Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Imaculata" data-source="post: 7892918" data-attributes="member: 6801286">We all know that most of this was not planned in advance. The whole idea of Anakin bringing balance to the force was introduced in the prequels and pasted on top of the redemption that Vader got in Return of the Jedi. And almost everything in the prequels is terrible, so yeah, I'm ignoring them. They are not part of the original trilogy's intent.Now there's a discussion that could be had here regarding author intent and death of the author. In other words, how sometimes author intent is rejected by the audience, because it is not in line with the original intent of the author. A good example of this are some of the absurd changes J.K. Rowling made to Harry Potter's Lore. One would think that with her being the original author, she would have the final say on matters of lore regarding her own book series. But the idea of death of the author suggests that the audience can simply reject revisionist ideas by the author and stick to the original work. This certainly applies to George Lucas and his prequels in my opinion. I no longer consider his revisionist ideas canon in regards to the original trilogy. In fact, George Lucas barely knows the lore of his own series and I doubt he understands some of the more complex themes that were introduced in Empire Strikes Back.As a side note, this is an interesting video on the concept of <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGn9x4-Y_7A" target="_blank">Death of the Author</a>.I feel differently about it. I think Vader's revelation is part of the redemption plot that further developes in the third movie. The redemption wouldn't even be a thing if it weren't for the family connection between Vader and Luke. As such I definitely see the events in Empire Strikes Back as part of that plot.That is absurd. Vader was redeemed at the end of Return of the Jedi even when the prequels did not exist yet. It forms the conclusion of Luke's journey, and the movie closes on it of all things!Well that depends how you look at it. Sure, the galactic conflict forms the central plot. But some may disagree with you that it is the main focus of the movie, in the sense that maybe it is all about the journey of the characters, and the war is just the backdrop. But that is wide open to viewer interpretation, I'll admit.Yes, this certainly is one of Luke's most important character arcs. But his connection to Vader is an important part of that journey. Empire explores this idea with Luke's failure in the cave as Yoda is testing him.It is true that Luke grows a lot as a character regardless of his confrontation with Vader. But Vader is a central element in the conclusion of his character arc. His ability to let go of his hate and see the humanity in his father, ultimately leading to Vader's move to the light side. And I feel this is one of the things that the cave scene in Empire sets up. Of course the movie leaves it ambiguous on purpose, so its all up to viewer interpretation.Lets be clear here, I do not want to use the prequels for their themes or for anything. Vader's redemption exists perfectly without them.See, this is where I disagree the most with you. Luke's journey from boy to man is already complete at the start of Return of the Jedi where we see him as a Jedi with a lot of powers he didn't have before. He is more confident and independent. To me, the galactic conflict is but the backdrop to the journey of the characters.Well hey, we don't need to have this particular discussion if you don't want to.</blockquote>

Verification