CT How the rule of two redeemed the Original Trilogy

Thank you for your time and efforts. Now I see your point. So, Vader was consumed by evil passions he was unable to control and succumb to a kind of drunken paranoia.
Fortunately, George Lucas is not the first author to explore this phenomenon. We can turn to literature for further examples. Let’s take Macbeth. From the very moment he slays Duncan this character is haunted by the fear of loosing his power and commits more crimes. The trouble is that you can not imagine a repenting Macbeth.

However, we do have an example of a character willing to escape the vicious cycle. I imply Dorian Gray. If we embrace your vision of Vader’s motives, the parallel between the Dark Lord and a young dandy becomes damn evident. Gray stayed eternally young, but had a skeleton in his closet – a portrait which was bearing the brunt of all the negative emotions that tormented Dorian in the course of his turbulent life. Vader, mutilated by his dark passions, finds an image of a limpid would-be-self in the person of young Luke. During his entire life as a villain Dorian Gray was looking at his mysterious portrait to see picture of his true self. Finally, he repented and broke down. So did Vader after tracing Luke for several years.

I’ve ventured into a digression in order to show what kind of subtle topic we are in. It takes a celebrated writer to correctly depict a complex mechanism of stimuli that makes a follower of the dark path repent.

What’s wrong with Vader-Dorian parallel? Gray shows visual signs of remorse. Oscar Wild describes his internal struggle. Finally, the dandy decides to avoid certain pleasures he is accustomed to.
Do we observe the same behavior in Vader? No! He is evil before he meets Luke and goes medieval after encountering him. He relishes in violence throughout the entire Episode V, choking officers and torturing Luke’s friends! This is a person who does believe in the Dark Side. His conversion in Episode VI is nearly instantaneous. The audience realizes that Vader feels something toward his son (apart from possessive instinct, of course) only during the famous dialogue scene on Endor. Minutes before they both enter the throne room on the Death Star!

 

The other problem with the Dorian comparison is that he received a tangible benefit. Vader, on the other hand, was duped into believing that the Dark Side would solve his problems when, in fact, it exacerbated them.

And Vader was turned to the Dark Side to serve Palpatine's goals, under the ruse of accusing his own. Once Vader realized this, he turned back to the Light Side.

 

I don't think Vader turned back because he suddenly realised he'd been duped. He should have realised that long before, which is a problem I have with his turn.

 

I always saw it as fairly obvious. ESB and ROTJ shows us the earliest form of the Rule of Two. Palpatine is trying to turn Luke to replace Vader, while feigning that Luke will be more of a "dark Jedi" or "force adept" that will serve them both. While Vader is doing the same while plotting to use Luke to overthrow Palpatine. When Luke actually gains a distinct advantage over Vader Palpatine ditches the act and straight up tells him to execute him.

 

That was always the plan. Palpatine expected the victor, be it Luke or Vader, to kill the other.

 

It seems a bit nonsensical to me. Especially from what we see in the turning of other Sith. Turning to the dark side isn't sudden, it's a slow process, for Palpatine to execute Luke because he didn't automatically turn to the dark side in an hour was giving up pretty quickly. But I guess he had little to gain and was just sick of someone standing up to his face for that long.

 

Palpatine knew that Luke wouldn't turn, because he could sense that he wouldn't break. Luke has an attachment to his sister and yet, he refused to turn because of her. That is why he tries to kill Luke. The very fact that he threw away his Lightsaber was proof of his commitment to the Jedi path. Earlier when Luke stopped fighting, he knew that Luke could still turn because there was enough turmoil within him. That turmoil was gone now.

 

Luke had to demonstrate a willingness to do wrong. Anakin killed the younglings, Kylo killed his father.

This was Luke's test, and despite the belief that turning would save his friends, Luke still resisted the Dark Side. Considering Palpatine intended to wipe out the rest of the Rebel Alliance at Endor, there wasn't a likely comparable event in the future for Palpatine to coerce Luke with. At that point, he would continue his plans with Vader, whom he knew was, and believed he would continue to be, his puppet.

 

He only tried for a few minutes. It's like wanting to go to the olymics for curling and quitting the first time you miss. Like dude, put some effort into it.

I mean, it's possible. I'm sure the despair of actually feeling his friends die and thinking the galaxy has no hope could also be another means for turning him. I mean, strictly in the sense of the OT it fits. When compiled with the PT and the effort Palps puts into turning Anakin, it seems odd. Then again he NEEDED Anakin to defeat the Jedi. By ROTJ Luke was just another servant to add to his already massive Empire.

 

Although your logic was not the original intention of the story, I find it plausible and interesting. Its a cool way to add another layer of emotional complexity to Darth Vader.

 

I also think Vader saves Luke bc he finally realizes his mistakes and tries to save his son and atone for his sins. If he was calculating a plot to defeat the Emperor with Luke's aid, wouldn't the Emperor have foreseen this via the force? I thought that the Emperor is unaware of Vader's betrayal bc it was an emotional, in the moment decision to save his loved one that was not premeditated.

 

He did. The whole trap was designed to turn him, quick and dirty. It's worked before.

He didn't need Anakin, since he had Order 66 and the Clone Wars as a whole. No, he took his time because he didn't have the time to train Anakin. So he let Obi-wan do the dirty work for him and planted the seeds of darkness whenever they were together. He then used the war and Dooku's anger to keep Anakin going. And the fact is that Anakin hated Dooku because he represented everything that he wanted to be, all powerful and a force to be reckoned with. What's more is that Dooku had bested Anakin on Geonosis and that only fueled Anakin's hatred of him. Once Dooku was finally killed after multiple fights, Palpatine sensed that he could finish the job of turning Anakin. When Luke let go of his anger towards Vader, Palpatine sensed that he couldn't get him to kill him. He had reached that threshold that could not be cracked. He had sensed it in Jedi like Yoda and Obi-wan. That's why he didn't goad the former into using the dark side against him.

 

He should have realized it by the timeframe of Episode III. However, he chose to wait for some 20 years.

You claim that Vader became good again since he failed to achieve his goals with the help of the Dark Side. This interpretation of Anakin’s motives kills him a character. If he is good, he is supposed to be altruistic, not selfish.
With the Rule of two, however, it becomes evident that Vader sacrificed himself in order to save his son!

 

No he didn't. Usually if you really want to accomplish you goal you try multiple times over years. Not once for a couple of minutes.

And despite the clone army I think Palps still needed Anakin. Anakin saves him from Mace Windu, and If he had to take on Anakin, Obi-Wan and Yoda...he would have been toast.

 

It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. - Mark Twain

Vader didn't have Luke for 20 years. Luke was the key to Anakin's redemption, as Ben told us in ROTJ.

I agree that Vader sacrificed himself for his son. I'm merely explaining his motivation for turning to the Dark Side. What kept Vader a prisoner was his strong sense of self-preservation, and he was convinced that only the Dark Side had the power necessary to do so. As it turned out, his love for his family turned out to be stronger, again, as Ben said in ROTJ. Ironically, it was love for family that largely fueled both of his turns.

 

Not really. As noted, a Jedi has to have a willingness to turn. Luke didn't want to turn to begin with and while he had the same weaknesses that his father did, he also had the same strengths that Obi-wan did. Once a Jedi has come to accept the nature of the Force, accept who they are and come to understand what the dark side is, they can choose to be a Jedi or be a Sith. Once they've chosen to be a Jedi, unless they falter like Dooku and Pong Krell, they'll never turn. Dooku turned because he became disillusioned with the Republic and that made it easy for Palpatine to undo all those years as a Jedi. Krell became consumed with a need to win at all cost and that turned him to the dark side. But Jedi like Obi-wan and Yoda, they didn't falter. They held firm to their Jedi teachings and thus they couldn't be turned. Luke followed their example which is why he didn't turn and would never turn. If Luke wouldn't turn to save his sister, then he would never turn.

Palpatine's plan was never dependent on Anakin. He was just a bonus. And you also assume that the same thing that happened would happen, if Anakin had never been vulnerable to turning. In fact, things would have gone very differently.

 

The OT needs no redemption.

 

It does. As I’ve stated earlier, before the introduction of the Rule of two the OT was unable to explain Vader’s motivation without making him a coward or a fool.

Not to mention some scenes where the characters were behaving not the way an ordinary person would be supposed to behave in their situation. Like Leia nonchalantly joking just an hour after interrogation by Vader.

 

Heres my take on it (I grew up on the OT btw as I was born in the 70s) so forget the rule of two for a moment which never existed back then.

The building of The Emperor character is excellent. In the original hes talked about but never seen, we get a tease of him in Empire and when we finally see him in Jedi hes similar to Yoda in many ways, he looks frail and weak. But with Empire it was clear (or it was to me) that for Vader to be kneeling before his master must mean that he posseses great power. Of course he does and we see it later on in Jedi.

The Emperor wants Luke to come to the dark side, hes told Vader he wants Luke turned and he can become a powerful ally. Vader fights Luke and hopes it will be easy, freeze him and take him back. When that doesn't work he tells him they can rule galaxy as father and son. I always took this as a lie from Vader, an effort to get him to turn Luke with the promise of power.

Eventually we get to the Death Star throne room, the fact that Vader blocks Lukes lightsaber makes me think more so that Vader was lying to Luke about destroying the Emperor. If he was telling the truth why not let Luke kill The Emperor and be done with it? Vader knows Luke will not kill him (Vader) so the whole fight is an effort to turn Luke to the dark side. Vader believes that both Luke and Vader will be answering to the Emperor, he says so much on Endor. Its only at the end Vader realises that The Emperor is the one who was lying to him all along and he wanted Luke as his new apprentice. That to me has always been the point of turning Luke, The Emperor wanted him to replace Vader and Vader did not know it.

So......yes the rule of two sounds like a very good idea but have you ever considered that the rule of two is just another added PT contradiction to what was established in the OT?

Think about it, Vader would have known about the rule of two, its established in ROTS when Palpatine tells Anakin the story of Plageuis. If he knows about it why does Vader believe that the Emperor wants both Luke and Vader at his side? Why does he not let Luke kill the Emperor? By this point Vader is a fully fledged Sith and would be well aware of apprentices betraying masters and vice versa.

To me the orignal needed no redemption, it was about The Emperor wanting the strongest of the two as his servant. Its the PT that makes Vader look like a fool because the rule of two should have meant he knew what was coming........ and that was betrayal from his master.

Ridiculous post. You can't apply real world logic to a film. If you did the list of "characters not behaving like a normal person" would contain every film ever made.

 

I always thought the Prequel "Rule of Two" helps the OT to make sense. Otherwise, Palpatine should/would have had squads of Force-sensitive guards, spies and commandos with lightsabers and the whole works, since one "Dark Jedi" would be worth a hundred Stormtroopers. But we now know that they can't exist in large numbers, since even the introduction of Luke begins the scheming between Vader and Sidious.

Of course, introducing the Inquisitors (while I love the idea and look of them) kind of retcons that, but since they're not technically Sith Lords, it's excusable.

 

Again thats all material that was established after the OT was made, there was no such thing as a dark Jedi or being a force sensitive.

You need to clear your mind and only focus on what was only around between 1977-83 and that was just the 3 films with some comics, (that I would be amazed were considered canon in that era).

Back then the concept of being a Jedi or being able to use the force was something more mystical and unique in the GFFA. As far as we knew the only people that were left to use the force were a very select few in Vader, Obi-Wan, Luke, Yoda, The Emperor and potentially Leia. We knew nothing of the history of the Jedi or the dark side. We were left to fill in the blanks and I think it succeeded in a very simple way of portraying Luke becoming a Jedi, with the Emperor wanting Luke to become his apprentice in place of Vader, (unbeknownst to Vader of course), and that act of betrayal and the impending death of his son is the catalyst that turns Vader back to the good side. Its a simple story.

All that has come afterwards in the PT and the EU has made people question and pick holes in the OT.

But you are going about it the wrong way.

Common sense says the PT, TCW, Rebels is chronologically first and that it should be the basis for everything that comes chronologically afterwards. That stands to reason. But the fact of the matter is that all those that wrote these stories have been unable to satisfactorily line it up and to fully integrate them into what we saw in the OT. People are trying to fill in too much within the OT and make more of it than was actually intended back in 1977-83 IMO. The rule of 2 didnt exist in 1983, stop judging the SW universe established then by what has been added to it since. The inconsistencies of that material set prior to the OT is leading to fans trying to make in universe assumptions of the OT, which leads to threads like this where you are trying to make the OT line up with the PT. Its just not possible in some cases.

They should have made all those stories fit the OT, not vice versa, the material presented in the stories set prior to the OT is leading to fans attempting to pick holes in what is a very simple story made many years before in the OT. Thats not the fault of the story or the work done back then. Its the fault of the work and stories done since. The OT should have been be the basis for everything that is set before and after, thats what established the SW universe.

 

The problem is that you go by an assumption and take it as gospel for yourself and not looking at the larger picture. Even in the ROTJ novelization, we know that Vader only blocks Luke's attack on Palpatine because he's not ready yet. That he could kill Palpatine, not turn and still become a Jedi. That he needs more prodding and so that is why he blocked the attack. Lucas even says in 1981, that Vader still wants to overthrow Palpatine, but he's not going to verbalize it in front of him. He's asked about that plot point and Lucas says that it is still in play.

First, Anakin isn't told about the Rule of Two in ROTS. He knows about it before hand, because he was taught about the Sith as part of his training. He is told that the Apprentice of Darth Plagueis learned everything from his Master and then killed him in his sleep. Second, Vader is told that Luke must not become a Jedi, which means that he must be killed. This is true in both versions of that scene. It is the language of subtly. Vader suggests turning him that same way that Palpatine told Dooku that Anakin can be turned and be made their ally.

"Palpatine has told Dooku. 'I have somebody who I think will be a great Sith Lord and I think we can get him to join us. But we need to test him. So we're going to setup a situation where you fight him. If he gets the best of you, then I'll stop the fight and he'll have passed the test. If you get the best of him, then we'll let him go, and we'll let him stew for a few more years until he's ready.' But behind it, obviously, is Palpatine's real intention: If Anakin is good enough, Anakin can kill Dooku and become Palpatine's new apprentice. But he didn't tell Dooku that."

--George Lucas, The Making Of ROTS; Page 41.

That's why Dooku is shocked when Anakin is told to finish him. He was lied to before then about the plan. Third, as we learn from TCW and "Rebels", the Sith can have allies who use the dark side, but they cannot be a Sith and they cannot be too powerful. Vader is hoping to get Luke in the same situation, so that he can bend him to his will and use him to eliminate Palpatine. But Palpatine has decided that if Luke can beat Vader, then he can get him to kill his father and thus he won't need another Inquisitor or Acolyte.

 

darth-sinister Good memory on the ROTJ novel, dug it out of my loft last night. Vader believes both he and The Emperor will train Luke. It was a nice parallel that Palpatine betrayed Dooku much like he betrayed Vader in the end. When you take the OT as it was standalone, before any of the extra material was added to the timeline then I see no issues with how its presented. The area open for debate becomes the interpretaiton of the actions we see of Vader on screen, his intentions are cleared up by the novelisation.

 

Huh? ..come on man now your just being ridiculous. No one has ever done anything impressive by just trying once for a few minutes. I am not saying it's a plot hole, it's just lame when you look at it in comparison to his decade long plan to turn Anakin to the dark side.

 

This is exactly what I call the behavior of a fool. The character that made the entire Galaxy tremble is cheated by a hooded scarecrow. Charming, isn’t it?

Why are the fans supposed to love Vader? There are two reasons.
Reason number one – he is strong, smart, menacing. People respect these qualities and tend to respect them even more, once they are combined.
Reason number two - he repented. He had the dark power, realized that it was immoral to wield it and voluntarily gave it up. I repeat: voluntarily. This is the behavior of a saint.

What happens, once we adopt your view of Vader’s motives? Primarily, he is not smart, since he gets so easily cheated. Secondarily (which is even more important) he is no longer a “saint”. He deserts the Dark Side not because he realizes that the Dark Side is bad, but because he does not get enough cookies! It’s like a biblical character embracing the God because the Devil fails to give him enough money, power, or women.

Let me repeat, how I see the Original Trilogy with the Rule of two in mind.
Vader was devoted to the Dark Side. He believed it to be the most efficient way of using the Force. He saw the Emperor as immensely superior to himself. As he came across an unknown Force-sensitive X-wing pilot, he started suspecting this man to be his son. As his suspicion was confirmed by the Emperor in Episode V, Vader struck a deal with his master: he will help convert Luke to the Dark Side and die freeing his place at Palpatine’s side to his offspring.
I’m not sure what motivated Vader on Bespin. His proposal to rule as farther and son could have been a ruse aimed at bringing Luke to the Emperor. On the other hand, he could have been serious.
Anyway, he entered the throne room in Episode VI with the clear intent to die there. Remember the sadness in his voice?
So why did he block Luke’s lightsaber? Because he did not believe in Luke’s ability to kill the Emperor (right now, not potentially, of course) and did not want his son to get hurt by Palpatine. As Luke was being electrocuted by the hooded dotard, Vader realized that the adherence to the Dark Side was less important to him than the life of his offspring. He searched his feelings (this time not limiting himself to the spectrum of emotions prescribed by the Dark Side), found new strength on the Light Side, and killed his former master.

- Is Vader a fool in my interpretation? No, he is not. He isn’t cheated by any person. He overestimated the power of the Dark Side, but this is a mere philosophical delusion which is pardonable to anyone.
- Is his still a ‘saint’? Yes. He is eager to die to make his son Devil’s right hand and embraces God in order to save him. He is totally altruistic.

AndyLGR: If he knows about it why does Vader believe that the Emperor wants both Luke and Vader at his side?

Nothing in the movie indicates that Vader believed in what you say.

AndyLGR: Why does he not let Luke kill the Emperor?

Because Luke lacked the skills to do it, as the outcome of the throne room scene amply proves.

AndyLGR: So......yes the rule of two sounds like a very good idea but have you ever considered that the rule of two is just another added PT contradiction to what was established in the OT?

Since you are not the first person in this thread to touch this delicate matter, I’ll explain why the Rule of two was added. The Prequels changed the subject of the Saga. The Original Trilogy was the story of Luke and Leia, Vader being of a secondary importance. After the Prequels it became the story of Anakin. When the OT hit the big screen, all the eyes were locked on Luke (in those times the protagonist). It was not a fundamental flaw that a secondary character had an unclear motivation. In my Dorian Gray example it’s Dorian who stays in the center of attention, not Lord Henry Wotton. As Vader became the hero of the Saga instead of Luke, it was him who found himself in the center of attention. His obscure motivation no longer satisfied George Lucas. So he added the Rule of two.

AndyLGR: If you did the list of "characters not behaving like a normal person" would contain every film ever made.

I could have used a better wording. To understand what I mean take Rey. She looks exhausted after the interrogation by Kylo Ren. Compare her with Leia joking after being questioned by Vader.