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

They've already been proven wrong when Vader threw the Emperor away. And I don't see how this change undermines Luke's conviction since, before the revelation at the end of The Empire Strikes Back, Luke always imagined his father as a hero and a young Jedi as Ben described him in A New Hope. Even after the revelation in Return of the Jedi, Luke still believes that the good Jedi inside of Vader (Anakin) is still alive, and that is reinforced by his quote when Vader still denies the internal conflict inside of him during their conversation on Endor: "So my father is truly dead."

By saying this, he still believes it's the Jedi and the hero who he was before who is dead, not the old man that he should have become or he was currently in the Vader's suit. Besides, that last quote from Luke also hint that Luke agrees (more or less shall we say) with Obi-Wan's point of view: that the good side of Vader/Anakin is the young Jedi he was once and when he became Vader, he was destroyed both physically and in his soul.

If you read the novelization of Revenge of the Sith by Matthew Stover, which I think has done a better job in some ways to describe the psychology and what is happening inside Anakin's/Vader's mind, you find out at the end of the story that he despise completely the person that he was before (Anakin) when you read this quote: "And within your furnace heart, you burn in your own flame. This is how it feels to be Anakin Skywalker. .Forever.".

This quote in the novel is further reinforced when what Vader's says when he hears Luke pronounce his former name, Anakin Skywalker, on Endor in Return of the Jedi: "That name no longer has any meaning for me!" Proof that he completely rejects the person that he was before.

Besides, Vader's action in this scene was more the one of a father rather than the one of a Jedi since it is more his compassion towards his son who pushed him to destroy the Emperor, not the suffering and the destruction that the entire galaxy (in other words, billions of lives) had to endure. So the old man that he has become was still somehow beyond redemption.

This could make many people's head spin and it may also seem a little bit cheesy. But to me, at the least, I don't see how young Anakin's ghost contradicts many of the things in the OT or PT.

If some people prefer the old Anakin's ghost, that's fine. But you're forgetting that it's the author, or creator, who has the final word on something that he created. That's why there are all those laws and rules protecting copyrights on products such as books and novels. But I'll add this, the creator's view may satisfy more or it may just piss off people more, which would be nice at the least, and help avoiding many controversies among the public, to publish the different versions of a same product since each people has its own perspective, on a movie, a book, etc...

If there are different versions of a movie or a book, it doesn't mean that one is right or one is wrong, it all depends on how the public perceives it. But it still is the author or the creators view who has the last word on it. But I don't think it still justifies the fact of not re-releasing the unaltered version along with the Special Edition... Each people can pick their own version.

 

Luke never saw anakin looking like he did in the unnecessary change,whereas he saw obi-wan and yoda and the unmasked vader in person.
Silly change if you ask me.

 

But the unmasked Vader looks different to the force ghost.

 

Yes but that makes sense to some like me just like deaged Ani does to others. That's about showing his overcoming his past and being healed without removing all indications he had trails to begin with.

 

I'm just kidding here!

But in that case, it should have the burned old man with his limbs cut that Luke saw when he unmasked Vader before he died, not the restored Sebastian Shaw or Hayden Christensen. How It Should Have Ended nailed it perfectly since, for them, it should have the burned old man he saw which makes the most sense at 3:01 on the video below:

 

To which I quote this...

"...if you start with Star Wars, then Vader’s just the villain, and that’s it. But you don’t realize that he’s a human being, that he’s got problems you don’t realize that he could have been saved, that he was tricked and can be resurrected."

--George Lucas, Empire Magazine 2001.

Thus what is dead, can be resurrected.

I like how you put conditions on this. That Luke couldn't feel a connection to his father, because he looks to be the same age as him. This is undermined by a classic film called, "Field Of Dreams".



Where Ray finally gets to play a game of catch with his father's ghost, who appears as a young man rather than an old man. Yeah, I suppose you couldn't buy the kinship because they're the same age.

But there's something else, you mentioned breaking the chains. Well, that still applies as the old man and the suit are the chains that Anakin breaks free of. Hence, young Anakin Skywalker is freed from the chains of Darth Vader. In fact, Shanti Fader said as much.

"In addition to the Zen-like Force that "surrounds us and penetrates us...(and) binds the galaxy together," as Obi-wan tells Luke, another Eastern religious element can be found in Vader's resemblance to demons that, in the Buddhist tradition, were at one time human and, through the actions of Buddha or his followers, are freed from their demonic state.

They usually wind up dying and through death are released from their demonic state. Again, that's a parallel to Vader, who is only freed at the point of his death."

--Shanti Fader, USA Today article and "Star Wars And Philosophy."

 

The difference between Field of Dreams and Return of the Jedi is that all of the other baseball players in Field of Dreams appear younger, too, so it's a consistent decision made by the people in charge of the movie creatively that abides by the rules of that universe.

If Kevin Costner saw a bunch of old baseball playing ghosts, but his father was young and the rest weren't, it's reasonable to assume that his character would be confused. Not because he can't recognize his father, but because of the weird rule change. He probably had old pics of his dad from his baseball playing career, while it's unclear what Luke had of his father other than stories.

 

Again, it doesn't matter. You form a bond no matter what the age is. Luke would know that he was seeing his father, because that is who would appear to him regardless of his appearance. He can connect to his father no matter the age.

 

But the unmasked Vader looks different to the force ghost.
------------

I've never thought this, personally.

 

The unmasked Vader is a burned body, so of course he would be unrecognizable. If we apply the logic that Luke doesn't recognize his father because it's a different man as the ghost, then it should have been the burned body of Anakin with his limbs cut that should have appeared as the ghost, not the healthy Sebastian Shaw or Hayden Christensen.

 

Obi-Wan also doesn't appear in two halves, so what's your point?

 

You shouldn't have to watch the prequels to know who Anakin is. The Original Trilogy was meant to stand on it's own. We learned about Anakin little by little throughout the Trilogy, from supporting characters like Uncle Owen, Obi-Wan, and Yoda. If you watch ROTJ and see Hayden Christensen in it you can make the guess it's Anakin, but you have no connection to the character because for some reason he's magically young when his two Jedi friends are old. We watched Darth Vader's character grow in the Original Trilogy and to have him be young again at the end of the Trilogy completely negates his character growth.

 

Well said, Revan96.

Interesting idea, DS. While you may feel Luke would be able to sense/forge a bond instantly with his father regardless of appearance, I disagree. It would make sense that he would likely do better with one that appears closer to a healed man of the one he gazed upon just before losing him hence Shaw.

 

I don't really mind it... lots of the reasoning seems to be memory bias. However, I (guess?) I can understand how Anakin's ghost stands out from the rest, being deaged and not looking like how he did when he died. I also agree with you on that smile part, would have been nice if Lucas at least quickly shot new footage of Hayden with a warmer and more welcoming smile than the mischievous one from ROTS.

 

No one is saying you have to watch the Prequel Trilogy, but the fact is that they're connected now and forever. That's why Lucas had them together regardless of how well they were or weren't received.

That really undersells Luke's unconditional love for his father, that he can only relate to him as an old man. That's putting a condition on his love and sense of kinship. That's like saying Marty McFly cannot love his parents in the new timeline, since all he ever knows are the versions of his parents where is mother is dead inside and overweight, and his father is still a nerd who cannot stand up for himself.

 

The unmasked Vader is a burned body, so of course he would be unrecognizable
--------

ugggh, again from when I first saw the movie, way back when I knew exactly who it was. That it was the man Luke was talking less than 10 minutes ago, I'm sorry this is confusing to some, but it isn't to some of us...want to talk about confusing then talk politics in the PT

 

As Darth_Pevra has already said, Obi-Wan isn't cut in half or has a nasty gash in his side.
So the logic of Force ghost was quite simple, you look/sound/talk like the age you were when you died but you are healed of your wounds.
Force ghost Obi-Wan is old, looks/sounds/talk like Alec Guinness but has no wounds from Vader's lightsabre. Yoda looks the same age and the old Force ghost of Anakin was the same age as when he died but again, no wounds.

Young Anakin alters the rules and doesn't explain how or why. Plus it is cheaply and sloppily made and works less well both from Luke's pow and as a close to the character arc of Anakin Skywalker.

Bye for now.
Old Stoneface

 

Then this logic also works with young Anakin since for many people and for Obi-Wan himself, as I said earlier, the moment the good Jedi in him died was when he received his baptism as Darth Vader when he was younger.

As I've mentioned on my post above, in Return of the Jedi, Vader said: "That name (name of Anakin Skywalker) no longer has any meaning for me!" He has completely buried the person who was. When he saved his son, it was the act of a father, not that of a Jedi or a Sith. The idea since the very beginning of the Saga, even before the prequels were released, is that Luke's father was dead, destroyed by Vader, and for the audience, even if you knew that Vader was Luke's father after The Empire Strikes Back, when you look at him, you don't think: "Oh! That's Anakin Skywalker". His apparition as a younger Anakin is the symbol representing the good that there was inside of him, not after what he has become after putting on the suit.

Of course all of this is symbolism and it can sound wobbly, but that's what Star Wars is, it's symbolism.



...and therefore Star Wars is... wobbly? As many critics said before (see the article of MacLean's I posted here: http://boards.theforce.net/threads/macleanss-article-star-wars-sucks-there-we-said-it.50031200/ )?

 

No, it doesn't. Nothing in the changes cheapens anything in Luke's point of view. It may be your point of view that's altered.

 

Sorry but to force this symbolism angle you have to totally ignore the fact that Obi-Wan was WRONG.
He and Palpatine both thought that Anakin was gone and could never come back.
Vader had given up and lied to himself about what his true feelings were.

Luke proved them all wrong.
Anakin was there all along, deep down there was still good in him, the emperor hasn't driven it from him completely. Anakin Skywalker never died, either figuratively or literally, he had just let his hate poison his soul and corrupt his mind. But the good person he had once been was still there.
And Luke sensed it and was able to touch it and bring it back out into the light.
That is why Vader says "You were right about me. Tell your sister, you were right."
So your theory totally destroy one of the main messages of RotJ.

Also, since the beginning? At first Vader wasn't Luke' father.
Second, if Lucas was about this symbolism stuff, he could have had a young Anakin when RotJ was first made.
It is simple, have some actor in his 30-40's play the unmasking scene with lots of make up and then have him in the ghost scene, looking healed and younger. People would be able to see it is the same person and figure out that this would be Anakin pre-turn.
But he didn't and instead he had the ghost be played by an older actor.
Third, as I've said in other places, Anakin goes to hell and comes back out again. He listens to his fears and lets his hate consume him and he burns for it. He has given up hope but his son manages to reach him and he dies at peace. More at peace than he has been for a long time, even before his turn.
Old Anakin managed to do what Hayden Anakin could not, let go of his fear, anger and hate. Let go of everything and simply be. That makes him a better Jedi and a better person than Hayden ever was.
Thus this old Anakin is a much better "symbol" of the whole character arc of Anakin Skywalker than Hayden, who only represent the first part.

@ DS.

In your OPINION, nothing has changed, in mine and others, it has.
Your opinion is no more correct than mine.
Luke used to see the father he saved from the dark side, the father he has long sought and a face that he is now familiar with.
Now Luke sees some young guy that he probably figures is how his father used to look. Before the turn, before Luke was born, so it is a father figure somewhat removed from Luke.

Bye for now.
Blackboard Monitor

 

Overall I tend to agree with Vimes and Co, but Ghost Ben isn't cut in half because Obi-Wan was never actually cut in half, or in any way damaged, by Vader's lightsaber. Vader swung, and Ben simply disappeared before the blade hit him. So there are no wounds to heal.

No?

 

Arrived to this point, I think that we are facing personal preferences here or biased opinions.

Look, as I said earlier, I have no problems with old ghost Anakin played by Sebastain Shaw. It doesn't even bother me if it's Hayden Christensen either. If people prefer the old version, it's fine. What I simply wanted to demonstrate is why the young ghost works and why it does make sense in some ways (at least for me and many others).

I encourage intelligent discussion, some people can agree or disagree, but from what I've seen earlier, it is only of deconstruction of my arguments above instead of people saying: "Yeah, your reasoning kind make sense but still..." and keeping criticizing George Lucas and slandering Hayden for its "creepy look". Even darth_revan96 above said "You shouldn't have to watch the prequels". Well if you don't like the prequels that's ok, but that doesn't mean that others shouldn't watch them because you don't like them. Same here with Anakin's ghost, if you don't like the younger version, that's fine, but that doesn't mean that your point of view should be applied to others just to satisfy your own personal opinion. And just because it is shared by many others, it doesn't necessarily mean it's the right one.

There's nothing wrong and nothing right and there's nothing absolute in this topic. As Obi-Wan said: "Only a Sith deals in absolute." There's nothing completely black nor completely white.

 

It's not necessary to watch the prequels for Hayden though. I - and I'm sure many others - did not recognize ghost!Shaw as Shaw-in-makeup. That connection flew right by me. I recognized Shaw as Anakin because, really, who else was it going to be? That same logic applies to Hayden: who else's ghost is going to show up right after Anakin dies? Hayden is a nice connection for those of us who have seen the prequels, but he does not make prequel knowledge necessary.

I'm referring to both his look and his age. There were no rules for ghosting in the OT. It was all a mystery. We knew that Obi-Wan and Yoda looked the same as when they died, but they also weren't badly-scarred and missing limbs. They weren't recently a dark-side agent of the Empire either. Anakin is a special case no matter how you look at it. Again, prequel knowledge is not necessary for this.

 

Nice catch!

You are perfectly right when you're saying that there was no rule about Force ghost mentioned in the OT and PT. The only rules and theories mentioned here are the ones made up by the fans. There was nothing mentioned in any of the previous movies. In fact the only thing that we learn about Force ghost is in The Clone Wars series when Yoda is being taught by Qui-Gon Jinn. It's that Force ghost is a way to preserve its identity after death, nothing more, nothing less, since people who die usually lose their identity and become one with the Force.