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.
