Was Sebastian Shaw the wrong choice for Anakin?

I can somehow see the point of casting an experienced actor (instead of David Prowse) for the end of Return of the Jedi and I have to say that Sebastian Shaw’s performance of Anakin’s death was really great.

From my point of view however, 78-year-old Sebastian Shaw seemed like a weird choice for the character even back then in 1983.

Since ANH it was established that Darth Vader was a “young Jedi” and a pupil of Obi-Wan until he turned to the dark side. In the same movie, we hear Vader calling Obi-Wan an “old man” during their lightsaber duel.

I know that Vader and Luke’s father were still separate characters at this point of time.
Luke’s father was probably meant to be more or less the same age as Obi-Wan.

In TESB, both characters were merged into one and Luke’s father Anakin suddenly became “the young apprentice of Obi-Wan who turned to evil”.

So, I basically imagined a Jedi who was in his 20s (like Hayden Christensen) or early 30s when he became a Sith and fathered Luke and Leia but Shaw looks noticeably older than that (more like a guy who became a father in his 40s).

Furthermore, I think that Shaw didn’t really look menacing or “dark” enough for Anakin Skywalker.

When I saw the unmasking scene, my first thought was: “This friendly grandpa was Darth Vader, one of the most feared villains in the galaxy? Really?”

What do you think?

I imagine the thought process when casting Shaw was “Dads are old, cast an old guy.” And that’s honestly the impression I get from Shaw Anakin, too. If you think about the actors’ ages, Shaw was way too old to play Luke’s dad. But in the final movie, he just gives me the vibe of the father of an adult son. So it never bothered me.

Maybe you could explain it away with how the dark side had been rotting him away for more than half his life.

Vader is too young but that is because of the prequel timeline. It was a mistake to place Revenge of the Sith a mere twenty years before Star Wars.

It would have worked if Anakin was in his twenties in episode I and by the end of the trilogy he was in his forties. But that would have made Padme older by extension.

JadedSkywalker said:

It would have worked if Anakin was in his twenties in episode I and by the end of the trilogy he was in his forties. But that would have made Padme older by extension.

Maybe Anakin and Padme were each others’ second marriage and Luke and Leia were the kids remarried couples seem to have so often in their late 40s.

You could then retroactively add some fanservice and make another OT character a Skywalker.

Boba Fett is Luke’s brother?

I think the prequels would have worked best with Anakin being around 12-14 years old in Episode I, 22 in Episode II, and around 32 in Episode III.

Based on this calculation, he would have been 55 years old at the time of his death in RotJ.

I think Shaw can easily pass as a 55-year-old Anakin Skywalker, but never as 45.

I see it as how much the Dark Side cost. He looked older than he was. I wish they would have cast someone more age appropriate, but I think he produced the desired effect. You can’t really look at any of the cast ages in Star Wars.

It’s almost like they made it up as they went along.

The twenty years between Anakin’s fall and ANH is really set in stone. Vader didn’t know he had twins. He knew Padme was pregnant, but not twins. So sometime between conception and birth was ALWAYS (at least post ROTJ) was when Anakin’s fall happened. Anakin should be 10 years younger than Kenobi. That fits in Episode I, but the timeline Lucasfilm came up with doesn’t fit with any of the character ages. Vader, Kenobi, Owen, and Beru should be close in age. The actors are roughly right for Kenobi, Own and Beru, but Hayden was too young and Shaw too old. Alec was in his mid 60’s during the OT, so Anakin/Vader should have been in his mid 50’s. The established timeline is 46 years old for Anakin. I think the Clone Wars need to be longer and the time between II and III needs to be longer by about 7 years making Anakin 53 in ROTJ. This also fixed Kenobi, Own, and Beru’s ages to match the actors. Though spending 20 years in a desert can make you look older (lots of real world examples), how do you explain Anakin? Could hate and pain prematurely age someone that much?

To be honest, at first I couldn’t tel if you were joking or not.

captainsolo said:

I think it likely made more sense in whatever the original context was long before the Prequels were a blip on anyone’s radar. Shaw’s performance is the key and he’s excellent in the little time he has onscreen. I’ve never considered his age before but he seems perfectly fine as a contemporary of Obi-Wan.

When you go back and think about watching that scene for the first time, he is a reasonable casting choice. When you think about what Obi-wan said in ANH, and early in ROTJ. Anakin was a student of Obi-wan’s. We aren’t really given the context that he should be younger, but that is implied, especially after we meet Yoda. Sebastian Shaw was older than Alec Guinness by 9 years. Hayden was younger than Ewan by 10 years. Can 25 years in that suit serving the dark side age someone that much? And let’s not forget the burn scars.

But then again look at Harrison Ford in TROS And Sebastian Shaw in ROTJ. Do they look the same age? They are, but do they look it? And who looked older in the ST, Hamill or Ford? And I think the makeup and costume kept Shaw from showing his true age. The images of him in the film as Darth and the images of him without makeup look very different.

SilverWook said:

Stress can certainly take it’s toll. Look at any U.S. President before and after eight years in office. Anakin was horribly burned and spent two decades in essentially a portable iron lung suit. Plus the effects of being on the Dark Side, which certainly didn’t help Palpatine’s looks.

That doesn’t explain why he looks old as a force ghost though.
Hayden Christensen is 40 now (almost the same age as Vader in ANH) and he still looks pretty much like his younger self in ROTS.

If Anakin never fell to the Dark Side, then there is no way he would look like Shaw.

screams in the void said:

I think he was right in the context of the original unaltered trilogy , before the prequels , back when it was widely believed by a lot of authors that the Clone Wars took place 35 years before the original film .

Definitely. The timeline chicanery of the prequels is a bit of a pain.

Ideally, David Prowse should’ve been unmasked Vader/Ghost Anakin. He was only a few years older than Anakin’s post-PT canon age!

The problem with using Sebastian Shaw’s force ghost in ROTJ is also that he wasn’t blond like Hayden and had rounder facial features.

Ok, his ghost has grey-ish hair but it’s still obvious that Shaw must have had quite dark brown hair when he was younger. Hayden and Jake Lloyd were both blond though (probably to make Anakin look similar to Mark Hamill / Luke). They were pretty bad casting choices when you compare them to Ewan McGregor as younger version of Guinness’ Obi-Wan.

Maybe it would have worked better if Anakin was the dark-haired one (like Leia) and Padme had blonde hair (like Luke).

Personally I think he was a good choice and I wish his force ghost hadn’t have been retconned out of ROTJ. He does look a little old but I don’t think extreme lava burns are known for making your skin look young.

I think he’s a good choice for someone that would have been friends with Alec Guinness. Anything after 1983 doesn’t really matter. The only real mistake is that one shot in ESB he looks far more… fleshy?

I don’t like the idea of replacing Sebastian Shaw, because I support the unaltered original trilogy. But Anakin appearing as an old man with hair and no scars seems odd because he never was that person. The idea of him returning to what he was before Vader makes slightly more sense to me. In the absence of a perfectly correct answer, I’d say the best thing would be to have both versions. Stop suppressing the theatrical version and just put out something along the lines of the Blade Runner release with five versions. It would be the prize of my entire movie room.

Mocata said:
Anything after 1983 doesn’t really matter.

Not saying everyone should like everything, but nothing after 1983? That sounds so bleak. Not even The Mandalorian?

Rodney-2187 said:

Mocata said:
Anything after 1983 doesn’t really matter.

Not saying everyone should like everything, but nothing after 1983? That sounds so bleak. Not even The Mandalorian?

I think they mean nothing after 1983 should count toward the question at hand