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

Anakin's happy when he's with Padme, especially once he's out of Obi-wan's shadow. He's happy to see her for the first time in a decade. He's happy to be able to talk to her without Obi-wan hearing their conversations. He's happy when they're at the lake house, save for his nightmare and when she turns him down. He's happy when they take off for Geonosis and happy, for a moment, when she declares her love. He's happy when they're married. When they reunite and after the shock wears off, he's happy to learn that he's going to be a poppa. He's happy to be with her, just before going to bed. And the last time he's happy, is the brief moment when he's told that he will be put onto the Council.

Yes, but now Lucas is revealing that by turning to the Dark Side, one's spirit does not age. He didn't do it before, because he either didn't come up with it in 1983 or he did, but waited until he decided to do the PT. At which point he would have his younger Anakin Skywalker to insert, rather than another actor to be replaced once again. More than likely he came up with it while putting the PT together and decided to wait until he had casted his older Anakin Skywalker.

Ah, but Lucas considers the Imperial officers evil. Greedo is greedy.

Ruined to you. I never even gave it a second thought back in 1997. I never thought it ruined anything. *shru

 

well his "sith" body was the one that was broken, so by giving him his youthful lightsider version back, he was Anakin skywalker yet again.

- Master_Vron

 

I think this debate rests on your personal opinion of the following:

Whether your wounds heal when you die
or
you revert back to a healthy man that once existed, before making a fateful wrong turn that left you scarred.

Since there is almost *nothing* in any of the films that establishes the nature of force ghosts, how to become one, who can become one, why they become one, what their purpose is etc., it is almost a matter of personal preference which one you prefer. All the Lucas- quotes and it's-been-that-way-for-20-years arguments do no good when there is nothing substantial in any of the films to support either argument (sorry DTJ). It all stems from Lucas's poor planning and not being able to explain one plot point in three films.

To me, I don't care which ghost it is, but I wanted it supported and explained in the films. Like I said, Shaw's ghost needs as much explaining as Hayden's does, so it is a matter of personal preference since there is no info to go on.

It just seems like everyone here is grasping at straws, when in reality, there's nothing substantial in the films supporting either ghost.

 

I've no problem with Hayden replacing Shaw but I've gotta admit it looks kinda strange seeing Hayden standing next to Alec Guiness's version of Obi-Wan. Having grown up watching the PT films, when I think of Anakin and Obi-Wan together, its always the image of Hayden and Ewan that springs to mind.

 

oh wait. i just realized the title of this thread implies it's supposed to be a debate about whether RotS explains why the dvd spirit is young; not a debate about whether the replacement made sense or not.

 

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: Why?

Because for me fiction is more relevant when its characteristics prove that great care, effort, and attention to detail were prominent during the story?s creation. The Hayden ghost reeks of a haphazard change done without consideration to the philosophical and textual questions it raises.

I think this debate rests on your personal opinion of the following:

Whether your wounds heal when you die or you revert back to a healthy man that once existed, before making a fateful wrong turn that left you scarred.

To me it comes down to whether or not you believe the Anakin Skywalker from Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith was a good person.

 

To me it comes down to whether or not you believe the Anakin Skywalker from Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith was a good person.

It seems to me, that definitely Lucas believes that the AotC/RotS Anakin Skywalker was a good person, a GREAT person, the greatest hero. The OT was the story of Luke as the classic hero. With the PT, even with the foreknowledge that Anakin will turn into Vader, or perhaps because of it, Lucas did everything possible to portray Anakin in a favorable light, sometimes to the detriment or skewed development of every other character in the PT ( for example, poor Padme is a mass of contradictions starting from TPM to RotS).

Whatever Lucas says - or not - to rationalize the change of the ghost, definitely he is adding to that portrayal of Anakin as a "good" person in RotS (since that's what the spirit looks like). Even Vader's feat of fulfilling the prophecy and killing Sidious now takes second place to his achievements (mostly offscreen) in the PT, with this change. At a shallow visual level, it places him as the "most good" person in the GFFA, because Obi-Wan and Yoda did not revert back to youthful forms.

I personally rationalize the change by believing that the AotC/RotS Anakin was capable of being a great Jedi, which is what post RotJ-Anakin, Obi-Wan and Yoda feel, and reward Luke by showing him this version of his father.

 

Sinister wrote:

He's good, but he's also pathetic.

Well it's sad but he's not pathetic , he's just defeated the sith and saved his son .

He put himself into this situation

Yes, he did it, he chose the darkside etc. then he chose to defeat evil, he did those things, it's silly to use this image of young Christensen cos it denies what he did . What he did should not be denied in any way .

Because that man was good in the beginning and at the end

Well we're all good in the beginning - when we're infants, but I don't suppose you mean that . The image we get is of a post aotc anakin and he'd already done bad things by then, so why have that as the porttrayal of the 'good' man ?
And as you say - he was good at the end , the man Luke saw .

It's about showcasing his ultimate good state

c'mon , the image we now get - post aotc anakin is hardly an 'ultimate good state' . There's no such thing anyway, a man is the sum of his whole experience, no point in denying what he did .
here's the Lucas quote again with some important bits underlined :

"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. The end of the Saga is simply Anakin saying, I care about this person, regardless of what it means to me. I will throw away everything that I have, everything that I've grown to love- primarily the Emperor- and throw away my life, to save this person. And I'm doing it because he has faith in me; he loves me despite all the horrible things I've done. I broke his mother's heart, but he still cares about me, and I can't let that die. Anakin is very different in the end

Anakin is very different at the end , so to have the Christensen version pop us is ridiculous cos that aint the guy who has learned, that aint the guy that went through it all, that aint the guy who saved Luke.


"Well I can't see any sense in that . "


Why?

Because it doesn't make sense to me, I don't see why his spirit should stop ageing ? ever heard the expression "he has an old soul" ? Well I'd say that Anakin has lived quite a bit, he has quite an old soul. But it's not as if you can put an age on something like a soul . These are ghosts , they appear to Luke, they just take an appearance that would be recognisable to his mind . However now we get a ghost that is recognisable to Lucas, the author is making himself apparent rather than letting the story be seen through the eyes of his characters .

Look - in 1983 no-one said - "Ah! Lucas has screwed up there, Anakin should look young, like he did before he turned."

And now he sees his father before he was burnt up.

But that isn't the guy who destroyed the Emperor, that isn't the guy who saved him, that isn't the guy he saw die.


g

 

qui-gon-kim:
That is absolute garbage. Obi-Wan and Yoda look the way they do because they never had any scars or injuries when they died.

I don't think anyone's comments are "garbage".

And Umm....Didn't Anakin/Vader kill Obi-wan with his lightsaber??? The only reason didn't see the injury was because Obi-wan disappeared when he died. Yoda was sickly and weak when he died, and we don't see that in his ghost either. Having an older Shaw with NO BURNS AND NO MISSING LIMBS breaks the rules too, especially since HE NEVER EXISTED.

No it doesn't, because he's the "healed" version of the Anakin who died. Don't you think that if indeed there is a heaven people who have lost legs or arms in this world will be whole again in the next? I do! I like the way Neobaggins explains it: "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."

Having Anakin appear in his Hayden persona makes much more sense than unscarred Shaw.

This would only make sense if we saw Ewan McGregor as the ghost of Obi-wan and a younger version of Yoda.

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?

Probably because the Kevin Costner character has seen pictures of his father. Luke has never met the Hayden Anakin, nor has he seen pictures of him.

darth-sinister:
Anakin's happy when he's with Padme, especially once he's out of Obi-wan's shadow. He's happy to see her for the first time in a decade. He's happy to be able to talk to her without Obi-wan hearing their conversations.

He's happy for a few minutes at a time when things are going EXACTLY the way he wants them to go. Otherwise, the Hayden Anakin is not seen as all that happy.

Yes, but now Lucas is revealing that by turning to the Dark Side, one's spirit does not age.

Well, it that's what he's doing, pardon me, but that doesn't make much sense. Why would one's spirit not age just because someone turned to the darkside? There's no logic in that.

No one is saying that he isn't. But his soul dies. His humanity dies.

Not totally or Luke wouldn't have been able to sense the good in him. Not totally or he wouldn't have had the compassion to save his son. So Anakin DOESN'T die until RotJ.

Though there is a difference between the Jedi Younglings and the children killed by Hitler and Saddam. The Jedi Younglings were being trained to become Jedi Knights.

There's no difference. I don't care if they were going to eventually be Jedi knights or not. Did you see that small innocent boy who looked to Anakin for salvation and suggestions and was dealt death instead? That little boy may have played with a toy saber, but there was NO WAY that he was a match for Anakin. He didn't even defend himself. He just stepped backwards when he realized that Anakin was NOT there to help him. He was TERRIFIED! You're just trying to make excuses for Anakin/Vader if you say that it's at all reasonable for Anakin/Vader to kill children. And what about the Tuskin children and women?

As to Anakin being good, he had the potential to be good.

Every baby born has the potential to be good. Unfortunately, Anakin didn't live up to that potential.

Obi-wan and Yoda do not hold it against Anakin, which is why they help him to retain his identity.

We don't see them help Anakin retain his identity in the film.

Yes, but Lucas choose the more adult Hayden Christensen, rather than the younger Jake Lloyd. The kindness, compassionate, helpful aspects of Anakin are all represented in a more positive image of the adult Anakin.

How is the image of Anakin who performed all the evil deeds a "more positive image of Anakin" than either Jake Lloyd or Shaw?

It's still the same. He's still Luke's father.

A father image is NOT younger than the child. Shaw was a "father image". Hayden is NOT a "father image" for a 22

 

Thank you! I was going to add something but this says it all for me.

The only thing I wish to add is that I feel sorry for the actor who played in the original cut of ROTJ. Why should he get cut out for a younger Anakin? I see no one dared to try to edit out SIR Alec Guinness for a younger Obi Wan Kenobi. Okay, I'm being bad here but so what. It doesn't make sense to make this change. Anakin made the conversion as Darth Vader, not as young Anakin Skywalker. And if we're talking about reverting to a younger, more innocent stage, when why not return as when he was a child? (Okay, I know about reality--Jake Lloyd is way too old to reappear).

That's my two cents.

 

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: Why?

Because for me fiction is more relevant when its characteristics prove that great care, effort, and attention to detail were prominent during the story?s creation. The Hayden ghost reeks of a haphazard change done without consideration to the philosophical and textual questions it raises.

People want SW to be real. It's not.

 

Look - in 1983 no-one said...

Riiiigght! Maybe you need to talk to some older members here

 

Sinister, Lucas removed Lukes scream because he realized it was stupid. He could comfortabley do so with his ego intact because there was no big fuss about it. You can bet the ranch if there was an uproar, that not only would the scream remain, but it would be louder in THX ultra-sound and remixed by Puff Daddy. That's the type of guy Lucas comes off to be sometimes.

"That is absolute garbage."

No, that was a well thought out and sensable post. Ironically, the following can be filed under garbage:

"Obi-Wan and Yoda look the way they do because they never had any scars or injuries when they died."

The weakest argument on this subject surfaces yet again. Yoda was sick, and that could constitute as an injury. By your horrible logic, he should be baggy-eyed and coughing. And Obi Wan, should be cut in half.

"Having an older Shaw with NO BURNS AND NO MISSING LIMBS breaks the rules too, especially since HE NEVER EXISTED."

Yes, your right. That does break the rules; IN HORROR MOVIES. Anyone using the scar thing as an argument should understand how absurd they sound explaining this. You would actually have to believe that Shaw should be burned up and scared- something that NO ONE believed in the 23 years he'd been the ghost. Anyone who TRULY believes he should be scared up has issues beyond STAR WARS.

"Having Anakin appear in his Hayden persona makes much more sense than unscarred Shaw."

Let's get this straight. An unscarred young Anakin makes MUCH MORE SENSE than an unscarred Anakin at his right age? With all do respect, that really sounds dumb to me. In my humble opinion, that's really, really dumb.

"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."

Novel shmovel. Whatever you read isn't aparent in the film.

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

If you were trying to confuse me... it worked. Oh wait, you were quoting someone else. Yeah, they're right.

"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?"

I don't know, I don't watch field of dreams and this is about STAR WARS. But I'm sure the reason his Father is young is immediately understood by the veiwer because the movie sets it up before hand.

 

This thread seems to have turned into "Can you (insert handle) explain why
Anakin's spirit is young in ROTJ? In 30 words or less.

So I'll sidestep that and get to the issue as queried: Does ROTS explain it?
No. I'd say the movie is rather ambiguous about it. We only get one scene
that deals with becoming one with the force and a blurb of dialogue
between Yoda and Obi Wan which, in brief, says Qui Gon has returned from
death, he has taught me how, and i'll teach you.
The specifics are left out, or rather, to the imagination. Given the size
of this thread, I'd say leaving that end up to us was the brighter move.

 

He's pathetic because he wanted to be all powerful, but stuck in that suit, he's not. He's the flunky. No one respects him. He has to choke them to get any reaction out of them. You mention Palpatine's name and they're filling their shorts with chocolate bars.

It's not denied. It's still Anakin no matter what.

Because Anakin's still good, right up until he has turned. Right up until he has given into despair and greed. There's always that good in him. By the end of ROTS, that goodness is gone until Luke helps to bring it back.

It's still Anakin Skywalker. Old, young, crispy critter.

The soul only ages if one is still good and noble. It doesn't if it becomes evil.

No, they were people saying that's not right. There's no reason he should get to be a ghost at all. He shouldn't be redeemed for killing and maiming people. Hell, they've been saying that both before and after the change was made. We had a debate earlier this year about whether Anakin should've been redeemed? Did he deserve it or not. Quite a few people said no, not just because of the DVD change either.

No, but that's the guy he used to be, before he became evil.

No, but he's a quick learner.

Anakin's still a happy person. To say that he's never been happy is inaccurate. He doesn't have to be a shiny happy person, to be happy.

There's no logic in ghosts period or looking healthy in whole, either.

His soul dies in ROTS, but it starts to come back to life in ROTJ.

 

FINE! I could accept that! Then tell me why Obi=wan and Yoda don't appear when THEY were at their prime? When THEY were "happy, healthy, young, attractive"?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because they appear before Luke in the form he knows them in. So he can see the faces of the friends he's lost. Anakin is redeamed as a Jedi, he returns as a Jedi, the Jedi he once was and appears as he did before the Dark Side took him. Yoda and Ben were'nt altered, deformed or had their soul destroyed. They joined the force and Ben had appeared before Luke several times as a force ghost looking as he did when he dies, because this is how Luke knows, trusts and accepts him, same with Yoda.

Luke had never seen his father and it makes sence to me that he would appear before Luke in all his former glory, showing that he'll live on forever as the good person he was before joining the darkside, becasue when this happened, Anakin Skywalker died. For him to come back as an older man contradicts what Ben and Yoda have previously said.

"Anakin was seduced by the dark side of the force. When that happened, the good man who was your father was destroyed"

"The boy you trained, gone he is, consumed by Darth Vader"


Anakin is gone from the moment he swears alleagance to the Emporer. When he is redeamed, fulfils his destiny and looks upon Luke without the mask, he is still Darth Vader, he is still the monster he become a long time ago, he has simply realised the error of his ways.

"I except that you were once Anakin Skywalker, my father"
"That name no longer holds any meaning for me"

Until his dath, at the time he joins the force, he is still Vader, however a redeamed Vader. Upon joining the force he is rewarded (so to speak) by returning as a Jedi, and the last time he was a Jedi was when he was the young Anakin.

 

darth-sinister:
The soul only ages if one is still good and noble. It doesn't if it becomes evil.

Read that sentence and think about it. Does that really make sense? And where does it say that in the films or in the novel?

We had a debate earlier this year about whether Anakin should've been redeemed? Did he deserve it or not. Quite a few people said no, not just because of the DVD change either.

But that's a totally different debate than whether Shaw or Hayden should be the Force ghost. Those people who don't believe that Anakin is redeemed probably don't think there should be a Force ghost at all. That's not the same debate as whether anyone complained about Shaw, an older man, being the Force ghost of Anakin. And no one did complain about Shaw as the ghost until Lucas replaced him with Hayden.

His soul dies in ROTS, but it starts to come back to life in ROTJ.

So then how does Luke sense the good in his father already in TESB? That's what he told Yoda and Ben on Dagobah. There had to have been good in Anakin or Luke wouldn't have sensed it.

I'm not making excuses. I'm saying that all Jedi are a threat to his getting what he wanted. It's either them or Padme. Adios Jedi Younglings.

Which to me says that Anakin was truly evil at that point.

And the Tuskens were all guilty by associate, based on their past crimes. They struck the first blow in his mind, by taking his mother and tormenting her.

But the children and the women didn't do that. A good person doesn't make innocents suffer for what others have done, or take revenge.

Even Padme justified it as being human.

Padme was wrong. She was Anakin's enabler. Perhaps if she had turned him in or told him to tell Yoda and Ben what he had done, things wouldn't have gotten even worse. There's something wrong with a woman (or anyone) who thinks it's okay and normal to kill women and children. Padme should have run far away from Anakin in horror and terror.

They learned to become ghosts from Qui-gon and they teach Anakin how to do it, since he never learned before he turned.

Again, we don't see them doing this in the film. We don't hear that they did this in the film. So, I'll just believe that Anakin has earned his redemption all on his own by sacrificing himself to save his son and bring balance to the Force, and is in "Jedi Heaven".

Yet it worked in "Feild Of Dreams."

As I said, photographs would easily have helped this person know what his father looked like. For Luke, his father looked like Shaw.

He's still Luke's father, no matter what.

A father image should look older, not younger than his son. And especially since Luke DID see his father (as Shaw), the ghost should appear to Luke in the image Luke had seen.

Yeah, but he's telling you how the story goes.

Lucas should SHOW me and TELL me how the story goes IN the films, not in interviews or DVD commentary. He shouldn't need to explain his story. The films should be able to do that on their own.

And he didn't have time to train Luke in ROTJ, because time ran out due to Luke's lack of patience.

There was almost a year between TESB and ROTJ. Why didn't Yoda teach Luke during that time? Why didn't Ben or Yoda teach Luke in the three years between ANH and TESB?

As Yoda said, "No more training do you require. Already know that which you will need." Before that, Luke was too busy strengthening himself to rescue Han.

Not if you read Shadows of the Empire, which was tauted as a sequel to TESB. LFL even had all sorts of tie-ins including toys and music. It was a big deal. Luke could have used some kind, consoling words from Ben at that time. And he could have used some more training and knowledge of the Force and the Jedi. It took Jedi in the Old Republic times about 20 + years to become a Jedi. Luke had only trained for about a month. There had to be MANY things that Ben could have taught him, especially if the only reason he retained his identi

 

No, the last time he was a Jedi was when he saved his son's life and destroyed the Emperor. That's one of the meanings of the title: RETURN OF THE JEDI.

I always thought so too, before the PT. That the title meant return of Anakin as a Jedi, and return of the Jedi order.

Now I don't know. I still prefer it that way, but to me it seems that Lucas is saying that it wasn't Jedi Anakin that saved his son's life and destroyed the Emperor. It was Anakin, the loving father. Looking at the saga now, as a whole, I believe Lucas is saying that Anakin was never destined to be a Jedi - it was a path chosen FOR him, and it caused him much pain and heartache by trying to deny his natural feelings and follow the Jedi code. He was destined to love, and father children, and through the love for his children, bring balance to the Force, by killing the Emperor. Which is what he does. There is nothing really "Jedi" in Anakin's actions in RotJ - it's of a father, any good father, who would rather die saving his son's life.

So, Anakin's stint as a Jedi is over sometime in the PT - whether it's when he goes for the Tuskens, after Dooku, or Mace.

 

I admit that I haven't read to the end of the thread, but isn't the simplest answer to watch whatever version of old/young Ani that you prefer?
I love the older actor. But I love having Hayden there now. Its just all in how you look at it.
Either way this doesn't effect the fate of the world. Just the fate of our entertainment.

 

forever_jedi;
Now I don't know. I still prefer it that way, but to me it seems that Lucas is saying that it wasn't Jedi Anakin that saved his son's life and destroyed the Emperor. It was Anakin, the loving father.

Okay, then all the MORE reason for us to see the FATHER image of Anakin, Sebastian Shaw, than the Hayden image of Anakin. The Shaw image was also the image that Luke saw when he unmasked his father. So since the scene is from Luke's point of view, since the vision is Luke's, it's the Shaw Anakin that we should see.

Noelie:
but isn't the simplest answer to watch whatever version of old/young Ani that you prefer?

That's what people can do now, Noelie. Unfortunately, videocassettes wear out, and Lucas refuses to put the original versions of the films on DVD. So, sometime in the future, it's NOT going to be possible to see the Shaw ghost in RotJ.

 

Sinister said:
He's pathetic because he wanted to be all powerful, but stuck in that suit, he's not. He's the flunky. No one respects him. He has to choke them to get any reaction out of them. You mention Palpatine's name and they're filling their shorts with chocolate bars.

But you're describing the Vader-anakin , the whole point is that he's given up all that, the person dying in Luke's arms is very different to the one you've just described. That's the whole point - he's learned, he's been redeemed .



It's not denied. It's still Anakin no matter what.

Well I'm responding to your ideas , you said:


Lucas is saying that the burnt man is the pathetic version of Anakin Skywalker. The one who made the mistakes and now sees clearly, for the first time. The Anakin ghost seen at the end now, is the man who he was once before

It makes no sense, you even contradict it in the above paragraph, you say that the 'pathetic' version is the one who sees clearly for the first time (right) and then say that the Christensen ghost is the man who he was once before , what's the point in showing him as he once before? Why show the man who has yet to see "clearly for the first time" ?

Because Anakin's still good, right up until he has turned. Right up until he has given into despair and greed

Well that's very debatable, after all he has been known to slaughter an entire village at that point and even Lucas describes that as putting a step in the darkside on the commentary.

There's always that good in him. By the end of ROTS, that goodness is gone until Luke helps to bring it back

Yeah - at the end of ROJ.
It's still Anakin's choice tho, he's the one who learns to do it, Lucas describes him as learning to do it, and that:
"Anakin is very different in the end "


It's still Anakin Skywalker. Old, young, crispy critter

So you think it doesn't matter either way ? Then why change it ?


No, they were people saying that's not right. There's no reason he should get to be a ghost at all. He shouldn't be redeemed for killing and maiming people. Hell, they've been saying that both before and after the change was made. We had a debate earlier this year about whether Anakin should've been redeemed? Did he deserve it or not. Quite a few people said no, not just because of the DVD change either.

Well whether he should have been redeemed is a different issue . I don't remember anyone saying "oh he should look like he did before he turned" .


No, but that's the guy he used to be, before he became evil.

And thus it's the guy before he learned , as Lucas says - "Children teach you compassion. They teach you to love unconditionally"
This isn't the guy who learned he could destroy the emperor, save his son, be redeemed etc. You see by saying - "No, but that's the guy he used to be, before he became evil" it's denying what he ultimately did, what he learned to do.
That shouldn't be the guy who Luke sees, or even we see.

What we get now is the image of the kid who was at that point a hothead, greedy for power with the darkside already starting to twist him. It's ridiculous .

And the narrative problem just sticks out like a sore thumb : this image is seen from Luke's POV , he hasn't seen a young Christensen, he's seen an old Seb Shaw.

The happy smiling ghosts was always teetering on the edge of too much schmaltz, of being too nice and sweet, but now it's pushed well over the edge with this impression that not only does he get to be smiling and happy but he gets 20+ years taken off him as if it all never happened . Pppfftt!


g

 

It's not stated in the films. I go by what Lucas is intending. And yes, it makes sense to me. Anakin forfited the right to have an aged ghost, because he went evil. Obi-wan and Yoda kept their souls and their goodness intact.

But my point is that there are those who don't even think he could be redeemed, by doing one act of good. So the issue was in debate even then.

Okay, technically it starts in TESB, but the point still remains.

He's not all the way evil yet. He's getting there, but he's not all the way evil until the end of the film. There's still that part of him that's good, right up until the end.

Who says that the women haven't done it? The children will grow up to do that. We see in ANH that the Tuskens hadn't changed. "The sins of the father will forever be visited upon their sons."

You've heard of that expression.

But she didn't. The Tuskens were animals, in a sense. Sure, they might be human or humanoid underneath it. But that still didn't change what they've done. She didn't think anything bad would come of it. Which is why she didn't do anything. And it started to weigh in on her, once Obi-wan told her what happened.

I'm not saying I approve what he did. I'm just saying that he had justification in both instances.

Whatever makes you feel good, despite the facts.

But on screen, Costner intereacted with a guy who was at or younger than him. They were still father and son, despite the age difference.

But it's not that way. It's what his true self looks like, because he turned evil and then came back.

He did show and tell.

 

Okay... Here is, I hope, my very last post in this thread:

darth-sinister:
It's not stated in the films. I go by what Lucas is intending.

How do you know what Lucas is intending? And it needs to be shown in the films. We shouldn't need Lucas' commentary to understand what he is intending to show in the films.

Anakin forfited the right to have an aged ghost, because he went evil. Obi-wan and Yoda kept their souls and their goodness intact.

Forfeited the right to have an aged ghost?????? That's to be preferred over a ghost looking like you in your prime???? Given a choice, would you rather look like a hunk, the best you can possibly be, or would you like to look like a tired old coot? To me, it looks like Obi-wan and Yoda got the shaft for being good all their lives. Meanwhile, Anakin got the body of his prime even though he spent more than half his life doing evil deeds. Doesn't sound right to me. Doesn't make sense to me.

But my point is that there are those who don't even think he could be redeemed, by doing one act of good. So the issue was in debate even then.

But the issue we were discussing wasn't about whether Anakin was redeemed or not. The point in question was whether anyone had ever complained about Shaw being the ghost of Anakin or about Anakin's ghost not being young before Lucas made the change.

The Tuskens were animals, in a sense. Sure, they might be human or humanoid underneath it.

They were senitent beings.

I'm not saying I approve what he did. I'm just saying that he had justification in both instances.

And I disagree. Good people don't kill innocent women and children to avenge a loved one's death.

Whatever makes you feel good, despite the facts.

There's nothing in the films that contradicts my interpretations of them.

But on screen, Costner intereacted with a guy who was at or younger than him. They were still father and son, despite the age difference.

He obviously knew that was his father. He had seen images of his father. Luke hadn't . And we're talking about SW we're not talking about another film. In that other film it made sense within the narrative. This change to young Anakin doesn't in SW.

It's what his true self looks like, because he turned evil and then came back.

His true self now looks like Shaw due to his injuries, 20 + years on the darkside, AND the simple passage of time. A lot of aging can occur in 23 years!

He did show and tell.

Not what you're claiming he showed.

Luke was on Tatooine. He can't teach him if he's not there.

Sorry! I meant Ben. Ben was already dead and could have appeared anywhere.

And Obi-wan had to convince him to do it.

It took 3 years for Obi-wan to convince Yoda???? Wasn't Yoda the one who said they should wait until the Force brings the children to them. Well, the Force did: in ANH. So why the three year delay in the Jedi instruction Obi-wan had already started?

Yoda helped Obi-wan to help Anakin retain his identity.

Again: this is NOT shown in the film. This is not written in the book.

But he sees his father restored to being the good man that he once was.

I don't agree with you that the Hayden Anakin was a "good man", so I don't think his father should assume that image in RotJ.

That Anakin's good again and his aged form was only a result of his turn to the Dark Side.

All people age in 23 years whether they spend time on the dark side or not. And since Anakin was also injured SEVERELY, that would also influence the way he looks. Even if he had never fallen to the dark side, Anakin WOULD have aged by 23 years and would therefore NOT look like the young Hayden from RotS. He would now be 46 years old even with no injuries and no darkside usage.

 

Luke Skywalker "Im a Jedi, like my father before me".

Luke Skywalker didn't even need to see his father to know that. So all this is rather pointless really, IMO. The rest speaks for itself . The classic hero Luke spoke wisdom beyond his years, knowing that he father (the one he didn't even see, as he spoke those words-the young Jedi Knight who turned to evil, was brought back.) To me in Luke's eyes Anakin has been that young Jedi Knight. He already knew who Anakin really was, that is a Jedi.