Back in 2005, during the press junkets for Revenge of the Sith, Lucas stated in an interview that Anakin and Darth Vader were two distinct, dual personas.

Here's the exact quote: "[Hayden in ROTJ] was added because it was a way of finishing off the series. The idea was that [Anakin's] inner person would go back to where we left off when it turned to the dark side -- when [Anakin] got burned up and everything, but before [he] got burned up. So when [he] comes back to the good side of the Force, that it's [his] FORMER PERSONA that survives NOT the DARTH VADER PERSONA."

--George Lucas AOL interview, 2005.

Not to retread something that's been iterated on hundreds of times, but the whole point here that I think Alexrd is making is that Sebastian Shaw is the "former persona...not the Darth Vader persona."

The whole point of him removing the mask is to say "okay, so here was this scary black mask that was Darth Vader, but I'm Anakin so 'take this mask off' so that I can 'look on you with my own eyes.'" The logic is there that the ghost at the end should be Anakin and not Vader, but the whole point of the scene at the end of the duel (with the mask being removed) is that Sebastian Shaw was Anakin, and not Vader - and so if the audience doesn't recognize that, if the audience doesn't immediately connect to this concept of this sad, remorseful old man, there's a bigger problem with the movie than trying to make them realize the significance of the ghost at the end being Anakin.

Exactly. Thanks for clarifying.

Both of your points hold true if there wasn't such a thing as the prequel trilogy. Since there is (for better or worse) your cinematic logic falls apart.

Shaw isn't the former persona of Anakin Skywalker. He's is in one scene of one movie. Christensen plays the central character in two films - one of which being the most pivotal in the saga. The character we should want to see redeemed is Christensen's. He's the guy we saw go from good to bad. We're supposed to have identified more with him. We're supposed to be waiting and hoping that the kid we all liked once upon a time comes to his senses and realizes he's the chosen one. Until that mask comes off, you've never seen Shaw's face. If these movies were made in order 1-6, it would be Christensen's face underneath that mask.

The point is that ROTJ isn't a self-contained feature - it's the final piece of a saga. It's required to connect the dots.

If the question is: which actor looks better as a ghost, the answer is Shaw. If it's: what makes more sense for the story, it's Christensen.

I never put much thought into the rationale behind Lucas's decision to replace Shaw with Christensen in ROTJ as I felt the change was more poetic than logical, (Remember when The Beatles called back to "You Never Give Me Your Money" during "Carry That Weight" on "Abbey Road?" Yeah, that's kind of what's going here.) but CoGro makes a good point.

I just thought of something. We heard rumors a while back about Lucas looking to revive old movie stars or some sort of iffy shit like that. Maybe he was actually looking to secretly replace PT Hayden with a CG masked younger version of Sebastian Shaw, thereby re-establishing the original ROTJ ending scene and overall continuity of the character. You heard it here first folks.

In all seriousness, I like the argument for Hayden at the end. It made me a little weepy like a sissy the first time I watched the altered version, at the end of a long marathon of the films, in numerical sequence, back when the OT DVD's first came out. I'm an old bastard, and at the time I could really relate to the feeling of being in love and missing her if she were gone, and imagined the horror of living for years knowing how badly you fucked things up (I aint never killed anybody though), and how a part of us dies when internally we neglect our guilt. The replacement seems logical, in that sense.

The fucking costume took me out of the kleenex box and showed me a picture of my nuts, all tucked in for bed in my wife's purse, however. Kind of snapped me out of the moment. The geek inside said "Wait, if he is reverting to his 'former self', then why is he force-ghost projecting himself wearing that particular attire? Do you show up in force-ville all blue and naked and that's just standard issue garb? Hmm..." So that could use a tweak, if anyone at Lucasfilm is looking for suggestions.

I can appreciate the original ending argument, though. I also miss the Yub-Nub, for the record. I get it, it's dated and cartoony and all that. I just like it. I have both versions of the ending music on CD in my car, sandwiched between 2Pac and John Denver. For nostalgia, Shaw and 80's Ewok folk r&b are great. I don't mind the new stuff either. I'm a marketing exec's wet dream.

No, it doesn't. That's irrelevant. Anakin redeemed as Shawn, not Hayden. Following your logic, Shawn's face should be replaced by Hayden's when he removes the mask, because "the audience can't identify with Shawn".



Don't know if you are joking with that too, but it was already proven false.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if the Blu-Ray showed Hayden in oldface. Your argument would be sound if this was 1998. But there are now six films and CoGro's explanation is right on.

It's not. Anakin didn't redeem himself when he was young.

Listen, I can't help you if you don't understand the concept of how artistic logic is different from math. It isn't "when was Anakin redeemed" it's "who is the character, for the audience, that redemption matters most." If I cared enough to walk you through why your interpretation is wrong, I'd explain this another 20 ways but I guess you'll just have to live with the fact that your opinion is shortsighted.

And no - it doesn't "follow logic" (scientific or otherwise) from my argument regarding the ghost that Shaw's face should be replaced by Hayden's. That's a separate issue altogether (you really need to shore up your logic skills). I believe Lucas has thought about it, and wants to make the change for consistency, but I don't think he will both out of respect for Shaw and because the scene is too good to be fucked with (like why he won't replace ESB Yoda).


Is too.

Scoreboard.

Subjective to who? The fan who wants to fill plot holes with his own fanciful ideas of how the movies might have or should have addressed deficiencies with the films?

I know this: the artist has said many a time that this is Anakin's story. The artist made the decision to punctuate this point by putting Anakin as you best knew him as a force ghost in the final scene of the saga's final film. It's not an experimental observation when it comes straight from the horse's mouth.

If you and others - for your own sake to enjoy the films your way - want to interpret the proceedings of the OT from a wholly different perspective, that's fine. It's no different from the fans that prefer to pretend the prequels never happened so they can sleep better at night knowing Han shot first and that Jar Jar was a meth-induced hallucination.

The point is you'd do so ignoring common sense and the intention of the story's creator.




I wouldn't be so quick to make judgments about others' logic when you throw this out there.

Of course, you could argue "Lucas didn't intend for there to be prequels," and that Anakin only became "the central character of the saga" when Lucas said so sometime between ROTJ and TPM, but it's been common knowledge for more than two decades that the story of Star Wars is about the rise, fall and redemption of Anakin Skywalker.

I could argue just as well, to your point, that if the movies were made 1-6 there WOULD have been more references to the prequels. The fact that Lucas inserted new dialogue to ESB to reference prequel Anakin probably strengthens my argument that the OT is still about Anakin and less about "the old broken man" we never see inside the suit. But to tell me that you'd be more inclined to agree with me if movies made 20 years before the prequels referenced them more often makes me think you're a fucking idiot.

You've made a lot of great posts so I don't want to think that, but...just saying.

Here's my first priority - I don't think there needs to be any sort of aggressive dialogue here. We all enjoy Star Wars, opinions will differ in a convoluted canon, Kumbaya, and all that.

I'm not making any judgments about your or anyone else's logic (except that I said that yours was sound). I was saying that no one really needs to be making "you have bad logic" posts, since no one here is being illogical. You can be right with bad logic and wrong with good logic - logic is divorced from being "correct," and I'm not making some kind of judgment on who's Correct here either.


This isn't about rewriting canon for myself or ignoring the PT. That's a silly tack and I don't think anyone here is purporting that. It's clear that the audience should be seeing Anakin as who needs redemption. What I think is subjective is the audience's perception of who most represents Anakin at that point in time.

There's a great argument to be made that Anakin of the prequels (as played by Christensen) is the quintessential Anakin. After all, he is the one with the most screentime and development as that character. However, looking at the trilogies as they are, in 1-6 order, I see Hayden-Anakin grow, turn into Darth Vader, and then vanish into that persona. When we - the audience - are re-introduced to Anakin in Episode VI (because we've just had two movies of nothing but Darth Vader with no real hints of Anakin), we see Anakin as a tired and broken man who may be repentant to a degree, but feels beyond redemption. And when Anakin finally gets that chance at the end of the movie, we see Anakin as that (when he takes his mask off) - a tired, broken old man. At that point in the saga, that is who I identify as Anakin. Not necessarily because of some nostalgic hanging-on to the "original" Anakin, but because that's what his character is at that point in time. By now, I've lost Hayden-Anakin into Vader, and the Shaw-Anakin is what I see as the natural evolution of Anakin's character.

The point is that I see this old man - who is also Anakin - and I see his plight. I accept that it's necessary that Anakin (as a whole character, both Hayden and Shaw) is shown as redeemed, but by now, as a viewer, I've sublimated Hayden-Anakin into Shaw-Anakin. I don't think that it's wrong, per se, to have Hayden-Anakin as the ghost, but I think it is unfortunate that it removes the plight of the embittered old man. Basically, it acknowledges the tragedy of the young Anakin, but doesn't acknowledge the tragedy of the old Anakin.

I can see how Anakin as portrayed by Hayden makes sense for a lot of people - which is why I'm not dismissive of your point. I think it is a valid one. Many people best know him as Hayden-Anakin. I - and I'm sure there are others - best know his whole character as Shaw-Anakin. Using Shaw doesn't overwrite or ignore Hayden.

That all said, I think using Hayden probably is the best choice for the most amount of people - I'm not here to say that you're wrong. What I am here to say is that there is an equally valid reason - one that isn't dismissive of the whole of canon - for identifying with Shaw-Anakin as the character.

Y'know, I was rooting for you as the dark-horse third party candidate on this one until you said that. Aggressive dialogue is welcome in this dojo!

Btw, the whole "artistic logic is different from math" post is priceless. They need to put that shit in textbooks because sooo many people just don't get that. And that's why Sci-Fi is almost dead. There is no fantasy anymore, because everyone has become too snarky and techno-itall to just enjoy shit that isn't 'real' enough. You ever watch "NASA-TV"? Borrring.

Interesting debate, though. Thanks for posting/arguing!

Great argumentation there...

But Mav has already made my point, and as he said, no need to attack each other.



Your permiss is that people identify Hayden as Anakin, and not Shaw. How did my logic fail?



Explain this: Can the audience identify Shaw as Anakin, or care about him? If yes, why would it be different on the ghost scene? If not, isn't that another "problem"?

Here's how it goes:

Perfect world scenario - the character Anakin (as the audience relates to most - i.e. Ep 2, 3, 6) is played by the same actor. There's no continuity disruption so the unmasking and the force ghost are seamless. The nature of there being prequels made this impossible, so let's throw this out.

Prequel scenario - saga continuity is complicated because you're going to have different actors portray the same character where the character shouldn't be unrecognizable from one age to another. Remember, Anakin is only 25 or so years older in ROTJ than he is in ROTS. He's a mature man in ROTS so his facial and body features shouldn't make him look like a completely different person. You can get away with casting different actors at disparate ages if the maturity gap is wide enough (like say 9 year old Anakin and 20 year old Anakin) but it could be detrimental for the audience if different actors are cast in the character's mature years. Harrison Ford at 50 and Ford at 25 look like the same person. Hayden Christensen and Sebastian Shaw look nothing alike (not to mention Shaw speaks with a British accent and has a completely different voice).

Now on to your question:

If the scene "works" i.e. does the audience care about Shaw as Anakin, why couldn't Shaw be the ghost just as well - I have opined that he should not because it doesn't resolve the plight of the character you should care "more" about, which is Hayden. Shaw might be the character "redeemed" but he's not the character who "fell" and thus there is a missing link regarding the resolution of Hayden's story. Lucas inserted Hayden as the ghost to tie up this loose end.

Let me make this clear: there's no doubt the scene works as is. There's no "problem" identifying with Shaw as Anakin in that particular moment. However, it worked "better" when there were no other Anakins to compare him to. Again, your argument is predicated on there not having been prequels, which is why I keep giving you shit when you ask questions like this. There is no problem with the scene from a dramatic perspective. It's great. It's one of my (and most peoples') favourites in all of Star Wars. You just have to understand that when that scene was shot 30 years ago it was more than just the "Anakin is redeemed" scene, it was the "Anakin revealed" scene. The prequels have made the latter part of this moot and so while it works as the emotional resolution to Luke's journey and Anakin's redemption, it fucks up continuity.

Like I said before, because it's not a perfect scenario of movies being filmed in order, Lucas just can't go deleting an entire actor's performance at such a critical moment in the story, which is why he won't replace Shaw as the unmasked Anakin no matter how much it would streamline continuity. For one, Hayden's a terrible actor and couldn't pull it off. He couldn't even pull off standing and smiling properly.

Huh. Here's my Howard Cosell impersonation;

Well, for everyone at home keeping score, we have had a long stretch here of 15 posts in a three way circle-jerk of opinion over the definitive interpretation and the superiority of preference of ROTJ Anakin, considering the OG vs 'Late-Model' cuts of the film. Raveers kicked things off initially with a disparaging remark about said scenes changes back on 3/29, followed by a "Hey, yeah!" post by swguru, and several other posters mixed in here and there for flavor including myself egging things on for jollies and somnambulist coming through with the factualizations way up top there.

Alexrd, the 'Portuguese Python' and CoGro the 'Itchy Trigga Finga' had been locking horns (keyboards) in a seemingly amusing fight to the death (not really), until Maveritchell showed up with a few well thought out "A-Has!" and entered the fray looking like he wanted to claim the glory for himself. The clash of combatants seemed interesting enough. And then they smoked a joint or somehow got all mellow and/or gay on/for one another.

I like Star Wars. You like Star Wars. I can understand the debate-ableness of the issue. But us at home fans are wondering. Wtf does this have to do with the Blu-Ray DVD's? I come to MF for the info, the insight, and the ultra-violence. If your going to fight about this nit picky shit, keep it interesting. Think of your fans, for the love of vagina.

Otherwise, parts of this thread have got all over em'.

You have a point. I wouldn't have picked this issue "to death" if CoGro hadn't said things like my "cinematic logic falls apart", or that my "interpretation is wrong", etc... It's all right to discuss opinion, but not when someone uses them as facts.

Having said that, let's get back to Blu-rays and wait for the next Insider (there's info coming up).

I'm sorry MF. I was just feeling a little, I dunno', angst-y last night. You can go about your business, nothing to see here. I've become the forums equivalent to cock-blocking. Meditate on this, I will.

I skimmed through the ghost debate. You're both making one of the mistakes the bearded one did when he wrote the prequels. You're thinking way too much into this stuff. Luke seeing the spirit of his dad and how he looked never needed an explanation or changing--it was the happy ending. Just like we didn't need to know where the robots came from, how the force = micro-organisms or whatever, Boba Fett was a clone of a guy who they cloned for whatever, etc. It's the same reason we still don't need to know what's going on with that tree in the swamp. Actually, this is different. There was no mystery to it. It's part of the magic.

So what you're saying is, I'm right:

Never liked Shaw. Friggin' Humpty-Dumpty Just didn't look like the second most feared person in the galaxy.