Saga The NEW official Hayden vs Shaw thread

But he didn't find it any more 'jarring' than he found Obi-Wan's ghost form 'jarring', considering that he saw Obi-Wan 'sacrifice' himself to Vader. I think it's noteworthy that one didn't hear about this 'jarring' aspect back when ROTJ originally came out/prior to the 2004 SE's, other than certain audience members who found it 'jarring' that Anakin was allowed to become a Force ghost in the first place*.

*the whole 'death-bed conversion' polemic

That same man also saw that he did wrong, and finally did the right thing , by saving Luke and destroying the Emperor. This man is also responsible, btw, for all the wrong he did as 'Vader' for all those years, which is a bit different from the other p.o.v. whereby "good and innocent" Anakin was 'trapped inside' the "evil monster" that was D. Vader and thus, somehow not responsible for what Vader did (???).

It's subjective that what he did in the OT was 'worse' than what he did in the PT (and not just as 'Vader', but even as Anakin). But then, by even putting it terms of "what's worse?", you're admitting to Anakin's misdeeds (i.e. before he even became Vader) all the same, and thus illustrating the point of many here: That the "Hayden ghost showing us what Anakin looked like before he succumbed to evil" makes what I like to call a distinction without a difference **.

**i.e. the 'difference' between an Anakin committing evil deeds in AOTC/early ROTS vs. the Anakin who 'succumbs to evil' (becomes Vader, "turns" to the Dark Side, etc).

It seems that in this argument (the Hayden ghost change), the bad actions of Anakin in AOTC/early ROTS get brushed aside because they 'complicate' the black-and-white and imo naively simplistic view*** that the Hayden ghost change represents: before (the "turn") = "good" Anakin, vs. after (the "turn") ="bad" Vader.

***a view that is (imo, not coincidentally) the one that Obi-Wan eventually adopts come the time of the OT.

 

PART II: (edit to add)

I don't want Lt.Cmdr.Thrawn's succinct post to get buried behind the back-and-forth between myself and PMT99:

quoted for emphasis

 

It can if the hypothetical sequel trilogy not focusing on Anakin didn't actually get made. The 9-film "scheme" no longer applies.

So much for moving the goalposts and changing the subject from a 9-movie saga to a 6-movie saga as though such obfuscation can somehow remove the overall focus of the remaining 6-movie saga on Anakin.

The point is that Obi-Wan was never said to be "the" sole main character of the PT as had been implied. I never claimed the original plan for the PT was the same as the PT or that Anakin was the sole main character of the original plan for the PT.

The lack of responsibility on Anakin's part is your own invention. The films never established any such thing, nor did Lucas.

 

Which is probably why TS repeatedly used the phrase "under this scheme," meaning 'under a trilogy of trilogies plan.'

My point was that while focus - both in terms of choosing a protagonist for the story and in in-universe terms - has been shifted towards a single character in the saga as it exists today, this was not in fact inevitable (as the post I originally quoted had said, though they might've just meant Anakin would be more recognizable) and was actually a relatively late addition.

A prequel story made in the OT-development-era would have included Anakin's story alongside Ben's (though it does seem that things would probably have been seen from Ben's POV). Even so, this would not have made the entire saga 'all about' Anakin any more than the use of Luke in a Jedi Master role in a possible sequel trilogy would have made the saga 'all about' Luke. The point was that the overall saga wasn't actually ALL about anyone. This is in contrast to the more contemporary redefinition of the saga.

 

That scheme is no longer in effect. And this comment is clearly not about nine films: So much for "The Tragedy of Darth Vader" being an accurate 'sub-title' for the six-movie saga. The 9-film scheme is irrelevant to the accuracy of that "subtitle" with respect to the current saga which does not include the ST. Similarly, Under this scheme the SW "saga", OT AND PT may use the phrase "under this scheme", but at the same time the saga is being regarded as the 6 films "OT AND PT".

What gives you that impression?

 

A couple things:

When GL described (what would become) the prequels early on, he said things like "the young days of Ben Kenobi" or "the next trilogy - the first one - since it's about Ben Kenobi as a young man [...]". The story of Luke's father would obviously be interrelated and also feature in these prequel films, but it seems like Kenobi often gets top billing.

The rough draft of TPM is consistent with this. As a Jedi Knight Ben goes to Naboo (Utapau) alone, he finds Anakin on Tatooine and frees him, etc. While Qui-Gon appears in that version, it's only later in the development process that Kenobi is split into two characters, with the one that retains his name being redefined so as to acquire an arc in TPM.


Also, and this is more personal interp, it just seems to me that Anakin's turn was never fully defined for Lucas until very late in the process. From ROTJ, it seems like Anakin's fall was largely Ben's fault - from the way it is told, it'd make sense (to me) for a prequel story to follow Ben as an overconfident Jedi and his failure as a mentor. This focus on Ben may also have to do with how he'd be very recognizable to audiences, and also how in the ANH backstory, Vader's turn had little to no nuance. This changed when he was combined with Annikin... but all of the motivations Lucas gave him in the final versions didn't exist yet (Chosen One, Faustian bargain for Padme, etc). Personally I'd have given Anakin slightly different motivations and done things differently, but even just knowing that GL's version of the backstory here was very loose until ROTS gives me additional confidence that the prequels-as-Ben's-story idea was probably the original.

 

At least Obi-wan wasn't "scarred and deformed" by the Dark Side like Vader was which is why his ghost looked the same as he did when he died. Besides, it wasn't jarring for Luke to see Obi-wan's ghost since he still got to hear his voice even after he died. Luke was used to the disembodied voice until he nearly froze to death on Hoth to which Obi-wan's ghost appeared.

But Anakin waited 25 years to realise that he was wrong and that overshadows the whole "doing the right thing". Pre-suited Anakin tried to do the right thing by informing the Jedi Council about Palpatine being Darth Sidious but he screwed it up by betraying Mace and allowing Sidious to kill him.
Anakin created Vader as a result of choosing the Dark Side so he is still responsible for Vader's actions. Just like Victor Frankenstein is responsible for creating his monster, Bruce Banner for the Incredible Hulk, Dr. Jekyll for Mr. Hyde, and Harvey Dent for Two-Face. We've all got a monster inside of us and if situations get bad, we are responsible for letting those monsters out.

And at the same time, the anti-Hayden critics are ignoring the bad actions of Vader throughout the OT because they all feel that the 1 (and only) good deed he made in ROTJ outweighs the hundreds of horrific crimes he committed throughout the saga thus earning him a place in the Jedi neatherworld. Plus, they make a contradicting viewpoint about the Shaw ghost representing an Anakin that never turned to the Dark Side at all. That's like saying that what he's done throughout the saga never happened and that's not right. Not to mention that Anakin's ghost looks nothing like he did when he dies because how would Anakin even know what he would look like? He's never seen himself for 25 years due to being encased in black armor, cybernetic implants, and a helmet. In addition to that, his ghost shouldn't even have a full body, hair, and Obi-wan's clothes for he didn't look that way when he died.
The Hayden ghost would make logical sense since tha

 

Irrelevant to my point(s): 1. that there was nothing 'inconsistent' (with any pre-established elements from the previous two films) about Anakin's ghost in the original ROTJ NOT appearing as a hideous, mutilated man, and, 2. that this 'jarring' aspect of the whole subplot was never bandied about prior to the SE's (and that the only complaint of some moviegoers prior to this was that Anakin was allowed to become a Force ghost in the first place).

If the 25 years really "overshadow" his later act, as you put it, then was there every really a 'right' time for Anakin/Vader to have done the right thing, at any point after he betrayed Mace in ROTS? The 25 year interval doesn't negate the good thing he did in the end.

But wasn't that the whole point of the PT? To show specifically how he 'screwed up' which led to him becoming Vader? If you have an argument there, it sounds like you're making an argument against the good guy turning into the bad guy (or conversely, arguing against the villain of the OT having once been a 'good guy', to say nothing of him being the hero's father) but you're not really arguing against the pro-Shaw ghost position.

The pro-Shaw side - from the posters I've seen - do not argue that the one/1 good deed he did 'outweighs' all the bad...you have zombie, who even argues that Anakin's "redemption" for him at least, doesn't "work" on a strictly moral level (which people may or may not agree with), but DOES work for him as 'closure' for Luke's character arc. And really, the whole point that the pro-Shaw side has been making is that Shaw represents an Anakin who repents, who at least realizes that he was wrong all those years. The Shaw ghost is consistent with that idea. The Hayden ghost is not.

 

The Paradigm of the OT allows this interpretation very easily. The Force ghosts of the OT are not just figments of Luke's imagination. Yoda hears and sees Obi-Wan on Dagobah.

 

Edit to previous post:

This is also known as, "The Red-Herring/Straw-Man "rule" for the appearance of Force ghosts".

What I mean is, I've only seen this line taken as an apologetic in defense of the Hayden Ghost. Never heard this line of reasoning in the 21 years of ROTJ's public existence prior to the 2004 SE change.

I argued this very same thing two years previously*....what made you come around on this particular point?

*after you made an analogy between the Force ghosts on Endor vs. Luke's encounter with "Vader" in the Dark Side Tree on Dagobah in TESB

As it stands, "Not figments of Luke's imagination" and "Not based solely on Anakin's memory/self-image" are NOT mutually exclusive positions. The significance of "how Luke remembers him" has to do with Luke's frame of reference with regards to the man who risked his own life saving his (Luke's), and identifying with that man, rather than the man he never knew or met (or the person who, in light of his depiction in the PT, frankly speaking makes it probably better/preferable that his son didn't know of or relate to).


And, lest Thrawn's posts get side-tracked:

(with added emphases)

 

A question, does Leia see the ghosts?

In RotJ Luke is looking at the three ghosts and Leia comes up to him and they walk away. It does not seem that Leia saw the ghosts. If she had, wouldn't she have reacted?
Leia is Force sensitive but not trained so is that why she does not see them?
Or are they just showing themselves to Luke? If so then the old apperance of Anakin makes better sense since that is the face Luke knows. And it fits better as a "Father" image.

Regards
Nordom

 

I think we're getting the discussions kinda mixed up here though. ROTJ is no longer just the end of Luke's story, it's the end of Star Wars. The end of Anakin, Palpatine, Yoda, Obi-Wan all of em who were there from the beginning. I think that particular point strays into the OT vs. Saga debate.

 

Right. However, Luke's arc is still massively important to the story. The problem is that the SE Hayden ghost/PT Anakin as super-Messiah-Chosen-One-saviour overshadows Luke's arc, basically sacrificing an important aspect of the story for the sake of 'brand-name consistency', i.e. the six-part saga supposedly working as a whole (or, "Making the OT fit the PT better" - and not the other way around).

 

That's your problem, not mine.

 

That's not an answer, but it would have been more compelling had you gave this as your 'answer' to the thread two years ago when it all began, and thus saved us from the trouble of engaging with you in the interim.... just for the record, are you're saying that brand-consistency is imperative over all other considerations, then?

then, there's that question from my previous to last post that you've yet to address.....

 

Lucas claims it's continuity, based on what Obi-Wan says in the OT and what Yoda says in the PT. It makes sense on those terms, but you can call it brand consistency if you like, if only to make it sound like a cheap and decidedly non-artistic decision. Even if it were, you're not obligated to have a problem with it. Have fun resurrecting this corpse of a discussion.

 

The bold part is the key word here, but once again: "continuity" at what cost?

As for it "making sense on those terms": yes, maybe in an alternate-universe of fiction where what certain characters say "trumps" story facts/events/actions/deeds depicted on-screen or on-page in the story, even - and especially - when the very things those characters says ends up being contradicted by facts/events/actions shown on-screen.

Also, I seem to recall myself and other posters being accused of "making up" or falsely attributing these quotes to Lucas where he claims the very things you stated above. Even if he did NOT make those claims, it still doesn't argue against the imho inherent weakness of the "Auteur theory": the author's 'intent' is fine and good, but if it doesn't translate well to the screen or page, it's worthless to the reading or viewing audience. It's like I said before: Star Wars is primarily a series of films - it is not a series of books nor is it twelve hours of Lucas talking about stuff/things (commentary).

Or, just to be realistic....

'Obligated' has nothing to do with it....what kind of dodge against criticism is this?

A discussion you were never willing to fully engage with in the first place. You've had no response/answer/rebuttal to the latest posts from Nordom or Lt.Cmdr.Thrawn (but especially Thrawn, who I believe is getting the raw-end of the deal with this discussion), but have only seen fit to comment on my posts only.

Calling this a "corpse* of a discussion" is just a passive-aggressive, back-handed way of bowing out (un-gracefully) from the discussion when it's become convenient to do so.

*though "resurrecting" and "corpse" vs. Force ghosts IS perhaps unintentionally funny....


Back to the discussion:

 

Nordom and Lt.Thrawn have a similar writing style. I don't respond to them because I don't read their posts. It's as if my reading comprehension goes out the window. I've read that excerpt more than four times, and I still have no idea what he's going on about. It seems that he's talking about educated guesses at what the prequels appeared to be intended to be some thirty years ago. Furthermore, it seems to me that this particular post has nothing to do with the topic at hand. What was intended a long time ago, in pre-production stages has nothing to do with a finished product, which we already discussed makes sense on its own terms. It's entirely possible that what remains of the topic has gone over my head, but it all seems that to go beyond "it makes sense but i don't like it" is venturing into wacko territory.

 

This is quite telling re: your posting habits. It's all making a lot of sense now.

Your obtuseness is duly noted.

It's amusing to hear allusions to public, documented comments made by Lucas on the subject from long ago being called "educated guesses".

Also, it very much has to do with the 'topic at hand', as the original focus of the SW saga has a bearing on what the intended view of Anakin in relation to Luke and the whole saga was back in the day, and this has bearing on the original intention vis-a-vis Anakin's age/Force Ghost. It's the question of: was Anakin's 'redemption' totally self-referential/a means to it's own end or was it something that gave meaning to/meant to be viewed in conjunction with Luke's character arc?

Glad you agree that ROTJ and the OT in general 'made sense on it's own terms' just fine years before the PT got made. Thrawn and Arawn_Fenn were not discussing 'pre-production' stages but what was the intent with the back-story back when the original films were released.

Nice straw-man, but not at all what Thrawn was saying.

 

I'm not putting words in anyone's mouth, you've misinterpreted my words, which is understandable since you seem to live a completely different universe than I do. I'm still flabbergasted at why one would refer to old and outdated quotes to discredit the most recent product, which does indeed make sense on its own terms. That's what I'm getting at. I couldn't give half a crap about what we all (you, me, Lucas) thought made sense and was correct a long time ago. What relevance does that have to the later editions? The new OT may work differently than the old OT, but it DOES WORK!

Also, it very much has to do with the 'topic at hand', as the original focus of the SW saga has a bearing on what the intended view of Anakin in relation to Luke and the whole saga was back in the day, and this has bearing on the original intention vis-a-vis Anakin's age/Force Ghost. It's the question of: was Anakin's 'redemption' totally self-referential/a means to it's own end or was it something that gave meaning to/meant to be viewed in conjunction with Luke's character arc?

I've been trying for years to understand where the heck you're coming from, and all I continue to get is that "Original Intent inherently trumps anything that comes afterwords, because I prefer the original." Or if any contradiction in an artists' decision-making over years constitutes a lie. I'm begging you to explain what your thing is, if it isn't that you simply don't LIKE what Lucas has done! Is it brand inconsistency, hrmmm, maybe different terms could be used... flipping and flopping on the details of a fictional story? What specifically is bothering you? Your point continues to escape me.

 

I don't really care about what Lucas said 20 years ago or even 20 minutes ago. The man changes his mind every 5 seconds, so a little inconsistency is to be expected. As much as it pains me to say it, since we're often at odds, I actually agree with HD. *shudder* The Hayden force ghost does make some strange sense in the larger context of the saga, if you're willing to buy into the notion that Anakin "died" on the Mustafar sand bank, his "humanity" replaced by machinery, which takes the form of an ambulatory life-support system (hang whatever dumb metaphors you want onto that one). However, the digital imposition of Hayden's head onto the Anakin force ghost at the end of ROTJ is poorly executed and incredibly distracting. I think it's stupid. The film should have been left unaltered...and I say this as someone who thinks Jedi is a junky piece of filmmaking. (No offense to those who like it; film has its moments, but those are few and far between...for me, at least)

 

Double post. Sorry.

 

I've debated with myself for a while now on whether I should wade into this quagmire of a topic and voice my thoughts, and I've decided to just go ahead and get it over with: I personally prefer Hayden over Shaw. There, I said it. Now before you older lot of fans go and burn me at the stake like the heretic that I am, allow me to explain WHY I prefer the Hayden change. The reason it two fold:

Reason 1) For better or worst Hayden is who I think of when I think of Anakin Skywalker, at least in terms of physical appearance(voice wise he'll always be Matt Lanter in my head, even as child Anakin, especially as child Anakin ), not Shaw. 2) I never grew up on the OT, or the ROTJ ending and had no idea who this Shaw person even was until I saw this thread. And to be quite frank, I don't really care if Shaw was originally Anakin or not, he's no Anakin Skywalker to me. As far as my self centered view point cares he's just some fat blading guy I meet at the end of ROTJ at the last 10 or so minutes and nothing more. On a final note for those that argue that the effect is poorly done or what have you, that's a fair and valid criticism and I won't deny it.

However, even with that taken into account my thoughts remain the same regardless: I prefer the change as it makes more sense from mine (and apparently GL's) point of view for Hayden to be there at the end in place of this Shaw person. So with all that said (ignorant, simplistic, and self centered as it was), peace out.

 

This discussion is utter nonsense. There is no logical reason that Hayden as the ghost doesn't make sense. It would be perfectly fine to leave it as Shaw, it would be perfectly fine to change to Hayden. There is logic supporting both choices, but there is certainly no logic that says one CANT be done.

One other thing. Ive seen a few people suggest that this decision is based on Brand Continuity and that it is a money decision. That is ridiculous. You only make that conclusion because you can't think of any other reason. That is tried and true typical Lucas Bashing. The addition of Hayden is a very powerful one. Its much more compelling to see him show up there. To anyone who respects the PT and what it means.

When I was a kid, I used to watch Jedi on TV. I didn't even know, or I guess remember since I did see it in the theater, that Anakin even did appear there. The early pan and scan version I saw certainly didn't Pan it just showed Obi and Yoda. Years later I started to see it on TV where it added the Pan. Started on Yoda and Obi and panned over as the Shaw ghost was coming in.

 

I respect the PT and I think putting Hayden into a 25 year old movie is hilarious and goofy. I mean...look at it.