PT Did Qui gon/obi wan make the right decision for the galaxy by training Anakin?

Discussion in 'Prequel Trilogy' started by Lord Tyrannus, Oct 22, 2012.

Moderators: Bazinga'd
  1. Lord Tyrannus Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 18, 2012
    star 4
    With a sockpuppet leader, he wouldn't have ever ever dared to have used any of his two death stars!!!!

    Not to mention of all the sith imperial Expanded universe atrocities!!!!!!
  2. Eryndil Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Dec 18, 2012
    star 3
    Unfortunately, I don't know much of the EU set after ROTS, so I'll defer to your greater knowledge on that one :)
  3. Lord Tyrannus Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 18, 2012
    star 4
    The-Sith were not evil just because they had a death star, although that was a very huge contributing factor to that, though, well, however!!!!!
  4. only one kenobi Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 18, 2012
    star 3
    I think he tries to place that there, but he dilutes it far too much. And I think that is because the GL who made the PT is 20 years on jaded compared to the GL who made the OT.

    Of course I haven't forgotten those lines, but do they really amount to much within the greater story arc?

    Except that the system is screwed and can't be fixed. Padmé walks out of the politics of Coruscant and back to Naboo in TPM because the democratic system cannot deal with her planet's problems and she must sort them out militarily. How does that match up with the above sentiment? After having called for a vote of no confidence in one of her planet's greatest allies. She even says, as she leaves Palpatine, that she sees now that the Republic no longer functions - and what is cited? The endless discussions and lack of action. Exactly the things she argues with Anakin (in AOTC) are a necessary aspect of democracy.

    But he has everyone take some blame. Its almost as if the whole PT was written specifically in order to give every reason for Anakin to turn. The Jedi seem to have him around simply because he is the Chosen One, turning from the enlightened beings one might reasonably expect from the OT into a band of ascetics heel-bent on following procedures and an ancient prophecy - far too busy checking rules and regulations to show Anakin any compassion. You might think that's not what GL intended, and that may be right, but its what a lot of fans see.

    Yes, the 1976 novel also describes how Palpatine was simply the puppet of more sinister powers... Simply put, one can't show how something good has been lost if one never shows the thing when it was good. And from the outset the Senate is shown to be a squabbling cesspit. What democracy are we supposed to mourn the demise of? It never seems to have been there. We get a few 'good' Senators thrown into the mix but the rest seem like they were natural allies of Palpatine anyway.

    Hmmm... well, I have to point out that the Tuskens kidnapping his wife, torturing her , killing 26 farmers and causing the loss of Cliegg's leg were all due to GL writing that in to the story. Is there any mitigation offered as to why they did this? No, this is simply how they behave. So Cliegg's words here have a ring of truth about them, it seems. As to his killing of them being shown as utterly wrong. Is it really? Where Padmé can hardly bear to say that Obi-Wan had told her he killed younglings in ROTS, he tells her outright that he killed the women and children in the Tusken camp and she follows that up by marrying him. It seems as if, in some way, they don't count as much - even in Padmé's eyes.
    Darth Machtius and darth.ender like this.
  5. darth.ender Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Dec 28, 2012
    star 1
    A lot of interesting points there. I'm confused by what implicit racism you think is present with the killing of the sand people. Even if Padme is too racist to care, clearly that was meant to be a turning point for Anakin, a point which arises again in ROTS. Yes, GL created a race of beings who certainly don't hold the same morals we do, but there are cultures that still act in similarly barbaric manners today. Yet that doesn't justify killing them all including women and children. If I wrote a story about the Taliban kidnapping a reporter and torturing her to death, would I be a racist implying that all Muslims or Middle Easterners are just "that way"?

    Apart from that point, I think you make several good points, especially the inconsistency in Padme's reasoning for military action in TPM, yet supporting chit chat in AOTC.
  6. only one kenobi Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 18, 2012
    star 3
    It depends upon how you write the story; what you are, ultimately, saying depends upon the context. The aspect that makes this seem odd is that GL, as you say, creates a "race of beings" who do those atrocious things, its not a particularly bad group of them, that is what they are all like.

    Indeed. I'm glad that you see it also.
  7. PiettsHat Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 1, 2011
    star 4
    We can agree to disagree. Neither one of us knows George Lucas so it's useless to speculate on his emotional state. Nonetheless, I don't see him as jaded. I think, if anything, the final shot of ROTS shows that Lucas believes that even in the darkest times, there is hope.

    I think they're very well incorporated into the story. Think of Yoda's sadness following the Battle of Geonosis -- the recognition that, with the coming of war, the shroud of the dark side falls. Or look at the shots of Palpatine surveying his army as the Imperial March plays triumphant and Bail Organa punches the banister. There's a great deal of condemnation of war and the folly of committing lives to an endeavor out of fear.

    How does that match up with her statement? Perhaps because, if you notice, Padmé didn't give up on the Republic -- she stayed and continued to work as a Senator trying to prevent the creation of the military. She never gave up on it, but was only a single voice. That's the commentary of the PT -- that democracy needs to be protected. But she's one person and does not have the power to drown out the voices of the Senate cheering on Palpatine. The Republic fell not due to the endless discussions (which could have been remedied by reform) but when they handed over power to Palpatine for expediency's sake. Democracy, by its very nature, demands that many people come together to work for a cause and power can't be centralized to one person. The few idealists among us are not enough for it to work because work it is.

    Of course, because no one makes decisions in a vacuum. The whole of the PT wasn't written to give Anakin a reason to turn. In fact, if you eliminate Anakin, it's clear that Palpatine's plan would have functioned just fine without him. And of course the Jedi aren't as enlightened as they are in the OT -- wisdom does not simply come from age or stature. It comes from loss and learning from mistakes. The Jedi fell, in part, due to their own failings. They weren't a perfect order and they never were, even in the OT. This is demonstrated by their willingness to lie to Luke while resisting any belief that Anakin can come back. The way they treat and train Luke, though, is based off what they learned from the mistakes they made with with Anakin. Empires rise when corruption arises and people lose their way. That was as true for the Jedi in the PT as it was for anyone else. That they fell in the first place is a testament to that.

    Had they always been perfect enlightened and compassionate beings, they never would have been wiped out in the first place.

    Of course the Republic was good. Did you see any planets getting blown up under the Republic? Did you see the wealth of worlds of the Republic such as Coruscant and Naboo? There was much worth fighting for. Was it imperfect? Yes, but all systems are. Do Western democracies not have face issues of drug and human trafficking, rape, murder, kidnapping, extortion, scandal, etc.? And yet, I doubt any one of us wants to go and live in North Korea. The Senate is a squabbling cesspit, but it's still better than a dictator and, with reform, could be made better. Here in the United States, at least, I think we view our leaders in much the same esteem as the Senate of the Republic -- the inaction and delays over the fiscal cliff and raising the debt ceiling come to mind. Or look at Greece's and its tumultuous democracy. But I think if you asked those people, they would rather try to save their democracy than succumb to a dictatorship.

    What exactly is wrong with the Tuskens being portrayed as such? This is rather consistent with what occurred in ANH. There, they were territorial and attacked Luke simply for being on "their" land. Moreover, it's not as though throughout history (especially during ethnic conflicts), that prisoners were often captured and abused, even civilians. This would likely even be further exacerbated by the fact that it is two species in conflict, here, which would make the differences all the stronger. There's a reason Owen is concerned with keeping the Tuskens out in ANH, for example.

    In regards to Padmé, she's clearly shocked at what Anakin did (and Anakin himself is distraught by his actions) so I think it's clear that his killing of the Tuskens was presented as wrong. When Padmé asks him "What's wrong, Ani?" he doesn't say anything about his mother. Instead, he stares down at his hands and says that he killed them.

    The difference in her reaction, I would say, would be due to the fact that for the Tuskens (rather than the Jedi), Anakin never went after them with the intent to kill, only to rescue his mother. It is only when she dies that he loses it and attacks and later, he breaks down crying. Whereas in ROTS, he specifically went to the Temple with the intention of killing its inhabitants and displayed no sign of remorse when he was with her, simply spouting his intentions of ruling an Empire. And he returned to Padmé after the attack on the Temple, cool as a cucumber. Therein lies the difference. Padmé herself says that Anakin has changed in this regard.

    Regardless, she and Anakin hardly live happily ever after. So I do think there is commentary there -- that Padmé should have sought out help for Anakin instead of letting him go off fighting in the war in such as state leaving her as his main emotional support. As we saw in ROTS, he doesn't handle it well when her life is threatened.
    Darth Machtius and kainee like this.
  8. darth.ender Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Dec 28, 2012
    star 1
    I would argue that there was a time when all humans were largely the same way: tribalistic, bloodthirsty, torturing and killing with little remorse. The idea is that they are primitive beings with primitive moral concepts, but that they are nevertheless sentient beings worthy of better treatment from someone who should know better.

    Before I get in trouble, I mean primitive in their development, i.e. not as morally or technologically advanced, not that they are mentally as yet incapable of higher reasoning. The same primitive that humans were 3,000 years ago: genetically hardly different, but culturally more savage.
    Last edited by darth.ender, Jan 8, 2013
  9. Lord Tyrannus Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 18, 2012
    star 4
    Losing the will to live because of this

    http://effyeahstarwars.tumblr.com/post/6752400912
    [IMG]


    But just simply getting over this

    [IMG]

    Order 66 was actually not nessecary for him to rise to power. He had clouded the jedi's minds already, so they really weren't that much of a threat to him. It was because of him telling Anakin Skywalker that he was Darth Sidious the tratior that he'd had perceived the Jedi Order as a threat. And, I will use even more evidence to support my theory that Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader was a nessecary key to the creation of the Galactic Empire.

    [IMG]
    [IMG]
    [IMG]
    Last edited by Lord Tyrannus, Jan 8, 2013
  10. Arawn_Fenn Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jul 2, 2004
    star 7
    Not the talk about destiny. That started in the OT.
    kainee likes this.
  11. Force Smuggler Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Sep 2, 2012
    star 6
    If Qui-Gon had trained Anakin I think ROTS would have gone completely different. I think the galaxy would have been better off. I think he would have freed Shmi or would have allowed Anakin to go to Tatooine to save her from the Tusken Raiders
  12. Iron_lord Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Sep 2, 2012
    star 6
    In The Life & Legend of Obi-Wan Kenobi, Qui-Gon alludes to sending Shmi a gift which she can use to help buy her freedom.
  13. Force Smuggler Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Sep 2, 2012
    star 6
    I'm not sure if I read that one or not. I remember something being mentioned in Tatooine Ghost about something like that but don't remember the details. If Qui-Gon was alive he would have allowed Anakin to visit Shmi from time to time. Shmi would have been able to temper Anakin's moods.
  14. DRush76 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 25, 2008
    star 4

    Mixing love with moral compass . . . that rarely ever works. You either love someone or you don't. And Padme was no saint.



    Instead of having Shmi, Padme or someone else "temper" Anakin's moods, why not have someone - namely Qui-Gon teach Anakin how to "temper" his own moods. Anakin should have learned how to take care of Anakin.
    Last edited by DRush76, Jan 11, 2013
  15. only one kenobi Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 18, 2012
    star 3
    Yes it condemns war but.... what choice do they have? When I see Dooku and his cabal (including the banking clan, technological and industrial combines) I wonder whether he is hinting at the goings on behind the scenes in WW1 and WW2 but this is so lightly hinted at that it becomes lost - and the parties are shown as clearly being of one side, there is no hint that they are operating within the exegis of the Republic also. So the overall impression is that there is an external aggressor and that the Republic has no choice but to act.

    But realistically the PT was written with the intention of showing Anakin's turn to Vader. Lucas wrote the PT with the premise of the whole saga becoming the tragedy of Anakin Skywalker. So everything he does in the movies is headed toward that outcome. Perhaps it is simply that concentration that diverts from a greater story arc - that of the fall of the Republic. We are shown an Anakin who lacks belief in democracy - and given what we are shown of it why should we not?

    I don't expect them to be perfectly enlightened, they are, after all, simply beings. But their whole structure is, imo, incongruent with what one might expect of them from the OT. They are shown as an intransigent, inflexible, almost bureaucratic organisation - even utilising the intimidation of a council to ensure order.


    I've never understood this concept of its either this or its the other (false dichotomies) - in fact it was such choices that - effectively - is used to start the Glactic War. Why is the alternative to Western Democracies a North Korean Dictatorship? It isn't. That's an argument of fear. I think there is much wrong with our 'Western Democracies', I have a pretty good idea of what those things are (as did, to a great extent, those who wrote the Constitution of the USA), and I don't think the alternative is a Dictatorship. But you highlight the problem here. GL decided, it seems, to use our Western Democracies as the model for the Republic. Well, most of us know they are flawed anyway. Much as people might not like utopias there is an argument in a story arc like Star Wars that - given that the rebels will fight for the return of the Republic inthe OT - what they will fight for will have been worth fighting for. This Lucas never offers us. At best (as you have demonstrated) he offers up something that's not as bad as the Empire. Hardly inspiring.


    Its not entirely consistent with what we are shown in ANH. There the Tuskens attack Luke and then are more interested with looting his stuff. You could argue that maybe they would have got round to him, but that isn't the same as saying that it is consistent with. There is no hint that they are torturers, only robbers. As to what is wrong with it. Given the real life climate, a group of desert nomads.....? That his killing of even the children of these peoples was not enough to either turn him or to dissuade Padmé of her love for him just adds to my discomfort with these scenes.

    So, in short, Padmé is alright with Anakin while he is simply a psycopathically imbalanced killer, but not so when he is cool and pre-meditated?

    Perhaps she could have got him help after the events of Tatooine, rather than overlooking his actions and marrying him.
  16. PiettsHat Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 1, 2011
    star 4
    They may not have had much of a choice initially, but just because one starts a war does not mean that you have to keep fighting no matter the losses. At some point, people should try to reopen diplomatic communication and begin peace negotiations. That's something we see in ROTS -- Padmé talks to Anakin about how she's worried that the Republic is becoming the very evil it sought to destroy and asks that he talk to Palpatine about re-opening negotiation. But he doesn't. And, indeed, the Senate is shown to be in complete support of Palpatine. The Jedi begin investigating Palpatine, but by then it's too little too late. And then there's Palpatine's line -- "the Senate will vote to continue the war as long as General Grievous is alive" which Mace Windu perfectly accedes to by saying they will make finding him their highest priority.

    Point being, exceedingly few individuals (such as Padmé) are willing to step back and try to end hostilities through discussion rather than military force. For the most part, the Senate allows itself to be manipulated by Palpatine due to fear (and they drag the Jedi down with them).

    Of course Anakin's fall was a big part of the PT, but it wasn't the only story. It was also about the fall of the Republic as well. In the end, these two stories become intertwined. But looking at Palpatine's plan, he didn't exactly need Anakin to succeed. That's my point. That Anakin doesn't believe in democracy isn't exactly surprising when you consider that he's known Palpatine since he was a ten-year old child. Palpatine who, of course, is going to subtly twist his views. He even defends Palpatine against Obi-Wan's accusations. He's frustrated by the Republic's inaction which, given his background, isn't surprising. But I hardly think that means the Republic is beyond saving (especially if the person who is actively trying to destroy it is removed from power).

    They are very much that way in the OT -- intransient and inflexible: did you not notice how both Obi-Wan and Yoda both refused to believe that Anakin could turn back to the Light, in spite of Luke's faith? Or the fact that they readily manipulated Luke into hating his father (which could have had deadly consequences in ESB) without regard for what it would mean to him? The Jedi were always very dogmatic, even in the OT, such as when Yoda refuses to answer Luke's question.

    Plus, I hardly see what is "intimidating" about a council -- Buddhists have councils and I don't think they are particularly harsh.

    The Jedi are a lot wiser in the OT, that's true, but they also had to learn some very hard lessons through first-hand experience. And that's how it should be, in my opinion. No one is born wise. And in the case of the Jedi, had they not been deeply flawed, they never would have been wiped out by the Empire in the first place since they were in a position of power in the galaxy.

    Because that is the dichotomy established by the films -- it shows the crumbling and corrupt Republic contrasted to the oppressive, genocidal Empire. Which would you rather live in? That's essentially the point that Lucas shows -- that regardless of how many problems the Republic had, it was worth trying to fix given what it became under Palpatine's manipulations. Of course there is much wrong with Western Democracies and George Lucas specifically uses them in order to say "guard and cherish your Republics." Too often, when things get tough (as they did for the Germans after WWI), people get exasperated with the system and look to a single leader to get their nation back on the right track. You say that "most of us know they are flawed anyway" but that's exactly the point -- Star Wars looks at timeless themes (such as how Republics become Empires) and is very much in the vein of a warning not to repeat history, because it does happen all too often.

    Also, if the Republic was a utopia in the PT (as you suggest), why would it have fallen in the first place? If it was such a perfect place to live in, why would the Empire have arisen?

    I think, on the contrary, your proposal represents a false dichotomy in that it suggests that a system is only worth saving if it is flawless and utopic. And if that's the case, there's very little in this world worth fighting for. Certainly not any of our democracies today.

    But they are also never shown in any positive light, either. Plus, note that when the Jawa vehicle is attacked and the Jawas slaughtered, the Empire makes it look as though the Tusken Raiders did this. Luke's response is that he's never heard of them "hitting anything this big" before. But the line clearly implies that the Tuskens are no strangers to attacking small outposts and slaughtering its inhabitants senselessly. A small outpost such as, say, a single farm. They are presented with no positive qualities in the OT and pointlessly violent as well.

    Plus, I think you have to consider that during Anakin's attack of them, he wasn't in his right mind. He wasn't able to make a conscious, rational choice about what he was doing because he was emotionally overwhelmed and deeply traumatized. And I honestly can't blame him for what he did under the circumstances.

    I think that's what Padmé recognized -- that, especially because Anakin was so pained and regretted his actions after the attack, that it wasn't something he had consciously planned out or even, I think, that he was fully aware of what he was doing.

    I would not say that Anakin is a "psychopathically imbalanced killer" but rather that he broke under extreme stress and trauma. It happens to everyone given the right situation. I think it's important to note that it's not just that Anakin's mother died, but that he had been separated from her for ten years (with no contact and in a situation that was less than ideal), been dreaming of her in horrific pain for at least a month (where he could see her as clearly as if she had been standing in front of him), that these disturbing dreams had been affecting his sleep patterns, that when he set out, he had just heard about the viciousness of the Tusken Raiders and heard them dehumanized, and that he held his mother's broken, tortured body in his arms just as she died knowing that, had he left earlier, he could have saved her. I think to be honest, that he went temporarily insane in that instance and was deeply mentally unbalanced when he chose to attack the Tuskens. To be honest, I don't see how he couldn't be, given what he experiences. And I think that the film supports this because what Yoda senses from half a galaxy aware is not rage or hatred, but rather pain.

    Can you honestly think of, emotionally, anything that would unhinge a person more than what happened to Anakin's mother? There's very little worse, in my opinion, than having someone you love tortured to death. And that's where the difference lies, in my estimation. And I think this is where Padmé makes her mistake and believes that she can help Anakin when she's not equipped to. Additionally, one can't forget that Anakin also told Palpatine and I think it likely would have relieved some of the worry Padmé had when Anakin told someone in authority. This is what you are supposed to do when you need help, after all, you tell someone in a position of power that you trust. Which is what Anakin did, but it backfired rather spectacularly.

    But it's a far cry from what happens in ROTS where he calmly kill the Jedi.

    Of course she should have. But I think Padmé thought that she could handle it on her own. That's one of both her best characteristics and deepest character flaws, in my estimation, in that she feels the need to do everything herself and martyr herself to her "causes." When her planet is under siege, she must go free it herself. When she's asked to serve in the Senate, she has to go, even though she doesn't want to, because people need her. When Obi-Wan is captured, she heads there by herself to try to find a diplomatic solution. And so when Anakin needs her, she wants to "fix" him as well. I don't think she was overlooking his actions at all, but I think she believed that she could help him when she obviously couldn't, at least not on her own.
    kainee likes this.
  17. only one kenobi Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 18, 2012
    star 3
    Yes, they 'become' intertwined later. But that is a part of my point. They are 'mirrors' of each other, but they then start from different places, because the emphasis is on Anakin's fall. By which I mean...

    This does not seem to match up with Anakin's arc. Anakin begins uncorrupted, almost saintly. "He gives without thought of reward" etc. So, Anakin's arc begins with a 'Utopian' proposition, which arc is distinct from the Republic. Could not the same question be asked of Anakin; if he was so perfect a being how could he have fallen?

    Exactly, the films (the PT) establishes this dichotomy. The Republic is shown as deeply flawed from the beginning. We are never confronted with a Republic worth saving, as far as I can see.

    But the machinations of the Republic (within which the Trade Federation operate) are responsible for their inaction in the face of an act of aggression against a peaceful planet. As a side issue, I'd be interested in an explanation as to how a military blockade is legal within a democratic system - which is something that is an unquestioned aspect of TPM...

    Not really. For one, as I said, the 'mirror' of the two arcs (the fall and redemption of Anakin and the Republic) is broken. Why does one begin with one failing (failed?) and the other 'utopian'? Second, even if you were to conjure Western democracies why choose to highlight them at their worst (bureaucratic, ineffective) as a starting point. In the OT we are lead to believe that the Republic was something great, something to fight for the return of. In the PT we start with a decaying, ineffective, corrupt. That ineffectiveness is the result of overblown central administration and a lack of democracy. The Republic, by the start of the saga, is already well on the way to Empire. The OT then becomes a story about viewing the past with rose coloured spectacles, which leads me to the Jedi.

    To the first point here, what evidence do the Jedi have that Anakin still has good in him? He has spent twenty years killing. The question really is, where did Luke's faith come from? As for the Jedi manipulating Luke into hating his father......what? When do the Jedi talk of hate - other than to warn against it? Vader is responsible for killing Luke's adoptive family; for torturing Leia. He is part of an Empire that destroyed an entire planet, and all of its inhabitants. He shows no remorse over these actions. He helped the Empire to hunt down and kill Jedi. Is it dogmatic to see Vader as having consumed Anakin..... for twenty years?

    "See through you we can" says Yoda to a nine year old boy from Tatooine, surrounded by Jedi Masters. Every scene we see in the Council chambers seems to instill a sense of edginess, of admonishment. It appears like a clique. Those visiting the Council are shown as excluded from, distinctly separate to and certainly under the authority of them.

    Why? Anakin is not flawed at the beginning of the saga, yet he turns into a force for evil. And even if one expects flaws....the extent to which the Jedi were flawed is dramatic.

    None of what we are shown in the PT, in terms of the Republic or the Jedi, match up - in my opinion - to what we might reasonably have expected from the OT. We are told of a noble order, of more civilised times, of a great democratic Republic and it turns out the Jedi were far from enlightened and the Republic was a corrupt cesspit.



    I simply think that films don't exist within a bubble, and that the way the Tuskens were portrayed given real world events were a little close to the bone. It played a little too readily to the gallery.


    But we are shown in ROTJ that Luke, we are lead to believe, was in danger of turning by giving in to his anger and hatred. Is that not exactly what Anakin does here?



    This is actually a very interesting point, and a perspective I have not seen before. You have given me something to think about with this I thank you.
  18. PiettsHat Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 1, 2011
    star 4
    I think, though, that one needs to consider that you can't use the same timescale when discussing a system versus an individual. The Republic is very, very old in contrast to Anakin who is 23 at his oldest in the PT. You thus can't portray their falls in exactly the same manner because the Republic has a great deal of history behind it and would not so quickly turn from a utopia into a dystopia. What I think Lucas does because of this is to show glimpses of the glory of the Republic past. When you look at the planet of Naboo and how it is almost a paradise, it harkens back to the Republic as it should be. This is further reinforced, in my opinion, by the fact that Naboo has a very strong democratic tradition to the point that Padmé refuses to serve out additional terms since it would hamper the democratic process. It's an example of a society that has found leaders who are not attached to power -- those who are reluctant to lead.

    But I do think there is some paralleling between the two.

    Also, I think it's important to note that Anakin was shown as his goodest and purest as a child. He was, essentially, a blank slate and could have ended up on any path.

    Both Anakin and the Republic were corrupted due to their flaws and manipulation, but the timescale is necessarily going to be different.

    I would not say that the Republic is not worth saving, personally. It was deeply flawed, true, but all political systems are and must constantly be reformed to meet the needs of the people. If only utopic systems are worthy, then there's precious little in this world that is worth fighting for.

    Of course, but again, note the theme of corruption. On their own, the Trade Federation is not an inherently bad or evil idea. But they allow themselves to be corrupted by greed and ally themselves with the Sith. A blockade is actually a legal form of protest. I recall reading for instance that workers at a petroleum plant blockaded the plant and refused to allow any shipments of fuel to enter in protest of their wages. This made energy prices spike in the nation and certainly harmed the economy, but it was perfectly legal. The Republic, being as large as it is, is going to have larger-scale options available I would imagine. What was illegal was the invasion, however, and that is where the Trade Federation crossed the line. Up until that point, the people of Naboo maintained contact with Coruscant.

    I guess I simply don't see how the Republic is emblematic of a "failed" system. After WWI, Germany's government was horrifically inefficient and the economy collapsed under a variety of stressors. Hitler rose to power in this environment. And yet, I don't think that the German people were wrong to return to a democratic system. When the Rebels fight to restore the Republic, they do so not to return to it exactly as it was, but to return to a democratic ideal. Governments can change and be reformed, but if the principles underlying them are sound, then that is what needs to be fought for.

    The Rebels lived under the Republic and the Empire (at least, the older members did) and so they are aware of the flaws of the Republic. But it is still, far and away, better than the Empire and they can rebuild it to be better than before. They will have clean slate following the overthrow of the Empire.

    But here's my question, if the Republic were a utopia, as you would have liked to see, why would it have become an Empire? Because from what I've noticed, people aren't that eager to change a system that works well.

    You spoke of intransigence. Well, the Jedi certainly do suggest that they are unwilling to look past dogma by even considering that Anakin could turn back to the Light. They don't listen to Luke's reasons, they simply claim that "he's more machine now than man, twisted and evil" and that "once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny." Nor is there any attempt to dissuade Luke through logic -- that his father has been evil for so long, that it would be irresponsible to place all his hopes on him turning back (not to mention improbable).

    Also, you don't think it would have a negative impact on Luke to be told that Darth Vader killed his father? That is manipulative at its core. The Jedi may have had good reasons to do it, but that does not change the fact that they are using Luke as a means to an end -- overthrowing the Sith -- without giving him all the information.

    The Jedi of the OT were not perfect by any means and this is demonstrated by the fact that Luke was proven right, in the end.

    Ah, I see what you mean here. I thought you were saying that the very idea of Council was intimidating (which I found perplexing) but, yes, here I will agree that the Jedi are unnecessarily cold and intimidating to young Anakin. I do think, though, that it is intentional since it contrasts with Qui-Gon's warmth and, more importantly, it also contrasts with how Obi-Wan and Yoda present themselves to Luke (as kind, eccentric old hermits). Again, I think that the Jedi by this point had become too cut off from the common people and that this is a deliberate contrast.

    And the Jedi remain deeply flawed even in the OT -- Luke has to transcend some of their teachings to succeed. But I think, again, this has to do with a timescale. It takes much longer to corrupt an institution or a system than a person. Also note that while Anakin was not nearly so flawed in TPM, Lucas did sow the seeds for many of his underlying issues -- such as how his past of slavery makes him very sensitive to being dehumanized and how the inefficiency of the Republic would deeply trouble him (as seen when his mother tells him that the biggest problem in the universe is that people don't help each other). We also see, even in TPM, that he has a disobedient and rebellious streak. I would say it's less pronounced because he's a child, but Anakin is by no means perfect.

    On the contrary, the Republic of the PT perfectly matches its description in the opening of the 1976 novel with the only point of difference being Palpatine's role in the events. But it is always presented as having "rotted from within" and that is what we see in the PT. But great institutions and systems don't fall because they are good and pure, they fall when they break from within.

    To say that only the perfect and ideal are worth saving is rather cynical, in my opinion, and goes against everything that Star Wars stands for. If anything, Luke saving his father proves how important it is never to give up on that last bit of goodness.

    I think, though, that it's rather difficult to argue that the OT presented a picture of the Tuskens as better than the PT. Character-wise, though, it's a good explanation for Owen's fear of the Tusken raiders. But also, I don't think it plays to the gallery because while what the Tuskens did to Shmi was terrible, the film never pretends that Anakin's actions were right or good. Nor does Anakin himself.

    For my part, I've always felt that turning to the Dark Side means making a conscious and rational decision to turn. That being angry and fueled by hatred isn't enough but one must willingly and knowingly surrender to these impulses. Otherwise, one could simply be tortured into falling and, for me, that would eliminate a lot of the thematic weight of the Dark Side. There needs to be an element of understanding and selfishness, otherwise, it's just about traumatizing someone as much as possible. And no one, no matter how strong, is unbreakable. I would have been very disappointed, for example, if Anakin's turn was framed in a device similar to the Tusken slaughter because it wouldn't have rung true to me.

    I can understand why you might prefer something different. But many of the things I most appreciate about the PT are things which you most lament, which is where our difference of opinion stems from, I imagine.
    Last edited by PiettsHat, Jan 12, 2013
    kainee likes this.
  19. Lord_kimo1 Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Mar 16, 2009
    The Jedi use the will of the Force to guide them through their journeys. There is lot of what if's? The story line could have gone a million directions. But the quote "nothing happens by accident" remains, telling us that this is how it is suppose to be.
    I truly enjoyed reading the posts from everyone. Some interesting stuff. Everyone makes good points!
    SlashMan and kainee like this.
  20. Eryndil Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Dec 18, 2012
    star 3
    Is this mentioned in the EU? There was no suggestion of it in TPM so presumably it comes from somewhere else.
  21. DarthBoba Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jun 29, 2000
    star 9
    Yeah that's fanon, IMO.
  22. Force Smuggler Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Sep 2, 2012
    star 6
    Qui-Gon didn't follow the rules so I believe he would have.
  23. TheRevanchist Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Dec 13, 2012
    star 2
    Without training him he would have never been able to kill Palpatine, and Luke wouldn't recreate the order.

    I think that Palpatine would have defeat the Jedi, with or without Skywalker.
Moderators: Bazinga'd