"There was no father..."

Seems to me that it was explained and "sold" as well as well as it could be.

 

Of course you say that, you bought it.

But judging from the respectable percentage of fans/audience member who did NOT buy it, then one should conclude it wasn't sold well.

Because if it WAS sold well, there would NOT BE a respectable percentage of fans who did NOT buy it.

It's very simple. Step out of your world. Look at everything from a macro and objective level.

When even a third of your audience isn't buying a plot point, it needs work.

 

There's something I don't understand about this whole thing, though.

It's sold fine. You obviously understood what the implication was supposed to be, as did the rest of the audience. You just thought it was corny.

But Lucas doesn't need you to like it, just understand the plot point. After all, no one can insure that another person will "like" what they've done. Only that its well-presented and makes sense.

You've never said that it failed on neither of those accounts. Instead, you just keep complaining about how stupid the "Virgin birth" idea was. Unfortunately, that doesn't have anything to do with how well Lucas "sold it." The fact that you understood he was trying to imply a Virgin birth is what does. And on that account Lucas passes.

Good execution? Yes.
Bad idea? Maybe.
Does your argument hold water? No.

 

I think the line is actually "there was no father."

Now, I might be reading into it too deeply and seeing something that isn't there- it wouldn't be the first time- but the deeper, hidden meaning I get from that line is;

There was no father.

 

I hear you Wocky, that is the other constituency.

If a large group think it is corny, then it still wasn't sold well. Luke floating R2 around is really kind of corny, but we accept it a lot better than this plot point - which has a huge impact on the Saga.

I think August did an excellent job as Shmi, so did Qui-Gon. And the dialogue was good.

But the concept/scene is just barely short of believable for most people... it needs something to make it ring. IMO

 

"But the concept/scene is just barely short of believable for most people"

Its a science-fiction movie! I don't understand how something that has been in mythological fabric for centuries, a virgin birth, would be any less believable than a planet with a liquid core, or a Jedi having the ability to topple several robots just by waving his hand.




Mace Windy,
too windy for spoilers!

 

Yes, but the mythologies and other stories spend more than 20 seconds and 2-3 short lines addressing it.

In Christianity, both conception and birth are addressed in length in four different gospels. Choose your story, and it gets a LOT more attention. Why? Because it is important and deserves addressing.

You just proved my point. I have no issue with the concept, I love it. It perfectly suits the Anakin/Vader character. But it isn't given the proper reverence. It is one step short.

 

I've never given it much thought before but, while reading this thread it occurred that maybe the Sith had a hand in the conception of Anakin.

Sidious could have controlled Shmi and impregnated her, using his powers to remove any memory of the event. Presumably he has a high Midichlorian count, which may account for Anakin's high count.

It is possible that Sidious has a breeding program (bit like the Bene Gesserit in Dune) to create individuals powerful in The Force, who can then be turned to the Dark Side.

Just a thought.

 

Of course you say that, you bought it.

But judging from the respectable percentage of fans/audience member who did NOT buy it, then one should conclude it wasn't sold well.

One should conclude no such thing. Could you provide proof of this "respectable percentage"?

It's very simple. Step out of your world. Look at everything from a macro and objective level.

You know, this applies to you every bit as much as you think it applies to me.

But the concept/scene is just barely short of believable for most people...

Oh, so now it's "most" people. Could you provide proof that it was barely short of believable for most people?

Yes, but the mythologies and other stories spend more than 20 seconds and 2-3 short lines addressing it.

They did? And anyway, what more do you want?

 

Scott3eyez you and i are on the same page. Everyone read carefully the laine meas exactly what it says [/b]There was NO father[/b]. He was concieved by the Midiclorians. Thats all that there needs to be said about it.

 

>>>>In Christianity, both conception and birth are addressed in length in four different gospels. Choose your story, and it gets a LOT more attention. Why? Because it is important and deserves addressing.

Well, the Gospels weren't written with the intention of being "one in a series of four"- they were each supposed to tell the story on their own. (Otherwise the synaptic (sp?) gospels- Matthew, Mark and Luke- would all be one single book. Which, arguably, they are anyway...)
And correct me if I'm wrong (I'm not the type to keep a bible to hand), but I don't think the Gospel of John mentions anything about Jesus' birth- virgin or otherwise.

Also, there is a pretty convincing argument that the "virgin birth" story was something added in when Christianity was integrated with other stories and teachings when the Romans started to adopt it, probably due to St Paul's influence. Consider the following;

Gaurama Buddah- born in 600BC from the virgin Maya.
Dionysus- born of a virgin in a stable, turned water into wine.
Mithra- Born of a virgin in a stable around 600BC. His resurrection was celebrated at Easter.
Quirrnus- an ancient Roman saviour, born of a virgin.
Attis- born of the virgin Nama in Phrygia around 200BC.
Indra- born of a virgin in Tibet around 700BC.
Adonis- Babylonian god, born of the virgin Ishtar.
Krishna- Hindu deity, born of the virgin Devaki in 1200BC.
Zoroaster- born of a virgin in 1500-1200BC.

The bottom line is that the whole thread about Anakin's "virgin birth", midichlorians, the prophecy of the Chosen One etc. simply aren't the focus of the story (some would say that they they have been given too much emphasis, rather than not enough!) The issues are addressed in broad brush strokes, the message is clearly put across that Anakin is seen by the Jedi as something unusual which makes Qui Gon take a special interest in him, and the story moves on.

What more do we need to know?

 

Ahh, got me on John. There still is considerably more - and in each of the instances you named - there is a considerable tale around that birth.

Lucas's Virgin Birth needs something, however small, to make it more believable.

The concept is perfect for the Anakin/Vader character. I'm perfectly pleased with the choice of Lucas to use it. And, I think the character Qui-Gon is given enough to believe that Shmi is authentic.

But Qui-Gon is a Jedi, and the audience is not. There is a percentage of the general viewing audience who just didn't buy into, "He has no father." Regardless of what Anakin does later in life.

The plot point, which is significant, should be explained further. Visually, preferably. Seeing is believing.

 

Well, I'm not sure how a virgin birth could really be visually put into a film like Star Wars- considering the fact that devices like flashbacks don't really "belong", so the "flash of light" idea suggested above (too lazy to check who by I'm afraid)- the only way I can think of is having Shmi as some sort of celibate nun- but the closest thing to that we've seen in Star Wars is the Jedi themselves, which would open up a whole other bunch of assumptions and implications...

I think I like the vagueness- it leaves things open to interpretation. Maybe Anakin did have a biological father who he never knew? Maybe something unspeakable happened to Shmi (a slave, after all...) And assuming that the "conceived by midichlorians" thing is a part of the Prophecy, I would imagine that the question of whether or not Anakin really is the Chosen One will be raised by the end of Episode III (by the characters that is.)

 

I don't know either. You are right, flashbacks don't fit. But something is needed.

I've really played with the idea for the last dozen or so viewings The best thing I've come up with is a short 20-30 second scene BEFORE the actual yellow scroll. A young Shmi, a flash of light, the two suns 'merging'. Something. It is uncharacteristic of a SW movie, but perhaps for the first film of six, it would work well.

I don't know - it's interesting to toss around concepts. I probably would like something like this added to an Archival Edition more than any other single thing I can think of.

 

i think everyone is reading too much into this father thing. the dialouge explains everything. "there was no father" "i carried him, gave birth, raised him" "i cant explain what happened." what else do you people want? he was conceived by something other then a man.

end of story.

 

strilo edit: Yah this is not very appropriate...

 

Wow, here comes the debate again...

Here are all the rumours about Anakin's birth that I've heard about...

1) Watto's his father.
2) Sidious's his father.
3) Qui-Gon is his father.
4) Shmi had a one-night stand with someone we don't know.
5) And the most popular one: there was no father.

I'll putting my two cents on the 5th one.

 

As far as looking into the line "There was no father..." for meanings such as a one-night stand or something, I think that's pretty ridiculous.

After she says "There was no father," she says "I can't explain what happened."

It's clear she doesn't understand how she gave birth to him, and this is part of the reason she knows he is so special.

"He was meant to help you."

When Qui-Gon says "It is possible he may have been concieved by the midichlorians" and when we learn that Anakin has the highest midiclohrian count of any lifeform, that is supposed to assure us that he was conceived by the midichlorians.

He was conceived by the midichlorians. No arguments. There is no conflict.

 

From a technical standpoint, he was conceived by the midichlorians. From a practical standpoint, there was no father.

 

It wasn't enough to have Annie have more midichlorian parts-per-million than anyone else. That simply begs the question where they all came from. Luckily, Shmi was impregnated by the Archangel Gabriel, so we have the answer.

 

Up!

 

Shimi says there was no father.

Qui-gon then tells the council that Anakin was possibly conceived by the Force.

The biggest tell? No one is the least bit surprised, ever, that Anakin has no father. No one even seems to think it's wierd.

Maybe this sort of thing happens all the time in the GFFA.

 

No one is the least bit surprised, ever, that Anakin has no father. No one even seems to think it's wierd.

What the, the whole council gets shook up after Gui-Gon says that. They even start conversing with each other, did you even watch the movie ?

"You think it's this...boy?"

 

The true details of Anakin's birth will probably remain just as much a mystery as the meaning of life itself.

One difference, though: You don't see historians whining and bickering about the latter, while "fans" who actually think they know SW better than Lucas himself do it all the time with the former

You have a problem with the Midichlorians "ruining" the mysteriousness of The Force, yet you want the entire mystery surrounding Anakin's birth spoiled for you? No wonder Lucas only does what he thinks is best.

 

Sidious was the Father, he empolyed some sort of Sith memory removel, there for Shmi dose not remeber.

No sesorisely, "There was no father. I carried him, I gave birth. I can't explain what happened."

What is wrong with that ?? cant you just accept it and move on ?? It is just a story, and that is just the history charartor. I find nothing wrong with that.

((i dont mean to sound mean. i am just adding my point of view))