Dagenspear

JadedSkywalker said:

To me that was the worst part of Rogue One Vader far too prequelly. In fact every appearance of him since the prequel except in Rogue One before the hallway scene has been prequely.I also found the Darth Maul scene in Solo to be lame.

What’s prequelly?

I liked Vader with the red lenses and don’t choke on your aspirations, that was very OT Vader.

What do the red lenses add, other than bearing a resemblance to OT? And Vader in the OT never makes a pun that I remember. Also, why would Vader in everything else that takes place years before the OT not be closer to the prequel version?

As for Finn I felt like Force Awakens was setting up him and Rey to be a thing, and then last Jedi all of sudden Reylo happens. Which reminds me of Hayden Skywalker/Padme from the prequel. The bad boy psycho romance. Rey is all I can save him I can fix him. There is still good in him.

Not really I think. Because Anakin and Padme:

A. Has a personal relationship before the romance that isn’t hatred and violence.

B. Padme isn’t written to break away from any relationship for Anakin.

C. Padme’s romance with Anakin isn’t developed to be when Anakin is already a monstrous villain.

Even TLJ doesn’t clear the very low bar that AOTC actually put some effort into as a romance. Hilarious.

Mocata said:

Does woke mean anything these days? I use to think it was something do do with common sense being replaced by box ticking and messaging but it’s hard to say any more. Overall I still like TLJ but it’s odd if you break it down in any detail. Grifters complaining about Hollywood will say the Rose side-plot is forced but fail to say how beyond the basics of a lame non-romance. Would they be complaining less if Finn and Poe Dameron did this mission or is that too gay for them (or Disney)? Does it make sense Finn gets talked down to about how evil the First Order is when he’s witness to a massacre?

Elsewhere things like Luke being in hiding to avoid the circular nature of the conflict makes some sense. Some people say he shouldn’t be shown as an old grouch. But can the same old heroics go on forever, can these characters be simplistic and static? Which to me is the problem with Rogue One… it’s just so bland and has more fan service and CG action than personality. The sequels might not have much to say but RO is just ‘here’s Darth Vader, please clap’, and then people do.

Broom Kid said:

Woke is one of the more fun reappropriations of language to mean absolutely nothing that’s happened in quite awhile.

I was suggesting how I think it’s nonsense to claim it’s woke or progressive.

But at least I think the Rogue One does have something going on in it’s story and character structure concepts, other than the fan service of Vader. And Vader being involved in some way makes some sense I think because of the lead in to ANH, even if I think it’s not strongly done.

Broom Kid said:

Complete side-tangent: I know it’s a bit of a tiny kerfluffle regarding “the red lenses” on Vader (and he did have sort of darker amber/tinted lenses in Star Wars that often had a bit of a red hue when the lights hit them) and how Rogue One supposedly overdid it to some degree; but as someone who has cut a version of that movie and pixel-peeped QUITE a bit, a lot of the “red lenses” stuff is literally just red light IN the shot reflecting off the lenses, which otherwise still look mostly dark/black. The meeting with Krennic on Mustafar seems to be a scene that gets complained about heavily, but you can actually see the set lights casting a red glow on the scene and reflecting off the mask. It’s not that the lenses are red, it’s that there are orange/yellow/red lights bouncing off that plastic.

I don’t really get why some people make a thing out of little visual things like red lenses. What does not having them like hurt about the character, that makes them so gasp prequelly in a way that is poor?

NFBisms said:

Not gonna lie, I genuinely still don’t get it! The ST are extremely, and almost outright intentionally, apolitical movies with genuinely nothing to offer on that front. And I like TLJ! Andor, Acolyte, sure. But The Last Jedi?

I’d argue TLJ is more sexist, with how I think it shoves Rey into a passive role as a protagonist and builds her story around the dumb, to me, bad boy good girl romance with Kylo. That, plus, all the female characters are basically props for the male characters stories. Luke may suck, to me, but I still think Rey is written not really as her own character, but for Luke’s as well as Kylo’s.

And yet, the movie is bashed as woke and acclaimed as progressive. Hilarious to me.

Broom Kid said:

I believe the entire purpose of Driver pursuing Soderbergh (who then got Burns onboard) was primarily to investigate the idea of the character not being “redeemed” - Driver had initially signed on thinking that was the goal with the guy, and that had been reinforced by how The Last Jedi was done.

I don’t think they were trying to cement Kylo’s importance to the overall story, really. In fact, his being forcefully, clumsily shifted to hold almost the whole focus of the ST by the midway point of Rise of Skywalker is a huge reason it folds in on itself, dramatically - the movies start by pairing Rey and Finn as the co-leads, and then Rey takes center stage for the 2nd chapter, and instead of Finn & Rey coming together for the 3rd chapter, they backseated both of them for the sake of making Ben the hero/main character. Say what you will (I do, all the time, LOL) about Trevorrow’s skills as a creative, but at least his first couple whacks at the story recognized where The Last Jedi was pointing towards, and it was NOT a “redemption” for Kylo, and it was 100% at Finn leading some sort of uprising amongst the First Order (which is probably the only way the Resistance overcomes having almost no numbers).

This seemed to have been a story looking to pursue the original idea in a different framework. Kylo/Ben wouldn’t actually be prominent to that degree, he’d be hunted, and the clumsy, facile idea of “redemption” forced on him would be sidestepped for a more interesting examination of the character who actually IS too far gone.

I think Kylo was given more focus than Rey was in TLJ, to her detriment. The character being bent around reylo, for the sake of her trying to turn him away from villainy I think is a showcase of that. Along with all their scenes being mostly Kylo talking at her or her saying very little at all. Same with her scenes with Luke, where she mostly just reacts to what other people are saying and doing. I think that was the movie that pushed that idea of Kylo changing as a core concept for the protagonist Rey to pursue, out of nowhere I think, not TROS. I think even TROS drops Kylo out of prominence within the story to focus on Rey and that Kylo has very little character growth and is mostly a device to keep Rey from dying within the movie. Trevarrow’s draft, that I’ve seen, does not much that different with Kylo as a character overall, and still has him change at the end from Leia’s persuasion and then heal Rey, dying in her place.

I think TROS moreso takes away all the focus from Kylo and gives it to Palpatine in regards to Rey’s story, giving Palpatine the one draining lifeforce at the end, being the one behind the deaths of her parents (if I remember correctly that was revealed to be Kylo in Trevarrow’s draft, I think giving Rey an actual drive against Kylo) and the one who was seeking to take over the galaxy and wipe out the resistance.

TLJ also I think outright didn’t do much with Finn’s connection to his stormtrooper thing, cutting out the scene where Finn got some troopers to turn on Phasma, which I think was one of the only things that gave Finn much of a voice in the movie. I think TLJ also did that to Rey a lot as well.

SparkySywer said:

It may open up the story to future movies where Ben Solo is more prominent, plus the opportunity to more fully realize the ST cast. Plus, if Adam was pitching this movie, he may be more prominent than just showing up at the end. Search for Ben Solo sounds awesome to me

Why do we need Kylo to fully realize the ST cast? What’s of value about Kylo’s prominence?

rocknroll41 said:

Had the Ben Solo movie gotten made, I have a feeling it woulda lifted elements from the scrapped Duel of the Fates script (mainly Mortis). On the other hand, maybe it woulda been cool to see Ben have to explore the criminal underworld, and get a taste of his dad’s life.

But it would’ve been about Kylo…

henzINNIT said:

You think he sucks? Who cares, when many disagree with you.

That doesn’t change my issue.

Mocata said:

Compared to Rey and Finn? Lol.

Both likable, to me, and had actual backgrounds and origins and didn’t suck entirely, to me, so yeah.

henzINNIT said:

An actual actor and an actual director were excited to do a Star Wars film, based on one of the few original characters from Disney that is actually pretty popular, and the suits can’t see past a retcon. Madness.

Popular? Who cares, when I think he sucks worse than any of the other main ST characters. So good riddance for me. I’d rather see Palpatine dance on Vader’s grave than more of what I think is an entirely junk character be pretended to matter.

SparkySywer said:

Yeah they’re totally putting out feelers for bringing back Adam Driver for that Rey movie

Classic Disney if so. Feminism, until they see an opportunity to put down their main female lead with a, to me, dumb trash bad boy good girl romance nonsense that negates her agency and common sense. It’s TLJ all over again. Get ready for Rey to be a near totally passive character while Kylo whines about nothing at her and I think for no real reason, despite him having assaulted her, invaded her mind, killed her ally and hurt her other ally, she’s fallen for him, and then people will simultaneously laud it as progressive and bash it as woke.

rocknroll41 said:

Adam Driver confirmed in an interview today that in 2021 he tried convincing Disney to make a movie about Kylo coming back to life called The Hunt for Ben Solo, but they said no.

oojason said:

He sounded really positive about it - and working with Steven Soderbergh for it - as well…
 

Adam Driver on Jarmusch, ‘Star Wars’ and putting filmmakers first - article from AP News

'“I always was interested in doing another ‘Star Wars,’” says Driver, who starred as Kylo Ren in the trilogy kicked off by “The Force Awakens.” “I had been talking about doing another one since 2021. Kathleen (Kennedy) had reached out. I always said: With a great director and a great story, I’d be there in a second. I loved that character and loved playing him.”

Driver says he took a concept to Soderbergh for a film that would take place after 2019’s “The Rise of Skywalker.” That movie culminated in Ren’s redemption and apparent death. Driver had undertaken the trilogy with an arc in mind for Ren that inverted the journey of Darth Vader. As the trilogy evolved, it didn’t play out that way. Driver felt there was unfinished business for Kylo Ren, or as he was known before turning to the Dark Side, Ben Solo.

Soderbergh and Rebecca Blunt outlined a story that the group then pitched to Kennedy, Lucasfilm vice president Cary Beck and Lucasfilm chief creative officer Dave Filoni. They were interested, so the filmmakers then pulled in Scott Z. Burns to write a script. Driver calls the result “one of the coolest (expletive) scripts I had ever been a part of.”

“We presented the script to Lucasfilm. They loved the idea. They totally understood our angle and why we were doing it,” Driver says. “We took it to Bob Iger and Alan Bergman and they said no. They didn’t see how Ben Solo was alive. And that was that.”

“It was called ‘The Hunt for Ben Solo’ and it was really cool,” adds Driver. “But it is no more, so I can finally talk about it.”

Soderbergh, in a statement, said: “I really enjoyed making the movie in my head. I’m just sorry the fans won’t get to see it.”

Representatives for Disney and Lucasfilm declined comment.’

Sounds like reasoning to celebrate to me! For me, good riddance to what I think is an empty, black hole of a character.

Mocata said:

If they can’t figure out what to do in six years then maybe it should just stop. Or at least have producing duties taken off them. Kylo being the one who lived and wandered into the desert was the obvious choice since he was actually written as a real character.

Is this a joke? Kylo? The guy who I think has no developed solidly origins, goals or motives, is written as a real character?

Nah. I think good riddance. I’d rather watch Palpatine dance on Vader’s grave than Star Wars pretend that Kylo has any value as a character as is. Right now, I’d rather see a Rey movie than more Kylo favoring, reylo nonsense.

I think TCW messed with Anakin, to me, taking away the rawness of the character and vulnerability, and leaning more into a generic jockey like hero character, and emotionally hindering the character.

That all being said. Personality, in basics, Anakin in TCW I don’t think is written much differently in TCW than how he is during the speeder chase in AOTC and in the for the most part first half of ROTS. So, from both angles, new things and similarities to the movies, I don’t think Anakin is given much that’s better constructed. Moreso, to me, some things are more given more time to them, maybe?

SparkySywer said:

I don’t think that’s true at all. The more their friendship is genuine, the more drama there is when they fight. They don’t need to secretly resent each other to end up fighting.

I didn’t speak on the drama. I spoke on character. To me, Anakin’s tension with Obi works as a set up for his resentment and bitterness and then hatred of him.

JadedSkywalker said:

I think Anakin would have worked better if he was portrayed differently. He is so unlikable. So unrelatable. A problem of the prequel is there no Luke Skywalker to latch onto. No real central protagonist, even though Anakin is supposed to be that. Is he supposed to be an Anti-hero? Lucas didn’t seem to know where he wanted to go with the character.

Hayden acts like he is portraying dark and conflicted/selfish and arrogant. But where is the good friend and star pilot. Damn fool who follows old Obi-Wan on an idealistic quest.

Anakin and Obi in AOTC and ROTS interact with playful camaraderie. Anakin snipes in direct petty arrogance once at Obi AOTC. I think the movies flaws is that it doesn’t start building their friendship enough in TPM. Not because of Qui-Gon, because I think both can be done.

That being said, if Anakin and Obi didn’t have the turmoil, I don’t think it’d make much sense for Vader to wanna kill him. I suppose that could just be about his injuries, but personally, I like the tense emotional resentment and bitterness of a brother who feels like he has to prove he’s better kinda angle to me.

You don’t have a believable through line of the Anakin who wants to use power to restore order to the galaxy, because he has zeal for justice, but the ends justify the means. And the more he uses the dark side, the more he digs himself into a place where he can’t escape and The Emperor is waiting to grab a hold of him.

That is what I wanted to see the Shaw Anakin become Darth Vader. The Horror Gargoyle in the Mask, the machine man.

But that has nothing to do with how Vader turns away from the dark side in the OT and it doesn’t parallel Luke’s potential to turn, which was done by Palpatine and Vader using those he cared about to try and manipulate him.

He is a slave to the Sith as much as he was a slave on Tatooine and a slave to the Jedi. He really is an undeveloped person and a pathetic and pitiable wretch. Frankenstein’s monster, and a terror to the galaxy.

And Padme’s dreams and Anakin’s ambitions they all are manifest in their children.

People dislike that, but apparently that was what George wanted a scared kid trapped in a machine body. A young man who lost his mother and his wife. And his true sin was not in his evil acts, it was his desire to hold onto them selfishly.

I think one spirals into the other, if Anakin had not been so selfish, I think the idea is that he wouldn’t have done the evil acts, as he wouldn’t have viewed it through the lens of getting what he wants only.

I don’t see the issue with being the scared kid thing, as Vader’s penchant for lashing out with violence, I think showcases his immaturity.

Condemned to live as Darth Vader because he tried to change fate based on a vision of the future. Like Oedipus trying to outsmart the oracle. If he accepted the nature of things and dispassionately let them fade into the force, he would have been a good Jedi or so the films attempt to say. Letting people stay slaves is fine too, it’s not the mandate of the Jedi to free them.

It’s never stated that letting people stay slaves is “fine”. And Anakin’s conflict is never about freeing slaves, it’s just about his mom. Freeing slaves is never said to be wrong in the movie. But it’s something no one is any position to do in TPM. The slaves have bombs in them, so Qui-Gon and Obi can’t do anything about it. In overall context, to take action to rescue the slaves could cost the slaves their lives.

Broom Kid said:

Most Anakin problems are rooted in Lucas’ late decision to age him down to single digits instead of letting him be a middle-school kid/pre-teen.

I think that disconnects from the softer angle and the longing for a parental figure that I think a lot of main relationship dynamics hinge on. Qui-Gon works, to me, more as a potential dad figure that is lost if Anakin isn’t a teen, and the loss of that is what Palpatine steps into, emotionally manipulating Anakin, again I think works more with him as a child vulnerable and such. His dynamic, in concept, with Obi, I think works more as a brotherly angle of Obi being responsible for Anakin, and when Qui dies, Obi takes on the responsibility of raising his brother basically, which leads to a relationship that while is still one of love is also one of tension and rivalry and bickering, because Anakin doesn’t respect Obi as a dad figure and Obi struggles in being a mature guardian figure, because Palpatine has usurped that role for Anakin, and down the road of the character I think takes away the weight of what Vader killing Palpatine in Return Of The Jedi is, to me, which is: Vader rejecting the dad whose manipulated and oppressed him and used him nearly his whole life, to be a selfless dad in giving up his life to rescue his son.

And honestly, his whole weird conception of the Jedi as super-repressed monks - which is only just now in the last 10 years getting seriously investigated as a terrible thing to have been in the first place. And frankly a massive disconnect from what he was alluding to in the first three movies. They were clearly samurai-ish, so there was obviously a code, but he turned them into deranged monks and then mandated we’re supposed to think of them all as good guys ANYWAY.

They never do anything really villainous in the movies as a collective, so why would we see them as bad guys?

Also, I don’t see what is in the OT that is contradicted by the jedi’s depiction in the PT. They seem to have all the same main rules and goals to me.

The truth is simply that he didn’t really have a handle on basics like characterization and plot when he came back from a self-imposed creative retirement, and he never got that handle he USED to have back. He wrote all his heroes like robots and undercut any real dramatic forward motion whenever he could, and instead of making it better he fell back on “I meant to do it like that, of course” and because he’s the CEO there’s nothing you can really say to that.

But yeah, if Anakin starts at age 13 you have so much more opportunity to infuse him with a roguish personality from jump, and it’s easier to build that forward in the next two movies. But instead you start him at 9 and now nothing about him makes a lot of sense, or reads as recognizable human behavior.

Why should he have a roguish personality?

But then again choosing to make him more or less the main character of not just the prequel trilogy, but BOTH trilogies (by default) by retconning the story to be about Anakin Skywalker’s fall and redemption (even though he never actually GOT redeemed at the end of Jedi, he just did one good thing for his kid before dying) he also completely goofed. Anakin should have been a SUPPORTING CHARACTER at best, and the POV should have been either Padme or Obi-Wan. But it obviously would have never occurred to him to make the Prequel Trilogy be ACTUALLY about Luke & Leia’s mom, in the same way the Original Trilogy was about Vader’s kid. Not Vader.

I think Padme is the main character of TPM. I think AOTC is more an ensemble, though I actually think Obi is more the main heroic protagonist of AOTC than anyone else, as he’s the one whose driving the main plot forward. I think ROTS is the only movie where Anakin is the central protagonist, which I think makes sense at least.

Vader died to rescue his son out of a selfless love I think, and is depicted I think at the end of ROTJ to have become a heroic character again.

Padme isn’t in the OT, so I think it’d be a narrative disconnect to make her the one the trilogy is about wholesale, and also I think it’d not showcase much in the way of story structure for Anakin becoming Vader.

Superweapon VII said:

It never occurred to me, either. But damn, now I love the idea.

Vladius said:

Because it shows how the prequels failed to communicate the story, and why their legacy continues to make the setting worse. This mainstream interpretation of events is directly responsible for The Last Jedi and The Acolyte and lots of other bad EU stories, and like I’ve been saying, retroactively damages the original trilogy. I think it has some real life consequences as well but I won’t get into that.

I don’t think that connects. People come out of movies all the time with different ideas. And when the movies basically put out the opposite of this for the most part, I think that’s the issue with those that interpret it that way.

A. I think TLJ had almost nothing to say about the Jedi as a whole, and just had Luke whine about how they failed mostly. Even the Acolyte’s writing is thin, to me, and it only actually directly says that a few Jedi were corrupt or messed up. Which changes nothing about the Jedi as a whole. Again, I think the responsibility of those who wrote it that way. Why would the PT be at fault for the decisions of others? Criticize the movies all you want, but the jedi’s worst trait, that I see, in the movies, at worst, is a couple having arrogance issues or apathy or lacking awareness, in regards to personality. Yeah, there’s the idea of them being lacking in competence from some (which I don’t entirely agree with), but nothing that would lend itself to anything TLJ or Acolyte may be trying to do with them (I say try because I think they’re so weak or thin they say fairly little, beyond what I said above).

B. Why does it matter that other people saw it this way to the point where they’d do these things? Why would it change the views or emotions of someone who doesn’t think that?

Vladius said:

I wasn’t talking about you.

But I’m questioning why it matters that other people think these things about it.

Vladius said:

Just an example of how deeply this set in, here’s an average fan youtube channel with a poll - Did Anakin need to destroy the Jedi to restore balance to the Force?

57% yes, 43% no

https://imgur.com/a/ien7kbi

The most upvoted comments on it have some correct information but here’s a sampling of some other comments, all stuff that I’ve talked about before. This isn’t a handful of people, it’s the mainstream view, no matter how many times you explain it another way.

“The mere existence of Jedi and/or Sith throws the force out of balance, destroying either wont fix anything, you’d have to destroy both”

"Before the Jedi and Sith, the Je’daii Order existed, centered on the planet Tython. The Je’daii embraced both the light and dark sides of the Force, a balance that would later be split, forming the Jedi and Sith Orders.

The ideal state of true balance is where the Force flows naturally, and no one side, light or dark, dominates or seeks to control it."

“I think it’s an obvious yes. The sith were severely outnumbered and outgunned before Anakin did what he did. Idgaf what George says - balance cannot be achieved by destroying one side of the equation. Balance is the same amount of power being used for good and evil, seeing as evil is the only thing that gives good context at all.”

“Anakin destroying the Jedi was more likely a punishment by the force itself as a result of them becoming to political and moving away from the ways of what the force wanted them to be.”

“Kind of funny how restoring balance to the force involved killing everyone on the light and the dark.”

“How could there ever be balance when there were hundreds of jedi and only 2 sith?”

“The jedi order was in the Tens of thousand and there was legitimately only 1-2 sith at one time with less then 5 people waiting in the wings for someone to betray someone.”

“Both sides were too extreme and flawed.”

“The Jedi Order stagnated, the council thought nothing could touch them, and fell for their own dogma.”

“Yes . They were weak , negligent , ineffective , clueless . List goes on . They needed a new start . Unfortunately change was painful”

“You have to remember that it’s widely believed that Anakin would’ve never fell to the dark side if Qui-Gon didn’t die. In the prophecy, all he needed to do was kill Palpatine to bring balance to the force but Qui-Gon’s death just triggered a different timeline for how that was going to happen. So no, the Jedi didn’t need to die.”

“They needed a reset but not pure destruction. But their ways were so unbelievably flawed and genuinely stupid.”

"I think a Jedi Order that let Anakin and Dooku fall to the Dark Side and drove Ahsoka away is an order in decline and irredeemably indoctrinated.

The whole point of the prequels was to show that the Jedi were too caught up in being Jedi and not serving the Force."

“With the way Jedi were during the prequels it was probably a good idea for a hard reset”

I don’t know why that should matter that much to me. It doesn’t change what I think happens in the movies. Why would it change how I see them? Seems like a ‘trying to outright blame others for the mistakes of characters we like or sympathize with’ type of thing to me.

Vladius said:

I agree with you that Anakin could have quit at any time, but I’m talking about the perception people have about the movies. The standard reading now is that the Jedi are a creepy cult that kidnaps children and brainwashes them to not have emotion. I know that that’s blatantly incorrect on every level. However, the Jedi do look really dumb due to their inability to figure out obvious details happening right in front of them with regard to the clone plot, Republic corruption, Palpatine, and Anakin/Padme, so it gives the impression that they have to be doing something wrong to make them act that way and/or deserve it when it comes crashing down. People fill in the blanks and put it up to something to do with emotions, suppressed emotions, attachment, “too much light side”, etc.

Well, some may. But I think that’s not in the movies like that.

I disagree about the clone plot and Palpatine and think they have nothing to lead them to Palpatine on that really and the clone. Suspicion about how they were made yes, but the movie kinda keeps the Jedi from getting specific information. Republic corrupt and Anakin/Padme, sure, but the republic thing I think isn’t connected to the jedi’s other things really to me. Anakin/Padme, to me, isn’t much of an issue.

The Balance in the Force thing is vague and the Chosen One prophecy is vague, and they tell you straight up in ROTS that the prophecy could have been misread. To most people this means you can interpret it however you want, even though there are token references to it being about destroying the Sith. Yes ultimately it swings back around and winds up being true when Vader does take out the Emperor, but people also insert a step where it means he had to exterminate the Jedi or reduce them to 2 because there were too many.

Obi says it in the movies what it is. Yeah, they say it could be misread, but we see it play out in the movies that Anakin kills the sith. It’s also been developed in every mainstream thing after ROTS that there are surviving Jedi, so Anakin didn’t kill most of them and that’s never developed in the movies to be the thing, because the clones as well wipe the majority of them that we see, not Anakin. I don’t think Anakin was needed for that. To me, this is more of a lack of exploration thing from the movies though, I admit. It could’ve been delved into more. A flaw I have with some things in these movies is that not enough time, to me, is spent on them.

By contradictory I was talking about the other post I was quoting, where the other poster was trying to reconcile the movies and their messaging. I said it seems contradictory because people are trying to read something into it that wasn’t there previously.

My full sentence was
“It doesn’t contradict the OT, it (according to a fan interpretation) retroactively adds an unnecessary part to it that gets tied in with something unrelated.”

For example when a story does the “it was all a dream” trope, it doesn’t technically contradict anything that happens in the story itself, or break continuity, because anything can happen in a dream. But everyone hates it because it changes the perspective on the story to make it a lot less interesting and impactful. That’s what reducing everything to attachments/no attachments does for me, even though you can technically shoehorn Yoda and Obi Wan’s comments into that framework.

But I don’t think it does, as I think it’s not doing anything against it. It aligns, to me, with their view in that movie, not just their advice to Luke in that scene. Yoda’s whole thing about being about knowing when he’s calm and passive. Different ways of saying it or approaching it, maybe, but I don’t think it effects it. Especially considering, I think of relationships and attachments as 2 different things, so it doesn’t do much of anything for me in the PT. I think if we’re approaching the idea that Vader changed only because he cared about his son enough to rescue him over being imperial, doesn’t make it so Vader learns from his mistakes in joining the empire and what led him to being Vader, in that view of doing things. Adding to Vader’s motivation being someone who grew so attached that he was unwilling to allow them to die at the detriment of pursuing the right thing to do, I think brings more weight to what Luke does in ROTJ and what Vader does after seeing what Luke chooses. In that Vader learns from his son’s choices and refusal to compromise, to me. Loving his son, yes, but not just for himself and keeping his son.

Spartacus01 said:

I agree with you when you say that the Jedi were right about Anakin letting his emotions control him. But it’s not true that they weren’t upset about him wanting to have a girlfriend or wanting to save his mother.

Anakin had been having nightmares about his mother for a long time, and he told Obi-Wan about them. All Obi-Wan said was “Dreams pass in time.” So when it comes to his mother, it’s not like Anakin never talked to the Jedi about what was going on. He did, and they gave him bad advice.

This whole thing could’ve been solved so easily by just letting Anakin visit his mother to make sure she was okay. I mean, yeah, you shouldn’t let your emotions take over. But if you’re someone with Force abilities who starts having prophetic dreams about your mother suffering, it’s only natural to wonder if something bad is actually happening, and it’s only reasonable to check if everything’s fine. If you found out there’d been an explosion in your mom’s neighborhood, wouldn’t you call her or go see her to make sure she’s okay? It’s not even about letting your emotions control you, it’s just about having compassion for your mother.

And when it comes to Anakin having a girlfriend, the Jedi explicitly forbade romantic relationships, which is something Obi-Wan reminded Anakin of when Anakin told him that being around Padmé was intoxicating. So they didn’t approve the idea of him having a girlfriend.

I wouldn’t call that upset. Distanced moreso to me.

As far as we saw Anakin never pursued seeking to visit his mom in the movies, until he thought she was suffering. This could be an interesting thing to build around, and I think the movie doesn’t do that, and it’s a flaw in the movies that we don’t see it be brought up. This is among the kind of thing that I think for me could have filled out the story more.

But Obi is never developed to think those dreams are those things. I think it’s played like he thinks they’re dreams. In ROTS, I think Yoda seems to be a little uncertain about it to me.

The Jedi council never found out that as he was still working for them. I think they wouldn’t be pleased, maybe that’d be upset in a way.

Vladius said:

By mad I just mean that they thought it was negative and told him not to do it, and didn’t like it when he did. It was slight hyperbole.

The Jedi never told him to not rescue his mom in the movies. Not have a girlfriend, yes, but for both things Anakin could quit and do what he wanted. He’s not coerced. It’s suggested in AOTC that quitting is an option.

Vladius said:

It’s a specific reading of the prequels that a gigantic portion (possibly most) fans have right now, which is that the Jedi forbidding attachment is:

1. their major flaw that causes Anakin to fall and screws everything up
2. directly connected to when they tell Luke not to go to Cloud City to help Han and Leia, and to when they tell Luke to kill Vader (note they don’t actually tell him to kill Vader but that’s a separate bugaboo I have)

I blame the prequels for changing the Jedi and causing confusion with poor writing. The Jedi are written as morons, so when people who like the prequels watch the OT, they assume it’s just more of the same and it’s Yoda and Obi Wan filling Luke’s head with nonsense. Sometimes with the added thing (people here have said this including very recently) that Luke deciding to redeem Vader is him rejecting the attachment thing they taught him.

Another example would be the concept of “Balance in the Force” which has been interpreted to mean equal good and evil in the universe or equal Jedi and Sith. That’s silly, but it is something that the word “balance” suggests if you take it out of context, and it was never really explained in the movies themselves. It gets further muddled by Mortis Filoni material including the Ahsoka show.

I think that’s their choice. Because I disagree.

How is this moronic of the Jedi when they’re shown to be accurate about how attachments lead to those things, for both Anakin and Luke?

I’d also disagree about how Luke interacts with the Vader situation.

The movies explain it, I think straight forward, which is: Destroy the sith and bring balance. That’s what said in the movies.

And I didn’t mention this before, but you did refer to it as “seems contradictory” here:

Vladius said:

This is overcomplicating it and it seems contradictory only because the attachment thing was made up in 2002 to create a “forbidden love” angle for Anakin, like I’ve been saying.

Unless I misinterpreted what you were saying here? Because afterwards you did say this:

Vladius said:

It doesn’t contradict the OT

oojason said:

That really is a poor comparison… 300 pages of threads over 25 years… overlooking and glossing over others who contributed to the Original Trilogy… and you compare it to an example conversation/thread on Batman v Superman?

All whilst ignoring the history of TFN with OOT fans - and outlook in general, even today - as mentioned previously.

Well, you’re in luck - there’s plenty to learn about the many contributions of others to the Original Trilogy on here. 👍

 

Why is using a real life example of people hyperfocusing on the most famous person involved in a project a poor comparison? Is it incorrect? Does it not happen? What’s the actual difference in doing that, no matter the topic?

I didn’t ignore. It had nothing to do with what I said, so I didn’t respond. It doesn’t change anything about what I said, as I was speaking on individuals, not a blanketing of a collective site, and didn’t argue for the site in any way. Just pointed that members criticize Lucas there, which isn’t countered by what was said. What’s wrong with that?

Vladius said:

It doesn’t contradict the OT, it (according to a fan interpretation) retroactively adds an unnecessary part to it that gets tied in with something unrelated. It muddles the message and apparently causes some viewers to think that the Jedi telling Luke not to get himself killed in a trap, or to go and fight a necessary spiritual battle, is some kind of moral failing on the Jedi’s part, and not something that is genuinely wise.

It goes from common sense and truth about the virtues of restraint, patience, self-control, perseverance, etc. to “oh I remember this, they got mad when Anakin wanted to have a girlfriend or save his mom. This is more of that.” It’s a cheap oversimplification of the factors going into the story. It becomes less about the impetuousness and vigor of youth vs. the patience and experience of old age, and more about the weird stereotypes people project onto the prequel Jedi.

I don’t think that’s a failing on the Jedi, so I disagree. I actually think the PT suggests the Jedi were correct about this the whole time, by showing Anakin as an example of someone who allows his attachments to control him. Maybe others will disagree, but I still think the movies suggest otherwise. Even if I think the Jedi were flawed in their approach to Anakin and his situation.

The Jedi didn’t get mad when Anakin wanted to have a girlfriend or rescue his mom, so I don’t think it does any of that.

I think that’s the choice of those who project that onto them.

Vladius said:

In ESB they’re specifically warning Luke against running into a trap. It’s not that they don’t want him to have friends, it’s that they don’t want him to get killed or turned by Vader. Which is almost what happens, he gets his hand cut off and he has to jump into a bottomless pit to get away from Vader. It’s debatable whether Luke showing up gave his friends a chance to escape, but either way, Yoda and Obi Wan were right to warn him against going. Their warnings are more about turning to the dark side, Vader, and his lack of training (“don’t give in to hate,” “remember your failure in the cave”) and not really about “don’t have friends.”

In ROTJ the position is reversed, they’re telling him he needs to confront Vader because he’s ready and trained enough. The message isn’t “kill Vader because he’s your father” because they hate family and friends, it’s that he has to be willing to confront Vader and the Emperor because that’s his duty and his final Jedi trial. Obi Wan says to bury his feelings for his sister because they could be made to serve the Emperor (again, this almost happens), but he also says they “do him credit.” Obi Wan is the one who brought the subject of his sister up in the first place (after Yoda brings up “another Skywalker”), so they weren’t trying to hide her like they were trying to hide Vader’s identity before. They hid Vader’s identity because they believed Luke wasn’t ready for the burden and didn’t have enough training yet, and because of Ben’s own wounded feelings.

Not a single EU author, or seemingly Lucas himself, ever interpreted either of these two scenes as “Jedi aren’t supposed to have families, romantic partners, or spouses.” Not even after Phantom Menace in 1999, all the way up until 2002. Quite the opposite, they treated families of Jedi as completely normal and even expected.

How does that make it a contradiction? I never mentioned that they tell him to not have friends. And none of the PT say that the Jedi can’t have friends either. The Jedi are telling him to not let his feelings about his friends control him.

That changes nothing about what I said and doesn’t, to me, contradict anything in the PT, as feelings are never said to not be something Jedi are allowed to have. Anakin outright says in AOTC that compassion is essential to a jedi’s life. Qui-Gon tells Anakin to feel, not think in TPM. Obi is shown to be friendly with Dexter Jettster. Anakin and Obi are shown to be friendly with each other. Obi banters with Cody in ROTS. Yoda is shown to be friendly with the children in AOTC. Obi and Yoda are both shown to feel emotions in the PT. Obi says he loves Anakin.

Basically saying that no one before the PT saw it as Jedi not being supposed to have those things doesn’t make it contradiction of the OT to have it be what happens in the movies. I never argued it wasn’t a retcon. I just don’t think it contradicts anything within the OT. Particularly anything more than what the OT does with itself.

Mocata said:

Definitely. A lot of Yoda’s teachings are about being afraid which leads to poor decisions. Fear led him into the path of Vader who was waiting to twist his mind, and letting Han die might have prevented it. It’s not “if you get married you’ll be afraid to be alone, so never get married or have attachment to anybody, and don’t feel anything for your family either”. If anything Anakin’s stupid love taboo plot cheapens Luke’s arc because it’s compassion over fear that saves the day.

No one in the movies ever says to not feel anything about your family.

How does the Jedi not wanting romance to be something that can be used against them, cheapen a story about having compassion? I think you can not have romance and have compassion for someone. Especially considering it’s said that compassion is essential to a jedi’s life.

that takes kids and teaches them to forget their parents.

Are you trying to argue that Jedi take children away without the consent of the parents? If so, where is that in the movies? And if not, how is it any different than in real life when parents give up their kids to be raised by others and those other people give them lessons and skills? Also, where do the Jedi make the kids forget their parents, and that not just be a consequence of the kids being young enough to not remember them?

NeverarGreat said:

I think there’s an argument either way - Luke is warned by Obi-wan to bury his feelings deep, lest they be used by the Emperor, and they are indeed used that way. Luke tossing away his sword could be read as a rejection of his attachment to his friends, and this reading would vindicate Obi-wan’s warning.

However, I think it’s important to note Luke’s words in this moment. He doesn’t say anything about giving up his friends, accepting their deaths, or acting as an emotionless island of calm; no, his words are ‘I am a Jedi…like my father before me.’ He is standing over the body of his father, still believing in the ultimate goodness of the man despite all of Vader’s actions to the contrary.

I would argue that while Vader and the Emperor have been threatening Luke’s friends in general and Leia in particular in order to goad Luke into attacking, the true test has always been whether Luke loses faith in his father. This is because Luke’s entire journey to becoming a Jedi was predicated on the myth of his father, the heroic Jedi Knight. If this myth can be shattered, if Luke comes to believe that even the greatest Jedi can be corrupted, then Luke himself must fall.

And so when Luke declares ‘I am a Jedi…like my father before me’, he is affirming that some core of Anakin Skywalker was never corrupted by the Emperor, and thus Luke is impervious to the Emperor’s tricks as well. Luke is choosing to place his faith in his father, declaring a connection in that moment between father and son that none of his mentors believed could still exist.

This reading, I think, even adds depth to the precept of ‘no attachments’ in the prequels. One interpretation of events is that Anakin’s selfish love turned him to evil, and that Anakin should have listened to his mentors and abandoned Padme to her fate. But in another reading, it was the Jedi’s teaching of non-attachment that caused them to become isolated and vulnerable, and that led Anakin to reject the Jedi when their teaching conflicted with his love. In this reading, Yoda’s teaching was in the wrong, and when Yoda repeats his mistake with Luke, it is only Luke’s independence and relative lack of training that saves him from the pitfall that doomed his father.

In the end, I think the question to ask is, what is more likely: that Luke, whose primary character trait throughout the OT is that he will do anything to save his friends, is suddenly able to emotionally distance himself from those friends enough to defy the Emperor? Or is it more likely that Luke, who has been proclaiming the goodness of his father the entire film, is able to persevere in that faith until the end? I think that the latter interpretation is more valid, and I think if you asked a random viewer in 1983, you would probably hear the same.

The question here is, to me, what is Luke’s character arc about and how does his situation play out? Luke doesn’t have to say what he’s doing in the scene to do it. As what he’s doing is still refusing to allow those he cares about to be used to get him to compromise.

I think Luke can choose to not see his dad as a total monster, see his humanity, and also choose to resist the pull of his emotions being used against him. Luke refers to being a Jedi in that moment, and resisting those things is what Jedi are supposed to try to do. That is what Luke does in that scene, refuse Vader and Palpatine threatening his loved ones to control him. That’s, at least, part of what drives him in these scenes to me.

Vladius said:

This is overcomplicating it and it seems contradictory only because the attachment thing was made up in 2002 to create a “forbidden love” angle for Anakin, like I’ve been saying.

What’s contradictory? What Yoda and Obi seem to speak on in TESB and in ROTJ seem moreso consistent with that idea, than not, to me.

What does it change? Yoda didn’t exist until TESB was developed. It doesn’t change that the story has him there.

JadedSkywalker said:

I don’t believe in the doctrine of attachment it was made up on the prequel. It exists literally nowhere in the original trilogy or the expanded universe before episode II. In fact Luke wins because he doesn’t follow what Ben and Yoda told him, his attachment to his father turns the tide of the war bringing Anakin back to the light.

I disagree. Luke rejects allowing his connections be used to control him in ROTJ. He literally throws his lightsaber down rather than allow Palpatine and Vader to use those he cares about to get him to compromise. Palpatine taunts Luke using the deaths of those he cares about, arguably his attachments. Vader taunts Luke with the idea of him getting to Leia. Both moments lead Luke to lash out and act in compromise. Luke’s moment of heroism is him rejecting that being used against him.

Vladius said:

You’re correct that it was made up in 2002 for Attack of the Clones. But nothing about what Obi Wan or Yoda told Luke in the OT applies to it either.

They both suggest to Luke that it’s more important for him to focus on the mission than allow his feelings for his friends to compromise him. They don’t use the word attachment, but I think the idea of it is there.

Personally, I think this addition to the story harms nothing, but adds to it and makes the Jedi specific in their focus and goals.

oojason said:

Nothing new, unfortunately… as discussed here (if you’d like to read more about it); a few people from around that post SW’77 time were guessing, spit-balling, and throwing out their theories for what could be next for ‘Star Wars II’…

• '78 interview with David Prowse [spoilers] - he reveals Vader is Luke’s father - a 2010 thread.
 

Does this confirm anything?

Tosche Station said:

I don’t know about it being twisty just for the sake of it, well maybe the ‘Luke is really Vader’s kid, he’s not Skywalker Sr’s son’ concept can be said to be twisty for the sake of it. The Anakin killing Vader then taking Vader’s identity twist perhaps would mean not so much a family bloodline story but more of a ‘Darth Vader is not who you think he is’ type of story. And it does change things, especially if it’s a bit of subterfuge where neither the Sith, Sith Master, The Emperor, or even Ben Kenobi knew the real truth. And, if the story is/was true, Lucas did eventually drop the idea anyway before even beginning to write the final draft of the script. I used to think perhaps Kurtz had an alternate take on the twist, but in the quote(s) he still maintains that the twist that we’re all familiar with didn’t come about until the second draft of Empire (ESB). This would mean that instead of the truth confirming Lucas’s often made claim that Vader was Luke’s father when they made ANH, it would mean that at best, Lucas toyed with a variation of the twist idea before dropping it and going with the Vader-killed-Luke’s father story. An idea which if you think about it, almost sounds like a mirror-reversal or flip of the ‘Anakin-killed-Vader’ idea. One could also say that the twist that Empire brought about was Lucas’ older dropped idea but having been run ‘through the wringer’ of the concept of Vader having killed Luke’s father, where everyone - Sith, Empire, Ben Kenobi were all in the know, but now a literal killing being re-cast as a metaphorical killing (and the ‘certain point of view’ aspect being added in the later drafts written for ROTJ).

I don’t think one necessarily automatically contradicts the other, depending on one’s perspective. To Lucas, as an example, that he was toying with the idea may be enough for him to say it was planned out, in theory. Or he could be just being exaggerating. I dunno.

JF_Sanderson said:

Darth being a real guy + Anakin stealing his identity would be a great twist. That or the other scenario (Anakin dead but Vader is the real dad with Mrs Skywalker) would make revelations in Rotj much more exciting and the prequels a LOT more surprising. And Old Ben wouldn’t have to be a damn lying liar.

That, to me, seems twisty for the sake of it. What does it change or really add if Anakin stole Vader’s identity story or character wise or if Vader is a different guy who is Luke’s dad?

Tosche Station said:

Gary Kurtz: “When we made Star Wars, Vader and Anakin were two separate people. The idea that Vader was Luke’s father didn’t exist. I remember Lucas talked about Anakin having killed Vader and then taking his identity, but that was dropped early on. The whole twist in Empire was new and unexpected.”

Star Wars Insider #138, 2011

Tosche Station said:

Basically, the Gary Kurtz quote shows that I was wrong. Lucas did NOT merge Vader and Anakin until Empire (ESB), and it was with Empire, not Jedi (ROTJ) that he did this. The earlier ‘father Vader twist’ idea that Lucas had during the writing stage/pre-production of SW (ANH) was dropped before the final version of the script was done.

Or it’s an alternative take from Kurtz.

However, I did find, though I don’t know too much about it, this:

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/50/21/21/5021214ea8807dd151264234afa0276f.jpg

Seemingly an interview with David Prowse before the filming of TESB where Prowse seems to spoil the twist that Vader is Luke’s dad.

oojason said:

Yeah, I think Mocata was being somewhat sardonic or flippant - given TFN’s history of treating Original Trilogy fans… poorly:-

2️⃣ Ⓓ • Other websites / communities supposed issues with OT•com, the Original Trilogy, or the unaltered theatrical cuts

 
Of course TFN would seemingly have that majority view… as the likes of Kasdan, Huyck, Katz and others who contributed to the OT are often overlooked or glossed over by many on there - despite being stronger creative writers than those of the ST… and also than George and Hales for the PT. Yet it is baffling that many forget, or neglect to mention, the above contributors.

Though fair play to George when it comes to his writing - he does admit: “I bleed on the page, and it’s just awful…”

What’s overlooking or glossing over? Not caring enough to mention them? I feel like it’s kinda par for the course that when speaking on something the most famous names get brought up more than anyone else. How many speak on Chris Terrio about Batman V Superman/Snydercut JL as an example? Most I see treat that as Snyder’s baby wholesale, as an example.