Did they write Anakin correctly?

From the way Obi-Wan describes Anakin in ANH, I got the impression that he was a noble, wise Jedi who fell tragically to the dark side through circumstance and critical flaws of personality. I see none of this in the PT. We get a flat child character with some touches of anger (which at least is all right), then an irredeemably angsty and completely unlikable teen in AotC (no nobility there), and then a more mature, but nevertheless ignoble, angsty and obtuse adult.

Could certainly have been done better. Could also have been done much worse, mind you.

A lot of this could have been done much more effectively with the PT starting at the time of AotC, when Anakin has already been under Obi-Wan's tutelage for a time. His discovery can be alluded to - it would need to be - but spending an entire movie explaining where came from wastes precious time showing where he is going, and that is the biggest complaint about his turn to the dark side: it is too sudden and poorly justified.

 

Definately agree the fight scene should have been left in TPM

 

I just cant make a connection between the JL Anakin and the Hayden Anakin because I honestly can't find one.

I agree, there is a disconnect there for me too. Everyone gets that AOTC Anakin is TPM Anakin 10 years down the road with some teenage angst under his belt, but its just hard, at least for me, to reconcile them as one character.

In AOTC, we see an almost completely different person than in TPM. As realistic as that may be I know some will argue, its not, IMHO, conducive to getting invested in the character, especially when that character is bratty punk with few redeeming qualities WE SEE on screen.

 

"I think the transition through the PT is nice, and to whoever said that he's a "gullible doof" in Episode 3, how so? He's believing a fairly convincing argument from his mentor who's looked out for him ever since he was little. Wouldn't you believe Palpatine? Or at least give him the benefit of the doubt?"

I'm the one who said he was a gullible doof, and he is. He's had YEARS of Jedi teachings and he throws it all away for one old fart who said he can cheat death. Nevermind that he just told you what you want to hear, he's been LYING TO YOU FOR YEARS but ignore all that and pledge your life to him.

Anakin was a gullible doof. It pains me to watch HC play him as such a brat. I have a hard time believing this little kid became a cold blooded killer with such cunning.

 

Yeah, I think Lucas screwed up with the Anakin character. The problem with Lucas is he?s an action director trying to make a nuanced character-driven movie.

The problem with the character arc is that it seems interesting in theory: a naïve slave boy who is essentially good gets corrupted by power, greed and the dark side. Unfortunately, the execution of that idea fails on too many levels.

If you watch all three films, it?s quite bizarre. There are three completely different Anakins! Connecting the dots in between these depictions is no easy task. In TPM, you get the selfless slave boy who follows authority, especially Jedis, and is well-behaved. In AOTC, you have an arrogant, sulky teen who has little respect for authority and who bickers with his master. Furthermore, neither of these Anakins are likable people, and the change that takes place is not easily understood. Sure, he?s a teenager, but at this point we wonder what will lead him to stray to the dark side. By highlighting how nice of a kid he is, and by making his slavery seem not so terrible (come on, Watto?s not that bad of a guy)?there?s nothing apparent in his past that would make him turn into a monster, or even explain why in AOTC he is becoming so disillusioned by the Jedi. They hint that his powers are unparalled, and that his impatience is due to the fact that Obi-Wan may be holding him back?but we never see even in the OT any hint that Vader/Anakin is more powerful than Yoda, Windu, Kenobi or Sidious. It doesn?t add up.

Then in ROTS we suddenly have a noble and likable Jedi who is now good friends with the Master he used to bicker with, and who is only lured to the dark side because he wants to save his wife! That?s the worst part: There?s no greed, power lust or hatred that fuels Anakin?s turn. Sure, Obi-Wan says there is, but basically he (a) is fooled into thinking the Jedi are planning to overthrow the Republic, and (b) he wants to save his wife. His actions can?t be excused by the latter, but his belief in the former?that the Jedi are treasonous?makes Darth Vader not such a bad guy. He?s not evil, just misled? His intentions are noble? Arrgh.

It would have been far more effective and understandable if Anakin had been lured by less than noble intentions?like power and greed. Then the OT would be understandable, and Vader would again be a villain. As it is now, he?s just gullible?

The problem is that Lucas wants Anakin to be likable. He wants his fall to be tragic. That?s fine, but there is a difference between a character who has a tragic flaw that brings dire consequences?and the kind of creature Darth Vader is, especially in the OT. In ROTS, Vader kills the Jedi to eradicate traitors and save his wife. He?s trying to do what he believes is right, more or less. Even before his ?turn?, he turned in Sidious because he believed it to be the right choice. But by the OT, Vader is torturing people and sanctioning the destruction of entire planets of innocent people. Eh? This is after he has no hope of saving his wife? What happened here?

 

It would have been far more effective and understandable if Anakin had been lured by less than noble intentions?like power and greed. Then the OT would be understandable, and Vader would again be a villain. As it is now, he?s just gullible?

Agreed.

 

Lucas is a poor writer. We all know this.

He left out a key element when he designed the PT and it's found in the OT: The Nature of the Force and it's connection to jedi. He was so desperate to put the midichlorian crap in there that he must have forgotten that his tragic tale would have made a billion times more sense if we, the audience, were told first then shown how a jedi could go bad.

But he does it backwards, memento style.

We're shown an evil jedi turned Sith, Count Dooku. Completely undermining Anakin's tragedy since obviously turning the the darkside doesn't really require much prodding from a sith Lord like Sidious. Dooku merely changed careers for no reason and seemed alright...he was really powerful. Why not Annie?

Oh I hate the name Annie....

Anyway, we're shown Dooku then shown Anakin switching sides then waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay over in ESB we're told that if a jedi chooses the Dark Side, they can't go back, they're stuck forever under evil's magic midichlorian spell.

Genius... -_-zzzZZZ

No, that vague "Anger, fear, hate leads to suffering" foreshadowing isn't good enough. larp

 

Blackbird, I agree with a lot of what you said. However I think the 'greed' is there in Anakin's fall to the Dark Side. It was planted in AOTC that he wanted to be more powerful, the most powerful Jedi.

I think your description of him in ROTS is fairly accurate, athough I sense a bit of sarcasm in a lot of what he does and says. Me, I didn't buy the whole speech before Obi-Wan left to Utapau. It felt like Anakin was being a little sarcastic, telling Obi what he wanted to hear.

But overall, the change between the films was pathetic, and if wanting to save his wife was the best Lucas could do to make him a "tragic" hero, failed he did.

 

Actually, trying to save one's wife or loved one is probably the closest thing to accepting why someone would do a dark thing there is. That being said, I do agree that this noble intention kinda takes away from the villainness of DV. I personally would have preferred to see Anakin be seduced by the power of the dark side for the sake of power in and of itself; megalomaniacal, not misguided.

 

In response to Intimidator: You claim Anakin was greedy, and that he wanted to be the most powerful Jedi. Yes, but only so he could save people he loved from dying. Again, the motive doesn't seem evil enough.

Really, a few things needed to be done to spice Vader up.

If Episode I wasn?t such a cartoon, he could have made Anakin?s slavery more like, uh, real slavery. Instead of Watto the Wacky, make Anakin?s slave master a sadistic fiend. Anakin, though a kind kid generally, learns about pain and torture from a master. Anakin?s podrace will literally be a race to save his life and escape the horror.

Then, In Episode II, have Anakin return to kill the slaver?showing he lacks Jedi mercy. Anger, hatred, and the need to not feel like a helpless slave again fuel the darkside. He likes feeling empowered.

Also, in Episode II, don?t start the movie with Anakin in love. It?s unrealistic and lazy. The love has to be reciprocal, not the weird obsessive creepfest it is. Explore the characters, and show them falling in love?but keep the story going. It?s an adventure film. Most important of all: stay the heck away from Naboo. That place is a yawn fest.

Then in III, give us Vader. I like ROTS as a stand alone, but in light of the OT it diminishes Vader. I don?t want nice guy Vader in III, and choking a rebel, blowing-up-planets Vader in IV. Doesn?t feel like the same guy. Power, greed, hatred, anger?that should be his downfall, not some misplaced altruism.

 

Anakin did NOT want to save Padme, he wanted to OWN Padme.

She was just a possession, Anakin thinks of people as possessions because that is what he was brought up knowing his entire early life, being a slave himself.

When he was left his mother he regretted it, and became miserable in his Jedi training, being away from her. His loyalty was with Qui-gon, because Qui-gon cared for him. He was loyal to the Jedi only because of Qui-gon. He still thinks of himself as a slave to the Jedi, since he has to call Obi-wan master. Anakin might have been the first Jedi not to come from the Republic, and he was old enough that it mattered. The Jedi assumed he already knew Republic beliefs, like equality, but he didn't. They never taught him important beliefs of the Jedi that they assumed he knew, since they knew it their entire lives.

He wanted to be a Jedi for the adventure, which is the exact opposite of being a Jedi (as Yoda says in Episode 1), and he quickly learns. He feels he threw away his life to the Jedi, but he still wants to be the kind of Jedi he imagined, a hero. And he also has loyalty, coming from being a slave, being loyal to those he doesn't like or understand.

Someone said they shouldn't have made Anakin stay "in love" with Padme for 10 years. But it's a very important point, Anakin felt complete (even though he was a slave) in Episode I, and hangs onto those things.

He hangs onto the memory of his mother, and to the memory of Padme. They are the ONLY ones that cared for him. Becaus ehe has such a sense of loyalty, he wants to sere/protect those he loves. The fireplace scene shows ANakin never got out of his slave mentality, when he professes his love to her, he says he'll do whatever he asks, that is HIS idea of love.

He becomes interested in Padme at first because she's so beautiful, but then learns how caring and compassionate and strong she is. And that she actually cares for him. She reminds him of his mother. So by staying attached to his mother, he stays attached to Padme. Padme falls in love with Anakin because she sees a person with strong moral values, and he is her Savior too.(battle of naboo, the assassinations) She does not know that Anakin is not loyal to actual moral principles, but he is just loyal to his masters, who job is to protect these moral principles.

The rest of the prequels Anakin spends his time trying to get back to that pre-Jedi life, that sense of security. But he has also grown attached to being free. He wants to make the world the way he wants it, and he wants to be free. That combination leads into greed.

Anakin's transition from episode 2 to 3 is not as big as from 1 to 2. The only big thing is that he has become a Jedi Knight, the only changes in his chracter are because of this.

Obi-wan is no longer his Master, he now reports to the Council. He has grown attached to Obi-wan too, being around him so long, so they have become friends. But now that he is free of Obi-wan, it's the Council that is his master. He finally gets to be on the Council, but he is NOT made Master. He is still below. He wants to have the freedom, to have the control.

But at least he has loyalty.

Until he finds that his loyalty is split in three different directions. To the Jedi, to his wife, and to his friend.

He and Padme still love each other, or so it seems. Anakin still sees her as a possession that he doesn't want to lose, in the full scene where they meet he senses something is different, and immediately thinks she is cheating on him. She says she's pregnant, he apologizes, and says he's just afraid of losing her. They talk, jokingly, later that night about how love might have blinded him.

He has a dream about her dying. He seems very worried immediately afterwards, but he still goes to the Jedi Temple, he still leaves her side. He still has conflicted loyalties.

Anakin always loved everyone, even strangers. But very few every loved him in return, in the way he expected/wanted, anyways. In fact, only 4. He eventually gives up about caring those that don'

 

?Anakin did NOT want to save Padme, he wanted to OWN Padme. She was just a possession, Anakin thinks of people as possessions because that is what he was brought up knowing his entire early life, being a slave himself.?

You?re interpolating. You may be right, but that?s sure not in the film. Never once does Padme complain about Anakin?s love?that?s he?s too possessive. Or selfish. It?s not in the film?so how are we to know this?

?When he was left his mother he regretted it, and became miserable in his Jedi training, being away from her. His loyalty was with Qui-gon, because Qui-gon cared for him. He was loyal to the Jedi only because of Qui-gon. He still thinks of himself as a slave to the Jedi, since he has to call Obi-wan master.?

Again, where are you getting all this? It would have been nice if this were the case, but since the film does so little to develop Anakin?s character or explore his motivations we are left to guess. If you have to read the book to understand all this then that?s a failure on Lucas? part, and poor filmmaking.

In fact, your entire post makes a good argument. Unfortunately, none of what you stated is anywhere in the film, or even remotely hinted at.

?Someone said they shouldn't have made Anakin stay "in love" with Padme for 10 years. But it's a very important point, Anakin felt complete (even though he was a slave) in Episode I, and hangs onto those things.?

Then this should be elaborated upon. Starting the movie with Anakin already in love is not only unrealistic (8-year-old boys usually don?t obsess on girls), it?s a lazy plot device for a romance. Imagine if ?When Harry Met Sally? started with one of the characters already in love with the other. How boring. We want to see the love, not be told about it.

?He hangs onto the memory of his mother, and to the memory of Padme. They are the ONLY ones that cared for him. Becaus ehe has such a sense of loyalty, he wants to sere/protect those he loves. The fireplace scene shows ANakin never got out of his slave mentality, when he professes his love to her, he says he'll do whatever he asks, that is HIS idea of love.?

Why does Padme care for Anakin? Do we know? Does it make sense? No, we don?t see why she should, but we are merely told she does?to move the plot along.

Again, you raise interesting possibilities, but either you?re guessing or you?ve read the book. Either way, you?re not describing the film?which is what I?m discussing.

?Anakin's transition from episode 2 to 3 is not as big as from 1 to 2. The only big thing is that he has become a Jedi Knight, the only changes in his chracter are because of this.

I disagree. He goes from being selfish to selfless?from disobedient to respectful?from an anti-Jedi to a Jedi?it?s like a different person.

?Anakin always loved everyone, even strangers. But very few every loved him in return, in the way he expected/wanted, anyways. In fact, only 4. He eventually gives up about caring those that don't care about him.

Argh?which movie are we talking about now? Are you just making this up?

?ANAKIN BETRAYS BECAUSE HE IS LOYAL!

Which, again, makes him too much of a good guy. His motives are basically honest. He destroys the Jedi because he feels they are traitors to the Republic. He turns on Padme because he feels she betrayed him. There?s no hatred, greed, or ambition in any of it.

It?s never clear why Anakin wants to defend the Republic and the Chancellor one minute, and then rule the galaxy with his wife/son the next. Suddenly he has instant ambition?

 

DB you're watching SW as you would other films and you shouldn't. GL created a unique style for SW that style dictates interpretation. By your standards many beautiful & evocative films are rubbish: "Satyricon", "Cabinet Of Doctor Caligari", "Orson Welle's MacBeth", "The Seventh Seal", these are all bad films because they aren't conventional dramas? Because everything isn't spelt out for the audience?

You have to *watch* SW and watch it carefully. The story is told through the facial expressions & actions of the characters. In ROTS when Obi departs for Utapau he and Anakin "make up" - but the real story is written all over their faces. Anakin is doing what he *knows* is right but he's not feeling it - his smile melts away immediately and he is *obviously* still troubled. Obi believes in Anakin, because Qui-Gon did. That's only one example.

Padme is no weaker than many of Shakespeare's heroines: Desdamona, Juliet, Ophelia - why were they in love? The actors who portray these characters invent many theories but the motivations aren't explicit in the text. Padme is obviously a person with little real-world experience - she lives in the rarified atmosphere of power politics, great events and epic conflicts. Anakin is the first person to show a romantic interest in her since she was in a "youth" program - since she was a young woman. It's obvious that she doesn't see his bad side - she filters that out. I don't know what's so hard to understand about this - maybe GL should have had a big scene with someone telling her "You're blind to his bad side!" but that's worse writing than just having her *act* as the character would if she were real.

SW is done in a pantomime style - like ballet and opera and classical drama - plus GL leaves certain things open to interpretation. Anakin is consistent and we are let into his life experience and motivations pre-Vader. I think that's better than trying to make us "understand" him. The fact is I would never physically harm anyone so I will never "understand" a murderer anyway. So this version is fine with me...

 

Another User: " if we, the audience, were told first then shown how a jedi could go bad."

I dont understand.


I think Anakin was written well. There are three Anakins. Little Ani on tatooine, Anakin Jedi and Darth Vader. These are three completely seperate people that are all put in one body to show the transition.

In Episode I, Anakin is a good little boy. He has a near happy life as he is. He lives with the person he cares for the most, he has friends and lets face itt, although hes a slave, he doesnt lead a life like an ancient egyptian slave. He still has his freedom. His life is quite good

Then everything gets taken away from him. His mum, Padme (who had only met but had already fellin love with) Qui-Gon, and his previous life. In Episode II we see this as he is defiant to his master.

He is utterly confused by the time it gets to Episode III. His Mum died in his arms, hes having dreams of Padme dying and to make it worse, it seems to him that the only way to save her is to join the Sith Lord, who turns out to have been Palpatine his friend.
He feels betrayed by everyone.

It would be stupid to say Anakin was written badly because he changes. HES SUPPOSED TO CHANGE! Its the whole point of the PT, to show how someone can be seduced by evil. How weird would Episode III be with Jake LLoyd's Anakin? Then SUDDENLY turning into DV.

 

It's obvious that she doesn't see his bad side - she filters that out. I don't know what's so hard to understand about this - maybe GL should have had a big scene with someone telling her "You're blind to his bad side!" but that's worse writing than just having her *act* as the character would if she were real.

What a lot of people dont understand is HOW she is blind to his bad side. As I said in an earlier post, I just dont particularly like the character of Anakin, regardless of how justified his attitudes are. Just because he has had some crappy things happen to him and he is justifiably f'ed up, it doesnt automiatically make him someone I find pleasant or really care about. In AOTC, we really dont see much of his good qualities, and even the ones we do he contradicts himself.

I am tired of seeing posts where someone says "why do you need everything spelled out for you (not saying that yours is saying that)." Well, I dont, but I DO need to see the character's motivations, not just be told about them. Hell, why dont you just cut the climax of the movie out and be told, "why do you need to see everything right in front of you. You already know OB1 maims Anakin, do you need it spelled out for you?"

HES SUPPOSED TO CHANGE!

I totally agree with you. But let us see him change then, dont just give us a totally different person and fall back on, well, he changed, people change ya know. Thats the whole point of a character ARC. Why even have AOTC and ROTS if we are just supposed to accept that Anakin Skywalker changed?

 

The character arcs are there - they just aren't presented in the style of an orthodox drama.

Why does Han return to the DS at the end of ANH? We NEVER know! Why does Lando turn sides in ESB? He never says - we have to infer it from the story. Why does Vader save Luke? He never says why in the film. You have to make an assumption based on the way the scene is played out. "You were right," - about what? That he still had good in him? That Anakin was "truly dead"?

That's the style of SW. If you want pristine character arcs I recommend playwrights like Chekov, Isben, Pinter, Stoppard - in film there's Bergman, Satyjit Ray, Cassavetes and many others.

Unfortunately, there isn't *one* GL movie that works that way. The closest he gets to that is the "Screenwriting 101" structures of Raiders & Empire.

 

See, I think the point of having two drastically different characters was to show that he was once a good person, and how easy it is for one to succumb to the dark side. He had to show a good person in episode I, so lukes statement of his father once being a good man.

 

Why does Han return to the DS at the end of ANH? We NEVER know! Why does Lando turn sides in ESB? He never says - we have to infer it from the story. Why does Vader save Luke? He never says why in the film. You have to make an assumption based on the way the scene is played out. "You were right," - about what? That he still had good in him? That Anakin was "truly dead"?

I disagree. We clearly see Han feeling guilty with the line "I know what Im doin'" in ANH. I think your comparison is flawed because we see Han go from a selfish bastard to someone who takes a risk for someone else he cares about inside the movie. That is the whole point of the story.

WIth Lando, I think we clearly see why he turns. When he screws over Han and Leia and Chewie, he says "I had no choice, they arrived right before you did." We know the two were friends (albeit with a little tension), and this line clearly shows that Lando wasnt thrilled about doing it but that he had to. As far as his turn back, well, his deal was getting altered and he was getting screwed. Also, he wasnt real happy about betraying Han in the first place so all he needed was a little shove. And again, this is all contained within the story that we see.

As to DV in ROTJ, the same thing applies. He was an evil dick in the beginning of ROTJ, and he turns into something else by the end of ROTJ. We SEE the process in the movie.

What I was referring to before is the fact that last time we saw Anakin he was a happy little kid. All of a sudden, from his first lines in AOTC, we see a bratty punk. Han and Lando changed before us and we were on the ride. Anakin is a completely different person from the get go, and we are left to infer what made him that way. I particularly dont care because he was jerk from the get go and I didnt particularly like him.

 

It would be stupid to say Anakin was written badly because he changes. HES SUPPOSED TO CHANGE! Its the whole point of the PT, to show how someone can be seduced by evil. How weird would Episode III be with Jake LLoyd's Anakin? Then SUDDENLY turning into DV.

You guys are too funny. You still don?t get it.

Of course he?s supposed to change. We all knew beforehand he had to change. It would have been nice to see the change, instead of it all happening in between the films.

As far as having everything spelled out for us?are you kidding?? That?s what Lucas does! There?s no subtlety or subtext in anything prequel-related! Everything is contained in their facial expressions?!?!? Good god, man?these actors are struggling to put out a mediocre performance, and you?re going on about the intricacies of facial expressions.

My first chuckle of the day.

 

Why does Han return to the DS at the end of ANH? We NEVER know!

Yes, we do. It?s all in the scene previous to the battle, in which Luke asks Han to help the Rebellion. When Han says ?May the Force be with you? you can see he likes Luke, even though he doesn?t believe in the Force. Han lets his tough guy guard down. He's conflicted. Look, Star Wars isn?t complex drama, but little character moments like that speak volumes.

The only time moments like this happen in the PT are in ROTS. By then, too much has already happened, and we don?t know the main characters by the time they reach the final act.

 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What he said.

 

Wookiee:

You've lived with the OT so long that you've invested your own logic into it - on the bare surface, none of those things are there. Anakin gets far more screentime & we are provided with far more concrete reasons for his turn than Han in ANH. And Hayden in ROTS gives a performance far beyond the hopes of HF in 1977: I accept Han turning - I *believe* Anakin turning.

What you're doing with the OT is no different than what GL asks you to do with the PT: take information from such small things as Han "obviously" feeling guilty - we get *one* line of dialogue and we have to pivot the whole turn of his character on it. Why not give the same allowance to the PT? They are no different.

 

What you're doing with the OT is no different than what GL asks you to do with the PT: take information from such small things as Han "obviously" feeling guilty - we get *one* line of dialogue and we have to pivot the whole turn of his character on it. Why not give the same allowance to the PT? They are no different.

Yeah, but we SEE than one line of dialogue - it happened within the movie that we are watching. GL SHOWED it to us. Han's arc is WITHIN the movie. Thats the whole point of watching a movie, to SEE the movie. Besides I really dont think Im stretching things to assume Han felt guilty in that scene, I think its right there from the way Chewie looks at him, to his physical reaction to that line.

Han's whole arc did not pivot on that one line. The time he spends with Luke and Leia and seeing how dedicated this group of people are to doing what they feel is right instead of just for themselves is what turns him. That one line is just us seeing it sink in.

Anakin going from sweet albeit annoying kid to a punk took place in the ten year gap BETWEEN the movies. I dont recognize this whiny teenager from I know of Anakin Skywalker, so it is essentially a new character for me. A character that I know is supposed to be the hero of the movie, but one whom I start off wanting to smack around.

 

In TPM we *see* the roots of all this - they "happen within the movie", GL "shows us".

+ Rivalry with Obi-Wan: Anakin's relationship with Obi *begins* with a rivalry - for the attention of QGJ, a father figure to both of them.

+ Anger: Anakin's little episode with Sebulba before the race shows his angry streak nicely.

+ Desire for power: Ani longs to free his mother, and all slaves, to travel to "every planet", to go from being a Slave to being a Jedi Knight etc... you'll at least concede that he's ambitious?

+ Attachment to mother: he doesn't want to leave her - we get TWO scenes that show this!

+ Attachment to Padme: he falls in love at first sight - she's the prettiest thing to walk into that shop ever. That's perfectly believable - he idealizes her and never forgets the beautiful, brave, warrior queen he met and helped. She comforts him en route to Coruscant in a lovely scene, planting the idea that might one day be friends, or more.

+ Changes his mind: he does this in every film. Anakin has so many talents, so many gifts that he can never decide what to do. He changes his mind constantly from TPM through ROTS. It's one of his faults - he doesn't know what he wants. It's consistent.

C'mon - do you need *more* than two whole feature films plus? In TPM he dreams that he'll be a Jedi: against all odds it happens. In AOTC he dreams that his mother is suffering: it happens - and she dies. I can accept that this already volotile, confused young man, caught in the power games of others, might be driven to the turn he makes in ROTS.

Han is the dullest, least realized character in SW. In classic Hollywood movie terms Ford did great job of capturing that elusive magic of Errol Flynn, Bogart, Clark Gable etc. I'm *not* belittling that. Each director gave him room to make that character which so many people love. In literary terms, Anakin is more interesting & better realized IMO. Also, Hayden does more with the panto aspect of the films. I think he's a better SW actor than some others.

>Han's whole arc did not pivot on that one line. The time he spends with Luke and Leia and seeing how dedicated this group of people are to doing what they feel is right instead of just for themselves is what turns him. That one line is just us seeing it sink in.<

Once again you're inferring this - it *never* explicitly happens in the screenplay.

 

LOS you have analyzed Anakin pretty well and your analysis is insightful. However, you really only listed the Anakin's character traits. I saw all those things as well, so I think you may be missing the point of my own.

What I want to see is how Anakin, along with those character traits we agree on, gets from TPM to AOTC (I will agree that the transition from AOTC to ROTS was a bit better). The Anakin we see in AOTC is completely different from the one in TPM (jawing with Sebulba to me didnt show a mean streak, it showed a little kid standing up for himself against an alien who flies dirty and obviously has it out for the kid. He didnt display any more animosity than anyone else would have. Now if they had kept the fight scene in, this would be a different argument).

I for one, am curious how he got to be such a punk (yeah yeah I know hes a teenager, but so was I once and I didnt act like that), and how a nine year old kid has managed to stay obsessed with a girl 5 years his senior for a DECADE (the scenes in TPM they have together in no way justify that level of infatuation/obesssion and at the most, TPM Anakin displays curiosity more than he ever displayed awe at Padme). Anakin's anger is a major part of his characterization, we are just supposed to swallow that he is an angry teenager after seeing him as a sweet kid. Doesnt add up.

C'mon - do you need *more* than two whole feature films plus? In TPM he dreams that he'll be a Jedi: against all odds it happens. In AOTC he dreams that his mother is suffering: it happens - and she dies. I can accept that this already volotile, confused young man, caught in the power games of others, might be driven to the turn he makes in ROTS.

Anakin is a static character in two movies, even if he is alot different in those two movies. His dynamic apparently takes place BETWEEN the two movies.

Han is the dullest, least realized character in SW. In classic Hollywood movie terms Ford did great job of capturing that elusive magic of Errol Flynn, Bogart, Clark Gable etc. I'm *not* belittling that. Each director gave him room to make that character which so many people love. In literary terms, Anakin is more interesting & better realized IMO. Also, Hayden does more with the panto aspect of the films. I think he's a better SW actor than some others.

This a just a matter of differing opinions. I think Han is the most human of the characters in the OT, not to mention his banter with 3PO providing a lot of the comic relief. I have no idea what panto means.


Once again you're inferring this - it *never* explicitly happens in the screenplay.

I am inferring it from what I see. Luke disses Han, Han tries to be nice, Luke blows him off, Han suddenly gets grumpy and defensive, Han changes his mind and shows up to save Luke's arse. You are right, it may not be in the dialogue, but its IN the story that I am watching and I am pretty confident thats how it was supposed to come off.