Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?
This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.
Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
tESB and RotJ, actually, started the "the old Jedi were good-hearted but were not all-wise" theme.
Yoda, ESB:
Yoda, RotJ:
Luke and Obi-Wan, RotJ:
Obi-Wan and Yoda are specifically portrayed as wrongly inflexible regarding the temptations of the Dark Side and the possibility of redemption from it. Luke does enter a Dark Side rage, but it does not forever dominate his destiny. Anakin does still have good in him, and Luke does not have to kill him to defeat the Emperor. Obi-Wan and Yoda are the stale thesis, which invited the comically-evil antithesis of the Emperor and Vader, and Luke represents the new, vibrant synthesis (his new lightsaber in RotJ is green, neither the cold blue of Obi-Wan and pre-fall Anakin nor the dangerous red of Darth Vader - the only three lightsabers that had been shown up to that point - but something new and alive).
Do note that this makes prequel and sequel aspersions cast on the Jedi different in implication. Showing the Jedi of the Old Republic being flawed supports the dialectic in the original trilogy; these are the mistakes that caused them to be supplanted by an antithesis. I haven't watched the sequels, but any aspersions they cast on Luke's Jedi in the New Republic undercut that dialectic; if the synthesis is bad, what was the point of the exercise? It is important that Luke's new Jedi are not the same as the old Jedi.
More options
Context Copy link