Saga Is the presence of ambiguity important to you?

well luke risked the rebellion's cause because he believed in his father.

 

True, you could say that the ends justify the means in that instance, it did get rid of the Sith (or so the prophecy says)

then again as you say you could look at it that Luke was doing it from a selfish point of view,

I think both views are valid.

 

I like when there are reasons fleshed out. But the very premise of there being reasons doesn't mean the morality of certain actions is ambiguous. If we look at Kylo, for example, one of his motivations for killing Han is to rid himself of a sentimental connection in order to become more powerful, which is a big point of insecurity for him. To me, that is a fascinating reason. But there is nothing ambiguous about killing his father; it was absolutely the wrong thing to do and Kylo is certainly the villain for having the twisted mindset that he does.

I'm just glad that we're being allowed insight into what that mindset is.

 

It's important for ambiguity to be authentic. Whether it's essential or not is a different matter. I know that some people like ambiguity in their movies as long as it is cleared up before the end titles.

I keep thinking about the RCIII sketch of Luke killing "Vader" during the Dagobah scenes.

Luke : "...Oh. So it's to make me think that I'm fighting myself, or what??!"
Yoda: " TO - MAKE - YOU - THINK!!!!!

 

On the OP,
Hard to say if it is ambiguity that is important to me.

The Empire personally I like to think of as irredeemable, but some greying of the Jedi and Sith Orders with the PT was really interesting.

The ambiguity of several threads of the themes and plot going unresolved is something I don't love about AOTC. If the questions were answered more directly within the film, it would arguably be stronger. Like, there doesn't seem to be an adequate pay-off to the mysterious origins of the Clone army, the establishment of the character Dooku, and the Separatist's true intentions. ROTS dramatically ties it all off quite well, but these questions really seem swept aside nevertheless.

Mystery really helps in the OT though, if that is relevant to this topic. Being thrown into the story quite suddenly in ANH and having to use your imagination to establish the universe and context of the character's references, and with a fair gap between trilogies this applies even if you have just watched the PT. A lot of Luke's story in ESB is quite show-don't tell. And the climax of ROTJ, while quite readable on the surface, asks you to read between the lines.

 

I'm not sure I understand here.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but do you really consider Anakin Skywalker's intention to save his beloved wife, at all costs, from a foreseen death in child-birth, to be a good one ?

Bad writing is the least we can say...

That's one of the point I just don't understand too ...And It doesn't fit at all with Anakin Skywalker's basically troubled but good nature as shown in AOTC and most of ROTS (the sandpeople slaying for instance, although bad in itself, is way different in its meaning). He's torn inside in the middle of episode III, and is consciously aware that there is something wrong with him ("Something's happening. I'm not the Jedi I should be. I want more, and I know I shouldn't ")

And we're then supposed to believe that he will suddenly do anything, absolutely anything, to reach his questionable goal....

Sorry, I can't buy that. It just doesn't work...

 

how can ambiguity be authentic?

 

Because life is ambiguous sometimes.

 

true but how do you prove how something ambiguous is authentic? ambiguity defies classification doesn't it?

 

Frankly, I'm not sure how to respond to that question. Those big philosophical words by themselves are too ambiguous.

 

I love ambiguity and complexity- not to the point of complete and utter confusion, but I like a sophisticated storyline. I'm very excited about ep 8.

 

Not really. Some can be fun. But I prefer a more set in stone continuity and ambiguity tends to create confusion.
Though some things like Sheev I could have gone without knowing....
Its more when dealing with events, and histories that I'm not satisfied with ambiguity.
When dealing with character's I'm happy in ignorant bliss. For example, I have no desire whatsoever to know Yoda's species or God forbid his last name.

 

Very important. SW is made up of illumination of ambiguity. Though that more so applies to the PT.


Without it in SW, it would be you're run of the mill action movie with simplistic understanding.

I must admit, that SW does shoot itself in the foot at times(all movies to an extent) with it's ambiguous design.
But it adds substance and weight to it despite that. Gotta sacrifice something

 

I think ambiguity is one of the things that work most to Star Wars advantage. There's the light side and the dark, and that's good and all, but sometimes what it means to be good or bad is not so clear cut, and it just depends on your point of view.

 

For me in Star Wars there should be a real ultimate good and bad, but the road to them can be hard to navigate at times. Even the OT had it with how the Jedi went about pitting Luke against Vader and just like the Sith telling Luke to do something he didn't think was right with his victory coming in not listening to any of them. Having to decide for himself and commit to his decision that turned out to be the right one. The PT continued that with how it handled the Jedi and the Republic, what would be called for the most part the "good faction" in the trilogy, as being notably flawed institutions. So yes, in my opinion at least I think it should be there on some level.

 

I wouldn’t mind a situation where a main character is presented with a moral dilemma, where he or she is confronted with a problem that really has no good or easy answer. I wouldn’t even mind a situation where a character makes the wrong choice. Seeing how a character handles such a situation can reveal alot about them.

What I’d ask is that it remain something the audience can understand and identify with, where the audience can literally believe they would end up doing the same thing in that situation.

In fact, I kinda wish we’d gotten that with Anakin Skywalker in the prequels. The potential for such a storyline was certainly there.

 

For me at least I think at its core Star Wars will always be a very straight forward good vs evil story. Even when there is some ambiguity, like in the PT, it's still very clear who's the villain and hero and what's right or wrong. Anakin killing younglings is clearly seen as evil, while Qui-Gon saving jar jar is obviously good.

Star Wars does have sympathetic villains and flawed heroes but it's always clear that it's still a battle between good and evil when you get down to it. If I'm honest I'm fine whith that, not that I don't mind a little ambiguity but I think star wars works best with a simple approach IMO.

 

Is the presence of ambiguity important to you?

Maybe.