Mithrandir

TV’s Frink said:

luckydube56 said:

Anjohan said:

The Last Jedi has become bad because people can’t comprehend new directions for a 40-year old franchise. Get over it.

Episode IX WILL probably be predictable as fuck and all SW fans will rejoice.

I’m lucky in that I can ignore TLJ and TFA in my own mental canon.

This right here is how you should handle these movies if you don’t like them, and I respect this completely. But I don’t think it’s luck, I think it’s just common sense…or at least that’s what it should be. Getting all pissed off because a later movie “ruined” an earlier movie is just really alien to me.

I totally agree on this, specially knowing that Star Wars was a saga, but now it is only a franchise, a brand, hollow, it can contain anything. These new films can’t put in jeopardy your enjoyment of what came before.

Ok, take it that way. Try something different: if the Force is for everyone then why does the director and writer underline in every possible way how powerful Master Skywalker is?

The way I see it, the requisite of the Force being for everyone is that it is an ability that you reach through effort if you want to. If you want the Force to truly be for everyone, then the very concept of “force sensitive” has to be turned down. Which counterdicts TFA as well.

Otherwise it’s a Harry Potter like scenario, an ability not present in most of the people, that can be perfected through training.

luckydube56 said:

Anjohan said:

The Last Jedi has become bad because people can’t comprehend new directions for a 40-year old franchise. Get over it.

Episode IX WILL probably be predictable as fuck and all SW fans will rejoice.

I’m lucky in that I can ignore TLJ and TFA in my own mental canon. Others are struggling with what they see as the destruction of what they know to be Star Wars.

But to claim that people are simply unable to adjust to change is disingenuous. This isnt change. This is degradation.

TFA was degradation to the point it was a rethread of structure and themes.
This is change, and a diametrically opposite change of everything in the SW lore.

And yet it is an enjoyable movie, and a very well crafted film.

SilverWook said:

Is there proof Luke never taught Leia anything at all?

On screen.

Watched it again. Enjoyed it better, still somethings in the meta-message of the movie are far off SW.

Space Leia counterdicts the idea that the Force is for everyone. Leia has never received any training in the movies yet she uses the force just because of her powerful bloodline.

There’s no good and bad anymore. (Kylo/Rey, Benicio del Toro’s skepticism)

It’s better to be obedient and submissive than to rebel against orders that make no sense to you, because if you don’t follow orders things can go worse. Trust the system.

There’s no point in sacrificing for others, like Finn tried. Or like Rey tried, because if you hold on to the spark of hope in someone who seems beyond redemption it’s just a bait for evil to torture you. So let go of solidarity as well.

There’s no redemption for those who don’t want to save themselves (did Vader want to save himself?), that’s Rey leting go of Kylo in the end of the film that is Leia renouncing to a mother’s inconditional love, which essentially speaks of a far worse Leia than Luke in TLJ. She’s a strong woman, granted, but she’s not quite a great and functional human being in her role of mother (only that motherhood doesn’t say anything about you anymore) At this point, it was Han and not Leia who truly loved Ben. And Leia was just a jerk that sent Han to death only to renounce his son after that (and not because of that).

There’s no point in having remorse for one’s mistakes, like Luke did. Because “failure is the best teacher” (which is to say that failing is something good. Wouldn’t it be betterr not to fail at all, and learn watching someone else’s mistakes?)

There’s no point in knowing the past (let the past die, burn the books, kill your father and your teacher, burn the tree) or caring for the future (we are what they grow beyond, no need to learn or reveal a military plan), and from here on:

There’s no point in knowing one’s identity (Rey), because in the end we are all sons of nobodies (the only way to positively determine an identity at a social scale is patriarchy, otherwise check the hebrew POV on the subject, and reflect on the agenda of the movie.)

This is not a “safe” corporate product in terms of inmediate market selling. Half of the people don’t like this movie, so that POV doesn’t stand as solid for me. This is instead a very deep, well thought manifesto on social architecture in the hands of a corporation: TLJ proposes that we are all individuals and that we have no need of the Other. We’re no ones. We have to obbey, to be passive, to accept imperfections, to renounce the past and the future, to refuse the concept of bravery, to embrace our lowest and not to ever rebel against ourselves or the others beyond the point we’re allowed to by the permissions granted.

Luke wasn’t being selfish, I disagree with Hammil on this one. He was acting out of solidarity. And up to some point, it is not out of character. I mean, he responds like Luke Skywalker would. Luke is a good person, that is why he is full of remorse out of what he did. And that is Luke Skywalker from the Original Trilogy: we saw him slip to the darkside in Jedi, and then tossing his sabre. He did again with Kylo and had the same reaction.

I don’t know if I wanted the ST trilogy to be designed to include Luke only in one episode, and have that episode be about a broken Luke. But having a Luke capable of evil again after ROTJ, his conflict and reaction seems totally in character to me. And it totally makes thense that the only and most respectful thing you can do with a Hero in a movie about accepting what happens is to have him recluse on an island.

I don’t blame Rey for being tossed in a probable redemption arc situation in the middle chapter of a trilogy, but as far as this movie goes, not as great human being as the son of Anakin.

The irony of it all? That in the end Luke died looking at the horizon and sacrificing for others, for “the Other”. And he saved the Others, and saved the franchise not by saving the good guys on screen but by counterdicting the shitty message this movie has. It’s not a redemption for him, but more of reaching a peace within himself with his own thoughts from the past, a big fuck you to the bullshit they made Yoda say this time. For him, for a true hero it’s not here, now and within, but somewhere else, tomorrow, someone.

And it is a true hero, a true Jedi Knight, a true warrior of the Light Side who ends up saving this bunch of idiots that are the Iphone version of the rebel alliance.

The cause, consequence and true image of this movie is Anakin’s lightsabre (Call Dr Freud) being split between a “good” good girl and a “bad” vilain boy. Share the phalus, share the power, a little for each.

Once a writer said:

Gibbon tells us that in the arab book par excellence, the Quran, there are no camels; I believe that were it to be any doubt about the Quran’s authenticity, this absence of camels would suffice to prove it to be truly arab.

What’s implied is clear, you just don’t even find relatable the things that pertain to your quotidian world. Tales about magical castles imply that that age is past. The western amusement for what’s diverse only proves how at the very core that is a false expectation and something that is not true to the actual situation of things. Look how open we are, we have black people be protagonists only means that they are just not that open and that its made on a worse purpose.

Those who are left behind due to their skin color or race just won’t have an easier life because a fictional story gestated by those responsible of their sufferings somehow “represents them”.

The casting of Finn, if it happened as it’s said to have happened is a good example of true diversity: you have a character written and have no idea of what his skin color or race is supposed to be, and cast the best performance. Diversity in the film is in that case the natural byproduct of openness in the writing of the movie.

Not the same about deliberately having the male characters fail. Or pushing decissions before the casting.

Wanna make a truly diversity rooted film? Right. Write about characters and make unisex casts, and define on the casting, based on the actor/tress giving the best performance the gender and race of the character. Otherwise diversity my ass. It’s just design.

Can we just separate for one moment what goes on within the screen from what goes on outside it?

Nope, there are no women in Star Wars because in ancient traditions war is a subject relative to men. And it’s absolutely logic that in a fictional tale, that takes place in a fictional galaxy and that borrows from traditional sources women are to be not as represented.

Yet no one complains here about Ahsoka Tano, or about Ayla Secura, or about female Jedi masters in the PT. Nor about Leia or Padmè. Because their inclusion didn’t feel forced. No one complained about Windu being portrayed by Samuel Jackson neither.
As probably Holdo’s inclusion wouldn’t have felt forced were it not for the fact that there already was Admiral Ackbar to be used, there already was Leia to be a strong woman in charge. And she has been there since the 80s. So to many of us the sole point of some characters is to push an agenda very well outside the logic of the movie. And it just doesn’t fit the Star Wars mythos to many of us. So what’s the problem with it?

Why does a girl have to be “represented” on screen as a soldier? In the end, being a market product it just explains itself within the logic of market and therefore it’s not even femminism, it’s just plain toy selling and widening the market base.

I totally can take RJ’s new trilogy, outside the Skywalker saga being about the most misrepresented social sector taking over the galaxy and bossing people around. It’s a LFL product and have this kind of inclusion is not only good but even necessary…both for equality reasons and market reasons. Yet being it a different tale, set with a totally different perspective, it can have its own rules and take it wherever he wants to.

The thing is they just included a bunch of stuff that didn’t pertain to the repertory of the original saga in it, when they have plenty of room to do their stuff somewhere else.

Though in the end, it’s their story, they own it and they can do with it whatever they want.

DrDre said:

I think it’s fair to ask the question, why the ST is following this trajectory? Is it really trying to tell it’s own story, or is it just trying to redo the OT in some form, but pretending that it isn’t by avoiding the same twists. A lot of the twists and turns, while different from the OT, seem to derive from taking an OT story thread, and doing the opposite. It follows the what if scenario:

What if Vader couldn’t be redeemed?

What if Vader overthrew the Emperor?

What if Yoda refused to train Luke?

Many of the beats of the story of TLJ are very similar to TESB with the ROTJ throne room sequence thrown into the mix. Bad guys attack good guy base. Bad guys chase good guys (albeit a lot slower). Young hero goes to backwater planet to be trained by Jedi Master. Young hero defies her teacher, by going after the bad guy. Rogue betrays good guys. Bad guy fails to turn the hero to the dark side. Heroes end up in a tight spot.

Of course by taking the what if scenario, the ST is abandoning several of the underlying themes of the OT that drive the OT’s twists. Which begs the question, is Star Wars more defined by it’s themes, or by it’s story beats? My view is, that it is the former, and a new Star Wars trilogy that is based on the same themes, but has different story beats is better than a Star Wars trilogy, that is based on different themes, but largely follows the same story beats.

Yeap, it is. Same form, different content. And no natural progression of the story.

Look, I didn’t mean to inflame you; nor do I think I didn’t make a valid argument considering I’ve tried and I’m still willing to develop my arguments. I don’t expect you to agree, obviously. But we have a discussion board for exactly that purpose.

That being said, don’t even take it too seriously. I wish no harm to Ms. Kennedy, I just don’t agree with what she is representing and heading the main saga. Not a Delenda Carthago sort of thing, but more of a find the right spot.

And if you got the Delenda Carthago line, you might understand why it was funny to close the posts with that phrase. Again, don’t take it too seriously and enjoy the polemic.

So we have to resolve Hollywood’s problems within the stories? Then there is a political agenda permeating into the film.

Are the stories of old no longer to be told because they just don’t represent anymore what we are told to believe in?

I don’t think it is fair that Driver got a higher billing. That’s a real world issue. But fairy tales just don’t belong in that repertory of ideas. It’s just not the same collection of notes.

Think of western traditional culture issues: learn to control yourself, to dominate yourself, on a bad note, learn to repress yourself. You can’t erase the past, as it settles your present and your future. Life’s a journey, a video and not a collection of separate frames: you have the responsibility to make it coherent. Carpe Diem. Seize the day, control it, and make it into something. Both individually and socially, learn to control yourself and the medium. Learn science to explain the world, because if it can be explained it can be understood and if it is understood, it can be handled, perfectioned and made into something better. There’s a reason for everything and in learning those reasons, you can fix things. Christianity, science, industrial revolution, both left-wing and right-wing politics all are contained within the same set of ideas.

There is an underlying truth in the universe, and in discovering it and learning from it, we can reach some sort of elevation. That’s why we have parliaments, dialogue, an Agora and philosophy; one way or another we’ve had it for 25 centuries. Because even if we can agree that noone has the truth, we all agree that it actually exists, somewhere. Philosophy and not sophisms. Wether everyone positions it in a different place, there is a sense of right and wrong to most of us. There is a moral compass. And there are plans, coherent trajectories in history. That’s why Campbell’s book, to pick a cheap example is called the hero’s “journey”.

To me, ironically, the most by that book country today is China, which modernised itself on a western values basis.

But anyway, that’s our book: be active

Up to some point that is the core of our civilisation. And fairy tales have a place in that core that’s rooted into the past times, and more particularly the medieval times, when everything wasn’t explicit but alegoric and symbolic. If we are to discuss gender roles, women have a role that’s very definite in those stories. It doesn’t matter if we don’t think the same way today, you can’t change the content and expect it to still be a fairy tale.

And the content being changed isn’t just gender roles.

Take this for instance:

The galaxy isn’t able to be saved. It is a living breathing entity, constantly changing. The Jedi attempt to “Domesticate” the Force, the Sith like to “let it run free” (when they’re not hiding it, thus why their force powers are so cabin fevery).

Rey is balance. Rey shapes the force to her will only when necessary - there is no need for her to try and control or trap the Force.

So there’s no point in fighting Evil because it will return. There’s no point in controlling your instincts because they are “natural”, there’s no point in controlling anything actually. Just flow with the Universe. Don’t resist Death, because it is also natural. There’s no point in resisting the will of power, because it is encapsuled within the very human being. It’s not an active stance anymore. It’s passive, as Luke’s passive now and therefore he’s just no longer the western hero anymore. The journey doesn’t matter, there are no heros, anyone can take your job and do it as well as you. There’s no meaning to the story anymore since your frame can be continued by someone else and it just will be the same. It’s a postmodern film, with asian cultural notes that flow very in tune with the actual phase of market.

So question yourself who is backwards and what are you building by thinking to be “progressive”. There are things that can progress, like justice and wealth distribution, within our cultural frame. And others that would take ceasing to be, in order to become something not necessarily better.

And the sole idea of “get rid of old books and live the life” is a false dichotomy. Life just is. You can live it by one book or another. That book, both literally and metaphorically is the culture. So Rey isn’t in balance, Rey is a sophist, he uses the moral compass of the Universe (the force) when necessary to her own gut. And that’s living by another book. One my personal moral compass doesn’t feel to be quite ethic:

Do or do not, there is no try - 1980: Do it convinced, challenge the error.
The best teacher failure is - 2017: It doesn’t matter to make wrong things because in the end you will learn.
Love he who errs, hate the error - 480 AD…

The thing is that is false as well. The only way to learn from errors is to actually not know they are mistakes. If you know you are heading into something wrong and do it the same only to say that one forges itself from errors then you are just acting plain wrong and being a perverse hypocrite shielding behind a speech.

So how does a man that learnt what’s right 30 years ago when he chose to sacrifice himself for a not-apparently-redeemable father now contemplate to kill his teenager nephew?

If life is a coherent journey, a video, or a movie, or a saga it doesn’t make sense.
If life is a sucession of different frames then it is explainable and understandable. Only that if life is so, then coherency is just an abstract possibility and hence the dissolution of the notion of heroes, or even what some users are calling “in-character” acting.

And life isn’t one way or another, because the explanation of what life is a cultural artifact itself, and therefore there isn’t a by the book or not by the book explanation here. You just choose which book you live by. And you choose by which book you make your movie.

At least to me that is what this movie means and hopefully JJ-wow-factor will make it right. Only that my two cents aren’t thrown into it this time, and especially not with his precedents.

DominicCobb said:

pleasehello said:

DominicCobb said:

Mithrandir said:

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2017/12/star-wars-last-jedi-laura-dern-admiral-holdo-listen-to-women?intcid=inline_amp

Looks like there actually was an agenda in all this ST.

Sadly fairy tales all root in the old world.

Please fire Kennedy

Please fire yourself (from being a poster in this thread).

Someone’s getting a little defensive.

I reckon he’s allowed to be concerned about modern day politics infiltrating Star Wars.

Right, how dare they give women equal footing.

Look, I don’t know how you personally treat women, but as far as myself, and I can only speak for myself, women do have equal footing by default. Any attempt to proactively give it to them feels and seems an intrusion in a fairy tale to me.

I have no complaints whatsoever with Rey being a female protagonist. In fact in seven it just felt right, it felt…casual, which is the best way it is supposed to feel. Normal.

But when you have 3 films released, all with female protagonists and even a last one where you have Rey, Leia, and the admiral character, which all happen to be right where men are wrong, and the underlying tone of the movie is “get off the old world” it just ceases to be “good” femminism and starts to become a misandric manifesto. Male torso is “sexually agressive” to Rey, etc.

In anycase, reacting to a film I don’t like based on its contents and complaining about the creative direction they are heading, which actually I hope we pretty much agree is diametrically opposite in terms of values to what Lucas intended to do back then, is one thing. Reacting to a member on this very community by saying things you don’t like feels like another.

So, in best faith and being completely honest, don’t you fire yourself from this thread. Neither will I. Learn to live with those that challenge your in your own neighbourhood.

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2017/12/star-wars-last-jedi-laura-dern-admiral-holdo-listen-to-women?intcid=inline_amp

Looks like there actually was an agenda in all this ST.

Sadly fairy tales all root in the old world.

Please fire Kennedy

We’re not here at all to discuss capitalism, but criticizing the greedy and opulent rich people is essentially what led to the french revolution that installed and legitimized the burgeois class in continental Europe…

There’s no conflict between criticizing those above you and capitalism, exactly because capitalism is based on the idea that if you do things right, you should be granted the right to escalate in the social pyramid

Nope, nothing wrong with being nice to animals. Only that it is a thing or a theme from OUR era. Not something that fits the era Star Wars is set in. From that point of view yes, it is political.

Once the USSR government made a El Quijote movie, refreshed with marxist themes. At some point it ceased to be El Quijote and was just an open alegory of those day’s debate. And then it just wasn’t a movie about a spanish hero anymore.

And you might ask me what era is star wars set in since it is basically escapism.

And that falls on everyone’s personal perspective. But as I said, to me SW is a fairy tale, a mostly traditional fairy tale. No one cared about animal’s rights back then.

It just felt off to me, just as the Ewoks, or the Opera scene in ROTS.

DominicCobb said:

That’s a pretty funny take, I don’t even disagree with some of it (even if my reaction is the opposite), but I don’t know how you can call the film “openly capitalistic” when it’s basically the only Star Wars film that openly criticizes capitalism.

I said it is a capitalist mythos, not that the movie is openly capitalistic.

At some point in history, the medieval notion of history as a cycle that repeats itself over and over or even as a decaying cycle got replaced by a linear-progressive conception of civilization. The man of the XIX century considered himself as more civilized than the man from the XVIII and so on.

Think of Obi Wan saying the lightsabre was a weapon from a better era.
Now think of Luke implying that the Jedi of tomorrow will be better than the Jedi of yesterday.

It’s a diametrically opposite message. And it conveys a diametrically opposite aura or mythos for the movie.

That’s for myself. Regarding your comment, you mean it openly criticises capistalism because it shows rich people in the casino arc?

Beautifully shot movie, specially on the important parts. It felt very barroque, carefully handed were it needed to be.
On the other hand, I don’t understand why all the meaningful inner conflicts between the characters that end up being decided with lightsabres fall on this trend of “epic” videogame settings. I’ve complained about this in TFA and have to complain again about it. The ridiculous stances, the over-pronounced and underlined open shots just translate to the scenery what should be happening and conveyed on the inner self of the characters. And I’m speaking of course of the Death of Han Solo in a gigantic bridge, dark, with rigid standing characters and just a beam of light. All methaphoric and at the same time, meaningless. And now the same with Luke’s duel with Kylo. Epic epic epicness!!!

Nope, not working for me. I just like better the way the scale of the sceneries is handled in the OT, were a son fighting his father or an apprentice killing his betrayer old master happens in just regular corridors, casual scenarios that better reflect the claustrophobia and conflict of the characters. What I saw is just too pronounced, too anime-like, too japanese for me.

The opposite principle applied to how they handled Yoda, that for the first time in 40 years came back to be the one we’ve met in ESB. And I like how they de-mythified Luke, for the exact same reasons. The conflicts reflected in SWs movies are conflicts most of us have and I (western) can relate better to a master that laughs and makes jokes, or to shouting to my parents in a room sized space than to facing some one “very very evil” that’s just a wounded boy or a broken old man in the unlikely scenario of an open war battle.

Rebels duel between Obi Wan and Maul feels 150% more Star Warsy to me than this.

Yet it somehow helped to convey a meaningful end to Luke’s character (even if I don’t agree at all with his arc and less even knowing what we know of Luke from the OT) that’s now definitely established as one of the most powerful Jedi Knights in history. And that is somewhat satisfying, and more it is due to how those last shots in Ach To are framed.

From a plot POV, regardless of what happens in the movie, the Star Wars mythos I liked and loved just is no more. OT was the story in different levels (political, romance, and the individual story of Luke) of the conflict between Destiny and Free Will. That’s the story of the conflict within the western traditional culture. And from that point of view Star Wars was somehow an medieval european fairy tale in space.

Literally, since we knew from the beginning how it was going to end, the Prequels were just the story of a man meeting his (faustian) Destiny.

Now this Sequel Trilogy, considering what’s established in TLJ through different layers has lost that dimension of conflict the OT had and has balanced decidedly to the free will side. Rey’s nobody. Kylo gets rid of the past and just decides to make something new. The old world must be torn apart and something new is to come. Same with all the cinematic conventions of a Star Wars movie, all abandoned. Everyone makes his own future. A new future.

It’s a new mythos. An american , openly capitalist mythos and one that absolutely matches the size and identity of the corporation owning Lucasfilm thesedays and gets on the bus with just every turn down the past theme it can: Luke milking because tits are to be shown, Rey claiming Kylo to put something on because of feminism, diversity in the cast because we don’t want to offend nobody, care for the animals because, the moral compass is no more because now everything is accepted, etc. I could go on in a conservative rant that just doesn’t necessarily reflect my opinion on those subjects.

Only that fairy tales are traditional culture and thus they’re expected to have a rearguard metamessage. And this clearly has a more avant-gard message.

And it’s a mythos that I’m just not interested in hearing anymore. And even less when it’s stripped off the characters I’ve grown with.

Perhaps because I’m growing old. If someone at Disney reads this, bring me back my old beloved characters. Luke, Leia, Han, Yoda, ObiWan and Vader. And stop the political bullshit, fire Kennedy and her agenda if necessary. Tantrum thrown.

Where is the edit available for download?

Mocata said:

Oh AT-ATs again. Fine.

They’re not AT ATs, they looks like gorillas now!

ZkinandBonez said:

https://www.starwarsnewsnet.com/2017/06/new-designs-from-star-wars-the-last-jedi-leaked-online.html

“The photos are promotional images for yet-to-be-released merchandise for The Last Jedi.”

A Red First Order Guard:

(Some recently leaked photos of Lego sets suggested that Snoke might make a proper appearance in TLJ. These guys might be his equivalent of Palpatine’s Royal Guards.)

First Order Stormtrooper Officer:

First Order AT-M6 (our first proper look at the so called “gorilla AT-ATs”):

I can’t be more tired of all the design clichès of this generation. The assymetry in the armor (Kanan, Rey, Anakin’s scar, the iTrooper from TFA), the roman centurion (Saruman’s Uruk-Hai in LOTR, the Lannisters personal guards in GoT, now the “pretorian” guards in TLJ).

Just have a fantasy universe anywhere these days and make a safe bet that some designs will be recurring over and over again.

Mithrandir said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pilqN-Q_2Vw

I’ll leave this here.

Regarding SSWR’s old edit, great ideas and out of the box thinking with dialogue. Especially the refurbishing of Palpatine’s line now being used as sarcasm towards windu.

*wrong thread

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pilqN-Q_2Vw

Leave this here. Pay homage to SSWR’s old edit, great ideas and out of the box thinking with dialogue. Especially the refurbishing of Palpatine’s line now being used as sarcasm towards windu.

I never thought of the symbolism of good and evil fighting in the senate. If the whole scene is to be removed, I wonder if, given its symbolic power, some shots (those that do not have lightsabers) at least couldn’t be refurbished in some way to be used in a dream/vision/premonitory scene of some kind.

Probably some vision Yoda could have, but don’t know. Just thinking outloud

LordRorek said:

NFBisms said:

It’s similar, but my 1 and 3 are different. Padme possibly dying is still the impetus, but how it’s framed in my cut is Anakin decides that he can only keep Padme safe by aligning with Palpatine, either because of Plagueis or because of the political power and freedom that would come with it. And this becomes more clear once we’re out of these first two acts and into when Anakin actually becomes Vader. Hal keeps Anakin turning into Vader as this slow descent into full dark side corruption and power lust. He starts his descent well-intentioned but by the end is high on all of his new power. And that never sat right with me for Vader. The Vader I know from most of ANH, Empire, RoTJ, and the canon comics wasn’t crazy and corrupted. He wasn’t delusional or blinded by his power and emotions. “It’s too late for me, son.” was one of those things as a kid that showed me Vader knew he was a monster. And while the way he talked about the dark side’s power in the OT was always a supportive endorsement of it, it was more like a reverence of it rather than a dependence on having it.

So my Anakin doesn’t think he’s doing what’s best for the galaxy or the Republic or whatever. Sure, he has had political and ideological differences with the jedi council, and that’s what drives him away from them and to Palpatine, but he can’t believe that all of those jedi, in the temple and across the galaxy are bad. But he has to kill them all to embrace the dark side. He knows this, he knows what a sith is - and he can’t be proud of or eager to do it. That’s what I cut out. Every instance of Anakin being eager to do his master’s bidding is removed. He dances around the subject when he talks to Padme. He’s not proud. It’s just a means to an end for his goals for him and Padme. Their last conversation on Mustafar isn’t about the Republic, it’s about taking down Palpatine. For the two of them. For their baby. That’s what he chooses. He chooses what makes him powerful for them. It makes the Vader/Palpatine dynamic more wonderfully sith. It’s also what’ll inevitably turn him back in RoTJ, when he finally realizes the power doesn’t matter to the ones he loves.

Essentially, Anakin’s relationships to Palpatine, the dark side, and its power are the biggest differences in my cut. It doesn’t corrupt him or make him throw tantrums. As Palpatine says in the movie: ‘it gives [him] focus, make [him] stronger’. This is what makes Darth Vader the sith lord, especially when Kylo Ren exists now, whose unhinged emotionality with the dark side of the force is kind of what makes him a lesser Darth Vader. The idea that Anakin has master and control over his anger, fear, and hate to utilize them so effectively - that’s what made Darth Vader menacing when I was a kid. My Vader isn’t vengeful, emotional, or petty. He’s cold, methodical, and brutal. And this is how I’m keeping that image alive while maintaining the thematic through line of the prequels in a consistent way.

Finally someone who understands the mind of Anakin/Vader and how one became the other. 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

Yes. This approach, the inclusion of more militaristic dialogue and the removal of any references to Anakin as a diminished character makes this edit the most promising ROTS fan-edit since the days of Aalenfae, Cutter and Bob Garcia’s edits.

So this is the only trailer we are getting?

The synthesis of a trailer and level of secrecy required to preserve the effect of a movie is inversely proportional to the quality of the film.

It truly makes me worry.

Back in the eighties it was “introducing Lando Calrissian” and no fucks given.