OT Jedi depictions align with PT Jedi

I understand your points but I wouldn't say that these topics are controversies between the two trilogies. I think Lucas showed some changes and justified them clearly building the whole story of the saga. Of course, some smaller differences are still present but nothing essential. The essential 'controversies' are in fact the changes that the Jedi passed through. And they were necessary.

The Order didn't disappear only because of Sidious. The Order was exterminated also because of its mistakes. And when I say mistakes, I should emphasize that the mistakes does not obligatory make someone the bad guy as was alluded in certain later movies. It makes him the loosing guy and it is not the same.
Paradoxically for me the Jedi lost because they deviated from the essence of their code, thinking that they followed the rules. This could be only my interpretation of things if one Jedi didn't exist in t PT era and his name is Qui Gon. While Obi Wan was the perfect Jedi by the rule Qui Gon is what the Jedi should be: wise but not detached but warm, selfless but not for greater good but for the people who suffer , negotiator who is cheating when is necessary not for the cause but for the people. Not fixed in the grand greater things but in the small , pathetic life forms who are capable to the invisible changes. Qui Gon looks like rogue in PT not because he deviates from the essence of the Code but paradoxically because he follows it and the other follow the formal rules so he looks like rogue. Qui Gon was involved politically but with the only purpose to negotiate peace; paradoxically Mace said that in the beginning of AOTC: we are keepers of the peace, not soldiers (as this is the essence of Jedi service) and in last minutes of the movie they ended like soldiers. So here is their first mistake: war is the game of the Sith and they accepted it. Yes, we can argue how and if it was possible to avoid it but the facts are facts: Sith had more chances to win because is hard to beat someone in their own game.

Of course, the problem with attachments is paradoxically more complex. I here would say this: If the Jedi who survived in OT would think the same for the strongest attachments in this world: the attachment of the family, they wouldn’t say nothing about Leia in the end. They were practically forced to tell Luke about his father but Yoda had chosen to tell him willingly about the other Skywalker (Leia). So this is a change. And as is shown in the end of ROTJ, Luke didn’t win because he detached himself from the connection to his father (as Obi Wan did to go to Mustafar and try to destroy his ex-best friend). He accepted it fully and trusted that Anakin is his father and would be such to the end. That’s is what had awaken the other Jedi who returned, Anakin, of course. So, yes, accepting love doesn’t break the essence of the Code. It change the rules that were created to defend this love from the shadow of jealousy and possession because in the end , they didn’t worked so effectively I would say.

Yeah, I don't think Lucas would have had Vader kill Palpatine if he was trying to promote a no-killing policy. Anakin kills Palpatine (who is definitely the type who isn't going to stand down) out of compassion/defense of his son, whereas in the Prequels, Anakin goes around killing innocent Jedi and Younglings in an attempt to possess Padme (and power in general). The nature of the Jedi's motivations are important, indeed.



The wording here, is definitely important. Defense is not necessarily equivalent to no killing. No killing is preferable, but not always possible. 

This is why Padme had to be the motivation for Anakin's turn. It gives Luke and Anakin the same motivation, allowing Luke to feel what Vader felt.

It also makes you realize how much of a slimeball Vader actually is. He targets Leia precisely because he knows from personal experience how much that will hurt Luke.

The whole criticism of the Jedi for living a monastic and ascetic lifestyle has always striked me as absurd. I mean the Jedi always had an air of that even in the OT, with Obi-Wan and Yoda living out in the wilderness like Saint Cuthbert or other great monastics.

I would add a small detail: Vader, or more precisely said, Anakin, didn't kill Palatine, at least, not directly. He threw him away from Luke because his goal wasn't to kill Palatine but to protect Luke and to save him: even at the expense of Anakin's own life. So here the intention made the difference (compare this to the moment when Anakin executed Dooku). He also did it unarmed, so it was in a way, a very Jedi thing (Sith lighting counts as weapon too).

Obviously the Emperor is doomed to die in this case, yes. My point is that Anakin is trying to save Luke at all cost and after that think about the rest, even the consequences on his own life. It is a stark contrast with the scene where Anakin first executes Dooku (I mean, disarm him in this case, literally, is one thing and executing him, completely different), then he frees Palatine and then he checks Obi Wan.

Yeah, Anakin's #1 priority was saving his son, but it so happened to also be destroying the Emperor - in order to protect his loved one.

I think this is a big part of what makes Star Wars so deeply interesting and unique. Some decry the Jedi no family rule, but I say which ever your opinion on that might be, don't throw the youngling out with the bath water. I find it interesting how the Jedi's biggest no-no ended up being the thing that saved the galaxy and the Jedi line. The one thing Anakin wasn't allowed to do is what brought about his fall, but also his redemption.

And I think this is one big reason why it's so important to have Anakin be the Chosen One, and to have the prophecy. Not only did he save the galaxy by saving his son in a heroic act of self sacrifice, but in doing so he fulfilled his destiny by restoring the balance, through the destruction of the Sith.

Yeah, Anakin's #1 priority was saving his son, but it wasn't for selfish reasons. By that I mean, it's natural, normal and healthy to have a little selfishness and favoritism for one's family. That is how members of a family protect each other.

But I don't think Anakin saved Luke just for this reason only, per se, it was out of a more universal sense of compassion (selfless love for all) - which was awoken when Luke showed compassion on him - which was awoken when Luke realized how much he and his father had in common - which was awoken when Luke looked at his mechanical hand, which wouldn't have happened if he and Anakin weren't father and son. And if they weren't family, Vader wouldn't have had love for Luke, and Luke wouldn't have sensed the good in him, and wouldn't have had faith in him going into RotJ. It's this nice cyclical thing.

A cyclical thing showing how the Jedi way and the regular person way are two different things, and both are fine, but they don't mix. Anakin was the unique one in that he had a foot in both worlds and managed, at the last minute, to synergize the two in a one of a kind way, in which the problem became the solution. (Or the poison became the medicine as Smitty said). (Many mythological figures uniquely have one foot in two worlds).

And the perennial Lucas quote.
It really has to do with learning," Lucas says, "Children teach you compassion. They teach you to love unconditionally. Anakin can't be redeemed for all the pain and suffering he's caused. He doesn't right the wrongs, but he stops the horror. The end of the Saga is simply Anakin saying, I care about this person, regardless of what it means to me. I will throw away everything that I have, everything that I've grown to love- primarily the Emperor- and throw away my life, to save this person. And I'm doing it because he has faith in me; he loves me despite all the horrible things I've done. I broke his mother's heart, but he still cares about me, and I can't let that die. Anakin is very different in the end. The thing of it is: The prophecy was right. Anakin was the chosen one, and he does bring balance to the Force. He takes the one ounce of good still left in him and destroys the Emperor out of compassion for his son."
--George Lucas, The Making Of Revenge Of The Sith, page 221.


What happens to be the Jedi way is what helped them solve their family problems, and their family problems is what brought them to the Jedi way. The yin saved the yang, and the yang saved the yin.

Ebony and ivory living together in perfect harmony. Not mixing, but coexisting side by side. I think if there's a lesson to be learned for the Jedi, it's to relate to regular people more at their level, more dynamically. One could argue when Yoda layed out the realities of Jedi life during Ani's test, he left feeling a little overwhelmed and ashamed. Which I think led to him, because of his age, instinctively burying and avoiding his fears, instead of working on letting them go.

But hey, now that what's done is done, Anakin can come back as a ghost and dispense advice to future Jedi.

The above described intentions of the Jedi would be the ideal in typical circumstances, such as during the age of the Republic. What's interesting about the age of the Empire is, although the Jedi don't have any legal authority and the courts might not exist like they used to, nonetheless, the Jedi still stand for what's good and right, and they still represent and defend the people of the galaxy. They see the Sith rule as illegitimate, which by all things right should be surrendered back to the Republic of the people. And so in place of a proper justice system, they confront the Sith simply in the name of peace and justice.

As sworn servants to safeguard the good, it's their duty to destroy the Sith, even when the Sith rule the galaxy. But likewise, in order to continue to defend what's right, it's still also their duty to continue doing so with pure intent and a clear conscience, which still means doing so in self defense.

The Jedi goes into the confrontation knowing it's a different ball game, but they still go in with the intent to force a surrender; to get the Sith to stand down, to come to their senses. If the Sith don't agree, which they refuse to, that's their problem, and if they want to fight to keep what they have, so be it.

And of course the Jedi know the Sith will try to attack them, but that doesn't change their intent. The Jedi keeps it fair, they go to confront, not attack. They don't snipe or ambush them, etc. They approach them with an air of authority in the name of justice with the underlying intent to force a surrender, while also knowing that's not going to happen.

Their mere showing up tacitly declares, "stand down" in the name of peace. They both know that would never happen, but that's the idea - and yes, it's still self defense, as long as the Sith strikes, or threatens to strike, first.

We know of course a Sith would never surrender. They've created this mad situation of 'rule or die trying', so the Jedi, who are sworn to defend peace and justice or die trying, must destroy them, but in self defense. They both know the minute the Jedi shows up, this is only going to be a showdown.

Importantly however, it's not the Jedi forcing this showdown, it's the Sith. When the Sith, because of their very nature, who they are and what they plan to do, create mayhem, they create a situation in which either they or a Jedi is going to die. As protectors, a Jedi can't stand by without trying to stop the Sith. They must protect those who can't protect themselves.

Would a Sith try not fighting? In the example of RotS, Sidious telling Yoda he will not fight wouldn't be a good move, because that would allow Yoda to, I'd presume, immediately incapacitate/disarm him, make his way out of the senate building with Palpatine to Bail's ship and exile him on a remote planet until the republic is restored. Yoda may not have the law on his side, but he's still a formidable opponent.

Sidious tried that with Mace, but only because Anakin was there. Also, Mace was willing to risk whatever personal and political consequences to ensure the destruction of Palpatine, because there were still the rest of the Jedi Order. Later, Yoda was the last of two.

But all in all, as a Sith Lord, Yoda knows as well as Sidious that he can't resist the pleasure of taking Yoda out himself. Sidious of course savored this opportunity, so he strikes first and even says he's been waiting a long time for this. But now that The Emperor has made a move to take Yoda out, Yoda then tried to incapacitate him but failed. However, when Sidious tried to run, Yoda drew his sword. Yoda, and the galaxy, couldn't afford the lose this, he had to stop the Emperor before backup arrived.

Yoda left instead of pushing himself to a darker place to defeat Sidious, because for all he knew, he could be the last Jedi and needed to finish his training with Qui-Gon if he was to pass on his knowledge. The stakes were higher for him than with Mace, and he couldn't take the same risks.


Obi-Wan went in trying to talk some sense into Anakin, but again, of course Anakin wanted to fight. Especially after feeling Obi-Wan was trying to turn Padmé against him. However, Obi-Wan was prepared to do what he must for the galaxy. In the end he couldn't bring himself to kill Anakin.


It seems the big difference with Luke in RotJ is he went in with no intentions to subdue, with no air of confrontation; he went in on a mercy mission, completely surrendered and vulnerable. This is the element that is different from what his Masters did and what they presumed would be likely. Luke was eventually goaded into fighting, and he did try to kill Vader, in cold blood, but when he saw both the good in his father, and the bad in himself-and gained control of it, everything he did from there on was in alignment with the Jedi way.

I see some say Luke's actions after he looked at his hand weren't him following the Jedi way, just him making a personal decision. But as is often the case, I think this is people not seeing that it's both at the same time. Luke says "I'm a Jedi, like my father before me." Whether it's one or the other, he recognizes it's what the Jedi have been teaching all along and acknowledges that.

The solution to the Jedi/Sith problem here was unique, in that it involved a non-violent approach. Something which was elusive to Yoda and Obi-Wan. They couldn't see any other solution than Vader's destruction. The Jedi underestimated the power of family bonds, while Luke, though he loved his father, wasn't able to see his own conditions and attachments. The trick was in combining the Jedi way and the Skywalker way. The hope with the unconditional love.

They trusted Luke to follow his own path, but as long as he did it the Jedi way. They were both mostly right but a little blind, they each needed a touch of the other.

Sort of like destroying the Death Star. It took Luke using the Force, along with Han, a regular person, helping to cover Luke.

Yoda and Obi wan loved Anakin unconditionally, but they didn't have much, if any, hope he could return. Some ask how can a Jedi kill someone if they love them? You can have unconditional love for someone and still have to defend yourself if they're trying to kill you, they're not mutually exclusive. A good example is Obi-Wan and Maul in Rebels. Unconditional love means being compassionate but unattached to an outcome, and if that person would rather die fighting than surrender, so be it, that's the choice they decided to make. And as a guardian of peace and justice you have to do what's best for the galaxy - and protect yourself.