PT Did Hayden do a good job as Anakin?

Ah I see. Good point.
Anyway, I love the addition to the character we see in the OT. Particularly ROTJ Vader is enhanced a fair bit, as is ROTS Anakin/Vader by the OT. It makes sense when Vader argues that "There is no conflict" and "It is too late for me son", plus "You don't know the power of the darkside. I must obey my Master" because we see that the darkside is all that Anakin had left. I also like the ANH scenes with Vader fighting Obi-Wan. His calm steady demeanour reflects a Vader that has grown (wiser) since he was the impetuous youth that Obi-Wan defeated twenty years before. So, yeah I agree

 

I think the movie Anakin still has some good, that's why he cried after killing the CIS leaders, the novel Anakin is pure dark.

 

I think where I have a hard time accepting your version of events is that it doesn't fit very well into what happens in the OT, for me. It works well enough if one takes just the PT into account, but I don't like the idea of Anakin remaining loyal to Palpatine for the simple fact that Vader wasn't very loyal to the Emperor in the OT. Vader was loyal to the Empire sure, but in ESB, he was planning to overthrow Palpatine with Luke's help. The OT itself never really explains, then, what would have caused Anakin's change of heart from wanting to protect Palpatine to wanting to overthrow him. The way it plays out now in ROTS, Anakin was never protecting Palpatine out of loyalty to the man himself. But in your version, his motives become more muddled and this discrepancy is never really explained.

Personally, I also like that Anakin's turn in the films is one of resignation, fear, desperation, and, most importantly, submission because what ROTJ shows us is that Vader feels he doesn't have a choice in obeying Palpatine.

 

The exact same circumstances I mentioned above (Vader/Anakin blocking a saber strike on Palpatine) happened in the OT. If Vader was so bent on overthrowing Palpatine, why did he block Luke's strike? Palpatine was just sitting there. And Anakin had more reason to be loyal to and defend Palpatine at that point in ROTS than he did on the Death Star in ROTJ. He could have used the "He must stand trial..." line to justify protecting him in the ROTS. Kind of like a Secret Service agent would, which makes plenty of sense.

When he initially protected Palpatine, he was Anakin Skywalker. After killing Windu (in my version), he had lost control and embraced the dark side and taken on a whole different persona.

It's hard for me to believe that someone with Anakin/Vader's battle experience would be that afraid of anyone. And he certainly had a choice when he picked him up and threw him down in ROTJ while Luke was getting zapped.

 

In RoTS, he does state that "I can overthrow him" to Padme.

So, a case could be made that the moment he went dark, he got ambitious- with his goal being to get "the secret" then kill him.

 

That was the plan all along. He didn't forget those attempts on Padme's life.

 

Circa 1980 up to the PT, we only had Vader telling Luke that he was planning to overthrow the Emperor with Luke's help...but we had no reason - back in the OT days, pre-PT - to believe that Vader was doing anything other than saying things to get Luke to join him. Thus, the OT would never had needed to 'explain' the overthrow-the-Emperor angle, had the PT not made it officially part of the story (not to mention the whole saving people/Padme from dying thing).

ROTJ only shows/tells through dialogue, that Vader felt that he didn't have a choice in obeying the Emperor or staying with him, as opposed to 'going with' Luke. It says nothing about Vader/Anakin not having any choice in joining/allying himself with Palpatine in the first place.

 

Besides the RoTJ novelization, which makes it pretty clear that Vader was serious.

Also Shadows of the Empire (comic version) has, in the last panel of Vader, him thinking "Together we will rule the galaxy as father and son."

Both of which predate the PT.

 

To answer the question posed by the OP: Yes, he did. He did a very good job, especially considering how many pairs of shoes, or boots if you prefer, he was stepping into. Vader/Anakin had been played by no less than five other actors: Jake Lloyd, James Earl Jones, David Prowse, Sebastian Shaw, and Bob Anderson (Vader during the lightsaber duels in ESB and ROTJ).

Hayden had enormous expectations placed on him, and IMO he fulfilled them and more. The "fanboys" have been incredibly cruel to him and have not given him anywhere near enough credit. And saying, "He did the best he could with crappy dialogue and bad direction" doesn't count as credit.

By the by, Hayden is quoted as saying that, contrary to popular belief, he found Lucas to be a very involved director who was interested in what his actors had to say. I've pointed that out elsewhere, only to be dismissed with, "What, do you think he's going to badmouth his highest-profile employer?" Everything is a conspiracy theory to the "fanboys."

 

True even in Shadow of the Empire, he tells Xizor "The Emperor's not here." in other words Vader does things a little different from the emperor. I think that it's implied even when he expresses his distaste for the first Death Star that he was not on the same wavelength with the emperor (If it was explained that the emperor approved of the first death star).

 

But this is using EU - and only EU - to support a case. Going by the OT films alone, it's a different story.

But I'll agree that these EU portions predate the PT, AND that they were ultimately Lucas-sanctioned. All that shows, imho, AT BEST , is that Lucas introduced (or RE-introduced, if what we've been told about earlier drafts of ROTJ are the whole story) the Sith 'Rule of Two' and Vader-has-been-scheming-to-get-rid-of-the-Emperor plot points only after the OT was finished (iow, after 1983).

 

?? I don't remember anything about when the Rule of Two was introduced, except that it shows up in the prequels. ?

 

To clarify, the part about 'Re-introduction', and linking it with earlier drafts of ROTJ had more to with the Vader-scheming-to-overthrow-the-Emperor sub-plot than the Rule of Two. The main thing for me, is that the OT considered by itself has no "explaining to do" regarding Vader and the Emperor's interrelationship vis-a-vis the originally intended and implicated back-story, which said nothing about back-story Vader (or Anakin) desiring to usurp the Emperor's throne or this playing any role in his transformation into the Vader of the OT.

Regards,
Steve

 

hey Toschestation, been awhile

as for the thread, Hayden is "ok" as in he's grown on me,

might have mentioned it in here, honestly can't remember as there is so many threads on Anakin I lose count where I've posted

 

The old 'xenforo' forums were wild, were they not?

 

Anyone else think that the "you underestimate my power" line reading is Christensen doing his version of James Earl Jones voice (not an impression but as close as Anakin Skywalker is gonna get)? I thought it was kinda neat.

As for his tears on Mustafar, I think that's a great bit because you can read it a lot of ways. I don't think he's all that bothered by killing the Sepratists, I think he's just caught up in TRYING TO MAKE IT RIGHT,trying to bend the universe to his will, which is something he does a lot. That's his downfall, so at that moment at Mustafar he can see for miles, maybe even forseeing the future a bit. He can make it better, it's just that the hell of it is people he cares about have a habit of dying around him whenever he does.

 

Overall I think he did a good job, but I feel he wasn't the one that should've been casted. When you watch Vader in the OT you don't really picture Hayden under the mask, and I only mean that by his size. They should have gotten someone bigger that you can see becoming Vader; not someone as big as Dwayne Johnson but not as small as Hayden, somewhere in between like Chris Evens (not saying he should be casted, just talking about his size). I just find it odd that when Vader gets put in the suit he becomes bigger. It doesn't make any sense.

 

Yes.

 

Actually, it DOES. What doesn't count as given him 'credit', is looking at this video and saying "gee, Hayden talks about Lucas being a very involved director!! Therefore, Hayden did a good job playing Anakin, and Lucas is a great director!!!"

Hmmm...the idea that he's been faithfully following a 'master-plan' he set up in 1973, but had told no one about this master-plan , sounds more like a "conspiracy theory" to me.

 

Yes, Hayden did a good job as Anakin. The first time I watched Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith my opinions weren't swayed by the fans, and I thought he was good. I try not to let my first impressions be changed by the fan base.

 

Jake and Hayden was all wrong for the part, anyway. Vader seemed more like an intelligent and older character to begin with, who wasn't much younger than Obi-Wan. That alone justifies the whole disappointment most people have with the actors.

 

Obi-Wan does say "a young Jedi named Darth Vader who was my pupil until he turned to evil"

That, combined with

"If you end your training now, if you choose the quick and easy path, as Vader did"

led me to think that Vader was still in training to be a Knight, when he turned, even though Obi-Wan also said "I was once a Jedi Knight, the same as your father."

 

Obi-Wan was 10 years old than Anakin in ROTS ( 33 to 23 ), so that's statement right there is wrong

And like Iron_lord said, Obi-Wan said in IV that a Young Jedi by the name of Darth Vader before he turned evil

 

Right, going by the OT, Anakin was said to be younger than Obi-Wan. I'm not disputing that he wasn't. But after seeing ROTJ and seeing that Shaw is around Guinness's age, I just figured he couldn't have been more than five years younger than Kenobi.

And by the way, according to the novel, Obi-Wan is supposed to be 15 years older, not 10.

 

I'd also point out a nonstandard but possible interpretation of "young Jedi." Going just by those words... how do we know how long a Jedi lives? Maybe an old human could still be a young Jedi. I don't think this is what was intended, but I just point it out as a way that language can be ambiguous. Like Jabba the Hutt. Is a Hutt an alien species, or a political grouping, a title or... ? (I know it's been interpreted as species, but it could in theory be any of those, in the absence of other information.)