Good little thread so I'll resurrect it.
I think in the OT, Yoda and Obi-Wan weren't necessarily concerned about Luke joining up with Palpatine as they were in keeping Luke away from the Dark Side. Rationally, giving in to the Dark Side doesn't mean one is necessarily a Sith (although they're probably bigger experts of the Dark Side than anybody).
And yeah, Obi-Wan and Yoda had their own agenda for Luke. I think the entire point of the prequels was to show the Jedi Order's many and varied moral failings. They were allegedly dedicated to all of these lofty ideals but by the time of the PT, they'd obviously sold themselves to the Republic and jumped when ever the Senate told them to. Qui-Gon was probably the only Jedi of the old ways who followed the will of the Force, even if it ran counter to the will of the Jedi Council, the Republic or anything else, and got labeled as a "rebel" and "maverick" for his actions. Qui-Gon -- independent and attuned to the Force -- is what the Jedi Order should've been; Yoda -- two-faced, dishonest and self-serving -- is what they had become.
I don't think it's a coincidence that the PT Yoda was all about prophecies and the future and all that crap while the OT Yoda lambasted Luke for not paying attention to where he was, what he was doing. The OT Yoda had learned the hard way how bad things can get when a Jedi's focus is too far away from his immediate circumstances.
All I really want is each film as it was originally seen and heard in theaters; no fixes, corrections, "improvements" or modifications necessary.
To take a line from the ROTJ novelisation, something which has stuck with me through the years, and forgive the paraphrasing, "Vader did not hate, he just lusted too blindly". Whereas in an interview with the official Star Wars magazine some time ago, Ian McDiarmid compared Vader to Lucifer Morningstar, insofar as he is a fallen angel, whereas Sidious represents original sin; he has no redeeming qualities and is evil for evil's sake. His only saving grace is that he is a patron of the arts, as seen by his visit to the opera.
In ROTJ, there is a definite sense that Luke is teetering on the edge of darkness, after starting off so promisingly in A New Hope. Anakin, meanwhile, is following a road that seems inevitable from the start (okay, we as an audience know what his fate will be but even if we didn't, the seeds of his destruction are there from the get go - he has already formed an attachment to his mother and his fear of losing her is too great to overcome). As with all things Star Wars, the story is better than the execution. I have found this out in telling people who are neither sci-fi nor fantasy fans what the story of Star Wars is about. They've been enraptured by the telling (and I'm no Stephen King) but when they've sat down to watch the films, their attention has drifted somewhat.
What's interesting is the parallels in Luke and Anakin's journey. When faced witht he death of his aunt and uncle, Luke firms his resolve to join the rebellion; when Anakin loses anyone close to him, he goes on a murder spree.
I'm probably in the minority here - this site is called originaltrilogyform after all - in saying that I think both prequels deal with the journey to the dark side in equally successful ways.
Easterhay said:
I'm probably in the minority here - this site is called originaltrilogyform after all - in saying that I think both prequels deal with the journey to the dark side in equally successful ways.
Yes, you are in the minority.
In the prequels, Anakin turned to the dark side like someone turned off a light switch.
I think it's at times underplayed more than anything. It's made clear that attachment is only part of Anakin's problem. Yeah, he wants to save Padme... but it comes down to what HE wants and the power HE needs. Anakin's issues were less about Padmé and more about his desire to control his life... and the people in it.
Like I said, if Lucas is guilty of anything, it's underplaying that. On the other hand, the alternative would be scene after didactic scene of Anakin brooding about how he needs more power to defeat this guy, more power to protect that chick, etc, and, at some point, saying that the Dark Side is really the only way to get there.
All I really want is each film as it was originally seen and heard in theaters; no fixes, corrections, "improvements" or modifications necessary.
TV's Frink said:
Easterhay said:
I'm probably in the minority here - this site is called originaltrilogyform after all - in saying that I think both prequels deal with the journey to the dark side in equally successful ways.
Yes, you are in the minority.
In the prequels, Anakin turned to the dark side like someone turned off a light switch.
Took three films to turn off that light switch.
At best you could say it took a film and a half. It's debatable if he took a journey in AOTC (I'd argue a few moments where he slashes up a Sandperson then cries about it later doesn't really qualify), but how can you argue that he's on the dark side journey in TPM?
Attachment. It's there right from the start. Yoda picks up on it. "I sense much fear in you."
You couldn't be more wrong.
...
...
...
Ki-Adi-Mundi picked up on it. :P
Ok, I guess. Always thought that was a dumb reason to become evil (look out, he loves his mom and his wife!) but you're right, his attachment is supposedly one of the things that took him down that path.
D'oh! I realised it was Ki-Adi Mundi when I hit the Post Reply button.
It never seemed so dumb to me, perhaps because in '99 I got into Buddhism and so many of the teachings about attachment I recognised in the PT. If you can't let go of what you fear to lose (to paraphrase that line from ROTS) then you do run a big risk - not that any of us would want to lose those close to us.
I've seen all three prequels a bunch of times and I still have no clue how attachment led to the dark side. He was so worried about his wife staying alive, he choked her. Wha? And wasn't the original cut of SITH more in line with JEDI? In other words, killing for the revenge/pleasure of it leads to the dark side. Killing Dooku in Anakin's case, killing Vader in Luke's case (if he had gone through with it).
Don't know what I can say or do to prove the issue over attachment - and I'm certainly not going to take the pious route of "If you were a Buddhist, you'd understand" because it's not necessary to be a Buddhist to appreciate the point.
He strangled Padme, though, because he thought she was in league with Obi-Wan.
"In league with" meaning "doing."
Bawm-chicka-bawm-bawm.
I'm just talking about what is actually IN the movies. Which is: attachment is a good thing! (between Han and Luke, Luke and his dad, and on and on)
But attachment being wrong IS in the movies. Three of them at least. It's not exclusive to the PT, though; Buddhists latched onto this a long time ago. Yoda is a Zen master by any other name; that's not my misinterpretation. Kersh says it in the book by Alan Arnold.
Wait...what if Obi-Wan is actually Luke's father?
*shock*
TV's Frink said:
"In league with" meaning "doing."
Bawm-chicka-bawm-bawm.
Yeah, that was another revision Lucas made to the film wasn't it? There was a whole is-my-best-friend-shagging-my-wife subtext originally.
TV's Frink said:
Wait...what if Obi-Wan is actually Luke's father?
*shock*
Well, Dave Prowse turned up to the premiere of ESB thinking he was!