him to fall is what ultimately causes his redemption. Luke was the cause of the fall and redemption both. With Leia, of course, but Luke was the child he knew about leading up to that final confrontation. Still, Luke could follow Obi-wan’s example and tell the story from a certain point of view. Not like there are any other witnesses to the events.

But without Luke being where he was, Palpatine’s attention would have been on the battle and he would have sensed what was going on on Endor and could have given orders to prevent the success of the Rebel’s mission. But because he was distracted by his Sith business, he ignored the battle and was destroyed. Luke didn’t destroy the shield or the Death Star, but he facilitated both by being where he was and doing what he was doing.

My issue is that the ‘Luke as distraction’ thing is something a fan would come up with to fill a plothole. It’s not something the movie ever expresses or even hints at (although it was in the novelisation). As I keep saying, I wish it had been a component of Luke’s farewell speech to Leia. All that Luke is concerned with at that point - apart from getting out of the way - is saving Vader. So I do like the theory, but I wish it was in the film.

I also have issues with the Dark Side and matters of aggression. I don’t think it would have been unethical for Luke to kill Vader and Palpatine outright from the get-go. These guys were slaughtering thousands of innocent beings. Self-defence right? At very least Luke should have had Palpatine in a headlock and forced him to order the shutdown of the DS cannon. If Han Solo had been in that throne room - or Chewie or Leia or Wedge or any Tom/Dick/Harry - they would’ve pulled a gun on those clowns immediately. They would have failed of course, but no-one would question their right to act in that way. The notion that a Jedi is automatically hamstrung by this suddenly unwavering notion of pacifism is ridiculous. When Luke destroyed the first DS - and all its inhabitants - you didn’t hear Obi Wan’s ghost-voice say “don’t shoot Luke - try to reason with them”. It was war.

I’m not with you on Anakin’s being controlled by Palpatine. My impression was that Anakin sold his soul and knew exactly what he was doing. In ROTS he clearly uses some pretty lame self-justification to make himself feel better when explaining things to Padme. In fact if I’d written ROTJ (and I’m sure everyone here is glad that I didn’t!) I would’ve had Luke come to the conclusion that there is no ‘dark side’ - just the choices we make.

But yes, the ‘Luke as distraction’ thing kind of works - I just wish it was firmly expressed in the film. It would have been awesome (IMO) if Luke had just spared Vader after the hand-chopping thing, and Palpatine had said something like “young fool, do you seek to bargain for your father’s life?”. Luke would smile and say “no, I am a Jedi - like my father before me. What I have bargained for is time.” Palpatine would suddenly realise that the DS is coming apart around him and then angrily roast Luke with lightning - prompting Vader’s reaction etc etc. Or something like that anyway…

Author
Time

Shopping Maul said:

yotsuya said:

Anger leads to the dark side. If Luke falls to the dark side, then the battle outside the Death Star is pointless. We see Luke abandon the mission on Endor because he knows Vader is going to find him. He gives himself up and is taken to the Emperor and there tries to avoid giving in to the dark side. He has a moment when his anger takes over and I believe he taps into the dark side, but then he lets it go and is not consumed. He refuses to kill. The scene on the Death Star is a chess match between Palpatine and Luke. The fate of the galaxy rests in the result. If Palpatine successfully turns Luke, all is lost. And somehow Luke hopes to turn Vader, but his primary focus is to keep them occupied while the ground teams destroys the shield and then Lando and Wedge destroy the Death Star. At the point when Palpatine should be focused on the battle, he is instead distracted by Luke and isn’t paying attention to his impending demise. Had Luke fallen to the dark side, the Rebels would have been wiped out.

So Luke’s part in the final battle is not as a bystander, but a distraction. He picks up his lightsaber and distracts with the duel until Vader makes it serious by involving Leia. Palpatine is completely focused on Luke and trying to turn him. So Luke really is a hero for his actions because he prevents Palpatine and Vader from staying involved in the battle raging outside. Palpatine doesn’t even noticed when the shield generator is destroyed. He’d rather kill Luke and ends up being killed by Vader.

If I was Luke I would explain it by saying that Palpatine had been controlling Anakin/Vader all those years and that he was the catalist that Anakin needed to free himself. That puts all the blame for Vader’s actions on Palpatine. And I think that the way Lucas wrote the PT that is what was actually going on. I think Palpatine used the force to tip Anakin to the dark side and then used the force voice on him to make him destroy the Jedi temple. Then after the duel, Palpatine used the force to keep him alive all those years. So when Vader killed Palpatine he killed himself… not just because of the damage from the force lightning.

We know that Anakin wasn’t quite so innocent and that he was teetering and about to fall, but Palpatine did not leave things to chance. Watch that scene in ROTS after Mace is dead and listen to sound effects added to Palpatine’s voice. He is not leaving it to chance but is using the dark side to manipulate Anakin and hasten his fall to the dark side. I think Anakin’s anger at Obi-wan is genuine and that he really did try to kill Padme. And in the end he thinks he did. So when the chance comes to save Luke - Padme’s son - he doesn’t hesitate or think of the cost. What caused him to fall is what ultimately causes his redemption. Luke was the cause of the fall and redemption both. With Leia, of course, but Luke was the child he knew about leading up to that final confrontation. Still, Luke could follow Obi-wan’s example and tell the story from a certain point of view. Not like there are any other witnesses to the events.

But without Luke being where he was, Palpatine’s attention would have been on the battle and he would have sensed what was going on on Endor and could have given orders to prevent the success of the Rebel’s mission. But because he was distracted by his Sith business, he ignored the battle and was destroyed. Luke didn’t destroy the shield or the Death Star, but he facilitated both by being where he was and doing what he was doing.

My issue is that the ‘Luke as distraction’ thing is something a fan would come up with to fill a plothole. It’s not something the movie ever expresses or even hints at (although it was in the novelisation). As I keep saying, I wish it had been a component of Luke’s farewell speech to Leia. All that Luke is concerned with at that point - apart from getting out of the way - is saving Vader. So I do like the theory, but I wish it was in the film.

I also have issues with the Dark Side and matters of aggression. I don’t think it would have been unethical for Luke to kill Vader and Palpatine outright from the get-go. These guys were slaughtering thousands of innocent beings. Self-defence right? At very least Luke should have had Palpatine in a headlock and forced him to order the shutdown of the DS cannon. If Han Solo had been in that throne room - or Chewie or Leia or Wedge or any Tom/Dick/Harry - they would’ve pulled a gun on those clowns immediately. They would have failed of course, but no-one would question their right to act in that way. The notion that a Jedi is automatically hamstrung by this suddenly unwavering notion of pacifism is ridiculous. When Luke destroyed the first DS - and all its inhabitants - you didn’t hear Obi Wan’s ghost-voice say “don’t shoot Luke - try to reason with them”. It was war.

I’m not with you on Anakin’s being controlled by Palpatine. My impression was that Anakin sold his soul and knew exactly what he was doing. In ROTS he clearly uses some pretty lame self-justification to make himself feel better when explaining things to Padme. In fact if I’d written ROTJ (and I’m sure everyone here is glad that I didn’t!) I would’ve had Luke come to the conclusion that there is no ‘dark side’ - just the choices we make.

But yes, the ‘Luke as distraction’ thing kind of works - I just wish it was firmly expressed in the film. It would have been awesome (IMO) if Luke had just spared Vader after the hand-chopping thing, and Palpatine had said something like “young fool, do you seek to bargain for your father’s life?”. Luke would smile and say “no, I am a Jedi - like my father before me. What I have bargained for is time.” Palpatine would suddenly realise that the DS is coming apart around him and then angrily roast Luke with lightning - prompting Vader’s reaction etc etc. Or something like that anyway…

Lucas loves to do the subtle. The PT is full of it. So I think the subtle hints in the film are sufficient for us to determine that Luke is distracting them. He doesn’t take the quick and easy route but the long and complex one. Until Vader threatens Leia. Everything says he is playing for time. He saw Ben fight Vader and he fought Vader already, so why is he suddenly being a pacifist? He is keeping those two occupied. He is keeping Palpatine interested until it is too late. And he is trying to find a way to reach his father. Reasoning with him didn’t work. And his attempt to evade the fight didn’t work… it just left him open to Vader discovering Leia. So he finally egages in the fight and the realizes he has edged to the dark side. The entire scene is full of stuff that is subtle and open to interpretation. The only part that isn’t is Vader throwing Palpatine down the shaft. But Luke turned himself in in the first place so he wouldn’t endanger the mission. He turned himself in to be a distraction and basically told Leia as much before he left. So in light of why he turned himself in we can guess with some reasonable accuracy the motive for his actions on the Death Star.

And I like your idea for making it more clear, but that isn’t Lucas’s style. I think the Saga would have been better as a whole if there were a few things that went against his style to liven things up and make them not so subtle.

Author
Time

DuracellEnergizer said:

Mocata said:

Vader’s redemption kind of comes out of nowhere. But it doesn’t matter unless you expect a fully realised villain, with many facets and deep characterisation. The Empire might seem like fascist super state, but meaningful comparisons to real historical figures are not really appropriate. It’s just Star Wars.

All the more reason why Trek is the superior Star franchise.

Maybe once, not so much these days.

Yub Nub for life

Author
Time

Mocata said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

Mocata said:

Vader’s redemption kind of comes out of nowhere. But it doesn’t matter unless you expect a fully realised villain, with many facets and deep characterisation. The Empire might seem like fascist super state, but meaningful comparisons to real historical figures are not really appropriate. It’s just Star Wars.

All the more reason why Trek is the superior Star franchise.

Maybe once, not so much these days.

Difference is modern Trek doesn’t retroactively ruin what came before. At least not for me.

Divergent Universes
Dreams of a Randy Git-Fiend

Make Off Topic great again.

Author
Time

DuracellEnergizer said:

Mocata said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

Mocata said:

Vader’s redemption kind of comes out of nowhere. But it doesn’t matter unless you expect a fully realised villain, with many facets and deep characterisation. The Empire might seem like fascist super state, but meaningful comparisons to real historical figures are not really appropriate. It’s just Star Wars.

All the more reason why Trek is the superior Star franchise.

Maybe once, not so much these days.

Difference is modern Trek doesn’t retroactively ruin what came before. At least not for me.

Have you seen the new Picard show?

Author
Time

pleasehello said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

Mocata said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

Mocata said:

Vader’s redemption kind of comes out of nowhere. But it doesn’t matter unless you expect a fully realised villain, with many facets and deep characterisation. The Empire might seem like fascist super state, but meaningful comparisons to real historical figures are not really appropriate. It’s just Star Wars.

All the more reason why Trek is the superior Star franchise.

Maybe once, not so much these days.

Difference is modern Trek doesn’t retroactively ruin what came before. At least not for me.

Have you seen the new Picard show?

Yeah, and it’s pretty good. It seems like a lot of the problems people have with the show are just problems with Nemesis and Star Trek '09. They couldn’t just erase those movies without messing up the canon, so they took the least disruptive way of continuing the series in my opinion. I don’t think it “retroactively ruins” anything.

My preferred saga experience:
TPM/AOTC/ROTS (Hal 9000), ANH/ESB/ROTJ (Despecialized), The Mandalorian,
TFA (Starlight), TLJ (Fallen Knight), TROS (Resurgence).
May the midichlorians be with you.

Author
Time

pleasehello said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

Mocata said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

Mocata said:

Vader’s redemption kind of comes out of nowhere. But it doesn’t matter unless you expect a fully realised villain, with many facets and deep characterisation. The Empire might seem like fascist super state, but meaningful comparisons to real historical figures are not really appropriate. It’s just Star Wars.

All the more reason why Trek is the superior Star franchise.

Maybe once, not so much these days.

Difference is modern Trek doesn’t retroactively ruin what came before. At least not for me.

Have you seen the new Picard show?

Or any TNG movie? 😉

Yub Nub for life

Author
Time
 (Edited)

pleasehello said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

Mocata said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

Mocata said:

Vader’s redemption kind of comes out of nowhere. But it doesn’t matter unless you expect a fully realised villain, with many facets and deep characterisation. The Empire might seem like fascist super state, but meaningful comparisons to real historical figures are not really appropriate. It’s just Star Wars.

All the more reason why Trek is the superior Star franchise.

Maybe once, not so much these days.

Difference is modern Trek doesn’t retroactively ruin what came before. At least not for me.

Have you seen the new Picard show?

The newest ST series I’ve seen is DS9.

Probably explains a lot.

Divergent Universes
Dreams of a Randy Git-Fiend

Make Off Topic great again.

Author
Time

Maybe 1/4 of ROTJ runtime was about Luke’s desire to redeem Vader and the issues around it.

In the Sequals, two main OT characters DIED for the story of how unredeemable Kylo was.

By RoS I was just bored to tears with the concept.

TAFKA TheBoost