How come Ben didn't know that Leia was "the other" ?

Discussion in 'Classic Trilogy' started by ryanof1, Aug 14, 2001.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. DarthSkeptical Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 19, 2001
    star 3
    I'm not trying to be needlessly difficult, PMT99, but I really don't understand any of your points up to the bit about the definition of "confront". You did several edits on your post, so it's obvious you had a point worth making. I wonder if you could take the time to flesh out the early points in your post so that I can better understand you.

    I'm especially unclear about how you can believe that Yoda would have no knowledge about Luke one moment, and precise knowledge about Luke in another. Much more straightforward to believe that Yoda and Ben planned Luke's education correctly based oupon a pretty accurate grasp of Luke's tendencies.

    After all, they wasn't really wrong about Luke. The premature revelation did, in fact, end his training under Yoda. It did make Luke more suceptible to the Dark Side. Hamill's acting in the final battle shows us this. We see the look of hatred and fear in Luke's face as he charges Vader when Leia is threatened. We see the look in his eyes right after he chops off Vader's hand. We'll never know, alas, how much easier Luke's confrontation with Vader might have been if things had gone more to Yoda's liking. But it's safe to say they would've. You can't say that Yoda was wrong just because Luke ultimately did the right thing. And I think trying to show Yoda and Ben were goes entirely against Lucas' intent. He's not trying to say that Luke's wiser than the two of them. He's trying to vindicate them through Luke. Which is why I've repeatedly asserted that Star Wars is not about the redemption of Anakin Skywalker. It's about the redemption of Anakin Skywalker AND Obi-Wan Kenobi.

    As for the the "confront=kill" argument, my point is that you say Ben and Yoda unequivocally told Luke to kill Vader. But I never noticed them doing any such thing. They only use the words "face" and "confront" in connection with Vader. They don't say kill Vader. They don't say confront Anakin. They say face Darth Vader That's miles and miles away from, "Luke, we want you to go kill Anakin Skywalker." While fighting may lead to death in extreme circumstances, surely you must admit that the two words are not synonyms. Death is a possible (and, indeed, unlikely) result of confrontation, it is not confrontation itself.

    But this is mere semantics. You have a bigger, more plot-centric problem in asserting that Yoda or Ben told him to kill. I take it as understood that if the Jedi use the Force only defensively. They cannot, therefore, have sent Luke off with the intent to kill. I cannot see how it is possible to intend to kill defensively. This, it seems to me, is the very reason Ben and Yoda wanted to shield Luke from the truth about his lineage until he was fully trained. They did not want him to kill as the aggressor. I'll grant that they wanted to prepare him to kill, if that were necessary, but I can't see how their interpretation of The Force (i.e. the Light Side) could possibly justify telling Luke to kill.
  2. DarthSkeptical Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 19, 2001
    star 3
    Way back in this thread, BigBird says, Yoda would not have meant that Leia was the 'other', because in this scene he is telling Luke "Don't go save Leia's ass from Vader...hang out with me for a while." If Yoda believed that Leia was the last hope for the galaxy (and he knew that Luke wasn't), he certainly wouldn't have told Luke to save her from Vader (who very easily could have killed her.)

    The natural conclusion to this thought is, if Yoda did think Leia was "the other" , he would have told Luke to go to Bespin to protect her, or even gone himself. Either way, the point is, he wouldn't have been willing to let Leia die, as he so obviously was.

    His acceptance of Leia as a mere casualty of war is enough on its own to convince me that Leia's not "the other".
  3. bigbird Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Aug 17, 2001
    Hey, I know this is entirely non-canon, and I don't consider any of it useful to prove any points. But it does have some interesting stuff to ponder. This is from 'The Magic Of Myth', a companion book to the SW exhibition at the Smithsonian. It's a little blurb about the nature of Vader and Luke.

    --
    Luke attacks Vader in a frenzy of hate, and this time is is he who beats Vader down and severs his father's sword hand, which turns out to be a mechnical appendage. As the Emperor urages Luke to finish his father, Luke looks at his own mechanical hand and realizes that he is on his way to becoming the next Vader. And so Luke casts aside his lightsaber, mastering his worst instincts and refusing to obey the Emperor's commands.

    Enraged, the Emperor uses his own dark powers to zap Luke. As Luke pleads with his father for help, the crucial moment has arrived. Will Darth Vader be able to redeem himself? Will Luke achieve the atonement with his father that marks the final passage on his journey?

    This process of becoming at one with the father is one of great archetypal themes found in myths from many cultures. The Twin Warriors of the Navaho, for example, go in seatch of their father the Sun. He puts them through terrible trails and tests, throwing them at sharp spikes, boiling them in an overhead sweat lodge, and poisoning them with a smoking pipe. When at least he is satisfied with their courage and skills, he admits them as his sons. Vader acknowledged that Luke is his son at the end of The Empire Strikes Back; now he must act on that knowledge for atonement to occur.

    Vader's true nature has been imprisoned by the system, but within him still reside all the "life-potentialities" (to use Joseph Campbell's term) that once belonged to Anakin Skywalker. Now he has the chance to fulfull one of those potentialities: that of hero and savior.

    Luke too must fine a new life-potentiality within himself--that of the child who cannot perform the task on his own. He renews his own life and makes renewel possible for his civilization by rediscovering the child within. In his confrontation with Vader and the Emperor, Luke does not use his warrior skills but rather an appeal to the heart: "Father, please, help me." And at least Vader seizes his master in order to save his son. As the Emperor's lethal charges rain back on Vader, he throws his former master into the shaft at the very core of the Death Star. Regeneration has occurred within the very walls of the tyrant's kingdom. Vader has detached himself from his evil master and has been transformed through his son. Vader has become a tragic persona, and his own suffering is now the supreme monstrosity with which he must contend. Vader's hero quest has been only hinted at because, like many hero's journeys, the heroic feats and monster tests he must overcome take place within. Vader is, in a sense, a fallen angel who reveals his true essence at last.

    --

    Like I said--nothing of substance, just maybe something to think about when watching the movies again. Lucas, whether he intended to or not, borrowed heavily from other cultures and mythology to create what he considers 'new' mythology.
  4. DarthSkeptical Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 19, 2001
    star 3
    That was a great post, BigBird. I really dug it. See, that's the kinda stuff that I love about SW--its essence of myth.

    I will take issue with you on the somewhat arrogant tone you seemed to ascribe to George Lucas when you said "to create what he considers his 'new' mythology." Everything I've ever heard from GL on this aspect of his movies suggests a very humble reverence for world mythology. There are many Quicktime movies on this website, and several Lucas interviews I've seen on TV with thoughtful people like Bill Moyers and Charlie Rose, which give me the impression of a person unusually well-versed in world mythology. After all, let's not forget the man's major was anthropology. I think it's more than fair to say that Lucas entirely intended the similarities with more classical strains of mythology.
  5. bigbird Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Aug 17, 2001
    I will take issue with you on the somewhat arrogant tone

    Heh, sorry...I guess you're right. I've just been down a little on Lucas since seeing TPM, and with some of the nonsense he pulled in the SE films.

    You've actually given me a little more faith in Lucas than I had before. Thanks. Now if the Gungans are entirely missing from the next film... :)

    [that book is actually pretty good, if you can find it anywhere. I got it at the Smithsonian, but it can probably be found wherever the exhibit is travelling.]
  6. PMT99 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 23, 2000
    star 4
    "I'm especially unclear about how you can believe that Yoda would have no knowledge about Luke."

    Uhhh...Reread my post.

    I did not say that Yoda had no knowledge about Luke. I said that if Yoda and Ben knew what Anakin/Vader and the Emperor are capable of, they would not have sent Luke off with no means to protect himself knowing that the Sith lords would've killed him just like they did to the other Jedi.

    It would be foolish not to let Luke defend himself by any means necessary against the Sith which is why Yoda and Ben gave Luke the authority to do what he has to to defeat Vader and the Emperor.

    "He's not trying to say that Luke's wiser than the two of them. He's trying to vindicate them through Luke."

    I see he did a terrible job on doing so. Throughout the movies, we see Yoda and Ben talk about how "The darkside would dominate your destiny if you start down the dark path", how Anakin became evil and "help hunt down and destroy the jedi knights" and that Luke musn't "underestimate the powers of the Emperor or suffer his father's fate he will".

    Lucas has not shown us Yoda and Ben having second thoughts about Anakin/Vader and I don't blame him because after what Anakin did to the Jedi, I would never give him a second chance and neither would Yoda and Ben. Luke was the only one to be seen capable of detecting that there's still good in Anakin/Vader but for Obi-wan and Yoda however, there's no luck on having them indicate this because they still tell Luke to face Vader and if he doesn't, "then the Emperor has already won".

    Because of this, we are given the suggestion that Luke knows better than Obi-wan and Yoda.

    "They don't say kill Vader."

    They didn't say NOT to kill him either.

    "They say face Darth Vader That's miles and miles away from "Luke, we want you to go kill Anakin Skywalker"."

    Nothing is miles and miles away because the whole world already knows that Darth Vader and Anakin Skywalker are the SAME MAN so that means that if Vader dies, so will Anakin. Once he's gone, what's gonna keep Luke from knowing that the person he killed is his "own father", the same father he believed was murdered by Vader?

    Face it, Luke was gonna find out about his father eventually regardless of whether or not he was told of this.

    "They cannot, therefore, sent Luke off with the intent to kill."

    Well they can't send him off as a sitting duck, either. They know what the Sith are capable of and they wouldn't risk making Luke a sacrifice for the Sith knowing all of the hell that was brought down on the other Jedi.

    They had to give him complete liberty to do any means necessary to defend himself against the Sith or else it's Sayonara Luke and no future for the Jedi.



    Yoda wanted Luke to stay so he can complete his training and didn't have time to think about Leia because he wasn't ready to train her yet seeing as Luke is still alive and that Yoda still held her as a precaution in case Luke failed so he still considered her the other hope.
  7. PMT99 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 23, 2000
    star 4
    One more thing, why does Obi-wan need redemption anyway? He's not the one who's responsible for the deaths of all the Jedi, the downfall of the Republic, or the ruination of the universe.

    That was all Anakin and Palpatine's doing.
  8. DeVore420 Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jul 27, 2001
    star 1
    Vader has always come close to killing Luke and each time he kept sparing his life ... so he would get him to turn to the Dark Side and use him to kill the Emperor so he can take his place as the Sith Master...

    The Emperor had a similar idea...

    Luke wasn't that gullible so he toyed with the "only 2 Sith" rule by not joining either which in turn caused the 2 Sith lords to kill each other.


    Sorry, but the OT was never about the battle between the two Sith lords. I see now that that's why you keep making these arguments that make no sense to me. You believe that the primary thing going on here is the battle between the two Sith, Palpatine and Vader. If I pretend that's what the OT was about, a lot of your older posts make more sense.

    But, the OT isn't about the struggle between the Sith lords. The term "Sith" isn't even in the movie. Luke has no idea what a "Sith" lord is, and he has no idea about the "only two" rule - there's no way he was "toying" with that rule. He wasn't even aware of it.

    The part of the OT where we're given a glimpse of the backstabbing going on among the bad guys is when Vader tells Luke to join him and destroy the Emperor. But there is no way you can argue that Luke "picked up on this" and then used this relationship to his advantage to defeat both Vader and the Emperor. The movies are about Anakin's redemption, not the war between the Jedi and and Sith, or the infighting among the Sith. These are interesting story backgrounds, but they're not the core of the tale.

    What I mean is if he was being thoughtful, he should have been proud of Luke for saying that name instead of being hostile.

    Then you don't understand what the word "thoughful" means. Being thoughtful, that is, being contemplative, has nothing, necessarily, to do with being proud of something.

    How do you figure that? Yoda and Obi-wan have given no such indication that they had second thoughts about Anakin or that there is still hope in his turning back to the light side.

    If this was the case, they would never forced Luke into fighting Vader to the death.


    Huh?! They don't force Luke into fighting Vader to the death. You need to go back and watch the Cave scene. Yoda tells Luke specifically that killing Vader is NOT the answer.

    LUKE: There is still good in him.
    OBI-WAN: He's more machine now than man, twisted and evil.

    This suggests that Obi-wan tried turning Anakin back to the light once but failed miserably


    Wrong. No way. Obi-wan describing Darth Vader in no way suggests that he "tried bringing Anakin back to the light." You're reading stuff into that statement that is not there.

    "There's no evidence to support the notion that Yoda wants Anakin killed."

    There is this one quote, "You must confront Vader. Then and only then a Jedi you will be".

    Before you shoot this down, I have here a definition of "cofront" from Webster's college dictionary:

    Confront=To come face to face with, especially with defiance or hostility.

    Confrontation=The act of confronting or the state of being confronted, especially a meeting face to face.

    These definitions suggest that Yoda wants Luke to fight Vader to the death.


    I'm sorry, but this is just too much. Read your own definitions. Confront means to face, to come to grips with, to come together and resolve. Nowhere in ANY of this is ANYTHING about killing. Again, you are reading stuff into these statements that is most definitely not there.

    If Yoda had wanted Luke to kill Vader, as you suggest, he would have said,

    "You must terminate Vader."
    "You must eliminate Vader."
    "You must annhiliate Vader."
    "You must murder Vader."
    "You must kill Vader."

    And even THEN his statement could be intrepeted to mean, "You must destroy Vader so Anakin can break free" which would mean that he's not actually physically killing.

    Suggesting that "confront" must mean "kill" is way off base.
  9. DeVore420 Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jul 27, 2001
    star 1
    "They don't say kill Vader."

    They didn't say NOT to kill him either.


    Right. And your point was that Yoda and Ben want Luke to kill Anakin / Vader.

    The fact that they don't explicitly prohibit Luke from killing Vader / Anakin is NOT proof that they wanted him killed.

    By your logic, I could walk into a pizza parlor, stand there for five minutes and then yell at the host / hostess, "Where's my pizza!!! I never told you NOT to bring me one!!!!" ;)

    "They say face Darth Vader That's miles and miles away from "Luke, we want you to go kill Anakin Skywalker"."

    Nothing is miles and miles away because the whole world already knows that Darth Vader and Anakin Skywalker are the SAME MAN so that means that if Vader dies, so will Anakin.


    The quoted statement has nothing to do with Anakin and Vader being the same person. The point is, "faceing" Darth Vader is yes, miles away from saying, "kill Darth Vader."

    Well they can't send him off as a sitting duck, either. They know what the Sith are capable of and they wouldn't risk making Luke a sacrifice for the Sith knowing all of the hell that was brought down on the other Jedi.

    The OT isn't about the battle betwen the Jedi and the Sith. It's about Anakin's redemption.
  10. PMT99 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 23, 2000
    star 4
    "The OT isn't about the struggle between the Sith lords."

    Yes it is.....it's just the background to the actual story and besides, why show Vader and Emperor Sidious plotting to have one another killed by using Luke to do the job if the story isn't about them. The Sith play a role in Anakin's rise, fall, and redemption just as the Jedi do and it wouldn't make sense to not have them as a part of the story if it's just about Anakin.

    "Then you don't understand what the word "thoughtful" means. Being thoughtful, that is, being comtemplative, has nothing, necessarily, to do with being proud of something."

    You are highly mistaken. I know what the word thoughtful means but you're not paying attention to what I'm saying. Being thoughtful means to have or show happpiness for others and a propensity for anticipating their needs or wishes.

    What Vader just did in response to Luke saying the name Anakin Skywalker was NOT thoughtful because he reacted like a psychopath.

    "You need to go back and watch the Cave scene. Yoda tells Luke specifically that killing is NOT the answer."

    Your reading way too much into something that was never mentioned on film. Yoda was teaching Luke to not give in to the Dark Side when he told him that he didn't need his weapons.

    He never said anything about killing not being the answer.

    "Wrong. No way. Obi-wan describing Darth Vader in no way suggests that he "tried bringing Anakin back to the light". You're reading stuff into that statement that is not there."

    Not true. This statement is another indication of what's going to happen in the prequals(Episode 3 for instance) when Anakin is being seduced to the Dark Side and Obi-wan tries his best not to let that happen but fails and it results to Anakin becoming "more machine now than man".

    "Confront means to face, to come to grips with, to come together and resolve. Nowhere in ANY of this is ANYTHING about killing.

    Suggesting that "confront" means to kill is way off base."

    Again, not true. Confront also means to fight, to attack, to go against someone, and to go after. Fighting can sometimes lead to a person's death which is close to killing
    which means that it's not off base.

    "The fact that they don't explicitly prohibit Luke from killing Vader/Anakin is NOT proof that they wanted him killed."

    Not true because if they didn't want him dead, then they should've told Luke not to kill Vader/Anakin and that they needed him to fulfill the prophecy. By not saying any of this and going by the belief that noone can be turned back from the Dark Side(even the Emperor believed this), then that's more than enough to prove that they don't want him alive anymore.

    Your beliefs that they still think there's good in Vader/Anakin and that they DON'T want him dead have still yet to be proved because the movies never gave any such
    indications.

    No dialogue to indicate this.
    No scenes that shows this.
    Scripts never showed this nor did the novelizations.

    and

    The screenplays never showed this.

    If they didn't show this, then you can't prove that they NEVER wanted him dead.

    "The point is, "facing Darth Vader is yes, miles away from saying, "kill Darth Vader"."

    Facing someone means you have to fight them and again, fighting can sometimes lead to a person's death which is close to killing so as I said before, nothing is miles away.

    "The OT isn't about the battle between the Jedi and the Sith."

    Yes it is....it's just the background to the actual story just like the battle between the rebels and the Empire.
  11. DeVore420 Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jul 27, 2001
    star 1
    "The OT isn't about the struggle between the Sith lords."

    Yes it is.....it's just the background to the actual story


    Uhh, right. It's background, which is why it's not about the struggle between the Sith lords. And as background, the struggle between the Sith isn't the primary concern of Yoda and Ben in th OT. That was the point.

    You are highly mistaken. I know what the word thoughtful means but you're not paying attention to what I'm saying. Being thoughtful means to have or show happpiness for others and a propensity for anticipating their needs or wishes.

    What Vader just did in response to Luke saying the name Anakin Skywalker was NOT thoughtful...


    You misunderstood, then, the way in which I originally used the word _thoughtful_. You're right, Vader didn't become more "thoughtful", meaning "more considerate of others' needs", when he was on Endor.

    The point was, however, that Vader become more contemplative of his own position in the scheme of things on Endor. In this way he was becoming more thoughtul of what what going on.

    ...because he reacted like a psychopath.

    Denying that a name has any meeting to him isn't psychopathic. If anything, it suggests that he _does_ have some empthy or emotion left in him. Calling him a psychopath suggests that he's totally unemotional. If he were totally unemotional, he would tell Luke nothing at all.

    Your reading way too much into something that was never mentioned on film. Yoda was teaching Luke to not give in to the Dark Side when he told him that he didn't need his weapons.

    He never said anything about killing not being the answer.


    And I would suggest you aren't reading enough into what we see happen. That he shouldn't give into the Dark Side was already clear to Luke - it's the crux of every lesson Yoda taught him on Dagobah up until that point. The cave scene clearly suggests that, for Luke, killing Vader only leads to his own desctruction.

    Again, if Luke _had_ killed Vader, as you suggest Yoda wanted him to (which isn't what we see happen in the movies, by the way), Luke would have become an agent of evil, like his father before him. There is no way Yoda would have sent Luke to the Dark Side after teaching him so many lessons about avoiding it. It's simply out of character, in addition to everything else that points against it.

    Again, not true. Confront also means to fight, to attack, to go against someone, and to go after. Fighting can sometimes lead to a person's death which is close to killing
    which means that it's not off base.


    Sorry. Confront does not mean to attack or fight. That's just wrong, go look in the dictionary.

    Your definition of "to fight or attack", while wrong, also IMHO totally belittles the significance and complexity of Luke's confrontation with Vader. Essentally the entire trilogy leads up this confrontation, and it's a heckuva lot more interesting that simply "a fight," as you would have it be. The confrontation that Yoda tells Luke he must have puts the bookend on the entire trilogy. And the entire trilogy is not simply about a "fight."

    "The fact that they don't explicitly prohibit Luke from killing Vader/Anakin is NOT proof that they wanted him killed."

    Not true because if they didn't want him dead, then they should've told Luke not to kill Vader/Anakin and that they needed him to fulfill the prophecy.


    [sigh.]

    1. Go back and read the analogy again. What you're saying isn't logical and doesn't hold water.

    2. In order for what you're saying to make sense, you have to state that Luke by 'default' wants to kill Vader. If Luke already wants to kill Vader, then you're right, if Yoda and Ben say nothing, it's tacitly approving of him killing Vader. But Luke doesn't want to kill Vader. Over and over he talks about sensing the good in him, and he outright resists the notion of killing him.

    "The point is, "facing Darth Vader is yes, miles away from saying, "kill Darth Vader"."

    Facing someone means you h
  12. bigbird Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Aug 17, 2001
    Uhhh...Reread my post.

    I know what the word thoughtful means but you're not paying attention to what I'm saying.


    Not that I'm exactly the most literate schmoe out there, but it seems that many times you (PMT99) keep repeating phrases like these. Why? I have tried re-reading your posts when you request it, but time and time again I get the same interpretation from it that I did in the first place. For whatever reason, I find that I often don't understand what you're saying. Here-- examples:

    Yes it is.....it's just the background to the actual story and besides, why show Vader and Emperor Sidious plotting to have one another killed by using Luke to do the job if the story isn't about them. The Sith play a role in Anakin's rise, fall, and redemption just as the Jedi do and it wouldn't make sense to not have them as a part of the story if it's just about Anakin.

    "The OT isn't about the battle between the Jedi and the Sith."

    Yes it is....it's just the background to the actual story just like the battle between the rebels and the Empire.


    When someone says "The book To Kill A Mockingbird is about prejudice", it means the overall point in the book revolves around that subject. There are a hundred other characters and events in the book that are mentioned, and not all of them necessarily have to do with what's going on.

    So the OT is about the epic rise/fall/redemption of heroes, in this case Luke and Anakin. It is not about the battles of the Sith. So you reread your comment! You say Sith battles are what the story is 'about', and then say 'part'. Which is it?!!?!

    What Vader just did in response to Luke saying the name Anakin Skywalker was NOT thoughtful because he reacted like a psychopath.

    Now, where are you getting that from? I can see 'agitated' or 'irate', but where in the world is 'psychopath' coming from? If you're trying to exaggerate, it's often necessary (in the world of the written word) to indicate so, because otherwise people will take your typing to mean, literally, what you say.


    Suggesting that "confront" means to kill is way off base."

    Again, not true. Confront also means to fight, to attack, to go against someone, and to go after. Fighting can sometimes lead to a person's death which is close to killing
    which means that it's not off base.


    Uh, OK...Yoda says that fear-->anger-->hate-->suffering. If they all 'lead to' each other, then they are obviously all the same thing, right? So if I say "Fear Vader", it's not off base for someone to say that I said "Make Vader suffer"?


    Seriously, I'm not meaning this as a personal attack or anything, I'm just saying that I've often found that I read your posts one way, and then you say you meant them a different way, and we all end up typing a lot more than we need to :)

  13. DarthSkeptical Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 19, 2001
    star 3
    DeVore and BigBird beat me to the punch on a lot of points, so I want to return to something that, oddly, has been lost among the Webster Wars: the topic of this thread.

    If Leia's "the other", why would Yoda be willing to let her die on Bespin while Luke finished his training? Ben says that "Even Yoda can't see" Leia's fate. So there's a clear possibility to Ben and Yoda that Leia might die. Yet they do nothing to help, and even try to prevent Luke assisting. What kind of back-up is she, if she's deemed expendable?

    I, for one, see this as positive evidence that she can't be "the other" hope. And if she's not "the other" hope, then the only character left in the filmed ROTJ who could be "the other" is Anakin.
  14. PMT99 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 23, 2000
    star 4
    DarthSkeptical-

    Like Obi-wan would say, "You don't know that".

    Yoda doesn't know or believe that Leia was gonna die which is why he couldn't "see her fate". If somehow he manages to see her fate and realises that she was gonna die, he would have let Luke go to save her.

    Yoda never considered Anakin as the other hope because he believes he's long gone when he turned to the Dark Side which is why he mean't Leia as the other hope and there's no evidence in the movies to prove otherwise.

    Devore-

    "Which is why it's not about the struggle between the Sith lords."

    Yes it is. Why include them into the story if this was the case as you are suggesting? The entire conflict between the rebels and the Empire are a part of the story and so is the struggle between the Sith, Luke, the Jedi and their struggle to rid the universe of the Sith.

    All of these play a part in Anakin's story.

    "The struggle between the Sith isn't the primary concern of Yoda and Ben in the OT."

    Your right.....getting rid of the Sith is their primary concern.

    "Calling him a psychopath suggestd that he's totally unemotional."

    Why not? He was never all that emotional before he found out he had children because we have seen him push around other people including Leia who unbeknowest to him is his daughter, we've seen him kill people with no signs of any remorse, and we see him treat people like dirt.

    It is only until he found out that he had kids and that he had a meeting with one of them did he now have a change of heart and decides not to push people around or kill anyone no more.


    "If Luke_had_killed Vader, as you suggest Yoda wanted him to(which isn't what we see happen in the movies, by the way), Luke would have become an agent of evil, like his father before him. There is no way Yoda would have sent Luke to the Dark Side after teaching him so many lessons about avoiding it. It's simply out of character in addition to everything else that points against it."

    Again, Luke has to give in to the hate and anger to turn to the Dark Side and we have seen other Jedi kill without doing so so Luke will not be any different. How do you think Anakin turned to the Dark Side? simple, he gave in to his hatred and anger and he doesn't have to kill someone to become an agent of evil and neither would Luke. This is what Yoda was teaching Luke when he sent him to the cave, to avoid using the dark side when confronted by a Sith.

    If Luke didn't kill Vader, as you keep suggesting that he won't, he will die which is evidenced right after he deemed himself a Jedi once he defeated Vader, the Emperor was furious and proceeded to zapping Luke with Force lightning. Had Vader not intervened sooner, Luke would've been dead right now, the galaxy would still be lost, and the Jedi would still be extinct.

    It isn't wise for a Jedi to travel across the universe with no means of protection knowing that some smart alec like the Sith for instance are so hellbent on trying to kill them which is why it is necessary for a Jedi like Luke to have a weapon just to ensure none of that would happen.

    Again, the universe is being threatened by the Sith because they are bringing chaos and destruction upon the universe and for the Jedi to live by the title "the gaurdians of peace and justice in the galaxy", they have to defeat the Sith which is what Yoda and Ben want Luke to do when he deals with Vader and the Emperor.

    "Confront does not mean to attack or fight"

    Wrong. Confront is short for the word "Confrontation" which means to go one on one and surely you'd realise that going one on one means you have to fight someone which means that confront DOES mean to fight.

    "Go back and read the analogy again. What your saying isn't logical and doesn't hold water."

    Your so wrong because you said it yourself, if Ben and Yoda say nothing, it tactically approves of Luke killing Vader because throughout the movies, they never said one word about them needing Vader alive so he can redeem himself. Only Luke was suggesting this because only he knows there's good
  15. Bjorn75 Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Aug 8, 2001
    star 1
    DarthSkeptical does us all a favor by steering us closer to the topic, and makes an interesting point.

    If Leia's "the other", why would Yoda be willing to let her die on Bespin while Luke finished his training?[...]
    I, for one, see this as positive evidence that she can't be "the other" hope.

    At first, I was about to object by saying that Yoda did not necessarily know Leia was among the "friends" Luke feared for. Luckily, I realized that Luke does in fact say "Han...Leia!!" during his vision. So I think it is safe to say that he knew. There is still something to add though.

    Even though Leia was "another" hope, Luke was their "immediate" (and safe) hope. Yoda and Ben were clearly distressed by Luke's departure, and feared that they would lose him. There's a Swedish saying that goes "Better one bird in your hand than 10 in the woods". From Yoda's point of view, Leia IS expendable because she is an untrained, unsafe bet, whereas Luke is a half-trained, safe one. His cost/benefit analysis makes him want Luke to stay instead of helping his friends.

    Yoda says: "If you leave now, help them you could, but you would destroy all, for which they have fought."

    Yoda obviously sees the possibility of Luke rescuing Leia, but ends up lost himself. One way or another. When Yoda says "There is another", he could be referring to the exchange of losing Luke/gaining Leia.

    I do not think Yoda doesn't care about Leia's fate. I think he considers her important, because of the way he asked Luke to pass on what he knew. There was just nothing he could do about her, without risking to lose Luke.

    Another thing I have been thinking about: If Leia is not the other hope - why is Leia Luke's sister in the first place? It significantly diminishes Leia's role in the overlying story-arc. Granted - she did not take as big a part in it as her brother, but at least she had that connection to Anakin. She could have taken his place, if Luke had failed somehow.
    If she is not the other hope - her being the sister is only a plot device needed for 2 things.
    1. Solving the love triangle between Luke-Leia-Han. (Quite needless, since it was fairly solved anyway)
    2. A way to make Luke enraged at Vader. (I am sure this could have been done in many other ways.)

    EDIT: There is one more thing:
    3. Explaining how Leia could sense that Luke needed help on Bespin.
    My point is that if this is all the sibling-hood is about, I say it is dangerously close to "deus ex machina".
    END EDIT.

    I am looking forward to hearing your views on this.
  16. DeVore420 Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jul 27, 2001
    star 1
    "Which is why it's not about the struggle between the Sith lords."

    Yes it is. Why include them into the story if this was the case as you are suggesting?


    Go read bigbird's comments on what "about" means in this context. The struggle between the Sith lords is a part of the story of the OT, but the entire saga is about Anakin's rise, fall, and redemption. It is this story that is driving the saga, not the struggle between the Sith.

    I've said this before: I think you make the comments you do because you believe the saga is about the struggle between the Sith and the Jedi. But I believe differently - I believe the saga is about Anakin... and thus, Anakin is the "other" hope referred to, not only because he's the only logical option for the "other" to be, but also beause the story is, ultimately, about him.

    "The struggle between the Sith isn't the primary concern of Yoda and Ben in the OT."

    Your right.....getting rid of the Sith is their primary concern.


    Wrong. This is never said in any of the existing movies, and it's not supported at all by what we see in the OT. Yoda and Ben mention nothing about any struggle between the Jedi and the Sith.

    "Calling him a psychopath suggestd that he's totally unemotional."

    Why not? He was never all that emotional before he found out he had children


    You're not watching the movies closely enough. Vader is definitely showing emotion as he responds to Luke by saying forcefully, "That name no longer has any meaning for me." Calling him a "psychopath" there is an incorrect usage of the word.

    The point is, the scene between him and Luke on Endor is one of the first major places we start to see remnants of the good left in Vader. He starts questioning his own role in things.

    "Confront does not mean to attack or fight"

    Wrong. Confront is short for the word "Confrontation"


    Please stop this. Confront is not "short for" confrontation. They are two different words - one is the verb form, and one is the noun form.

    which means to go one on one and surely you'd realise that going one on one means you have to fight someone which means that confront DOES mean to fight.

    Sorry, but you're using the word confront totally and completely incorrectly. I can't take your argument seriously until you read the dictionary and understand the term.

    Your so wrong because you said it yourself, if Ben and Yoda say nothing, it tactically approves of Luke killing Vader because throughout the movies, they never said one word about them needing Vader alive so he can redeem himself.

    Again, as I've said many times before, your argument here is logically flawed and thus unsound. You cannot posit the absence of information about killing Vader as proof positive that Yoda and Ben wanted Vader killed. Doesn't work. Sorry.

    Suppose you watch wrestling shows... what they mean when they say to face them means they want their opponents to fight them in the ring which means "facing someone" is synomymous with "fighting someone".

    Give me a break. We are talking about a boy who wants to save his father coming face to face with his father who has fallen to evil but may yet be saved - not wrestling.

    Sorry, but professional wrestling isn't the authority on what "facing someone" means. And it has nothing to do with Star Wars.
  17. DeVore420 Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jul 27, 2001
    star 1
    If Leia's "the other", why would Yoda be willing to let her die on Bespin while Luke finished his training? Ben says that "Even Yoda can't see" Leia's fate. So there's a clear possibility to Ben and Yoda that Leia might die. Yet they do nothing to help, and even try to prevent Luke assisting. What kind of back-up is she, if she's deemed expendable?

    I agree that this is supporting evidence that Leia is not considered the "other" hope - though I think the absence of Leia's involvement with the Force, and the fact that the saga is about Anakin's rise, fall, and redemption are both stronger evidence.

    Bjorn75 makes the interesting point though, that if Leia is not the "other" hope, then why is she Luke's sister in the first place?

    I forgot who made this comment earlier in this thread, but I've always thought of Luke and Leia as a "team" that saves the galaxy. Luke, on the spiritual, magical (Force), individual side, and Leia on the military, organizational, and campaign-wide side. Kinda like Luke as the Knight, going out and individually trying to change things, and Leia as the King or Queen, organizing the troops, being diplomatic, etc.

    In this way, Leia's story and role is just as important as Luke's - we just happen to be along for the ride from Luke's POV. Perhaps another version of the OT could be made, from Leia's point of view. I think they're both important, even if Leia isn't the other "hope."

    A more mundane analysis leads me to believe that she was also Luke's sister simply as a plot device, and another "mystery" to unveil.

    However, I do still believe that the ultimate "mystery" that is unveiled is when Vader sheds the Dark Side and tosses the Emp into the garbage bin, and that's why the "other" refers to him, IMHO at least. :)
  18. DarthSkeptical Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 19, 2001
    star 3
    Well, again, the point is context. Ben says, "That boy was our last hope". Yoda says, "No, there is another." So we're talking here about Ben and Yoda's last hope. We have to assess what, then, were their ambitions. And I think if you believe that it's simply to defeat the Emperor, then really anyone could be that. Just by way of example, Luke doesn't directly have anything to do with the destruction of the DS2. Though Luke's presence on the DS2 effectively distracts the Imperial duo, it's at best an even money bet whether the Emperor and Vader would've gotten off the DS2 in time to avoid death, anyway. I mean you're talking about what seems to be only a matter of less than ten minutes between when the shields surprisingly go down on the DS2 to when the thing explodes. It's barely enough time for Luke to exit, yes, but getting off the DS2 is a goal of his. Whether the Emperor would abandon ship given his hubris is an open question. Hell, whether the Emperor could walk fast enough to get to a ship in time is debatable, as well.


    So I'm personally not convinced that simple death of the Emperor and Vader can be all Ben and Yoda are really hoping for. It makes more sense to think that they're talking about the restoration of balance to the Force, which includes not only the death of the Emperor (or at least his power), but the re-emplacement of the master-padawan paradigm. The real question, therefore, is not "who can kill the Emperor (or at least make him ineffective)", but who can do that and train future Jedi? I don't see Leia as being up to that task on her own.
  19. DarthSkeptical Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 19, 2001
    star 3
    DeVore, I absolutely agree with you about the Dynamic Duo aspect of Luke and Leia. They're given different childhoods specifically to create the possibility of different destinies. It does, in fact, take both of them to destroy the Emperor. I also like the fact that you've added to this earlier point of mine by reminding us that the OT is told from Luke's POV. That's hugely important, it seems to me, in helping determine how to interpret things.
  20. DarthSkeptical Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 19, 2001
    star 3
    Björn makes the point that if Leia's not the other, then the revelation that she's his sister is only a plot device in three specific ways:
    1. Closing the book on the love triangle
    2. Being a catalyst for Luke's rage during the final battle
    3. Giving Luke a reason to break off training with Yoda


    4. I'd personally add a fourth and say:

    5. Helping to explainhow she had the political wherewithal at such a young age to lead a counter-revolution and, more importantly, the courage to do so from the front lines--not to mention how she's such a great shot with a blaster and has the strength to kill a multi-ton beast with her bare hands and a little chain

    A plot device that explains four different things at once? Yeah, that's tacky and cheap. That's a real deus ex machina there. C'mon: that's fabulous writing. It's more than enough for her to just be his sister.

    Speculation not based on spoilers I think we'll eventually see that she's an echo of her mother. Where Anakin's fall has to do with protecting his mother, Luke's rise ultimately comes from seeing how protecting his sister enraged him.


    Sarcasm aside, you dismiss the necessity to close the love triangle too easily, Björn. Remember that we're seeing all the action, but Luke isn't. Luke and Leia are only together at the bookends of ESB. In both instances, Luke is hurt and receives a kiss on the lips from Leia. He could easily feel that he's still in with a chance, and no one could really fault him for that. Not only that, we have to be careful in interpreting what we see in ESB. We see a nascent relationship between Han and Leia, only a matter of days old. Leia blurts out that she loves Han as he's about to (possibly) die. They are headed towards being a couple, yes, but they're not there yet. Virtually no one knows about this relationship yet, even the two parties involved. Leia kisses Luke on the lips after the "I love you" bit with Han, and Han's in doubt about the solidity of their relationship right up until the final frames of ROTJ. The genetic relationship between Luke and Leia is absolutely necessary to resolve that subplot.

    As an aside perhaps best left to the EU forums, the entirely tenuous, wartime nature of Han and Leia's love is one of the reasons I have real problems with the EU just assuming that they were going to get married. Take them out of the stress of battle and euphoria of victory, put Leia into the forefront of politics, or on a path towards Jedi Knighthood, and tell me if you really think their chances of staying together are better than even.
  21. DarthSkeptical Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 19, 2001
    star 3
    My mouth drops in awe of PMT99. Professional wrestling used as a linguistic defense? Now, that truly is a Jedi mind trick.
  22. DarthSkeptical Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 19, 2001
    star 3
    On a serious note, PMT99, you must be very careful with part of speech in English. You can't just take the noun form of a word and use it as a definition for the related verb.

    Sometimes the words developed along different paths, or, if they did develop similarly, the verb probably came first. The result of this chronological displacement is, at a minimum, that the words have different connotations and at a maximum there's a significant denotative difference as well. "Confront", for instance is a 16th century word, while "confrontation" came along about a century later. Sometimes, the time difference is so significant, that the verbal definition used to create the noun is now archaic, so we don't even recognize the connection.

    Also, because the noun form probably only speaks to one or two of the definitions of the verb, you've got an even harder job accurately defining the verb if you do it "backwards" and start with the noun.

    FInally, there's the whole issue of tranitivity. If a verb is transitive it has a direct object, and this means that the subject acted upon the object of the sentence in the manner the verb denotes. For example, if you say "I hung the painting", it means that you acted upon the painting by hanging it. If, on the other hand, you say "The murderer was hanged today", that's an intransitive construction. Thus, when you go to make a noun out of these two senses of the verb, "a hanging" can be either something which is hung on a wall, like a tapestry, or the execution of someone by use of a noose and gravity. It does not refer to the act of hanging a thing on the wall, except as an intentionally false double-entendre. For instance a promoter might refer to the unveiling of a new work of art as "The Grand Hanging" simply for the shock value of improperly using the word. Denotatively, however the transitivity of the verb affects the proper use of the noun.

    It's worth pointing out, too, that you can't use a type of a thing to define the thing itself. A fight is merely a type of confrontation, yet you're using it as its definition. Here's a clear example of the kind of linguistic error you're making: A roller coaster is an amusement. Amusement is the state of being amused. Luke is amused. Therefore, Luke must be riding a roller coaster.

    If you would, please stick to using the definition of the word itself, and not its relatives.

    I know you want to continue believing Leia is "the other". I admire that you haven't given up on your strongly-held beliefs in the face of an onslaught of evidence to the contrary. But you can't fundamentally misuse the English language to do it.

    There's still another argument you can make which hasn't been touched yet. And you don't have to scour a dictionary to find it.
  23. bigbird Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Aug 17, 2001
    After DarthSkeptical told me about Lucas' field of study, I got pretty interested in the whole 'Lucas as Mythmaker' idea, and started reading this book (The Magic of Myth.) I never really realized it before, but the SW trilogy _is_ actually quite an amazing piece of filmmaking. For years I have assumed that the only reason it's maintained such great popularity is because it was just a 'cool' movie. But I now realize there is much more to it than that. If Lucas had continued on his original track of having 'The Star Wars' be a 'space soap opera' with 'Anakin Starkiller' as the primary character, it (undoubtedly) would have disappeared in the annals of Really Bad SciFi movies.

    What Lucas ended up creating was a series of films that took elements from past mythologies around the globe and wove them into his own, cohesive little universe. From one perspective it might look like he was just copying stuff; the other perspective might say what he created was a masterpiece.

    Personally, I think it's the latter. The things going on in the movie stuck with us (well, myself, at least) for so long that only now (20 years later?) do I see what was so compelling about the movies--he's plucking chords within the human spirit; the same chords that myths have always been made from. When I first heard him saying he was making a 'modern mythology' I snickered at him--but I'll be damned if that isn't exactly what he did.

    I'm going to copy a bunch of stuff from this book again. Some of it I'm copying to show this person's (um, Mary Henderson) anaylsis of some of the events in the book, and some I'm copying to show just how events in the book too closely resemble other mythological references to think that Lucas didn't intend for them to. (I'm copying a lot here...I might abbreviate and skip some stuff.)

    --
    Some elements of the Force are reminiscent of Zen Buddhism, with its emphasis on enlightenment by means of direct, intuitive insights. In Japan, the study of Zen gave the samauri warrior an awareness of the transitory nature of all things, particularly human life. Thus, every action was to be performed as if it were the last. Warriors did not live in the future or the past but the present. Yoda echoes this concept when he complains to Ben about Luke, "All his life he has looked away...to the future, to the horizon. Never his mind on where he was, what he was doing. Adventure! Excitement! A Jedi craves not these things." And then he chasties Luke: "You are reckless!"

    To begin to conquer these aspects of himself, Luke must enter the tree cave "strong with the dark side of the Force." When Luke asks about what is in the cave, Yoda tells him, "Only what you take with you," but Luke girds on his weapons anyway. They symbolize his impatience and lack of faith, his indoctrination into the ways of violence and hostility in the outside world. But this is truly a descent into another spiritual labyrinth, for in the depts of the tree lies the revelation that Darth Vader is not some external evil presence but the shadow of Luke himself. The dark side of the Force lies within as well as without--but this is a message that Luke is not yet ready to understand or accept.
    ...
    As Luke begins to access the Force, the gets of a vision of the future; this glimpse of Han and Leia in pain causes him to leave impetuously for Cloud City before his training is complete...The opening of mind and heart ot spiritual knowledge requires a sacrifice--and this sacrifice is all too often accompanied by betrayal. In Norse myth, the god Loki arranges for the death of the beloved Balder; in Christianity's central story, Judas Iscariot sells Jesus for thirty pieces of silver.

    In the SW trilogy, the betrayer is the smooth, charming Lando Calrissian, a one-time comrade who embraces Han and then delivers him to Vader (this crisis will set Lando on his own hero's journey and lead to his transformation in ROTJ.) Vader decrees that Han will be frozen alive in a tomb of carbonite. This carbon-freezing is yet anothe
  24. PMT99 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 23, 2000
    star 4
    "I believe that the saga is about Anakin.... and thus, Anakin is the "other" hope referred to, not only because he's the only logical option for the "other" to be, but the story is, ultimately, about him."

    Sorry but that doesn't make any sense. Just because the saga's about Anakin doesn't make him the other hope and while the OT is about his redemption, they never focused entirely on him but on Luke. Again, Yoda never considered Anakin as the other hope because in his mind, once someone turns to the darkside they can never be turned back and Obi-wan and the Emperor has the same idea but only Luke believes otherwise and he was correct.

    Yoda keeps suggesting this to Luke when he says "If you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny-consume you it will as it did as it did Obi-wan's apprentice" which is why Yoda considered Leia as the other hope, not Anakin/Vader.

    "This is never said in any of the existing movies, and it's not supported at all by what we see in the OT. Yoda and Ben mention nothing about any struggle between the Jedi and the Sith."

    BUZZZZZZZZZZZ! WRONG. This was mentioned......in ANH when Obi-wan explained to Luke how the Jedi were the gaurdians of peace and justice in the galaxy and how Vader hunted down and killed all of the Jedi.

    The only reason there is no struggle between the Jedi and the Sith is because the Jedi are nearly annihilated by the Sith.

    This was also shown in TPM when Sidious and Maul discuss how they were gonna get back at the Jedi and when Qui-Gon came before the council and told him he was attacked by someone he believed was a Sith lord, Ki-Adi said that the Sith were extinct for a millennium.

    How did the Jedi know that the Sith were(supposedly)extinct? simple, they were there when they took out some of the Sith while the rest of the Sith destroyed each other which is evidenced in TPM scrapbook:

    Page 16, The Sith.

    "Many of the Sith destroyed each other and themselves with their own evil. The few surviving Sith were hunted down and killed by the Jedi."

    Which explains why Maul would say "At last we will reveal ourselves to the Jedi. At last we will have revenge" and the Sith did get their revenge when Sidious and Vader created the Empire and took out all the Jedi(save Yoda and Ben).

    Another example is when Luke took off, Yoda said, "Told you I did, reckless was he. Now matters are worst" and Ben said "That boy was our last hope". This indicates that Yoda and Ben DID in fact want to eliminate the Sith(that includes Vader) by training Luke and using him to do the job but Luke wasn't having it because he sensed that his friends were in danger which is why he abandoned his training to rescue them.

    "You're not watching the movies closely enough. Vader is definitely showing emotion as he responds to Luke by saying forcefully "That name no longer has any meaning for me". Calling him a psychopath there is an incorrect usage of the word."

    You're not paying attention to what I'm saying. I said "BEFORE he knew he had any children" which means before Vader ever met Luke, he did not show any signs of emotion when he's with other people. In ANH, we see him holding a guy by the throat with his hand, snapped the throat, and tossed the guy away like he was a ragdoll and he never showed any emotion when he did that.

    We also see him bullying around his own daughter Leia which is not known to him and
    when he used the force choke on that imperial officer, he didn't care about the guy since he insulted him. In ESB, we see him kill more imperial officers, pushed Leia around again, tortured Han and made him into a carbonite ice cube, and we see him toying Luke around during their duel.

    It is only until he revealed to Luke that he's his father did he start to have emotions and had conflict within himself when he met Luke again on Endor.

    "Confront is not short for "confrontation". They are two different words-one is the verb form, and one is a noun form.

    Sorry but you're using the word confront totally and completely incorrect. I can't take
  25. DeVore420 Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jul 27, 2001
    star 1
    "This is never said in any of the existing movies, and it's not supported at all by what we see in the OT. Yoda and Ben mention nothing about any struggle between the Jedi and the Sith."

    BUZZZZZZZZZZZ! WRONG. This was mentioned......in ANH when Obi-wan explained to Luke how the Jedi were the gaurdians of peace and justice in the galaxy and how Vader hunted down and killed all of the Jedi.


    Ben told Luke the Jedi were the guardians of peace and justice in the galaxy. He said absolutely nothing, and there is absolutely nothing in the OT about a struggle between the Jedi and the Sith.

    C'mon. At the very least, even if you are repeatedly using terms incorrectly, continuously grabbing information from both canonical and non-canonical sources, generating logically flawed arguments, and acting as if you are oblivious to the preponderance of well-thought out responses that disprove your conception of Star Wars as a simple battle between the Sith and the Jedi, even though you're doing all of this with almost every post, at the very least try to be courteous by not telling others that they are "BUZZZZZZ - WRONG" when you formulate baseless conclusions, such as "Ben telling Luke about the Jedi makes it obvious that there is a struggle between the Jedi and the Sith going on."

    Try building a sound argument for once. You cannot go directly from "the Jedi are the guardians of peace and justice" to "there is a struggle going on between the Jedi and the Sith." The most obvious problem with your conclusion is that Ben never mentions the Sith - it's therefore silly to introduce that term in what you suppose he "meant."

    How did the Jedi know that the Sith were(supposedly)extinct? simple, they were there when they took out some of the Sith while the rest of the Sith destroyed each other which is evidenced in TPM scrapbook:

    How do I know that Anakin is the "other" hope referred to by Yoda? Simple, I wrote a note on my ticket stub to TPM that says, "Anakin is the other!" This conclusively proves that Anakin is the "other" referred to.

    I couldn't resist. :)

    Sorry PMT99, I wish I was inclined to respond to the rest of your post. I suggest you read bigbird's post above about what's really driving the story of the OT, and then come back when you've got some new ideas.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.