[Mike Mac from NYU]

I for one cannot see the Hitler in myself. In fact I think most people, IME, are a far cry from unredeemable psychotic madness. I do, however, think that some are unredeemable. Find the good, or at least the not-psychotic in Charles Manson, why don't you

Regarding Charles Manson...you have to consider that he is also mentally insane as well.

i dunno, both you and I have never stepped into Manson's shoes. just the same as you and I never stepped into Hitlers shoes. You and I never lived in post worl War I germany. We also never became failed painters. What if you or I realized that we had no talent or hope of making it in the movie business. how might you feel.

Y'know for all Hitler's antics... It was ordinary German people that let Hitler rise in german. Hitler just gave the German people what they wanted to hear and wanted to do in their hearts. So maybe every single german taht supported Hitler in his holocaust needs to put in the same breath with Hitler. And some of those people were not to different from you and I.

Hitler was a baby just the same as my daughter Siobhan. Did Hitler get born evil?

Is there a philosphy or theological rant forum on this site, civilian. I would love to get into this argument with you, but I think this SW forum isn;t the place.

[Jordan]

{I won;t give you the name of the killer, but i am sure you can take a guess} 

why? lol

[civilian_number_two]

Regarding Charles Manson...you have to consider that he is also mentally insane as well.

Hitler was also insane. That was my point. He was just less the raving lunatic that Manson is.

Yes, the German people supported him, because his target was Jews, and everybody hated the Jews in those days. It was a world-wide insanity, on par with the mad trading for tulips or the current belief that Iraq had something to do with 9/11. Yes, crowds will go along with what their leaders want.

You might like this really awful film called KALIFORNIA. It sets out to make a comment about serial killers and ends with the insultingly banal "I found there is a killer in all of us." Oh great; now I know why Ed Geen used to wear women's dresses and sip wine out of human skulls.

Bringing this back to STAR WARS, the idea that anyone could be a mass murderer, that there is evil in all of us, sure, that applies to little Annie, but the idea that anyone could also, on his deathbed, relent and be genuinely redeemed, well, has has that ever happened for anyone, ever? Would it have made one whit of spiritual difference had Hitler apologized to Jesus before shooting himself in that bunker? I say this is a place STAR WARS goes that you got to give it credit for: no other film series I know has ever made the villain suddenly turn into the good guy (I except AUSTIN POWERS, for it is parody of none other than STAR WARS), nor has anyone ever tested out western Christian notions of sin and redemption in a film. Of course, along with most of the world I believe the measure of a man is the sum of all of his behaviour, but Lucas believes that any attrocity can be forgiven if a man is willing to commit murder in order to save his own son.

Very good. We'll call it even.

[Xombie]

To some extent I agree with what Xombie said. Yeah, it's great that Vader has a change of heart at the last minute, but it hardly makes up for all the crimes he's committed in the past (it was actually Tarkin who had Alderaan blown up, but nonetheless). I can see why Lucas wanted a 'happy' ending but it would be better if he'd just let Vader die, rather than having him appear at the end with the other Jedi.

Because the whole point of the Star Wars trilogy was about redemption. Anakin Skywalkers redemption. Luke's redemption of the Skywalker name.

The point Lucas was making was a very good one. Inside all of us there is great evil and great Good. A person who does a thousand good deed can make one evil deed and forever go down that path of evil. Conversely, A person can do a thousand evil deeds and commit one good deed and forever go up the stairs of goodness.

Nobody is beyond redemption. Whether your a drug dealer, murderer, mass murderer. All it takes is for you to be willing to take that first step towards the light

just the same if you are a person who lies once , steals once, murderers once, cheats on your wife once, that one step is just enough to take you down a spiraling pattern of evil.


IMO, that is a very powerful and true message.

Because the whole point of the Star Wars trilogy was about redemption. Anakin Skywalkers redemption. Luke's redemption of the Skywalker name.

I could not disagree more. In SW Vader is nothing more than a stock two dimensional villian. In ESB he is a formidible foe with a bit more depth. In both films his "evil" is goal- driven. He does what he does because it's his job. True, there is a lot of talk about about going over to the "Dark Side" of the Force but, you know what?, it's all talk. Vader seems to have no dark passions. He doesn't seem to get any sadistic satisfaction out of all the torture and killings he commits. If he has a lust for power, we don't see it as he seems quite comfortable as the Emperor's number two man. The corrupting influence of the force, whatever it is, is all offscreen.
Vader is a bad guy because he is an instrument in the service of tyranny. Period. We the audience have no more reason to expect or care about Vader's redemption than we would the guy who cuts Jack Nicholson's nose in Chinatown. If the ENTIRE point of the trilogy was Vader's redemption then why wait until the last film to even broach the subject?

And how come Luke doesn't care about anyone else's redemption? What about Boba Fett's? If Vader, destroyer of worlds, can be saved, why not some lowly bounty hunter doing his bounty hunter thing? Or Jabba? Is redemption not possible for big slobbering gangster slugs? Why doesn't Luke care about their souls? Oh, yeah, I remember. Because they're not his daddy! Because apparently when the lives and liberty of billions and billions of galactic denizens are at stake, a true hero will always put the spiritual well-being of his mass-murdering daddy before his obligations to his friends and comrades who are fighting to liberate the universe from tyranny.

That is as sick and corrupt and as disgusting a world view to hang a film on and push to kids as any that I can conceive. I stand by my claim. George Lucas is a monster.

[Xombie]

Sorry. First time trying to quote with this software. Quoted way more than I intended.

[Jordan]

Yes, the German people supported him, because his target was Jews, and everybody hated the Jews in those days.

I'm sure you know more on this subject than I. But from what I can recall from History 12, Germany was in a state of decay after the first war. It was unheard of at that time to help rebuild a torn country after a war it had just lost.

Hitler came into power with a bunch of tired, poor, and devastated people to manipulate, which made it even easier to take the reigns. He promised economic reform, something that no one else had. And for the most part, he did. He brought Germany out of depression and modernized it enough to conquer other countries.

I thought the Jew thing was his own personal vendetta from being rejected from art school by a Jewish teacher (no really, he did).

Would it have made one whit of spiritual difference had Hitler apologized to Jesus before shooting himself in that bunker

I don't think this is a bad thing. If some one as twisted and evil as Hitler can be forgiven, then I surely can with my trite little crimes. Although, I hardly doubt he would or could have apologized with sincerity. It would be horribly inconsistent with his character and if anything, he'd probably hate and resent Jews even more after losing

[Xombie]

Actually, civilian number two, there are several instances of villains in film series switching sides. Two that spring immediately to mind are Godzilla who goes from planetary menace to defender of Earth as the series became more juvenile and the James Bond villain Jaws who went from unstoppable Terminator-style henchman in The Spy Who Loved Me to sappy-in-love Bond ally in the horrid Moonraker. Both their conversions, as with Vader's, were both unconvincing and unwelcome.

And while I'm at it, let me suggest The Godfather 1 and 2 which is about the opposite: the transformation of a good man into a villain. Lucas should have studied these two films intently before even attempting the PT.

As for films dealing with Christian conceptions of sin and redemption, check out the Mission, a thoughtful grown-up film about what it really means to atone for a bad life and the choices that must be made in walking the new path.

[Jordan]

Anikan moving to the darkside could have been SWEET! COULD HAVE BEEN.

So far his only just reasons are

A) his mom died
Obi Wan is abrasive (no not really)
C) he is in love
D) he has a good life
E) some old man corrupted him by spilling poison into his ear while he was asleep



This is fuck up numero UNO. The second major faux pas was how the jedi council were portrayed.

Anakin is so not likeable, not relatable, not anything! Some teen girls will find him sexy and that's all she wrote.

I've said it once before I think. PT should have started Anakin off as 18 years old. The entire movie should have been around this troubled teen's life (whose mother was already dead). Anakin should have never known his father, and only have vague memories about his loving mother. With all these problems, Qui Gonn, wait fuck that, Obi wan (who needs a new jedi character?) should have clicked with Anaikin and seen him as troubled yet good-hearted.

There should have been a great relationship filled with smiles and moments of danger over come by helping eachother out. Amidala and him should have met at some political banquet were he sneaks her off and shags her behind a curtain.

Yes this is more gritty and less fun to watch since most of these scenes would not require a blue screen. But at the end of the movie you could toss in a huge battle, for whatever reason. But in the end we could see a troubled teen being brought into something that was to big for him to handle, and also see a loving relationship with him and Obi Wan. Amidala could have been this temptation he could never openly act on.

Then I could see him going bad if in ep 3 Obi wan finally drops the ball and says "you can't touch or see amidala, it's not good for a young jedi" then i could see how he would snap on Obi wan. That with this shaddy past we have darth vader.

[Just your average movie goer]

Another complaint about Return of the Jedi -

One of the biggest problems of Return of the Jedi is the way it copped out in resolving potentially very interesting story-lines.

Darth Vader is Luke Skywalker's father? No problem - he'll come good in twenty minutes.

Luke and Han both love Leia? No problem - reveal to Luke that Leia is his sister and he's out of the competition straightaway. No more trouble.

The last one is the mystery of 'the other'. We all know what this is. In The Empire Strikes Back, Obi Wan said to Yoda. "That boy is our last hope."

And Yoda replied. "No. There is another."

And then in Return of the Jedi conveniently made Leia 'the other' as well, on the virtue of her suddenly being Luke's sister (even though she passionately kissed Luke at the start of The Empire Strikes Back).

I used to hate this because it threw away a very nice opportunity to introduce a new and potentially very interesting character - another wasted opportunity in the LIST of wasted opportunities in Return of the Jedi.

But now I've found another reason to hate it - it is a monstrous plot hole.

And here is why. In The Empire Strikes Back, Obi Wan Kenobi clearly DID NOT KNOW about the other. And then in Return of the Jedi, he tells Luke that he DID KNOW. And in fact, he knew she was Luke's sister. If he did know, WHY would he have not sent her to Yoda to get her trained up as soon as possible?

I realise that very probably, some of you Return of the Jedi lovers will be reading this and you're thinking well Obi Wan lied to Luke about his father in Star Wars - so this is no different.

DON'T type that in and hit the 'Add Reply' button. I will save you from making fools of yourselves by explaining what's wrong with that reasoning.

In Star Wars, Obi Wan lied to Luke about his father. Why did he do this? To shelter a young man. There is no reason for Luke to know that the father he never met was a mass-murderer. It would not help Luke to know this, and it would probably really mess a young man up.

In The Empire Strikes Back, Luke was gone when Obi Wan said "That boy is our last hope."

And so when Yoda replied. "No, there is another.", that should tell you that this was clearly news to Obi Wan as well.

Also, whether Leia was Luke's sister or not, Obi Wan still knew about her fairly well because he was quite close to her father. If she was 'the other', he would have known about it.

No, 'the other' was not meant to be Leia and I doubt that Leia was meant to be Luke's sister either.

Lucas was lazy and he threw away all the potentially great story-lines he may have had because of this.

[barend]

Hey. Very shortly, this thread will have over 100 replies!

How cool is that?

I think that really reflects on whoever started the thread...














whomever that brilliant adonis of man was...

[Rory]

Lucas is preaching a very Catholic type version of redemption in Star Wars: Return of the Jedi, which isn't really as bad as you are making it out to be. There's a reason our culture places so much value on sincere apologies. Aplogising for ones actions is a big deal; it signifies that one takes Full Responsibility for what s/he has done. Hell, if you commit a crime, and show sincere remorse at your parol hearing, your sentence will dramatically reduced. So tell me, whats so terrible about someone getting redeemed for showing genuine remorse for what they've done? Its not like Vader was "faking it," and we can only assume he wasn't just looking to become a cool ghost; if he was really sorry for all the attrocities he commited, if he showed genuine remorse, then good for him!

Just Your Average Movigoer, sarcasm isn't just an excuse to say mean things. The line of sarcasm, especially on a message board, is a fine one indeed. I'll be the first to admit that I have walked this line on numerous occasions.

Star Wars: Return of the Jedi had some weak points, but at least the story line wasn't totally screwy, political, and often boring, like in the prequels. Also, the characters never did anything that made me cringe. The Ewoks were stupid. Alright, moving on.

Killing Han, in my opinion, would have probably been a mistake; for one thing, it would only make sense in the beggining of the movie, which would have knocked Harrison Ford right out. And he was definetly one of the better actors. Secondly, it would have been sort of anitclimactic. Would we even see Han die? Wouldn't it just have happened between the two movies? If we did see Han die, it would just be sort of lame. Finally, it would just be depressing. I mean, Jesus, compare Star Wars to Lord of the Rings. None of the main characters die in that (unless you count going to Heaven in an elven ship as dying), so why should they have to in Star Wars?

I rather liked the scenes between Luke and Vader. I don't see all that much wrong with them. Luke dealt with his anger; the emperor was very manipulative; there was some redemption going on, etc.

Also, the fight with the second death star; I guess it could have been more original, but its no big deal. It did what it needed to do. And the scene with the Rebel fleet was a nice contrast to the twenty or so fighters from the 1st movie. It makes sense that the rebel fleet would need to grow if it were to ever have any hope of reclaiming the galaxy.

So basically it boils down to a decent movie with some Ewoks.

[Mike Mac from NYU]

Also, the fight with the second death star; I guess it could have been more original, but its no big deal. It did what it needed to do. And the scene with the Rebel fleet was a nice contrast to the twenty or so fighters from the 1st movie. It makes sense that the rebel fleet would need to grow if it were to ever have any hope of reclaiming the galaxy.

So basically it boils down to a decent movie with some Ewoks.

Killing Han, in my opinion, would have probably been a mistake; for one thing, it would only make sense in the beggining of the movie, which would have knocked Harrison Ford right out. And he was definetly one of the better actors. Secondly, it would have been sort of anitclimactic. Would we even see Han die? Wouldn't it just have happened between the two movies? If we did see Han die, it would just be sort of lame. Finally, it would just be depressing. I mean, Jesus, compare Star Wars to Lord of the Rings. None of the main characters die in that (unless you count going to Heaven in an elven ship as dying), so why should they have to in Star Wars?

I rather liked the scenes between Luke and Vader. I don't see all that much wrong with them. Luke dealt with his anger; the emperor was very manipulative; there was some redemption going on, etc

.

Lucas is preaching a very Catholic type version of redemption in Star Wars: Return of the Jedi, which isn't really as bad as you are making it out to be. There's a reason our culture places so much value on sincere apologies. Aplogising for ones actions is a big deal; it signifies that one takes Full Responsibility for what s/he has done. Hell, if you commit a crime, and show sincere remorse at your parol hearing, your sentence will dramatically reduced. So tell me, whats so terrible about someone getting redeemed for showing genuine remorse for what they've done? Its not like Vader was "faking it," and we can only assume he wasn't just looking to become a cool ghost; if he was really sorry for all the attrocities he commited, if he showed genuine remorse, then good for him!

Thank you, Rory. The voice of reason speaks!!!!

Anyone no if Lucas is Catholic?? Protestant? Jehovah's Witness??? Or is he the anti-christ??????

[Mike Mac from NYU]

Darth Vader is Luke Skywalker's father? No problem - he'll come good in twenty minutes.

Luke and Han both love Leia? No problem - reveal to Luke that Leia is his sister and he's out of the competition straightaway. No more trouble.

One problem jyamg. It was already put in to place in ESB that Leia and Luke had some sort of connection. Remember the Leia hearing Luke;s thoughts. What else could she be, but his sister??? I know a million people who saw the ESB movie when it came out and figured out already that Leai was Luke's sister

Think guys, Luke. Leia. 4 syllables. Same first initial!!!! Of course there were plans for them to be twins!!!!! Just like V ader means Father in Finnish!!!{or is it Swedish???} Lucas planned to have Vader be Lukes father all along!!!!

Luke killing Vader and Vader never redeeming himself would have ordonary and boring in my opinion. I mean where is the conflict there or the twist.

[civilian_number_two]

I bet you don't actually know a million people.

==============

Leia heaing Luke's thoughts in meaningless in the OT. In the OT, the Force was available to everyone, not just the Gifted. Luke heard Ben's voice from beyond the grace, and Ben was able to control the minds of Stromtroopers: this did not make them related, but it made the Force a Universal binding .. er, force.

Leia hearing Luke's voice DOES mean they are related in the logic of the PT, but fuck that logic. In the PT, people experience the Force through Midichlorians, not discipline. In the PT EVERYONE is related to everyone else, and in the PT Anikin has no father but Force itself.

You are absoloutely right, Mike, but what you are right about is absolutely wrong.

It is certainly true that when Lucas wrote STAR WARS, and when Kasdan wrote EMPIRE, that there was no idea that Luke and Leia were related. That idea came up later, while writing JEDI. You don't need to read between the lines, or perform any analysis of names. It is just not there, ever. I can even find you quotes where Lucas says that he never told Kasdan about the relationship when he wrote EMPIRE, so you know what that means! That Lucas is backpedalling, just like the whole "certain point of view" rubbish and just like the "Marketing error" of the REVENGE OF THE JEDI posters. Lucas never told kasdan, not to preserve the secret, but because he hadn't made it up yet!

God, we've been over this too often now. I should invest in some macros.

[Just your average movie goer]

There is basically a huge divide on this forum. Everyone agrees that George Lucas is an incompetent film-maker who may care more about turning a profit than creating something worthwhile.

Everyone hates the prequels.

However, Return of the Jedi is a wedge between us, with two very far apart camps.

It's fine that people like watching the movie. I'm almost happy for them sometimes. For them, they have a completed movie trilogy... unlike myself, who got only the first two movies out of the experience.

However, it has got very strong problems and inconsistencies with its predecessors. My biggest grievance with it is that it damages the very fine movie The Empire Strikes Back.

The Empire Strikes Back is one of the greatest films of all time - a monumental achievement in epic storytelling. A film as good as The Empire Strikes Back deserved a proper closing act.

Return of the Jedi is not such an act and no amount of apologists' rhetoric can change this. It was not even made with the intentions of meeting the standards of its predecessor. Read the Gary Kurtz excerpts that Ferris Whiel so kindly provided us with. Lucas wasn't interested in making a great film. He wanted a financially successful film and that was it. That is terrible.

True artists do not compromise their work out of laziness or for profit. If George Lucas was genuinely trying to create a great movie trilogy, let me assure you that Return of the Jedi would have been a very different film.

No, I do not mind if people watch Return of the Jedi and enjoy the experience. It is entertaining in parts. The space battle is exciting to watch. I also like the scenes between Luke and Darth Vader. I am not too bothered by Vader's redemption at the end of it (although I didn't like seeing his ghost at the celebrations either). And it is a lot better than the prequels (and a host of other movies).

However, being better than the prequels does not make it good. Coyote Ugly is probably better than the prequels too, and it's a load of shit.

But you know what? The prequels don't bother me anywhere near as much as Return of the Jedi because I can watch Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back perfectly well without them. They don't prevent me from enjoying my Star Wars experience. However, Return of the Jedi does. Because of Lucas' laziness and insincere approach to his work, the favourite trilogy from my childhood is forever ruined. Return of the Jedi is not the end of the trilogy for me. It's a so-so film with a handful of good scenes, but a lot more uninteresting ones, that had the name Star Wars slapped in front of it.

So perhaps you might understand my strong resentment when people who enjoy this film try to defend its so-called merits and label the very comprehensive, heartfelt and (very importantly) valid criticisms against it as 'nitpicking' by people who just don't know how to enjoy a film.

I don't mind people enjoying this film - not at all. What I don't like is people defending it.

To tell you the truth, Rory, I'm kind of bored with all this crap anyway. I won't bother you about Return of the Jedi again.

And as for my sarcasm.... I don't get it, Rory. It wasn't directed at you. And Mike and I like to spar all the time so I can't really see why you think it is a problem.

I think Mike's a nice guy. We agree about most things - we've just got a fundamental divide between us when it comes to Return of the Jedi and Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. And when it comes to these things, we'll argue till the cows come home. If my comments really genuinely upset him, I'd think he'd let me know. And if so, I would lay off.

All I bring to this forum is a little reality check. My mortal enemy Civilian Number Two taught me very well. Everyone on this board is too worried about upsetting each other. And that really limits the ability for everyone to express themselves and have good debates.

And I tell you, a good debate is much more interesting than everyone passively agreeing with each other.

I understand your concerns about slander on the forum but I can tell you I've never said "So and so is the biggest dickhead I've ever come across."

If you don't believe me, check through my posts. And if you really don't like the things I say on this forum, then send an email to one of the moderators and try to get me banned. It'd probably be good for me. I'd be free of this little addiction and would probably get a lot more work done on my own writing.

Cheers.

- Movie Goer