CT The old ghost anakin, hair? No Scares?

This definition/"equation" - turned to the dark side = "metaphorically dead" - is never given/made in OT films (neither is "turning" to the dark side, I might add). And the sense that they were wrong to think he was even 'metaphorically' dead are two-fold:

1. in the PT: pre-suited 'Vader' was practically identical character-wise with the pre-turn Anakin who slaughtered Tuskens and murdered Dooku.
2. in the OT: Vader's 'confict' (from the end of ESB through the end of ROTJ) showed that Anakin was still alive (not just 'physically' speaking).

added note: and only Ben calls Anakin "dead"...Yoda, both OT and PT, says that he was "consumed" by the dark side/Vader.

However, if "irredeemable" practically means the same thing to the two Jedi as "metaphorically dead", then I don't see how you'd be able to split-hairs* between the two.

* i.e. they were 'right' that he was 'metaphorically dead' but 'wrong' that he was 'irredeemable'.

Speaking of 'redemption', and your claim that "redeemed" in SW means "return to the light side", keep in mind that no such thing is described in the OT either. There's talk about bringing Vader/Anakin "back to the good side", but nothing about 'light side (of the Force)'. So you'd still have to define what is meant by 'redeemed'.





TOSCHISTATION posted: "Unfortunately, the "luminous beings" aspect invalidates* the "midichlorian/Vader=half of Anakin's pre-fall Force potential" theory.

*and, using the "luminous beings" aspect only in conjunction with force-ghosting - but nothing else - just underscores that fact."

I think Lucas' "suited-Vader-had-X-percentage-of-the-Force-potential-that-Anakin-originally-had" comment gave some the impression that he/Vader had lost some of his midi's (midi's being a physical aspect, and all).

Oh, I quite agree. The option is to 'dump' the "half-potential" Vader/Anakin theory , not the 'luminous beings' aspect (which came first). Besides, D & D game 'stats' have no place in Star Wars.

 

The change isn't saying that Anakin isn't good again, nor that he hasn't redeemed himself to Luke and to the Jedi. It just means that this is who he was, when he turned to Vader. It's his physical appearance. His true self. That's why Obi-wan and Yoda remain as they were, because that's who they were when they died. Anakin, having had a damaged body, would be restored to what he was before his injuries. And since he's completely whole, without his scars, it's the man that he was when Obi-wan and Yoda last knew him. The lack of scars shows that the sins of his youth are gone. The scars from his duels with Dooku, Ventress, Obi-wan and Galen are in essence the scars of his evil self. "The Legacy Revealed" documentary referred to it as being like the Mark of Cain.

 

Actually, it was, but I know you interpret the relevant passage differently.

Call it seduced, consumed, whatever. The concept is still there.

But if it doesn't, then you can differentiate between the two.

The good side is the light side. If not, you end up with at least three sides ( dark, light, and good ), but Lucas said there were two sides, not three. In any event, I'm still using "redeemed" to mean what happens to Anakin in ROTJ, so that under this terminology it does not make sense to say that he was not redeemed. I do not see this "redemption" as involving absolution of sin, for example.

As Obi-Wan's Wet and Wild Kamino Adventure demonstrated, impressions are not always accurate. Lucas said nothing about midichlorians in his quotes on the subject, though some seem to imagine that he did, and since midichlorian count is determined by a blood test we know that loss of limbs would not affect the result due to the fact that the count would remain the same in any remaining cells.

Certainly it can be argued that something not expressed in the films would theoretically have lesser standing than something presented within the content of the films. But this would only be a relevant consideration in the case of an actual contradiction between the two sources, and I don't necessarily see that here. There's no pressing reason to "dump" any of it. The core of the idea behind Vader's supposedly lost potential is really nothing new at all, being an expression of Vader's apparent expendability in the eyes of Palpatine in ROTJ. It is also important to realize that potential and actualized power are two different things.

That's true. However, SW RPG stats might be a different story ( but I don't know what they say on this subject ).

 

Replacing Shaw with Christensen is just wrong, and it disrespects Shaw, too.

 

Vader wasn't expendable. Palps gave him the position of "supreme commander of the imperial forces" and the power to waste Star Destroyers with impunity. Such a man is not expendable, especially during war. Palpatines hand was forced in removing Vader.

TESB: Palpatine didn't even want Luke. He initially wanted him dead. Only when Vader insisted and proved he wouldn't let the issue go, did he agree to turn the young Skywalker. That's possibly also the point when he guessed that Vader was plotting against him. Sith paranoia and all.

ROTJ: The obvious consequences of what I just wrote above. Betrayal leads to betrayal.

 

To me it's simple, in the ''original'' version the older Anakin ghost (play by Sebastian Shaw) appear and show what Anakin Skywalker grown up would look like if he never turned to the dark side. His ghost in the Force represent his redemption and his life free of the dark side.

In the other hand, in the recent version, the younger Anakin ghost (play by Hayden Christensen) appear and show what Anakin look like before he turn to the dark side. So, to me it represent he is free from the dark side and his ghost in the Force is the young boy he was at the moment the dark side start consume him.

I think both version have their meanings and a good explanation to each scene that we saw in different versions of the film. After that, it's up to the fans to decide whether they like it or not.

 

Welll, I would argue that his true self was his aged self, not his many years younger self. The body under the suit is still Anakin, years later, EVEN if the scars were magically gone.

That would make sense IF that scene were clearly intended to be from Obi-Wan's and/or Yoda's POV. It's not, however.

I must admit I did read a good reason somewhere recently why Anakin should show up as a younger Anakin; wish I could remember it.

 

If you have a turned Luke, you have a better Vader.

 

Luke has a lot of strengths, but being a strategist isn't one of them. Palpatine needs more than a dog to send on killing missions. He needs someone who can help him rule an empire. That includes organisational skills, logistics, and so on.

 

Palpatine can do the strategizing himself while Luke is learning. Luke has original Anakin's potential.

 

In the force, yes. His charakter isn't suited to leading a tyrannical empire however. Could you imagine a dark Luke between all the powerhungry Moffs and Admiral? The empire is a snake nest and if you are not capable of out-gambitting them, you are dead meat. Luke is simply not suited for imperial duty. His personality is wrong, and he doesn't have the right kind of intelligence for the job (not saying Luke is dumb, but strategy requires a special mind).

Luke is no use for Palpatine if he is hiding behind his skirt forever.

 

What in the OT demonstrates that Luke is weak at strategy or does not have the right kind of intelligence?

Luke was made "supreme commander" in DE just like Vader before him.

 

His bad plan in ROTJ to free Han. His walking straight into a trap in TESB without any preparation whatsoever. His blind trust in people he barely knows (Obi-Wan and Yoda). Attacking a Death Star when he has never ever flewn a starship in combat before. Participating in the Endor mission when he knows that Vader can feel him with the force. Throwing away his only means of defense (his lightsaber) in a melodramatic gesture on the second death star, just to be almost killed by force lightning.

Really, one of the main reasons he survived all that was luck - or the force. He shows naiveté and an ineptitude for foreplanning, both of which would be fatal flaws in the empire. While most of his strengths - his ability to make friends, his fighting prowess, his flying abilities and his compassion or morality wouldn't be very beneficial in the empire.

I never read Dark Empire and I don't plan on doing it.

 

Which worked.

Neither of which compare particularly unfavorably to the decision-making and trust issues demonstrated by Anakin in the PT. At least Obi-Wan and Yoda are MOSTLY trustworthy *cough*unlikeChancellorPalpatine*cough*.

Which worked. And actually let Luke show surprising command prowess.

He was also the one who came up with the tow cable strategy on Hoth.

The whole point of throwing away the lightsaber was to reject becoming that Imperial sort of person, so it makes perfect sense.

 

Was still a really, really bad plan. Anyone could've died in that masterpiece of a mission. The plot was with him, however.

Who cares what Anakin did? It is irrelevant for the discussion here. Anakin =! Vader. Anakin pretty much died during Mustafar, he was broken, and only the tiniest shreds of his former self survived.

Palpatine could break Luke, but he couldn't be sure that Luke would develop the same way Anakin did. From utter insanity to suicide everything could happen.

I didn't see anything exceptional here. What orders did he give that showed his "surprising command prowess"? He was a good shot, yes, but that was about it.

True, that was a clever idea. But a couple clever ideas do not a good commander make. They are only part of the skillset you need.

Exactly! He doesn't have the mindset of an imperial. Not the pragmatism, not the ruthlessness, too much sentimentality and hope.

 

Dark Luke would have had the necessary mindset.

 

Okay. And you know that ... because?

 

Palpatine couldn't be sure of that with Anakin either.

Anakin's story is entirely relevant, because your whole argument is coming across as, "Pre-dark-side Luke isn't mastermindy enough to be a good Sith". It hinges on the assumption that the way someone is pre-Sith indicates how they will be as a Sith. Anakin is a clear example of this not being the case, as he's even LESS mastermindy than Luke.

Yes, Anakin was broken and transformed, but where do you get the notion that the turn wouldn't be similarly transformative for Luke? An identity shift is rather implied by the very notion of being taken over by the dark side - if you could use the dark side without losing yourself, would it be such a dreaded fate?

 

Actually Anakin has quite a few promising traits.
His tendency to hide some emotions, which could be encouraged.
A very strong desire for power and control caused by the slave upbringing.
Ruthlessness.
Cunning in battle.
Selfishness.

His big flaw is his lack of control when it comes to his own emotions, but that could be learned. Luke however lacks almost everything that is important for being a Sith and the leader in a dictatorship.

Losing yourself means becoming insane, and insanity is unpredictable. Luke might turn into an uncontrollable psycho that kills at random, or he might off himself or maybe he isn't interested in power and turns into a pure hedonist only interested in whores and drugs. Who knows? Who can assure that it will result in specifically the "right" kind of insanity Palpatine requires?

Also note that Sidious never broke Anakin on purpose. He couldn't know how the Mustafar duel will turn out.

 

And that is precisely what saved Luke from suffering the same fate as Anakin did.

That didn't stop Sidious from trying to rescue Vader.

Anyway, I doubt that Luke would be able to lose himself since he has seen what the Dark Side has done to his father which is, again, why Luke saved himself from being corrupted by the Dark Side. He had the common sense that Anakin didn't have to refuse this power.

 

Well, the "interpretation" here for me is the difference that I perceive when someone is said to have been "seduced by the D.S." vs. "so-and-so has turned to the dark side"....the first implies a 'process', the second implies a single, concrete event.

Not quite. See above.

Then again, that's IF one can show that they mean the same thing objectively speaking , beyond the biased view of two particular Jedi with certain 'axes to grind'.

No need to go that far. A lack of mention of the "light" side of the Force (to correspond with the actually mentioned "dark" side) doesn't automatically correlate with there being "three sides" to the Force, and I don't imagine that you really thought that that's what I was claiming. Yes there were two sides. My point was that the non-dark side element was never referred to as the "light" side in the OT.

Your interpretation doesn't see it that way, but some people do see it as 'absolution' or at least forgiveness. But there are nuances. After all, there were some who believed that while Vader/Anakin could be 'forgiven' (albeit only by Luke, Leia, and others that he wronged), he wasn't redeemable, or at least not a candidate for becoming a Force ghost like the two other Jedi.

Or, more likely, this 'theme' or sub-plot was a matter of Lucas yet again 'raising the stakes' of the plot, rather than Lucas following some pre-determined plot 'blue-print' concerning Vader's "potentiality" vis-a-vis the Force.

Exactly, which means that any talk of potentially "weak" Vader in the OT is irrelevant given the "actual" power that he has in those films.

 

The light side was mentioned, just called by a different name. Thus, constant mention of the lack of the term "light side" is totally irrelevant.

Which is a useless point if you concede that there are two sides. It doesn't matter that the light side is referred to as "the good side" or "the non-dark side element" or whatever else you want to call it. Putting things into historical context, the non-appearance of the term "light side" was never interpreted as anything other than a nomenclature issue in the OT era ( "light side" doesn't sound quite right due to the fact that the term "light" can also mean "not heavy" or even "low in calories" as opposed to its optical connotation of "not dark" ). It was never interpreted to mean "there is no light side" until the post-Traitor era of agenda-driven revisionism.

Good for them, but the films never said that. So when some people get frustrated by the supposed absolution of Anakin's sin, they're getting frustrated by their own projections onto the film as opposed to the actual content of the story.

Given that Anakin is standing there as a Force ghost at the end, that position would seem to be outright contradicted by the film itself. Thus the seemingly unthinkable - that the basis for becoming a Force ghost is not actually dependent upon audience approval or moral bean-counting, as confirmed in the PT - was already there rearing its ugly head in the OT.

How do you know which is "more likely"? This wouldn't be the setup for another bogus appeal to "Occam's Razor", would it?

Not if Luke's greater potential means that he has the potential to eventually reach a greater level of actualized power. ( And replace "potentially weak" with "weakened in potential". )

 

Most of us agree Anakin came back to throw the Emperor down the shaft. Therefore, when Anakin died, for real, or most recently, it was as the pasty-skinned quadruple amputee.

 

The relevance has to do with you making an argument concerning the OT by means of terminology/nomenclature that is almost exclusively from the PT

As for the whole "Traitor era of agenda-driven revisionism"....I have no idea what you're talking about (probably a good thing that I don't read the EU).

I didn't say that it wasn't on-screen, only that an argument could be made against it on moral grounds.

Yes, as 'closure' for Luke's character arc, but if he's "gotta ghost", let him appear as the guy who did the right thing in the end and realized that he was wrong all those years. Such a scenario is not quite consonant with the PT/SE's.

Appealing to Occam's Razor makes more logical sense than bringing extraneous elements into the film/story/plot (i.e. Vader's "diminished power/Force potential").

 

Complete nonsense. Where was the light side nomenclature used in the PT? The good side is OT nomenclature, not PT nomenclature. I never referred to any nomenclature specific to the PT.

An argument which is fundamentally worthless due to being blatantly contradicted on screen ( in either version, Hayden or Original Recipe Shaw ) and because it only argues against its own debunked speculation that Force-ghosting is determined by moral bean-counting.

Appearance isn't everything, and the SEs have nothing to do with it.

Not if it's a bogus "appeal" in which "more likely" is actually a camouflaged appeal to personal preference with no actual proven increase in likelihood.

Not as extraneous as you think. There is evidence in the OT itself that Vader is not all he could be in an optimal situation.