So here’s my problem: While I’m aware, in my brain, that A New Hope and Empire Strikes Back are undoubtedly the best two Star Wars films to date, none of that matters when the chips are down and someone asks you to wrestle on behalf of the movie that is closest to your heart. (I have no idea why someone might ask you to do that, just roll with it.)
What I’m trying to say is… Return of the Jedi is my favorite Star Wars film.
It’s rough because there’s a large contingent of Star Wars fans (and film fans in general) who hate this movie. You know how lots of people say that the prequels “ruined” Star Wars? Yeah, there are plenty of people who claim that Jedi did the same thing. They’re all like, fluffy fighting bears! A second Death Star is dumb! Darth Vader is all pasty and sad under his helmet! Han Solo isn’t cool anymore! FLUFFY FIGHTING BEARS, FOR GOD’S SAKE.
And sure, there are some structural things in Jedi that could have been handled better. Maybe a second Death Star wasn’t the way to go. Maybe it would have been awesome if they’d figured out how to have an army of Wookiees instead of Ewoks fighting the Imperial ground forces. (This was the original intention, but it proved too difficult. It’s the reason why “Ewok” is basically “Wookiee” with the ‘e’ moved around.) Maybe, maybe, maybe. But this is the movie we’ve got. And all of those arguments are boring to me. Because they’re tired and they’re hashed out and they’re not that interesting to begin with, but also because I fail to understand how anyone can watch this movie and come away with nothing but complaints.
Return of the Jedi matters because it is, fundamentally, Luke and Anakin’s story. I’ve already written at length about how Luke spends this movie being a complete badass and no one seems to notice/care, but it’s more than that. On a rewatch, I tried to view the film through fresh eyes… and that only makes it clearer. Return of the Jedi isn’t a bad movie, but it’s a strange one. For the type of film it is (a conclusion to a mythic arc), it makes so many odd turns.
What’s hilarious—though not unexpected—is that a lot of essential choices made by Lucas for the final film ultimately came down to a desire for more money. Or more specifically (as Mel Brooks would later have it), merchandising. Lucas refused to kill off Han (which Lawrence Kasdan wanted to do early on in the film, to increase the sense of jeopardy) because he wanted to sell more toys. Lando and the Falcon were also briefly for the chopping block, and it’s likely that the same reason was behind their survival. The same was also true of the happy ending; the original idea was to have Luke walk off into a sunset alone, like a cowboy, but Lucas opted to have a much more cuddly ending because he thought that merch sales would do better. Whether or not he was right (he was), it forced Episode VI to veer from the sort of territory that some fans might have preferred following Empire Strikes Back.
Setting the tone are Artoo and Threepio, even more at ease in their roles as Constant Peril Machines than they’ve ever been. (It makes their rapport somehow that much more endearing throughout the film.) We’re back on Tatooine, but a far cry from the farm where Luke was raised, or even the seedy Mos Eisley spaceport. Jabba the Hutt is grotesquely rendered, a marvel of puppetry, and his gallery of criminals exist in this murky den of vice precisely to make them more frightening. Poor Han wakes up, and you can’t blame him for thinking everyone’s jumped the shark; retrieving him doesn’t truly make sense, tactically. He was a good fighter for the Alliance, but these people are here because they love him, not because he’s irreplaceable to their cause.
The reason Han’s rescue is impressive is because it goes off without a hitch. It’s a sequence meant to prove that Luke Skywalker is a far more deadly figure than the boy we saw in the last film. Good or bad, we can’t know yet, but he is powerful and dangerous if he means to be. The body count he racks up here is different than the one he gained destroying the Death Star. That first film was about Luke saving the Rebel Base, the entirety of the Alliance, so that they could continue to fight. But Jabba’s court? He does that because he wants to. Because he knows how horrible Jabba is (terrorizing his home world, hanging his best friend on a wall, forcing his soon-to-be-revealed-as sister to be an object of pleasure), and he wants to get rid of him.
To be fair, Luke can’t be expected to have a perfect grasp on how his powers are meant to be used because he still doesn’t understand what they’ve been developed for. It’s fascinating that his final scene with Yoda was not conceived in the original script (Lucas added it because he realized that without confirmation of Vader’s paternity through the old Master, children who saw the film might never believe that he told the truth) because it is so important to Luke’s final journey. He is told by his mentor that the intention behind his training was always to have him kill his own father. Then that lesson is further drilled down by Obi-Wan’s additional plea. So this is where Luke’s most pivotal actions will germinate, starting with the question of whether or not he will do as he’s commanded by his teachers. And he immediately suggests what no one (aside from his dying mother) has ever considered before—
—Vader is not a monster. Vader can be redeemed.
He’s told he’s wrong by everyone, his sister included. To Mark Hamill’s credit, he always plays it as though Luke himself is aware he might be wrong. His back-and-forths with Vader retain their intensity because despite how brave Luke’s words are, he knows he’s gambling on his father. He’s surprised to be taken before the Emperor, and more surprised still when Vader takes a back seat as Palpatine starts working him.
The Emperor’s mistakes in this narrative are smart because they are the mistakes made by the powerful. He underestimates the resourcefulness of the Alliance, the ingenuity of a population that seem primitive and silly to him, and he is as overconfident as Luke says. It’s easier to see with the prequels in the rearview mirror because Palpatine is so much shrewder as the manipulating Chancellor. His pitch for the dark side to Luke is peanuts compared to his hard sell to Anakin over two decades ago, but he still believes he has a winning hand against this kid who gives puppy eyes to papa every time he’s pressed.
Luke’s brief flirtation with the dark side cannot stand because it is a turn prompted by constant needling. Unlike Anakin, there is no simple catalyst for Luke. The Emperor has to spend his time whittling away at the young Jedi, convincing him that he is about to lose everything either way. He’s fast-tracking the path to the dark side, presuming that he can make a good enough show of it.
What he doesn’t count on—what no one counts on—is the overwhelming amount of love that Luke brings to the table. To believe his father capable of redemption when he barely knows the man, to accept Leia as his sister instantaneously, to rescue Han from Jabba when he’s needed elsewhere, to view Obi-Wan and Yoda as dear mentors when his time with them was so limited…. Luke Skywalker is a person defined by the love that he gives unconditionally to others, without stipulation. That is what makes him better than his father.
That brand of love can only be answered with love in kind, and this is what brings Vader back from the abyss. Luke never falters in his message, even when he finally attacks out of pain and fear. He never goes back on his conviction that Vader can release the darkness inside him and become his father again. That faith in Anakin is more than he was ever allotted as a young man, and that is key—Luke offers his father the belief that his friends and colleagues denied him as a Jedi.
And I still haven’t pointed out my favorite part of all this: the fact that Luke’s entire journey once he surrenders to Vader is utterly unimportant to the central plot of defeating the Empire.
Sure, the Emperor might have gotten away last minute, but he also might have died on the second Death Star. Luke is basically nothing more than a time-consuming distraction, and one of his own making—this wasn’t part of the original Rebel plan, which really drives home that Luke’s story is largely separate from the Rebels’ story. He is here for himself, for his family, even if his actions ultimately lead to balancing the Force. And he does it by going against what everyone told him he must do.
I’m always impressed by how far this movie goes in fleshing Luke out as a person. First two films we get a stock standard orphaned hero, and while he’s fun to watch, he isn’t given time to open up the way, say, Han does. But this film is all about giving Luke a solid personality: a sense of humor, a certain amount of frustration, a stubbornness born of both parents. He is good at being a leader, but he’s not a commander like Leia. He’s possessed of a newfound calm in the Force, a wisdom that recent experience has gifted him. But he’s still so young.
I have to talk about Leia separately, because there are so many layers to her character development, and levels to how she plays to the audience once we complete this trilogy. Everything done to Leia in this film could have easily diminished her (and was meant to in many ways), and while it might have worked on a lesser character, Leia continues to shine. I’ve written before about Carrie Fisher’s reaction to the metal bikini, her upset with fans who thought of Leia as too cold and thus unfeminine, leading to “softening” her up in Jedi. And the bikini is still gratuitous and thought of in a sexy way, which it should never be ever. (At all. There is no argument to be made here.) But Fisher fought to kill Jabba onscreen herself, and she continued to play the part with a groundedness that even “softer” dialogue couldn’t unsettle. So it doesn’t matter that Leia is a little more emotional in this film—because everyone is. The attempts to make her more attractive to the male audience accidentally resulted in a more complete character, one who couldn’t simply be sexualized and cast aside.
But it’s important to recognize that many of the decisions regarding Leia were still made for goofy, sexist reasons. The most prominent example is her sudden siblinghood with Luke, a choice made only to dissolve the love triangle between the three leads. I think we can all be glad that we didn’t get any I-love-you-but-also-you emoting in the final film, and Leia suddenly being Force-sensitive is awesome, but it’s sort of annoying that the choice was made just so she wouldn’t have to waffle over who to kiss at the end of the film. On the other hand, it’s great that Han still has no idea what’s going on, and ends up spending the film pining after her. The anger leveled at Han by fans who feel like their favorite character was declawed are missing the point—Han Solo was always this sardonic, always this paranoid, always this romantic. And after having the ultimate confirmation of how much his friends love him—like I said, Luke and Leia could have easily left him with Jabba, or at least waited until they had defeated the Empire to come get him—he goes all in.
It all makes for a much lighter film than Empire, and while that may have been down to marketing, it still feels right. Star Wars doesn’t need a lot of trauma to be effective. That may be what some people want, but it seems disingenuous to the overall feeling that Star Wars is meant to convey—the innocence of that first film. Also, I think that people underestimate how a darker final chapter would have altered their perceptions of the series. Would we love Empire Strikes Back as much as we do if Jedi had been a darker film as well? Because I can’t imagine that being the case. If anything, Empire might stack up far worse settled in the midst of a more dramatic tale.
Ultimately, it’s too bad that so many people hate on this film because if you just go with the conceits of Return of the Jedi, it’s a really fun movie. We start with a successful rescue, there are so many cool new aliens to look at, everyone’s banter is on point, the Rebels are led by a fish admiral, Lando gets to pilot the Falcon, Leia splits off in the middle of a covert operation and forces Luke to run after her, our heroes get captured by fluffy bears with spears. THEY GET CAPTURED BY TEDDY BEARS. WHY DON’T YOU LOVE THIS? WHY DO YOU HATE ABSURDITY, IT IS GREAT.
What’s better is that there’s supposed to be meaning to that as well. Lucas always intended the struggles between man and technology to be central to Star Wars. (The irony of that is just incredible, considering what he hath wrought with his special effects empire.) The Ewoks were meant to show children that superior firepower wasn’t all you needed to win a fight—and you know what? That’s a great thing to teach kids. Star Wars is for everyone, including people who are young enough to believe that an Ewok in a glider dropping rock on an AT-ST is a real threat. Let them have that.
And even with all this silliness, there are pockets of tragedy in Jedi that are truly disturbing if you bother to consider them for longer than a moment. Jabba’s callous disposal of Oola the Twi’lek dancing slave, the droids being tortured and dismantled in EV-9D9’s lab below the palace, the death of the rancor, the Ewoks apparently eating their human prey and using their helmets for percussion instruments. We watch Leia consider the possibility that her brother might not make it out of this fight alive, and turn to Han for comfort. We watch two Ewoks get hit by canon fire, and one of them gets up to walk away, only to find that its companion is dying. We watch Luke drag Vader’s body across a landing bay floor while other Imperials pass them by in favor of self-preservation, proving that all of Vader’s power counts for nothing.
We watch Luke set fire to a funeral pyre that he clearly spent hours making alone, in the midst of the forest, out of a desire to honor the father that he had hoped to regain.
The various special editions add very little to the Return of the Jedi experience; the expanded Max Rebo band sequence seems like a lot of flash for no payoff, and the later addition of Hayden Christensen as the ghost of Anakin is just plain awkward and confusing. This is partly because we’re never given an explanation as to why Anakin should appear as his younger hotter self, and also because we’ve never seen his face in the original trilogy, making his appearance jarring in the extreme. (It also seems to have been filmed without Christensen’s knowledge, as he said that he was never told they were shooting anything of that nature. It shows in the clip—he’s sort of vacantly smiling, it’s really unfortunate—and something focused would have come off better.) But the Sarlacc pit looks a little bit more active, which is a good idea in theory. And while I adore the “Yub Nub” Ewok victory song, the expanded closer that shows people rejoicing across the galaxy is far superior. The new music John Williams wrote in place of the song is also better, a warmer piece of music that is more cohesive with what we see on screen.
The Star Wars trilogy ends with a party. No, it’s better than that—it ends with reunions and dancing and music and people telling stories to each other. It ends with Luke staring into the proud faces of his teachers and his father… but being dragged back toward the celebration—toward life—by his sister. The Rebels win and the Empire is no longer. The Force is balanced.
But I think it’s important that it stops exactly when it does. We get the chance to revel with the heroes while understanding that something is coming after this. That dawn will break and they will all have to get back to work or go their separate ways. It’s different watching the end of this film and knowing that we’re about to learn what happened to these people in the years that followed. More exciting, but frightening too.
Return of the Jedi is still my favorite Star Wars film. I wonder if that will ever change, given the upcoming influx… but I highly doubt it. People can criticize its more buoyant vibe, but this film always reads as tragedy to me. Luke did what everyone told him was impossible, but winning the day never works out quite how you picture it. He has come out the end of this journey an entirely different person to boot, so far from the eager farmboy who wanted to take part in space battles and just get off his rock of a home. Because the call to adventure isn’t really about getting the chance to battle dragons and rescue friends and save the world…
…it’s about who you’ve become by the time you’re done.
Emmet Asher-Perrin is gonna throw an Ewok party and you’re all invited. You can bug her on Twitter and Tumblr, and read more of her work here and elsewhere.
Yes, still my favorite. I love everything about the ending sequence on Endor. The hug Han gives to Luke. The one Chewie gives to Lando. Lando telling stories. Finally getting to see Wedge’s face again.
And the rest of the movie. Leia owning Jabba. Artoo rescuing Threepio. All of Han’s sarcasm on the speeders en route to the Sarlacc.
I thought that the name ewok came from the mimok people, and the fact that it resembles the word wookie was just a coincidence.
The film isn’t that bad, people need to stop whining about this, prequel films included. It didn’t live up to hype, move on. Every movie had its moments.
My biggest issue with this movie is that the biggest mistake the emperor makes is not keeping his friggin mouth shut. Every time Luke is tempted to go dark, the emperor says, “Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees, come to the dark side!” and Luke shakes his head, says, “Whoa!” and stops going dark. If the emperor had just kept his friggin mouth shut, he might’ve won…………..
—Keith R.A. DeCandido
Star Wars was always about emotional resonance rather than intellect. It’s the same reason I prefer Return of the Jedi over the first two films. It’s also why I prefer Revenge of the Sith above every other.
While I will never concede that the new Williams victory music is better than “Yub Nub” (and certainly not that “Jedi Rocks” is superior to “Lapti Nek”), I think you’ve written a wonderful and spirited defense of the film. Now I am eager to go home and watch it again! It’s always been my least favorite of the original trilogy (which is not equal to “I dislike it” – I think the first half hour, the Han rescue and all that goes with it, is just fantastic – the strangeness of the Galaxy Far Far Away fully unleashed onscreen for the first time, and certainly more effectively than the digital “we can do anything” of the prequels), but I appreciate your point about the importance of it as Luke and Anakin’s story, and giving Hamill credit for playing the role as though Luke knows he might be wrong has never really occurred to me in just that way. Great essay.
And, @3/krad – You make a fair point, but evil has this way of never quite knowing when to quit, at least in many myths and fairy tales, which the original trilogy basically is. So the Emperor’s inability to shut up works for me. ;)
I always saw ROTJ as an attempt to return to some of the aspects of the original film that TESB had veered away from. For instance, there aren’t that many exotic aliens and creatures in TESB, not compared to the other two films. ROTJ tried to recapture that; Jabba’s palace was about one-upping the cantina scene. And it really went all-out on the creatures throughout the film. That was something I appreciated, that renewed embrace of imaginative worldbuilding.
But I found a lot of the action kind of hollow and distracting. There were three simultaneous battles going on in the climax — the fleets in space, the ground forces on the forest moon, and Luke and Vader with the Emperor — and the third of those was the only one that actually engaged me, because it was the only one that was driven by character rather than special effects. There wasn’t really anything emotionally at stake in the other two sequences. So that could’ve been stronger. Still, the father-son confrontation was very effective, and it’s probably my favorite duel scene in the series because of its emotional import.
OK. I’m an ESB man myself, but I get what you are saying; IMHO The first two films are masterpieces (of thier type at the very least) while Jedi is a big step down with bigger and more obvious flaws, but it is good enough.
I don’t remember the vicious criticism of ROTJ before the release of ROTS. (Admittedly, those where more innocent pre-broadband days) Then the much parrotted party line was the OT had produced two good films and one munter, while the PT had two misfires and one Work Of Genius (A film personaly I’ve never enjoyed, and still haven’t formed a firm opinion on whether it is subjectively actually any good). The assertion that ROTJ is bad, sometimes even the worst SW film, and ROTS is good, sometimes the best, seemed to be used as a justification for the prequels existence.
I notice that as the tide has turned against ROTS somewhat – Red Letter Media seemed to give a lot of fans the courage to come out of the closet and admit they don’t like it – ROTJ has began to be rehabilitated. I’ve seen various denizens of the web state that despite it’s flaws Jedi is thier favourite, and for many more an enjoyable film. I have to agree, and have a more emotional reaction to it than all the PT combined.
I have to take issue with you taking issue about Leia’s slave girl bikini. It was a pretty sleazy thing for Lucas to do, but Carrie Fisher was a good looking woman reaching the peak of her looks when this film came out, while a big chunk of the audience was hitting puberty. Suddenly on screen she’s wearing next to nothing. Despite the troubling implications of sexual slavery on an intellectual level, that’s going to burnt into a generation of blokes as sexy on an instinctual level. There’s no argument about that.
This is my favorite Star Wars movie. I loved all the little things in it. I don’t mind the Ewoks, but I grew up with them as part of my childhood, so that’s understandable. My kids like Jar Jar. Its all about perspective.
One of the little moments that I love every time I see this movie is Threepio telling the story of their adventures to the Ewoks. Especially in light of A New Hope where he tells Luke “I’m not much more than an interpreter, and not very good at telling stories.” He never knew he had it in him, indeed.
Regarding the difference between Luke and Anakin. They are vast. And they make sense, in context. The love that Luke has for those around him is pure, selfless. Even when he gets angry and attacks Vader, its a desire to protect Leia that drives him. There is no place for the Dark Side to claim a purchase in this aggression.
Anakin is different. The reason for the Jedi prohibition against attachment (not love, attachment) is because it is primarily self-oriented. The Jedi are about serving the will of the Force. That’s hard to do when you are controlled by your own will and desires. Anakin was scarred by his time as a slave, and being taken away from the only sense of security he’d ever known; his mother. “Much fear, I sense in you,” Yoda says to him. As Anakin makes abundantly clear through his conversations and actions, his fear isn’t for his mother as much as it is losing his mother.
This is doubled down upon with Padme. “I won’t lose you.” “You will not take her from me!” Its about Anakin’s well-being, not Padme’s. Its about possession, not love. These are self-oriented feelings. His desire to protect himself and his possessions, not those he loves, it what finally drives him to the Dark Side. Possession is the dark side of attachment. His grand words about security and stability in reality is about one thing: He’s tired of having what he views as his taken from him. His right to be a Master, his place on the council, his mother, Padme.
It makes me wonder how he felt when he learned who Luke was. Did he realize, over time, that the Emperor had taken these things from him? Was he bound and determined to take something back, like Luke? I’d love to get a novel of the original trilogy from inside Vader’s head. It would be fascinating.
There are some places where’s Luke’s ultra-calm affect and earnestness just don’t quite work, and the Emperor is not the master of subtle manipulation he was/will be in the prequels. But overall I like it a lot.
[edit: added a critical missed word]
@9:
The Emperor didn’t need to be subtle and manipulative. He had no need of Luke. He had GREAT need of Anakin. He’d already conquered the Galaxy through subtle manipulations. Now he was the Emperor. He didn’t care if Luke turned to the Dark Side. He never intended for both Vader and Luke to leave that chamber alive. He didn’t care which one lived and which one died.
I recently realized how much I miss the original version of the ending – it works so much better. The Yub Nub song is just pure joy and happiness. Perfect happy end.
I actually don’t have a favorite one, I love the trilogy as a whole and never could decide which part is “the best.” And Ewoks… well, they look like a cute teddy bears, that’s why everyone underestimates them, that is why they win. I’m not sure the story would’ve worked the same with Wookies – no one underestimates Wookies.
@8 Especially in light of A New Hope where he tells Luke “I’m not much more than an interpreter, and not very good at telling stories.”
But even in ANH he was good at telling stories. That line always hit me, because it sounded like a thing a bullied kid says about themselves, not because they actually believe it, but because it’s what they’ve been told so many times they think it must be true.
@7/Vortimer: Good point about Leia in the bikini. I was about 15 when this movie came out, so that costume had a major impact on me. In retrospect, I can see all the problems with it, but I wish there were a way to divorce it from all the slavery/coercion baggage, because it is objectively a very beautiful costume on a very beautiful woman, and I still appreciate it in those terms. I think that’s the reason why it’s so popular with cosplayers — nothing to do with slavery being sexy, just a matter of the pure aesthetics of the costume. But yes, that is ignoring the really problematical baggage that comes with it, and there’s a debate to be had over whether it’s ever okay to ignore that baggage.
@11/Tessuna: Sure, in theory, the idea that the Ewoks win because they’re underestimated is good. But it lacks something in the execution, especially when high-tech Stormtrooper armor is shown to be unable to deflect dinky little Ewok arrows that could probably be blocked by a good silk shirt. (A recent Rebels episode had one of the heroes disguise himself as a Stormtrooper, get stunned by his own ally, and complain that the armor doesn’t protect against anything. Another character remarked on how he couldn’t see anything through the helmet and thus couldn’t shoot straight. It was funny, but it did call attention to the total uselessness of the armor.) It’s not just that they’re more devious or that the Empire underestimates them, it’s that their wood and stone and rope weapons somehow have actual military superiority in a head-on, equal confrontation with the most advanced armaments of an interstellar civilization. And while of course this whole thing is a fairy tale, that does kind of strain suspension of disbelief.
But then, the real way that a militarily inferior force defeats a superior force is through terrorism — blowing up the Stormtroopers’ barracks while they’re sleeping, that sort of thing — and that wouldn’t have come off as heroic and noble.
@13/Christopher: Or they could have lured the Stormtroopers into a bog or a gorge where they would have been easier to kill. Oh well, probably not heroic enough either…
I don’t dislike the Ewoks. It’s their section of the movie that’s the problem.
It just drags. Which is really the only thing wrong with Jedi compared to the other two movies. Both SW and Empire had a great momentum from beginning to end (they’re essentially hide-and-go-seek chase movies). Jedi on the other hand is like three good short films—one a rescue heist, one a father and son story, and the other a war movie—awkwardly glued together, and that glue just happens to be the Ewok village. The plot comes to an almost complete halt in that section. Sure, it’s all charming and mildly interesting hearing Threepio pitch Star Wars to a group of Ewok execs, but that doesn’t make for a very compelling adventure movie.
I’ve always been a huge Jedi fan and dislike when people torch it as the worst of the original trilogy. Jedi had no more or less plot/story flaws then either Hope or Empire. I will grant that Jedi had the biggest fail with the Ewok battle being completely over-the-top. Jedi was also the first film where the we can see the commerciality of the franchise really set in and wonder if some of the judgement flaws were really marketing decisions. But I think Hope had by far the most issues and even drags on at times and Empire had this uber funky pacing issue where you are swinging from an emotional rubber band the whole movie.
However none of that will ever stop me from feeling that Star Wars is the greatest film franchise of all time. All six of them.
I just pretend like there is no such thing as Midi-chlorians – which to me is the single most disturbing creative failure by George Lucas regarding the Star Wars universe.
@10,
Except that Vader was crippled, cut off from much of the living force by the loss of limbs and dependence on life support (according to something or other I read once). Luke would have been a much more powerful apprentice, had he been turned. I’m not entirely convinced that the fight was a balanced win-win either way it ended, and so the Emperor’s stereotypical over the top evil overlord cackle is just, well, over the top.
@18:
Why would he want a more powerful apprentice? He’d already won. Be fulfilled the 1000 year Sith plan. He was planning on living forever.
Sigh… I’d kind of like to do a rewatch of my own before I see TFA — I’d like to try Machete Order — but I’m having trouble figuring out a way to do it. I don’t own the movies, I’m not curious enough to buy them, and the library’s copies have anywhere from 80 to 150 holds ahead of me. They’re not streaming on Netflix, and I daresay the DVDs would probably be just as much in demand as the library’s are — plus I could only get one every few days, and I’d rather binge-watch. And the movies aren’t showing anywhere on TV in the next two weeks, which surprises me, because I would’ve expected some Disney-owned channel to be showing them all in heavy rotation around now. (And my geek friends who probably own copies all live in other cities.)
I loooooooved ROTJ. Mostly because of the Tatooine section, which is why I love the Tales from Jabba’s Palace anthology, which covers it (and much more) from a wide variety of side-character POVs. The split-second glimpse of the weeping rancor keeper seemed to have been taken from my own imagination with no purpose beyond making me very happy. Ditto the Sarlacc, though it was more significant to the story.
I liked the Ewoks, too. But I’m kind of glad to hear that some people didn’t, because I’ve wondered why Jar Jar is widely hated as a “racist stereotype” and the Ewoks aren’t. Primitive little savage animals who inexplicably mistake an elegant golden humanoid for a god? Hmmm. But they provide critical aid to the good guys instead of merely annoying and misleading them, so maybe that makes the difference.
@20/AeronaGreenjoy: Probably because Jar Jar’s dialect sounds to many people like an exaggerated Jamaican accent, while the Ewoks can’t be identified with any specific ethnic group.
Jedi isn’t dark? Have we watched the same movie?
Both Yoda and Ben reveal they intended Luke to kill his own father, without him ever knowing…
Then (to steal the idea from Kevin Smith’s Clerks) there are all the Independent Contractors on the Death Star when it blew (or possibly slave labour).
But at the heart of the attack is that the Death Star’s destruction becomes a secondary objective once they find out the Emperor will be there. The attack of the Rebels is basically a political assassination, with everything else being considered collateral damage…
That’s pretty darn dark.
I do like how they attack while it’s still under construction, hence why it can so easily be avoided. No convenient design flaws for the Rebels to take advantage of in the completed (and presumably revised) design..
All in all, I like ROTJ. It’s definitely one of those films in which the weaknesses tend to take attention away from the strengths. Which is unfortunate, because there is a lot of good, and the tone is very complimentary to the innocence of ANH and the downbeat notes of TESB. Still, the Ewok sequence is the prime culprit not because the Ewoks themselves are horrible, but because as someone else said above, it just drags, and it gets over-the-top in ways that the films never had before.
I do feel that it was kind of a ‘play it safe’ film in terms of revisiting settings from the previous two (Tatooine, Yoda, Death Star, etc.). Is that a bad thing? Not necessarily, but it was kind of the start of Star Wars relying on its own pre-established touchstones to constantly play the ‘rhyming’ game, as they say. That cycle has continued to this day.
As much as the originally-planned ending (Han and/or Lando dies, Luke walks off into sunset, Leia left picking up the political pieces) sounds impressive, at least to the adult version of me, I can’t argue with “Yub Nub” and that great shot of everyone at the end. It’s so upbeat, so beautiful, so satisfying in its resolution. Giddy celebration, in a forest, with bonfires and wacky music and furry aliens. Check.
@20 – I don’t really see the Ewoks deification of C-3PO as ‘inexplicable’ or due to him being humanoid in form. He’s made of gold.
Give me Yub Nub any day, my biggest complaint of all the additions in the new versions was the loss of the original Ewoks’ song….
And I will always love ROTJ, but it’s still # 3 for me….
I rank RotJ second, just behind the very first Star Wars. (Which I remember seeing without that subtitle.)
@EAP: It’s true that from a strict cause-and-effect point of view, the whole Luke vs. Palpatine is no more than a sideshow. From a storytelling point of view, however, it’s the center. The shield cannot come down and the station cannot be destroyed until Luke has won his victory; and once he has, they are merely an inevitable playing-out of it. That’s the logic of myth, and the logic that is in play here.
@krad: The Emperor’s big mouth bothered me too, until I rationalized it as Dark Side mind tricks. The Emperor doesn’t just want a Sith; he wants a Sith that he controls. (A Sith who will just strike him down and take the Empire, not so much.) Luke has to turn at the Emperor’s command, so that the Emperor can continue to command him.
I certainly enjoy RotJ, despite it’s numerous flaws. It’s always interesting to me to see how different people can react to the same flaw in a movie: some people can just let it slide, or minimize it in their head somehow. Others just simply can’t let it go. RotJ has flaws that, for me at least, are easy to ignore. The rescue at Jabba’s palace always seemed a little off to me (Luke’s plan is ridiculous. He should never be without his light saber, and almost died to the Rancor because of it). The rescue doesn’t lead directly into anything, giving the film a disjointed feeling. The Ewok scenes drag, and most of the action on Endor is uninspired or ridiculous. Even the duel between Luke and Vader is not nearly as good as the one in ESB; it seems like their conversation is less interesting in a way that I can’t quite explain, and the fighting is certainly much less tense.
Despite these flaws I like the movie, and I absolutely love the space battle above Endor that leads into the attack on the core of the Death Star. It maybe the greatest space battle in any film ever, and the music is just perfect. I even love “It’s a trap!”. And I think ending on a happy note was the way to go, I couldn’t imagine watching this as a kid and seeing any of the heroes die.
After re-watching the trilogy I do have two questions:
1) Does Luke go back to get trained by Yoda between ESB and RotJ? It would seem like that would have been the natural thing to do, but the dialogue doesn’t seem to support that idea. It would also explain why it took them so long to go after Han. But the deleted scenes seem to imply that Luke wants to go to see Yoda after the rescue to fulfill his promise to return (i.e. he never returned after ESB). So how the hell does Luke become a Jedi then? He gets like two-three days of training from Yoda in ESB! I guess you could stretch it a little further, but how long could the Falcon have been sitting in that space worm thing? Obi-wan not training Luke all those years on Tatooine is practically criminal, then giving him a couple of days of training and sending him after Vader? WTH!
2) What exactly is Vader’s plan? The Sith have the rule of two. He suggests they turn Luke. That means that either Vader or the Emperor has to die, and they both know this. Vader spends all of ESB trying to convince Luke to help him kill the Emperor. It seems to me like he is sincere, and the prequels even confirm that he wants to overthrow the Emperor almost immediately after turning to the dark side. Why the change between ESB and RotJ? Why, oh why, does Vader bother to block Luke’s swing at the Emperor? All Vader has to do is let Luke cut the old guy in half! There is literally no reason why he should defend the Emperor. Heck, even after the Emperor tells Luke to kill him, Vader vacillates on whether he should betray the Emperor! Why? DUDE JUST TRIED TO HAVE YOU KILLED!
My 8-year-old daughter refers to RoTJ as “the good one.”
I still think of it as “the new Star Wars movie,” even after three subsequent prequels. It was the first movie I was ever excited about well before its release.
Excellent essay, with which I am much in agreement. With the exception that…
@5, 23, 25: I agree with y’all that Yub Nub rules. Yub Nub is the complete justification for the existence of the Ewoks, outweighing the silliness of their battle effectiveness in the great cinematic scheme of things.
What, I don’t like Ewoks so that makes me a hater? I really liked the rest of the movie. Even Leia in her bikini. I saw the image first and liked it, and her status at Jabba’s was some kind of ornamental property- I don’t think being specifically a sex slave was practical there. Plus, offing Jabba was a great moment.
The space battle kicked ass; it wasn’t too busy like in AOTC.
CLB @13- Guerrilla warfare is seriously different from terrorism.
Guerrilla/ asymmetrical warfare is is hitting enemy forces where one has the advantage, usually followed by running. Terrorism targets noncombatants in an attempt to change a nation’s policy.
There are some shadings in this; attacking a military barracks could make sense in an armed conflict, but much “terror” now seems driven by rage and hate, not a desire to make any change.
GeorgeK @15- That’s a good critique of the movie!
CLB @21- I’ll look for my old DVDs (copied from laserdisc) for you, but time is kinda short!
WMBW @22- Both Death Stars were valid military targets. If you are going to put weapons systems off limits because their wielders might put noncombatants in the line of fire, you may as well surrender.
And I have zero problem with assassination during war. It doesn’t have to be Hitler; why should the dogfaces get shot at when their leaders are safe, warm, and dry?
David_Goldfarb @26- A New Hope? What is that? :)
I just don’t see why we can’t have BOTH(in regards to Yub Nub and the new song)
@22 The plan to destroy the Death Star was always central. The fact that the attack COULD take out the Emperor was bonus. I mean, if the Falcon had enough time to fly out, and for Luke to escape, the Emperor could have as well, had he survived the throne room. So obviously, destroying the Death Star, NOT killing the Emperor, was of primary importance here.
@27, 1) I theorized it would take some time for the Falcon to get to Bespin from Hoth in the ESB thread(though that doesn’t explain why the Falcon wasn’t ambushed, yes), so that could explain the time it takes for Luke to train. In the books, IIRC, it does state that he is there for a few weeks, because it talks a bit about his obstacle course through the wilds of Dagobah and his improvement over time on it.
2) Vader had to make sure Luke’s heart was in it. Vader wasn’t trying to kill Luke in either of their confrontations.
I attribute the appearance of Hayden Christensen as a concious choice: These are energy beings who, I presume, can manifest however they want. Ben and Yoda accept who they were at their points of death and project thusly. Anakin rejects the person he became and manifests as his pre-Vader self. Fan logic, but it’s the best I’ve got.
I don’t get the Rebels as terrorists argument. Not sure what Lucas’ inspiration for them was, but I always thought they were based on the American Revolution, or better yet the legend of the American Revolution. A scruffy band of rebels is lucky to find brilliant military minds and allies with big ships to help win the war. Vive la France. Vive Mon Calamari.
‘Jedi’ was the first SW film I saw when I was a kid in the ’80’s, and I can still remember my first impression of it as an intense and dark film. The rancor was scary… but you saw the owner grieving when he died. Luke managed to bring his father back from the dark side… but his father dies shortly after.
I agree with your assessment of this movie, it has always also been my favorite; well, it used to be until I developed a more critical eye and realized what a game changer Empire was. Anyway, my problem with this movie is about all of it’s missed opportunities and beats in favor of the marketing scheme. All of the movie’s little bits and tragedies and notes of Luke’s heroism does not stand out in the film except on extremely perceptive re-watching, and that is the fault of editing, because it would have generally required little effort more than solid directing and editing to bring them out. Instead the lively scenes and cuddly teddy bears take center stage, because it was designed and edited that way, because teddy bears are cute and they sell. Jedi is flawed to me because it emphasizes the weaknesses of the film and franchise instead of emphasizing it’s strenghts. I also think they overreached with the amount of material they crammed in here; if this movie were made today, Jedi would have been split into two movies, which it always felt like to me, and probably should have more deeply explore the glossy bits.
@33/George Kaplan – I don’t get the Rebels as terrorists argument. Not sure what Lucas’ inspiration for them was, but I always thought they were based on the American Revolution, or better yet the legend of the American Revolution.
I’ve read on more than one occasion that Lucas’ original inspiration was actually the Viet Cong, and the Empire was a veiled representation of US policy abroad. Chris Taylor’s recent book How Star Wars Conquered the Universe points this out, including the irony of how the original trilogy is now often read as a riff on the American Revolution. (I wish I had a physical copy so I could point to page numbers, but chapter 6 has a lot about this.) I don’t say it has to be read that way, but there is apparently evidence it was at least part of Lucas’ original inspiration.
Return of the Jedi. Great film.
I always say it’s not my favorite SW film(for some reason, I’m not a huge fan of the Jabba’s palace sequence, unlike so many others here)…Empire stands alone. But, this film does contain my very favorite moments of Star Wars. Every single scene with Luke/Vader and Luke/Vader/Emperor. Simply top-notch. Nothing else makes me almost well up like the last scenes with Luke and Vader. The music, the haunting tension as you wonder if Luke is truly doomed and if Vader will simply stand by and watch. And Vader’s last words to Luke as the Imperial March softly plays. Just beautiful – there is no other scene in Star Wars that tops this.
@30/sps49: Wow, that’s very generous, thanks. Don’t worry about the time — I’m sure the film will be in theaters for quite a while, and I don’t mind waiting until the audiences thin out somewhat.
@32/ACFClarke: See, I think it’s the other way around: Young Anakin is the person who became Darth Vader, a person blinded by rage and selfishness and possessiveness and naive enough to be manipulated by Palpatine for years, molded into his instrument long before he donned the black mask. Young Anakin is the person who slaughtered Tusken children. So Young Anakin represents the things that the man needed to reject in order to redeem himself. The older Anakin we saw in the original edition, by contrast, represented the mature, wiser, post-Vader Anakin who’d learned from the mistakes of his past and finally transcended them.
@33/GeorgeKaplan: The thing is, though “terrorist” is used in rhetoric to mean “evil person we hate,” that’s just rhetoric. Terrorism is a tactic, not an ideology. Like any other military tactic or weapon, it can be used in support of any cause. Look at the Bajorans in Deep Space Nine. They were fighting to free their people from unjust oppressors, but they used terrorist tactics, and the show makes no bones about that. Plenty of oppressed populations have used terrorism to gain liberation. Sure, it’s an ugly and brutal tactic, but so is dropping bombs from an airplane or setting a forest on fire with napalm. Terrorism and guerrilla warfare (which, yes, are different, but still overlapping) are not tactics used exclusively by “evil” people, but are tactics used by poor and weak groups fighting against more powerful and well-equipped groups. Specifically, terrorism is psychological warfare — if you can’t physically overwhelm your enemy or occupier, you make things so unbearable for them that they choose to withdraw.
What we see today with religious terrorism, both with IS in the Islamic world and the escalating white-supremacist Christian terrorism in the US, is terrorism being used by fundamentalist, bigoted, apocalyptic cults seeking to exploit fear and hate to increase their power. So yes, certainly terrorism can be used by evil groups. But that doesn’t give those groups a monopoly on its use. It’s a tactic used by a less powerful group against those in control. And that’s why it’s relevant in a discussion of the Rebellion against the Empire.
Granted, terror can be used by the powerful as well; the Death Star was clearly a weapon of terror. But that was really a gratuitous indulgence, since the Empire was more powerful than the Rebellion. Destroying whole planets to reinforce the power the Emperor already had was just excessive, the action of a power-mad lunatic who just inflamed fiercer resistance through his brutality, like so many other brutal dictators. Ultimately that’s more about ego than tactical necessity.
I don’t mind the emperor gloating so much: I always saw it a bit like the classic devil temptations… to be truly converted, you’ve to be unable to claim that you were tricked, you’ve to understand you’re giving in to the dark side, and still do it.
In the original trilogy there’s also a kind of “good say literal lies true in a more deep way, while evil say literal truth twisted to evil purposes”.
That it could be considered b**t it’s another matter…
While a 2nd Death Star may seem like a tired idea, logically it makes perfect sense. Not only is it ready faster than the Rebels anticipate, but it would also have the aura of “aw, we beat that thing once, we can do it again”, as a further lure to the Rebel fleet. Palapatine is all about the long-game, so in that context it’s exactly what he would do. And they did make it harder to destroy it this time (although I’m not sure why there needed to be a navigable path to the core.) If there’s a third one coming, I hope it survives the first movie it appears in. The ewoks earn a pass from me as well for the reason you’ve stated: it directly ties to Palpatine’s confidence and dismissal. He’d be a lot more wary of a planet full of wookies and wouldn’t commision building a shield generator on Kashyyk if he had another option. It’s also a characteristic of the rebels that they find value in the ewoks and take advantage.
I’d argue that the plan to make Leia and Luke siblings was hatched during ESB (“there is another”, and she turns the Falcon around to rescue Luke). But this article hit on the reason I think ROTJ ranks first among my kids who grew up on the prequels, when they watch the original trilogy: it’s the happy-endingness of it. This is a two-hour romp of watching villains getting trounced, and they’re all about that (they also love the Power Rangers). Darker/lighter preferences are a product of their time, and ROTJ was correct for 1983.
@40/cecrow: No, according to what I’ve recently read, the “other” established in TESB was supposed to be Luke’s sister, but in early drafts of ROTJ it was a new character, not Leia. Lucas had planned to move on to a sequel trilogy which would feature the sister as a core character, after she was foreshadowed in Episodes V and VI. But when Lucas got tired of doing Star Wars movies and decided to wrap things up with ROTJ, he changed Luke’s sister to Leia, a character we already knew, in order to give that thread closure (and to provide an easy way to wrap up the Luke-Leia-Han triangle).
Aeryl@31 RE: @22
I agree with you that destroying the Death Star was central to the Rebel Alliance’s plans. That brings up what some other people have said, though, that Luke’s showdown didn’t matter to the movie. I disagree, strongly. The destruction of the Death Star was certainly not central to the emotional through-lines of the story. This movie was about Luke coming into his own and rescuing first, Han, then, Leia, and finally, his father. Everything else is a side plot at best, including the Death Star.
Saying Jedi is about destroying the Second Death Star is like saying To Kill a Mockingbird is about Atticus Finch trying to defend Tom Robinson in court. It may be true from a certain point of view, but it misses the point entirely. Which is easier to see in To Kill a Mockingbird because (spoilers) Tom is found guilty and killed in jail before Atticus can win an appeal (/spoilers). Atticus’ defense of an innocent man is what drives the plot, but its not the point of the story. Its not what the story is about. The story is about the character beats of Scout, which have little to nothing to do with the trial.
Luke’s ending in Return of the Jedi is one of the things that improves on re-watching, because of the Prequels and The Clone Wars.
CLB@38:
I would postulate that the use of terror tactics forces a person to change who they are fundamentally. Regardless of the righteousness of their cause, I think that a person would have to embrace a certain level of evilness to employ it. Or they wouldn’t be capable of doing it a second time.
In regards to the “Death Star” as a weapon of terror. Well, it is, in the same way a nuclear weapon is. Its a weapon of deterrence. Terrorism as a tactic involves smaller scale destruction and death. Even something like 9/11 is small in scale compared to the use of nukes. While there is certainly some overlap, terrorism requires continual use to be effective. A weapon of deterrence such as the Death Star is designed to only be used once. After that, the threat of using it is weapon enough. Until someone else builds one, at least.
As you said, though, the powerful can certainly employ terror tactics. The gestapo, the KGB, white supremacists during Reconstruction, the Seattle Seahawks, etc…
But light sabres are. LOL
@13 Re the Empire’s Storm Trooper armor, walkers, etc. not being able to withstand the Ewoks’ “primitive” weapons: I’m reminded of Poul Anderson’s THE HIGH CRUSADE. The aliens’ “armor” was designed to deflect “energy” weapons and not “solid” or “projectile” weapons, so it turned out to be no proof against 14th century swords, spears and arrows.
@45:
Except it doesn’t stop energy weapons either, in Star Wars. It stops nothing. Its supposed to be the same as Mandalorian armor, but it looks like the Empire maybe made some cost-cutting moves since the Clone Wars ended, eh? Like, making it of molded plastic instead of beskar.
@45 Except the armor doesn’t seem to help much against blasters, either. It doesn’t seem to resist anything.
ETA: Late! Bother.
@42/Anthony Pero: Good point about To Kill a Mockingbird, and it’s why I feel that the movie, classic though it is, doesn’t quite work as well as the book. In the book, everything including the trial is filtered through the children’s POV, and we see the adult world through their eyes, this strange and arbitrary realm with alien rules and priorities. But in the film, without the ability to offer an internal narrative for Scout, we get a movie that starts out being about the world of the children, then suddenly becomes a very different film focusing on the trial and the adults’ world, and then goes back to being about the kids again after that long digression. So it lacks the unity of the book.
@43/also Anthony: Yes, but is that any less true of dropping bombs on an enemy city from the comfort and safety of a jet, or firing missiles or drones at them from a control room thousands of miles away? All warfare is evil and corrupting. None of it is clean or good or beautiful. The only reason we see fertilizer bombs and IEDs and suicide vests as more corrupt than missiles and bombers and P90s is sheer classism, the cultural contempt for the tactics of the poor and disenfranchised. It’s a relic of the attitude of European military men in the early 20th century, their notion that war had to be honorable and gentlemanly and that guerrilla tactics were common and crass and unworthy. The fact is, it’s all equally horrible, and we’ll never get anywhere as a society until we abandon the sick lie that any form of war is nicer or nobler than any other.
As for the Death Star, who says it was only meant to be used once? The first thing Tarkin did after blowing up Alderaan was to set course to blow up Dantooine (IIRC), and then Yavin. He was going to use it as many times as he, or the Emperor, felt like. They would’ve blown up any and every planet that had a rebel base or sympathisers on it, and they would’ve had to keep using it to maintain that grip of terror. The only reason nuclear weapons worked as a deterrent is because two opposing sides both had them. One megalomaniac with a monopoly on a doomsday weapon is not going to feel particularly inhibited about using it.
Oh, there are SO many reasons to dislike Return of the Jedi; the Ewoks are only the tip of the iceberg. BUT, I am not here to try to dissuade you from your opinion, nor do I wish to ridicule you as there are also many good things about the movie. So we agree to disagree. :)
Just a brief aside on “people telling stories to each other”. Another absolutely gorgeous moment in Jedi is when we see flashes of Threepio telling the story of Episodes IV-V to the Ewoks. Because it transcends “summarize the story so far in case kids forgot it”, even though I suspect it originated that way. You can somehow tell from his movements and their reactions, despite the language barrier, that Threepio has figured out that the Ewoks are a people for whom oral epic is still an important living part of their culture, so he transforms the “created myth” of the rest of Star Wars into a traditional epic that might well live on in Ewok oral culture. It’s meta and gorgeous and I don’t even believe in Joseph Campbell or the monomyth as legitimate scholarship. As art and storytelling, it’s awesome.
#38
I object to the Rebel Alliance being called terrorists because, unlike the Bajorans, we never actually see them use terrorist tactics. Maybe if we ever saw them blowing up stormtrooper barracks or carpet bombing Imperial worlds, I would agree with you. But blowing up Death Stars is no different than blowing up battleships in war. It’s the Star Wars version of Sink the Bismarck!
On a side note, if the Empire knew the Rebels were determined to destroy the second Death Star, why didn’t they block the tunnels leading to the reactor? A few thick doors couldn’t saved them. Arrogant twits thought a little shield could protect everything. Never underestimate a teddy bear army.
By the way, there’s deleted scenes of the Emperor ordering the Death Star’s commander to destroy Endor once the shield is down. The commander hesitates because they have men on the moon, but eventually follows through with his orders. Thankfully he’s too late.
@51 Well the British Army called it terrorism even when the IRA only attacked soldiers (they were terrorists, they attacked remembrance ceremonies and ordinary high streets too) and when irregular militias use IED on troop patrols they get called terrorists too and so do militias who use regular guns, so it seems like “terrorist” is a very depreciated label used for anyone we don’t like who attacks us in any way. By current usage there is no problem calling the rebel alliance terrorists for blowing up military installations. They certainly condoned their Ewok allies eating stormtrooper bodies (lets be charitable and call them already dead bodies), so that definitely qualifies.
@51/GeorgeKaplan: I wasn’t actually saying that the Rebels were shown using terrorist tactics; if anything, I believe my point was that the Ewoks defeating the Imperials would’ve made more sense if they had used more asymmetrical tactics than shown, rather than going up directly against high-tech arms and vehicles with tiny Stone Age weapons and having it somehow actually work. (Good grief, one napalm drop by the Empire would’ve ended the Ewok uprising decisively.)
And the whole point I’ve been making is that terrorism is not an ideology. It’s currently being used by ideologues in the tiny sliver of history we happen to inhabit, so we tend to blur the acts together with the ideology driving them, but terrorism is simply a tool. It’s the means to an end, not the end in itself. It’s a way to attempt to effect political change through the use of fear. That can be to attempt to promote an ideology like white supremacism or religious fundamentalism, or it can be to attempt to free your people from an occupying power. The Bajorans weren’t trying to drive off the Cardassians for ideological reasons; it was, just as you say, a matter of survival.
CLB@48 RE @42:
I’ve actually never watched the film of To Kill a Mockingbird, but I can totally see how that might muddle up the storyline. In the case of Jedi, I don’t think it does, because the narrative flow of the film makes it obvious to me that the movie is about Luke Skywalker saving things, not the Rebels destroying things. And when you add in the prequels, it becomes more obvious that the central conflict of the film is between Vader, Luke and the Emperor, and the Death Star is a side quest the other characters are going on so they have something to do.
RE @43:
I certainly won’t argue with you that all war is horrible, and none of it is clean, or beautiful or good. Wars don’t make one great, as a little green (or blue, depending on your consumption habits) once said. But I don’t think that makes it inherently evil. I actually don’t believe actions can be evil. Only people. Evil is an issue of choice, true motive, and responsibility. Actions themselves can’t possess these attributes, because actions don’t have agency. I do believe that certain actions, if repeated, can force someone to become evil in order to keep taking those actions.
I know the “Ewoks ate the dead bodies” is a fun fandom joke, but it is also just as likely they just stole the helmets as trophies and abandoned the bodies to the forest. As a sylvan based species they probably had religious traditions around giving bodies back to the forest that gave them life.
@54/Anthony: Whereas I believe the opposite — that good and evil are choices people make, rather than defining properties of people. People can choose to do good or to do evil; people who’ve done evil can be redeemed if they try, and people who do good can end up doing evil things if they’re not vigilant about their own choices. If someone has made so many evil choices that it’s all they’re capable of, then you could call them evil, but that’s the end result of the choices that shaped them, rather than some inborn identity.
@55/Aeryl: C3PO said outright that Han and the others were “to be the main course at a banquet in my honor.” He wasn’t exactly prone to joking.
(By the way, I found that line on a site that had a dialogue-only transcript of the film, and it turns out that the word “Ewok” is never actually spoken in the film! They’re just nameless teddy-bear aliens.)
This. All of this. Just all of it.
@56 ChristopherLBennett: You’re right; they’re never called Ewoks in the film itself. They’re called Ewoks in the credits though (I discovered this on a recent re-watch of the original version).
Re: the metal bikini…she was put in some crap meant to objectify her and she turned it around and killed the jacka** that put her in it. With the chains he used to enslave her. And I love that she saved herself. Yes, there was the distraction of Luke and all that, but I believe that even if that hadn’t happened, she would have found a way to free herself. So I never looked at the bikini as some sort of demeaning thing, which it was meant to be, of course. But I looked at is as a badge of honor. She’s sexy in it because she overcame what it was meant to signify.
I don’t have time yet to read all the comments, but…yes. :) I love Return of the Jedi. I remember being on such a high after seeing this movie. I LOVE the end scene – everybody hugging, and dancing and just drawn into this circle of love and friendship. At the time, that was really moving to me and something I really craved. And to top it off, somebody’s soul is redeemed.
Luke is a boss.
Regarding Leia – when I read the Making of Return of the Jedi book there was a lot of disturbing stuff in there about the metal bikini; about the need to’ soften’ Leia as a character, etc. I understand that people have reclaimed the symbol though; although I doubt I’ll ever cosplay it. (Annoying memory – in high school, when I was a much more vocal/visible Star Wars fan, pretty much every guy who found this out would ask, ‘do you have a metal bikini?’).
I must beg to differ on George Lucas’s reasons for certain story decisions being solely about merchandising; possibly that was a part of it, but also because of the message he was trying to convey. When Larry Kasdan wanted to kill off one of the main characters, George Lucas was very against this. He argued that Kasdan was ‘not nice’ and a ‘product of the 1980s’ and mentioning that as a kid he resented it when the lead characters get killed. Ultimately these movies were fairy tales, and you want people to live happily ever after, and so RotJ has to end on a good note. “The whole point of the film, the whole emotion that I am trying to get at the end of the film, is for you to be real uplifted, emotionally and spiritually, and feel absolutely good about life. That is the greatest thing that we could possibly ever do.” Regardless of his other flaws as a director and fumblings with the prequels, he nailed this. I saw these movies at the exact right time in my life, at a time I didn’t always feel good about it.
Okay, read the comments :)
Regarding the Anakin ghost – I was thinking about this some more (partially during a writing exercise) and wonder if it’s intended to be similar to the way we tend to see ourselves (or our loved ones) in our mind’s eye a young-ish version of ourselves. For example, I think of my grandmother with brown hair, even though she went grey several years before she died. So – while I actually do ultimately agree with CLB that ‘old Anakin’ is a more accurate portrayal of the sum total of Anakin and his accumulated wisdom, perhaps that’s just how he thinks of himself, and it’s the Anakin that he SHOULD have been.
Hah, I was totally wondering if you were going to bring DS9 up :) I remember this discussion! I looked up a few definitions of terrorism and it is a highly subjective/debated word. But in my mind it involves a)acting on behalf of an organization/idealogy and b)acting against non-combatants. So while I think all the examples you give (ISIL, Christian terrorists, etc – as well as Bajorans) count, I don’t think the Rebels do because as far as I know we don’t see them acting against non-combatants. (I know there’s the whole ‘but the Death Star was under construction’ argument, but it’s clearly a military target).
I really do agree with your ultimate point that all war is gross and horrible, but at the same time, assuming there is such a thing as a just war, the methods matter. Attacking the troops of an invading country is different than bombing schools in said country to get them to stop.
Also, I’m actually not seeing that much difference between 54 and 56 regarding evil and choices. Unless Anthony is saying (and I didn’t get that impression) that once you become evil you can never go back? The main differnce is semantics, I suppose – can evil ever be used as a descriptor for a person? As opposed to ‘a person who makes evil choices’.
I think that if you really pay attention, there’s a surprising number of characters, alien races, planets, etc., that everybody knows by name, but that were never actually mentioned by name in any of the movies.
@61/Lisamarie: Again, though, a lot of the historical basis for the perception of terrorist tactics as worse than conventional tactics is simple classism, the assumption that the tactics of wealthy and powerful states are somehow “better” than the tactics of the poor, disenfranchised, and desperate. In war and survival, you use whatever methods are necessary and available, and deal with the moral qualms later.
I believe there was a storyline in The Clone Wars that dealt with this, where the Separatists occupied a planet whose people lacked advanced weaponry or armies to fight back with, and the ethics of using guerrilla or terrorist tactics for a just cause were explored.
Anyway, I don’t believe there is such a thing as a just war. War is an intrinsically unjust thing that can sometimes be used in support of a just cause, but it usually ends up creating more injustice than it solves. World War II is often cited as the quintessential “just war,” but that’s a pat oversimplification. For all that it was necessary to stop the aggression of the Nazis and Imperial Japan, the Allies still committed many injustices and atrocities of their own — the internment of innocent Japanese-Americans, the mass rapes committed by the Soviet Army, the extensive firebombing campaigns committed by both sides against civilian populations (the atomic bombs were just a more efficient way of carrying out what had already become a routine tactic), Churchill’s refusal to divert food supplies to end the Bengal famine, etc.
And my problem with calling people good or evil is that no person’s psyche can be reduced to a single word. People are complicated. Looking at it as a writer, I’ve written characters who were really cruel and psychopathic and heartless, but I didn’t see them as being that way because they were just evil; rather, it was a consequence of their past traumas or the culture that had shaped them and the warped beliefs they sincerely held to be valid. So I see “evil” as a description of a person’s behavior rather than a definition of their nature.
@62/hoopmanjh: Good point about all the species and character names known only from off-camera sources. That just underlines how important the merchandising has always been to the franchise. So much of what we know of the canonical universe comes from the action figures and toys. Come to think of it, did they ever actually say the term “X-wing fighter,” or “Y-wing”?
@63: I don’t think we ever hear the specific term “X-wing fighter” in the movies, but in The Empire Strikes Back an Imperial officer does tell Vader that an “X-wing class” ship is approaching Cloud City.
@64 And somewhere that Imperial officer is probably named and his service career is listed in great detail.
Technically, I believe the official designation is “Incom T-65”. My understanding (possibly apocryphal) is that “X-Wing” and “Y-Wing” and “TIE Fighter” were actually nicknames used by ILM during the filming of the original Star Wars, but someone liked the names well enough to give them official status (and decide that “TIE” stood for “Twin Ion Engine”).
I think that the explanation for Anakin’s Force ghost is very simple–George Lucas wanted Hayden Christensen there, to tie the films together.
I love this movie, and it’s all because of Luke. You did a great job of putting into words why.
I don’t even mind the changes Lucas made to this one. Most worked. Well, except one. I’m surprised no one mentioned this, but it’s only in the newest version from this year. It really hurts one of the best scenes. When Vader is watching the emperor kill Luke, and finally makes his decision, Lucas added another Nooooooooooo like the one in ROTS. As if that could come from Darth Vader at this point. Lucas thinks it’s some kind of cool unifying character moment when all it does is distract from the intensity of the scene. Pity he can’t leave things alone.
Thank you!
RotJ has always been my favorite of the three films for many of the reasons you point out, though on my side I’ve been unable to articulate them. Luke being a bad ass, the redemption of this seemingly irredeemable evil in Vader. Even the Ewok as threat seemed credible to me. I mean come on, they have developed gliders, surely they can strategize and plan enough to do a quick strike and wipe out a smaller Imperial detachment!
It’s really easy to make the Hayden ghost make sense. You put some sort of image of Hayden in Luke’s room in ANH. It could be some sort of holo or a painting. Shmi probably looked for any news she could find about Anakin.in holovids. If she didn’t, Owen and Beru met Luke’s parents. They might not be able to create something themselves, but I’m sure they could describe him to an artist. It really makes less sense that he would have never seen an image of his father while he was growing up.
Basically, Luke sees his father as the image he has been looking at for years rather than how he looked in his final moments of life. Luke only knew Yoda and Ben in their older years, so they appear as the audience saw them.
I experienced Star Wars in a very unusual way – ROTJ was the first and, for many years, the only SW film I had seen. My parents took me to watch the movie when I was 8, but I hadn’t seen the first two. It left a strong impression and I really loved it – and oddly enough, the lack of foreknowledge didn’t hurt, I felt like I had followed those characters for a long time, and the movie explained things well enough not to be confused about anything. (Though I wish I had first found out about Vader and Luke through “I am your father”, rather than the talk with Yoda and Obi Wan.) I was also completely in love with Luke Skywalker – yes, the character, not Mark Hamill – and found his scenes with his father by far the most moving and interesting part of the movie.
I was an adult when I finally saw the entire OT, and I can see that the first two movies are objectively better; the first one is incredibly fun and has brilliant dialogue that must have inspired Joss Whedon to start writing (what the hell happened to Lucas later?), and Empire is darker, has character development and is the best of the SW movies. But rewatching ROTJ, I understood why I loved it and why I was in love with Luke as a little girl.
However, I must say that my initial 8 year old reaction of being not impressed with ROTJ Han Solo was confirmed by the rewatch. I don’t know what happened with Harrison Ford, whether he was dissatisfied that he didn’t get to have a death scene, but he makes the goofiest facial expressions in the movie and his performance in general is not very good. So, as a result of not having seen the first two movies, for a long time I didn’t understand what the big deal was about Han.
The article is great. You are wrong, though, about Leia: she displays the first signs of having Force telepathy in Empire, towards the end, when she hears Luke calling her wordlessly over the huge distance of space. That and the way she and Luke stand in a sibling-like hug at the end of Empire (plus the line “there’s another”) makes me think that that plot twist was already devised when Empire was made, rather only when they were making Jedi. (Even though they still left the kiss…)
I also disagree with the idea that Luke and Leia being siblings was there to resolve “the love triangle” between the three leads. There was no love triangle to begin with. What I do agree with is that they felt that they should make Luke and Leia siblings to kill the appearance/audience assumption that there was a love triangle. But really – where’s the Luke/Leia romantic connection? They were fond of each other, he thought she was beautiful (well, she is – so what? Why wouldn’t he think that?), she kissed him on the cheek once in a very non-sexual way, and she kissed him once on the mouth – but only to prove a point to Han; that kiss had no passion in it, and Luke didn’t look aroused or excited at all. On the other hand, not only were she and Han having sexual tension right from the start, but by the end of Empire they were clearly in love and she had confessed her love for him. There was never going to be any “Leia deciding who to kiss at the end”, it wouldn’t have made any sense from what had come before.
The only real reason why people thought there was a love triangle is IMO because people were so entrenched in the idea that “the main male hero has to hook up with the main (only major) female character”. There’s also a tendency to not value male-female friendships at all, and many people just couldn’t (and apparently can’t today either) imagine two young attractive people of the opposite sex who are close to each other as friends, even if they have no sexual/romantic chemistry and one of them is in relationship with someone else. Even if SW was made today, and if Luke and Leia were not revealed to be siblings, I bet writers would either give Luke another love interest or actually play the “love triangle” card / and if they did none of these things, people would be making stupid memes about Luke being “friendzoned” and thinking he must be sad and pining when Han and Leia ended up together, even if Luke ended up showing no such feelings at all. So, since people can’t accept the idea of a man and a woman as friends, just make them siblings and then people will be OK with them being just friends.
@71/Annara Snow: What happened to Lucas was that he stopped collaborating. He had his American Grafitti co-writers Willard Huyck and Gloria Katz do an uncredited polish on the final draft of Star Wars to punch up the dialogue, because he recognized that his own dialogue writing wasn’t that great. By the time the prequels came along, he’d lost that modesty.
While not my “favorite” of the movies(that would be Empire), I do love RotJ. I’ve always seen the structure of the original trilogy to be similar to Shakespeare’s comedies. R2D2 & C3P0 are the comical characters, there’s mistaken identity, a darker 2nd act culminating in a happy ending.
The only thing I disagree with in this essay, is the idea that Luke balanced the Force. He just swung the pendulum back to the light side. I believe that Qui-Gon Jinn was actually correct and Anakin was the “chose one.” Anakin balanced the force when he slaughtered the Jedi leaving only Obi-Wan Kenobi and Yoda balancing Palpatine and Darth Vader.
#53
Well, I don’t think terrorism is an ideology either. It’s the tactics of targeting civilians I find disgusting and cowardly. Whether it’s used by well armed superpowers, like the bombing of Dresden, or the “disenfranchised” massacring innocents in Paris, to me they’re equally abhorrent methods, and often unnecessary. Then again, most wars have been as well.
@73/Heather: I don’t accept the interpretation that balancing the Force means having an equality of numbers or power between the light and dark sides. I think that’s way too simplistic and arbitrary a reading. Rather, I think the light side is the Force used to preserve and promote balance, and the dark side is the Force used to promote imbalance. When people live together in harmony and fairness, that’s balance. When one group thrives at the expense of others, that’s imbalance. It’s like in Avatar: The Last Airbender. The Avatar’s job was to preserve balance — between the four nations, between humanity and nature, between the physical and spiritual worlds. When the Avatar went missing for a hundred years, the Fire Nation created ever worse imbalance — all but wiping out one of the other kingdoms, attempting to wipe out a second, waging ongoing war to conquer the third, poisoning the environment with its technology, alienating humanity and the spirits. The returned Avatar — and his successor — worked to correct those imbalances and put the world back the way it should be. That’s what I see as the role of the Jedi — to keep the Force and society in balance. The Sith are a corruption of that, a force of imbalance.
@67: We all know the Doylist explanation. What is missing is the good Watsonian explanation.
If the latter cannot be found, the writing is bad.
@75 /CHRISTOPHER BENNETT: I take your point, and would agree if Revenge of the Sith hadn’t pointed towards the corruption that was going on within the Jedi. This is shown when they discuss taking over the Senate in order to guarantee a favorable outcome in a trail against Palpatine & then when Mace Windu wants to play judge, jury and executioner instead not exactly a light side virtue, considering Luke uses his refusal to kill Palpatine as the final measure of being a Jedi rather than a Sith. Rather than being a balancing order that brought or handled justice the Jedi were beginning to be too prideful & authoritarian. Yoda makes more than comment anout thos trend within the Jedi. Thus I would still argue that by decimating the corrupt Jedi order Anakin brought balance rather than when he finally destroys the Emperor. Although I do realize that this generally accepted as the fulfillment of the prophesy and is backed up by GL, I just happen to like my take on it :)
@77/Heather: But you say it yourself, that was a corruption of the Jedi’s role. And I’m not talking about the Jedi anyway — I’m talking about the Force, and what constitutes its light side and its dark side. The Jedi are a human and therefore fallible institution that attempts to serve the light side of the Force, just as the Sith is an institution or ideology that attempts to promote the dark side. They may be more or less successful in those goals, but that doesn’t change the fundamental nature of the Force or the definition of the balance of the Force. After all, the Force was around from the beginning of life in the universe, long before the groups calling themselves Jedi and Sith ever existed. And there are other groups and individuals besides the Jedi and the Sith that can use the Force, like the Nightsisters. So it makes no sense to think that the balance of something as cosmic and fundamental as the Force is defined merely by the number of people making up two of the various factions that can draw on its power.
@71/Annara – With regards to the love triangle, I think that it is easier to discard that idea in hindsight. Leia herself may never have demonstrated interest in Luke, but from the beginning, he is clearly interested in her–when you say “so what?” to him thinking her to be beautiful, well…there’s often a whole lotta ‘what’ in something like that–and considers Han to be competition, or is at least concerned about the possibility, as evidenced by their exchange back on the Falcon.
Also, for any fans who read the book Splinter of the Mind’s Eye back before Empire was released, from what I understand (never having read it myself) it didn’t exactly put to rest the idea of a possible romantic future between Luke and Leia. Clearly George Lucas altered plans more than once, and even if that pairing had never been meant to work, it was at least teased a little bit.
Just in general, I think that people who had been following the saga chronologically, from the beginning, many of them probably did see it as a love triangle, at least initially. By the time that Jedi came out, of course, it was pretty clear that Han and Leia were the couple, so the revelation of Luke and Leia being siblings only served to let Luke down easy (in his own mind, or in the minds of viewers).
@79/SpaceJim: You’re absolutely right. Speaking as someone who saw the films in first run, it was always taken for granted prior to TESB that Luke and Leia were the designated romantic couple. Not only Splinter of the Mind’s Eye but a lot of the early Marvel comics released between films portrayed Luke and Leia as your classic will-they-or-won’t-they romantic couple, and once TESB came along, the comics acknowledged Luke’s perception of Han as a romantic rival (although they couldn’t address it too directly due to Lucasfilm’s restrictions on the comics doing storylines that might step on the films’ toes).
Annara, I can understand how someone who saw ROTJ before the other films could come away with the perception that there was no love triangle, but that’s definitely not how it was perceived by fandom and tie-in authors before ROTJ came out. Indeed, I don’t have a particularly clear memory of my reactions to the films at the time, but I have the impression that when I saw TESB, I thought Han was a jerk for muscling in on Luke’s girlfriend. I may have expected Leia’s reciprocation of Han’s affections to be a bout with temptation that she’d eventually overcome so she could end up with Luke.
@79, 80: I don’t think any of this actually comes across in Star Wars (aka A New Hope) and The Empire Strikes Back.
I don’t doubt that the perception was there at the time when those films were released, but I think it was simply because Luke was the main hero and Leia was the only major female character, and people just expect those two stock characters to always get together. The hero must always “get the girl”. It’s enough for the hero to say that the only major female character is beautiful for viewers to assume she must be his girlfriend. It doesn’t matter if she has any expressed any romantic interest in him, or, for that matter, if he’s expressed any real romantic interest in her. (Luke is a young man who’s lived on a backwoods planet with his uncle and aunt, of course he’d be dumbstruck by seeing any pretty girl. It’s not like he had done any socializing…) In traditional stories, the hero always gets a prize in the shape of a beautiful woman. Kudos for Star Wars for breaking that mold.
ETA: Case in point: Lando openly tries to flirt with Leia in Empire, and Han is annoyed, yet I haven’t heard anyone say that that was a love triangle.
@63 – regarding the classism; perhaps that is true in a general sense, but at the same time, the implication that having more of an aversion to specifically targeting noncombatants to make a point about your ideology or whatever else your goals are is the result of classist and elitist thinking isn’t quite jiving with me. In fact, I would say that things like the fireboming of Dresden would also count as terrorism despire coming from a ‘wealthy’ power.
I haven’t gotten to that Clone Wars episode yet but it sounds like two separate issues; geurella warfare against an invading force is not really the same thing in my mind. Now, it’s possible that there is a bias against *guerilla* warfare as being less ‘legitamate’ for that reason, and that I could see.
I don’t totally know how I feel about the just war question. I agree that war itself is an intrinsically disordered/unjust thing and therefore leads to more problems. But I think WWII could still have been a just war, but the Allies themselves resorted to unjust tactics. I suppose in the end it’s splitting hairs; if we were all honorable/just enough to engage in just war we would presumably not go to war in the first place. But I still think that somewhere there’s room for the use of (proportionate) force/strength in the face of somebody that will not yield. I just think history shows us we rarely, if ever, stop at what is proportionate.
Switching gears to the use of the word evil – I can see that. I certainly don’t believe anybody starts out evil, or that our nature is evil. But I do wonder (just wondering) if over time a person’s choices and decisions do influence…well, I don’t know what word I’d give it. Maybe not nature, but their propensity/mindset? But again, splitting hairs.
As an aside, I hope you don’t think I am always trying to argue with you; I enjoy having discussions.
Regarding X-wings; in Empire somebody tells Vader a ship is approacing of ‘X-wing’ class, but I think a lot of the stuff comes from the extra materials (guidebooks, toys, etc).
Balance of the Force: While I do like thinking about it in terms of Luke (Annara, you are not the only person to be in love with Luke-Skyalker-not-Mark-Hamill, although for me it lasted into my teens, lol) but I think Lucas thinks it is Anakin. And I agree it is more to do with the nature of the Force, how it’s being used, and society itself, not a literal number of Force users (especially, as CLB points out, there are lots of other Force users besides Jedi and Sith). Also, in the prequels it’s mentioned that Palpatine is actually somehow ‘clouding’ the Force (perhaps making it harder to access the light instead of the dark; or rather influencing people more easily to be ‘dark’ instead of ‘light’), so it could also have a more metaphysical aspect as well; that by killing the Emperor that influence has been removed. Which could also possibly apply to his ‘influence’ on society as well.
Something else I’ve been thinking about! What is the netherworld of the Force (that’s what Yoda calls it) like, I wonder? On one hand, the Force is described as a rather impersonal thing. It’s not a deity, but more of an energy field. When we die, we become one with the Force, which seems to imply a kind of loss of self and joining with a one-ness, which seems like it would be in line with what I know about Eastern thought. But – we know that it’s possible to retain one’s identity. Sometimes a person can even manifest themselves into their previous physical form and retain the characteristics/mannerisms/memories/affections of who that person was. So that memory is there, in the Force, somewhere. Does the person really remain and persist, or is it just the Force projecting an image, like a program? I personally like the former idea better but I don’t like the idea of losing my identity :) And then I wondered, what’s it like for Obi-Wan and Yoda and Qui-Gon and Anakin when they’re not manifesting (and man, are they like the only 4 people in the Force netherworld because nobody else figured out how to do this??). The closest I can come up with when I think about it is a kind of ‘communion of saints’ deal (except without the ‘new body’ part) where there is still some sense of personhood but you’re experiencing existance and time and connecting with others in a totally different and non corporeal way. I would like to think that even people who die that aren’t Force sensitive get to experience this and don’t just poof into nothingness, since the Force IS a part of all living things. But perhaps people who are strong enough in the Force can somehow project themselves (or teach other show to) and when they are in that mode, they are a little more like their old selves.
I also wonder if the combined existance/perspective of billions of beings is what somehow contributes to whatever the ‘will of the Force’ is. But then…maybe I wouldn’t trust it if that were the case ;) Maybe they get a little more enlightened.
I also wonder what happens to people like the Emperor or other people committed to the dark side. Do they experience annihilation, or do their energies somehow feed into the Dark Side? Hmmm…I know at least in the old Legend canon there was room for that idea, since Sith Force ghosts could also appear…
Well, as Obi-Wan would say to cover things, a matter of perspective. When I watch A New Hope, I see it very clearly. Not that anyone is assuming that Leia is Luke’s girlfriend, because they’ve never even met at that point. But he is spellbound by her, and again later gets a bit defensive at the the thought of Han pursuing her. In my understanding, two people competing for the affections of third person constitutes a love triangle.
Is the audience prone to expect that the hero will get the girl? Sure. But I think that the writing of Luke’s character reinforces that, giving some substance to the assumption. And it fits as part of Luke’s journey. At first, he is restless, chasing adventure, a girl, etc before taking on the true knowledge and weight of his destiny.
Re: Lando, if he had kept flirting with Leia and annoying Han in the process, then I do think that it would’ve been seen as a love triangle of sorts. But all of that romantic tonality is extinguished quickly and decisively in the film. I don’t know that it merits even comparison to the Luke-Leia dynamic.
Ah yes, the cutting of the Yub Nub. Take something simple and sweet in all of its microcosmic glory and replace it with razzle dazzle. We could make so many analogies to that. Needless to say, I’m nostalgic for dancing Ewoks.
Of the original trilogy, Return of the Jedi hasn’t been my favorite since I was a kid. What depth of character I’ve seen from the actors was lost on the saccharine sweetness of a marketing campaign. Bravo that they found some deeper meaning in a dialog that was usually juvenile. (The Emperor, anyone? Start a drinking game for each time he said “dark side” and see how fast someone is under the table.) That Leia became Luke’s sister when we were all wondering if they would do the deed is just a little too Dr. Phil creepy for my taste.
This was a man’s story about the redemption of a father through the love of his son. That, alone, should have carried some weight. It should still be noted these stories usually delegate women to the roles of the perfect mother/spouse or as nothing more than eye candy. Bravo to Carrie Fisher for being more than a gold bikini sex slave and for showing her character’s humanity. She could have been nothing more than the fantasy of a 12-year-old boy, with no redeeming qualities — and no shelf life. Harrison Ford’s portrayal of the smuggler who was humbled by his friends’ devotion was also worthy of praise and the perfect compliment to Fisher’s Leia. For these reasons, much of the scorn for Jedi is unfounded. It has more depth than most of the sci-fi popcorn movies at the summer box office.
@83: So, Luke expressed something that may be seen as a romantic interest on a couple of occasions in the first movie. That means that there is an “ongoing romantic tonality” of Luke and Leia throughout the series even when Leia explicitly shows and admits that she’s in love with Han, who loves her back, while Luke is far too busy with other issues in his life to even think of romance. OK.
Lando expresses a romantic interest in Leia on one occasion. But that doesn’t even merit a comparison to Luke/Leia because…
@84: So, even though Leia is in love with Han, they have a relationship and hasn’t expressed any genuine romantic interest in Luke, while Luke has been worrying about other things (geez, a hero can actually not be thinking about getting the girl, for once?), you were thinking whether Luke and Leia were going to “do it”. And it took them being siblings to actually kill that idea for you.
OK.
@82/Lisamarie: “but at the same time, the implication that having more of an aversion to specifically targeting noncombatants to make a point about your ideology or whatever else your goals are is the result of classist and elitist thinking isn’t quite jiving with me.”
Absolutely not my intention. Those are two separate issues. The point is that terrorism is a tactic, not a cause in itself, and thus the tendency of politicians and pundits to treat terrorism itself as the adversary rather than the specific cause it’s being used to advance is misleading. And it’s often a smokescreen to distract from the real issues.
On the Force, I think The Clone Wars clarified that there are two facets, the Living Force and the Cosmic Force, or something like that. One embodies the individual personality and the other is more a sort of inchoate, impersonalized, unlocalized life energy. When you die, your individual personality in the Living Force dissolves back into the Cosmic Force, unless you figure out how to hold it together, basically. I think I’ve come across a similar idea in some Eastern philosophy, although I’m not sure. I came up with a similar two-part-soul idea for an alien race in my fiction once (I think I used it for the main alien culture in Star Trek: Titan — Over a Torrent Sea), so that may be what I’m thinking of.
@85/Annara Snow: Whether or not you want to believe it, the perception that Luke and Han were romantic rivals for Leia was commonplace before ROTJ came out, and it was pretty clearly Lucas’s own intention at the time as well, because, as I already stated earlier, it wasn’t until later drafts of ROTJ that he conflated Leia with the other character who was going to be Luke’s sister. There’s even a scene in a later draft of TESB that makes the romantic triangle explicit. As Brian Cronin of Comic Book Resources explains, “Even after Lucas revised Brackett’s screenplay to introduce Darth Vader as Luke’s father, he kept a sequence where Luke and Leia discuss their feelings for each other, with Luke telling her she’s better off with Han Solo. An even LATER revision included a near SECOND kiss between the two!”
Also from Cronin, here’s an article showing the times in the pre-ROTJ Marvel comics where Luke and Leia kissed — initiated by Leia each time! — or where Leia showed jealousy toward a love interest of Luke’s. Keep in mind that all these comics stories were vetted and approved by Lucasfilm before they were allowed to see print, so that they could be kept consistent with Lucas’s plans for the films. At the time these comics were published, Lucasfilm had no problem with the portrayal of a mutual romantic attraction between Luke and Leia. Although the second page of the article shows how all hints of Luke/Leia romance were quietly swept under the rug in the post-ROTJ comics.
@86, thanks for clarifying. :)
Well, at least now I’m feeling more motivated to seek out the Clone Wars stuff :) In the EU there was talk of the Living Force (what Qui Gon seemed to be more of a proponent of) and the Unifying Force, so maybe that is the terminology they used.
If I could change anything about Return of the Jedi I would alter the battle at the Pit of Carkoon so Jabba falls into the Sarlacc, and Boba Fett gets strangled by Leia. I think it would be so appropriate for Jabba, who loves to feed people to monsters (the Rancor, the Sarlacc) to meet the same fate. Plus, by having Leia kill Fett, you make Leia into even more of a badass, and Fett no longer dies by the Star Wars equivalent of slipping in the bathtub.