Grand_Moff_Jawa posted:Ask this question of 10 fans and you will get 10 different answers.
Darth_Davi posted:Master_Starwalker posted:Yet why not name it after the main character returning(to the audience, to Dagobah, to his father, to the Rebellion, etc.) and becoming a Jedi? returning to the audience? Are you seriously trying to suggest that Lucas named the movie Return of the Jedi because Luke was gonna be on screen again? Why not Han, Chewie or Leia?
Master_Starwalker posted:Yet why not name it after the main character returning(to the audience, to Dagobah, to his father, to the Rebellion, etc.) and becoming a Jedi?
Darth_Davi posted:Claiming it could refer to the return of the Jedi Order is merely speculative, as there is nothing in the film that shows the Order actually returning, just Luke, nor could it be explained by Lucas having yet to tell stories set afterwards. In 1983, the ending of ROTJ was the end of Star Wars. There simply wasn't anything after, and by the end of ROTJ, we are left with only one Jedi, not an Order restored. Luke does return to his father, but, only because its necessary in order to convince his father to return to the Light Side. Luke goes to Vader, in the hopes that he can convince Vader to go back with him. His goal isn't to return to Vader, its that his father returns to him.
Darth_Davi posted:Luke's goal throughout the entire movie is to restore his father, to bring back Anakin Skywalker. He didn't set out to kill Darth Vader, or the Emperor. His goal in turning himself in to the Imperials on Endor was to go to Vader to try to talk him back. Once the shield generator falls, Luke knows that the Death Star is going to be blown up, with there being a good chance the Emperor goes with it. Luke instead sets out on a personal mission, that had nothing to do with the overall rebel plans. His turning himself in was something he did, contrary to the plan. He set out to convert Anakin Skywalker back to the Light side. His quest wasn't to return, his quest was to return his father. Basically, Luke's storyline culminates in his desire to see the "Return of the Jedi", namely his father, Anakin Skywalker. He succeeds. The Return of the Jedi, his father, occurs, and the Emperor is defeated. Anakin's conversion back to the Light, his Return to being a Jedi, is the culmination of the entire Trilogy. That is something worth naming a movie after.
Darth_Davi posted:Dark Lady Mara posted:Master_Starwalker posted:I've got to clarify my answer. In 1982 or 83 when Lucas came up with the Return of the Jedi title it was definitely referring solely to Luke. Except Luke didn't go anywhere. The concept of returning requires that one leave first. Of all the possible explanations for the title, that to me is the one that makes the least sense. Lucas did know in '83 that Anakin had been a Jedi, and back then the timeline was different so Anakin had been somewhat older when he fell, so one can't argue GL thought at the time that Anakin hadn't ever been a Jedi. The way Obi-Wan talks about Anakin in the OT as a good friend and whatnot makes it sound more like Lucas felt they had been peers. Obi-Wan even confirms this. "I was once a Jedi Knight, the same as your father" or something like that, feeling too lazy to actually look it up. Even disregarding the entire PT, going by only what was available to us in 1983, the title still refers to the return of Anakin Skywalker into the Jedi fold. Anakin Skywalker is the prodigal son. We don't see a return of the Jedi order, we see a single Jedi. ONE. Leia hasn't undergone any training at all, so she can't be counted. Maybe if Lucas hadn't included the scene with Anakin's force ghost I could see how it was intended to refer to Luke, but that scene clearly illustrates to me that the Jedi in question is Anakin, not Luke. Luke was the method for Anakin to return, not the one that returns himself. Furthermore, the Jedi Order was never fully wiped out. By the time Yoda dies, he has already told Luke that he knows all that he needs to know. So, you could say that for a few minutes, both Yoda and Luke were alive Jedi, so the Order never completely got eliminated, so, as you point out, no returning is necessary, as an order.
Dark Lady Mara posted:Master_Starwalker posted:I've got to clarify my answer. In 1982 or 83 when Lucas came up with the Return of the Jedi title it was definitely referring solely to Luke. Except Luke didn't go anywhere. The concept of returning requires that one leave first. Of all the possible explanations for the title, that to me is the one that makes the least sense. Lucas did know in '83 that Anakin had been a Jedi, and back then the timeline was different so Anakin had been somewhat older when he fell, so one can't argue GL thought at the time that Anakin hadn't ever been a Jedi. The way Obi-Wan talks about Anakin in the OT as a good friend and whatnot makes it sound more like Lucas felt they had been peers.
Master_Starwalker posted:I've got to clarify my answer. In 1982 or 83 when Lucas came up with the Return of the Jedi title it was definitely referring solely to Luke.
DarthSceptre posted:Darth_Davi posted:Dark Lady Mara posted:[quote=Master_Starwalker]I've got to clarify my answer. In 1982 or 83 when Lucas came up with the Return of the Jedi title it was definitely referring solely to Luke. Except Luke didn't go anywhere. The concept of returning requires that one leave first. Of all the possible explanations for the title, that to me is the one that makes the least sense. Lucas did know in '83 that Anakin had been a Jedi, and back then the timeline was different so Anakin had been somewhat older when he fell, so one can't argue GL thought at the time that Anakin hadn't ever been a Jedi. The way Obi-Wan talks about Anakin in the OT as a good friend and whatnot makes it sound more like Lucas felt they had been peers. Obi-Wan even confirms this. "I was once a Jedi Knight, the same as your father" or something like that, feeling too lazy to actually look it up. Even disregarding the entire PT, going by only what was available to us in 1983, the title still refers to the return of Anakin Skywalker into the Jedi fold. Anakin Skywalker is the prodigal son. We don't see a return of the Jedi order, we see a single Jedi. ONE. Leia hasn't undergone any training at all, so she can't be counted. Maybe if Lucas hadn't included the scene with Anakin's force ghost I could see how it was intended to refer to Luke, but that scene clearly illustrates to me that the Jedi in question is Anakin, not Luke. Luke was the method for Anakin to return, not the one that returns himself. Furthermore, the Jedi Order was never fully wiped out. By the time Yoda dies, he has already told Luke that he knows all that he needs to know. So, you could say that for a few minutes, both Yoda and Luke were alive Jedi, so the Order never completely got eliminated, so, as you point out, no returning is necessary, as an order.
Darth_Davi posted:Dark Lady Mara posted:[quote=Master_Starwalker]I've got to clarify my answer. In 1982 or 83 when Lucas came up with the Return of the Jedi title it was definitely referring solely to Luke. Except Luke didn't go anywhere. The concept of returning requires that one leave first. Of all the possible explanations for the title, that to me is the one that makes the least sense. Lucas did know in '83 that Anakin had been a Jedi, and back then the timeline was different so Anakin had been somewhat older when he fell, so one can't argue GL thought at the time that Anakin hadn't ever been a Jedi. The way Obi-Wan talks about Anakin in the OT as a good friend and whatnot makes it sound more like Lucas felt they had been peers.
Dark Lady Mara posted:[quote=Master_Starwalker]I've got to clarify my answer. In 1982 or 83 when Lucas came up with the Return of the Jedi title it was definitely referring solely to Luke.
Grand_Moff_Jawa posted:You're entitled to your opinion. If Anakin was the Jedi that returns in ROTJ, what was Luke's significance? He became a Jedi too. Does that mean nothing at all? How does renouncing your evil ways and then dying make for a meaningful return? Anakin returned only long enough to see his son with his own eyes. How can you honestly say that few moments of screen time is the basis for the title ROTJ? Should Lucas have written Luke out of the script? Come on.
Darth_Davi posted:Grand_Moff_Jawa posted:You're entitled to your opinion. If Anakin was the Jedi that returns in ROTJ, what was Luke's significance? He became a Jedi too. Does that mean nothing at all? How does renouncing your evil ways and then dying make for a meaningful return? Anakin returned only long enough to see his son with his own eyes. How can you honestly say that few moments of screen time is the basis for the title ROTJ? Should Lucas have written Luke out of the script? Come on. Luke is the agent for Anakin's redemption. Without Luke's unwavering faith in his father, Anakin would never have had the strength to cast off his Darth Vader shell. I have never insulted or denied Luke's importance, merely that he wasn't the Jedi in the title, his father was. Without Luke, Anakin doesn't return. That Anakin only lived a few minutes afterward doesn't matter. What matters is that even someone who has done great evil for the majority of their life can still change their ways. It is a message to everyone who watches. Anakin Skywalker, who fell and traveled down the Dark Side, a place which Yoda would forever dominate your destiny, was able to come back. Despite all the evil he did in the name of the Emperor, despite the atrocities he committed, Darth Vader could not extinguish Anakin Skywalker completely. Even in the blackest of souls, sometimes there is that spark of good, that if nourished, can evoke change. Lucas was giving us a message of hope, that even when you think all is lost, when you think you are beyond saving, that its never too late to make that decision to stop doing bad, and start doing good, no matter how long you have left in your life. But, Anakin's conversion would never have occurred without the love of a son for his father. I have never attempted to denigrate Luke, or to imply that he was insignificant, merely that his role in ROTJ was that of redeemer, while the title refers to the one being redeemed. You have a problem understanding how a few moments of good can outweigh a lifetime of evil, and thats understandable. However, I don't know about you, but I am a Christian, and forgiveness/redemption is the core of Christian belief. God does not require a lifetime of devotion, only after you accept Christ. You don't need to be a Christian from the day you were born to be saved, you can find Christ at any time during your life, as long as you genuinely believe, and your desire to accept Christ is real, and not merely an attempt to make peace with God before you die. God knows if you genuinely believe or not. It is possible for a murderer to go to heaven. A murderer, in prison can find Christ, and have his soul saved, even if he will be executed for his crimes. Anakin Skywalker may have only physically returned for a few moments, but his soul returned to the Force as a Jedi, not as a Sith Lord. The Endor scene with the Force ghost shows that Anakin Skywalker will spend whatever counts as the Star Wars/Force eternity/heaven/afterlife as a Jedi. Physically he returned for a few moments, spiritually, Anakin returned forever. That is far more significant than his physical return. There is nothing in any of the Star Wars movies that suggests once you accept the Dark Side, its impossible to come back. Yoda thinks that way, but then the movies prove him wrong. The films show that Luke's position, that there was still good in Darth Vader, was the correct view. Yoda wants Luke to think Darth Vader is beyond redemption, because he thinks that is the only way the Sith can be destroyed, but he never considered that there is more than one way to destroy the Sith. Yoda never considered the possibility that Vader could be destroyed by bringing Anakin Skywalker back, while Luke did. In other words, Lucas was invalidating the opinion that everyone who is bad is irredeemable. Lucas has faith in the ultimate triumph of good over evil, regardless of what his personal religious beliefs are, the Star Wars movies are about that triumph. But, the biggest battles between good and evil do not occur in X-Wing and TIE cockpits, they do not occur in Mon Cal Cruisers or Star Destroyers, the biggest battles between good and evil occur within ourselves, within our souls. The internal struggle between Anakin Skywalker and Darth Vader is that battle. Luke, his son, is the reason that Anakin Skywalker finds it within himself to have the strength to cast off Darth Vader. Luke gives Anakin the strength to turn on the Emperor. I have nothing against Luke Skywalker. After Darth Vader, he is my favorite character in the entire saga. But, that doesn't mean that the "Return of the Jedi" has to refer to him by default, and given the other themes in the movie, I think its clear that Luke isn't the Jedi being referred to, his father is. Luke is still very important to the plot, he is the catalyst, the cause for the Jedi in the title to return. Without Luke, Anakin does not return, but Anakin IS the one that returns.
Grand_Moff_Jawa posted: No offense intended, but that explains why you see the movie the way you do. You are focusing on the wrong element. Doing good is nice, but the title is RETURN OF THE JEDI, not RETURN OF ANAKIN. Remember, Ben and Yoda said that for Luke to become a full Jedi, he had to face Vader again. Vader tried to kill Luke in front of the Emperor, no? If Luke hadn't thrown down his lightsaber and been attacked by Palpatine's lightning, would Vader have acted to save his son? I seriously doubt it. Anakin's return to the light side was as impulsive as his fall to the dark side was. Sorry, but the focus of the movie isn't Anakin and never will be. One more thing. Explain to me how renouncing your Sith ways automatically makes you a Jedi again. Please explain that. If I'm a police officer that breaks the law and serves 10 years do I get my badge back when I get out of jail? Oops, one more thing! You realize that the title was originally REVENGE of the Jedi, right? It was changed very close to the release of the movie. That sort of puts your whole argument to shame, no? Lucas changed the title because Jedi don't take revenge, NOT because he wanted the movie to be about Anakin returning from the dark side.
Darth_Davi posted: Think about what you are saying...Vader saves his son from Palpatine's lightning, therefore you seriously doubt he would save his son from Palpatine? WHAHUH?
Darth_Davi posted: Using your police officer example, (obviously you are familiar with the NBC show LIFE, as that is exactly what the background to the show is) no, the officer would not automatically be a cop again...however, if he then appears in uniform, standing next to other officers, I would say that particular cop obviously did become a cop again.
Darth_Davi posted: Obviously I knew that the movie was originally titled Revenge of the Jedi, since I mentioned it in a previous post. Had you been paying attention, you would have known that. But no, it doesn't put shame to my argument at all. In fact, I could even make a case for Revenge of the Jedi being about Anakin's getting revenge on Palpatine and the Sith.
