Saga Poll: Who is the "Jedi" in "Return of the Jedi"?

Of course Anakin was a Jedi. He renounced the Jedi way when he turned Sith. By the time Anakin "returns" to being a Jedi (something I never think happens) Luke has already become a Jedi just by confronting Vader. Therefore, the title refers to Luke. Prove to me that Anakin was a Jedi again after he renounced being Vader.

 

That's terrible logic.

"Return of the King" refers to Aragorn, and he is hardly the central character of the story.

Or even consider "Revenge of the Sith". Clearly "the Sith" in the title are the order and Palpatine, getting revenge for being hunted to near extinction by the Jedi; Anakin has no motive of revenge. It's the one film in the saga in which Anakin/Vader TRULY takes on the lead role in the film, and even ITS title doesn't directly refer to him.

 

Hey, you can believe what you want. No one's pushing anything on you.

 

This is all true, but I'm wondering why Revenge of the Sith isn't considered the more offensive movie since that's the one knowingly, intentionally about the wife beating/ child decapitator who eventually gets forgiven for 5 minutes of basic decency. Whereas Jedi was a deliberately simple 80s cartoon from the days when Vader was more like a popcorn Hannibal Lecter type anti-hero.

 

Revenge of the Sith merely elucidated what I always suspected of Vader. That he was a murderer of children. That, based on Leia's "beautiful but sad" description, he led Mama Skywalker to despair and indirectly killed her.

Why the conjecture? Because we'd already seen him torture a woman, blow up a planet, murder his own subordinates, and threaten to garrison a civilian center.

Not a nice guy, folks. And throwing an old geezer down a shaft only goes so far.

 

Your ROTK example is rather misleading, considering that the King whose return was anticipated was indeed embodied by Aragorn. However, the Jedi whose return is anticipated by the author of Star Wars is not so much Luke as it is Anakin. And by the galaxy, the Jedi Order generally not Luke Skywalker specifically. In fact, to those that would have anticipated his return in-universe, the Rebel Alliance, Luke never went anywhere. He didn't disappear mysteriously from the Rebels or from his Rebel friends. The "Revenge" angle doesn't really work considering Luke's attitude towards Vader in all of the scripts that I've seen. Which is precisely the end product we got... he doesn't want revenge against Vader for taking his hand or anything else, he wants to bring him back because he senses good in him. If anything "the Jedi" in that instance would better be inferred to be Obi-Wan Kenobi and Yoda because of their attitudes towards Vader in the end product, and by extension the Jedi Order as they are the only remaining representatives of the Jedi Order. So again we are left with the logical conclusion that even the morphing of "Revenge" to "Return" the "of the Jedi" remains in primary reference to the Jedi Order overall as represented by Luke Skywalker not specificaly Luke Skywalker - Jedi Knight. The Anakin interpretation is, put simply, endorsed by the author of the Saga. Anakin Skywalker is the central figure despite being the antagonist in the last half of the Saga and it is his return as Anakin Skywalker - Jedi Knight that is anticipated, referred to and upheld by George Lucas. Luke Skywalker - Jedi Knight isn't returning from anywhere but a 3 year absence from theaters and the title is not in reference to the perceptions of movie goers, but to something happening within the storyline. The fact that the movie was initially going to be called "Revenge of the Jedi" is proof of that, and the reasoning for the change from "Revenge" to "Return" is not that it is not something Luke Skywalker would pursue but something that a Jedi wouldn't pursue.

And of course, to answer the point that Aragorn is not the main character of ROTK... neither is Vader/Anakin the lead role of ROTJ. Luke is, but the title is not in reference to Luke in the mind of the author. That is for certain. He might be in the interpretation of some movie goers, especially movie goers in 1983, but that does not make any sense in the context of the story as all the other episode titles do.

 

For certain?

?The alliance will die. As will your friends. Good, I can feel your anger. I am unarmed. Take your weapon. Strike me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete.?

That's the highlight of the Throne Room. Will Luke's revenge get the best of him?
It ain't Vader's revenge, it ain't Han's revenge, it ain't Akbar's revenge.

I don't think anyone was confused that Luke was "on a mission" from the time he walks through Jabba's lair.

The only argument I could see would to assert GL changed the title to "Return" because at the last minute he realized that it should incorporate Vader as the returning Jedi.

 

Just for the record, Tolkien didn't like the "Return of the King" title.He wanted to name the third book "The War of the Ring".

 

I believe RotJ was the first film I saw at around 1990 or so (I was born in '82).

I believe the answer is all of the above.

It pertains to Anakin's redemption. It pertains to Luke being the last and most unconventional Jedi Learner in the films history ala being minimally trained by the sole remaining known Master and Knight--Obi-Wan and Yoda--of the Old Order as well as Luke's task of re-forging the Order ala Yoda.

 

I'm going to comment on many of the great issues brought up here later, but for now I just want to put out the current tally:

"All three" - 4 votes
"B brought about by A" - 4 votes
"C" - 4 votes
"B" - 3 votes
"A" - 2 votes
"A, and to a lesser extent, C" - 1 vote
"All three, with focus on B" - 1 vote

If I miscounted or have any other kind of mistake, my apologies (and please correct me if possible).

 

A) Luke

I saw ROTJ in the theater when it came out, and had also read the SW & Empire novelizations. It seemed obvious (at least to the mind of an 11 year old) that the "Returning" Jedi was Luke, who was at the time apparently the central character - after all this was supposed to be "The Adventures of Luke Skywalker", right?

Discussing Star Wars (and playing at light sabre battles) was pretty standard playground fare. I can tell you that times may be a little different now as to what parents will or have the choice to expose their kids to, but had ROTJ had the word "Revenge" in the title this may have not gone over very well in testing committees. Just the fact that people were having their limbs hacked off seemed pretty violent for what was essentially entertainment for children at the time, despite the re-assuring presence of friendly muppets and ewoks. I always assumed the name had been changed from Revenge to Return in order to be a little more marketable to parents. Sounds kind of silly now as the culture has changed, but anyone around back then probably knows what I am talking about.

 

Oh come on! It's Anakin. Lucas has said so.

 

Anakin
Lucas has said that. And Luke wasn't technically a full Jedi until the end of the movie, so he can't possibly return as that.

 

Thanks klooney, bluesaber70, celera!

bluesaber70, celera - when (and in what relation to the others), did you see ROTJ?

And also, BigBoy29 - I know we're trying to determine who (or what), exactly, is meant by "Jedi" (it's why I started the thread in fact ).

By asking ?where is Luke returning from?? I mean to highlight that the ?Jedi? in the title can't really refer to Luke, because he didn't 'return' from anything.

And while I totally hear you on the generic type of ?return? use in the titles of other movies, I can't really apply that way of thinking to ROTJ, because the two others choices B) and C), did indeed actually return from somewhere, in the literal sense (in-movie).

 

I always saw it as the Return of the Jedi ORDER. As a whole, you know?

I first saw ROTJ when I was in..sometime between 3rd and 5th grade, which was between 1989-1992.

After seeing the "prequels", I still feel this way.

 

Sure he does. He suffers a major physical and psychological defeat in TESB, and at the end of the film the heroes have all fled to the edge of the galaxy. In RotJ he returns literally, physically, to the galaxy at large and the fray of the galactic civil war.

Also:

[image=http://www.impawards.com/1983/posters/return_of_the_jedi_ver1.jpg]

Look whose lightsaber that is. Case closed.

 

Exactly. The movie was written, filmed, and marketed about Luke's triumph and completeion of Jedi training.

Really? In the early drafts Vader dies without redemption, at least once directly from Luke. See the screenplays.

When the author wrote RotJ, it was about Luke in his mind. Changing Revenge to Return and Vader not being redeemed for several drafts clearly point to Vader/Anakin having no relation to the title.

Show me one quote where Lucas says Return refers to Anakin. I triple-dog-dare you. It doesn't exist.

 

I still think that the 'Jedi' of the title refers to a broader concept than just one character, but looking at it from another point of view, & having read all the arguments, I can see that it can refer to Luke, although it was more appropriate when the title was 'Revenge of the Jedi'.

He isn't a Jedi who has returned from somewhere, he is our hero, Luke Skywalker, who has returned from defeat & humiliation, stronger than he has ever been - in fact, he is as strong & powerful as anyone could be. He's back, but he's not just that farmboy anymore, & never will be again. He is a Jedi. He has returned (or has come to take revenge) as a Jedi.

It does work, but I think it's one of those things that even GL would admit is somewhat ambiguous. At some point he may have meant it to mean just Luke specifically, but even if that end shot of Anakin, Obi-Wan & Yoda was an afterthought, there it is in every version of the film. Luke has led the Return, but there they all are together, farewelled by their protege. Three more Jedi, including the fallen angel, in a film called 'Return Of The Jedi'.

Hmm...

 

So maybe it should have been called "Goodbye of the Jedi".

Just to be clear, I'm not (nor do I think anyone on the "It's Luke" side is) saying that all three readings don't work; they all do. But there's a clear distinction between the primary and secondary readings of the title, and I just get very tired of all the gusher revisionism.

 

Fixed.

 

Nope. Doesn't work that way

T-R never claimed "Lucas said so". bluesaber70 did. bluesaber70 has to back up his claim with proof; T-R has no claim to back up.

 

Oh, there are rules? Did I break the law?

I provided plenty of Lucas quotes several pages back. Surely, if ROTJ was solely about Luke, Lucas would have mentioned it at least ONCE, right?

Can't be too hard to find. Let us know when you guys are successful.

 

Yes. There are, of course, general rules of intellectual discourse.

One rule is that if someone makes a claim, it is perfectly reasonable to request evidence to back up said claim.
Another is that it's rather unreasonable to ask someone to back up a claim they have not made.

EDIT: But let's move back to the topic, eh? Any more questions about discussion etiquette can be addressed via PM.

 

So, you're saying there's no Lucas quote stating Luke is the sole reference in the title, then?

Well, in intellectual discourse, I would think that someone with enough intelligence would see that his implied claim is that the title refers solely to Luke. I only hold him to his own level of proof. I'm sorry if you have a problem with that.

 

Honestly, I don't know. I don't know that there is, and I don't know that there isn't.

I doubt that there is a quote saying that the title refers SOLELY to Luke. Because in the 80s, long before Lucas started pushing the "It's all about Anakin" party line, there was no real need to clarify what was clearly a reference to Luke.

I know that some people in this thread claim to have seen the film in 83 and thought the title referred to Anakin. And I grew up for years hearing the Emperor's line "It is unavoidable" but (for some reason that is beyond my adult mind to comprehend) thinking he was saying "It is inevitable" in a weird way. That doesn't mean either of us were right.