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

You do realise that line was meant to be ironic? It references that we have seen how unforgiving Vader is, and he is saying if you think he is bad you don't want to deal with the Emperor.

 

it ain't all sunshine and roses in the star wars galaxy

 

There is also an element of dark humour in that....and that may be misplaced given the events of ROTS (you know, like 'haha..yes, because he cuts down innocent children')

 

Less regret? I saw a man. An old man full of regrets who did terrible things. This man killed the remaining Jedi, innocent people, tortured people even his own daughter and was trying to kill his son. We knew this from the OT. Him killing children is quite plausible. In fact, it's the most logical thing. This Younglings would have grown up into Jedi's and would have refuted the Empire. If it were me in charge, I would do the same. Destroy any remaining possible threats. It was war, you wouldn't allow such things to stay alive if you knew the possible.

 

HevyDevy

IMHO there have been a lot of serious remarks in these threads in the past days that seemed ironic, but weren't. It's difficult now to really make a distinction at first sight and your comment wasn't that far off.

only one kenobi

Exactly! It was dark humor in ROJ until it retroactively turned distatsteful with RotS.

Ezon Pin wrote

This Younglings would have grown up into Jedi's and would have refuted the Empire. If it were me in charge, I would do the same. Destroy any remaining possible threats.

Seriously? You'd butcher harmless children?

And what "threat" for crying out loud? Rather than to devote resources finding gifted kids to train them as inquisitors or the like, brainwash the "Younglings"("the other Jedi have abandoned you") to serve Palpatine henceforth.

Of course, one may argue that killing them on the spot was more merciful than turning them into instruments of evil, but that wasn't the intention of the screenplay writer.

I could never shake that impression that Lucas felt he needed that kind of shock value to turn Padme (and the audience) away from Anakin. I'd say she was a kind of character where already the knowledge that he betrayed and helped to murder his "family" would have been enough.

(But no, Anakin "had" to kill children or puppies to make her turn away in disgust).

 

Of course I would(If I was Palpitine). Like I said, these are children, who can become potential Jedi, need to be wiped out. They are a threat just like Luke and Leia! Luke was kept alive, now look! He defeated the Empire! You can't honestly believe that Palps wouldn't do that. That guy is insane.

Yep. You can't have Palps using them for evil because.....Retcon.

 

I'm not super confident I know what "too far" means in this context. Sure, it was hard to deal with on first viewing. I never thought Lucas would go there, but hey. It's art. It offended me like it was supposed to.

I'm seeing a lot of criticism that stems again from expectation, which as we all know is the bane of Star Wars fans. We didn't expect Anakin to kill kids, and that seems like why we have a problem with it. But it's also what gives it merit. Surprises are very important to storytelling. And what bigger surprise is there than having your protagonist slaughter younglings?

I think it served the story 100%, however ****ed up it was. It may be hard for those of us that aren't psychopaths possessed by the Dark Side to empathize with, but would you really want to? I think all the reactions of "how could he do that?? I can't root for him, how could he ever be redeemed???" are the correct ones.

I bet Anakin thought those same things his entire life. "Its too late for me, son." Indeed!
Except it wasn't too late. One of the best messages of Star Wars is that you're never so lost that the light can't find you. Divine forgiveness is something above what normal humans can do. We can't forgive someone for such a heinous act, but Luke did. Yoda did. Obiwan did. They saw the good in him and the importance of bringing him back. Regardless of his past. That's what made them so great. Their last hope is to rehabilitate the greatest monster of their time. Anything else would have diluted the myth.

Whether or not we want to see the religious connotations of the saga, its deepest themes ARE rooted in theology and faith-based doctrines. And in my experience, the most challenging part of participating in a belief system is our strive to reflect the divine. No **** we can't forgive Anakin. But we should try.


Sent from my brain using thumbs.

 

SuperPersch

I totally understand your "redemption" rationalization from a Christian point of view, but vehemently disagree with your interpretation what art is about.

Offending the viewer (like a scene with shock value in plenty of horror flicks) is not what "art" is about, it's to arise emotions and invite the spectator to adopt a different kind of view that hopefully broadens his or her mind.

 

It's multiple views. Christianity is just the one we are more affiliated with in the USA. There are many other religions that have this POV.

 

Right. And I felt emotions arise when he killed the kids, and the act invited me to think about why it happened in the context of the greater story, the intent of the artist and the underlying roots of the work. I'm struggling to see where our interpretations differ?

Maybe you thought that I meant "all" art is about offending? It was a moment WITHIN the art that offended me. And it was seeking to offend me in order to challenge me, the viewer, into subverting my idea of a hero among other things.

Successful and totally valid within the greater work.

As far as my "rationalization"...I'm not so sure. Lucas pulled from a ton of cultures and belief systems, but there's a pretty solid thread that has connected humans for eons and it's redemption, especially after great tragedy and destruction. Christian, Buddhist, whatever. It's in the mythosphere, it's a part of human storytelling. Whether or not we agree with the message being presented is a whole other matter, and irrelevant to what a work is saying in the first place.


Sent from my brain using thumbs.

 

Again, redeeming one's self is not the same as forgiveness. Anakin still had good within him as we know from ROTJ. With his final act, Anakin chooses to do one last act of selflessness and save his son's life at the expense of his own. He dies as a good man. That doesn't mean that everyone forgives him. It just means that he turned his life around at the end and found peace within himself. What other people can believe is subjective to the person. The question you have to ask yourself is do you believe that there was ever any good within Anakin and did he truly repent for his sins, before he died. Luke did. The Jedi realize this after seeing him save Luke and opt to help him to transition into being a ghost.

What exactly would you want, if Lucas and Marquand had filmed it with that in mind in 1982-83?

Murder is murder regardless of reasons. Anakin chose to kill people because he wanted to. And if you're going to try to rationalize killing adults, then we must remember that Lucas also gave a justification for killing the children. ROTJ opened the door for killing children by having Luke and Leia hidden from their father when they were born.

OBI-WAN: "Hmm. To protect you both from the Emperor, you were hidden from your father when you were born. The Emperor knew, as I did, if Anakin were to have any offspring, they would be a threat to him. That is the reason why your sister remains safely anonymous."

Why wouldn't Obi-wan and Yoda tell Luke that Darth Vader had killed the Younglings?

Palpatine would take his Lightsaber and use it on Jerjerrod to take his temperature.

DARTH VADER: "The Jedi Knights are all but destroyed. Yet your task is not complete, Inquisitor. The Emperor has foreseen a new threat rising against him: the children of the Force. They must not become Jedi."

THE GRAND INQUISITOR: "Yes, Lord Vader."

DARTH VADER: "Hunt down this new enemy. And if they will not serve the Empire, eliminate them along with any surviving Jedi who trained them. This is my Master's command."

THE GRAND INQUISITOR: "And so it will be done."

We then proceed to see the Inquisitors hunt down a toddler to be eliminated.

 

Because I really don't think that making Luke angrier about certain things Vader did is actually helping his training. Unlike Vader they try to keep him away from anger, because that leads to the dark side.

DARTH VADER: "Hunt down this new enemy. And if they will not serve the Empire, eliminate them along with any surviving Jedi who trained them. This is my Master's command."

Looks to me that at least Dave Filoni and/or a member of his team acknowledged that there is an option for Jedi children that is not "death".

 

There's an unwritten rule in Hollywood "never murder children" Lucas just went to far. Besides those kids could of been brainwashed into serving the Empire.

 

I'd like to add that he was still very well aware of that when he made Willow, i.e. we reflect the protagonists' actions as heroism because they actually join to prevent a child murder.

 

what world are you living in?

 

I'm not sure that you are understanding my position. Let's take one of your favourite topics,the drafts. Does it seem that, within the drafts, that the 'redeemed former Jedi' characters are of the nature of child-killers? That isn't the impression that I get from those narratives, nor is it the impression I get from Vader's demeanor at the end of ROTJ. In fact I would say the notion is of a generally noble individual who has taken the wrong path and then realises how wrong that path is....

"Murder is murder regardless of reasons" is an empty statement. All soldiers are as bad as child-killers? I think there are many who would disagree with that perspective. You ask whether I am going to "try to rationalize killing adults"...in a movie called Star Wars, where the protagonists kill adults in the process of rebellion? Is there no rationale for those killings?

There is a difference between fighting what you believe are enemies and ...standing in a room and cutting down children. There is. But....it actually goes to the heart of what being "seduced by the darkside" means, and what redemption means...and this is an issue with Anakin's turn. You see, watching those movies (and going by the pre-movie drafts) I get the notion it is of a man who believes he is doing the right thing, but comes to understand that it is evil and thus rejects it. In other words that he is at heart noble-minded, but has come to believe that the ends justify the means...but later recognises the error of that. This doesn't add up with Anakin's turn, because he knows that what he is doing is wrong, is evil, when he is doing it. The story of the 'noble-fallen', whose doubts surface after his encounter with he hero, does not match with a guy who, from he outset, knew and accepted that what he was doing was fundamentally wrong ad evil, and embraced it anyway.

And...what Obi-Wan says suggests only what the Emperor might be capable of....

 

You know as much as I do that place is just as evil as the Empire. Hollywood is just that.

 

One could argue that Lucasfilm made RotS and not Hollywood, thus the unwritten rules of Hollywood didn't apply to Lucasfilm.

 

Hollywood is much different. You know this much about that. Plus, there are no rules in film narratives. There never was one, never will.

 

You assume this was during his training and not afterwards. You also assume that they didn't tell Luke that they used to train Jedi as children and after telling him that they were hidden from the Sith when they were born, that Luke wouldn't put two and two together.

And it is a very rare option.

Killed and molested little kids, before being burned alive. Starred in eight successful movies, two seasons on television, had a video game, a Sideshow Collectible doll and a remake film.




Programmed to kill a ten year old boy. Was part of a successful film franchise and the second film was a high grossing film. Appeared in comics, video games and had action figures.



Was going to kill a twelve year old boy. Star of a successful eleven film franchise and in a remake. Also had a video game and Sideshow figures.

Now, you might mean show it, but Lucas didn't show Vader killing kids. He implied it. Just the Clonetroopers killed kids.

Valorum may not have killed children in the first draft. The second draft had Vader as part of the Empire who killed various Jedi families, as at the time, the Jedi were made up of families. Since Kasdan's first or second draft of ROTJ, it's been stated that the Sith would have killed Anakin's children if they had found out about them, which is why they were hidden. Finally, in ANH, Vader stands by and lets Alderaan be destroyed which included children. He didn't make a fuss about it. And there could have been children living on Cloud City that would have been killed to force Lando to do as he commands. Plus, as we discussed elsewhere and agreed, if Vader was willing to kill his son, then why would stop him from killing children.

Trying to rationalize murder is just a way of talking yourself into committing a horrendous act, if you want to get right down to it. It's an empty justification.

Vader was never a noble-fallen warrior. That is an assumption of what people thought he was supposed to be. That he would be above the idea of killing children. That's the way to justify to themselves that it is okay to like Vader. But Lucas was never satisfied with that idea, which is why he dropped the idea of Vader physically transforming back into Anakin and living without any punishment. And it is why he was not happy to hear the idea of having Anakin appear as a ghost, at first. He had set in his mind that Vader was an evil man who could become good, but shouldn't seem as if he was being absolved of his guilt. That's why he went with the ghost, but had settled on the idea that Vader would have to commit a greater atrocity to show how far was too far for one who falls to the dark side.

Or that he was aware of it from past dealings with him and knowing what he was capable of. Not talking about the PT specifically, but that Obi-wan was aware that Palpatine was capable of going that far.

 

Lucas isn't Hollywood.

They want to be him but without the artistic integrity.

Which isn't surprising as they simply want to make money.

That is what they do.

That is their nature.

 

You are twisting terms here though, aren't you? What is actually said is (specifically) that if The Emperor found out he would have had them killed...here you have decided to add the word "Sith" where it doesn't actually belong.

Because Luke is not a child and also....he didn't seem all that intent on killing him either. He seems far more interested, right up until the final fight, in trying to turn him.

As I (clearly) said...you want me to rationalise killing adults in a discussion about a film called Star Wars,where plenty of adults are killed and is not seen as especially a bad thing?

So...am I to take it then that you do think all soldiers are as morally repugnant as child killers?

But...if killing adults is just the same then....why did Lucas feel the need to have Anakin kill "younglings" in order to show how far down the path to the darkside he had gone? Clearly Lucas does not agree with you....

I think you are putting the cart before the horse here. It was the story that Lucas decided to tell that gave Vader a human quality...that was part of the development of the character. Indeed, that is exactly how Lucas 'sold' it at the time...that here, far from being this monster was just a 'broken old man'. So...it is no wonder if our expectations are what the authors intended.


And...actually, this is where I have seen an issue...which I accept that I hadn't before. Because this man is there, this broken old man (not a monster, in Lucas' own terms at the time) who - because of who he was meant to be, by the trajectory that Lucas gave him - is speaking to his son and smiling and...saying "you were right Luke, you were right"... you asked earlier about how I would expect a man who had stood in a room and cold-bloodedly cut down children to have acted differently...well, I would have expected far more self-detestation, frankly. I would have expected someone who could not look Luke in the eye...not what we got.

On so many levels this makes so little sense. Somebody will have to clarify for me whether the idea that Lucas didn't want Anakin to appear as a ghost has any factual basis...because, having turned him into a child-killer he changes his ghost into a younger version of him....like some sort of absolution, of being 'born again'

But, of course, this idea rests on the principle that...Lucas always had in mind that Anakin was a child-killer.....but that isn't what he suggests at the time.In fact none of what you claim here about Lucas' thinking at the time of ROTJ matches up with how Lucas 'sold' this 'redemption' story...


And...it makes even less sense in the context of ROTJ because you say that he wanted it to show how far was too far for one who falls to the darkside...but we were clearly intended to understand that Luke was close to falling to the darkside, and there were no children in sight....or did Palpatine have some up his sleeve?

I'm not querying how Obi-Wan knew....I was saying that what Obi-Wan is referencing is what the Emperor specifically is capable of...ie he speaks specifically of what the Emperor would have done...

 

That's just splitting hairs and you know it. Vader was a Sith when ROTJ was made and while wasn't, he was the boss of the Sith and was Sith in all but name.

Uh, we agreed that Vader said, either join me or die. Multiple times. We agreed that he was prepared to kill him if he wouldn't turn.

I'm merely pointing out that killing, whether adults or children, is morally repugnant period.

Vader kills everyone. That's the point. Seeing the children being killed was to show that no Jedi was safe and that there was a price for what Anakin wanted.

But that would still be the same if Lucas opted to not have the children be killed, much less be in the films. He should be completely appalled at what he did as Vader. The onus falls not on Lucas for showing a more brutal Vader than imagined, but on the director who was capable of directing actors, for failing to get the right emotional response in the first place.

According to the Annotated Screenplays, there is the following passage.

In the rough draft…Ben explains that…if "Vader becomes one with the dark side of the Force, he will lose all identity. If he turns to the good side, he will pass through the Netherworld" and in the revised rough draft, Yoda "will rescue him before he becomes one with the Force."

--Laurent Bouzereau, Star Wars The Annotated Screenplays page 300.

These were Lucas's ideas. Later, I believe it was "The Making Of Return Of The Jedi", Kazanjian had come up with the idea of Anakin appearing as a ghost during filming or post production of ROTJ. This also lines up with Shaw saying that he hadn't originally filmed the ghost scene and had come in later. The idea of the ghost was rather late and after a lot of re-thinking.

The sequence in ROTS was where Anakin had chosen to turn and had cemented his determination to see it through to the end. Luke killing his father was to cement his willingness to kill indiscriminately. Ben killing his father was the same way. in ROTS, we get that and then we get him choking his pregnant wife.

 

What are you on about. I'm not talking about the Sith not 'exisitng' in the OT, I'm pointing out that you are misleading by swapping terms. It is stated that The Emperor (specifically) would seek them out, not the Sith, not Vader and the Emperor, but simply and specifically The Emperor.

So...you think that all soldiers are as repugnant as child killers.

Your skipping around the point. Lucas doesn't say 'I had jim kill everyone'he specifically says he had him kill the younglings in order to show how far was too far...so Lucas clearly sees this as being distinct from killing adults.

Lol...yeah sure, it was the Director's fault because Lucas always had him as a monster.... Lucas said at the time that the scenes showed that far from being a monster he was just a broken old man. Lucas made a point of that...what is on scereen was what was intended at the time.

Please, please stop with your revisionism...

 

What do you think? You may not like it, but there it is.

Vader killed in the OT and no one cared. He kills kids in the PT and suddenly people are up in arms about him being evil. That is the bottom line.

Lol...yeah sure, it was the Director's fault because Lucas always had him as a monster.... Lucas said at the time that the scenes showed that far from being a monster he was just a broken old man. Lucas made a point of that...what is on scereen was what was intended at the time.[/quote]

Vader unmasked is where he is broken, but before then, he was a monster.

"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

As to Marquand, your assertion is that he should look more regretful. Well, he was already the monster before ROTS. Yet, he didn't look it. It is up to the director to showcase this properly and if he didn't do it, then it is his fault.