Saga Anakin should not have been redeemed

Because that's not his message. He's not a helicopter parent or from the culture of helicopter parenting. The Way of the Force is that all things die. It's about balance, not running around fixing negative outcomes for spoiled brats.

It only seems that way from the perspective of a rotten culture obsessed with material outcomes.

Sure it is. Do tell.

In his own words, or in the words of his critics? Does Anakin grant eternal life?

"A young Jedi named Darth Vader, who was a pupil of mine until he turned to evil, helped the Empire hunt down and destroy the Jedi Knights."

Already a mass murderer in the OT, just not a confirmed killer of children. ( Unless we count all the children on Alderaan. But why would we? Didn't see it, didn't happen. ) Fallen means fallen.

 

GL could easily have made a point about obsession and excessive fear of loss being bad but instead he went with the "all attachments are bad" version. To me, that simply speaks of ignorance, a lack of insight into human behavior itself. Maybe I shouldn't be so harsh but nobody forced him to lecture the audience about morals through his mouthpiece characters.

 

I bet antibiotics are bad too because they meddle with the "natural balance" of things. Yoda didn't even know the situation yet he immediately told Anakin to let go. How would Yoda know in that situation what the will of the force is?

Because you have no argument you make a weak point about how rotten and "materialistic" western culture is. Real original and insightful.

One of the base principles of buddhism is that all life is pain. Didn't see that mentioned in the movies.

GL said he was "Methodist Buddhist" and he made a mainstream movie containing virgin birth. Go figure.

 

Could Hitler or Stalin have been redeemed? I hear Hitler loved his dog and was a vegan.

It's one thing to be a bank robber, or thief, or even to have murdered once in the heat of a battle. It's completely another to have slaughtered dozens, possibly even hundreds, including children.

Some lines are just meant to be ones you can never cross back over. Murdering children is widely considered one of those lines. People who do those things don't usually have morals and don't reconsider their positions, they are lost. Lucas lost sight of that when instead of simply making Anakin a fallen knight, he had to make him Space Jesus and then Charlie Manson.

 

Come on -- virgin birth, prophecy, "chosen one"... He's certainly hitting 9 out of 10 bullet points. Maybe the intention was originally to make him a false messiah (as engineered by Sidious/Plagueis). And come to think of it, he did want to grant eternal life (to Padme, and let's face it to himself), and in the end he did attain it.

Hunting down the Jedi can be taken in a military context like a soldier. Instead they turned him into a psychopathic axe murderer in the Jedi Temple and Mustafar. Anybody placed in his path -- Jedi, librarians, children, separatist leaders -- were mowed down. (And Vader didn't give the order to destroy Alderaan, Tarkin did).

 

I'm not sure it's as simple as GL trying to promote an "all attachments are bad" morality. I believe that the Jedi's absolute interpretation of that morality is a big part of what caused Anakin to go off the deep end, and they're as responsible for Vader's creation as Palpatine and Anakin himself. It's my hope that Luke's new jedi philosophy will have a more healthy approach to the idea of "no attachments." You don't (and I) don't like this oversimplification, and I don't think we're meant to.

All that being said, Anakin's love was, unfortunately, selfish. I think a good definition of love has to do with do with a desire for others to be happy and healthy. Anakin's had more to do with his own happiness and the alleviation of his own insecurities.

If he'd had better teachers, who understood what they were dealing with and who also had a healthier idea of human relationships than a dogmatic adherenece to an "all attachments are bad" philosophy, he could have been a great instrument for good in the universe.

What's great about ROTJ, in light of all this, is the fact that Luke's selfless love (a desire to free his father from a psychological and physical hell and bring him back to the light) is what redeems Vader. Luke was willing to lay down his life for this love. It might be silly, but my eyes get a little misty thinking about it.

Luke could have tought his father a lot. I guess, in the end, he did.

 

I agree, true redemption probably can't come to a man who tortured a woman and made her watch the mass murder of her civilization. I don't view ghosting as Jedi heaven, though. Anakin's last reward for stopping the horror was not eternal life, but getting to watch his son turn away and embrace his friends.

 

And then, what, the Force Devils take him to hell?

 

Agree whole heartedly with Anakinfan on this issue

(then again as a Christian I believe redemption is possible for anyone so probably biased in this instance)

 

And Vader didn't give the order to storm the Jedi Temple. Palpatine did.

There is NO difference between the Vader of ROTS and that of ANH and TESB. Why fans cheered his ridiculous, sentimentalist redemption in ROTJ but suddenly drew the line at the end of the PT is beyond my comprehension.

("What? Vader killed a handful of children? I thought he just tortured captive women, murdered defenseless officers and oversaw construction of planet-destroying space stations! Curse you, Lucas!")

 

Vader lead the troops into the temple, in formation, and killed an unknown number of people by his own hand. He entered a room full of children and we presume due to editing that he slaughtered them all. We then see him slaughter the entire CIS leadership.

Versus in ANH, he didn't give the command to fire nor did he press the button/pull the lever.

In fact, I hate being forced into this position, but who does Vader actually kill by his own hand in the OT? Has anybody ever done a body count?

- He chokes a rebel to death on the Tantive IV (at least we presume he's dead, he chokes him and then throws his body).
- He kills Obi-Wan (except Obi-Wan committed suicide, he gave himself up)
- He shot down how many rebel pilots in the Death Star battle? One? Two?
- He kills a few of his own lieutenants in Empire. 2 or 3?
- In Jedi the only person he kills is the Emperor (and arguably that's Anakin not Vader)

Seems every murder he commits in the OT can be justified by one set of morals (military, both in killing the enemy and in punishing insubordination) or another (overthrowing a despot). Whereas in the PT he's simply an axe-murdering psychopath who exceeds his entire OT body count in one scene.

EDIT: According to moviebodycounts.com, Anakin/Vader kills 4 people in TPM, 17 people in AOTC, 24 people in ROTS, 8 in ANH, 2 in ESB, and 1 in ROTJ.

45 vs 11, sounds like there is a 4x murder factor worth of difference between vader of ROTS and ANH/ESB.

Apparently matters of degree are lost on you, as is the distinction between military combatants and innocents. Even Anakin confesses he knows the difference after slaughtering the Tuskens in AOTC.

"I killed them. I killed them all. They're dead, every single one of them. And not just the men, but the women and the children, too. They're like animals, and I slaughtered them like animals. I hate them!"​

In the OT he doesn't kill anyone who is not a military combatant, in the PT he's a mass murdering psychopath.

Once again, Anakin is painted as a fallen knight and war hero in the OT and as Charles Manson in the PT.

 

Ditto.

Though if he had survived he surely would have been put on trial and executed for his crimes.

 

There were crackling noises- meant to represent a broken neck. At least, that's how the novel portrays it.

While Vader does not personally order the destruction of Alderaan, as the Emperor's watchdog on the project- he has the power to stop Tarkin- and chooses not to do so.

 

Janstett: Sure, let's look at Vader's OT crimes, with the more severe ones bolded.

ANH:

-Leads a command that slaughters soldiers, and personally crushes the throat of a captive.
-Tortures a captive woman, via needle-festooned droid.
-Attempts to murder a peer for the crime of mere slander.
-Restrains a captive woman, forcing her to watch as his boss gives the order to incinerate millions.
-Battles an old man. (And instead of calling off the squad of encroaching stormtroopers and continuing the fight honorably, he actually exploits the situation and slices the outnumbered old man in half.)
-Risks the lives of the Death Star crew in a gambit to discover the location of the hidden Rebel base.
-Shoots down Rebel pilots.

TESB:

-Murders officer for strategic bungle.
-Invades Hoth and destroys base.
-Sacrifices entire Star Destroyers in the asteroid field, so as to track the Falcon. (Remember the fading hologram?)
-Murders officer for strategic bungle.
-Tortures Han, Leia and Chewie, with the aim of drawing out Luke.
-Entombs Han in a permanent Hell and sells him off to a degenerate gangster.
-Plots to take Leia, Chewie, and Threepio hostage.
-Threatens Lando with a permanent occupation of Cloud City.
-Severs his son's hand.

ROTJ

-Oversees construction of planet-destroying space station and the exploitation of a verdant, primitive planet.
-Safeguards Palpatine from Luke, while the system burns around them.
-Threatens to seduce and corrupt Luke's sister--and taking immense pleasure in doing so.



My extrapolation? The Vader of the OT is a sadistic war criminal, bereft of even a shred of nobility. The sort of monster who would just as easily murder children, strangle his outraged wife, and slaughter unarmed political prisoners.

 

I guess my point is that "redemption" is a useless term as far as crafting an absolutist stance of this character was Bad but now he is Good again. Of course a major part of the story is that Anakin found a way towards the end of things to change for the better. I think that is enough of a point on its own without the viewer having to apply an absolutist label to the depiction of an entire life.

 

I'm under the belief that no matter how "evil" someone happens to be, they can be redeemed.

 

I didn't say anything about Vader never being bad. What I meant to imply was that clearly some viewers do apply absolutist labels if they think murdering younglings is the point of no return, although being second in command of an empire that murders entire planets is still good to go as far as redemption is concerned.

 

Add in ordering the stormtroopers to cover their tracks by murdering civilians- the Jawas, and the Larses.

 

You’ll have to excuse me for a moment …my head just exploded a little.

You seem overwhelmingly confused by surfaces. Onscreen body count is irrelevant. Excluding the moment he turns on the Emperor, nothing Darth Vader does anywhere in the saga can be justified. Explained? Yes. Understood? Yes. Justified? No. Nowhere in the OT is Darth Vader defending his personal rights and freedoms or the personal rights and freedoms of others (again, excluding his last act). He is the knowing, acting spearhead to a tyrannical Empire that oppresses an entire galaxy with both the threat of death and just plain death. Mass genocide, in fact.

I jump you in an alley with the intent to kill you and take your wallet. In defense, you brandish a knife from your belt and slash at my throat, but I shoot you before you can get too close. I am NOT justified in my action. Not on any moral level. And neither is Vader when shooting down Rebel fighters or crushing a base with giant AT-AT walkers. Not even murdering his subordinates counts as some lesser crime. Unjust murder is unjust murder. As Anakin, slaughtering the Tuskin Raiders is an inexcusable act of rage (as is his rant about them being animals), but it’s not random. He didn’t just single-out a group of individuals to murder without cause or reason. They kidnaped, tortured and murdered his mother. Again, this does not justify his actions, but it doesn’t all the sudden make him a serial killing Ted Bundy either.

The Sand People incident revealed a naked moment of the Dark Side from which Anakin suffers, but one that, at this point in the narrative, is also temporary and further held in check by his later show of remorse and self-condemning. When he becomes Darth Vader in the next film and proceeds to first assault the Jedi temple and then assassinate the last of the Separatist leaders, he is consciously acting on what he has convinced himself to be a justified defense against those who threaten the Republic. Of course, it’s not justified and his Dark Side psychosis is now in full swing. My point is that, logically, Anakin/Vader is not somehow more evil here than he is in the OT simply because we’re seeing the victims of his actions first-hand, not even when said victims include kids. The only real difference is that Vader in the OT, faceless and armored in black, is largely more stoic and coolly dignified in his manner (which makes sense: he’s also older). But that’s superficial.

 

OT Vader is fully capable of murdering a bunch of children. Don't let ROTJ fool you. He is Evil with a capital E. The difference between him and Palpatine is that he doesn't indulge in his sadism as much, there is always method and reason for what he does. But if he has reason to slaughter a bunch of innocent children, he will do so without hesitation. He even had one in ROTS. Those Jedi children would've grown up wanting revenge for the slaughter of their foster parents. Therefore, they had to be ... removed.