I think that the fight that Ani has with the young "Greedo" never should have been taken out of Ep I. At least this scene gives us a slight idea of Ani's potential dark future. It's ironic to think of this god-like "chosen one" losing his temper and wailing on a defenseless alien. It shows some duality to the character and might even help us to forget some of those stupid "Yipee"s! ...or maybe not.
Actually, I want the scene out.
I HATE the idea that people will take this as an indication of Anakin's darker nature, when the entire point of his character in TPM is that he was pure and good! All the dark stuff comes later.
I do not think it was intended to show a darker side- just everyday childish pride- but this is how people will interpret it.
You were MEANT to be able to do that without blinking; that is one of the reasons GL used them.
Remember, SW has a very clear morality. Light and Dark, Good and Bad. It is based on Westerns, White Hats and Dark Hats, a lesson in good and evil that George Lucas thought had died out.
It's not meant to be realistic; it is meant to suit the story. You need never fell bad about killing a bad guy in Star Wars because he is BAD. That is how GL wanted it. That is why it is ok to destroy the thousands of people on the Death Stars, because SW morality is very simple indeed.
The ONLY sahes of grey available are the two Skywalkers and that only applies to very specific things for them.
"What about all the sub contractors that were killed on the Death Star?"
Anyway, the films are also based on pirate films where the good guys sometimes show a dark side.
I think it was GL's intention to show Ani's inklings to the dark side and his favorite execution style. It must have been removed for other reasons. The good of Ani is shown all throught the film so there is no reason not to include the scene. Its called foreshadowing and GL uses it alot.
We can all have our own opinion on this, but I know I'm right 😉 😂 🙄 😄
The filns are based on about a hundred things, Jameous, but the MORAL tone is Western (as GL has happily talked about many times), and the division between good and bad is clear. You are never, ever meant to think that the good guys are doing questionable things.
The Skywalkers are the sole excpetion so it is not impossible that Anakin's darker side could have been shown in that scene but I am still pretty sure that it would be mis-interpreted if read that way.
define evil, although obviously the rebels are the good guys, that is mainly only because all of the rebels are so likeable, if it were not for these prequels and the word of ob1 no one would know what the past looked like, having a dictator or an emperor does not necessarily mean being evil, I can't think of anything in ANH that the empire did that wasn't in self defense from the dangerous rebels, I'm sure the rebels would have done just the same if their deathstar had been under attack or their plans had been stolen.
Unfortunately though the good guys do do unquestionable things, just because they have a difference of opinion from the Empires troops doesn't mean they can go round killing people. Even the Jedi do bad things like leave people as slaves, make people become Jedi's, lie to them, trick people, hurt childrens feelings, risk childrens lives for their own gain.
As ob1 says, it depends on your point of view.
No no no! FORGET all that!
This is a KID'S film. It is deliberately designed with a very simple morality. It evcen has the Force- Light and Dark- to justify that! It bears NO relation to real life whatsoever. You have good and evil, and that's it.
No more complication than that is necessary, and ruminating on whether the Rebels were altruistic or not is completely irrelevant to Star Wars mythology!
Hence, the Empire is Evil. Those who serve it are evil. No question.
The whole message of the film only works if you view it like that.
There are plenty of films and stories that work very well by exploiting the moral grey areas that those who profess to be good guys work in... but Star Wars is not one of them.
They are very simple films; try not to read too much into them.
all i'm saying is that it is about opinion.
all four films are based heavily on the so called good guys opinion. in the jedi's opinion the sith are bad, in the sith's opinion the jedi are bad and in the rebels opinion the empire is bad, only because their views contrast with one anothers.
The viewing audience is made to believe that the rebels are the ones with the correct opinion.
Still missing the point there. It is NOT to do with opinion. It is GL's universe, his word is law, and in the set-up given the good/evil divide is cleary defined and the Rebels are on the correct side.
There is no way you can approach Star Wars from a point of moral relativism; the entire point of the Force having a Dark Side is to show that these guys ARE evil no matter where you might stand on the issue.
You are no more meant to consider their view on it any more than you consider the Dragons point of view with St. George or Mordred's point of view with King Arthur. They ARE evil; there are no two way about it. So it is with the Sith and the Empire in Star Wars. To so so is to completely mis-read the story.
Get of your high horse Ush! You dont know everything in GL's head, No one does but the Maker himself.
He did say it was based on ALL the serials he watched as a kid, IE:
Western, Pirate, and Space. He also said he got alot of ideas from old Errol Flynn films, and I dont ever remember him doing a western.
The line isn't that well drawn, this one quote comes to mind " Holding her is dangerous..." It shows not only his concern about what she could do to the empire through simpathy, but perhaps his dislike for Vaders heavy hand in things.
You are never, ever meant to think that the good guys are doing questionable things.
Just look at the qoute at the top of my last post and then see the great discussion the the two main charactors of Clerks have about this very point. (Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back in the US August 24th!!!) And that is just a brushing of the middle area that is the true SW. The only one that is truly without any question as to good or bad is R2. He's the only one that never lies (3PO to the Stormtroopers). Yoda is the next closest but his saying that Luke is too old when he knows dam well that Luke is the last hope (dont give me the 'there is another' because Leia was the same age as Luke) keeps him from being purely good.
Ok, diatribe over... just wanted to put it all out there for ya'll to have.
🙄 😎 😉 😮💨
[ July 27, 2001: Message edited by: Jameous Woodshire ]
At LAST bthe forums are back up and I can post this... bloody things went down as I was in the process of typing it!
I am NOT on a high horse and I massively resent that implication. Weidly enough, I am not trying to second guess GL's mind, but merely repeating what he has already said on the matter.
GL has stated that the MORAL basis for Star Wars is WESTERN. All the other inspirations are very valid in many ways, but the main reasoning for it all was that he thought that the basic moral lessons that western taught you had been lost by the period in which he was making Star Wars, or Journey of the Whills, or whatever.
I was stating a fact, nothing more.
Now, next point... one of the entire points of using droids as the bad guys in TPM -mindless droids at that- was that there would be no problem at all in hacking them to pieces, because they are NOT alive, and don't even have droid brains like C3-P0 and co. Weep not for them.
Jedi have to be aware that sometimes they have to kill in their defence and the defence of others. They do NOT strike first; they fight only when threatened, and in that respect act like any police force in a modern day democracy, and you can hardly condemn them for it.
'Holding her is dangerous...' Merely practicality, nothing more. The Empire is EVIL. That is the point. Besides, the officer was probably suggesting that having her killed with the others was the better option, because it would look like an accident.
Qui-Gon is a bit of a rogue, to be sure. But anyone watching him on-screen can be left in no doubt that he is a good guy and that he opposes evil. Liken him to Robin Hood, if you want, and likewise you are not meant to question the mythological goodness of THAT non-existant hero either. Everything these people try to do is for the good of all.
The Rebels may be acting against the law of the land, but the laws are unjust and the Empire had no right to rule over these SOVEREIGN systems (as the Republic was) in the first place. The Empir'es actions were illegal, and the disbanding of the Sente the final straw. Besides, the entirity of the US is based upon the fact that a citizen has a DUTY to resist Tyranny, whether that is 'unlawful' or not.
But this is NOT real life, guys, this is a STORY! As a writer can set the morality any way you like! If GL wants to make a clean war where people can clearly come out of it as either good or evil, then fair play to him as it is HIS story. Furthermore, this is a kid's story. A child does not want to worry about the moral complications of whether the good guys are actually good or not. Meanwhile, the bad guys in the film are faceless or sombre, whole the Rebels are freshfaced and jolly. The division is so clear it is almost painful. Bringing in questions like 'are they actually RIGHT to do this?' is irrelevant to the film.
Honestly, this moral analysis of Star Wars is pointless. GL made a very clear-cut moral structure for his films with a simple message to go with it.
BTW, the conclusion of the conversation in Clekrs is that the people working on the Death Star chose that job with their 'heart'. But in any case, that is entirely irrelevant. You are not meant to consider the fate of such things. By the moral rules of Star Wars there would be NO innocents on the Death Stars when they blew, or then the Rebels WOULD be (questionably) evil, which they are NOT, by the basic rules of the Universe he has created!
THIS is how he meant it:
Rebels/Jedi: Good
Empire/Sith: Bad.
As he has discussed muchly. So, all facts in the films go to fit THAT conclusion, and no other.
In support, here is a quote from Irvin Kershner (ESB directot and major contributor to Star Wars mythos):
"Star Wars was different from other films of its ilk. And it became very popular, I think, because of the same reasons that kids love Westerns. The Western has to do with good and evil, VERY CLEARLY DEFINED..."
And from GL:
"I wanted to make a kid's film that would strengthen contemporary mythology and introduce a kind of basic morality... The Western was the last mytholoigcal format that had been developed in this country and it had pretty much died by the sixites, and I wanted to see if I could resurrect that."
Now, you can disagree with GL's portrayal if you want, and there are several people who think his moral tone is insidious and irresponsbile. But really, that is going into a very complex sociological area. GL MEANT this to be very simple indeed, and if you think otherwise you are launching into your own interpretation that has nothing to do with what he wanted.
Oddly enough, this all leads us back to the topic name, because of course GL changed the Greedo scene with Han precisely bewcause he was worried some would think Han a not-nice person for shooting first. I think that was unneccessary, because Greedo was clearly going to shoot Han and he was out of options.