I'll start by saying that this doesn't really have much to do with the game (aside from the theory crafting I'm doing on a couple characters). I'm just genuinely curious what people think about the duel in Return of the Jedi.

The overwhelming consensus I've seen online any time that fight is discussed seems to be that Vader only lost because he was holding back the whole time. It seems to be the way a lot of people rationalize Luke's victory. Personally, I disagree with that idea to some degree, but I'd love to get more opinions on it.

So what do you guys think about the duel? Was Vader holding back? Was Luke actually better than Vader at that point? Were they both holding back? Were they both going all out? I'm really curious what people think about it.

For most of the fight, I do believe that Vader was restraining himself, though not to the same extent he was in ESB. After all, his objective in both fights wasn't to destroy Luke, but to make the boy give in to his anger and hatred, thus falling to the dark side and becoming his ally/apprentice so that together they might overthrow the Emperor. In ESB Vader proved he could have ended Luke anytime he wanted during their fight, and while he did get more aggressive during the RotJ duel, his end goal was the same; convert Luke to the dark side. He'd tried beating the kid into submission on Bespin, and all that did was make Luke even more defiant and opposed to turning to the dark side.

In the early part of the RotJ fight, Vader is outright bested by Luke because he was unaware of just how much Luke's prowess as a duelist had grown since their Bespin duel. But it's worth mentioning that apart from the very end of the fight, Luke wasn't trying to destroy Vader either, so he too was holding back; it was only when he truly cut loose and gave into his anger that Vader realized (perhaps too late) that he had a real fight on his hand, and never got the chance to recover enough from Luke's rage-fueled onslaught to mount an effective counterattack. On top of the idea that this was his son, which probably also hampered his fighting effectiveness, leaving him conflicted much as he might try to deny it.

So yeah, both of them were holding back for the majority of the Endor duel.

Well, Vader still has a lot of handicaps going against him even in that fight.

For starters, it's pretty obvious that, by the time of ANH, Vader hadn't fought another lightsaber-wielding opponent for quite some time. The Jedi had been eradicated for over ten years, so Vader's skills were getting rusty (yes, he was a one-man Mook Horror Show in Rogue One, but none of those opponents had lightsabers. That was the kind of fight he'd been fighting for the last ten years or so. When he faces Obi-Wan in ANH, he's very out-of-practice for that kind of fight). He clearly brushed up a bit between ANH and ESB, but still wasn't in top form. Vader's in his forties or fifties by this point, and while the cybernetics (and likely his life support suit) do a lot to offset the ravages of age, he's still not in his prime. Then there's the bulky suit to contend with, and possibly the subpar cybernetics to deal with, as well. And his extensive injuries. Vader indeed could have ended Luke any time during that fight, but if he'd been up against a Mace Windu or Obi-Wan in their prime, he'd have been toasted. Between ESB and RotJ, Luke indeed got a LOT better, but Donovan has the right of it in that both were holding back for the majority of the duel. But Luke is in his physical prime, and while he's still learning to be a Jedi, he's probably at or near his physical peak here. Vader is well past it, and probably still struggling to get back a lot of what he lost after he got stuck in the armor and let his skills atrophy. Vader's still got the edge in experience and raw strength, but Luke's got it pretty much everywhere else.

Though the idea of Luke holding back as much as Vader in that fight raises another interesting question: When Luke finally wiped the floor with Vader, was it really the Dark Side that gave him the power to do so, or was it just that his anger clouded his judgement and he was focused only on killing his opponent? If you look at the way Luke fights in that final offensive, it's feral, wild, hack-and-slash mindlessness. The pure ferocity keeps Vader on the defensive, and that eventually fails him. But if Luke had gone in with a clear mind and the goal to finish Vader as efficiently as possible, would he he still have beaten him?

Of course, the whole point is that Luke won the day not be defeating Vader, but by redeeming him. If Luke had wiped the floor with Vader first thing, he still would have been at the mercy of the Emperor. His struggle to redeem Vader payed off when Vader rescued Luke from the Emperor, killing them both in the process.

Then again, this is all rendered moot by the fact that the Rebels were about to blow up the Death Star anyway, and all three of them would have been vaporized no matter what the outcome of the little family drama. Unless you subscribe to the Legends theory that the only reason the Rebels even had a realistic shot at escaping the Emperor's trap was because he died suddenly, and his control over the Imperial forces vanished, throwing them into disarray.

A lot of the argument about this particular fight that I'm aware of stems actually from the RPGs, specifically WotC's iterations, where Vader was always statted up as a level 20 character, and Luke was maybe level 9 as of RotJ, leading to much headscratching about how a level 9 character could realistically defeat a level 20, and much Wild Mass Guessing about how that played out on the tabletop (the Emperor meddling in the fight with the Force to stack the odds in Luke's favor, Luke getting massive Dark Side bonuses to his attack rolls and defenses in the end, etc). But really, were you running the Star Wars films as an RPG, Vader wouldn't be a level 20 character. If Luke is level 9 in RotJ, and the GM expects Luke to beat Vader at the climax, then Vader should be no higher than level 11 or 12. A solid challenge, but not insurmountable. If Luke is, say, level 4 in ESB, Vader should be 7 or 8. An almost impossible-to-defeat opponent, but not so high that he can one-shot Luke (especially if the GM, like Vader, holds back and doesn't use his full array of attack options). Narratively, Luke had it in him to defeat Vader, and to save him.

I don't buy "not at physical peak" when the Force is their ally. Also, Rebels and the comics (canon thanks to the idiots at Disney) show that Vader has never taken a break from fighting with his saber.

Depends, the thing was with Vader is that he was never a fast or overly showy character, thus it's difficult to make out his emotional stance at the best of the time; the entire point of the mask and such was to de-humanize him. As such, it's nearly impossible to tell what he's thinking at the best of times, to the extent that my PC, having met him twice prior and having been captured him on Endor savaging the second shield generator, bluntly asked him. "Just curious Vader, but what motivates you to get up in the morning?" The sith lord was blankly looked at Tobin, looked at the stormtroopers, and then the ledge, before shaking his head slightly and walking on. Apparently having to explain to the emperor why he chucked a force emergent off a cliff for asking person questions was more effort then it was worth. XD

I'm of the opinion that he wasn't really a match for Luke on the second death star. Sure, he had the experience, but I think a combination of a unwieldy body, internal conflict pretty much tipped the scales the other way. I don't really feel he was holding back though because the Emperor was there, his best expectation for Luke's life at this point was to either kill him (which would have spared him a lot of the horror falling to the dark side would have) or that Luke would eventually draw on his full strength and strike him down and that Luke would finally eventually over come the Emperor when he could not. As such I don't think Vader had the luxury of pulling his punches in that setting, otherwise the emperor might have tired of him and just dealt with the problem himself though I'm not sure if he was fighting as smart as he could have been.

I think Luke is much more experienced then we give him credit for. He took on Jabba's barge in a completely disadvantageous position and came out more or less completely unscathed thanks to his abilities and some support, which I think is comparable to vader crushing an entire cramped corridor of rebel troops. I imagine, if they ever went ahead and remade the OT in the same manner that the rest of the star wars media did that those scenes would be much more heavy on the dramatic space wizardry. Sure, he lacked the experience and ultimately wasn't aiming to kill Vader but I never really got a sense that he was in any great danger of being defeated, just giving into his anger removed the mental block and made him crush Vader in a single exchange.

Edit: It is probably worth mentioning that it's something ambiguous. Of course, everyone has equal possibility to be right and in the end, I guess it really doesn't matter.

55 minutes ago, HappyDaze said:

I don't buy "not at physical peak" when the Force is their ally. Also, Rebels and the comics (canon thanks to the idiots at Disney) show that Vader has never taken a break from fighting with his saber.

Well, look at Yoda. Sure, he turns into a ball of spinny green death when he fights, but you can see it takes it's toll. He's even slower and more decrepit-looking after his fight with Dooku than he usually is. And it makes sense. . . if he's spending some of his Force energy on overcoming his aged body, it's energy he's not spending elsewhere.

Pretty neat seeing the variety of viewpoints on this battle. Anywho, here are my full thoughts on the duel between Luke and Vader, now that a few others have given their ideas.

First off, let's look at Darth Vader. At this point, he was 45 years old, wearing a suit that made him far more physically strong and durable than an organic had any right to be. 45 isn't what I consider "past the prime" of a typical Force User, but he was still limited by the fairly clunky and top-heavy suit. It is worth noting, however, that the suit didn't slow Vader's arm movement, just his mobility. So as far as swordsmanship is concerned, the suit didn't really limit him as much as many people think. He had also spent the past 23 years hunting down and killing Jedi, and engaging in various lightsaber duels in both canon and Legends. So while people try to reason that Vader hadn't dueled anyone in years by the time of ANH to explain the slower choreography, that's simply untrue. Vader, at the time of Return of the Jedi, was an extremely skilled powerhouse of a combatant, who had bested the likes of Kanan, Ahsoka, Commander Karbin (Who was basically an updated version of General Grievous), and many other lightsaber duelists. As for Force power, George Lucas claims Vader was 80% as powerful as the Emperor. He frequently displayed immense power in the Force, and is widely considered one of the most powerful Sith Lords of all time. In current canon, he's even more powerful than he had been portrayed in Legends, having only grown more powerful since he was placed in his armor.

Suffice to say, as a combatant, Vader was pretty much top tier, going by any source from both Legends and canon. So what was going through his mind during Return of the Jedi? Well, just from watching the movie, I see arguments both for and against Vader holding back, or at least not fighting to the best of his ability. To start with, his goal was to convert Luke, not kill him. And on top of that, Vader on Endor expressed regret at having become the monster that he is, and Luke repeatedly draws attention to the conflict within Vader. This is all strong evidence towards Vader not using his full power against Luke. However, we also get Vader repeatedly accepting the fact that he will have to kill his son in the same movie. When Luke confronts Vader on Endor: "I will not turn, and you'll be forced to kill me." "If that is your destiny." Or during the duel on the Death Star itself, where Vader twice tries to kill Luke while Luke's guard is down: "I will not fight you, father." Followed by Vader striking at Luke's head while Luke's lightsaber is deactivated, and stating, "You are unwise to lower your defenses!" And when Luke is on the catwalk, still refusing to fight, and Vader claims "If you will not fight, then you will meet your destiny!" before throwing his saber at Luke, again, while Luke's saber isn't activated. If Luke's reaction time wasn't so amazing, Luke would have died at either of these instances, which seems to imply that Vader had accepted the possibility of killing his son. To me, what this all boils down to is that Vader was going all out, in his mind, during that duel. He believed himself capable of killing Luke. After all, he'd already killed his wife, his father figure, several children, and countless others. What's one more body? But I also believe his internal conflict that Luke repeatedly draws attention to actually hampered Vader's power in the Dark Side of the Force. The inner struggle was there, as we eventually see at the very end, but Vader was in denial about it. I don't believe this had any huge impact, however, since we've seen conflicted characters still perform extremely well in combat, like when Anakin killed Dooku. He was conflicted about giving into his anger and hatred there ("You have hate! You have anger! But you do not use them."), since it wasn't the Jedi way, but he was still able to overcome one of the greatest duelists of all time. It's also worth noting that, if anything, Luke was even more conflicted during this duel. Struggling to not give into his own hate and anger for the Empire, the Emperor, the Sith, and even Vader, while at the same time not wanting to kill his own father.

Speaking of, Luke is much simpler to read in this fight. He doesn't want to kill Vader at the start of the battle. His aggression is toward Sidious, not Vader, and as soon as they're disengaged, Luke deactivates his lightsaber and states he doesn't want to fight Vader. This is the recurring theme throughout the entire movie, with Luke having told the same thing to Ben and Yoda earlier. It's abundantly clear that, at least at the start of the fight, Luke is clearly holding back. And yet, despite that, Luke is able to overpower Vader in the first 8 seconds of the battle, kicking his father down a flight of stairs. Of course, once Vader threatens to turn his attention to Leia, Luke allows his anger to get the best of him, and he makes short work of Darth Vader with his overwhelming aggression. To me, this seems to imply that Luke had truly surpassed Vader. He's able to hold off the Sith Lord while Luke himself is holding back, and when Luke cuts loose, he defeats Vader.

If we go even farther and look at either the official novelization (which is still considered canon), or the original Marvel comic adaptation, both of which were based on the movie's script, we actually get further insight into the duel. Both the novel and comic just flat-out tell us that Vader was giving the fight his all, and that Luke was holding back. And in the novel, when Vader is kicked down the flight of stairs, the Dark Lord feels humiliated and enraged that his own son has gotten the better of him. On the flip side, we learn that Luke is trying to hold back, but when he kicks Vader down the flight of stairs, he feels the overwhelming power of the Dark Side surging within him, and struggles to deny the temptation to give in to it. It's heavily implied that Palpatine was using the Force to tempt Luke during that scene, but nothing implies that Palpatine was actually influencing the fight in any way.

Finally, a fun bit of info I felt like sharing. There was actually a bit of extra choreography filmed for the duel that never made it into the movie. While this content isn't canon, since it never made it into the movie, it does tell us what direction the filmmakers intended to take the fight. Most of that content was shot to take place between the initial clash of lightsabers in front of Palpatine and the scene when Luke kicks Vader down a flight of stairs. There's not a whole lot, only about 15 seconds worth (Which still more than doubles the amount of dueling we get before Luke's claim that he doesn't want to fight Vader). However, during those 15 extra seconds, Luke is soundly overwhelming Vader. Maintaining the offensive during the entire encounter, either parrying and reposting or evading with a backflip any time Vader tries to gain the upper hand. It doesn't really change much, other than to show that at the very start of the fight Luke has the upper hand by quite a bit before he goes fully on the defensive out of a will to not fight his father.

So, to sum up, I believe that Luke was holding back during the duel by a large margin, and had actually surpassed Vader by that point. I also believe that Vader was going all-out, but may have been limited by his internal conflict. He wasn't deliberately holding back the way Luke was, but his mastery of the Dark Side may have been hampered by the love for his son. This is all backed up by scenes from the movie itself, context provided in both the novel and comic, and extra scenes that had never made it into the final movie. I'm not saying this is in any way definitive, and I might very well be wrong here. This is just how I view the fight, and how I came to the conclusions I have about it. Sorry if this was a bit long-winded. I suck at being concise and to-the-point.

With regards to Vader's full capabilities, it'd been said over in the EU that he simply wasn't as powerful as he was prior to his injuries on Mustafar, through a combination of cybernetics that were not of the best quality, a suit that was designed to be more of a hindrance than an asset, and frankly a crushing blow to his self-confidence that was perhaps the true root of his never achieving the potential he had back when he was Anakin Skywalker. He could still pull off impressive displays of power (such as what he did in the season two premiere of Rebels), but the need to pull off those sorts of feats were far and few between.

ErikModi is right in that for the most part, Vader hadn't really gone up against true Jedi Knights in some time, with Star Wars Rebels being an exception given his battle with Ahsoka Tano in the season two finale, the conclusion of which still isn't yet fully known; yeah Vader survived (he had to), but did he actually win, was it a draw, or did Ahsoka manage to win yet spare her former master's life? We've also seen Kanan grow considerably in his skill with a lightsaber, so even though he's been blinded it could be entirely possible that he could at this point put up a truly decent fight against Vader; he'd probably lose in the end as Vader is just better enough and likely not concerned with turning a former Jedi Padawan that he's got no emotional connection to, but it might not be quite the drubbing that Kanan took during their one fight in the opening of season two.

I've seen a number of theories trying to rationalize why the Vader vs. Obi-Wan fight was so tame (apart from one actor being an old man and the other a guy in a suit and helmet that limited mobility and visibility), including a recent one based upon Kenobi's utter crushing of Maul in S3 of Rebels that posited both Kenobi and Vader were weighed down by their respective emotional baggage as well as age to fully engage the other, and neither really knowing just how capable the other was at that point. Vader had at least learned not to be so brash and aggressive, and thus fought a more defensive fight against a master duelist, while Kenobi knew he was old and well past his prime (even if drawing upon the Force) and could tell that his old apprentice had drastically modified his fighting style to close up some of the weaknesses of Form V. So it's ultimately just a case of choose whichever theory you think best applies and run with it, since it's not likely we're going to get a proper canon explanation for it.

59 minutes ago, Donovan Morningfire said:

With regards to Vader's full capabilities, it'd been said over in the EU that he simply wasn't as powerful as he was prior to his injuries on Mustafar, through a combination of cybernetics that were not of the best quality, a suit that was designed to be more of a hindrance than an asset, and frankly a crushing blow to his self-confidence that was perhaps the true root of his never achieving the potential he had back when he was Anakin Skywalker. He could still pull off impressive displays of power (such as what he did in the season two premiere of Rebels), but the need to pull off those sorts of feats were far and few between.

ErikModi is right in that for the most part, Vader hadn't really gone up against true Jedi Knights in some time, with Star Wars Rebels being an exception given his battle with Ahsoka Tano in the season two finale, the conclusion of which still isn't yet fully known; yeah Vader survived (he had to), but did he actually win, was it a draw, or did Ahsoka manage to win yet spare her former master's life? We've also seen Kanan grow considerably in his skill with a lightsaber, so even though he's been blinded it could be entirely possible that he could at this point put up a truly decent fight against Vader; he'd probably lose in the end as Vader is just better enough and likely not concerned with turning a former Jedi Padawan that he's got no emotional connection to, but it might not be quite the drubbing that Kanan took during their one fight in the opening of season two.

I've seen a number of theories trying to rationalize why the Vader vs. Obi-Wan fight was so tame (apart from one actor being an old man and the other a guy in a suit and helmet that limited mobility and visibility), including a recent one based upon Kenobi's utter crushing of Maul in S3 of Rebels that posited both Kenobi and Vader were weighed down by their respective emotional baggage as well as age to fully engage the other, and neither really knowing just how capable the other was at that point. Vader had at least learned not to be so brash and aggressive, and thus fought a more defensive fight against a master duelist, while Kenobi knew he was old and well past his prime (even if drawing upon the Force) and could tell that his old apprentice had drastically modified his fighting style to close up some of the weaknesses of Form V. So it's ultimately just a case of choose whichever theory you think best applies and run with it, since it's not likely we're going to get a proper canon explanation for it.

The EU went back and forth on Vader's power, honestly. Various books said various things about him. The most commonly accepted was Dark Lord: The Rise of Darth Vader, which said he lost a good chunk of his potential, but other books referred to Return of the Jedi Vader as being more powerful than he had ever been.

However, this idea that Vader is weaker than Anakin is contradicted in the current canon. Dark Lords of the Sith tells us that Vader is more powerful than Anakin had been. This is also backed up in the 2015 Darth Vader comic. The new 2017 Vader comic also tells us that Vader is satisfied with his suit, and it also shows him tampering with the suit (to repair it). This shows us that Vader could have done upgrades to his suit throughout the years, so it's less likely in canon that the suit hindered Vader as much as Legends tried to tell us.

For the idea that Vader hadn't fought a Jedi Knight for years, in the first episode of Rebels, there's a bonus scene with Vader and the Inquisitor, in which Vader tells the Inquisitor that "The Jedi Knights are all but destroyed. And yet your task is not complete, Inquisitor." With the way Vader says it, it implies that the supposed last of the Jedi were only recently destroyed. I'd speculate that the Inquisitor had just finished a mission in which he killed a Jedi before he was contacted by Vader. This would imply that for 15 years, Vader and the Inquisitorius were still hunting down Jedi. Which makes sense, since the Inquisitors wouldn't be such high-ranking Imperials if they were just sitting around doing nothing. They had to have been doing something to earn their pay. And I seriously doubt Vader just sat around letting the Inquisitors do all the Jedi hunting without getting involved himself from time to time. This would give Vader consistent lightsaber duels pretty much straight through to the original trilogy, with 15 years of Jedi hunting coming to an end at the start of Rebels, then a duel the following year against Kanan and Ezra, a duel several months later against Ahsoka, and presumably duels against Kanan and Ezra a couple years later (in season 4, or so I hope). That doesn't really leave much of a gap in which Vader would become rusty with a lightsaber.

As for the Vader and Kenobi duel, there's a lot of ways you could speculate on that one. Personally, I feel like Kenobi's goal was never to win the duel, simply to try and get to the hangar and escape, or to die trying. Once he lead the duel to the hangar and found he was boxed in by Stormtroopers, he knew there wasn't really an out for him. So instead he stalled for time until he felt confident the others could escape. For the actual fighting, I feel like Vader was being overly cautious. After all, the last time he saw Kenobi, the old man cut off his legs and one of his arms and left him to burn by a river of lava. Several of the old Legends sources even show a time or two that Old Ben caught Vader off guard during that duel and nearly killed the Sith Lord due to Vader's overconfidence toward the end. Kenobi was definitely a threat to Vader, as he clearly kept up on his lightsaber training (As evidenced by him stomping Maul), and if Vader hadn't been as cautious to cut loose, he might actually have left himself open to Kenobi, just like he did against Luke in Episode V when Luke struck him on the shoulder. So basically I think Vader was being cautious so as not to underestimate this notoriously tricky master, and Kenobi wasn't actually invested in defeating Vader, just making sure his allies escaped. After all, if Kenobi lost, he still won by becoming more powerful than Vader could possibly imagine.

3 hours ago, Underachiever599 said:

As for the Vader and Kenobi duel, there's a lot of ways you could speculate on that one. Personally, I feel like Kenobi's goal was never to win the duel, simply to try and get to the hangar and escape, or to die trying. Once he lead the duel to the hangar and found he was boxed in by Stormtroopers, he knew there wasn't really an out for him. So instead he stalled for time until he felt confident the others could escape.

There is that, but I think it's also somewhat pointless to over-speculate about the E4 duel. The intent was two masters fighting, but behind the scenes there wasn't a lot of time for choreography, the sabers themselves kept breaking, and Alec Guiness was old (recall the scene when Ford pops out of the Falcon's smuggling compartments and sits on the edge...Guiness tries, gives this feeble little jump, and doesn't have the strength to press himself up). The funny thing is people were still pretty wowed by the saber fight at the time, there was plenty there to inspire kids everywhere to engage in backyard re-enactments. Not to mention a lot of things changed once Star Wars was revealed to be a blockbuster, and Lucas could afford to have Hamill and the guy in the Vader suit spend a ton of time learning real sword-fighting to prepare for the next movies.

Some people complain about Lucas revisiting his movies and changing them. I'm sure if he could have found a way to re-shoot that scene to be more dynamic, either animated or inserted Andy Zerkis with motion capture, he'd have done so. So I just take the scene as it appears to have been intended: a battle between two masters. I agree Kenobi probably knew his physical time was coming to an end, but I'm not sure that necessarily informs the exact moves fight we saw.

On 9/16/2017 at 1:55 PM, Underachiever599 said:

The overwhelming consensus I've seen online any time that fight is discussed seems to be that Vader only lost because he was holding back the whole time.

I think there is validity in the "he was holding back" argument, if only because it's pretty clear that he and the Emperor weren't trying to kill him, they were trying to Turn Him . I mean they set this up at the very beginning, when Vader is talking to Palps, and suggests turning him. The whole fight, was an ever increasing pressure cooker for Luke's emotions, trying to push him to give into his anger, which would make him more easily turned to the Dark. I don't know about it's the only reason he lost. I think Luke was a very capable fighter by that point, and he gave as good as he got at some points. The issue is that neither side really wanted to kill the other. Luke wanted to try and turn his father, and his father wanted to turn him. The fight, was simply the action interplay between their appeals to emotions on either side.

On 9/16/2017 at 1:55 PM, Underachiever599 said:

So what do you guys think about the duel?

I bleeping love the duel. I love it for the nostalgic emotional hit I get when I watch it (I saw it in the theater as a kid when it first released and that movie branded it's place on my brain.), and I love it simply for the climactic, emotional weight of it. The way the music swells as Luke finally gives into his anger, his furious cry of "Darth!!" not "Father", showing he no longer sees the man as his father, but simply as a threat. The silhouetted battle as he pushes Vader back, and back. The vocal chanting giving a very ominous and portentous weight to what was happening. The way Mark Hamill totally sells the rage as he just bases on the saber over and over, his furious screams with each smash. The triumphant grimace of victory as he looks down at his father right after he chops the hand off, like he's ready for more. The way Palps then cuts in, cackling like a loon, and cheering Luke on, the way Luke realizes what he's done, and then tosses the saber aside. The look of utter disappointment on Palps' face when he sees his ploy didn't work. The way Vader watches the electrocution of his son, and without any actual facial features, and simply turning his head a bit (and some good camera work zooming in on his mask) we can see his internal struggle, culminating in him tossing the Emperor over, and how the music dies down to a somber, lost tone to it, punctuated by the gasping respirator sounds of Vader.

It's just, really bleeping good. It had more emotional weight and stakes in it than all of the prequel battles, with all their jumps and flips.

On 9/16/2017 at 1:55 PM, Underachiever599 said:

Was Luke actually better than Vader at that point?

No, but I do think he got the jump on Vader there at the end. Vader is clearly surprised when Luke jumps up and goes all out on him. I think, having lost the metaphorical "high ground" at that point, he was fighting a defensive retreat, and Luke simply wasn't giving him any time to properly defend. I mean, he did give into his anger, and the Dark Side is more than happy to give such a person a LOT of power. He was in the prime of his youth, fueled by anger, and holding nothing back. That's not the kind of enemy you easily overcome in any situation.

He yelled "Darth!"? I always thought it was "Neverrrr!"

3 hours ago, Daronil said:

He yelled "Darth!"? I always thought it was "Neverrrr!"

Always sounded like Darth, and his mouth seemed to move more in the Darth shape. Could be wrong, but that's how I always read it.

Either way, strong emotions as he stops trying to convert him and just goes for his throat

1 hour ago, KungFuFerret said:

Always sounded like Darth, and his mouth seemed to move more in the Darth shape. Could be wrong, but that's how I always read it.

Either way, strong emotions as he stops trying to convert him and just goes for his throat

I just popped it on with subtitles, and it has "Never!"

But you're absolutely right; it was that moment that Luke basically lost the plot and threw aside all notions of redeeming Vader. And I think that's when not only did Luke see Vader in himself, but Vader also saw Luke in himself. He saw what he could have been, saw Luke's refusal to fall, even after he was briefly consumed by the dark side. He remember his loss - of his friendships, his mother, his father-in-all-but-name, and his wife, and how that grief had destroyed him, and he saw the one person left in the universe who loved him being destroyed by the origin of so much of his pain - and that's when he decided he'd had enough of Palpatine.

Sorry...waxing philosophical there for a bit!

I love the drama of that duel.

I think there are two important factors that are not evident on screen.

1. I think Palpatine was bolstering Vader's resolve and strength through the Force and suppressing Luke. When Luke had his moment of anger, Palpatine flip flopped this because he could see that the younger, undisfigured Skywalker had the greater potential now (Think Battle Meditation and Ebb/Flow powers).

2. I think at Bespin Vader realized that he could not kill Luke. I think he was deceiving himself and by extension the Emperor and that this disrupted his effectiveness. He was struggling to keep the Emperor from realizing the truth (by sensing his feelings or foreseeing Vader's betrayal) as well as trying to find a way out of this scenario that preserved his son and his power base.

So in that moment Luke stopped holding back for the first time and was bolstered by Palpatine, while Vader had his strings cut and, while defending himself, realized he truly couldn't strike to kill his son even to save himself.

Just my two cents.

rereading the book, Vader accepted that he may have to ki ll Luke, but his saber throw was worded more like a warning shot, to get him to fight.

There is at least one episode of Rebels where he takes on Ashoka and fights to a stand still. I haven't seen the later seasons, but the impression is he pummeled her into the Sith temple they were in. There's also a question of who trained or is training Inquisitors after season 1. I want to say this puts him about 15 years after Revenge of the Sith as Leia makes an appearance as a teen during Season 2 if memory serves.

On ‎9‎/‎17‎/‎2017 at 7:23 AM, ErikModi said:

Well, Vader still has a lot of handicaps going against him even in that fight.

For starters, it's pretty obvious that, by the time of ANH, Vader hadn't fought another lightsaber-wielding opponent for quite some time. The Jedi had been eradicated for over ten years, so Vader's skills were getting rusty (yes, he was a one-man Mook Horror Show in Rogue One, but none of those opponents had lightsabers. That was the kind of fight he'd been fighting for the last ten years or so. When he faces Obi-Wan in ANH, he's very out-of-practice for that kind of fight). He clearly brushed up a bit between ANH and ESB, but still wasn't in top form. Vader's in his forties or fifties by this point, and while the cybernetics (and likely his life support suit) do a lot to offset the ravages of age, he's still not in his prime. Then there's the bulky suit to contend with, and possibly the subpar cybernetics to deal with, as well. And his extensive injuries. Vader indeed could have ended Luke any time during that fight, but if he'd been up against a Mace Windu or Obi-Wan in their prime, he'd have been toasted. Between ESB and RotJ, Luke indeed got a LOT better, but Donovan has the right of it in that both were holding back for the majority of the duel. But Luke is in his physical prime, and while he's still learning to be a Jedi, he's probably at or near his physical peak here. Vader is well past it, and probably still struggling to get back a lot of what he lost after he got stuck in the armor and let his skills atrophy. Vader's still got the edge in experience and raw strength, but Luke's got it pretty much everywhere else.

On 9/17/2017 at 11:41 PM, whafrog said:

There is that, but I think it's also somewhat pointless to over-speculate about the E4 duel. The intent was two masters fighting, but behind the scenes there wasn't a lot of time for choreography, the sabers themselves kept breaking, and Alec Guiness was old (recall the scene when Ford pops out of the Falcon's smuggling compartments and sits on the edge...Guiness tries, gives this feeble little jump, and doesn't have the strength to press himself up). The funny thing is people were still pretty wowed by the saber fight at the time, there was plenty there to inspire kids everywhere to engage in backyard re-enactments. Not to mention a lot of things changed once Star Wars was revealed to be a blockbuster, and Lucas could afford to have Hamill and the guy in the Vader suit spend a ton of time learning real sword-fighting to prepare for the next movies.

On 9/17/2017 at 6:11 PM, Donovan Morningfire said:

I've seen a number of theories trying to rationalize why the Vader vs. Obi-Wan fight was so tame (apart from one actor being an old man and the other a guy in a suit and helmet that limited mobility and visibility), including a recent one based upon Kenobi's utter crushing of Maul in S3 of Rebels that posited both Kenobi and Vader were weighed down by their respective emotional baggage as well as age to fully engage the other, and neither really knowing just how capable the other was at that point. Vader had at least learned not to be so brash and aggressive, and thus fought a more defensive fight against a master duelist, while Kenobi knew he was old and well past his prime (even if drawing upon the Force) and could tell that his old apprentice had drastically modified his fighting style to close up some of the weaknesses of Form V. So it's ultimately just a case of choose whichever theory you think best applies and run with it, since it's not likely we're going to get a proper canon explanation for it.

Some (myself included) consider Vader's duel with Obi-Wan to be the best sword fight in the series. The footwork is decent, there are feints and defensive repositioning, cautious feeling-out of the opponent. It has hallmarks of a samurai duel, where the contest will be decided by a single strike on your unarmored opponent.

The majority of lightsaber fights in the other movies are fun to watch, but a little ridiculous.

On 9/17/2017 at 6:11 PM, Donovan Morningfire said:

I've seen a number of theories trying to rationalize why the Vader vs. Obi-Wan fight was so tame (apart from one actor being an old man and the other a guy in a suit and helmet that limited mobility and visibility)

What I find so funny, and so telling about nerd culture, is the compulsive NEED to explain it any more than that. It's like they can't divorce the fantasy of something they are shown, with the reality of the way stories are produced. It's like the way some rabid Trek fans rant and froth that the shows pre-Original Series look more sleek and high tech. Implying that in 300 years from now, they would make star ships out of cardboard and plastic cups with christmas lights. Instead of just being fine with "yeah it was the late 60's/early 70's, and Rodenberry had jack to work with on the production side and on his TV budget". But NOOO, somehow that crappy design has to be canon, and thus has to be explained away. Nevermind that if Rodenberry had today's supplies for set design, it would likely look just as sleek and actually futuristic.

I mean, loving something passionately is fine, but when your love for it eclipses reason and reality, it's a problem.

I dunno. I thought DS9 handled it nicely by giving Dax a throwaway line about always having a soft spot for Starfleet’s retro design aesthetic during that period.

It’s when a property can’t be bothered to abide by its own rules that I have a problem.

1 hour ago, Nytwyng said:

I dunno. I thought DS9 handled it nicely by giving Dax a throwaway line about always having a soft spot for Starfleet’s retro design aesthetic during that period.

It’s when a property can’t be bothered to abide by its own rules that I have a problem.

I'm not talking about the shows themselves, I'm talking about the fans that flipped out when Enterprise came out, and the movie reboots, and were complaining that it didn't look old like the show from the 60's. That episode of DS 9 was all about showing love to the original show, while at the same time pointing out how silly it was "THOSE are Klingons?!?" *look at Worf* "What happened?!" "....we don't talk about it." I mean that's great stuff.

I'm talking about the compulsive need by some fans, like the ones that Donovan mentioned above, that feel they HAVE to justify in-canon why something was a particular way, because it doesn't make sense retro-actively.

I mean, the fact that both actors weren't martial artists, and back in the 70's, having trained, skilled martial artists to train your actors wasn't as ubiquitous as it is today. And that one actor was old, and another was in a giant box for a helmet that he couldn't see out of. They can't just let it go at that. No, they have to theorize, and postulate ridiculous excuses for why the fight was about as good as you could get on a small budget in the 70's, instead of 30 years later, with bajillions of dollars, and access to a world wide network of martial artists and stuntmen to make the action look better.

No, it's got to be stuff like "Vader was failing as his cybernetics died off, so he was getting weaker and weaker." or "There was that thing that happened in *insert fandom lore* where he got hurt, and now he's weakened." etc etc. And then they fight over it as if it's actually supported fact. It just, baffles me to no end. It's like 2 kids playing guns, and one shouts "I shot you!" and the other yells "No you didn't! Force Field!" and neither of them seems to realize that it's all make believe. And yet now they are yelling at each other about the validity of something completely fabricated in their own heads.

*Edit*

And I've realized that I'm teetering dangerously close to derailing this thread, so I will end on this:

The RotJ final duel was awesomesauce, and I slurp it up every time I watch the film. The emotional reaction I got from seeing that as a kid is something I hope for whenever I watch any kind of film or tv with action and drama.

One final (?) thought on that derailment—

I’d put Enterprise in that bucket of “not following their own rules.” Ignoring that, for most of its run, it was just a lousy paint-by-numbers show that wasted a great cast, they put themselves into the corner of wanting to play with toys that shouldn’t have been in the box yet, because that’s what they thought viewers wanted. They lost most of their audience, even when much of that audience was still watching. The nonsense of the CBS All Access model aside, Discovery looks to be walking into that same trap.

But, I get where you’re coming from.

11 hours ago, KungFuFerret said:

I mean, loving something passionately is fine, but when your love for it eclipses reason and reality, it's a problem.

Josh Lyman, in The West Wing , summed it up nicely when he said: "That's not being a fan. That's having a fetish."

I remember years ago talking to a guy online who was a pretty high-level practitioner of kendo (kind of the equivalent of a brown belt in karate, or somesuch). Kendo, for those who don't know, is basically the "samurai" martial art. It's duelling with cane swords, and represents katana sword fighting, and it was what the Ep V & VI duels were based on.

Anyway, I remember him saying that he'd watched quite a few kendo duels between "grand masters" of the sport, and the Ep IV duel was the one that resembled them most closely. No flashy moves, no flailing away, attacking your opponent's weapon instead of him. No leaps and dives and rolls. Just minimal movement to conserve energy, keeping your weapon between you and your opponent, feeling out his speed and movement, and preparing for a single strike. I would be very interested to catch up with him and get his take on the Rebels Obi-Wan vs Maul fight...it almost reminded me of the samurai iajutsu concept of draw-strike-resheathe in the blink of an eye that's a staple of Eastern stories.

12 minutes ago, Daronil said:

Josh Lyman, in The West Wing , summed it up nicely when he said: "That's not being a fan. That's having a fetish."

Yeah, but how did he fare falling down the rabbit hole of lemonlyman.com?