CT That Old Man Anakin

Discussion in 'Classic Trilogy' started by WhinyLuke, Sep 22, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. The Corellian Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Sep 16, 2012
    star 1
    I personally like the older version for this reason. When Anakin/Vader died, he had been reedemed for at least a few minutes after he threw Palpatine into the reactor. Meaning that when he appeared as an older man, he appeared as he would have looked at his age had he never turned.
    Valairy Scot and sinkie like this.
  2. Disciple-of-Tython Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 12, 2006
    star 4
    Plus Hayden Christensen looks creepy when he stares directly at the camera....freaky, freaky stuff.
  3. PiettsHat Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 1, 2011
    star 4
    No, for an action to be self-defense, you have to be in a situation that necessitates violence. It is not applicable if you have the option of leaving -- there is a "duty to retreat." The person who acts in self-defense must show that they have taken reasonable steps to avoid the conflict and Luke did not do that, as evidenced by the fact that his friends were calling for him to leave. His own actions placed him in danger and he was actively seeking out a fight, hence Leia entreating him to come on aboard the Falcon, along with Han.

    Also, if it was self-defense, why would Obi-Wan tell Luke to run? As Yoda says, "A Jedi uses the Force for defense, never for attack," so if Luke really was just defending himself, there would be no reason for Luke to be told to go. A Jedi has the right to defend himself. And if Obi-Wan said that because Luke staying there was putting him in danger and he wanted him to leave, then, again, that just proves my point -- Luke is not taking reasonable steps to avoid a conflict and is thus not acting in self-defense.

    Look, I'm not saying that Luke is a bad person. He was clearly emotionally distraught over the death of someone he loved and acted out of anger without thinking. It was also that much easier to shoot the stormtroopers because they were dehumanized through there armor. But that doesn't make it okay to kill them just because you're upset. Like Anakin, it was wrong, but understandable. I can't say I would have reacted any differently than Luke in his situation.

    If they were involved, then yes, I can see the man killing them, particularly if he had a weapon in hand. If a man's daughter was kidnapped by a cult of families and brutally tortured to death, I can imagine him, in a rage, opening fire on them, especially if he did not know the specific person in the cult responsible for his loved one's death. People in blind rages aren't exactly rational. If the cult members were gathered for a dinner, or outside doing a ritual, or something of the sort, I can see how such a person might simply open fire on them and tar them all with the same brush, without thinking of the consequences.

    Errr...no offense, but why exactly would you view that second drunk driver as a "worse" person? He would just be unluckier. Are you really saying that if two equally drunk people get in their cars, drive exactly as poorly, but one is unfortunate enough to cause an accident that kills 50 children while the other one gets home scot-free, that one who killed is automatically a more evil person than the other? I don't see how, personally. They had the same alcohol content, made the same choices, one was just unluckier than another -- there were people along his path while the other didn't encounter anyone. That's like saying someone is a worse parent because their inattention caused their child to be run over while another parent was merely lucky enough for the car to stop on time. It just comes down to luck, in the end.

    Plus, I think you're avoiding the frame of mind. If Anakin had slaughtered the Tusken tribe because someone he knew for a week was merely shot by them, I agree that it would be difficult to understand. But this was his mother -- she had raised him for a decade, they had been separated from each other with no contact for that long. He had been dreaming of her suffering and in pain for while (about a month). And when he arrives, he's told that the Tuskens are "vicious, mindless monsters" (which probably primed him to dehumanize them unfortunately). Then, when he finally finds her, he holds her broken, tortured body in his arms as she dies. I'm honestly not surprised that he lost it -- it was such a traumatic experience that I think he lost his grip on his sanity.

    There's a very primal reaction to pain. We lash out at people who are hurting us, even if we love them. I accidentally stepped on my dog's tail when I was a teenager and she bit me in the ankle. Not because she wanted to, but because I hurt her and she reacted. She was ashamed and wouldn't meet my eyes afterwards because she hadn't "meant" to. Psychological pain can cause the same reaction -- that's why revenge is such a powerful emotion.

    Errr...no. Luke's pain is not only tied to Anakin's actions.

    Watch this video and pause at about 6:29.



    Anakin's not there anymore. He has been cut off by the doors that are closed and yet Luke still keeps shooting. Look at how his face is (understandably) twisted in anger. Even though Han and Leia are already aboard the Falcon by this point. He then kills another stormtrooper and finally leaves only when he hears Obi-Wan.

    Also, none of those stormtroopers posed a threat to Luke because he could have left. He could have and indeed, his friends kept pleading with him to. They called out to him four times for him to "come on" and told him that it was too late.

    Exactly. Anakin is immensely more powerful than the Tuskens -- neither the males nor females could kill him. But he's out of his mind with pain and grief. That's why I can't understand why killing the females is worse than killing the males -- they're about equal in terms of threat to Anakin. This also means, too, that in his rage, Anakin isn't going to be stopped because no one is strong enough to actually fight him on his level. It's not like Darth Maul or Luke vs. Anakin where the opponent is actually skilled enough to hold their ground for a time. Had that been so, it would have given Anakin more time to calm down.

    But Anakin made a similar mistake as Luke did, he didn't leave when he could have. But in both cases, it's understandable -- they lost control of their emotions. In Luke's case, he fortunately heard Obi-Wan's voice pleading with him, which got him to leave.

    No, there was only Palpatine in there so he just caused solid steel to cave in. After the horrific abuse his body had endured. One of the steel machines caved in and you can even see a freaking metal wall buckling. I don't honestly think that he would have had any trouble with the Tusken camp. There's nothing there that's going to be as tough as a solid metal wall.

    The Tusken camp was also made of soft material and Anakin would likely have had no problem smash things apart. If he applied the same pressure to those tents that he did the wall, I can't see how any Tuskens would have survived. Plus, the reason I bring this up is because although we do see Anakin kill with his lightsaber, ROTS showed us that in extreme emotional turmoil (such as the death of a loved one), Anakin reached out and crushed everything he could around them. There's no real implication that he hunted them down and killed everyone individually. Plus, given what we've seen of Jedi, they have the ability to augment their speed and strength immensely and rage fuels those. Anakin wouldn't have been moving at a leisurely pace and, combined with his force powers and the degree to which he would have been mentally disturbed, it wouldn't have taken long.

    Plus, "slaughter like animals" indicates nothing. Many animals are slaughtered through electricity, beating, or shooting. Cattle in particular, are often shot in order to slaughter them. Seriously, just search the phrase "slaughter of animals" and you'll get the following causes of death:

    stunned by electricity or percussion
    killed by cutting blood vessels in the neck
    shooting
    asphyxia

    There's no indication that every single Tusken died because Anakin deliberately and rationally hunted them down. And that's really where I find your argument difficult to understand. You seem to be saying that Anakin rationally and consciously chose to kill the Tuskens -- that it was a grief-fueled rage, but that he coldly cut them down. And I just can't agree with you. I can't imagine how anyone in Anakin's situation would have been able to think rationally. And the film bears me out on this point. -- Anakin is horrified by what he has done and breaks down crying when he tells Padmé what is wrong.

    I just described, though, why Anakin would be reticent to talk to the Jedi -- because they don't have mothers of their own. Anakin should have told the Jedi, but what I'm saying is that he received reassurance from Palpatine and Padmé (who most certainly did know the whole story, at least). Palpatine, in particular, knew that what Anakin had done was "not the Jedi way" since he brings it up when Anakin expresses confusion over killing Dooku. But your original point was that he did not accept responsibility and he did not seek help. My argument is simply that he did, in fact, tell people in authority and seek out their help.

    I think that Anakin would have considered Palpatine to be aware of the abilities of a Jedi -- they are good friends and, more importantly, Palpatine is the head of the Senate and Republic which is the body that the Jedi serve. He's not a Jedi, no, but I think the reason Anakin would have likely gone to him is because he's known Anakin a long time, he is more aware than the average person of the abilities of the Jedi, he could report Anakin to the Jedi should it be concerning, and (most importantly) he was not raised the Jedi way and thus would more readily empathize with Anakin's attachment. Plus, if Palpatine's response in ROTS is anything to go by ("it was only natural"), then Anakin would have been reassured that his actions weren't bad and that there was no reason to tell the Council.

    I agree that Anakin should have told the Council since they were most aware of the Force. The thing I'm saying is, though, that by having told Palpatine and been reassured, Anakin would have seen no reason to and been afraid of their reaction because they didn't understand.

    It's like a child who has a difficult home situation, can't study and cheats on a test. Should they tell the truth to their teacher? Yes, since the teacher is involved in the educational system. But if they tell their parent (who would understand the circumstances of home life) and that parent reassures them that they didn't do anything wrong, I can see why that child wouldn't report their action to their teacher.

    Heres' the thing, though -- there was no one on Anakin's "side" when he killed the Tuskens. He was in a blind rage and killed the tribe that had held his mother captive. I agree that Anakin needed help and shouldn't be on active duty, but I don't think he would have seen it that way, particularly when someone like Palpatine told him that what he did was only natural and didn't express any concern.

    Plus, I was only discussing this because I wanted to explain why I thought Anakin was still a good person, even after the Tusken slaughter. I agree with you that he needed help and was troubled, but that doesn't mean I think he was a bad person. I think he was trying to do the right thing and I think that, given the circumstances of the slaughter, what he did was wrong, but it did not make him evil due to the trauma of the situation. Had any of the other characters been put in his exact situation with his abilities, I can see many of them doing the same thing.
  4. JediGaskin Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Nov 5, 2012
    I personally prefer the older Anakin because it show me how he develops through time.
  5. Lord Tyrannus Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 18, 2012
    star 4
    I personally prefer the younger Anakin because he's very handsome.
  6. Valairy Scot Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Sep 16, 2005
    star 5
    Anakinfan, my friend, I also believe when one is discussing Anakin's actions - as a son, as a Jedi - we should be discussing ANAKIN'S actions. Was his behavior understandable? Moral? Legal? Whatever the particular point of the discussion is, discuss it. In this sense, while the Tuskens' actions help to explain context, it is unimportant as regards ANAKIN'S ACTIONS if that is the subject of discussion.

    That is why so many "ignore Shmi" or don't "condemn the Tuskens" to your satisfaction when this subject comes up. Speaking solely for myself, unless we are discussing the entirety of that scene and the context, I will ignore what "they did" to discuss what "Anakin did" in reaction if that is the subject.

    It's not a case of "he did it, no, he did." Two wrongs don't make a right. Whatever horrible, abominable thing the Tuskens did (worthy of discussion) does not mean Anakin automatically had to react as he did in the movie - so if we're discussing his reaction, discuss Anakin.

    Otherwise, we all get side-tracked, the arguments get involved and circular, and no one bothers to listen anymore.


    Er, people, read. "A good friend" can be a horrible person - or a great person. A good friend =/= a good person.
    Last edited by Valairy Scot, Nov 5, 2012
  7. anakinfansince1983 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Mar 4, 2011
    star 7
    The reason I always bring it up is because I believe the context is important, and I don't really see how we can have a comprehensive discussion about Anakin's actions without discussing the full scope of why he committed those actions.

    If Anakin had returned to Tatooine for the sole purpose of attacking a Tusken Day Care Center because the kids' masks gave him the creeps, the implications would be very different than the scene as we were given it.

    I'm fine with people pointing out that his reaction was wrong, but again, I don't know how we can discuss his reaction while leaving out why he reacted.

    It's not a case of two wrongs making a right; I don't think Anakin was "right." But the horror he had just experienced provoked his reaction in a way that I think is important to recognize, even if it doesn't excuse what he did (and it doesn't, it just adds grey area to an otherwise black-and-white situation),

    Also, I don't think you were part of this one but there was a thread in the Lit forum called "Why did the Tuskens torture Shmi?" in which people still didn't want to discuss the Tuskens torturing Shmi. I had to scratch my head on that one.

    My experience with threads on this topic has been that that happens anyway. There was one decent thread on the temp boards as I recall, but most of them end up being ****storms.
  8. Lord Tyrannus Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 18, 2012
    star 4
    I agree with you. Why not make Hayden Christensen film himself for a ghost scene? So he can do and make a natural expression? Or, at least, film him when he has a nice smile, like a happy ghost. Obi wan smiled at the ending of ROTJ. So did yoda. I prefer younger anakin, but at least Sebastian shaw smiled. All jokes aside, the bottom pictures, the last 2, is what anakin's ghost should have looked like.
    [IMG]

    NO, Not that one!

    This one. A happy smiling Anakin Skywalker, father of Luke and Leia.
    [IMG]

    [IMG]

    Hey, Luke. What's going on, my son? Just hanging out with Obi wan and Yoda. Oh, my daughter Leia doesn't notice me. Sorry what happened in Episode 4, with the interrogation droids.
    Last edited by Lord Tyrannus, Nov 5, 2012
  9. Valairy Scot Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Sep 16, 2005
    star 5
    Anakinfan, I don't hang out in LIT, but it sounds like you've got quite a point as regards THAT discussion.

    Someday, if we ever met in real life and could have a real face to face convo, I'd love to totally discuss this with you including all the cultural, sociological and personal ramifications of "life on Tatooine" and relations between Tuskens, Jawas and settlers on what is essentially a frontier planet largely self-policed or run by the Hutts. It is somewhat similar to the "old west" of film (but how close to reality?).
  10. WIERD_GREEN_MAN Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Dec 16, 2010
    star 4
    I just think that Hayden would not want to come back. Everybody was so mean about him. Nobody said "Samuel L. Jackson SUCKED in the PT!" Hayden's reputation is now forever twined with Anakin, and it's not a very good one.
  11. anakinfansince1983 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Mar 4, 2011
    star 7
    I haven't been to Seattle in far too long and I'm in withdrawal. :p I hope to make that meeting happen at some point.

    I've given this some thought and my point boils down to this: Anakin's horror at not only his mother's death but the senseless brutality of how she died, and his anger afterwards, I can wrap my brain around. That doesn't mean I think his reaction was A-OK, of course it wasn't, but I can at least get a sense of what might have been going through his crazed mind when it happened.

    I understand on an academic level the cultural implications of a settlers vs natives war and the marginal comparison between the Tuskens and settlers and the European settlers and the Native Americans, but I still have a very difficult time wrapping my brain around kidnapping a random innocent woman and torturing her slowly to death, even if they considered her part of "that group", even if they had dehumanized her completely (wild animals aren't human but I can't imagine, in the farthest recesses of my brain, doing that to a coyote--just as an example).
  12. Lord Tyrannus Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 18, 2012
    star 4
    Good point......
  13. Valairy Scot Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Sep 16, 2005
    star 5
    The only thing I'll say for now because this would otherwise be a LONG and incomplete discussion/point is that in harsh environments, often harsh social mores abound (by our "more civilized" mores). Of course it is desirable to grow beyond such (moral judgment) but as you yourself have said, unless we have "walked in their shoes" or at least try to set aside our own cultural prejudices to examine those of others before making our own moral judgments, we can't really be said to have started from objectivity before moving on to subjectivity.

    That's not you, personally, but more than a few on such type threads - and of course I *do* understand the moral outrage of many; I just believe outrage needs to follow understanding (not sympathizing, but understanding as much as one is capable of).
    WIERD_GREEN_MAN likes this.
  14. Lord Tyrannus Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 18, 2012
    star 4
    [IMG]



    [IMG]
  15. CommanderXGhost Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Oct 19, 2012
    Hahaha, well said!
    @Topic: I like both ghosts, and both are logical, It all depends on how the viewer/fan perceives it based on whether they watched the theatrical version, or special edition, or both?
  16. Lord Tyrannus Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 18, 2012
    star 4
    Well, Anakin was a good guy here. He looked like this at the end of special edition Jedi. What truth did he cover up? Palpatine was a human being, not the antichrist, darkside incarnate. What rumor?

    [IMG]
  17. Lord Tyrannus Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 18, 2012
    star 4
    What 2 best friends?
  18. Lord Tyrannus Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 18, 2012
    star 4
    That's a good way to make peace and have closure for the debate. I agree totally. ;)
  19. CommanderXGhost Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Oct 19, 2012
  20. Lord Tyrannus Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 18, 2012
    star 4
    If Padme lived, she would've been in her fifities by ROTJ. Early fifties, since she was a few yrs older than Anakin, or late forties I guess. Imagine a middle aged Natalie Portman.......
  21. Samuel Vimes Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 4, 2012
    star 4
  22. TOSCHESTATION Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 17, 2003
    star 4
    Well, that's exactly the problem with PT Anakin/PT "Vader": he kills 'everyone' EXCEPT the person he should have killed ....Palpatine/Sidious. o_O
  23. Lord Tyrannus Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 18, 2012
    star 4
    Here's what I like about Sebastian Shaw as Anakin.... Anakin was anakin even when he picked up the Emperor and threw him down the DS2 to save Luke. The suit doesn't make him Vader. When he dies, even though he looks old (more accuratley, middle aged), with a head that looks like an egg, he is still the same person as the handsome young long haired Adonis on Mustafar.. Still the same person as the cute little kid in Episode 1... There's no need to portray his younger versions if he aged......... Agree??
  24. TOSCHESTATION Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 17, 2003
    star 4
    YES!!! I agree with you overall...now you just need to 'give up' on the younger, long-haired version....[face_whistling]



    Valairy Scot, I'm not sure why you'd really want to argue this point/distinction. "A good friend =/= a good person" wasn't even the point that Arawn was trying to arguing*, much less any poster who has actually tried to 'defend' the PT on this score. Arawn was arguing over minutiae just for the sake of it.* Those who attempt an 'apologetic' for the PT and it's portrayal of Anakin would argue that Anakin was a 'good person' PERIOD, despite what he did. Plus, Valairy, I don't think that you would believe - for even a second -that this 'low-bar, lowest common-denominator' approach** to Anakin/Annikin/Luke's father via Ben's description of him in the OT was the original intent of the OT, or is even the 'intent' now (post-PT) that the six-part saga is finished.

    *unless someone can demonstrate otherwise, and Arawn ain't tellin'.....


    **Ben - and the movie (SW-ANH) in general - was 'only' trying to convey to Luke and the audience that Luke's father was just a 'good budy' to old Kenobi back in the days, but wasn't also supposed to have been a good person, overall.



    Saying "that was my point" doesn't demonstrate that you had a point. In the bigger picture, you're still just arguing over minutiae:

    1. You have been unable to demonstrate or argue that the OT overall did NOT intend for audiences to believe that Anakin had once been a good person*.

    * the good man who was your father......"

    2. Your mistake is thinking that this intent of characterization ONLY depends on Ben/Obi-Wan's specific words to Luke (and two can play the "Obi-Wan's SPECIFIC WORDS Game" anyhow, as you'd been shown before).

    3. Arguing your 'point' is essentially arguing that Obi-Wan's lack of specifically calling Annikin 'good' in ANH somehow negates what he later says about him in ROTJ ( "the good man who was your father....." ).
    Last edited by TOSCHESTATION, Nov 6, 2012
  25. Lord Tyrannus Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 18, 2012
    star 4
    Why is this thread page so long????
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.