logo Sign In

Return of the Jedi - your opinion? — Page 4

Author
Time

snooker said:

In-universe, the story of Luke redeeming his father (who was basically space Satan) was super fucking impressive, and spread far and wide. They talk about this in TLJ.

Also, from a story point of view, the smaller more emotional climax of him redeeming space Hitler is far more cathartic and interesting as an audience (at least to me).

If Luke replaced Wedge in the final battle and blew up the core of the Death Star, he may have made a more apparent strategic difference, but his arc from the whiny farmboy in the first movie would be incomplete. He wouldn’t have used any of his new skills or anything he learned as a character if he just blew up the place.

If I was gonna change anything about the Luke stuff in the movie, I would have made the Emperor actually tempt him a little, because nothing he offers actually truly budges Luke.

But why would Luke’s redeeming Vader be the stuff of legends? It’s legendary to us - to fans - but why would it apply in-universe? We seem to forget that Vader was actually evil, possibly because we (again as fans) find him so cool no matter who he’s strangling. Every member of the rebellion would’ve lost friends and family to the Imperial juggernaut under Lord Vader and his Emperor. Do you honestly think folks would be praising Luke’s giving this man a bedside conversion? No, most people would be like “why didn’t you kill that monster when you had the chance?”.

The only ‘legend’ that could possibly arise from the RoTJ battle would be the notion that Luke killed the Emperor before he could escape the exploding Death Star. That’s the only story that could logically resonate with the populace. Rey’s version as told in TLJ is ridiculous. I can only assume that Leia told Rey about Anakin’s redemption before she left the Resistance Base, because again it would be absurd (and suicidal I’d expect) for Luke to have divulged the truth about his father to the wider populace.

Prior to TLJ, when RJ and Mark Hamill were hinting at revelations that would rock the franchise, I thought this was what they were referring to - that Luke would admit he hadn’t killed the Emperor as per the legend and that his entire fracas on the Death Star had been an insular pursuit. This would at least be something worth feeling guilty about.

Author
Time

Luke does carry around a lot of guilt that he wasn’t able to prevent Corpsey’s death. 😛

Forum Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time

Okay, what the hell - here’s another issue I have with RoTJ.

Matters of scale and physics are always dicey in SW, but of course we accept it as part of the lore and style (sound in space, spacial distances, gravitational/atmospheric constants between planets etc etc). However there’s one in RoTJ that always bugged me.

The Death Star super-laser beam would have to be several kilometres across, yet it lands at a spaceships’ width. On the flip-side, placing the DS right next to the Endor moon makes one wonder how the hell these things manage to destroy entire planets. Such comparisons were avoided in ANH, so it wasn’t an issue there.

And why the heck didn’t the rebel fleet just fly to the other side of the Death Star to avoid the beam?

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Maybe the beam can be smaller/more focused at lower power? I would imagine it wasn’t on full strength firing at the Rebels. Full power would have been insane at such close range.

I would think the Star Destroyers had them boxed in, and the DS certainly could rotate easily to fire in other directions.
How does any planet destroying super weapon work? It’s a fantasy film, not 2001. As a kid, I presumed the beam pierced the core of the planet and blew it up from within. Looking at freeze frames from the original film, I’m not sure what’s going on.
(Best image I could find on short notice.)

It’s like the beam splits and spreads around the entire planet. (Some fans theorize Alderaan has a planetary sheild that temporarily deflects the beam before it fails.) Can’t find an exact screenshot, but I think the Rebel ships that get hit in Jedi simply explode.

The deleted scene where the Emperor orders Endor blown up is problematic. I don’t think being in orbit of the planet you’re destroying is a safe place to be.

Forum Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time

SilverWook said:

Maybe the beam can be smaller/more focused at lower power? I would imagine it wasn’t on full strength firing at the Rebels. Full power would have been insane at such close range.

I would think the Star Destroyers had them boxed in, and the DS certainly could rotate easily to fire in other directions.
How does any planet destroying super weapon work? It’s a fantasy film, not 2001. As a kid, I presumed the beam pierced the core of the planet and blew it up from within. Looking at freeze frames from the original film, I’m not sure what’s going on.

The deleted scene where the Emperor orders Endor blown up is problematic. I don’t think being in orbit of the planet you’re destroying is a safe place to be.

But the image used is the same as the one for ANH (the same shot if I’m not mistaken) so I’m talking about the sheer size of the beam, not its power levels. like I said, all scale is suspect in SW, but this is a glaring example (IMO) that could have been avoided.

To give an example, the Ion cannon in TESB doesn’t have the same issue. It fires a beam which logically strikes a Star Destroyer, and you see the beam ‘emerge’ from somewhere on Hoth’s surface as it passes the Rebel Ships. By comparison the DS beam would have a diameter about the size of a small city, yet you see it strike a single ship as if it had come from something in the scale vicinity of the Ion cannon.

I absolutely agree with your 2001 observation, so I get that putting science in SW becomes a highly subjective exercise. Like I said, ANH avoids this particular issue by not making scale an obvious thing with regards to the DS. RoTJ just shines a light on it that bugs me.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

The ROTJ shot has a center beam.
It would probably make more sense if just a smaller beam from the emitter was fired at the fleet.

But probably not as dramatic as it plays out in the movie. Oh crap! It’s operational!

As it stands, it’s like using a tactical nuke on a battleship. If the DS beam could cause an blast in empty space, a shot right into the center of the Rebel fleet would wipe them out, or severely cripple the ships furthest away, but the movie would also be over. 😉

Forum Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time

SilverWook said:

As it stands, it’s like using a tactical nuke on a battleship. If the DS beam could cause an blast in empty space, a shot right into the center of the Rebel fleet would wipe them out, or severely cripple the ships furthest away, but the movie would also be over. 😉

Yeah, you’re right. It does serve the drama well, even if the scale annoys me. Maybe Adywan could do an edit with a skinnier beam ha ha!

Author
Time

As a teenager ROTJ was my favourite of the SW OT, and as many of you have posted here previously it is perhaps the pinnacle of traditional optical effects from the pre-digital age (I would also add Predator 2 to that lot).

Now that doesn’t mean the movie is without flaws, particularly with Lucas rehashing the Death Star and Leia being outed as a Skywalker. I’m pretty sure Lucas pulled that one out of his arse when he couldn’t come up with a better way to solve Yoda’s line in TESB (No. There is another), and it also raises another question: how come Vader immediatly identifies Luke as his son but remains completely unaware of Leia being his daughter until the Battle of Endor? The conversation between Vader and Leia at the beginning of the first SW makes it clear they’ve interacted before, and he couldn’t sense anything when being around her?.

Musically I also think ROTJ has the weakest score of the OT, as whenever I want to enjoy the score of the OT I find myself skipping ROTJ, dunno but it simply isn’t as memorable or as captivating as its two predecessors.

Unlike many I’m totally fine with the Ewoks, although I find it hilarious how an adult male in a full suit of armour is instantly killed by a Teddy bear throwing a rock at him.

I’ve read that Gary Kurtz originally wanted ROTJ to end with Han dying, the Rebellion in tatters, Leia assuming leadership to continue the struggle and Luke walking away from everything. Curiously these elements have been incorporated in the ST.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Clearly the Empire was going with the low bidder on Trooper armor at that point. One can argue they’re merely stunned, not dead. 😉
I still believe more violent scenes were shot, but cut.

If you’ve ever seen the documentary Star Wars To Jedi:The Making Of A Saga, Lucas implies they made Leia the other at the last moment. When they came to shoot the throne room scenes, they still had not figured out what Vader should say to make Luke fight him.

Forum Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time

SilverWook said:
If you’ve ever seen the documentary Star Wars To Jedi:The Making Of A Saga, Lucas implies they made Leia the other at the last moment. When they came to shoot the throne room scenes, they still had not figured out what Vader should say to make Luke fight him.

The irony is that if Lucas had allowed the ‘noble death’ of Han Solo, he would’ve had the answer to the ‘why does Luke snap’ conundrum. Vader/Palpatine could have been offering to halt the battle if Luke were to agree to turn (an actual temptation as opposed to simply making Luke mad) before Luke suddenly senses Han’s death through the Force. Luke kicks Vader’s butt and no-one has to be anyone’s shoehorned sister!

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Shopping Maul said:

The irony is that if Lucas had allowed the ‘noble death’ of Han Solo, he would’ve had the answer to the ‘why does Luke snap’ conundrum. Vader/Palpatine could have been offering to halt the battle if Luke were to agree to turn (an actual temptation as opposed to simply making Luke mad) before Luke suddenly senses Han’s death through the Force. Luke kicks Vader’s butt and no-one has to be anyone’s shoehorned sister!

I had never thought of that. That definitely could’ve worked, and that might be a good idea for a fan edit that tries to kill Han and not make Leia Luke’s sister.

I definitely agree that it is kind of obvious that making Leia Luke’s sister was a noticeable last minute decision. But to play devil’s advocate, I do think making that change was a good decision in the long run. Family is obviously a central theme in the Star Wars films, and making Luke almost turn to save his sister’s soul does make that theme even stronger. Plus, it parallels Anakin’s own fall in the prequels, giving in to the darkside to save family, to save someone he loved.

And I do think you can make a fair argument about how Vader knew Luke was his son but never knew Leia was his daughter even though they had a few face-to-face interactions. But we never are really told how Vader found out Luke was his son. In the Special Edition of ESB, the Emperor tells Vader that Luke is his son, and he apparently had know idea before that. So he didn’t just sense it and figure it out. He could tell he was strong in the Force, but that doesn’t mean that he could since that he was his son.

For what it is worth, the new canon comics apparently explain this by having Vader piece different information together: Seeing that the rebel who destroyed the Death Star wielded his own lightsaber, learning that his name was “Skywalker”, and tracking down the mortician who was responsible for Padme’s burial and discovering that he was told to make her look pregnant, meaning that she had successfully given birth before she died.

Now yeah, “we shouldn’t have to read books to know this about the movies”, I agree, but I really don’t think the movies imply that Vader just “sensed” their biological relationship. I had always just assumed Vader somehow put two-and-two together in-between ANH and ESB. While I don’t think every little detail needs to be explained in the movies, I do agree that maybe it could’ve been set up better though, since this is a frequently raised up question. I guess it was just the best they could do with coming up with that decision so late in the game, but I do think it was the best choice in the long run.

I also am glad they decided not to kill off Han in ROTJ, because I think dying at the hand of his own son is a much more interesting way for him to go than any kind of sacrificial death he could have had in ROTJ, especially after the entire first act of the film was all about rescuing him. But that is just my opinion!
On the other hand, it could possibly have worked if Han’s sacrifice had been set up as crucial to the success of the Rebel’s mission, then it may have helped add importance to that first act, if that makes sense. It’s interesting to speculate on, for sure!

Author
Time

It wasn’t an issue for me as a kid, as Vader had been actively searching for his identity in the Marvel comics, and finally did learn Luke’s name by torturing a captured rebel. Okay, not at all canon, but something similar could have taken place between the movies.

Forum Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time

RogueLeader said:

Shopping Maul said:

The irony is that if Lucas had allowed the ‘noble death’ of Han Solo, he would’ve had the answer to the ‘why does Luke snap’ conundrum. Vader/Palpatine could have been offering to halt the battle if Luke were to agree to turn (an actual temptation as opposed to simply making Luke mad) before Luke suddenly senses Han’s death through the Force. Luke kicks Vader’s butt and no-one has to be anyone’s shoehorned sister!

I had never thought of that. That definitely could’ve worked, and that might be a good idea for a fan edit that tries to kill Han and not make Leia Luke’s sister.

I definitely agree that it is kind of obvious that making Leia Luke’s sister was a noticeable last minute decision. But to play devil’s advocate, I do think making that change was a good decision in the long run. Family is obviously a central theme in the Star Wars films, and making Luke almost turn to save his sister’s soul does make that theme even stronger. Plus, it parallels Anakin’s own fall in the prequels, giving in to the darkside to save family, to save someone he loved.

And I do think you can make a fair argument about how Vader knew Luke was his son but never knew Leia was his daughter even though they had a few face-to-face interactions. But we never are really told how Vader found out Luke was his son. In the Special Edition of ESB, the Emperor tells Vader that Luke is his son, and he apparently had know idea before that. So he didn’t just sense it and figure it out. He could tell he was strong in the Force, but that doesn’t mean that he could since that he was his son.

For what it is worth, the new canon comics apparently explain this by having Vader piece different information together: Seeing that the rebel who destroyed the Death Star wielded his own lightsaber, learning that his name was “Skywalker”, and tracking down the mortician who was responsible for Padme’s burial and discovering that he was told to make her look pregnant, meaning that she had successfully given birth before she died.

Now yeah, “we shouldn’t have to read books to know this about the movies”, I agree, but I really don’t think the movies imply that Vader just “sensed” their biological relationship. I had always just assumed Vader somehow put two-and-two together in-between ANH and ESB. While I don’t think every little detail needs to be explained in the movies, I do agree that maybe it could’ve been set up better though, since this is a frequently raised up question. I guess it was just the best they could do with coming up with that decision so late in the game, but I do think it was the best choice in the long run.

I also am glad they decided not to kill off Han in ROTJ, because I think dying at the hand of his own son is a much more interesting way for him to go than any kind of sacrificial death he could have had in ROTJ, especially after the entire first act of the film was all about rescuing him. But that is just my opinion!
On the other hand, it could possibly have worked if Han’s sacrifice had been set up as crucial to the success of the Rebel’s mission, then it may have helped add importance to that first act, if that makes sense. It’s interesting to speculate on, for sure!

It’s possible that Lucas was overthinking (or overly re-thinking) the whole thing in order to make it fit. In Star Wars (ANH) Luke wasn’t necessarily in hiding. He still had his surname after all, and was about to join the Academy. Vader was a bad guy who had killed Luke’s dad, and Obi Wan was merely one of Anakin’s old war buddies.

None of this really had to change once Vader and Anakin had been combined. We could assume that it was Owen who had stubbornly insisted Luke keep his father’s name and reside on the homestead. Obi Wan, thinking this was a dumb idea, could have retired nearby on the expectation that Vader might one day come to claim his offspring (this would also work if Obi Wan had never told Owen that Anakin and Vader were one and the same). This would eliminate the silliness of Obi Wan and Yoda’s supposed 20-year plan. Yoda, in TESB, doesn’t act like someone who’d waited for Luke to come of age. Instead he seems to have washed his hands of the whole thing, which makes infinitely more sense than what the prequels presented. Obi Wan then simply trains Luke in ANH because circumstances demand it - not because Luke’s the focus of any plan or prophecy.

If Leia had to be the ‘other’, the backstory could be that while Vader knew/suspected he’d had a son, he didn’t know a second child had been born. Obi Wan and Bail could’ve quickly concocted the notion that Leia was Bail’s daughter (perhaps Bail’s wife lost a child around the same time) to keep Vader out of the loop. Again, this gets rid of the silly 20-year ‘do nothing’ plan and merely presents Leia as a potential Jedi when the story demands it (in TESB).

By the way, the Marvel SW comic had Vader torturing rebel officers for the name of the pilot who’d destroyed the Death Star. Despite ‘Skywalker’ being the SW equivalent of ‘Smith’ (according to GL) I maintain that once he’d heard that name he’d be pretty sure whose son that kid was!

I’m still down with Han dying in RoTJ, but I do get why many people don’t love the idea.

Author
Time

SilverWook said:

It wasn’t an issue for me as a kid, as Vader had been actively searching for his identity in the Marvel comics, and finally did learn Luke’s name by torturing a captured rebel. Okay, not at all canon, but something similar could have taken place between the movies.

Hah! Great minds…

Author
Time

Shopping Maul said:

RogueLeader said:

Shopping Maul said:

By the way, the Marvel SW comic had Vader torturing rebel officers for the name of the pilot who’d destroyed the Death Star. Despite ‘Skywalker’ being the SW equivalent of ‘Smith’ (according to GL) I maintain that once he’d heard that name he’d be pretty sure whose son that kid was!

If Skywalker is such a common surname in the Galaxy I think it’s weird that the only Skywalkers we find are the Skywalker family from the main saga. I would say the most common surname in the Galaxy is Antilles, as a senator Bail Antilles is mentioned in TPM, there’s captain Antilles of the Tantive IV and of course Wedge Antilles.

Now I want to see a character named Skywalker that has no relation to the famous family and isn’t even Force-sensitive.

Author
Time

Because of Biggs Darklighter, I always thought the"nounverber" surnames were a Tatooine thing. Maybe it has to do with slavery on Tatooine?

Author
Time

Non-crimelords engaging in slavery on Tatooine may not have even been a thing before Lucas wrote Phantom Menace though. The only slaves we see in the OT are Jabba’s ladies.

Forum Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Me and my friends were all 11 - 12 when the 1st one came out and we did all sorts of 1970’a - `1980’s nerdy things like taking cassette players into the theater and taping the movies, having nerdy schoolyard conversations that had sentences like “what if George Lucas dies in a plane crash before he finishes the sequel?” and then after TESB we had that same conversation again.

I saw RotJ with my dad on opening weekend. I had gotten enough info about the movie before it came out that I knew what to expect from the story line. My dad and I went to these like other fathers and sons go to ball games.
When I left the theater all I could think was “I waited six years for that?”

There’s a fine movie in there lost amid a horrible execution. I saw this one several times in the theaters and it’s got moments but not enough to bring it to the level that it needs to be at. The whole affair felt recycled and phoned in.

I’ve read a fair amount of threads here about RotJ edits and peoples feeling about them and I do wonder how many people here have read Rinzlers’ book on it. I realize it’s Lucasfilm sanctioned and people may be wary of historical revisionism but there’s a lot in that book where things are detailed about the people on the movie being aghast at what is going on. Ralph McQuarrie does pre-production art but refuses to draw teddy bears, for one thing and they very clearly spell out that Lucas had a kid and he wanted to be able to take that kid into a toy store and buy a Star Wars teddy bear. There are parts of the constitution of this movie where the quality control was thrown under the bus to make a real kids movie and that’s the big thing that haunts it. There’s the whole dark will he or won’t he patricide thing that’s playing off against burp jokes and killer (BUT CUTE) teddy bears. It’s a movie that can’t make up it’s mind as to what it wants to be - at least The Phantom Menace is consistent in that regard.

Author
Time

regularjoe said:

Me and my friends were all 11 - 12 when the 1st one came out and we did all sorts of 1970’a - `1980’s nerdy things like taking cassette players into the theater and taping the movies, having nerdy schoolyard conversations that had sentences like “what if George Lucas dies in a plane crash before he finishes the sequel?” and then after TESB we had that same conversation again.

I saw RotJ with my dad on opening weekend. I had gotten enough info about the movie before it came out that I knew what to expect from the story line. My dad and I went to these like other fathers and sons go to ball games.
When I left the theater all I could think was “I waited six years for that?”

There’s a fine movie in there lost amid a horrible execution. I saw this one several times in the theaters and it’s got moments but not enough to bring it to the level that it needs to be at. The whole affair felt recycled and phoned in.

I’ve read a fair amount of threads here about RotJ edits and peoples feeling about them and I do wonder how many people here have read Rinzlers’ book on it. I realize it’s Lucasfilm sanctioned and people may be wary of historical revisionism but there’s a lot in that book where things are detailed about the people on the movie being aghast at what is going on. Ralph McQuarrie does pre-production art but refuses to draw teddy bears, for one thing and they very clearly spell out that Lucas had a kid and he wanted to be able to take that kid into a toy store and buy a Star Wars teddy bear. There are parts of the constitution of this movie where the quality control was thrown under the bus to make a real kids movie and that’s the big thing that haunts it. There’s the whole dark will he or won’t he patricide thing that’s playing off against burp jokes and killer (BUT CUTE) teddy bears. It’s a movie that can’t make up it’s mind as to what it wants to be - at least The Phantom Menace is consistent in that regard.

You wouldn’t still have any of those recordings? Did you tape any other movies?

Forum Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time

regularjoe said:

Me and my friends were all 11 - 12 when the 1st one came out and we did all sorts of 1970’a - `1980’s nerdy things like taking cassette players into the theater and taping the movies, having nerdy schoolyard conversations that had sentences like “what if George Lucas dies in a plane crash before he finishes the sequel?” and then after TESB we had that same conversation again.

I saw RotJ with my dad on opening weekend. I had gotten enough info about the movie before it came out that I knew what to expect from the story line. My dad and I went to these like other fathers and sons go to ball games.
When I left the theater all I could think was “I waited six years for that?”

There’s a fine movie in there lost amid a horrible execution. I saw this one several times in the theaters and it’s got moments but not enough to bring it to the level that it needs to be at. The whole affair felt recycled and phoned in.

I’ve read a fair amount of threads here about RotJ edits and peoples feeling about them and I do wonder how many people here have read Rinzlers’ book on it. I realize it’s Lucasfilm sanctioned and people may be wary of historical revisionism but there’s a lot in that book where things are detailed about the people on the movie being aghast at what is going on. Ralph McQuarrie does pre-production art but refuses to draw teddy bears, for one thing and they very clearly spell out that Lucas had a kid and he wanted to be able to take that kid into a toy store and buy a Star Wars teddy bear. There are parts of the constitution of this movie where the quality control was thrown under the bus to make a real kids movie and that’s the big thing that haunts it. There’s the whole dark will he or won’t he patricide thing that’s playing off against burp jokes and killer (BUT CUTE) teddy bears. It’s a movie that can’t make up it’s mind as to what it wants to be - at least The Phantom Menace is consistent in that regard.

I should get off my backside and read those books, although I do admit to a slight concern about revisionism.

Lucas and Marquand seem to have dug their heels in with RoTJ and resisted anything that might take it away from being a kids’ film. In doing so I think they over-compensated. Even the supposedly ‘dark stuff’ is played through a childishly simplistic lens (if you get angry that’s the bad side, if you be nice that’s the good side). I think JK Rowling proved that you can grow/mature a saga and take your audience with you.

By the way I think your ‘fine movie lost amid horrible execution’ observation is pretty much an apt description of every SW film since TESB…

Author
Time

Another book you could check out alongside the Rinzler one’s would be the Secret History of Star Wars by Michael Kaminski. It’s an unofficial book about the saga’s development, so while the book might not be written as professionally as Rinzler’s, you can be worried less about revisionism, as his main focus is how story ideas changed over the development of the saga. So you get Rinzler’s books and Kaminski’s and compare the two. It’ll probably give you a solid idea of the complete development of these films.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

It a subject of debate to this day how much control Marquand actually had over the film. Funny how Spielberg and Lucas both have a movie they supposedly ghost directed.

Forum Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time

RogueLeader said:

Another book you could check out alongside the Rinzler one’s would be the Secret History of Star Wars by Michael Kaminski. It’s an unofficial book about the saga’s development, so while the book might not be written as professionally as Rinzler’s, you can be worried less about revisionism, as his main focus is how story ideas changed over the development of the saga. So you get Rinzler’s books and Kaminski’s and compare the two. It’ll probably give you a solid idea of the complete development of these films.

You’re right - thanks. I have read some articles on his site. If I’m not mistaken, Michael is a regular contributor here too (unless I’m conflating two people a la Anakin/Vader)?

Author
Time

SilverWook said:

It a subject of debate to this day how much control Marquand actually had over the film. Funny how Spielberg and Lucas both have a movie they supposedly ghost directed.

Yeah, it’s such a shame he isn’t still with us. From the few snippets I’ve seen, it’s pretty clear Marquand had a definite vision for the movie - though you’re absolutely right about just how much of his vision was (or wan’t) realised. I did see a clip somewhere where he was a little disparaging of TESB’s tone and was determined to return to the fun vibe of the first film. Like I said, I think he/Lucas overcompensated.

Funnily enough I actually prefer the Marvel version of RoTJ. Obviously it’s hugely condensed, but tonally it has the effect of having the same story with a different ‘director’. Jabba’s court comes across as more sinister, the Ewoks’ cuteness is downplayed, the dialogue is strangely better in many places (particularly in the Obi Wan/Yoda scenes), and any flat acting/hamminess is subjectively reinterpreted by the reader. A personal gripe of mine (if it hasn’t been obvious!) is that Luke basically gives up and hides under the stairs in Palpatine’s throne room while a very real war rages outside. In the Marvel version he merely pauses for a bit before Vader does the ‘sister’ routine. Luke wails on Vader, has the revelation about his own anger, declares Palpatine’s failure, and gets zapped immediately. I prefer the notion (as does Mark Hamill funnily enough) that a Jedi would never give up, and the Marvel version reflects this IMO.