PT What are your thoughts on the whole idea of Anakin Skywalker's character to have a prophecy?

I really love the whole Prophecy as it's presented in the original saga. It allows Anakin to initially subvert the Chosen One archetype, while retaining the OT's optimistic core by him later fulfilling it at the end of ROTJ. I think it really enhances the moment when he kills the Emperor. Now it's not just his redemptive act, saving his son, but also a more mythic victory over the forces of darkness (both internal and external).

For Anakin to truly be an effective mirror of Luke's journey in the OT, and the concept of a special destiny in the first place, he's couched in as many mythic trappings as possible, all for the rug to be pulled in ROTS. It really allows for deep dive into what the idea of having a pre-ordained fate would actually mean to someone, particularly one who's entire childhood was driven by similar currents outside his control.

As for it not being mentioned in the OT, I actually really like that. It allows for some subtlety, one can read the ROTJ scene anew without there ever being some outright statement explaining away the whole thing. The only people who cared about the Prophecy are either dead or disillusioned by the concept anyway, it all makes sense for, say, Yoda to no bring it up to Luke (especially when he and Obi-Wan are selectively hiding the truth of certain matters).

Edit: It also creates a nice holistic loop for Anakin's story, bringing his ending back to where he began in a satisfying way for me. He finally, after all those years, gets to decide his own fate for once, casting off his master via his own actions for the first time and 'freeing all the slaves'.

 

The Force was not in balance during the PT and TPM, it didn't have to go with any prophecy or Anakin killing a Sith. That was because the Jedi Order were being corrupted by the Dark Side and they were oblivious to it and why they were losing their powers and abilities. The Jedi temple sat above the Dark Side Sith temple and wellspring of power on Coruscant. Their ability to use the Force was greatly diminishing because of it and was basically almost gone by the PT films. It took decades. One side had eclipsed the other, the Dark over the Light. The Sith were never destroyed in the first place anyway, since Bane survived and the order thrived on during the 1,000 years leading into TPM. That is a lot of time to rebuild and plot, thats a lot of Dark Side there. Not mention other Dark Side sects and Sith splinter groups that existed.

So no the Force was never brought back into balance following ROTJ, the death of Sidious never capped the Dark Side or the Coruscant well . Maybe what you had was that there was just a certain lull in Force activity since both the Sith and the Jedi had to start over again following the end of ROTJ. For all intents and purposes those are the only two groups or religions whose followers actually know how to use and manipulate the Force and train themselves to do so that movies focus on and that Star Wars deals with overall. The TFA movie starts things off pretty much how they were in ANH. The Dark Side by this time was certainly more prevalent and more powerful. It was not Lor's underground desert religion on backwater Jakku was creating or training new Jedi throughout the galaxy or even somehow had anythign to do with Rey,lol

Sidious already had prior to ROTJ even been up to Sith things. Vader's betrayal was something he anticipated even. The Galactic Civil war contained on and only ended decisively at the battle of Jakku. Much of this was already by Emperor's design since the Emperor ordered destruction of own Empire with Operation Cinder and his contingency - the end result would go to create the First Order and the Final Order.

What you had basically a cold war and then the rise of the First Order under Snoke and Sidious. The New Republic was also inferior to old Republic and criminal empires and organizations also filled the power vacuum left by the Empire's end. In between all of this you had very active Dark Side groups like the Acolytes of the Beyond and Knights of Ren. Snoke was also active during this era in some capacity. The Sith Eternal is clearly around to ensure that the Sith and the Sith tradition continues on even if their is no Sith Lords around. They can even create new ones any number of ways. The fact is Sidious never truly died and the Sith Eternal had existed for generations and was already building an armada prior to the end of ROTJ under Sidious' own edicts and supervision.

Luke and his new Jedi never amounted to anything during this time. Anakin's Force ghost never unformed Luke about a thing Sidious was up to. Leia also chose not to become a Jedi but instead a politician and eventually a partisan militia type. Luke would retreat and give up the Force as a hermit following his series of failures. So indeed the Force was very much out've balance yet again, even if you wanted to claim Anakin balanced. There is no closure even on the Coruscant Sith temple that was responsible for the Jedi's downfall during the age of the Republic in the first place. You cannot have too much Light and too much Dark. That was lesson learned from the Mortis arc, but its not present in any of the films. Its basically good new Jedi beats evil old Sith, happy ending until the next movie that repeats the same beats.

By the ST, there was no belief in any balance of the Force or chosen one Skywalker prophecy, aside from the throwaway line by Anakin's ghost. There was the new dyad prophecy now, the two that are one. The Jedi and the Sith had their own interpretations of that too. But it takes up less space and its really there to help ease Kylo's transition from evil to good-guy and Rey's lover.

 

It doesn't have to be since that was already covered in the first 3 episodes (which is the first half of the story) just like so many other story threads were that weren't explicitly mentioned like the Sith, the Rule of Two, the Clone Wars, how the Jedi were destroyed (Order 66), how the Emperor took over, how a Republic turned into an Empire, how Anakin actually fell to the dark side, why only Obi-Wan and Yoda were the only two Jedi we saw, why they didn't train anyone else, why the Emperor so coveted Anakin and now Luke etc etc.

As talked about it does factor in because for the Jedi it's Luke Skywalker that is the New Hope/Chosen One of that trilogy who will destroy the Emperor where Anakin did not. That they don't tell him that directly is something that makes sense since Anakin knowing about it didn't work out. On the Sith side it means nothing to them.

Depends what you mean by retcon. It's not a retro-active retcon as in saying what you saw happen and was said to happen didn't happen. That is the ST such as the Empire being defeated and gone in ROTJ but being back with no actual explanation in TFA or Sidious being defeated and gone in ROTJ but being back in TROS with no actual explanation. Even within it's own trilogy one movie says one thing then the next disputes that and says that it was something else then the movie after that says something different again.

The PT is retrospective continuity which is a look back at events that took place previous to the OT. It doesn't change the events that took place but does give them context. At the end of the OT we'd only seen the second half of the story and were left with many questions which the PT then gives background to.

Which is the point. We as the audience in our omniscient positions get to experience the entire story. Anakin destroyed the Sith and brought balance to the Force. What does balance exactly mean is something that is presented as unknowable in detail outside of the fact that it was since the prophecy did come true. It was set up in TPM and paid off in ROTJ.

Completely because then Anakin doesn't become a Jedi in TPM because the only reason he was brought in was because Qui-Gon believed in him which is why Obi-Wan would take him on even if the council didn't agree that he should be (which they did).

That is correct which as pointed out earlier is the entire track of this saga from the first movie's release. Vader got over so unexpectedly massively in ANH that the entire saga was shifted around him. Even from the first Vader became more and more important so that from ANH itself his backstory became more and more important. From Luke being the hero to Vader being the hero turned villain who then ended up the hero again due to his son belief in him.

Not at all. If you believe that it made things smaller and contrived then look to where that had already happened in TESB. Everything else flowed from that. I would say that it made things more mythic and epic.

I can't agree. Quite the opposite. Not only is it a factor but it greatly enhances the OT and ROTJ in particular because now we know the story and the larger stakes. The showdown of Sidious and Vader vs Luke now has so many extra layers of meaning since we know the complete story.

Not sure what you mean by core tenet of the saga that had always been there. It's "always" been there now that the entire story from Lucas was told to us. That core tenet wasn't in the first film. It only was introduced in the second, continued in the third then we were given the rest of the story (the start of it all) over the next three.

The Disney ST simply makes no sense with Lucas' movies on level after level after level. It ignores pretty much everything because at it's core it was about replacing the story of the OT by telling a vastly inferior version of the same story. The last ember of having any connection at all to Lucas' story would have been to connect it to the story of Anakin vs Sidious, the prophecy and balance of the Force but they really didn't in any credible way. To do that would have taken an actual plan over all 3 movies not just throwing some token reference in just to have one.

 

Yet, unlike everything else you mentioned, the Chosen One Prophecy is, apparently, supposed to be more than just back story contained in the first half of the saga. It's supposed to be very much in play during the OT....yet of course it doesn't feel that way as it is not a factor in those films. That's a detriment to the idea of the Prophecy. and to the overall saga.

Wait? Luke is the chosen one? That's not right. Is it? Luke did not destroy the Emperor. It is very unclear what you are getting at here. More evidence for The Chose One Prophecy being all kinds of wishy washy. No?

A retcon can work either way. It's any change to what was established in the previous films. It's no more or less of a retcon in either case.

Let's say I disagree and table this for another forum/thread. Shall we? This doesn't much relate to the topic at hand.

Re-contextualizing previously established events or knowledge is a retcon, no matter the order of continuity. Again, probably another conversation for another thread.

Who's "we" ? As of May 25th, 1983, the saga was complete. Audiences weren't walking away with a bunch of unanswered questions. Did we want more Star Wars films? Sure. Yet, the mainstream moviegoer was likely expecting/wanting to see more adventures of Han, Luke, and Leia just as much (or more) than they were wondering how Anakin became Vader.

The idea that the masses were left with "many questions" after ROTJ is a false narrative. The story felt complete in every sense of the word.

The pay off is narratively weak/limp as it is retroactive. Hear me out:

Let's say that I create Chewbacca prequel film.

In this Chewie Prequel, it is revealed Wookie Culture dictates that the One that "saves the blind man of the desert " is the new God of Kashyyk. It's talked about with great detail when Chewie is born.

Yet, my film never shows this prophecy pay off. Instead, I tell you that you already (retroactively) saw this play out in ROTJ when Chewie helps Han escape Jabba's palace. Chewie became the new God of his homeworld, but it's never mentioned or shown to have any consequence whatsoever. It's garnish. Nothing more. It has no substance.

That is simply weak (and revisionist) story telling. It's fine to do so, but it's gives no narrative urgency to my Chewie Prequel. It simply layers it with a cheap bit of false mythos and retroactively retcons ROTJ in the process to be more narratively hollow.

BS. Episode 1 didn't need Anakin to be some maybe savior in order for Qui-Gon to take him. One could easily alter the dialogue surrounding the Chosen One Prophecy and the movie would be virtually unchanged.

Qui-Gon Jinn could have easily taken Anakin to be a Jedi simply because he demonstrates great potential and has an unusually high midichlorian count. The fact that the council doesn't even really think he is The Chosen One shows this. Again, this prophecy has no bearing on the actual events of Episode 1, 2, or 3...let alone the OT.

1. The entire saga did NOT shift around Vader after ANH. This remained Luke's saga/story through and through. It wasn't until 1999 that Lucas started saying SW was "always the Tragedy of Darth Vader." It wasn't. Just look at Vader's OT screen time. He was Luke's antagonist and served his narrative role as such.

2. Vader's backstory is only important in the OT as it relates to Luke. We actually get very little new info on Vader's backstory in ESB or ROTJ. What we get is Obi-Wan retconning what he told Luke in ANH.

I disagree. Darth Vader going from a fallen knight to the savior of the entire galaxy makes the entire story smaller. It centers all events as predestined through the Force to be about Darth Vader. It shrunk the story potential.

We know the larger stakes. The problem? No one else in the movie does. The movie doesn't either.

Using the chosen one prophecy to add subtext to ROTJ: It's like putting a spoiler on a corvette and saying "See? It's faster and more efficient now." Nope, you just put some window dressing on what was already a fast car. You didn't actually change the engine.

Here's another analogy: The OT is chocolate chip cookies. The Chosen One prophecy is like putting droplets of water on these cookies and calling it "frosting". When you eat these chocolate chip cookies, you cannot see, smell, or taste the frosting.

Why? Because it's a sprinkling of water and it's entirely inconsequential to the experience of eating these chocolate chip cookies after they've already been baked.

Meaning, the OT is already baked. Yup, George Lucas went in and put Hayden in at the end. Great. That's a tangible element from the PT that changes how I watch/understand ROTJ. Claiming Anakin "put the Force into balance" when he threw Palpatine down the pit is essentially meaningless because it adds no new stakes, changes, or consequences that weren't already there. It's treated as what it is...an afterthought.

Again, a topic for another thread I think. I love all 3 SW trilogies. Yet, I am not so blind in my appreciation that I am willing to ignore some of the wonkiness in each of them.

 

@jaimestarr - great point about the saga being 100% complete after ROTJ. No question about it. All character arcs complete. No more unsolved mysteries. We’re good. That’s why a lot of people just watch the first six films and call it good. It IS good at that point. Heck, in the future I may stop after ROTJ myself. With the great Rogue One mixed in between 3 & 4 of course.

 

Depends how I want to 'read' or view what destiny and fate is. Especially of this chosen one.

On one hand, I can read Anakin's destiny was not his to choose. It was chosen for him. He was going to destroy the sith, Cuz that was his destiny. This takes away the sacrificial element in saving Luke. He did it because it was written in the stars, not because he wanted to. It was the 'will' of the force, not of love for his son/deceased spouse.

If I read it that way I absolutely hate the prophecy idea.

On the other hand if I read the prophecy in a way that meant whoever made it just foresaw the action of Vader killing Palpatine and that was it, there was no 'will of the force to destroy the Sith' I can just about accept it...does nothing for the story, but eh it was the 90's when TPM was made. It was all the rage back then.

 

It doesn't take the sacrificial element away at all because he obviously chose to do so. He sacrificed himself for Luke not because of the prophecy of the Chosen One which is something that he might never have really believed in anyway.

The path of destiny was set out before him and it was his choice to fulfill his destiny or not. He had the choice previous to ROTJ in ROTS and chose not to be the Chosen One at that point and instead decided to be selfish about what he wanted. Lucas makes the point that you have a destiny and you have to choose which path is yours.

Anakin had a choice to follow his destiny or not. In ROTS he chooses to not follow his destiny and joins with the Sith Lord Darth Sidious instead of destroying him. Anakin's greed puts what he wants ahead of everything else and he runs from his destiny. In ROTJ he gets to chose his destiny again. If he turns Luke then they can destroy Sidious and rule as father and son. If Luke doesn't turn then he can let Sidious destroy Luke and continue on as is. Instead he makes the choice to save his son by sacrificing himself and so he does fulfill his destiny as the Chosen One. He doesn't do that because he's saying to himself "I have to do this because I'm the Chosen One." He's doing it because he's saying to himself "I'm going to give up everything I am to save my son." which is selfless whereas the choice to save Padme was based on selfishness. "I'm going to sacrifice everyone and everything around me for my need for Padme."

To sum up:

In ROTS he did the Sith thing and was driven by selfishness and greed to have the things he wanted to remain with him to stop things from changing. He sacrificed everything else for himself.

In ROTJ he did the Jedi thing and was driven by selflessness and giving to others. He let go and didn't fight the change. He sacrificed himself for everything else.

This is the ultimate difference between the Light (selflessness, letting go and flowing with the Force) to the Dark (selfishness, hanging on and raging against the Force).

Destiny put the path before him and he rejected it through his choice in ROTS. Destiny put the path before him again in ROTJ and this time he chose to take that path. He finally became the Jedi and Chosen One that he was always supposed to be and always was if he chose to be.

This all started with Star Wars going back to Lucas in the 60's.

"What these films deal with is that we all have good and evil inside of us, and that we can choose which way we want the balance to go. Star Wars is made up of many themes, it's not just one simple parable. One is our relationship to machines, which is fearful, but also benign, they are an extension of the human, not mean in themselves. Then there is the lesson of friendship and symbiotic relationship, of your obligations to your fellow man, to other people who are around you. This is a world where evil has run amuck. But you have control over your destiny, that you HAVE a destiny, that you have many paths to walk down, and you can choose which destiny is yours. You may have a great destiny if you decide not to walk down that path. Your life might be satisfying, if you wake up and listen to your inner feelings and realize what it is you have a particular talent for and what contributions you can make to society."

"It's about a young boy leaving his world and going off into the unknown, to a great adventure. [...] Star Wars, carries that story on to what happens after you leave and in this particular case, there's a slightly more classic edge to it, in that the fates are there to kind of help Luke realize that, in certain cases you don't have choices. You know, if you choose not to fight evil, eventually it'll just push you up into the wall and you just don't have a choice. It's an inevitability that you can't escape from. And in this particular case, he's torn between what he really wants to do; which is go off and join the academy and fight for the Rebellion and have excitement; but then he's also committed to helping his uncle, and to help his uncle build his farm, and his uncle's raised him, he's like his father, and he has his obligations to help put the homestead together.

It's very clear from the beginning here, that Luke's fate, even when the aunt and uncle are talking, is not to stay on the farm. A future that's just not in him, his destiny lies in a grander scheme of things. Even they know that. I mean they know it for other reasons, that we don't know about yet."

Despite everything that happens in ANH Luke could still choose not take the path of destiny set before him. He could say good-bye to Obi-Wan and stay on Tatooine and rebuild the farm. What would end up happening is that at some point the path would be set before him again and then he'd have to choose again whether or not to take that path.

 

Why was it so important for Anakin to be a Jedi? Why was it so important for any Force sensitive person to be a Jedi? Is being a Jedi supposed to be the ultimate goal for someone who is Force sensitive?

 

then you choose to see it as the second option. Good

Why the force has a 'will' then is anyone's's guess.

 

Well it's Lucas' and that was his one of the major elements of his sequel trilogy along with the trio, the grand-children, the scavenger and Darth Maul and Darth Talon.

I would based on the movies but as Lucas further confirms that to be the case even before the PT came out then it's pretty easy to go with that.

 

Hell, some people just watch the first 3 films and call it good. Anything SW film made post ROTJ is just icing on the cake for me.

 

Is that a Lucas quote? Because he just literally said that sometimes you don't have a choice.

Seems like this isn't what Lucas is saying.

 

I'm neither the prophecy's biggest fan nor do I have any problem with it. At the end of the day, it isn't even that important. Anakin didn't "have to be" the Chosen One just as Padmé didn't "have to be" a Queen, Leia didn't "have to be" a Princess and Luke didn't "have to be" a farm boy. All of that did support our understanding of their respective characters or the themes Lucas wanted to convey in some ways, though.

Padmé could have been an elected president, chancellor or prime minister, but being a Queen does evoke romantic images that fit Naboo a lot better and give her story more weight. Leia could have been a random Senator or Foreign Secretary, why did she have to be a special? Why did she have to be of noble blood? Again, because it is more romantic. "Saving the princess" is much more reminiscent of fairy tales than saving a politician. Why did Luke grow up on a farm? Why isn't he some city hippster from Mos Eisley? Probably because Lucas, again, wanted to evoke specific images of someone trying to escape from nowhere and humble origins.

Same with the "Chosen One". Lucas wanted to highlight that this a boy who is made to achieve something great if he decides to go that path, without having to delve into the details of that prophecy just as he doesn't delve into the details of the royal structures of Naboo or Leia's importance to the people of Alderaan. Nonetheless, it does add to his character journey. Anakin does put a lot of pressure on himself. I don't think we needed him saying "I am the Chosen One, so I have to be able to save my mom." just as we did not need him saying "I grew up a slave, so I cannot handle authority and being bossed around well." because it's all there in the movies - just a lot more subtle and I always like that in Lucas as a filmmaker, although he did get really close to adressing that point of Anakin's character specifically by having him say "I am Jedi, I know I am better than this". Anakin at the same time does never refer to himself as the Chosen One in the movies, which is quite humble and makes him sympathetic in a way that people hardly appreciate.

I also like the ambiguity of it and the Prequels as whole (which I think many of its detractors can't stand). What does the prophecy say, exactly? Does it mean destroying the Sith? Does it mean to even things out by bringing the Jedi down (which was a common interpretation before TCW rolled in...)? Does it mean both, which is kind of my own interpretation of the prophecy in a sense that those who dominated the Force for centuries need to die in order to allow new purity to sping and set the Force back into balance? You're free to interpret it the way you want, although I am perfectly aware that Lucas saw the prophecy as the Sith getting destroyed. He did open it up to interpretation, though, with Yoda's line of a prophecy that could have been "misread".

I would have enjoyed the movies just as much without the prophecy, but incorporating such a thing is pure George Lucas and I am perfectly fine with it.

 

That's like saying the Sith aren't in play or the Rule of Two isn't in play. If they aren't then the whole thing is kinda bizarre. Why doesn't Sidious just have both Vader and Luke if he can? Why are Obi-Wan and Yoda so concerned about the Skywalker kids being the only ones who can destroy Vader and his Emperor? It is in play as far as the audience is concerned and for Obi-Wan and Yoda.

As the audience we see how the story ends with Anakin destroying the Sith. Within the narrative Obi-Wan and Yoda are looking to Luke. The word of new hope/last hope to destroy the Sith or Chosen One is just that. Wording. It's doesn't change the in-narrative story thread.

The PT are the previous films. They were just made later. It's very much different for the reasons mentioned already because things were purposefully not established. The events of the OT don't change. The context the backstory gives doesn't change the events but give that context which was not there.

I just use it as an example of a direct out and out retcon of saying what you saw and were told happened actually didn't (even within it's own trilogy!). Which is the opposite of the OT and PT relationship.

Yes but the root difference is retroactive (something happening now that affects the past) as opposed to retrospective (looking back on past events). Sidious is destroyed in ROTJ and the Force is put back into balance by Anakin. Sidious returning in TROS rewrites the end of ROTJ so therefore the Force was not put back into balance? Then why where the Force ghosts smiling? They seemed pretty convinced the Force was alright. Looking back on past events doesn't change the events that happened in ROTJ. Within the narrative they always happened previously. Nothing is changed.

No. The story from Luke's perspective was complete. The saga was hardly complete because we'd only seen Episodes IV, V and VI. The talk after that point was when were the prequels going to be made? That was the focus thereafter and lead to years of speculation and expectation. The audience wasn't walking away with pressing unanswered questions because Lucas made a point of not bringing them up to be asked. That doesn't mean that they weren't out there at all.

Then all the years of prequel speculation even before the production was officially announced must be some mass illusion? I really not sure what the deflection point here is. The OT was Luke's story. Lucas made a point of saying the prequels were going to be Anakin and Obi-Wan's story and the rise to power of the Emperor and when the two trilogies were together then the complete story would be told.

I agree that is weak on so many levels it's hard to know where to start. That is not what happens in the Star Wars Saga though because the retrospective (not retroactive) continuity strengthens all three films of the OT on multiple levels of character, story and meaning in the narrative universe and outside it for the audience. As intended by Lucas we see the story of the son, Luke Skywalker, as had already happened and still happens because it didn't change to now getting the inverse and parallel journey of the father, Anakin Skywalker, as he goes from hero to villain and his final redemption. Along the way we get to see all that was mentioned previously including what Obi-Wan, Yoda and Sidious were doing which informs us of the overall stakes that we weren't fully appreciative of which also layers in levels of depth that are now in their proper place because the second half of a story isn't where that would be. That'd be just where it was supposed to be. The first half of the story. This retrospective continuity makes the last episode of the saga particularly narratively enriched.

The "if things were changed then they'd be different" isn't a particularly compelling argument here.

Question: What changes about the films/story/saga if you were to remove the prophecy?

Your Answer: Not much. It doesn't really impact the plot/story in any meaningful way.

Movie Answer: Then Anakin doesn't become a Jedi in TPM because the only reason he was brought in (at his age) was because Qui-Gon believed in him (as the Chosen One) which is why Obi-Wan would take him on even if the council didn't agree that he should be (which they did because of the return of the Sith). Additionally it immediately makes Anakin a special interest of Sidious' attentions. This clearly impacts the the plot and the story of the PT and the entire saga because it brings into play the entire through line of the importance of the Skywalker's and their power of which we have already seen in the OT.

Not at all. There would be nothing easy about it. Quite the opposite. As it was a 9 year old was going to be impossible to bring in unless the prophecy was attached to him. If there was no prophecy then Qui-Gon would have at best allowed him to race for them and even got him freed. Past that there was no way he would have presented him to the Jedi with any expectations nor would he have any reason to out himself out there to train him without permission.

Retrospectively it's the entire basis of the saga because it's the origin of Anakin becoming a Jedi. Why he's so important and why his son Luke is so coveted by Sidious and looked on as the new/last hope for the Jedi (Obi-Wan and Yoda).

The entire saga as I said. Anakin/Vader is in 6 of the 6 movies while Luke is in 3 (plus a baby in ROTS)

Once again I'm talking about the saga. I-VI. The complete story.

Now I'm really confused. So you don't like TESB very much or it seems the entire saga? Where is this everything is predestined by the Force coming from? So now Luke is nothing in your eyes?

Sorry I just find that perplexing because it's a confusing mixture of in and out of narrative threads. We know but the movie doesn't? We as the audience are the ones who are watching the movie (and all the movies) so the movie does know because it's telling us. In the narrative the characters are aware because the Jedi want the Sith destroyed to bring balance to the Force while the Sith want to finish off the Jedi.

Before the PT all we knew was the car had an engine. We didn't know what kind of an engine it had because we couldn't open the hood. We saw the results and the ending but not the start and inception. We know where the car ended up but where did it start from and how long was it going? We jumped onboard the ride halfway.

I don't see how that analogy works at all to these movies. To say the PT is entirely irrelevant simply doesn't work. To try and tie it into your analogy in some way then it'd be like saying that frosting isn't frosting but water then saying "Just ignore it."

I don't know what to say to that besides the obvious that the PT clearly and demonstrably does exactly what it was supposed and intended to do which was to retrospectively tell the backstory and first half of the story to the OT's second half of the story. The character and story threads that it added to the saga are many. These have been all gone over many times.

I certainly don't feel the love based on many of the above comments based on the dismissal of the PT and the shrunken story potential of the OT due to Darth Vader being made Luke's father.

As I said before the Disney ST simply makes no sense with Lucas' movies on level after level after level because it's all about being a retroactive continuity to his saga saying that which what we know happened actually didn't as opposed to Lucas' retrospective continuity where everything that happened did but this look to the past will give us the full and complete story circle.

 

From an audience perspective, the Rule of Two was not in play for audiences prior to the PT. In 1983, there was a very real possibility to ROTJ audiences that Luke would join The Emperor and Vader.

That said, let's accept the PT retconning of this confrontation. If the rule of two is in play it's still kinda bizarre. Why would Vader willingly bring Luke to The Emperor to allow The Emperor to turn Luke in order to replace/destroy Vader? If Vader's plan all along is to destroy The Emperor and "rule the galaxy as father and son" what's his plan? Why stop Luke from striking down The Emperor? Why fight Luke at all?

You are saying that, within the OT narrative, Obi-Wan and Yoda think Luke (or Leia) is now "the chosen one"? That's not shown in those movies. Is it? Obi-Wan and Yoda think it's Luke/Leia that will "bring balance to The Force"? That's not in the movies.

What? Luke/Leia being "the Last hope" = "Chosen One" ? This seems to be your interpretation rather than the narrative or/canon. This doesn't come from the films. Wording does matter. Is there a source you are getting this idea from other than the films? I don't think that Obi-Wan and Yoda (post the events of ROTS) believe in the prophecy, nor do they consider Luke (or Leia) to be "The chosen one." I mean, how can there be a chosen one if they are twins (two of them)?

Again, this seems to be your re-contextualization of the events in the OT rather than something that is actually presented in the narrative. In the OT...there is no prophecy. Surely you know this.

A retcon that changes context and meaning is still a retcon even if it doesn't change events.

For example: Leia and Luke kissed romantically in ESB. The revelation in ROTJ that they are twins, while not changing the events of the kiss, totally retconned the meaning/context into something cringe inducing and incestuous.

Again, a contextual retcon is still a retcon regardless of if events change. If you change a previously understood meaning, theme, message, idea, or plot point....it's a retcon.

Question: Why were the Force ghosts smiling at the end of ROTJ in 1983 before there was a thing such as "putting the Force back into balance"?

Up to that point, the saga WAS Luke's story. It wasn't until Lucas delved into the creation of the PT that he shifted the focus of the narrative and started saying "it was always about Vader."

I agree on this. Yet, this is different than how you were framing things before.

Not at all. Yet this is different than what you were suggesting before:

The way you frame this makes it seems like, after ROTJ, the saga felt incomplete and the audience had all of these unanswered questions and unresolved issues, etc. I apologize if I misinterpreted/misread your meaning.

This is a nice, subjective, statement here.

Again, thanks for telling me how prequels work.

Let me say this: The OT was not a half finished saga begging for a first half of the story to be added to the narrative in order to be complete. I love the prequels, and I agree with the (subjective) idea that they do enrich the OT in many, many, ways.

That said, it's erroneous to say that the PT doesn't retcon (alter the meaning and context) of what the OT is/was. Simply put: The Chose One Prophecy fundamentally alters/changes our previous understanding of the OT narrative. Whether it was for better, or worse is up to the viewer.

1. I am quite sure that Lucas could have come up with the motivation/impetus for Qui-Gon to insist on training Anakin without The Chosen One Prophecy. In fact....

2. In the OT, the seeds of this were planted without the need for Qui-Gon or the Prophecy when Obi-Wan stated:

"When I first knew him, your father was already a great pilot. But I was
amazed how strongly the Force was with him. I took it upon myself to
train him as a Jedi. I thought that I could instruct him just as well
as Yoda. I was wrong."

The narrative of Episode 1 demonstrates, this isn't really what happened. Another retcon/recontextualization. I mean, you can kind of fudge it so it lines up from a "certain point of view," yet it's clear that Lucas hadn't Qui-Gon or The Chosen One prophecy in mind when crafting this OT dialogue.

Point being: There was a time when Obi-Wan was more directly involved with the discovery, recruitment, and initial training of Anakin than what we eventually got in Episode 1.

The fact is... elements like The Prophecy and Qui-Gon were later additions that inevitably changed the larger meaning/context of the OT narrative in a major way from what had previously been established.

You are using in universe barriers to explain/justify the weaknesses of The Chosen One concept from a writing standpoint. Again, there are numerous ways Anakin could have been writtin to have gravitas, narrative importance, urgency, and meaning without a injecting a "chosen one prophecy" into the story. While it's a mythic trope, it seems a bit like a lazy short cut to get from point A to B in Episode 1.

For evidence: Consider how The Matrix uses a very similar "chosen one" trope to great effect. In The Matrix actually see this "Chosen One" concept play out within the same Matrix movie and we see it leveraged to have maximum impact at the very climax of The Matrix.

This simply isn't the case with "The Chosen One" concept presented in Episode 1. It's a narratively limp concept that has no pay off except for whatever was retconned/frankensteined onto the already existing (and narratively satisfying) climax of ROTJ.

I get this. Yet it's weak because it serves only as impetus (created "retrospectively") that has no pay off within in the trilogy and only kinda works as a half baked, unacknowledged retcon of ROTJ's already established(and emotionally satisfying) climax.

The saga centered around Luke until it didn't when Episodes 1-3 were created. The entire saga is now 1-9 officially and the saga no longer centers around Vader as it once did. It centers around the Skywalker family. See how that works?

In order to expand the saga, retcons are often established to justify/assist the narrative of the additional films. You seem to be cool with the changes created to service the story being told by the Prequels, yet don't like the changes creates to serve the story being told by the sequels.

My point: Changes in context, meaning, and previous understandings in BOTH the prequels and sequels alter/change the OT. Regardless if you like these changes or not, both the prequels and sequels have directly impacted (and altered) what the OT is and how we view it as fans and audience members.

I'm not sure why you are confused. I am sure that I don't like you putting words in my mouth, or blatantly misrepresenting what I am saying. Why are you making things up? I never said any of these. If you need reclariification...just ask.

No one in the OT is concerned about The Chosen One Prophecy or bringing balance to The Force. That is you artificially putting context into three films where there is none. It's simply a non issue to the characters. It's never mentioned even once.

How can we (the audience) be expected to care about it when it's not remotely a relevant/important issue (plot point) to any of our characters? Obi-Wan and Yoda and Luke and Leia gives 0% ****s about "balance of the Force" in the OT. They don't talk about it. The fact that it have no impactful bearing in half the narrative is a huge detriment to the whole retconned concept.

Weak analogy. We knew exactly how Star Wars worked. We saw the engine. We were made privy to a ton of makings of specials, and behind the scenes features. We have/had access to tons of Lucas interviews detailing the creation of the saga. What we didn't see were the blueprints. Lucas later took the blueprints and expanded/grafted more onto what he already had created.

Again: With Star Wars, Lucas did not have two halves of an already formed story/saga and only gave us the second half. Lucas retroactively fleshed out background details, and grafted them onto and already existed, already finished machine.

Simply put: By in large, the bulk of PT narrative (including the Chosen One Prophecy) was created after Episodes 4-6 were released, embraced, and loved by the world. Though they are prequels, Episodes 1-3 can(and did) just as easily affect, alter, and retcon the understanding and meaning of the OT as sequels can (and did). The prequels changed the OT. Whether you like this or not is a different discussion.

For clarification, try this out...

First: Watch the Prequels on their own. In regards to the chosen one prophecy, does it work as a self contained trilogy without the OT? Absolutely not. The chosen one prophecy is left hanging. Revenge of the Sith ends with it seeming like the prophecy was either unresolved or like the prophecy was a lie. It's a limp narrative device.

Now: Go watch the OT films on their own without the PT or any knowledge of The Chosen One Prophecy. Does it work on its own as a self contained trilogy with out the PT? Of course it does. It was created/designed that way. You don't need to know about the prophecy to get maximum enjoyment from the OT. It's a limp narrative device.

Last: Watch the films in order 1-6. What of the chosen one prophecy? The last it is mentioned or even relevant to the actual events is in Episode 3. It's a limp narrative device.

I don't know what to say to you except that the OT wasn't a series begging for a "first half" or prequels any more than it was begging for a "second half" or sequels.

Think about it: Rogue One is just as relevant as a prequel to our understanding of the OT as anything in the prequels is. Did we need that film to better understand the OT? Not necessarily. Like the Prequels, it was just icing on the already baked (and devoured) cake that is the OT.

I think The Chosen One prophecy is a weak convention of the Prequels in how it was executed within the narrative. I am sorry if you think this means I don't love The Prequels. One can love still their children without loving the need to change their poopy diapers.

Furthermore, I will continue to disagree with you on this point: Despite the fact that the Prequels are set before the OT, these movies did their fair share to retcon the OT in terms of meaning, context, and tone as they were created/added to the saga afterwards.

Again, you may really enjoy these alterations and will likely continue to frame them as "deepening" and "new understandings of previously established events." Yet, they are retcons all the same and not vastly different to the "deepening" and "new understanding of previously established events" brought forth by the ST.

 

I love it. It's the single story thread that connects all of the PT, TCW, and OT together and puts the story into mythological territory. Can't imagine Star Wars without it!

 

I'm fine with the chosen one simply because Lucas did not make him Superman in that respect. Anakin is flawed and makes human mistakes, yet he still is the chosen one even as a bad guy. Most 'Chosen One' characters like Neo in the Matrix never turn bad, so they are just Superman throughout the story.

 

This wasn't a PT retcon. Lucas actually answers all the questions you just asked by appealing to the Rule of Two concept, which he'd already devised in all but name, during the ROTJ story conference in 1981:

Kasdan: What is it that Vader wants?

Lucas: Vader’s plot is to convert Luke to the dark side, make him an ally, and then topple the Emperor. At this point he and the Emperor want to turn Luke to the dark side. I don’t think Vader would care whether he turned Luke to the dark side or if the Emperor turned him, because he feels that once Luke is turned, he can use him for his ally. The Emperor and Vader are in total agreement about what’s going to happen. They both want to get a hold of Luke. They both want him converted to the dark side: the Emperor to replace Vader, and Vader to replace the Emperor. They are perfect bad guys.

Vader's plan is to have the Emperor help him turn Luke to the dark side, because he no longer thinks he can do it on his own. Then, after that's accomplished, he'll convince Luke to help him overthrow the Emperor. He has to prevent Luke from striking down the Emperor because he knows the Emperor would just blast Luke with lightning and then confront Vader about his disloyalty. It's a test for Vader. Vader has to play along because otherwise his plot will be revealed and his head will be on the chopping block--and of course it already is, but he doesn't know that.

It's the classic Sith dynamic that Lucas ultimately formalized as the Rule of Two.

 

That's all well and good. Yet, the audience aren't typically privy to/reading over story conference notes as they are watching the films.

I totally get that this is Lucas's intention in the scene. However, the fact there is a Sith doctrine at play in this ROTJ scene doesn't ever communicated to the audience watching the scene. It just seems like bad guys being, as Lucas says, "perfect bad guys."

Notice, in these notes: Lucas never mentions anything about "The Rule of two." For all we know it's just, as he describes, villains doing villain stuff.

 

It's called subtext.

EMPEROR
Patience, my friend. In time he will seek you out. And when he does,
you must bring him
before me. He has grown strong. Only together can we turn him to the
dark side of the
Force.

You're supposed to remember Vader's motivations from the last movie and put two and two together. Lucas didn't want Vader to explicitly talk about his plans to kill the Emperor because then it would telegraph what was supposed to be the unexpected twist at the end of the movie, where Vader does in fact kill the Emperor.

Yes, of course that's what it is. He's describing the motivational dynamics of the villains, dynamics which he says make them "perfect bad guys." He later formalized this "perfect bad guy" dynamic between Vader and the Emperor as being the dynamic driving every Sith master/apprentice pair. Therefore, the essence of the Rule of Two was in fact already in play during the OT, contrary to your assertion that it had no relevance. In fact this actually goes against your point, because now the prequels make explicit what you complain what was not adequately explained to the audience in ROTJ.

No one ever claimed he had already named it the Rule of Two while making the OT. In fact I specifically said he didn't. It also doesn't matter.

 

So, the audiences prior to 1999 were supposed to glean from the subtext of ESB/ROTJ that there, in fact, was an ancient Sith doctrine called "The Rule of Two"?

You mean, "Destroy the Emperor, end this conflict, and together we can rule the galaxy as father and son?" How was the audience to know that this was Vader being earnest? It seems like there was supposed to be an inherent question of if Vader was to be trusted on this, or not.

So Vader was intending to kill The Emperor all along? Doesn't this alter the narrative a bit? What makes his saving of Luke a heroic act rather than enacting his plan to destroy Palpatine? Because it's an act of sacrifice?

Listen, I get that (at the end of ESB) Vader suggests that he and Luke join up and take out The Emperor, yet in ROTJ Vader is much more of a subservient, loyal, lap dog. Again, is he secretly plotting to kill Palpatine the entire time?

I dunno man. The "essence" of something "being in play" is pretty thin. It's film. In movies, showing is better than telling. Especially when the telling happens after the fact in a subsequent film.

Adequately explained? The Rule of Two wasn't even partially explained in ROTJ. It wasn't a thing. You make it seem like Episode 1 merely cleared up an ambiguous (subtextual) plot point in ROTJ. In fact, Episode 1 came up with a new convention/rule and tied it to existing material.

In reality, much like he did with Anakin, Lucas invented a new aspect of the SW mythology for Episode 1 and frankensteined it onto what already existed in ROTJ. It's genius in it's own right, and I have no problem with it.

Yet, to change the emphasis, focus, or explanation of the meaning/context/mechanics of an existing film is to alter the meaning/context/mechanics of said existing film. Simply put, it's a retcon of sorts. Well within Lucas's right as an artist, but a retcon all the same.

 

@jaimestarr You're gonna see "It doesn't matter" a lot in these PT forums.

 

No. I don't understand how you could have gleaned this from what I said. I said it doesn't matter if it's called the Rule of Two. Then I explained how Vader's motivations proceed from his previously established motivations in TESB and what is then said in ROTJ. So, as you can see, there's no way you could have read my post in good faith and concluded that I said audiences in 1983 were supposed to glean anything about an ancient Sith doctrine. Please pay attention.

You were wrong.

....Uh, yeah? Of course?

This whole argument is about you thinking the Rule of Two doesn't add anything to the originals. I pointed out that it elaborates on and further explains an aspect which you claim wasn't adequately explained in the originals. You're now simply denying that that subtext even exists, because admitting that it does would obviously destroy your argument.

 

No, I am arguing that the subtext did not exist in ROTJ from 1983-1999. The subtext only exists retroactively in lieu of The Rule of Two being introduced in the PT.

Again, with hindsight, It's easy to see this subtext....yet it simply didn't exist in the OT era.

It's a bit like this:

When Empire Strikes Back was released, Leia was not planned on as being Luke's sister. So, when Yoda says, "No, there is another..." We had no idea what he meant. It did not mean Leia, it meant something else.

Then, once Lucas retconned the story to have Luke/Leia be twins, Yoda's claim of "another" in ESB retroactively gained new meaning/subtext, etc. This line "No, there is another..." took on new and certain meaning in hindsight.

Bottom Line: The rule of two is a retcon that was grafted on to Return of The Jedi.

 

It does exist, for reasons I've already explained. We know Vader's motivations from the previous movie. We remember how Vader failed to turn Luke. We have no reason to think Vader is being insincere in his ambitions for power, nor do we have any reason to think he's abandoned these ambitions, nor do we have any reason to think his plan involving Luke has changed. ROTJ has the Emperor telling Vader that only together can they turn Luke to the dark side. Put two and two together. That's subtext.

It's not remotely the same as that, because we literally have a transcript of the story conference where Lucas explains that this is the intended subtext of what he subsequently put on the screen.

Yes, exactly. It's something new that was introduced in the prequels that enhanced the story of ROTJ, specifically the plotting going on between Vader and the Emperor. I'm glad we can finally agree on this.