I don't think Darth Vader is redeemable Just because he killed Palpatine.

9 minutes ago, hybridial said:

I'm actually glad that for the most part, this has damaged Star Wars as a property, as a moneymaker. Just to show that you can't do these things and there's no consequences for it. 

Not really. Like them or not, but the Sequels have been incredibly successful and so are the spin-off shows like The Mandalorian and The Book of Bobba Fett. As far as I am aware, the only sort of setback Disney has experienced with Star Wars as of yet is Solo.

2 hours ago, smeghammer said:

And the whole thing with Governor Tarkin is one of those inconsistencies I think - in TESB and RotJ, Darth Vader seems basically in charge of the Empire forces, whereas in ANH, he is not. There are some interesting discussions to be found about Vader vs Tarkin and rank:

Tarkin is killed at the end of ANH.

40 minutes ago, smeghammer said:

And the whole thing with Governor Tarkin is one of those inconsistencies I think - in TESB and RotJ, Darth Vader seems basically in charge of the Empire forces, whereas in ANH, he is not. There are some interesting discussions to be found about Vader vs Tarkin and rank:

Vader is outside of the Imperial military structure. There's a whole org chart you could make with the moffs and admirals and captains, but you won't find "sith lord" on that chart. There's the emperor on top. Vader serves the Emperor, the imperial fleet also serves the Emperor, but they're separate. In ANH, the Death Star is Tarkin's project. He's the captain of that ship, so he's the one in charge. Vader is there just as an envoy of the Emperor to see how the project comes along. In TESB and ROTJ, the Emperor puts Vader in charge of squashing the rebellion, so people obey him.

8 hours ago, smeghammer said:

then Dantooene ('cos Leia lied :-)) in ANH

I was never under the impression that Dantooine was destroyed in A New Hope: Tarkin just dispatched a scouting party to check if Leia was telling the truth and all they found is an abandoned rebel base.

9 hours ago, Dubbag said:

I always thought Anakin was a creep. A piece shit psycho and a manchild. His turn to the darkside should not have been a surprise to anyone for the council feared it all along. I'm sorry but after becoming vader and killing hundreds of jedi and all those children and strangling his pregnant wife and terrorizing the galaxy with "Space Hitler", it's like "Good you finally woke the fuck up and killed sidious you stupid idiot, you want a cookie vader? Good for you you did the right thing for once in your pathetic waste of a life, all those kids and jedi are still dead by the way so piss off"

While I have a soft spot for the prequels, I wouldn't disagree that they didn't do a great job when it comes to portraying Anakin's Jedi side. Dave Filoni's The Clone Wars series did a far better job at it. Anakin is actually a very likeable character there and he does a ton to save lives or stop the separatists during the 3 years of clone wars.

The series also does a better job of showing why Anakin descended to the dark side. Especially there is a certain moment in season 5 where Anakin's faith on the Jedi council is weakened.

2 hours ago, ReaperAA said:

 

Tarkin is killed at the end of ANH.

Yeah. I get it, Star Wars isn’t perfect and it isn’t for everyone… but I feel some here need to rewatch. It sounds like they’re misremembering because they haven’t seen the movies in years. 

For a character to be redeemable, they first have to be written well enough for redemption to even be a possibility.

In many ways, I feel like Avatar: The Last Airbender did a better job at telling a similar story. Incidentally, the show has a Emperor Palpatine-type villain voiced by none other than Mark Hamill, but unlike Star Wars, the hero finds a way to defeat him in a way that does not involve killing him.

However, while the show has a generally satisfying ending, it does end on a bit of a cliffhanger, as the fate of one villain is left unaddressed and said character is not even mentioned once in the sequel, The Legend of Korra. I guess you can't always get what you want...

Well... i think the most cool thing for me in all the saga is de army design, more than the story (i only really love the old trilogy era). The first trilogy, the oldest i mean, has a high inspiration on WWII, on the story and in the army design. I think this is the secret of the "consistency". Also the story here looks like something in the WWII. Series like Mandalorian are more like a western, but the execution is really cool.

In the other hand, prequel and sequel has an story really inconsistent to my taste, but with a good artistic execution (Han Solo and Rogue one are really good for me, i love Rogue One absolutely... it make me cry at the end XD i was feeling something like "oh man! finally they did something amazing again!".

As for the Darth Vader toughts (first post) it suposes he goes to the light side, and after that he dies saving his son and the future of the galaxy... nothing to do with "earth justice", it's just jedi affairs LoL. The light side don't judge you for your acts, it's like... you can go to the right and then move to the left, but i supose the rest of the galaxy shits on Darth Vader.

13 minutes ago, WARDUST said:

Well... i think the most cool thing for me in all the saga is de army design, more than the story (i only really love the old trilogy era). The first trilogy, the oldest i mean, has a high inspiration on WWII, on the story and in the army design. I think this is the secret of the "consistency". Also the story here looks like something in the WWII.

I would argue that Return of the Jedi, especially the scenes on Endor, are more inspired by the Vietnam War, especially given the forest setting and the guerilla tactics. I think George Lucas himself has admitted to basing the Ewoks on the Liberation Army of South Vietnam (or as we erroneously call them in English, "Viet Cong") and both their short size and language are evocative of the Vietnamese freedom fighters.

6 minutes ago, Rudolph said:

I would argue that Return of the Jedi, especially the scenes on Endor, are more inspired by the Vietnam War, especially given the forest setting and the guerilla tactics. I think George Lucas himself has admitted to basing the Ewoks on the Liberation Army of South Vietnam (or as we erroneously call them in English, "Viet Cong") and both their short size and language are evocative of the Vietnamese freedom fighters.

hahaha well, it's better if they don't hear you say that LoL

You know, all of Star Wars is a plothole-ridden, chaotic cheesy mess of a franchise, and I haven't seen an installment I didn't enjoy. Grew up watching the originals several times a month on VHS, and I still like all the official stuff today. 

On point with Darth Vader, though, I'd say whether he's redeemable doesn't matter, it was whether Luke was willing to try. Remember that everyone who openly asked for him to kill Vader had previously lied, manipulated, or otherwise exposed more than one motive for what to do. We never got a take on what the rest of the galaxy thought of Luke's emotional fetch quest, and it really didn't serve much of a role in resolving the plot other than distracting the Emperor and Vader from responding to the rebels victory as it happened. But that's never explicit in the film itself, as are many things. 

And more importantly, it gave us easily the most engaging part of the film. So even if it made no sense objectively, it was thematic, and beautiful, and emotional, and that's why it was there. Vader probably couldn't have been redeemed socially in the setting, and maybe would have even had relapses into evil had he lived. It's fun to think about, but it didn't happen, and we'll never know. That's just the whay it be. (I don't know if this is useful.)

vader did nothing wrong

I was thinking about this while working today, (and I don't know if this parallel has ever been made before, at least not that I've ever seen), but the story has some similarities to Pinocchio. The main character saves his father from the belly of the whale (the dark side) on his quest to become a real boy (a Jedi).

That trope is about as old as stories themselves so it's not really anything new, just interesting perhaps.

32 minutes ago, Megalyth said:

That trope is about as old as stories themselves so it's not really anything new, just interesting perhaps.

It's worth mentioning that the main inspiration for Star Wars, was "Flash Gordon", "Dune" and Akira Kurosawa's "Seven Samurai". In fact, Lucas originally wanted to make a Flash Gordon film, as him and Steven Spielberg were huge fans of the old adventure serials they watched as kids. He tried to acquire the rights to make the movie, but he got rejected, so he came up with his own space opera that eventually became Star Wars. 

For the template of Luke's journey, Lucas took notes from Joseph Campbell's "The Hero with a Thousand Faces", which explores the theory that most historical myths share structural similarities, or to simply quote the wiki:

Quote

Campbell explores the theory that mythological narratives frequently share a fundamental structure. The similarities of these myths brought Campbell to write his book in which he details the structure of the monomyth. He calls the motif of the archetypal narrative, "the hero's adventure". In a well-known passage from the introduction to The Hero with a Thousand Faces, Campbell summarizes the monomyth:

 

A hero ventures forth from the world of common day into a region of supernatural wonder: fabulous forces are there encountered and a decisive victory is won: the hero comes back from this mysterious adventure with the power to bestow boons on his fellow man.

 

In laying out the monomyth, Campbell describes a number of stages or steps along this journey. "The hero's adventure" begins in the ordinary world. He must depart from the ordinary world, when he receives a call to adventure. With the help of a mentor, the hero will cross a guarded threshold, leading him to a supernatural world, where familiar laws and order do not apply. There, the hero will embark on a road of trials, where he is tested along the way. The archetypal hero is sometimes assisted by allies. As the hero faces the ordeal, he encounters the greatest challenge of the journey. Upon rising to the challenge, the hero will receive a reward, or boon. Campbell's theory of the monomyth continues with the inclusion of a metaphorical death and resurrection. The hero must then decide to return with this boon to the ordinary world. The hero then faces more trials on the road back. Upon the hero's return, the boon or gift may be used to improve the hero's ordinary world, in what Campbell calls, the application of the boon.

she basically shares my thoughts

2 hours ago, Zaxxon said:

It's worth mentioning that the main inspiration for Star Wars, was "Flash Gordon", "Dune" and Akira Kurosawa's "Seven Samurai".

Two more inspirations that shouldn't be forgotten about. The first is The Dam Busters. The Death Star trench run was lifted so directly from it that some people had fun swapping the audio from the one to the video from the other and it was nearly perfectly in sync.

The second is less well known: the French sci-fi comic Valérian & Laureline (which finally had a few years ago its own movie adaptation and it was terrible, unfortunately). A lot of the aesthetics of Star Wars is basically directly lifted from Mézières' work.

11 hours ago, Rudolph said:

I do not think the problem here is Star Wars' story being overrated so much as people relying on the "Thermian Argument":

 

 

So whoever this bloke is, has basically decided that: countering a criticism of a piece of fiction by way of explaining it's relevance to the rest of the body of the fiction, is a non-argument, cuz: "fiction isn't real, yo?"  That makes no sense to me.  That would be like, if I went into a restaurant and said their burgers were shit, and your response was, "that's a lame argument dude, because it's just food."

I'm not buying that crap.

As to the unreality of the situation the OP speaks to, is that, Darth Vader's redemption was the necessary plot device for the empire to fall to the resistance.  If Luke had said, "my pap pap is an irredeemable monster man, fuck this Jedi shit, I'm going home," the story wouldn't have really gone anywhere.  Vader isn't necessarily being redeemed.  What's happening is that Luke's belief/intuition, that goodness still exists in him, is being affirmed, in the act that ultimately brings an end to the empire.

Another way the story could have gone is that Luke would be like: "Yeah my pap pap is a monster, I must destroy him."  So Luke just finds the emperor and vader and some how manages to decapitate both of them and help the resistance destroy the death star.  But, I think generally, as sensitive and feeling beings, we tend to gravitate more towards the idea of good overcoming evil.  That speaks to something else entirely...

...It's the Hero's Journey.  Joseph Campbell.  Ergo, millions and millions of dollars were made...  That's my take.

1 hour ago, Goat-Avenger said:

So whoever this bloke is, has basically decided that: countering a criticism of a piece of fiction by way of explaining it's relevance to the rest of the body of the fiction, is a non-argument, cuz: "fiction isn't real, yo?"

I would say it is quite the opposite actually: the OP rightfully criticized the notion that Darth Vader could somehow redeem himself by throwing Palpatine down a shaft at the eleventh hour, only for someone to dismiss it out of hand because "Dark Side". To mirror Dan Olson's explanation, that does not work as a counter-argument, because the "Dark Side" can be whatever the writers want it to be. Incidentally, in the movies, the Dark Side was not portrayed as a mind-controlling force to begin with, as characters snap in and out of it at will on so many occasions; if it is portrayed differently in the Expanded Universe or George Lucas made shit up in later interviews, then it does not really matter, since it is not part of the original text anyway.

38 minutes ago, Rudolph said:

I would say it is quite the opposite here: the OP rightfully criticized the notion that Darth Vader redeemed himself by throwing Palpatine down a shaft at the eleventh hour, only for someone to dismiss it out of hand because "Dark Side". To mirror Dan Olson's argument, that does not work as a counter-argument, because the "Dark Side" can be whatever the writers want it to be. Incidentally, in the movies, the Dark Side is never portrayed as this mind-controlling force, as characters snap in and out of it at will on so many occasions; if it is portrayed differently in the Expanded Universe, then it does not really matter, as those came out after the fact.

OK, by the tenants of the so called, "Thermian Argument," I'll attempt to construct an example of it's use.

Person A: The burgers in this restaurant are terrible.

Person B (using the thermian argument): No they are most definitely not!  The pickles are fresh as a spring day.  The meat is cooked to perfection and USDA Choice!  The buns are lightly toasted and buttered.  Hell, even the special sauce has something just, special, about it!

Person A: That's a Thermian Non-Argument man; you are only taking into consideration the food.  It's just food.  What I'm speaking to, is the fact, some one had to make this burger.  Some one had to pay that person a wage, and far enough up the line, some one own's this establishment and has directed all of this chaos.  Ultimately, when one follows the chain of progression, some one's capitalist dream to retire in the Hamptons, has lead to me being served a sub-par burger.  It's not about the burger, per-se,' but more about what this burger says about the institutions of our society and how they relate to our economic system.

Person B: the fuc!?

The concept of a "thermian argument," explained as non-argument, is an argument derailment device in itself.  In the case of some one having a criticism of a work of fiction, then claiming a critique of their critique as a thermian non-argument, it's simply a ploy to derail further debate.  In this particular case, yes, Star Wars is just a piece of fiction; but, the original critique, if examined closely, isn't a critique of star wars, so much as it is a critique of a moral position.  Well, that's the domain of philosophy, spirituality, psychology.  So, it helps in stating what you are trying to say, clearly.  Either A: it's a critique of the plot of the fiction.  Or B: it's a critique of moral philosophy.  Which is it?

If some one has a problem with the plot of star wars because it doesn't fit their sociological world view, their ideology of the current modern paradigm, then they should just go argue sociology, right out, instead of beating around the bush and pussy footing.  (I'm not saying that OP was doing that, I'm speaking to the hypotheticals as it relates to the so called concept of, 'thermian arguments.')

As to arguments either way as it pertains to the OP's criticism, like I said, it's the Hero's Journey, Joseph Campbell; Luke seeking the good in his father is the necessary plot device to tie the whole thing together; but, being that it's a work of fiction, any like or dislike is a subjective appraisal.  From a moral philosophical perspective, again, it seems it's a matter of opinion; so, I'm not sure I see any right or wrong to it, just elucidations on the why and the how...

But as to the so called, 'thermian argument,' I still am not buying that as a legitimate definition of a phenomena that bears any usefulness; and I'm not sure it really makes any sense either.  However, it was explained in a very authoritative way.  Again, that's just my take.  I've no skin in the game; but, that whole thermian argument stuff is nonsense to me... 

Again, if I have a criticism of a work of fiction, and some one comes at me with a so called thermian argument, that justifies everything by way of it's relevance ot the rest of the body of the fiction, it's my own damn fault for beating around the bush.  If my critique is really about a leftist agenda, then what the hell am I doing entertaining arguments from the perspective of a fictional universe?  That seems pointless to me, and futile.  It's a Lucy and Charliebrown situation.  I'm setting other's up to miss a moving target I have control over.  It's bullshit.  Imo...

Stop trying to compare fiction to food.

1 minute ago, Rudolph said:

Stop trying to compare fiction to food.

no u

Food is real, fiction is not. 

In case you still do not understand what a Thermian argument is, it is when you are told you cannot criticize the writing of a work of fiction because whatever issue you have with the writing is explained away by the lore. It comes from the movie "Galaxy Quest", which features an alien species called the Thermians who are convinced that a Star Trek-like science-fiction show is a historical documentary and therefore everything in it must be true.

Darth Vader is irredeemable only if you judge his actions through the lens of morality, however he can be redeemed if you take into account that he's a slave to "The Force" that supernatural energy field that permeates the galaxy and manipulates everyone and everything's destiny without exception, he like everyone else was just a plaything of destiny he's not accountable for his actions because there's no free will if you're not only compelled to act a certain way but also your personality changes due to an external supernatural force. 

By killing the emperor, Vader removed the most powerful beacon of the dark side of the force thus freeing himself from the exposure but he could only do it because his son Luke was present which is a beacon of the light side of the force, by seeing his son's life endangered he managed to overcome the influence of the dark side. He returned to his old self, all of those deaths and misery he caused for many years were the result of the tainting influence of the dark side of the force. 

It's really shitty how conlfict in the Star Wars galaxy is the result of random fluctuations of whims from a supernatural energy field and no one is truly accountable for their actions.

4 hours ago, Goat-Avenger said:

So whoever this bloke is, has basically decided that: countering a criticism of a piece of fiction by way of explaining it's relevance to the rest of the body of the fiction, is a non-argument, cuz: "fiction isn't real, yo?"

You did not understand what that video there actually tried to explain.

In the most reductionist terms possible: The thermian argument is an attempt at defending something within a piece of fiction, which is for example offensive by real world standards (such as curb-stomping a person of colour in american history X) by way of "movie world reasoning".

In other terms, if I said that anything in some movie pissed me off, because I find it morally reprehensible, then the context of the movie doesn't make it any less morally unjust - still holds true even if the writers do their damn best to make it seem "reasonable"... For example, Walter White (Heisenberg) in breaking bad, who is slowly but surely building a meth-empire, which is "wrong", cannot be defended by pointing out that he had a shitty life, lost billions of dollars due to his buy-out when "gray matter" was still in its infancy, has to deal with cancer, and only means well for his family - because that would be a thermian argument. He is still a reckless and cold-hearted criminal by real world standards, which "fictional logic" changes nothing about...

Likewise, explaining the light and dark side shenanigans in star wars, or roping Anakin's upbringing into this discussion changes nothing about the degree to which Vader's actions against Sidious may or may not redeem him. He could have killed a million Darth Sidious clones, and he still would have been a "child slayer", a betrayer, and someone who choked his fiance to death - all of which being deeds that would get him incarcerated for several decades, if not centuries under for example US law... The fact that G.Lucas decided to grant Vader a fictional absolution by way of making him appear as a force ghost doesn't factor into this. I, as the viewer, still get to decide whether or not I would be willing to "forgive" him according to my own moral compass, which no movie logic in the world is going to sway one way or the other, even if a supposed happy end is nice and all...

That "bloke" there didn't come up with a "derailment device", he probably didn't even come up with the term "thermian argument" himself, what he explained is why the thermian argument is a logical fallacy that aims to dismiss any and all attempts at holding a fictional universe, or parts thereof, to "real world moral standards" by way of explaining the very context both the critic and the defender of said fiction are aware of anyway... Which, by the way, makes it pretty much the opposite of a derailment device, because the thermian argument itself actually is one, since it derails discussions about real world moral imperatives by way of roping a context that is irrelevant to said imperatives into a discussion where there is no place for them...

I watched the video where the person explained what a thermian argument is.  I've read several explanations on it now.  I've explained it myself.  I can try again, to explain it.

Person A: Piece of fiction X has morally objectionable such and such.

Person B: Yeah mate, but it fits in with the context of the fictional universe.

Person A: Yeah, see mate, that's a thermian argument though.  It is fiction, not reality.  You can't justify a real wrong with a fictional context that suits it to a right.

Person B: ...

I'm not sure what I'm not understanding?  You can't just make up logical fallacies for people to fall into.  It has to make sense.  Either you are criticizing a work of fiction based on the merits of the fiction itself, or you are using the fiction as a landscape to argue a particular point.  In this particular instance, the OP finds Darth Vader unforgivable, unworthy of redemption.  That's an opinion.  You can state your opinion, why or why not you think he is or isn't redeemable.  So, I don't choose to honor or accept, 'thermian argument,' as pointing to anything real, or logical.  It has to make sense.  Saying some one's defense of your critique of a fiction is invalid, because the critique is really pointing to the writers and creators of the work, and the defense is pointing to something that isn't real, is actually kind of a lunacy.  To me, that same logic could be applied to an instance, where say, I went to a different culture, like the Aztecs, and said, 'oh my gosh you people are crazy,' and some defended their culture by saying, 'well that is how they do things in their culture, within the context of their culture, it's not barbaric at all; and I replied, 'logical fallacy, you are defending only within the context of their culture.'

So again, it doesn't make any sense to me.  As I stated before, in response to the OP; Luke, aside from being a protagonist, is also the central figure in the Hero's Journey, as laid out by Joseph Campbell, of which George Lucas took cues from.  My argument contains no, so called, 'thermian argument,' as it points to real world influences that were used in the creation of the story.  And even if it didn't, I'd still say it's a valid opinion, in response to another opinion.

I personally can't just blindly accept definitions of strange logic and start using it.  I like to know why.  And the why, to me, makes no sense.  It is possible to critique a work of fiction within the context of that fiction alone.  it's also possible to critique the creators of that fiction, by pointing to things within the fiction itself.  It's possible to critique the creators themselves.  Etc.. Etc..

Anyway, that should clear things up. lol.  Anyway cheers.  Most people can tell the difference between fiction and reality these days anyway, so we'll be fine.

6 hours ago, Rudolph said:

Food is real, fiction is not. 

 

In case you still do not understand what a Thermian argument is, it is when you are told you cannot criticize the writing of a work of fiction because whatever issue you have with the writing is explained away by the lore. It comes from the movie "Galaxy Quest", which features an alien species called the Thermians who are convinced that a Star Trek-like science-fiction show is a historical documentary and therefore everything in it must be true.

So inventing a logical fallacy to tell those, telling you, you can't criticize, so you can tell them they can't criticize you will fix things?  It doesn't make sense to me.  You can criticize whatever you want, so can they.  If you said to me, "I really like the carebears because they always work things out and I think it provides great lessons and parallels to life."  And I reply, "Exactly, they encounter problems, but, they always manage to use their collective differences to come to a solution for the greater good."  I don't see any problem with that.  Likewise, when OP says, vadar is unforgivable, that's fine too.  I think a disagreement within the confines of the fictional universe is an apt way to argue against that opinion; if, what we are really talking about is star wars.

Tbh I've always viewed Star Wars as a story about the rise and fall of the galactic Empire (ep1 - ep6). I'm not convinced that the story is written well enough to really go into depth of the character development. Although there is character story arcs, mainly Anakin/Padme, Luke/vader and Solo/Leia, it's all pretty basic stuff and doesn't really hold up to scrutiny.

Most people I'm pretty sure watch SW for the Imperial class Star destroyers and the AT AT walkers.. oh and the Xwings I guess...     

5 hours ago, Solmyr said:

It's really shitty how conlfict in the Star Wars galaxy is the result of random fluctuations of whims from a supernatural energy field and no one is truly accountable for their actions.

I sidestepped the Thermian thing to choose just to assess it for what it is, weak writing, glad to see somebody else realises it. Lucas had a shell of an idea when it came to the Jedi vs the Sith, but it's applied in such broad strokes within the movies. It's worked better in other pieces of Star Wars fiction (KOTOR II comes to mind), but it's haphazard at best in the original movies. I also think he went a bit over the top with spectacle; the Death Star being used as an instrument of such a level of mass murder on screen does indeed make it difficult to see anyone culpable as Vader redeemable; but if you interpret the scene as more about Luke and what he does, what he chooses to do, it still works. I mean, at least there was a point to all of it. There was no point to anything that JJ Abrams ever did in Star Wars. 

The Force Awakens is the movie that *embarrassingly* tries to make it literally like what you said here. They literally did that, had Maz Kanata state this is what the force actually is, in order to give themselves an excuse to keep telling the same story over. The Force Awakens was a much worse movie than people realise, and might be the worst of the trilogy just because it botched everything upfront so hard. It might be one of the worst stories in the history of fiction because it's so utterly fraudulent and inept.

I heard speaking of Star Wars Expanded Universe on Disney Plus.

Here’s a proof.

https://geekositymag.com/heir-to-the-empire-in-development-to-be-disney-plus-first-star-wars-film/

Also Anakin Skywalker as Force Ghost in original edit he was way much older at the end of Star Wars Episode VI Return of the Jedi.

https://www.quora.com/Why-do-people-call-J-J-Abrams-Jar-Jar-Abrams

Speaking of Star Wars prequels saga trilogy I heard Jake Lloyd got(maybe it’s none of my business,but…)bullied at school and Ahmed Best received death threats. To me he was funny.