Saga Star Wars, Lucas and TMIS

TMIS. What is it? Too Many Ideas Syndrome. Writers among you will be aware of the problem. You have so many ideas for a story and you don't know which to concentrate on. This can also spill over into stories you are already writing, where you lose concentration on a basic premise of your story and start including other stories within it - addressing other concepts which in the process dilutes your main point. The story becomes rambling, incoherent.

So, I got to thinking about this aspect of Star Wars, especially in a discussion on the PT board regarding Padmé's death. Specifically about how it is meant to underline the notion of symbiosis, of inter-connection and inter-dependence. But....isn't the main thrust of the story about how a good person comes to do bad things? Then I thought about that and realised...it's not even that at heart. There is no basic conceptual heartbeat to the PT. I will go into that a little more later.

First I'll explain why this is here rather than in the PT section. Lucas started this jumbling of ideas with Vader=father. If there is one thread that I think runs through the OT it is the idea of personal responsibility, both for how one thinks and imagines the world and also for how one acts within it. Lucas, at some point during TESB decided he also wanted it to be about fathers and sons. For me this dilutes the message of personal responsibility at the end of ROTJ. Vader doesn't have his epiphany because of Luke's example but rather because Luke is his son. Perhaps, also, there is the possibility that Luke's refusal to kill Vader can be seen as being because it is his father, rather than Luke's reflection of how he is as Vader if he acts that way.

As it happens I think the disruption to these scenes is pretty minimal.

But, moving on to the PT. Lucas tells us he wants to show how a good person ends up becoming Vader. But he also decides that he wants to write Anakin's arc as a mythic tragedy..... Really? Can you do that? You might argue that Luke's story, the OT, is a mythic construction in a Campbellian conception, but - as others have pointed out, it is simply grounded in a general story-telling context. There is a beginning, characters are introduced, there are protagonists and nemeses , there are events and there is a culmination and ending. For all the paraphernalia of the OT (spaceships, lightsabres, the Force) the setting is simply the background scenery of very human stories.

KISS. Keep It Simple Stupid. The idea that the PT is more complex a story than the OT may very well be right...but that is it's major shortcoming, imo.

You can't tell a human story of how someone good ends up doing bad things within a mythical setting - ie that the person involved is some form of demi-god like creation who has a destiny. Automatically the character is de-humanised; their story can never be a simply human story. But then a whole cascade of other ideas are imprinted over these basic, already non-complementary story-telling conceptions. So, Lucas wants to show that everyone is to blame in some way. So, again you dilute the conception of how a good man comes to do bad things. Then - as at the beginning of this post - you have other ideas like inter-dependence/symbiosis thrown into the mix.

I don't know how many here have read Captain Corelli's Mandolin (not seen the film, which misses the point entirely as far as I can see). That is a story that addresses how a good man ends up doing bad things. Such a story ought to be unsettling, on a personal level, and I certainly don't get that from the PT.

The more I think about it the less I understand what it is trying to say. I don't honestly know whether I can say Anakin is responsible for what he does/ Does he make a choice? Is it really Anakin anymore? Is he simply possessed? Brainwashed?

It's almost as if Lucas has contemplated that this is the only story he is going to tell, and so he tries to ram in as many of the ideas he has into them. It tries to say so much but in doing so says very little of anything particularly impactfully.

 

Anakin isn't de-humanized because he has a great destiny due to the nature of his birth. It just means that he is a unique individual. Just like Superman is a unique individual. Or Neo. Or Beowulf. Or Hercules. Or any of a dozen other characters. In fact, the hero's journey's origins go back to the Greek myths like Hercules and the other gods. "Clash Of The Titans" is a story about humans and gods and it was taken from the myths and legends of old. Those stories were told well and done well. Just as what Lucas did.

What Lucas did with the PT was show how not only did Anakin become evil, but how a government can become corrupt.

One of the larger issues that surfaced in the telling of Anakin's fall to the dark side and his rise to becoming a corrupt figure was that of the fall of democracy at the hands of the very people who initially fought oppression.

"You have the personal issue of Anakin and his turn to the dark side, but then the children later bring him back to being a human being," Lucas says. "But the larger issue is that you've given up your democracy, and that the bad guys never took it -- it was handed to them. That theme was there 30 years ago which came out of the Vietnam War and Nixon wanting to change the rules so he could get a third term.

I'm a big history buff and I was really into Caesar at the time," Lucas recalls. "I always wanted to know why the Roman Senate gave Caesar's nephew a dictatorship after they had gotten rid of Caesar. Why after the revolution in France did they create an Emperor? Why did the Germans after they had a Democracy after World War I, turn it into a dictatorship? Those were my initial questions 30 years ago."

--George Lucas, Star Wars Homing Beacon #142

So in that context, we see not only Anakin's own fall, but the fall of the Republic which was and has always been intertwined. Going back to when Vader was not Anakin. With regards to Yoda, Obi-wan and Padme's role, we see how people try their best to help him, but they wind up turning against him. Thus setting into the story that he betrayed them, but they betrayed him for not going along with his decisions. And this sets the stage for why Luke could save him, because he still believed in him and didn't betray him.

Anakin does what he does because he made the choice to believe in what Palpatine had to say. This in turn is like Faust. Anakin wanted to make a deal with the devil and said devil tricks him with deceit and lies. TESB and ROTJ already set up that Palpatine had manipulated Anakin's turn, through the quest for power. Only then it was power for the sake of power.

 

^ Agreed. I think the point of the trilogy is made very clear from beginning to end. The theme of corruption is kept at the forefront and at the end, it becomes apparent that anyone is susceptible to it, even if they've been chosen by destiny to end the corruption of the Force.

 

Exactly right Lulu_Mars Anakin became exactly what he was trying so hard to not become. But by doing so he actually fulfilled his prophecy in the end by becoming what he was meant to destroy. It really is a great concept when you think about the story of Anakin and Vader.

 

Seriously?! Are you just not understanding the concept of de-humanised? To answer that Superman and Hercules (in particular) are human stories is preposterous. The minute you put them into that mythical context then you are no longer telling the story of how a good person comes to do bad things. All you are going to tell is how an uber-mensch, a demi-god can be corrupted from some imagined rightful path and destiny.....it isn't a story about how a good man comes to do bad things.

Exactly. Not only has he diluted the story of how a good man becomes 'evil', by tying that up with concepts of 'destiny', demi-gods and self-fulfilling prophecies (as well as Faustian pacts and...however many other concepts he's decided to throw at that aspect of the story...) but he's also intertwined it with a story about how 'government can become corrupt' which....I have a little problem with...

He seems a little confused himself, even by his own story.

"the fall of democracy at the hands of the very people who initially fought oppression."

No. Palpatine didn't initially fight oppression. Palpatine was a 'front', a pretence.

"...you've given up your democracy, and that the bad guys never took it -- it was handed to them."

No, it was taken. By subterfuge and deceipt, by war-mongering and control of the military.


"That theme was there 30 years ago which came out of the Vietnam War and Nixon wanting to change the rules so he could get a third term."

Except....Nixon didn't take that third term because he was revealed for what he was by a free press - a vital component of democracy. Of course these days whistle-blowing on what the government are doing tends to get you put in prison or 'suicidal'...but let's not get into that eh?

I try to give Lucas alittle benefit of the doubt when he says these things. I wonder whether he doesn't mean, actually, that we have to be watchful about what our governments do. But then he'll go and talk about how Presidents and the like should be treated with some sort of reverence and.....what can I say?

"I'm a big history buff and I was really into Caesar at the time, I always wanted to know why the Roman Senate gave Caesar's nephew a dictatorship after they had gotten rid of Caesar."

Not that much of a history buff I'd suggest. Rome prior to the Caesarian civil war was not really a democracy. After Caesar's assassination Augustus carefully manouvred himself into a position where he was able to rule with two other (Lepidus and Marcus Antonius) in the second Triumvurate and then engaged in war with Antonius. He was certainly never given a dictatorship. Nor was he known as Emperor. He was the Princeps Senatus - the first among equals. He gave the Senators what they really wanted (the protection and heritability of their wealth and honours) in return for their playing along with the facade. Bottom line, there was no democracy to give away, all that the super-wealthy oligarchs who made up the Senate were ever fighting over was their right to their wealth....



Germany after WW1.....an until very recently number of separate states racked with massive debts due to the onerous application of reparation payemtns by the allies, hyper-inflation, mass unemployment and poverty....wonder what could have caused that 'democracy' to crumble...

Sorry...what? They wound up turning against him? They betrayed him for not going along with his decisions? Errr...just What?!!

Yeah, it's like Hercules , just like Faust, makes a pact with Nixon - who turn out to be Hitler, and ends up being a bit like Goebbels, or Caesar, or someone....but, can you blame him? And that's how a good man ends up doing bad things.

I see now.

 

The Senate handed over power to Palpatine by their own free will. They did it because he had orchestrated a threatening situation, but that doesn't change the fact that they did it.

And yes, in the sense that they stopped siding with him, Anakin's friends did betray him. That doesn't mean that he was right and they were wrong, just that they turned against him - because of what he did.

On topic, I just don't see this dilution that you speak of. At all. This story, like the stories of Superman and Hercules, is a story about human nature, regardless of the framework and whatever powers our protagonist may possess. Anakin is clearly a slave to his emotions, much like the majority of human beings here on Earth.

 

Well....if you are asked to hand over almost all your money because of some perceived economic disaster, railroaded into it...have you done that by your own free will? If, in fact, it is your supposed representatives who have done this on your behalf....have you done anything of your own free will? Have you handed power over?

That's a very converse form of 'betrayal' isn't it? Let's see at what point they stop 'siding' with him. Obi-Wan is a little upset that Anakin has, you know, killed all the Jedi in the Temple, including the younglings. Is his not going along with Anakin's decisions really a betrayal? Hasn't Anakin actually betrayed everything that Obi-Wan believes in?

Padmé is a little upset that Anakin has killed younglings and, that he is intent on supporting a new Empire, kind of betraying everything Padmé believes in. I'm sorry but....it's a very bizarre kind of logic to read 'Anakin's friends betrayed him' into that set of events.

A story of how a good man does evil. Except Anakin isn't a man. His choices are not those of mere men. Lucas decided to utilise the concept of 'greek tragedy' as his mythical trope. The problem with that is, the protagonist in such a tale is fated to his tragedy no matter his choices (and Lucas triesd to write that aspect in by having Anakin attempt to reverse his visions of Padmé's death). But then he introduces, on top of that, the concept of a Faustian pact. A Faustian pact is a trick. So, Anakin, far from following a story of how a good man turns bad actually becomes the victim of his position. Just take a look at the discussions here. Is Anakin held responsible for his own actions? Hardly. To the point that here on this thread it is argued his friends betrayed him - and you don't see dilution? Palpatine deceives everyone, plunges everyone into a war, gets control of all the military might in the galaxy and....he never took power it was given to him?

The story seems to have become one centred around blaming everyone but those who actually chose to do evil. I'd say that, at best, that is diluted.

 

Really? Where do the movies blame everyone else? Moreover, if that's blatantly obvious and I've somehow missed that aspect of it, how do you know that it wasn't the original intention?

If I'm asked to hand over my money and choose to do so, then of course I've done it by my own free will. If my representative does it on my behalf, then that person has done it by her/his free will. By extension, I've done it by my own free will if I chose that representative by my own free will to begin with.

 

As I say, just take a look around on the threads here. Even on this thread there is the concept that Anakin's friends betrayed him.

As for doing something of your own free will....luckily most justice systems see this differently. If you have been deceived into your choices it is seen as fraud. The defrauded is not the guilty party, the fraudster is. In cases of murder also, for example, the defence that the murdered were asking for it or brought it on themselves will not get you very far. And yet...here we have 'it was not taken it was given' and (a response in another thread) 'The Jedi are just as responsible for their downfall as Palpatine'

There is some seriously messed up moral relativism going on here....

 

Well, that says a whole lot more about us fans than about the movies, doesn't it?

If I read you correctly, you seem to feel that the trilogy contains so many messages, parallels and layers that it's hard to understand exactly why and how Anakin turned bad.
I definitely agree that there's a whole lot of stuff going on, but to me, greed was always the obvious culprit. It's also a theme that runs through the whole story in a way that, IMO, makes it hard to miss. Sidious used the greedy Trade Federation to his advantage, Qui-Gon made use of Watto's greed ("Greed can be a powerful ally"), Anakin's big problem is that he wants to keep his loved ones around ("I don't want things to change", "I want more", "Attachment leads to jealousy. The shadow of greed that is")...
No matter what kind of mythical, godlike, magical elements permeate the story, it all boils down to a very human problem. It could have been less Greek/Faustian, but the basic premise would've been the same: Anakin turns bad because he is greedy.

 

The Prequels have too many ideas (maybe) but everything else from the same period had too few, so maybe it evens out in the end?

 

Yes and to be sure, I looked it up.

And that has been true in "Star Wars" back before a prophecy, because the Jedi and Sith are demigods compared to everyone else. They can read and sense thoughts, move objects with a gesture, create lightning and have visions of the future and see ghosts. That ship sailed long ago. Superman and Hercules are very much human regardless of one being an alien being and one being a demigod. Because they very much have human feelings and failings. Hercules battles great and powerful foes, but his failings is that in some versions of the tale, he suffers a terrible tragedy and must try to rise above it. The recent "Smallville" series used prophecies and destinies as part of the show's overall story structure with Clark being told that he was destined for greatness and going through various challenges until he finally gets a glimpse of the man that he will become and realize that all those hardships will shape and define him.

The Senate fought against oppression once upon a time, long before Palpatine came into the picture. That's why Obi-wan spoke highly of the Republic before the dark times. That's why Lucas wrote his intro to ANH like he did. That's why he said what he said about the Sith.

The Sith are the natural enemy of the Jedi. As George Lucas describes it, the Sith were once in control of the galaxy 1000 years in the past. Unfortunately, the Sith's hunger for conquest got the better of them-so many Sith Lords were vying for ultimate control that it led to infighting among their ranks. Such internecine struggles were exploited by the Jedi Knights of the era, and they were able to turn the tide and defeat the Sith.

--Star Wars Insider, issue 78; page 60

MACE: "The oppression of the Sith will never return."

SIDIOUS: "Once more the Sith will rule the galaxy and we shall have peace."

Uh, no. The people gave up their freedoms because Palpatine and Dooku created a climate of fear surrounding the Confederacy. That's why the Senate voted to give Palpatine Emergency Powers and then kept giving him more and more political power.

OBI-WAN: "The Senate is expected to vote more executive powers to the Chancellor today."

ANAKIN: "Well, that can only mean less deliberating and more action. Is that bad? It will make it easier for us to end this war."

Right, Nixon didn't get that far. But he was gaining enough in terms of popularity that he could go down that route. That's why it became a popular trope to have alternate universes where Nixon was a five term President as seen in "Watchmen" and "Back To The Future II". It was one thing when FDR had four terms because there was nothing in the constitution about term limits, as going back to Washington it was just a matter of tradition that the President went two terms if he was elected to two and then they'd walk away. That's why he used Nixon because in 1973-74, he was writing the first film and Watergate was the headline of the day. That's why in 1981, when asked what Palpatine's name was, Lucas joked and called him Richard Nixon.

That last part is what he was really talking about and why he modeled the Galactic Senate after Roman Senate. Wanting power and wealth, while fighting each other over it. The Trade Federation and the Confederacy fighting the Republic over money. And how Augustus was able to take power by manipulating things to go his way. Just as Palpatine used the Naboo invasion to become Chancellor and then use it to go to war with Dooku.

Right and in TPM, the taxation of trade routes was meant to help the financially unstable Republic government, which angered the Trade Federation which wanted to maintain its wealth and power, by going along with an invasion as part of a protest. And later going to war in order to regain their freedoms that they had a dozen years earlier.

Palpatine's rise to power is an amalgam of Nixon, Hitler and Caesar.

Yes, remember that the films talk about points of view. Anakin's point of view was that they betrayed him. He thinks that Padme betrayed him thanks to Obi-wan, who also betrayed him. That's why he lashes out at her and why he fights Obi-wan. Because they're going against him and what he's been trying to do. They say that they love him, but then they turn on him. And Obi-wan leaves him to die.

No. Anakin's tale is like Faust. Palpatine's rise to power is like that of Nixon, Caesar and Hitler.

If you vote for a politician to represent your interests, then yes, it is your fault. You gave them the keys to the kingdom. Nixon was voted into office and he took advantage of that office. Obama was voted into office and he's done the things that he's done, that people then turn around and complain about. Like the Affordable Health Care Act and giving help to illegals from Mexico. Neither man could do what he's done without giving him the opportunity to do so. For good or ill. The people who gave their money to Bernie Madoff, did so because they trusted him far too much and paid a price for it. The message is beware of who you trust. Do not do so blindly and do not do so because you are greedy or fearful. Nixon and Madoff are guilty for what they did because Watergate and the Ponzi Scheme were crimes. But the people who voted Nixon in and the people who gave their money to Madoff did so of their own free will. Their actions were not punishable as a crime, but they were guilty of blind trust and letting their emotions dictate their actions.

That's why I said that while Anakin betrayed them, they betrayed Anakin.

OBI-WAN: "Luke, you're going to find that many of the truths that we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."


ANAKIN: "You turned her against me."

OBI-WAN: "You have done that yourself."


OBI-WAN: "Anakin, my allegiance is to the Republic … to democracy."

ANAKIN: "If you’re not with me, you’re my enemy."


ANAKIN: "I should have known the Jedi were plotting to take over . . . "

OBI-WAN: "From the Sith!!! Anakin, Chancellor Palpatine is evil."

ANAKIN: "From the Jedi point of view! From my point of view, the Jedi are evil."


"And now he’s assuming that she’s with Obi-wan, not necessarily in a love relationship or anything, in the basis that they are both on one side of the path and he’s going down the other."

--George Lucas, ROTS DVD Commentary.

He sees it as a betrayal because he tells her that he did this for her and he thinks that she would go along with it, but she doesn't. And because she refuses to go along with him and brought Obi-wan to Mustafar, even though she had no clue there, he still believes that they betrayed him. He was already suspicious of them earlier when Obi-wan came to see her before he left for Utapau. That he was corrupting her and trying to turn them against each other. Paranoia has no rationality to it. And believe me, I've seen how someone who is paranoid will totally misunderstand something because they've been jerked around too often.

"The film is ultimately about the dark side and the light side, and those sides are designed around compassion and greed. The issue of greed, of getting things and owning things and having things and not being able to let go of things, is the opposite of compassion—of not thinking of yourself all the time. These are the two sides—the good force and the bad force. They're the simplest parts of a complex cosmic construction."

--George Lucas, Time Magazine article, 1999


"So what all these movies are about is: greed. Greed is a source of pain and suffering for everybody. And the ultimate state of greed is the desire to cheat death."

--George Lucas, The Making Of Revenge Of The Sith; page 213

 

In terms of Luke in the OT, he is presented from the off as a backwater farmboy who leanrs his father was a Jedi Knight, learns of some powers through the use of the Force and through his teachings and his experiences, and through his choices he ends up redeeming Vader.

Anakin, from the off, is a boy born of a virgin birth who can uncannily already use the Force and is, apparently, the subject of an ages old prophecy that he will destroy the Sith and bring balance to the Force (just a little note....there were no Sith in the OT - there was no ages old 'greater' battle being fought). Lucas also decides to model his story (as if it is not mythically troped enough...) as a greek tragedy...the impetus of a greek tragedy is that the protagonist is doomed to his fate, no matter what choices he makes.

The first story is a human story about a man who gains great power and has to learn great responsibility. The second.....is a story about a demi-god, feted from a younf age for his great powers, destined to a great and prophecised path who, no matter how much he tries to avoid a fate that he has foreseen himself can do nothing but succumb to it. What that story certainly isn't is the story of how a good man turns bad.....if somebody tries to tell me that such a story consisted of a guy who had a vision of something bad happening and believed it would come true so he made a pact with the devil.......I'd say you've lost your way on that particular thread.

When I said that the Roman Senate was no democracy, I didn't mean it in a Palpatine 'there is no democracy here m'lady' kind of way, I meant that the Senate was not, nor was it ever intended to be a democratic organisation. So...saying that's why Lucas chose to model the Galactic Senate on the Roman Senate then I'd say.......then why does Obi-Wan declare that he's on the side of democracy?

Voters are responsible for the actions of their representatives? Really? Then you truly are lost...but, not even going to get into that.

What matters here is that you claim, by the end, that it is all as clear as day. That it is all about greed, and on the other hand compassion.

Uh-hu.... so how come in this very same post you are still arguing that Padmé and Obi-Wan betrayed Anakin? And, in another thread you said - and I quote

"The Jedi are to blame for the war and their own downfall, as much as Palpatine was." How does that fit with this 'clear message'? You argue here that it is clear, straightforward and yet, elsewhere you argue something entirely different. It's exactly that tumult of contradictory signals that I'm talking about.

 

I think it can be done, but you have to tread carefully.

"How a good person comes to do bad things". A good person doesn't do bad things because he has a Force vision and wants to use the Force to cheat death. That's just too out there, it's gone too far into the mythical setting. That's not even getting into the whole Prophecy of the Chosen One business. Remove the Force vision, the Prophecy and self-fulfilling prophecy, and maybe you can get back to focusing on the fact that this kid was a slave and that his mother was brutally murdered. As you said, too many ideas.

I don't really agree that Superman or Hercules are automatically de-humanized. Destiny, yes. Superpowers, no (AFAIR there's not a huge amount of prophecy/destiny aspect to Superman or Hercules. Some, but not a lot, AFAIR. They're destined for greatness because they are superpowered beings who can do great things, not because some cosmic destiny has already been laid out). I see what you're saying, it does distance them from us a bit. In fiction, these characters are exaggerated (exaggeration is a big thing in fiction) and given superpowers purely for entertainment purposes, and to build up them up, so these heroes can reach the highest highs of heroism, like saving entire worlds and galaxies from superpowered threats. They are built up, so they can be brought down.

But a good story manages this and keeps them grounded. You give them human flaws and human concerns. I think characters like Superman and Hercules have this, or at least are supposed to, when done well. I find Hercules to be a troubling example, so I'd like to stay away.

Back to building them up. It's absolutely necessary in a tragedy. Only Anakin is never really built up. In TPM he's a nice kid on his way to becoming a BIG DAMN HERO, but from the start of AOTC he's an insufferable jerkass. What greatness does he do? Lose to Dooku? Oh yeah, and he chops up Tuskens. In ROTS he defeats Dooku and saves Obi-Wan in endearing fashion, but it's over so fast, he goes right back to jerkass mode, and that's all we really get of this alleged Hero.

The tragedy, I suppose, is that he changed in between TPM and AOTC, due to Palpatine, the Jedi, Padme, and the issues stemming from his childhood, so Anakin Skywalker the BIG DAMN HERO never comes to pass. So not only do we not get our BIG DAMN HERO, the reason we don't pretty much happens entirely off screen. That's a problem, and this from someone who's touched by unfulfilled potential.

I'm not sure that Lucas really wanted to play the blame game. I'm pretty confident that he doesn't to the extent that the fan base does.

I think you can do "how a good person comes to do bad things" and show how everyone was involved, show causality. It's not really about blame, just that one thing leads to the next, and everyone and everything is connected to each other in this big web of causality...or interdependence.

But I can see your point on that, I think there's so many things happening that it does come to dilute Anakin's role in things, like a thirty car pileup. It goes so far that it does seem like fate or destiny overrides the idea of a good person doing bad things. Anakin isn't doing anything but what fate pushed him to do. This is how a good person comes to do bad things? Ridiculously convenient fate? A domino effect of causality? It's not even ridiculously convenient coincidences or accidents (which would be more tragic, imo), because nothing happens by accident, it's all fated. Again, too many ideas.

I'm sure some people can identify with this aspect of human existence, that we're victims of fate. I don't find it all that compelling, or even human.

I think he certainly intended for Anakin to make a choice and be responsible for it. And I think he intended to reduce that agency, if only slightly, because causality does affect all of us. I just think he goes way too far to the point where it seems that he removes agency entirely, which didn't make for a particularly coherent story, much less an entertaining one.

Compare to the OT. Is Luke's agency ever in question? Is Vader's? Was Vader fulfilling his destiny back in 1983? I thought he was defying his alleged destiny. Does Luke even have a clear destiny? Does he have a destiny at all?

Was Anakin ever even a good person? How can you show how a good person comes to do bad things if he was never a good person to begin with?

Yes, Anakin was a good kid. Absolutely. But, I never saw a good adult. I think that's a problem.

I know, I know. Kids are people, too. He started good and become bad later. Bad people don't usually just suddenly become bad people out of nowhere later in life, it starts during childhood and piles up, it's progressive. But it would have been nice to see this progression (it apparently happens offscreen between TPM and AOTC), and it would have been nice to see that he was a good, fully formed person, past the innocence of childhood. It would have more impact.

Agreed, we share the same mindset here.

Indeed. You can't betray someone who has already stabbed you in the back. It's a backward, crazy line of thinking to suggest Padme and Obi-Wan betrayed Anakin. That the crazy, dark side intoxicated Anakin thought this way doesn't make it legit, but people try to defend it anyway, for some reason, because point of view, even though that point of view is crazy and is held by a crazy person. The point of view is stupid as hell, but I guess that's not really relevant for some reason.

Indeed, they're mixed up. Oedipus is a Greek tragedy about self-fulfilling prophecies....but it is not a story about how a good man does evil.

They were demigods, but did they have a destiny? I didn't think so.

I don't think the superpowers are the problem, I think the preordained fate is.

 

Truth. A couple more movies or extended times would have helped imo.

 

Feel like I should fix this.

I meant "goes" evil. Oedipus does not "go" evil.

Nor does he really "do" evil, that's not really how his actions are portrayed, they're portrayed as tragic accidents. Sins, perhaps, based on the sheer aversion to patricide and incest, but both were unknowing.

I think "does" is still technically accurate, but "goes" is more accurate. Oedipus doesn't turn to the dark side and become Darth Vader.

 

I think there is an important distinction to be made between the Jedi and the Senate. The Jedi were good people without political power. The senate on the other hand were average, people who initially aligned themselves to democratic thought and also possessed political power. The Senate voted to hand over powers to Palpatine and thus were directly responsible for their own downfall, but they did so without the vital information of Palpatine's illegal actions and war crimes.

 

Uh, there were Sith in the OT. Vader and Palpatine. Just because the title isn't used doesn't make it any less so and starting with TESB, it was important that Luke defeat the Sith to end the war. And that the Jedi were waiting for Luke to begin this journey when the time was right. Luke himself is already capable of using the Force to bulls-eye womp rats and as Obi-wan said, he was already a fairly good pilot. With Biggs supporting this by lying about his being experienced enough to fight at Yavin 4. And that everything hinged on his destroying the Death Star, with the Force that he only learned about a couple of days earlier.

Anakin wasn't doomed to his fate. His fate was the result of making poor decisions. He was given opportunities to turn away from his fate, but he never takes them because he refuses to listen.

How? Good men go bad for a variety of reasons. Lex Luthor went bad because his own ego couldn't stand that he was not infallible and instead chooses to blame Superboy for his own failures. Smeagol became corrupted by the ring. Set became jealous of his brother and murdered him, so that he could ascend to the throne after years of serving Ra.

And Luke himself also has a fete from a young age due to his powers. Hence taken into hiding from the Empire. The Jedi wish him to fight the Sith and the Empire and destroy it. Luke doesn't want to leave home, but the death of his family allows him to go. He later refuses to confront his father, but then finds he has no choice but to do so.

It's not entirely based on the Roman Senate. The part that I mentioned was how the Roman Senate had become corrupted over the years by those who wanted to gain power for themselves and wound up fighting against each other. Augustus then used the new war that had broken out to go after Mark Antony, following the creation of the Second Triumvirate. After Antony and Cleopatra were defeated at Actium, Augustus was granted special powers that turned him into sole ruler.

The democracy part of the Galactic Republic falls more under the United States and the era of Nixon. Remember, this is an amalgam.

Fine. But my point is that the Senate gave Palpatine his powers. He didn't just take them. That's what his predecessors did and it failed in the long run. Palpatine manipulated the Senate into giving him what he wanted. They handed it to him and he accepted it. If Nixon had managed to change the Constitution, it would be done by Congress voting to make such an amendment. The power being given away freely is what disrupts the balance to the Force.

Right. Anakin becomes Vader because he was greedy. He wanted power. That's been the same since the moment Lucas came up with the idea that his villain, Darth Vader was a Jedi who became a Sith and helped to betray and destroy the Jedi. He did so because he wanted power. Compassion, in the end, is what brings Vader back from the darkness.

There isn't anything contradictory about it. The Jedi went to war on behalf of the Republic, which in turn was a bad idea. It went against their principles and in doing so, helped further Palpatine's agenda, which was create a climate of fear and anger, thus disrupting the balance and giving him more and more political powers. Their downfall was due to their trusting nature, just as it was for the Senate and the Republic at large that supported Palpatine.

I'm sorry, but that doesn't make sense. A good person goes bad because he thinks that two wrongs will make a right. "Star Wars" has been mythical from the start. Doesn't Luke fight Vader on Bespin because he had a vision of his friends in pain, and isn't he encouraged to use the dark side to defeat his enemy? Doesn't Palpatine say that he foresaw the Alliance's defeat at Endor and Luke fights because he's angry at this, wanting to fight against what seems to be fated to happen?

He has his issues, but he also has a good heart. He's struggling between living up to the ideals of the Jedi Order, while trying to become an equal among his superiors. Remember, he had a lot of anger in him as Yoda stated in TESB.

His deeds were that he did a lot before AOTC, but he also does his share in the film as he saves Obi-wan's life and does his best to track down Zam. Even disabling her speeder. He fights bravely in the droid factory and in the arena, managing to protect Padme while fending off a beast and Battle Droids. He has his failures as well. Even heroes have failures.

By that point it is the beginning of his downfall. Throughout, he is struggling between doing what he feels is right and doing what he really wants to do. Finding himself with divided loyalties and an uncertain future.

Anakin is only a victim of his fate because he believes in it. He believes that regardless of what he was taught, nothing will change fate unless he does something to change it. Luke isn't a victim of fate because he finally understands what his vision was telling him, whereas Anakin didn't.

It was there, but you focused more on the negative than you should have. Anakin was good because when it comes down to it, he wants to do good things. He wants to matter. He wants to help others. But he becomes twisted by the dark side after years of seduction. His efforts to do good result in his deciding that his only solution was to do bad things.

You're misunderstanding what I'm saying. I know that they didn't betray him, but he sees it as a betrayal. From his point of view, they betrayed him by not supporting him.

Given that destiny was already a part of the OT, yes. Hence the Jedi and Sith both saying that Luke had a great destiny ahead of him. Obi-wan even says that their destinies will end differently to Luke.

"What these films (episode 4-6) deal with is that we all have good and evil inside of us, and that we can choose which way we want the balance to go. Star wars is made up of many themes, it's not just a single theme. One is our relationship to machines, which is fearful, but also benign, they are an extension of the human, not mean in themselves. The issue of friendship, your obligation to your fellow man, to other people who are around you. That you have control over your destiny, that you HAVE a destiny, that you have many paths to walk down, and you may have a great destiny if you decide not to walk down that path. Your life might be satisfying, if you wake up and listen to your inner feelings and realize what it is you have a particular talent for and what contributions you can make to society."

--George Lucas.

 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Yes. Anakin's 'development' taking place off-screen - between TPM and AOTC - was due to Lucas' inexplicable decision to put a ten year gap between those films. It was a constraint he put upon himself; it was not how the 70's/80's back-story prequel outline was structured.

I've thought this as well.

Yes. Then to top it off, you have the 'causal loop' that is the Force vision that Anakin has in ROTS about Padme dying.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

The point is that Anakin was a good kid, but was then corrupted by the adult world as he grew into maturity. Now, he was a good adult in certain ways, if you paid attention--but he was never without his problems, because that's not what the character was destined to be.

Lucas's thesis in the prequels is that the adults often don't know better than the children. In fact, the pressures society places on children to "grow up" are often quite unhealthy, and can actually lead to bad things down the road. Lucas said in a recent interview that his philosophy was to never trust anyone over thirty years old--and that includes himself. Wise words, if you ask me (if you can accept that his his tongue is partially--but not fully--in cheek).

Anyway, the point is that Anakin could never have been a fully "good" adult, because that would have invalidated Lucas's argument that the modern conception of adulthood is inevitably tinged with an aspect of moral degradation.

 

"When childhood dies, its corpses are called adults and they enter society, one of the politer names of Hell. That is why we dread children, even if we love them. They show us the state of our decay." -- Brian Aldiss, Science-Fiction author


"Truly wonderful the mind of a child is." -- Yoda, Jedi Master

 

As far as I see it, the "moral degradation" of the PT concerns obfuscation and evasion, rather than aging.

-The Jedi separate their gifted young from their parents, and in the case of Anakin, it costs them dearly.
-Gunray and the Federation seek to shroud their ultimate imperialist project in political legitimacy, and it costs them dearly.
-The Jedi fail to ask the necessary questions in the buildup to the Clone War, and it costs them dearly.
-Obi-Wan dismisses Anakin's AOTC premonitions, and it costs him dearly.
-Padme keeps her disturbed husband's Tatooine crimes to herself, and it costs her dearly.

Cowardice abounds. Only in a beclouded universe such as this could the psychopath Palpatine prosper.

Anakinfan: I too bristle at the "never trust anyone over 30" mantra. Naturally, this stemmed from an environ in which decrepit, imbecilic creatures like Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon sent a generation of vibrant boys into the slaughterhouse of Vietnam. (There is something profoundly profane, isn't there, about the old devouring and corrupting the young?)

The best outcome, of course, is that the younger generations march hand-in-hand with the elders who have managed to retain their souls in this corporate/militaristic culture.

 

I think you're taking what he said both a little too personally and a little too seriously. For crying out loud, the man himself is well over thirty years old. He's making a general point about the modern conception of adulthood in our current society and where that conception can often go wrong.