Sign In

Shopping Maul

User Group
Members
Join date
12-Oct-2013
Last activity
4-Jul-2020
Posts
447

Post History

Post
#1354557
Topic
What is the main Star Wars Saga about?
Time

NFBisms said:

It’s pretty simple I’d think: Star Wars as a series is about storytelling, and the act of passing stories down. It’s rooted in a fun genre pastiche, with the original film(s) as a classic monomyth set in a storied world. The prequels then set out to deconstruct the ideals inherent in those stories from a more sociopolitical angle (The Empire rooted in capitalism, the classical masculine ideals are problematic, etc.) then the sequels tr(ied) to make sense of it all from a postmodernist perpsective: why are these stories important to us? How do you apply their lessons to real and imperfect people?

On every level, from Luke’s quest to fulfill his father’s legacy, to George’s borrowing of references, to even its cultural impact thereafter - Star Wars is about legends and how we interpret them. How the Jedi interpet their code, how Luke chooses to see his father, how Rey or Kylo see history, and their futures.

imo

I second the above - perfect post! Can’t believe I missed it.

Post
#1353914
Topic
<strong>Empire Strikes Back</strong> - 'Behind The Scenes / Making Of' <strong>images</strong> thread
Time

SilverWook said:

Shopping Maul said:

SilverWook said:

I sometimes forget how physically and mentally grueling ESB must have been for Mark. Buried in snow, repeatedly slapped by a Wampa hand on a pole, dunked in a giant aquarium, weeks if not months on a mudhole of a set with only Artoo, a rubber Muppet and various live reptiles to act opposite of. Not to mention the Vader duel!

On top of all that, he and his wife were expecting their first child during production. That’s stressful enough without being the lead in a Star Wars film to worry about.

Plus the weight training which apparently he hated! Mark was in killer shape on Empire. I saw an interview somewhere where he said he’d assumed he’d have to up the ante for Jedi - get even bigger and wear an eyepatch! I’d have been all for it (it’s a Conan thing)…

Call me Luke…

‘Escape from Anchorhead’- I like it!

Post
#1353552
Topic
<strong>Empire Strikes Back</strong> - 'Behind The Scenes / Making Of' <strong>images</strong> thread
Time

SilverWook said:

I sometimes forget how physically and mentally grueling ESB must have been for Mark. Buried in snow, repeatedly slapped by a Wampa hand on a pole, dunked in a giant aquarium, weeks if not months on a mudhole of a set with only Artoo, a rubber Muppet and various live reptiles to act opposite of. Not to mention the Vader duel!

On top of all that, he and his wife were expecting their first child during production. That’s stressful enough without being the lead in a Star Wars film to worry about.

Plus the weight training which apparently he hated! Mark was in killer shape on Empire. I saw an interview somewhere where he said he’d assumed he’d have to up the ante for Jedi - get even bigger and wear an eyepatch! I’d have been all for it (it’s a Conan thing)…

Post
#1352851
Topic
I love the OOT fan projects here - yet still want an official unaltered OT release. You too?
Time

In theory yes, because I hate that the films don’t exist anymore. It’s heartbreaking and infuriating that when I talk Star Wars at work with folks in their 20s, they have no concept whatsoever of an original theatrical version. I hate seeing Lucas celebrated at SW events and crapping on about his mythological motifs while the very movies that made him a household name have been suppressed by him. I hate that Gary Kurtz didn’t live to see and hold a pristine DVD/BluRay/4K copy of the groundbreaking films he produced. It’s just ridiculous.

For me personally I don’t care. I have versions for personal use that I’m more than happy with. I can’t help but think Disney would screw it up somehow anyway - mess with the sound mix or do something dumb with the colours or sleeve art. So yes, an official release on principal but I’m happy with what I have.

Post
#1349792
Topic
Small details that took you <em><strong>FOREVER</strong></em> to notice in the <em>Star Wars</em> films
Time

Broom Kid said:

Thing that only just now occurred to me:

Why would anyone on the Millennium Falcon be surprised that the Death Star wasn’t a moon? Moons orbit planets. There are no planets around. Alderaan never even had a moon to begin with.

If I remember rightly there was a line in the novelisation about it. When Luke says “heading for that small moon” Han says (something like) “strange, I wasn’t aware Alderaan had any moons”…

Post
#1349611
Topic
The Empire Strikes Back - at 40...
Time

Slavicuss said:

As with STAR WARS’ 40th anniversary celebrations, THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK is shamefully unavailable (officially) in its original release form.

I see nothing here to celebrate.

I here ya! It’s a strange world where my favourite movie of all time has come out in 4K with new artwork and I totally do not care. I guess Lucas has saved me a ton of money if nothing else…

Post
#1348020
Topic
<strong>Empire Strikes Back</strong> - 'Behind The Scenes / Making Of' <strong>images</strong> thread
Time

ZkinandBonez said:

BTW, does anyone know why they didn’t build the entire set for some of these shots, like in the photo above? Al the windows are clearly there in some BTS photos, and its really obvious (pre-SE anyway) that all but the central window has been added in post when you watch the actual movie.

I’m assuming that middle shot is from ROTJ? They built the entire bridge for Jedi but only the single window for Empire (as far as I know).

Post
#1344334
Topic
<strong>The Rise Of Skywalker</strong> — Official Review and Opinions Thread
Time

I guess I just don’t understand Jedi pacifism. It’s okay to go around fighting with swords or killing clones/stormtroopers - and taking out an entire Death Star full of people gets one a rousing cheer and a soothing Obi Wan voiceover. But if you’re stuck alone in a room with the two most evil guys in the galaxy who are on a killing spree, apparently retaliatory aggression is a path to eternal darkness.

I loved the showdown in TROS. Firstly Rey was actually tempted with an impossible choice rather than being simply goaded into anger. Secondly her actions had a direct bearing on the battle. Thirdly she made the ultimate sacrifice - she died! You don’t get more selfless than that.

Post
#1343353
Topic
<strong>The Rise Of Skywalker</strong> — Official Review and Opinions Thread
Time

Ryan-SWI said:

idir_hh said:

When I think of Rey’s character, what come to mind is an A-sexual Xbox avatar.

That’s an insult to Xbox avatars.

RogueLeader said:

You know, it is kind of surprising that they went into this trilogy knowing the main character would be female, but they didn’t seem to even consider hiring a female writer. I mean, clearly there were female cooks in the kitchen early on, like Kennedy and Hart. And I’m not saying men can’t write women characters, but I feel like Rey might’ve lacked something that a female writer really could’ve provided for her.

Rey is far from the biggest issue with Disney’s films. Even if she were expertly written the trilogy would still be hot trash from a story perspective.

I despise TFA and TLJ but can fully understand how someone may enjoy those films… I guess. I absolutely cannot fathom how anyone could defend TROS without being drunk out of their mind; it’s the cinematic equivalent of a computer generated algorithm shorting out while the Star Wars theme plays in the background and a 5 year old smashes 500 million dollar action figures against the computer terminal. It is probably the single most perfect example of a corporate-controlled dumpster fire we’ll ever see.

I’m completely sober but I love TROS. I won’t go into exhaustive detail, but I can break it down to this - TFA was a clone of ANH, TLJ was a clone of TESB (with a dash of ROTJ), and TROS was unsurprisingly ROTJ on steroids. So when I watch TFA I naturally just feel like swapping it out for ANH. Ditto TLJ and TESB. Can’t beat the originals right?

TROS is the exception for me. I think it’s better than ROTJ - indeed for me it’s what I wish ROTJ had been. I don’t know if you’ve seen my previous posts but I did not expect this at all. I was very pleasantly surprised. So yeah, I’m happy to defend it while sipping nothing stronger than tea!

Post
#1342686
Topic
I'll never understand the attitude of people who oppose the release of the unaltered original trilogy.
Time

imperialscum said:

Shopping Maul said:

I was thinking “no, you don’t get to celebrate 40 years of a movie you’ve deliberately tried to bury. You can celebrate 40 years in 2037”.

What do you mean 2037? He buried the 1997 version even more than the original.

So if it is not the original version, then it is all the same shit right? This kind of attitude is the symptom of the same problem I was describing in my earlier post.

I meant no offence, I was just making a generalisation based on when the SEs overtook the originals as a concept. I mean the originals were tinkered with too - different mixes, different opening crawls etc - but I was merely referring to 1997 as the particular line in the sand where the original theatrical films were written off and the new Star Wars (with its conga-line of versions/changes/additions to follow) became a thing.

Post
#1342252
Topic
I'll never understand the attitude of people who oppose the release of the unaltered original trilogy.
Time

I’ve tried to avoid being a ‘hater’ on this point, but the moment when I really knew just how pissed I am about this was when I saw a Youtube clip of Lucas on stage for the Star Wars 40th anniversary. People were cheering and waving lightsabers while Lucas crapped on about mythological motifs etc - I was thinking “no, you don’t get to celebrate 40 years of a movie you’ve deliberately tried to bury. You can celebrate 40 years in 2037”.

Post
#1341894
Topic
<strong>The Rise Of Skywalker</strong> — Official Review and Opinions Thread
Time

StarkillerAG said:

I guess since I’m one of the few people on this website who doesn’t hate TROS, I should just shut up. But I recommend that a lot of the hardcore haters should try and watch it again. If you’ve already watched it twice or more, but still hate it, then I understand.

I loved TROS. It was a bizarre experience because I went in with scant expectations. I was happy to enjoy it simply for being Star Wars, but I certainly didn’t expect to feel how I felt.

I’ve said this here before (to uproarious chuckles I’m sure!) but this is/was the first SW film I’d genuinely enjoyed unreservedly since TESB. As the end credits rolled I was like “holy s**t - I really liked that!”. I went a couple more times expecting the spell to dissipate, but it didn’t.

I get why people hate it. As a piece of canon it’s absurd, and the lack of planning with the ST is painfully apparent. Plus it’s a rip-off of ROTJ, so of course most ROTJ fans are going to be rightly offended.

I don’t quite know why my canon-brain went this way, but I enjoyed TROS in complete isolation from post-TESB movies. It’s as if I’d been in exile since 1980, come back to civilisation, and watched TROS without having seen it’s post-1980 predecessors. The Emperor in TROS was, to me, the creepy dude with the monkey eyes in unaltered TESB. As an addendum to our ROTJ conversation a few days back, I have to say that TROS was the ‘Revenge Of the Jedi’ I was expecting/anticipating back in '83.

Post
#1340005
Topic
<strong>Return Of The Jedi</strong> - a General <strong>Random Thoughts</strong> thread
Time

ray_afraid said:

Shopping Maul said:

Well, it has been fun and I appreciate the back and forth.

Ya know, it really has been a good talk. Good to see everybody’s opinion & nobody stooping too low.
Also, this really has increased my opinion of RotJ. Funny what happens when you talk this stuff out.
😃

Back atcha Ray - I love hanging out here! Thanks again and may the Force do it’s thing!

Post
#1339968
Topic
<strong>Return Of The Jedi</strong> - a General <strong>Random Thoughts</strong> thread
Time

StarkillerAG said:

Shopping Maul said:

StarkillerAG said:

Shopping Maul said:

ATMachine said:

But Luke wasn’t planning to appear before the Emperor - Vader took Luke to Palpatine when he initially refused to turn back to the light side as Luke asked him to. Luke wanted to surrender to the Imperials to avoid having Vader sense what the Rebels were doing through him, and to have a face-to-face talk with his father. If he failed at turning his father, he might be killed, but his friends would no longer be in danger from his Force link to Vader.

And besides, why would Luke think it was his job to kill the Emperor anyway? The Rebel fleet destroying the Death Star was supposed to be responsible for that.

a) he turned himself in because his being sensed was a liability,

Yes, that’s true. But that helped, didn’t it? Han and Leia didn’t want to be sensed while on their super secret infiltration mission.

Yes, but this isn’t a good thing. This is further evidence that Jedi Knights might not be the best idea in town. It’s like the fat kid in a football team realising that maybe he should sit this one out.

But that’s not what Luke was doing. It seems like you think his actions in the throne room were an act of cowardice, but they were actually an act of bravery. He restored the heart within his father, and in the process destroyed the Sith. That’s not a cowardly act at all, and it in no way makes Luke equivalent to a fat kid on a football team.

b) his only concern was redeeming his father - not destroying the Sith

Not true at all. If you actually watch the movie, it clearly shows that Luke wants to redeem his father as a way to destroy the Sith. It’s completely obvious, and I feel like you’re not even trying to look at the details of the movie.

Okay, this is the meat of the matter and I’m not being facetious - where in the movie is it obvious that Luke sees redeeming Vader as a means of destroying the Sith and, by extension, helping the battle’s outcome? To give a Sam Harris analogy, if I were to slip on the kitchen floor and stab you with a knife, this would yield the same result as me deliberately seeking to murder you with that knife. The difference is intent. Luke’s intention in the movie is spelled out - he can’t bring himself to kill his dad and wants to bring him to the good side. He says nothing about destroying the Sith, and all of his actions - his hesitation, his hiding under the stairs, and his relinquishing his weapon - bear out his intentions. I’m just stating what the film states. Now, everyone in this conversation claims I’m missing an implied subtext - that Luke saw all of this as a means to bring Palpatine down. I just don’t see it. Furthermore I would say that ethically Luke should have had destroying the Sith at the forefront of his thoughts and intentions - not redeeming Vader. If the film had shown Luke to be demonstrably doing all he could to defeat the Emperor - with Vader’s turn as an offshoot of this process - then it would make ethical sense and Luke would indeed be the ‘hope’ that the saga had branded him. As it stands the death of Palpatine is the offshoot with Luke’s personal (and I would say selfish) family concerns being his primary focus.

It’s never outright stated, but the implication is there. Yoda explicitly warns Luke, “Do not underestimate the power of the Emperor.” After that discussion, he begins to genuinely wonder whether Vader can be turned back to the light. This implies that he wants to get Vader’s help in destroying Palpatine, and that implication is furthered when Luke literally begs Vader to turn back as he’s about to be brought before the Emperor. He knows that Vader is his only hope of ending the Empire once and for all.

c) it was the fleet destroying the DS that was responsible for the victory.

The fleet was part of it, but if Luke didn’t redeem Vader there would be no guarantee that Palpatine would die. Remember all those Imperial officers evacuating in the scene where Vader dies? Palpatine would be one of them if Luke hadn’t convinced Vader to intervene.

Note there is nothing good about Luke having to turn himself in to nullify detection. This makes him a liability - not an asset! What turned the tide of the battle was Chewbacca hijacking a Scout Walker, not the fact that Luke was in the throne room. The movie should be called Return Of The Wookiee.

I feel like you think the Endor battle and Luke’s redemption of Vader are part of the same thing, when they actually have completely different goals. Luke wasn’t trying to help the Rebels blow up the Death Star, that would just be a short term victory that doesn’t matter in the big scheme of things. Instead, he chose to use his father’s inner conflict to destroy Palpatine, guaranteeing victory once and for all.

See above. I still maintain Luke only cared about redeeming Vader.

And I still maintain that Luke cared about Vader as a means of destroying Palpatine. But since it’s clear that neither of us will budge on our positions, maybe we should just stop.

No probs! Well, it has been fun and I appreciate the back and forth. All the best, and like I said I will keep your thoughts in mind when I next view ROTJ.

Post
#1339967
Topic
<strong>Return Of The Jedi</strong> - a General <strong>Random Thoughts</strong> thread
Time

SilverWook said:

Shopping Maul said:

ATMachine said:

Note there is nothing good about Luke having to turn himself in to nullify detection. This makes him a liability - not an asset! What turned the tide of the battle was Chewbacca hijacking a Scout Walker, not the fact that Luke was in the throne room. The movie should be called Return Of The Wookiee.

I like the sound of that. 😄

Fan edit time!

And TFA will open with “Chewbacca has vanished! In his absence the sinister First Order has risen from the ashes…” etc etc

Post
#1339951
Topic
<strong>Return Of The Jedi</strong> - a General <strong>Random Thoughts</strong> thread
Time

StarkillerAG said:

Shopping Maul said:

ray_afraid said:

canofhumdingers said:

I feel like you’re intentionally twisting things to make your interpretation work.

I’m beginning to agree.

Why would I do that? This was my first impression in 1983 when the film came out, not some meme that I’ve been captivated by. I wanted to love this film! TESB is still my favourite movie of all time. Why would I want ROTJ to suck? If anything I’d love to be convinced otherwise.

Well, you might want to watch the movie again. It seems like you haven’t watched it in a long time, and as a result your perception of it might be warped. In my opinion, it’s kind of uneven, but it’s still a great end to the trilogy. I highly recommend watching it again.

Actually I know the thing off by heart, I’m pretty sure I’ve watched it more times than any sane person!

That said, I do plan to watch it with yours, Ray’s, and Canofhumdinger’s etc etc points in mind. I’m not hostile about this at all (internet tone can be hard to read) and like I said to Ray, I genuinely wanted to love this movie. So yeah, maybe I’ll pick something up during 47000th viewing!

Post
#1339949
Topic
<strong>Return Of The Jedi</strong> - a General <strong>Random Thoughts</strong> thread
Time

StarkillerAG said:

Shopping Maul said:

ATMachine said:

But Luke wasn’t planning to appear before the Emperor - Vader took Luke to Palpatine when he initially refused to turn back to the light side as Luke asked him to. Luke wanted to surrender to the Imperials to avoid having Vader sense what the Rebels were doing through him, and to have a face-to-face talk with his father. If he failed at turning his father, he might be killed, but his friends would no longer be in danger from his Force link to Vader.

And besides, why would Luke think it was his job to kill the Emperor anyway? The Rebel fleet destroying the Death Star was supposed to be responsible for that.

a) he turned himself in because his being sensed was a liability,

Yes, that’s true. But that helped, didn’t it? Han and Leia didn’t want to be sensed while on their super secret infiltration mission.

Yes, but this isn’t a good thing. This is further evidence that Jedi Knights might not be the best idea in town. It’s like the fat kid in a football team realising that maybe he should sit this one out.

b) his only concern was redeeming his father - not destroying the Sith

Not true at all. If you actually watch the movie, it clearly shows that Luke wants to redeem his father as a way to destroy the Sith. It’s completely obvious, and I feel like you’re not even trying to look at the details of the movie.

Okay, this is the meat of the matter and I’m not being facetious - where in the movie is it obvious that Luke sees redeeming Vader as a means of destroying the Sith and, by extension, helping the battle’s outcome? To give a Sam Harris analogy, if I were to slip on the kitchen floor and stab you with a knife, this would yield the same result as me deliberately seeking to murder you with that knife. The difference is intent. Luke’s intention in the movie is spelled out - he can’t bring himself to kill his dad and wants to bring him to the good side. He says nothing about destroying the Sith, and all of his actions - his hesitation, his hiding under the stairs, and his relinquishing his weapon - bear out his intentions. I’m just stating what the film states. Now, everyone in this conversation claims I’m missing an implied subtext - that Luke saw all of this as a means to bring Palpatine down. I just don’t see it. Furthermore I would say that ethically Luke should have had destroying the Sith at the forefront of his thoughts and intentions - not redeeming Vader. If the film had shown Luke to be demonstrably doing all he could to defeat the Emperor - with Vader’s turn as an offshoot of this process - then it would make ethical sense and Luke would indeed be the ‘hope’ that the saga had branded him. As it stands the death of Palpatine is the offshoot with Luke’s personal (and I would say selfish) family concerns being his primary focus.

c) it was the fleet destroying the DS that was responsible for the victory.

The fleet was part of it, but if Luke didn’t redeem Vader there would be no guarantee that Palpatine would die. Remember all those Imperial officers evacuating in the scene where Vader dies? Palpatine would be one of them if Luke hadn’t convinced Vader to intervene.

Note there is nothing good about Luke having to turn himself in to nullify detection. This makes him a liability - not an asset! What turned the tide of the battle was Chewbacca hijacking a Scout Walker, not the fact that Luke was in the throne room. The movie should be called Return Of The Wookiee.

I feel like you think the Endor battle and Luke’s redemption of Vader are part of the same thing, when they actually have completely different goals. Luke wasn’t trying to help the Rebels blow up the Death Star, that would just be a short term victory that doesn’t matter in the big scheme of things. Instead, he chose to use his father’s inner conflict to destroy Palpatine, guaranteeing victory once and for all.

See above. I still maintain Luke only cared about redeeming Vader.

Post
#1339940
Topic
<strong>Return Of The Jedi</strong> - a General <strong>Random Thoughts</strong> thread
Time

ray_afraid said:

canofhumdingers said:

I feel like you’re intentionally twisting things to make your interpretation work.

I’m beginning to agree.

Why would I do that? This was my first impression in 1983 when the film came out, not some meme that I’ve been captivated by. I wanted to love this film! TESB is still my favourite movie of all time. Why would I want ROTJ to suck? If anything I’d love to be convinced otherwise.

Post
#1339928
Topic
<strong>Return Of The Jedi</strong> - a General <strong>Random Thoughts</strong> thread
Time

ATMachine said:

But Luke wasn’t planning to appear before the Emperor - Vader took Luke to Palpatine when he initially refused to turn back to the light side as Luke asked him to. Luke wanted to surrender to the Imperials to avoid having Vader sense what the Rebels were doing through him, and to have a face-to-face talk with his father. If he failed at turning his father, he might be killed, but his friends would no longer be in danger from his Force link to Vader.

And besides, why would Luke think it was his job to kill the Emperor anyway? The Rebel fleet destroying the Death Star was supposed to be responsible for that.

So now we come full circle and you guys have accidentally made my initial point for me.

This conversation began with me saying that back in '83 it bugged me that Luke did not actually save the galaxy. As you say a) he turned himself in because his being sensed was a liability, b) his only concern was redeeming his father - not destroying the Sith, and c) it was the fleet destroying the DS that was responsible for the victory.

Note there is nothing good about Luke having to turn himself in to nullify detection. This makes him a liability - not an asset! What turned the tide of the battle was Chewbacca hijacking a Scout Walker, not the fact that Luke was in the throne room. The movie should be called Return Of The Wookiee.

Post
#1339826
Topic
<strong>Return Of The Jedi</strong> - a General <strong>Random Thoughts</strong> thread
Time

ray_afraid said:

Shopping Maul said:

Just throwing his weapon aside and saying “ha ha you can’t make me angry” might be a nice piece of Zen, but it’s completely useless as a means to defeat evil and is of no value whatsoever to the thousands being slaughtered outside.

You’ve missed the point. It was Luke flipping the tables.
He was goading the Emperor to attack, just as the Emperor had been doing to him, believing that when he did, his father would return & kill the Emperor.
And it worked.

Or not.

I mean there is nothing to indicate that this is Luke’s intention. And does Vader really look like he’s in the mood for a bitchin’ team-up at that point? I think this whole “Luke planned it this way” thing is a real stretch.

It’s also not in the novelisation. There’s no 'Luke threw his Lightsaber aside, hoping in that moment that Vader would see the light and help him rid the universe of this Emperor". No, Luke stumbles through it all just like it appears in the film, with the one caveat being that he does actually hope to kill the Emperor at first but realises - at the time that he ditches the saber - that he can’t give in to violence. Nothing about a masterplan or believing Vader would turn.

Post
#1339655
Topic
<strong>Return Of The Jedi</strong> - a General <strong>Random Thoughts</strong> thread
Time

canofhumdingers said:

Chalk me up as another respectful disagree-er, Mr. Maul. I feel like you’re intentionally twisting things to make your interpretation work.

Luke was warned multiple times to be wary of the emperor and his power. I think the movie makes it pretty obvious he goes in there knowing his only chance of beating the emperor is by turning Vader back so they can work together (just as Vader argued in ESB, but with both of them on the light side rather than the dark). His focus is on turning Vader because that’s both important to him personally AND crucial to his plan. And he takes the huge gamble at the end by throwing his weapon away. It’s his Hail Mary pass to get Vader to turn, and it works. Which also serves multiple purposes.

This is a nice interpretation (I’m not being sarcastic) but there is nothing in the movie that indicates this is what Luke is thinking. He states very plainly to Leia that his intentions are a) to turn himself in because he’s a liability and b) to bring Vader back to ‘the good side’. Everything he does bears this out. There’s nothing about distracting Palpatine or defeating the Sith.

He had just lost his temper and beaten his father in anger, and stepped very close to the edge of turning dark himself. Throwing away his weapon was also him checking himself in that moment and stepping back from the edge.

Had he lost his temper? Or had he acted in self-defence (or more specifically defence of Leia and the rebellion)? This is where the ROTJ version of the Dark Side becomes silly. In the prequels Anakin was tempted by fear and power, and made choices that he felt he couldn’t retreat from. In TROS Rey is tempted by the acceptance of power as an only means to save her friends. In ROTJ the Dark Side is merely getting angry. Luke had every right to kick Vader’s butt. He also had every right (and I’d say an obligation) to do everything he could to stop these monsters from killing more people. Just throwing his weapon aside and saying “ha ha you can’t make me angry” might be a nice piece of Zen, but it’s completely useless as a means to defeat evil and is of no value whatsoever to the thousands being slaughtered outside. Even if Luke was hoping Vader would pitch in (there’s nothing to indicate this is the case) he was taking an awful gamble with people’s lives just so he could get Vader a bedside conversion.

As for his plan to help the rebellion, I see no major fault. He’s kind of the ace in the hole in a sense. If they blow up the DS2, then he’s made a noble self sacrifice. If they don’t, then he may still be able to cut off the head of the snake, so to speak, which would be a huge blow to the Empire even if it’s not a total defeat.

Again I see nothing to indicate Luke considers himself an ace in the hole. His words and actions bear out his intentions - he wanted to save Vader above all else. He threw his weapon away. This is not the action of someone whose desire is to cut off the snake’s head.

But as others have pointed out, there’s no way Luke would’ve succeeded or even survived a straight up face-to-face fight with Palps. And as I mentioned, Luke knew that. This was a game of chess, not dodgeball. It was far more a mental fight than physical. And Luke distracting the emperor from the battle outside and successfully appealing to the conflict within Vader was the master play. And he succeeded.

I do like this interpretation but again, I don’t think this is what the film is saying. Everything about ROTJ is kind of dumbed down - the Dark Side is reduced to mere anger, Palpatine’s seduction is absurd (why would Luke take Vader’s place? Even if Luke had killed Vader in anger, there was absolutely no reason to assume he’d then be pals with the Emperor), and the film entirely forgets that Vader was a bad guy. Other posters here keep saying it’s an indication of how much someone (ie Vader) can change - and I get that - but it ignores the injustice of Vader being given this chance even as he is complicit in a slaughter occurring right at that very moment. That’s why I keep giving the Ewok party mock-scenario - not because I actually believe Luke would have told his story, but because it shows how this whole thing would actually appear to someone who doesn’t have this emotional connection to Vader and/or this ludicrous need to never show anger lest it impede religious doctrine.

He wouldn’t tell wedge “I hid under the stairs and threw my weapon away”. He’d tell him about the intense cerebral fight he was in to outsmart the emperor and the emotional roller coaster he went thru to get his father (one of the most evil people in the galaxy at that point) to repent from his evil ways, rejoin the light, and defeat the evil before them. If he told wedge anything at all, b/c as others have stated, Luke had no reason to need to justify his actions to anyone by that point.

Yes, but if he did happen to to tell the stairs story he’d get some pretty quizzical looks, and with good reason. Because a normal person would hold Vader and the Emperor accountable. A normal person would go down fighting. This “yeah but he was my dad” thing coupled with the “as a Jedi I’m not allowed to get mad” thing would not sit well with normal people, especially people who had lost loved ones and lives to these monsters. That’s the point. If Jedi really are so constrained, then perhaps Jedi aren’t a great idea after all.

I can extend the Ewok party analogy to Rey and come out squeaky clean. Let’s say Rey’s partying on not-Yavin after the battle of Exigol. Hobbit-boy asks her what happened. She says “I fought Palpatine and by the grace of the Force I won”. Now Luke could say the same I guess. But then Hobbit-boy asks for details. Rey comes out shining. No ‘stairs’, no “I hesitated 'cos anger is bad”, no “I spared everyone and threw my weapon aside”. And more importantly Rey’s actions absolutely impacted the battle. At best Luke prevented Palpatine’s early escape form the exploding DS, but this was more or less by virtue of how things played out, not because of any plan or actions on Luke’s part. I know you say that Luke had a chess-like master plan but there’s nothing in the film that indicates this is true.

I do like your interpretation though and I wish ROTJ reflected this more strongly.

Post
#1339312
Topic
<strong>Return Of The Jedi</strong> - a General <strong>Random Thoughts</strong> thread
Time

BedeHistory731 said:

Shopping Maul said:

imperialscum said:

Shopping Maul said:

I’ve said this before but a simple dialogue tweak would fix this. If Luke had said to Leia “I have to turn myself in, I’m endangering the mission. The Sith can feel my presence and know that we’re here. I’ll allow myself to be captured - Vader will take me to the Emperor himself and I will make sure he’s on the Death Star when the attack is launched”.

That would just make Luke a “captain obvious” to those in the audience who cannot make 1+1=2 on their own. On the other hand, it would ruin things in-universe. Luke probably knew and accepted that it was a suicide mission and that he would most likely die if the Death Star was blown off (whether or not Vader was redeemed). Why the hell would he tell such a thing to Leia and make her upset before such a crucial mission she was about to undertake? The way he handled it was very wise; he did not lie but he did not tell her that he is going off on a suicide mission either.

I’m not sure telling her that the guy who tortured her and stood by while her homeworld was obliterated was a) her father and b) strangely worthy of a crack at ‘the good side’, was much better than Luke taking on a heavy mission.

I must be the audience who can’t add 1+1. Luke’s only stated mission is the redemption of Vader. While insane violence is occurring outside, Luke’s primary focus is not losing his cool and avoiding a confrontation with Vader. When he finally kicks Vader’s butt - rather than follow through by doing anything proactive in terms of the war - Luke throws his weapon aside and declares himself a Jedi. People are being incinerated by a super-laser by order of the man standing before him and Luke chooses to disarm himself and declare his own enlightenment. How is any of this remotely helpful to the thousands of sentient beings suffering at the hands of the Imperial juggernaut? What in all this makes anyone think that Jedi Knights are a good idea, especially in a war situation?

Indeed you are the audience member that can’t add 1+1. I’m pretty sure Leia knew that Tarkin and The Emperor had more to do with what happened to her and her homeworld than Vader did (acting within their orders, not questioning them due to extensive brainwashing/basically being their slave). Remember how Vader criticized the Death Star at the meeting? If he was calling the shots, Tarkin and The Emperor wouldn’t have their plaything.

Also, for the “Luke could save so many lives thing,” what’s to say that killing The Emperor will stop the battle? The Star Destroyers, Death Star personnel, and Endor ground troops will still act under their initial orders to fight. Whatever Luke does, many will die in the fight. What he will do really doesn’t impact the battle outside and that’s fine.

Again, I maintain that you’re engaging in bad-faith criticism that really misses the point of the movie and the series, so I respectfully disagree with you.

You seem to be forgetting - as does this movie - who Darth Vader is. This is a guy whose first act in ANH was to lift a man up by his neck and crush his larynx. Vader wasn’t some misunderstood kindly old man. He was a brute and a killer. Sure, he may have questioned the value of the Death Star, but he was by means just an unwilling spectator. Look at the way he murdered everyone who disagreed with him in TESB, or had Han screaming in genuine agony on a torture rack purely to get Luke’s attention.

So if you were in Luke’s situation you wouldn’t try to get the Emperor in a headlock and order him to call off the battle? I know I would. So would Han or Chewie or Wedge or Leia or just about anyone who isn’t hung up on space-Buddhism.

It’s not about what Luke could have done so much as what he should have intended. Again I return to my Ewok party scenario. Let’s say Wedge asks “hey Luke, what happened up there man?”. Luke says “well, I was in the throne room with Vader and the Emperor when Palpatine started blowing our ships up”. Wedge would be like “damn, so you kicked his ass right? 'cos I would’ve kicked his ass man!”. Luke would have to admit “uh, well no, 'cos as a Jedi I’m not really allowed to get angry. I mean I did lose my temper and bring Vader to his knees at one point…”. So Wedge would be like “oh cool, so then you stopped the bad guys right?”. Luke - “uh, not exactly 'cos Vader’s my dad and again, violence is just not in keeping with where I need to be spiritually, so I threw my lightsaber away.” Wedge looks dumbfounded. “But” Luke says “on the plus side this does make me a Jedi so…every cloud…”

By the way I appreciate the ‘respectfully disagree’ in your post. I too come to these boards purely to rave and rant about Star Wars with a sense of fun and respect. I have no desire to trash anyone’s feelings or create angst. So thanks for that and May the Force…y’know…