Anakin really suceeded where Luke failed

Discussion in 'Revenge of the Sith' started by Old_Zen, Dec 21, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. rinaabpaceer Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Dec 19, 2005
    I don't know if anybody brought this up, but I think for all of Anakins failings he had one shining moment in ROTJ. He had stopped Luke from striking Palpatine right? Well did anybody ever think that this was to save Luke from going to the Dark Side? Just a thought. It's probably been discussed already, but I don't have the patience to read all the shtuff.
  2. prefontaine Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Feb 6, 2005
    star 1
  3. THEFORCEROCKS Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 23, 2004
    star 4
    Luke from going to the Dark Side? Just a thought. It's probably been discussed already, but I don't have the patience to read all the shtuff.



    Yeah it would seem that way but remember vader wants Luke on the darkside. The reason why he stopped luke was because he is still loyal to the empereror and lUke wouldve been destroyed. Sidious isnt as weak as people make him out to be and lUke wouldve made a fatal mistake.
  4. sithrules70 Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    May 28, 2005
    star 4
    i disagree. the mind trick is not dark side, is like saying than obi wan used the dark side whe nhe used the mindtrick on the storm trooper. and to choke the gamorreans its a common misconception nowadays that foce choke is only a dark side power.mace used it to choke grievous. the only dark side power we see is the lightning because only the sith can use...every force move is neutral and being honest to choke a couple of pigs is like killing a droid, i just dont see the dark side there
  5. darth-sinister Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2001
    star 9
    No Jedi has done the choke in the films, except Luke. Not Obi-wan, Mace, Qui-gon, Yoda, Ki-Adi-Mundi. Even when he was still good, Anakin never did it. A Force choke is an agressive move. Jedi are defensive. Mace reached out with the Force to crush Grievous' chest, which even then is suspect, given that the General's chest isn't damaged that way in the film. He just has the cough.
  6. TrueJedi Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 22, 2000
    star 5
    I disagree. He swung to save his friends, not just because he got angry for no proper reason. It wasn't for revenge like what Anakin kept on doing. It was to take out of power the mass murderer who had stolen political power and was ordering the murder of not only his friends but also the same clown who had the power to blow up planets. Luke was acting in total compliance with the Force.
  7. PyrhanaJEDI Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 26, 2003
    star 1
    JJP: I guess I would like to know if you feel killing is right? Maybe you should need some time to work this out, but really, is killing ever right? [of course, except to stop killing/death...]

    I would ask you this, as well. Would it be okay for Luke to have killed Darth Vader on the second Death Star? I guess when the Jedi traitor in question is your own father or the "Chosen One" the reasoning gets a little grayer. This was the event I was comparing to Dooku's final moments.

    Prefontaine mentioned Obi-Wan did leave Anakin, "Lord Vader", injured. Given that Lord Vader later destroyed the Emperor, was it plainly wrong? Did not Obi-Wan reach that point where cold-blooded would have been the only death to hand Lord Vader, Skywalker?
  8. Blue_Jedi33 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 12, 2003
    star 5
    I disagree, Luke throws his lightsabre away when the Emperour cackles with glee at his giving into the darkside. It is the moment when Luke thinks "I will die before I become a Sith".

    He could have attacked the Emperour but he doesn't.

    That action causes Vader to fufill his destiny.

    They actually suceed together in the end.
  9. PyrhanaJEDI Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 26, 2003
    star 1
    Bluejedi33: were you disagreeing with me? If you were then you were disagreeing with yourself, as well. Did you read my post, put it into your own words and disagree?

    What/who are you disagreeing with?
    Clarify.
    Please.
  10. brook_33 Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Dec 30, 2003
    star 4
    Interesting. So you're saying that by Anakin letting Luke cut off his hand he saved Luke from going to the dark side.
  11. darth-sinister Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2001
    star 9
    That's not what the film, Lucas or the script says.

    EMPEROR: "Your fleet has lost. And your friends on the Endor moon will not survive. There is no escape, my young apprentice. The Alliance will die...as will your friends."

    Luke's eyes are full of rage. Vader watches him.

    EMPEROR: "Good. I can feel your anger. I am defenseless. Take your weapon! Strike me down with all your hatred, and your journey towards the dark side will be complete."

    Luke can resist no longer. The lightsaber flies into his hand. He ignites it in an instant and swings at the Emperor. Vader's lightsaber flashes into view, blocking Luke's blow before it can reach the Emperor. The two blades spark at contact. Luke turns to fight his father.

    Luke and Vader are engaged in a man-to-man duel of lightsabers even more vicious then the battle on Bespin. But the young Jedi has grown stronger in the interim, and now the advantage shifts to him. Vader is forced back, losing his balance, and is knocked down the stairs. Luke stands at the top of the stairs, ready to attack.


    EMPEROR "Good. Use your aggressive feelings, boy! Let the hate flow through you."

    Luke looks momentarily toward the Emperor, then back to Vader, and realizes he is using the dark side. He steps back, turns off his lightsaber, and relaxes, driving the hate from his being.


    "The key issue in these movies is for a Jedi not to use anger when he?s fighting. So the final confrontation here is primarily about trying to make Luke become angry, so that when he fights his father he?s fighting in anger, therefore begins to use the dark side of the Force, and therefore sort of succumbs to the dark side of the Force. In 'The Empire Strikes Back' we had them confront each other and fight together. But in this film Luke has become more mature so that now he knows he shouldn?t be fighting him?that is the path to the dark side. So it?s basically a confrontation between two people and one of them doesn?t want to fight, and the other one keeps trying to push him into it. And then in the end when he gives up and they really do fight, what?s happening there is that ultimately Luke is turning to the dark side, and all is going to be lost."

    --George Lucas, ROTJ DVD Commentary, 2004

    "In 'The Empire Strikes Back' it?s the first time that the antagonist and protagonist actually fight each other. So that it is a very big fight and Luke now has become proficient enough to be able to face Darth Vader. So it?s a slightly one-sided swordfight where Vader has the advantage over him. Luke didn?t know that Vader was his father for the fight part, so that what was happening was he though he was fighting his bitter enemy. So he was fighting as hard as he could; he was fighting the man who killed his father; fighting the man who killed Obi-Wan Kenobi; fighting the man who would personify evil in the universe. And then as we go on into the next fight, it becomes more of an equal confrontation. In the next one, the 'Return of the Jedi', he knew he was fighting his father. He knew that the Emperor was behind all this. And he knew the issues he was dealing with were much larger than just the swordfight. And so that swordfight really centered on the more emotional context the swordfight takes place in than the actual fight itself. That was the climax of the film rather than having it be a technological warfare, blow up the Death Star kind of thing, it was really more of a personal fight between a father and son."

    --George Lucas, ?The Birth of the Lightsaber,? Star Wars: Bonus Material DVD, 2004

    "You?ll see, as this goes on, Luke is faced wit
  12. TheCRZA Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    May 29, 2005
    star 4
    So you're saying that by Anakin letting Luke cut off his hand he saved Luke from going to the dark side.

    I don't think "let" is the best term to use in this context.

    I think Anakin got a frow row seat to see what a real
    Jedi should do in watching Luke throw down his saber.

    As far as Luke's rage, in order to overcome something,
    Luke's own personal El Guappo, the darkside,
    one must confront it in order to overcome it.

    Had Luke fought Vader with ennui, it would have not
    served the outcome of the duel, the aforementioned
    tossing of the saber.
  13. haydenlover92 Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Dec 30, 2005
    yes anakin suceeded but he couldn't have without the help of luke so in a way yes, but in a way no.
  14. YYZ-2112 Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 3, 2004
    star 4
    Well at this point it's not as if anyone has the authority to arrest Sidious; there fore he must be destroyed unless he surrenders. Also consider that this was the plan of the rebels from the start. They had learned that the Emperor himself was on the death star overseeing the final stages. "Most important of all!" I believe is how she put it. Luke was only doing what Mace or Yoda would have done if the situation allowed them. In fact Anakin; had he been thinking clearly should have arrested Palpatine on the spot instead of reporting to Mace. That action reveals his lack of will to strike dead the Sith Lord; the one responsible for all the chaos since the saga began.

    Also Luke doesn't turn to the dark side. He's tempted and the anger overcomes him; but his choice was to spare Vader and lay down his weapon (expecting imprisonment I suppose) Also the temptation being founded on dark desires for power did not work on Luke because he didn't buy into Sidious' jive talk. In Anakin's case he would have resisted as well if it was only concerning his own life. It's the life of another that motivates his choices.

    My view is that Luke and Anakin both were driven by Palpatine at those stages. Anakin was driven to spare him and Luke was driven to kill him; for the same reasons, to save those they cared for. I suppose these are small failures to keep one's composure, but they're minor.
  15. JarJarPlagueis Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Dec 24, 2005
    star 1
    Obviously, if Luke had known that Anakin would renounce the Sith, kill Sidious, and then die, then no, it would be wrong for him to kill Vader. But in the context of that moment, and not knowing what's going to happen next, I see nothing wrong with it. It's not even a punishment. It's purely preventive. But better for him not to, because Vader doesn't want him dead and won't kill him. If he goes after Sidious, Vader might even help him, since he had offered to help Luke kill Sidious in ESB. Of course, Vader's motivations were different from those of Luke, but the overriding goal is that Sidious must die. Why someone kills him is irrelevant, and any evil that results from it is likely to be less.

    As for Obi-Wan, he was irresponsible in leaving Vader there. Yes, Anakin eventually destroyed the Emperior, but Obi-Wan didn't know that at the time, and with Vader gone, I don't see why the surviving Jedi couldn't have attacked Sidious again? I'm sure Yoda, Obi-Wan, one-armed Mace, Quinlan Vos, and the rest could have taken Sidious. Or just send Yoda with a back-up lightsaber.

    More philosophically, I have no problem killing powerful and evil people like Sidious or Vader. You're saving lives by ending theirs. You're doing good. If Yoda had been more aggressive on Geonosis and killed Dooku (even if it meant that Obi-Wan and Anakin would have died), then the galaxy could have been spared a war in which trillions of beings died. Yes, it's worth it. Now, if there's an unarmed prisoner whose no longer a threat to anyone, that's a different story. But that's not the case with Dooku or Vader, even without their hands or lightsabers. They're too dangerous to be kept alive.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.