ST Should Luke be single, married, divorced, or a widower?

It can be, but it doesn't have to be. Movies are a visual medium, there are many ways to get contextual clues out there. Body language, how a character reacts physically to others and to situations, inflections in voice and delivery, lighting and mood set in a scene, lots of ways.

And let's not forget how we got on this, it was this holocron business. A plot point found absolutely nowhere in the films. If this plot point was so important to the story, should it not be somewhere in the film?

 

I shouldn't be difficult for a Star Wars film; it shouldn't be difficult for ANY film.

Here's one way to ask the question: Citizen Kane depicted a character who did indeed fall to insanity and paranoia (among other negative traits). And it did so, and highly effectively at that, in two hours, not in three films. Did you need a novelization to get that sense from the film? Or did the film communicate it to you perfectly clearly without the need for textual assistance from a novelization?

What one film can do, another can do.

 

The same way you show Michael Corleone's fall from a war hero to a ruthless mob kingpin in The Godfather. That's a perfect example. That is actually a movie taken from a source book, but the movie is generally regarded as superior. And for good reason

 

Do yourself a favor and watch Godfather I and II. You will see how a descent into megalomania and paranoia should be shown on screen.

 

It's a total package, dialoge, body language, lighting and scenery, his entire demeanor changes. His presence changes.

 

To be fair, you really only need the first Godfather to show you a properly-composed arc depicting the decline of a character's moral sense; Part II is just gravy - yummy, delicious gravy.

And here's how it was portrayed: the writing was sharp and allowed for subtext that the audience could understand; the acting was so good you could see the moral decline on Pacino's face without a single line neeing to be uttered; the music, the cinematography, the timing of all the other actors around Pacino, all lent themselves to this goal and achieved it perfectly. In other words, film is a perfectly fine medium for depicting such things as a moral decline and fall. That the prequels also ended up requiring novelizations to help out in that same goal speaks volumes about what happenes when the people making the movie are failing in their jobs.

 

I totally get that; films can do many things, but they'll never replace the artistry of a really good, well-written sentence. But that's not the same thing as conveying or failing to convey a story point properly. I love the film adaptations of the Hannibal Lecter books, for instance, but as well-made as most of them were, they could never reproduce the thrill of Thomas Harris' prose style. When he refers in his novel Hannibal to the Uffizi Gallery in Florence as "that meat-house of hanging Christs" because of the profusion of religious paintings inside, that word-picture can't ever be conveyed on film unless a.) it's converted into a line than an actor speaks, or b.) a specific shot attempts to visually translate that sentence. That line was poetry to me, and it can't often make the transition to film. But that's still not the same as saying a film isn't enough to get the story across to an audience. As I said, books have nuances, but films can have their own nuances. Maybe I'll have to live with not having a line like that in the film, but maybe I'll get a single shot that's just as poetic. And I'll still get the idea they were trying to communicate to me.

 

And a perfect example of that is in the very first Star Wars scene ever seen by anyone. The tiny rebel ship fleeing from the Imperial Star Destroyer in the opening scene of ANH. That scene conveys everything we need to know about the rebels and the empire without saying a word. You understand what it means at an instinctual level without the need for explanation. Lucas is capable of great things, he just gets lost sometimes.

 

Wait... anakinfansince1983 : are you saying that you haven't seen the Godfather movies?

 

Well, in fairness, everyone has a first time they ever saw those movies, and it doesn't come to everyone at the same time. I had heard about them for years, and I knew they were considered classics, but I never actually sat down and watched them until my freshman year at college. Of course, I immediately understood why they were considered classics and kicked myself for not having taken the time to watch them much earlier, now that I knew what I had been missing. But then, isn't college when you're supposed to broaden your horizons? The majority of the films I came to adore and consider gems now were things I discovered during my college years. There will always be people who haven't YET seen the Godfather movies, but give them time. The clarion call of their brilliance will bring them to put it in and push "play" soon enough...

 

You're making it harder and harder for me to defend you.

 

Anyone else amazed that Hamill will be the same age as Guinness when VII premieres?

That is just beyond strange for me. What other series can claim this amazingly wide loop of storytelling?

And uh, Luke shouldn't be married. Why is marriage (believe me I'm a happy proponent of it) considered some kind of happy ending ticket. The evidence is shockingly to the contrary. If you're looking for an interesting story, that is.

 

That is a cool observation!

I don't necessarily care if Luke is married, but I think it will be a prerequisite for getting the thing I really want -- seeing Luke as a father. But given that this is Disney, it's unlikely that they will show Luke with a kid if he's not married or widowed unfortunately.

That's not to say that children are any more of a ticket to happiness than marriage, but given the centrality of Luke's relationship with his father to the Saga, it is something that I feel would make a cool legacy -- seeing Luke dealing with his own adult children.

 

Bambi's parents weren't married, and his dad was a total player.

 

I saw The Godfather for the first time in college as well and I couldn't care enough to watch the others. Then I saw Chungking Express and I realized why film was art. Different strokes et al.

 

Your impression of the character is no more right or wrong than mine, it is simply our opinion. What is in the book is irrelevant to this discussion as I am talking about how he comes across in the films. I haven't said or implied that my interpretation is the right one, just that it is my opinion.

My premise isn't invalidated but the movie so it is not faulty, you are free to disagree with it, but it isn't proven wrong anywhere.
Saying "Anakin was fine with Padme maybe dying" IS faulty as the exact opposite happens in the movie.
My scenario of Anakin having to choose between himself and Padme never happens so we can only speculate based on what we think of the character.

I found Anakin to be arrogant, self centered, quick to anger and doesn't think the rules apply to him. I also found him to be a show off, rude and maybe a little gullible. Padme was certainly important to him but I got the impression that the overriding concern was his fear of loss, that he didn't want to loose Padme.
Lastly, not giving up your own life to save someone else isn't a horrible trait. I would think many people would not be quick to make that choice.

In closing I think that the character of Anakin changed over time and the choice he made in RotJ was one he wouldn't have made earlier in his life. He had learned to let go of things, including his own life. He was no longer attached and he reached some kind of enlightenment if you will.
That was the main point of my post, that RotJ Anakin is very different from RotS Anakin.

Bye for now.
Old Stoneface

 

Actually, the book matters a lot more than it is being given credit for if you are talking about the exact story that was intended overall. If you compare 2 people's POV on a movie after ONLY seeing the movie, and one is validated by the (more informational) book, and the other's isn't, the person's that's view is validated better comprehended the storywriter's intention. Yes, you can take anything you want out of a story, and believe anything you want, but comprehension is still important in the larger picture (it is in nearly every kind of generalized academic assessment there is, right?).

Personally, I didn't NEED all of the details in the book to understand the story, but they do a nice job of filling in all of the blanks, and yes, they are relevant. If you understand a character or plotpoint, but don't see 100% of what is underneath the character or plotpoint, the fact remains that you still understood it; on the other hand, someone who didn't understand it still missed the boat, whether they like their own interpretation or not. This sort of thing CAN be validated by a book.