G&G-Fan

It’s subtle things like how Darth Vader refers to everyone by their rank, species (in the case of Chewie), or last names, even his own son. He mostly calls him “Skywalker” (until the end). Can you imagine calling your own son by his last name? It’s almost dehumanizing, showing how Vader views everyone as tools, objects. Not only that, it shows how much he has mentally disconnected himself from everyone around him. His ability to empathize with anyone (until his son, in sparse moments until his redemption) has gone cold. He’s separated himself so much from Anakin in his mind that it’s not awkward for him at all to refer to his son by just his own last name like it would be for a normal person. In his mind, he’s just Darth Vader. Anakin Skywalker doesn’t have meaning for him (or at least, he acts like it doesn’t).

philraid said:

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?)

Yeah that too. Dooku is almost entirely a Dracula reference. Palpatine is also Dracula like in some ways. Even RLM noticed how Dracula-like he is in the Knighting of Vader scene.

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.

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.

oohteedee’s D+77, 80 and 83. They look amazing and feel authentic to the theatrical cuts.

New plans for the Vader scene for this edit.

This is the first edit of Vader’s no (turned into an angry yell) that actually works. Someone actually did it. I’m quite impressed, honestly.
https://youtu.be/G8V0-vRYOAU

It matches better with the 2017 Darth Vader comics, which I always intended to be canon to my edits. They are my favorite Star Wars material after the OT, genuinely incredible stuff that understands Vader so well.

It starts with Vader angrily attacking Palpatine for failing his promise to save Padme, which is great. Vader’s rage is done similarly to his OT cold, tranquil rage (as generally for the comic) whilst also being fitting for this younger, angrier Vader that still feels like the same person (he’s even a bit more emotional in ANH then ESB and ROTJ).

While I liked the idea of having Vader just go cold upon hearing Padme’s death for the edit’s own sake, because I didn’t see a better alternative, it’s when I came across this new edit that I realized that including an angry reaction from Vader in the film itself could work and be in-line with the comic.

I also wasn’t entirely sure how to bookend the scene, originally. The scene is designed for a bigger payoff, so I didn’t want it to just end on Vader’s new line, but nothing else felt right.

I also feel like the intent could’ve easily gotten across wrong. The original plan of Vader saying his dead wife now means nothing to him wasn’t meant to be entirely honest, but rather another instance of using his cold persona to bury his feelings (like in ROTJ).

In the Vader comics, though it isn’t his focus until the final arc, Vader attempts to resurrect her, and the way it executes it is excellent. He’s still Vader, cold, selfish, and most importantly, in this instance, possessive, as he was of his children, in the OT. He wants to resurrect her to keep her as an object of lust in a very Sith fashion. The Emperor doesn’t even object to it. It’s brilliant, creepy, and expands on an already existent facet of Vader’s character, which is one of the many reasons why Fortress Vader is my favorite arc in an incredible comic run.

While the original version could still mesh with the comics on that front, I feel like the angry yell fits better with the overall throughline of the comic.

That being said, I would like to “de-soften” Vader when he says, “Where is Padme?”, especially removing him saying, “Is she safe, is she alright?”. It doesn’t feel in-character even for a possessive Vader. It almost feels like it wants me to think that this is Anakin and he doesn’t become Vader until the very last scene observing the Death Star… but then why does he have him act like Vader when he’s first knighted, and when he visits Padme after the massacre? He should be Vader when he’s in the mask. Seeing him act like Anakin here is so jarring.

Might be a bit unrelated, but in your spreadsheet, you say “Ambush” is terrible. Tbh I don’t really get it. It’s not a masterclass episode or anything but it’s fun to see Yoda get to be jovial and bond with some clones. I don’t really see what makes it terrible.

Going back to this thread, I made some really dumb arguments that stem from a lack of understanding of nuance of certain terms, even if I made the occasional decent point. I was also rather patronizing in the way that I argued many of my points.

Darth Vader in the OT is a mostly very cold character with a calm, collected demeanor. He uses his boiling rage as a blunt weapon, wielding it in a calculating manner, as he does in his duels with Luke. He’s clearly mad when he, for example, kills one of his officers, or barrages Luke with powerful lightsaber strikes, but never loses control. It’s directed rage, not blind, unhinged rage.

While I did understand that he’s a tactful character who uses his rage in a balanced way, I never meant to imply he has unhinged temper tantrums, but I exaggerated the degree to which Vader is an emotional character.

I think I misinterpreted some’s arguments as saying he has no emotion at all, which is just not true, but I went too far in my rebuttal, as well as projecting emotions in some scenes where there weren’t any. For example, Vader is clearly didn’t lose his cool when he chokes Motti. He is completely calm.

Just wanted to clarify how my views have changed.

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”.

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.

Might be a little bit of a hot take, but the youngling scene is only bad because of how abrupt it is. It’s not a new low for Vader when you really put it in perspective.

Darth Vader, even in the OT in isolation, has the blood of thousands on his hands. Rebels, Jedi, innocents. He embraces the dark side and was even straight up sadistic. He knows he’s a monster and embraces it. It’s not like when Tarkin was gonna blow up Alderaan, he was like, “But dem kids”. His heart was frigid at that point.

Anakin’s redemption was never about making up for his crimes. He was a cold Sith for decades. It’s spiritual, stemming from the ounce of good left in him, his love for his family. It’s never too late to make the right choice. The fact that the line was crossed a long time ago is the point.

To me, that’s an important part of Vader’s character. He’s a villain. I love him in a “he’s terrifying and badass” way, whilst also having a deep connection to his depth as a character, not “what if he’s actually right, society amirite”. I don’t sugar coat his actions.

The Prequels just didn’t do a good enough job getting us to the point where him killing children comes across as anything other then insanely abrupt.

I’m just curious, any plans to return to this edit?

Rewatching the OT with a friend this weekend to show him the theatrical cuts. Today was A New Hope. And it shed further light on the why of the prequels bad structure.
Anakin’s mother’s death parallels Luke’s aunt and uncle, the difference being that it inspires Luke to be a hero, and Anakin to become power hungry. But for Anakin, it doesn’t happen until the second movie. Lucas tried to justify Anakin being 9 in the last one by saying “well his bond with his mom is more emotional”, but all he does is waste a movie, as he’s an entirely static character. ANH proves that the emotion still hits with barely any screentime, as anyone can relate to what it may feel like to lose a parent. Shmi’s death should’ve been in the first one, with Anakin being 19 in TPM. It makes him want to become a Jedi, because he seeks power. And over the next two films, we see him slowly descend from Jedi hero into the cold ruthless Darth Vader we love from the OT when the power of the dark side is more appealing to him, especially the promise for the secret of eternal life.

Basically, it takes two movies for Anakin to get where Luke is at the end of ANH, and that is heavily problematic to the structure of the trilogy. I enjoy ROTS, but there was just too much material crammed in as Lucas basically procrastinated the most important parts of the main character’s journey.

Gandalf the Cyan said:

I see it as Vader trolling Han and Leia.

Also a valid interpretation

My review of Return of the Jedi on my YouTube channel (Lord Vader Tyrannus). I had to post it in two parts because of copyright. The second part is in the description.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oa7F2K6P0bw

Channel72 said:

I was thinking about the dinner scene on Cloud City. It’s a great, iconic scene - Han and Leia casually walk into the dining room, believing everything is okay, only to see Vader just sitting there at the head of the table.

But like… it’s one of those things that makes very little sense if you think about it. What was the point of staging the dinner? Why didn’t Vader simply arrange for Stormtroopers to come to Han/Leia’s hotel room and just arrest them there? Why the elaborate ruse? Presumably, the Empire already had control of the entire city even before Han and Leia arrived, so the subterfuge just seems unnecessary.

This doesn’t have any effect on the plot though. If it happened like you described nothing changes.

But an attempt at a logical answer, the dinner scene is more confined. Vader on one end, the troops on a more open end. If they tried to enter through the room, only one person can enter at a time, so the troopers will be bottlenecked. I guess you can argue Vader could capture them himself. However, there’s potential escape routes. Maybe there’s a way to get under the floor, another room that leads to another. Our hotel rooms have fire escapes and such. Hell, Han and Leia would probably be willing to risk jumping out the window over being captured by Vader. Worst case they’re dead, worst case with Vader, they’re tortured and forced to extract information about the alliance and then killed (“They didn’t even ask any questions”).

Channel72 said:

Man, I wish I had the same reaction. After I saw so many positive reactions to ROTS I wanted to give the movie another chance. But when I tried rewatching it like around 2 years ago, it just came off as hopelessly flawed.

I feel that man, with other stuff. I want to love the Obi-Wan show. It’s Obi-Wan and Darth Vader, I should like it. But they didn’t do them justice, and it’s hard, but eventually you have to come to terms with your own feelings, and you have.

I’m happy to admit that most of my enjoyment for ROTS is that, and nostalgia, it was my fav as a kid. I think it’s quality wise better then the other two Prequels, but it’s not a masterpiece like the OT (even ROTJ, fight me). I had my denial period, but it’s true, at least through the standard by which I judge media. It’s the difference between analyzing quality and emotional connection (tho the two coincide to a degree, but not wholly).

Channel72 said:

There were glimpses of chemistry between Anakin and Obi-Wan in the opening space battle scenes, but it was just way too little and way too late.

When watching the entire trilogy as a whole, I agree. When watching it in isolation, it’s fun, and I can ignore how the previous two failed them.

Channel72 said:

The middle segment of the movie is a CGI circus featuring a cartoon cyborg riding a unicycle while a cartoon lizard chases him.

I enjoy that part, and Grievous as a whole, ironically. It’s hilariously over the top. He’s my favorite of the Prequel villains (besides good ole Sheev) because he’s a meme. Even mundane lines like “Just as Count Dooku predicted” are a stitch. To the point where I prefer him over 2003 CW Grievous, who to me, is just a faster Vader. I’m a Darth Vader stan, I want my man to be unique. Nobody steals his thunder. I liked the approach Lucas was going for, making all 3 Prequel villains their own, but having one tie in to Vader (even if superficial) as foreshadowing. Neat idea.

Even though, like everything in the Prequels, Lucas needed that filter he had during the OT era (so it’s earnest, not corny), to a degree, Grievous fits with that moustache twirling villain vibe we see sometimes in the OT with Tarkin, Jabba, and even the Emperor (Lucas even said when making Grievous, to avoid making him too similar to Vader and the other two, wanted to make him more like the Emperor). When you really think about it, Vader is really the only OT villain with a lot of depth, but it works, that’s not a criticism. You can only shove so much in a script. And that’s one of the Prequels failings, they try to do too much. Too many protagonists, too many villains, too many plots. You can’t enjoy Dooku like you can Tarkin because it tries to develop him but doesn’t have time to do so in this bloated screenplay. He’s at his best when he gets to be just Dracula, and even then, he doesn’t get to do it too much. So that’s why Grievous, who’s literally just Dr. Evil and doesn’t try to be more, is the most enjoyable to me.

Channel72 said:

Anakin’s turn seemed paradoxically both too sudden and also predictable, because his entire arc was mostly incoherent and spastic. He already slaughtered an entire village in the previous movie, then reverted back to “good guy hero” mode, then immediately agreed to mass-murder children like an hour after we saw him having a fun adventure with Obi-Wan.

Once again, I agree with a lot of this in the logical part of my brain. The Anakin content in TPM and AOTC should’ve been combined, and his arc in ROTS should’ve been in two movies. A slow decent into the cold domineering Darth Vader we know and love from the OT, an emphasis on that addiction to power, the desire to cheat death to never feel pain of loss (and I’d also add not ever die), only to become Death’s Dragon, the Grim Reaper. A monster.

I see where Lucas was going, with the hot and cold thing. I’ve been there, even if nowhere near that extreme. Is it too extreme given the movie’s tight time frame? Yeah. But in social situations, where I’m scared, I can often be like that. I go from being confident and believing to being cold because I’m insecure and don’t want to be hurt. Though it’s worth mentioning, I’m a 21 y/o with ADHD (I went undiagnosed until April; I am on meds now). And those are situations with crushes or even sometimes platonic friends. What if it was a hypothetical wife about to die, when you’ve already watched your mother die in front of you, and blamed yourself?

The scenes work for me when I isolate them in my brain (even when watching the movie) to allow myself to feel the emotional effect. William’s score and Christensen’s acting work really well to convey that emotional distress, conflict and the cold, even if he sometimes got stuck with some bum material. That pathos connects with me on an deeply emotional level.

The way Darth Vader leans in so close when Han is being tortured always scares me. As if he’s savoring it.

To me, that comes off as it being personal. The guy doesn’t seem the type to care unless he does. Perhaps Vader recognizes Han as the one who sent him flying in ANH?

I’ve gone on rants on this site about some flaws of ROTS, but every time I rewatch it, I get swept up in emotion and really enjoy it. Not OT tier, but I genuinely think it’s well-constructed in some ways. The entire OT is a 10/10, ROTS is like a 7.

Esp Anakin’s turn. Like when you really think about it, it doesn’t make a lot of logical sense, and I’ve ranted about that on here before, but every time I watch it, with the exception of some iffy parts, it kinda works, bc maybe that’s the point. He was a very power hungry, passionate, fiery person. He was scared shitless, desperate, and made some really bad mistakes, burned within his own flame, and then became the cold Vader we see in the OT bc he lost everything, while still burning deep within. There are ways it could be done better (I still maintain that craving immortality should’ve been part of it, and it should’ve been spread over 2 movies instead of 1), but to a degree, elements of it still work. I think it’s bc I can be a really emotional person at times, I’ve done some really dumb stuff when it comes to women (tho obvs nowhere near that degree) that when I snap out of it I go, “Wow, really? That was really pathetic and stupid”, so I guess I kinda get it? Especially if it was a hypothetical wife of 3 years dying and I had gone through as much loss as him? Idk.

Lucas didn’t even intentionally characterize them as arrogant. They’re unprepared, complacent at worst.

He needed more script doctors.

I’d love it if someone made a fanedit of Revenge of the Sith where Anakin turns immediately after being denied the rank of master so it seems like the only reason he turns to the dark side and becomes a mass murdering psychopath is because he didn’t get a promotion.

He said it wouldn’t be in the HD version.

Patali said:

For me, this is something I am not a fan of and I think the show honestly handled better than the EU. The idea that Vader is a known public entity, honestly I found stupid. Vader should only be known to the top brass and generals on either side. I saw some comic where the Empire was literally putting him as a public propaganda face in holograms and such. I just don’t think it makes sense. He’s a hand of the Emperor who handles special assignments. Not just an Imperial. I think at the very most, he’d be in whispers of fearful soldiers who might have heard horror stories of a black armored, red lightsaber wielding wizard. To me that is more powerful than the Empire parading him around.

But, I know a lot of EU fans prefer that depiction, so hey, more power to them

Why is it stupid for Vader to be well-known? Scaring people into submission has always been the Empire’s tactic

everytime someone shares an unsharable google drive link an angel loses it’s wings

That just makes the movie even better