G&G-Fan

I feel like the prequels would absolutely not be “ruined” if they were written well in terms of portraying Lucas’ intentions. In fact it’s kinda laughable IMO to say that making the audience care about and sympathathize with the Jedi, show them as kind and compassionate monks would make the movies worse. Imagine how much more heartbreaking Order 66 would’ve been if you actually cared about Ki-Adi Mundi and Plo-Koon, and the impact that Anakin betraying them all would have. The messages about not becoming too possessive of people and being selfish in your relationships wouldn’t be muddied. People would realize what Anakin actually did wrong instead of blaming the Council for his actions. You wouldn’t have people saying that the Sith “aren’t actually that bad”, despite the fact that the guy who wrote the Sith code openly said he was inspired by Mein Kampf and Lucas compares Sidious to Satan, that “bringing balance to the force means destroying the Jedi too”, or “the dark side isn’t inherently bad to use” (yeah, it is).

Servii said:

I wouldn’t say I’d hate the prequels, but I agree with you that the whole Jedi ethos that George intended in the prequels is inhuman in many ways. When Yoda tells Anakin “mourn them do not. Miss them do not,” George intended for Yoda to be right in saying that.

Except it’s not. In that scene, Yoda’s in a situation where Anakin is giving almost no information, to the point where Yoda literally needs to complete his sentences for him. If Anakin’s only gonna give him vague information, Yoda can only give generalities. And Yoda speaks in riddles.

So, with regards to the part about “rejoicing for those around you who transform into the force”, that’s simply Yoda’s way of saying “when you’re sad, try to remember the good times you had together”. This is also fair advice. He’s not telling Anakin “how dare you mourn or be sad instead of laughing! Bad Anakin! Start dancing and celebrating! Now!”

He’s telling Anakin to cherish the moments he had with that person that’s about to die, which will, in turn help him accept that inevitability, come to the conclusion that they had a good run. Instead of pulling back from these fears and this pain, he should face them head on and accept that it’s happening.

It’s very general advice, but it’s good advice.

I mean, they hold a funeral for Qui-Gon in which they’re allowed to mourn. Obi-Wan mourned for both Qui-Gon and Satine, Tiplee mourned Tiplar, right after their deaths. Hell, Yoda also mourns the Jedi that die during Order 66 and Padme’s death. He allows himself to feel the pain of Anakin’s loss in AOTC and kinda “mourns” for it too. There’s literally a funeral for the Jedi that die in the attack on the temple in The Clone Wars in which they’re allowed to mourn.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUCzrOh9_oU

This scene is a perfect showcase of how the Jedi deal with loss.

As I’ve said like several times, the only reason the Jedi come across as inhuman is both flat dialogue and the fact that Lucas never develops any of the Jedi characters besides the ones that come across as “exceptional” (Yoda, Obi-Wan, and Qui-Gon, who’s held up on this pedestal as “the one good Jedi” because he receives the most development outside Obi and Yoda). They’re just flat generic good guys, allowing the audience to project whatever they want on them. You can twist Mace Windu from “stern Jedi Knight” to “total asshole dickhead who hates Anakin” because he doesn’t have much screentime or development in the prequels and because of that it’s easy to take everything he says and does in the least charitable way possible. Mace is fed up with the Chancellor grabbing power and is wary of Anakin because he’s explosive, unpredictable and doesn’t have a full grasp on his emotions? “Actually you see he hates Anakin because he thinks he’s the real chosen one! What an asshole!”

Servii said:

But as time has gone on, the prequel fandom has gotten more and more fervent and unironic and sensitive to criticism, which is a shame. Now you have all these video essays about how the prequels are masterpieces and how the flaws aren’t actually flaws.

I feel this, at one point I was on this side before I kinda came around to the realization that they’re just not that well-written. Even ROTS I still mostly like more for it’s mythological motifs, themes, visuals, and music more then the writing. The best scenes are the ones with either Palpatine (because Ian McDiarmid is fucking awesome) or the ones where no one is talking. The opening act and third act are also pretty awesome.

A lot of time headcanon or supplemental material (a lot of which isn’t even canon anymore, which is why you’ll see people mixing up Legends and Canon all the time) is used to explain bad writing. “The Jedi come across as too bored and uncaring… actually you see, it was supposed to be that way! They’re supposed to be an emotionally repressed cult! It all makes sense now!”. Nope, George is just a flat dialogue writer who failed to get his intent across, making many people misunderstand the entire point. Among other things.

There’s a lot I love about Lucas because when you read what he was intending for for the prequels it really is brilliant, but man he needed someone else helping him with his scripts.

yotsuya said:

The Jedi teaching that we get in the first 6 films are all based on avoidance.

No, it’s not.

“…overcome fear which leads to hate”. Oh, it’s almost like a Jedi needs to face their fear and overcome it. Not avoid it.

Yoda saying “Once you start down the dark path…” is not saying “Once you feel fear once, you’l; be on the dark side forever.” That’d be ridiculous, especially considering Yoda admits he’s afraid for Anakin’s training at the end of Phantom Menace. It’s saying, “Once you turn to the dark side, you’ll never be able to turn back.” Which is true, for the most part. Sidious never turned. Maul never turned. Dooku never turned. Vader only turned because of his son. Even his wife and master couldn’t convince him to turn. If it weren’t for Luke, the dark side would forever dominate his destiny. Yoda is making a generalization.

A big part of the path of the Jedi is about confronting your fears and overcoming it. It’s what the scene with Kanan and the temple guards is about, in Rebels. The Ithorian youngling getting his kyber crystal (overcoming his fear of the scary cave) in The Clone Wars. Yoda overcoming Dark Yoda in The Clone Wars. It’s why Yoda told Luke to go into the dark side cave on Dagobah in The Empire Strikes Back. Because he knew Luke would see what he’s afraid of. He needs to face it and overcome it. If Jedi’s relationship with fear was avoidance, he would’ve told Luke not to go in there.

Servii said:

The point is, he toes the line of whatever the official canon narrative currently is, but if the official canon narrative is defective and contradictory, then that doesn’t mean much.

Yeah and that’s basically the point of his entire blog. It’s about viewing Star Wars from a Word of God perspective.

I have my own head canons. To me, the sequels aren’t canon, especially TROS, which makes absolutely no sense and probably has some of the most plot holes of any sci-fi/fantasy screenplay. And he has head canons too, if you look at his blog long enough. But for the most part, he talks about Star Wars from a “Word of God” POV and always clarifies when he’s not.

Servii said:

Of course, though, the whole concept of “balance of the Force” is needlessly confusing, in my opinion. The word “balance” implies some sort of equal duality, and since Sith are the opposite of the Jedi, it’s no surprise that people would interpret the Sith as being part of that duality.

It’s called balance because naturally there is supposed to be both light and dark sides of the force. The problem with the Sith is their end goal is always to conquer the entire galaxy and subvert the force. To plunge it into complete darkness. There’s already enough evil going around without them.

I do agree, it wasn’t explained well in the films at all. They do say that Anakin needs to destroy the Sith and bring balance to the force but they don’t explain what balance means in this context. This is another example of Lucas underexplaining things to stick to the bottom line of the story. The funny thing about this method though is more then anything it actually distracts from the point he’s trying to make. He made the prequels to teach people about letting go but now all people talk about is how Anakin was totally in the right because the Jedi are actually emotionally repressive bullies. Because people are desperate to fill in the blanks and his flat dialogue and “tell, don’t show” approach doesn’t give the right impression. The prequels desperately needed an additional writer (contrary to popular belief Lucas did co-write ESB and ROTJ).

During TPM Palpatine was actively doing things (the invasion of Naboo) while post-ROTJ he was trapped in a defective clone body he couldn’t do anything in. Also during TPM the government was a lot more greedy and corrupt then post-ROTJ. Every good and bad person contributes to the Force.

The reason it has to be balanced post-ROTJ is because it’s kinda directly stated that it is. Anakin brought balance to the Force. Even in TROS he says, “Bring back the balance, Rey, as I did.”

Servii said:

I’m just happy we’re having a lively discussion again.

I mean, I do kinda regret allowing this tangent to go on in this thread since it’s supposed to be about Vader and not the Jedi, but hey, at least I’m actually somewhat able to convince people here.

I noticed you cite this guy’s lore posts a lot, and I’d just caution against relying too heavily on the words of one fan. I’ve read some of his stuff before, and I wouldn’t consider him the definitive or final word on these issues.

I cite him because he always uses quotes directly from George Lucas to support his claims. When you constantly use direct quotes from the author, if we’re talking about the films from a “Word of God” POV and not “Death of the Author”, then you become an instantly reliable source. Plus sometimes I’m lazy and just want to link to his posts rather then find the quote myself and also explain it myself (especially when the same conversation goes on for two days).

What exactly has he said that makes him unreliable?

yotsuya said:

But this final statement I have to disagree with. I feel that Lucas created the Republic Jedi Order in a very deliberate fashion.

Obviously wrong as the things Lucas says goes against your head canon.

But they are out of balance with the galaxy. Their ability to access the force is compromised.

They’re ability to use the force being compromised is because of the dark side clouding their vision, not the Jedi being bad at their jobs.

How they handle slavery is also addressed. Qui-gon says they are not there to free slaves. Okay. If it was a timing issue, why didn’t they go back and free some of the slaves. At least Shmi. That would have been one way to help Anakin get on the right path. Qui-gon might have had he lived. The other Jedi did nothing. So it was not a timing issue. It was a policy issue. The Jedi were being politically correct for their role in the Republic.

I already talked about this. I even brought up Shmi specifically. Please read what I said.

The Jedi have fallen from their high point and are now struggling and sacrifices have been made. Their teaching relies on avoidance rather than learning how to resist the dark side. Their missions have become more political - controlled by the Senate and Chancellor - than moral (going to help where they are needed). The Clone Wars are the final nail in their coffin because it emphasizes everything they are trapped into doing. And they get destroyed for it.

I also talked about their association with the Republic and not freeing slaves in the Outer Rim. Again, you’re not actually reading what I said.

Also the Jedi do learn to resist the dark side. It’s a part of their way.

https://www.tumblr.com/david-talks-sw/679421723083522048/balance-when-talking-about-a-jedi?source=share

If there is nothing wrong with the Jedi, why do they need the Chosen One to come and balance things?

The Chosen One prophecy is about destroying the Sith. Not the Jedi. The Sith are a cancer in the galaxy. They need to be destroyed.

https://www.tumblr.com/david-talks-sw/679554898557353985/bmnl?source=share

yotsuya said:

That is how it is supposed to work.

It’s not “how it’s supposed to work”, it’s how it does work. George Lucas says of the Jedi, “They are the most moral of anyone in the galaxy.” He says Jedi are allowed to love. Not just Qui-Gon. All of them.

What Lucas told Dave Filoni about the duel in TPM being truly a duel for the fate of Anakin, makes it clear that this was Lucas’s intent.

No. Lucas didn’t tell Filoni that. Filoni made it up.

Here’s a whole post covering Filoni’s “Duel of the Fates” tangent. In short, almost none of it follows Lucas’ vision. It’s all his headcanon.
https://www.tumblr.com/david-talks-sw/678157778408374273/hi-this-came-about-because-ive-seen-a-few-of?source=share

The rest of the comments are about Jedi in general. But you have to look at the fallen Jedi as well as those who remained in the order to see what Lucas did. The Jedi training did not work for everyone and it periodically failed.

22 Jedi over a thousand years left. Three of them turned to the dark side. These are the exceptions, not the rule. It’s not the fault of the teachings, it’s the fault of the person who refuses to use them.

At the same time, the Jedi weren’t able to deal with Anakin’s fears and teach him how to let go.

It’s not that they didn’t try to help Anakin it’s that Anakin refused the help the Jedi tried to give him.

Rian Johnson tied into this in TLJ with what Luke was saying about the Jedi.

No again. Luke blames the Jedi for his mistake. His arc is realizing that it was his personal failing that led to Ben’s turn and not the result of the Jedi way. He even admits at the end that the Jedi should live on.

https://www.tumblr.com/david-talks-sw/675200100120903680/about-luke-the-jedi-and-attachment?source=share

And going along with that, I’ve noticed an interesting pattern. In TROS we see Rey and Kylo Ren/Ben Solo openly use a force healing power.

Force healing was not come up with by George Lucas. And even if so, force healing is a part of the Jedi way because it’s inherently selfless. So there’s no reason to bring it up.

But in the Prequels, the way the Jedi teach this is to avoid love as it leads to attachment.

George Lucas says otherwise, and in the prequels themselves, nobody says that.

Just admit this is your head canon. Everybody has them.

Darth Malgus said:

Must we learn to let go? Yes, of course. But letting go doesn’t mean not caring about the people we love.

George doesn’t say that. He says the contrary. That the Jedi can love people and care about people.

In my opinion there is nothing wrong with this, and we shouldn’t suppress the fear of loss. I think it’s right, not only to be concerned about the people we love, but also to try to protect them and prevent bad things to happen to them.

It’s not about repressing your fear of loss. It’s about confronting that fear and letting it go. They’re different things. It’s about saying “Yes, I may not be in complete control, but I will do everything I can and if not, then I must let go and honor their memory by staying good”.

Also, you can’t expect a person to let go immediately. If a person we love dies in front of us, then it’s normal to be sad for a while, you can’t expect a person to see someone die in front of their eyes and a few seconds later act like nothing happened.

That’s not what happens. Obi-Wan takes plenty of time to mourn Qui-Gon. Both right after he dies and at his funeral. It’s literally never said that the Jedi have a strict time limit for how long you can mourn.

https://david-talks-sw.tumblr.com/post/693487689321906176/what-does-yoda-mean-when-he-says-rejoice-for

Furthermore, I think that being totally selfless, like the Jedi claim to be, is impossible. Love always requires a certain degree of possessiveness. If I love someone, I want to be with that person not only because I like him/her as a person, but also because the presence of that person makes me happy and makes me feel good. If the presence of that person didn’t make me feel good, then there would be no reason for me to engage in a romantic relationship with that person in the first place. In love, you have to give and receive. You give your love in the hope that your love will be reciprocated and that the exchange of that love will make you happy.

As I’ve said, Jedi can’t be in romantic relationships because of commitment. The Jedi are allowed to feel whatever they want, they can even have sexual experiences (Lucas says Jedi aren’t celibate), but they can’t sacrifice the greater good, the mission, to save a loved one.

Obi-Wan and Satine is an example of how a Jedi deals with romantic love right. Anakin and Padme is an example of how it’s done wrong.

Also, I don’t think that the Jedi can give lessons about what absolute love and compassion mean, since they were the first not to practice this phantom “universal love”. If they really did have unconditional love for the entire Galaxy, then they would have paid more attention to civilians and ordinary people instead of lock themselves in their own Temple and put themselves at the service of corrupt politicians, and maybe they would have cared more about the millions of people who lived in slavery and disease on Tatooine and other criminal-controlled planets. “I’m not here to free slaves”, Qui-Gon said. A great example of unconditional love for every sentient being, I must say! It’s too easy to practice “absolute love and compassion” exclusively with the people we know. And yet, this is what the Jedi do, because I don’t remember having ever seen them going out in the middle of the streets to help starving people. I mean, they didn’t even had to left Coruscant to do it, because you know, the low levels of Coruscant are already full of poor people who need help. So the Jedi should stop thinking of themselves as the custodians of absolute truth, because they’re the first to not practice what they preach.

The Jedi literally day by day participate in diplomatic missions to resolve conflicts, thus saving people in the process. Literally the opening scene of The Phantom Menace is the Jedi going to negotiate with the Trade Federation to save the people of Naboo. That’s the reason that sequence exists, to show the Jedi’s day job. The reason they don’t help the common people during the war is because they’re too busy with the war, because Palpatine drafted them into service.

But hey, look, here’s a canon example of a Jedi, Mace Windu, saving and protecting ordinary people.

Slavery only happens in the Outer Rim. The Jedi don’t have any jurisdiction there. The Senate has authority over the Jedi. The Jedi don’t have the resources to do an all out war on the Outer rim. They’d need backing by the Senate. An army. There’s only 10,000 Jedi and a shit ton of systems with slavery with millions of people. The Hutts aren’t something to laugh at. They’re literally one of the biggest powers in the galaxy. Even the Galactic Empire didn’t want war with them. They wouldn’t stand a chance because a Jedi’s biggest weakness is numbers, which is why battle droids are their perfect enemies that aren’t other force users. In the areas where they do have jurisdiction? They do free slaves. They wiped out the Zygerrian empire when they dared to do the slave trade in Republic territory. It’s not that the Jedi don’t give a shit, it’s they that don’t have the resources necessary because the Senate is greedy and selfish.

The Jedi can’t just leave the Republic. They have a responsibility to be diplomats. To save people through peaceful negotiation on a daily basis. Leaving would be devastating to the Republic. And like, it’s not like they’d be able to free all of the slaves on Tatooine without backing from the Senate, anyway. What the Jedi really should’ve done is gotten political allies in the Senate so they could change the system and make things better. When your government is shit, you don’t just ditch it, you make it better.

Qui-Gon saying “I’m not here to free slaves” is just him bluntly stating facts. That’s not why he’s there. They’re on an urgent mission, to save the Naboo. They can’t deal with slaves on Tatooine right now. They need to get to Coruscant as soon as possible. This is just another example of Lucas being a flat dialogue writer, not Qui-Gon being a dickhead. When you have a guy writing your script that writes flat dialogue, the characters are gonna say things in a very flat way that might come across as callous.

Besides, you literally have Qui-Gon try to free Shmi (when he tries to bet Watto the racing pod for both Anakin and Shmi) and Qui-Gon ask Shmi if she’s alright when Anakin has to leave. He also waits patiently as Anakin says goodbye. He’s not meant to be seen as a callous dickhead.

Nonetheless, this isn’t “George Lucas believes the Jedi shouldn’t help the common people”, it’s “The prequels are complex as shit and have a million things going on in them and because of that they don’t have time to address this stuff”.

In addition, talking about Obi-Wan as the perfect example of a person who lets go immediately is, in my opinion, wrong. Yes, Obi-Wan managed to let go immediately when Siri Tachi died, but he couldn’t let go immediately when Qui-Gon was killed. When Maul killed Qui-Gon, all Obi-Wan did was attack him aggressively and violently. I mean, this is no mystery to anyone, just review the scene of the fight between Maul and Obi-Wan. Obi-Wan was so upset and angry that he let his emotions take over, and as soon as the shield opened he immediately threw himself at Maul, attacking him. Of course, after killing him, Obi-Wan calmed down and ran to Qui-Gon to hear his last words. But in the meantime he fought Maul and killed him, driven by anger and aggressive feelings. So, I think Obi-Wan is quite hypocritical in criticizing Anakin, because he did pretty much the same, although on a smaller scale.

Obi-Wan getting angry and attacking ferociously is a character flaw in TPM. He has clear growth in all three films. Notice how he never gives into his anger in the other two movies. In fact literally his arc in AOTC is learning to go easy on Anakin, because he suffers from some of the same arrogance that Anakin does.

The Jedi have great respect for Dooku and think he could never kill anyone. That’s true. But let’s examine carefully what both Mace Windu and Ki Adi Mundi say. Ki Adi Mundi says: “He’s a politically idealist, not a murderer”. After that, Mace says: “You must know, My Lady, that Dooku was once a Jedi. He could never kill anyone, it’s not in his character”. Well, to be honest, the only thing I see in this dialogue is simply the Jedi being arrogant. Yes, they don’t think that Dooku could ever kill anyone, they don’t believe that he’s a murderer. But why do they think that? But it’s clear, because he was once a Jedi, and for God’s sake, everyone knows the Jedi are perfect, so even if one of them leaves the Order, he could never become a murderer. It’s not that the Jedi are saying those things about Dooku because they sincerely respect him and have affection for him, but simply because they have so much faith in their own teachings that they think that even if someone leaves the Order, he could never become a murderer or hurt others.

You’re just using the least charitable interpretation possible which is obviously not what Lucas intended.

If you were a cop and you had a partner who you worked with for years, he quit, and then someone years later claimed he committed a crime, you would probably use the fact that he was a cop to help make the case that it’s unlikely. Not to mention that being a Jedi is a way of life. They’re taught these things from birth. For one of their own to do something so overtly evil is unthinkable.

In addition, the statue that the Jedi have dedicated to Dooku inside the Temple is not a commemorative or appreciative statue. In the Temple library there are 20 statues, depicting the so-called Lost 20, that is, 20 Jedi masters who at some point decided to leave the Order. Dooku is part of the group of the Lost 20, and the Jedi have placed his statue in the Temple library, not to commemorate him, but simply as a warning. Further information ere: https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Lost_Twenty/Legends

That’s from Legends, not Canon. Legends was not made by George Lucas.

In said deleted scene Jocastu Nu goes on about how Dooku was so great and that it was a privilege knowing him. She compliments his statue, saying he has a powerful face. Obviously the statue is not meant to be a warning. If you read the Dooku: Jedi Lost novel (which is canon), Yoda doesn’t have any problem with Dooku leaving. He even lets him keep his lightsaber and wishes him luck. In the Obi-Wan and Anakin canon comic (takes place a couple years after TPM), Obi-Wan doesn’t have a problem with Anakin wanting to leave the order and was also willing to leave with him. Yoda doesn’t have a problem with it either, when Obi-Wan tells him about it.

“His path before coming to us… difficult. His questions natural.”
“If, after you return, Anakin still wishes to leave us, then released, he shall be. Jailers, the Jedi are not.”
Wow, what an asshole!

Again, you’re not only confusing attachment according to Lucas (a selfish obsession with holding on no matter what) with emotional connections. George Lucas writing dialogue in a flat way doesn’t mean the Jedi are actually supposed to be flat and emotionless. He’s just not a good dialogue writer. And just because George Lucas doesn’t address a bunch of stuff in his scripts doesn’t mean his intentions of what the Jedi are is invalid. Everything you’re saying that makes the Jedi morally wrong, like them not saving slaves? That’s not something that’s delved into in the prequels, you just filled in the blanks. Now, you’re supposed to do that, when watching a movie, but Lucas doesn’t delve into it enough and that leaves people coming to a conclusion that he didn’t intend, and that’s his fault. As I said in the other thread, Lucas strictly made the prequels to focus on the themes/story of letting go and how a democracy becomes a dictatorship. He constantly sticks to that bottom line. It’s why Shmi isn’t addressed except for when it comes to Anakin. The Jedi don’t free Shmi? That’s not because they’re morally wrong, it’s because Lucas doesn’t bother to address it. Because the Jedi are not the focus. You’re just supposed to take the fact that they’re good guys for granted. Shmi is there as a plot device in Anakin’s story arc. That’s it.

The only reason people have come to this uncharitable view of the Jedi Order is because George Lucas is not a good writer. Simple as that.

Peter Pan said:

Maybe this could be connected with Anakin constantly losing his lightsaber. In the movie he rarely reacts to this, but if he did show some signs of anxiety due to being defenseless, it could work well with this narrative. After all Obi-Wan reminds him that this weapon is his life.
If we could somehow draw the focus to Anakin’s shock about losing his arm and lightsaber to Dooku, then we would have a good set up to include this plot point about Anakin’s own mortality in III.
Firstly this could be deliberately be brought up by Palpatine after Anakin killed Dooku. Then Obi-Wan could remind Anakin to jump from the elevator shaft a second time and we could change Grievous offense against Anakin’s age to a threat to kill them, to which Anakin response with an insult.
Finally we could change some of the dialogue during the opera scene, so that it focuses on the power to avert death rather than to save others. On top of that we could add “forever” to Anakin’s line about ruling the galaxy.

In conclusion I think that it definitely is possible to add this theme to Anakin’s fall. Not as the central motivation to turn his back on the Jedi, but rather as a contributing factor like his frustration with the council.

Excellent ideas.

Darth Malgus said:

On the contrary, “Protect the ones you love, do everything you can to make them feel good, but if in the end you don’t succeed, then, only then, you have to learn to let go”, this is a deep, human and healthy teaching.

It’s funny because this is literally what Lucas thinks:

“They can still love people. But they can’t possess them. They can’t own them. They can’t demand that they do things. They have to be able to accept the fact, one, their mortality, that they are going to die. And not worry about it. That the loved ones they have, everything they love is going to die and they can’t do anything about it. I mean they can protect them as you would ordinary protect, you know, ‘Get out of the way of that car.’ Somebody charges you with a gun, you knock the gun out, but there is an inevitability to life which is death and you have to accept that.”

“[Jedi Knights] do not grow attachments, because attachment is a path to the dark side. You can love people, but you can’t want to possess them. They’re not yours. Accept that they have a fate. Even those you love most are going to die. You can’t do anything about that. Protect them with your lightsaber, but if they die they were going to die. there’s nothing you can do. All you can do is accept that fact.
In mythology, if you go to Hades to get them back you’re not doing it for them, you’re doing it for yourself. You’re doing it because you don’t want to give them up. You’re afraid to be without them. The key to the dark side is fear. You must be clean of fear, and fear of loss is the greatest fear. If you’re set up for fear of loss, you will do anything to keep that loss from happening, and you’re going to end up in the dark side. That’s the basic premise of Star Wars and the Jedi, and how it works.
That’s why they’re taken at a young age to be trained. They cannot get themselves killed trying to save their best buddy when it’s a hopeless exercise.”

I talked about this in another thread so I’m gonna dump it here.

George Lucas inserted his own values and philosophy into the Jedi. He agrees with the Jedi all the time. Read any one of his quotes and he frames the Jedi as the ones in the right. Especially Yoda.

Here’s the deal about Jedi philosophy: attachment in Star Wars does not mean the dictionary definition of attachment. It’s the Buddhist definition: the inability to let go of things. Lucas has said the Jedi are allowed to feel emotions. They’re allowed to feel love. They’re allowed to care about other people and have emotional bonds. This is shown. Yoda admits he’s afraid for Anakin’s training (proving that Anakin being afraid wasn’t the problem, it’s that he wouldn’t admit it and repressing it that was the problem; hence, “Be mindful of your feelings.”). Yoda tells Padme he has warm feelings in his heart after she survives the assassination attempt. Obi-Wan is friends with Dexter Jester. Mace Windu vouches for both Dooku and Anakin in AOTC (Mace and Yoda cut Anakin more slack then Obi-Wan, in AOTC). Yoda cries when he feels Anakin’s in pain. The bond between a Jedi master and padawan is strong. Obi-Wan loves both Qui-Gon and Anakin. In The Clone Wars series, the Jedi council cares about Yoda when they think something’s wrong with him when he claims to hear Qui-Gon’s voice. Yoda calls Anakin his friend. Yoda, Plo-Koon, and Mace Windu are shown to be caring towards the clones. Tiplee openly shows sadness at Tiplar’s death. She loved her like a sister. The Jedi is supposed to be like one big family.

Should these things have been better clarified and emphasized in the scripts, and the Jedi made to seem more kind and empathetic? Absolutely. You shouldn’t have to read Lucas quotes (or watch a 7 season TV show) to understand the movies. But George Lucas being a bad writer doesn’t change the fact that the Jedi aren’t intended to be emotionless assholes.

The “no attachments” doctrine is about not letting your feelings interfere with a mission and being willing to let things go when need be. There’s a difference between selflessly loving someone and being in a possessive, toxic relationship. Obi-Wan loves Satine, in The Clone Wars, he even says, “It’s not that we’re not allowed to have these feelings, it’s natural”, but he doesn’t let it interfere with a mission like Anakin does. And when Satine dies, Obi-Wan lets her go. He doesn’t succumb to the dark side. He doesn’t close out his emotions. He feels his emotions but then moves on. When Bo-Katan tries to emotionally blackmail him, he doesn’t fall for it, because he can’t let his emotions cloud his judgement. The same thing happens after Qui-Gon’s death. He openly cries, but then moves on and honors his memory by training Anakin.

He doesn’t enter a relationship with Satine because he has a commitment to the Jedi Order. If a Jedi wants to be in a relationship, they need to leave. “A Jedi must have the deepest commitment, the most serious mind.” And there’s no shame in leaving the Order. Dooku left and the Jedi still spoke fondly of him, let him keep his lightsaber (Dooku: Jedi Lost novel), and even built him a statue (in a deleted scene). It’s not a cult. Anakin should’ve either left the Jedi Order after AOTC or waited to marry Padme after the clone war.

The reason a Jedi can’t be in a committed romantic relationship is because they, on a daily basis, go on diplomatic missions in which billions of lives hang in the balance. The slightest imbalance in a Jedi knight caused by relationship problems could be a disaster. This is what the last act of AOTC is meant to show: because Anakin rushed in to fight Dooku because he’s angry about the dead Jedi and Padme, he ruined him and Obi-Wan’s chances at beating Dooku. Imagine if Obi-Wan and Anakin managed to keep Dooku at a standstill by working together, and then Yoda showed up. Dooku has no chance. The war is over. Literally in the scene on Dagobah in the original trilogy, Yoda is lecturing Luke on how the Jedi path is not just something you just do when you feel like it. It’s a lifestyle. It’s not like working at Subway, you literally dedicate your life to it.

Anakin knows the difference between attachment and love. As he says in AOTC and an episode in The Clone Wars when he lectures Ahsoka on the importance of letting go of attachments (in the Geonosis zombie worms episode). It’s not that he doesn’t understand the teachings or objects to them, it’s that he doesn’t have the emotional strength to apply them to himself.

The problem is that Anakin was willing to do anything to keep Padme from dying. He literally kills kids. He becomes possessive of Padme. He thinks of her as an object. He’s not turning to the dark side to save her, he’s doing it because he doesn’t want to live without her. He doesn’t want to feel the pain of losing her. He doesn’t care that he’s destroying everything she fought and cared about her whole life (he was betraying her too by joining Palpatine). He was shown that Padme could die (“Always in motion is the future”) and that there’s nothing he could do about it (for the sake of the plot we’re gonna assume there’s no such things as C-sections in Star Wars; which I mean, this is coming from the same guy who said “There is no underwear in space”, so it really ain’t all that hard to believe), but he refused to accept it. According to George Lucas, Plagueis could not actually cheat death. That was a lie. There was nothing Anakin could do except trust in Padme’s strength to make it through childbirth. If he had listened to Yoda and accepted that, then things would’ve been alright. It’s possible she would’ve survived, and if not, Anakin would’ve needed rejoice for the good memories he shared, honor her memory, and let go. That’s what the Jedi way is about. It’s really just about living a healthy life. It’s about not craving control over things you have no control over. Because that’s how you get greedy.

George Lucas obviously doesn’t think you should repress your emotions, never be emotionally attached to anybody or never get married. He’s a very emotionally open guy, he’s been married twice and has kids. He just used a different meaning of the word attachment, and people were (rightfully) confused.

A quote from George Lucas:
“A Jedi is never lonely. They live on compassion. They live on helping people, and people love them. They can love people back. But when that person dies, they let go. Those that cannot let go become miserable. That’s the lonely place.”

The fact is, and the entire crux of this whole thing is, George Lucas is not a great writer. He didn’t do a good job conveying that the Jedi can love people and the difference between attachment and love. Because he’s an excellent visual artist, but not a good writer. His specialty is experimental avant-garde cinema, which is why there’s so much visual storytelling in the original 6. But his dialogue is flat and utilitarian. Which is why the Jedi appear flat and utilitarian. Lucas doesn’t really care about nitty gritty continuity or writing great dialogue. He literally calls lightsabers “laser swords” half the time. The reason? Because he’s not really about all that, he really just cares about the themes, the mythological motifs, the story he’s trying to tell. The story he’s trying to tell is, “The dangers of not being willing to let things go.” (the other is democracies and dictatorships, but that’s irrelevant). It’s not about the Jedi. So he sticks to that bottom line. The Jedi are just the good guys. He expects you to take that for granted. Yoda is literally a vessel Lucas uses to convey his own philosophy. The whole, “Why didn’t the Jedi go back to Tatooine and free Shimi?” is just a plot hole, not a way to point out the flaws of the Jedi. He does make sure to have Qui-Gon try to free Shmi to show that he’s selfless and caring, but once she’s out of the story it doesn’t really matter. Because Lucas doesn’t really dwell on that stuff. He’s more focused on the overall themes. Shmi has to die for Anakin’s story arc. She leaves the story when she needs to and comes back when she needs to. It’s why he forgets that Leia should know her birth mother. Because to him, the visual parallels between Vader’s birth and the death of his wife/birth of his children was more important. He cares more about sticking to themes then continuity or the plot. Now, you really shouldn’t have to sacrifice one for the other, but again, Lucas is a visual, experimental filmmaker. He isn’t into all that. He cares more about mythological themes and concepts then plot holes or great dialogue writing.

Vladius said:

He doesn’t specifically want revenge on the Jedi, but I think he does get angry with them. His frustrations with the council make it easier for Palpatine to sway him and get him to accept moral relativism. I did like that it wasn’t so simplistic as him just hating the Jedi.

Touching on the greed thing, I think one part people tend to miss is that Anakin could have left the Jedi if he really wanted to be with Padme. He loved her but he also had an ambitious side that wouldn’t let him pass up chances to advance and increase in power. “I want more, and I know I shouldn’t.” He wanted to have his cake and eat it too. Notice that’s how Palpatine tempts him with both things at once - he can save Padme by becoming more powerful. It appeals to his love for her and his ambition at the same time, and he gets swept up in it until his ambition lets the dark side overwhelm him and he’s force choking the person he’s ostensibly trying to save.

I agree. There are people who think that Anakin sides with Palpatine partially because Ahsoka was banished and he got denied the rank of master. But Lucas says over and over, that the only reason he turned was to save Padme. No nightmares, no turn to the dark side. All the “The Jedi are evil” bullshit is exactly that. Bullshit. It’s his rationalization for his actions. He gets a little irritated that they don’t give him the rank of master, but like, first, he’s not ready for it (yet), and second, that wouldn’t have made him turn to the dark side.

“…it’s very easy to have the audience believe that Anakin is miffed because he doesn’t get to go on the mission [to Utapau], that, you know, he’s angry because he’s not a master, and this scene [Padme’s ruminations] is really designed to remind you that his real problem is that he just doesn’t wanna lose her” - GL Revenge of the Sith Director’s Commentary

I agree with the last paragraph. Him joining the dark side to save Padme was absolutely selfish. It was about him not wanting to feel the pain of losing her, not her own safety. He was thinking of her as a possession and not a person, which is what attachment is, according to the Jedi. I think him wanting power could’ve been emphasized more though. Hence why I think it would be cool if they added another layer to his turn: wanting to be immortal for himself.

Darth Malgus said:

Well, although I’m usually a fan of Lucas’ work, in this case I can only disagree with him. As I have already explained elsewhere, I don’t share his view about the Jedi and Anakin’s fall, because I think that the Jedi philosophy was inherently flawed and that Anakin doesn’t deserve to be blamed for what happened. That said, I think what you highlighted is simply a coincidence. I mean, the same reasoning could be applied to Anakin and Padmé’s respective last words. Padmé’s last words were: “I know there is good in him, I know there is, still”, while Anakin’s last words were: “You were right”. Well, put this way, it could almost feel like a connection, when in reality it’s simply a coincidence. The fact that there are sentences that casually rhyme within the movies doesn’t mean that there is a real connection between them. These are just coincidences, and to derive an entire explanation/theory from them is at least exaggerated in my opinion.

Here’s the deal about Jedi philosophy: attachment in Star Wars does not mean the dictionary definition of attachment. It’s the Buddhist definition: the inability to let go of things. Lucas has said the Jedi are allowed to feel emotions. They’re allowed to feel love. This is shown. Yoda admits he’s afraid for Anakin’s training (proving that Anakin being afraid wasn’t the problem, it’s that he wouldn’t admit it and repressing it that was the problem). Yoda tells Padme he has warm feelings in his heart after she survives the assassination attempt. Mace Windu vouches for both Dooku and Anakin in AOTC (Mace and Yoda cut Anakin more slack then Obi-Wan, in AOTC). Yoda cries when he feels Anakin’s in pain.

Should these things have been better clarified and emphasized in the scripts, and the Jedi made to seem more kind and empathetic? Absolutely. You shouldn’t have to read Lucas quotes to understand the movies. But George Lucas being a bad writer doesn’t change the fact that the Jedi aren’t intended to be emotionless assholes.

The “no attachments” doctrine is about not letting your feelings interfere with a mission and being willing to let things go when need be. Obi-Wan loves Satine, in The Clone Wars, he even says, “It’s not that we’re not allowed to have these feelings, it’s natural”, but he doesn’t let it interfere with a mission like Anakin does. And when Satine dies, Obi-Wan lets her go. He doesn’t succumb to the dark side. He doesn’t close out his emotions. He feels his emotions but then moves on. When Bo-Katan tries to emotionally blackmail him, he doesn’t fall for it, because he can’t let his emotions cloud his judgement. The same thing happens after Qui-Gon’s death. He openly cries, but then moves on and honors his memory by training Anakin.

He doesn’t enter a relationship with her because he has a commitment to the Jedi Order. If a Jedi wants to be in a relationship, they need to leave. “A Jedi must have the deepest commitment, the most serious mind.” And there’s no shame in leaving the Order. Dooku left and the Jedi still spoke fondly of him, let him keep his lightsaber (Dooku: Jedi Lost novel), and even built him a statue (in a deleted scene). It’s not a cult. Anakin should’ve either left the Jedi Order after AOTC or waited to marry Padme after the clone war.

Anakin knows the difference between attachment and love. As he says in AOTC and an episode in The Clone Wars when he lectures Ahsoka on the importance of letting go of attachments (in the Geonosis zombie worms episode). It’s not that he doesn’t understand the teachings or objects to them, it’s that he doesn’t have the emotional strength to apply them to himself.

The problem is that Anakin was willing to do anything to keep Padme from dying. He was shown that Padme could die (“Always in motion is the future”) and that there’s nothing he could do about it (for the sake of the plot we’re gonna assume there’s no such things as C-sections in Star Wars; which I mean, this is coming from the same guy who said “There is no underwear in space”, so it really ain’t all that hard to believe), but he refused to accept it. According to George Lucas, Plagueis could not actually cheat death. That was a lie. There was nothing Anakin could do except trust in Padme’s strength to make it through childbirth. If he had listened to Yoda and accepted that, then things would’ve been alright. It’s possible she would’ve survived, and if not, Anakin would’ve needed rejoice for the good memories he shared, honor her memory, and let go. That’s what the Jedi way is about. It’s really just about living a healthy life. Not craving control over things you have no control over. Because that’s how you get greedy.

George Lucas obviously doesn’t think you should repress your emotions, never be emotionally attached to anybody or never get married. He’s a very emotionally open guy, he’s been married twice and has kids. He just used a different meaning of the word attachment, and people were (rightfully) confused.

Another quote from Lucas:
“A Jedi is never lonely. They live on compassion. They live on helping people, and people love them. They can love people back. But when that person dies, they let go. Those that cannot let go become miserable. That’s the lonely place.”

That parallel is definitely not a coincidence. Anakin’s whole arc is learning to stop wanting control over the natural cycle of life.

As Lucas puts it:
“The Jedi are trained to let go. They’re trained from birth, they’re not supposed to form attachments. They can love people- in fact, they should love everybody. They should love their enemies; they should love the Sith. But they can’t form attachments. So, what all these movies are about is: greed. Greed is a source of pain and suffering for everybody. And the ultimate state of greed is the desire to cheat death.”

Obviously when the line in Return of the Jedi was written it wasn’t about that. But the premise of his turn in the prequels adds meaning to that line where there wasn’t before. Thus making it a retroactive parallel.

yotsuya said:

That would have been so cool. Not sure if you can find a way to put that in an Ep III edit, but it would enrich the story.

In order to do that you’d really have to have whole new scenes and dialogue. It’s not something you could do through the edit, at least not in a way I can think of.

It would have to be a rewrite. Which is something I’ve been thinking of doing, for the prequels.

The latter is what I would prefer. I do love how Lucas used Anakin’s fall to have themes about the dangers of clinging onto someone too hard and not being able to let go. But I also think that having an added layer of Anakin’s unwillingness to accept his own mortality as well would add more to it.

Because you’re having a man literally slaughter his entire adoptive family. Going against everything he fought for and valued. His reasoning for turning should be multi-layered.

I feel like that’s a lot of the reason people cling to the “Jedi were ideologically flawed and Anakin was getting revenge on the Jedi for forcing him to repress his emotions” head canon when George Lucas literally agrees with the Jedi’s philosophy (and says they’re allowed to love and all that) and only blames Anakin’s greed and Palpatine’s manipulation for his turn. Anakin literally only turned to save his wife. Nothing to do with the Jedi.

“Some of the people had a hard time with the reason that Anakin goes bad… They didn’t seem to understand the fact that Anakin is simply greedy. There is no revenge. The revenge of the Sith is Palpatine. It doesn’t have much to do with Darth Vader; he’s a pawn in the whole scheme.”
-George Lucas, The Making of Revenge of the Sith

And that’s kinda hard for a lot of people to accept. So I think emphasizing more that Anakin’s only goal isn’t to prevent Padme’s death, but also his own and bringing order to the galaxy, bending the natural cycle of life and the state of the galaxy to his will, would be a good way to make his turn more layered.

I noticed an interesting retroactive parallel between Return of the Jedi and Attack of the Clones

Attack of the Clones:
Padme: “You’re not all powerful.”
Anakin: “Well I should be! I will be the most powerful Jedi ever! I promise you… I will even learn to stop people from dying!”

Return of the Jedi:
Anakin: “Luke, help me take this mask off.”
Luke: “But you’ll die.”
Anakin: “Nothing can stop that now.”

I thought it was kinda neat how they retroactively created an arc where Anakin learns to accept mortality and death.

Then I realized, what if they had added another layer to Anakin’s turn to the dark side based on that line? Anakin is not only afraid of the deaths of those he cares about, but his own?

What if one of Anakin’s biggest fears is not only the mortality of the ones he cares about but that of his own? He craves power because he seeks immortality for himself, as well. When he learns the Sith crave and work towards immortality and the dark side may be a way to achieve it, it adds another layer to his turn. And in addition, makes his line finally accepting that nothing can stop his death even more meaningful.

It adds a dramatic irony, too. Obi-Wan is able to achieve immortality by the time of A New Hope and boasts to Vader that he’s more powerful then he can possibly imagine because of it. Vader turned to the dark side partially to achieve immortality but Obi-Wan achieves it by staying on the light with practically no effort. Then when Vader finally becomes Anakin again, ditches the dark side, accepts the light, accepts his mortality, and lets go of his selfishness, then is when he’s finally able to achieve immortality. But only after he learned not to want it and stop wishing to control the natural cycle of life. Accepting that death is “The way of the things. The way of the Force,” as Yoda would put it.

EddieDean said:

Just to be explicit for the purposes of generating some thought, here’re some of the things that scene communicates:

• They have a fun teasing relationship but Anakin still defers to Obi-Wan’s teaching and wisdom
• Anakin is aggressive and focused on martial victory, and usually wins their duels
• Obi-Wan thinks Anakin’s too aggressive and blinded by a need for victory and to prove himself - he’ll remain a Padawan until he’s past this
• Anakin needs reminding by Obi-Wan that Jedi are defenders
• Obi-Wan’s patient, and resourceful even when apparently losing

Scenes from AOTC which could be relevant to those threads:

• Anakin’s eager to protect Padmé - could be read as needing to prove himself
• Anakin rushes after Zam Wesell when Obi-Wan pursues a smarter approach
• Anakin murders the Tuskens - “Mercy doesn’t defeat the enemy, master”
• Anakin vows to Padmé that he’ll find a way to prevent the deaths of those he loves
• Anakin’s captured by Dooku during his attempted rescue of Obi-Wan
• Geonosis fight
• Anakin rushes into the Dooku fight and is defeated

All of this. Plus it makes it seem like Obi-Wan and Anakin are actually friends and makes Anakin out to actually be a likable guy.

what was wrong with the original background from the movie

I really don’t see how it improves the pacing. If anything I’d say it has a negative effect on it. You spend way too much time away from the main villains to the point where you start to wonder what’s going on with them. The way it is in the final movie is perfect. You’re shown what the villains are doing, and then after the first sequence with the heroes we are updated with the status of the villains.

Plus the Vader scene is great and helps give build up to the Emperor’s arrival.

Why isn’t his nightmare about Padme dying anymore?

The only way I see a plotline of Vader trying to destroy the Empire from within working is if he’s doing it for selfish Sithy reasons, wanting to take Palpatine’s place and continue the whole “rule the galaxy as father and son” thing. Vader is not the kind of person to admit that he’s wrong, he’s the type to double down based on his emotions. Because he can’t let go of anything. Through the whole movie he keeps avoiding the truth and refusing to admit to his feelings. “If that is your destiny.” “There is no conflict.” “If you do not fight, then you will meet your destiny.”

The guy’s been at this “right hand of the Emperor” business for over 2 decades. He had multiple opportunities to do the right thing but refused because he couldn’t let go of his hatred and pain. It would take something enormous to get him to even think about changing his mind, like his son being electrocuted to death right in front of him.

Yep. Definitely agree with Sparky.

From my perspective, it feels less like a deed of a good man and more like a serial killer repenting on their deathbed.

That’s kinda exactly what it is.

The entire point is that Vader is a monster. Nothing he does can change that. But it still wasn’t too late for him to do the right thing. To turn to the light, kill the Emperor and destroy what he helped create. And he does. Along with himself and the Emperor, he brings down the Empire.

His redemption isn’t making up for what he did. He’s only redeemed in the sense that he chose to act out of selfless compassion (the way of the Jedi) instead of selfishness (the way of the Sith). Changing the person he was on the inside and finally letting go of his selfishness, hatred, and even his primal fear of death, which as Yoda says, “is the way of things. The way of the Force”.

You’re still trying to turn it into the person in the physical world atoning for what they did. But that’s not what it is and it never could be. It’s like asking someone to write a story about Hitler making up for the bad things he did (maybe slightly different, because Vader wasn’t the top guy in charge of the Empire, that’d be Palpatine, but it’s still pretty close). He literally was the backbone of a facist Sith regime for 23 years that committed genocide. You can’t make up for that. But he does stop the horror and become the man he once was. It’s all just about Vader choosing to be Anakin again on the inside, to do the right thing, and to finally be selfless. To give his life for his son. The only way his redemption works is if he sacrifices himself. You can’t have Vader go to the rebellion after saving Luke and saying, “Sorry that I, you know, helped enslave the galaxy, wiped out the Jedi, was a Sith for decades and literally probably killed your friends and families, but I’d really like to help out.” Vader can’t be redeemed in the sense of taking action that makes up for what he did in the physical realm; Vader is redeemed in the fact that he changed the person he was on the inside back to the compassionate Anakin Skywalker (in a sense, spiritually). As Lucas said, he took that last ounce of good left in him and destroyed the Emperor.

Also Luke being the only one who actually forgives Vader is also kind of the point. Most people in the galaxy would never and wouldn’t be expected to. But Luke is different not just because of his personality and the fact that Vader’s his dad but also because he’s a Jedi, and Jedi love everybody including the Sith.

“The Jedi are trained to let go. They’re trained from birth. They’re not supposed to form attachments. They can love people- in fact, they should love everybody. They should love their enemies; they should love the Sith."

There’s a reason Luke is the only one attending his funeral.

I love Vader’s arc in ROTJ, I think it was done perfectly. I even rank ROTJ above ANH, personally.

The point of Vader’s “redemption” isn’t that he slowly became a good guy. That side was always there, he just suppressed it constantly. Throughout both ESB and ROTJ he has a soft spot for his son. But he just keeps lying to himself saying that he will kill him if he has to… but he never does. In fact he basically lets Luke beat him, since all of his conflict weakened him so much (Vader was way more powerful and skillful then Luke, but he was crippled by conflict). The point is that it was sudden on purpose because Vader saving Luke is supposed to be something he’s highly contemplative about but eventually gives into his good side. It’s an emotional choice at the conclusion of a long drawn out battle in which Vader is basically being forced into a corner to pick between the Sith and his son, and his good nature is essentially forced to rise again because he just can’t let his son die. And more importantly, it’s that after 23 years of basically being Satan’s right hand, continuously making the wrong choice, he finally did the right thing. The thing he knew to be right from the very beginning but couldn’t muster the strength to do. But in his final act he finally let go of his hatred and pain and chose to show compassion. The entire point is that he was evil right up until he made that decision. He doesn’t technically make up for everything he did because he’s not supposed to. Because he can’t.

"It really has to do with learning. Children teach you compassion. They teach you to love unconditionally. Anakin can’t be redeemed for all the pain and suffering he’s caused. He doesn’t right the wrongs, but he stops the horror. The end of the Saga is simply Anakin saying, ‘I care about this person, regardless of what it means to me. I will throw away everything that I have, everything that I have grown to love - primarily the Emperor - and throw away my life, to save this person. And I’m doing this because he has faith in me, loves me despite all the horrible things I’ve done. I broke his mother’s heart, but he still cares about me, and I can’t let that die.’

Anakin is very different in the end. The thing of it: The prophecy was right. Anakin was the Chosen One, and he does bring balance to the Force. He takes the ounce of good still left in him and destroys the Emperor out of compassion for his son."
-George Lucas

It’s supposed to be sudden and because of that it’s far more impactful to see him finally be selfless again after being a monster for so long. He goes out in a blaze of glory. It also makes it far more impactful for Luke to spare Vader despite the fact that he’s still evil.

Y’know, it kinda just dawned on me, that calling Vader being Luke’s father universe shrinking is actually pretty ridiculous. Luke’s father was already Obi-Wan’s best friend and Vader was his apprentice. They were already close, it was already pretty shrinked. You’re literally just eliminating one single person by making Anakin be Vader, both of which were already close. This is absolutely nothing compared to C-3PO and R2 in the prequels and Chewbacca in ROTS. Like damn, apparently the universe is so much more vast because of one additional person.

This would be like if you were making a movie of my life and decided to combine two of my brothers into the same character or combining my best friend and one of my brothers into one character for a more streamlined screenplay and then calling it universe shrinking, even though it’s just combining two of the 7 billion people in the population together. And with Star Wars it’s trillions in the galaxy. It’s literally nothing. It’d be like combining Plo-Koon and Kit Fisto into one dude. Like damn, really shrinked the universe there.

And considering how much more complex both Vader and Luke’s characters are by having them be father and son respectively and their relationship and the depth it gave to both the trilogy and the saga, it’s by far absolutely worth it.