Shopping Maul

yotsuya said:

Shopping Maul said:

RogueLeader said:

Shopping Maul said:

If Vader and Palpatine knew they intended to replace one another, then why all the song and dance about recruiting Luke? Why didn’t Vader just let Luke kill Palpatine in that first instance?

This is something I have also been thinking about lately. I think Vader and Palpatine always knew that they would both want to use Luke to take out the other, but they both didn’t necessarily want to reveal their hand either. For them, it’s like playing a game of chess.

And while I don’t think either of them ever had the intention of ruling the Empire as a triumvirate, even with the existence of the Rule of Two, it hasn’t stopped the Sith from having dark side acolytes before, such as Ventress or the Inquisitors.

But I think after Luke chose death over joining Vader in ESB, Vader no longer believed he could turn Luke on his own. He needed the Emperor, and the Emperor says as much in his first scene with Vader in ROTJ.

And I think Vader’s extreme loyalty to the Emperor in ROTJ is partly because he may not want to reveal his intentions while the Emperor might be close enough to easily sense them. On the other hand, it may just simply be that Luke’s decision to fall to his death over joining his father may have affected Vader’s own confidence in his power. Maybe at this point Vader truly feels what he says about the Emperor, especially after being his servant for so many years, and the events at the end of ESB set him back into that mindset.

But my question, like you brought up, is why didn’t Vader just let Luke kill the Emperor when Luke took that first swing at him? I mean, the Emperor even says that if he killed him, his journey toward the darkside would be complete. My only guess is that Vader knew that it would require more than that to turn Luke, and the Emperor was just toying with him in order for him to initiate aggressive combat. Luke really needed to see that the darkside was power, and he wasn’t there yet.

You’re right - I guess there’s no reason the ‘rule of two’ can’t accomodate the occasional third wheel! I just think it’s a shame Lucas made it so blatant. It detracts from the obvious but still terrifying idea that Palpatine intended for Luke to replace Vader all along. But I like your assessment of the whole situation.

I guess my beef is that there’s no subtlety in any of this. We praise Luke for resisting the Dark Side, but it’s not such a big deal when the bad guy is repeating “yes, yes, turn to the dark Side, good, good”. Similarly with Vader, Palps spends the whole exercise taunting the guy and saying “see? He will never be turned, it’s too late for him” before stating outright that Vader’s job is up for grabs. I mean what was Vader going to do once Luke was dead? “So, uh, all that stuff about replacing me? You didn’t actually mean that…did you?”…

It would have been so cool if all of this had been more like the prequel temptation - with Palpatine offering Luke power and an end to war in exchange for total allegiance. Vader would be trying to get Luke on his side and seize power as well (before his change of heart). The whole ‘just make Luke angry’ thing is so disappointing to me. If the Dark Side really is as simple as ‘don’t get mad’, then Jedi in any form are a liability and shouldn’t be encouraged! Jake Skywalker might not have been so wrong…

Anger is the quickest path to the dark side so making Luke angry was just a short cut. Neither Vader nor Palpatine knew that Luke had been trained by Yoda.

Yes, but how would that help Palpatine? Luke’s anger was entirely directed at Palpatine (for killing Luke’s allies and friends) and then at Vader (for threatening his sister). If Luke were to ‘turn’ evil and stay angry, doesn’t it logically follow that he would kill Vader outright, kill the Emperor, and then rule the galaxy on his own terms? There’s just no logic to the notion that he would submit to Palpatine as a result of this. Anakin was at least bound by the fact that he’d crossed a line in killing Windu, and this played into his self-delusion about the righteousness of opposing the Jedi (which in turn was fed by the notion of saving Padme). Now that’s a seduction. Why would Luke - now driven by supposedly evil passions - suddenly think teaming up with Palpatine was a good idea? “Sure, I’ll be your apprentice. Why not? Could you stop killing my friends please?”

In TESB Vader at least offered an “end to this destructive conflict”. That’s temptation. Palpatine had nothing to offer Luke beyond “hey kid, be evil with me” even as he was obliterating Luke’s friends. There could’ve at least been some dialogue along the lines of “be my apprentice - I will end this war immediately and we can usher in a new era of peace” or something similar.

Anger alone is unsustainable. That’s why Anakin had to be groomed until he finally did something that he felt he couldn’t go back on. You can see it in his eyes when he turns that he’s not convinced of his own actions, but he’s gone too far to turn back. Even if Luke had killed Vader and regretted it, it doesn’t follow that he would sign up for Vader’s old gig. If anything he would have continued his rampage in despair - killing Palpatine and then allowing himself to go boom with the DS. Again, I can’t see how he would be convinced/inclined to team up with the Emperor, even if he had ‘submitted’ to anger and killed Vader.

RogueLeader said:

Shopping Maul said:

If Vader and Palpatine knew they intended to replace one another, then why all the song and dance about recruiting Luke? Why didn’t Vader just let Luke kill Palpatine in that first instance?

This is something I have also been thinking about lately. I think Vader and Palpatine always knew that they would both want to use Luke to take out the other, but they both didn’t necessarily want to reveal their hand either. For them, it’s like playing a game of chess.

And while I don’t think either of them ever had the intention of ruling the Empire as a triumvirate, even with the existence of the Rule of Two, it hasn’t stopped the Sith from having dark side acolytes before, such as Ventress or the Inquisitors.

But I think after Luke chose death over joining Vader in ESB, Vader no longer believed he could turn Luke on his own. He needed the Emperor, and the Emperor says as much in his first scene with Vader in ROTJ.

And I think Vader’s extreme loyalty to the Emperor in ROTJ is partly because he may not want to reveal his intentions while the Emperor might be close enough to easily sense them. On the other hand, it may just simply be that Luke’s decision to fall to his death over joining his father may have affected Vader’s own confidence in his power. Maybe at this point Vader truly feels what he says about the Emperor, especially after being his servant for so many years, and the events at the end of ESB set him back into that mindset.

But my question, like you brought up, is why didn’t Vader just let Luke kill the Emperor when Luke took that first swing at him? I mean, the Emperor even says that if he killed him, his journey toward the darkside would be complete. My only guess is that Vader knew that it would require more than that to turn Luke, and the Emperor was just toying with him in order for him to initiate aggressive combat. Luke really needed to see that the darkside was power, and he wasn’t there yet.

You’re right - I guess there’s no reason the ‘rule of two’ can’t accomodate the occasional third wheel! I just think it’s a shame Lucas made it so blatant. It detracts from the obvious but still terrifying idea that Palpatine intended for Luke to replace Vader all along. But I like your assessment of the whole situation.

I guess my beef is that there’s no subtlety in any of this. We praise Luke for resisting the Dark Side, but it’s not such a big deal when the bad guy is repeating “yes, yes, turn to the dark Side, good, good”. Similarly with Vader, Palps spends the whole exercise taunting the guy and saying “see? He will never be turned, it’s too late for him” before stating outright that Vader’s job is up for grabs. I mean what was Vader going to do once Luke was dead? “So, uh, all that stuff about replacing me? You didn’t actually mean that…did you?”…

It would have been so cool if all of this had been more like the prequel temptation - with Palpatine offering Luke power and an end to war in exchange for total allegiance. Vader would be trying to get Luke on his side and seize power as well (before his change of heart). The whole ‘just make Luke angry’ thing is so disappointing to me. If the Dark Side really is as simple as ‘don’t get mad’, then Jedi in any form are a liability and shouldn’t be encouraged! Jake Skywalker might not have been so wrong…

regularjoe said:

Shopping Maul said:

SilverWook said:
If you’ve ever seen the documentary Star Wars To Jedi:The Making Of A Saga, Lucas implies they made Leia the other at the last moment. When they came to shoot the throne room scenes, they still had not figured out what Vader should say to make Luke fight him.

The irony is that if Lucas had allowed the ‘noble death’ of Han Solo, he would’ve had the answer to the ‘why does Luke snap’ conundrum. Vader/Palpatine could have been offering to halt the battle if Luke were to agree to turn (an actual temptation as opposed to simply making Luke mad) before Luke suddenly senses Han’s death through the Force. Luke kicks Vader’s butt and no-one has to be anyone’s shoehorned sister!

In my fanedit of RotJ I cut out the Ben scene entirely, he really doesn’t say anything new other than nudge Luke forcewise into intuiting that Leia is his sister and then confirming his epiphany. The scene of Luke revealing the same to Leia goes as well as he doesn’t know it at this point.

His father uses the the force to put two and two together during their duel, now Vader reveals his fatherhood in TESB and the identity of the sister in RotJ, causing Luke to lose his s***. I think it plays much better this way.

That sounds cool. It seems to reduce the awkwardness of the whole thing and make it sound more natural and ‘thought out’. Funnily enough the Leia revelation plays out well in the famous ‘machete order’ too. Like in your version, it comes across as part of the narrative rather than just a tacked on idea awkwardly explained by log-sitting Obi Wan.

yotsuya said:

Shopping Maul said:

yotsuya said:

MalàStrana said:

It reminds me that my main issue with the Vader’s plot in ROTJ is the line “I MUST obey my Master”, whereas he explicitly told his son (and his wife !) that he would rather like kill the Emperor and rule the galaxy himself. Just removing that line and leaving only “you don’t know the power of the dark side” would make things work better I guess.

It’s just a slight complain: I know ROTJ is not the same top quality as ANH and TESB and has many problems here and there, but it still is a very good movie (and still the third best SW in my opinion), as a SW and as a fantasy flick.

It is the beginnings of the rule of two. The only way out from under Palpatine is to take his place. That is what Vader suggests. It is kinda the Sith mantra - come with me and we can rule the galaxy together. Palpatine changed it up by telling Anakin that if he followed him that they could save Padme together.

But even the Sith ‘rule of two’ is dumb (sorry to be such a contrarian but my motives are pure!). Vader suggests luring Luke into the fold in TESB, clearly as a way of keeping Luke alive. Palps says “yes, he would be a great asset” and Vader says “he will join us or die”. There’s no indication that the ‘rule of two’ exists. It seems like a prequel thing that doesn’t really apply to the OT (unless you accept that Vader is a complete idiot in RoTJ).

Note I said it is the beginnings of that rule. I didn’t say it was that rule. I think the idea developed out of what we saw in the OT.

Oh absolutely. I just think it’s one of Lucas’ sillier retcons. It makes the events/motivations in the OT somewhat redundant. If Vader and Palpatine knew they intended to replace one another, then why all the song and dance about recruiting Luke? Why didn’t Vader just let Luke kill Palpatine in that first instance?

SilverWook said:

It a subject of debate to this day how much control Marquand actually had over the film. Funny how Spielberg and Lucas both have a movie they supposedly ghost directed.

Yeah, it’s such a shame he isn’t still with us. From the few snippets I’ve seen, it’s pretty clear Marquand had a definite vision for the movie - though you’re absolutely right about just how much of his vision was (or wan’t) realised. I did see a clip somewhere where he was a little disparaging of TESB’s tone and was determined to return to the fun vibe of the first film. Like I said, I think he/Lucas overcompensated.

Funnily enough I actually prefer the Marvel version of RoTJ. Obviously it’s hugely condensed, but tonally it has the effect of having the same story with a different ‘director’. Jabba’s court comes across as more sinister, the Ewoks’ cuteness is downplayed, the dialogue is strangely better in many places (particularly in the Obi Wan/Yoda scenes), and any flat acting/hamminess is subjectively reinterpreted by the reader. A personal gripe of mine (if it hasn’t been obvious!) is that Luke basically gives up and hides under the stairs in Palpatine’s throne room while a very real war rages outside. In the Marvel version he merely pauses for a bit before Vader does the ‘sister’ routine. Luke wails on Vader, has the revelation about his own anger, declares Palpatine’s failure, and gets zapped immediately. I prefer the notion (as does Mark Hamill funnily enough) that a Jedi would never give up, and the Marvel version reflects this IMO.

RogueLeader said:

Another book you could check out alongside the Rinzler one’s would be the Secret History of Star Wars by Michael Kaminski. It’s an unofficial book about the saga’s development, so while the book might not be written as professionally as Rinzler’s, you can be worried less about revisionism, as his main focus is how story ideas changed over the development of the saga. So you get Rinzler’s books and Kaminski’s and compare the two. It’ll probably give you a solid idea of the complete development of these films.

You’re right - thanks. I have read some articles on his site. If I’m not mistaken, Michael is a regular contributor here too (unless I’m conflating two people a la Anakin/Vader)?

regularjoe said:

Me and my friends were all 11 - 12 when the 1st one came out and we did all sorts of 1970’a - `1980’s nerdy things like taking cassette players into the theater and taping the movies, having nerdy schoolyard conversations that had sentences like “what if George Lucas dies in a plane crash before he finishes the sequel?” and then after TESB we had that same conversation again.

I saw RotJ with my dad on opening weekend. I had gotten enough info about the movie before it came out that I knew what to expect from the story line. My dad and I went to these like other fathers and sons go to ball games.
When I left the theater all I could think was “I waited six years for that?”

There’s a fine movie in there lost amid a horrible execution. I saw this one several times in the theaters and it’s got moments but not enough to bring it to the level that it needs to be at. The whole affair felt recycled and phoned in.

I’ve read a fair amount of threads here about RotJ edits and peoples feeling about them and I do wonder how many people here have read Rinzlers’ book on it. I realize it’s Lucasfilm sanctioned and people may be wary of historical revisionism but there’s a lot in that book where things are detailed about the people on the movie being aghast at what is going on. Ralph McQuarrie does pre-production art but refuses to draw teddy bears, for one thing and they very clearly spell out that Lucas had a kid and he wanted to be able to take that kid into a toy store and buy a Star Wars teddy bear. There are parts of the constitution of this movie where the quality control was thrown under the bus to make a real kids movie and that’s the big thing that haunts it. There’s the whole dark will he or won’t he patricide thing that’s playing off against burp jokes and killer (BUT CUTE) teddy bears. It’s a movie that can’t make up it’s mind as to what it wants to be - at least The Phantom Menace is consistent in that regard.

I should get off my backside and read those books, although I do admit to a slight concern about revisionism.

Lucas and Marquand seem to have dug their heels in with RoTJ and resisted anything that might take it away from being a kids’ film. In doing so I think they over-compensated. Even the supposedly ‘dark stuff’ is played through a childishly simplistic lens (if you get angry that’s the bad side, if you be nice that’s the good side). I think JK Rowling proved that you can grow/mature a saga and take your audience with you.

By the way I think your ‘fine movie lost amid horrible execution’ observation is pretty much an apt description of every SW film since TESB…

SilverWook said:

It wasn’t an issue for me as a kid, as Vader had been actively searching for his identity in the Marvel comics, and finally did learn Luke’s name by torturing a captured rebel. Okay, not at all canon, but something similar could have taken place between the movies.

Hah! Great minds…

RogueLeader said:

Shopping Maul said:

The irony is that if Lucas had allowed the ‘noble death’ of Han Solo, he would’ve had the answer to the ‘why does Luke snap’ conundrum. Vader/Palpatine could have been offering to halt the battle if Luke were to agree to turn (an actual temptation as opposed to simply making Luke mad) before Luke suddenly senses Han’s death through the Force. Luke kicks Vader’s butt and no-one has to be anyone’s shoehorned sister!

I had never thought of that. That definitely could’ve worked, and that might be a good idea for a fan edit that tries to kill Han and not make Leia Luke’s sister.

I definitely agree that it is kind of obvious that making Leia Luke’s sister was a noticeable last minute decision. But to play devil’s advocate, I do think making that change was a good decision in the long run. Family is obviously a central theme in the Star Wars films, and making Luke almost turn to save his sister’s soul does make that theme even stronger. Plus, it parallels Anakin’s own fall in the prequels, giving in to the darkside to save family, to save someone he loved.

And I do think you can make a fair argument about how Vader knew Luke was his son but never knew Leia was his daughter even though they had a few face-to-face interactions. But we never are really told how Vader found out Luke was his son. In the Special Edition of ESB, the Emperor tells Vader that Luke is his son, and he apparently had know idea before that. So he didn’t just sense it and figure it out. He could tell he was strong in the Force, but that doesn’t mean that he could since that he was his son.

For what it is worth, the new canon comics apparently explain this by having Vader piece different information together: Seeing that the rebel who destroyed the Death Star wielded his own lightsaber, learning that his name was “Skywalker”, and tracking down the mortician who was responsible for Padme’s burial and discovering that he was told to make her look pregnant, meaning that she had successfully given birth before she died.

Now yeah, “we shouldn’t have to read books to know this about the movies”, I agree, but I really don’t think the movies imply that Vader just “sensed” their biological relationship. I had always just assumed Vader somehow put two-and-two together in-between ANH and ESB. While I don’t think every little detail needs to be explained in the movies, I do agree that maybe it could’ve been set up better though, since this is a frequently raised up question. I guess it was just the best they could do with coming up with that decision so late in the game, but I do think it was the best choice in the long run.

I also am glad they decided not to kill off Han in ROTJ, because I think dying at the hand of his own son is a much more interesting way for him to go than any kind of sacrificial death he could have had in ROTJ, especially after the entire first act of the film was all about rescuing him. But that is just my opinion!
On the other hand, it could possibly have worked if Han’s sacrifice had been set up as crucial to the success of the Rebel’s mission, then it may have helped add importance to that first act, if that makes sense. It’s interesting to speculate on, for sure!

It’s possible that Lucas was overthinking (or overly re-thinking) the whole thing in order to make it fit. In Star Wars (ANH) Luke wasn’t necessarily in hiding. He still had his surname after all, and was about to join the Academy. Vader was a bad guy who had killed Luke’s dad, and Obi Wan was merely one of Anakin’s old war buddies.

None of this really had to change once Vader and Anakin had been combined. We could assume that it was Owen who had stubbornly insisted Luke keep his father’s name and reside on the homestead. Obi Wan, thinking this was a dumb idea, could have retired nearby on the expectation that Vader might one day come to claim his offspring (this would also work if Obi Wan had never told Owen that Anakin and Vader were one and the same). This would eliminate the silliness of Obi Wan and Yoda’s supposed 20-year plan. Yoda, in TESB, doesn’t act like someone who’d waited for Luke to come of age. Instead he seems to have washed his hands of the whole thing, which makes infinitely more sense than what the prequels presented. Obi Wan then simply trains Luke in ANH because circumstances demand it - not because Luke’s the focus of any plan or prophecy.

If Leia had to be the ‘other’, the backstory could be that while Vader knew/suspected he’d had a son, he didn’t know a second child had been born. Obi Wan and Bail could’ve quickly concocted the notion that Leia was Bail’s daughter (perhaps Bail’s wife lost a child around the same time) to keep Vader out of the loop. Again, this gets rid of the silly 20-year ‘do nothing’ plan and merely presents Leia as a potential Jedi when the story demands it (in TESB).

By the way, the Marvel SW comic had Vader torturing rebel officers for the name of the pilot who’d destroyed the Death Star. Despite ‘Skywalker’ being the SW equivalent of ‘Smith’ (according to GL) I maintain that once he’d heard that name he’d be pretty sure whose son that kid was!

I’m still down with Han dying in RoTJ, but I do get why many people don’t love the idea.

SilverWook said:
If you’ve ever seen the documentary Star Wars To Jedi:The Making Of A Saga, Lucas implies they made Leia the other at the last moment. When they came to shoot the throne room scenes, they still had not figured out what Vader should say to make Luke fight him.

The irony is that if Lucas had allowed the ‘noble death’ of Han Solo, he would’ve had the answer to the ‘why does Luke snap’ conundrum. Vader/Palpatine could have been offering to halt the battle if Luke were to agree to turn (an actual temptation as opposed to simply making Luke mad) before Luke suddenly senses Han’s death through the Force. Luke kicks Vader’s butt and no-one has to be anyone’s shoehorned sister!

SilverWook said:

As it stands, it’s like using a tactical nuke on a battleship. If the DS beam could cause an blast in empty space, a shot right into the center of the Rebel fleet would wipe them out, or severely cripple the ships furthest away, but the movie would also be over. 😉

Yeah, you’re right. It does serve the drama well, even if the scale annoys me. Maybe Adywan could do an edit with a skinnier beam ha ha!

SilverWook said:

Maybe the beam can be smaller/more focused at lower power? I would imagine it wasn’t on full strength firing at the Rebels. Full power would have been insane at such close range.

I would think the Star Destroyers had them boxed in, and the DS certainly could rotate easily to fire in other directions.
How does any planet destroying super weapon work? It’s a fantasy film, not 2001. As a kid, I presumed the beam pierced the core of the planet and blew it up from within. Looking at freeze frames from the original film, I’m not sure what’s going on.

The deleted scene where the Emperor orders Endor blown up is problematic. I don’t think being in orbit of the planet you’re destroying is a safe place to be.

But the image used is the same as the one for ANH (the same shot if I’m not mistaken) so I’m talking about the sheer size of the beam, not its power levels. like I said, all scale is suspect in SW, but this is a glaring example (IMO) that could have been avoided.

To give an example, the Ion cannon in TESB doesn’t have the same issue. It fires a beam which logically strikes a Star Destroyer, and you see the beam ‘emerge’ from somewhere on Hoth’s surface as it passes the Rebel Ships. By comparison the DS beam would have a diameter about the size of a small city, yet you see it strike a single ship as if it had come from something in the scale vicinity of the Ion cannon.

I absolutely agree with your 2001 observation, so I get that putting science in SW becomes a highly subjective exercise. Like I said, ANH avoids this particular issue by not making scale an obvious thing with regards to the DS. RoTJ just shines a light on it that bugs me.

Okay, what the hell - here’s another issue I have with RoTJ.

Matters of scale and physics are always dicey in SW, but of course we accept it as part of the lore and style (sound in space, spacial distances, gravitational/atmospheric constants between planets etc etc). However there’s one in RoTJ that always bugged me.

The Death Star super-laser beam would have to be several kilometres across, yet it lands at a spaceships’ width. On the flip-side, placing the DS right next to the Endor moon makes one wonder how the hell these things manage to destroy entire planets. Such comparisons were avoided in ANH, so it wasn’t an issue there.

And why the heck didn’t the rebel fleet just fly to the other side of the Death Star to avoid the beam?

snooker said:

In-universe, the story of Luke redeeming his father (who was basically space Satan) was super fucking impressive, and spread far and wide. They talk about this in TLJ.

Also, from a story point of view, the smaller more emotional climax of him redeeming space Hitler is far more cathartic and interesting as an audience (at least to me).

If Luke replaced Wedge in the final battle and blew up the core of the Death Star, he may have made a more apparent strategic difference, but his arc from the whiny farmboy in the first movie would be incomplete. He wouldn’t have used any of his new skills or anything he learned as a character if he just blew up the place.

If I was gonna change anything about the Luke stuff in the movie, I would have made the Emperor actually tempt him a little, because nothing he offers actually truly budges Luke.

But why would Luke’s redeeming Vader be the stuff of legends? It’s legendary to us - to fans - but why would it apply in-universe? We seem to forget that Vader was actually evil, possibly because we (again as fans) find him so cool no matter who he’s strangling. Every member of the rebellion would’ve lost friends and family to the Imperial juggernaut under Lord Vader and his Emperor. Do you honestly think folks would be praising Luke’s giving this man a bedside conversion? No, most people would be like “why didn’t you kill that monster when you had the chance?”.

The only ‘legend’ that could possibly arise from the RoTJ battle would be the notion that Luke killed the Emperor before he could escape the exploding Death Star. That’s the only story that could logically resonate with the populace. Rey’s version as told in TLJ is ridiculous. I can only assume that Leia told Rey about Anakin’s redemption before she left the Resistance Base, because again it would be absurd (and suicidal I’d expect) for Luke to have divulged the truth about his father to the wider populace.

Prior to TLJ, when RJ and Mark Hamill were hinting at revelations that would rock the franchise, I thought this was what they were referring to - that Luke would admit he hadn’t killed the Emperor as per the legend and that his entire fracas on the Death Star had been an insular pursuit. This would at least be something worth feeling guilty about.

yotsuya said:

MalàStrana said:

It reminds me that my main issue with the Vader’s plot in ROTJ is the line “I MUST obey my Master”, whereas he explicitly told his son (and his wife !) that he would rather like kill the Emperor and rule the galaxy himself. Just removing that line and leaving only “you don’t know the power of the dark side” would make things work better I guess.

It’s just a slight complain: I know ROTJ is not the same top quality as ANH and TESB and has many problems here and there, but it still is a very good movie (and still the third best SW in my opinion), as a SW and as a fantasy flick.

It is the beginnings of the rule of two. The only way out from under Palpatine is to take his place. That is what Vader suggests. It is kinda the Sith mantra - come with me and we can rule the galaxy together. Palpatine changed it up by telling Anakin that if he followed him that they could save Padme together.

But even the Sith ‘rule of two’ is dumb (sorry to be such a contrarian but my motives are pure!). Vader suggests luring Luke into the fold in TESB, clearly as a way of keeping Luke alive. Palps says “yes, he would be a great asset” and Vader says “he will join us or die”. There’s no indication that the ‘rule of two’ exists. It seems like a prequel thing that doesn’t really apply to the OT (unless you accept that Vader is a complete idiot in RoTJ).

joefavs said:

I would argue that Luke was responsible for the Emperor’s downfall simply by his presence. You say his actions didn’t have any tangible effect on the outcome of the Battle of Endor, but think about what happens when you take him out of the equation. Without Luke, the Empire simply steamrolls over the Rebel fleet well before they have the chance to take out the shield. Because he wants to seduce Luke, though, the Emperor draws it out like a cat playing with a mouse. Palpatine knows he can wring some drama and torment for Luke out of the situation and that this will render him more vulnerable to corruption, so he keeps it going way longer than he has to. Luke nails it when he says “your overconfidence is your weakness”. He knows that if he can hold the Emperor’s attention, his friends will have a chance to succeed that they wouldn’t otherwise. It’s easy to overlook it with all the Vader drama, but really Luke is playing for time.

And as for “unintended coincidences”, isn’t that kind of the Force’s whole MO? Luke’s goals are fulfilled in ways no one could have foreseen because he chooses the light and doubles down when given the chance to turn away. That Vader himself turns and the Emperor is destroyed as a result is an affirmation of the whole saga’s cosmology.

But even if this is true - the notion that Palpatine rolls out the DS laser in a melodramatic way rather than simply knock out the fleet instantly for example - this isn’t an argument for either Luke’s ‘plan’ or the notion of Jedi Knights being a useful idea. I like what you’re saying, but I wish this had actually been Luke’s expressed purpose. Luke tells Leia his only mission, apart from getting out of the way, is to save Vader. And his actions bear this out. Again, I can’t imagine a single citizen of the oppressed galaxy that would be thrilled to hear that Vader went out with a smile.

Or to put it this way - Luke’s expressed goal was to save Vader. Palpatine’s death was a by-product of this. I would have much preferred that Luke’s expressed goal was to face/defeat the Emperor, and that Vader’s redemption had been the by-product.

I’m not sure I understand what you mean by the ‘Force’s MO’, but then I don’t really get the ‘choosing the light’ thing either. Luke didn’t ‘choose the light’ when he blew up the first Death Star and slaughtered potentially millions of sentient beings - but it was the right thing to do. I genuinely don’t understand why total pacifism was suddenly Luke’s only moral recourse in RoTJ, or why anyone outside of the Skywalker drama would consider this useful under the circumstances.

SilverWook said:

One could argue Palpatine being focused on turning Luke distracted him from supervising the battle outside more closely.

In all the films to date, we’ve only seen three Jedi go bad. And only one of those was a master. Even if the Jedi ways were abandoned, that isn’t going to stop the Sith from popping up.

I see what you’re saying. I also see what RoTJ’s narrative intentions are, I just think it gets lost in its own logic (or lack thereof). In the SW universe circa RoTJ, the Jedi are mostly forgotten, and the only remnant of their passing is the Empire. It stands to reason that the idea of reintroducing the Jedi would not be well met.

Now RoTJ tells us that Luke destroyed the Emperor and paved the way for a new Jedi Order. This is the general idea in terms of how we, as fans, see it too. But if you strip away what we’ve been told, and look at what actually happened, RoTJ tells a different story. If Luke had had a decisive victory over Palpatine - and I mean a victory that would’ve actually resonated publicly - then it would be fair to assume that the galaxy would’ve happily embraced a new Jedi Order with Luke at its head.

But Luke’s ‘victory’ had no real-world repercussions. There’s no way he could’ve told everyone that Vader had been his father and that Vader had turned out to be a nice guy. Luke would’ve been lynched. All he really could’ve done was claim to have killed the Emperor himself in a way that definitely thwarted Palpatine’s potential escape from the battle. But this would’ve been a lie. Palpatine’s death was a lucky but unintended consequence of Vader’s change of heart. Nor is it clear that Palpatine (and Vader) wouldn’t have just been blown up with the Death Star anyway.

I just think Luke should’ve definitively killed the Emperor in a sense worthy of public acknowledgement, even if only by virtue of the whole episode occurring separately from the Death Star and with a measure of spoken intention on Luke’s part (ie Luke saying that he intended to confront the Emperor when he shared his plans with Leia instead of the whole “I just have to save Dad” bit). That way he would’ve been the guy who truly saved the galaxy - not just the guy who saved a war criminal’s soul and escaped to keep the old religion alive for no good reason. This would be a worthy springboard for a new Jedi Order as well as a satisfying conclusion to the whole ‘only hope’ thread of the previous films.

DominicCobb said:

darthrush said:

I agree with SOME of what you say ShoppingMaul. Not really on Luke but I like your points about how RotJ treats the Dark side of the force. I hate the idea that losing your temper and being angry is what makes you permanently turn to the dark side. To me, the dark side is a immoral use of power that is tempting to someone who wishes to abuse such power. It actually seemed like a constant moral challenge. But just because you resist giving into anger, you’re safe from the dark side???

Where in ROTJ is it stated that losing your temper makes you permanently turn to the dark side? I’d argue it shows the opposite - as Vader turns back.

The only thing that would seem to qualify is when Ben mentions that Anakin “ceased to be,” but even then there’s nothing said that contradicts what you talk about, not one choice but many. What makes Luke’s resistance powerful is that “once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny.” There’ nothing in the film to indicate he’s safe from temptation forever, only that he faced this one challenge and came out like a true Jedi. There isn’t anything in the film that suggests there won’t be further challenges (except whatever implications you take from a fairy tale happy ending).

Gotta disagree with much of the rest of what ShoppingMaul said too. What makes Luke’s victory so powerful is that it technically wasn’t a traditional battle victory, but a victory enabled through reaching the heart and mind of Vader - which is much more the Jedi way. Luke was the last hope for the Jedi yes, but for the galaxy too, in the sense that the Jedi are the spirtual and ethical soul of the galaxy. Also, yes aggression is not the Jedi way, but fighting isn’t not necessarily the Jedi way (it depends on where you’re coming from).

How is Luke’s victory powerful? If Luke had simply died on the DS alongside Vader and Palpatine it wouldn’t have made a shred of difference. All Luke achieved was Vader’s redemption. Do you think anyone who had suffered at the hands of Vader and his Empire this past 20 years would have been praising Luke for giving Vader a last-minute spiritual pardon?

Why would anyone want a new Jedi Order post-RoTJ? Given the history with Palpatine and Vader, and given the fact that Jedi supposedly turn evil at the drop of a hat, wouldn’t it be better to forget the whole Jedi scene and let Leia form a just and secular government free from the potential threat of Midichlorian-rich egomaniacs?

darthrush said:

I agree with SOME of what you say ShoppingMaul. Not really on Luke but I like your points about how RotJ treats the Dark side of the force. I hate the idea that losing your temper and being angry is what makes you permanently turn to the dark side. To me, the dark side is a immoral use of power that is tempting to someone who wishes to abuse such power. It actually seemed like a constant moral challenge. But just because you resist giving into anger, you’re safe from the dark side???

Also, where does anger begin and self-defence end? Why is Luke’s attempt to kill the Emperor somehow immoral yet Vader’s throwing the guy to his death somehow worthy of a spiritual pardon? If anything Vader’s reaction is more selfish.

Clearly I’m not Jedi material!

snooker said:

I fundamentally disagree with virtually everything you believe about Luke, but I respect your right to that opinion. It’s just… so completely alien to me? Like… I never read the character like that???

How do you see Luke in RoTJ? Again, I’m not trying to be an argumentative jerk, I’m genuinely curious.

Collipso said:

sorry, i didn’t read your entire post, only the first few sentences, but i’ll try to reply.

i don’t see how luke isn’t literally being ‘the last hope’ when he’s facing down the two most powerful men in the galaxy alone.

i also don’t see why luke was the hope for the galaxy and not for the jedi. i’ve always interpreted it as the latter.

i’m not being able to translate my thoughts into words well enough, so sorry about that, but meh

Luke’s only role in the final battle was one of liability. He turned himself in (an admittedly noble gesture) because his very presence put the mission at risk. So already his being a Jedi was not helpful.

Secondly his expressed desire (see the scene with Leia) was a) turning himself in for the above reason and b) turning Vader to the ‘good side’. Nothing about the Emperor or facing down the bad guys. He merely wanted to save his war-criminal father. Again, not helpful (unless your surname happens to be Skywalker).

Thirdly, while Palpatine was blowing rebel ships to smithereens with a super-laser, Luke was hiding under a staircase because he didn’t want to fight. What would you do if you had fighting skills and were alone in a room with Hitler and his bestie? Would you go meditate somewhere, or would you do everything in your power to subvert the slaughter of innocent people?

Collipso said:

well, i love that luke didn’t save the galaxy and went on a more personal quest.

Instead of fighting the war? I mean the whole point of the OT (to this point) was Luke being the ‘new hope’ and the ‘last hope’ and every other kind of hope. If Luke has nothing to do with the actual battle, what’s the point of the film? It’d be like a Superman movie that has Supes go off to find religion while Jimmy Olsen saves the day.

More importantly, Yoda says “pass on what you have learned”. Pass on what exactly? That Jedi Knights aren’t allowed to fight, but they’re great for bedside conversions? This is where grumpy TLJ Luke actually has a point - the Jedi are useless! The last thing the galaxy needs is more Jedi.

I swear I’m not baiting you. I honestly do not understand this movie. Fans claim that Rian Johnson destroyed Luke’s character, but I maintain that his character had already been ruined. RoTJ Luke is completely selfish and values his own religious goals (including his evil father’s spiritual wellbeing) over the fate of the galaxy. Not cool.

Most people point to the Ewoks and RoTJ’s general muppet-fest tone as the film’s biggest problems. While I tend to agree, my biggest beefs with this movie are -

a) Leia being Luke’s sister does not make a lick of sense. Putting aside the obvious romantic undertones of ANH (from Luke’s perspective in particular) the fact is that Leia couldn’t have been the ‘other’. When Yoda declared “there is another” he’d just been imploring Luke to potentially sacrifice Leia who, at the time, happened to be a captive on Bespin. This also makes the backstory absurd. Apparently Luke was ‘hidden’ at Vader’s old homestead and allowed to retain the Skywalker name. Leia was ‘hidden’ in a high profile royal house. The whole thing is dumb.

b) Luke doesn’t actually save the galaxy. After all the build-up of the previous two films Luke merely makes it his mission to save Vader. The fact that the Emperor is killed in the event is a lucky consequence of Luke’s selfish religious/family mission. The idea of any kind of legend arising from this is ridiculous. Show me a single rebel at the Ewok celebration who would’ve been thrilled to hear that Vader had turned out to be a nice guy after all and that Luke had hidden under a stairwell to facilitate this turnaround while people were being slaughtered outside. Some legend.

What’s worse is that this makes a mockery of the Force and the Jedi. The first films imply that the Dark Side is something you’re tempted and corrupted by - in Vader’s case it would have been the promise of greater power at the cost of his soul/morality. RoTJ shows us that all you have to do is lose your temper to turn irreversibly evil. Not only that, apparently Jedi are completely useless in a conflict situation. If a twisted despot is annihilating your friends with a super-laser, you’re not permitted to act aggressively because that’s the Dark Side. This is completely stupid. By that logic Luke was a veritable Sith Lord when he blew up the first Death Star.

I don’t know if any of the Youtubers currently getting serious mileage out of trashing TLJ read these forums, but my challenge to them is to dare to put RoTJ under the same microscope they apply to TLJ.

DuracellEnergizer said:
Reconstructing Star Wars: Revenge of the Jedi
Not a perfect reconstruction — Fett’s expanded role, in particular, is iffy — but it hits many of the right thematic notes for me.

That was a great read. RoTJ always bugged/disappointed me somewhat, and the Kurtz revelations only cemented this further. In fact I think a lot of the people railing against the new trilogy (of which I’m occasionally one) are in denial about where the trend of crap storytelling and plotholes galore actually kicked in.

I’m guessing Dino De Laurentiis would’ve been pretty sore about the ‘sand devils’ stealing his thunder a mere year before Dune’s release!

Warbler said:

Additionally there have been multiple times I have felt like saying something in reply to something posted here, but have not felt that I would be allowed to do so due to the tone set by the OP. (and I don’t mean acting like an asshat or a racist)

You’re absolutely right. It’s one thing to insist folks keep to the subject at hand and be civil. It’s quite another to insist folks agree with all associated links/examples/opinions etc on principle. I respect the OP’s position here (as well as the Mod’s endorsement of said position) but I absolutely share your contention that this is by no means an actual discussion.