PT The reaction to the Rogue One Vader scene is exactly what Lucas wanted to avoid in ROTS

Just because he liked the movie doesn't mean he'll portray the character in the same way and we know Lucas's perception of Vader is quite different from some fans who see him more like just a badass character instead of a pathetic figure who still had good in him deep down. I didn't really have a problem with the scene since the movie wasn't about Vader, I was more interested by him having a castle on Mustafar and seeing him in such a vulnerable state was more than enough to show me this character is Anakin Skywalker.

 

I don't think his appearance was intended to show that it was Anakin. Its function was to show what the Alliance is up against on top of the Imperial fleet, and the newly built Death Star. The embodiment of the evil Empire. Opposing him is a far more intimate and terrifying proposition than any other combatant.

 

You can't do this anymore! Darth Downunder has created a new law. He said: "None of us should presume to speak for..." You're presuming to know the motivations of Edwards. That is now forbidden! Darth Downunder has spoken!

No, of course, I'm just joking. It's fine to make assumptions about what Lucas or Edwards or JJ was thinking. It's just wrong to say it's my interpretation or the high way, and things can get feisty when 2 knowledgeable people use different evidence to make their best guess about what Lucas would do.

Actually, I'm going to make a presumption about darklighter99. I don't think he meant that we were being shown the old Anakin Skywalker from the PT -- meaning that in R1 he was still the good person who was a Jedi. Rather, I think he meant he liked seeing a reminder that in that suit was a human being and a tragic figure (who was once Anakin). I don't think he meant that the good person Anakin was still in him at that point. But this is my best guess, and I could be wrong.

 

All I said was it's doubtful, unlikely, that his featuring in this movie was meant purely to convey the duality of Anakin Skywalker and Vader, if at all. Since that is the outcome that Darklighter99 has declared that the Mustafar scene covered that and the final scene was superfluous for.

Vader's actions must firstly be assessed in the context of the immediate story at hand. Every other movie that comes after ROTS in the timeline has succeeded in portraying Vader without dwelling on the process of his transformation from the once good man that is enigmatically alluded to. That was the stated purpose of the prequels. It's odd to still expect every Vader story to focus on the tragic nature of his fall after it was comprehensively detailed in three movies which wouldn't exist if the introduction of his character, before his fabled tragic backstory had even been conceived, hadn't been so successful.

And his depiction in Rogue One is consistent, except for a brief hint at the mutilated form within the suit, with that character as he was introduced forty years ago.

 

I don't think you understand what I meant. I could be wrong, but I think darklighter99 meant that he liked that they gave us a reminder that there was human being in that suit. Even if that's not what they may have intended from it, that's what he got from the bacta tank shot and that's why he liked it.

I also believe that John Knoll or Edwards said it was included, in part, to show us that -- that Vader's a human being still. That makes sense to me. Vader's castle is on Mustafar where he lost to Kenobi. That's a reminder of Anakin's past. So, showing us Vader's body (which reminds of Anakin) creates a sad/dark tableau: Vader is constantly reminded of his past in his castle; that fills him with hate -- and that whole scenario is sort of twisted, awful, and pathetic. This tableau sort of tells a story in itself, which is sort of cool.

Regardless of what the makers intentions were, though, I don't think that matters. All that matters is what darklighter got from the scene.


Some responses to what you said above.

Again, that's perfectly fine for them to do in my view. If a person wants to give Lucas that authority, it's their business. "I don't like it. I think Lucas would have done it differently." or "I don't like it. Thing's weren't done this was in the Saga, in the PT, in the OT, whatever." That's an individual's prerogative. People can put whatever standard they want on the films. "I've grown tired of the way Star Wars films are made. Right now, I think I'd only like a Star Wars film made in the style of David Lynch." Well, if that's what a person wants, then that's their prerogative.

I do agree with what you're saying here to an extent. People can use this as a weapon. Tolkien's son was highly critical of the LOTR films and said that they did not capture his father's vision. This can feel like a way to de-legitimize a film. However, it always remains within your power to see the film as legitimate or not. "I don't care that Lucas may have done it differently. I like it for what it is."

I think these arguments become difficult because they call on people's loyalties and the desire for the films to portray a consistent vision. When someone says, "Lucas wouldn't have done it that way," it tugs on our loyalties to Lucas. He's the guy who created it all. We don't want him to feel betrayed. When someone says, "it would have never been done like this in the Original Saga," then this feels like a slam on Rogue One because most of us love the original movies, so saying this is different or less complex makes it feel like it's lesser or that it's failed

However, in the end, none of that should affect your opinion of it, even if the person writes persuasively and passionately. Ultimately, you can always say, "Even if Lucas would have disapproved of it, I don't care. I approve of it."

I think the response to someone who says "I think this has betrayed Lucas's vision" isn't to try to convince them that they are wrong.

I think the best response is to say "Well, it's unfortunate that it disappointed you in that way." Then listen to what they have to say and empathize. They're the ones who are disappointed in it, not you.

 

Agreed, I thought the decision to place Vader's Castle overlooking the site of his maiming by Obi-wan Kenobi was a nice bit of character development.

I think the disagreement arises from the claims of some posters in this thread that artistic validity, and coolness have to be mutually exclusive. As many in this thread have already stated Lucas aim with the PT was to show Anakin as a tragic, even pathetic figure. And true, that was clearly his intent. But even he wasn't afraid to give the character "badass" moments, especially in fight scenes, either.

Yes you can argue that Vader/Anakin's "badassness" in such scenes is presented as a thin veneer to cover the character's insecurities, but its there nevertheless. With regards to Rogue One, Vader's entrance into the movie involves showing his pathetic and helpless, limbless body floating in a Bacta-tank. So later when Vader is in full on Rebel-wasting mode, the audience is still aware that this creature is essentially a broken man.

 

Nicely stated. Just thought of a great comparison. The HBO Spawn series (and comic). Tragic figure that people still loved seeing kick butt. Not only is it not an improper response, it is the intended one.

Also,
Emperor Joseph II: My dear young man, don't take it too hard. Your work is ingenious. It's quality work. And there are simply too many notes, that's all. Just cut a few and it will be perfect.
Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart: Which few did you have in mind, Majesty?

 

See... It's nowhere near that easy for me. I interpret Anakin to be a composite being: a mixture of his mother's love, Qui-Gon's faith, his bond with Padme, and perhaps most of all, his attachment to Obi-Wan. Note that these last two components are utterly inseparable in the Lucas films, all the way through from ANH in 1977 to ROTS in 2005. Vader, in my opinion, is a total vacuum character without interacting with Obi-Wan or the film having Obi-Wan express something about him. So this is something else that rings false for me about Vader getting to be in RO at all, much less seeing him give some hapless rebel soldiers a thorough dusting at the end. It's like "Who is this guy, anymore?" He seems worse than a human or a demon; more like a cardboard pastiche. We get "Anakin" quoting on Mustafar, a Vader choke scene (with obligatory pun), and then a slaughter event. The provocative tableau of wrecked "Anakin" on his new lava home, as Darth Nerdling said above, might be far and away the best of this unholy trinity, but all of it is only so much hollow window dressing; like Vader has become a performing guest star, rolling out some of his old classics, beginning with a funky remix, and climaxing with the horror of autotune, while a newer, grittier mythology (metal, I suppose, or grindcore, to Lucas' jazz riffing) is now the main attraction. Yet Vader's appearance nonetheless reminds you of how much better, even when he is awkwardly trying to upgrade his "sound" and match up more with the new paradigm, the old stuff really was. It's a mismash. Vader here is ironically being "choked" by a death contraption his own legacy brought forth.

That goes to something core about the main saga, in my eyes. And that is I think Lucas constructed it as a teaching aid; using Vader's progressively revealed backstory as the excuse-carrot to construct an elaborate mythology around. Vader was something like the dark eye of the hurricane. Even though people didn't realize he was actually in the middle of it all until the prequels; or, really, arguably, ROTS. And the impact of Vader, his cold signature in the Force, still affects everything about these films. The main six saga films are his life chronicle. TFA and the sequel trilogy explore the seeds he left behind in the wake of his death. And RO winds the tape back to give us Enforcer Vader at his most ruthless. Only, in the saga films, you have whimsical elements and mentor figures that relay key insights into the Force and Vader's man-machine trajectory. RO, however, starts very coldly, over a frigid expanse (the "cold" farm to Tatooine's unrelenting hot), and there's very little mirth to offset its darker, more metallic, iron-girder-to-the-head qualities. Vader's slaughter scene, then, while very imposed from the outside and doing something to add an exhilarating lift to the movie's climax, also continues and caps off the film's seedier, more baneful posture. It's like there is no relief from this gloomy, violence-obsessed take on the manufactured backstory to ANH. What could have been a diverting film about a bunch of plucky outsiders having to band together to go up against a greater threat (much like TPM or ANH), is, instead, a film that ends up being more obsessed with the unstoppable horror of the Empire, a bureaucratic Rebellion, and entrenched spectacle built around shock and awe; versus heisting, adventure, romance, ruminative interlude, and evocative character insight.

Vader's transformation as shown in the prequels didn't need dwelling on, as such, in RO. However, the Vader that appears in RO is arguably the least mythic of all the fractal Vaders of the other movies. After a pseudo-intriguing tease-reveal of him on Mustafar in his "castle", it's Blackjack Vader all the way. Nothing especially new or relevant is added; and, as stated above, this only exemplifies, rather than counterpoints, the fairly dingy, downbeat, shock-and-awe tone. Once Vader has choked and slashed his way through those unfortunate rebels, it is naturally "Game Over"; as there's really nowhere else to go. That's something else, perhaps, that's a little weird, now I think about it. There's a very pacey finish to RO. In no other movie does Vader (as Vader) get to engage in violence without a triumphant or reflective denouement to follow; where people's thoughts and emotions can be adjusted down and they can come to terms with everything that just happened via a sort of tessellated epilogue. But by placing Vader's act of supreme villainy so close to the end, and even giving Vader a sort of glossy version of his Imperial March theme as he stands there in a macho pose, with a final scene of the rebels zooming away in a sort of "To be continued..." (five minutes later) sixty-second teaser for ANH, it's like the film is trying to poke you in the face with a rather forced sense of doom and excitement: again, shock and awe. Above all else, the slaughter event only confirms how modern a blockbuster RO is, despite all the SW iconography and wallpapering. I think this is something else (probably the big thing) that makes the slaughter episode seem very removed (despite the attempts to justify it) from everything Lucas did; from everything I hold so dear about his films and his approach.

 

I agree with Darth Nerdling

What Lucas was hoping to show in ROTS, would not have worked well with a suited Vader going on a killing spree. Celebrating Vader's murderous tendencies at that point would have taken away from the theme's that Anakin/Vader was a tragic figure. I think
The key point to all of this is that Lucas shows us that Vader was born before Anakin was actually in the suit. The suit was not evil, the suit was not the monster. Anakin was killing, murdering, slashing and stabbing, well before going into that suit. The man himself had turned evil.

Lucas was wholly correct in not showing a suited Vader going around murdering people. The transformation happens before the suit, what the suit represents is the last specks of a good Anakin being buried deep down, as Vader is now suffering as a result of his hate and anger. A self perpetuating ball of hate.

That's why the final scene in Rogue One works for me in connection with the scenes from Mustafar ( just as others have said). Without the scenes from Mustafar, specifically the bacta tank, it's easy to chalk the scene of Vader slaughtering the Rebels up to giving some fans that which they wanted to see in ROTS.

However, the reminder that there is a man in the suit, the reminder of what happened on Mustafar, makes sure to point out that this Anakin:



The Anakin that knew what he was doing was wrong, that had guilt, and remorse... was gone. He no longer reflected in this way anymore...

Instead, Anakin was now this:



No more remorse, no more regret, no more reflection...

He is now the monster in the dark, the footsteps in the dark. The grim reaper.

Some fans are going to squeal with delight because they get to finally see Vader being a bad ass. To me this is the representation of what Anakin has become. Cruel, unrepentant, merciless. Lost in the suit.

In some ways the scene in Rogue One is not much different than what we see at the end of ANH, he doesn't sit idly by and watch. he gets in on the action when he feels his expertise is needed and warranted:



I think the Rogue One scene(s) shows a progression in the character arc of Anakin/Vader, a reminder that he is stil a man, but, his humanity is lost in that suit... Until a spark is reignited that causes him to once again reflect.

In ROTJ, Luke surrenders, and he and Vader talk, Vader gestures to the stormtroopers to take Luke away, and Luke exclaims that his Father is truly dead. After the troopers take Luke, Vader steps to the side of the catwalk, and is clearly shown reflecting on what had just happened.

 

mikeximus Very well said.
And, if I may add, Rogue One's Vader would not be half as impactful without the PT.

 

I loved the RO Vader scenes more than anything in ROTS and dare I say it...more than anything in the OT! (The I am your father scene obviously blows them all away but that is more about emotion and impact) I like the fact he got back to being one scary dude! Just like any villain, I think they lose their mystique when you learn too much about them.

 

The argument is of speaking in the context of shallow inclusion. I'm pretty aware that there is a "slight" surrealistic attempt in giving Vader, a sense of "humanoid" depth(The Bacta scene no doubt. However, there already was the same scene in ESB to convey the same theme for Vader. And here, there really isn't any subversiveness or build up. Just a simple "reminder". I guess was something of merit) To remind us, there is a man residing within the extensive "pseudo-ethereal" black shell, that embodies Anakin(creating the false identity of "Darth Vader"). Except it was done in such a quick and typical way, without really giving the audience any worth of intelligence. It's not hard to make Vader look like a badass or adding "coolness" to him. In fact, it is so simple even an amateur writer could pull it off as if he was a masterful writer.

There is a theme here...

"Reminiscence". "Reminded"

That is all I can perceive. Everything Vader in R1, is more or less a simple "reminder" of what is to come. Revaluation. Ever had your mother or father repeat a task in which they have given you? Or an authority figure constantly referring to what role you have in the work force? Basically, I didn't need that reminder. We had the methodological "pathos" of a tragedy, constructed wonderfully and woe-some from I-VI. Bringing in these "notifications" of Vader's character, doesn't attribute to a ton of worth in the long run. Again, notifications are just that. Not to build but just a sample. With that said, Of course I can't deny that there isn't anything nice to observe. The mustafar scene could be analyzed and interpreted of Vader, still being regressed, not moving from the past failures or emotions, Subsiding in the red dead aggressive "dome". The Fires Of Hell. Ironically, he stays in the same place in which he died. Birth and Rebirth. An unstable magnetization.

Why look! How poetic! There is a "box" with some tools here. Some artistic brushes, paint, even the main primary colors.

Just, the "coolness" is usually associated of Vader. That is what Vader is mainly known for. To an extent, I do not resent that factor of Vader. He can be badass, yet eloquently tragic. Though, when one side overcomes the other, It becomes an issue. Even the tragic part. Too much of anything can be a detriment, thus, the "cool factor" is just that. I understand. people love him, and so do the creators.

"Cool? Badass? There is so much more"-Luke.

Oh? There it is again! Ohhhhh that whisky wabbit!

Ahhh..Love.


They has been indulging in their own "sexuality". A perverse act. Yes....For such extreme biological dysfunction within the human psychology, only isolation will do.

I kid I kid..

To be honest, with all my criticism, Vader is the real problem in the movie. By reducing him to some "cameo"(aka shallow pleasure) I actually don't deem him worth of anything when continuing the rest of the movies(he really should have been taken out of the film, or made some small cameo). He's consistent sure, just a plain consistent piece of bread. No butter? No Jar Jar Midiclorian Cream? HOw Wuud!

 

What was the point of Luke participating in the Hoth battle? We already saw him in the heroic piloting scene.

 

Ah! I see you ignored what I implied.

Sadly I am on phone but please allow me to reiterate for you.

"The Bacta scene no doubt. However, there already was the same scene in ESB to convey the same theme for Vader. And here, there really isn't any subversiveness or build up. Just a simple reminder"

My edit didn't go through but I did want to include that I also meant "progression".

See, Luke evolved. The Hoth scene wasn't only different in context, but it showed his progression as a character and pilot. He's more "confident" actually. More mature and sure in his ablities.

Vader's Bacta tank scene(which seems to mirror Luke from ESB) is different aesthetically. Yet it's more or less the same scene in what he does in ESB.
However, there isn't anything new to this other than some nice visual fluff.

 

The antechamber and bacta tank served two completely different functions. The first Vader used as a controlled environment to practice force yoga to extend his ability to survive without the helmet. The bacta tank made it obvious that 20 years later he is still in rehab for his physical injuries. One used space science, the other used mystic healing.

Pre-Rogue One, people weren't even sure why he might be in the bacta tank. They assumed he was recently injured. So we can hardly say it added nothing or people would not have been speculating this on such a wide scale.

That whole scene showed how lonely Vader was. He wasn't just shooting pool with the Emperor on Tuesday and picking up chicks on Wednesday with Tarkin. He was basically alone not just in his *home*, but essentially his planet. His servants were not much more than droids.

He achieved his power, but nobody to share it with and couldn't even appreciate the simple things in life any longer.

As far as Luke progressing:
ANH - managed to be one of the few ships not to get shot down
ESB - shot down

Why do we constantly see Solo and Chewie trying to keep the Falcon running? Leia is in the control room looking at screens in ANH and then in ESB. Anakin was a broken record complaining about OB1 and the Jedi. We see lots of things that are repetition with Lucas.

 

It's not a new law Nerdling. As a basic principle, not stating as a fact what someone else thinks is as old as the hills. Martolo made it clear that he was speculating about a scene in R1. Nothing wrong with that. You on other hand sounded like you had coffee with Lucas last week & were relaying his thoughts to us:

It's this premise put forward by you that I find flawed. The statement in your thread title here is a sound one. As it applies to RotS. Applying it to a movie like R1 is not. What Lucas has said is that he wanted to show that Vader wasn't "born a monster". That his is the story of a good person gone bad. R1 however is an OT era movie. An era where Vader is the monster. I see no evidence at all that Lucas would object to Vader being portrayed as a violent killer in this period of the story. In fact quite the opposite.

 

Oh, geeze, Louise! DD, you never fail to disappoint, I'll say that for you.


This was your first post in the thread. I think you need reminding of it:

Your very first sentence is a nice piece of interpolation that artfully conflates second-hand reportage of Lucas' alleged reaction to R1 with your personal conjecture regarding a specific scene. You attempt to justify it by deeming it a "major set piece"; but it should still be pointed out, for all its weighting and discussion-generating power, it's there and gone in the space of about sixty seconds.

I believe, in fact, that this was something Darth Nerdling went over earlier:

Did you have coffee with Lucas, Darth Downunder? Do you know what Lucas' thoughts toward the scene actually are?

Seems unlikely. Yet you're happy to remind everyone of that now-mythical phone call and draw your own conclusion from it.

Of course, so are we. But not merely on the evidence of a phone call nobody in the public domain has actually heard a sniff of. Rather, some of us look to Lucas' former statements and choices in the making of the PT, and we choose to infer something different; or at least resist drawing a quick conclusion while remaining skeptical.

But then, in other ways, we're also being told that Lucas' opinions don't matter anyway. So it's like we're getting beaten with both ends of the stick. Some of us do still think Lucas' opinions matter, though; or at least hold great interest to us (since we haven't actually gotten anything straight from the horse's mouth). Though no-one is bound to them, either, of course.

 

We don't have to guess

 

Ack! That spectacularly non-fitting ROTS "Noooo!" (in the context of Vader's finale close-up in R1) viscerally demonstrates, in my opinion, how totally unlike the two movies actually are.

 

There wasn't really anything gratifying about Vader killing Jedi in Revenge of the Sith, and that was pretty much hammered home by the scene of him and the younglings. The only additional cut scene was Vader stabbing Shaak Ti in the back. Nothing bad ass or cool about that, just a demonstration of how far Anakin has fallen. The Rogue One scene was pretty much fanservice; Vader developed this larger than life image in the minds of fans that wanted him to be more than what was shown in the OT. There was nothing graceful or flashy about how he conducted himself, he was just brutal and efficient.

 

I guess people are just annoyed that Rogue One has overturned the situation where ROTS was the final word on Darth Vader cinematically speaking and that it has restored OT Vader, which could be misunderstood outwith the entire context of the six movie saga, back to being the thing that looms largest in our conscious.

 

Typo: Unalike.

And yes, SlashMan...

Agree with you, I do. He wasn't quite such a slick, flashy "killing machine" in the OT. Vader was simultaneously less and more than that. I think they just decided it was time to finally flick the dial to eleven and give people something they felt they'd been craving. The very fact that Lucas didn't go there in the PT somehow intensified the appetite for an over-the-top, vengeful Vader to emerge.

Almost like a "Donald Trump" situation, in my opinion, where people started to grow tired of and distrusting toward the standard politician and democratic structure; so thought they would throw their support behind a more grotesque, outlandish candidate -- and that would certainly show everyone!

The RO Vader scene, in my opinion, is cheap thrills posing as, or being dressed up as, good, sharp filmmaking. Nostalgic hankerings pumped through a bigger pair of loudspeakers and given a modern, unironic, "full wax" steroidal sheen.

 

Along with Death Stars, X-Wings, TIE Fighters, stormtroopers, sand planets, the Millennium Falcon, Han, Luke, Leia, Chewie, "trusting" in oneself to use the Force, Star Destroyers, Mon Calamari, cantina aliens, the Empire/First Order, the Rebellion/Resistance, practical effects, real deserts, etc.

Good job, Disney!

 

If a Star Wars movie covers a period in Star Wars galaxy that one has no further interest in......

... one does not have to watch it.