**SPOILERS** If The Force Awakens, why was I going to sleep?

[The Folk Prophet]

I haven't seen it yet.  And I don't really see any real spoilers here that aren't being blabbed about all over the place.

 

I'm getting a really bad impression about this film from what a lot have written.  I mainly want to know the following:

 

1) Was the acting good?

 

Yes.

 

2) Was the scripting good?  We had so many really bad lines from E I - III.  It almost hurt to listen to them.

 

For the most part.

 

3) Were special effects used at the appropriate level?  E IV, I'd argue had too few.  E I - III were WAYYYY overboard.  E V and VI were just right.

 

For the most part.

 

4) Was there good choreography in the fight scenes?  E IV was good for its time.  E V was ok.  E VI was better.  I - III sucked.  The fight scenes were choreographed like a 12 year old had put it together.  I could have done a better job myself.

 

Yes.

 

5) Were the space fight scenes entertaining or were they just a blur of eye candy?

 

Entertaining.

 

If these are good, I can forgive a lot of the useless plot and so forth. At the end of the day, it is just a movie.

 

The movie is good, despite some issues.

[Guest]

I haven't seen it yet.  And I don't really see any real spoilers here that aren't being blabbed about all over the place.

 

I'm getting a really bad impression about this film from what a lot have written.  I mainly want to know the following:

 

 

 

If these are good, I can forgive a lot of the useless plot and so forth. At the end of the day, it is just a movie.

 

 

1) Was the acting good?

Yes.  Rey and Finn did their parts really well and were great together.  Kylo wears a mask so it's hard to get him sometimes especially with the conflicting character he has to play.  Maz Kanata is cool - as diminutive as Yoda but with 10x more character with a little silliness that is far removed from the Jar Jar type.  And BB8 is a cute little bugger.

 

2) Was the scripting good?  We had so many really bad lines from E I - III.  It almost hurt to listen to them.

Yes.  It's an Abrams movie and feels like it.  Dialogue is fast and witty.  Flows more like the new Star Trek than the old Star Wars.  No uncomfortable-to-watch dialogue like... "Yipppee!" or "I'm haunted by the kiss you shouldn't have given me" or "I've been dying each day since you came back to my life."  or "You're going down a path I cannot follow..." puke.

 

But yeah, I kinda miss that Lucas feel... it's like one of those old curmudgeon uncle you have over Christmas that you miss when the holidays are over.

 

3) Were special effects used at the appropriate level?  E IV, I'd argue had too few.  E I - III were WAYYYY overboard.  E V and VI were just right.

This movie is closer to V-VI than I-III.  They continued the timeline from there and had x-wings and TIEs as the main aircrafts and a rusty, all beat up Millenium Falcon.  They have Kylo's ship as the shiny new toy for the fanboys.  The dogfights are reminiscent of the 80's and the set pieces are very simple - Jakku is as sparse as E IV's Tattoine and all we see of Takodana is a watering hole reminiscent of the Cantina complete with humanoid characters and even a band.  I like the I-III world better than the IV-VI so VII for me is too simplistic.

 

4) Was there good choreography in the fight scenes?  E IV was good for its time.  E V was ok.  E VI was better.  I - III sucked.  The fight scenes were choreographed like a 12 year old had put it together.  I could have done a better job myself.

 

I-III sucked?  I can't help you with this one then.  The Obi-Wan and Vader duel on Mustafar is the best ever.  Here we really see two well-trained Jedi fighting against each other and you see the distinct personalities and emotions of each throughout the entire 6 minutes or so.

 

Before Episode I, the Sith are supposed to be all dead.  Jedi had no need to fight against another lightsaber for thousands of years until Darth Maul.  Darth Maul was trained to fight against lightsabers as he was specifically trained to fight Jedi.  You see this play out on E I.  It was very well played out between Qui-Gonn's acrobatic style and Maul's more intense/emotion-driven attacks.  Then you see Obi-Wan as an apprentice get overcome by emotion which seeped into his fighting style causing him to be jerky and unstable.  The years between E I and E II, the Jedi has not seen another Sith.  What they have in abundance are droids with their blasters.  So, their training evolved to adapt.  The Jango/Obi-Wan fight scene is awesome.  You see Obi-Wan's style shift more to a defensive technique closer to the body... until he met Dooku.  Now, Dooku was a Jedi - his style then is more of the old-school Jedi going against another lightsaber one-on-one.  Anakin, of course, is a hot-head that thinks Obi-Wan's defensive focus is too limiting... so you see him go all over the place and can't even hang on to his lightsaber with brief strokes of brilliance in-between strokes of stupidity.  Between E II and E III lots of lightsaber wielding enemies have come out culminated by Grievous' 4-saber craziness... so you see Obi-Wan's style again shift.  And you see Anakin mature with his own style.

 

E VII lightsaber battle was wielded first by a rogue Storm Trooper against another Storm Trooper using some kind of an electrostaff (another gift for the fanboys).  All intentionally awkward moves as the Storm Trooper has never held a lightsaber before.  Then the next one was by the same Storm Trooper against an injured Kylo Ren (wielding another fanboy nod lightsbaer) which was all adrenalin-driven slashes with not much style.  The next one was by Rey - who is used to fighting with a staff - against injured Kylo Ren... so it was an awkward stab, stab, block, against a little bit more elegant sweeps.  So the lightsaber fight scenes was awkward - intentionally.

 

 

 

5) Were the space fight scenes entertaining or were they just a blur of eye candy?

Space Fight scenes have more of an 80's feel.  You still have the Millennium Falcon with its turret blasters and the X-wings versus TIE's that is always fun to watch.  And the race to blow up the mega-death-star-planet-thingee.

[Rhoades]

Deathbed repentance--and thereby gaining a greater reward than that received by the consistently faithful .... --has no place either in the parable of the prodigal son or in the gospel as a whole.

 

I'm not sure why you used "greater" instead of "equal" in that statement so maybe I don't understand what you were saying.  Were you thinking it would be "greater" if you lived a very sinful life and then repented and received celestial glory versus being less sinful and repenting and receiving celestial glory?  If so, I disagree.  There's no advantage to sin.

 

There is a parable about late-comers receiving an equal reward. (laborers in the vineyard found in Matthew 20:1-15)  Elder Holland used it in a talk a few years ago (https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/04/the-laborers-in-the-vineyard?lang=eng).

 

Of course he wasn't teaching that we should aspire to remain sinners with plans for deathbed repentance.  He was teaching people entangled in sin feeling there's no hope that there is hope.  In the talk he said "This parable—like all parables—is not really about laborers or wages any more than the others are about sheep and goats. This is a story about God’s goodness, His patience and forgiveness, and the Atonement of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is a story about generosity and compassion. It is a story about grace. It underscores the thought I heard many years ago that surely the thing God enjoys most about being God is the thrill of being merciful, especially to those who don’t expect it and often feel they don’t deserve it."

[The Folk Prophet]

I'm not sure why you used "greater" instead of "equal" in that statement so maybe I don't understand what you were saying.  Were you thinking it would be "greater" if you lived a very sinful life and then repented and received celestial glory versus being less sinful and repenting and receiving celestial glory?  If so, I disagree.  There's no advantage to sin.

 

There is a parable about late-comers receiving an equal reward. (laborers in the vineyard found in Matthew 20:1-15)  Elder Holland used it in a talk a few years ago (https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/04/the-laborers-in-the-vineyard?lang=eng).

 

Of course he wasn't teaching that we should aspire to remain sinners with plans for deathbed repentance.  He was teaching people entangled in sin feeling there's no hope that there is hope.  In the talk he said "This parable—like all parables—is not really about laborers or wages any more than the others are about sheep and goats. This is a story about God’s goodness, His patience and forgiveness, and the Atonement of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is a story about generosity and compassion. It is a story about grace. It underscores the thought I heard many years ago that surely the thing God enjoys most about being God is the thrill of being merciful, especially to those who don’t expect it and often feel they don’t deserve it."

 

That isn't all meaningful to the facts however. God has standards that He will go by regardless of our expectations. He has plainly declared on a myriad of occasions things like mercy cannot rob justice, he will not save people in their sins, and that repentance is required. If we really want to apply the gospel to Vader, then how, exactly, did he repent? By saving his son? What about all the other sins? Did he go through the steps of repentance for them? All the murdered children, Jedis, etc?

 

I dunno. It's pretty weak sauce. He felt bad for his son, declared that Luke was right about him, and then died. That was enough? Now he would qualify for exaltation?

 

Edit: Shall we make a Hitler comparison just for fun? What if Hitler in the final moments before his death decided to not ruthlessly kill someone he felt sorry for? How much would that really make up for all the rest of it?

 

Of course that's really between God and Hitler...or the fictional Vader...but on principle, it's pretty plain.

Edited December 30, 2015 by The Folk Prophet

[Just_A_Guy]

I'm not sure why you used "greater" instead of "equal" in that statement so maybe I don't understand what you were saying.  Were you thinking it would be "greater" if you lived a very sinful life and then repented and received celestial glory versus being less sinful and repenting and receiving celestial glory?  If so, I disagree.  There's no advantage to sin.

 

What?  No!  My point was that deathbed repentance after a life of rebellion, will not get you a reward that is qualitatively better than the reward enjoyed by a person who lived a lifetime of faith.  The reason I didn't use the word "equal" is simply because I don't know if it's possible to get an "equal" reward--Divine forgiveness is powerful stuff, and I wouldn't want to unnecessarily limit its potential.

 

 

There is a parable about late-comers receiving an equal reward. (laborers in the vineyard found in Matthew 20:1-15)  Elder Holland used it in a talk a few years ago (https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/04/the-laborers-in-the-vineyard?lang=eng).

 

Of course he wasn't teaching that we should aspire to remain sinners with plans for deathbed repentance.  He was teaching people entangled in sin feeling there's no hope that there is hope.  In the talk he said "This parable—like all parables—is not really about laborers or wages any more than the others are about sheep and goats. This is a story about God’s goodness, His patience and forgiveness, and the Atonement of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is a story about generosity and compassion. It is a story about grace. It underscores the thought I heard many years ago that surely the thing God enjoys most about being God is the thrill of being merciful, especially to those who don’t expect it and often feel they don’t deserve it."

 

I agree.  The fact that David permanently forfeited his exaltation, did not mean that he had no incentive to seek repentance.  Whether we attain the highest reward possible or whether we somehow fall short--we are most certainly better off with the Gospel of Jesus Christ, than we are without it.

Edited December 30, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest]

That isn't all meaningful to the facts however. God has standards that He will go by regardless of our expectations. He has plainly declared on a myriad of occasions things like mercy cannot rob justice, he will not save people in their sins, and that repentance is required. If we really want to apply the gospel to Vader, then how, exactly, did he repent? By saving his son? What about all the other sins? Did he go through the steps of repentance for them? All the murdered children, Jedis, etc?

 

I dunno. It's pretty weak sauce. He felt bad for his son, declared that Luke was right about him, and then died. That was enough? Now he would qualify for exaltation?

 

Edit: Shall we make a Hitler comparison just for fun? What if Hitler in the final moments before his death decided to not ruthlessly kill someone he felt sorry for? How much would that really make up for all the rest of it?

 

Of course that's really between God and Hitler...or the fictional Vader...but on principle, it's pretty plain.

 

I agree with all you say here.  Especially with the comparison to Hitler.  We really can't know because it is between God and the sinner.  We are not privy to what is in the sinner's heart.

 

The only difference is... in the case of Hitler, there's no way for us to know exactly what is in his heart.  So we can only go by his actions in the war and his lack of repentance all through his death.  And if we just go by this - not judge, but to analyze - then it does seem like Hitler's actions would not earn him favor with God.

 

In the case of Vader, we do know... well, it's difficult to portray one's heart in a movie... but it is pretty well developed, detailed and explored in the expanded Star Wars universe.  So, it is pretty well justified that he got redeemed in the end.

Edited December 30, 2015 by anatess

[The Folk Prophet]

What?  No!  My point was that deathbed repentance after a life of rebellion, will not get you a reward that is qualitatively better than the reward enjoyed by a person who lived a lifetime of faith.  

 

I think the point is, if I'm reading this all right, is that it will too. The key factor, of course, is true, honest repentance. Deathbed sorrow or regret won't. And, for the most part, deathbed repentance (full, complete, legitimate repentance) is not possible. But if full and complete repentance occurs the Lord has said that He will remember our sins no more. Period. The reward then is, indeed, equal. It's all theoretical though, because the reality is that we are what we become over time and through our choices and a shallow proclamation of sorrow on our death does not mean true change.

[The Folk Prophet]

In the case of Vader, we do know... well, it's difficult to portray one's heart in a movie... but it is pretty well detailed and explored and highlighted in the expanded Star Wars universe.

 

In that case, the usage of the word "we" here is a bit liberal. I have never involved myself much in the expanded universe.

 

Wasn't it mostly declared non-canonical anyhow? :)

[Guest]

I think the point is, if I'm reading this all right, is that it will too. The key factor, of course, is true, honest repentance. Deathbed sorrow or regret won't. And, for the most part, deathbed repentance (full, complete, legitimate repentance) is not possible. But if full and complete repentance occurs the Lord has said that He will remember our sins no more. Period. The reward then is, indeed, equal. It's all theoretical though, because the reality is that we are what we become over time and through our choices and a shallow proclamation of sorrow on our death does not mean true change.

 

This.

 

In LDS teaching.  Death is not the finality of it.  Repentance continues in the Spirit World.  But yes, what we become as a product of our choices is who we are - and it is this that is judged in the end.

[Rhoades]

What?  No!  My point was that deathbed repentance after a life of rebellion, will not get you a reward that is qualitatively better than the reward enjoyed by a person who lived a lifetime of faith.  The reason I didn't use the word "equal" is simply because I don't know if it's possible to get an "equal" reward--Divine forgiveness is powerful stuff, and I wouldn't want to unnecessarily limit its potential.

Ok, I think I understand what you were trying to say now.  And the word "greater" goes along with the teaching in Luke 7:47 that the person with many sins was forgiven more than the person with few.

 

I think the point is, if I'm reading this all right, is that it will too. The key factor, of course, is true, honest repentance. Deathbed sorrow or regret won't. And, for the most part, deathbed repentance (full, complete, legitimate repentance) is not possible. But if full and complete repentance occurs the Lord has said that He will remember our sins no more. Period. The reward then is, indeed, equal. It's all theoretical though, because the reality is that we are what we become over time and through our choices and a shallow proclamation of sorrow on our death does not mean true change.

I agree that repentance and not just sorrow for sin is needed.  The parable with the laborers did teach that the last laborers worked for a time period even though it was shorter.  They didn't just get hired and then the whistle blew without giving them any time to labor.

[Guest]

In that case, the usage of the word "we" here is a bit liberal. I have never involved myself much in the expanded universe.

 

Wasn't it mostly declared non-canonical anyhow? :)

 

"We" is the Star Wars audience.  Of course, Star Wars is big.  There are those who saw only 1 movie, there are those who saw only the animated series... etc. etc.  But, just because they didn't know this part about Vader doesn't mean that it's not the Story.

 

There's absolute canon - and there's canon.  Absolute canon is the stuff that George Lucas himself produced.  Anything else outside of this can be overridden by Lucas and become non-canon without prior notice.   The novelizations of the movies are all part of absolute canon even as they're written by other writers and not Lucas himself.  The rest of the expanded universe is still canon as everything Star Wars has to go through Lucas' team for approval so they remain at least cohesive with the timelines and characterizations and flows in and out of the movies. There's some expanded universe material that aren't in canon - and I'm not sure which ones they are.  The video games, I think, didn't get added.  Darth Bane's books took a long while - they were just considered Legends because they didn't get added to the official timeline - but it eventually got added when the animation series Clone Wars used the material for their story.  Etc. etc.

Edited December 30, 2015 by anatess

[Just_A_Guy]

I think the point is, if I'm reading this all right, is that it will too. The key factor, of course, is true, honest repentance. Deathbed sorrow or regret won't. And, for the most part, deathbed repentance (full, complete, legitimate repentance) is not possible. But if full and complete repentance occurs the Lord has said that He will remember our sins no more. Period. The reward then is, indeed, equal. It's all theoretical though, because the reality is that we are what we become over time and through our choices and a shallow proclamation of sorrow on our death does not mean true change.

 

"Equal", I'm quite open to.  Better is what gives me quite a bit of heartburn.  Coming back to the Star Wars universe--Vader, by being enabled to come back as a force ghost, gets a better eternal reward than all the younglings and Alderaanians he slaughtered who never hurt anyone at all.

[Guest]

"Equal", I'm quite open to.  Better is what gives me quite a bit of heartburn.  Coming back to the Star Wars universe--Vader, by being enabled to come back as a force ghost, gets a better eternal reward than all the younglings and Alderaanians he slaughtered who never hurt anyone at all.

 

Actually... that's not quite true.  Becoming a "force ghost" is not a reward.  The only ones that become "force ghosts" are those trained in that part of the force.  Not all Jedi's can attain that.  And, by the way, Siths can also do it.  Plageis, for example, can do it.

 

But, let's just say force ghosting is a reward for good behavior.  Remember, first and foremost, Anakin is force-sensitive.  So he is already part of the "elect".  He was a slave child for 9 years and a padawan for 10 years, and a Knight for 8 years more.  All of those years he was a good guy saving people - he was this pure innocent child who is completely selfless which caused him to offer to help Qui-Gonn.  He had amazing accomplishments as a Padawan and as a Knight - saving worlds, caring for people including the Clones.  He was Vader for only 19 years before he died.  And a lot of that time was spent with him in conflict with himself. 

 

The younglings and Alderaanians presumably don't have the same level accomplishments. 

 

 

So... this would be a perfect time to ponder, I guess, to wonder... like the 3 witnesses to the Book of Mormon... they were good guys - had a testimony, got visions of the angel, etc... and they ended up leaving the Church.  Say they had a deathbed repentance... what then?

Edited December 30, 2015 by anatess

[The Folk Prophet]

In LDS teaching.  Death is not the finality of it. 

 

That depends on what one means by "it" in this context. There are, certainly, things that death is the finality of as pertaining here.

[Guest]

That depends on what one means by "it" in this context. There are, certainly, things that death is the finality of as pertaining here.

 

It = repentance.

[The Folk Prophet]

It = repentance.

 

And it still depends. There are, without question (and we can go to the scriptures if we need to), things we must do in this life as it pertains to repentance and if we procrastinate the day of our repentance we cannot after this life. Repentance (why is this so confusing for so many?) after this life is only for those who didn't have the opportunity in this life.

[Guest]

And it still depends. There are, without question (and we can go to the scriptures if we need to), things we must do in this life as it pertains to repentance and if we procrastinate the day of our repentance we cannot after this life. Repentance (why is this so confusing for so many?) after this life is only for those who didn't have the opportunity in this life.

 

Right.  Which brings us back to... we can't really tell unless we know what's going on inside someone's heart.  Which is only possible in fiction....

[The Folk Prophet]

Right.  Which brings us back to... we can't really tell unless we know what's going on inside someone's heart.  Which is only possible in fiction....

 

Without knowing the details you do on Vader...I'd have to question from a theoretical point of view if he is beyond whatever the Star Wars version of exaltation in our weird little discussion would be. Meaning to say, he had the greater light and knowledge. Like David of old, he intentionally threw it away and not only murdered one innocent to get away with adultery, actually slaughtered children and, literally, millions of others. If we are crossing LDS theology into the mix, no matter what was or is in his heart, is exaltation even an option any longer?

[Guest]

Without knowing the details you do on Vader...I'd have to question from a theoretical point of view if he is beyond whatever the Star Wars version of exaltation in our weird little discussion would be. Meaning to say, he had the greater light and knowledge. Like David of old, he intentionally threw it away and not only murdered one innocent to get away with adultery, actually slaughtered children and, literally, millions of others. If we are crossing LDS theology into the mix, no matter what was or is in his heart, is exaltation even an option any longer?

 

In LDS theology exaltation is denied when one kills another without God's approval (yes, only God can determine such judgment but we can make an educated assumption of the state of one's exaltation for discussion).

 

That said... War provides certain exceptions.  A soldier "following orders" or "not stopping" a questionable mission may not be in sin.  As it happens, Tarkin authored and executed the order to blow up Alderaan.  Vader's involvement is simply his failure to voice an objection.

 

About wiping out the Jedi at the Temple - that one second frame showing Anakin's tortured face with tears down his eyes after he killed the Jedi and the Trade Federation speaks volumes.  He was carrying out the order of his Master in a war - reluctantly.  At that point - he was completely lost.  He has "lost his testimony" that the Jedi is in the side of good - the Jedi was not completely blameless in this regard too.  It took him almost 19 years to regain his testimony.  At that point, all he knew and sure of was his love for Padme and, although misguided, his choices were driven by that - not selfishness.

 

So... in both cases, it's not a straight-away David-like transgression of self-aggrandizement.

Edited December 30, 2015 by anatess

[The Folk Prophet]

He was carrying out the order of his Master in a war - reluctantly. 

 

A) Bull

 

and 

 

B) ...oney!

 

:)

 

the Jedi was not completely blameless in this regard too.

 

Oh...well...then...justified.

 

 

So... in both cases, it's not a straight-away David-like transgression of self-aggrandizement.

 

David was only trying to be with Bathsheba. How is that different? The ends justifies the means after all...apparently.

 

 

 

Okay...flippancy aside...I'm not buying that anything you're saying here gives any justification to his actions. And by "any", I mean "ANY!"

Edited December 31, 2015 by The Folk Prophet

[Jedi_Nephite]

That isn't all meaningful to the facts however. God has standards that He will go by regardless of our expectations. He has plainly declared on a myriad of occasions things like mercy cannot rob justice, he will not save people in their sins, and that repentance is required. If we really want to apply the gospel to Vader, then how, exactly, did he repent? By saving his son? What about all the other sins? Did he go through the steps of repentance for them? All the murdered children, Jedis, etc?

 

I dunno. It's pretty weak sauce. He felt bad for his son, declared that Luke was right about him, and then died. That was enough? Now he would qualify for exaltation?

 

Saving his son was probably the beginning, as Luke knew his heart could be turned to back to the light.  In the books, however, or at least, in The Truce at Bakura, Vader/Anakin does seem to be going through some sort of repentance process for all of the atrocities he committed.  It takes place shortly after the events in Return of the Jedi, and he appears to Leia as a Force Ghost, asking for her forgiveness.  However, she basically tells him to take a hike, and he disappears.

[Guest]

A) Bull

 

and 

 

B) ...oney!

 

:)

 

 

Oh...well...then...justified.

 

 

 

David was only trying to be with Bathsheba. How is that different? The ends justifies the means after all...apparently.

 

 

 

Okay...flippancy aside...I'm not buying that anything you're saying here gives any justification to his actions. And by "any", I mean "ANY!"

 

I'm not giving justification.  I'm giving you a more fleshed out story so you can "know his heart".  You tell me if you were Jesus (because this is possible in fiction) how you would judge the entirety of his character.

 

David was not at the point where the only thing that was light was Bathsheba.  David didn't need to save Bathsheba from anything.  Vader was at the point where the only thing he knew to be good was Padme and she was about to die.

Edited December 31, 2015 by anatess

[LeSellers]

David was not at the point where the only thing that was light was Bathsheba.  David didn't need to save Bathsheba from anything.

No, David was at the point in his life where he was doing the wrong ting at the wrong time, and for the wrong reasons.

The people demanded a king to lead their armies, and go before them, etc. David was not leading his armies, he was not going before anyone. He wasin his palace, looking at a woman who it was not his business to look at, and lusting after her. Had he been in the field, methinks he would not have had to kill Uriah.

Lehi

[Guest]

Saving his son was probably the beginning, as Luke knew his heart could be turned to back to the light.  In the books, however, or at least, in The Truce at Bakura, Vader/Anakin does seem to be going through some sort of repentance process for all of the atrocities he committed.  It takes place shortly after the events in Return of the Jedi, and he appears to Leia as a Force Ghost, asking for her forgiveness.  However, she basically tells him to take a hike, and he disappears.

 

This repentance cycle happens well before that, I think - even shortly after he became Vader.  He's been vacillating between light and dark... Have you read Lords of the Sith?  It came out last May.  It's an awesome book.  That book is under Disney so it is safely part of new canon.  It even features a character from the Disney animation series.  This book is set between E III and the Tarkin book.

 

So, a spoiler for that book which is elemental in this discussion... Vader goes to save a child from the village... Sidious finds out about it and manipulates to wipe out the entire village - through Vader.

 

This has been the cycle of Vader everytime he finds the light and repents.  He had to rid the universe of Sidious - Luke was his hope of finally achieving it.

[Vort]

Having stepped away from this discussion, let me poke my head in and make an observation.

 

All this talk about "the repentance cycle" and such is misplaced. This is because Star Wars is not merely fiction, but a special type of fiction that we might call "Special Human Fiction", or SHF. Practically all fiction involes human beings, but SHF posits human beings that lack commonality with some or many of the essential elements of humanity. In other words, SHF describes humans that are not really human. For example, a human character who is incapable of communication but who can fly is an SHF character. Comic books are typical sources of SHF, though it can be found in almost every genre. (Note that this is the opposite of what much science fiction offers us -- non-human beings who, we discover, actually are human in many important respects, sometimes in stark contrast to the actual human characters.)

 

In Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader, we have a putative human who brutally murders countless millions because he's sad and conflicted. This is not unheard of in human history, but what makes this SHF is that Anakin can do this without losing his essential humanity. He really is just a poor, lost orphan, a misunderstood lad with a bad temper who makes some rash decisions. In the end, you see, his murders of countless millions has not really had an effect on who or what he is. All he needs is some special element (like, maybe, a son threatened with death) to bring out his underlying goodness and help him on the path to emotional wholeness. In this, he is not at all unlike the stereotypical "bad boy" protagonist of female-oriented fantasy, who just needs that One Special Woman to understand and embrace him, correct his misguided ways, and tame him into the great and powerful person that only she could tell he really was.

 

Such "people" cannot adequately be described using language or concepts intended for actual human beings (AHBs). Religious concepts apply to AHBs, and only to them. SHFs have their own rules that they play by, rules created by their authors. Until you are given the rules that control SHFs, you really cannot understand how they work. They lack a human soul, so you have to wait to be told how their SHF soul works before you can draw any conclusions. Star Wars is populated with SHF characters. Applying the mercilessly AHB ideals of religion to SHF characters is as pointless as trying to judge the actions of whales or grasshoppers based on the law of Moses.

 

(By the way, another term for "SHF" is "bad fiction".)

Edited December 31, 2015 by Vort