| Author |
Topic:
Does ROTJ refer to...
|
Master_Starwalker
Registered:
Sep '03
|
Date Posted:
12/9/07 2:00pm
Subject:
RE: Does ROTJ refer to...
- Date Edited:
12/9/07 2:01pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Master_Starwalker
|
Darth_Davi posted:
Master_Starwalker posted:
bluesaber70 posted:
It was back in '83. Otherwise ROTJ would have been a bad title. But, he was redeemed and his story was finished.
No, it wasn't. There's no evidence which supports the claim that it was Anakin's story in 1983. There were only three films and they focused on Luke Skywalker, not Darth Vader.
This is a false argument, as there is no evidence which supports the claim that it wasn't Anakin's story either. Even though Luke was the main character in the OT, The Empire Strikes Back as a movie title has nothing to do with him, unless it refers to Vader's cutting Luke's hand off, in which case the title is more about Vader than Luke, which would only add to the ROTJ refers to Vader theory. If the Empire is striking back against Luke, it is Vader who does the striking. The main character does not have to be the subject of the title. I can think of oh...pretty much every James Bond movie, how many actually refer to 007 in the title? I just rewatched the DVD for ROTJ last night, with the audio commentary by Lucas, Ben Burtt, Carrie Fisher, etc. There were a few instances where Lucas specifically states the culmination of the film is Vader's redemption. At about 5:30 in, while C3PO and R2 make their way into Jabba's Palace, if you listen to the audio commentary, you hear this from George Lucas:
"The original story was really about primitive society really overcoming the Empire, and Luke managing to redeem his father". The statement could be interpreted as being pro-Luke, or pro-Vader, but it does show that even back in 1983, Lucas was fully aware that he wanted to have Anakin's redemption as one of the major themes of the film, and not just an afterthought.
I'm not saying the main character has to be the subject of the title. Luke's only unquestionably the subject of "A New Hope." "The Empire Strikes Back" is just the Empire striking back against the Rebellion and "Return of the Jedi" plays directly off of a piece of Luke's dialogue(I'll return, I promise.), but is also just the Jedi in general. It could have been Anakin, but it may not have been. There's a case that can be made on both sides of the issue.
Darth_Davi posted:
Then, at the 19:15 mark, right after Han is unfrozen from Carbonite, he adds:
"The Han Solo journey is a continuation of the motif of death, and rebirth which is the overall central theme of this whole series in relationship to Darth Vader coming out of his evil hibernation and being reborn as Anakin Skywalker". Uh oh. Central theme of series is the reawakening of Anakin Skywalker from Darth Vader? Sounds like a Jedi being returned to me...
False argument. I'm not saying it's not the story of Anakin Skywalker now. Just that it wasn't back in 1983. The return from death also happens with Luke in Empire given his jump and visual rebirth out of the bottom of Cloud City.
Darth_Davi posted:
Return of the Jedi equals the return of Anakin Skywalker. There is nothing to suggest that Lucas meant the return of the Jedi Order, but there is evidence to suggest he meant the return of Anakin Skywalker. Considering Luke doesn't actually return from anywhere, how can it refer to him? Where does Luke return from? Dagobah? Where is he returning to? He has never been on the Death Star II before, so he can't be returning there...Yet, when we ask the same question of Anakin Skywalker, we have answers. Where does Anakin Skywalker return from? He returns from the Dark Side, and his evil alter ego of Darth Vader. Where is he returning to? He is returning to his Jedi status, as a servant of the Light Side of the Force. What evidence do we have to further support this? Anakin's appearance as a Force Ghost, regardless of which version of ROTJ you have (it makes no difference if we are talking about the original Sebastian Shaw scene or the Special Edition Hayden Christensen scene) Anakin is SHOWN with Yoda and Obi-Wan Kenobi, having fully returned.
Luke returns to Dagobah from leaving while his training wasn't complete in Empire. It's no coincidence that he has a piece of dialogue saying "I'll return, I promise." Anakin Skywalker doesn't return because he never went anywhere either. Anakin Skywalker was within Darth Vader all along. He simply becomes the dominant aspect of AnaVader's personality again when he sees Luke being tortured. If Anakin was really gone, he wouldn't have been able to be redeemed. The return argument gains legitimacy with the young Anakin, but in '83 the man Luke saw was a man who had fully overcome his evil, not a man who had been gone for decades.
-----signature-----
"Creativity is piercing the mundane to find the marvelous." - Bill Moyers
"In a dark place we find ourselves… and a little more knowledge might light our way." - Yoda
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Darth_Davi
Registered:
Jul '05
|
Date Posted:
12/9/07 3:03pm
Subject:
RE: Does ROTJ refer to...
|
So what you are saying is that the title refers to an event that occurs less than halfway into the film, rather than referring to the climax of the film? That makes little sense.
TPM: It could be argued that the title refers to Palpatine, as the unknown Sith Lord, in which subtle clues are dropped at the end to reveal him as the Phantom Menace.
AOTC: The Clones wait until the climax of the film to attack anyone.
ROTS: The Sith get revenge in the culmination of the PT saga, as Palpatine orders the execution of the Jedi thru Order 66, Anakin slaughters the Jedi in the Temple, Palpatine pronounces himself Emperor, and the Empire is born.
ANH: Did Luke become the new hope by training on the Falcon? Or perhaps was it more because he uses the Force to guide his shot at the climax of the movie?
TESB: When does the Empire win? 2nd half of the movie, when Han gets encased in Carbonite, Luke abandons his training, Vader cuts his hand off, and reveals he is Luke's father.
So far, we have 5 titles which pertain to events or revelations that happen in the second half of the film its naming, and usually at the very end of the film.
Then we get to Return of the Jedi...c'mon...naming it that way because of Luke's return to Dagobah in the first half of the movie is lame. Not when you have a much more poignant and meaningful return occurring at the film's climax. What is the return of Luke to Dagobah compared to the return of his father's soul? Luke's return to Dagobah is only a step to get him on the Death Star, so that the stage can be set for Anakin to return. The return to Dagobah is not the fulfillment of a major theme, it merely sets the stage for Luke to have to stand up on his own later, by killing off Yoda. The teacher leaves the student, who has to then carry on and fulfill the rest of the plot...Its a pretty standard plot device that has been used in countless films...You don't name the movie after it though. You name the movie after the more important return, that occurs later.
-----signature-----
What the hell is an Aluminium Falcon?
Oh, I'm sorry, I thought my Dark Lord of the Sith could protect a thermal exhaust port thats only two meters wide!
It wasn't even fully paid off yet!
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Master_Starwalker
Registered:
Sep '03
|
Date Posted:
12/9/07 11:53pm
Subject:
RE: Does ROTJ refer to...
- Date Edited:
12/9/07 11:55pm (2 edits total)
Edited By:
Master_Starwalker
|
Darth_Davi posted:
So what you are saying is that the title refers to an event that occurs less than halfway into the film, rather than referring to the climax of the film? That makes little sense.
TPM: It could be argued that the title refers to Palpatine, as the unknown Sith Lord, in which subtle clues are dropped at the end to reveal him as the Phantom Menace.
Oh definitely. The Phantom Menace is likely the most ambiguous title of them all. Lucas has said that the Dark Side itself is the Phantom Menace, but one could also interpret it as being Anakin or Palpatine as well.
Darth_Davi posted:
AOTC: The Clones wait until the climax of the film to attack anyone.
Definitely one of the most straight-forward titles.
Darth_Davi posted:
ROTS: The Sith get revenge in the culmination of the PT saga, as Palpatine orders the execution of the Jedi thru Order 66, Anakin slaughters the Jedi in the Temple, Palpatine pronounces himself Emperor, and the Empire is born.
Yep, though it refers to the Sith and not Vader if you pay Lucas any heed. It's also worth noting that much like Return of the Jedi this is a throw back to an earlier line. "At last we will reveal ourselves to the Jedi, at last we shall have revenge."
Darth_Davi posted:
ANH: Did Luke become the new hope by training on the Falcon? Or perhaps was it more because he uses the Force to guide his shot at the climax of the movie?
Both and neither. They contributed but, Luke is the new hope because of his personal character and lineage.
Darth_Davi posted:
TESB: When does the Empire win? 2nd half of the movie, when Han gets encased in Carbonite, Luke abandons his training, Vader cuts his hand off, and reveals he is Luke's father.
All of those things stem from the Battle of Hoth.
Darth_Davi posted:
So far, we have 5 titles which pertain to events or revelations that happen in the second half of the film its naming, and usually at the very end of the film.
Then we get to Return of the Jedi...c'mon...naming it that way because of Luke's return to Dagobah in the first half of the movie is lame. Not when you have a much more poignant and meaningful return occurring at the film's climax. What is the return of Luke to Dagobah compared to the return of his father's soul? Luke's return to Dagobah is only a step to get him on the Death Star, so that the stage can be set for Anakin to return. The return to Dagobah is not the fulfillment of a major theme, it merely sets the stage for Luke to have to stand up on his own later, by killing off Yoda. The teacher leaves the student, who has to then carry on and fulfill the rest of the plot...Its a pretty standard plot device that has been used in countless films...You don't name the movie after it though. You name the movie after the more important return, that occurs later.
Luke's father's soul doesn't return. It never went anywhere. It was just 'twisted and evil' for two decades. His soul was repaired more than it returned. One can argue it returns now with the young Hayden ghost I suppose since it makes Obi-Wan right about Anakin being 'dead' with Luke resurrecting him.
-----signature-----
"Creativity is piercing the mundane to find the marvelous." - Bill Moyers
"In a dark place we find ourselves… and a little more knowledge might light our way." - Yoda
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Sickboy65
Registered:
May '04
|
Date Posted:
12/10/07 7:36am
Subject:
RE: Does ROTJ refer to...
|
When I was seven years old and on my way to see ROTJ for the first time, I thought the title referred to Luke. However, while leaving the theater I realized that the title could also apply to Anakin. It was pretty amazing to me at the time to realize the layers within the title. It helped me see the depth within the whole saga itself.
So, I still believe that the title refers to both, and is intentionally ambiguous to add layers and depth to the story.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
jedibri
Registered:
Jul '00
|
Date Posted:
12/10/07 2:53pm
Subject:
RE: Does ROTJ refer to...
|
|
So then what was "Revenge of the Sith" meant to be? ROTJ was indeed the return of Anakin from the Sith side back to the Jedi.
-----signature-----
Jesus says "Unless your attitude is that of a Child you will not enter Heaven."
That's why I'm glad he gave me Star Wars.
It always reminds me of my childhood.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
DarkStarkiller
Registered:
Jul '07
|
Date Posted:
12/11/07 7:39pm
Subject:
RE: Does ROTJ refer to...
|
I'm thinking ROTS means the Revenge of the entrire Sith Order after they were wiped out 1000+ years until they re-emerged with Maul and Sidious.
Although (but less likely) it could refer to Sidious' own revenge on the Jedi. Palpy to Yoda "I have waited a long time for this, my little green friend". This could imply that he himself was getting his revenge. But I'm thinking it's more of the actual Sith Order getting revenge on the Jedi after they were 99% wiped out.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Arawn_Fenn
Registered:
Jul '04
|
Date Posted:
12/12/07 11:59am
Subject:
RE: Does ROTJ refer to...
|
|
Except EU now tells us that they were largely "wiped out" due to the actions of a Sith.
-----signature-----
The world will look up and shout, "Save us." And I'll whisper: "No". - Rorschach
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Master_Starwalker
Registered:
Sep '03
|
Date Posted:
12/12/07 2:19pm
Subject:
RE: Does ROTJ refer to...
- Date Edited:
12/12/07 2:19pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Master_Starwalker
|
jedibri posted:
So then what was "Revenge of the Sith" meant to be? ROTJ was indeed the return of Anakin from the Sith side back to the Jedi.
Revenge of the Sith: The Dark Lords of the Sith getting revenge on the Jedi Order for defeating them 1,000 years ago.
Return of the Jedi: The Jedi return.
If consistency is the point then it's neither Luke or Anakin.
-----signature-----
"Creativity is piercing the mundane to find the marvelous." - Bill Moyers
"In a dark place we find ourselves… and a little more knowledge might light our way." - Yoda
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Arawn_Fenn
Registered:
Jul '04
|
Date Posted:
12/12/07 2:31pm
Subject:
RE: Does ROTJ refer to...
- Date Edited:
12/12/07 2:39pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Arawn_Fenn
|
Hopefully the "revenge" part is for the Jedi killing the Sith'ari. 
(...or it could just be the actions of Hoth's Jedi, which could be said to have forced the issue of the Thought Bomb.)
-----signature-----
The world will look up and shout, "Save us." And I'll whisper: "No". - Rorschach
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Master_Starwalker
Registered:
Sep '03
|
Date Posted:
12/12/07 2:38pm
Subject:
RE: Does ROTJ refer to...
|
|
I really hope Bane dies to a Jedi's blade. I'd love for it be Yoda who kills him, but Bane living to be over a hundred would be a bit much.
-----signature-----
"Creativity is piercing the mundane to find the marvelous." - Bill Moyers
"In a dark place we find ourselves… and a little more knowledge might light our way." - Yoda
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Arawn_Fenn
Registered:
Jul '04
|
Date Posted:
12/12/07 2:40pm
Subject:
RE: Does ROTJ refer to...
|
Master_Starwalker posted:
I really hope Bane dies to a Jedi's blade.
It seems the only way to ensure that the Jedi know of "the fall of Darth Bane" ( from the ROTS novel ) and it allows the Jedi to learn of the Rule of Two without resorting to the Kibh Jeen retcon.
-----signature-----
The world will look up and shout, "Save us." And I'll whisper: "No". - Rorschach
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Master_Starwalker
Registered:
Sep '03
|
Date Posted:
12/12/07 2:52pm
Subject:
RE: Does ROTJ refer to...
|
|
It definitely makes more sense than having the Jedi suddenly accept the rantings of a madman as fact.
-----signature-----
"Creativity is piercing the mundane to find the marvelous." - Bill Moyers
"In a dark place we find ourselves… and a little more knowledge might light our way." - Yoda
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Darth_Davi
Registered:
Jul '05
|
Date Posted:
12/12/07 5:13pm
Subject:
RE: Does ROTJ refer to...
|
Master_Starwalker posted:
Return of the Jedi: The Jedi return.
except that the Jedi never left...but, minor issue, I suppose...There was a fully fledged Jedi Master alive at the beginning of the film, and there was a Jedi Knight at the end of it...Even if we don't count Anakin Skywalker's last moments as those of a Jedi, and merely an ex-Sith. The only gap where there are no official Jedi occurs entirely within the movie, after Yoda's death, before Luke confronts Vader. If the title refers solely to Luke, he never left, so he couldn't return. The Jedi only left for half of a movie, hardly worth naming a title after.
Perhaps it should be Return of the Jedi: The Jedi returns, instead of return. For indeed, a Jedi does return. Anakin Skywalker finds his way back to the light, after being a servant of darkness for 20+ years...I mean, his return to the light is only the culmination of Luke's entire storyline...And Lucas has been saying since 1983 that ROTJ was about Anakin's redemption...but, we shouldn't read anything into that, should we? Why would he name the title Return of the Jedi, referring to Anakin? Just because Anakin literally is a Returned Jedi? NAH. That wouldn't make any sense at all.
-----signature-----
What the hell is an Aluminium Falcon?
Oh, I'm sorry, I thought my Dark Lord of the Sith could protect a thermal exhaust port thats only two meters wide!
It wasn't even fully paid off yet!
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Master_Starwalker
Registered:
Sep '03
|
Date Posted:
12/12/07 5:41pm
Subject:
RE: Does ROTJ refer to...
|
|
The Anakin interpretation is possible I guess, but it seems strange to me that he would get that much focus when his redemption serves solely as a part of Luke's hero's journey.
-----signature-----
"Creativity is piercing the mundane to find the marvelous." - Bill Moyers
"In a dark place we find ourselves… and a little more knowledge might light our way." - Yoda
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Darth_Davi
Registered:
Jul '05
|
Date Posted:
12/12/07 6:05pm
Subject:
RE: Does ROTJ refer to...
- Date Edited:
12/12/07 6:13pm (2 edits total)
Edited By:
Darth_Davi
|
Master_Starwalker posted:
The Anakin interpretation is possible I guess, but it seems strange to me that he would get that much focus when his redemption serves solely as a part of Luke's hero's journey.
I would suggest that sometime between the release of ANH and the scriptwriting for TESB and ROTJ, Lucas realized how popular a character Darth Vader was becoming. He has always said Star Wars was intended to be a modern day mythology, a space fairy tale type thing...that means happy endings. Once he figured out that Vader was incredibly popular as a bad guy, he knew he had to give him a happy ending as well...thus, instead of Luke killing the fallen Jedi-murderer of his father, Vader became his father, and we get the whole "certain point of view" thing, making Anakin's redemption necessary for Luke to get his happy ending. Luke finishes ROTJ knowing that his father was redeemed before he died, so he shouldn't mourn. He still loses his father, but Luke knows that he succeeded in winning back his father's soul away from the Emperor. I think that Lucas had already decided to make Vader much more important than he intended back when he wrote the ANH script, before he even wrote TESB, which would explain why Vader could be the subject. I submit that Lucas had already decided Vader would be the focus of any additional movies...He has in interviews consistently stated that the Star Wars Trilogy (OT) was the middle act of a 9 movie cycle, which explains why the Episode IV bit was added to the ANH title when it was re-released in 1981. He didn't have it originally because he didn't think he would get a chance to make any other Star Wars movies, so Chaptering it wouldn't be necessary. However, as soon as he got the green light to make TESB and ROTJ, he added it. From that, it makes sense that he knew even then that Episodes I-III would revolve around Anakin/Darth Vader. So, while the PT would still be a decade and a half away, By making ANH Chapter IV as early as he did, I think it isn't unreasonable at all that ROTJ could refer to Anakin. By making the OT IV-VI, he clearly anticipated telling Vader's backstory, which also means his redemption becomes more significant, which adds to the title possibly referring to him, even back in 1983.
-----signature-----
What the hell is an Aluminium Falcon?
Oh, I'm sorry, I thought my Dark Lord of the Sith could protect a thermal exhaust port thats only two meters wide!
It wasn't even fully paid off yet!
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
