PT Was Shmi's death part of Palpatine's scheme?

I don't know actually, but it is talked about in this YouTube video.

 

Never trust anything as a canon source that hasn't specifically been endorsed by Lucasfilm Licensing.

 

Fair enough. It is still a possibility, and, if true, it does show how deep the Sith had their hands into things throughout the galaxy.

 

Indeed, the reason the Jedi Council was concerned is that they knew a bond between mother and son is strong, and that this could cause problems for Anakin's training. You are correct, there is no statement in the films that Anakin cannot see his mother. If the Jedi Council feared bonds so much, why did they, knowing Anakin's attatchment to Padme (Obi-Wan especially) assign Anakin to be Padme's protector in Episode II?

 

They were hoping Anakin would prove he'd overcome his Attachment Problem - it was a test of character.

 

In a roundabout way, sorta. But the thing is that AOTC and ROTS present us with different points in their relationship. In AOTC, the two have issues because they don't see each other on an even keel. Anakin is impatient and frustrated with the pace of his training, which is what he vocalizes in Act II. Obi-wan is only frustrated because he doesn't want to let Qui-gon and Anakin down, by not doing right by them and fears that there could be consequences if he cannot do better. It is the mentor/student and father/son dynamic. This is critical to starting Anakin towards his path of Vader. Lucas put this on display showing the influence of Palpatine, which as he said, was part of what he was hinting at initially and then added a scene specifically showing that relationship, so that his influence is clear. In ROTS, they are equals now. They're both Jedi Knights and generals fighting in the war. Anakin has finally started living up to his potential and Obi-wan is the proud father who is missing the signs of trouble. So having them no longer fighting each other at the start makes sense and then we see the philosophical differences between them in Act II.

Which shows that he hadn't yet accepted that he has to kill him. Obi-wan doesn't want to fight, but Anakin won't listen and so he prepares for the fight. But he hasn't committed to killing him. This is where the sequence where Anakin says that he hesitates in trying to kill him, which is a flaw of compassion. Yes, it got cut, but it displays that Obi-wan doesn't want to do this. It is why they have that final discussion and he tries to avoid it. Telling him to not try to kill him by jumping over his head and then cutting him down, but he doesn't give him a quick death. He walks away because he cannot bring himself to break his oath as a Jedi to never kill a helpless person, but he cannot bring himself to help him.

In his view, it does. To Anakin, he thinks that he can make things better by making sure it never happens again.

 

Maybe shmaybe, it was a very phoned in scene that didn't convey much of anything.

That council scene is actually, amusingly, exactly what all those dastardly h8t3rs claim every council scene is like - some boring phoned in exposition thing where they agree to whatever.

"Bring her back to her home planet, she'll be safer ther" - kk then


Well then Windu says "rememba Obi Wan", it's like, Obiwan doubts him, but hey, he's the chosen one, don't doubt him like.


Once again, not enough meat to really read anything into it.
Sure, maybe someone off-screen said it was a test of character, but who knows.

They didn't consider it a problem for him to go with Padme despite attachment - but, given how absent-mindedly these characters are acting in that scene (or made to by the phoned in writing), I don't fully trust them to be aware of said attachment, or Obiwan to have remembered to tell them.

He said he's too arrogant, not too red blooded. Like what's so difficult about escorting someone to a resort just in case some assassin shows up?
The main counter indicator would've been the attachment, but no, Obiwan doesn't say that.


So yea.

 

Oh, I agree with Obi-Wan’s actions, and I would’ve done the same. But it pretty clearly contradicts “Obi-Wan once thought as you do.”

 

That would be fine…if they had more than 60 seconds of screen time together in THE PHANTOM MENACE. As far as I remember, they literally have two incredibly brief scenes together in that film. The first is when Liam Neeson introduces them, and it consists of little more than a brief handshake and greeting. The second is at Liam Neeson’s funeral when Obi-Wan promises to train him as a Jedi.

So ATTACK OF THE CLONES is really the first time the audience ever gets to see them interact in any meaningful way…and all of their interactions are laced with bitterness, resentment, and irritation. They hardly seem like friends. And Anakin’s frustrations might be a bit more relatable if it wasn’t just, “I’m mad at Obi-Wan because he isn’t showing me the quick and easy path to unlimited power!”

I don’t see that as “Obi-Wan once thought as you do.” I see that as, “It was Pity that stayed his hand. Pity and Mercy, not to strike without need.”

So? That just proves that he has an incredibly distorted and warped worldview. So do many mass murderers. Hitler thought he was doing the right thing. Does that make Hitler “good”?

 

That's not what is upsetting him in AOTC. It isn't about power, but about respecting him and acknowledging that he's ready. Power only becomes an issue after Shmi has died. Not before then. You only focus on the negative scenes. There are positive scenes between them.

Just because Obi-wan doesn't say, "turn away from the dark side" like Luke did, doesn't mean that he wasn't trying to convince Anakin that he was in the wrong. It is there when he points out that Anakin drove Padme away, not himself and when he says that Palpatine is evil and that he is supporting evil by aligning with him.

Only if they regret their actions. Hitler, as far as we know, did not. Anakin did. Anakin tried to better himself after what happened and tried to protect his loved ones. It was his methods that were wrong, not his desire.

 

Such as?

And don’t say the 60-second scene in the elevator. That was just quickly thrown in there during post-production because even George Lucas realized that they weren’t shown as friends at any other point in the movie.

Some of the earlier stuff is certainly a last-ditch effort to talk sense into him, but once the lightsabers are ignited, I get the feeling that anything else Obi-Wan says to Vader is just him venting.

So? Hitler’s goal was to create this wonderful utopian paradise. How murdering all the Jews would achieve that…I dunno. Anakin’s goal is to prevent his wife from dying. How murdering a bunch of Jedi children will achieve that…I dunno. You see, this is why I call Anakin an evil crazy person. He murders children, which makes him evil. He’s psychotic, which makes him crazy (megalomania is a form of psychosis). He’s a person and his name is Anakin. Therefore, evil crazy person.

You know who actually did do something in the face of pure evil and horror? Oskar Schindler. Now, Schindler was no saint. He was a con artist, an opportunist, a slaver, an alcoholic, a gambler, a bad husband, and a serial philanderer. However, he was also undoubtedly a hero. He risked his neck and put everything on the line in order to prevent 1,200 people from being murdered. Why? Because he was a human being. He had to. He was no longer able to tolerate all the senseless and wanton cruelty going on around him. As Schindler himself put it:

In an another thread, the subject of moral complexity came up. I’d say Schindler is a perfect example of a real-life morally complicated figure (and, of course, Spielberg does a brilliant job of depicting that moral ambiguity in the film). Schindler was definitely a flawed man. He was not some upstanding paragon of moral virtue. In many ways, he was actually kind of a sleaze. Yet Schindler was undeniably a courageous hero. For all his flaws, Schindler was a fundamentally good man when it came down to it. Schindler took action to right the wrongs going on around him. He abandoned his avarice. He bankrupted himself for the sole purpose of preventing people from being murdered.

What the hell did Anakin ever do? And I mean above and beyond the call of duty. Remember, Anakin is apparently still a good person, even though he just murdered children. What action does he take to try to make up for that? What does he do to redeem himself? Engaging in megalomania doesn’t count. And simply saying that you’re sorry doesn’t cut it. I can’t name any country that accepts “sorry” as a valid legal defense for mass murder.

I mean, Anakin slaughtered children for no good reason. He’s gonna have to do some major atoning for me to buy that he’s still a good guy after that. I mean, big-time. I know it’s probably a bit much to say he should’ve done what Schindler did. But he needed to do something dramatic to come back after that.

From a purely writing perspective, the problem with the Sand People massacre is really one of structure. It’s simply far too extreme far too early in the character’s development. A hint of darkness is fine at this point in the story. Full-blown mass murder just doesn’t work. I remember when I first saw that in the theater, I honestly thought that was supposed to be the turn. I thought, “OK. That’s how he turned to the dark side and became Darth Vader. It’s actually a pretty good way to handle the turn.” When I realized that it was not the turn, I was like, “Oh no. You have to be kidding me! He just murdered children! How am I still supposed to root for this murderous psycho!?!?!????!!!!” That’s not a hint of darkness. That’s not his first taste of the dark side. That’s mass murder. Period. Mass murderers are not good people. I can’t believe this film is so horribly written that we actually have to have a debate over whether a mass murderer is a hero!

Honestly, I think it would’ve worked better had the execution of Christopher Lee’s character been his first taste of the dark side. That one at least makes more sense that he’s still a good person after that happened. After years of war, he finally has the enemy leader at his mercy. And he gives into his anger (with the Emperor goading him into it). That actually works. He briefly lost himself in a moment of anger, but he’s not this completely irredeemable monster yet that he was after slaughtering children. He maybe rationalizes it to himself. He was trying to prevent Lee from causing further death and destruction. He wanted to end the war. Killing an unarmed prisoner is certainly wrong, and I’m not saying it’s the right thing to do, but that one at least is set up in such a way that there’s at least a little bit of ambiguity and wiggle room there. It’s not inherently evil and loathsome.

 

Try watching the movie.

As in, because you don't remember the movie.

A necessary evil, in his mind.

Indoctrinated is the correct term.

Unless justified, as it is here.




This post, more than any other probably (nah just kidding) cements it to me why your opinion is complete bogus and I shouldn't be bothering too much to confront it:

Sidious clearly says, having already convinced him that the Jedi are planning harm, that killing the chidren will prevent endless civil wars - and boost his dark side so he could save his girlfriend.


How murdering them will save Padme, you're not sure - right? And because of that, he's evil crazy - right?
Your entire opinion, based on forgetting key moments and lines from the movie.


And you'll probably keep committing this same error, again, and again, because you've got an agenda to pursue, and a narrative to spin - so, telling it once should suffice.

 

Doesn't matter, it is part of the film. There's also Obi-wan reassuring Anakin that Padme was glad to see them. There was Obi-wan expressing concern about Anakin's apparent lack of sleep and tries to get him to open up. There was the banter between them about the speeder. There was Anakin expressing how he feels towards Obi-wan when they're entering the nightclub. Obi-wan getting through to Anakin about what Padme would do.

Not at all. Obi-wan genuinely cared for him, even then. The venting is on the lava bank.

How would murdering Jedi children help? Because they're Jedi and if one Jedi survives, that Jedi will kill him and Palpatine. All Jedi have to die, just as all Sith have to die. There's a reason that Obi-wan and Yoda hid Luke and Leia from their father, because he would either turn them or they would be killed to preserve the Sith. It's still that way in "Rebels".

DARTH VADER: "The Jedi Knights are all but destroyed. Yet your task is not complete, Inquisitor. The Emperor has foreseen a new threat rising against him: the children of the Force. They must not become Jedi."

THE GRAND INQUISITOR: "Yes, Lord Vader."

DARTH VADER: "Hunt down this new enemy. And if they will not serve the Empire, eliminate them along with any surviving Jedi who trained them. This is my Master's command."

THE GRAND INQUISITOR: "And so it will be done."

The Sith want the Jedi to be eliminated for those reasons and Anakin goes into it because as Palpatine tells him, if he hesitates and shows mercy, he will never be strong enough to save his wife. Compassion is a weakness and to eliminate that weakness, the Jedi who becomes a Sith must kill not only their enemy, but their own conscience. Anakin knows it is wrong. But he also sees it as right because it is the only way to save his wife, but it is also the only way to bring an end to the war.

Remember, the US also used the atomic bomb to end a war much faster than it would have otherwise taken. Justifying it as right.

 

So? If I was distracted and whatnot in school, my guidance counselor would ask me if everything was OK and try to get me to open up. That doesn’t mean I was best buddies with my guidance counselor. Remember, Obi-Wan is Anakin’s teacher. So I really don’t see much of a difference. And honestly, the banter between them in the speeder mostly seemed like Obi-Wan being annoyed with this brat and Anakin just ignoring him. Yeah, there are a few lines shoehorned in there, such as “You’re like a father to me” in order to reassure the audience that they really are friends, despite all evidence to the contrary, but that’s all it is.

Oh, and it really shows their friendship when they get into a shouting match and Ewan McGregor plays it as if he has to resist the urge to just smack Anakin upside the face.

But he’s already given up on him. “I have failed you, Anakin. I have failed you.” That’s not him trying to reach Anakin. That’s him acknowledging that Anakin is a lost cause.

Yeah, the logic of that makes total sense to me. Somehow acting as the Emperor’s personal assassin will magically prevent his wife from dying. I dunno how it’ll prevent his wife from dying. It’s never explained. But we’re just supposed to assume…

And? Truman never claimed that dropping the bomb would somehow lead to a cure for cancer.

 

Except that they also consider themselves family.

OBI-WAN: "He is like my brother. I cannot do it."


ANAKIN: "He's like a father to me."


OBI-WAN: "You were my brother, Anakin. I loved you."

So yes, Obi-wan and Anakin saw each other as family because they were. Obi-wan was more than just his Master and Anakin was more than his Padawan. Just as Qui-gon was Obi-wan's father figure and Dooku had been Qui-gon's. Your guidance counselor is just that. You didn't live together. You didn't fight side by side. You didn't rely on each other. Not like Obi-wan and Anakin did.

They're shouting because of the noise of the transport and the wind. Luke argued with Han in ANH and hit him below the belt. Yet they were friends.

That's admitting that he didn't do a better job teaching him. When he declares that his lost, that is when he gives up.

Because when he has embraced the dark side, he is getting rid of the light within him. He is throwing off the shackles of morality. Once that is done, the two of them will be strong enough to figure out the secret. Anakin already felt stronger after the killing. The dark side comes to a Sith faster than the light does for a Jedi. It will also prevent the Jedi from killing them and possibly those in the Senate that they don't trust. And Obi-wan once told Anakin that he didn't trust her.

 

And all of your quotes are from REVENGE OF THE SITH, proving my point.

Actually, putting aside the noise and wind, the expression on Ewan McGregor’s face during the gunship scene is one of pure rage, not friendship. I was honestly expecting (and hoping for) him to just smack Anakin upside the face during that scene. [

No, the “I've failed you” is because he believes Anakin is a lost cause. “I could have done a better job teaching you” applies to “I’m sorry you need to take a remedial math course”, not to…this.

And I’m not sure anyone could’ve done a better job of teaching Anakin than Obi-Wan did. I mean, Obi-Wan displayed an inhuman level of patience with this brat. Didn’t smack him upside the face even once, as tempting as it might have been. And he always tried to get through to the little turd, no matter how much Anakin chose to ignore or disregard him. I’m not sure anybody could’ve succeeded.

Ah. So embracing the dark side causes a switch to flip that completely changes your entire personality and motives within a matter of seconds. You go from being a conflicted, but generally well-intentioned guy, to “Mwahahahahaha! I have decided to be EVIL now! Mwahahahahaha!” This is the sort of garbage a 4-year-old would write.

 

Possible, lol

The visions Anakin had might've even be planted by Sidious

 

Anakin's quote is from AOTC and it doesn't prove anything other than that's how they've seen each other. Obi-wan doesn't start seeing him as a brother after he's become a Knight. He's seen him that way since way before then. Even in AOTC.

There is no rage there.

Actually, it is because the original line was, "I have failed you, Anakin. I could never teach you to think."

He could have succeeded if Anakin hadn't been around Palpatine. He was counteracting everything Obi-wan did. As to Obi-wan's patience, that is part of what being a Jedi is. Not smacking someone upside the head because they annoy you. It's the same reason Qui-gon was able to tolerate Jar Jar and Luke was able to tolerate Threepio.

That's what it has been for years. The dark side is like a drug and a very addictive one. Drugs, especially narcotics, can change a person's personality and their viewpoint. The dark side changed Anakin which is what we see on Mustafar when he thought Padme had betrayed him and he choked her. Luke would have changed just the same had he gave in and killed Vader. He would go from trying to save the Alliance to destroying it. Even before the PT, the old EU stories told similar tales of Jedi changing their tune when becoming a Sith or a Dark Jedi. "Star Wars" has been a film aimed at kids for years and the simplicity of that tale is the dark side is quick and easy and changes you.

 

Or, for a Tolkien example, if Gandalf or Galadriel had taken up the Ring, even for a good cause (protecting people from Sauron), they would have become villains, even if Sauron himself ended up being destroyed in the process.

 

Yeah. Estranged brothers who constantly go at each other’s throats and really should not be in the same room together. They’re brothers the same way that King Claudius and the ghost from HAMLET are brothers (aka Scar and Mufasa for those not familiar with Shakespeare). Actually, now that I think about it, Anakin does kinda remind me of Scar.



ANAKIN SKYWALKER: I am a Jedi! I can do whatever I want!
NATALIE PORTMAN. If you were half the Jedi that Obi-Wan is—
(Anakin hits Portman, knocking her down on the ground)
ANAKIN SKYWALKER: I’m 10× the Jedi that Obi-Wan is!

People tend to forget what a whiny little brat Scar becomes once he’s King. Maybe it’s because even when he’s this horrible whiner, Jeremy Irons’ voice still manages to make him sound kinda menacing, powerful and intimidating.

Yeah, you can really tell by the way Obi-Wan loses his temper, starts yelling and screaming at the little brat, and his face gets all scrunched up. He's not angry at all.

And? It’s not in the movie, so it doesn’t count.

As obnoxious as Jar Jar Binks is, and as much as he recklessly endangers everybody constantly through his own oblivious stupidity (remember that at one point, a prepubescent child has to save his skin), at least he wasn’t actively malicious like Anakin was. He never murdered women and children. Jar Jar was just this blithering useless idiot. Oh, and Liam Neeson, brilliant idea bringing Jar Jar along while trying to keep a low profile on Tatooine. I mean, I know that when I wanna keep a low profile, I always make sure that I’m accompanied by someone who can’t go for 5 minutes without making a spectacle of himself. It would’ve been hilarious to see how Han Solo reacted to Jar Jar (I suspect he would’ve gotten on Han’s nerves pretty quickly).

It’s the speed of the change, rather than the change itself, that’s problematic. Within a span of 2 or 3 hours, he goes from a conflicted, but well-intentioned young man, to slaughtering children for no good reason. It’s not that he changed. It’s that a switch flipped and he regressed into a different person. To be specific, he regressed into the exact same person that he was in ATTACK OF THE CLONES.

Now if this had been the same Anakin from ATTACK OF THE CLONES, then I’d buy it, since that guy was already a murderous psychopath. But in REVENGE OF THE SITH, Lucas went out of his way to portray Anakin as a mature and thoughtful, but frustrated and conflicted young man. 2005 Anakin was actually portrayed as someone who wanted to do the right thing, unlike 2002 Anakin who was just a spoiled, self-centered, murderous, psychopathic brat.

Yeah, but not within a matter of hours. Remember, Bilbo Baggins had the One Ring for 60 years…and it really only had the effect of making him a bit cranky and suspicious towards Gandalf, and even then, Bilbo quickly came to his senses.

And don’t mention Gollum, since Tolkien never tried to sell us on Sméagol ever having been this great wonderful hero before the Ring found him. He was a sneaky, greedy thieving kid and the Ring simply took those pre-existing traits of his and amplified them.

 

Probably because the Ring is so far away from Mount Doom - it's vastly more powerful near Mordor.

Tolkien's Letters, on the subject:


Very few (indeed so far as letters go only you and one other) have observed or commented on Frodo’s ‘failure’. It is a very important point.

From the point of view of the storyteller the events on Mt Doom proceed simply from the logic of the tale up to that time. They were not deliberately worked up to nor foreseen until they occurred. But, for one thing, it became at last quite clear that Frodo after all that had happened would be incapable of voluntarily destroying the Ring. Reflecting on the solution after it was arrived at (as a mere event) I feel that it is central to the whole ‘theory’ of true nobility and heroism that is presented.

Frodo indeed ‘failed’ as a hero, as conceived by simple minds: he did not endure to the end; he gave in, ratted. I do not say ‘simple minds’ with contempt: they often see with clarity the simple truth and the absolute ideal to which effort must be directed, even if it is unattainable. Their weakness, however, is twofold. They do not perceive the complexity of any given situation in Time, in which an absolute ideal is enmeshed. They tend to forget that strange element in the World that we call Pity or Mercy, which is also an absolute requirement in moral judgement (since it is present in the Divine nature). In its highest exercise it belongs to God. For finite judges of imperfect knowledge it must lead to the use of two different scales of ‘morality’. To ourselves we must present the absolute ideal without compromise, for we do not know our own limits of natural strength (+grace), and if we do not aim at the highest we shall certainly fall short of the utmost that we could achieve. To others, in any case of which we know enough to make a judgement, we must apply a scale tempered by ‘mercy’: that is, since we can with good will do this without the bias inevitable in judgements of ourselves, we must estimate the limits of another’s strength and weigh this against the force of particular circumstances.

I do not think that Frodo’s was a moral failure. At the last moment the pressure of the Ring would reach its maximum – impossible, I should have said, for any one to resist, certainly after long possession, months of increasing torment, and when starved and exhausted. Frodo had done what he could and spent himself completely (as an instrument of Providence) and had produced a situation in which the object of his quest could be achieved. His humility (with which he began) and his sufferings were justly rewarded by the highest honour; and his exercise of patience and mercy towards Gollum gained him Mercy: his failure was redressed.

A truly psychopathic person wouldn't be so grief-stricken by Shmi's death.

 

And the Ring had been working its evil on him and breaking him down psychologically for several months before he finally succumbed.

It’s his mom! Even bad guys love their mamas. Hell, even Michael Corleone specifically gave orders that his brother was not to be harmed while his mother was still alive.

 

A common trope - but not a universal one. Some are indifferent to them, some hate them, some outright commit matricide.

 

I'd recommend you don't spend your effort on Kuro - he's unreasonable, is determined to maintain his view that "ANAKIN WAS A MURDEROUS PSYCHOPATH OMFG", and you'll never, ever, get through to him.

He'll look at the Coruscant chase scene where he catches Obiwan on the speeder, and claim that he just does it because it's his job and he'd be expelled, and definitely doesn't care if Obiwan dies.


That's the kinda guy you're dealing with here - he's been on it for 15 pages now, it's pointless.

 

So? The trope does apply to Anakin.