Luke's massacre of Jabba & crew was a major 'darkside' act

Discussion in 'Classic Trilogy' started by SoundMaster, Apr 21, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Moderators: Darth_Nub, MOC Yak Face
  1. hawk Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    May 3, 2000
    star 5
    People take the whole "use the force for knowledge and defense" thing too literally. Sometimes I feel people want the Jedi to just stand around and deflect laser bolts, trying to spare every life no matter how intent they are on killing.

    Luke was rescuing Han. It was a last resort and there was NO way to do this without attacking Jabba's goons who were aiming at Luke's head. That's it folks. No darkside. They even played the force theme full blast the whole time AND Luke kept giving Jabba a chance to walk away. If this isn't how a Jedi Knight behaves...
  2. Perdition Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Apr 11, 2003
    star 1
    From the moment Luke left Yoda in ESB, until the moment that he throws down his sabre at Palpy's feet in ROTJ, Lucas is explicitly showing that Luke really is fulfilling his destiny, by taking his father's place as "evil #2".

    Wow, I'm kind of surprised that many people haven't realized this.


    And as someone stated above, it IS not coincidence that Luke wears black in ROTJ. It's only after offing Vader's artificial hand & then glancing down at his own mechanical hand that he realizes his dark journey is already underway.
    It's AT THAT POINT that he realizes the errors of his way & resnounces the darkside.



    And concerning the Jabba scene, it's funny that people continually state that Luke "gave Jabba every chance to cooperate". What if Maul stated the same thing to Qui-Gon: "Give me the Queen, or you will die". Of course, that's NOT a real choice.

  3. hawk Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    May 3, 2000
    star 5
    Yeah, Maul just came out weilding his saber! What should Luke have done? "Gee Jabba, I'd like you to free Han and the others but nevermind". When dealing with a murderous thug like Jabba, Luke showed remarkable restraint.

    No doubt Luke had some of his father in him. But the test was when he did not join the Emperor NOT on the Sail Barge. There he was just rescuing his friends and any attempt to claim he was using the darkside is a stretch. I suppose Yoda used the darkside against Dooku? Or Luke used it when he fired torpedos down the Death Star?

    EDIT: Another point is that there is one specific moment when Luke does tap into the darkside when Vader taunts him. Until this moment Luke is following the lightside. ONLY Vader or the Emperor brings the evil out of him. There is always a seed of evil in Luke as demonstrated by his choice in attire but it is only when he uses ANGER that he uses the darkside.

    Ask yourself how angry Luke looked on the Sail Barge or at Jabba's palace and compare it to his attacking Vader in the end. It is made obvious when he taps into the darkside. Even John Williams supplies you the music to tell the difference.
  4. MeBeJedi Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    May 30, 2002
    star 6
    "Well the original title was Revenge of the Jedi and I believe it refers to the sail barge."

    Interestingly enough, this first title was used to catch manufacturers of unoffical SW merchandise. They wanted people to waste their time and money making products with the wrong name, so that no one would buy them when the film actually came out, and they'd be easier to spot than unofficial merchandise with the correct name.

    I think I heard this on the laserdisc. I'll let you know when I remember.
  5. ForceHeretic Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Dec 8, 2002
    star 4
    I can't believe people are even debating this

    Saving your friend from certain doom, ya I do see your point, that's really evil *rolls eyes*

    The Jedi in AOTC did the exact same thing as Luke did when they went to rescue Anakin and Obi-wan and Padme, was that of the dark-side?

    And if you say yes, you are wrong
  6. Perdition Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Apr 11, 2003
    star 1
    The battle of Geonosis was a battle fought to protect the Republic. It's the Jedi mandate to do so.


    Luke's raid on Jabba was an act based on his feelings of "attachment" for Han.

    The two just cannot be compared.

    Furthermore, Luke knew that Obi-Wan & Yoda were trainging him to, in effect, save the galaxy.
    Why then, risk EVERYTHING (read: his own possible death) by attempting Han's rescue?
    Yes, we can call Han's rescue a noble act, but in the grand scheme of the galaxy, it was an act that borders on the selfish.


    And, as no one has yet to refute, Luke DID use the dreaded dark-side 'force choke' on the poor Gamorrean guards. Did he offer THEM a choice? No. His anger stood in the way.
  7. Valokilas Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Aug 28, 2002
    Ok, debate about Luke's actions all you want, but blasting the barge with the deck gun just before he and leia swung to the skiff was complete overkill AND a pure darkside act. Han was rescued, the barge was in caotic disarray, escape was imminent. Luke just wanted some vengeful slaughter.
  8. Bib Fortuna Twi'lek Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Jul 9, 1999
    star 10
    No, Luke was ensuring that none of the surviving folks on the sail barge could pursue them.
  9. ForceHeretic Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Dec 8, 2002
    star 4
    Furthermore, Luke knew that Obi-Wan & Yoda were trainging him to, in effect, save the galaxy.
    Why then, risk EVERYTHING (read: his own possible death) by attempting Han's rescue?


    If he couldn't save Han from Jabba what hope did he have against Vader and the Emperor

    And the Jedi's actions in AOTC had nothing to do with protecting the republic, they went their for the sole purpose of saving Anakin Padme and Obi-wan. They were rescuing their comrades and friends

    Luke did the same thing when he saved Han. It would have been cowardly to let Han down and it would have been cowardly for the Jedi to have let Anakin and the others die in AOTC

    They wouldn't have gone to Geonosis if they weren't holding Obi-wan prisoner there. If it had anything to do with protecting the Republic then they would have been going regardless of Obi-wan being there

    And there is nothing wrong with going into a situation you know will result in fighting if the other side is the one that created the situation. Jabba had Han prisoner, he was in the wrong, not Luke

    That's like saying when another country holds an American captive and we launch a mission to save them we're in the wrong, BS
  10. Dancing_Jansons Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 1, 2002
    star 3
    The battle of Geonosis was a battle fought to protect the Republic. It's the Jedi mandate to do so.


    Luke's raid on Jabba was an act based on his feelings of "attachment" for Han.

    The two just cannot be compared.



    Why not? Saving the galaxy through killing and destruction is justifiable but saving a friend is not? I sure wouldn't want to be your friend! The important thing, IMO - and something many seem to forget - is that the galaxy (world, whatever) is made up of people. Individuals matter just as much as the big picture because there wouldn't be a big picture without them.

    Luke was saving his best friend. I don't see anything wrong with what he did.
  11. SoundMaster Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Mar 2, 2003
    star 1
    Jansons, in our world, from our point of view, there is nothing wrong with rescuing Han.


    However, in Lucas' fictional galaxy, the the act is questionable - again, based on the 'traits' set forth by Lucas in this fictional world.
    Your analogy would be better suited by comparing Luke, not to 'one of us', but, rather, to a priest, or clergyman.

    Heck, listen to the DVD's commentary, and you'll even hear Lucas mention, on many occasions, that Anakin & Luke lead almost-parallel lives, both facing the same (or similar) choices.

  12. UK Sullustian Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 18, 1998
    star 4
    Perhaps we could look at the "Jabba Scenes" in two separate sections?

    The first is the Palace and the action there. We can see that Luke is portrayed very "vaderesque" and performs acts of dubious niceness. (The Force Strangle of the Pig Guards, the grabbing of the pistol via the force.) I agree this is a mirroring of Vader and Luke, and perhaps emphasising the dangers of the Dark Side.

    However, in the second part, that of the Sarlaac pit, Luke consistently gives the debauched Jabba the chance to resolve this peacefully. When that is spurned, Luke has to do what is necessary to defeat the hundreds of antagonists. To say that the destruction of the Sail Barge was a Dark Side act, is much like saying that the blowing up the Death Star was. Now, while you could have taken that opinion from the evidence in the OT, I believe the PT and it's portrayal of Jedi violence, gives us a better idea about what a Jedi is supposed to do (i.e. He's not a pacifist, though they will try and avoid violence if possible and in the end, they'll kick ass but not enjoy it or let it consume them...fighting in state of nirvana!)

    UKS
  13. PMT99 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 23, 2000
    star 4
    I don't think that Luke used the force choke on the Gammorean gaurds because they were still standing when we go to the next scene so that tells me he was using the kind of technique Qui-Gon used on Jar Jar in the bongo.
  14. Phantom-Iam Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 24, 2002
    star 4
    No, he was fighting to save his life and the lives of his friends
  15. Dark Lady Mara Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jun 19, 1999
    star 7
    The only reason getting out of Jabba's palace became an act of self-defense for Luke was he put himself in that position in the first place. It was still initiated by an aggressive act.
  16. chanster Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    May 9, 1999
    star 2
    I'm sorry but your interpretation of Jedis and "dark-side" is way overblown. Luke did show some signs of overbearing behavior in Jabba's palace (most notably choking) and acting like he is a full-bad but Jedi...but there is a big difference between being a pacifist (which is what your definition of Jedis would require) who only acts in self-defense and a "guardian" who acts in the best interests of his clan and purpose.

    In fact, if you want to use "well Jedis were just following orders when they attacked Geonosis" theory (which sounds pretty Nazi-facist like to me, buts that a different story).. you could argue Luke was acting in the interests of the Rebellion by saving Han and Leia (high ranking members of the Rebellion)
  17. MeBeJedi Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    May 30, 2002
    star 6
    "I don't think that Luke used the force choke on the Gammorean gaurds because they were still standing when we go to the next scene"

    Then, by this reasoning, Vader also didn't use the Force choke against Admiral Motti, since he survived as well?

    [image=http://www.decipher.com/starwars/cardlists/premiere/dark/images/admiralmotti.gif]

    Have you considered that Force Choke, like Force Lightning, need not be immediately lethal? It can be applied with varying levels of force, and not simply turned off and on.

    "but there is a big difference between being a pacifist (which is what your definition of Jedis would require) who only acts in self-defense and a "guardian" who acts in the best interests of his clan and purpose."

    Sure, a pacifist tries to avoid any kind of conflict, and would allow others to come to harm. The guardians put themselves in harm's way to protect others. Luke was not trying to pick a fight, but common sense dictated that he should prepare for one, since Jabba wasn't going to let Han go without a fight.

    In my mind, th guardian serves a higher purpose than the pacifist. That is, unless, you don't like having police officers who are willing to put their lives on the line to protect you every day.

    "you could argue Luke was acting in the interests of the Rebellion by saving Han and Leia (high ranking members of the Rebellion)"

    It's easy to take your reasoning and say that Luke shouldn't have destroyed the death star, along with all its personnel, because he was simply trying to protect Leia on Yavin. What you would be ignoring is that many other lives hung in the balance on the destruction of the death star (as well as some payback for Alderaan, though this would have been the more likely motivation for the other pilots.)

    Fact is, regardless of how well you argue your point, it doesn't mean that it was Lucas' intention, which means it wasn't Luke's motivation. Don't confuse your interpretation with the writer's intentions.
  18. chanster Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    May 9, 1999
    star 2
    Actually, re-read my post. I am saying I disagree with the whole line of reasoning that has sprung up in this thread.

    Basically, I believe (and it has been constantly shown in the Star Wars movies) that Jedis serve as guardians, not pacifists who only attack as a defense. Luke may have been abusing some of his Jedi powers, but very little. Does Obi-wan committ a crime when he manipulates the stormtroopers? Doesn't seem like there is much of a difference.
  19. chanster Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    May 9, 1999
    star 2
    I guess part of the problem is that the EU (don't mean it is a bash) has so clearly delimited what are "good" and "bad" force powers. Basically, what I got out of the movies is that Jedis don't want to use the Force on others unless the situation demands it - the forces used by Vader, Palpatine, which are actual phyiscal manifestations of some of the same things that Luke and Ben use (manipulation, etc). They are just abusing the force so hard they can actually come up with ways of actually hurting or killing people
  20. MeBeJedi Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    May 30, 2002
    star 6
    Then I'd have to say that I agree with you. :)
  21. Dark Lady Mara Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jun 19, 1999
    star 7
    I believe (and it has been constantly shown in the Star Wars movies) that Jedis serve as guardians, not pacifists who only attack as a defense.

    This reasoning assumes that Luke is a Jedi at the time of RotJ and acts as a Jedi should, which may not be the case.
Moderators: Darth_Nub, MOC Yak Face
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.