Anakin's turn

[Jim Raynor]

You already did it and couldn't find anything juicy enough,

HAHAHA, you just made my day.

PS: The entire point of the Yoda sequence and Luke trying several times to get his lightsaber in the cave is that Luke is still playing in the minor leagues. You still have no fucking clue about the movies themselves. Please stop embarrassing yourself.

What's embarassing is that you won't acknowledge that Luke acquires entire new skillsets (and a new attitude) denoting years of training and maturation between movies. But of course, his limitations in TESB show that he was just as noob as when he first heard of the Jedi in ANH.

Just admit it. OT Star Wars is just a set of movies, not a sacred cow that's beyond criticism (if you can even call what I'm saying in this thread about it "criticism"). Movie sequels set years apart will show changes in the characters, as a norm. Because few people want a sequel set immediately after the previous movie, with the character still not changed yet because everything needs to be tediously spelled out onscreen as if the audience is too stupid to fill in the blanks.

[Bakustra]

You already did it and couldn't find anything juicy enough,

HAHAHA, you just made my day.

Are you seriously trying to blackmail me? WTF dude, criminal and totally uncalled for.

PS: The entire point of the Yoda sequence and Luke trying several times to get his lightsaber in the cave is that Luke is still playing in the minor leagues. You still have no fucking clue about the movies themselves. Please stop embarrassing yourself.

What's embarassing is that you won't acknowledge that Luke acquires entire new skillsets (and a new attitude) denoting years of training and maturation between movies. But of course, his limitations in TESB show that he was just as noob as when he first heard of the Jedi in ANH.

Just admit it. OT Star Wars is just a set of movies, not a sacred cow that's beyond criticism (if you can even call what I'm saying in this thread about it "criticism"). Movie sequels set years apart will show changes in the characters, as a norm. Because few people want a sequel set immediately after the previous movie, with the character still not changed yet because everything needs to be tediously spelled out onscreen as if the audience is too stupid to fill in the blanks.

"just as noob"? Ah, I see why you were going all "u mad" on me- projection!

In any case, your second paragraph has nothing to do with what I'm saying and is in fact just a sign of your Patrick Bateman-like insanity. I look forward to seeing you in the police blotter.

[Jim Raynor]

I'll bother writing a real response when you do Bakustra!

PS: Not everyone is failing to "understand" you all the time. Say that enough and you sound emo.

[Bakustra]

I'll bother writing a real response when you do Bakustra!

PS: Not everyone is failing to "understand" you all the time. Say that enough and you sound emo.

"Emo"? Didn't that die out three years ago or so? Guess you're not with the zeitgeist, Jimmy.

[Jim Raynor]

OK Bakustra, be honest with me for a moment (if you are capable of such a thing). Because I'm not interested in several rounds of 1-3 sentence posts amounting to "No YOU'RE stupid!"

Do you seriously wait around in the Star Wars forum your chance to troll and derail another thread?

Does it burn you up inside to know that Luke displays huge changes between movies, way bigger than "Anakin and Obi-Wan are in a better mood today?"
Is that why you've stopped bothering to address that point at all?

No, I don't expect you to cut your crap. Congratulations on another thread made stupid.

[Bakustra]

My ravens fly to and fro, alerting me to your posts
I ask for my computer from the assembl'd ghosts
I take mouse and board up, set aside my old cup
And gird myself to puncture your unseemly odd boasts

[aussiemuscle308]

Yeah see, I could buy that Anikan became a nutjob because of slavery. It totally makes sense, but we never see anything besides a mention that he's property. There was no setup...

Slavery is not all bare backs and whipping. try growing up with everyone telling you are property and will always be. I think as a child he would have accepted his life until he was old enough to resent it (and may have eventually killed that blue flying fellow)

[Metahive]

It was in the movies. I picked up on all of that when I watched the movies for the first time, as a teenager.

Yeah, and according to pious Muslims the Qur'an contains the entirety of modern science too.

Slavery is not all bare backs and whipping. try growing up with everyone telling you are property and will always be. I think as a child he would have accepted his life until he was old enough to resent it (and may have eventually killed that blue flying fellow)

The slavery background plays no role in Anakin's future motivations, excising it would change nothing of importance. That's the point of criticism, it's superfluous.

[Jim Raynor]

It was in the movies. I picked up on all of that when I watched the movies for the first time, as a teenager.

Yeah, and according to pious Muslims the Qur'an contains the entirety of modern science too.

See, it's one thing to say that you just didn't care for it, and that it didn't entertain you. That's a pure subjective opinion which no one can argue away. But you are insisting that it's not there at all, which is another thing entirely.

Attachment issues? The movie makes it very clear that Anakin had trouble letting go of his mother, and the Jedi clearly call him on that. Anakin's mother later dies in his arms, an event that causes his first major dip into the Dark Side. He swears not to let the same thing happen to Padme in ROTS, which contributes to his fall.

Simplistic morality and Messiah complex? When he was a boy, Anakin dreamed about being a Jedi and freeing all he slaves. He initially thinks that's what Qui-Gon's mission is, because that's what he expected the good guys to do (having no idea of how a real government works). In Episode II, Anakin and Padme talk about the political problems in the Republic, and Anakin says that someone should just take charge and get things done. Padme tells him that his idea sounds like a dictatorship, in case the viewer couldn't piece that together. Anakin repeatedly talks about gaining power, so that he can set things right and protect the people around him. He openly rants about that after he falls to the Dark Side.

Desire to control his own life? He started as a slave, and upgraded to a monk. He repeatedly chafes under Obi-Wan's strict control, and says that he want to do things his way.

The slavery background plays no role in Anakin's future motivations, excising it would change nothing of importance. That's the point of criticism, it's superfluous.

Starting as a slave meant that he was not in control of his life, which would be one of his hang ups even into adulthood. He initially thought that the Jedi and the Republic would free the slaves, but that wasn't what they wanted to do. Thus Anakin has little respect for the political bureaucracy. Unlike Obi-Wan, who just wants to strictly follow orders, Anakin's view of his Jedi duties is to take on more and more, and to do whatever he can to help people. Being a slave also meant that he had little more than his mother, who was taken from him. It sets up what comes later.

Could you excise it? You could excise Luke being a farmboy. Luke's boring childhood can be removed from the script without too much trouble. That's no any kind of point though, because it obviously fills up time in the movie and serves a purpose.

[Kane Starkiller]

Attachment issues? The movie makes it very clear that Anakin had trouble letting go of his mother, and the Jedi clearly call him on that.

Completely untrue. Almost every 9 year old boy would have to be dragged crying, kicking and screaming upon learning that he had to move away from his mother perhaps never to see her again. Absolutely nothing about that makes Anakin special, in fact he was quite calm about the whole thing.

Simplistic morality and Messiah complex? When he was a boy, Anakin dreamed about being a Jedi and freeing all he slaves. He initially thinks that's what Qui-Gon's mission is, because that's what he expected the good guys to do (having no idea of how a real government works).

Again almost every boy dreams about being an astronaut, star athlete or Superman. Nothing special about Anakin in this regard either. Nor is there anything special about a boy not understanding how government works. Just a boy being a boy and no trace of some great setup by Lucas to foreshadow his ultimate fall.

In Episode II, Anakin and Padme talk about the political problems in the Republic, and Anakin says that someone should just take charge and get things done. Padme tells him that his idea sounds like a dictatorship, in case the viewer couldn't piece that together.

Yes subtlety is not one of Lucas' strong suits no argument there. The problem is Lucas doesn't seem to know what he wants Anakin to be. In this scene he kind of sounds like a Republic nationalist ("now you're starting to sound like the separatists") but it doesn't go anywhere.

Desire to control his own life? He started as a slave, and upgraded to a monk. He repeatedly chafes under Obi-Wan's strict control, and says that he want to do things his way.

You know you remind me of those guys that claim they can speak with the dead "I'm getting something...is there someone to whom name Jack means anything...or the name Jenny...someone with the names Jack or Jenny in the family...they are trying to contact you".
Just like them you're trying to take the character traits of pretty much every person on the planet (wants to do things his way, complaining about authority figures during teenage and early adolescence years, dreaming about being a big hero as a kid, not wanting to move away from mom...) as some sort of big setups by Lucas that logically and smoothly portray his slide to kiddy killer. It's bullshit.

Could you excise it? You could excise Luke being a farmboy. Luke's boring childhood can be removed from the script without too much trouble. That's no any kind of point though, because it obviously fills up time in the movie and serves a purpose.

Except Luke's path from wanting to do something more with his life and be a hero to loosing his family and becoming a hero are actually logical and one follows from another. On the other hand Anakin goes from boy being a boy to killing kids. There is no rhyme or reason to any of it.

[Jim Raynor]

Attachment issues? The movie makes it very clear that Anakin had trouble letting go of his mother, and the Jedi clearly call him on that.

Completely untrue. Almost every 9 year old boy would have to be dragged crying, kicking and screaming upon learning that he had to move away from his mother perhaps never to see her again. Absolutely nothing about that makes Anakin special, in fact he was quite calm about the whole thing.

So it's "completely untrue" even though you acknowledge that it's there, because you say other kids can display that trait as well? Same goes for how you try to dismiss all the other traits he shows. That's like saying Luke wasn't bored with small town life and yearning for adventure, because lost of teenagers in his situation would be. Having traits which are not uncommon does not equal a lack of the trait at all.

The Jedi outright say he has fear and attachment issues, certainly not to their usual standards of detachment. Anakin internalized that, because he's the sort to let his problems build up. All of his attachment issues are made even more blatant in the following movies.

In Episode II, Anakin and Padme talk about the political problems in the Republic, and Anakin says that someone should just take charge and get things done. Padme tells him that his idea sounds like a dictatorship, in case the viewer couldn't piece that together.

Yes subtlety is not one of Lucas' strong suits no argument there. The problem is Lucas doesn't seem to know what he wants Anakin to be. In this scene he kind of sounds like a Republic nationalist ("now you're starting to sound like the separatists") but it doesn't go anywhere.

You're talking about a different scene, which is in Episode III. And yes it was very blatant that he favors heavy handed, simplistic solutions backed up by power. It was very clear what Anakin was. In the Episode III scene, that was to show that he was someone who wouldn't give up on the fight, or seek a compromise and allow evil doers to go free. He would not tolerate Padme suggesting that his battles had been doing any good. Anakin was fighting for the right side, his enemies the Separatists were evil and thus had to be defeated. A very simplistic, fascist way to look at things.

Except Luke's path from wanting to do something more with his life and be a hero to loosing his family and becoming a hero are actually logical and one follows from another. On the other hand Anakin goes from boy being a boy to killing kids. There is no rhyme or reason to any of it.

More like boy with big dreams, no freedom, and a lost mother...to supposed hero with the same big ambitions and lack of freedom, along with a dead mother...to someone who is utterly gripped by his fear of loss, making him vulnerable to falling to the Dark Side.

Yes, that same Dark Side which almost magically turned Luke, someone with no serious emotional issues, into a pawn of evil.

[Channel72]

See, it's one thing to say that you just didn't care for it, and that it didn't entertain you. That's a pure subjective opinion which no one can argue away. But you are insisting that it's not there at all, which is another thing entirely.

When I read your responses it's almost as if you're satisfied that a certain concept was there in theory, regardless of how strong it came across onscreen. Like...

Attachment issues? The movie makes it very clear that Anakin had trouble letting go of his mother, and the Jedi clearly call him on that.

We all know that's what Lucas was going for. In TPM, Anakin is of course upset when he says goodbye to his mother - but he's like 9 years old, so how is this indiciative of some sort of personal weakness in Anakin's character? It's also overshadowed by the fact that this same little kid is pretty eager to go off with the Jedi.

Anakin's mother later dies in his arms, an event that causes his first major dip into the Dark Side.

Anakin's attachment to his mother only becomes a major theme in AOTC, because in TPM he was a little child - his affection for his mother is indistinguishable from how any other child would behave. Your response to Kane Starkiller regarding this point is asinine, because you're arguing that Anakin's attachment to his mother is supposed to be a major personal weakness and one of the main vectors towards his turn to the dark side. If Anakin's character weakness is indistinguishable from how a normal child acts, how are we supposed to know it's supposed to be a personal flaw? It would be like saying that Anakin was prone to depression because we saw him cry when he was 5 years old.

This is a major reason why having Anakin as a 10 year old boy was an absolutely criticial mistake at the writing stage. Any 10 year old child is going to be totally different than their adult self - an almost completely different character. So, in essence, Anakin really isn't even in TPM, and any character development that happens in TPM is going to be either irrelevant or only very weakly connected with Anakin's character arc in the later movies.

He swears not to let the same thing happen to Padme in ROTS, which contributes to his fall.

Contributes to his fall? His fear that Padme will die is like 99.9% of the reason for his fall. All the other factors (need to exert control, favoring simple direct solutions, pissed off at Sebulba?) are merely background noise by the time Anakin slices off Samuel L. Jackson's hand.

But yeah, the theme of Anakin's fear of losing loved ones is definitely present in AOTC and ROTS. I think the reason it never worked for me was that of all the reasons to turn to the Dark Side (the allure of power, need to impose order, personal ambition, etc), fear of losing loved ones is really the last thing that I would have gone with. Yes, fear of losing a loved one is peripherally connected with the idea of "the allure of power", because with power you can prevent loved ones from dying (I guess that's the logic), but that connection is pretty tenuous. Also, the fear of losing a loved one isn't really something I'd consider a character flaw. I'm afraid of losing loved ones (isn't everyone?) - but that doesn't make me thirst to control the universe. In fact, depicting this as a character flaw which leads to Anakin's fall is more of an indictment against the stupid Jedi doctrine than it is of Anakin as a person.

Really, there are so many more compelling ways to write Anakin's fall. For example, perhaps Anakin is a good man, but his experiences throughout the Clone Wars make him grow disillusioned with the Jedi because they won't do what's necessary to win. There was a good scene in one of the cartoons where Anakin secretly force chokes a prisoner to get information, because the Jedi are unwilling to resort to such methods. That's the sort of thing we should have seen Anakin doing in the films, because (1) it's more in line with what we know about Darth Vader, (2) everyone can relate to the temptation to resort to forceful solutions (even when we know better), and (3) it's an actual character flaw, as opposed to just being "too attached to people."

[jollyreaper]

Changes in time skips work if they are setup.

High school friends leaving for college, one wants ro be an engineer, one goes military, one goes for college sports.

Ten years later the engineer is working aerospace, check. Military guy is a disabled drug case. Wtf? Oh, WIA and PTSD, that tracks. Football guy is a high finance yuppie serial killer. Wrf? Wait, no, still doesn't make any sense, especially if no groundwork was laid for him to be a manipulative and abusive psychopath in the first place. That's out of character. Now you could derail his arc if his wife was killed in a drive-by and he devotes his life to cleaning up the inner city. Character the same, motives changed.

The original trilogy time jumps make sense because the characters follow a plausible arc. We can see Leia falling for Han. We don't see it with orphan Annie and Padme.

Personally, I can buy Anakin becoming Darth only after disfigurement. That's when he feels completely betrayed and willing to exterminate the Jedi. But he would need more time in Palpy's orbit and would have to originally go down the path seeing it as good. Stupid squabbling republic can't keep itself out of war, evil men prosper and the good are crushed. Someone must provide order. Jedi don't preserve peace, they preserve decay and rot. They enable the evil of the status quo. The Sith is about the power to bring change, to make manifest one's will. If I envision good, good will come of it. I won't get drunk on power, I won't abuse it.

It felt more like Jedi are bad! Blah, I'm a Darth now. Must kill children herp derp. Oh noes! Floor is lava. Stomp stomp in my robot suit! Where Padme? Noooo!

[Jim Raynor]

When I read your responses it's almost as if you're satisfied that a certain concept was there in theory, regardless of how strong it came across onscreen. Like...

Attachment issues? The movie makes it very clear that Anakin had trouble letting go of his mother, and the Jedi clearly call him on that.

We all know that's what Lucas was going for.

"How it comes across onscreen" is personal opinion, and is thus subjective and not the point that I was disputing. We have people in this very thread denying that it was there at all.

In TPM, Anakin is of course upset when he says goodbye to his mother - but he's like 9 years old, so how is this indiciative of some sort of personal weakness in Anakin's character?

It's not a personal weakness, at the start. The point was that it didn't fit with the standards of the Jedi, who lacked compassion and understanding. They criticized and distrusted him over something natural and understandable. He was embittered after years of this kind of treatment, and he allowed his resentment to fester and eventually overcome him. He suffered later tragedies, which only reinforced these emotional issues.

That is the point. That something good, normal, and full of potential was screwed up by the lousy environment that the Jedi provided for Anakin, as well as his own inability to rise above it. It's supposed to be a tragedy. Anakin wasn't supposed to be a scary little monster in the beginning.

Really, we're at the level of saying that other kids like their moms, so Anakin being attached to his own mother somehow doesn't count. As if other, normal kids are taken from their mothers like that. Other kids aren't signed up to be detached warrior monks for life. Other kids aren't raised by uncompassionate old men who tell them that everything they feel is wrong. This stuff is not subtle. It's outright stated onscreen.

If Anakin's character weakness is indistinguishable from how a normal child acts, how are we supposed to know it's supposed to be a personal flaw?

Continuing from the above, Anakin clearly does not act like a "normal" kid of his age. Someone dismissively said earlier in this thread that every kid dreams about being Superman. Yes, but that's just playing. Most kids do not "only think of others" as Anakin was described. Most kids do not confidently tell off adult alien thugs, as Anakin did when Sebulba picked a fight with Jar Jar. Most kids do not invite complete strangers into their home to protect them from a sandstorm, and most kids do not jump into a race car with the intention of giving away all of their winnings to those strangers. Most kids also do not rebuild complex machinery, as a gift to their mother.

Most kids are however, quite self-centered and concerned only with play time. Anakin was not indistinguishable from these sorts of kids. It was pretty clear to me that he was highly unusual, as fictional movie characters tend to be. It astounds me that someone could say that this character, with total fantasy levels of achievement and heroic intent, is just like any other kid.

Anakin clearly understood on some level that he was special, as hinted by his behavior as well as the fact that he was the only human physically capable of pod racing. He was extremely talented, precocious, and saw himself as a hero and protector. His mother encouraged that behavior, because it was good. When he got to the Jedi, they all treated him like something to be distrusted and treated with caution. Anakin wanted to keep being the big hero and protector, but as AOTC showed, Obi-Wan still tried to hold the reins tight on him.

Contributes to his fall? His fear that Padme will die is like 99.9% of the reason for his fall. All the other factors (need to exert control, favoring simple direct solutions, pissed off at Sebulba?) are merely background noise by the time Anakin slices off Samuel L. Jackson's hand.

It's background noise because you say so? The movies clearly showed his desire to control the galaxy and fix things as he saw fit, as well as his disenchantment with the Jedi.

[jollyreaper]

Anakin should have been introduced at the same age as Luke. He represents one path taken, his son another.

Of course, as presented in ANH, Ben was a tired old man who knew Luke's father. He wouldn't have been from around there because being a Jedi is kind of hard to miss. So originally he was a fellow knight of Anakin's, through pride misjudged with Vader, and Anakin died. No word on where mom was. Luke lives with aunt and uncle.

Owen and Beru know Ben fought in the Clone Wars, know Anakin and Owen were Jedi, but doesn't see the danger in having an old Jedi around. Possibly ignorant of the danger or did the empire stop hunting years ago?

Why would Ben lay low on Tatooie? Ass-end of the universe, Luke is safe. Probably had vague notions of amending his failure of his friend by training his son. Couldn't rightfully intervene until Luke reached his majority. His being there wasn't a great secret if his war buddies knew. Of all the imperials, only Vader would care and it's a personal vendetta.

It's more complicated when the situation is made part of a plan. If the twins were the last plan to stop the Empire, wouldn't more intensive training make sense? Is there any external reason for Luke to be the one ro confront Vader? Personally, it's powerful stuff. But is there blood magic and fate at work?

It seems like Ben's motives in ANH make the most sense if he's not even planning on training Luke as a Jedi and the arrival of the droids makes him realize that he was fooling himself.

[Jim Raynor]

I don't believe Obi-Wan was planning anything at first. There is an active rebellion going on, and he has absolutely no part in it. Someone with his skills and experience could have been a valuable asset to the Rebel Alliance. But it seems like Leia had to directly ask him to join.

[jollyreaper]

I don't believe Obi-Wan was planning anything at first. There is an active rebellion going on, and he has absolutely no part in it. Someone with his skills and experience could have been a valuable asset to the Rebel Alliance. But it seems like Leia had to directly ask him to join.

Well, I'm not sure how active it was at that point.

It is a period of civil war.
Rebel spaceships, striking
from a hidden base, have won
their first victory against
the evil Galactic Empire.

During the battle, Rebel
spies managed to steal secret
plans to the Empire's
ultimate weapon, the DEATH
STAR, an armored space
station with enough power
to destroy an entire planet.


As of the original trilogy, no EU confusion, the timeline is something like this:
1. Clone War
2. Unspecified bad things happening, Republic slides towards imperialism. Did they have an Emperor before? Did someone try to name himself first to the position like a Julius Caesar? Is Palpy Julius or Octavian at this point or something else? Or was he an impotent figurehead like the Japanese emperor? He was impotent in ANH, a Force user in TESB.
3. Dissent, people not liking it, but the conflict is political, not to the point of civil war
4. Death Star plan is hatched, obviously took more than a weekend to build so the tensions must have been mounting for a long time
5. Shooting starts but it's a big galaxy, the fighting might be at the periphery while things are kept civil on the core worlds.
6. The previous fights must have gone poorly if stealing the Death Star plans is the first real victory.
7. Up to this point Leia was able to maintain her position as a member of the legitimate government of the Empire.
8. Palpy's control over the government was not entirely secure if his officers are concerned about the political consequences of their actions.

Any big war usually has long-running tensions coming before. Especially in a civil war, there's a political process at work, one that may have defused tensions in the past, and it has to tear to the point that the shooting starts. The severing of ties may even come as a surprise once it happens though the process leading up to it was clear, like a chain snapping once the weak link gives way.

So if could well be that the civil war was going on for a short time and only now was Kenobi called upon. We don't know how fast news is supposed to travel in the galaxy though it seems you can cross the entirety of it in a week or two.

I think the safe conjecture is that the Rebels were probably the loyal opposition for a long time and only Palpy's confidence in pushing hard forced them into open rebellion. He probably calculated that forcing them to strike would make them look bad and be a propaganda coup for him. Not quite sure how a Death Star could make him look like Mr. Sunshine but I'm not a Sith lord.

[Havok]

Slavery is not all bare backs and whipping. try growing up with everyone telling you are property and will always be. I think as a child he would have accepted his life until he was old enough to resent it (and may have eventually killed that blue flying fellow)

The slavery background plays no role in Anakin's future motivations, excising it would change nothing of importance. That's the point of criticism, it's superfluous.

Uhhh what?

Yeah, you are right, Anakin being a slave probably has nothing to do with his maniacal and obsessive issues with control, loss and power.

Fucking christ, do you people even watch the movies?

[Havok]

Anakin should have been introduced at the same age as Luke. He represents one path taken, his son another.

Of course, as presented in ANH, Ben was a tired old man who knew Luke's father. He wouldn't have been from around there because being a Jedi is kind of hard to miss. So originally he was a fellow knight of Anakin's, through pride misjudged with Vader, and Anakin died. No word on where mom was. Luke lives with aunt and uncle.

Owen and Beru know Ben fought in the Clone Wars, know Anakin and Owen were Jedi, but doesn't see the danger in having an old Jedi around. Possibly ignorant of the danger or did the empire stop hunting years ago?

Why would Ben lay low on Tatooie? Ass-end of the universe, Luke is safe. Probably had vague notions of amending his failure of his friend by training his son. Couldn't rightfully intervene until Luke reached his majority. His being there wasn't a great secret if his war buddies knew. Of all the imperials, only Vader would care and it's a personal vendetta.

It's more complicated when the situation is made part of a plan. If the twins were the last plan to stop the Empire, wouldn't more intensive training make sense? Is there any external reason for Luke to be the one ro confront Vader? Personally, it's powerful stuff. But is there blood magic and fate at work?

It seems like Ben's motives in ANH make the most sense if he's not even planning on training Luke as a Jedi and the arrival of the droids makes him realize that he was fooling himself.

This is explained in the prequels if you pay attention.

Obi-Wan and Yoda are from the school of thought where training and discipline and rules and trying to see what you were supposed to do were what made a Jedi.

They were proved wrong and Qui-Gon, who believed in the "Living Force", the here and now Force and the will of the Force, was proven right.
Yoda and Obi-Wan recognized that their ways were, while not %100 wrong, not what the Jedi needed to be any longer. They became students of Qui-Gon and assumed his way of viewing the Force and passed on his lessons to Luke.

Luke didn't need the training, structure and rules that the old Jedi got because he was not an old Jedi. He was a new Jedi. he needed only what he received and Yoda and Obi-Wan trusted in the will of the Force to do what was supposed to be done. They now believed that the Force itself would guide their hand in when and how to train Luke, just as it did.
They basically stopped relying on themselves and started relying on destiny.

And just for the record, the conversation that Owen and Beru have in ANH about Luke being just like his father, is text book foreshadowing of who his father actually was. They weren't afraid of him being like Obi-Wan or Anakin as a Jedi, they were worried he would become the next Darth Vader, like Anakin did.

[jollyreaper]

Well, the father in him comment was written before Anakin was Vader. That would be less foreshadowing than a clever retcon. And it still only makes sense if Owen knows what really happened. As written Owen's concern is about his nephew getting killed on some damned fool crusade.

As for the training time for the Force, it's not in canon but my own theory is that Force powers can be picked up quickly by the talented which is why Luke learned so quickly. Jedi training takes so long because it's not the technique but the discipline to use the technique wisely. 10% of the time is learning, 90% is the master making sure his student can use the power wisely. Thus the Yoda line about the Dark Side being quicker, easier, more seductive.

Now the Forcw being a conscious entity, I think that was all prequel stuff. Was there any talk of prophecy before then? Vader used destiny but I don't think it was in the preordained sense.

The language in the OT made the light and dark sides sound like yin and yang energy fields that were distinctly separate sides of the same thing. So while not canon, I do like the idea that the Force is not light or dark but the user's reasons for tapping it are. Use the force with dispassion and you are using the light side, tap into it with strong emotion and you flirt with the dark side. You say you do it for love? Emotions blind you. How easily can love give way to hate? So the Jedi way to avoid temptation is to avoid attachment while the Sith feed on the power of the raw emotion. But Luke's third way is using his attachment to his father to redeem him. There is a third answer.

The mistake Yoda, Ben and the Emperor made is assuming that emotion means Dark Side. Luke trying to kill the Emperor wouldn't mean he's now Sith. The Emperor assumes if he gets Luke to snap, he's got a new apprentice. He feels the power is so seductive, such flimsy things as ideals and beliefs will be annihilated with one true taste. And the Emperor couldn't understand that something beyond sheer power could still have any hold on Vader. Love for a son? Truly? Do you not understand the power of the Dark Side? No, Palpy, you don't understand attachment.