CT The old ghost anakin, hair? No Scares?

O.K. "Not PT" but from the EU ("light side"). The point was that you were making an argument about the OT using terms that are outside of the OT films themselves: "light" side, "turned", etc.

I said 'on MORAL grounds'....that it's "on screen" doesn't refute it as such. Such an odd position: "If it's on-screen, you can't criticize it!" .

It's only "debunked" because it's in a piece of fiction called Star Wars, where the 'moral question' got ruled-out a priori (well, with ROTJ anyway) because the creator wanted to 'redeem' a (by his own words "un-redeemable") character at all costs (though this probably had more to do with Luke's arc than Vader's/Anakin's). In any other setting/situation such ruling-out of the moral question wouldn't have been the case. Like I said, one could 'justify' the 'redemption' (read: ghosting) back when it's importance was tied more with Luke's character arc, but now that's not the case anymore.

The ROTJ SE in particular has everything to do with this, and if appearances don't matter, why was it changed ?

Well, then it would be foolish of you to rest your case re: Vader's "diminished potential" on the above "IF". You still have yet to establish that Lucas was following an already established character arc with Vader that pertained to his "diminished Force potential" (and, the lack of mention of this element in the Vader character notes from the TESB pre-production 77-78 era that one can find in Rinzler's "Making of TESB" book).

Would that 'evidence' be Vader getting kicked down the stairs in the ROTJ lightsaber battle?

 

The term "good side" is from the OT, and it is a synonym for the light side; furthermore, the OT is the place where the sides of the Force were mentioned in the first place. Thus, the light side is in no way extraneous to the OT, whose Force theory was conceived in terms of these sides from the beginning, as shown by OOU sources if somehow the films alone do not suffice. It is no PT or EU invention.

Also, saying that "turned" is "outside of the OT films" shows that you aren't really well versed in the actual content of these films.

The "moral grounds" argument is based on assumptions that are assuredly not on screen.

It is nonsensical to assume that Lucas believes Anakin to be both redeemable and irredeemable simultaneously. What "redemption" means in Anakin's context is that he returned to the light side, nothing more. That happened. You're using a quote about Han and pretending that it was a quote about Anakin.

We've covered this. Because Shaw is too old for the PT timeline.

I'm not; that's why I cited "the OT itself". Your case seems to rest on the assumption that your preferred outcome is more likely than the alternative.

 

Once again, I said the terminology/nomenclature - not the concept itself - of "light side" (not the dark side) is an EU invention...

Granted, Luke in ROTJ says, "I can turn him back to the good side" , but other than that, Vader/Anakin is said (usually by Obi-Wan) to have been seduced by the dark side. Nothing about " turning to the dark side".

you left out the part of my post and your own post that showed what the "on-screen" part referred to:

Iow, I was saying that even though Anakin's Force ghost "redemption" is actually on-screen, one can still arguing against it on moral grounds (though not on 'existential' grounds). But even from a 'moral' standpoint, it still 'works' when viewed as a sort of 'vindication' for Luke and or culmination of his character arc (which btw, I notice how you ignore the part about the contrast between Anakin's redemption from the point of view of Luke's arc, as opposed his redemption from the pov of Anakin's own arc/or his 'redemption' being an 'end' to itself).

Yes, because we know he's never made contradictory statements before, ever...

Yes, in the Shaw version. In the Hayden version, it's a "resurrection" of Anakin preceded by a final act (literally) of good on the part of Vader ...but nothing about Vader having 'turned back'.

No, I'm quoting from the "he (Anakin/Vader) can't be redeemed for all the bad he's done; he just stops the horror." quote by Lucas from the SE DVD commentary, a quote that most certainly did NOT refer to Han.

Yes, too old for the PT timeline, but not "too old" for the OT one." Finally.


Arawn_Fenn posted:
"I'm not;"

By 'resting your case', I meant insofar as your assertion that my appeal to Occam's Razor in this matter is purely motivated by personal preference (what the "IF" above refers to) , and not the concept of Vader's diminished Force potential itself.


Arawn_Fenn posted:
"that's why I cited "the OT itself"."

To which I asked, "what was your evidence from the OT itself???".


Arawn_Fenn posted:
"Your case seems to rest on the assumption that your preferred outcome is more likely than the alternative."

But this assertion 'seems' to rest on the fact that you have presented no evidence as of yet that shows that Lucas was following an already established character arc for Vader when it came to this "diminished Forc

 

Still wrong. Watch the films again, since you don't seem familiar with their content.

That excuse won't save your position from its own contradiction with the films.

Except for the part where Luke said it, which you mentioned above, and which is in either version, even the Hayden one. Once again your misguided attack on turning runs into a brick wall. Just another failed anti-Hayden ploy.

 

"I will not turn ....and you'll be forced to kill me." - Luke

O.K. Arawn. Make that TWO statements about 'turning', and both of them by Luke. For "turning" statements in the OT by Ben and Yoda, we still have "O" and "O"*.

*I also like how Yoda offers no caveat/kabuki-dance about Luke's father turning to the d.s. "hence he's not you're father anymore, so I was right, from a certain p.o.v." nonsense, like Ben does later on in the same scene. Must be difficult for one that considers Ben/Obi-Wan statement's 'normative' above everything else, even over what we see on-screen.

What 'contradiction within the films'??? You yourself said that the mere fact that he becomes a Force-ghost shows that he was 'redeemed' in a manner-of-speaking. To be 'contradictory', Lucas need not hold these two positions simultaneously , but only chronologically . Iow, he used to believe Anakin was redeemed, but now (since the PT's) he equivocates on the matter.

I also notice that my post above yours was an 'excuse', but not exactly 'wrong'. Ouch.

Luke saying he has to try to turn his father back doesn't change the fact that Lucas later on (in 2004) says that Anakin can NOT be 'redeemed' (he says it as though the notion had already been out there in the public - wonder where such a notion came from? ). My position allows for latter-day Lucas statements sometimes not cohering with what's in the (old) films.

A "brick wall" titled, "Auto-Denial"....

Nope. Just a counter-argument against yours. But it's certainly telling that you would frame it in such way.

Let me try that 'rebuttal': this is another one of your ANTI-SHAW ploys!!"


There...did you just vanish?

 

You're still missing at least half of them, and no, the other ones are not from Ben and Yoda. You can't simply throw out "turning to the dark side" from the OT. It's in every version.

Who knows? Let me know when anyone holding that position turns up, and I'll ask them.

...and that's not what Lucas means by "redeemed" if Lucas says Anakin was not redeemed, because Anakin still becomes a Force ghost no matter what version of the film is seen.

Except Lucas' opinion on whether Anakin returned to the light side has not changed.

Lucas, or anyone else, saying Anakin was "redeemed" was not in the old films anywhere.

It's framed that way because it is that way. Your rewriting of history and the facts about the films aside, Anakin turning to the dark side is in every version of the OT. It's there in both the Shaw version and the Hayden version. Thus, as an argument against Hayden, it fails. ( But if you're saying that framing your position as anti-Hayden is wrong because you're really pro-Hayden, that's good to hear. )

 

List some more quotes of them.

Right. But it's funny* that we never heard Lucas declare him "unredeemable" until the time of the PT.

*imo, it's not a coincidence

Right. But the reason/motivation for his having returned to the light side has changed .

Neither was Lucas saying that Anakin "can't be redeemed; he just stops the horror" in the old films anywhere.

Nice authoritative certainty there, but without support, I'm afraid.

Actually, it's not, unless there's a version of the OT that has PT "flashbacks" in it that I'm not aware of ......no, in the OT, we have people talking about Anakin/Vader being seduced by the dark side of the force, but no one saying that he had turned to the dark side.

See above. At any rate, it need not be an 'argument against Hayden'.

My position is no more 'anti-Hayden' than yours is 'anti-Shaw'...that was my point. Thus, calling my position names ("anti-Hayden!") fails as a rebuttal.

Framing my position as 'anti-Hayden' is wrong because it fails to address the actual argument of the position .

 

During the featurette The Chosen One on the ROTS DVD, Lucas says at least three times that Anakin was redeemed.

Funny? Yes, that's a real knee-slapper.

Wrong. That would be kind of hard to do if you're just changing the appearance of the ghost and leaving everything else the same. The reason/motivation is still Luke, the same as it always was.

Blatantly rewriting the OT in a desperate attempt to prop up a failing argument... not a good sign. Revisionism aside, Anakin having turned to the dark side is in the OT. The concept of turning to the dark side is spoken of and it's meant to be understood that this is the same thing that happened to Anakin. So much for "Occam's Razor". The films speak of Anakin being turned from the dark side ( I guess turns are only turns if they're in a certain direction ). Furthermore, there's not much difference between "convert" and "turn".

The point was that no verbal statement on Anakin's "redemption" was made in the old films, so you can't say that Lucas' position changed on this subject if no position was expressed in the first place.

 

Which contradicts the whole "he can't be redeemed for what he's done" bit (contradiction #1)...but then I'll probably be reminded that 'redeem' in this instance doesn't mean the same thing for Lucas as it does in other instances (like the one you cite). Count 'redeem' along with the word 'balance' in the "words-that-we-can-redefine-whenever-we-want-to" category/bin.

I meant 'funny' as in 'strange', hence my tag at the end.

Difference is, concerning Luke, now his father is the 'Chosen One', and the saga - not just the prequels, but ALL SIX movies - are "about" his father, which decidedly changes the reason/motivation for his father returning to the light side. Before, it was primarily the culmination of Luke's character arc. It's not about that at all, now. So it's not 'just the ghost appearance' that has changed.

Squawking about 'rewriting' the OT but not presenting any evidence...not a good sign.

See above post in bold.

Except when we see the PT, we see that it's not the same thing that was being attempted with Luke*. At least, the circumstances were very different between father and son.

*where was the 'seduction' of Luke, like there was supposed to have been with his father? this ties into the next post:

I'll grant that.

Emperor: Only together can we turn him to the dark side of the Force.

Luke: You won't convert me as you did my father.

 

Part II:

Edit to add/correction:

"Occam's Razor" as applied to the films doesn't show that Anakin turned to the dark side upon killing someone in anger - the same criteria with Luke in the OT - oops!!! Stretch-o-matic-"it-all-fits-together" story strikes again.

Lucas' wording in the OT regarding Anakin's fate is not my fault...just pointing it out.

O.K. I'll grant that.

Emperor: "Only together can we turn him to the dark side of the Force."

Luke: "You won't convert me as you did my father."

You're right. So Anakin 'turned' in the PT. But....his 'turn' was inconsistent with what we were told in the OT. We were told that Luke would have been in danger of turning had he killed the Emperor or Vader 'in anger', but according to the PT, Anakin killing Dooku, who was no longer an immediate threat, was A-OK.... According to the logic/reasoning of ROTJ, Anakin should have turned right then and there after he killed Dooku.

 

The Emperor does show some consistency. Killing Dooku was an important step in Anakin's fall to the dark side. Palps was trying to duplicate this situation by having Luke kill Vader. The different element here is that Dooku was completely oblivious to Sidious' true intentions of making Anakin his apprentice...as far as Dooku was concerned, he would rule the galaxy at Sidious' side. Vader was at least aware that Palpatine wanted Luke, but reasoned he would play an active role Luke's turn. Like Dooku, Vader was unaware that he too was simply a useful tool for Sidious getting the apprentice he truly wanted. Similar to Dooku attempting to persuade Obi-Wan that together they can overthrow Palps and rule the galaxy, Vader made the same proposal to Luke. It seems every Sith Lord is working against the other for total control.

For the Emperor, Luke represented the apprentice Anakin was supposed to be but never could because of the diminished and flawed condition Obi-Wan left him in after the Mustafar duel. It's only at the end of ROTJ that we see Anakin Skywalker as Luke sees him...a heroic, legendary Jedi Knight, without the aforementioned flaws, in his luminous form. Personally, I think Lucas should have left the scene alone- we understand exactly why Luke sees Anakin like that. I understand why Lucas would want the Hayden inclusion there, but (like many OT changes) it was unnecessary.

Mr. K

 

Wrong, it's still Luke. Anakin doesn't know he's a character in a film saga.

That sound effect didn't sound like an "A-OK" sound, and the novel didn't make it seem "A-OK". By this logic killing the Tuskens was "A-OK". In danger of turning, you say? Good thing Anakin dodged that bullet!

"All turns to the dark side must be under the same circumstances" is an imaginary rule.

But your ill-fated and Occam-negating assumption that Anakin didn't turn to the dark side is, as was the mistaken assumption that turning to the dark side wasn't even OT terminology.

Contradicting your own post... not a good sign.

ROTJ said that Anakin was converted to the dark side. You claim Anakin wasn't turned to the dark side in the OT. That's a rewrite, because the real OT is not consistent with your claims. Simply denying it isn't a great strategy.

What it contradicts is your revisionist narrative that Anakin wasn't redeemed, which rewrites the story to prop up a failing case. At most Lucas ( allegedly ) used the word inconsistently during the PT era, but...

Because otherwise you end up with a Lucas who doesn't know if Anakin returned to the light side or not. A Lucas who doesn't exist outside your imagination.

No, you can't redefine the word balance whenever you want to. Nor can you replace the phrase "balance of the Force" with "Jedi and Sith head count". Lucas uses the term balance consistently and in keeping with its definition, unlike revisionists.

 

I am one that totally doesn't agree with the insertion of Hayden in RotJ as young Anakin. I've always thought Shaw fit just fine and still do. My take on why Anakin is scarless and has hair but does look old (as do Ben and Yoda)...I mean since Hayden was inserted it stands to reason that Sir Alec should've been replaced by Ewan at least in RotJ but that would cause a visual continuity error with ESB because Sir Alec was Force Ghost Ben there...anyways, back to Ani. It's because it's to show that he's been healed and redeemed, I feel he should remain older looking to reflect that he returned to the light at the end of his physical existence. I believe Ben should also stay old looking because he stayed light all his life and I feel his elderly appearance bespeaks his strength of character and the trials he endured along his path.

 

If anakin didn't kill count dooku, would he have fallen to the darkside? Why was he fighting dooku, too?

 

Why not? Dooku CUT OFF ANAKIN'S ARM.
Also, Jedi want to kill Sith. Who want to kill Jedi.

 

What about anakin falling to the darkside? Luke avoided falling to the darkside by sparing anakin's life in ROTJ.

 

Anakin may have become closer to the dark side by killing Dooku like that, but his real fall happened when he killed Mace Windu.

 

First of all, anakin did not kill mace windu. The emperor did.



Here's what I don't get. Palpatine tells anakin he's a traitor to the republic, anakin tells the jedi, the jedi go to arrest him. At this point, anakin is still a good guy, who just wants to learn some dark powers to save his wife. Not evil, so far. He's a good guy with some struggles and problems. Later on, he goes to coruscant to save palpatine from the jedi so he can save his wife, knowing well the sith want to take over and become dictators (ie, the death star that palpatine uses when he becomes leader later on). Even then, he is still a good guy. He cut's off mace windu's hand to save sidious so sidious can teach him the dark power to save his wife. Even after he helps the emperor harm his fellow Jedi and just stands there, he is still filled with regret and sorrow. That he couldn't save windu, or chose not to, more like it.

1 minute later. Anakin is knighted and goes from being good guy to "all vader and evil and let's take over galaxy and do bad stuff", in a matter of seconds. Huh? I thought you were a good Jedi a minute ago. Now you're evil? How did that happen? So quickly? It was just a baptism as a dark lord.

 

Mace Windu would have killed Palpatine if Anakin hadn't chopped his hand off. Palpatine was close to being absolutely overwhelmed by Windu, so he begged Anakin for help. Windu was winning before Anakin reduced him to such a state that Palpatine was able to dispatch him. Anakin was being selfish by putting the supposed needs of his wife over the needs of the trillions-strong Republic. Falling to the dark side ("knighting") happens quickly a lot of the time.

 

Exactly. That proves my point. Darth Vader created the galactic empire (saving palpatine from mace windu), to save padme, who had luke and leia. Therefore, it would have been better for the galaxy if luke and leia never existed. It's fair to say that leia and luke are, through their very existence, the cause of the empire existing. the galaxy would've been better off without them. Agree?

But i don't get how anakin magically turned from good to bad within a matter of seconds. One minute he was a jedi, next minute he was all evil and vader. Such a quick mood swing.

No, I disagree with the comment above. If anakin didnt chop off mace windu's hand, palpatine would've zapped him with lightning. Am I wrong?

 

'
If I recall correctly, the general consensus is that Windu was almost assured of victory, so you are wrong. Windu was winning. Windu is exceptionally powerful and dedicated. Palpatine could resist, but he could not hold him much longer.
Yes, Luke and Leia have cause a lot of problems. But they are not the cause of the Empire. Anakin may have been turned another way. Palpatine could have found someone else. With every hypothetical comes a myriad of what-ifs.
The quick mood swing has been complained about, but in the case of Anakin, he had been getting groomed by Palpatine for years. He was already quite dark. You may remember the Jedi Master I told you about who used the dark side while remaining good in the head for like one minute? That was a quick mood swing. He had not been wavering on the edge of the dark for years like Anakin. Cade Skywalker is the king of quick mood swings. I'm okay with Anakin's because he had been going in that direction for years - what, did you think Anakin was going to have a job interview, tour of the facilities, negotiate a salary and ask other employees what working unders a Sith Lord was like?

 

I disagree and agree with many of your points.

First of all, you just implied that anakin's fate was predestined. Predetermined. No matter what, padme being pregnant or not, he would fall to the darkside and become darth vader, and his wife having kids was just one other way. I have to disagree with that. Anakin's turn to the darkside was not inevitable.

Also, how do you know that windu would have defeated palpatine had anakin not intervened? Are you saying that Palpatine didn't have enough time to regain strength with force lightning, but anakin saved him and gave him enough time? If anakin didn't cut off windu's hand, palpatine lives anyway.

Luke and leia, nor their father anakin, did not help to defeat the empire. The empire could've fallen without them. The rebels won the war because all the empire's leaders and officials died on the death star 2. Not because anakin turned against the emperor. That had no effect on the outcome of the battle, whether or not Luke's father was redeemed, turned against emperor, etc. Luke and leia maybe helped, but they were not needed. I don't get why Luke was called a new hope. And Leia was considered the only hope for the alliance/defeating empire. What? Makes no sense to me.

How did anakin change so differenlty in one minute? It was like a good-evil switch was turned on and off.

 

Inevitablility of Anakin's turn has been debated a lot. Some say it had to happen because of bringing balance to the Force. What I was saying was that Palpatine would have tried it even if Anakin did not cooperate.
Did you watch the movie? It is obvious that Windu is overpowering Palpatine. Palps is curled in a defensive position and is MELTING. Palpatine had lost his saber by then and was attacking Windu with Force lightning. Windu was deflecting this lighting back at Palpatine with his blade. Therefore, the more lightning Palpatine sends at Windu, the more he hurts himself, but he can't stop because if he does Windu will kill him with his lightsaber immediately. The lighting made Palpatine very ugly but bought him valuable time.
I don't feel like arguing more with you about whether or not Luke and Leia were the reasons the Galactic Empire was. I'm glad to explain details you may be confused about but I'm staying out of some of your wilder theories.
Your last point has been brought up a lot. In the case of Anakin Skywalker, he was walking that path of loyalty to Palpatine and getting close to the dark side for years.

 

How does anakin turning to the darkside help bring balance to the force? What are you talking about? Anakin becoming a sith being inevitable for balance? What? Balance=light side only, sith destroyed. Your idea makes no sense.

Most fans say that Palps looked ugly and disfigured after the fight rather than normal looking palpatine, because mace windu melted his disguise. That's false. Palpatine's face looked normal in the holograms. They hid his face as to not show it was the same person as Palps (plot twist), but the little skin I saw didn't look like the wrinkly half dead skin of the emperor from the OT, and the holograms at the end of ROTS after the transformation. If it was a disguise, why would he disguise himself when talking to his cohorts? No need to.

It was the lightning in the windu duel. yet, why didn't luke get disfigured in ROTJ when palps zapped him with lightning?

Without luke and leia, would and how anakin turn to the darkside? How did Leia redeem her father?

 

Balance means an equal amount of both. That is the definition of balance - equality. A ton of good and no bad is not balanced. Sith destroyed is not balance - the light side is too "heavy" that way.
Yes, Anakin was to be the Chosen One. The Chosen One's destiny is to bring balance to the Force. If a bunch of details were switched and an evil empire was in control during Anakin's lifetime, he would have become a very good person who founded a Republic, or something to that effect.
Palps was not trying to kill Luke with the lightning, he was provoking him.
Palps' face did NOT look normal in those holograms. He had a hood plus lighting. Your "plot twist" is speculation. Also, the same actor played Palpatine the entire run of the movies. One happened in 2005. One happened in 1977! Special effects are going to change. Yoda's puppet was replaced by a CGI one.
Anakin may turn to the dark side for other reasons, such as power, etc. Leia did not redeem Vader. Luke did.