Discussion in 'Prequel Trilogy' started by Stalepie, May 10, 2013.
Unfortunately, in their infinite wisdom, they're not using it for the cover.
What?!? That would make a great cover!
They aren't!? Why? And if not what are they using for the cover?
The topic derailing is strong with this one...
We don't need your awesome fanart, we have badly photoshopped publicity images from five years ago!
Seriously, these people could slash their art costs to ribbons if they started paying Deviantartists for their designs, or do commission. I think some fan who's good at photoshop would die of happiness if their stuff was published.
The other artwork even looks like a perfect hybrid between McGregor and Guiness... most disappointing that it isn't the final result
Jedi taking very young children to train.
Some sources say that they try to get them as newborns so to cut all ties with family and no attachment to them. But we see in "Children of the Force" that they don't take them until they are older. The Rodian baby (if he were a human baby) I would put at six months at the youngest and a year at the oldest. The mother states that "it would be some time" before he had to leave. We learn from a "Decoded" episode that Ahsoka was three when she was brought to the Temple and the flashback in "The Gathering" shows that she was standing and walking without help or hesitation.
Then in the EU if you don't get selected to be a Padawan by the time you are thirteen you are shipped off. They seemed to do this with Younglings/initiates that had anger issues or some other reason. Why would the Jedi take x amount of children if they won't be able to get Masters for all of them? And to cast off those that have anger issues wouldn't that make things worse? Yoda implied (in my opinion) that it's harder to draw on the Light Side in some respects. He tells Luke that the Dark Side is "easier, more seductive".
He who fights with monsters should be careful lest he thereby become a monster. And if thou gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will also gaze into thee.
I don't think there's any information that supports her getting raped. To me that's gross and for some reason I don't think Star Wars would incorporate something like that.
I be a lil more detailed.
I read a book this past year in the realms of D&D(specifically Pathfinder) which was essentially a fantasy heist story. The group to pull of the heist were rogue types. The villains were demons doing demonly things. One of the "good guys" was a chief of the guard for a large city. As the leader of the rogues explains, things must be done dispassionately or else one act creates another and another and before you know it you are serving the very forces you are fighting against. An interrogator for example. Rather than just ask and wear someone down he all of a sudden slaps the offender. The next time he interrogates he hits with a fist. The next time multiple fists. Then a full on beating and so on.
Later on the leader of the rogues confronts(while tied to a chair) the capatin of the guard and discovers he is helping the demons as he has become angry with humanity and thinks they need to be controlled or banished or punished. But he wondered how he got that way. Turns out they had a past where the guard captain had interrogated him before and had slapped him and he relized, "Oh, I was your first." I.e. his first step towards darkness.
Dispassionate does not mean without emotion, just in control of them. They do not dominate you.
Of course he doesn’t. Such would defeat the purpose. You seem to have misinterpreted the very idea of interpretation. A key element to these kinds of mythic stories is that they avoid over-explaining themselves. Presenting a fair balanced view of a nomadic race -- as being no more or less (figuratively) human than the rest of us -- and then having your protagonist slaughter a whole camp of them does not engage the audience to look beyond the surface and question said actions on any moral/ethical level, as there would be nothing to question: of course it was wrong; they, the nomads, were merely a product of their harsh environment; the leaders unjust for kidnaping our hero’s mother, sure, but the women and children undeserving of such massacre retribution, to say the least. The old proverbial, "a right two wrongs do not make" (Yoda style). Yet presenting the narrative this way only amounts to a thesis, which is flat, boring and self-concluding, thus leaving nothing for audiences to contemplate on their own. It is clear that Lucas chose the Tusken Raiders as agents to Anakin’s path to the Dark Side precisely because doing so played on fears and pre-conceptions. That was the whole point. The very fact that this discussion continues on today, over a decade later, is evidence, to some degree, anyways, that his approach to this aspect of the story was successful in garnering viewer participation.
Actually a key point in mythic stories is simplification. Let's take LOTR as an example; the evil ones are easy to spot. They are physically ugly - that physical ugliness representing their inner ugliness (the ring actually deforms Gollum - and Palpatine is truly revealed as Sidious upon his physical deformity). On a more fundamental basis it is their difference to the good characters - who are visibly much more like you and I - that offers the simple dichotomy of good and evil. Good equates to 'like us', evil equates to 'like them'. This is the politics of hate, greatly exaggerated in the form of LOTR, but equivalent. The problem with archetype, with mythology of this sort, is that the form 'stereotype' is an extension of 'archetype'. It is easy to fall into the trap of stereotyping evil as being other - that is the basis of myth. That is the psychology of myth; it is a psychology of conflict, of difference; our tribe is more worthy and good and we will exaggerate the difference between our norms (good) and their norms (evil). We see the same pattern emerge whenever we (our 'leaders') eneter conflict. The enemy becomes demonised; they are hardly human at all; not at all like us. They may walk like men but....
Creating a new mythology should undercut that, but here it reverts to those age old fears. There is nothing subtle or clever about this. It is mythology at its basest.
My take on the Tusken slaughter is this:
It was wrong, but I can't honestly call Anakin an evil person or judge him as such for it. It's surely an evil act, that's for certain, but the circumstances surrounding it were so extreme that I can't help but to pity (rather than hate) him for it, especially in light of his guilt and remorse -- he himself acknowledged it was wrong.
One thing I don't understand is why people separate the women out from the men. It's never said in the films that the female Tuskens aren't fighters. And, indeed, they're full grown adults as fully capable as the males of being held accountable for their decisions. So if one believes it is wrong for Anakin to slaughter the males, I don't see why the women get a pass. Personally, I think Anakin was wrong to kill any of them, but I don't think he was cognizant enough of his actions at the time.
I think Lucas had Anakin kill all the Tuskens because this suggests the action was undertaken in a blind rage (rather than a calculated decision with specific targets) and also reflected Anakin's lack of knowledge of the perpetrators of the attack beyond the tribe itself. This idea is reinforced to me by the fact that Anakin's pain is so intense that Yoda can sense it from across the galaxy.
It is, however, said by Anakin, in the novelization.
What you've described is an aspect of mythology as it arises naturally from history and culture(s). What we're dealing with here is a myth that has been consciously created from scratch, or at least assembled, in order to consciously address themes via a fictional story. The psychology of it has been scripted, calculated.
Except this claim does not match with the end results. Otherwise people wouldn't be discussing the scene for its ethical implications and we likely wouldn't be having this debate. I think it works just fine that Lucas simply presented the narrative at face value, depicting the Tuskens as our protagonists see them, without belaboring the immorality of Anakin's actions. John Ford did the same thing.
I think you guys who are analyzing this act in the terms of mythological stories and the bad guys being ugly are missing something:
Anakin didn't slaughter the Tuskens because they were Tusken. He slaughtered them for one reason and one reason only: they tortured his mother to death. Had they not done that, Anakin would have left them alone. In fact, the TPM novelization describes him helping an injured Tusken child at one time. He had nothing against Tuskens per se. Even his statement "they're animals" was describing that particular tribe, not the Tusken species as a whole.
Had a group of humans kidnapped Shmi and tortured her to death and Anakin learned about it, they would have met the same fate. As Han Solo said in Tatooine Ghost, they picked the wrong woman to kidnap and murder, the mother of a Jedi.
As far as I can tell, there's nothing in the TPM novel scene with the Tusken, to show how old that particular Tusken is.
True, but you're only accounting for Anakin's perception within the story. I agree with only one kenobi insofar that the Tuskens are presented as "boogeymen" of sorts, regardless of how Anakin might view them in general.
Yes, but it should be understood that Lucas was/is a student of Joseph Campbell, and he purposely aped ancient archetypal signatures within his work. There is not the disconnect that you infer.
I understand what you are saying but its not just that Lucas is giving us the view from the perspective of the characters; within the story arc he builds it is implicit that the Tuskens lives aren't as worthy as others. They truly are lesser. Because his killing of Tusken women and children does not define his turn to the darkside. Padmé, who we are to believe is a principled character, is quite prepared to marry a man who has murdered Tusken children...but won't believe Obi-Wan when he tells her that Anakin has killed "younglings" (the use of the term "younglings" in this case, a taboo-totem for real children, as opposed to Tusken "children" is an aspect of this). His turn is confirmed to us through the imagery of his ignited lightsabre in front of the young Jedi learners. So, implicitly, the Tuskens are - beyond simply the understanding of the characters - of less value than those Jedi "younglings".
I think she saw the situation differently because Anakin's motives and state of mind were different--confessing in shock and tears to a deed done in blind rage vs. a cold-blooded killing that he didn't confess to her at all.
Do we really need it spoon-fed to the audience whether Shmi was raped or not?
Meeting violence with violence is never a good idea.