CT Does anyone prefer Vader as the ANH-henchman?

There's been much discussion in regard to Anakin/Vader's evolution from villain to tragic hero. And while I myself gravitate towards the sadistic despot of TESB, I've been increasingly intrigued by the iteration in the original film, whom I'd designate "the calculating henchman."

Said figure leaves indelible impressions in many of my favorite films, including From Russia With Love (Red Grant), The Godfather (Luca Brasi) and Rob Roy (Archibald Cunningham). They draw the viewer's attention, due to the conflict that inevitably rises from possessing extreme competence while maneuvering through an imposed hierarchy. So it goes with Vader. In several scenes, he's revealed to be the smartest guy in the room, but is nonetheless subordinate to Tarkin. And there's a lovely dynamic there: the evil sage, at the beck and call to a cunning materialist.

Anyone else?

 

I prefer Vader as henchman.

I see him in the 1977 SW film as primarily a bounty hunter in the employ of the Empire. He is not part of the chain of command. Instead, he is personally employed by Tarkin.

With Vader's transformation in ESB, this bounty hunter niche was emptied and then filled with Boba Fett. Observe that in ESB Boba Fett is in basically the same relationship to Vader as Vader is in to Tarkin in SW. Both answer to only the one man, the Imperial officers are contemptuous of them, and they even get snippy with their employer. Yep, Vader is the '77 film's Boba Fett, and I like it that way.

 

Nothing tops the ESB Vader that meditates in a metal sphere, sends his fleet into an asteroid field and kills officers while getting military updates.
ESB and ROJ Vader are my favs

 

I never looked at it that way but...really interesting perspective. You're right. Vader was the original Boba Fett wasn't he? haha.

 

He always will be the iconic feared henchman of ANH. The way it was conceived - the way it is preferred here. He only became the star villain most think he is due to promotion, artwork and a growing fan base. Tarkin will always be the primary villain of ANH for me.

 

Excellent observation, BinarySunset.

Note also how Motti denigrates Vader in the conference, a tactic that would never be employed had the latter been firmly entrenched in the power structure; what's more, the officers' shock at the Force display informs us he's not even entrenched in the Imperial consciousness. Only Tarkin seems cognizant of this creature's true nature: a metaphysical pit bull.

 

Yeah. I do prefer him as a henchman.

 

Originally, the Sith were supposed to be a group of Force-using bounty hunters, with Valorum being employed by the Empire, so it makes sense that Vader would seem that way in ANH.

 

First, let me say that I've never seen Vader as evil, neither in ROTS or the OT. He was just a desperate man, torn apart by his own blind passion, who deadened his emotions for the next 20 years, and was once again consumed by his rage for a time, then attained his time to think, his conflict that led to his redemption. I can't bring myself to hate him; only pity him

He really always was a henchman, though not to Palpatine. Not to the Empire, the Republic, or the Jedi. Born as a slave, once he was freed, he was never truly free, his fate determined by the will of the Force - the Chosen One, bound to the shackles of destiny that he cannot undo.

To directly answer this thread - I don't think he's a thug type enforcer of the Empire, nor is he a despot. Just a slave

 

I never saw Vader as the smartest guy in the room - leastways, not any room Tarkin was in. I enjoy their dynamic.

 

I disagree. Vader WAS evil. Just by judging him of his heinous acts, he was an evil person. Yes, he was psychologically damaged. But, just as many in our society, many of us have some damage done to us in our youth (and still today). His past, or passions, psychological conflicts, deep psychosis, etc. does not transform him into a tragic hero. The abuse excuse (as we psychology peeps call it) does not give him free reign to become a genocidal murderer of men, women, children, banthas, etc. Anakin made his choices. And they were the wrong ones most of the time. He became Vader and embraced it. Just because he saved his son at the end of Jedi does not redeem his life.

 

To me, ESB is Vader at his best.

 

I'm partial to ROTJ Vader, where behind the "badass" facade Vader is in truth mostly a beaten, pathetic husk of a human.

 

I didn't say he was a hero, though I agree that he did evil acts. One who does something evil is not necessarily evil. I don't think he exactly embraced Vader either. In ROTS, you know he deeply regretted the crimes he committed, but afterwards, after losing all his limbs - and his lungs - he was pretty much trapped in a prison, both literally and metaphorically. Anakin had no choice but to remain Vader. Where would he have gone? Palpatine would sooner kill him and replace him than have him leave.

 

This essay, by one of the writers of The Essential Guide to Warfare, has some interesting things to say about Vader- and how different he is in ANH compared to later depictions.
http://jasonfry.tumblr.com/post/24881617404/eg-to-warfare-endnotes-pt-11

​

I love West End Games, but I think they erred by mischaracterizing Vader and the role he plays in A New Hope. WEG bills Vader as the Emperor’s representative, looking over the shoulder of the technocrats — Galaxy Guide 1 describes him as “the epitome of the Emperor’s New Order. He is the tangible evil that the people of the galaxy can see and fear.” ​

​

I think that’s a good summary of Vader’s role in the popular imagination, but a poor summary of his role in Episode IV — and unfortunately, that summary shaped the portrayal of Vader and key events in the Expanded Universe, closing off a number of very interesting storytelling possibilities in favor of more obvious fare.​

​

Vader is a faintly pathetic figure in Episode IV, and indeed in the entire classic trilogy. Trapped in an ambulatory iron lung, he’s “more machine than man,” his Jedi acrobatics decayed into clumsy hammer blows, his very existence mocked by sneering careerists like Motti. And Tarkin treats him like an underling — he calls him “Vader” and orders him around.​

​

Now, recall that when A New Hope took shape, Emperor Palpatine was more a Nixonian politician than a Sith Lord, out of touch and controlled by bureaucrats, and the Star Wars novelization says Tarkin’s ambition is to be Emperor. Now we can see Vader’s more likely role: With the Emperor shut away and out of touch, he’s been sidelined as a Sith relic and is trying to ride Tarkin’s coattails back to power. Tarkin sees Vader as a useful henchman, but clearly hasn’t made him any promises, which is why Motti feels free to challenge him so publicly and brazenly.​

​

The roles played by Vader and Palpatine evolve and change as the classic trilogy evolves — by The Empire Strikes Back Palpatine seems clearly in charge and has some connection to the Force (a development I found startling as an 11-year-old), and Vader is much more influential. But the basic throughline of their story is still there. Vader tries to betray his master by playing a double game in The Empire Strikes Back. He does betray him — though for very different reasons — in Return of the Jedi. So why assume he’s loyal in A New Hope?​

​

Which makes both Tarkin’s characterization and the context of the Death Star briefing more clear: Tarkin burns to be Emperor, and the meeting he’s convened comes very, very close to being a gathering of coup plotters. Motti is all but drunk with power, Tagge’s doubts stem more from logistics than loyalty, and the others are either aides or non-entities. (Well, there’s Yularen, but in 1977 he was just the guy in white.) The Death Star is now operational, and the Senate is gone, removing a check on the power of governors such as Tarkin. (The radio drama, indeed, has Motti urging Tarkin to supplant the Emperor.)​

​

So there’s Tarkin, a proud son of the backwater world of Eriadu, in control of “the ultimate power in the universe.” What does he do with that power? He doesn’t destroy what he thinks is the headquarters of the Rebel base. Instead, he incinerates a major Core world. On whose orders? And if Tarkin hadn’t been distracted by infiltrators carrying the plans for the Death Star, where would he have taken his battle station next? My guess is Coruscant, for a showdown with Palpatine.​

​

Now think about the other questions this raises. How does Vader go from an unwelcome henchman aboard the Death Star to the terror of the Imperial Navy? Is there a reckoning between him and Palpatine? How much does Palpatine know of the desires of men such as Tarkin and Motti? And how did the Death Star plans get to the Rebels anyway?​

​

In that, I contend, there’s a great Star Wars tale that’s been partially obscured but could still be told — a marvelous story of ambition and betrayal, calculation and overconfidence. Maybe someday!​

 

I like henchman Vader. I loved it when we had no idea who / what this guy was. Man? Machine? A bit of both? He's the baddest ass in the universe so why is he taking orders from these pencil necks? What's the story? Yep, those were the days...

 

I guess you had to experience SW from ANH onwards and see what type of mysterious character Vader was and how he evolved through to Vader confronting Luke as a prisoner on the Endor landing platform. He conceals his good however Luke senses it - but through ANH and ESB, he's one evil b*****d.

 

He's very much a black-hearted villain in the original, going so far as torturing a princess, forcing said princess to watch her planet's destruction, and murdering an outnumbered, disarmed old man. Despicable and even cowardly, after a fashion.

And however textured the character became in the sequels/prequels, Vader remains a villain to the wider popular culture, standing alongside the likes of the Wicked Witch of the West, the Evil Queen and the Shark from Jaws. To put it another way, when a politician is referred to as "Darth Vader", there's no tragic dimensions implied.

 

I can't see Boba Fett leading Imperial squadrons in an attack against Rebel Alliance fighter pilots.

Is that the way most fans like to view Vader? Personally, I liked the tragic dimensions that were first implied when Vader revealed himself to be Luke's father in ESB.

 

The IV version of Vader is so totally at odds with the version created afterwards that they really are 2 almost entirely different characters.

Maybe Kasdan will reveal that the real Vader was off doing something during IV and it was just a replacement guy for that movie who we never saw again.

There is no good way to explain the Vader there to the one in the next movie.

 

Vader was to Tarkin as Banastre Tarleton, a ruthless British cavalry officer, was to Cornwallis. Tarleton could be considered evil by some accounts, in reference to his treatment of prisoners. But he most definitely hunted and harassed the rebels through the Carolinas. He also hunted rebel spies outside New York.

I do not consider Tarleton a henchman and I wouldn't think Vader is.

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2

 

I agree @Beezer: Vader was presented as an intimadator in ANH not really a particularly intelligent leader or anything. I'd give that to Tarkin all the way.

 

That's funny because Tarkin was the one who ignored the Death Star's fatal flaw and failed to address them as a significant threat while Vader was the one who realized that something suspicious was going on. I don't think people give Darth Vader enough credit in ANH. He showed some true genius when it came to dealing with Princess Leia and her attempts to hide the Rebel Base from him. Wasn't it his idea to let the Millenium Falcon to escape while placing a tracking beam on it?

 

You end up with two perspectives on Vader with the addition of the subsequent films. I like the notion that he's an almost cowardly, malicious servant of Tarkin in the original presentation, or even that movie's Boba Fett. He's Jaws or Oddjob to Blofeild and Goldfinger. A colourful "muscle" supporting baddie. However, he is notched up a bit in the villainy rankings in that single movie considering that Obi-Wan is talking about him when they're stashed away on Tatooine. Like, you don't see M giving a long speech to Bond about how Oddjob murdered his mother, y'know?

If you look at Star Wars in it's original conception, it's a sci-fi serial and you, as the audience member, literally just walked in right into the middle of it. So Vader getting away is less about making him "a big bad" in the mythology and more about "this is what happens in serial sci-fi movies, the bad guy gets away, or at least one of them"

However, that is entirely changed and flipped on it's head when you take into consideration the other movies. Now, with the other OT movies and the PT, especially after coming right off of "Sith" if you watch it chronologically, you see a villain who is basically hanging back and unleashing ferocity whenever he needs to. He seems to be above the whole thing, almost uncaring about the technological terror. because we've seen him go through hell and back and come out the villainous Sith Lord that he is. His job is for the Emperor, he's basically just observing. We know what he's capable of. But you're seeing only glimpses of the real Vader, which actually kinda makes it cooler. The Obi-Wan/Vader lightsaber duel is almost a delayed climax to "Sith" and you're suddenly need deep in some vintage Vader-ness. On it's own, disconnected from the other movies, you're basically more invested in "is Obi-Wan gonna get away" and "that bad guy in the black suit has a red lightsaber, that's cool!".

For the record, what feels the most like Vader to me is how he is in ESB, easily. That defines the character the character to me so I start seeing things that make "Darth Vader" who he is in between the lines in ANH.

 

Vader and Tarkin were co-villians in ANH.