The Academy: A haven for Intellectuals and thought-provoking discussion of the Star Wars Saga.

Vader: "Luke. You can destroy the Emperor. He has foreseen this. It is your destiny. Join me, and together we can rule the galaxy as father and son. Come with me. It is the only way."

This is what you mean, by Luke being told his future? I thought you would?ve quoted Yoda. Here, Vader is just trying to convince Luke to join the Dark Side. Vader?s words aren?t exactly the most trustworthy. Also, Vader was proven wrong, in the end, since it wasn?t Luke that destroyed the emperor.

When all hope truly seems lost, and Luke has no forseeable options, Vader gives Luke the crucial information he needs - essentially giving him a "third" option: turn evil, be killed by Vader, or escape and fight another day (when he is better prepared).

Well, I think this is just a matter of perspective. When Vader says ?Join me or die?, I think that he combines your choice two and in a sense, choice three (since basically jumping off is risking it, and it doesn?t seem like Vader thought Luke would survive if he jumped off) under the ?or die? part. Your perspective on this, seems to be that choice two is die by Vader?s hand, and choice three is jumping off. This is really just semantics though.

The Saga is about hope, not martyrdom

Perhaps martyrdom isn?t the right word, for it, but I can?t think of a better one, so I will concede. I agree with you that the saga is about hope, but with hope, comes risk. It wouldn?t be hope, if it was for sure. What I mean by that, is that I agree with you, on the fact, that as Luke jumped off, he entrusted himself to the force, in the hope, that maybe it would save him. Was Luke SURE that it would save him? I believe no. That?s where the hope part comes in. Luke HOPES he will be saved. He is not jumping off, thinking, I?ll get away for sure. He is thinking, well, I hope I live, and if I die, its better than turning evil (well, not exactly, and again, I?m delving into the character?s POV, so let me phrase that better). Is it really Hope, if he knew he would live? Luke jumped off, hoping he would stay alive, as you have said. Now, in his state of mind, do you think Luke was COMPLETELY sure that the Force would save him? Completely? With no doubt at all? I believe, he wasn?t completely sure he would live. Yes, perhaps, he might have known that there was a chance for him to live, as you have proved to me, but as you do not have Luke?s POV also, you can?t say that there was no doubt in his mind. It all comes back to hope, as you said. The saga IS about hope. Hope is about wishing something to happen, despite how horrible the situation looks. Hope isn?t about knowing something will happen, and being sure of it. Luke HOPES he will live. I?m not sure if you can cite this, but the Annotated Screenplays say that Luke was ?unable to grab onto anything to break his fall? which basically means, that Luke was trying to survive, but wasn?t sure how. This shows that he has the hope that he will survive, but is not sure he will. I agree with you, that this hope, in the face of such danger is noble, and I?m glad we can both agree on that.

P.S. I hope that we can both agree that the scream added in the S.E. is most unnecessary.

 

"Here, Vader is just trying to convince Luke to join the Dark Side. Vader?s words aren?t exactly the most trustworthy. Also, Vader was proven wrong, in the end, since it wasn?t Luke that destroyed the emperor."

LUKE - No. No. That's not true! That's impossible!
VADER - Search your feelings. You know it to be true.
LUKE - No! No! No!
VADER - Luke. You can destroy the Emperor. He has foreseen this. It is your destiny. Join me, and together we can rule the galaxy as father and son. Come with me. It is the only way.

Vader is now speaking to Luke as his father. Since Luke obviously believed what Vader said after the fall, especially when he called Vader "Father" and asked Ben "Why didn't you tell me?", then clearly he believed it before the fall as well. Vader also stated that he wanted to rule the galaxy with Luke by his side, which also turned out to be true. Why on Earth would Vader believe such a thing were possible, unless he heard Palpatine's words and was considering them in his own plans. Keep in mind, also, that at the beginning, Palpatine said...

EMPEROR - There is a great disturbance in the Force.
VADER - I have felt it.
EMPEROR - We have a new enemy - Luke Skywalker.
VADER - Yes, my master.
EMPEROR - He could destroy us.
VADER - He's just a boy. Obi-Wan can no longer help him.
EMPEROR - The Force is strong with him. The son of Skywalker must not become a Jedi.
VADER - If he could be turned, he would become a powerful ally.
EMPEROR - Yes. Yes. He would be a great asset. Can it be done?
VADER - He will join us or die, my master.

So the audience, as well as Luke, knows this to be true as well. Again, these lines serve a purpose. In fact, the only "change" Vader made was saying that Luke would destroy the Emperor, when the Emperor clearly stated "us", meaning he and Vader. Vader simply omitted himself in his revelation to Luke. Once again, we see hoping against hope. This seems to be a common flaw in the Skywalker men.

Vader felt that he could get Luke to join him against Palpatine. As it turns out, Palpatine was correct regardless. Since everything Vader said either was true at the time and/or turned out to come true in ROTJ, I'm not exactly sure what point you are trying to make. Luke knew that Vader was telling the truth. This connection becomes even clearer in ROTJ - "I can sense the good in you". Turns out Luke was correct then as well. Go figure.

"I agree with you that the saga is about hope, but with hope, comes risk. It wouldn?t be hope, if it was for sure. What I mean by that, is that I agree with you, on the fact, that as Luke jumped off, he entrusted himself to the force, in the hope, that maybe it would save him. Was Luke SURE that it would save him? I believe no. That?s where the hope part comes in. Luke HOPES he will be saved."

Precisely

"He is not jumping off, thinking, I?ll get away for sure. He is thinking, well, I hope I live, and if I die, its better than turning evil"

And I don't think the "alternative" was even considered by Luke. Why should it? Such faith necessitates complete belief. It reminds me of the story I'd read about a golfer who had fired his caddy. They were looking down a dog leg, with a large pond on the right. The golfer said something to the effect of "I think I can keep the ball along the left side, and get it close to the green" whereas the caddy jokingly replied "I hope so, because you don't want it to go right into the water."

What's the point? The golfer knew about the water, but willingly chose to ignore thinking about the negative aspect. He was focused on what he needed to do, and not on what could happen should he fail. He didn't deny that the water was there, he simply decided that it was not going to affect his deci

 

In case you didn't realize, common usage is usually face value. The only time this isn't true is when you've been given some reason to assume/know that its not. And given that you're claiming that's what Lucas did, you'd think he would've dedicated some time before hnad so that people would know. Instead, he introduces it passingly in the scene before. This doesn't make a very strong case for Lucas imlpying a third, less standard usage of the word.

I will repeat again, if it can be proven through the total of evidence from the entire Saga, that the Force does not work in the way in which you are basing your argument on, then your argument will by default be wrong. That's why I examine prophecy/prophesy throughout the Saga.

Again, the scenario with Anakin was still evolving. He looked, saw a target, and jumped for it, controlling his speed of descent, his position, and the known velocity of the craft. While these probably involved a lot of guess-work, the point is he was in control of the situation. If he missed, Obi-wan could still drive the speeder and save him. That besides, there were hundreds of other speeders to grab onto along the way. All this means there were many more options for survival than Luke had.

Also, I wouldn't confuse a character's ability or Force powers with conventions of the genre. Anakin didn't land where he wanted to because he used the Force to guide him, nor did he do it because he has some hereditary "jumping skill" that Luke inherits. He did it because the protagonist can do that kind of stuff. What you're suggesting here is akin to arguing that the Stormtroopers on the Death Star miss Han, Luke, and Leia so much, because they are using the Force to change where the soldiers guns are pointed. Similarly, saying that Luke survived the ESB jump because of the will of the Force when its already accounted for by the convention of the genre isn't really necessary.

I didn't say choice wasn't necessary, I said is value is lessened if it's not the thing eliciting subsequent "effects." As for accomodating this for Force usage, it can be done quite easily, contrary to your argument. While the Force gives the people those powers, they aren't using them at every moment in time. Because Force-users may choose when and when not to employ a certain power, there choice is still the operative "cause" for any given "effect." For instance, I might go to the store using a car. The fact that I use the car to do so does not change the fact that I decided to go to the store, and use a car to do so--the primary effect-elicitor. Thus, Force-usage may as well be car usage, blaster usage, etc.

Whereas, if the Force activates of its own accord then the primary cause is not the person who made a given decision, it is the Force itself. Or, to continue our earlier analogy, if the car were to malfunction and swerve into a tree, then the cause of the accident would not be the person. The cause would be the faulty car, which is, in effect, acting of its own accord. It was not the person's choice to hit the tree, and yet it happened. Now let's bring this discussion back to the scene in question. If Luke jumped off, and was depending on a power of the Force that he could not, of his own accord, access to save him, then the only way it could work is if the Force acted of its own accord. And if the Force acts of its own accord, then its the Force's action, rather than Luke's decision, which precipitates the reaction in question. Thus diminishing the power of Luke's choice.

In the next moment, when he's caught the weathervane, the situation, is, to some degree, more perilous. But before we continue on this topic of "action/reaction" lets, look at this entire moment, since you seem to believe its such a trump card against my arguments. Point one, Luke had in fact, seen telepathy before. Remember in ANH, when Kenobi commented on hearing "voices crying out" as Alderaan was destroyed. That was telepathy, unless you're going to tell me Kenobi just has really good heari

 

"And given that you're claiming that's what Lucas did, you'd think he would've dedicated some time before hnad so that people would know."

People do know. You just refuse to accept what Lucas has put in front of you.

"Instead, he introduces it passingly in the scene before. This doesn't make a very strong case for Lucas imlpying a third, less standard usage of the word."

In fact..."You choose, the complex: "destiny- situation in which certain outcomes are fixed, but paths to said outcome are infinitely variable."

Well, that's because Lucas said as much...

Should Anakin have been trained?

"I think it is obvious that [Qui-Gon] was wrong in Episode 1 and made a dangerous decision, but ultimately this decision may be correct. The Phantom Menace refers to the force of the dark side of the Universe. Anakin will be taken over by dark forces which in turn destroy the balance of the Galaxy, but the individual who kills the Emperor is Darth Vader - also Anakin. The tale meanders and both the prediction, and Qui-Gonn are correct - Anakin is the chosen one, and he did bring peace at last with his own sacrfice. Luke couldn't kill the Emperor himself, but he could make Anakin reflect on his life and kill the Emperor. George Lucas

From the man, himself. Now, maybe, you see that this is not simply my interpretation - The tale "meanders", rather than traveling a straight "cause/effect" storyline, which you seem to be convinced is the only other viable alternative when the Force is involved. Despite following the "Will of the Force", Qui-gon's decision may not be entirely correct, even though he believes it to be so, and is guided by the Force! The same goes for Luke.

Vader - "Luke, it is your destiny".

This means it's going to happen. Nothing is said about how, when, where, or why - the path is not known! That being said, Luke isn't going to simply sit around and wait for it to happen. It's a clue that he is capable of doing this. Anything else is implied by you simply to misinterpret what Lucas intended. BTW, here are some more quotes...

Unlike Anakin who slides into the dark side, Christensen says it's a question of making the right choices in life. "We're all presented with influences, sometimes very opposing ones that motivate us and affect our decisions. Hopefully we choose wisely."

Lucas began the three prequels with Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace in 1999, 16 years after Return of the Jedi. The writer and director says he wanted to explore what made Anakin Skywalker become the evil Darth Vader.

"The Phantom Menace was really about determining that Anakin started out as a good kid," says Lucas. "With Episode II the issue then becomes what makes him turn bad. The groundwork is put forward in this movie.

"The whole reason I've gone back and done the backstory on Star Wars is there is this evolution from this good person into something evil," says the film-maker. "I base the films on the idea that the Force has two sides, good and evil, and they both need to be there. Everything is built on the push-pull tension created by the two sides of the equation."

Christensen adds: "Anakin is still essentially good in this movie but there are hints of the dark forces invading his life." This Is Lancashire

---

[i][b]"In Episode I, when we saw Jake Lloyd, we wondered where's the dark side? Why isn't this kid creepy?" recounts McCaig. "And then, in Episode II, Hayden Christensen came across as a justifiably angry teenager more than a kid who crosses over to the true dark side. Killing the Sand People... they killed his mom! I could go mad and do something like that. So, I kept waiting for the dark side to take hold. In this film, you realize, [hl=white]it's more ab

 

First off, I've never said the Force doesn't exist in the films. I make a distinction between a character using the Force, and the Force acting without being willed to by a character. This is the difference between most of the scenes you post as evidence, and the ESB scene. As I've said, when a character willfully uses a Force power, its like willfully using technology--their decision is still the thing controlling the action, and thus responsible for the reaction. For instance, when Luke willfully uses telepathy, its just the same as him willfully using a radio/communicator. Both time, he employs something that will cut down on his cost/energy involved in doing it another way. Since he decides to do it, he bears responsibility. Whereas, since Luke isn't the one who willfully activates any Force power that might (or, as I argue, might not) have been involved in the ESB jump, then we must assume that it was the Force itself, or some other Force user on his behalf. In either case, it means he would not have percipitated the action, and thus his choice would be of lesser impact. I would also point out again, that I'm not talking about the aggregate of the SW Saga, as you seem to suggest. I mean if the Force acts of its own accord in the particular scene in question then in only the particular scene in question that very particular decision is diminished.

Further, I've never argued that the meaning of "destiny" as a concept that you present isn't true for the aggregate of the SW Saga. My issue is with its usage in that particular line by Vader. Within one line, and given Vader's aggregate speech patterns (which the audience--which is significant, because the audience plays a role in film that make it a medium unique from say, a novel, and so its not unreasonable to account for them-- if not Luke, is aware of) the meaning of the particular word destiny in that particular sentence is somewhat ambiguous.

As for Anakin's AOTC jump, I don't see that as I Force usage, just as I don't see Luke's ESB jump as one. As I've said, I see them all along the same spectrum of the Stormtrooper's bad aim: conventions for an action scci-fi/fantasy flick. While these things do push on impossible, they don't do so anymore than comparable scenes in other action movie--action movies which lack any kind of explanation like the Force. Alternatively, in the Saga Lucas makes other Force uses indisputably clear: Luke's training with the droid, Force choke, Force lightning, Force speed, persuasion ("move along, move along"), telepathy, telekinesis, destroying the First Death Star, etc. When people see these things, its indisputable that those are Force powers. That someone jumped and landed in a certain spot? Much more ambiguous, suggesting to me it may not be a Force power. Rather, I see things like that as merely things that happen given the importance of involved character's to the plot.

The difference I see between what I called a "fleeting mention" and Luke's knowledge of telepathy are two: frequency and ambiguity. There's no other way you can hear something in your head, especially not the voice of a dead man--assuming all our characters are sane, which I'm sure we agree on. The examples for Luke's relevant knowledge in the ESB jump scenario is not as oft repeated prior to that point, nor is there intended interpretation as clear.

As I said above, the "Audience's POV" is an assumed perspective in film-making in a way that isn't true for the written word. So yes I do take them into account. Because the audience must understand based off what they see, we can tkae into account everything they've seen to help them understand an action, the exception being a time when a character really isn't supposed to know something yet plot-wise, or something of that nature. Given that that doesn't seem to be the case here, I do feel at liberty to say that. Further, since those were most of Vader's lines in ANH, aside from archetypal villain talk--which is, because of its very nature, often times dismissable--("All t

 

I really do not have time to read this entire arguement, but from what I have read, the question posted was misinterpretated from the beginning.

Anyway, I've got a question if people want to take a stab at it: According to Jedi "theology," is redemption possible?

What, exactly, do you mean by "Jedi theology"?

Theology:
1. The study of the nature of God and religious truth; rational inquiry into religious questions.

2. A system or school of opinions concerning God and religious questions: Protestant theology; Jewish theology.

3. A course of specialized religious study usually at a college or seminary.

I take it that, by "Jedi theology," you are referring to the Jedi study of the Force, instead of God/religion. The question was asking about current Jedi theology, and the debate seems to be more about what happened years later.

There is a difference between Jedi theology and what actually happened years later. At the time of the Old Republic, perhaps there had yet to be a Jedi to take the path of redemption from the dark side.

That being said, I think that according to Jedi philosophy, no, you cannot redeem yourself. But the Jedi philosophy is wrong, much like any other form of philosophy could be, as it is more speculation, and something like that couldn't be proven by fact. Something like the use of the Force and redemption through the Force could not be proved by scientific study like, for example, the growth, migration, eating habits, etc of some species of bird. The Force is based on personal choices, something that science cannot study, as that would be like trying to study ethics. Each person has different opinions, values, personalities, etc, and therefore no form of scientific study could be 100% accurate, no matter what the Jedi may have thought.

Looking at this from the point of view of the Classic Trilogy, with Obi-Wan and Yoda's knowledge of the prophecy, their opinion may or may not have changed since the days of the Old Jedi Order. From one point of view, they believe that Anakin can be redeemed; turned back to the "good side." On the other hand, they may have thought that redemption was impossible, and Luke was being trained for the sole purpose of killing Anakin.

I think the first scenario seems more likely; they know that according to the prophecy, Anakin can and will be redeemed, and they can perhaps sense that he is not fully immersed into the dark side.

In this case, their opinion is now different than what previous Jedi theology had concluded.

So, at this point you are probalby asking why Yoda and Obi-Wan would tell Luke that you cannot be redeemed when they believe that it is possible, right?

The answer is actually quite simple. Luke needs to avoid the dark side at all costs possible. Telling Luke that redemption is impossible will strengthen his determination to avoid the dark side, so as to not have the same fate as Vader. It would be quite stupid for Yoda and Obi-Wan to tell Luke that redemption is in fact possible, especially if the only case so far with any hope is Vader, and that is through his son, something the average Jedi would obviously not have.

Really though, I do not think it matters what Obi-Wan and Yoda's opinions are at the time of the OT, only what the opinions of the Jedi Order were before Anakin ever showed up.

 

You needn't read it. It has really strayed away from that to a intensely-debated tangent regarding Luke's jump off the platform in ESB, after Vader's revelation. I would try to put it in question form, but I'm finding it extremely dififcult, what wit the nature of the discussion, and the arguments being used, and all its tangents and things.

 

In regards to the "tangents", I believe it's necessary to cover and debate all points brought up in defense of an opposing argument.

Secondly, while I can understand you are attempting to argue the point of view of a hypothetical "audience", I dont agree with the intent. Not all audiences are created equal, as shown by these topics...

CT- Why are there no comlinks in OT?

CT- If the Rebel dudes have the Force, why do they need targeting computers?!

CT- The screaming pilot in RotJ

You can't always blame the movie. People will either "get it", or they can come here and we'll explain it to them.

So, what's the next topic? (Ironically, there's a thread talking about bringing back "The Great Debate". That would be fun!)

 

Are we putting aside this one about the ESB jump, then?

Though I'll say, it's not like it matters much. Because regardless of what one thinks about Luke in that scene, in light of the volume of posts we've made about it, I don't think anyone could say that either of us have given up/given in (This would be a good time for one of those winky smiles, which I don't know how to do, so I'll just say "").

 

Yeah, we'll agree to cry "uncle" for now (you first! )

Any other ambiguous scenes we can needlessly argue in minutia?

 

There it is, I knew I'd find it...
Act 3 Scene 4 of William Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet. Mercutio says to Thibalt in regard to Romeo's strange behaviour toward the house of Capulet,


Thibalt: ...and whatst thou make of young Montague's intentions?


Mercutio: Without haste, he doth know that,
ANAKIN SUCKS!

...Just kidding, this actually a very good idea for a separate forum.

 

Thank you for replying to my original question, Rise_Of_Thrawn. You're right that I was talking about the beliefs of the Jedi religion, not what GL has told us about the moral order of the GFFA.

Now that I think about it, I don't think we have to bring Buddhism into the question at all to find major theological tensions underlying religion in the GFFA. Just as in the real-world Judeo-Christian tradition, the moral order of the GFFA appears to have a conflict between the themes of grace and justice, or the "Rule of Love" and the "Rule of the Law."

Since the PT seems to be about moral ambiguity, my guess is that we won't get a clear-cut rundown of which Jedi beliefs are right or wrong. What we may see is evidence that certain characters are a shade too far on one side or the other of the ideal. Qui-Gon probably showed a bit too much grace toward Anakin, while Obi-Wan laid down the law awfully hard.

Then again -- Luke "bet the farm" on forgiveness when he threw his lightsaber away at the end of ROTJ, and won the jackpot. This begs the question of how to be a good person in the GFFA. Should you keep your spiritual life carefully balanced? Or should you risk everything on one self-scrificing leap of faith? (Not to bring the ESB "leap" back into things!)

I'm tempted to go with "leap," but Qui-Gon's misguided faith in Anakin's future complicates that argument. For that matter, Padmé's "I truly, deeply love you" wasn't the smartest thing she ever said either.

 

OK, this is an old thread that kind of lost its impetus in the long dialog between two people but perhaps I can jump start things in the spirit of the original intent of this thread.

Might I suggest another forum for informed discussions backed up by arguments and facts. Try the Chefelf Forum which was created as a response to the many e-mails that were sent to his 78 Reasons to Hate EP 1 and 64 Reasons to Hate EP 2. Despite the anti-SW sound of the titles, the people who like the websites LOVE Star Wars but they?re not afraid to make common sense critiques of the franchise. And the more you tell others, the better conversations will be.

http://www.chefelf.com/forums/index.php?showforum=4

Let me throw this out. In an early post (and OMG I did not read everything), someone asked the question? Was Lucas?s epic created by him or the fans? The response was to quote GL on the issue.

I have to say that there is a fallicy in judging the art (the SW films in this case) by the words of the artist. Just because GL says something in SW is so, doesn?t make it so. While that may sound silly in the least, if not completely counter intuitive, I suggest that it is an excellent position from which to judge.

If I asked a fifth grader to grade his/her essay, don?t you think he?d be biased in his grading even if he/she tried to be completely objective. When judging SW, it is a great insight to know what the artist intended, but you cannot rely completely, nor give overwhelming credibility to him. When judging art, you need to judge by the standards of the profession.

So my answer to the epic-created-by-whom question is: GL created SW, but what we make of his art is to be judged by the fans (who have reasons and facts to back up their statements) and not on GL?s word. GL is responsible for SW, but what ultimately happens to his art leaves him and becomes a subject of the public world once he?s premiered it.

 

Yes.






(Don't want to get too long-winded again. )