main
side
curve
  1. In Memory of LAJ_FETT: Please share your remembrances and condolences HERE

CT That Old Man Anakin

Discussion in 'Classic Trilogy' started by WhinyLuke, Sep 22, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. TOSCHESTATION

    TOSCHESTATION Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Jan 17, 2003
    Are "Turning by increments" - i.e. being "seduced by the dark side" - and Sith conversion-knighting-baptism-abacradabra-naming ceremony (the actual 'turn' in question).....mutually exclusive?

    Then compare Luke's 'trial' at the end of ROTJ with what Anakin does in ROTS. Lucas, in the July 1981 story meetings says here:

    "Now we have Luke about to kill an unarmed defenseless man; we've never done that before. If he kills a defenseless man, especially a defenseless father, then he has gone over to the dark side."

    So according to this scheme, then Anakin, when he killed Dooku in ROT, should have "gone over to the dark side". Did he officially 'turn' at that point? No, but he was on the way there. So "seduction by the dark side" is a thing in Star Wars, both OT and PT.

    You also have Lucas saying in these same conferences that Luke's father gets "subverted" by the Emperor - that he starts getting a "little weird" at home.

    So, no...fans did not make up the idea of "seduction by the dark side"; the idea came from Lucas himself, and was implied in the films already.
     
    TX-20 likes this.
  2. Iron_lord

    Iron_lord Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Sep 2, 2012
    Citation needed.

    http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Unidentified_Shaman_of_the_Whills
     
  3. TOSCHESTATION

    TOSCHESTATION Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Jan 17, 2003
    Are you saying that "Turning by increments" - i.e. being "seduced by the dark side" - and Sith conversion-knighting-baptism-abacradabra-naming ceremony (the actual 'turn' in question)..... are mutually exclusive ? They're not.

    Look at Luke's 'trial' at the end of ROTJ and compare it with what Anakin does in ROTS. Lucas, in the July 1981 story meetings says here:

    "Now we have Luke about to kill an unarmed defenseless man; we've never done that before. If he kills a defenseless man, especially a defenseless father, then he has gone over to the dark side."

    So according to this scheme, then Anakin, when he killed Dooku in ROT, should have "gone over to the dark side". Did he officially 'turn' at that point? No, but he was on the way there. So "seduction by the dark side" is a thing in Star Wars, both OT and PT.

    You also have Lucas saying in these same conferences that Luke's father gets "subverted" by the Emperor - that he starts getting a "little weird" at home.

    So, no...fans did not make up the idea of "seduction by the dark side"; the idea came from Lucas himself, and was implied in the films already. It's not "fanon". [/quote]


    Edit:

    Part II



    I do. My question is, how is hiding the twins from their father ....."protecting them from THE EMPEROR"?


    No, not a 're-write'. Anakin was already on the path toward the dark side , when ROTS started, judging by criteria set by ROTJ on-screen and Lucas circa '81.


    One should remember the contingency involved in Lucas' writing process: the fact that Anakin and Vader were originally two separate characters. It's not as though Lucas was following a pre-planned 'Dark Side 101' template when going from the OT to the PT.



    Not "incovenient", but "redundant" - given Luke's functioning eyes and mind.



    What's being "thrown under the bus" to protect the Hayden ghost is: The Father Vader ret-con of TESB. It's not the turn to the dark side being "thrown under the bus", unless by that you mean saying that Anakin is not morally responsible for what he did as Vader, then yes, the pro-Hayden ghost argument is guilty of assault-by-vehicle.

    But if we must protect turning to the dark side at all costs, there is a solution. No Shaw ghost. No Hayden ghost. NO ANAKIN GHOST - period.
     
    T-R- likes this.
  4. darth-sinister

    darth-sinister Manager Emeritus star 10 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Jun 28, 2001
    Ideology is key in their ability to come back, because not only is it a skilled that is learned, but it comes through the fact that a Jedi must be totally selfless and willing to let go of everything. Something that the Sith cannot do.

    No, it doesn't. It means that the Jedi and the Sith don't know as much about the Force as they claim that they do. Take a look at medical science. In 1920, there was not a lot of options for the treatment of the human body. If doctors hadn't kept working and studying the human anatomy, then we wouldn't have gotten to where we are today. There's always more to learn if you're willing to take the time and effort to learn. That's what retaining one's consciousness is like. The Jedi had stopped seeking out the different ways to use the Force, beyond what we see them do in the PT. As a result, they didn't know that there was more to learn. Qui-gon found out because something had pulled him in that direction and it went from there. As to being able to do it, Force training takes time. Look at Luke in TESB. At the start, he can barely lift his Lightsaber up with the Force. By the end of the film, he's able to do that. It took time to get from point A to point B.

    No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that it is about knowledge and growth beyond the mortal veil. The Force doesn't consider passing on knowledge as as something of a violation. Unbalancing the Force is a violation. Trying to extend your life on the physical plane is a violation. So the Force isn't considered unbalanced because what the Whills and a few Jedi did. Qui-gon, Yoda and Obi-wan weren't acting selfishly in passing on the knowledge of how to use the Force to Luke. They were helping the Force through their actions.

    To you, because that is what you are used to.

    Lucas did it right. He just didn't do it your way.

    Which is his right as the creative force behind the films.

    You can have your opinion. I never said that you couldn't. However, future generations aren't going to care as much, if at all, because they'll be used to what has been done with the changes. They'll have a different reaction and set of opinions from us.

    He did have a purpose.

    Being young only means that Lucas wanted it to be before he went bad and not after he was bad. As it stands now, Shaw represents Vader and Hayden represents Anakin. Anakin becomes good again regardless of the change. Lucas just went an extra step to not only tie the trilogies together, but to show that this was where he was when he was good.

    That doesn't make it any more of a consequence that he was an old man when he died. Again, a consequence would be a scarred body if he was really adamant about that. Having him as an old man, whether he came back from the dead or not, meant that he was essentially forgiven for his crimes. That still carries over when he's a younger looking man.

    Exactly.

    See, we can agree. ;)


    That still applies with Hayden. The absence of scars and battle damage are examples of the lines between good and evil being skirted. They are washed away when he is young and old.

    No, the point was that Luke redeemed his father. Age wasn't a factor in that aspect. It is only in where he was before he became evil, versus where he was when he had been evil.

    As Lucas said, he wants it to be the Anakin before he became Vader. Who he was before he became evil, not after becoming good again.

    ILM and Abrams wouldn't have to make him look 100% like Guinness. Some age makeup, which we know is quite possible and doable, and some dye works wonders. There's no need to do a digital version of Guinness and knowing Abrams, he'd go with the more traditional makeup on an actor than a digital creation.

    No, he's talking about Darth Plagueis.

    Palpatine: "Darth Plagueis was a Dark Lord of the Sith, so powerful and so wise he could used the Force to influence the Midichlorians to create life...He had such a knowledge of the dark side that he could even keep the ones he loved from dying."

    The Sith don't know what Qui-gon and the Shaman of the Whills have done. That's why Vader stomps on Obi-wan's robes when he disappears. He doesn't know what is going on and thinks it is some trick that Obi-wan has pulled. Going by the films alone, it appears that Palpatine might just be spinning a tale. But it certainly not about Qui-gon.
     
    Darth Raiden and Iron_lord like this.
  5. darth-sinister

    darth-sinister Manager Emeritus star 10 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Jun 28, 2001
    Edit: Double Post.
     
  6. PiettsHat

    PiettsHat Force Ghost star 4

    Registered:
    Jan 1, 2011
    I never said it didn't make sense. I'm saying it's equally problematic for Anakin to appear healed as young. Hayden is both young and healed, but Shaw is still healed and presenting a face to the world that he never had. Thus, if Samuel Vimes believes that showing Anakin as a young man can be interpreted to mean his sins are forgotten and washed away, the same is true for Shaw -- because it presents him healed and whole, in a way he never was.

    Nope. Redemption doesn't (to me) mean that the sins and wrongs you committed in your life are gone or forgotten -- it simply means that you've repented of them and acknowledged your wrongdoing while trying to do better. You are "saved," to use a more religious term. But I dislike the implication that just because Anakin turned back that somehow that undoes all the horror he did -- it doesn't.
     
  7. Lars_Muul

    Lars_Muul Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Oct 2, 2000
    Anakin's sins are hardly forgotten and have definitely not been erased. They have still happened and still affect the galaxy and its inhabitants.
    What's happened is simply that when the good part of Anakin began to breathe again, it took up where it left off two decades earlier. I don't necessarily agree with the notion that we all have a good side and a bad side that compete against eachother, but that's obviously what's going on in Star Wars - and it does work as a symbol of the fact that we all have the potential for both good and bad deeds.
    So, while the "Anakin persona", as GL puts it, is now in charge, Anakin is, without a doubt, responsible for everything he has done on both sides of the Force. "Anakin" and "Vader" are both parts of him and it was his choice to let "Vader" take control. It was his choice to do all those bad things.
    That part of him has now been put aside for all eternity, though - unless he somehow returns to the world of flesh and goes bad again in the third trilogy :p
    Speaking of the third trilogy, I sincerely hope that it will have something to add on this subject.

    I still view the robes as important, BTW, because they show that Anakin has not gone back in time, that he has changed, developed, learned new things, matured.

    Personally, I like both versions of his ghost. I prefer the Hayden one, though, because I love the feeling that it gives me: "He's finally back".





    - Come back!
    - Never!
    /LM
     
  8. Arawn_Fenn

    Arawn_Fenn Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Jul 2, 2004
    [face_plain] The two were in cahoots.

    Exactly: Anakin was not on the dark side. At the beginning of ROTS we find Anakin as a good character.

    And another prophecy comes true. It must be the midichlorians. Given Luke's functioning Force sense, Anakin's Force ghost could look like a potato and Luke would still sense Anakin.

    This is irrelevant and doesn't change the fact that Dooku doesn't serve as a counterexample to Anakin's ghost.
     
  9. Darth Eddie

    Darth Eddie Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    May 14, 2013
    This sort of thought goes through my mind every time I look at my bluray set of the "[in]complete saga".
     
  10. darth-sinister

    darth-sinister Manager Emeritus star 10 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Jun 28, 2001
    It still isn't a contradiction, because Lucas did finish his story. He had no clue what he was going to do down the line.
     
    Darth Eddie likes this.
  11. TOSCHESTATION

    TOSCHESTATION Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Jan 17, 2003
    Right.
    So...why didn't Lucas have Ben say "To protect you from THEM*, you were hidden when you were born?" ??? Easily done. That is, unless Lucas back in '81/'82/'83 had something else in mind for the back story (i.e. it differed in details from how things eventually played out with the PT films).

    *The Emperor and Vader


    Anakin being a "good" character at the start of the film doesn't preclude him from skirting with the dark side (which he'd already done in the previous film).


    o_O

    So you think it was a 'coincidence' then that the same actor who played un-masked Vader/Anakin also played the Anakin ghost?


    There is no counterexample, true. But, as I argued, that's not because of some 'Dark Side 101' meta-rule. The out-of-universe fact of the original separate identity of Anakin and Vader is still instructive.
     
  12. TOSCHESTATION

    TOSCHESTATION Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Jan 17, 2003
    An apologetic defense, but not an argument against doing things in a professional manner, I'm afraid.


    Who disputes that he can legally do this (?) - but ethically speaking? Especially when the actor (Shaw) and director (Marquand) are no longer living....



    See: "historical white-washing", "revisionism", "building (the perception of) consensus", etc.


    I'd love to hear what the "purpose" of the Luke Scream from the '97 TESB:SE was.


    But then, the only reason to show that "this" - i.e. Hayden - was where he was when he was good, is precisely in order to "tie the trilogies together". Before the PT, there would have been no reason for it. For reasons that I can't quite understand, Lucas seemingly doesn't realize that audiences in general understood the subtext/implications of the (Shaw) original Force ghost, whether or not they agreed with Anakin/Vader's redemption.
     
  13. PiettsHat

    PiettsHat Force Ghost star 4

    Registered:
    Jan 1, 2011
    In this case, I think he does have the ethical right. Lucas isn't hurting anyone by making the change. Shaw didn't know what he was being filmed for, didn't even know he was acting to be honest, so it's not a slight against his performance in any way to change him since there wasn't really a performance to begin with. Also, in terms of Marquand, I believe it was Lucas who directed this shot since Shaw recalls that it was Lucas giving him direction -- telling him to look happy.

    And, to be honest, I think almost everyone who worked on Star Wars realized that Lucas was the final arbiter of what would or would not be included. Were there points where he could have shown more consideration? Sure -- he should have informed Prowse that his voice wouldn't be used for Vader for instance. But I think everyone realized that their performance and work would ultimately be pieced together in a manner found pleasing to Lucas. Entire scenes containing all of an actor's work are frequently cut out of movies and I think that's an understanding most people have when working in the film industry. They are paid to provide a performance but ultimately don't decide how that performance is used or even if it is used at all.
     
  14. Darth Eddie

    Darth Eddie Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    May 14, 2013
    This I also agree with. Episodes 1-6 may be considered the complete saga of Anakin/Vader... unless he returns somehow as a crucial element in the ST, in which case, things get problematic.

    Of course things have been a wee bit problematic ever since GL decided to start Star Wars in the middle of the story.
     
  15. TOSCHESTATION

    TOSCHESTATION Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Jan 17, 2003
    Classic Bulverism. A 'reverse' Bulversim or 'appeal to motive' fallacy would be:

    "Of course it CAN'T be about being a better person, because if it were, Shaw would win out over Anakin".



    Ask Lucas. He thought clarification was needed lest audiences think that the "Vader persona" was what was redeemed in ROTJ.


    - "Darth Vader shall become more powerful than EITHER of us!!!"



    So, it seems that Lucas threw SW related concepts "under the bus" long before any fan did. Fans that do so are just following precedent. ;)
     
  16. Arawn_Fenn

    Arawn_Fenn Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Jul 2, 2004
    No. You see, the audience didn't have Force powers.

    Like Palpatine not being recognized as a villain at that point? The problem would be that there's no historical evidence for such a thing and it doesn't exactly mesh well with "The Emperor knew, as I did, if Anakin were to have any offspring, they would be a threat to him."

    That's the whole point: "skirting" the dark side is not the same thing as having turned and being on the dark side.

    Of course not, it's because Dooku was never meant to be a character who gets redeemed. Anakin and Vader originally being different people has nothing to do with it, because we didn't see any Anakin ghost until 1983, by which point Anakin = Vader had been fully retconned into place.
     
  17. CommanderDrenn

    CommanderDrenn Jedi Knight star 4

    Registered:
    Oct 19, 2013
    People have a tendency to like the first version of something they saw. I saw, I think, Shaw first, but I still believe that Hayden Christian made a better Force Ghost.
     
  18. Samuel Vimes

    Samuel Vimes Force Ghost star 4

    Registered:
    Sep 4, 2012
    About people preferring the version they saw first, I have come across this kind of reasoning before and two things.

    1) For me, this is not accurate. The first Bond I ever saw was Roger Moore's bond. Do I think his Bond is the best one? No. The most recent Bond film, Skyfall, is among my personal best.
    The first Star Trek film I ever saw was ST:TMP, do I think that is the best one? Most certainly no.
    The first Batman film I ever saw was Burton's Batman, do I think that is the best one, again no.

    2) Nostalgia is a double-edged sword. You can get reactions of the sort "You only dislike it because it is not exactly like you remembered it." But you can also get "You only like it because it is about X even tough it sucks."
    What I mean is that yes, past feelings can color a piece. But that can go two ways. Either you are overly critical or you are overly forgiving. I am a fan of Babylon 5 and I have seen the spin offs, Crusade, Legend of the Rangers and Voices in the Dark. I rather like them but I am aware that they have plenty of flaws. As a fan, I overlook those flaws because I enjoy seeing more of what I am a fan of.
    In this particular instance, had it had been done well, like having Hayden in both scenes and allowed to actually act, then I would have no problem with it. I only have a problem with how it is NOW. Copy and pasting an actors head into an old film and not even telling him about it is both cheap and lazy. Having a young Anakin compared with the two older Jedi makes little sense and breaks established logic.

    In closing, this argument is sometimes used to dismiss the opposing view of other people and that annoys me.
    Because instead of dealing with the actual opinion brought up, some people puts a label on the one making the argument, puts them in a little box and then they can dismiss their entire argument.
    The reverse of this reasoning is "People only like what is new and shiny, regardless of quality." has essentially the same flaw. It makes those that favor a new version of something as superficial and only wanting new and better effects.
    Things like "Young people of today only want explosions and the more the better.", "Young people can't bother to watch any film older than five years because they are "Like boring and dull, man."" Both arguments are wrong.

    In short, deal with the actual argument brought up and don't put labels on people, that never serves an interesting discussion.

    Bye for now.
    The Guarding Dark
     
    TOSCHESTATION likes this.
  19. Samuel Vimes

    Samuel Vimes Force Ghost star 4

    Registered:
    Sep 4, 2012
    Sure he can see his own face if he comes by something reflective, like a mirror, a lake or something like that. He would also see that he has arms and legs again and those look rather young. If he can touch his own face, he would also know he looks young and he could see/touch his own hair.

    The post I was responding to suggest that having a young face creates a better reminder of the years he spent as a Sith than the old face. I simply wonder how. By having a young face, all those years and all the things that happened to him and all the things he did can be seen as "erased".

    The old face acknowledges all the years in Anakins life, both as a Jedi and a Sith. He is healed yes, but Obi-Wan isn't injured and presumably Yoda isn't sick. It acknowledges that Anakin Skywalker died, not as a young man, but considerably older. The ghosts are healed of their wounds, that is consistent across all three ghosts in the old version.

    So Shaw isn't an Anakin that never existed, he did exist behind the Vader mask. And we saw that Anakin at the end of RotJ. Luke saw it to and he talked to his father, the father that had made so many mistakes but now at the end finally managed to do the right thing. The wounds he got along time ago are gone yes, but the person he is, is not. Anakin, as a young man, never managed to pass the test that the Dark side posed. Luke is told that he must pass a test in order to become a Jedi. That test is to face the temptation of the dark side and overcome it. Anakin never passed this test, when he faced it, he made the wrong choice. That wrong choice cost him plenty and the rest of the galaxy even more. But at an older age he finally is able to pass the test he failed at many years ago, he lets go of his hate and breaks his chains and steps out into the light once again.

    Some argue that the young face shows he has gone back to the person he used to be before the turn.
    To me, before the turn, Anakin still had plenty of problems, he was selfish, had a temper problem and could not let go of things and instead clung to them, causing harm to himself and others.
    In short, he had not reached the stage of selflessness, compassion and understanding that his older self reached. So older Anakin, Shaw or aged Hayden, is a better image of the redeemed Anakin, the Anakin that made mistakes and went to hell but managed to climb out again and do the right thing.
    It shows the full journey of the character, not just a part of it.

    Bye for now.
    Old Stoneface
     
    TOSCHESTATION likes this.
  20. Samuel Vimes

    Samuel Vimes Force Ghost star 4

    Registered:
    Sep 4, 2012
    Again, reverting to the face before he did those things suggests that more than the old face.


    See, I have real problems with this kind of reasoning because, to me, it always sound like "The Devil made me do it." or demonic possession of some sort. And often it tries to make "Anakin" not really responsible for what "Vader" did. Ex. if a guy in a gun shop sells a gun to someone that they can clearly see is up to no good. This person maybe evens says that they will use this gun to kill. But the clerk sell them the gun anyway and the guy kills ten people. The clerk is responsible yes but nowhere near as responsible as if he was the one who killed those people.
    Vader and Anakin is the same person, the good part of the character never went away. Luke is able to feel it and reach out to that part of him. It isn't just that "Anakin" made the choice to let "Vader" take over his body and let him do all manner of evil. There is an external power here, the Dark side of the Force. That can draw upon your negative feelings and drown your good qualities.
    But Anakin did all the things Vader did. His anger and hate had overcome his good qualities and he thought he had lost all that he cared about so now only power mattered to him.


    I have a somewhat similar view but not exactly. Haydens Anakin had not learned to let go and simply be, Haydens Anakin had not been able to face the trial of the dark side and overcome it. Shaw's Anakin had been able to do those things. So, IF Shaw's Anakin had not died, I think there would have been no temptation on his part to fall to the Dark side again.
    About the ST, if any Force ghost are featured then they would have to be with Hayden and Ewan.
    If Ewan is used it will cause quite a continuity problem. Hayden a little less so, but the actor is older and that can be noticeable. If they do want this, then it would make sense to insert slightly older Hayden into RotJ to patch up that problem.
    I wonder what people here would say to that.

    [/QUOTE]

    Sorry, the robes are far less important to me than the face. And if Hayden was in the unmasking scene and then in the ghost scene and allowed to actually act, I could have the same feeling you have.

    Bye for now.
    Blackboard Monitor
     
  21. darth-sinister

    darth-sinister Manager Emeritus star 10 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Jun 28, 2001
    This is where the rule of two comes in.

    It was never my intention to argue otherwise. Whether they were aware or not, doesn't change that standing there with a smile isn't much of acting.

    I don't think it would have mattered to Shaw and given that it was Lucas and Kazanjian's idea to add him, late in the process, I don't think Marquand would have much of a leg to stand on. He went along with it in the first place and he would have again, had he been alive in 03. Just as Kershner went along with the changes Lucas made to TESB.

    You fall from that height, you'd scream too. ;)

    This assumes that he thought that at all.

    No, I was referring to why within the story context. Not a visual representation for the audience.

    Right, but he is still a good person in that visage. That's who he was when he was that way. He wasn't perfect, just like his son isn't perfect either. But at the core root of it all was a good man, who only wanted to do what he felt was right. Just as Luke did when it came to disagreeing with his Masters.
     
  22. Samuel Vimes

    Samuel Vimes Force Ghost star 4

    Registered:
    Sep 4, 2012
    It seems that three things are needed to become a Force ghost.
    1) You must be a Force user.
    2) You must have the specific knowledge to do this.
    3) You need to be at peace when you die.

    Anakin lived much of his life as a Sith but he died at peace and that was apparently enough. And he got around rule nr two as well. But since rule nr 1 exist then that means the sith are no different compared with non-Force users or those jedi that didn't know about this method.
    So again, a non-Force can be as selfless, good and caring as the best Jedi and he/she still CAN'T become a Force ghost because they are not a Force user. Having a correct ideology is not the only thing that matters and having it is not enough.

    You know, why do you keep trying to make this discussion personal? I have already told you that I have no problem with Ian being in ESB so that right there disproves your nonsense that I only prefer Shaw because I grew up with that image.
    There are plenty of things I saw as a kid and now feel differently about. When I first saw them, I liked RotJ far more than ESB, which was too dull and dark for my 11 year old self. And I disliked the cliff hanger ending. However as I grew older I appreciated the more subtle things in ESB and RotJ fared less well as I noticed the phoned-in performance of Harrison and the re-cycled plot elements. I do still like it but not as much.
    I am capable of judging things on their own merits and whether or not they make sense within the story. And Hayden, as he is now, makes less sense than Shaw. For both age reasons, internal logic reasons and character reasons.

    By which standard did he do it "right"?
    If it is right simply because Lucas did it, then that is nothing more than an appeal to authority fallacy.
    If you think it is right because you agree with it then that just means in your opinion it is right and that opinion is no more right or wrong than mine.
    Also, if this is "Right" does that mean that if Lucas had not changed this then that would have been "wrong"? Or if he had put Hayden in both scenes, would that be "wrong"?

    To me, doing a copy-paste job of an actor and then not having the decency to tell him/her about is never "right". That the same thing happened in RotJ is no excuse. Shaw was paid to be in RotJ, was Hayden paid to be in RotJ?

    And have I ever denied that? No. I simply pointed out that Lucas could have removed Shaw if he wanted to and he has done exactly that to other actors.

    First, this seems a variation of "History is written by the victors."
    And what future generations think about this is neither here nor there and none of us knows what they will think about this, if at all. We are talking about it here and now. If you want to say that this discussion doesn't matter then quite a lot of what goes on in these boards doesn't "matter".
    We aren't going to find the cure to cancer, get rid of starvation or achieve world peace.
    But why would that stop us from having this discussion?

    Is Shaw the face of a good Anakin, yes or no?
    If both Shaw and Hayden is the face of a good Anakin, then what is the difference?
    Shaw is the face of a bad turned good Anakin, Hayden is the face of a good turned bad Anakin.

    Since we have three PT films which show that Anakin before the turn was good, why does Lucas feel the need to show that again at the end of RotJ? The PT films showed the audience a good Anakin, so they know that when they see the OT. So then there is no reason to show Hayden at the end because the audience already knows that Anakin was good before the turn. It is like saying "Anakin before the turn was a good man." and the audience goes "Yes, we know, we have seen the PT."
    It sounds like Lucas underestimates the audience and that they won't figure out that Anakin is once more a good person unless Hayden is there. People got it fine for over 20 years. Most of those that had problems, objected that Anakin was given a ghost at all. That a deathbed conversion was not enough to undo decades of evil.

    [/QUOTE]

    The consequence is that the years he was in the Vader suit are not removed, which the young ghost can imply. That he lived and died as an older man, not a young man. IF using the dark side ages you prematurely, which you keep claiming, then old Anakin as the ghost shows the consequences of that.
    His wounds are gone but his use of the dark side and it's effect on his body are still there.
    His ghost looks older than he would have been if he never turned, that is a consequence and one he has to "live" with, if you pardon the pun.

    Bye for now.
    Old Stoneface
     
    TOSCHESTATION likes this.
  23. Randwulf Crescentmoon

    Randwulf Crescentmoon Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    May 25, 2013
    I understand what you're saying, and Lucas does have every right to do so, but imho Lucas replacing Shaw's performance with Hayden is kind of a slap in the face to Shaw, who may have known that Lucas had the final say, but still gave his all to the role, nonetheless. Shaw had just as much significance to the iconic portrayal of Vader under the mask, as James Earl Jones had lending his voice to the character. After all, 'twas Shaw who provided the mannerisms, which is akin to Peter Mayhew's portrayal of Chewbacca, as Peter imbued the wookie with a personality. Shaw was Vader. Like I said, it really does seem disrespectful to have Lucas essentially erase him from the movie, even if it was just one scene...that scene was a defining-moment, as it gave us a glimpse at Shaw's Anakin at peace, when a few minutes beforehand we witness his fall from the darkside, and death after having just been redeemed. When I see Hayden as a Force ghost, my first response is...who's that guy?
    I agree with this 100%. I've read a few people have stated that Shaw as Anakin under the Vader mask never existed, only Darth Vader did, but not only do we see Shaw's face at the end of ROTJ as Anakin, but also during the OT we see an Admiral walk in on Vader with his helmet off whilst he's in his chambers, and again that is a glimpse at the man under the mask.

    In Revenge of the Sith, there is the scene with the Emperor where he has his own lightning deflected back toward him, and in the novel it is said that when his face peeled away it revealed the true Emperor; the manifestation of the darkside that he'd become underneath the guise of his other persona, Senator Palpatine. Shaw as Vader, took an opposite approach though, as when he dies in ROTJ we see that darkside manifestation peeled away, and reverted back to Shaw's true Anakin as a Force ghost, as he would have been after all those years had he not fallen to the darkside. A major plot point within ROTJ was to reveal that Luke believed his father was not dead, and when Vader proves him correct, sacrificing himself for his son...it's not Hayden's face revealed as the father underneath the mask, but Shaw's instead. He was Anakin...the father Luke sought to free from his darkside bondage.
     
  24. TOSCHESTATION

    TOSCHESTATION Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Jan 17, 2003
    [face_laugh] Well, when it's become feasible that one's Force ghost can look like a 'potato' - or, 'Slimer' from GhostBusters - then all bets are off.


    I was thinking more along the lines of Anakin - while going a bit "off" or "weird" - having not become Vader-in-the-suit at this point* in this alternate scenario. His state of mind at this juncture would still be reason enough to hide the twins from him.

    *the twins birth


    While true, you don't see the possibility that the older story (that is, pre-Father Vader retcon) could sort of 'creep' back into the newer retconned story?
     
  25. TOSCHESTATION

    TOSCHESTATION Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Jan 17, 2003
    How does the "rule of two" explain Ben's wording in the film, exactly? Please explain.



    "Not much" is an opinion, of course.


    Ok, I see where your coming from. Agreed on Kershner vis-a-vis the TESB changes. It's also true about the Anakin Force ghost being Lucas and Kazanjian's idea, and it being late in the process (though technically Anakin coming 'back' in some other sense, wasn't such a late idea). Not sure about Marquand or Shaw agreeing with the change had either lived to 2003/2004.

    But the thing is that Lucas - as far as I can tell - really didn't have many public 'reservations' about the presentation of TESB and ROTJ back in 1980 and 1983, the way he did with Star Wars in 1977.


    [face_shame_on_you]

    But then why did he change it back/take it out, if it really served a purpose?


    I think this thought process is in one of your own earlier Lucas quotes, from several pages back. Basically, he offers the clarification that the Force Ghost shows that the Anakin 'persona' had survived death, NOT the Vader one.


    I agree, with one caveat (of course). Anakin wasn't perfect. Luke wasn't perfect. But if Anakin's gotta Force ghost, it should be the 'old man' - that is, Dad. NOT, the younger-brother-he-never-had Force ghost. ;)


    edit to add:

    =D= ^^^^^^^This.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.