What do you think of The Prequel Trilogy? A general discussion. — Page 17

In the OT, Vader only ever directly kills enemy (and sometimes allied) combatants. Sure, you could argue that he killed Owen and Beru, but he never stepped foot on Tatooine and those executions were probably the purview of his underlings. Similarly, the Death Star was Tarkin’s project, a project which Vader clearly disliked on a deep and fundamental level. Of course at some level, everyone who supported the Empire had Alderaan’s blood on their hands, but to say that Vader had some unique and singular responsibility for Alderaan seems to be a stretch.

All of this is to say that Vader’s portrayal in the OT gives the vibe of a ruthless military officer, but one who generally restricts his villainy to the military combatants of the war, real or suspected. It is easy to see how this would have been his modus operandi for decades in the Empire while that Empire continued to fall ever further into darkness as it began to target civilians and institute a reign of terror with an ultimate weapon. For Vader, a military man, to see the organization he followed fall like this would be part of the tragedy of his character.

To then suggest that it was in fact Anakin who was monstrous long before the corrupting influence of the Empire even existed is to strike at the core of everything Anakin is in the eyes of his son. If Anakin committed genocide before the Clone Wars, if he killed children before the Empire was formed, then there is no good man for Luke to save. Anakin didn’t become a monster when he became Darth Vader; Anakin was himself a monster, and the apparent dichotomy between Anakin and Vader in the OT simply doesn’t exist. Anakin as a man was always Vader, and Vader was always a monster.

NeverarGreat said:

In the OT, Vader only ever directly kills enemy (and sometimes allied) combatants.

Not only are they not all combatants, but once a combatant is unarmed and you go any further then you have to, there’s no difference, at that point.

He kills Captain Antilles when he’s defenseless and completely at his mercy for no reason other then lying to him and participating in a plot to save the galaxy from a planet destroying weapon.

What Vader did to Leia when they “discussed” the location of the Rebel base (another thing he makes a sardonic joke about), the music, editing, set design, slow buildup, shot choice, was clearly implying it was pretty sinister. It clearly wasn’t a “discussion”. It’s not just a truth serum droid, it’s a torture device. This is an imprisoned politician, not a combatant.

He kills Needa when he apologizes for losing the Falcon in a complete unwinnable situation, and makes a sadistic joke about doing so.

He leans towards Han, a defenseless prisoner, when he’s being tortured as if he’s enjoying it and sardonically says, “He will not be permanently damaged”, as his screams echo across the hallway. He was chill with the idea of Han dying if it meant using him as a test subject.

He takes pride in and outwardly gloats about trapping Lando in a really unfair deal, with no intent to hold his end at all, taking over the city to subjugate the innocents of Bespin no matter how much Lando complies.

He was gonna torture people working on the second Death Star to “motivate them” despite the workload being seemingly impossible for the number of men they have.

He sadistically lords the leverage Luke’s feelings for his friends gives him, and revels in the thought of turning his own daughter to the dark side to use her as a tool for his own ends. He straight up goes, “Yessss” like a devil. Not to mention, yeah, trying to do that to your son is also pretty bad.

NeverarGreat said:

Sure, you could argue that he killed Owen and Beru, but he never stepped foot on Tatooine and those executions were probably the purview of his underlings.

Vader is above them. Everything they do goes through him, especially these people who are critical to an important mission. It would’ve been his call to take them prisoner, kill them, etc.

I am 100% certain we were never supposed to get the impression that a grunt stormtrooper is worse then the dark lord of the Sith that is one of the main villains in 3 movies. His very first shot has the stormtroopers submit to what the visual language of the movie is making obvious to us is the bigger bad. He’s taller, darker, scarier mask. The visual language of Star Wars is very deliberate and on-the-nose, which is why it appeals to the most primal sensibilities.

NeverarGreat said:

Similarly, the Death Star was Tarkin’s project, a project which Vader clearly disliked on a deep and fundamental level. Of course at some level, everyone who supported the Empire had Alderaan’s blood on their hands, but to say that Vader had some unique and singular responsibility for Alderaan seems to be a stretch.

He disliked the Death Star because he feared it could replace him. Vader was the Empire’s ultimate enforcer up to that point. There’s a reason he basically goes, “The Death Star is nothing compared to my power”, instead of, “The Death Star is too much power for us to wield”, or something. It was about his ego. Nothing to do with any sense of morality. Which is why Motti calls him out on intimidating them.

He was in the room with Tarkin when he did it. He held Leia back when she was attempting to stop him. He could’ve used the force to snap Tarkin’s neck and then take command of the station, as he was already second-in-command as is. He’s like a demigod to everybody on that station. He made his choice to do nothing.

NeverarGreat said:

To then suggest that it was in fact Anakin who was monstrous long before the corrupting influence of the Empire even existed is to strike at the core of everything Anakin is in the eyes of his son. If Anakin committed genocide before the Clone Wars, if he killed children before the Empire was formed, then there is no good man for Luke to save. Anakin didn’t become a monster when he became Darth Vader; Anakin was himself a monster, and the apparent dichotomy between Anakin and Vader in the OT simply doesn’t exist. Anakin as a man was always Vader, and Vader was always a monster.

We’re told he betrayed his brethren, knights that fought for peace and justice, because was seduced by the dark side. Not lied to or fed propaganda, he wanted power. And Vader agrees with this.

“If you only knew the power of the dark side! Obi-Wan never told you what happened to your father.” = “The power of the dark side is so great, even your father was seduced by it.”

Darth Vader is a villain, not a trapped victim. Everything from his skull-like mask, to the way his deal with Lando is treated like a deal with the devil, to the way the carbon freezing chamber is meant to look like Hell. He went from being a good man to a bad one by making his own selfish choices. Just because he became a bad man doesn’t mean he wasn’t ever a good one.

He didn’t commit genocide before the Clone Wars. If you’re referring to the Tuskens, that wasn’t genocide, and I disagree with that creative choice anyway, at least if it extends beyond the ones responsible for killing his mother (and even then, that pent up anger could be used as a plot point, if one chose).

He killed children after he became a Sith, like a day before it was officially the Empire, when it was already the Empire in all but name. At that point, it’s a semantic argument. I understand the sentiment, as it’s absolutely rushed in ROTS, but when he’s christened Darth Vader, he’s supposed to be like, 90% Vader already.

G&G-Fan said:

NeverarGreat said:

In the OT, Vader only ever directly kills enemy (and sometimes allied) combatants.

Not only are they not all combatants, but once a combatant is unarmed and you go any further then you have to, there’s no difference, at that point.

He kills Captain Antilles when he’s defenseless and completely at his mercy for no reason other then lying to him and participating in a plot to save the galaxy from a planet destroying weapon.

What Vader did to Leia when they “discussed” the location of the Rebel base (another thing he makes a sardonic joke about), the music, editing, set design, slow buildup, shot choice, was clearly implying it was pretty sinister. It clearly wasn’t a “discussion”. It’s not just a truth serum droid, it’s a torture device. This is an imprisoned politician, not a combatant.

He kills Captain Needa when he apologizes and makes a sadistic joke about doing so.

He leans towards Han Solo, a defenseless prisoner, when he’s being tortured as if he’s enjoying it and sardonically says, “He will not be permanently damaged”, as his screams echo across the hallway. He was chill with the idea of Han dying if it meant using him as a test subject.

He takes pride in trapping Lando in a really unfair deal, with no intent to hold his end at all, taking over the city to subjugate the innocents of Bespin no matter how much Lando complies.

He was gonna torture people working on the second Death Star to “motivate them” despite the workload being seemingly impossible for the number of men they have.

He sadistically gloated about using Luke’s friends as leverage and turning his own daughter to the dark side to use her as a tool for his own ends. He straight up goes, “Yessss”. Not to mention, yeah, trying to do that to your son is also pretty bad.

Han, Leia, Luke, and Antilles are all members of the Rebellion, so I assume that Vader, like the Empire, is treating them like unprivileged combatants (spies and whatnot). Lando is harboring Rebellion fighters and is also running an illegal gas mining operation that has military uses, so it makes sense that the Empire would crack down on that.

Compare Vader’s actions in the OT with Thrawn’s actions at the end of Rebels, where Thrawn holds a city of innocents hostage and begins to destroy them to prove a point. Vader in the OT never indiscriminately kills civilians merely because one of them might be a Rebel.

NeverarGreat said:

Sure, you could argue that he killed Owen and Beru, but he never stepped foot on Tatooine and those executions were probably the purview of his underlings.

Vader is above them. Everything they do goes through him, especially these people who are critical to an important mission. It would’ve been his call to take them prisoner, kill them, etc.

I am 100% certain we were never supposed to get the impression that a grunt stormtrooper is worse then the dark lord of the Sith that is one of the main villains in 3 movies. His very first shot has the stormtroopers submit to what the visual language of the movie is making obvious to us is the bigger bad. He’s taller, darker, scarier mask. The visual language of Star Wars is very deliberate and on-the-nose, which is why it appeals to the most primal sensibilities.

Sure, presumably Vader could have given the order and their deaths are ultimately on his hands, but it’s notable how we don’t see him do this. The movie doesn’t show their deaths, and I think it’s effective in conveying that the Empire killed them, which is all Luke needs to know in order to join the Rebellion.

NeverarGreat said:

Similarly, the Death Star was Tarkin’s project, a project which Vader clearly disliked on a deep and fundamental level. Of course at some level, everyone who supported the Empire had Alderaan’s blood on their hands, but to say that Vader had some unique and singular responsibility for Alderaan seems to be a stretch.

He disliked the Death Star because he feared it could replace him. Vader was the Empire’s ultimate enforcer up to that point. There’s a reason he basically goes, “The Death Star is nothing compared to my power”, instead of, “The Death Star is too much power for us to wield” or something. It was about his ego. Nothing to do with any sense of morality. Which is why Motti basically calls him out on it.

Your previous points are debatable, but I think this one is just wrong. Vader says that ‘The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the Force.’ Vader isn’t saying that he feels threatened by this station, but just that the Force is so much stronger than anything the Empire could produce. His statement is a (prophetic) warning against the Empire’s hubris and a statement of his religion’s faith, which is why the officer rebuts him by calling out his ‘sad devotion to that ancient religion.’

He was in the room with Tarkin when he did it. He held Leia back when she was attempting to stop him. He could’ve used the force to snap Tarkin’s neck and then take command of the station, as he was already second-in-command as is. He’s like a demigod to everybody on that station. He made his choice to do nothing.

This is another instance where the prequels do a disservice to the OT. In the original film, Vader was clearly subservient to Tarkin, who was himself subservient to the Emperor. Leia even cracks a joke at how Vader is Tarkin’s lap dog.

In the OT, there is a somewhat implied growth of Vader in prominence throughout the trilogy, because after Tarkin dies Vader goes from commanding a regular Star Destroyer to commanding an entire fleet and reporting directly to the Emperor. Before ESB, Vader may have been merely a strange curiosity, a holdover from another age. In fact that’s how Vader was seen before the prequels came out, as the Visual Dictionary explained. Vader only became a demigod badass in retrospect after his entire character arc was flattened into a single, static set of attributes that never changed over the course of his life.

Regardless of whether Vader could have physically done anything to stop the Death Star, there’s no indication that he had the influence with the Emperor to survive that action. Saying that he was responsible for Alderaan is the same as saying that Reactor Control Technician #4 was responsible for Alderaan. They could both have thrown a spanner into the works, but their culpability is far superseded by that of Tarkin and the Emperor.

NeverarGreat said:

To then suggest that it was in fact Anakin who was monstrous long before the corrupting influence of the Empire even existed is to strike at the core of everything Anakin is in the eyes of his son. If Anakin committed genocide before the Clone Wars, if he killed children before the Empire was formed, then there is no good man for Luke to save. Anakin didn’t become a monster when he became Darth Vader; Anakin was himself a monster, and the apparent dichotomy between Anakin and Vader in the OT simply doesn’t exist. Anakin as a man was always Vader, and Vader was always a monster.

We’re told he betrayed his brethren, knights that fought for peace and justice, because was seduced by the dark side. Not lied to or fed propaganda, he wanted power. And Vader agrees with this.

“If you only knew the power of the dark side! Obi-Wan never told you what happened to your father.” = “The power of the dark side is so great, even your father was seduced by it.”

He went from being a good man to a bad one by making his own selfish choices. Just because he became a bad man doesn’t mean he wasn’t ever a good one.

But that’s just the point; it doesn’t matter how he was corrupted or seduced, it only matters that he was at one time a ‘good man’, and the prequels show that is just not the case.

He didn’t commit genocide before the Clone Wars. If you’re referring to the Tuskens, that wasn’t genocide, and I disagree with that creative choice anyway, at least if it extends beyond the ones responsible for killing his mother (and even then, that pent up anger could be used as a plot point, if one chose).

Genocide is defined as (among other things) the systematic killing of many people of one race or ethnicity, and often specifically because of their race or ethnicity.

“I killed them. I killed them all. And not just the men, but the women, and the children. I killed them all. They’re animals. And I slaughtered them like animals.”

I don’t think the children had anything to do with killing Anakin’s mother. The point of the scene is to show how Anakin went out of his way to kill everyone in that tribe, specifically because they were Tuskens, a group of people that he viewed as not worthy of being persons. I’d call that genocide.

He killed children after he became a Sith, like a day before it was officially the Empire, when it was already the Empire in all but name. At that point, it’s a semantic argument. I understand the sentiment, as it’s absolutely rushed in ROTS, but when he’s christened Darth Vader, he’s supposed to be like, 90% Vader already.

Again, you’re proving my point. You seem to view any actions taken by Vader as understandable because he is Vader, while I’m saying that the killing of children is not understandable even after Anakin became Vader. Vader at the height of his villainy in the OT never killed children, yet Anakin in the PT kills them on two separate occasions, in both cases before he ever puts on the mask. The prequels give us a bizarre situation where Vader actually reaches the height of his evil as a teenager and then he gradually gets less evil as he gets older, at least when measured by his actual deeds.

G&G Fan, is your opinion that Vader killing the younglings is a good storytelling choice or that it just isn’t a new low for him?

Even though I generally don’t agree with the criticisms that some of you give to the Prequels, I agree with this specific point. Anakin killing younglings is not a good idea, and it shouldn’t have been done. It is one of those things that make some people say that he was never a good person to begin with and never deserved redemption in the first place. Which is understandable. Understandable but not good, indeed, since we are supposed to believe that there is still good in him, which is not very believable after you have seen him killing Innocent children with cold blood.

NeverarGreat said:

Han, Leia, Luke, and Antilles are all members of the Rebellion, so I assume that Vader, like the Empire, is treating them like unprivileged combatants (spies and whatnot).

It doesn’t matter when Vader does something like lean in close to savor an unarmed prisoner being tortured and coldly joking about it.

The Empire is evil, tyrannical, their laws are immoral. The Rebels in the OT are morally innocent people fighting for altruistic purposes, freedom. Vader knows it. The distinction between Vader being covered by Imperial law for sadistically torturing or killing said rebels for selfish reasons because they’re “unprivileged combatants” and doing exactly that despite Imperial law say nothing about his morality. How cold he is in his heart. It isn’t morally different from doing the same thing to a civilian. Especially when it’s said he willingly joined said Empire, betrayed and murdered righteous Jedi Knights because he wanted power for himself. He never makes moral or legal cases for his actions, or hesitates when it’s not his son.

Vader threatened to “find new ways to motivate” DSII workers. Many of those likely aren’t in the know, construction workers that could have families (I doubt there’s enough evil people in the galaxy to get that done in 4 years). Jerjerrod is shown to be concerned with fair conditions for his workers, not to mention his cut material. He likely joined the Empire because of propaganda. When they want to make a point of an Imperial concerned about the law and justice, they do it.

NeverarGreat said:

Lando is harboring Rebellion fighters and is also running an illegal gas mining operation that has military uses, so it makes sense that the Empire would crack down on that.

The Empire arrived first. Everything he did to house the rebels was according to their plan.

Yeah, their mining operation was illegal. Yet, not only did they have no tie to the rebellion until ROTJ nor an army, thus are not combatants, but the wider point is how Vader gloats about the situation, changes the deal, and doesn’t hold up his end.

NeverarGreat said:

Compare Vader’s actions in the OT with Thrawn’s actions at the end of Rebels, where Thrawn holds a city of innocents hostage and begins to destroy them to prove a point. Vader in the OT never indiscriminately kills civilians merely because one of them might be a Rebel.

We don’t see the Emperor do anything like that in the OT either, that doesn’t mean that the clear formal elements framing him as worse don’t matter.

He doesn’t do that because there’s not any point in the plot for him to.

NeverarGreat said:

Sure, presumably Vader could have given the order and their deaths are ultimately on his hands, but it’s notable how we don’t see him do this. The movie doesn’t show their deaths, and I think it’s effective in conveying that the Empire killed them, which is all Luke needs to know in order to join the Rebellion.

Including a scene of Vader ordering their deaths would ruin the pacing and surprise of seeing their dead bodies. The perspective through which their deaths should be seen is Luke’s, he’s the protagonist.

The formal elements depict Darth Vader as an imposing, powerful villain with agency. As I said, “Everything from his skull-like mask, to the way his deal with Lando is treated like a deal with the devil, to the way the carbon freezing chamber is meant to look like Hell.” In addition, his depiction as a horror villain in control in every scene in said chamber. He has his own duplicitous scheme to overthrow the Emperor for entirely selfish, immoral reasons. Yoda and Obi-Wan emphasize the importance of defeating Vader just as much as the Emperor.

NeverarGreat said:

Your previous points are debatable, but I think this one is just wrong. Vader says that ‘The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the Force.’ Vader isn’t saying that he feels threatened by this station, but just that the Force is so much stronger than anything the Empire could produce. His statement is a (prophetic) warning against the Empire’s hubris and a statement of his religion’s faith, which is why the officer rebuts him by calling out his ‘sad devotion to that ancient religion.’

He’s too egotistical to outright say he feels threatened by it, though it wasn’t the wisest of me to bring in an interpretation mostly supported by outside material.
Personally, I believe Vader is right, the Force is stronger then the Death Star, and what you’ve outlined about the intent behind the dialogue is true. I acknowledge that my argument there wasn’t entirely strong when looking at the film in isolation, though maintain that lines can be multilayered.

Something I didn’t consider. The way Vader goes, “There will be no one to stop us this time!” in a victorious tone when talking about recovering the plans from the pod on Tatooine, and how heated he is in that opening sequence, I don’t think the film itself was attempting to say Vader is against the Death Star’s existance. Vader undermining it’s power by saying it pails in comparison to his own and that the Imperials are overestimating themselves are just that.

NeverarGreat said:

This is another instance where the prequels do a disservice to the OT. In the original film, Vader was clearly subservient to Tarkin, who was himself subservient to the Emperor. Leia even cracks a joke at how Vader is Tarkin’s lap dog.

Regardless of whether Vader could have physically done anything to stop the Death Star, there’s no indication that he had the influence with the Emperor to survive that action. Saying that he was responsible for Alderaan is the same as saying that Reactor Control Technician #4 was responsible for Alderaan. They could both have thrown a spanner into the works, but their culpability is far superseded by that of Tarkin and the Emperor.

Leveling with this by disregarding anything but the OT alone in terms of Vader’s power both within the Empire and in the Force.

Vader is still selfishly prioritizing his own life by actively taking part in the destruction of a planet full of innocent civilians by bringing Leia to him and restraining her. In addition, Vader is shown within the film to have command over every Imperial officer except Tarkin, the Emperor is not present, his Force abilities establish he is physically more powerful then anybody else on the Death Star. He could claim Tarkin was subverting the Emperor in attempting to destroy a world without jurisdiction to test his project, lie to the Emperor about the circumstances of his death. It’s his word against anyone else’s. Alternatively, he could flee, leak information, inspire rebellions, even just to take over himself. I don’t believe the filmmakers intended to take agency away from Vader, but develop Tarkin. He’s not as culpable as Tarkin, but still.

The culpability of Reactor Control Technician #4 is dependent on the amount of information he has. Vader had all of it.

NeverarGreat said:

But that’s just the point; it doesn’t matter how he was corrupted or seduced, it only matters that he was at one time a ‘good man’, and the prequels show that is just not the case.

They didn’t do a good job with that element in the Prequels, but that’s ultimately a separate discussion as I wasn’t defending the overall execution of the Prequels.

NeverarGreat said:

Genocide is defined as (among other things) the systematic killing of many people of one race or ethnicity, and often specifically because of their race or ethnicity.

“I killed them. I killed them all. And not just the men, but the women, and the children. I killed them all. They’re animals. And I slaughtered them like animals.”

I don’t think the children had anything to do with killing Anakin’s mother. The point of the scene is to show how Anakin went out of his way to kill everyone in that tribe, specifically because they were Tuskens, a group of people that he viewed as not worthy of being persons. I’d call that genocide.

I overlooked the full implications of the line and the fact that he killed Tusken children. So yes, he did kill children before becoming a Sith. I acknowledge my mistake, even if my point was not to defend the creative choice.

I apologize for any potential appearance of aggression or disingenuousness or if I have misframed any of your arguments in this or the previous reply.

SparkySywer said:

G&G Fan, is your opinion that Vader killing the younglings is a good storytelling choice or that it just isn’t a new low for him?

Mostly the latter. The former heavily depends on execution, but it’s not a good choice in the film as it’s scripted, structured, presented, etc. Another thing to be considered is tact.

Channel72 said:

Also, for a decade before the Prequels, I heard these tantalizing rumors about Anakin Skywalker as this bad-ass Jedi-killer assassin. So when I finally saw him depicted as such in ROTS, only to see him killing a room full of defenseless kids, it just seemed… I don’t know… kind of pathetic. (Cue Prequel defense team: “that’s the point you idiot, didn’t you even watch the Prequels? Stop idolizing Darth Vader, etc. etc. etc.”)

That was originally gonna be the plan, back in the 80s. For him to gradually kill of Jedi one by one.

And yeah, this whole “Vader is just pathetic” thing bothers me. Yes, I get that underneath Vader’s cold persona and Force power, he’s miserable. But that presence he has is still there and serves a purpose. You don’t introduce a villain the way you introduce Vader if he’s just supposed to be “pathetic”.

G&G-Fan said:

SparkySywer said:

G&G Fan, is your opinion that Vader killing the younglings is a good storytelling choice or that it just isn’t a new low for him?

Mostly the latter. The former heavily depends on execution, but it’s not a good choice in the film as it’s scripted, structured, presented, etc. Another thing to be considered is tact.

I don’t feel like it’s a new low in the sense that I expect him to have some a higher conscience or moral code than this, but it’s definitely a different kind of evil to what he does in the OT.

George Lucas seems to have written himself into a spot where there are children who have to be killed by this regime, but I feel like there’s a big difference in characterization between depicting a guy who leads troops into a bloodbath where children die, and depicting a guy who personally stabs children who trust him.

Would you feel the same way if George Lucas depicted Anakin as having killed small animals as a teenager? That’s also something I don’t think Darth Vader would have some moral problem with, but making him into the kind of guy who used to do that changes his characterization significantly.

Him killing kids, plus him killing the sand people, make Anakin seem like he was always just a bad egg. I think that’s what you like about it, but if the prequels are supposed to be about the tragedy of Anakin Skywalker, I think it makes it a lot less tragic.

It might be different if the scene was in a different context, but I also don’t think gradually leading into it more wouldn’t change it that much.

A perspective that can kind of make it all work for me is that Anakin does this stuff and hates himself for it.

We do see him struggle with guilt over the sand people (albeit in a badly written, painful-to-watch scene), so it’s in the text. But what’s crucial is that he wants to be a good Jedi and hero, that he knows what his responsibilities are, what’s expected of him. He isn’t overtly sociopathic - he cries about having done these monstrous things, and even in ROTS, just about his unbecoming feelings.

I think the evil he ends up doing - while contradictory to - can still inform, the colder more balanced Vader we get in the OT.

Anakin throughout the first half of ROTS defends the Jedi council and their doctrine to Palpatine; looks to it first, to Yoda, when having a crisis of faith. He performs The Hero, and his relationship with Obi-Wan is great: brothers with someone who thinks him to have grown wise, a good friend worthy yet to be a master. There is something re: his ambition for power there, but I think importantly with the context of his original sin (the Tusken massacre), a question also of absolution. And he clings to all of it. He yearns to be validated by the Order and find in himself that “hero” (to his 9 y/o self’s eyes) - up until it’s clear they would never let him in. Not because Mace doesn’t take him seriously, but because of what Anakin comes to accept about what he’s hiding.

When he chooses Palpatine, he’s making a deal with the devil to “save Padme’s life”, liberating himself from the [Jedi-informed] conscience he did have. It’s not that what he does from here “doesn’t count” but it’s not a reflection of who he is (well, idk, loaded philosophical question) or who he wants to be. Hayden crying is some of the most striking imagery in ROTS and it happens several times.

I think after burning down all that has caused him strife - good and bad - more than just an empty shell, is the motivation to meaningful affect control on his world. It is kind of a reset into the dignified agent of justice he wanted to be as a Jedi, just without the guardrails. And once again performing that role in cover and self-loathing of what more he’s done.

Channel72 said:

NFBisms said:

When he chooses Palpatine, he’s making a deal with the devil to “save Padme’s life”, liberating himself from the [Jedi-informed] conscience he did have. It’s not that what he does from here “doesn’t count” but it’s not a reflection of who he is (well, idk, loaded philosophical question) or who he wants to be. Hayden crying is some of the most striking imagery in ROTS and it happens several times.

I think the problem with Anakin’s decision to follow Palpatine is the absurdly extreme cost of doing so that Anakin has to pay right up front. I mean, I can understand Anakin (or anybody, really) agreeing to do some seriously evil stuff in order to save the life of a loved one. But Anakin is told that, in order to save Padme, he has to basically mass-murder everyone he’s ever known, including children. That goes well beyond “my first Dark Side experience”. The justification, I guess, is that Anakin desperately wants to save Padme and he’s slightly pissed off at the Jedi for denying him a Council seat. But this is so weak - the character-work really isn’t there in the script to justify Anakin’s decision. It’s a ridiculous and jarring leap to go from “well I’m now an accessory to Mace Windu’s murder, I might as well just roll with the whole Dark Side thing” to “I will now methodically murder hundreds of people including defenseless children on the off-chance this Sith stuff pans out and saves Padme”.

I think it’s important that those upfront costs aren’t his First Dark Side Experience™. It’s still the Tuskens.

What I’m positing is that the guilt and self-hatred of that has permanence, informs his internality, even by the time of ROTS. When he bows to Palpatine, he can agree to the terms because he’s already spent the past three years haunted by what he’s done, already knowing well the shape of evil inside him. It’s what he’s been running away from, to reputation as a hero (a good man), and what he hopes is masterhood (vindication as a Jedi).

In the face of the Jedi’s persistent doubt and rejection, that protective self-image crumbles and he is left to confront the darker projections - the guilt, the secrets, like the wife he’s hiding, who he cares about most in this moment. Who has he been fooling? As a Jedi, he’s already failed.

So this all has more to do with himself than it does the Jedi Order’s faults to him, or even the politics of the situation. Anakin is lacking in the tools to actualize as anything more than the monster he’s feared himself to be, who Yoda always warns him he’d become. He’s fulfilling his own internalized hatred, and that started with the Tuskens. imo

(sorry btw, i don’t mean to be a prequel apologist, i also am disappointed with these movies, i just end up here when i have to think about it)

Or we could just accept that fundamental continuity and character differences exist between each trilogy. That is why the easiest solution is to treat each trilogy as its own entity, existing in a separate continuity from the others. I cannot imagine the universe of the Prequel Trilogy naturally giving rise to the universe of the Original Trilogy, nor of the Original Trilogy giving rise to the Sequel Trilogy.

It’s the best take to take, if you wish to accept each trilogy as valid.

Myself, I go all Wile E. Coyote with the dynamite.

The reversion-back-to-“good” is a central tension to the read I’m putting forward here. To tie it back to the OT Vader discussion, in this perspective it’s a performance. Not even necessarily a mask on his true self, but a desperate grasp on to his better self. Gradual or abrupt, linear or nonlinear - is beside my point, I think it’s just supposed to be a struggle. And I do think that has interplay with ROTJ’s portrayal of Vader’s redemption. It’s playing with the question of ontological good/evil. Can someone fundamentally be “just” a psychotic killer? [is it] too late for me son

He wants to believe he has the morals not to kill Dooku, he buries the memory of the Tuskens because that’s not what a good Jedi [master] does. I think the amount of time spent in ROTS of him angsting about his responsibilities vs desires makes it relatively intuitive that he is performing, deferring to doctrine and procedure harder than ever before. (“Not the Jedi way” “against the Jedi code” “never been done in the history of the Jedi”) Compensating for his failure and disappointment in himself into rigidity

This especially when that’s not how he was characterized in AOTC. It’s basically Catholic guilt, sin motivating piety. The Tuskens being evoked early in ROTS as a response to Anakin’s performed morals is functional in that lens.

I do think you’re right about the weirdness of Padme being super cool with the massacre in AOTC, though.

The other things that muddle it is stuff like the Padme death anxiety simply making no sense, and yet being given central focus. The fascism that peeks out also generally just makes Anakin unsympathetic. It’s odd because these explain motivations for different parts of his arc - but they barely if at all synthesize with one another.

1. Padme is cool with Anakin killing those Tuskens because they need to be in love
2. The nightmares of Padme’s death motivate the deal with the devil
3. Anakin’s failed search for absolution explains the upfront costs
4. The fascist side of Anakin gives him something to stay around for when it all goes bad

It’s all a mess BUT i think can be kinda compelling to think through

I’ve said this a couple times, but the idea of Anakin becoming Vader because he wants the power of immortality really should’ve been flying into Lucas’ face. It’s so obvious.

Darth Vader is so scary partially because he’s almost “undead”. He’s breathing, but it’s mechanical. He has a mask that looks like a skull. He’s always either cold or rageful, sometimes briefly sad. He’s surviving, but is he really alive?

What’s a reoccurring theme in the Universal Monster movies Lucas loves to reference? Dracula, Frankenstein, the Mummy? Immortality. It’s perfect. In the original 1932 Mummy, Imhotep was sentenced to death for pursuing forbidden knowledge to resurrect his dead lover. His goal is for him and her to live forever. Sound familiar?

Anakin should’ve become Vader partially because he wanted the power for him and Padme to live forever. But in doing so, he gives up his humanity and kills her.

Anakin Starkiller said:

I’ve never picked up on any Universal Monsters references in Star Wars or Indiana Jones for that matter.

Vader getting his suit in ROTS is the most obvious Frankenstein reference I’ve ever seen.

Some cast members also overlap with the Hammer movies because Peter Cushing played Dr. Frankenstein and Professor Van Helsing, David Prowse played Frankenstein’s monster, and Christopher Lee played Count Dracula (why else is he named COUNT Dooku?)