Vader/Anakin Ghost in Jedi

Both arguments are equally convincing. The only thing the classic ending has over the Hayden ending is the fact that it is older, and something that the fans grew up with and are accustomed to.

I don't like it, but if it is happening, it's happening. I'm going to buy the 6 DVD set anyway.

 

I think its cool that Hayden will be doing the ghost scene. As much as I liked Shaw, now that the prequels have been made it just makes more sense that Hayden does the part.

 

Here's the link to the currently unconfirmed new ROTJ ending:
Originally Posted by Katana_Geldar:
okay this is something i have just found, in ki-adi-bundy's caption contest on SW.com if you beleive it.
is this the new ending from ROTJ?
I'm not sure if i am excited or disappointed
http://www.filmhobbit.com/moviereviews/movie-images/news/reporters/rotj.mov

And here's my personal opinion regarding this currently unconfirmed clip:
Originally Posted by Me (masterjedi747):
After watching that clip, the supposed Anakin ghost replacement isn't as bad as I thought it could have been, although the original seemed to make more sense to me. I say supposed because although it actually looks OK, I still think that, for two reasons, there is just the same possibility that this scene will not be changed.
-First, I really don't think there is a solid in-universe explanation for why Anakin appears younger. I mean, when Anakin finally died onboard the Death Star, he was in that form: aged, etc... So why wouldn't he appear like that just as Obi-Wan and Yoda do? Or why wouldn't Obi-Wan and Yoda appear younger in their ghost forms? The force ghosts we have seen have always appeared (as complete versions of themselves) just as they looked when they died.
-The second, more powerful argument, is that some people have claimed that ending was a fake. But perhaps is was NOT done by a fan, because maybe George said to ILM or whoever, "just change everything on this list and we'll see how it looks, then we can decide whether or not to keep all of the changes later". If someone leaked THAT version of the films (intentionally or not), then that might explain why some people are now claiming this is a fake version. I know I may be wrong, but my point here is that just because we have seen the clip with Anakin being replaced, doesn't mean that George ultimately decided to keep it that way. If he does, then fine. It's his decision, and we should respect that. Now all we can do is wait until September 21 rolls around...

 

Just my personal opinion to everyone who says Anakin really died in Episode 3:
"From a certain point of view", yes. It's figurative. He willingly chose to bury everything that he was and could be, in order to get "more power". Essentially, "killing" (really burying/smothering) everything that was ever in his past: including joy, guilt, anger, hatred, etc... He hated himself and who he was becoming. He still is in reality Anakin, though. He's just trying to forget everything about himself and become a "different" person, Darth Vader. Luke says his real name, and Vader doesn't deny who he is, he just claims that he no longer, in any fashion, resembles that person anymore. And Luke knows Vader is lying to himself. Then in the end, Vader finally takes resonsibility for his actions, and is once again completely and willingly Anakin Skywalker. He dies as Anakin Skywalker, and as a Jedi Knight.

However this would also support Shaw remaining in the ghost shot, because Anakin never really died until he was redeemed. So his force ghost should appear as a complete version of who he really was when he died onboard the Death Star, which would be Shaw, or possibly even (IMO maybe better) as a 40-year-old Hayden. And I have heard some people complaining that Anakin moves too much in the currently unconfirmed force ghost clip. Come on, he just became a force ghost like seconds ago, so it's nice to see him kind of look surprised/humbled/glad at seeing himself, Obi-Wan, Yoda, and his son all nearby, and knowing that they are all welcoming him after everything that he had done. And he stands plenty still enough in the later shots. If Lucas really wants to keep this clip in, I'm glad he did it like this, because IMO it could have been much worse.

 

I think after Ep. III is seen, it would be much more easier to accept the Hayden Anakin. Nostalgic fans will surely have a easier time accepting Shaw, but the more we see of Hayden ie Ep. III, there should be much more parity for having the change.

 

Unfortunately HanSolo29, it was explained in another thread that the original version of that of that clip was completely silent, without backround sound OR music. So the person who posted that clip tried to line up the corresponding video with the ending music from the SE soundtrack, just to give us a general feeling of what it would both look AND sound like. It's not perfect, but I think that's the closest they could get it to matching up with the original version of that clip.

And just to throw the idea out there, how many people who are currently upset with this supposed replacement would be happier if they had decided to use a 45 year-old Hayden in order to replace Shaw (maybe even blended some of Shaw's features into the older Anakin's face)? That, IMHO, would solve most if not all of our many arguments over the reasons for this scene, as well as satisfy the desires of nostalgic fans to see an older, more familiar face. IMHO, if Lucas could pull that off, I think he would hit a home run with almost every fan of both the new and original versions of this trilogy.

 

I think that Lucas will explain it in Episode III. If he doesn't then people can flip out.

They'll flip out even if he does explain it. Because that's what they want to do.

The bottom line is this: if Episode III doesn't agree visually with the ORIGINAL ROTJ (that is, 1983), then the contradiction in in ROTS, not Jedi. Hence, the Shaw ghost cannot be proven wrong in light of some rule revealed in ROTS; rather, ROTS is wrong in light of ROTJ.

 

And just to throw the idea out there, how many people who are currently upset with this supposed replacement would be happier if they had decided to use a 45 year-old Hayden in order to replace Shaw (maybe even blended some of Shaw's features into the older Anakin's face)? That, IMHO, would solve most if not all of our many arguments over the reasons for this scene, as well as satisfy the desires of nostalgic fans to see an older, more familiar face. IMHO, if Lucas could pull that off, I think he would hit a home run with almost every fan of both the new and original versions of this trilogy.

Everyone who likes this change seems to latch onto Shaw's real life age when he made it. That he was in his 80s doesn't change the fact that Anakin is in his 40s. The best thing to do is leave Shaw alone. Any rules about how Jedi ghosting works must be made in accordance with how it has been represented, not vice versa.

 

Oh yeah, I forgot.

Someone should tell Lucas about that STAT!

What are you kidding me? This is a F-I-C-T-I-O-N-A-L story, we aren't talking about defying the laws of physics or re writing historic events. Lucas is tweaking this 6 film saga for maximum impact.

I love the Hayden change and I am glad Lucas did it the way he did. No disrespect meant towards Sebastian Shaw, I am glad his performance remains in tact.

It's not like Hayden took the unmasking glory, he just fades in as a force ghost and if you can't handle it, the movie mercifully ends right away.

I think it's a great way to show that the good part of Anakin was saved. Shaw wasn't bad, but now that we have the prequels, it is a nice emotional punctuation mark that ties everything together.

 

I think the difference between Sebastian and Hayden can be explained by his time in the suit. He just sort of shriveled up into Shaw, and then came back as he was before he turned as a Force Ghost.

 

Go-Mer said:I am of the opinion that while Anakin shunned his former identity when he became Darth Vader, his deeds as the dark lord were entirely of his (Anakin?s) own volition. Turning on the Jedi? Anakin's choice. Unwittingly torturing his own daughter just to ensnare his own son in a trap? Anakin's choice. Turning on the Emperor to save his own son at the cost of his own life? Priceless... I mean... Anakin's choice.

I TOTALLY AND COMPLETELY agree with that asessment, however there are many others on these boards who believe that Anakin is not the one who made those decisions and that somehow the suit/Vader persona excuses Anakin from responsibility from those actions. they also use the Hayden replacement as evidence that Anakin looks young because the years on the dark side dont count, and that is why he looks young and unscarred.

I have no problem with an Anakin who is so emotionally scarred that he tries to lose himself in the Vader persona, but when people try and say that Anakin is a totally seperate person from Vader and is not responsible for any of Vader's actions, i have to wonder if that is what GL might be trying to say with this change.

 

I think Vader's suit is his punishment for his misdeeds. When he finally decided to give his own life for that of his son's, he demonstrated remorse for what he had done, and the years as Vader (while not erased) were forgiven.

That's why he returns to how he was before he was in the suit.

Lucas isn't "saying" anything. It all comes down to how we choose to see it.

 

The basher/gusher war could end overnight if people realized that what others think about a movie affects them in absolutely no way. It does not take food off your table or money out of your pocket. Furthermore, your opinion makes you no more pious than any other poster, no matter which side you consider stupid. Many that I have encountered would rather be right than listen to others. Many, assured of their rightness, feel their self-perceived piety as grounds for instructing others what to do.

I, for one, reserve the right to take the following actions for the following reasons:
- I do not like inserting Hayden into ROTJ: I will not buy the DVDs.
- I'm not particularly impressed with the PT: I haven't bought the DVDs.
- I strongly admire the original trilogy's quality: I visit this site to discuss & disseminate.
- I feel that ROTS has a lot of potential: I come this site often to check on rumors and spoilers.

 

There is an ethical conundrum with this " switching " of actors whether you want to address it or not. It being " cool " doesnt justify it. Anyone thats union shouldnt care for this in the least bit. If its gonna happen, its gonna happen but that doesnt make it right and there is no reason for any fans to get sanctimonious about what they feel is " best " for the Saga when it concerns peoples already established work. However many dollars we spend at the box office to see these films gives us no ammo to take a position that defends a move that is unethical from a labor standpoint. This kind of move opens the door and think about it for a second, and Im directing this question to the fans that have careers, not the students who havent entered the real world yet ( and thats not a flame, THATS A FACT ) - do you really want this door to be opened?

 

How is this any different than a director cutting out an entire actor from a film in the final cut? An actor gets hired to play the lead character's best buddy, but after they start editing the film together, the director decides that his inclusion ends up being mostly redundant and it slowed the whole thing down too much.

Is there an ethical problem there?

 

Actually I think there is, and there is relatively few producers that pull that ( whats that Clive Barker movie with Craig Sheffer - an actress got cut out of that movie totally and won a law suit ) and its differnt anyway because your talking about REPLACING an actor with another WAY after the films release ( not that it would be right if it happened a day after the films release ). IMO both acts are unethical AND are as different as apples and oranges.

EDIT: Im not talking about non-SAG extras that get cut out of a film. Im talking about card carrying actors with residuals, however small they may be, written into their contracts.

 

I think whats sad is the inevitability of it all. One day - and none of us here may be around for this - there wont be actors, technicians, gaffers, painters, stuntmen, - etc., etc., etc. There will be producer's and programmer's and when that day happens the historian's will trace backwards to ILM and George Lucas. Yeah Im sayin it - as much as I love SW, digital technology will change motion pictures like no other previous technology ever did ( its already well on its way ) and of course many people whose livlihood isnt affected by the motion picture industry wont give two sh@#t's about it- but it doesnt make it any less of a shame. I understand thats the way of the world, but again, that doesnt make it any less of a shame either.

 

Then maybe you should start looking into a new line of work.

If that's what you truly believe.

What I don't understand is the people making the movie pay these actors to perform for them. Why should they have to feel obligated to keep everything in the film if they think it detracts from it?

In the case of Sebasitan Shaw, his performance is still in tact. You know, the scene where his helmet is removed and he has speaking lines.

All Lucas did was replace a fleeting no dialogue appearance.

I think that if someone has it written into their contract that they will be compensated if their part is cut out, then sure they deserve what they worked out.

But short of that, I think it has to be up to the artist what ends up in the final cut.

 

I dont work in the film industry but I am a union representative in the field I do work in, and thats why I get a little touchy with any management decision that could ultimately lead to a person losing his job.

 

I don't think you will have to worry about actors losing their jobs due to technology. Even with CG performances it takes an actor to bring them to life.

Even the people who animate CG by hand are really just highly skilled actors with technical backgrounds.

On the other hand, if having this technology allows one person to lock himself into his room for a year and make a film completely on his own, then hey, there isn't anything wrong with that either.

At least in the forseeable future, it is still much more cost effective to use a live human being than to try and render one with a computer.

As long as movies are primarily watched by human beings, there will need to be human characters simply to express our existance.

One thing Lucas is causing a ripple in is the celluloid industry. If theaters end up going all digital, then there will be pretty much no need for celluloid prints at any stage of the filmaking process.

 

>>I'll bet there will be a good explanation in ROTS when it comes out<<

There *will* be - Anakin's gonna look like a friggin' corpse after his dual with Obi. Obi will think he's dead & *leave* him for dead.

This is very simple. If Sidious hadn't rescued Anakin, Anakin would have died on the volcanic planet. I think that's the story. I think Anakin goes into complete arrest & is *obviously* at death's door. He is rescued and resuscitated. He takes on the Vader persona.

When he becomes part of the force, there isn't anything left from his original body apart from a few internal organs & a head. That's why he gets his youthful appearance - it was the last time he was a whole, living human. Very obvious & simple.

 

Man, I've seen the changes and can confirm that it has happened. I don't know about you guys, but I am not going to justify that including anakin is nostaglic or any crap like that. The bottom line is that for most of us that grew in the 70's and 80's, we are seeing with our own eyes the deterioration of a great classic. You can keep all those special editions, the prequel movies, and all that eu crap. I have my trusty vhs and laserdisc and will only enjoy and cherish as the true starwars in their original fake, unclean, old, version. The true version in my eyes.