Does RotS explain why Anakin's spirit is young in RotJ?

He's good, but he's also pathetic. He put himself into this situation. The burns are relevant because they show that he lost his humanity, which is consistant in both versions.

I don?t think the burns and scarring were indicative of a loss of humanity. After all, it is only after sustaining these injuries does Anakin finally arrive at a point where he?s able to make a decision based on selfless compassion and love.

It's about showcasing his ultimate good state. None of the Dark Side ravaging his body or a loss of humanity. Just plain old Anakin Skywalker, Jedi Knight and a good friend and husband.

When I think about Anakin?s ?ultimate good state? being showcased, the battered form of Vader saving his son comes to mind, not the young Anakin Skywalker who decided that carrying out the destruction of the Jedi was the sanest course of action.

Not to sound rude, but that's what you get for assuming.

Don?t worry, you didn?t sound rude. However, I don?t see where I was wrong in assuming that a logical and in-depth explanation to the force ghost concept would be given.

There are some bound and determined to make mountains out of molehills in order justify their feeling that a artist changing his creation has somehow affected their daily lives... and that's just sad.

I don?t recall ever indicating that the ghost change has ?affected my daily life.? And as for making mountains out of molehills, well, that?s a very sophomoric metaphor to use in describing an intellectual discussion. I would appreciate it if you didn?t resort to remarks indicating that anyone putting time and effort into making this discourse as lively as possible are ?sad.? Such remarks are nothing more than a thinly veiled ?**** you,? a sentiment that is definitely not needed here.

 

And that is what I think was the SOLE reason why Lucas made Anakin's spirit look like Hayden. He wanted to show an Anakin BEFORE he killed children. He'd have a REALLY hard time showing an old Sebastian Shaw ghost that represented a full redemption in spite of killing children. Hayden's ghost was how he appeared, as Lucas said, before he "died" ie before he was named "Darth Vader" and went around killing kids.

One question, what's the difference between killing a child and killing a defenseless man? Also, what's the difference between killing children that you believe will grow up to be evil and standing by while a planet(with millions of children) is destroyed when you agreed in its destruction? What's the difference between "Save the cute little seals" and "Save the armadillos"? I'm not saying that killing children is in any way seen as correct, I'm just puzzled to why a childs life is worth so much more value than a defenseless bum on the street. Oh, and by the way, I have a 4 month old son.

 

He didn't want Anakin as an old man. Not with Shaw and not with Hayden wearing maekup.

For the shot in which Luke Skywalker sees his father appear as a spirit in the company of Yoda and Obi-Wan, Hayden Christensen has been inserted in place of Sebastian Shaw. Following a brief discussion, Lucas confirms that he does not want to age Christensen, explaining that Anakin has reverted to who he was when he went over to the dark side."

--George Lucas, The Making Of Revenge Of The Sith.

"There's always this good in you. And the good part is saying 'what am I doing?'. Then the bad part kicks in and says 'I'm doing this for Padme, I'm doing this for the galaxy and so we can have a better life'. But the good part is always saying 'WHAT AM I DOING?!"

--George Lucas to Hayden Christensen, Hyperspace webdoc

There was good in him and there was evil. Eventually, the evil destroyed the good.

The lesson is that if you die repenting for your sins. If you know that you did wrong and can accept it, then by casting off all evil and all attachments, you will die as a good man. Religion says that God will love you no matter what, especially if you ask for forgiveness for your sins. Anakin wants forgiveness for his sins and Luke gives it to him, but he also has to forgive himself.

In finally embracing death, he embraces the Jedi Code and their way of life.

It all comes down to what Yoda said to Dooku, which fits the Jedi Order as a whole.

Yoda: "Much to learn, you still have."

The Jedi had much to learn about the Force, which they did not know. Their arrogance is why they couldn't retain their identity. Through this, they learn that there is much more to learn. And Luke even shows them that there is more, because the Dark Side is not forever.

Yoda: "Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter."

 

I don?t recall ever indicating that the ghost change has ?affected my daily life.? And as for making mountains out of molehills, well, that?s a very sophomoric metaphor to use in describing an intellectual discussion. I would appreciate it if you didn?t resort to remarks indicating that anyone putting time and effort into making this discourse as lively as possible are ?sad.? Such remarks are nothing more than a thinly veiled ?**** you,? a sentiment that is definitely not needed here.

Calm down. I'm merely saying that a movie change isn't something to get that worked up over (see above). Seriously. It really seems to be affecting some people's daily lives as it is still being argued every day in here and no one gives. Then we start being melodramatic about it, hence it looks like some that make it a "discourse" may be taking it a little too seriously. He did it to bridge the trilogies. Honestly, does there HAVE to be an "in universe" reason? Isn't that taking something a little too far?

K_M: Mother here, too. Being unforgiving isn't Luke's cup of tea. He's a good person. That's why he's the hero.


One question, what's the difference between killing a child and killing a defenseless man? Also, what's the difference between killing children that you believe will grow up to be evil and standing by while a planet(with millions of children) is destroyed when you agreed in its destruction? What's the difference between "Save the cute little seals" and "Save the armadillos"? I'm not saying that killing children is in any way seen as correct, I'm just puzzled to why a childs life is worth so much more value than a defenseless bum on the street. Oh, and by the way, I have a 4 month old son.


Good thought. I have a friend in Iraq that doesn't appreciate being labeled as a "child-killer", and he has. To tell the story this is what Lucas has the character do, albeit in an extreme fashion as storytelling and myth would warrant. "Anakin" the fictional character should have realized what the hell he was doing and stopped, but the term "child-killer" is starting to annoy me. Soldiers do this as a line of duty and I'm beginning to see how coming home from Vietnam to find the country hating them happened. Let's just say Darth Vader is how he is because without him, there would be no OT.

 

I understand that post RoTS Vader is in part a mechanical being. What I was getting at is that defining humanity is a lot more complicated than simply taking into account one?s physicality. Anakin Skywalker never had the compassion and emotional fortitude necessary to destroy the Sith until he spent years in the suit. Thus, from a certain point of view, the dying Vader is the most humanistic incarnation of Anakin the saga offered.

Calm down. I'm merely saying that a movie change isn't something to get that worked up over (see above).

I assure you, I?m quite calm. And for the record, I never got ?worked up? until your post indicated that my continued participation in this thread was sad.

Honestly, does there HAVE to be an "in universe" reason? Isn't that taking something a little too far?

I suppose the idea of taking something a little too far is highly subjective. For instance, I happen to be a fan of well thought out and pertinent storytelling, as well as the process of film criticism and dissection in general. What you call taking it too far, I call analysis and interpretation.

 

SAND-CRAWLER:
And that is what I think was the SOLE reason why Lucas made Anakin's spirit look like Hayden.He wanted to show an Anakin BEFORE he killed children.

But I'll say again that the Hayden Anakin wasn't really seen as good very much in the films. Way before he killed the Jedi younglings he killed Tuskin Women and children; he disobeyed Obi-wan; he broke his Jedi vows and married in secret. He was arrogant; angry; possessive; obsessive; ambitious.

He'd have a REALLY hard time showing an old Sebastian Shaw ghost that represented a full redemption in spite of killing children.

At least the Shaw ghost looked kind, compassionate, benevolent and grateful that he was no longer a darksider. To me, he does represent a "good" Anakin, one who had returned from darkness, wiser, gentler, and more human.

I'm just puzzled to why a childs life is worth so much more value than a defenseless bum on the street.

All life is precious. But someone who would kill an innocent, defenseless child represents to me, the worst of the worst. Anyone who would take advantage of a trusting, weak child and murder that child, is truly evil in my eyes.

darth-sinister:
He didn't want Anakin as an old man. Not with Shaw and not with Hayden wearing maekup.

I honestly don't care what George Lucas wanted. I'm interested in what makes most sense story-wise. Lucas made Return of the Jedi less of a film by putting Hayden in as a ghost in my opinion. He has diminished his own story and made it more illogical.

There was good in him and there was evil. Eventually, the evil destroyed the good.

Well, your Lucas quote doesn't agree with you. According to what you said, the evil "destroyed the good", but in the quote Lucas says: "There's always this good in you," so he seems to be saying that the evil never completely destroys the good.

The lesson is that if you die repenting for your sins. If you know that you did wrong and can accept it, then by casting off all evil and all attachments, you will die as a good man. Religion says that God will love you no matter what, especially if you ask for forgiveness for your sins.Anakin wants forgiveness for his sins and Luke gives it to him, but he also has to forgive himself. In finally embracing death, he embraces the Jedi Code and their way of life.

Well, that was the message I got from the Shaw ghost. That's NOT the messge I get with the Hayden ghost. With the Hayden ghost, it's more: Hey! Look at me! I got away with murder and lots of other stuff and I still get to look like a hunk while these old losers wasted their time doing good and now they have their old, tired spirit bodies.

Their arrogance is why they couldn't retain their identity.

Okay...And now that they've retained their identities, what now? What good did it really do? What are they going to do with themselves? As I said, I always thought they had reached the reward of perfect life after death for their good deeds in life, a "Jedi Heaven" if you will. But if that's not the case, what will they do with themselves from now on? What was the point of retaining their identities if they have no real life and no purpose? And if they can't be with those whom they loved in physical life as those people apparently are totally gone and cease to exist when they die?


Yoda: "Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter."

RIght. When I say "glorified body", that's pretty much what I mean. Obviously, these are ghosts or spirits. They have a sort of perfected image of their former bodies. They would look like themselves, but no longer show wounds or scars, or infirmities.

Still doesn't matter.

To me it does. The story becomes illogical when two good knights are seen with the image of themselves at death; when the other one who became a darksider is seen in the image of a young man at his most evil.

He only gets to save his son and end the war.

And balance the Force. You don't think that's worthy of "redemp

 

In a sense, yes. But what Lucas is saying is that Anakin loses his humanity, both physically and emotionally.

Granted, that's all well and good. But there is what was asked, which is does there have to be an explaination?

But he was also in his life kind, compassionate, carring and helpful. Don't always focus on the negative.

Well, he's all those too as Hayden.

*shrugs.*

The story is still the same now as it was in 1983.

He's saying this before the suit, not afterwards. It's during the scene where Anakin's standing on Mustafar and you see a tear shed. Re-read the quote. He's saying that in Anakin's mind, the bad part says he's doing this for Padme. But the good doesn't understand why he's doing this. After her death, the good man is destroyed.

That's only cause you focus on the negative. He still got away with murder as an old man.

Influence Luke for a while and then let go, returning to the Netherworld and that's the end. The good that it did was help Luke on his path to becoming a Jedi Knight. Obi-wan got Luke off the Death Star, helped him to destroy it and got him to Dagobah. Then they helped Anakin to retain his identity, so that Luke can have piece of mind that his father was able to make it all the way back. Which is always what it was.

 

Anakin is evil for all eternity and should burn in hell.

If that is your view of the saga, then why are you here wasting your time?

 

You're fighting the good fight Sinister, but the fact is, some people aren't going to listen to reason (or Lucas quotes, for that matter.)

I wish you luck in converting the heathens.

 

Quoting Lucas has been established as a futile practice considering he often contradicts himself.

NeoBaggins posted:

Exzactly. It aids the story in no manner and makes no sense. Its a visual que for the sake of color and not substance. If Lucas said that he changed it because it was a visual way to connect the out of sync trilogies, I could respect that.

"He did say that.

"[Hayden in ROTJ] was added because it was a way of finishing off the series."

--George Lucas AOL interview, 2005."

That's hardly the same thing. That statement that he is making is just empty filler. It means NOTHING. As I have said before, ANY ending is a way of finishing off the series. The way it was before was a way to finish off the series. Adding Roger Rabbit doing a Jig with Sysnoodles Mama would be a way of finishing the series. He isn't saying ANYTHING by that comment. He just blurted out something obvious and tried to pass it off as an answer to the question. It buys him some time until the word persona pops in his head. He doesn't admit that the change is merely for color and connection. He's trying to pass it off as a change that has meaning behind it when it doesn't, just like he tried to do with the Greedo scene. If he was being straight up about it, it wouldn't be so insulting.

"With Han Solo, Lucas felt that Han should have some measure of good in him. That even though he's a scoundrel and a criminal, he is someone who is good and noble. And in Lucas' belief, killing in cold blood isn't redeemable."

Well first you have to believe that killing a bounty hunter before he kills you is killing in cold blood. Greedo announces his intent and is about to kill Han Solo and said he had been waiting to do this. Han protected himself. He had a right to blast Greedo from the moment he drew a gun on him. Han didn't shoot him until he knew Greedo was going to kill him, and he didn't even have to do that. It's far from cold blooded. It's just Lucas trying to make a silly change seem like there was something deep behind it. Solo can't be redeemed because he blasts Greedo, but he proceeds to kill everything that moves after this. Please. And then he insults the fans by saying that we like to think of Solo as a killer because that's "hip". Since us barbarians think murder is hip, it is his job to redo the scene "because I don't think that's good for people". Self defense against a known killer: Irredeemable. Child murder, mass genocide, and the enslaving of a galaxy: Redeemable. Oh wait, he now says Anakin can't be redeemed for his deeds. The man is confused.

"In the case of Anakin Skywalker, a common theme of redemption is where the hero spends the rest of his life redeeming himself for his crimes. Anakin can't do that cause he dies. He can redeem himself by becoming good again and saving his son."

He "dies" when he turns, right? When does Anakin turn/dies in ROTS and what is his ultimate reason for turning?

 

Quoting Lucas has been established as a futile practice considering he often contradicts himself.

Ah, but since it's his film, only the last revision counts (apparently).
I hope others have seen "Primer" and get that.

 

Granted, that's all well and good. But there is what was asked, which is does there have to be an explaination?

Of course there has to be a logical in universe explanation for the change that goes beyond simple aesthetics. To suggest otherwise is an affirmation of negligent storytelling.

 

darth-sinister;
But he was also in his life kind, compassionate, carring and helpful. Don't always focus on the negative.

I focus on the negative because that's mostly what I saw of Anakin in the films. As I said, you can't just say someone is caring, helpful, and compassionate, you need to SHOW it. And Lucas didn't show us enough of Anakin's "good" side, in my opinion. We mostly saw him doing "bad" things.

The story is still the same now as it was in 1983.

The ending has changed. We no longer have a father/son moment. We now have an "Anakin Skywalker take a bow moment" at the end of RotJ. We no longer have an Anakin joins the other Jedi in the afterlife rewarded to good and faithful Jedi knights. We now have some trick that Qui-gon supposedly figured out and taught to Obi-wan and Yoda. We no longer have the image of the redeemed, benevolent, fatherly Anakin, but the image of the young Anakin who did horrible evil deeds. We no longer have an Anakin who has been redeemed by his last good act, but an Anakin whose identity was saved from oblivion by Obi-wan and Yoda, for what purpose no one knows. Luke already knew he had saved his father. Anakin told him so on the Death star. If his father wasn't in "Jedi Heaven" there was no point in having Anakin appear as a Force ghost.

luence Luke for a while and then let go, returning to the Netherworld and that's the end. The good that it did was help Luke on his path to becoming a Jedi Knight. Obi-wan got Luke off the Death Star, helped him to destroy it and got him to Dagobah.

And what was Obi-wan doing in the three years between ANH and TESB? He didn't appear to Luke in all that time. So where was he? What was he doing? What was Yoda doing? Yoda never helped Luke. Yoda never appeared to Luke after his death until the end of RotJ. Where was he and what was he doing for a year? What's the point of retaining one's identity? I liked it much better and it made more sense when I thought that the Jedi were enjoying their award in Jedi heaven.

that Luke can have piece of mind that his father was able to make it all the way back.

Luke already knew that. His father told him that he had saved him on the Death Star. Luke could sense it through the Force too that his father had returned to the good side. You don't give Luke credit!

always what it was

No, I took it to mean before that Anakin had been redeemed and was with his old Masters in Jedi Heaven.

They will guide Luke for a time in his endeavors in rebuilding the Jedi Order.

But they don't do that. In the EU, Yoda never appears to Luke and Anakin hasn't so far either. Obi-wan did once or twice and then never appeared again until possibly when Luke's son was born. So there really wasn't much
point in having them retain their identities, was there?

They will go away. Simple as that.

So where do they go????

It says that they stayed on the correct path, Anakin strayed but managed to come back.

It isn't logical. It make no sense to punish the guys who've been good and reward the one who's been bad.

he's wearing his Master's robes.

He's wearing Shaw's robes!

Leia learned to love unconditionally. So did Luke. They both learned from their parents mistakes and show that they will not become like them.

Well, they certainly didn't learn from Padme's mistakes, because they never knew her. They really didn't learn from ANakin's either, because they never knew how or why he fell. Leia learned to be the good person she was from the Organas; Luke learned from Owen and Beru.


In asense, he is. But these are his stories. He wasn't satified with how they were before. Hence why he changed them. And he's not the only one to have done it.

It doesn't matter whether others have done it or not. My point is that he was in the news a couple of years ago complaining about films he saw as a child being changed. He was one of those who was trying to stop it from happening. Then he turns around and changes

 

I thought it was very clear already that Luke wanted his father back. His father was everything to him, even after defeating Vader, he throws away his saber to admit that he was a Jedi, like his father. Luke didn't care about himself anymore, but to prove Vader was good, the man inside was still good.

Luke role is not diminished but he knew his place- that is - he is below his father. It was father that could stop the evil that implicated the galaxy.

 

I think George shouldn't have done this. I'll give the same two cents everybody else gave... It doesn't make sense. He came back as Anakin before he died, therefore, his ANAKIN spirit should be like Anakin was before he dies, and it's not. In fact, by making Anakin younger it says that Vader never went back to being Anakin.

 

Short, but sweet Shredder. Short but sweet. And on the money.

 

In fact, by making Anakin younger it says that Vader never went back to being Anakin.

Strangly, that makes sense to me. But maybe Yoda was right, you can't come back from the dark side. But then that means that Anakin shouldn't have a ghost! But wait, maybe that's why only his Jedi form is seen. However, does that mean Anakin learned how to commune with Qui-Gon before he turns to the dark side? Wait that would mean that a Sith brought balance to the force threw self-sacrifice...oh, I've gone cross-eyed


Maybe it's an inconsistency in SW. Wow. Shocking.

 

I could have sworn that I heard that on the Trinity Broadcast Channel.

 

When?

So certain that it has no meaning. Why? Why doesn't it have any meaning, according to you.

Han shoots Stormtroopers and Imperial officers. They're considered evil. Greedo's just a bounty hunter. And if you note, they both fire at the same time, now. And most everyone who complained about the change, before he even said anything, was because they felt it took away Han's "badass image." Which is exactly the things that I've seen and read, on the internet and in magazines.

Actually, Lucas is being consistant. Cold blooded killers, can't make up for their sins and be redeemed. That's why he changed who shot who first, which is the silliest complaint ever. And Anakin Skywalker cannot be forgiven and cannot make up for his acts. But he can become good again.

From all indications, he "dies" after Padme's death. He turns fully because he has nothing left, but anger and hate. He loses his humanity and his soul. In effect, he dies.

Why?

We also see him doing good. As Lucas said, the question becomes, "How do we get him back to that little boy that he was in the first movie, that good person who loved and was generous and kind? Who had a good heart."

I saw him do good things and I also know how the character is presented. Sufficent enough.

 

Maybe the answer is more a spiritual one. If there is a Heaven, do you imagine it being full of old or sick looking people? Disfigured, ravaged by age, maimed . . basically how they looked when they died. Or do you imagine it a place where the spirit of a person lives on looking and feeling as they once did when they were at their prime? Happy, healthy, young, attractive?

I dont want to get into a religous debate, but is'nt it just a nicer thought to think that when a person dies and joins the spirit world, the force, what ever you belive in . . . that person retains their identity to a time when they were most happy.

Thats what i'd like to believe, and maybe thats what Lucas would like to believe too.

Just a thought.

 

If that was the case, his ghost would be of Jake Lloyd. He was happy as a slave living with his Mother and naked droid. He had friends and a normal kids life dispite his slave title.

Hayden's Anakin is far from happy. He has nightmares of his Mother dying, he has issues about how he's being trained and is often frustrated, his Mother dies in his arms and I'm guessing that slaughtering the whole village doesn't provoke enjoyment, loses his hand, then he starts having dreams about his wife dying, he murders a prisoner because he couldn't help it, helps kill a fellow Jedi, THEN, after all that, pledges himself to the darkside. Where he goes on a killing spree while crying. I don't think this is the image of Anakin at his most happy. Shaw would be representative of most happy and significant moment.

"So certain that it has no meaning. Why? Why doesn't it have any meaning, according to you."

Yes, Yoda, so certain I am. Why? Because I have witnessed it. There is nothing in any of the films that support the insertion of this image. Nothing. There is no prerequisite for it. No alluding to its possibility. It is an anomoly that can't even be explained through not having to be explained due to it being an enchanted event, something magical- Why? Because Lucas set out to make rules for these aspects and the films have a consistant pattern until the change. The force is an energy-field that surrounds everything and binds the galaxy together. It penetrates you and is a part of your spirit aura. You die, become one with the force, you look like you did upon death, refreshed, and revitalized. And OF COURSE without your scars or injuries. So when you plop a 23 year Anakin in there, it doesn't make sense. That's why.

"Han shoots Stormtroopers and Imperial officers. They're considered evil. Greedo's just a bounty hunter."

Stormtroopers and Imperial officers are following their duties, most of them believe that they are truly in the right, and the rest are probably performing out of fear and no choice. The only outwardly evil official is Tarkin. You wouldn't call Piett evil. Greedo wants to take money from Solo that is supposed to go to his boss, Jabba. He tries to tell Solo that he MIGHT not tell Jabba he's seen him after taking the money. Then he just comes right down to it, he's going to kill him and has been waiting to do so for some time. Greedo is evil.

"And if you note, they both fire at the same time, now. And most everyone who complained about the change, before he even said anything, was because they felt it took away Han's "badass image." Which is exactly the things that I've seen and read, on the internet and in magazines.'

It looks stupid and is unecessary. The scene was original done in the fashion it was done to convey the Cowboy image of Solo in a classic Saloon style situation. I don't care who almost shoots first or last or nearly at the same time, the scene is ruined. And let's not forget that, unless Han Solo can manipulate the Matrix, he shouldn't be dodging shots at point blank range. It's dumb. I can hardly discribe as much else.

"Actually, Lucas is being consistant. Cold blooded killers, can't make up for their sins and be redeemed. That's why he changed who shot who first, which is the silliest complaint ever. And Anakin Skywalker cannot be forgiven and cannot make up for his acts. But he can become good again."

People don't complain about who shot first; Greedo NEVER shot at all. Lucas even says that Han never shoots first . Again, taking advantage of what he must see as retarded fans. Because it is STAR WARS and because fans are fanatical, he will tell you what you didn't see and expect you to go with it. Sadly, some do. And as far as Lucas being consistant, just like with the ghost thing, why didn't they almost shoot at each other or whatever, the first time? Why was it changed from Greedo not shooting at all, then Greedo shooting and some how missing and Han returning fire, to them almost firing at the same time? That is no where near cons

 

Hayden's Anakin is far from happy. He has nightmares of his Mother dying, he has issues about how he's being trained and is often frustrated, his Mother dies in his arms and I'm guessing that slaughtering the whole village doesn't provoke enjoyment, loses his hand, then he starts having dreams about his wife dying, he murders a prisoner because he couldn't help it, helps kill a fellow Jedi, THEN, after all that, pledges himself to the darkside. Where he goes on a killing spree while crying. I don't think this is the image of Anakin at his most happy. Shaw would be representative of most happy and significant moment.
________________________________________________


But before his Dark Turn he is happy. He's married the woman of his dreams, he has a child on the way, he's on the jedi council . . . this is the best time in his life. Fail enough his mother died, but people die, thats life, this is where he goes wrong because he cant except this. Plus, he was not a jedi when he was a slave boy, he had'nt learned the ways of the force, an understanding of life made any connections to his role as the chosen one and the people around him. I dont think it's right to say he was happy as a slave. He was just a happy child. Give a child an expensive gift and they'll be happy. Give a child a huge cardboard box and they'll be equally happy with it. He was just making good of what he had. Being a jedi was all he dreamed of, all he wanted, he says as much in TPM and this is why he reverted back to his jedi form when he died and was redeamed.

 

Rhondero;One question, what's the difference between killing a child and killing a defenseless man? Also, what's the difference between killing children that you believe will grow up to be evil and standing by while a planet(with millions of children) is destroyed when you agreed in its destruction? What's the difference between "Save the cute little seals" and "Save the armadillos"? I'm not saying that killing children is in any way seen as correct, I'm just puzzled to why a childs life is worth so much more value than a defenseless bum on the street. Oh, and by the way, I have a 4 month old son.

If you don't understand the difference between killing a child and an adult then I can't explain it to you. A child is innocent, hasn't had time to commit evil or even perpetrate sin, they are inherently vulnerable physically and emotionally. We as adults instintively (most of us anyway)want to protect children, it's the basic need to perpetuate our species. To use the excuse that these 5-10 yr olds were evil, or dangerous or potentially dangerous is rationalization and excuse making. Anakin was a jedi and he turned, why couldnt a 5 yr old be turned and be converted? He didnt kill them because they were dangerous he did it to break the Jedi spirit and to wipe the religion from the face of the galaxy.

It's called genocide!, which is defined as; the deliberate killing of people based on their ethnicity, nationality, race, religion, or (sometimes) politics, as well as other deliberate action(s) leading to the physical elimination of any of the above categories. As in the holocaust, by hitler, in Russia by Stalin, by Saddam Hussein in Iraq and most recently in the Sudan. Were the Sudanese children dangerous as well, or the jewish children? Did Hitler and the War Lords have a right to kill them because they were going to be dangerous in 10 years. Anakin is no better than these people, and just because he saved his own son doesn't make him good -- sorry thats my opinion. Perhaps George went too far.

Yoshifett; And yes, I condemn anyone who kills children, I'm funny that way. It's strange, I've never been acused of being religious or conservative before, which is what I guess the Trinity network reference was about. I think you mistake morals for religion, yes I'm cursed with the former.

 

DARTHCLANDESTINE:
Luke role is not diminished but he knew his place- that is - he is below his father.

Well, with the original films, I would NEVER have said that Luke Skywalker was BELOW his father. Anakin Skywalker, a.k.a. Darth Vader was always the VILLAIN and Luke was the HERO. Now Lucas wants us to accept Anakin as the big hero and Luke as sort of a footnote to "Anakin's Story".

DARTH-SHREDDER:
I think George shouldn't have done this. I'll give the same two cents everybody else gave... It doesn't make sense. He came back as Anakin before he died, therefore, his ANAKIN spirit should be like Anakin was before he dies, and it's not. In fact, by making Anakin younger it says that Vader never went back to being Anakin.

Well put, Darth Shredder!

darth-sinister:
We also see him doing good. As Lucas said, the question becomes, "How do we get him back to that little boy that he was in the first movie, that good person who loved and was generous and kind? Who had a good heart."

Yes, we see him doing good as a small child. If Lucas wants to show the Anakin who was good, the Force ghost should be the child Anakin. I've said that before.

Like I said, the same story from 1983. We still have a father/son moment.

No, we don't have a father/son moment. We now have a "cheer for Anakin" moment and a Luke/evil younger brother moment. There is no benevolent, grateful father image for Luke. We now have this image of a young punk whom Luke never knew.

We have the image of the good man who Luke felt was in there all along.

It seems I need to keep repeating that the Hayden Anakin image is NOT the image of the good Anakin. The Hayden image of Anakin is actually the image MOST associated with his evil deeds. We saw the Hayden Anakin commit more atrocities than we ever saw the suited Darth Vader commit, in fact.

Obi-wan and Yoda have always been the ones to help him become a ghost. Didn't it occur to you at all?

No. I always believed, as I've said before, that they were spirits in "Jedi Heaven" or whatever you want to call the afterlife. Then Anakin came to join them in appearing to Luke. But I assumed that Anakin got there because he had been redeemed and had been welcomed back into the Force, thus gaining "Jedi Heaven" for sacrificing his life to save his son and destroy the evil Emperor. I never asssumed that Yoda or Ben had anything to do with it. If you notice, the ghost of Yoda and Obi-wan don't move or do anything to show that they're helping Anakin appear to Luke. They just STAND THERE, smiling at Luke.

Only Anakin, Obi-wan, Yoda and Qui-gon retain their identity and conscious.

And I'll ask again: And what's the point of them retaining their identities and consciousness?? You said it's to help Luke, but we don't see them helping Luke. Even Obi-wan only tells Luke to use the Force in ANH and to go to Yoda. He never really helps him with anything. Why didn't he help Luke in the three years between ANH and TESB? Why didn't he at least "chat" with him? Where was he? What was he doing? Why should he and Yoda retain their identities and consciousness if they don't share advice or continue teaching Luke about the Force? To me, it makes far more sense and sends a far more hopeful message that Obi-wan and Yoda were enjoying the afterlife they had earned for doing good deeds rather than retaining one's identity being a skill to be learned which in the end serves no useful purpose as they don't do anything anyway.

Watching Luke's progress. Talking to Yoda. Discussing when to train Luke and what to do about Leia. Waiting for the time to be right.

Not very helpful, do you think? And where was he?

They could not interfere with Luke's confrontation with the Sith. They could only watch and hope that he made it.

Then I'll ask again: If they serve no useful purpose by retaining their identities; if they're not really helping Luke anyway; if they're only there to watch and hope, WHAT IS THE POINT of

 

Because Lucas set out to make rules for these aspects and the films have a consistant pattern until the change. The force is an energy-field that surrounds everything and binds the galaxy together. It penetrates you and is a part of your spirit aura. You die, become one with the force, you look like you did upon death, refreshed, and revitalized. And OF COURSE without your scars or injuries. So when you plop a 23 year Anakin in there, it doesn't make sense. That's why.

That is absolute garbage. Obi-Wan and Yoda look the way they do because they never had any scars or injuries when they died. Having an older Shaw with NO BURNS AND NO MISSING LIMBS breaks the rules too, especially since HE NEVER EXISTED. Having Anakin appear in his Hayden persona makes much more sense than unscarred Shaw.

Also, from reading the ROTJ novel, unmasked Vader felt greatly ashamed for his scarred deformed look, and he identifies with his youthful self. So having Anakin's spirit as Hayden makes sense, because THAT'S THE WAY ANAKIN SEES HIMSELF.

There is no benevolent, grateful father image for Luke. We now have this image of a young punk whom Luke never knew.

Gee, I wonder why nobody complains about the end of Field of Dreams? How does Kevin Costner know that young ghost guy is his father?