I like RickJay’s analysis, but I have a slightly different take on it. Luke wasn’t able to use his anger in a “good” way. When he’s beating down Vader, he’s closer than ever to turning to the Dark Side. He’s able to check himself, and step back from the abyss, which is the moment at which he has triumphed. At this point, it doesn’t matter if he lives or dies, because he’s already won the most important fight: his own spiritual battle with the Dark Side. Having done so, his “death” no longer matters. If Palpatine had killed him, he would have abandoned this world of crude matter, and become an ascended being. The only way to do this is to not fight at all: the path of the Light Side is one of peace and tranquility. This is why, when he turns away from the crippled Vader, he tosses aside his lightsaber. He knows the only way to win, is not to fight.
This is spot on. It’s a major difference between the prequels and the OT.
In the OT, light saber duels between force users usually end in a ‘bad’ way:
Ep IV - Vader kills Obi-Wan
Ep V - Vader kicks Luke’s ass
Ep VI - Luke seriously courts the dark side to beat Vader
You could argue that, based only on these three movies, winning a light saber duel is actually a sign the duelist is turning to the dark side or already there.
After he went to Vader to protect the rebel location and to try to find the good in his father, and when Vader didn’t want to be good, that is when his plan became to be a distraction and simply keep things tied up until the rebels succeeded in their attack. I think he hoped he would convince Vader before going to the Death Star, and maybe tried to get him to run away with him. Or something. I don’t know if he had an actual plan other than try to find the good side of Anakin and to protect the rebels in their shield/assault plan.
I suspect being a prisoner wasn’t his first choice plan, but probably expected it would happen. That’s why he put Lando undercover, got Chewy in, and had Leia unfreeze Han. Then he could break them out if his negotiation failed. It would have been harder to rescue a slab of frozen carbonite.
I see that now. Erk. See, I didn’t see Luke as a “near-invincible supersoldier”. Yeah, Luke was still a mid-level officer, which speaks to Luke’s personal goals. Luke was engaged in (a) improving his own Jedi skills, and (b) planning Han’s rescue. And it was much more about his interest rather than time. I mean, Han is a frikkin’ general, too, leading the assault force, and he spent the three years in carbonite. I think the rebels have very lax standards for ranking up. (You’re alive? You did something in the last big confrontation? Promotion. Lando, you joined the team and have the skills of a leader, you’re in charge. Solo, you rescued the Princess (again) and then got suckered by Vader and survived, and came back anyway - promotion.) They probably offered Luke an admiral’s slot based purely on his death star trench gig, but he turned it down. “I’m a Jedi, not a soldier.” He just went along to keep his buddies alive.
Yeah, I think that’s the intended answer. He was leaning down the Dark path by using his anger to win, and he was winning, but was losing himself to the Dark. It was by realizing his predicament and regaining his control, by surrendering the fight that he won the battle of light over dark. Of course, he surrendered his defense in the process, because he didn’t realize the Emperor didn’t need a lightsaber to be deadly.
For certain definitions of “win”. The Jedi carried lightsabers for defense. Note that Yoda’s instructions to Luke were that Jedi never used their weapons in attack, only defense. A true Jedi shouldn’t be trying to strike his opponent at all. Except for the matter that you have to stop the guy who is attacking you somehow.
I think it’s more about how you engage the duel. A true Jedi controls his emotions and battles on the logic that to lose is to die and let the villain get on with his villainy, so sometimes striking the villain is necessary. But don’t give in to rage and revenge, control your response. Strike only enough to end the fight, and don’t kill if not required.
I think Luke trusted the force more than he planned. He also gave himself up since he knew that Vader could sense his presence on Endor, and would probably smell a rat. Of course they did anyhow. But I suspect the battle for the shield would have turned out a lot differently if Vader were directing it.
Finding the good in Vader shows that Luke was a better Jedi than Obi-wan or even Yoda. They might talk about how the light side is stronger than the dark side, but they didn’t believe it as applied to Vader, and Luke did. Which I suppose is a foreshadowing of sorts of how badly they botched things in the prequels.
Yoda said “A Jedi uses the Force for knowledge and defense, never for attack.” (my italics). Not his weapon. Which still makes no sense - how can you beat a Sith who is willing you use the Force against you, when you’re not willing to do the same?
Hence the high rate of appendage loss.
I’ve said before that the green-ping-pong-ball approach to Yoda’s fighting in the prequels was completely wrong. They should have stolen a scene from The Matrix, of all things - the bit at the end when Neo has awakened to his powers, and just sort of passively blocks every attack thrown at him by Agent Smith. The various Darths shouldn’t have even come close to beating Yoda - they should have had to come up with a way to force him to disengage (which, admittedly, they eventually did for the Dooku fight in Clones.)
I’m pretty sure he knew that the Emperor was plenty deadly, even without a lightsaber. He knows that the Force can be used by itself to kill someone - earlier in the movie, he Force-chokes a Gamorrean. He doesn’t kill him, but it’s clear he’s aware of the offensive possibilities inherent in Force use, and he must realize that the Emperor would be even more powerful and skilled in that sort of thing. He might not have anticipated the lightning, but I’m pretty sure he expected to die the moment he discarded his lightsaber.
I don’t think Jedis have to be entirely non-violent, but they should never engage in violence if it’s not necessary. And it’s worth noting that it was entirely unnecessary for Luke to fight the Emperor. If Luke had died in his duel with Vader, or at the Emperor’s hand… well, the Rebels are still going to destroy the Death Star, with the Emperor and Vader on it, so there’s no need for Luke to fight at all, not even in self defense: he knows that, if he dies, he does not end, but will simply move on to a higher plane of existence.
-
No kidding about not knowing about the lightning. Yoda should have warned him about that and told him that you can absorb it into your lightsaber. Then again, that idea was not invented yet.
-
So he was there to save his Father. Did he have any plan about the Emperor? Just grab Dad and leave?
Well, use the Force in defense mode, not strikes against the opponent. Which I agree is faulty because if you only defend, the best you can achieve is stalemate, and it is much easier to lose. Stopping your opponent usually involves removing their ability to attack, not just blocking every attack as it comes.
Your right, though, I meant “Force”, not “weapon”.
You’re not the only one. Timothy Zahn said as much circa 2001. Well, not specifically the “Matrix” part, but the part about being still and blocking everything with minimal movement.
Fair point. Note that he doesn’t take up the lightsaber in the first place until after he discovers the trap for the Rebel fleet, so at least part of the motivation is the lack of security that the Rebels will succeed.
That’s true - when he went to see Vader, he had no intention of fighting anyone. It’s not until he gets to the throne room, and become afraid for his friends’ lives, and angry at Palpatine’s gloating, that he starts fighting. And we all know what fear and anger lead to.
Remember, he was surprised that his father took him to see the emperor at all. I mean, not super surprised, but you see it on his face during that talk with Vader in the Imperial Hallway of Doom on Endor.
And by the time he actually gets to the throne room his plans have shifted. He no longer intends to make it off the Death Star alive. I get the impression that all he wants at that point is to bring Vader to the light side before they’re all killed.
This entire thread (highlighting all the plot screw ups) has me thinking how cool it would’ve been if George Lucas had acted only as the story idea guy, and the sound and visual guy and let a great director and writer handle the prequels. I realize the debate has been done over and over and over, but watching The Empire Strikes Back shows just how great the prequels could have been.
Oh well. I still feel like Pegg’s character in Spaced when he burns all his Star Wars memorabilia after seeing The Phantom Menace. sigh
Within the first one and a third movies, the man has engaged in any number of firefights with Imperial troops and slain them by the dozen, blown up the Death Star, survived being captured by the Abominable Snowman, and singlehandedly destroyed an AT-AT with a grappling tool and a grenade. He’s the intergalactic Audie Murphy.
I understood it to mean you don;t use the Force to start an attack. But if you are attacked, using the Force to stop the other guy is of course allowed.
Kind of like in the Karate Kid movies. Mr. Miyagi avoids fighting, but can and will put a person on the ground if need be. In the one movie he said something to the effect of, Fighting is not good. But if you must fight, then fight to win.
I was reading the online preview of some book about the real history of Star Wars, and it is peppered with quotes of Lucas saying that he doesn’t even think he is a good writer. He always preferred to come up with the idea, and then have someone else do the writing, or at least to polish up his own ideas. He especially claimed to be bad at dialog.
But that was back before Star Wars and it sequels became a hit, and I think it’s possible that the success in doing most of the writing on those went to his head.