Who does Sebastian Shaw represent?

There's some debate between people here that Sebastian Shaw is supposed to represent Anakin before his turn to the Dark Side. I think most people would believe it's the opposite. Which do you believe?

A. Post-Vader
B. Pre-Vader


[image=http://www.swg1.net/encyclo/images/sebastian-shaw.jpg]

BAC EDIT: See last post.

 

Whatever side he represents I know not.

I just don't like the name Sebastian.

That's a cat's name.

 

I'm not sure. I've never been sure.

 

Post Vader. Hayden was pre

 

Where as now we know Sebastian's turn as Anakin Skywalker is post Vader I think the discussion point revolves around the inclusion of Hayden Christensen in ROTJ. Because Hayden's ghost was added there is now debate as to whether Anakin was originaly meant to refer back to his pre-Vader self.

I personaly believe that Sebastian Shaw represents a reformed post-vader, he just looks a little bit too old to represent a young Anakin Skywalker. Where good wins out though all his features are restored to the way that they would have been if he decided not to stop Windu from killing Palpatine and walk down the path of the dark side.

 

He's a post-Vader Anakin. He's what Anakin looks like after 20 years of aging, and what Anakin would have looked like after all that time were all his physical features intact.

 

Yeah that's right, show a picture of Shaw in the unmasking scene and then ask if it's supposed to be Anakin pre or post Vader.

[image=http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/starwars/images/e/ee/Spirits_copy1.jpg]

How about this Shaw?

The one with all his hair and limbs?

 

Hey, by all means. We'll use your picture instead. I feel the outcome will be the same either way. If that picture shows Anakin post-Vader, as you just hinted at, then I guess your answer is known now. So you are the one who is confused Go-Mer.

[image=http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/starwars/images/e/ee/Spirits_copy1.jpg]

[image=http://www.swg1.net/encyclo/images/sebastian-shaw.jpg]


I see a striking resemblance!

 

I have no doubt of that.

But it doesn't matter how many of us were mistaken. That doesn't change Lucas' original intent.

All it proves is that perhaps he didn't get his intention across as well as he might have liked at first.

Now all is remedied with the inclusion of Hayden as the Force ghost.

Now future generations will have a greater understanding of what Lucas intended.

 

I completely and totally give up.

 

You gave up in 1999.

 

Actually, I gave up in 2005, after leaving ROTS at the theater. Strike three, you're out.

 

Strike 3 and -you- are out.

 

Hayden Christensen is the pre-Vader Anakin. Shaw is post-Vader Anakin. He is, after all, the face we saw in the unmasking scene. It's not a stretch for anyone to recognize that we are seeing the same character in both scenes when it is, in fact, the same actor.

The apperance of Anakin went through several variations in the script stage, but not one of them ever had him revert back to his age before he turned to the Dark Side.

Go-Mer, any time a change is made, you have an argument ready to suggest that that was what Lucas "always intended," and that's the same thing he says any time he makes a change. He "always meant" for Greedo to shoot first, he "always meant" for Vader to be the father, he "always meant for Leia to be Luke's sister, he "always meant" for the ghost of Anakin to look younger. To the rest of us, it sounds a bit like crying wolf. You can't expect us to believe that every time he changes something, it's reverting back to his original intent rather than being another impulsive alteration.

The presence or absence of his injuries is not the issue here. The original ghost reflects Anakin's actual age when he died, not his youth.

 

To me it's a stretch because when we last saw him he had no hair and was missing all his limbs.

To me it makes more sense that he represented Anakin at a time when he had all his hair and limbs.

It's only crying wolf if it turns out he was lying about his original intent.

If he tells the truth and nobody can disprove him, then it's not like crying wolf.

 

The Hayden ghost doesn't have his prosthetic arm, does he? Neither version reflects injuried sustained during Anakin's life. His ghost, Yoda's, and Obi-Wan's are all devoid of injury, but accurately reflect their age at the time of death. The Shaw ghost is not an age reversal, merely an absence of injury. That the same actor was used in both scenes speaks volumes about his original intent.

By your own admission, until recently you didn't think about it, which means it isn't really an issue. Only recently, as you rationalized that the change must be a reflection of Lucas's original intent. And that seems to be the rationalization you come to every single time: it must be Lucas's original intent. As I asked before, who put you in a position to speak for Lucas's original intent? In this case, not even Lucas has claimed that it was his original intent--and both the double use of Shaw and the development of the story suggest otherwise. In many other cases, it is clear from the writing process that Lucas's current take was not his original intent. Saying, on Lucas's behalf, that he always meant it to be the way he recently changed it to be, is something you need to prove, not something we need do disprove.

 

I say using Shaw for both scenes originally says that Lucas wanted to ensure the audience understood who suddenly appeared next to Obi-Wan and Yoda. Lucas made him look as young as he could and decided that was good enough if he wasn't going to make prequels.

I just think it makes more sense for Lucas to remain consistent with his intentions as opposed to doing a 180° turn.

The only proof I have is that with my conclusion, Lucas' intent remains in tact, with your conclusion, Lucas comes off like a crazy person with no intent in particular.

Until you can prove that I'm wrong about his original intent, we will remain at this deadlock, with your assumption rendering Lucas' choices in the 2004 editions inconsistent, and mine rendering Lucas' choices as consistent.

 

You can believe anything if you simply refuse to look at the facts. You have brain-washed yourself into believing that everything George does is intended. Did it EVER occur to you that he could have made a mistake? Until we hear it from the man himself, this change was not his original intent, as we got something else completely different over 20 years ago. So far, he hasn't gone on record to contest this.

Your theory is nothing more than an attempt to explain away an obvious mistake. You believe it, which is unfortunate. Nobody else buys it.

Nobody said George had no intent in particular; we are saying his intent seems to have changed. The change causes inconsistencies with established norms from long ago. It doesn't work.

 

Shaw causes inconsistencies with the ANH/PT timeline. He doesn't work.

 

Yes, you can thank George for that. His PT is what caused the inconsistency. He had the chance to get it right. He failed.

 

No, I said the ANH/PT timeline. See those three additional letters before the ones you hate so much? ROTJ is what caused the inconsistency.

 

In what way?

 

In the Shaw way.

 

I see.

 

This is just a continuation of the same ridiculous arguments in the Hayden vs. Shaw thread. Keep it there, please.

Lock.