I had written the article below about three months before the release of "STAR WARS: EPISODE IX - THE RISE OF SKYWALKER"
"MY PROBLEM WITH KYLO REN"
Kylo Ren has to be THE MOST overrated character I have ever seen in the Star Wars saga. I am amazed by how so many fans have gone out of their way to put this guy on a pedestal. My personal disgust for this worship has nothing to do with him being portrayed as a villain. There are plenty of other villains - within the saga or not - that I actually find interesting. My problem with Kylo Ren is that I do not find him either interesting or well written.
I will start this article with a question. What was the reason behind Kylo Ren aka Ben Solo embracing evil? What was it? Director J.J. Abrams had hinted in "STAR WARS: EPISODE VII - THE FORCE AWAKENS" that either the film's main villain, Snoke, had influenced or mesmerized him; or his parents, Leia Organa and Han Solo, did not raise him properly. In "STAR WARS: EPISODE VIII - THE LAST JEDI", writer-director Rian Johnson had suggested that Ben's uncle, Jedi Master Luke Skywalker, had contemplated killing him out of fear that Snoke was influencing him. Has the franchise finally made up its mind regarding the background of Ben's moral turn? It certainly does not seem like it to me.
However, it does seem as if Lucasfilm under Kathleen Kennedy is trying to go out of its way to find a reason to blame others for Kylo Ren’s descent into evil, instead of blaming the man himself. The Sequel Trilogy's leading lady, a gifted Force user and former scavenger named Rey, had questioned (a bare chested) Kylo Ren in "THE LAST JEDI" on why he had murdered his father in the previous film. Rian Johnson failed to provide the young villain with a convincing answer. Instead, Ren had responded that he had killed Han to cut out any of his remaining emotional attachment . . . and nothing else. I found this odd, considering that he did not bother to personally kill Leia in "THE LAST JEDI", when presented with the opportunity. Kylo Ren’s response to Rey's question had struck me as the biggest piece of bullshit from a Star Wars movie that had ever reached my ears. His response struck me as vague and frustrating. Worse, Johnson had allowed Rey to accept that answer and not bother to question Kylo Ren even further or demand that he clarify his comments. And after she had learned about Ren's last encounter with his uncle Luke, Rey had never asked him about or mentioned his murders of Luke's students. Not once. Talk about poor writing.
There are some who claim that Kylo Ren is a better developed character than his grandfather, Anakin Skywalker. Each person is entitled to his or her own opinion about any work of art or entertainment. But every time I read or hear this claim, I find myself rolling my eyes in disgust or laughing. Exactly why is Ben Solo better developed than Anakin? Because he adhered to the "delinquent" moniker more than Anakin ever did? I realize that both J.J. Abrams and Rian Johnson tried to infuse some kind of ambiguity into the Kylo Ren character. But honestly . . . he simply struck me as some kind of emotional man child with the maturity of someone half of his age, who engages in a combination of violence and temper tantrums whenever he does not get his way. And Kylo Ren is supposed to be around 30 years old in this trilogy. I realize that Lucasfilm is trying to portray him as a . . . you know what? I have no idea what Lucasfilm is trying to achieve with this character. Not one damn idea.
Kylo Ren had been born in a stable family situation. He certainly was not a slave like Anakin. He was never an enslaved kidnap victim like Rey's friend, the former stormtrooper Finn. He was never orphaned and forced to work for a tyrannical crime lord like Han Solo. He was never simply orphaned like Resistance figher, Rose Tico. And he was never abandoned and later orphaned like Rey.
Kylo Ren aka Ben Solo was the son of respected politician/military hero Leia Organa (Skywalker) and another military hero, former smuggler Han Solo. He had a privileged upbringing. The first two Sequel Trilogy movies had never made it clear than Leia and Han had ignored him during his upbringing. It was established that the pair had sent a younger Ben Solo to train in the ways of the Force under his uncle Luke when they began to harbor suspicions that he was being drawn under the influence of the First Order's evil leader, Snoke. Just go with me here.
Apparently, in the eyes of Lucasfilm and Abrams, this was why Leia and Han were neglectful parents.
This is the reason why Abrams and Lucasfilm have labeled Han and Leia as bad parents? This is one of the reasons why Ben had become the evil Force user Kylo Ren? And exactly how did Snoke maanged to gain any influence over young Ben in the first place? What did the First Order leader do? Brainwash him with the Force? I also noticed that Luke's near attempt to kill Kylo Ren led the latter to kill the former's other Jedi students, leading him to a path of evil. At least according to Rian Johnson. So . . . Kylo Ren never considered ratting out Luke to his parents, which would have been a very effective way in tearing apart the trio? Between Abrams using Leia, Han and Snoke as Kylo Ren's scapegoat for his moral fall and Johnson using Luke as the scapegoat . . . all I see are Lucasfilm's conflicting reasons for the character's downfall.
To me, Ben Solo aka Kylo Ren is basically a narrow-minded and arrogant man from an over privileged background. He has the mental capacity of a seventeen year-old and like the franchise itself, blames others for whatever misery he experiences and his moral downfall. What makes this even more ridiculous is that his character is roughly around thirty years old in this trilogy . . . at least a decade or two older than his grandfather was in the Prequel Trilogy. And characters like Kylo Ren (without the powers) are a dime a dozen in both the film/television industries and in literature.
And there is the problem of Kylo Ren's relationship with the trilogy’s leading lady, Rey. This relationship with Rey has proven to be one of the most abhorrently written ones that I have seen on film . . . period. The idea that Rey would be remotely attracted to Kylo Ren JUST A FEW DAYS after being kidnapped, nearly mind raped and nearly killed by him is repellent to my very core. What I find equally repellent is that many fans and critics have viewed this aspect of the relationship as "sexy" or "romantic". In fact, a critic for "TIME" magazine had regarded Kylo Ren’s attempted torture of Rey in "THE FORCE AWAKENS" as "sexual energy". In fact, here is the exact quote from the article:
"In one of the movie’s finest moments, Ren—unmasked and intense—engages Rey in a major stare-down, an unholy duel between the light side of the Force and the dark. The sexual energy between them is strange and unsettling, like a theremin sonata only they can hear."
Either critic Stephanie Zacharek was into the rape fantasy trope or perhaps she might be a racist who saw a potential romance between a young white woman and the white male villain who was trying to torture her via mind rape; instead of the friendship between the woman and the young black man she had befriended. And I cannot help wonder if Ms. Zacharek, along with these other critics and fans would have felt the same if Finn had been portrayed by a white actor, instead of one of African descent. I really do. In the end, many of these fans and critics (many of them white women) who either want Rey to end the trilogy with no romantic interest or with an immature and violent man child, who is portrayed by a white actor.
In the end, Kylo Ren aka Ben Solo strikes me as another over privileged man child who resorts to violence when his sense of entitlement is threatened. As I have pointed out, there have been similar characters in other movie and television productions. And there are people like him who do exist. My problem with this is that I do not find this type of characterization particularly original. Worse, his backstory seemed to be surrounded by a great deal of vague and uneven writing from J.J. Abrams and Rian Johnson. Adam Driver, who portrays the character, is a first-rate actor. I have seen him in other movies that featured him in what I believe are better roles. If he ever decides to turn his back on the STAR WARS franchise following the release of the Sequel Trilogy’s third film, "STAR WARS: EPISODE IX - THE RISE OF SKYWALKER", I would not blame him. Not by a long shot.
ME AND THE "STAR WARS" SAGARecently, I learned about the creation of a YOU TUBE video clip called "Dear J.J. Abrams". In this clip, someone named Sincerely Truman made a list of rules for director-producer J.J. Abrams to follow for the upcoming seventh movie in the "STAR WARS" film franchise. In reality, the video clip was basically another attempt to bash the last three movies of the franchise known as the Prequel Trilogy.This Sincerely Truman seemed to believe that Abrams, along with screenwriter Michael Arndt follow his (or her) advice, the franchise could regain the former glory it had lost with the release of the Prequel Trilogy. While brooding over this video clip, I found myself recalling my own reactions to the movie franchise . . . reactions that stretched back to the release of the first movie during the summer of 1977.I am old enough to recall seeing "STAR WARS: EPISODE IV - A NEW HOPE", when it was simply known as "STAR WARS" over 36 years ago. I have a confession to make. I disliked the movie intensely. I did not want to see it in the first place. In fact, my parents practically had to drag me to the theaters to watch the movie. Despite this, I still hated it. Looking back on my initial reaction, I realize that "A NEW HOPE" was something so entirely new that my mind immediately reject it. And it took me years to finally embrace it.I was not that particularly thrilled when "STAR WARS: EPISODE V - THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK" hit the theaters during the summer of 1980, three years later. I had not completely dismiss it, like I did "A NEW HOPE". For some reason, the movie's darker story line, the Leia/Han romance and Darth Vader's revelation really lingered in my mind. However, I was not that thrilled that "THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK" ended on a cliffhanger. I still found it difficult to embrace "STAR WARS". In the end, "STAR WARS: EPISODE VI - RETURN OF THE JEDI" became the first Star Wars movie that I completely embraced. I suppose I was finally ready to embrace George Lucas' work, thanks to the success of 1981's "RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK". By 1983, "STAR WARS" was no longer something new or too different for me to embrace. And I was a good deal older. Also, "RETURN OF THE JEDI" did not end on a cliffhanger. This attitude continued, until I saw "EMPIRE STRIKES BACK" for the first time in seven years. Not only did I completely embrace it, the movie eventually surpassed my affections for "RETURN OF THE JEDI". A year or two passed before I finally embraced "A NEW HOPE". In fact, I eventually began to regard it higher than "RETURN OF THE JEDI", as well.When I learned that Lucas planned to release a new trilogy, set during the years before the Original Trilogy, I was a very happy woman. My infatuation with the "STAR WARS" saga had been revived by the re-release of the Original Trilogy in 1997, which had been remastered by Lucas. I really looked forward to a new set of "STAR WARS" movies. But I had no idea how Lucas planned to reveal the downfall of Anakin Skywalker, the Jedi and the Republic. And to be honest, I simply could not get into the "let's make assumptions" game. I simply decided to wait and see.I saw "STAR WARS: EPISODE I - THE PHANTOM MENACE" in 1999, when I was in my 30s. And I instantly fell in love with it. I found its style somewhat different from the first three movies, but I did not care. Being in my 30s, I rather enjoyed the tale, which struck me as more emotionally and politically complex. The complexity became even further in the next film, 2002's "STAR WARS: EPISODE II - ATTACK OF THE CLONES", which I absolutely loved. I loved it so much that I got a little teary at the end. Along with "THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK", it became my favorite "STAR WARS" movie of all time. Hell, I just recently watched it and realized that even to this day, I love it a lot. I also cried at the end of 2005's "STAR WARS: EPISODE III - REVENGE OF THE SITH". One, it was a sad movie. And two, I thought at the time it would be the last "STAR WARS" movie to be released in theaters. Mind you, there are times when I find it a bit depressing. But I love it more than "THE PHANTOM MENACE". But "ATTACK OF THE CLONES" still remain my top favorite Prequel Trilogy movie. I have noticed that many of the old time fanboys are more willing to embrace "REVENGE OF THE SITH" than the other Prequel Trilogy movies. I suspect that this tolerance for 2005 film is due to the fact that in the film, Anakin Skywalker finally becames Darth Vader.As you can see, my feelings about the current six "STAR WARS" movies seem a little strange for most of the franchise's fans. I love all six movies. Despite the differences in style, I was able to see the connections between the two trilogies. And to this day, I find it hard to understand those who prefer one trilogy over the other. Mind you, I feel they are entitled to their opinions. But I am entitled to mine. Because of my complete embrace of all six movies, I found it difficult to enjoy that YOU TUBE video clip - "Dear J.J. Abrams". I simply found it difficult to enjoy it or accept the views of its creator. Because of my love of all six films, I refuse to accept that this next film, "STAR WARS: EPISODE VII", has to regain former glory for the franchise. As far as I am concerned, the franchise has never lost its glory.
"THE CELEBRATION OF MEDIOCRITY AND UNORIGINALITY IN “STAR WARS: THE FORCE AWAKENS"
Look … I liked the new “STAR WARS” movie, “THE FORCE AWAKENS”. I honestly do. Heck, I feel it is better than J.J. Abrams’ two “STAR TREK” films. But I am astounded that this film has garnered so much acclaim. It has won the AFI Award for Best Picture. It has been nominated by the Critics Choice Award for Best Picture.
“THE FORCE AWAKENS”??? Really? It did not take long for certain fans to point out that the movie’s plot bore a strong resemblance to the first “STAR WARS” movie, “A NEW HOPE”. In fact, I am beginning to suspect that J.J. Abrams and Lawrence Kasdan had more or less plagiarized the 1977 film, along with aspects from other movies in the franchise. Worse, it has some plot holes that Abrams has managed to ineffectively explain to the media. In other words, his explanations seemed like shit in the wind and the plot holes remained obvious.
Then I found myself thinking about “THE MAN FROM U.N.C.L.E.”, Guy Ritchie’s adaptation of the 1964-1968 television series. I will not deny that the movie had some flaws. Just about every movie I have seen throughout my life had some flaws. But instead of attempting a carbon copy of the television series, Ritchie put his own, original spin of the show for his movie. And personally, I had left the movie theater feeling impressed. And entertained. It is not that Ritchie had created a perfect movie. But he did managed to create an original one, based upon an old source. Now that was impressive.
But instead of having his movie appreciated, a good deal of the public stayed away in droves. Warner Brothers barely publicized the film. Worse, the studio released in August, the summer movie season’s graveyard. And for those who did see the movie, the complained that it was not like the television show. Ritchie had made changes for his film. In other words, Ritchie was criticized for being original with a movie based upon an old television series.
I find this incredibly pathetic. One director is criticized giving an original spin to his movie adaptation. Another director is hailed as the savior of a movie franchise for committing outright plagiarism. This is what Western culture has devolved into, ladies and gentlemen. We now live in a world in which the only movies that are box office hits are those that form part of a franchise. We live in a society in which glossy and mediocre shows like “DOWNTON ABBEY” are celebrated. We live in a world in which a crowd pleasing, yet standard movie biopic like “THE KING’S SPEECH” can receive more acclaim than an original film like “INCEPTION”.
In regard to culture or even pop culture, this society is rushing toward conformity, familiarity and mediocrity. God help us.
THE MEANING OF COLORS
Several years ago, I came across an old website about Wiccan practices and meanings. I was surprised to discover that even before the advent of Wicca in the early 20th century, Pagan worshipers associated colors with certain meanings. And those meanings turned out to be quite different than many people would today assume.
Unlike today’s societies - especially in the Western world - white or light did not automatically mean something good, pure or noble. In fact, even the white wedding dress has nothing to do with the lack of sexual experience or innocence of the bride. The white wedding dress started out as a fashion trend . . . and remains one to this day. This fashion trend was created by Britain's Queen Victoria when she married Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg in 1840. The young queen wanted to show that she was just a "simple" woman getting married, so she wore a white dress. She also wanted to incorporate some lace into her dress. Queen Mary of Scots wore a white wedding gown when she married Francis, Dauphin of France. Why? Because white was her favorite color. Before Victoria, women usually wore their best outfit for their wedding.
So, what was the color white associated with . . . at least in Pagan circles? Simple. The color was associated with psychic pursuits, psychology, dreams, astral projection, imagination and reincarnation. Apparently moral goodness or purity has nothing to do with the color white. At least in old Pagan terms. Which leads me to this question . . . why do today’s Western societies insist that white has anything to do with moral goodness or purity?
Finally, we come to the color black. As many people should know, modern Western societies tend to associate black or anything dark as something evil or negative. There are probably other societies that do the same. Fictional characters associated with evil in many science-fiction/fantasy stories are usually associated with black. Sorcery that has a negative effect upon someone is either called "black magic" or "the Dark Arts" (at least with the "HARRY POTTER" and Buffyverse franchises. The "STAR WARS"franchise usually refer to evil as "the Dark Side of the Force". In the "ONCE UPON A TIME" television series, the Rumpelstiltskin character was also called "the Dark One". Why? As it turned out, some entity called "the Darkness" had entered his body after he had stabbed the former holder of "the Dark One" title. Apparently, show runners Edward Kitsis and Adam Horowitz could not find a name for the entity and called it "The Darkness" - automatically associating its black coloring with evil. Now it seems that the series’ main character, Emma Swan, has been given the name, due to the entity entering her body. As for magic, sorcery, or even psychic abilities in many of these movies and television shows, it is clear that their creators/show runners associate dark or black with evil and light or white with goodness.
Ironically, long time Pagans associated the color black with the following - binding, protection, neutralization, karma, death manifestation and will power. Someone might say - "A ha! Death manifestation! That can be considered as something negative or evil." Can it? Why is death constantly regarded as something negative? Because people are incapable of truly facing the idea of death. It is a natural part of our life span and yet, many people cannot accept it. And because of this negative attitude toward death, society associates death with . . . you guess it . . . the color black. Apparently the Pagans believed differently and did not associate black with anything evil or negative.
I have one last statement to make. I have noticed a growing trend on Internet message boards and forums for television shows and movies that deal with science-fiction and fantasy. This trend features a tendency by many of these fans to automatically associatewhite/light with goodness and black/dark with evil. The fans on these message boards no longer use the words "good" and "evil" anymore. Honestly. I am deadly serious. These fans either use the words light (lightness) or white; or . . . dark (darkness) or black. Why? And why do the creators of these television shows and movie franchises resort to the same behavior? I have to wonder. By associating anything black or dark with evil, are they associating anything or anyone with dark or black skin with evil? I suspect that many would say "of course not". Considering the notorious reputation of science-fiction/fantasy fans (or geeks) of being racist, I have to wonder.
"A BROKEN HEART IN THE 'STAR WARS' SAGA
There have been many complaints of Padme Amidala’s role in the last installment of the STAR WARS saga – "REVENGE OF THE SITH". The main contention for many fans seemed to be her death. Many felt that Lucas had weakened her character by allowing her to die of a broken heart. Others accused her of abandoning her newly born children through death. And others have excused the circumstances of her death, claiming that she was "sacrificing herself" so that her twins could be separated and hidden from Emperor Palpatine.
I am not going to try to explain the "sacrifice", simply because I do not buy it. I do not believe that Padme had sacrificed herself in death, for her children’s safety. I believe that she had genuinely died of a broken heart.
My next question is . . . why is it that Padme's descent into despair was not tolerated by many STAR WARS fans? Why? Because she was supposed to be a strong woman? Since when are strong personalities incapable of giving in to despair or depression? Does anyone understand that nearly everyone possesses both strengths and weaknesses? What is this lack of tolerance over the possibility that Padme may also have her weaknesses? I get the feeling that many feel she should have been this one-dimensional portrayal of a strong character with no weaknesses. What did these fans expect her to do? After giving birth to Luke and Leia, sit up and start singing, "I Am Woman"?
Padme had just witnessed the ascension of the Empire . . . and the death of the Republic she had served with great devotion. Even worse, her dreams of a private life with her husband were dashed by news that he had participated in the deaths of hundreds of Jedi – adults and children, alike. She tried to confront Anakin about the situation and was brutally attacked by him (strangulation). His attack eventually perpetrated the difficult birth of the twins – Luke and Leia. By the time she had even considered that Anakin might still have some good in him, it was TOO LATE for her. At least physically. Both Anakin (who finally gave in to desapir after learning of Padme's death) and Obi-Wan (who spent the next 19 years wallowing in despair, regret and guilt) were lucky that they were not in their third trimester of a pregnancy and on the verge of giving birth.
Years ago, female characters had been in danger of being stuck in nurturing roles or simply the hero's love interest. Now, it seems that female characters have to be some kind of Xena the Warrior Princess or a female "ACTION JACKSON" in order to prevent being labeled as WEAK. Apparently, female characters are still not allowed to be all of the above. Even worse, they have to behave like men to be considered strong.
Someone on a STAR WARS forum had claimed that females roles are either of the "XENA: WARRIOR PRINCESS" archetype or the "Dora Spenlow" (or weak female) archetype. This person criticized Lucas for transforming Padme from a female warrior into a weakling. My question is . . . why not allow a woman – or anyone, for that matter – to be both strong and weak? It would seem like a very human thing to be.
The following is a list of minor notes and observations that came to me, during my recent viewing of “Episode VI: Return of the Jedi”. I hope that you enjoy them:
NOTES AND OBSERVATIONS ON “STAR WARS: EPISODE VI - RETURN OF THE JEDI”
*I have always found the launching of shuttles rather different in the STAR WARS saga, in compare to other science-fiction sagas. The Imperial shuttles leave the starships like drops of water from a faucet.
*The commander of the Death Star II seemed to react with horror at the news of the Emperor’s impending arrival. Quite a contrast to his mild nervousness at Vader’s arrival.
*When I first saw ”Return of the Jedi”, I must admit that I found the numerous creatures inside Jabba’s palace a bit overwhelming. Okay, a lot overwhelming.
*I like the way the camera suddenly in on the image of a frozen Han Solo hanging on Jabba’s wall. Very dramatic.
*Why would anyone torture a droid with hot irons?
*Why was Jabba suspicious of Leia’s bounty hunter disguise? Why did he suspect that she would attempt to free Han?
*Why did Luke use the Force to briefly strangle Jabba’s guards? Was it necessary, considering that all they did was block his path?
*I hope that getting captured by Jabba was part of Luke’s plan. If not, he was being rather arrogant in his belief that his initial plan to rescue Han would work. He reminded me of Padme’s display of arrogance in ”Attack of the Clones”, when she believed that she would be able to rescue Obi-Wan from Count Dooku.
*”Vader’s March” seemed intensified in the scene featuring the Emperor Palpatine’s arrival on the Death Star II.
*It is interesting that Yoda had warned Luke about facing Sidious . . . and not Vader.
*Yoda is the only major Jedi character from the Old Republic that died peacefully. Even more odd is that although he has never been a favorite character of mine, I found myself crying over his death.
*”When your father left, he didn’t know your mother was pregnant. Your mother and I knew he would find out eventually, but we wanted to keep you both safe as possible, for as long as possible. So I took you to live with my brother Owen on Tatooine . . . and your mother took Leia to live as the daughter of Senator Organa on Alderaan.”
A lot is wrong with the above statement by Obi-Wan. Anakin knew that Padme was pregnant. He just did not know that she was carrying twins. Owen Lars turned out not to be Obi-Wan’s brothers. Which is a good thing, because Obi-Wan had seemed unnaturally cool over Owen and Beru Lars’ deaths in "A New Hope". He ended up reacting more strongly over the destruction of Alderaan and his encounter with Vader. And Padme did not survive giving birth to Luke and Leia – which also makes sense, considering that I cannot see her giving up one child to the Lars and taking the other one with her to Alderaan.
*I found it disturbing that even as a Force ghost, Obi-Wan tried to encourage Luke to commit patricide.
*I hate to say this, but Harrison Ford did some truly atrocious acting in the scenes that featured Han volunteering for the mission on Endor and saying good-bye to Lando before his departure.
*I wonder if Vader had any idea that Sidious had been planning to replace him with Luke.
*Every time I watch this movie, I have to be reminded that Han, Leia, Chewbacca and the droids were accompanied by Rebel troops.
*The speeder bike chase sequence through the Endor Forest is still a classic with me and the Redwood State and National Forests were never more beautiful.
*Oh God! Ewoks! Just what I need. DAMN YOU, George Lucas!
*It is interesting that the Ewoks did not take the threats of their . . . ”deity”, Threepio, very seriously. Until Luke used the Force.
*Threepio’s tale of the past two movies was rather emotional, but I think it would have been better if Bail Organa had not ordered his memories of the Republic wiped.
*The minute Luke and Leia began to talk about Padme, I started to cry.
*The quarrel between Leia and Han . . . featured some sloppy acting by Carrie Fisher and Harrison Ford. Geez! What is with them in this movie?
*Great moment between Luke and Vader at the Imperial base on Endor. It is odd that Luke had advised Vader to let go of his hate. I never got the feeling that hate was Vader’s problem in this movie. He seemed too lethargic and resigned to his fate.
*EMPEROR: Ah, yes, a Jedi's weapon. Much like your father's. By now you must know your father
can never be turned from the dark side. So will it be with you.
LUKE: You're wrong. Soon I'll be dead...and you with me.
Both Luke and Palpatine seemed to be suffering from massive ego trips.
*Despite my dislike of the Ewoks, I must admit that I found their battle against the Imperial forces on Endor well shot. Many fans believe that Lucas was trying to convey the idea of the futility of technology against nature. I can see their point.
*That old bugaboo about attachments seemed to have reared its ugly head, as Palpatine goaded Luke into attacking first.
*Many fans have claimed that Luke had become more powerful than Vader in this movie. However, I have this odd feeling that Vader’s heart was not really into that last duel. When he discovered that he has a daughter, he used this knowledge to goad Luke into attacking him. Was he trying to turn Luke to the ”Dark Side”? Or trying to goad the latter into killing him? Suicide by duel?
*It is easy to see that Palpatine has become too arrogant and sloppy in his old age. He has developed a big mouth over the past two decades. If he had kept his mouth shut during Vader and Luke’s duel, the latter would have killed his old apprentice, and the Emperor would have acquired a new one.
*Ah yes! The ultimate moment when Anakin saved Luke and killed the Emperor. Still brings tears to my eyes.
*Great special effects used in the sequence featuring Admiral Needa’s death.
*I think that I like the destruction of the Death Star II a little better than the destruction of the first one in ”A New Hope”.
*After watching Anakin’s death scene, it occurred to me that all of the movie’s best scenes centered around Luke and Anakin.
*Why in the hell did Leia wait so long to tell Han that Luke was her brother? I knew that she was upset to learn that Anakin/Vader was her father, but . . . geez!
*What goes around, comes around. Anakin received a funeral pyre just like his first Jedi mentor – Qui-Gon Jinn, the very man who had discovered him.
*The celebration music at the end of the movie seemed like a slight improvement over the original version. I can also say the same about Hayden Christiansen’s appearance as the ghost Force Anakin Skywalker.
*Even though this is my least favorite STAR WARS movie, I must commend it for the strong emotional ties it seemed to have with the Prequel Trilogy.
Notes and Observations of “STAR WARS: EPISODE V – THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK”The following is a list of minor notes and observations that came to me, during my recent viewing of “Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back”. I hope that you enjoy them: *Exactly who was in command of the Rebel Alliance base on Hoth – Leia or General Rieekan?*What was Leia doing on Hoth with the Rebel Alliance military personnel? Why wasn’t she with the other political Rebel leaders?*Ah yes! The ”I’ just as soon kiss a Wookie!” dialogue between Leia and Han. Charming, although slightly . . . childish.*How . . . or should I say when did Han and Leia reach the point in which they became attracted to one another?*It was interesting to see how Obi-Wan’s ghost faded with the emergence of Han on a tauntaun.*”Why, you stuck up,... half-witted... scruffy-looking ...nerf-herder!” - Another charming, yet childish exchange between Leia and Han. *Jealousy and ambition seem quite obvious within the Imperial command structure, if General Ozzel’s glare at Piett is anything to go by.*I find it interesting that the exchange between Luke and Han before the commencement of the Battle of Hoth would be the last between them for at least a year.*Vader’s ability to strangle Ozzel with the Force from such a large distance seemed very impressive for someone whose strength with the Force has been weakened.*The pilots’ point of view of the Battle of Hoth seemed like another cliché of a World War II dogfight . . . like the Battle of Yavin.*Luke was made commander of the Rebel pilots because he had destroyed the Death Star . . . with Han’s help? What about Wedge, who was also a competent pilot and more experienced?*The Imperial AT-AT Walkers remind me of the Oliphaunts from the ”LORD OF THE RINGS” saga.*Wasn’t Leia taking her duty just a bit too seriously by delaying her departure from Hoth?*I noticed that Han never seemed to follow the ladies first rule. When he, Leia and Chewie and Threepio had escaped both from Hoth and the exogorth in the asteroid field, he made sure that he boarded the Millennium Falcon first. Not exactly a man of the Old Republic.*Han really revealed how much of a hot shot pilot he was in this movie.*”Into the belly of the beast” - This metaphor seemed to fit the Falcon’s entry into exogorth even more than Luke, Han and Leia’s brief adventures inside the Death Star’s trash compactor.*The audience got a brief glimpse of the price Anakin paid for his past mistakes – namely his scalded head.*”Feel like what?” - Yoda’s first words in any ”STAR WARS” movie.*”Great warrior? Hmmm . . . wars do not make one great.” - Ironic words from the very being who led the first attack, during the first battle of the Clone Wars. His words also revealed the true Yoda behind the comic façade. I think Luke may have been too impatient or full of himself to notice.*”You like me because I'm a scoundrel. There aren't enough scoundrels in your life.” - One can only assume that Leia’s age – 22 years – and limited experience with men would explain why she bought that bilge pouring from Han’s mouth.*”He’s just a boy. Obi-Wan can no longer help him.” - Surely these words must have hinted to Palpatine that Vader had been aware of Luke for some time?*I see that Clive Revill has been replaced by Ian McDiarmid as the Emperor Palpatine in this DVD version of the movie. Which makes sense, considering that McDiarmid is more identified with the role.*”This one a long time have I watched. All his life has he looked away . . . to the future, to the horizon. Never his mind on where he was.” - I believe that Yoda had just described himself and many other Jedi Masters and Knights of the Old Republic, nearly a quarter of a century ago. If he and Obi-Wan could learn to overcome this distraction from the future, why not Luke? Why was Yoda so reluctant to teach Luke? Is it Luke he doubts? Or himself as a teacher?*”If once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny, consume you it will, as it did Obi-Wan's apprentice.” - I hope that Yoda was trying to say that a person will always be affected by his or her earlier decision to take a dark path or commit dark acts. Because if he was trying to say that a person will always remain evil, after taking the dark path, I must say that I disagree.*Han used a neat trick to evade the sensors of Captain Needa’s starship, after the Falcon left the asteroid field.*”Luminous beings are we. Not this crude matter.” - A favorite line of mine.*It was very clever of Han to attach the Falcon to an Imperial starship before disguising it as garbage to be disposed with the other. Unfortunately for him, Boba Fett had witnessed a similar trick pulled by Obi-Wan near Geonosis, some 25 years ago. Even worse, it is a shame that Han was so busy congratulating himself over his trick that he failed to realize that Fett was tracking him.*”Through the Force, things you will see. Other places. The future... the past. Old friends long gone.” - I wonder if Yoda was thinking of Mace Windu.*According to LucasFilm, it took the Falcon three months to reach Bespin without a hyperdrive. If only Lucas and the others had made this clear in the movie.*The Falcon was practically escorted to one of the landing platforms on Cloud City. I wonder why.*Great entrance for Billy Dee Williams as Lando Calrissian.*Was CP-30 really that dense in that he would be so easily distracted from the group by the sound of an R2 unit?*”Stopped they must be. On this all depends. Only a fully trained Jedi Knight with the Force as his ally will conquer Vader and his Emperor”. - Did that mean Yoda had never intended for Luke to help Anakin find redemption?*Apparently, the original deal between Vader and Lando did not include Han being turned over to Boba Fett. And later, Vader broke his word and insisted that Leia and Chewie accompany him. Interesting. It is a miracle that the Sith Lord did not renege on the deal even further by destroying Bespin and its population.*And why did Han and Leia fail to understand the situation that Vader had placed Lando? Were they too blinded by anger?*I find it interesting that not once did Vader set eyes upon C3-P0, his own creation. Why? Because Chewbacca had the droid strapped to his back.*How stupid were Leia and Chewbacca? It was obvious that Lando had released them from Vader’s stormtroopers. Yet, all they could do was lose their tempers. Chewbacca immediately began to strangle Lando and Leia encouraged the Wookie. Because their temper tantrums, they prevented Lando from rescuing Han from Boba Fett.*I must admit that I found the dialogue during the Bespin duel rather irritating. The most important thing about the duel seemed to be Vader’s revelation as Anakin Skywalker . . . after the fighting stopped.*Vader’s reaction to Luke and Leia’s escape from Bespin was an excellent moment of silent acting on David Prowse’s part. With his use of body language, he managed to express Vader’s regret over losing Luke . . . and the beginning of Anakin Skywalker’s resurgence.
