PT Did Lucas go to far in Revenge of the Sith?

Discussion in 'Prequel Trilogy' started by Garrett Atkins, Feb 13, 2013.

Moderators: Bazinga'd
  1. Garrett Atkins Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Feb 11, 2013
    star 4
    I think that this movie had a tone too dark. Examples:
    1. Anakin kills younglings
    2. Anakin kills Separtists (funny though)
    3. Chokes Pregnant Padme!!!!!!?????
    4. Anakin needs to go in a mental hospital.
    So my question is, why did this film have to be so dark?
  2. Jordan1Kenobi Host of EUC Battle of... Games

    Game Host
    Member Since:
    Sep 30, 2012
    star 5
    Because Anakin turned to the Dark Side, and they had to do all that otherwise it wouldn't of made sense why he was so evil in the original trilogy, but I do think killing Younglings was going a bit too far.
    Thuro likes this.
  3. Julius Vernon Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 7, 2012
    star 3
    I completely cringe when Anakin kills the younglings. To me that is by far the worst of his acts, but I think it tells us who Darth Vader is. He had fallen so far that he was capable of nearly any evil act.

    But therein lies the power of the redemption story of the OT. If Vader can be redeemed after all of that perhaps there is hope for anyone.
  4. anakinfansince1983 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Mar 4, 2011
    star 7
    With numbers 1 and 3, yes. Those were not necessary to show that he had turned.

    It's not a matter of the film being "too dark," I don't care about that, it's a matter of adding evil deeds just for the hell of it.
    SithStarSlayer likes this.
  5. CT-867-5309 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 5, 2011
    star 5
    [Dewey Cox]It was a dark ******* period.[/Dewey Cox]
  6. Reveen Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 4, 2012
    star 3
    My problem with that stuff isn't the content. But that they don't really prove to us that he's turned into Darth Vader. He's just a violent a-hole who runs around yelling and killing people, and not the cold SS-style operator he was in the OT.

    I know, there's a twenty year gap between the trilogies. But I don't see the pint of calling him Vader and putting him in the suit unless they're going to show us the start of the sith lord we already know. Killing the separatists for example, didn't need to be done with him charging in the room and stabbing them all personally. They could have have him show up with a squad of clones and look on while they all get shot, maybe throttling Gunray personally. It would've reminded people of how Vader handled things in ANH.

    Killing the kids? Nah. I'm guessing those are kids of some of staff, and I understand wanting to have your kid in the movie you're working on for the novelty factor. But why would it be for a death role? That just seems really weird to me and would be awkward to watch.
    Last edited by Reveen, Feb 13, 2013
    Thuro likes this.
  7. Cryogenic Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 20, 2005
    star 4
    I don't.

    Bullet pointed gripes?

    Slays his own innocence. Deals a blow to hope.

    The killing may also represent the violent dissolution of his ambivalence/feigned confidence to Padme telling him she was pregnant: when he returned to Coruscant and the madness truly began (war can't fully corrupt him, but fear, doubt, and credulity -- and impending fatherhood -- can).

    Violently acts out his own political naivete. "Separatists" AREN'T separate in reality.

    Also learns in the final second that Darth Sidious promised them peace and is as treacherous as Anakin probably feared when he signed on the dotted line.

    He is literally grasping her by the throat -- trying to "hold on" to her to the point of death.

    Go back to the pre-nightmare scene on Coruscant. "You are so beautiful". Listen to how he says that. Like he's straining to make sense of Padme's ethereal glow: head over heels, yet questioning her devotion (his own insecurity about what she sees in him).

    Mustafar is hell where Ani's angel appears to have turned on him. The ecstatic joy he had from merely regarding Padme's visage is shattered in one devastating moment.

    He may even be seen to choke her to "prove" his superiority to Obi-Wan: the glaring, bearded father figure (this saga's Yahweh) who watches from up high (the high ground), and who Anakin even shouts theatrically to when he yells, "Liar!"

    Power is shown for what it is: a serpent devouring its own tail.

    "Mental hospital" has been shown by psychologists to be something of a contradiction in terms. See the Rosenhan experiment (AKA "On Being Sane In Insane Places"):

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment

    The Jedi should have admitted themselves first. Indeed, they ARE this saga's equivalent to a mental hospital, creating an extremely cut-off environment for adherents who are snatched in formative years, and labeling normal behaviours as abnormal and preaching they are something one needs to be conditioned out of. And while there's an open door, you can't really leave until you're "well" ("You have made a commitment to the Jedi Order, a commitment not easily broken").

    Because dark things lead to dark places.

    Though, ironically, and/or in the best "Star Wars" tradition, it has something of a happy, hopeful end.
    Last edited by Cryogenic, Feb 13, 2013
    Yanksfan, BoromirsFan, ILNP and 4 others like this.
  8. Seagoat Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 25, 2013
    star 4
    Everyone complains about Vader killing the younglings in ROTS, but I saw nobody complain when he confessed to killing the Sandpeople children in AOTC.
  9. Sistros Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 24, 2010
    star 6
    what seagoat said
    Orman Tagge and BoromirsFan like this.
  10. anakinfansince1983 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Mar 4, 2011
    star 7
    I saw even fewer people complain when the Tusken Raiders kidnapped Shmi Skywalker for no reason and spent a month torturing her to death.
    BoromirsFan and Samnz like this.
  11. SithStarSlayer Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 23, 2003
    star 6
    I am still trying to work out how it was too dark if it was funny.

    Edit: @Seagoat The Tusken Slaughter is what we called it and the debate raged for years about whether that was his tipping point to the dark side or not. Others may recall it differently, but in more than one forum that topic has been a good one. In fanforce, it was soo bad we raided other threads... spammed lightsaber-battle role play to derail topics... until they kicked us all out. Wait!? W-uht? [face_mischief]
    Last edited by SithStarSlayer, Feb 13, 2013
    Thuro and BoromirsFan like this.
  12. Sistros Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 24, 2010
    star 6
    i didn't..

    i saw much more complain about that then he commiting acts against tusken children
  13. anakinfansince1983 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Mar 4, 2011
    star 7
    So what was that about "nobody" complaining about it? I've seen far more people behave as if he attacked a Tusken Kindergarten for ****s and giggles, which is a far cry from what happened.

    As I have said many times before in this debate, what Anakin did wasn't OK but the lack of context is a serious issue, and a direct comparison to the killing of the Jedi younglings shows a grotesque lack of context.
  14. PiettsHat Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 1, 2011
    star 4
    I don't think it's too dark. I think Lucas would have been remiss had he not addressed these points. My reasons are as follows:

    1. With TPM, and Anakin being too old to train, Lucas basically established that there were Jedi children and this was further elaborated upon in AOTC. Considering that ANH established that Vader helped hunt down and destroy the Jedi knights and that Anakin (by that point) was basically all that was left of the Jedi, it became clear that the children were going to have to die. I think it was necessary, and very brave, that Lucas address their deaths onscreen. It was tactfully done in that it was played as torture-porn or gore, but we were still left with no question as to their fates. In regards to Anakin's role, to me, there's no difference between Anakin himself killing the children or ordering the clonetroopers to do so. I've said this before, but I do not judge a commander less harshly if he merely orders his men to carry out an attack rather than doing so himself.

    Additionally, considering Vader's complicity in the destruction of Alderaan (where millions of civilian children died), I don't believe the action in any way alters his "status" for redemption. The killing of the children primarily served, I believe to demonstrate that Anakin was destroying his own innocence (hence why the boy who confronted him looked remarkably as Anakin did in ANH) while at the same time functioning to trap him on the Dark Side -- he'd committed actions from which it was exceedingly difficult to turn back from.

    2. Here, again, I don't think it was too dark. The Separatists had to be addressed at some point and I think Anakin likely saw their deaths as being necessary to end the war. I think it works well in the narrative.

    3. This scene, especially, is important for me because it addresses the fact that Anakin didn't turn out of love -- that love is not what leads to the Dark Side, but fear is. In Anakin's case, fear of loss and a desire to control. If Anakin had truly turned solely out of selfless love to save Padmé, then he would never have choked her. But when it seemed as though she had turned against him and betrayed him to the Jedi -- that he had "lost" her -- his paranoia and fear caused him to lash out at her and choke her. For me, that's important because thematically it fits with the core of the prequels -- "fear is the path to the Dark Side" but love will return you to the light.

    4. I agree that by the end of that film, he definitely qualified. At the beginning of ROTS, even, he certainly needed some counseling though as I don't think he ever really addressed his mother's death and the events surrounding it, which festered and erupted subsequently.

    The film, in my view, had to be dark because it is a film about destruction -- the destruction of the potential of a man, the destruction of a democratic system, the destruction of a religious order. But it's not just that -- ROTS is a film about the dangers of succumbing to our weaknesses and fears and it shows the consequences that should befall us should we choose the "quick and easy path." And, as we see, they aren't pretty.
  15. Sistros Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 24, 2010
    star 6
    but the lack of context is a serious issue, and a direct comparison to the killing of the Jedi younglings shows a grotesque lack of context.

    ----------

    not when it comes to killing children


    but I will refrain from anything else said as our ethics are clearly different in this matter


    and nothing said will change our obvious deep rooted opinions
  16. anakinfansince1983 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Mar 4, 2011
    star 7
    Did you just accuse me of being unethical? Or did you simply ignore what I said about Anakin's behavior not being OK?

    That's what your post appeared to be, I hope I'm wrong.
  17. Sistros Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 24, 2010
    star 6
    uhhm no..

    I said our ethics are completely different
  18. anakinfansince1983 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Mar 4, 2011
    star 7
    No idea what that is supposed to mean.

    These debates are always the same though.

    "AOTC Anakin is a child killer! Where's the outrage?"

    OK. What he did in the camp wasn't acceptable. Even he knew that.

    Shmi Skywalker was slowly tortured to death. Anyone bothered by that?

    *crickets*
  19. Sistros Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 24, 2010
    star 6
    well I wasn't calling you unethical

    anyway, I think everyone knows what the tuskens did was wrong,

    what is there to debate about with that?

    only some troll with the intention of a rise would say

    "yeah that Shmii, learned her place didn't she? heeheehee"

    people don't comment on it much because it was obviously the wrong thing to do.
    Last edited by Sistros, Feb 13, 2013
  20. anakinfansince1983 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Mar 4, 2011
    star 7
    Oh you might be surprised. I've seen posts, and not from trolls, saying that it was part of their culture and they didn't know better, and Shmi was on their land.

    I have seen few if anyone indicate that Anakin's collateral damage was OK either, it seems a very "thank you Captain Obvious" that it wasn't--in fact that was the entire point--but it certainly gets harped on far more than Shmi's torture.
  21. Sistros Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 24, 2010
    star 6
    to me they were both EQUALLY wrong

    both the torture and murder of Shmii and the murder of the tusken children,

    the point I think seagoat was making is thart people are more shocked he killed little harmless Jedi children

    which is bad very bad, but no more bad than killing tusken children
  22. anakinfansince1983 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Mar 4, 2011
    star 7
    His state of mind made the difference, and I think any jury in our world would agree.

    First degree premeditated murder (the Jedi younglings) is punished more harshly than manslaughter or second-degree murder (the Tuskens).
  23. Sistros Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 24, 2010
    star 6
    majority verdicts doesn't nessercerilly mean it's right

    killing any child whether or not the sanity of mind at the time is wrong.

    I would also argue it wasn't manslaughter (since he basically admitted he went around killing every single one of them) but that's a whle other thread
  24. anakinfansince1983 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Mar 4, 2011
    star 7
    It's all another thread, and my point was in response to the PP's "Where's the outrage???" game, that it goes both ways.

    And a court verdict is the most neutral form we have.
  25. Cryogenic Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 20, 2005
    star 4
    Further to this...

    ...I'd just like to ask:

    What would YOU do if your hagiographic regard for a thing or thought in this universe, never mind your dearly beloved, was suddenly ripped from you in one pregnant moment?

    And in such a way that the timing couldn't be better: having just ended a galactic civil war, you see your wife for the first time since doing your dark deeds, embrace her, cherish her, and then, confirming a gnawing suspicion you've tried to cast to one side, the evidence looks damning... she's brought your own mentor/comrade to kill you. She thinks you're so far beyond reason -- so terrifying -- that she'd literally fly half-way across the galaxy with a security plan in tow, buttering you up just enough to pacify you and create the perfect opening for her Jedi confidant to subdue you, because she has become afraid of your shadow.

    That would surely suck. Hard. And the breaking of trust, honesty -- which Anakin craved fiercely in his interpersonal relationships, especially from the person he married. Love and violence, unfortunately, share some very close ties. From a certain POV, love *is* violence, since it can represent a brutal hammering of your ability to think straight, and result in a violent exclusion of things deemed "less" so ("So love has blinded you?"). This is what the prequel trilogy has stitched into its tapestry. It shows, to quote Nikos Kazantzakis, that "the doors of heaven and hell are adjacent and identical". If we're being honest, we should surely admit that that's a powerful but scary idea to grapple with.
Moderators: Bazinga'd