PT Did Lucas go too far in Revenge of the Sith?

A late addition? As I understand it, it was not a late addition. It had been part of the story for a long time. Hasbro and Lego were aware of the sequence, but since we never see Anakin attacking the children and the film was clearly labeled PG-13, they didn't take action.

Murder is still murder, no matter what the reasons. That was the point. Anakin only committed murders because he let his own negative feelings compel him. The Jedi only kill as a last resort and only in the defense of others.

 

Oh really? Is that why then immediately after he states that it all flows too much and each scene relies on each other too much to change?

 

Was there something overly violent in TPM? I don't recall...

 

You're talking about in TPM, with the way the film was edited together. I suppose you're relying on the fan commentary that took the whole thing out of context. That's not the same thing. Lucas specifically said of ROTS...

"The thing with the kids is necessary to establish how far down the road he’d come (Anakin) to do something that, this brutal and barbaric and it had to be in there but I definitely didn’t want to show it. It was really in the editorial process that the idea of inter-cutting her (Padme) with him when he’s at his very worst with her worrying about him. That juxtaposition works quite well cause it reflects as much on the slaughter of the children as it does on her concerns about him even though she doesn’t know the children have been slaughtered. There is a strong emotional connection when those sequences are pushed up against each other."

--George Lucas, ROTS DVD Commentary.

What you're referring to was what was said after viewing a cut of TPM, where Lucas wanted the sequences to go a certain way and there was concern that a lot was going on in a short span. Not that he made a mistake, but that he understood that the pacing needed to be slowed down a bit, which is why certain sequences were placed as they were to end the film over what was scripted. But he had intended them to be quick moments because he wanted to go against the more conventional film making techniques.

 

It was the Galactic Senate who gave Palps the authority to defeat the Jedi, after the Jedi committed treason by attempting to overthrow the Republic. Treason against any elected Government is Justifiably punishable by death. Vader did not murder anybody. He appropriately punished those who committed crimes against the Republic/Empire.

Oh.... Right

 

So...the Jedi 'younglings' had committed crimes against the Republic? Treason, by the way,is not punishable by death in the UK - nor is it clear that it is within the Republic (in fact I don't remember any suggestion of execution being an aspect of Republic law). Even if it were an aspect of law then it should follow a trial, no? So...in what sense is summary execution to be seen as legal or justifiable?

And...did the Senate give Order 66? No, Palpatine did....after he had refused to hand back power to the Senate - even going as far as to claim that he was the Senate...this, of course, being outside of his democratic remit (which was only for as long as the war continued)

I mean...never mind that he was actually heading the Republic's enemies, which is absolutely an act of treason.

 

Those lil'runts had it coming.

 

We see an entire planet get destroyed in literally the first movie so no, Vader killing kids or strangling his pregnant wife isn't going too far.

 

Anakin killing the Younglings was too far for me, in terms of Anakin's eventual redemption. I can't see a guy who killed innocent, scared, hopeless kids getting redemption. Everything else worked for me in context, though.

 

I don't have a problem with it. Vader wasn't kidding when he told Luke in ROTJ that it was too late for him - he had done some truly heinous stuff that he couldn't reasonably expect to be redeemed from. It shows us why Vader and the emperor both are so convinced in ROTJ that he cannot be turned back. I'm a little baffled that anyone watching the OT would come away with the impression that he was anything other than a ruthless mass murderer - we see plenty of atrocities committed in ANH alone. It's absurd to me to suggest that Vader doesn't bear responsibility for any of it.

 

"Redemption" by what standards? You are arguing from a presumably Christian point of view here. Who ever said the Force works that way? There is no Christianity in SW. And the word "redemption" was never once said throughout the whole saga that I am aware of. Vader CHOSE to return to the good side. There is no indication of a higher power needing to "accept" him anywhere. Jedi don't go to heaven and Sith don't go to hell. SW doesn't work that way.

 

i agree although redemption may be mentioned by gl.

 

Where did you get this "christian" POV argument from my brotha? Careful now, you might just start up an unnecessary conduct that will cause you trouble.

 

"You learn that Darth Vader isn’t this monster. He’s a pathetic individual who made a pact with the Devil and lost. And he’s trapped. He’s a sad, pathetic character, not a big evil monster. I mean, he’s a monster in that he’s turned to the dark side and he’s serving a bad master and he’s into power and he’s lost a lot of his humanity. In that way, he’s a monster, but beneath that, as Luke says in Return of the Jedi, early on, “I know there’s still good in you, I can sense it.” Only through the love of his children and the compassion of his children, who believe in him, even though he’s a monster, does he redeem himself."

--George Lucas, “Star Wars: The Last Battle,” Vanity Fair, 2005

"And obviously there are two sides to the redeemer motif in the Star Wars films. Ultimately Vader is redeemed by his children and especially by having children. Because that's what life is all about—procreating and raising children, and it should bring out the best of you."

--George Lucas, Time Magazine article, 2002.

"It really has to do with learning," Lucas says, "Children teach you compassion. They teach you to love unconditionally. Anakin can't be redeemed for all the pain and suffering he's caused. He doesn't right the wrongs, but he stops the horror.

--George Lucas, The Making Of Revenge Of The Sith; page 221

Judging by that criteria, Anakin is redeemed because he stops being evil.

HAN: "Then I'll see you in hell!"

Seems like there is a hell to me. Not to mention that Lucas has said that the Saga has religious undertones, both from the Christian side as well as the Buddhist side. But then, what does he know? As to heaven, the Netherworld of the Force and becoming one with the Cosmic Force seems to fall under that category.

 

Killing children seems to be a no no in more than just Christian ideology, at least I would certainly hope so. That's a big presumption predicated off of virtually nothing, but I was looking at redemption more from a moral and ethical standpoint, in which most would still agree that slaughtering children certainly go against. If you can murder kids and still find redemption, it seems hard to imagine what would be "too far."

 

This is all a little vague. Sure there are "religious undertones", but that could mean almost anything. The Force can be seen as a higher power, but we don't see an established church that tells people the will of the Force, what they should and should not do. Is there any concept of "sin"? Are there "commandments"? Not that I know of. All we have is a very vague sense of good and evil. The Jedi are the only ones who live by some sort of "code". I have yet to see a non-Jedi being pressured into living by that code. From Han's line you assume there actually IS hell, which is a pretty bold opinion and a lot of wild speculation on your part. For all we know he used a very common phrase, like we say "go to hell". It's just a saying, and not proof people saying it actually believe in the concept of hell, much less even of its existence. I don't think Lucas was trying to make a religious statement there. He probably didn't give much thought to that line anyway.

Yes, in OUR world murder (not just of children) is a sin in pretty much any religion. Nobody argues that Anakin didn't act against SOME values. He might have broken the Jedi code. But we have no evidence whatsoever that he was being judged by a higher power. If so I'd like to see some evidence from the movies. Would the Force somehow have punished him after his death? Not mentioned anywhere. Also, he acted as a SITH, who have their own code and morals. So he acted pretty much by the standards of his new "faith". For a Sith killing is not only acceptable but probably "necessary" (in order to become stronger with the dark side). When he was "redeemed" it was more like he forgave himself, not forgiven by the Force. Sorry, but IMO trying to compare the Force with the Christian god doesn't work for me. The Force is a lot more vague about good and evil. It's human society mostly that made the rules and taboos. Or is there evidence to the contrary? Is there a set of rules given to some guy on a mountain by the Force itself?

Isn't the concept of "redemption" basically a Christian one? What "trouble" would I cause by interpreting the movies differently from you? You have your way of interpreting Vader's actions and his turn back to the good side, while I have mine. We are discussing a fictional character here, not a user on this forum. I was not aware of having a different view and interpretation of a movie story being an offense or against forum rules. If so please feel free to report me.

 

Sith Lord 2015 wrote

Jedi don't go to heaven and Sith don't go to hell. SW doesn't work that way.

Really? As a matter of fact, I think audiences in 1983 pretty much got that idea, when they saw the three Jedi Force ghosts at the end of ROJ.

I also concur with AKyloTantrum. Further, I really would have been interested to learn about Luke's reactions had he learned what Vader did in the Jedi Council room. Would he have shed that many tears?

Each time I see Christensen's new Force ghost in ROJ and strange "smile" I can't help but wonder. Did he think "Good thing Luke never learned what I actually did in the Jedi Council room..." ?

 

You know....you may have altered my thinking on this. The thought of the man kindly telling Luke he was right.....I can see how that doesn't fit with the man who cut down younglings with his lightsabre. I begin to see how the character we see showing doubts from the end of TESB might not be compatible with that imagery.

Think on this I will..

 

You either know what I mean, or you were just a bit ignorant. Which might be the latter. Redemption comes from many aspects from different religions. And what I was saying is that to be careful when having talks about religion on the boards. While they are formatted into Star Wars, just watch out to not get into arguments about it. It's a sensitive matter to many and not quite needed at certain times, so just be careful.

I'm sorry for being blunt. I used to be a Mod on an old forum back in 2014.

 

You're confusing forgiveness with becoming good. Luke, Obi-wan and Yoda can forgive Anakin for what he did because as Jedi, they are trained to not hold grudges. To let go of any and all negative feelings. This is why Obi-wan and Yoda helped him to become a ghost. Leia might not forgive Vader for what he did. Nor would Han, though Han would forgive his son for what he did. Chewbacca wouldn't as we saw. But Anakin can still become a good man again and he did.

Lucas has made religious statements with the Force for a long time. No, we don't see the church of the Force in the more secular view, but the Jedi and the Sith are both religions. The idea of an afterlife exists within the Saga. The concept of sin is essentially when one falls to the dark side of the Force and the Jedi Code is basically like the commandments. As to a non Jedi being pressured, technically, we see it. We see Luke and Leia try repeatedly to get Han to stop thinking of himself and stay with the Alliance. Leia even argues with Han repeatedly about it in TESB. No, they don't pontificate religious terminology, but they try to persuade him from returning to his old life. One of sin and avarice.

Luke said that he felt that there was good in him and that is what Anakin says when he dies. That he was right about him. That he was worth saving for all the terrible things that he did, he was still right in that there was good in him. That Palpatine didn't drive it from him. Knowing that he killed children doesn't change that. If you could accept that he killed grown adults and yet was still good, then this is no different.

What makes you think he didn't know?

 

So essentially you're saying there is no "too far" in term of redemption? Sorry, I'm just a little confused, though I appreciate the response. I can back that if that's truly what you're saying, however, if there is an act so heinous that it might be classified as "un-redeemable" I might have to cast my vote for the slaughtering of dozens of Younglings. If the force is like the catholic church and all "sins" can be atoned for, then I'm a little disappointed. I guess my main gripe now becomes, what can diminish all the "goodness" from an individual? "Goodness" in itself is subjective, so how then can anyone be too far beyond saving when the scale of said saving is predicated off of subjectivity? This must be a possibility since various characters throughout the entire series have cited people as being "too far gone" or "lost" to the dark. Apparently killing a bunch of kids isn't enough to put one's "status" with the force as FUBAR. Additionally, it's easy for Yoda, Luke and Obi Wan to forgive Anakin: Yoda was so deeply rooted in the Jedi philosophy that he was essentially detached from any sentiments/ notions of empathy (something we might chalk up as "the human condition"). Obi Wan loved Anakin like a brother, and also was firmly rooted in the same beliefs, not to the same extent as Yoda, but his love for Anakin definitely might affect the way handles the situation. Luke was Anakin's son, so naturally he'd want to see the best in his father and wouldn't readily give up on him. Also, it seems obvious that Yoda and Obi Wan wanted Luke to defeat Vader, failing to ever mention the potentiality of Vader's redemption. Obi Wan even tells Luke that the Empire has "already won" after Luke says that he won't kill his own father. So, it seems like they had both already given up on Vader. I don't question that there was still good in Anakin, or that his redemption is ludicrous to entertain, but the Youngling scene has always been the one scene I would change in all of Star Wars (even though I admittedly love the shot of Anakin storming the Jedi temple with clones in formation behind, I still accept him running up in there, I just question the necessity of his murdering of scared, helpless kids). This is all just my own opinion, and I totally respect yours 100%, I appreciate you taking the time to read this. I'm trying to figure the rules of the force myself, I guess. The force itself isn't inherently evil or good, and I think that's why I stumble when trying to rationalize various aspects of it.

 

It's not about whether he can 'come back to the light', and make the right choice...it's more about the demeanor of unmasked Vader in ROTJ. He seems to have, I don't know how to put it, a little less regret within him than I would expect from someone who has stood there and cut down children.

And...if you think killing grown adults (*particularly in a context) is just the same as cutting down children then....I think we are best to agree to disagree.

*the context being that he believes those adults are doing something wrong, illegal, counter to his beliefs about how order and peace is best kept.

 

darth-sinister wrote

What makes you think he didn't know?

There is no evidence that Luke ever learned this delicate detail from Yoda and Ben. Certainly, after his adoption by the Alliance, Luke was briefed on Darth Vader in every possible detail, but I wonder whether the killing of children was something entered officially into Imperial records.

Another reason for my dislike of the scene (as I just now realize) is this scene from ROJ:

VADER I hope so, Commander, for your sake. The Emperor is not as forgiving as
I am.

Now, I'd really love to see an event where Vader was "forgiving". Or he was delusional in thinking this.

 

We already did. It's called "The Empire Strikes Back". His notion of forgiveness is straight up telekinetic strangulation. The Emperor would slowly torture you to death and take pleasure in every agonizing second.

 

Oh...okay