Saga The NEW official Hayden vs Shaw thread

That you think such way is fine, of course, but in that case you have nothing to offer the discussion. You cannot reasonably reject the premise(s) of the discussion while expecting your opinion to be relevant to the discussion of it/them.

Or..I make that conclusion because it seems obvious that a business - which LFL is - would take this approach.

That is 'tried and true' get-out-of-jail-free-pass: play the "You're bashing Lucas!!!" card.

So...'respecting the PT' becomes paramount, over the saga working coherently as a whole???

 

You gotta work with what you have, not what you would have preferred.

 

So...all we have 'left' is the PT?

(though with the continued shoe-horning of PT elements into the OT, you may have a point....)

The aim isn't to 'discredit' the most recent product, but to put the newer products in perspective or context.

As for it (the "newest product"/complete saga*) making "sense on it's own terms", it does so via a process called 'harmonization'.

*the Blue-Rays

See above. To put it another way, the above approach eliminates the anachronistic tendencies of the harmonization 'approach'.

Don't get me wrong: there's some 'harmonizing' going on with the OT alone. In the visual department (for starters), we're supposed to believe that the Star Destroyers from TESB and ROTJ are the same vehicles/ships/'models' as the obviously faster and smaller ones from Star Wars/ANH. In the story dept., you've got the political situation** of the first film - which to me implies a more 'limited' Empire - vs. the one in the next film, ESB (where we're supposed to believe that the Empire continued on despite having put all their 'eggs in one basket' so to speak with the Death Star in the previous film).

So, it's not about what I "like" or "dislike", or "preference" as you put it; rather, it's just about perspective and knowing the backgrounds to these things.

**zombie makes a great case for this, imo


Back to the Hayden/Shaw discussion:

That's the 'clincher' on what makes better sense to me there, imo.

 

Either I'm misinterpreting you, or you seem to be confused. Your approach HIGHLIGHTS the anachronisms. You point them out! Why? For fun? Spoiling the fun of Saga-enthusiasts is your hobby?

The Saga Forum was intended to be a place for discussion of the six part series as a whole. See this thread: http://boards.theforce.net/star_wars_saga/b10456/31568903/p1/?290

If you grew up without the PT, you understandably had trouble connecting the two trilogies in your mind at first. This forum is here to help you do just that. Unfortunately for people who want to see the cohesive story, posts like yours inhibit new ways of understanding, and end up undermining the very point of the SAGA FORUM.

Its pretty ironic that when we already have segregated forums (The "Classic Trilogy" vs. "that other trilogy"), the only forum whose title acknowledges the series as a whole is full of people who not only want to separate the trilogies in their minds, but all six movies! It's just so counterproductive. Hopefully one day people will be more willing to see the Complete Saga.

 

To me, the 'saga' includes the whole process of development and production behind the final products/most recent versions. It's not just the content of the movies as they've most recently been edited - though, even if it was, you'd still end up with glimmers of previous, aborted and/or modified ideas, like the Other, or the Empire as mentioned by TS. For some people, the only interesting thing is the content as depicted and re-emphasized in the latest edits. But I'm interested in a lot more than that, and as (1) there's no "preproduction/development/script/making-of/whatever" forum here and (2) some of the aborted elements directly affect how some people relate to the current version of the Saga, I think it's pretty appropriate to have this type of discussion here.

 

^^^ This.


I'd say also that the closest approximation to a "preproduction/development/script/making-of/whatever" forum/thread here would be the "Reconstructing Back-Stories" thread.

 

So, it may be detrimental to the purpose of the forum but it won't fit anywhere else.

I can think of one place it would make much more sense. OT.com

 

(a) Gee, 'thanks' for the "love it or leave it." Ugh.

And btw this type of discussion is occasionally found on OT.com as well, but thread like the Secret History and Reconstructing the Backstories on here have so far actually generated more interesting and relevant discussions to what I'm interested in.

(b) I don't think it's detrimental to this forum at all, I think it belongs here. Not to say that views of the now-harmonized Saga don't, but that there is room here for multiple lines of thought.

 

Just to throw my two cents out there again (it's been too long): Anakin's young appearance is his residual self-image, as Morpheus would put it. He subconsciously maintains the physical appearance that he's accustomed to projecting (Yes, I'm paraphrasing Wikipedia).

Simply put, he appears the way he subconsciously views himself.
GL's explanation that Anakin retains his identity the way it was when he died as Anakin Skywalker also happens to be applicable to this. Anakin would probably feel as though he has destroyed Darth Vader and returned from the dead. He no longer feels like that wreck of a man that was Vader; He is Anakin Skywalker once again - and how does he remember the man known as Anakin Skywalker? That's right - as a young man who apparently wears a new set of robes and who's body bears no traces of battle. His memory just doesn't bother with such trivial details. It's the body itself that's important.

Anakin's ghost looks the way it does because his subconscious self-image makes it so.
That's my take on it.
...and it applies to the Shaw ghost as well





That new robe smell is... intoxicating
/LM

 

"bump skiddi-dee, bump skidd-dee, bump skiddi-dee, BUMP!!!!"

 

Shaw all the way

I'll post (or copy and paste rather) all my reasons, when I have more time.

 

It's back.....

 

100 percent on the button correct. Just like the Matrox, some people think of the afterlife in this way. That they will see the "true" version of their loved ones. Even if someone has only seen the original trilogy, they know Anakin's life and body has been twisted for a good 30-40 years. Knocking those years off makes perfect sense, and the image of a younger man (the "father" who "was killed"), is self-explanatory.

 

why would Anakin want to revert to the guy who'd already commited murder when he slaughtered Tuskens and a guy who was never truly happy with himself?


and as an interesting idea that the matrix is I fail to see how Star Wars and Matrix are somehow compatible,

 

1. He was flawed, yes, but not a Sith. And he doesn't really revert to his actual young self, just the appearance. You're taking this a bit too literally.

2. Well, that's... sad. Especially since Neo is an obvious Force-user. At first the Matrix controls his actions, literally sticking him in a box (or cell), but by the end of the movie he controls the Matrix. The Matrix = a prison for your mind. It's the same thing in THX 1138, American Graffiti, and Star Wars. If you don't understand the prison aspect of Star Wars, I'll explain it in a new thread.

But I guess that's beside the point anyway, the concept of the projected "true self" comes from the real world. Remember poor Star Wars kid? That's definitely not what he looked like in his head.

 

*blink*

I've no interested in debating if Neo is a force user or not, or whether THX1138 and American Graffiti are somehow spin offs to star wars or whatever you implied. Greek and Slavic Mythology have common themes, they aren';t the same mythology,

I don't need to understand "prison aspects" either

I watch star wars as entertainment for all ages, not a course in psychology,

and I was saying I personally wouldn't want to revert back to "an appearance" where I was unhappy but each to his own

 

... OK then. Hayden is the better Anakin cuz he used a blue lightsaber, and not a red one.

 

I see what you did there

 

This would fall more into the category of designing ANH as a self-contained film in case there were no sequels. We know there's a big Imperial starfleet out there just from ANH alone. Destroying the DS didn't get rid of the fleet, or any bases they might have had.

 

Point conceded.

 

I don't disagree with you, but if we're to believe Han, the power of the DS's superlaser would be greater than that of the star fleet. And Han then says "it'd take 1000 ships" to destroy Alderaan so maybe the fleet is less than 1000 ships? Obviously he wasn't giving a scientific analysis of what happened, or the average firepower of a star destroyer, but still...

In any case, the DS would still represent a huge investment of the Empire's resources and power according to ANH, no? In the later films, it's unclear how much treasure, blood, and authority the Empire sunk into the DS, I think. I still think you have a point, but this particular issue might be a little muddled.

 

It's not about what he wants. It's about how he subconsciously pictures/remembers himself. He could be picturing himself as Shaw, but the official word is that he's picturing himself as Christensen. That's my interpretation.
From a filmmaking perspective, it also makes perfect sense to go with the Christensen ghost, as it ties in nicely with the PT and should serve as an especially emotional farewell for kids who experience the Saga I-VI.





Shaw - he's possible
/LM

 

See when I read this statement:

why would Anakin want to revert to the guy who'd already commited murder when he slaughtered Tuskens and a guy who was never truly happy with himself?

I don't really understand what it's getting at: no matter which version of Anakin is shown, they have all committed murder and were nt happy with themselves, regretting things they had done. Do you think Anakin at age 45 was truly happy with himself when his dialogue with Luke indicates the opposite?



For my part, I prefer Christensen for several reasons (most of them highly subjective) but I still like Shaw:

1. I'm more attached to the image of Christensen as Anakin than a healed Shaw (who only really appears during the Force ghost scene)
2. I think that Christensen's age coincides better with Anakin's insult to Obi-Wan in ANH of being an "old man"
3. Like others have noted, I imagine that Christensen's image is how Anakin views himself -- he hasn't seen his own face since before he was burned, and thus I think that when he imagines "Anakin Skywalker' it is Christensen whom he pictures. I imagine that when he thinks of "Darth Vader" he thinks of his mask's appearance and has no particular feelings towards Shaw whom he has likely never viewed.
4. I like the idea that Anakin Skywalker was "trapped" within Darth Vader. That when we see him entombed within the mask in ROTS, that we likewise see him freed by his son in ROTJ
5. I know some have a preference for Shaw because he gives a more "fatherly" feel to the scene than Christensen. For my part, I don't think that Christensen presence really reduces the fatherly aspect -- he is still identifiably Luke's father. But I do prefer his presence because instead of "fatherly pride" that Shaw exudes, I think Christensen comes across as more abashed and grateful to his loving son. I've always felt it odd that Anakin would feel pride in Luke -- he hasn't been much of a father to him and so I don't really think he has any right to be "proud" of him in a fatherly sense.

 

I prefer the younger force spirit because I actually appreciate a note of dissonance to Luke viewing his father. The dear old dad Shaw version is a bit too sentimental for my tastes.