Vaderisnothayden

DarkFather said:

You are very quick to dismiss my opinion as worthless back-and-forth just because I don't like the stuff you like. And you really didn't need to send me a PM ORDERING me to respond to this. 

PM - Private Message. Unless I was harassing you, which I was not, why stoop so low as to even bring it up as if I was harassing you?

I pasted the link to this thread, and simply said: "Respond." Yeah, just look at the way I was offensively ordering you around. The only reason I sent you a PM is that I was reminding you of a chance you had in this thread to hold an interesting discussion. For some reason you decided to waste the chance and instead of addressing my specific points, you spoke in generalizations.

You need to remember that you've treated me pretty badly on multiple occasions. So you if you do something that can be interpreted as meant negatively then it's likely I'm going to interpret it that way. You should remember that your PM led to a post that called me narrow-minded and implied that my view was worthless. It didn't all give the impression of being friendly. Next time you want to notify somebody of an interesting discussion by PM you might avoid phrasing it as a brusque one-word command. And if you want a good-natured discussion, accusations of narrow-mindedness are best avoided.

And in my post I did address your specific points, very directly, so I don't know wtf you're talking about.

Wtf is that supposed to mean?

DarkFather said:

I think it's ridiculous and narrow-minded (something you have accused me of being) to dismiss all EU reasons, as long as they are logical, reasonable, and don't make any far stretches where you have to do mental acrobatics (such as Padme making a Force connection with her daughter before dying shortly after, as I've already stated).

The EU is a broad category with too many sub-categories to count, not a single object (one book, one point, one author, one excuse/reason) that any reasonable person can simply write off as all bad. Say the first ice cream you ever tried was slug flavored, and then you dismiss ice cream altogether, saying you hate it. Well, slug flavored ice cream doesn't come close to defining ice cream as a broad category. So if you were savvy to there being dozens and dozens of more flavors out there, but refuse to consider any of them, that's what I would call narrow.

As you often do, you might come back with some point about how I need to accept that others have different views. Sure you have your views, but that shouldn't stop someone from pointing out how narrow those views are, especially since you're quick to accuse others of being narrow.

In Star Wars, there have been all sorts of reasons and excuses made up from the very beginning to explain things that weren't given much detail in the films. I agree that if a film gets too lazy (as the PT did in parts), then it shouldn't be excused. But those are only a part of the puzzle.

In this case, saying that Vader's seeming breathing inconsistencies are "a mess" is plain silly. What would you have wanted, Vaderisnothayden? Right after he was scorched by fire, have Palpatine immediately run up and put an oxygen mask over his face moments after? That opens up a whole can of other questions that would need explaining then. Would you have liked Palpatine, or some clone, or a droid, to stop and take up minutes of the film to explain what I did in my post above: "So, Lord Vader, my apprentice, I see that thus far you have been leeching from the dark side in order to keep yourself alive, and if your focus is broken for more than a few minutes, it will prove fatal. We've got to get you into a pressurized surgical chamber in order for you to survive your reconstruction... etc. etc. etc." Sounds like that would slow down the pace of the film substantially. 

So tell me, Vaderisnothayden, in THIS CASE, how would you have supposedly handled it better than it was in the film?

If you cannot answer that question, and have no creative alternative of your own worked up, you're basically trying to use your opinion of "I don't like it" in a back-and-forth with nothing else to bring to the table.

Oh quit your bullshit. There's nothing "narrow-minded" about dismissing EU reasons. The whole point about the EU is that it isn't in the films. We shouldn't have to depend on struff that's outside the films to make the films works. EU doesn't make the grade. 

And these EU explanations are people coming along after Lucas has made a mess and trying to fix his mistakes. Their fixes were not part of Lucas's original story and thus do not change the fact that he made a mess. Explanations made after the fact and not put in the film are not enough.

So I'm perfectly justified in dismissing EU explanations. Don't be so quick to call somebody narrow-minded just because they have a different view from you.

It should be clear to you now (and it should have been before) that I'm not talking about whether the EU is bad or not. That's not the issue. The issue is that explanations made after the films and not in the films are not good enough. And some of those explanations (like for why Leia could remember her mother) come off like special pleading to cover the fact that Lucas made a mess.

Having Vader spend a whole reconstruction scene without any breathing aid gave the clear message that he didn't need breathing help, which was at odds with the OT. That's what's in the films and stuff outside the films doesn't fix it. It's a mess. It's a screw-up. They should have avoided that. I don't know whether they should have plugged him into a breathing mechanism on Mustafar, but they certainly should have once he got back to Coruscant. They probably should have shown him having trouble breathing on Mustafar after being burned up.

You are very quick to dismiss my opinion as worthless back-and-forth just because I don't like the stuff you like. And you really didn't need to send me a PM ORDERING me to respond to this. 

A lot of things were ruined by the prequels. Anakin/Vader, Fett, Yoda, the Jedi, the whole bloody Star Wars backstory. They were even going to have a go at ruining Han, but luckily they gave up on that. But who knows, they might try again in the live action show.

Well let's not.

DarkFather said:

Though Obi-Wan's memories of the person Anakin was were indeed overly romanticized,

No, they are not. They fit perfectly with the dying Anakin we met at the end of ROTJ. They only look overly romanticized if you go by the prequels and the prequels are bull. 

TheBoost said:

It's odd to me how many people prefer "Sad Flautists" to "Yub Yub."

Without commenting on their musical worth, does that mean the Special Editions really aren't disliked philisophically. I mean, is it fine for Lucas to frak with his films, as long as we like the results?

I Greedo had ORIGINALLY shot first, would we say the SE was great if Lucas changed it to Han?

If it's "Curse you Lucas for changing these movies!" for things we don't like, shouldn't that same viewpoint apply to all of the SE changes, Jawas falling off of Rontos and the South American Pipe music?

As far as I'm concerned, any changes are not good, because they're not the original. But things that are not the original don't tend to fit with the films like the originals things do. Yub nub is true to the intended spirit of ROTJ's ending. The 97 music is not.

rcb said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

 

It's true that as early as AOTC Annie was not a nice guy. You might understand him killing some Tuskens after his mother's death (though it would be risking a turn to the dark side if he did it out of anger), but killing Tusken KIDS is something else entirely. That shows he wasn't a good guy, as does his support for dictatorship. In the OT Lucas gave us the impression that Anakin was a good guy who got turned evil. Clearly he revised that part of the story for the PT when he turned Annie into an asshole who became more of an asshole.

 

 

 i believe it was Obi-Wan telling us about anakin in the OT. Anikan never told Obi-Wan about the event with the tuskens. so Obi-Wan said Anakin was a good man even though he didn't hear about the tusken slaughter.

That still doesn't fix it up. It wasn't just some view of Obi Wan. It was the picture the OT was giving us of Anakin. We weren't supposed to say "This is Obi Wan's view. Maybe he didn't know everything." We were supposed to assume Obi Wan knew what he was talking about and thus get the idea that Anakin was a good man. Lucas and Kasdan were giving us the message that Anakin was a a good man originally. Obi Wan was just the mouthpiece they used in communicating with us. 

The argument that it was just Obi Wan's view is just an excuse made to fix up Lucas's prequels mess, and I don't agree with making excuses to hide his prequel mess. The OT clearly told us that Anakin was a good man and the prequels went against that, major fuck up due to Lucas revising his story and turning Anakin into a jerk. You can bet Anakin wasn't a jerk in Lucas's original story or Lucas wouldn't have had Kenobi give us the impression he was a good guy.

DarkFather said:

EU excuses. The reality is that ROTS was at odds with the OT here, just as the PT is often at odds with the OT.

EU Reasons. In this case, it makes sense, I like it, so I am willing to accept it.

An EU excuse would be to say that Leia remembering her mother in detail is a result of Padme creating a Force connection with her daughter.

I consider that stuff bullshit designed to pretend that Lucas didnt criminally disrespect the OT in the PT. We shouldn't need EU to fix up Lucas's messes. Those messes shouldn't be there in the fist place and if they need explanations the explanations should be in the films.

Another example is the Ruusan reformation. In the OT it was said that the Jedi had been protectors of the republic for a thousand generations, which means about 25 thousand years. In the prequels Palpatine says the republic had been around for a thousand years. Big screwup. So the EU invented the Ruusan reformation and explained that Palpy was just talking about the republic since the reformation. They needed to do that or else a lot of the EU would be fucked. But them providing an explanation doesn't change the fact that Lucas screwed up. Before he wrote the prequels, he should have watched the OT very carefully, jotting down everything that was said or implied about the backhistory and then made sure to fit in his prequel story with that.

The OOT on blu-ray isn't enough. We need for it to look like it will be put out on whatever format comes out after blu-ray and the one after that, etc.

Actually, the Star Wars Official Poster Monthly magazine issue 4 back in 1978 said the stormtroopers were clones, so I guess Lucas had thought that up already.

I like your new icon, TheBoost.

DarkFather said:

Also, the Vader reconstruction scene was inconsistent with the OT in that Vader was shown to have no problem breathing without his mask. In ROTJ we're told he'll die without his mask.

He was leeching from the dark side in order to sustain himself on Mustafar. However, it wasn't a permanent solution. It took immense focus and energy. To have that focus broken for a few minutes is fatal (also explains why Vader was able to survive without his mask intact in TFU after his duel with Galen Marek). That's why the medical chamber wherein the reconstruction took place was pressurized, acting as an "iron lung room" of sorts, just as the meditation chamber we see in ESB was pressurized.

EU excuses. The reality is that ROTS was at odds with the OT here, just as the PT is often at odds with the OT. Lucas should have shown Anakin having trouble breathing on Mustardfart and had the emperor get him a breathing mask there on Mustfart and Vader should have been hooked up to a breathing machine when he was being worked on afterwards. TFU was following ROTS's OT-ignoring precedent.

C3PX said:

This is either the third or fourth thread this debate has made it into up until now. It is kind of a pointless debate, I see no sign of either side swaying in the least. However, I will tell you that if you'd like to convince us, we are going to need some cold hard evidence of your claim that it is implied in the 1983 version of the film. And by cold hard evidence, I do not mean things like, "it is an illogical fantasy story, and instantly ending the Empire is illogical, therefore that was the original intention" or "clearly they are celebrating as hard as they are because they won the entire war, had it just been a mere battle they won, it would be a much smaller party..."

You are not going to be convinced as long as you refuse to accept ROTJ as what it was and refuse to accept that it works by other rules than the logic you try to force it to fit to. And I'm not even trying to convince you. I'm merely explaining my view. Have whatever view you like. I am just expressing and defend my view.

I do not mean things like, "it is an illogical fantasy story, and instantly ending the Empire is illogical, therefore that was the original intention"

If that's what you think my view is then no wonder you don't agree. I don't say the empire was over just because it would be illogical and an illogical ending would fit and therefore that must be the intention. The point is that the film doesn't make logic a priority therfore you cannot say the story must go a certain way just because it is logical. It's only if the story follows logic that the empire has to be not over. Whereas if you recognize that the story does not follow logic then you can go by the emotional implication of the film's ending. I also pointed out various clues, like Lucas declaring on the set of ESB that the conflict would be over in the next film and Lucasfilm in 1983 clearly taking the view that the conflict was over in ROTJ and the EU before Zahn following that same view. What have you on your side? The 90s EU, which disagreed with previous stuff and was clearly a revisionist take. And logic, which clearly does not rule in ROTJ.

As for cold hard evidence, the emotional message of the ending, taken in the context of what ROTJ is and how it works, is indeed cold hard evidence if you're sensitive to emotional things. People are naturally sensitive to emotional things, but when focusing on logic people have a bad tendency of distrusting emotion and shutting down their emotional sensitivity.

C3PX said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

You guys are trying to read ROTJ as a realistic adult film that makes a priority out of logic. It wasn't that. It was a kids' fairytale with a happily ever after ending that implied the conflict was over. I think you want ROTJ to be that realistic adult film, so you can't accept that it wasn't and thus won't let yourself see the message the fairytale ending gave. No offense, but I think you guys are in denial about being fans of a kids' thing. I've seen this sort of attitude before, in fans of the original Doctor Who show, who tried to compensate for the fact that they were fans of a kids' show.

C3PX said:

And by cold hard evidence, I do not mean things like, "it is an illogical fantasy story, and instantly ending the Empire is illogical, therefore that was the original intention".

 

No offense, but that is just a really, really lousy argument. You can take my word for it, I am not in denial about being a fan of some kids movie. That isn't even an issue here. Stop trying to psycho analyze us to prove your point. 

It is a fantasy story, which allows for some degree of illogical things to take place. That doesn't by default require that all logic be thrown out the window. Again, I see nothing in the original ROTJ that indicates the Empire was completely finished after the battle of Endor.

And while the post of Zombie's you quoted has some excellent points, I must respectfully disagree with it. I see no reason why the "Happily Ever After" ending is incompatible with there still being more of the enemy out there. The Hobbit has a very "And they all lived happily ever after" sort of ending to it, and yet we'd be dumb to think that once the dragon was defeated, and the hoards of orcs were beat back, that it had to mean they were all gone for good in order to have the happy ending that it had. And yes, The Hobbit is very much a children's book, I am aware of that, and I am not in any sort of denial on that front.

 

Actually, at the end of the Hobbit the dragon WAS gone for good. The dragon was DEAD. As such the conflct was over. The dwarves were happily ensconced in their regained kingdom and Bilbo had no more conflict to be occupied in. There was peace. Yes there were still goblins in Middle Earth, but goblins were not the major foe of The Hobbit the way the empire was the major foe of the OT. They were a side enemy, like Jabba was in the OT, except that while Jabba had a personal conflict with the main characters, there was no special personal conflict with the goblins of Middle Earth in general. The major foe of the book was gone for good at the end (dead) and old dwarven realm was set to be restored. Just as the empire was gone at the end of ROTJ and the door was opened for the rebuilding of the republic. There were sure to be troublemakers and crime lords left in the Star Wars universe like there were  goblins left in Middle Earth in The Hobbit, but there was no immediate need to fight them, just as there was no immediate need to fight goblins after the end of The Hobbit. But if the empire was still around as you think there would have been an immediate need to fight them.

No there couldn't be a happily ever after ending in ROTJ if the empire was still fighting. If the empire was still there would be a good chance of the main characters being killed off in the fight after ROTJ. A happily ever after ending requires the major conflict to be over. Like the conflict with the dragon was over in The Hobbit.

My argument is hardly lousy. All you have to do is open yourself up to seeing the emotional message at the end of ROTJ. You shouldn't need something to be spelled out on the screen to see it. By insisting on the story following logic you are refusing to accept that the story could follow another path and thus not letting yourself pick up on the emotional communication of the end of the film. Not until I came to this board did I find anybody who thought the empire didn't fall at the end of ROTJ. Zombie84 similarly says everybody he knew (back then at least) thought the empire ended.

I'm sorry if my psychoanalyzing you bothers you. I found it hard to avoid doing that, seeing as you seemed to be so clearly going down the path I described. But I didn't do it to prove my point. My point rests on emotional message of the end of ROTJ, which (no offense) you are shutting yourself off from reading. Backed up by the evidence of Lucas's statement on the set of ESB (showing that his intention back then matched the intention expressed by the celebrations in the SE) plus the novelization showing that the Lucasfilm view back then matched the message I get from the end of ROTJ plus the 80s EU writers clearly getting the same message. All clues that the SE message was not in fact a revisionist take.

No offense, but that is just a really, really lousy argument. You can take my word for it, I am not in denial about being a fan of some kids movie. That isn't even an issue here. Stop trying to psycho analyze us to prove your point. 

You may not be in denial about it being a kid's movie, but you do seem unwilling to acknowledge that it works by the rules of a kids fairytale.

It is a fantasy story, which allows for some degree of illogical things to take place. That doesn't by default require that all logic be thrown out the window.

No, it is not just a fantasy story. It is a KID'S fantasy story, of the fairytale sort, and thus things don't necessarily have to follow logic. That means that you can't say the story goes a certain way just because logic dictates that it should. Logic is not the primary power in the story. Thus when the film's ending gives an emotional message about the empire's fall that is at odds with logic, we go by that emotional message rather than saying "the story has to folow logic therefore the what emotional message says should be ignored." 

C3PX said:

Also, what is this, "emotional message" of which you speak? What makes you so positive the emotional message is what you believe it to be? I suppose the emotional message you speak of would be the Rebel's partying it up like it was 1999 on Endor with their teddy bear pals. I have a hard time taking any emotional message that prattles on about celebrating the love and what not seriously, but I still feel the celebration is more than warranted considering they just blew up the Imperial superweapon and killed both the Empires two highest leaders, as well as a whole slew of the Imperial Navy's best and brightest. I'd be partying it up if I were in their shoes as well. Who cares if the Empire is still out there, the day is won in a very big way.

The specific tone of the celebration and the way everybody acted at the end implied more than celebration over a victory. It implied celebration of the end of the war and that the conflict was over.

I'll also remind you of what you said at the end of our original debate about this:

Vaderisnohayden, this conversation is not worth wasting so much time on. We could go on forever. Obviously I am wrong. I was very young when ROTJ came out, and I obviously misunderstood it, and honestly, who can blame me since it was an unfinished version of the film I grew up with. George's original vision all along was to shows the entire galaxy celebrating the end of the Empire, but it simply wasn't possibly due to technology limitation of the eighties.

I get where you are coming from, and understand what you are saying. I concede that you are right, I am sure that was George's original intention to have the Empire be 100% finished at that point, the story is just a hell of a lot more interesting to me if this isn't the case. Just as Star Wars is a lot more interesting to you if Hayden is not Darth Vader.

Akwat Kbrana said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

You guys are trying to read ROTJ as a realistic adult film that makes a priority out of logic. It wasn't that. It was a kids' fairytale with a happily ever after ending that implied the conflict was over. I think you want ROTJ to be that realistic adult film, so you can't accept that it wasn't and thus won't let yourself see the message the fairytale ending gave.

And it's irrelavant that the novelization can be considered EU. It was the most important companion to the film. They wouldn't have put in that "The empire was dead" unless that as Lucasfilm's view. The novelization was the thing that everybody read along with the film and it was spelling out what was seen on the screen. And yes that line was poetic, but I see nothing to imply that it didn't also mean what it said. Star Wars back then was the sort of thing that gave you what it said on the can. It was straight up. If they said the empire was dead they meant the empire was dead.

I think zombie84 (the writer of The Secret History of Star Wars) says it well in his post on the subject:

zombie84 said:

I agree--logically, the ROTJ ending makes no sense; yet emotionally, it was always quite obvious to me that the message conveyed was that the Empire was defeated, and good guys won. I mean you practically could have had

"And they lived happily ever after"

when the iris closes on the final shot. Thats the point--thats the message you get. They can't live happily ever after if ROTJ just amounts to a strategic victory, the message throughout the entire movie, emotionally, is that "this is the final battle--it gets decided tonight", which is why all the sacrifice and basically putting your eggs in one basket approach (ie send the entire Alliance in a last-ditch battle to destroy the death star). 

Personally, i never considered that there was the Empire out there, and I never knew anyone that did either--the film says "the good guys won, the Empire is defeated." Certainly that is what Lucas was trying to convey, and I think it largely worked, even if it doesn't work in a real-life setting, but then Star Wars has always been full of logical holes like this. While we are contemplating why the Rebels are celebrating what is only a strategic victory, we might also be contemplating how they can be celebrating on a planet that should be having nuclear winter.

 

Let me get this straight: you're arguing that since ROTJ wasn't intended "as a realistic adult film that makes a priority out of logic," therefore we should be illogical when watching it?! I guess you're welcome to check your brain at the door if you wish, but I still put a big premium on suspension of disbelief, so I'd prefer to keep mine functioning whilst watching, "fairy tale ending implied" or not. (If there was some explicit mention of everyone in the Empire simultaneously deciding to just give up and lay down their arms en masse, then I wouldn't have any ground to stand on, granted. But it seems to me that you're making a pretty big leap in logic based on something that is allegedly implied in the film's composition.)

I'm saying that you shouldn't expect the story to work by logic. If the film's emotional message says one thing and logic says another, then don't let logic prevent you from seeing the message. Don't expect the story to automatically follow logic. Don't assume that if logic says the story goes a certain way then that means the story goes that way. Not when the story's emotional message implies something different. If the film's story went by logic, the rescue of Han wouldn't have gone the way it did and the ewoks wouldn't have been so good at offing armored stormtroopers with sticks and stones and there would have been no celebration at the end because the ewoks would be getting bombarded by debris from the death star and wiped out.

And it is mistaken to assume that not forcing the film to go by logic means checking your brain at the door. There are ways of thinking and being perceptive other than using logic. Like being sensitive to emotional messages. No offense meant, but you are failing at that latter form of thinking. The emotional message at the end of the film says loud and clear that the conflict is over and the empire is dead. Focusing too heavily on one type of thinking can blind you to other kinds.

Also, I suggest you read the end of my previous post, because I edited in some stuff there while you were posting, starting after the zombie84 quote. 

You guys are trying to read ROTJ as a realistic adult film that makes a priority out of logic. It wasn't that. It was a kids' fairytale with a happily ever after ending that implied the conflict was over. I think you want ROTJ to be that realistic adult film, so you can't accept that it wasn't and thus won't let yourself see the message the fairytale ending gave. No offense, but I think you guys are over-fixating on logic because you are in denial about being fans of a kids' thing. I've seen this sort of attitude before, in fans of the original Doctor Who show, who tried to compensate for the fact that they were fans of a kids' show.

And it's irrelavant that the novelization can be considered EU. It was the most important companion to the film. They wouldn't have put in that "The empire was dead" unless that as Lucasfilm's view. The novelization was the thing that everybody read along with the film and it was spelling out what was seen on the screen. And yes that line was poetic, but I see nothing to imply that it didn't also mean what it said. Star Wars back then was the sort of thing that gave you what it said on the tin ("can" in Ameri-speak). It was straight up. If they said the empire was dead they meant the empire was dead.

I think zombie84 (the writer of The Secret History of Star Wars) says it well in his post on the subject:

zombie84 said:

I agree--logically, the ROTJ ending makes no sense; yet emotionally, it was always quite obvious to me that the message conveyed was that the Empire was defeated, and good guys won. I mean you practically could have had

"And they lived happily ever after"

when the iris closes on the final shot. Thats the point--thats the message you get. They can't live happily ever after if ROTJ just amounts to a strategic victory, the message throughout the entire movie, emotionally, is that "this is the final battle--it gets decided tonight", which is why all the sacrifice and basically putting your eggs in one basket approach (ie send the entire Alliance in a last-ditch battle to destroy the death star). 

Personally, i never considered that there was the Empire out there, and I never knew anyone that did either--the film says "the good guys won, the Empire is defeated." Certainly that is what Lucas was trying to convey, and I think it largely worked, even if it doesn't work in a real-life setting, but then Star Wars has always been full of logical holes like this. While we are contemplating why the Rebels are celebrating what is only a strategic victory, we might also be contemplating how they can be celebrating on a planet that should be having nuclear winter.

Back before Zahn's trilogy took a revisionist take and kept the empire going after ROTJ, the EU treated the empire as mostly over after ROTJ. The Marvel comics spelled out that the galaxy was free after ROTJ. On the set of ESB Lucas said that in the next film the empire would be finally defeated. When Lucas put in the celebrations at the end of ROTS the implication there that the empire was over was not part of his SE revisionism. He was just making clearer what he'd already implied in the original film. Maybe it was a reaction to the way the 90s EU took a revisionist take.

The line "the empire was dead. Long live the alliance" is a rather poorly thought out line too, considering you wouldn't need the Rebel Alliance to live long, since their purpose was served.

Not true. You might expect that after the empire fell the alliance would try to set up a new government (like in the EU). That's what that line is implying. The alliance that was rebels is the new power in the galaxy, replacing the empire -that's the implication. Notice they didn't say "Rebel alliance", just "alliance", as in they were no longer rebels. And if the line was poorly thought out, so was much in ROTJ, so why should the novelization be different from the film in that? But poorly thought out or not, it very clearly said that the empire was DEAD. And I see no reason to think that meant anything other than what it sounded like.

After I saw the OT I assumed Anakin turned dark pretty quickly as a result of his anger or something, like how the emperor tried to turn Luke dark through his anger in ROTJ. I just expected it to be convincing, unlike how it was done in ROTS.

It's true that as early as AOTC Annie was not a nice guy. You might understand him killing some Tuskens after his mother's death (though it would be risking a turn to the dark side if he did it out of anger), but killing Tusken KIDS is something else entirely. That shows he wasn't a good guy, as does his support for dictatorship. In the OT Lucas gave us the impression that Anakin was a good guy who got turned evil. Clearly he revised that part of the story for the PT when he turned Annie into an asshole who became more of an asshole.

Also, re killing the Tuskens, by the standards of the OT killing those Tuskens in a rage should have been enough to turn him all the way dark. The emperor clearly hoped to turn Luke dark just by getting him to kill his father in a rage.

I think in the PT we're supposed to get the message that Anakin did turn dark gradually. Killing the tuskens being the first step. Using rage to defeat Dooku and killing him being another step. But this gradual process was not made very clear and we're still given a picture of him being one of the good guys before he signs up to help the emperor and then a short while later being so far gone that he agrees with the emperor that Jedi are going to do terrible stuff.

DarkFather said:

Vader suffering his injuries and all the scenes afterward were great. Seeing Vader's reconstruction, the masking, and the first breath he takes will be with me forever. And seeing the technology of the OT in the PT finally, with Vader walking up to Tarkin and the Emporer was awesome.

Really? Vader suffering his injuries was pathetic, with Hayden going "I hate you!" like a sulking kid and the bit where Kenobi chops him up being anticlimactic. Vader's reconstruction looked poorly thought-out and seeing Hayden's face going behind the mask really didn't work, because no way could that be the face or guy behind the mask. It all felt rather simplistic. And there was too much deliberate Frankenstein type vibe. Then Vader goes "Nooooo!" and the saga is stabbed in the back by the purest lameness. Tarkin's appearance was a mistake, as was the death star's. It doesn't fit to have everything be just as it is in ANH. This is twenty years before, for fuck's sake. That's just as bad as (if not worse than) having Chewie be best buddies with Yoda.

Also, the Vader reconstruction scene was inconsistent with the OT in that Vader was shown to have no problem breathing without his mask. In ROTJ we're told he'll die without his mask.

DarkFather said:

ANH and ESB were masterful balances of child/adult elements. ROTJ was alike to TPM, in that it seemed to be aimed almost exclusively at children. As an adult, it's underwhelming as the climactic, final clash between Empire and Rebellion.

Not true at all. ROTJ is mich more adult-friendly than TPM and a very different animal. And as the climax of the struggle it's very satisfactory.

Akwat Kbrana said:

A. 1983

Moreover, as has been pointed out many times before, the multi-planet celebration sequence - while visually impressive and fun to watch (apart from the Naboo & Gungan part, that is) - ultimately makes no sense. Really, George? The Death Star just blew up mere minutes ago, and planets all across the galaxy are simultaneously setting off fireworks and rejoicing en mass? Really?? You're implying that the whole conflict is over instantly? Just based on the fact that one battlestation was destroyed and one despot was killed? Really??

Except the conflict being over instantly was implied by the ending of the original ROTJ and was in the novelization ("The empire was dead. Long live the alliance.") The SE introduced nothing new there, just made it all the more clear.

The OT were kids movies made to be appreciated by adults. Jar Jar Binks and the other shit in the Phantom Menace was made to make adults puke. I don't know who AOTC and ROTS were made for. I can't understand anybody of any age liking that crap. Using it's-always-been-for-kids as an excuse for Jar Jar etc is bogus, because Jar Jar was for kids in an adults-stay-away sort of way, while the OT worked for adults. The ewoks stretched that, but they were way better than Jar Jar. They weren't just cute teddy bears. They were nasty little carnivores who wanted to eat Luke, Han and Chewie and had a real mean streak. As an adult I like them less than I did as a kid, but they don't ruin the film for me or anything. Whereas the ridiculous stuff in The Phantom Menace jars me out of the film. Jar Jar is for kids in a whole other way than the OT or even the ewoks.

Is it confirmed that the "Nooo!" in Qui Gon's scene in AOTC wasn't Neeson? Because it doesn't sound like his voice.

I have mixed feelings about Neeson not appearing in AOTC and ROTS. On one hand, it would have been nice to see the prequel trilogy's best actor. On the other hand, I kind of like that he didn't sully himself with a real appearance in those two awful films.

Riiight. As cool as a low down scumbag who got offed by a guy who couldn't see. I'm way cooler than "Bubba".

A. 1983.

Yub Nub is the cheerful ending of a film in which the good guys have won and the central characters are all alive and well. The 1997 music is an alteration to fit the revisionist take that the films are all about the Tragedy of Darth Vader, with a the sadder music being a nod the to bittersweet ending of that tragedy. The films are all about Vader suddenly, so it's not such a happy ending, because he's dead, so the music has to mourn him. I'm all on board with Vader's redemption and death, but the story isn't about him, it's about Luke and Leia and Han. Vader's just the villain who got redeemed. He got mourned in his pyre scene. He doesn't need to get morned in the ending music too. The 97 music is warping of the film and a misrepresentation of what it was about. Yes yub nub is childish and silly, but I accept that because I accept ROTJ as what it is. Glowing happily ever after ending is the order of the day, not "Here's the end of the tragedy of Darth Vader." Star Wars is a fairytale, not a grand tragedy. I'm not going to accept Lucas pretending it's something it's not.