Aug 14, 2014 18:18
james earl jones,
george lucas,
movies,
ian mcdiarmid,
natalie portman,
star wars essay,
alec guinness,
harrison ford,
joel edgerton,
mark hamill,
ewan mcgregor,
carrie fisher,
billy dee williams,
hayden christensen
Leave a comment
Revenge? Luke didn't seem concerned with revenge to me. And that's a good thing?
I'm a little lost by all the mind games towards the end of "Return of the Jedi". Luke is face to face with two figures responsible for terrible hardship, many deaths and hideous oppression across the galaxy. And yet apparently his only option is to remain passive if he doesn't want to become corrupt and evil? I just cannot buy into that.
I could. And I understood why it was important for Luke to toss away that lightsaber. It seems to me that one the continuing problems with humanity seemed to be its inability to let go of its reliance upon violence and aggression.
Even if Luke had killed Vader and tried to kill Palpatine, he would have lost. Because his anger and fear of losing Leia triggered his aggressive actions in the first place. And there was a good chance he would have followed in his father's footsteps.
But I understand if you don't want to accept this. Many people don't. They see nothing wrong in using evil to destroy evil. They don't see the consequences of such an action.
Reply
Isn't the big motivation for killing Vader because Vader killed his father? Isn't the big motivation for helping the rebels because they killed his Aunt and Uncle? He seems reluctant to leave initially and then things get personal.
Why is this not revenge? I'm not saying it's the only motivation, but it's definitely part of it.
I could. And I understood why it was important for Luke to toss away that lightsaber. It seems to me that one the continuing problems with humanity seemed to be its inability to let go of its reliance upon violence and aggression.
So Vader loses at the end then? Because he uses violence and aggression to kill the Emperor, right? So that means he's still corrupt and still controlled by the Dark Side?
You can't have it both ways. Either violence is always bad or it's not always bad. If it's not always bad, Vader and the Emperor would seem like much more legitimate targets for aggression than anyone else they've killed during the trilogy.
And when Vader and the Emperor are trying to kill or manipulate Luke, I'm not entirely sure why killing them would doom him. Killing the leader of a literally evil Empire doesn't obviously mean someone is going to turn evil themselves. That's weird fantasy-logic and it has no relation to real-life psychology.
Luke says to Jabba "free us or die". In the prequel trilogy Jedis kill tons of aliens and droids. It doesn't seem clear that killing turns you evil in the Star Wars universe - EXCEPT in the third act of ROTJ. I'd be less upset with the fantasy-logic if it was consistent.
Reply
Leave a comment