RamRed posted:I think the fact that Padme didn't tell anyone is a very worrying side to her personality. Oh for Pete's sake! She wasn't his damn mother! Nor was it her business to go running to Obi-Wan and the Jedi to snitch about what happened to the Tuskens. Anakin should have done that. And he didn't.
DARTHCLANDESTINE posted:Since when were Tuskens humans? Or at least rational humanoids? Lucas blurrs the lines.
NATIONALGREATNESS posted:Sith, I'm surprised. I thought that you were firmly against almost all of the PT and didn't like ROTS at all. If you want to feel that way, that's fine. Why have you become more moderate? And I must say, the fact that no one is really paying attention to any of my points hardly at all, and that people are now finding excuses to justify the sexism prevalent in AOTC and ROTS, is making me feel really depressed and angry. The truth is, like it or not, the PT IS Sexist. Lucas is sexist. And I'm not being Politically Correct here, the proof of that is that I'm a man. I just find it sickening and terrible to see that most women don't even care about losing their rights to evil, immature, dangerous, stupid, sexist men like Anakin. He's an awful character created by a man who obviously has about as much understanding of women as I have of, say, Genetic Evolution - that is, none at all. Sith Star Slayer was undoubtedly correct in stating that Lucas's now ex wife wrote the women's parts for the original trilogy
NATIONALGREATNESS posted:And I'm sorry, but I don't buy this "Padme likes Anakin because he's a 'bad boy'" at all. If she was Younger than him, then maybe yes! But she's not! She's older! And there's no reason for an intelligent, kind, compassionate older woman like her to fall for a dangerous, stupid, immoral, cruel, screwed up, and totally immature teenage boy like him. It's just poor writing and sexism.
NATIONALGREATNESS posted: I wouldn't be surprised if they got married rather than just being boyfriend/girlfriend because Anakin said to Padme: "I always knew that I would marry you when I was a kid. So you have to marry me now, because I tell you to." Padme replies: "Yes, sir."
NATIONALGREATNESS posted:*shakes head* Seriously, that's how I see that scene which we never saw now. There's nothing romantic about it at all. In fact, I would even call it evil, especially as they both know it is against the Jedi code, and Padme is supposed to be responsible. Oh, and the Jedi are good. The Sith are evil. That's not something that I want to debate, but I do not believe Star Wars is a morally ambigious story or that it will ever be. If it is, then the PT has destroyed everything that made Star Wars Star Wars - a heroic battle between heroic, noble good guys, the rebels and Luke as a Jedi, and an evil, totalitarian stalinist dictatorship, that is immoral, totally villainous, and purely evil, the Empire
NATIONALGREATNESS posted: Oh, and the Jedi are good. The Sith are evil. That's not something that I want to debate, but I do not believe Star Wars is a morally ambigious story or that it will ever be.
Vortigern99 posted:I agree with tiffanysblue 100%. The claim that Padme is depicted in a "sexist" way is ludicrous. She falls in love with someone who turns out to be bad for her... and for the galaxy. Anakin is a villain; by depicting his evil deeds (choking Padme, etc.) it's not as if the filmmakers are condoning his actions! Furthermore, my first wife was 4 years my elder; does that make our relationship "sexist"? I simply don't understand this claim, and I suspect that the author of this thread might enjoy making statements that he does not necessarily believe in order to get a rise out of people, as he has done before.
Vortigern99 posted:I agree with tiffanysblue 100%. The claim that Padme is depicted in a "sexist" way is ludicrous.
Vortigern99 posted:Given that her character changes and develops across a series of three films, the criticism that she is relegated to a one-note role is erroneous, unless it presumes ignorance of the preceding two installments. All of us here have seen TPM and AOTC, so we know she has not been portrayed in the shallow, one-note role of "pregnant spouse".
Vortigern99 posted:Further, the opinion that such a role as depicted on ROTS is sexist is misguided, IMO, since that singular role consists of an admirable choice to raise children, which has been the function (though not the sole nor entire function) of women since the speciation of h. sapiens. It is currently en vogue to decry such depictions as derogatory, delimiting or degrading to women, and to question or even deride a real-world woman who opts for a housewife/maternal lifestyle. This outcry against women being viewed as "objects of impregnation" is not without a certain degree of merit, but at the same time it ignores the essential heroism of maternity. The sacrifice involved in choosing to bear and raise a child should not be forgotten or overlooked, as I feel is happening here.
