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

Sacrificing your life for someone else is unquestionably the most selfless act you can do and that's not even debateable.

 

Differing degrees of selflessness depending on how close one is to the other person.

Sacrificing your life for your child, or your spouse, may be somewhat less selfless than doing so for a complete stranger.

 

It also saved the entire galaxy from the Emperor's rule, so he did both.

 

I'm not so sure about that. What he did was risk his life, not necessarily "sacrifice" it. After all there was no way he could be sure Sidious' Force lightning would kill him. Maybe it was the duel with Luke that mortally weakened him. We don't know the exact cause of death. Or maybe he thought after his defeat he wouldn't have long to live anyway, so another few hours wouldn't make a difference. Or maybe his main motive at that point was to get rid of Sidious, making him the new ruler, saving Luke being only secondary. Besides, Vader had risked his life many times before, choosing to fly a TIE fighter when he could have safely stayed on the DS (he didn't believe the Rebels could succeed), landing on Hoth in person when those stormtroopers would have done, etc. Had his TIE been shot down by the Rebels would anyone have regarded that as "sacrificing his life"? In that case of course for the Empire.

 

Vader knew that he could be killed by the lightning. He's part machine and all electronics are subject to shortening out when struck by lightning or a strong electrical charge. So he knew that saving Luke would kill him. He's willingly making a choice to save someone out of selfless desire, knowing full well it would end his life. He didn't dare challenge Palpatine before because he knew that he would just fry his suit and that'd be the end of it. So, yes, it is a sacrifice.

 

He did not know that it would kill him. He just didn't care enough about his own life at moment to just allow his son to certainly die without his intervention.

All soldiers know that they could die in the performance of their duty. That they could be sacrificed. Vader knew that he could die whenever he was in combat, in service of the Emperor.

But on the Death Star he acknowledged his duty as a father not to allow his child to be tortured to death.

 

He went up against Palpatine, and knew very well that he would get the brunt of the lightning. I'm pretty sure he knew that would be a death sentence.

 

Could be a death sentence.

How'd he know very well he'd get the brunt of the lightning by staying behind the Emperor at all times? Why go to the trouble if you know very well it's going to kill you regardless?

Anakin survived for hours on the banks of a river of lava, sucking in sulphuric gases etc before ever being put in a suit. Assuming for a moment that there are no surge preventing circuit breakers on Vader technological life preserver that could be reset, the chances of Vader receiving adequate treatment were as good as they were on Mustafar. Ergo you could call his attempted leap at Obi Wan, who warned him of the danger, a selfless one since he cared more about something than his own life at that moment.

 

True. I suppose fighting Obi-Wan he might not have thought about the consequences though. I would say with Palpatine, he did, and probably had more of an acceptance of them.

 

Anakin was not in a rational state of mind during the Mustafar duel, thinking only of destroying Obi Wan. He was still being selfish, fulfilling his own wish to cause harm. He was thinking more clearly on the second Death Star, and he chose to risk his own life for Luke. Even the line "nothing can stop that now" indicates that he expected death and didn't particularly want to be saved.

 

I agree. You even see Vader looking back and forth between Palpatine and Luke, and looking at his hand, he obviously knew what he was doing.

 

Because he no longer cared about his life, only about Luke's. He knew that he would be blasted because the only way he could kill him was to lift him up and take him to the reactor shaft. And that meant that Palpatine could get him, since his arms would position themselves to hit him. He knows that the lightning can be directed because he's been hit with it multiple times before being put in the suit, even being lifted up and thrown against a wall from it.

He knew that he was dying, which is why he tells Luke that nothing can stop it. He'd be dead before he'd get to the medical frigate. As to Mustafar, he wasn't there for hours. Palpatine arrived only a few minutes after Obi-wan left and was able to get into a medical capsule quickly. Leaping at Obi-wan is not a selfless act since he wasn't doing it to save someone, but to kill someone out of anger and hate. The selfless act would be to stop Obi-wan from killing someone else and doing so, knowing full well that he could be hurt or worse.

 

Maybe he thought it was the Cookie Monster

 

It's very possible.

 

He very well could have been on Mustafar for hours. The way the movie is edited, with a transition wipe in the final version, sure makes it seem like he was there a while. But the thing is that as a Sith, he could use his anger and his hatred to keep himself alive unnaturally, just as Maul did. But after his redemption, that's obviously not something Anakin is going to do. He's going to accept his natural death.

 

Yet in that moment he cried out emotionally, in desperation, Not rationally.

"Rationally" is a malleable term. An irrational person can "rationalise" just about anything they feel compelled to do just as likely as they can feel compelled to do something that they cannot rationalise.

Vader did not use the opportunity of Luke's torture to objectively reexamine his attitude toward the care and longevity of others and then deem it rational to prevent Luke's death in light of this new outlook on enemies or people in general. He may have rediscovered that virtue in the process, we don't know. But without the family connection, Vader has zero motivation to defy anything the Emperor does to Luke.

His son, whom he thought he'd be doing a favour by turning to the darkside and by extension helping the galaxy by helping him destroy the man who turned him, was being tortured to death. This was only being allowed up to a point by Vader because he had twenty years of being aligned ideologically with the Emperor's will to destroy opposition or potential opposition. But it's only when that ideology is being turned on the person Vader is so attached to that he wishes him to join the darkside that Vader is compelled to authentically express his fatherly love.

His paternal instinct is put to the ultimate test and parenthood wins. One aspect of parenthood is that a parent can care for the lives of their children more than they care for their own. He passes that test by taking on the Emperor himself, as a father arguably should.

I like this as a concept to describe someone's state of mind , and it's not difficult to see where Lucas took it from, but I just don't buy the idea that hate can sustain someone who should be dead, any more than I can buy that a person who, physically speaking, should live will die due to lack of willpower.

Dramatically speaking, whenever someone gives something up, while another person receives, is a good place in the story for the giver to die. But they are not prerequisite.

The inspiration for empowering hate comes from Ben-Hur, of course. Arrius tells Juda that hate can keep him alive. The truth is that as a galley slave he's supposed to work to death. What Arrius is alluding to is a promise of something other than galley slavery. This promise is to be rewarded for zeal. In other words, to live until you can leave hate behind. I won't spoil how that turns out in case you haven't seen Ben-Hur. But never is hate shown as the life giving be all and end all of existence. The only thing that hatred sustains is more hatred.

 

Darth Vader: "You don't know the power of the Dark Side! I must obey. Also, he's got this force lightning that totally makes you an uggo"

 

Movie time and hyperspace travel is always a funny thing. In ANH, the Falcon was underway to Alderaan and then arrives there within a five minute span, though Han makes out that it would take a couple of hours. And in TFA, the travel time between D'Qar and Ach To is even shorter. Which could even be the same here.

 

The thing that makes Shaw better isn't consistency with the prequels, it's that his Anakin is beaming with happiness and pride towards his children, whereas Hayden's Anakin is just there.

 

A facial expression can be interpreted in many different ways, especially when not in close-up and only on screen for 3 seconds. I see Hayden "beaming with happiness" just as well, though he does seem to have a slightly darker undertone, which isn't all that unfitting either IMO. There is absolutely no way we can ever come to an agreement objectively when trying to interpret an actor's facial expression in such a short scene. It will always be subjective. Both actors smile. But some viewers might find that Shaw looks "happy and proud", while Hayden looks "creepy" (which they never fail to point out), while others may have exactly the opposite impression. Who is right? All of them and none of them. Like much of anything else in movies, it's mostly a matter of personal preference. There are no absolute rights or wrongs.

 

The truth is that Hayden is admiring his costume fitting. It's a shot taken from some tests done prior to ROTS.

 

Which in itself of course is nothing unusual in the film-making process. How many countless cases are there of a shot or music ending up in a different place than originally intended? I haven't watched ROTJ in years, but honestly never noticed anything strange about that revised scene, other than the fact that the actor was replaced.

 

First rule of showbiz - If it works, leave it in.

But if in the context it winds up being placed it still looks like what it is, an actor looking at his threads and smiling sheepishly at the people checking him out, and a change to the ending of ROTJ was that important, then maybe a better shot than something that kind of works only on the level that we realise it's the same character is required.

 

[quote="Martoto77], post: 54405738, member: 1422548"
First rule of showbiz - If it works, leave it in.

But if in the context it winds up being placed it still looks like what it is, an actor looking at his threads and smiling sheepishly at the people checking him out, and a change to the ending of ROTJ was that important, then maybe a better shot than something that kind of works only on the level that we realise it's the same character is required.[/quote]

OK. I'll pay more attention next time I watch the movie. But it's nothing I would have noticed if it hadn't been pointed out. I never even watched any of the special editions on the big screen, not even on a flat screen TV. So I guess there are lots of things I missed.

 

OK. I'll pay more attention next time I watch the movie. But it's nothing I would have noticed if it hadn't been pointed out. I never even watched any of the special editions on the big screen, not even on a flat screen TV. So I guess there are lots of things I missed.