Return of the Jedi - Back in Theaters
- Thread starter Captain Dunsel
- Start date
You know....you are suppose to be WATCHING the movie, not taking selfies....
This reminds me of the theater I worked at with long far back auditoriums.
Most all the ones around me here are half the size.
YOU'RE MISSING THE BEST PART!!!
They "celebrate" the film by releasing it on the wrong date. And screening the wrong version of the film. Total frakkin' BS.
It's not the special edition. No Hayden in the SE.
It's not the special edition. No Hayden in the SE.
Technically, Owen was Luke's step-uncle, as Owen was Anakin's step-brother (Once Shmi married Cliegg Lars).
And I never realized the "insult" that Owen gave to Anakin when he told Luke that his father Anakin was a navigator on a Spice freighter. Owen was basically telling Luke that his father was a good-for-nothing drug runner.
Come to think of it:
1) Did Luke even KNOW that "Anakin" was his father's name? Certainly one would THINK he would have at least been told, but maybe not... if the Lars were trying to protect him. But the name "Anakin" was NOT mentioned (in the original theatrical releases) of Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back.
2) We wonder WHY Luke would still be called "Skywalker" if Obi-Wan (and the Lars) were trying to protect him on Tatooine.
....**** BUT MAYBE HE WASN'T! ****....
Luke MAY have been called "Luke Lars" while he lived on Tatooine (again, going by what was originally filmed). In the deleted scenes, his friends call him "Wormie", Beru and Owen call him "Luke", Obi-Wan calls him "Young Luke" and "Luke"
Maybe Luke KNEW, but didn't use his last name until Leia's rescue on the Death Star: "I'm Luke Skywalker, I'm here to rescue you!"
P.S. Or could Obi-wan have revealed to him him, "You're real family name is Skywalker" ?!
CopperRevan
Master Member
Honestly, i don't think "Navigator on a spice freighter" was written in the context as we now know it to be. I mean, we already know Uncle Owen isn't the best liar("Yeah...uh...he died about the same time as your father") lol, and it would be hard for me to believe his Uncle, who is just trying to protect him, along with Obi-wan , would be that cruel. "Luke...i'm trying to hide the fact that your father is Darth Vader, a murderer, so i think i should just tell you he is the drug cartel version of DXL instead...sleep peacefully on that, son." I just don't think that's the intent.
In fact, spice had no negative connotation until way later in the clone wars cartoon...
I tend to believe Owen and Beru...yes, don't forget about Beru because she's part of the cover-up too, loved Luke immensley and were trying to protect him at all costs. When i found out the truth why i didn't have a Daddy i was told bits and pieces over the course of 25 years. In the past 4 years i've uncovered the truth about it completely and now i know why i wasn't told the full story...i wouldn't have been able to either, understand it fully, nor emotionally handle it. We just don't know WHEN Luke was told anything except, obviously when Force Ghost Obi revealed the truth...and not the whole truth because he never mentioned anything about Lukes Mom.
I think it's worth considering that Owen and Beru could have easily said no to taking Luke as a baby. He wasn't a blood relative ( according to AOTC) and they could have told Obi-Wan to raise the boy.
"Your mess, your problem." -type of response would be warranted. The fact that the Lars raised him as their own says something positive about them as people. I think fans judge them, Yoda, Obi-Wan and the Jedi as a whole with too harsh a lens when you recognize that no parent is perfect.
Parents withhold information from their children for a multitude of reasons and often it's their form of protecting them, even if it's a flawed method. I also second what CopperRevan said too about parsing out information only as necessary. Luke could have had a total meltdown finding out about Vader too early and not being given much information to go on its less likely that his opinion could be colored by others perspectives. I think given enough time Obi-Wan would have revealed the truth about Anakin to Luke.
"Your mess, your problem." -type of response would be warranted. The fact that the Lars raised him as their own says something positive about them as people. I think fans judge them, Yoda, Obi-Wan and the Jedi as a whole with too harsh a lens when you recognize that no parent is perfect.
Parents withhold information from their children for a multitude of reasons and often it's their form of protecting them, even if it's a flawed method. I also second what CopperRevan said too about parsing out information only as necessary. Luke could have had a total meltdown finding out about Vader too early and not being given much information to go on its less likely that his opinion could be colored by others perspectives. I think given enough time Obi-Wan would have revealed the truth about Anakin to Luke.
Yeah; that Owen and Beru took Luke at all says a lot about them as people. They loved Luke as their own and though Owen could be a bit gruff and overprotective, he just wanted what was best for Luke and to not let Luke's lineage pull him into something that could destroy him. I also agree that they told Luke what he needed to know as they felt he could handle it and when they thought him old enough to do so.
But something else needs to be considered here:
With Luke knowing only that he was born and raised on Tatooine, that kept the information of his real family limited to a select few. This means that Luke couldn't accidentally tell his friends about it,w ho could have told people they know. And even though Tatooine is sparely populated, the more folks who know something, the easier it is for others with more sinister motives to pick up on that and start searching deeper.
As it stands: the escape of two droids aboard an escape pod and ending up in the Lars' homestead was enough to cause their demise. Despite them not knowing, the Imperial troops didn't care and were not about to spare anyone regardless of any mitigating circumstances. Now imagine if Vader had discovered he had children who lived and began looking for Luke before the young man could leave Tatooine?
Anyone knowing about Luke could have led Vader straight to him.
My point in this is that parents want their kids to have the best possible shot at a better life, and Owen and Beru, though imperfect, loved Luke enough to try to protect him from the past. Flawed? To a point perhaps. But to those who blame them and find them "lacking", I can only ask this:
What would you have said to him?
Along those lines, since the Lars DID take Luke as a baby, and were trying to hide him... why didn't they just tell Luke they were his biological parents and be done with it? As far as baby Luke was concerned, they WERE his mom and dad, just like any adopted baby would feel growing up with a caring couple.
Psychologically, Owen and Beru WERE his (adoptive) parents; growing up, Luke would know no difference. To tell Luke: "Hey, we're not really your biological parents, we are your adoptive step-aunt and step-uncle. Even though we raised you since shortly after your birth, we don't want to be identified as your parents. So don't call us mom and dad, because we're not. Got it? And by the way, your father died as a navigator on a spice frigate. Don't ask about your biological parents, because we're not going to talk about it." THAT would seem cruel.
Last edited:
Since they were hiding secrets from Luke anyway, it seems the easiest and safest thing to do would be to claim him as their own child, call him Luke Lars, and be done with it. But why George wrote it the other way? ...so the movie could happen.
Last edited:
The divine hero being adopted by secondary relatives or given to mortal parents only later to discover their true lineage is a common element of myths because that upbringing into humble settings is part of what gives them a moral grounding and teaches them that they are no better than anyone else. Typically those born into their birthright and given everything within the kingdom are often spoiled and arrogant. We see this reflected in real life too. Spoiled children grow up to be entitled adults. By contrast some of the most kind and generous people have nothing, but give what little they possess, without the expectation of reward.
I find it interesting that this is such a point of contention when Harry Potter was adopted by an aunt and uncle, yet retained his surname. The Dursley's also lied to Harry about how his parents died. They treated him like garbage too and acted as if he was a burden. That's a far cry from the way Luke is treated. Being a stubborn farmer struggling to survive in the desert is a totally different thing.
Superman was adopted. Granted they raised him as a Kent, but he was so unlike his parents that it was no surprise that he wasn't a Kent in reality. Dorthy Gale from the Wizard of Oz was raised by her aunt and uncle. Mowgli from the Jungle Book was abandoned by his human parents and raised by wolves, a completely different species for crying out loud. No one questions that, and that's even more extreme than Luke.
Whether the Lars raised Luke as a Lars or as a Skywalker is less important than the fact that they took him in to keep him away from Vader. Effectively Luke's family was dead, so who better to raise him than his next of kin? Whether Owen and Beru lied to him about Anakin seems less significant because as far as they knew, Luke would never meet him so he might as well have been dead. What difference did it make to them? Luke needed a home. Whether he called them Aunt and Uncle seems moot.
I find it interesting that this is such a point of contention when Harry Potter was adopted by an aunt and uncle, yet retained his surname. The Dursley's also lied to Harry about how his parents died. They treated him like garbage too and acted as if he was a burden. That's a far cry from the way Luke is treated. Being a stubborn farmer struggling to survive in the desert is a totally different thing.
Superman was adopted. Granted they raised him as a Kent, but he was so unlike his parents that it was no surprise that he wasn't a Kent in reality. Dorthy Gale from the Wizard of Oz was raised by her aunt and uncle. Mowgli from the Jungle Book was abandoned by his human parents and raised by wolves, a completely different species for crying out loud. No one questions that, and that's even more extreme than Luke.
Whether the Lars raised Luke as a Lars or as a Skywalker is less important than the fact that they took him in to keep him away from Vader. Effectively Luke's family was dead, so who better to raise him than his next of kin? Whether Owen and Beru lied to him about Anakin seems less significant because as far as they knew, Luke would never meet him so he might as well have been dead. What difference did it make to them? Luke needed a home. Whether he called them Aunt and Uncle seems moot.
Last edited:
CopperRevan
Master Member
Do you know when Owen and Beru had that conversation with Luke about the fact he was adopted? I went to school with a kid who was adopted and he knew in 3rd grade he was adopted but he called his adopted parents Mom and Dad. Had one of them been related to his deceased biological parent I'm sure they would have made sure he knew they were a relative. But at what age do you have that conversation? I'm sure its different in different situations.
To say Owen and Beru should have stolen the titles of Luke's Father and Mother while being a relative themselves takes deceit to a new level. I have a step daughter who I love and care for as my own but no matter how evil her biological father was or is, I wouldn't dare steal that title away from him. She has ONE father and I don't just get to identify to her whatever I want because I'm effectively carrying out a role. I grew up without a father and was raised mostly by my Grandparents. My Grandpa, though he named me, never called himself my Dad and as far back as I can remember he's always been Grandpa.
Owen and Beru did the best they could have done given the situation. Should Owen have told Luke about his father at 3yrs...7..10? When Luke was sitting down eating with them he didn't seem all depressed that he wasn't a Lars but a Skywalker...lol
If he was depressed about that he would have run away to a secluded Island to some planet far, far away where nobody could find him( maybe left a map to his location) , lived in a hut and moped with his tail between his legs Until he died...but that's a story for another time and a completely different character named Jake. Lol
Several members of my wife's family are adopted. One never wanted to know who his biological parents were. One may have known. Some adopted kids want to have their real parents as part of their lives after learning of their adoption. Some are content to accept their adoptive parents as their real parents, regardless of the biological component. Humans aren't perfect. Even the ones we consider to be good.
CopperRevan
Master Member
Wait...humans aren't perfect? Not even George Lucas? I'm waiting for Alley, at any moment to post his Charleton Heston Blasphemy!!! Meme...lol
JoMamma_Smurf
Master Member
I HATE this edition of the movie.. But This is the first movie I ever saw in the theater.... So I took my dad and my 5 year old daughter to see this last night. It was one of the happiest moments of my life. I can't describe it.
Since they were hiding secrets from Luke anyway, it seems the easiest and safest thing to do would be to claim him as their own child, call him Luke Lars, and be done with it. But why George wrote it the other way? ...so the movie could happen.
We must also consider the evolution of the storytelling. As far as can be determined, the original story at the time that the first film began shooting went like this:
Obi-Wan and his contemporary, Annikin/Anakin, ran off and became Jedi Knights, with Anakin following Obi-Wan on an idealistic crusade (not necessarily the Clone Wars). Anakin ended up being killed by Kenobi’s student, Darth Vader, which was why Owen was so protective of Luke—he didn’t want Luke to ALSO run off with Obi-Wan and ALSO get killed. And, in this version, after secretly turning evil and leading Jedi into traps and/or killing them, Vader apparently just LEFT Obi-Wan’s tutelage and helped the Empire with its Jedi pogrom, not seeing him again until they met on the Death Star. And Obi-Wan was not in hiding on Tatooine, per se, nor was he looking after Luke for some greater purpose. It may well have been that Mother Skywalker and her family (presumably either Owen or Beru was her sibling, making Luke a blood relative) came from the backwoods planet Tatooine, where no one would bother to look for an ex-Jedi or the son of a dead Jedi.
The volcano duel and the life-support suit apparently only became a thing during filming.
Then, Lucas embraced the concept of Father Vader during the making of EMPIRE. By the time of JEDI, the backstory was revised. Now, Anakin became evil, left without knowing his wife was pregnant, and Obi-Wan tried to lure him back to the good side. After the volcano duel, Anakin became the armored Vader, while Obi-Wan went into hiding, and took baby Luke to Owen Lars, who was now OBI-WAN’s brother. Leia and Mother Skywalker went into hiding on Alderaan, but Mother Skywalker died when Leia was only a few years old (and this is why she has memories of her mother in ROTJ).
And then we get to the prequels, where Lucas stuck with the basic Father Vader backstory concept which had existed circa 1978-83, but tweaked certain details (like Owen being Anakin’s STEPbrother, and Padme dying in childbirth).
The original film in its original form presented a rather clear and simple story, one which changed radically through the added context of the sequels (the real sequels, that is—EMPIRE and JEDI) and prequels. The bulk of the continuity and logical problems in the films are because of the story being revised and rewritten, film by film.
As an aside, I recently got into an online debate with a nutball who wouldn’t hear even a word about preserving the original theatrical cuts. The (current iteration of) the Special Editions is supposedly the final and only version. Lucas is the artist, and defying his will is Just Plain Wrong.
Me, I say ALL iterations of the films have both artistic and historical value. Studying the creative process can be just as important as the storytelling/entertainment portion of the equation. STAR WARS (1977) is a completely different film from the STAR WARS- EPISODE IV: A NEW HOPE that’s on DVD/Blu/streaming, both because of its literally being altered, and because of the altered story context the other five films give it.
And I think people of the present and the future deserve to be able to study each iteration so they can enjoy, debate, and understand both the art itself and its evolution.
Similar threads
