Discussion in 'Revenge of the Sith (Non-Spoilers)' started by ObiMcD, Aug 26, 2000.
But still, she better die.
I do not think that she needs to die, and I do not want to see her die. You people are bloodthirsty. When you see a character that you care about suffering emotionally, as PadmÃ© will when Anakin turns, it has more of an impact than seeing the character die.
Someone mentioned earlier that the ROTJ novel tells us that Leia remembers her mother through "flashes of infancy", and that this could be used as justification for her death in Episode III without contradicting Leia's dialogue. This is a possibility, but remember that the novel also states the Owen is Obi-Wan's brother, and the ANH novel says that Luke was Blue 5 at the Battle of Yavin.
When Lucas started the original trilogy, I said that the penultimate scene in EP 3 would be Anakin coming to get Luke (I'll assume he doesn't know about Leia's existence) and Padme defending her child, perhaps with a lightsaber. Yes, it would be the first sci fi epic about domestic violence. But would Lucas have a husband kill his wife? Is a character like that redeemable in any sense of the word? The more I thought about it the more I'm guessing he won't get that dark. Yes, it would be extremely dramatic and heartbreaking, but I just don't see it in Lucas and the whole idea that he will be redeemed may have quashed that theory altogether. In any case, I think we have to see Padme die. If we don't, it's a cop out.
I've posted it before in a different thread, and I'll post it again here...
There are logical arguments to believe Padme will not die in Episode III. (Wondering what these logical arguments are? Reread this thread.) These arguments are based on what we know about her ultimate fate from the CT.
I've seen plenty of emotional arguments for Padme dying in Ep. III (as in "It's a copout if she doesn't" or "I want to her to die" or "I'll be upset if she doesn't die"). Give me a logical argument for believing Padme dies in Ep. III, and I'll be happy to reconsider my thoughts.
edit: oops, can't type tonight!
what if anakin somehow inadvertantly killed her? an acident? that would send him right over the edge or he didn't get to her in time like the scene with his mom, somethign liek that.
I think Padme will pull an "Ophelia" and go nuts because of everything going on around her, i.e. her failure to save the republic, her husband's turn to the dark side, etc. I think she'll be institutionalized on Alderaan, and Bail Organa and Obi Wan will be forced to TAKE the children from her, for their safety. Obi Wan will take Luke to Tatooine, and Bail Organa will keep Leia. That would explain how Leia could remember flashes of her mother - maybe Padme would be allowed to see Leia occasionally as a baby, maybe to feed her, whatever. Then I think at some point she will commit suicide in her "cell" or something. I don't know, that's just my theory...
Of all the good theories in here, it all about to be blown apart again . . .
All the sudden its confirmed that Natalie will be doing something that goes in ROTJ.
Will she appear as a ghost? Will she be in a Flashback? Or something else . . .
Here we go again!
I do not like that idea. There is no place for PadmÃ© in ROTJ, and a flashback sequence is out of place in Star Wars.
Hopefully, it's NOT as a ghost. How would it look if you've got ghosts of Kenobi and even Skywalker who are in their 50s-60s and not-to-mention JEDI, then, oh! young Padme just walking around mingling with all of them. A flashback MIGHT work, but I just hope it doesn't alter ROTJ too much. Not sure if this is a good idea or not. Guess I'll just have to wait three years and find out...
Yeah, its probably not a ghost . . but if its not a flashback, which isn't Lucas' styl (not meaning he wouldn't do it) could it mean she is . . . dare I say it . . . still alive? Naw . . she'd be too old by then.
Maybe they find an old recording or something from her. But how could that fit into the story? Perhaps Anakin has it on him and gives it to Luke? Could they extend Anakins death any?
I guess a flashback works best.
A recording might work. Now that I think about it, Padme as a ghost might work well with her forgiving Anakin or something. I think it's a safe bet to say she's dead though.
I remember back when JEDI came out, Harrison Ford said in an interview that he begged Lucas to kill Han Solo and "complete the journey". Lucas basically said "no way". I don't know if this will be the case with Padme. It's a little different here because, in some sense, the groundwork has already been set. I reiterate that she has to die onscreen or Lucas isn't playing pool. She is the emotional center of the new trilogy, as much as its naysayers would like to believe that there is NO emotional center, and for her to casually exit stage left is NOT good drama. And it makes no sense that she would be laying low while Luke and Leia are fighting the Empire, no matter how much she loves Anakin. Let's face it: Any woman whose had children knows that they're the most important person in their lives, supplanting even the husband. And I don't want to hear any speculation that she's in some carbon freeze.
As for the confirmation by Lucas that Portman has signed on to shoot stuff for JEDI: It could mean anything. Signing on just means she signed her contract to be paid and for residuals or whatever SAG rules are. She could be in one shot. You can't use an actor's image in a movie they weren't contracted to do, so a "deal" has no relation to screen time. I seriously doubt it'll be a big scene, as that would require more actors, even ones that aren't, shall we say, spring chickens anymore. I'm sure Natalie has no idea what she's doing, either. In any case, ol'George loves dropping these hints. Let the speculation begin!
<Sigh> I wish the admins would kill all the redundant Padme threads so I could just have this argument in one place.
I reiterate that she has to die onscreen or Lucas isn't playing pool. She is the emotional center of the new trilogy, as much as its naysayers would like to believe that there is NO emotional center, and for her to casually exit stage left is NOT good drama.
This is an aesthetic argument--one based on your emotional preference on how a story is told. But all tragic stories aren't told the same way. It can be just as tragic for a character to survive after losing everything as it is for that same character to die.
In tragedies, resolution does not equal death on screen. Resolution in a story can take a thousand different forms, depending on the whims of the artist or interpreter. Two good examples of how a tragic ending can go either way are Romeo and Juliet and West Side Story. In Romeo and Juliet, both title characters die at the end. It's all very sad and tragic. But that's just one way of having a tragic ending and resolution.
In West Side Story, which incidentally is an interpretation of Romeo and Juliet which moves the story from Verona to New York, Tony (the Romeo equivalent) still dies, but Maria (the Juliet equivalent) survives. Her survival at the end of the film/musical does not take away from the tragedy of her situation at all--she has still lost her lover and her brother (basically, everything that she cared about). Her story is resolved, and it's still a tragedy.
We all know the prequel trilogy is a tragedy, but not all main characters have to die for a story to be tragic. You can't use an aesthetic argument to support your belief that Padme dies in Ep.III, because the aesthetic argument can go both ways.
So there's still no evidence from the five existing films to believe that Padme must die in Ep. III. And there still is evidence to believe that Padme survives--namely, the implications of Leia's comments to Luke in ROTJ.
As for the Portman news, I agree that it's irrelevant. It really doesn't prove anything about Episode III, since we don't know how she's going to be incorporated. I don't need that news to support my argument: I have all the evidence I need in ROTJ as it stands today.
Rilijina: Your argument is that Leia mentions Padme in her childhood memories. What makes you assume that we won't see Luke and Leia AS CHILDREN in Ep 3? Everyone assumes they'll be only infants in Ep 3. Portman has even said in interviews that she'll begin the movie with a pregnant belly so it's not a leap to assume they'll be born somewhere in act one. Depending on the timeline of Ep 3 (WHICH NONE OF US KNOWS ABOUT), they could very well be one or two years old by the end of the film. So, yes, Leia can remember her mother and Padme can still die. Will she? Who knows other than Lucas. I don't even think Portman knows. My argument is that Lucas has set up a universe where the ending is forseen (through the original trilogy) and there is NOT A HINT of Padme anywhere. For him to turn around and say, well, she really lived and here she is now is dirty pool because Lucas has always said he had these stories figured out 25 years ago. Now, of course, everyone knows he's playing around with minor details and that's fine. But the fate of a character is too big an issue to just let lie. If Padme is alive, why not have Mace Windu be in hiding? It makes as much sense. I don't like Deus Ex Machina storytelling. It worked in old Greek literature but it won't work for today's audiences. Hell, it hasn't worked for a hundred years.
Here's my evidence. The dialogue from two scenes in ROTJ:
BEN: Hmm. To protect you both from the Emperor, you were hidden from your father when you were born. The Emperor knew, as I did, if Anakin were to have any offspring, they would be a threat to him. That is the reason why your sister remains safely anonymous.
LUKE: Leia... do you remember your mother? Your real mother?
LEIA: Just a little bit. She died when I was very young.
LUKE: What do you remember?
LEIA: Just...images, really. Feelings.
LUKE: Tell me.
LEIA: (a little surprised at his insistence) She was very beautiful. Kind, but...sad. (looks up) Why are you asking me all this?
He looks away.
LUKE: I have no memory of my mother. I never knew her.
Look, I never said I thought Padme was alive and in hiding during the CT. I think that would be absolutely ridiculous--especially since it contradicts what Leia says in ROTJ. I've always argued that Padme dies in the 20 years between Ep. III and ANH.
Here's my complete argument, from start to finish, in one place.
1) Anakin is seduced to the dark side before the twins are born. Look at what Ben says. You don't hide kids from their father unless their father is a homicidal evil Sith.
2) I think we all agree that Ep. III has to show Anakin's fall. I think every SW fan in the universe would be a little pissed if the fall happened between AOTC and Ep. III! Plus, GL has told us that the fall happens in Ep.III.
3) Hence, the birth of the twins can't happen before Ep. III.
4) We know from Leia in ROTJ that Padme does die at some point when Leia is young. So now the question is: will it be shown in Ep. III?
5) Padme can't die before the separation of the twins, and Leia's memory of her "real mother" can't be from being a newborn infant. Why? Because in that case, Luke would remember Padme and Leia. And he has "no memory of [his] mother."
6) Consequently Leia's memory of Padme must be from early childhood. To be generous, from the time she is 2-4 years old. (Do you have any memories from when you are 1?)
7) That would place Leia's memory of Padme at about 2-4 years after Anakin's fall, since we know his fall happened before her birth.
8) No Star Wars film has ever shown a period of years. They show periods of days or weeks.
9) As Ep. III must show Anakin's fall, it would have to cover a period of 2-4 years to also show Padme's death.
People are arguing that Padme dies in or immediately after childbirth, that her death drives Anakin to the dark side , that her she commits suicide right after Anakin turns. All those scenarios contradict SW canon (ROTJ the movie).
I'll happily concede there are two ways that Padme's death might be shown on screen in Ep. III.
1) If Ep. III breaks with tradition and shows 2-4 years (from Anakin's fall to Padme's death 2-4 years after the birth of the twins). I should think this would offend the delicate aesthetic sensibilities out there much more than any alleged lack of resolution in Padme's story line. And if you take this concession and run with it, you can't use that concession to go back argue that Padme dies in childbirth, etc. That's not logical!
2) If GL throws continuity out the window. In this case, we might as well shut down these speculation threads entirely. In this case, for all we know, Luke and Leia's mom could be a tauntaun. And furthermore, a lack of continuity on GL doesn't prove that Padme dies--GL could still go either way on the issue.
I hope these are my last words on the subject, but somehow I think they won't be.
Rilina: Padme dying offscreen between EP 3 and EP 4 is as undramatic as having the Robert Duvall character in Godfather die offscreen between 2 and 3. Oh wait. They did do that. Oh god...
Padme dying offscreen between EP 3 and EP 4 is as undramatic as having the Robert Duvall character in Godfather die offscreen between 2 and 3.
Ah, another lovable but non-convincing aesthetic argument.
Maybe it is undramatic. Depends on your point of view and how it's done. But it doesn't mean it can't happen...
As for the Godfather movies, I just pretend the third one never ever happened.
I've always believed that Padme dies between episodes 3 and 4 also, not on screen. I agree with Rilina that the only way for Padme to die in episode 3 is if the movie takes place over a span of years. Which I also agree is very un-Star Wars-esque. ESB covered the most time, most likely between 4 to 8 weeks.
I wish the admins would kill all the redundant Padme threads so I could just have this argument in one place.
As do I. I tried to center the discussion in either this thread or the [link=http://boards.theforce.net/message.asp?topic=6914719&replies=16]Episode III: Padme[/link] thread, but it didn't work well. It's very difficult to have the discussion spread out over a number of redundant threads. IMO, only one Padme thread is needed. Just as only one Boba thread is needed, etc...as long as the topic of discussion is the same.
Rilina, although I do not necessarily agree that Padme will not die in EPIII, I enjoy reading your posts. You make some very intriguing points.
Whether or not she dies during or after Episode III we obviously can not answer. We can only speculate.
As for the time span during the movie, I don't see why a period of years, rather than merely weeks, would be that far off the mark. Given, in the previous five films, we have not seen a time span of more than a few weeks. However, I don't see how it is so beyond possible. One thing I've learned...don't put anything past GL.
It was my personal belief that Padme's death would be shown in Episode III. She being my favorite character in the PT, it would be a very traumatic experience for me to see her die. Nevertheless, I truly believed it to be more in George's style to show her death than to leave it to our complete and utter speculation.
However, contrary to what y'all have said, I believe the news of Natalie shooting a scene for ROTJ does change things a bit. Given, even if it is true, we have no idea in what way, shape, or form this scene will be presented. Yet, we can't rule out the simple fact that if she will now have a scene in ROTJ, it seriously could determine events in EP III.
What is the validity of this news? I couldn't find anything about it on MTV.com, and I am anxious to know the truth or lack of truth behind it.
Perhaps we should ask the admins to put a link to this thread at the end of the redundant ones, and then lock the redundants ones? I have to confess that I feel like the continued activity in some of the redundant threads is partly my fault. But after they stayed open for a while--and the most ridiculously illogical theories about Padme were being propagated--well, I couldn't resist responding.
Padme in ROTJ: <Sigh> I wish that GL would stop fiddling with the CT. My guess is that we see Padme in a flashback during Luke and Leia's conversation, or after Luke takes off Vader's mask. (In the novelization, I believe Anakin remembers Padme after Luke takes off the mask.) Here's the link to TF.N story--I haven't heard anything else about it.
[link=http://cgi.theforce.net/theforce/tfn.cgi?storyID=16850]Portman in ROTJ DVD[/link]
Getting off the topic of Padme's death for once, it might be interesting to speculate on what she'll actually be doing in Episode III. She's obviously going to pregnant at some point in the film, and she's obviously giving birth at some point in the film. But beyond that, her storyline is wide open. I've seen suggestions that she just fades away after Anakin's fall, but the more we see of her, the less likely that seems. In TPM and AOTC, she's a person of action. I think she'll play an active role in deciding how the twins are to be hidden and made safe: I very highly doubt she'd sit back and let the Jedi and Bail Organa decide everything!
I haven't read all the posts so someone may have brought this up before me. Didn't someone ask Lucas "Do you know how Padme dies?" and he says "Yes, I do."
Doesn't that imply that she dies in Episode III?
GL's statement says nothing about the timing of Padme's death, which is the main issue under debate here. The question is: will it be shown on screen in Ep. III? Just because he knows [b[how[/b] she dies doesn't mean she has to die during Episode III.
This is true. I still do not believe that she must die in the next movie.
I don't necessarily think that she must die in EPIII. I just think that she will.
"Doesn't that imply that she dies in Episode III?"
At least it implies that Lucas knows her fate and that she dies within the story.
Personally I think like you that it means this will happen during the prequels but it could also mean that he knows what will happen in episode III to make her die off-screen between ep. III and IV.
I'm long convinced that Lucas has something in mind to explain Leia's memories and that PadmÃ© was always supposed to die on-screen. He used that device in Jedi because he absolutely wanted a mention of the mother somewhere and I think he preferred to use one of the twins because Obi-Wan/Vader/Yoda would have to reveal more than he wanted to reveal in ROTJ. Lucas may not have wanted to tie his hands on the fact that "PadmÃ©" knew Yoda or not, if she was friendly or not with Obi-Wan, if she was a politician etc. So he used Leia and kept it all very open and vague, in case he did the prequels one day.
Wasn't Lucas saying long ago that we would see Luke at 2-3 years old, then he changed his mind and came up with the prequels' timeline as we now know it where the twins are merely born in three?
That would sure explain why he put that line about Leia remembering her. Now he will simply have to explain it, like for the droids' memories.
Personally I'm convinced it's just the Force. Leia doesn't really remember PadmÃ©, she's just reaching instinctively into the Force and got a few images and feelings about PadmÃ©. As she is untrained, she can only explain that as memories, images, feelings. "the past, the present and the future, friends long gone"... A few close up of baby Leia deeply looking at her mom in episode III will be enough for most of the audience. When Leia talks of her memories we will remember those images of PadmÃ© and her. We will participate in the scene differently.
In the ROTJ novelization these images are travelling with PadmÃ© hidden in a trunk and the separation from her mother where her mother was really sad. That's all Leia remembers of her. I think this happened very early in her life, they wouldn't have waited 2-3 years before hiding the twins. Even if that was the initial idea, Lucas will now discard it because the twins will be newborns in ep. 3.
I don't see Lucas allowing PadmÃ© to live beyond episode III, that's just not his style. Lucas likes closure and was never afraid of killing beloved or "good" characters when it served his story : QG, Yoda, Ben, Anakin, Shmi. All the villains also died properly : Boba, Jabba, Palpatine. Luke has become a Jedi, Leia and Han were an happy couple. Closure, closure, closure. You can bet he will give the proper closure to PadmÃ© Amidala as well. If a character survives and becomes sad and broken, it's gonna be Jar-Jar, not PadmÃ©. PadmÃ© is way too strong to die of a "broken heart", especially since she has children to take care of. She would get over it and continue the fight. I know heroins of tragedies often die of a broken heart, but they don't have PadmÃ©'s personality, nor do they leave orphans behind.
I think PadmÃ© will die on-screen and no doubt it's going to become one of those classic scenes of the saga, as powerful as when Vader saves Luke and kills the Emperor - and probably the saddest scene of the whole saga.