logo Sign In

Shopping Maul

User Group
Members
Join date
12-Oct-2013
Last activity
16-Aug-2025
Posts
500

Post History

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…

Post
#1339210
Topic
<strong>Return Of The Jedi</strong> - a general <strong>Random Thoughts</strong> thread
Time

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?

Post
#1339178
Topic
<strong>Return Of The Jedi</strong> - a general <strong>Random Thoughts</strong> thread
Time

ray_afraid said:

SilverWook said:

ray_afraid said:

Another point, the Rebels didn’t even know Luke was on the Death Star. The only one he told was Leia.
Who’s he having to explain himself too?

Surely, these guys asked where Luke got off to?

I dunno. I’ve never heard a grunt ask brass where a commander went. If they did, She could have told them he was on a secret mission or any such junk if she thought they’d get upset with the truth.
Which they wouldn’t & it continues to be a silly agrument.

I think you might be missing my point. The reason I gave the Ewok party example was to illustrate exactly what Luke did rather than the ‘meta’ of what Luke did. Everyone seems to just accept that he defeated the Empire by redeeming Anakin which in turn killed Palpatine - and that would work had it been better written IMO. What Luke actually did was focus entirely on Anakin’s redemption. He had no intention of defeating Palpatine. This is explicit in the dialogue. Between this and the strange notion that any aggressive retaliation is supposedly a path to eternal darkness, what we see is a rather redundant Jedi. He can’t fight and his biggest concern is a family/spiritual matter. Palpatine is only killed as a by-product of Luke’s actions, not as a direct or intended consequence. And ironically if the whole thing had taken ten minutes longer, all three (Vader, Luke, Palps) would’ve blown up with the Death Star and no-one would’ve been any the wiser.

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 right there is the kind of Jedi we can admire. This would be Luke sacrificing himself for the cause, for justice, not just because he’s suddenly decided that Dad deserves a break. The scene could still play out as it did in the film (still not keen on the ‘no violence whatsoever’ thing but anyway…) and Vader could earn his sainthood - but Luke would absolutely be the ‘hope’ everyone had invested in for two movies.

Post
#1339009
Topic
<strong>Return Of The Jedi</strong> - a general <strong>Random Thoughts</strong> thread
Time

ray_afraid said:

Shopping Maul said:

ray_afraid said:

Shopping Maul said:

I still maintain that Luke didn’t actually save the galaxy - a fact that renders his entire ‘new hope’ journey somewhat meaningless to me.

Luke was the only one who could get through to Vader. Vader was the only one who could destroy the Emperor.
Without Luke, there’s no hope. He saved the galaxy by redeeming his father. (or, by Returning the Jedi, if you will)

I also hate the sister thing. Luke should have gone off alone in search of “The Other” at the end.

I’ve beat this drum several times in these forums, but the best way to explain my unease wth Luke’s actions is to boil it down to the following - what exactly did Luke tell everyone at the Ewok after-party?

If he’d said “I defeated the Emperor” that would’ve been a lie. He didn’t beat the Emperor. He surrendered and circumstances luckily prevailed in a way that led to Palpatine’s demise. That’s it. What Luke actually did was a) refuse to fight (after a brief and justifiable tantrum), b) spare the life of the second most evil guy in the galaxy because…well, he’s dad, and c) declare himself a Jedi and throw his weapon aside. All of this, by the way, while countless innocent beings were being slaughtered outside.

He probably said “I redeemed my evil father, Just like I told Leia I would & he killed the Emperor.”
All of those actions, or inactions, saved the galaxy. *shrug

And he would’ve found himself hanging from the nearest redwood. How many rebels would’ve lost loved ones and/or had their lives ruined under the jackboots of Vader and his buddies? How thrilled would such folk be to hear that, while Palpatine was killing people by the hundreds with his new weapon, Luke was hiding under a staircase because he didn’t want to lose his temper and risk Vader not going to Jedi Heaven?

Nor can I see why anyone would even consider the possibility of a new Jedi Order based on these actions.

That’s EU anyway. Nowhere in the film does Luke even hint towards restarting anything.
[EDIT- I guess the ST says that Luke went on to do whatever, but that’s not in this film]

Yoda says “pass on what you have learned”. The implication is that Luke will go on teach younglings how to hide under staircases in order to spare the bad guys.

Post
#1338879
Topic
<strong>Return Of The Jedi</strong> - a general <strong>Random Thoughts</strong> thread
Time

ray_afraid said:

Shopping Maul said:

I still maintain that Luke didn’t actually save the galaxy - a fact that renders his entire ‘new hope’ journey somewhat meaningless to me.

Luke was the only one who could get through to Vader. Vader was the only one who could destroy the Emperor.
Without Luke, there’s no hope. He saved the galaxy by redeeming his father. (or, by Returning the Jedi, if you will)

I also hate the sister thing. Luke should have gone off alone in search of “The Other” at the end.

I’ve beat this drum several times in these forums, but the best way to explain my unease wth Luke’s actions is to boil it down to the following - what exactly did Luke tell everyone at the Ewok after-party?

If he’d said “I defeated the Emperor” that would’ve been a lie. He didn’t beat the Emperor. He surrendered and circumstances luckily prevailed in a way that led to Palpatine’s demise. That’s it. What Luke actually did was a) refuse to fight (after a brief and justifiable tantrum), b) spare the life of the second most evil guy in the galaxy because…well, he’s dad, and c) declare himself a Jedi and throw his weapon aside. All of this, by the way, while countless innocent beings were being slaughtered outside.

I cannot for the life of me see what’s ethical about this. Nor can I see why anyone would even consider the possibility of a new Jedi Order based on these actions.

Post
#1338878
Topic
<strong>Return Of The Jedi</strong> - a general <strong>Random Thoughts</strong> thread
Time

imperialscum said:

Shopping Maul said:

As a fan I never actually allowed myself to truly accept that I didn’t like the film until I started getting a sense of the ROTJ that could have been - obviously guys like Larry Kasdan and Gary Kurtz and Harrison Ford have come out in favour of Han’s sacrificial death and a generally deeper/bleaker finale.

I am still surprised when people are bringing up Kurtz when it comes to ROTJ. He was fired and replaced by Kazanjian in the middle of ESB principal photography. He basically had nothing to do with ROTJ, let alone being aware of any details such as Kasdan’s and Ford’s suggestion to kill off Han. He basically just jumped on the “ROTJ should have been darker” bandwagon years later, while probably still being resentful of his removal from ESB.

Now considering Kasdan’s and Ford’s suggestion, killing off Han would have not have made the story and the film magically any better.

I’m aware that the Kurtz thing is speculative in the sense that none of us can know exactly how/why things broke down between him and Lucas. My guess is that the truth lies somewhere in the middle - Lucas was annoyed at the cost overruns on TESB and Gary was less than thrilled at the direction SW was going in. But the general feeling about ROTJ stays the same - many folks involved felt that ROTJ was too light or didn’t do justice to its predecessor. Even Kershner apparently read the ROTJ script and said he wasn’t feeling it.

It’s not that killing Han was the answer. It’s more that killing Han (or having him die a noble sacrificial death) was something quite a few people were down with, and that in itself is an indicator of what people were feeling in terms of giving the story some weight generally.

Post
#1338620
Topic
<strong>Return Of The Jedi</strong> - a general <strong>Random Thoughts</strong> thread
Time

RogueLeader said:

Would some of you care to share aspects of the film that you like and dislike about this film? I wasn’t around when the film came out, but I’m curious if any of you recall what complaints people had about the movie when it released.

In your opinion, do you agree with the common belief that ROTJ is the weakest of the OT films? If so, why?

I enjoyed ROTJ when it came out, but it was the first (and not the last!) SW film where I found myself going “huh?” a lot! Basically it was the usual stuff - the lighter tone, the many muppets, strangely stiff delivery of lines etc etc. I hated the Leia-as-sister thing (and still do) and I still maintain that Luke didn’t actually save the galaxy - a fact that renders his entire ‘new hope’ journey somewhat meaningless to me.

As a fan I never actually allowed myself to truly accept that I didn’t like the film until I started getting a sense of the ROTJ that could have been - obviously guys like Larry Kasdan and Gary Kurtz and Harrison Ford have come out in favour of Han’s sacrificial death and a generally deeper/bleaker finale. I even stumbled across a Mark Hamill interview where he said he’d expected to come back in ROTJ as a much grimmer character (and even more bulked up than the ‘muscle-Luke’ of Dagobah 1980) - so this kind of reinforced my own expectations post-TESB and edged me towards admitting my own disappointment.

Ultimately ROTJ sits in the prequel camp for me - great ideas but not well executed. But that’s just me. I actually think that TROS does ROTJ better, but that’s probably a conversation for another thread!

Post
#1338190
Topic
Episode IX: The Rise Of Skywalker - Discussion * <strong><em>SPOILER THREAD</em></strong> *
Time

I got the impression that Poe swings both ways. Actually, I really like the ambiguity of the relationships in TROS. It may have been done to placate shippers - I don’t know - but I do love how there’s implied romantic potential all over the place without any real conclusions (except for the Rey/Kylo thing which I thought was beautifully handled).

Post
#1331715
Topic
<strong>Return Of The Jedi</strong> - a general <strong>Random Thoughts</strong> thread
Time

Hal 9000 said:

I think Obi-Wan believed Anakin was (literally, biologically) dead when he dropped off Luke, and that Owen would have also. And that it wasn’t until later that he learned Vader survived. It explains why they thought taking Luke there was a sane idea and more comfortably fits in with what we hear from Owen and Beru in ANH.

Yes, but the question of leaving Luke at the family homestead with his old surname is a separate issue (exacerbated by the prequels of course!). I’m talking specifically about Obi Wan’s ‘certain point of view’ which, let’s face it, just doesn’t feel right. If he’d said in ANH “Vader hunted the Jedi down, your father died in the purge” or something similar, it might make more sense. My contention is that Obi should’ve owned that original lie. It would be much more plausible if he had actually lied for a good reason - namely an agreement with Owen for the benefit of Luke. The whole ‘certain point of view’ thing seems way too shifty, but simply going with “I promised your uncle I would say Anakin had been murdered” is very plausible and guards against any erosion of Obi Wan’s nobility. It would also lend some depth to Owen’s position as someone who genuinely cared for Luke’s well-being.

Post
#1331625
Topic
<strong>Return Of The Jedi</strong> - a general <strong>Random Thoughts</strong> thread
Time

I was watching ANH for the 8 billionth time this weekend and found myself responding to Owen’s “he died around the same time as your father” line re Obi Wan. It occurred to me that a similar angle would have worked for Anakin. I think the one thing Obi Wan and Owen Lars might have agreed upon is the notion of preserving Anakin’s reputation (for Luke’s sake if nothing else) via the official line that Anakin was murdered by the Empire. Of course Owen would go a step further in stating Anakin was merely a navigator on a spice freighter, but it’s still plausible that Obi Wan would agree to run with the ‘your father was murdered’ narrative to keep the peace all round. In ROTJ Obi Wan could admit to Luke that he’d agreed to this way back when, but fully intended to disclose the truth once Luke had completed his training. I think this would be more plausible than “a certain point of view”.

Post
#1331193
Topic
How many times have you bought the movies?
Time

I’ve bought them pretty much as many times as anyone on here. But my first version of Star Wars was taped off the TV. This was waaaaay back when buying a VHS tape of SW was more or less impossible and certainly out of my financial bounds. My Mum (who I didn’t live with) arranged for someone with awesome TV reception to tape the film and edit the ads out as it played. This was a wonderful surprise Xmas gift and very much a prized possession. I wish I still had it…

Post
#1330850
Topic
How do you feel about Star Wars being re-titled A New Hope in 1981?
Time

Broom Kid said:

“A New Hope” has always sounded like a title that literally took all of 3 seconds worth of thought before being added to the film. I never liked it, just for aesthetic reasons alone. I’d probably be okay with a revisionist/retconned title, if it was a GOOD TITLE. A New Hope is just bland. The only other title in the series that suffers from that sort of rote-ness is “The Rise of Skywalker.”

I’m probably very much alone here but I wish TROS had been called Revenge Of the Jedi…

Post
#1330349
Topic
How do you feel about Star Wars being re-titled A New Hope in 1981?
Time

ATMachine said:

It might be worth mentioning that the handwritten subtitle “New Hope” shows up on John Williams’ scoring sheets, so it was an idea that had occurred to George Lucas before the film came out.

I suppose “Star Wars” film 1, “A New Hope”, sounded better than his previous idea, which was “The Adventures of Luke Skywalker” film 1, “The Star Wars”. That actually made its way into the novelization.

That’s interesting - I didn’t know that. Thanks!

Post
#1330341
Topic
How do you feel about Star Wars being re-titled A New Hope in 1981?
Time

When it first came to my attention (via a comment in the SW Marvel comic circa 1980) I thought of it as mildly annoying. But I echo what Yotsuya said in that no-one seemed to take the title seriously until 1997.

Now I really hate it - not just because I’m old and cranky but because it’s yet another diminishment of Star Wars '77 as a piece of significant history. I see the saga as a kind of wheel with Star Wars in the centre and every episode since as spokes emanating from that point. Star Wars is not just the boring episode in a 9-film saga, its the very foundation from which this whole thing emanates. It doesn’t matter which order you view the saga - it all starts with Star Wars.

That’s not to say I don’t mind the episode thing. Indeed, giving Star Wars an episode number in this way was Lucas/Kurtz original idea a la the Flash Gordon serials. So as a legitimate ‘original vision’ interpolation I think it’s fine. But they could have done this and still called it Star Wars. There’s noting wrong with a book where chapter 4 (or 7 or 38) shares the same title as the book itself. So it would be Episode IV, Star Wars - now a part of a greater whole but still the acknowledged beginning point for this whole enterprise.

Plus ‘A New Hope’ is just a woeful title…

Post
#1328293
Topic
Episode VIII : The Last Jedi - Discussion * <strong><em>SPOILER THREAD</em></strong> *
Time

idir_hh said:

Shopping Maul said:

I kind of like Rian’s ‘Jedi hubris’ idea. Honestly, the way these guys turn irreversibly evil if they lose their temper is reason enough to never train a Jedi again. At least normal people can go “oops, I got a bit carried away there - sorry”.

I think Kotor did it best.

I’m not familiar with Kotor myself, but I do have good friends who hold it in the highest esteem canon-wise.

Post
#1327916
Topic
Episode VIII : The Last Jedi - Discussion * <strong><em>SPOILER THREAD</em></strong> *
Time

DominicCobb said:

pleasehello said:

Broom Kid said:

Bounding into Comics is a terrible website that probably shouldn’t be getting eyeballs or attention from anyone. It’s essentially a mouthpiece for some of the absolute worst elements of “geek culture” or “fandom” in general.

It’s essentially Breitbart or OANN for “fanboys”

Thanks for saying something to this effect. I appreciate the linked interview with Rian Johnson, but the “article” reads more like a fan forum complaint:

“However, radically changing characters that are part of a much larger narrative doesn’t work on audiences. It doesn’t work with Hux and it most certainly doesn’t work on Luke Skywalker…”

This is what passes for journalism now. Give me a break.

I honestly didn’t even go through the link. I already saw the interview and thought his comments were spot on. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that obnoxious fans and fansites have twisted his words to mean “I hate Star Wars and Star Wars canon.” These are the same kind of people who would like for us to believe that him and Mark Hamill passionately despise each other. They live in an alternate universe where Rian is some sort of diabolical maniac whose sole purpose in life was to give fans the middle finger.

I can’t even see how Rian’s comments remotely equate with some notion of his hating Star Wars. I’m not the biggest TLJ fan in the world, but it seems obvious to me that he’s a huge SW fan who wanted nothing more than to make a great SW movie. This is getting silly.

Post
#1325816
Topic
Does Kylo really deserve to be redeemed? Did he deserve to be Reys love interest?
Time

yotsuya said:

Anger leads to the dark side. If Luke falls to the dark side, then the battle outside the Death Star is pointless. We see Luke abandon the mission on Endor because he knows Vader is going to find him. He gives himself up and is taken to the Emperor and there tries to avoid giving in to the dark side. He has a moment when his anger takes over and I believe he taps into the dark side, but then he lets it go and is not consumed. He refuses to kill. The scene on the Death Star is a chess match between Palpatine and Luke. The fate of the galaxy rests in the result. If Palpatine successfully turns Luke, all is lost. And somehow Luke hopes to turn Vader, but his primary focus is to keep them occupied while the ground teams destroys the shield and then Lando and Wedge destroy the Death Star. At the point when Palpatine should be focused on the battle, he is instead distracted by Luke and isn’t paying attention to his impending demise. Had Luke fallen to the dark side, the Rebels would have been wiped out.

So Luke’s part in the final battle is not as a bystander, but a distraction. He picks up his lightsaber and distracts with the duel until Vader makes it serious by involving Leia. Palpatine is completely focused on Luke and trying to turn him. So Luke really is a hero for his actions because he prevents Palpatine and Vader from staying involved in the battle raging outside. Palpatine doesn’t even noticed when the shield generator is destroyed. He’d rather kill Luke and ends up being killed by Vader.

If I was Luke I would explain it by saying that Palpatine had been controlling Anakin/Vader all those years and that he was the catalist that Anakin needed to free himself. That puts all the blame for Vader’s actions on Palpatine. And I think that the way Lucas wrote the PT that is what was actually going on. I think Palpatine used the force to tip Anakin to the dark side and then used the force voice on him to make him destroy the Jedi temple. Then after the duel, Palpatine used the force to keep him alive all those years. So when Vader killed Palpatine he killed himself… not just because of the damage from the force lightning.

We know that Anakin wasn’t quite so innocent and that he was teetering and about to fall, but Palpatine did not leave things to chance. Watch that scene in ROTS after Mace is dead and listen to sound effects added to Palpatine’s voice. He is not leaving it to chance but is using the dark side to manipulate Anakin and hasten his fall to the dark side. I think Anakin’s anger at Obi-wan is genuine and that he really did try to kill Padme. And in the end he thinks he did. So when the chance comes to save Luke - Padme’s son - he doesn’t hesitate or think of the cost. What caused him to fall is what ultimately causes his redemption. Luke was the cause of the fall and redemption both. With Leia, of course, but Luke was the child he knew about leading up to that final confrontation. Still, Luke could follow Obi-wan’s example and tell the story from a certain point of view. Not like there are any other witnesses to the events.

But without Luke being where he was, Palpatine’s attention would have been on the battle and he would have sensed what was going on on Endor and could have given orders to prevent the success of the Rebel’s mission. But because he was distracted by his Sith business, he ignored the battle and was destroyed. Luke didn’t destroy the shield or the Death Star, but he facilitated both by being where he was and doing what he was doing.

My issue is that the ‘Luke as distraction’ thing is something a fan would come up with to fill a plothole. It’s not something the movie ever expresses or even hints at (although it was in the novelisation). As I keep saying, I wish it had been a component of Luke’s farewell speech to Leia. All that Luke is concerned with at that point - apart from getting out of the way - is saving Vader. So I do like the theory, but I wish it was in the film.

I also have issues with the Dark Side and matters of aggression. I don’t think it would have been unethical for Luke to kill Vader and Palpatine outright from the get-go. These guys were slaughtering thousands of innocent beings. Self-defence right? At very least Luke should have had Palpatine in a headlock and forced him to order the shutdown of the DS cannon. If Han Solo had been in that throne room - or Chewie or Leia or Wedge or any Tom/Dick/Harry - they would’ve pulled a gun on those clowns immediately. They would have failed of course, but no-one would question their right to act in that way. The notion that a Jedi is automatically hamstrung by this suddenly unwavering notion of pacifism is ridiculous. When Luke destroyed the first DS - and all its inhabitants - you didn’t hear Obi Wan’s ghost-voice say “don’t shoot Luke - try to reason with them”. It was war.

I’m not with you on Anakin’s being controlled by Palpatine. My impression was that Anakin sold his soul and knew exactly what he was doing. In ROTS he clearly uses some pretty lame self-justification to make himself feel better when explaining things to Padme. In fact if I’d written ROTJ (and I’m sure everyone here is glad that I didn’t!) I would’ve had Luke come to the conclusion that there is no ‘dark side’ - just the choices we make.

But yes, the ‘Luke as distraction’ thing kind of works - I just wish it was firmly expressed in the film. It would have been awesome (IMO) if Luke had just spared Vader after the hand-chopping thing, and Palpatine had said something like “young fool, do you seek to bargain for your father’s life?”. Luke would smile and say “no, I am a Jedi - like my father before me. What I have bargained for is time.” Palpatine would suddenly realise that the DS is coming apart around him and then angrily roast Luke with lightning - prompting Vader’s reaction etc etc. Or something like that anyway…

Post
#1325564
Topic
Does Kylo really deserve to be redeemed? Did he deserve to be Reys love interest?
Time

StarkillerAG said:

Shopping Maul said:

NFBisms said:

Shopping Maul said:

Wanderer_ said:

Shopping Maul said:

Well why the hell did Vader deserve redemption?
He didn’t, we tolerated it because Vader was well written and it was easier for us to feel that his love for his son was enough to make him turn back.

At least Kylo had layers, some obvious conflict.

Mm, this is an odd one. Vader had many more layers than Kylo. Vader was always in conflict, he was a slave to the dark side. Kylo chose to be the monster he became and I honestly don’t think the movies gave us reasons for him to have let darkness grown inside of him.

But that’s not true according to the OT. Vader was a straight up bad guy in ANH - choking dudes to death, torturing princesses, killing Obi Wan (quite happily I add - “this will be a day long remembered…”), and shooting down X-Wings. In TESB he relentlessly pursues the rebels, kills his subordinates for human error, tortures Han and Leia to get Luke’s attention, and finally gives Luke a ‘join me or die’ ultimatum (“don’t make me destroy you”).

Only in ROTJ is it suggested that Vader had ‘good in him’, and that was purely because Luke (see Lucas) suddenly decided it was so.

I agree Kylo had no backstory whatsoever, but the conflict within him is/was evident from the get-go. Vader had given himself over to darkness and was pretty comfortable with it in the OT. Kylo was not so adept at evil. In fact the way way Adam Driver played Kylo was how I wish Anakin had been played in the prequels, a truly conflicted soul. That “I want to be free of this pain” moment in TFA had more raw emotion in it than all three prequels put together.

By the way I’m not against Vader’s redemption at all, in fact I thought it was a great idea. I just hate Luke’s POV. I do not understand why Luke was suddenly all gushy about Dad in ROTJ, nor do I understand why this took precedence over everything else that was going on. I’d have preferred a darker movie - one where Luke would be disillusioned with the whole Jedi thing (having been lied to by everyone concerned) and Vader’s turnaround would be a nice surprise while Luke was busy doing everything in his power to defeat Palpatine. But that’s just me. I cannot fathom why saving a war-criminal’s soul would make anyone a legend.

I mean, Luke’s primary influence from the moment he joins Ben in ANH - is his father’s legacy. He wants to learn the ways of the Force and become a Jedi like his father. From that, he essentially follows the path his dad took, right down to when he brushes with the dark side in ESB. He ignores Yoda and Ben’s warnings by rushing in to confront Vader, and save his friends.

That’s when he sees an outcome of following that quick and easy path - Darth Vader - and is faced with making different choices than his father. By ROTJ, Luke has empathy for Vader because he finds that by following his father, he is Vader. He’s more or less been where he’s been. Everything he believed about his father had to be true at one point, but then he took a wrong turn somewhere, which Luke after ESB understands now more than anyone.

It definitely has potential to be naivete, but Luke ends up being right. The idealism that it is, is what makes him a legend. The fact that you, and probably many others in the galaxy, would become disillusioned where Luke didn’t is the point. That doesn’t really say anything about how you personally would have preferred the movie to go, but that’s the theme. It makes sense and isn’t “sudden.” ROTJ just contextualizes the previous set-up. Not that it couldn’t have gone in a different direction - that who knows, I might have preferred myself - but pretty much all the heavy lifting for it is done in the prior two films.

I don’t disagree - I mean even though the OT was written on the fly, the character of Vader is fleshed out as you say ie we learn about the noble father and then discover Vader is that guy (with all that implies).

But the OT wasn’t about saving Dad, it was about Luke Skywalker being the last Jedi hope of the galaxy. And Luke did not save the galaxy. All he did was save Vader. Killing Palpatine was a lucky by-product of an entirely different quest - to save Vader. It’d be like me halting a nuclear holocaust because I just so happened to plug in my hairdryer and blow all the fuses in the bad guys’ bunker.

It feels like you’re missing the point here. Obi-Wan and Yoda wanted Luke to save the galaxy by destroying the Sith, but Luke couldn’t bring himself to kill his father. In the end, Luke’s hopefulness pays off. He puts down his weapon and sacrifices himself to Palpatine, resulting in Vader’s redemption and Palpatine’s death. It’s a subversion of the “chosen one” trope. Luke saves the galaxy not by destroying the Sith, but by saving his father.

I just don’t see it. What if Vader hadn’t turned? It’d be a bad thing to make a habit of this. Is this what they teach at Jedi school - always trust a family member no matter what? And Luke never articulates a desire to defeat Palpatine. His only expressed desire is saving Vader. I just don’t see how this is a) moral and b) worthy of legend. If anything Luke should walk away from this saying “well that was lucky but I’m not training another Jedi - they’re way too temperamental”.

People keep saying “Luke destroyed the Sith” but he didn’t. He accidentally destroyed the Sith - the same Sith who were pretty much doomed anyway because the DS was about to explode. Again, at best Luke inadvertently prevented Palpatine’s possible escape. But he can’t claim credit for it - it was just a lucky by-product of his obsession with Vader’s redemption.

I think a huge problem with ROTJ is that it dumbs down the Dark Side to a ludicrous degree. It turns the slow-burn corruption of negative emotions and lust for power into a simple “lose your temper and you’ll turn irreversibly evil” thing. Which means Luke just has to stand there while thousands of his comrades are being incinerated, or that just getting angry will somehow lead to Luke joining the Emperor. By extension this implies that Jedi are more trouble than they’re worth.

I have to agree with you on this one. The “strike me down” speech is dumb, but it’s not like TROS is any better since it features the same speech almost word for word.

I still don’t see why Luke would become a legend for giving a profoundly evil man a bedside conversion while everyone else was fighting a war.

To be fair, that’s more of a sequel trilogy thing. Nothing in ROTJ implies that Luke became a legend for redeeming his father, so that argument is invalid when used against ROTJ.

Yes but Yoda tells Luke to “pass on what he has learned” (which, as I keep arguing, is “do nothing - it’ll work out in the end”!) and Luke tells Leia that she will learn to use the Force as he has. The EU has Luke training new Jedi and the general fan vibe is, as you say, Luke destroyed the Sith and by extension should start a new Jedi Order.

Her temptation by Palpatine is real - she is literally put in the impossible position of having to accept the Dark Side as a way to save her friends, and Kylo helps her. Together they save the galaxy.

That may have been JJ’s intention, but it wasn’t conveyed well at all. Palpatine tells Rey that he wants Rey to kill him so he can possess her. Then he tells Rey that killing him will allow her to save her friends, which blatantly contradicts the thing he said right before. If Rey is possessed by Palpatine, there’s no way she’ll want to save her friends. It’s such a one-sided bargain that any sane person would have refused, and so Rey seems like an idiot for actually going along with Palpatine’s plan until Ben shows up.

Well that’s the gamble, that Palpatine will be true to his word. And the implication is that he’ll spare the rebels’ lives, but then rule them with an iron fist through Dark Rey. It’s a truly impossible situation and Rey opts for sparing their lives (before Kylo intervenes). That has so much more meat to it than “go on, get angry, that’ll make you evil”.

Because of that, Luke’s throne room scene is much better in my opinion. Luke isn’t there to kill Palpatine, and he doesn’t fall for any of Palpatine’s “strike me down” speechifying. He actually seems smart, and his intelligence pays off in the end.

Many sentient beings were ruthlessly killed while Luke stood at the DS window trying not to get mad. Many more died while Luke sat under a staircase trying not to get mad. More and more died while Luke threw aside his weapon and declared that he was now a qualified space-Yoga instructor. I fail to see how this is moral, let alone smart. Smart would have been deliberately doing everything in his power to make sure Palpatine was on the DS when it exploded. If that had been Luke’s expressed intention, the whole thing would make more sense to me.

Post
#1325544
Topic
Does Kylo really deserve to be redeemed? Did he deserve to be Reys love interest?
Time

NFBisms said:

Shopping Maul said:

Wanderer_ said:

Shopping Maul said:

Well why the hell did Vader deserve redemption?
He didn’t, we tolerated it because Vader was well written and it was easier for us to feel that his love for his son was enough to make him turn back.

At least Kylo had layers, some obvious conflict.

Mm, this is an odd one. Vader had many more layers than Kylo. Vader was always in conflict, he was a slave to the dark side. Kylo chose to be the monster he became and I honestly don’t think the movies gave us reasons for him to have let darkness grown inside of him.

But that’s not true according to the OT. Vader was a straight up bad guy in ANH - choking dudes to death, torturing princesses, killing Obi Wan (quite happily I add - “this will be a day long remembered…”), and shooting down X-Wings. In TESB he relentlessly pursues the rebels, kills his subordinates for human error, tortures Han and Leia to get Luke’s attention, and finally gives Luke a ‘join me or die’ ultimatum (“don’t make me destroy you”).

Only in ROTJ is it suggested that Vader had ‘good in him’, and that was purely because Luke (see Lucas) suddenly decided it was so.

I agree Kylo had no backstory whatsoever, but the conflict within him is/was evident from the get-go. Vader had given himself over to darkness and was pretty comfortable with it in the OT. Kylo was not so adept at evil. In fact the way way Adam Driver played Kylo was how I wish Anakin had been played in the prequels, a truly conflicted soul. That “I want to be free of this pain” moment in TFA had more raw emotion in it than all three prequels put together.

By the way I’m not against Vader’s redemption at all, in fact I thought it was a great idea. I just hate Luke’s POV. I do not understand why Luke was suddenly all gushy about Dad in ROTJ, nor do I understand why this took precedence over everything else that was going on. I’d have preferred a darker movie - one where Luke would be disillusioned with the whole Jedi thing (having been lied to by everyone concerned) and Vader’s turnaround would be a nice surprise while Luke was busy doing everything in his power to defeat Palpatine. But that’s just me. I cannot fathom why saving a war-criminal’s soul would make anyone a legend.

I mean, Luke’s primary influence from the moment he joins Ben in ANH - is his father’s legacy. He wants to learn the ways of the Force and become a Jedi like his father. From that, he essentially follows the path his dad took, right down to when he brushes with the dark side in ESB. He ignores Yoda and Ben’s warnings by rushing in to confront Vader, and save his friends.

That’s when he sees an outcome of following that quick and easy path - Darth Vader - and is faced with making different choices than his father. By ROTJ, Luke has empathy for Vader because he finds that by following his father, he is Vader. He’s more or less been where he’s been. Everything he believed about his father had to be true at one point, but then he took a wrong turn somewhere, which Luke after ESB understands now more than anyone.

It definitely has potential to be naivete, but Luke ends up being right. The idealism that it is, is what makes him a legend. The fact that you, and probably many others in the galaxy, would become disillusioned where Luke didn’t is the point. That doesn’t really say anything about how you personally would have preferred the movie to go, but that’s the theme. It makes sense and isn’t “sudden.” ROTJ just contextualizes the previous set-up. Not that it couldn’t have gone in a different direction - that who knows, I might have preferred myself - but pretty much all the heavy lifting for it is done in the prior two films.

I don’t disagree - I mean even though the OT was written on the fly, the character of Vader is fleshed out as you say ie we learn about the noble father and then discover Vader is that guy (with all that implies).

But the OT wasn’t about saving Dad, it was about Luke Skywalker being the last Jedi hope of the galaxy. And Luke did not save the galaxy. All he did was save Vader. Killing Palpatine was a lucky by-product of an entirely different quest - to save Vader. It’d be like me halting a nuclear holocaust because I just so happened to plug in my hairdryer and blow all the fuses in the bad guys’ bunker.

I think a huge problem with ROTJ is that it dumbs down the Dark Side to a ludicrous degree. It turns the slow-burn corruption of negative emotions and lust for power into a simple “lose your temper and you’ll turn irreversibly evil” thing. Which means Luke just has to stand there while thousands of his comrades are being incinerated, or that just getting angry will somehow lead to Luke joining the Emperor. By extension this implies that Jedi are more trouble than they’re worth.

I said it in a previous post (or three!) but I wish Luke’s POV had been written with an expressed desire to defeat the bad guys, if only by virtue of keeping Palpatine on the exploding DS at all costs. The redemption of Vader should have been a by-product of this quest rather than Luke’s entire MO. I still don’t see why Luke would become a legend for giving a profoundly evil man a bedside conversion while everyone else was fighting a war.

This is why I prefer TROS to ROTJ. Rey’s quest is to defeat Palpatine. Her saving Kylo is a side-issue, but it pays off beautifully in the end. Her temptation by Palpatine is real - she is literally put in the impossible position of having to accept the Dark Side as a way to save her friends, and Kylo helps her. Together they save the galaxy. That’s how ROTJ should have been. Luke should have been crucial to the outcome, not just having his own private family/religious trip while everyone else was fighting and dying outside.

Post
#1325492
Topic
Does Kylo really deserve to be redeemed? Did he deserve to be Reys love interest?
Time

Wanderer_ said:

Shopping Maul said:

Well why the hell did Vader deserve redemption?
He didn’t, we tolerated it because Vader was well written and it was easier for us to feel that his love for his son was enough to make him turn back.

At least Kylo had layers, some obvious conflict.

Mm, this is an odd one. Vader had many more layers than Kylo. Vader was always in conflict, he was a slave to the dark side. Kylo chose to be the monster he became and I honestly don’t think the movies gave us reasons for him to have let darkness grown inside of him.

But that’s not true according to the OT. Vader was a straight up bad guy in ANH - choking dudes to death, torturing princesses, killing Obi Wan (quite happily I add - “this will be a day long remembered…”), and shooting down X-Wings. In TESB he relentlessly pursues the rebels, kills his subordinates for human error, tortures Han and Leia to get Luke’s attention, and finally gives Luke a ‘join me or die’ ultimatum (“don’t make me destroy you”).

Only in ROTJ is it suggested that Vader had ‘good in him’, and that was purely because Luke (see Lucas) suddenly decided it was so.

I agree Kylo had no backstory whatsoever, but the conflict within him is/was evident from the get-go. Vader had given himself over to darkness and was pretty comfortable with it in the OT. Kylo was not so adept at evil. In fact the way way Adam Driver played Kylo was how I wish Anakin had been played in the prequels, a truly conflicted soul. That “I want to be free of this pain” moment in TFA had more raw emotion in it than all three prequels put together.

By the way I’m not against Vader’s redemption at all, in fact I thought it was a great idea. I just hate Luke’s POV. I do not understand why Luke was suddenly all gushy about Dad in ROTJ, nor do I understand why this took precedence over everything else that was going on. I’d have preferred a darker movie - one where Luke would be disillusioned with the whole Jedi thing (having been lied to by everyone concerned) and Vader’s turnaround would be a nice surprise while Luke was busy doing everything in his power to defeat Palpatine. But that’s just me. I cannot fathom why saving a war-criminal’s soul would make anyone a legend.

Post
#1325141
Topic
<strong>Star Wars (1977)</strong> - a general <strong>Random Thoughts</strong> thread
Time

I saw Star Wars in 1977 - I was 8 years old and remember it vividly.

Perhaps I remember it so starkly because I had to fight for it! I’d seen the trailer/ads on TV, all of my school friends were talking about it, and somehow I just knew this movie was for me.

So I got home from school one afternoon and my hippie stepmother said casually “we saw Star Wars today! It was great!”. I was like “uh…okay”. “Oh yeah” said Dad through a haze of marijuana smoke “it was fantastic” - and they regaled me with tales of giant spaceships passing overhead and princesses and glorious space battles…

Finally I - the target audience for this damn film - mustered the courage to enquire as to whether perhaps I might get a shot at seeing this thing.

“Alright alright” said Dad, visibly annoyed, “I’ll take you to Star Wars!”. We went some days later, but of course it felt like an eternity to me! We left in the morning but Dad (he was in the music biz) wanted to check out some recording studios that were being built. We finally arrived at the cinema at 5pm after a day of walking around empty building sites. Dad paused in front of the row of movie posters on the cinema wall. The movie was starting in five minutes and we still didn’t have tickets. I knew something was up.

“I’ve already seen Star Wars” my father moaned, “let’s see Close Encounters!”.

Cue Omen theme with me as young Damien!

No, in truth I basically begged “please, please, please can I see Star Wars!”.

The great man relented with an exasperated sigh, and I had the time of my life. It was wonderful - magical. The Force was with me.

Later Dad gave me a lecture on how I hadn’t considered that dying Stormtroopers might have had families…but that’s another story…