Vader/Anakin Ghost in Jedi

The more I think about it, the more I think that this is what it ultimately boils down to:

Lucas put Hayden into ROTJ purely as a link to the PT, and only started to rationalise it later. It's no coincidence that the so-called "Original" Trilogy DVDs hit the market in the run-up to the cinema release of ROTS. Lucas hoped that seeing Hayden in ROTJ would whet our appetites for ROTS. The logic of this change (or lack of it) never entered George's mind.

Once again, he's relying on the fans to do his work for him.

 

Sanctuary_Moon! Yah...I've given up trying to understand George.

 

Well said.

 

That's no excuse for the unimaginable apocalypse he has brought upon the galaxy. Even Lucas himself said that Anakin can never be redeemed for his crimes but he can only end the horrors created by PalpSidious.

Sanctuary Moon- Lucas is NOT relying on us fans to do his work for him, he wants us to figure things out for ourselves because we're not going to be spoon-fed with every single detail he puts in his films. It's like the old saying...."Less is more".

 

I respectfully disagree. Particularly when Lucas gives out conflicting and contradictory information in interviews (as he has regarding Anakin's redemption), it is ultimately up to the fan to figure out which, if any, version they wish to believe.

 

Lucas put Hayden into ROTJ purely as a link to the PT

Agree with this, I do.


That's no excuse for the unimaginable apocalypse he has brought upon the galaxy. Even Lucas himself said that Anakin can never be redeemed for his crimes but he can only end the horrors created by PalpSidious.

But at one point GL was saying Anakin had been redeemed. I remember around the time of AOTC, quotes from Lucas saying so were hugely debated.

Anyone remember any of those exact quotes? I'd need to do some digging.

 

Who's making 'excuses', though? Redemption means that it's forgiven, not necessarily forgotten.

No one is saying that the crimes can just be 'erased' from existence. Just that Anakin is 'redeemed', which would seem to be confirmed by the fact that since '83, he's seen standing next to Obi-Wan and Yoda at the end of ROTJ. "Luke was right about him".....

That's fine, but then if he does make commentary on the films, it should at least actually fit with what he already did with the movies.




- TOSCHISTATION

 

You got to it before I did, TOSCHISTATION. But well said, and I agree.

 

Here's one, Stryphe:

From Time Magazine, April 26, 1999

Interviewer: "Ultimately, isn't Star Wars about transformation?"

Lucas: "It will be about how young Anakin Skywalker became evil and then was redeemed by his son. But it's also about the transformation of how his son came to find the call and then ultimately realize what it was. Because Luke works intuitively through most of the original trilogy until he gets to the very end. And it's only in the last act -- when he throws his sword down and says, "I'm not going to fight this"-- that he makes a more conscious, rational decision. And he does it at the risk of his life because the Emperor is going to kill him. It's only that way that he is able to redeem his father. It's not as apparent in the earlier movies, but when you see the next trilogy, then you see the issue is, How do we get Darth Vader back? How do we get him back to that little boy that he was in the first movie, that good person who loved and was generous and kind? Who had a good heart."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If Lucas is now claiming that Anakin cannot be redeemed after all, then apparently the story has changed since 1999.

 

Thank you, Moony, I believe that is the one I remember.

 

Now to make it complete, lets have what he says now.

 

Here you go:

"It really has to do with learning. Children teach you compassion. They teach you to love unconditionally. Anakin can't be redeemed for all the pain and suffering he's caused. He doesn't right the wrongs, but he stops the horror." (George Lucas, The Making of Revenge of the Sith)

-------------------------------------------------------------------

So Lucas has changed his mind about the redemption - arguably the most important theme in the Saga.

 

I just believe having the scene changed after so long was completely wrong. It wasn't some minor detail in the background, it was a huge scene that had an impact on the PT as well.

 

So let's figure what Lucas meant by this (from the official website):

Quote

In many ways, Lucas says, the events of Episode III will change audiences' perspectives on the story told in A New Hope, The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi. "Watching the films starting with Episode I and ending with Episode VI will be a different experience," he says. "What drove me to direct Episodes I, II and III was the larger story about Anakin, who starts out as a good person but who becomes evil -- and, ultimately, is redeemed by his children. It's exciting to see it all come together."

Unquote

And this one as well:

Quote

Lucas says. "Even though I didn't start writing the prequels for another 20 years, the structure of that story has never changed very much; it has always been one epic story of a father who is redeemed by his children."

Unquote

 

Was this before or after he had said, "Vader can never be redeemed for his actions, he just stops the horror" ?

And what does he mean by 'always'? Since 1973? Since 1975? 1980?

We know, judging from the contents of Laurent Bouzereau's "The Annotated Screenplays", that it can't be 'always', in the strictest sense of '1973', when he first put the idea of 'The Star Wars' to paper

But before anyone says, "he means since ROTJ, 1983", keep in mind that he now says, that it all came from some treatment that he wrote in 1975 called "The Tragedy of Darth Vader", presumably after the 3rd draft. But how believable is that? How believable is it that he wanted to keep the whole 'Vader/Skywalker' angle a 'secret'....... before he even knew that audiences would take to the characters and the story?

Odds are good, that if he had such a story, he would have mentioned it. Yes, I understand that Star Wars/ANH was made to be a stand-alone picture, and thus any 'tragedy' backstory that would reveal who Vader 'really was', might have hindered that film. But at any rate, George could have still mentioned that story, 'off-line', as it were.

 

Well, BUH BYE to stupid Hayden, he's toast in the new Star Wars DVD set coming out this September!
Sebastian Shaw *is* Anakin and this true canon will be on the new DVD set! *haha* Justice, finally!

 

Was this before or after he had said, "Vader can never be redeemed for his actions, he just stops the horror" ?

Firstly it was mentioned on the Official site on May 18. Secondly, GL says Vader cannot be redeemed for HIS actions, but the horror is stopped.

What I would assume with that would mean the Hayden ghost is before the "horror" while the Shaw ghost is the "horror" ie killing of a whole planet for example (when he didn't do anything about it when it was Tarkin who commanded) remains. The Hayden Anakin was not involved in the 20 years of the Empire's terror.

 

Lucas put Hayden into ROTJ purely as a link to the PT

I believe that is what it comes down to. Another thing is about 70% I believe of OT Fans do not like the change which is all the more reason for them to go out an buy the OT DVD comming out soon. In my opinion, this was set up by Lucas so he could make more money. If I wanted to get into a theoretical-like discussion then I would say:

...Anakin Skywalker died when he became Darth Vader...

Not true, I believe Anakin was only was suppressed beneath Darth Vader, and when Anakin was redeemed he died as a 40+ year old man so in my opinion Shaw should be the Force Ghost looking at Luke. I could care less but I think Hayden looks a little to creepy to be in that scene.

 

I could care less but I think Hayden looks a little to creepy to be in that scene.

To me his countenance is more like Han Solo than creepy

 

There are no numerous versions because all Lucas is saying that despite that Anakin does the right thing in the end, it will never change what he has done so it makes no difference if Anakin's ghost will either look like Shaw or like Hayden.

Then, it shouldn't be a problem for Anakin's ghost to look like Hayden.

 

Why bother to change it then?

 

Because the Hayden version is how Anakin looked before he became disfigured and encased in an oxygen suit with robotic limbs.

 

But I thought it made no difference what he looked like?

 

Morality-wise, it doesn't make a difference because both versions of Anakin have committed crimes but appearence-wise, it does because if the Shaw version is what Anakin should look like, then his body shouldn't look all healthy with hair, limbs, and skin all regenerated.

 

Yes it should.

Otherwise Yoda would be coughing up a storm and Obi Wan would be chopped in half. People accepted for years that the ghosts represented the person as they dies, minus damages to their mortal bodies.