CT What is wrong with Hayden as Anakin in the end scene of Return of the Jedi

I think a good thing to do might have been to have Anakin's Force Ghost originally appear as Sebastian Shaw (so Luke would recognize him), and then do some shimmery thing and become Hayden Christiansen. (His true self)

 

Doesn't seem like you understand how to respond to subjectivity.

If you'd like to know how he looks smug to me, then I'd describe it as someone expressing self-satisfaction at the way they appear. As if they are trying on new clothes for the first time. And guess what?

Yes. You need to process all that before you can reach the assumption that this total stranger that's appeared is Luke's father. Rather than just recognising it as the man we just saw die, played by the same actor. The two things are not the same.

And you're calling me twisted?

Our point of reference is it's the same actor. We are never told how it's possible that Yoda or Ben are ghosts so why would that be a factor in appreciating Anakin's appearance as it did in the original.

That's a very good question. Why don't we throw it out there? Hey guys/gals, why don't we ever complain about things we like?

You clearly are because you've also sailed right past the example I gave - Ian McDairmid. But he was introduced in ROTJ and came back to portray the Emperor's backstory. In the Hayden force ghost, Luacs used a screen test of someone idly admiring their costume to insert a tangible connection from the PT into the OT, and made up some gobbledygook about how it should have ever been thus etc.

No. The context of Luke seeing his father unmasked for the first time, then reappearing in ghost form and played by the same actor is still there. That context is not gone.

Exactly. What's your point?

In other words, storywise, everything is more or less made up as Lucas went along from about 1976 onwards.

And which changed over and over again. And revised again once technology was developed that allowed him to. Not because they needed to be changed.

What are you talking about? Lucas didn't go and physically alter Star Wars (1977) in the wake of The Empire Strikes Back because he had some better ideas than he had before making the first movie.

The problem isn't with the story. The problem is that the changing story did not require ANY movie to be materially altered in order to support the evolving story. The prevailing cliche of if it aint broke don't fix it applies here. Now some people believe the story somehow gets some enhancement from Hayden's appearance, for them.

Others see it as a pointless exercise. That it does nothing to enhance the storytelling except in tangibly connecting this movie with a movie made twenty years later.

At best it belatedly introduces the idea that being a force ghost means reclaiming one's identity, not just retaining it as Yoda and Ben appeared to have achieved. And in Anakin's case that means reclaiming their youuthful appearance before the turned to the darkside. Which then puts his appearance after he turned back to the light but before his physical form "died" in some sort of limbo.

Maybe it means that Anakin/Vader actually had three identities Anakin - Vader - Post Vader Anakin. Post Vader Anakin is the only one that Luke actually got to meet while he was still alive but gets

Also, Luke's reaction in ROTJ is not appropriate for someone he has never seen before. His reaction was one of he knew this would happen. Which makes sense in the original since the man we see standing next to Yoda is the one we just saw die. The actual man, only rehabilitated somewhat. How would Luke know already that his father's appearance would revert to that that of a man his own age. (Sigmund Freud and Slavoj Zizek would have a field day with this.)

 

Edit: Maybe it means that Anakin/Vader actually had three identities Anakin - Vader - Post Vader Anakin. Post Vader Anakin is the only one that Luke actually got to meet while he was still alive but gets tossed into some state of limbo in favour of the youthful looking identity.

 

Vader is a persona Anakin created to deal with the guilt and the pain, but despite the apparent self-hatred we know Anakin is still there deep inside hence the "good in him". I don't think he has ever been 100% darkside, even at his lowest.

 

What you need to understand is that you are trying to debate rationally with someone, (some believe a parody account), whos starting points are that Lucas has done no wrong, the prequels are the best thing ever and every decision made in the PT and the OT revisions to tie in with the PT were the right thing to do. MOD EDIT: Language Deleted. Stop debasing other people's opinion. Disagreeing is fine, ridiculing is not.


For what its worth if they were going to sneak Hayden into the final scene of Jedi then I don't why they didn't try and reshoot the Vader unmasking scene to include a damaged Hayden as Anakin, like they did in RO.

 

Nothing wrong there at all. Of all the changes to the OT this is one that actually makes some sense. It became necessary for the sake of CONTINUITY. There never was a Jedi that looked like Shaw. Shaw's face was the result of a Sith spending years under a mask and confined to a suit. He is not the real Anakin Skywalker he used to be. That was Hayden, like the prequels or not. So it makes perfect sense we see young "good Anakin" (whom ONLY Hayden ever played) appear as Force ghost. In a saga spanning that many years (not just story-wise but from a film-making perspective), some changes HAD to be made to make the whole saga fit together with a minimum of contradictions. If that means replacing Force ghost Shaw with Christensen then so be it.

 

This ridiculous notion of the change being "necessary" is flat out false. Always has been. Always will be.

 

Why does the OT even need to change to better fit the PT? And where in the PT is it stated that a Jedi who falls to the dark side and is then redeemed will appear as a young ghost when they die?

 

It was to the storyteller. The same storyteller that decided that the aged hero Anakin Skywalker and young villain Darth Vader should be one and the same.

So when the ridiculous notion of it being "necessary" for the one to become the other was done I can only think that you are against the aged contemporary of Obi-Wan being de-aged decades to become his student.

So the real problem with is Empire. The change is the outgrowth of Empire and to reflect the actual story of Anakin Skywalker.

So the same methodology that was used in both cases is only problematic if you like the one but not the other.

The OT and PT are the story created by George Lucas. He was always changing the story. He changed it during ANH after and in TESB and then again in ROTJ. The story was always in flux and that continued on with TPM, AOTC and ROTS.

The constant was change. Lucas is not limited to changes between releases but after and even during release. He did it over and over again. He's telling the story but adjusts as he needs to all along the way.

Where is it stated in the OT that a Jedi who falls to the dark side and is then redeemed will appear as an decades older ghost when they die?

It is stated that Vader was Obi-Wan's young pupil not an older one.

Well he did actually as it became Episode IV A New Hope but this is the crux of the problem for you. Lucas did alter the entire story but for some reason you are fixated on visual changes as opposed to the actual story changes.

It absolutely is the "problem" In the case of ROTJ having a redeemed spirit Anakin who clearly is totally wrong for Anakin makes no sense at all for the story anymore than having the first TESB Sidious makes any sense. Those both needed to be changed due to the story.

The storyteller disagrees and it's his story not ours. He changed TPM and AOTC as well and before release he made massive changes in ROTS from what he first shot. That is what he does.

The storyteller believed it to be broke and fixed it. That's his decision.

Seeing Anakin is kind of important.

Again they are tangibly connected by thousands of things.

It was clearly different from what they did in the first place and Lucas always knew.

He already had a different appearance in the first place. Why do people try and make things that are clearly different the same? Obi-Wan and Yoda's appearances were based on their last physical bodies which they took into the Force. Anakin's physical body did not go into the Force.

Luke clearly knows that the young man is his father. Nothing has changed. Why are you arguing against Luke who knows of the good in him and then sees it in spirit form?

 

The difference being that Lucas didn't go back and change Obi-Wan's conversation with Luke about Anakin after ESB revealed Anakin and Vader were the same person.

Decades older ghost? The Anakin in the armor is the same age as the original Anakin ghost. It's almost like they are the same actor or something! You also failed to answer my question. Again, where in the PT does it say that a fallen Jedi who comes back to the light will appear as a force ghost in the form they were before they fell?

Obi-Wan also stated that Vader killed Luke's father. Just sayin'.

 

Hmm, if I'm not mistake, Obi Wan only said he was a pupil of mine in the original SW. Not a young pupil.

 

He did say he was "a young Jedi named Darth Vader".

 

Whats wrong with it? simple answer... its not the original.

As for the idea of young anakin appearing as a force ghost... i think its creatively reasonable the ghost could be either old anakin or young anakin, i don't see much difference within ithe logic.

 

I saw ROTJ in theaters and I loved having Hayden appear at the end in the Special Edition. This is how he looked before he died. Made me sad. I also like how he looks down briefly, as if he is embarrassed or ashamed. Nice touch and again touching.

 

oh...

 

You mean in ANH? He did change that in ROTJ. Hence the "Certain point of view" which changes ANH.

Actually they are not. The Anakin in the armor is around mid-40's. The Shaw Ghost is at least contemporary to Obi-Wan who is almost a couple of decades older.

That makes even less sense when bringing the actor's age into it. Shaw was almost 80 and a decade older than Guiness. So now Obi-Wan's young Jedi pupil is older than he is!?!

You failed to answer my question "Where is it stated in the OT that a Jedi who falls to the dark side and is then redeemed will appear as an decades older ghost when they die?"

Again going by the movies we very clearly have different processes going on. Obi-Wan and Yoda are Jedi. There minds and bodies are in unison so when they join the Force the spirit image that Luke sees is concurrent with their last physical forms. Anakin is not a Jedi though he becomes one for the first time in decades for a few minutes. His mind and physical form are not in unison. When he joins the Force his body is left behind. The scarred, more machine than man Dark Side infested physical self that existed cannot join into the Force. The spirit that we see is and the form it takes is cleansed of the Dark Side and all physical injuries that he suffered.

When were these injuries suffered? Decades before. So the underlying premise that a spirit Anakin would be healed is apparently accepted but for some reason the premise that he would be fully healed and returned to a state before he went over to the Dark Side isn't. Instead the logic is that he would for some reason look not 20 odd years younger but should look 20 odd years older or maybe almost 40 if you go by the actor's age.

 

By died I meant when he ceased to become Anakin Skywalker as Obi Wan told Luke in Return of the Jedi.

 

That was Obi Wan's "certain point of view" line to explain why he avoided telling the truth about his father. But that wasn't the reality and Luke knew that. That's why he insisted that "there's still good in him". Padme said the same. And they were right. Anakin was ALWAYS there and he confirmed Luke's feeling by destroying the Emperor to save his son. Anakin died in front of Luke.

This attempt to convince people that he metaphorically "died" when he turned to justify a poorly executed change is just foolish and simply not reflected in the movies.

 

Sorry for the double post but I couldn't edit in time to add this.

Obi-Wan's line was also meant to emphasize that he had given up hope so that later he could be proven wrong - to show that the OPPOSITE was true. That's why he and Yoda wanted Luke to destroy Vader. But Luke wouldn't do it because he knew that Anakin was still there. And not only did Anakin confirm it by killing the Emperor, but he LITERALLY said it to Luke!

"You were right about me. Tell your sister, you were right!"

No amount of Lucas spin can change the fact that Anakin died in front of Luke on the death star. Physically, spiritually, metaphorically and any other way you can think of. Not on Mustafar. Shaw's ghost is just a better fit and more emotionally satisfying story-wise.

 

What you call a lazy attitude is a tradesign of the Star Wars enterprise to leave some gaps and loopholes to be filled later with other medias. Some people are happy about such explanations afterwards, others like you aren't. You will spot such omissions in every Star Wars films from TPM until TFA. That's just the way it is.

 

[quote="Sudooku, post: 54340480, member: 1383272"What you call a lazy attitude is a tradesign of the Star Wars enterprise to leave some gaps and loopholes to be filled later with other medias. Some people are happy about such explanations afterwards, others like you aren't. You will spot such omissions in every Star Wars films from TPM until TFA. That's just the way it is.[/quote]
That doesn't mean is necessarily a good thing that leaves potential holes in the films.

 

I see your point. Fair enough.

 

To be clear, I'm not putting down anyone who like HC's ghost. This is in response to George's justification for the change. He just doesn't pay attention to the details of his own material and his interviews directly contradict what happened on screen. Fans of the change are better off drawing their own conclusions rather than trying to defend his rationale for the change being "necessary".

 

It's all good my friend. You made me think about it differently.