Denial = fail. That was precisely the point I was arguing. He was never called a good person in the film, as I said several times.
Exactly. So the tragic hero story isn't a tragic hero story, since he was never a hero in the first place...............
Edit to add - post #199: Saying "that was my point" doesn't demonstrate that you had a point. In the bigger picture, you're still just arguing over minutiae: 1. You have been unable to demonstrate or argue that the OT overall did NOT intend for audiences to believe that Anakin had once been a good person*, either as originally, 'until he was killed', or as later ret-conned, 'until he became Darth Vader'. * the good man who was your father......" 2. Your mistake is thinking or arguing by implication - one has to extrapolate 'intent' from your posts after all - that the intention of portraying to audiences the overall 'good nature' of the character of Annikin/Luke's father solely depends on Ben/Obi-Wan's specific words to Luke (and really...two can play the "Obi-Wan's SPECIFIC WORDS Game" anyhow, as you'd been shown before). The character of Annikin/Luke's father fits the archetype or movie/story 'trope' of the 'dead father who was a good guy/saint'. The father ret-con imo doesn't really change this aspect. 3. Arguing your 'point' is essentially arguing that Obi-Wan's lack of specifically calling Annikin 'good' in ANH somehow negates what he later says about him in ROTJ ( "the good man who was your father....." ).
He was supposed to mention more about their mother to Luke, but this part was cut from ROTJ - either from the film or from the final script. Lord Tyrannus: you can expect a lecture on how Anakin or the Jedi are never called 'noble' in the OT, and how not strictly adhering to the PT template means we are "re-writing" the OT (when in fact, the "re-writes" so to speak, have already taken place).
That was something that could work either way.. On one hand, it ruins the mystery of her character, and the symbolism. If you don't know what I mean by symbolism I can explain it to you.. On the other hand, it contradicted the prequels, so I wouldn't want that.. Here's a quote.... Also, Padme dying at her kid's birth is way better and makes more sense than her choosing/picking a child... Quote from Lucas and Booksatruestory.com.. Obi-Wan says, “When your father left, he didn’t know your mother was pregnant. Your mother and I knew he would find out eventually, but we wanted to keep you both as safe as possible for as long as possible. So I took you to live with my brother Owen, on Tatooine…and your mother took Leia to live as the daughter of Senator Organa, on Alderaan.” What a great story! Secret pregnancies, Padme surviving and hiding her children from her crazy husband, and Owen wasn’t even Luke’s real uncle! Why couldn’t this have been the plot of the prequels?
OK. Well, there was a solution to the contradiction, but as you point out, Lucas didn't go this route.
What contradiction? What do you mean? The Symbolism is, after Padme dies, the Galaxy is plunged into Darkness, but she lives on in Luke and Leia. Her Legacy lives on. For that symbolism to work, mentioning her would ruin it, or make it less powerful...
It contradicted the prequels because Anakin, of course he knew Padme was carrying children, that's why he became Darth Vader! Anakin, being a virgin-born Space Jesus, has no biological siblings and Shmi Skywalker married some guy, and Owen was his son from a previous marriage/wife, making Owen, Darth Vader's step brother.. I don't see your point....
I thought it was your point, actually. You yourself pointed out above where it contradicted the prequels - least of all, the reason/motivation for Anakin's turn*. * "When your father left, he didn't know your mother was pregnant." Anakin originally wasn't going to be "Space Jesus". Though at one point in time, (mid-1975 or so) Luke was going to be "space Messiah".
What do you mean by Luke being a Space Messiah? Vader was Space Jesus because he was virgin-birth/born, he was a hero of ancient prophecy destined to destroy a spiritual evil, he came from a desert, and Qui Gon proclaimed that Anakin was the Chosen One and took him before the Council and people doubted his role as the savior figure. The Jedi prophecy said that the Chosen One is born from a virginal conception..... Besides, Anakin kinda looks like Jesus, with the long dark hair?? Besides, after destroying evil and fullfilling the messianic prophecy, Anakin appears after Death in ROTJ, in a shiny, glowing, long haired ghost........... In a Trinity, also wearing robes, with 3 others............ Both also had supernatural powers.....
Bear in mind, L T, I don't mean the Luke that winded up on-screen in SW/TESB/ROTJ..I'm talking about an earlier conception of Luke...where in the second and third drafts of SW, Luke is called "The Son of the Suns", a figure in Jedi 'prophecy' who would destroy the Sith and their Empire. But Lucas ultimately dropped this concept from the fourth draft/final script of the film. When he again took up this 'theme' for the PT, he applied it to Anakin instead. My point was that this conception of "Messiah" that belongs now with Anakin - the father, was at one time associated with the son character; that is, Luke.
Did Luke have a Virgin-Birth? In that draft, I mean? It's not called an immaculate conception. That's a Catholic beleif that Mary was born without Sin and never Sinned, not someone Born Without a Biological Father. Many Fans incorrectly say Anakin had an immaculate conception.....
I'm sure Shmi sinned, but it's okay, because Star Wars is not the New Testament. Anakin was born of a virgin. The end.
No. 'Annikin' - as Luke's father is called in the third draft (at least) - is Luke's biological father, just as he is in the later drafts.
And I like the hinting around and knowing glances Palpatine casts at Anakin while telling him about the whole "Plagueis could even make the midichlorians create life" business that you *know* (whether true or not) was seriously messing with Anakin's head.
I think a poster earlier in the thread (sorry I've read through the whole thing since and don't remember who or whereabouts this was said now) put it perfectly. Despite what you may think of how the prequel's portrayed Anakin, he is the canonical portrayal of Anakin Skywalker. Therefore it makes far more sense in the context of the story to have him there at the end of RotJ, than a brief cameo from an aged man which does leave more of a 'so that's what he would look like' impression than anything really meaningful.
The above is really just another variation on "Hayden/PT Anakin ghost in ROTJ is the best choice because it TIES THE TWO TRILOGIES TOGETHER" , a sentiment that overlooks the fact that this tie-in pays little heed to the story-arc of ROTJ, let alone the OT.
I didn't really want to get into that debate, because I can hand on heart say I have no love for the prequels, therefore really don't care how tied together the two trilogies are. I can just see how it makes sense to have Hayden there at the end, in the respect that as I say above, my connection to Shaw's ghost was more of a superficial satisfaction that they shown us what he looks like as Anakin, rather than any emotional connection to him as Anakin.
