drg4 posted:

---

Vortigern99 posted:

---

As to Leia, I can agree that her fading to the status of third main character in ROTJ is something of a flaw, but is IMO a comprehensible one. The story is Luke's story and always has been. While it's fun to speculate on what might have occurred in the Throne Room had Leia Skywalker Organa been present, ultimately (for me, in any case), the dynamic is between father and son: that is what the movie is about. By the same token one might criticise any number of Disney movies, for example, by saying they are "girl's fantasies" -- what exactly is Prince Eric's story in The Little Mermaid, anyway? Do we even know what kind of person he is? -- but that would be unfair, since that is what those movies are about: a young woman's perspective on the world; her trials and tribulations; her relationship with her father. Why should STAR WARS, or ROTJ, be any "disappointing" or less valid an art work because it deals with a male perspective?

---

I don’t think your analogy holds. Prince Eric is a pretty boy prince of happily-ever-after; Princess Organa is far, far more than the princess of Alderaan. She's the daughter of Darth friggin' Vader. Pretty heavy stuff. So if Lucas wanted his narrative to remain male-centered, he was a fool to do this. After designating her a Skywalker, the story had to be augmented, the scope broadened. Father, brother, sister--all equally important. (You can't very well jettison Ivan out of The Brothers Karamozov.)

By pushing Leia to the periphery, Lucas is essentially saying she isn’t as important as her brother. Which is a load of poodoo. Vader left psychic scars on her; she belonged in that Throne Room. That’s part of her arc. Let Han and the teddy bears deal with the shield generator.

---

Vortigern99 posted:

---

It's by the side of her lover -- not because "women belong to their men" or some such nonsense that neither you nor I believe, but because that's what the story calls for. The audience has spent the last half of the previous movie (ESB) wanting these two characters (Han and Leia) to fall in love, and we've spent the first half of the current movie watching her rescue him. It's time they spend some time together in their own adventure.

---

Vortigern99 posted:

---

The story is simply being true to the demands of the narrative. Any leftover tension between Leia and Vader is a matter for fan speculation and EU literature.

---

Vortigern99 posted:

---

But her place in the narrative of ROTJ is NOT in the Throne Room. It's by the side of her lover -- not because "women belong to their men" or some such nonsense that neither you nor I believe, but because that's what the story calls for. The audience has spent the last half of the previous movie (ESB) wanting these two characters (Han and Leia) to fall in love, and we've spent the first half of the current movie watching her rescue him. It's time they spend some time together in their own adventure. The story is simply being true to the demands of the narrative. Any leftover tension between Leia and Vader is a matter for fan speculation and EU literature.

---

drg4 posted:

---

We'll never see eye-to-eye on this, Vortigern.
When Leia gives Vader that look in the carbon freezing chamber (you know, the look), I can just feel a set-up for an emotional climax, where this defiled daughter unleashes her torment on her father. A climax as sublimely operatic as Vader's revelation to Luke. But it never comes. You may deem it superfluous; I think it's the royal blunder of the Saga. Because if you make Leia a Skywalker, you'd better darn well do something with her character. Otherwise, what's the point? So she can be fought over, as if she were a child? "Leia's mine!" "Never! She's mine!" "She belongs to me!"

A curious film, where the brother and father are accorded transcendence, while the sister is reduced to a sex slave and has her most prolonged conversation with a teddy bear.

So it goes with Star Wars.

---

Arawn_Fenn posted:

---

You mean Star Trek II.

---

KennethMorgan posted:

---

In one respect, Leia is there on DSII. Vader's threat to turn her to the Dark Side is what motivates Luke to actually try to murder his father. And, when he realizes what he's about to do, he makes the wise choice that Anakin missed: turning to evil to save someone he loves will only doom them both. Leia is the catalyst for Luke's ultimate decision that he'd rather die than serve the Dark Side.

---

KennethMorgan posted:

---

Also, drg4, it seems you have a problem with Leia and Padme showing vulnerability (though I may be misreading your intentions).

---

KennethMorgan posted:

---

Padme was not some female killing machine, she was as flawed and vulnerable as anyone else. Yes, she knew what Anakin did to the Tuskens, but she also knew how broken up he was over it. (Watch the scene in AOTC again; Ani isn't happy over the slaughter, he's upset about what happened and how he reacted.) She wasn't on Mustafar to knock off a villain, she was there to show the man she loved the error of his ways and make him return to his better self. (Shades of Luke in ROTJ.) Unfortunately, circumstances arose that made her realize too late that she wasn't up to the task. This, along with her guilt over being the supposed cause of all the trouble (remember, Ani said he did it all for her), just overwhelmed her to the point where she just gave up. Even strong people can get utterly flattened by events, if they get hit when and where they're most vulnerable. And, even if she'd lived and had the opportunity, I doubt she'd have tried to kill Anakin. It's not that easy to purposely reject or even destroy someone you love, no matter how bad they become. You still tend to hold onto the hope that they'll reform, and I figure that's where she'd stand. He's her husband, not some battle droid to be zapped down.

---

drg4 posted:

---

KennethMorgan posted:

---

In one respect, Leia is there on DSII. Vader's threat to turn her to the Dark Side is what motivates Luke to actually try to murder his father. And, when he realizes what he's about to do, he makes the wise choice that Anakin missed: turning to evil to save someone he loves will only doom them both. Leia is the catalyst for Luke's ultimate decision that he'd rather die than serve the Dark Side.

---

Therein lies the problem. Catalyst is a dehumanizing term, a substance, a means, a vehicle through which change is wrought. Leia's not a catalyst, nor is she a symbol. She's a character, every bit as worthy of individuation as her brother. In short, she deserved better.

KennethMorgan posted:

---

Also, drg4, it seems you have a problem with Leia and Padme showing vulnerability (though I may be misreading your intentions).

---

This is indeed a misreading, but perfectly understandable. I'll give you two images to illustrate what I'm getting at:

1. Padme, left hand clenched to her swollen belly, weeping silently as she raises a dagger to murder her preoccupied, demented husband.

2. Leia, holding her brother's hand, as they confront their evil father and his emperor.

Melodramatic, I know, but hardly the stuff you'd find in a Matrix flick. Just two compassionate, noble women, who harness their righteous indignation so as to preserve life. I'd fancy this the apotheosis of womanhood.

KennethMorgan posted:

---

Padme was not some female killing machine, she was as flawed and vulnerable as anyone else. Yes, she knew what Anakin did to the Tuskens, but she also knew how broken up he was over it. (Watch the scene in AOTC again; Ani isn't happy over the slaughter, he's upset about what happened and how he reacted.) She wasn't on Mustafar to knock off a villain, she was there to show the man she loved the error of his ways and make him return to his better self. (Shades of Luke in ROTJ.) Unfortunately, circumstances arose that made her realize too late that she wasn't up to the task. This, along with her guilt over being the supposed cause of all the trouble (remember, Ani said he did it all for her), just overwhelmed her to the point where she just gave up. Even strong people can get utterly flattened by events, if they get hit when and where they're most vulnerable. And, even if she'd lived and had the opportunity, I doubt she'd have tried to kill Anakin. It's not that easy to purposely reject or even destroy someone you love, no matter how bad they become. You still tend to hold onto the hope that they'll reform, and I figure that's where she'd stand. He's her husband, not some battle droid to be zapped down.

---

You summed her dilemma up well. Certainly, that sort of thing isn't easy. But see, I love my cousin dearly, yet under bizarro circumstances, I could bring myself to kill him. If he were to serve the cause of fascism, or if I discovered he was brutalizing his wife (and there was no legal recourse), I'd kill him.

I'd like to think Padme Amidala would do the same. That she made it known, through words unspoken, "Anakin, I loved you. I tried to talk sense into you. But you're a monster. A murderer of children. So I'm going to kill you, before you take ours." Those aren't the thoughts of a gun-toting Tomb Raider centerfold, but an earth goddess who safeguards creation with her terrible, swift sword.

There's something primal at work there. I'd of liked to see it.


On edit: Moderators, please don't take that third last paragraph as a cryptic confession. It's entirely hypothetical. My cousin plays Warcraft. He's so disengaged from the world I couldn't see him partaking in any political movement. Or even dating for that matter.

---

KennethMorgan posted:

---

EDIT: Sorry, I didn't realize I was duplicating some of TOSCHISTATION's previous post. That's what I get for taking so much time to type this stuff up. Still, I do think giving Luke & Leia a familial bond, rather than just a friendship, makes Luke's reaction much more powerful. He's now got to save one generation of his family while protecting another.

---

Nordom posted:

---

The PT could have good, noble characters that figh the good fight but loose in the end but instead the "heroes" come across as uncaring, clueless buffoons that get wpied out because of their own stupiditiy.

Take the movie Spartacus, there the "heroes" fight for their freedom but they loose and get killed in the end but there is still a note of hope in the end as Spartacus wife and child get away and lives free.

---

Nordom posted:

---

The PT could have good, noble characters that figh the good fight but loose in the end but instead the "heroes" come across as uncaring, clueless buffoons that get wpied out because of their own stupiditiy.

Take the movie Spartacus, there the "heroes" fight for their freedom but they loose and get killed in the end but there is still a note of hope in the end as Spartacus wife and child get away and lives free.

---