PT Criticisms of the Prequel Trilogy

No what I described is what constitutes a true psychopath. Anakin doesn't fit any of the traits of a psychopath he does have empathy that alone right there is a trait that no psychopath has. Nothing Anakin does in the PT is out of malice or personal enjoyment he doesn't inflict pain on others because he enjoys it. Once again educate yourself on what a true psychopath is.

 

Stop demanding education of others please

Psychopathic disorders don't necessarily result in psychopathic actions, partly because those with psychopathic disorders can, in the correct environment, intellectualize a conception of empathy. There was actually a really good Horizon documentary on this called "The brain of a murderer", well worth watching.

Sadism (enjoyment of inflicting pain on others) =/= Psychopathy. There are many sadists who show no other behaviours associated with psychopathic disorders - ie it is not a psychopathic disorder.

 

Well one thing's for sure no matter what Anakin is not a psychopath I will just leave it at that. .

 

I guess we just aren't seeing the same movie. You are in the minority in pretty much all of your opinions. I've been discussing these movies with folks since they came out. A majority of Star Wars fans don't share your view. Also, I've never read any movie critic supporting any of your views. I've also been involved with theatre (my experience and involvement has varied over the years). I'm glad you enjoy the films. But I can't agree with any of your points, because the evidence isn't there for me. Again, I'm glad you have a passion for them, but I think your passion is clouding your vision to what is really there.

 

I guess that we will have to rename this thread with the following title: "Is Anakin Skywalker a psychopath?"

It has been 3 pages over 5 that we are discussing about Anakin is, whether or not, a psychopath. I've already exposed everything I knew and why Anakin isn't a psychopath and why the fact that people say that "there was no friendship between Anakin and Obi-Wan" is unfounded. Take it or leave it if you want to... It's up to you.

But as Prisic Duskleap mentionned earlier, I'm also starting to think that the fact that people here qualify Anakin as a "creeper" or "psychopath" is simply because they don't like or hate the prequels and there isn't nothing wrong with not liking these movies. But the words "creeper" and "psychopath" are being used highly subjectively here which doesn't correspond to the reality of the story told in the PT. I've even given other examples of heroes or characters in other movies or books killing, or wanting to kill, other people who have hurt their relatives as Anakin did, demonstrating that it's not psychopathy.

But even after exposing all of that, I'm amazed about how stubborn people can be, taking their negativity as truths and facts....

 

Since when someone having a different opinion from the most vocal group is in the minority position?

A majority of Star Wars fans? That's because negativity seems to be the most popular and vocal thing in society, the proof: if you watch the news on TV or in the newspaper or the internet, it's only negativity.

And about the fact that no critics has ever said something positive about the movies, once again it's because negativity seems to be the thing that is the most obvious. You should read those articles:

http://www.starwars.com/news/critical-opinion-the-phantom-menace-original-reviews

http://www.starwars.com/news/critical-opinion-attack-of-the-clones-original-reviews

http://www.starwars.com/news/critical-opinion-revenge-of-the-sith-original-reviews

 

No, it`s not the opposite. It is half of the same statement. My original argument, which you quoted less, can be broken down into two parts:

(a) Obi-Wan lied about Darth Vader betraying and killing Anakin Skywalker (hence the "is true, except")

(b) Everything else described about Anakin Skywalker and Darth Vader is true.

My second statement, which you quoted first, just re-affirms (a), the instance in which Obi-Wan did lie. I go on to say: "He tells a tale of Anakin being good until the end, when he was supposedly murdered by Darth Vader.", which is completely compatible with "Everything Obi-Wan described is true, except for Darth Vader betraying and killing Anakin Skywalker".

Argument (b) is defended in the rest of the post, which you did not quote.

Again, the statements are far from incompatible. What makes you think they are?

 

Your evidence is a sampling of critical reviews collected by the website that is owned and operated by the same folks who own the movies in question.....

Also, I did not say that no critic has ever said anything good about the prequels. I was singling out the specific issues that were addressed from the individual who was responding to my earlier post. There are some great things to pick out in the prequels. Overall, I actually like the prequels and enjoy them as part of my Star Wars fandom. But that doesn't mean I won't be critical and pick out the shortcomings.....especially ones that are overly obvious to me.

 

Oaknut

My mistake. My misunderstanding must have come when you have mentioned "minority opinion". It has always puzzled me that, even for a film franchise as Star Wars, people use the term "minority" vs "majority", just as "true Star Wars fans or not". I think that when things like "opinion" vs "opinion" or fans vs fans are becoming more and more recurrent on discussions or on the internet, that is much more serious and sad than any of the flaws in the prequels that fans are always trying to pick.

 

It's all perception, Saga Fan. We use terms best we're able to convey ourselves accurately in our personal experiences. The fact so many choose to be offended at difference is petty, though.

 

I didn't mention "minority" the way it sounded. I also don't get drawn into, nor endorse any conversation that brings up the "true Star Wars fan or not" argument. It's destructive and ultimately goes nowhere. I also shy away from the "what is Star Wars" discussion. As soon as someone begins a sentence like "Well, Star Wars is...." I respectfully bow out and move on to other, more constructive conversations.

 

You say that as if that makes him better than someone who is classed as a psychopath. The fact is he's worse than a psychopath. At least any psychopath who hasn't murdered a bunch of children on multiple occasions. His actions define him more than any textbook classification of his mental pathology.

 

I realize someone else has already replied to you, but allow me to do the same.

I don`t think we`ve ever had a properly conducted poll to know the majority`s opinion on the Star Wars prequels, but if you go by the average movie sites (e.g. Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, IMDB), the majority does seem like them.

I think most of us have.

That might be true, but do we have any accurate way of verifying that?

Considering that the majority of critics recommended the prequels, I`d say there must be some of them that do share one of Qui-Riv-Brid`s views. Just for the sake of discussing this statement, I went to the very first page of reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. Just reading the headlines of the reviews (not even clicking on any of them), one of the Top Critics on the first page says this:

"Christensen is a winning mix of sultry and sulky as the now older Anakin" - There, I`ve found a critic that agrees with Qui-Riv-Brid in one of his points (great performances), and it didn`t take me more than 30 seconds.

I think that we are better off arguing about the movies themselves, instead of talking about how each poster`s passion has influenced him/her when watching the movies. Because that goes both ways, and it is highly likely to just downgrade into each side accusing the other of being clouded by nostalgia.

 

I don't think Anakin was a psychopath as much as he was a borderline sociopath. He was unstable, and this was a result of being torn from his mother at an age too young for a normal child, yet too old for a Jedi standard. He had already established a foundation for his personality, and his traits consisted of arrogance, compassion (which isn't bad for the Jedi, but his was too strong), and fear - all major factors contributing to his fall. The Jedi weren't equipped to deal with all of the emotional baggage that Anakin carried, and thus he was left to figure how to deal on his own, and worse, seek out counsel from otherwise undesirable facets.

 

Can't believe people bother posting RT scores, unless the subject of discussion is just the initial opinion of these movies. Bringing 16 year old opinions into the debate is ludicrous. 16 years is a ridiculously long time. The same amount of time between RotJ & TPM. We all (well most) remember how damn long that felt. What people thought of TPM in the days after its release way back then isn't very relevant to how it's thought of now.

 

All I can say is that I stand by my criticism of the films. Just another case of agree to disagree. Though I will add that it doesn't seem Disney is overly interested in making the PT part of their marketing plans. Granted, this may be since there isn't as much to connect between the PT and the ST as there is the OT and the ST. However, I do think several years of negative backlash (warranted or not) has played a role in the exclusion of the PT in their marketing plans.

 

Same thing can be said about the positive and children opinions that are now almost 40 years old about the OT. Following that logic, it also means that they are no longer relevant today.

 

It must also mean that Roger Ebert's 3 and a half stars out of 4 review of the Phantom Menace is irrelevant, because he's just some famous old guy who reviewed the movie and enjoyed it whout being a Star Wars fanboy!

 

It's not that old reviews are "irrelevant". It just depends on the discussion. If we're talking about how films were thought of upon their release then they're very relevant. If the subject is how something is thought of today, a 16 year old review isn't exactly the most up to date info to go on. It's a pretty simple & self evident point.

 

I'm afraid that you're just turning around here. It's like saying old history books are no longer revelant because we have newer versions. But from what I know, and what I was taught, history can sometimes be easily falsified in order to hide something or to comfort a belief or point of view. And that, I think, is exactly what you're doing here: saying that today's reviews spread through the internet, which are being more negative than before, and which are following a collective movement against the PT and George Lucas, are more relevant than what people thought by themselves back then before negativity spread through the fan community.

There's nothing more scary than following other people's opinion in order to "fit" in a group, leaving aside it's own personal thinking. And that's what I was about to do when I was taking all the negativity seriously and that's what, I think, a lot of people keep doing when they are spreading non-stop their negativity on the internet.

 

Well I am done debating this as it is pretty much derailing the thread at this point but no matter what Anakin is not a psychopath. I understand some think it's easy to just label Anakin and be done with it but there is so many layers and depth to the character to honestly be able to do that. Go back and watch the documentary I posted a few pages back Hayden explains Anakin perfectly at the very end.

 

Too bad Ric Olie wasn't around for ROTS and he could've settled it:

Olie: Look! It's Anakin and he's now a psychopath!

 

And on top of it all, the shield generator's been hit!

 

"The thing with the kids is necessary to establish how far down the road he’d come to do something that, this brutal and barbaric and it had to be in there but I definitely didn’t want to show it. It was really in the editorial process that the idea of inter-cutting her (Padme) with him when he’s at his very worst with her worrying about him. That juxtaposition works quite well cause it reflects as much on the slaughter of the children as it does on her concerns about him even though she doesn’t know the children have been slaughtered. There is a strong emotional connection when those sequences are pushed up against each other."

--George Lucas, ROTS DVD Commentary.

It was more than shock value. Lucas wanted to put Anakin in a place that would drive a wedge between him and Obi-wan and Padme. To really show how far gone he was and how far he would go to get what he wants. It also ties into the reasoning for hiding Luke and Leia.

OBI-WAN: "The Emperor knew, as did I, that if Anakin were to have any offspring they would be a threat to him."

Which in turn ties into "Spark Of Rebellion".

VADER: "The Jedi Knights are all but destroyed. Yet your task is not complete, Inquisitor. The Emperor has foreseen a new threat rising against him: the children of the Force. They must not become Jedi."

THE INQUISITOR: "Yes, Lord Vader."

VADER: "Hunt down this new enemy. And if they will not serve the Empire, eliminate them along with any surviving Jedi who trained them. This is my Master's command."

THE INQUISITOR: "And so it will be done."

Lucas had reasons beyond shock value.

Right and he does heroic things, as well as unheroic things. The merging of two characters.

A good, yet flawed man. Yes.

The cunning warrior refers to stuff such as Anakin order to fire above the fuel cells and how he handled the Vulture and Buzz Droids. How he lured Dooku out into a duel on Tatooine. Various other moments during the war.

The good friend is still evident. Anakin saving his life multiple times. The banter back and forth the speeder during the chase, during the Battle of Coruscant, the turbolift conversation in AOTC, the conversation in the Temple about what happened during the Council meeting, when they part ways in ROTS, etc. There's plenty of it there.

As to the Lightsaber, who is to say that Anakin wouldn't want his child to have his Lightsaber some day?