"No Luke, Obi-Wan Killed Your Father"

[Amadeus]

In the original scripts for "Star Wars" and "The Empire Strikes Back," Vader wasn't Luke Skywalker's father. Instead he was a mere servant of the Emperor who hunted down and killed the Jedi, including Anakin Skywalker. In fact if you watch the original 1977 film it's clear that this was Lucas' original conception of the character. It wasn't until the second draft of "The Empire Strikes Back" that Vader became Luke's father. At first, Vader was meant to say "No Luke, Obi-Wan killed your father." But this was changed to Vader revealing that he was Luke's father - and the actors were only notified on the day of the shoot.

What if Lucas had stuck with his original concept of Vader as a separate character from Anakin, and "The Empire Strikes Back" had an alternate twist ending? How would this change the direction of the "Star Wars" franchise? Would the alternate line be nothing more than a lie, or would Obi-Wan be retconned into a villain in "Return of the Jedi"?

 

[HIM Dogson]

Personally the direction I'd take that is having Anakin Skywalker be a longtime Padawan of Obi-wan; when the Clone Wars break out, Anakin sees the justice in the Separatist cause, and joins them. At the end of the second film, Obi-wan and Anakin meet on the field of battle, and Obi-wan strikes down Anakin as he would any other enemy soldier. Seeing this so disillusions his new pupil Darth Vader that Vader is convinced by Palpatine that the Republic and the Jedi don't actually fight for justiceVader still works as a foil to Luke here, although I really don't see how the Vader-Luke-Palpatine part of ROTJ can be as strong as it was OTL with this twist.

 

[Skallagrim]

I don't think anyone intended to make Obi-Wan the villain. I think if they'd gone with this, the next film would have revealed that Vader had corrupted Luke's father, and that this essentially forced Obi-Wan to kill him. Probably with avreveal that Anakin became his true self again in his dying moments, and asked Obi-Wan to protect his son from Vader.

 

[Amadeus]

although I really don't see how the Vader-Luke-Palpatine part of ROTJ can be as strong as it was OTL with this twist.

I agree.

I don't think anyone intended to make Obi-Wan the villain. I think if they'd gone with this, the next film would have revealed that Vader had corrupted Luke's father, and that this essentially forced Obi-Wan to kill him. Probably with avreveal that Anakin became his true self again in his dying moments, and asked Obi-Wan to protect his son from Vader.

It goes without saying that "No Luke, I am your father" is a much stronger twist ending. And after all, Darth Vader means "Dark Father" in German.

In the original movie, Vader could easily have been killed by Han Solo during the trench run. In fact there's no reason that the Falcoln wouldn't have destroyed Vader's ship upon firing at that range. And as much as I love Vader as a villain, that's something that still bothers me about the original: they needlessly allowed him to live just so he could be in the sequel. What if Lucas had decided to kill off Vader in the first movie?

 

[HIM Dogson]

In the original movie, Vader could easily have been killed by Han Solo during the trench run. In fact there's no reason that the Falcoln wouldn't have destroyed Vader's ship upon firing at that range. And as much as I love Vader as a villain, that's something that still bothers me about the original: they needlessly allowed him to live just so he could be in the sequel. What if Lucas had decided to kill off Vader in the first movie?

I mean, frankly, that would have just been a worse series as a whole. Vader was the only element of the Empire with real depth and his story objectively still had somewhere to go. Even if you don't have him be Luke's father, it would be a very unsatisfying resolution to that plot point to have him be simply killed by Han. I don't buy the argument that Vader was just another low-level villain in ANH; he was clearly being set up with more significance than that from the beginning.

 

[Amadeus]

I mean, frankly, that would have just been a worse series as a whole. Vader was the only element of the Empire with real depth and his story objectively still had somewhere to go. Even if you don't have him be Luke's father, it would be a very unsatisfying resolution to that plot point to have him be simply killed by Han. I don't buy the argument that Vader was just another low-level villain in ANH; he was clearly being set up with more significance than that from the beginning.

I've read that the conflict between Skywalker and Vader was meant to represent the conflict between Lucas and his own father. (Just look at the names: Luke and "Darth Vader" - "Dark Father" in German). However, Vader was a completely separate character from Anakin until the pre-production of Empire when he was retconned into being Luke's father. It's a great twist, but of course it creates an obvious inconsistency with the 1977 film. ROTJ tried to clear this up with the "certain point of view" line, but IMO it's just a clunky attempt to correct a major plot hole. But perhaps sparing Vader and allowing him to be redeemed in ROTJ was a reflection of Lucas' desire to reconcile with his own father, which they eventually did in real life.

Had Vader been killed by Han, "Star Wars" wouldn't have become the family saga that it was in the sequels and prequels. I imagine it would've focused more on the clash between the Rebellion and the Empire, and the writers would've had more room to explore the Force and the broader "Star Wars" mythology. I'm not saying that's better, but I'm saying it's a possible result.

 

[Skallagrim]

It goes without saying that "No Luke, I am your father" is a much stronger twist ending.

Obviously. Just as important, however: it wrecks the brilliant redemption theme-- which is basically the high point of RotJ, and fits so well that you can really believe it was always meant to work out that way. (Even though it demonstrably wasn't.)

And after all, Darth Vader means "Dark Father" in German.

That's a myth. 'Darth' means nothing in German, and 'Vader' (pronounced VAH-dur) is 'father' in Dutch, not German (in which it is 'Vater'). As far as I'm aware, 'Vader' was simply chosen because it sounded like 'invader'. Which fits with Lucas's tendency to do the same thing with other Sith names (e.g. 'Sidious'; sounds like 'insidious').

In the original movie, Vader could easily have been killed by Han Solo during the trench run. In fact there's no reason that the Falcoln wouldn't have destroyed Vader's ship upon firing at that range. And as much as I love Vader as a villain, that's something that still bothers me about the original: they needlessly allowed him to live just so he could be in the sequel. What if Lucas had decided to kill off Vader in the first movie?

Had Vader been killed by Han, "Star Wars" wouldn't have become the family saga that it was in the sequels and prequels. I imagine it would've focused more on the clash between the Rebellion and the Empire, and the writers would've had more room to explore the Force and the broader "Star Wars" mythology. I'm not saying that's better, but I'm saying it's a possible result.

I'm with @HIM Dogson on this: Vader was being set up for greater things. Even if no sequel was going to be made, Lucas wanted to at least have a sequel book (which could be turned into a very low budget sequel film, perhaps), which became Splinter of the Mind's Eye. And who shows up there, once again? Vader. He was clearly meant to be a leading villain.

If he'd been killed off-- thus completely leaving out the "I am your father" reveal, it's not just the awesome twist you lose, nor is the loss restricted to just that and the comparative thematic weakness. No, you also lose a strong villain. The OT would probably suffer from the 'no clear villain' problem of the prequels (where you get Maul, Dooku and Grievous as ''sub-bosses', and neither is strong or developed enough to really pull it off). This move would hurt the films immensely, I think.

Just keeping the big reveal out would still hurt the films, but might result in a universe that's less focused on the big central story of the Skywalkers. That could be an improvement to the EU (more space for diverse stories, maybe).

 

[Amadeus]

Obviously. Just as important, however: it wrecks the brilliant redemption theme-- which is basically the high point of RotJ, and fits so well that you can really believe it was always meant to work out that way. (Even though it demonstrably wasn't.)

Without Luke fighting against the dark side and redeeming his father, ROTJ as written in OTL would be nothing more than a re-hash of the original. If there is anything you want to improve about the first "Star Wars" trilogy, it's the basic plotline of ROTJ. It's still an entertaining movie by all means, but no where near as good as the first two. (And I mean first two by release date, not Episodes I and II. Don't get me started on those...).

That's a myth. 'Darth' means nothing in German, and 'Vader' (pronounced VAH-dur) is 'father' in Dutch, not German (in which it is 'Vater'). As far as I'm aware, 'Vader' was simply chosen because it sounded like 'invader'. Which fits with Lucas's tendency to do the same thing with other Sith names (e.g. 'Sidious'; sounds like 'insidious').

I stand corrected.

 

[Max Sinister]

It'd be a chance to close some potholes in the long run (i.e. over the whole tri-trilogy).

 

[Thomas1195]

In the original scripts for "Star Wars" and "The Empire Strikes Back," Vader wasn't Luke Skywalker's father. Instead he was a mere servant of the Emperor who hunted down and killed the Jedi, including Anakin Skywalker. In fact if you watch the original 1977 film it's clear that this was Lucas' original conception of the character. It wasn't until the second draft of "The Empire Strikes Back" that Vader became Luke's father. At first, Vader was meant to say "No Luke, Obi-Wan killed your father." But this was changed to Vader revealing that he was Luke's father - and the actors were only notified on the day of the shoot.

What if Lucas had stuck with his original concept of Vader as a separate character from Anakin, and "The Empire Strikes Back" had an alternate twist ending? How would this change the direction of the "Star Wars" franchise? Would the alternate line be nothing more than a lie, or would Obi-Wan be retconned into a villain in "Return of the Jedi"?

The OT would be less well received without the twist, which made it unique. The whole series would be too much Lord of the Rings, I mean, a classical fantasy hero tales, without that twist.
However, if the TTL Original Trilogy is still sufficiently good, it would pave the way for a better Prequels ITTL.

IMO, Darth Vader = Luke's father was one of the reason that make it harder to create a good Prequel.

I don't think anyone intended to make Obi-Wan the villain. I think if they'd gone with this, the next film would have revealed that Vader had corrupted Luke's father, and that this essentially forced Obi-Wan to kill him. Probably with avreveal that Anakin became his true self again in his dying moments, and asked Obi-Wan to protect his son from Vader.

The problem is that Skywalker Sr was supposed to be a force ghost on Dagobah.
So, IMO he could replace Count Dooku's role, but he would not be a Sith. Obi wan striking down Separatist leader Anakin (ITTL a real cause) would make him a villain.
And we would see a more likable Jedi Order, since the whole "ban attachment" stuff would have no reason to exist.