PT Was Anakin Skywalker a "bad" Jedi?

At what point is Anakin not cocksure and confident in combat?

"I'm taking him now!"
"I am a slow learner"
"My powers have doubled since we last met, Count"

But I think we're just looking at different things.

Again, this is not what I said, but pointing that out seems futile.

However, not many of us turn to mass murder in an attempt to prevent people from dying.

It seems like you're saying only feelings matter, not actions.

I thought I was clear enough...

The common man is a sheep, a zombie, imo. He goes to work every day and does what he is told. So does Obi-Wan.

Anakin does anything but what he is told. He tries to "make things the way he wants them to be" for "his new Empire". The common man doesn't do this.

Common men don't overthrow Emperors, they don't rule the galaxy. How many people really have an impact on the world around them? How many even try? The everyman is one of the masses.

I don't see galactic ambition as an everyman quality. The everyman isn't very ambitious at all, imo.

By his personality, his behavior, Obi-Wan can be seen as one of the masses, only one who finds himself tied to the Chosen One. Take away his connection to the Chosen One and the extraordinary circumstances surrounding him and he's just another PT Jedi (relatively speaking, he'd probably still kick his share of ass), one of the masses walking straight toward Order 66 without even knowing it. This is what I see. I see Anakin as a potentially truly great man capable of truly great and memorable things, and Obi-Wan as more pedestrian and forgettable in comparison. Anakin is part divine, Obi-Wan is merely mortal. This may not matter to you, but it does to me.

Anakin's personality and behavior would never blend in, he'd always be extraordinary in one way or another. Anakin would always stand out. When I think of an everyman, I don't think of someone special, someone who gets noticed. That's just my view. YMMV.

Just as John McClane takes out an entire team of terrorists. Just as Chief Brody kills the shark.

And how does Obi-Wan beat Anakin? Anakin basically beats himself. Maul's gloating gives Obi-Wan the win.

Obi-Wan is the hard working, blue collar underdog. That's an everyman. It doesn't matter that he wins.

-shrugs-

See it how you want. Of the PT Jedi who are of any note, Obi-Wan is low on the pole. He's lower than Yoda, Mace and Anakin, but above Qui-Gon (in combat).

It doesn't matter that Anakin doesn't fully realize his potential, just having that potential is enough to disqualify him for me.

Opinions vary.

Gods are actually portrayed with a great deal of humanity, that's the comparison I was trying to make.

Okay, way to have a discussion.

Anakin doesn't go on mass murder sprees?

The point I keep trying to make, that you keep ignoring, is that mass murder is extremely uncommon, regardless of circumstances. People get murdered all the time, it rarely results in revenge mass murder sprees by their loved ones, even when they have the opportunity. People are always afraid that their loved ones are going to die, it rarely results in genocide in some crazy attempt to cheat death. These things are not the actions of an everyman, not even close.

How dismissive.

What I'm telling you is that it doesn't matter how I would feel. Of course I would feel enraged and vengeful.

Again, it's not the feelings, it's the action.

Yeah, it's been done to death, and I'm of the opinion that Anakin committed mass murder. The first (and maybe a few more) kill was manslaughter, but the entire tribe? Nope, you're expected to stop at some point.

Besides the Tusken incident, we have the attack on the Temple. No heat of the moment there, that's just straight premeditated genocide.

Most people don't respond to anything with mass murder. This is empirical.

If you want to associate mass murder and cultural genocide with the everyman, go ahead.

Finally, off the everyman and back on topic.

I'm not even sure what you're going for here...

but yes, when Luke did it, it was bad. It was bad when Anakin did it. Both are examples of bad Jedi behavior. So what?

Neither example by itself enough to claim either is a bad Jedi, but Anakin has a ton of other evidence against him, while Luke does not. Luke has some, but far more good than bad, and no indefinite turn to the dark side, as Anakin did.

I can't agree with this. First, I'm not sure what the Tuskens have to do with this. Second, you're playing hypotheticals, when Anakin decapitated a defenseless Dooku, and Luke threw away his lightsaber.

Secondly, Maul wasn't defenseless, and Obi-Wan didn't use the dark side to kill or defeat him. Obi-Wan, when hanging from the ledge, took a cleansing breath and calmed himself. Would Obi-Wan have killed a defenseless Maul? I doubt it. Regardless, it's an irrelevant hypothetical being compared to things that actually happened.

What does any of this have to do with anything? What is the point?

The bottom line is, using the dark side is bad and that's all I've said. You even agreed with this. It doesn't matter who else has done it. Obi-Wan and Luke are mostly irrelevant, as this thread isn't "was Luke Skywalker a bad Jedi" or "was Obi-Wan Kenobi a bad Jedi".

When trying to determine if someone was a bad Jedi, using the dark side counts against them. That's all that is being said.

Count that against Anakin, along with, you know, turning to the dark side fully, leading the assault on the Jedi Temple, personally murdering many Jedi including innocent children and probably doing pretty terrible stuff over the next twenty years. Is this discussion actually happening?

I already said Luke was disqualified for having the Force, especially in the OT setting where it is relatively rare.

In the PT, where Force users seem more common (we see more), Anakin stands out among Force users by being the Chosen One, the Force user with so much potential. People point this out. He has the highest midichlorian count ever.

Maybe. Not that it matters, as I've always maintained that I was stating my opinion.

But I'm sure quite a few fans would agree with me on Han. Not that it matters.

I think that's irrelevant.

 

Anakin wasn't bad for the most part, just misguided.

 

Well, when you join an organization that has "Don't flip out and murder people" in the front flap of the rule book, and you do it anyway that doesn't exactly make you Jedi of the month.

Like, if a cop up and tries to rob a bank, does that make him "misguided"?

 

Vader was a Sith though, no longer a Jedi

 

Obi-Wan being cocksure and confident in battle was one of many aspects used to sum up his character. It was used to negate any idea that he was of normal insecurity. He really isn't. Anakin is, albeit in different scenarios.

Then explain what you mean. You said Anakin takes part in an "obsessive love affair". Anakin falls in love. Either being in love itself is inescapably "obsessive" or Anakin's love for Padme was exceptional. You seemed to be implying the latter of the two - which is why I took issue with you - however, I wouldn't disagree with the former if that's what you were going for. Then again, you were originally using the "love affair" to illustrate Anakin's non-traditional everyman qualities and I don't think such an argument is valid.

And "most of us" don't use the force. Most of us don't receive staggeringly perceptive premonitions of things to come (as do Luke and Anakin). Regardless, Anakin makes a pact with the devil, gives himself to the dark side, it "consumes him", he accepts the notion that Jedi are "evil" (as he previously had the separatists) and kills them as per the devil's orders (just as he does the separatists), just as the Jedi would have killed the Sith had they found them - "he's too dangerous to be left alive.", "destroy the sith, we must.". It is more complicated than simply "mass murder". Now, nobody is saying that is the correct thing to do. And nobody has said what he does in this instance qualifies him as the "everyman". By this point, he has turned to evil and is one of the villains of the piece. It's outside the context of the debate we are having. Anakin has plenty of other story and film time in the PT before this situation arises. The juxtaposition of his falling to the dark side and being the everyman of the story - the representation of us (warts and all) - is the key ingredient in shaping the story as a "tragedy".

The "every man" is also traditionally heroic. Following the trends and fashions of others and, being in absence of ability do things outside the normal realm or think outside the box (which goes back to the "being a maverick" discussion earlier) does not define one as a hero.

You know fine well he has turned to the dark side by that point. I never argued that Darth Vader to be the everyman of the story. He is clearly the villain at that point (just as Luke would have been if he'd joined Palpatine in ROTJ).

Which is why Anakin later needs a machine to survive, having been slain by an apparently "mortal" being who himself inexplicably cheats death and lives on in eternity as an everlasting spirit?

But remember, Anakin (like Luke) originated in the story as a slave on an unnoticed system, far from discovery. An everyman is of understated, humble background, yes. But this is true of Anakin too.

You misrepresent the point being made. Your claim was that Anakin was of near-supernatural skills compared to Obi-Wan. I merely pointed out, to counter that idea, that Obi-Wan beat him. This happens, as much as anything, to do with the fact that (as I explained earlier) Anakin never goes on to achieve that god-like ability he seemed destined for. In essence - on abilities alone - there is nothing we see Anakin do prior to his turn that we don't witness from other characters at some point.

See above for discussion on the Jedi Temple attack. As for the Tusken attack, see below.

That's the point though. Most people rarely have the means (be those means the opportunity, the tools to do the job, or the ability to avoid retribution of some kind... usually judicial). Anakin had both the immediate opportunity (before he had chance to reflect), the necessary tools, and no chance of retribution. Regardless, revenge killings and acts of violent retribution do and are known to happen in our world on a daily basis. To dismiss such things as occurring "rarely" happening is a baseless assumption.

I was talking about what you would do... or more importantly, what you think you wouldn't do.

And, as I've said, you have no idea what you would or wouldn't do until you're in that situation. Nobody does. If you were to take vengeance, I would not view you as a monster. I doubt many would. I would view you as completely human. Humans are flawed. Deeply. That's the point.

I disagree. Anakin's vengeance was directed at the entire tribe (justifiably so, some might say). They were all complicit as far as his rage was concerned.

Yeah, it;s not like anybody died on either Death Star (something which your preferred everyman, Han Solo, had a crucial hand in destroying) did they?

Well for a start, had they the proper means to defend themselves, Anakin's "mass murder" wouldn't have occurred.

I never said he was. I said the opposite.

Had Obi-Wan's blade met it's mark, at that point in the duel, the dark side wouldn't have been an accessory in his success? It's quite clear he is enraged and out of control.

It highlights that outcomes have an important part to play when judging actions. I'm not sure this is necessarily fair. A perfect example in our own society would be the differences in penalties for murder and attempted murder.

 

Now that you mention it, those are two reasons that I think make it harder to see them as every man.

An everyman is supposed to be ordinary, he's not supposed to have magic to bail him out. Luke is one of the few with the Force in the OT, which hurts his appeal to every man.

In the PT, more people have the Force, so it can be seen as more common, but everything is done to tell you that Anakin is not common.

The visions also throw me off, as nobody has prescient dreams. The fact that Anakin goes crazy over his wife dying in a dream is alien to me.

I'm saying it disqualifies him.

Committing genocide to save your wife from a death that you saw in a dream is out there. Like, way out there. I can't identify with that.

And yet Obi-Wan pulls it off. I'm of course thinking of Obi-Wan's abilities as relatively mundane for a PT Jedi.

It's there all along, well before his turn.

It's there as a kid, he wants to be the "first one to see them all", but kids often have big dreams, so I can identify with that.

But in AOTC when Anakin and Padme are rolling around together, he tells her he wants to be dictator of the galaxy. He tells her he doesn't think the system works.

"Then they should be made to" is really how he feels, and when Padme calls him out on it, he tries to back out and play it off as a joke, but revealed his opinion is.

Again, it doesn't matter that Obi-Wan wins. Mortals can beat the divine; hard working, overachieving everymen often do.

Obi-Wan becomes a Ghost in the OT, which isn't what we're talking about. He's definitely not an everyman by then, he's changed into a "crazy old wizard", and the setting has changed as well, the Jedi are all but extinct.

Again, it doesn't matter what Anakin does, it's what he can do, which are things Obi-Wan can never hope to do. It doesn't matter that Anakin never achieves his full potential, because an everyman would never have that potential in the first place.

Your point is irrelevant to me. Simply possessing the potential to do things that no one else could ever do sets him apart and disqualifies him as an everyman, imo.

I've said this a million times now. Just being the Chosen One, whether it comes to anything or not, is otherworldly. I guess it's because I don't believe in prophecies or any such thing, so right off the bat his very existence as a savior is both hard to identify with and difficult to even believe.

I think people have the means far more than you think. All you need is a gun, your rage should negate the fear of retribution.

Anakin did have a kind of retribution to avoid that we all have, a guilty conscience and a disapproving culture that could inflict some kind of punishment (plus the training), but that didn't stop him. It's what stops most people more often than means and opportunity. Anybody can purchase a gun.

Revenge killings definitely happen quite often. Mass murder on Anakin's scale? I don't think so. When it does, we're all shocked and in disbelief. We don't go, "oh yeah that could be any of us". We don't identify with the person and call them an everyman.

If it were just one, or two or three, I wouldn't be saying this. But hunting down an entire tribe is something else.

Understood. I would view myself as an inhuman monster and expect at least life in prison or execution, and I would deserve it, imo. I have the same view for others like Anakin. But I thought this was about being an everyman, not being human. Not all aspects of humanity fit well with the idea of an everyman, imo.

A bit off-putting to be so insistent of your opinion when you're so unsure of yourself.

I don't know what I would do, but I know what people have done, because it can and has been observed. It's not what Anakin did.

He's expected to control his rage at some point. Otherwise, he never has to stop. My point is he had more than enough time to control himself and stop murdering.

An absurd comparison.

Understood, though I think it's very fair.

I feel like I've said my piece and we're starting to go in circles a bit.

 

The problem is, you're applying rules of our own world to that of the more mystical Star Wars one. That said, it matters not. It's about what represents humanity - the human struggle, fear, inner turmoil, heroism, strong principles etc. Anakin and Luke do represent these things as characters. Broadly speaking, whether you agree or not, we are meant to both invest and relate to them more strongly than any others in the saga.

Again, it's a fantastical story. It's like saying you can't relate to Superman or Harry Potter because he does magic. It's missing the point. I feel absolute sympathy for Anakin's visions. He's had them before, they've come true, and his not acting on them has brought him the kind of guilt and despair nobody should ever experience. He understandably vows "I won't fail again". We've all made mistakes. That is a very human thing. If you can't empathise with that, something is amiss.

He commits genocide after he turns to the dark side. By that point, as Yoda says, he is no longer the character we're discussing.

You'll also note that when Padme says "By who? You?" Anakin defiantly answers "No. Of course not me". So no, he is not saying "he wants to be dictator of the galaxy". He is saying absolutely the opposite. He is certainly displaying a lack of political understanding and a somewhat naive streak in that whole scene (whether you think he is goading Padme or not) but he is clearly not entirely adverse to the idea of a dictatorship as Padme is (which is likely put there to explain his later acceptance of Palpatine's rule). Belief in a dictatorship does not make someone inherently evil. Many wisely argue that a benevolent dictatorship can be a more reliable and effective method of government... the only trouble being that such a thing is consistently hard to find.

As has Anakin once he becomes Darth Vader... yet you still quote things Vader does when trying to disprove the case for Anakin being the everyman. It's really not what we're talking about.

What the character does and what we see on screen is what matters. The parts of Anakin's life we see are (in theory) meant to be the most vulnerable he will ever have. Set against the rest of the Jedi, he has less experience and abilities which can (at the point the story is set, at least) be overlooked. His character is more than simply what he is destined to do.

In the heat of the moment, no. But he did feel genuine remorse, confusion and shame afterwards.

Depends which country you come from. Not in the country I come from, thankfully.

You've never felt rage? You've never felt desire for revenge? Of course you have. We all have. That's the point. I'm not saying Anakin's actions here qualify him as the everyman, I'm saying they don't disqualify him. He expresses his rage and anger in the most extreme fashion, yes. Is this to be admired? No. Is it understandable? Absolutely. Motive is always key. If you blindly judge an action without context or understanding, that's ill-advised in my opinion. Killing a person or a number of people without just motive is always considered more serious and brutal than killing to avenge. Many a justice system acknowledges this. It doesn't excuse the action. It simply empathises with it... as we are expected to do with Anakin's attack on the Tuskens... just as Padme does.

But "one, or two or three" is still bad. Why is that so much easier to identify with given that the entire tribe itself were complicit in Shmi's murder?

I think you're being terribly idealistic here.

No but the everyman represents us, warts and all. He should not be perfect because, on the whole, we're not. Displays of very common human flaws should be no disqualifier when trying to establish who best fits into this role in the story.

None of us have any clue how many Tuskens were killed or how long it took Anakin to do what he did. This is entirely ambiguous.

Why? One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist, no? It only matters which side of the fence you're on - "many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view". From Anakin's perspective, the Jedi were rightful enemies of The Republic and democracy. They tried to overthrow and murder the Chancellor without any senate motion or trial. They were a serious threat to lasting peace - "do what must be done". Like it or not, Anakin's actions can be justified in order to make them seem less like murder, just as Han's role in both Death Star attacks can be distorted so he is perceived a terrorist who murdered many thousands (if not millions) of innocent people.

I feel the same.

 

I think Luke's really the only one who is an everyman in SW. Many others demonstrate humanity, but he's the only one who fits the model. As someone said though, all of that's a bit off topic.

 

I never found Obi-Wan to resemble an 'everyman' in the Prequel Trilogy. He comes across as a real prick. He's cold, distant, and lacks any real emotion until he's forced to dismember Anakin. Pretty much every Jedi character in the Prequel Trilogy suffers from the same problem.

Anakin isn't a well written character by any stretch of the imagination, but I found him easier to relate to than anyone else. He has the emotions and attachments that any normal human being would, and the Jedi clearly didn't know how to adjust his training programme to accommodate for this.

As to anyone bringing up the Tusken massacre, I think it's important to realise two things. Firstly, you need to consider the social context. In the Star Wars universe, the Tuskens are not regarded as 'just another race'. They are regarded as subhuman, particularly by the humans on Tatooine. Indeed, relations between the two are almost always hostile, with the Tuskens making a sport of raiding, pillaging, killing and torturing farmers.

Secondly, the fact is that everyone has their breaking point. No, I don't agree with what Anakin did, but there comes a point where primal emotions override common sense and civilized thought. I suspect that every normal human being has had a moment in their lives where anger made them do/say something they regret and can't take back. It's not right, but it is human. If I found my mother tortured and near death in enemy territory, and I was immensely powerful, I'd like to say I'd take the higher road and just punish the perpetrators after an unbiased investigation. But I doubt I'd be in the right mindset if dropped in that situation. Edit: Also, I'd feel tremendous guilt for not being present to protect my mother, since I had been off pursuing my own goals. This is known as survivor's guilt, and while it's irrational, it's also quite common amongst people who survive or witness tragedies.

Overall, I don't think Anakin was a good Jedi, as defined by the Prequel Trilogy. But then, I attribute much of his failure to the Council and Obi-Wan. They didn't raise and train him right. It's clear from the outset that they consider him a bad seed (despite him being a perfectly normal little boy on Tatooine), and this no doubt shaped him into the man he became.

 

Luke is definitely the audience surrogate, but that might be different from an 'everyman' , which I think implies a character with a less distinct personality. He's an audiance surrogate in that he's a viewpoint character the audience can relate to, that would ask questions the audance would.

In ROTS, I think that role goes to Obi-wan, simply because Anakin assumes the villain's role. Slaughtering younglings in the temple isn't even a little relatable, despite how much I sympathize with his character, find his situation tragic, and actually like Anakin more as a villian.

It's hard for me to say exactly when this switch takes place. Maybe as the point where Anakin turns to the dark-side or as early as the Greivous fight.

 

Anakin's emotions may well have been those of a normal person, but that doesn't mean the Jedi were wrong to oppose that. The way of the Jedi is not the way of a normal person.

 

Not oppose the emotions. Oppose the idea that it's okay for a Jedi to deal with emotions in the same way as a regular person might. The standard is different because the consequences are different.

 

Obi-Wan's the chipper everyman.

Anakin's the everyman having a really bad day.

There. I solved it for everyone.

* * *

Jesting aside, that might be a fair reading. Obi-Wan is more like the regular schlump-y everyman bound to duty, while Anakin is the discontented everyman with the bigger vision; the everyman who doesn't so much see BS as feel it; and who desires a way out.

When they duel on Mustafar, it's like two conceptions of the self fighting for supremacy; one wishes to dominate and be proven right at the expense of the other. They aren't interested in compromise; this is anathema to the both of them for different reasons.

There's a Sisyphean visual logic to that final encounter. Look how the two men push against one another on the soon-to-be-eviscerated collector arm, dispensing with swords, and instead, pressing into each other with boulder-like might.

There is no happy way out of a conflict like that. It's a brawl of intransigent self-belief. "I'm right!", "No, I am!" Slaves to ideology; the pair of them. What is more "everyman" than that?

 

The way of the Jedi (at least in the Prequel Trilogy) is creepy, unhealthy, and cult-like.

One scene which always stuck with me from the Phantom Menace was when Anakin was brought before the Jedi Council. Naturally he is afraid, being removed from his mother and surrounded by a bunch of strangers he doesn't know. That's when Yoda spouts off a bunch of pop psychology about fear leading to hate, hate leading to suffering, suffering leading to the dark side. He pretty much broadcasts the message that Anakin is 'wrong' or 'bad' to experience emotions that are completely healthy in a 9 year old boy. That would lead to a feeling of shame and inferiority.

For example, how would everyone have felt had a thirteen year boy been brought in front of his pastor at church because he has homosexual thoughts, and the pastor says 'Homosexual thoughts lead to Hell'. Would we applaud the pastor for holding the child to higher standards, or would we think he's a big jerk?

 

A nine year old doesn't 'choose' to feel fear when taken from their mother and surrounded by a bunch of strangers, any more than a homosexual 'chooses' to feel attracted to another man. Emotional self control does not equate to feeling no emotion whatsoever.

Perhaps instead of babbling some pseudo-psychology, Yoda could have said something more along the lines of "I'm sorry you're feeling that way, you've been through quite a lot. If you find it hard to settle in, feel free to come and talk to us. Now go and play with the other children." *That* would be how a normal human being would talk to a child who'd been separated from his parents. However, the Jedi don't do this, and they come across as a bunch of cold, sterile jerks.

 

Yep. Much fear I sense in you. In other words, too much fear. He's not suggesting there must not be any fear.

Because of time limitations in a film, the Jedi philosophy tends to be restricted to catchphrases. I don't really think the Jedi believe that there can be no emotion. It's a case of having to very carefully monitor and control it. Even more so than for a regular person, because of the dangers of combining emotion with extreme force power are so much more extreme. Difficult to argue with this in light of what ultimately unfolded with Anakin.

Having said that, I agree that the Jedi Council didn't come across all that well in that scene. Could use some inter-personal skills training.

 

Would this inter personal training include leaning back and catching each other?

One of the recent impressions I've got of the Jedi from the PT is that they're almost cult-esque with a hint of monks for some reason. It's a very rough theory but they way they sit in a circle, practice celibacy and before the CW tend to go towards a rather diplomatic route in the Galaxy. The whole recruitment process is a little weird as-well, with younglings who fail simply being trained as Librarians in the order. Would I be right in saying that Obi-wan like Anakin was also close to be refused entry when he was young?

 

Yoda criticised 9 year old Anakin for feeling fear, not for the way he handled it. I do agree with your sentiment, though. Instead of telling Anakin not to experience 'negative' emotions, the Jedi could have trained him on how to deal with such emotions in positive way.