Saga Anakin Skywalker - Character Discussion...among other things.

Let's leave the Ani thread alone. I'll be in the PALPATINE'S MACHINATIONS thread.

 

I felt TPM was badly written. Sidious's machinations made sense and the TF's behavior was not inconsistent with what was happening, but the machinations were never made clear enough for the audience to fully enjoy the piece as a whole. Only fans cared enough to try figuring it out. The impetus to care that much was not inherent to the movie itself. Therefore, that's one of the reasons it was bad writing.

The other reason is the substitution of dramatic discovery with expository explanation.

Sent from my IN2019 using Tapatalk

 

That's a good way to word that.

 

That is completely incorrect.

Padme goes to Coruscant. She holds her speech. Stating that no one belives her isn't supported by anything shown in the movie. What is there is to be seen, is that the Trade Federation claims that it isn't true, and that there is the senator from Malastere who asks for a committee to be created on the matter. Chancellor Valorum rejects this outright (with the movie giving no hint at how many in the senate supported this idea, or how much support is needed to push it through), but the bureaucrats jump in and change his mind. Minority groups being able to keep the majority from doing something is perfectly normal in a democracy. Just look at what the Republicans in th US are doing whenever they are not in power, it's delay and prevent from morning till evening, with no interest in getting anything done. Same as that, technicalities can force situations to be handled in such a way, even when a large majority thinks it is stupid.

And no, Valorum doesn't get impeached due to corruption either. The movie even speaks it out for you. Padme asks for a vote of no confidence, as Varlorum has been led to not do anything about the matter. This vote is entirely based on this decison, not on any general issues of corruption. Then we see the reaction of the senate, which is very much in support of the motion. This indicates that the majority is not happy with the current state of affairs.

Palpatine's plans make perfect sense. He - as Sidious - is in control of those who block things, while being able to present himself as the innocent victim in the persona of Senator Palpatine. His minority group sabotages work in the senate, causing the majority to desire change. To the majority, Palpatine is an obvious candidate to achieve this, as he, as the current victim, could logically be assumed to be interested in changing things. Notice how one of the other candidates is the very senator who asked for the committee to be formed. If he represented the majority, he would obviously be elected, making it rather obvious that he does not have a majority behind him.

In other words: you are reading things into the movie that simply aren 't there, while ignoring what is actually shown in the movie. Logic is based on what can actually be found, not on whatever you conjure up to be in the movie.
You also cannot complain about the movie using "expository explanations", when you cannot be bothered to see what the movie is actually showing you. You missing "dramatic discovery" that is in the movie, is not the same as it not actually being there.

 

Just to chime in, but you might be attributing that quote to the wrong person. I'm the one who said the movie was using expository explanations instead of dramatic discovery, but not as part of a larger argument, just as an acknowledgement that it was another reason I didn't like the movie.



Sent from my IN2019 using Tapatalk

 

Padme states her case and not one single senator jumps to her defense. As an audience member, I am shown two senate pods and both of them make the case that Padme is not being truthful and then no one says anything otherwise. If senators think she is telling the truth, but not speaking up, then what does the movie show us to make us aware that that's the case? Palpatine says that his Chancellorship depends on a sympathy vote from the group of senators WHO WE JUST SAW being unsympathetic. Your argument is based around semantics; now that I've clarified, do you have a rebuttal?

Okay, no. The whole reason that Palpatine mentions the accusations of corruption is to establish that the senate is ALREADY wanting to get rid of Valorum; they just need a reason. And then the Naboo debacle becomes the reason. The reason I say it has nothing to do with it is because the two concepts are independent of one another. The senate was already looking for a reason to get rid of Valorum and just picked the first think that popped up. Naboo wasn't the reason Valorum was ousted; the corruption charges were, the senate just used the Naboo thing as an excuse. Which is a really weird way to play the situation out. Again, it reads like a first draft.

When is the highlighted part said? The only thing the senate is shown to want is to oust Valorum. I'm pretty sure you just made the rest of that up.

"while ignoring what is actually"
You completely skipped the accusations of corruption stuff. Like, you completely glossed over all of it.

I didn't conjure up anything. You noticeably left some stuff out though.

 

Browsing another Star Wars forum, I came across this comment:

"Realistically, Anakin should have been fully on the Dark Side after the Tusken massacre. The Dark Side is supposed to be like a drug that takes hold of you once you tap into it. The act of hate-fueled murder should have been more than enough to push him over the edge. It should have been a more damning moment for Anakin, since him hesitantly killing Dooku or attacking Mace is much less severe by comparison. It also robs all power from Luke’s confrontation with Vader in ROTJ, because Luke could have done a full genocidal rampage across the Death Star Stormtrooper and Officer Daycare Center, and it would have been just a little whoopsie doodle that everyone would instantly forgive, because he’s dealing with a lot right now and who hasn’t killed an entire village in a rage before, you sanctimonious hypocrites."

What do you think about it?

 

I always found the idea that Luke killing the Emperor will turn him far fetched. This is what Yoda and Obi Wan tell him to do. The Emperor is just messing with Luke's mind. Luke can't win in that situation according to the Emperor. As for Anakin, I think Lucas made the Tusken thing a little grey so it would be something Anakin was conflicted about. It was wrong; but Anakin may have told himself it was justified.

 

A Jedi cannot kill out of fear and in anger, which is what Sidious wants. The Tusken Raiders were killed for that very reason. Same with Dooku. Luke killing the Sith for the same reason would be equally bad. Luke was never told that he had to kill the Sith. He just had to confront them.

 

lol

confrontation

"yo, Emperor, stop being a big meanie, you hear? don't make me put you on detention now"

other words I agree with Chris.

 

bad writing ? probably. i dont think GL tried to create a stanley kubrik level of work in TPM.
BUT the movie still worked. kids loved it because of the explosions, robots and laser swords. adults enjoyed it because the actual plot of the movie, which is interesting.
longtime fans would hate anything tagged with starwars logo that isnt OT. so i only look at the casual viewers. and TPM was great for the casual viewers it was more entertaining and had more interesting plot than any of the modern marvel films which put me to sleep.

 

The mythological nature George ascribes to SW and the references to Kubrick within The Phantom Menace indicate he was striving for that level. And I think he succeeded.

u definitely don’t agree with the previous poster that you need to be a Star Wars fan to be interested in figuring it out. Just culturally historically and politically literate

 

This was Luke’s Jedi Trial. This was how he must confront the dark side and reject it.

"Part of the going into the tree is learning about the Force. Learning about the fact that the Force is within you, and at the same time, you create your own bad vibes. So, if you think badly about things or you act badly, or you bring fear into a situation, you're going to have to defend yourself or you're going to have to suffer the consequences for that. In this particular case, he takes his sword in with him which means he's going to have combat. If he didn't, he wouldn't. He's creating this situation in his mind because, on a larger level, what caused Darth Vader to become Darth Vader is the same thing that makes Luke bring that sword in with him. And so, just as later on we find out Darth Vader is actually his father - so he is part of himself - but he has the capacity to become Darth Vader simply by using hate and fear and using weapons as oppose to using compassion and caring and kindness. But that's the big danger of the series, is that he will become Darth Vader."

--George Lucas, TESB DVD Commentary.

"I think it is obvious that [Qui-Gon] was wrong in Episode I and made a dangerous decision, but ultimately this decision may be correct. The “phantom menace” refers to the force of the dark side of the universe. Anakin will be taken over by dark forces which in turn destroy the balance of the Galaxy, but the individual who kills the Emperor is Darth Vader—also Anakin. The tale meanders and both the prediction and Qui-Gon are correct—Anakin is the Chosen One, and he did bring peace at last with his own sacrifice. Luke couldn't kill the Emperor himself, but he could make Anakin reflect on his life and kill the Emperor."

--George Lucas, Cut Magazine interview, 1999.

"In coming back to see Yoda, we have to figure out Luke’s training and the fact that he never finished his training, and that obviously now he’s got a big question he wants answered. There is a point where the hero has to be left alone on his own two feet without anybody there to help him. And you can sort of have him be in a different place or something, but at some point you have to say well now all the props have been taken away, and he has to face the evil monster alone. In this case, the scene establishes that the evil monster is actually his father, and he’s going to have to do it upon his own, and that he’s really not equipped to do it. That he was too impatient, he didn’t finish his studies, and now he’s going to be half trained to face a difficult physical and emotional challenge."

--George Lucas, DVD Commentary, Star Wars: Return of the Jedi, 2004.

"Most of this sequence with Luke really had to do with making him angry and to try to tempt him to become angry and Luke fighting that temptation. Which obviously eventually he does and eventually again he doesn’t. But that’s the real tension in this whole scene is “Will he become angry enough to try to attack the Emperor?” I mean what the Emperor wants basically is from him to kill his father so he can take his place, which is the same thing his father is trying to get him to do is kill the Emperor so Vader can take the Emperor’s place."

--George Lucas, ROTJ DVD Commentary, 2004.

"The key issue in these movies is for a Jedi not to use anger when he’s fighting. So the final confrontation here is primarily about trying to make Luke become angry, so that when he fights his father he’s fighting in anger, therefore begins to use the dark side of the Force, and therefore sort of succumbs to the dark side of the Force. In The Empire Strikes Back we had them confront each other and fight together. But in this film Luke has become more mature so that now he knows he shouldn’t be fighting him—that is the path to the dark side. So it’s basically a confrontation between two people and one of them doesn’t want to fight, and the other one keeps trying to push him into it. And then in the end when he gives up and they really do fight, what’s happening there is that ultimately Luke is turning to the dark side, and all is going to be lost."

--George Lucas, ROTJ DVD Commentary, 2004.

"It will be about how young Anakin Skywalker became evil and then was redeemed by his son. But it's also about the transformation of how his son came to find the call and then ultimately realize what it was. Because Luke works intuitively through most of the original trilogy until he gets to the very end. And it’s only in the last act—when he throws his sword down and says, “I’m not going to fight this”—that he makes a more conscious, rational decision. And he does it at the risk of his life because the Emperor is going to kill him. It’s only that way that he is able to redeem his father. It’s not as apparent in the earlier movies, but when you see the next trilogy, then you see the issue is, How do we get Darth Vader back? How do we get him back to that little boy that he was in the first movie, that good person who loved and was generous and kind? Who had a good heart."

--George Lucas, Star Wars Trilogy VHS Boxset 2000.

 

I think of it more like a normal human getting drunk on power, than the literal dark side just being that. Anakin's tusken massacre was an action entirely of emotional impulse, to me. After that, I think he pulls back and tries to reserve himself much more. Anakin's slaughter of the tuskens is wrong, but it's not a methodical choice, just rampant anger and grief. Vader isn't a rampant villain. Only once Anakin has begun his planned, uncaring, unfeeling murder of the separatists, to me, does he show his more outright controlled state of villainy. I think everything before that is based on revenge or desperation, with some elements of amoral justification mixed in. In the separatists murder, he's like a machine, murdering them with no structure of developed feeling.

Anakin morally compromises in a moment of rage and grief with the murder of the tuskens. Feels guilt. Afterwards tries to restrain himself.
Anakin morally compromises in emotion still with the murder of Dooku, but with a more controlled hand.
Anakin compromises in a moment of desperation and, incidentally, assists in the killing of Mace Windu. Anakin feels guilt, but has resolved himself to his goal irregardless, accepting Palpatine's terms in pursuit of rescuing Padme.
He follows Palpatine's orders, I think with shown displeasure, but does so none the less, no longer impulsive actions made in anger and/or grief and/or desperation.
Then he murders the separatists, with no sense of displease in him, efficiently, facelessly practically, fully dark side driven to the point his eyes are yellow. In my opinion, this is Anakin killing people and wanting to do it, because of who they are.
Afterwards, I think he's left with sitting with everything he's done. His complete loss of himself, his relinquishing of it, in pursuit of his goal.
When confronted by Padme with his actions, he denies it, doubles down on it, justifies it, tries to bargain with her about it, then finally lashes out at her after she's rejected him and he feels sided against him. He refuses to accept responsibility for his actions, refuses to accept guilt

If Luke murdering the Emperor and just turning to the dark side wholesale because dark side addiction was the threat, I think that's cheap, to me. I think it's lame if going full dark side was just that. I think Luke murdering Palpatine is a choice of moral compromise, and the danger for him is it leading to a downward spiral of moral compromising that leads to going full dark side. Like Anakin.

 

"Vader is completely consumed by the evil side of the Force. He is an instrument of the Force rather than having his own free will in terms of what he does. He really is driven by the Force. When we kill him off in the next one, we’ll reveal what he really is. He wants to be human—he’s still fighting in his own way the dark side of the Force. He doesn’t want to be a bad man, but he is. He can’t resist it. He’s struggling somehow to get out of what he is, struggling with his humanity."

--George Lucas, TESB story conference transcript, 1977.

It was decided that learning the ways of the Force had to be a constant struggle for Luke and that he would always have to prove himself. In regard to the dark side of the Force, the story meeting transcripts [for TESB] suggest that although one can’t see it, it should be the real villain of the story. In his training Luke discovers the roots of the evil Force. The danger, the jeopardy is that Luke will become Vader, will be taken over. He has to fight the bad side and learn to work with the good side. Lucas felt that at one point during the training Ben should explain to Luke that he should use his powers with moderation. If he uses too much of the Force, it will start using him. For example, to lift objects Luke has to use the bad side of the Force, so if he overuses this power, the dark side will start taking him over as it did with Vader. When Luke fights, he has to use the dark side, but he is also using the good side for protection.

--Star Wars-The Empire Strikes Back: The Annotated Screenplays, 1997.

 

I think having Anakin making continuous choices that lead him to dark side, through his own free will, has more weight, for him, as a character.

 

Agreed, but I feel that description of Vader (no free will) applies more to his character after being suited and Padme’s death. He was more volatile throughout AOTC and ROTS yet on hearing he killed his wife Vader submits to his fate.

 

Just curious, is the general consensus that Luke would have turned if he struck down the Emperor? I always thought it was only if he followed through on his rage and killed his father.

 

YODA: "Yes, run. Yes. A Jedi's strength flows from the Force. But beware of the dark side. Anger, fear, aggression -- The dark side of the Force are they. Easily they flow, quick to join you in a fight. If once you start down the dark path ... forever will it dominate your destiny. Consume you it will, as it did Obi-Wan's apprentice."

Note that Anakin becomes hostile when Padme falls from the gunship, which leads to his rushing Dooku. This carried over to his subsequent aggressive feelings with Dooku during the war, as well his jealously with Padme and Clovis. Then after killing Dooku, there is his outburst in the Council chambers and his anger afterwards. The point is that Anakin keeps becoming consumed by anger. And that's not counting his fear.

As to Luke, it doesn't matter which Sith it was. It just had to be one of them.

 

But isn't part of the Jedi code to defeat the Sith? Palpatine is blowing up planets and is not going to surrender.

 

you have to kill them nicely Chris

OR...just let them do whatever the **** and let evil reign supreme, because bystander effect/pacifist is the new good. Anything else is BAAAD.

Also

'justified anger' is not a thing in the GFFA? *shrugs*

 

It's not Luke's job to destroy the Sith. It's his...



Luke has to turn his father and get him to kill him.

 

and there goes the depth and meaning of the scene.

Vaders redemption: "I was destined to do it"

 

But why is it okay for Vader to kill the Emperor?

 

Because it will kill him to do it. The Jedi defeated the Sith once by making them kill each other, using their tendency towards treachery against them. It was the only to end a thousand year conflict. Anakin will succumb to his injuries and take Sidious with him.

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.

The depth is still there.

"It really has to do with learning," Lucas says, "Children teach you compassion. They teach you to love unconditionally. Anakin can't be redeemed for all the pain and suffering he's caused. He doesn't right the wrongs, but he stops the horror. The end of the Saga is simply Anakin saying, I care about this person, regardless of what it means to me. I will throw away everything that I have, everything that I've grown to love- primarily the Emperor- and throw away my life, to save this person. And I'm doing it because he has faith in me; he loves me despite all the horrible things I've done. I broke his mother's heart, but he still cares about me, and I can't let that die. Anakin is very different in the end. The thing of it is: The prophecy was right. Anakin was the Chosen One, and he does bring balance to the Force. He takes the one ounce of good still left in him and destroys the Emperor out of compassion for his son."

Anakin Skywalker's final confrontation with the Emperor occurs during Luke's final confrontation with the Emperor, which compliments his father's dealings with the same man many years earlier. Indeed the life of the father and the life of the son are commentaries on each other.

--George Lucas, The Making Of Revenge Of The Sith; page 221.

"And obviously there are two sides to the redeemer motif in the Star Wars films. Ultimately Vader is redeemed by his children and especially by having children. Because that's what life is all about—procreating and raising children, and it should bring out the best of you."

--George Lucas, Time Magazine article, 2002.

"I think it is obvious that [Qui-Gon] was wrong in Episode I and made a dangerous decision, but ultimately this decision may be correct. The “phantom menace” refers to the force of the dark side of the universe. Anakin will be taken over by dark forces which in turn destroy the balance of the galaxy, but the individual who kills the Emperor is Darth Vader—also Anakin. The tale meanders and both the prediction and Qui-Gon are correct—Anakin is the Chosen One, and he did bring peace at last with his own sacrifice. Luke couldn't kill the Emperor himself, but he could make Anakin reflect on his life and kill the Emperor."

--George Lucas, Cut Magazine interview, 1999.