PT Did the PT make Anakin genuinely a tragic hero, or just an even bigger villain?

No worries, I'm certainly interested in hearing your thoughts on the matter.

 

Baz: I disagree with your last statement. I feel Padme was very formative to Anakin's behaviour and development as was his extreme lack of maturity.

 

Bit of an understatement in my eyes. That's like calling the Nazi's stupid and immature. Evil is more accurate.

 

Definitely more tragic. He made the wrong decisions, but he was put in situations that were bad. First off he was trained to be a jedi when he was too old . In Lucas' own words 'he shouldn't have been trained'. Secondly he was manipulated since he was 9 years old by the Uber-Sith Lord Darth Sidious. His mother died in his arms, and then had a dream that his wife would die.
Pretty bad circumstances.

 

I'm not saying Anakin had a Beaver Cleaver upbringing. However, to me, there's a big difference between some developmental issues and leading a massacre against your fellow Jedi ten minutes after telling on Palps about being a Sith. That goes well beyond not having a father figure in early childhood. That's psychotic. I never thought Anakin's turn was handled very well.

 

Clark Kent: "All these powers and I couldn't even save him."

Clark Kent hated the fact that he couldn't save his father, but could bend steel and change the course of mighty rivers. This in turn leads to his actions where he changes history to stop Lois from dying and it results in the Phantom Zone being breached and Earth being overrun. Anakin has as much potential for great power within him, he feels that he should be able to stop bad things from happening to those that he loves. This is why he is upset that he cannot save his mother. The greater the power one has, the greater the temptation to do evil.

But it wasn't enough for a man who had grown power hungry and obsessed with wanting more power because he was afraid of death.

He knows that Obi-wan has never liked Palpatine even before he turned to the dark side. Obii-wan has even said to him on more than one occasion that Palpatine cannot be trusted and Anakin does not like having his loyalties called into question.

Because Yoda is the strongest Jedi in the Temple and the most knowledgeable about the Force. As Lucas said, he goes to the Gods and is rejected. So he goes to Satan and makes his bargain.

Lucas has said that.

"What drove me to make these movies is that this is a really interesting story about how people go bad. In this particular case, the premise is: Nobody thinks they're bad. They simply have different points of view. This is about a kid that's really wonderful. He has some flaws - and those flaws ultimately do him in."

--George Lucas, The Making Of ROTS; Page 53.

"This is obviously a very pivotal scene for Anakin because this is reuniting with his mother and his youth and at the same time dealing with his inability to let go of his emotions and allow himself to accept the inevitable. The fact that everything must change and that things come and go through his life and that he can't hold onto things which is a basic Jedi philosophy that he isn't willing to accept emotionally and the reason that is because he was raised by his mother rather than the Jedi. If he'd have been taken in his first year and started to study to be a Jedi, he wouldn't have this particular connection as strong as it is and he'd have been trained to love people but not to become attached to them. But he has become attached to his mother and he will become attached to Padme and these things are, for a Jedi, who needs to have a clear mind and not be influenced by threats to their attachments, a dangerous situation. And it feeds into fear of losing things, which feeds into greed, wanting to keep things, wanting to keep his possessions and things that he should be letting go of. His fear of losing her turns to anger at losing her, which ultimately turns to revenge in wiping out the village. The scene with the Tusken Raiders is the first scene that ultimately takes him on the road to the dark side. I mean he's been prepping for this, but that's the one where he's sort of doing something that is completely inappropriate."

--George Lucas, AOTC DVD Commentary.

 

I'm sorry, but I can't stand the statement Anakin was a douche or something out of that order.

In AOTC, it's very simple to disregard him as just a teenage punk or something, but quite frankly given what he went through it's understandable in part why he acts and feels that way.

And clearly, if you want to see any examples of Anakin being selfless, watch The Clone Wars, Or you know, pay more attention in the films.

 

No disrespect but I don't care what Lucas said. I've seen the films and can think for myself. Multiple characters loved Anakin, but your correct in saying that yes, he wanted more. Love wasn't enough for him. Which makes him more of a villain in my eyes. Also nothing in TPM or AOTC points to the fact that Obi-Wan disliked Palpatine. If Obi-Wan was suspicious of Palpatine by the time of ROTS it was because he had been hoarding power for years, changing the Republic's constitution and was surrounded by the dark side of the Force.

 

ANAKIN: "She's not like the others in the Senate, Master."

OBI-WAN: "It's been my experience that Senators are only focused on pleasing those who fund their campaigns...and they are more than willing to forget the niceties of democracy to get those funds."

ANAKIN: "Not another lecture, Master. Not on the economics of politics......and besides, you're generalizing. The Chancellor doesn't appear to be corrupt."

OBI-WAN: "Palpatine's a politician. I've observed that he is very clever at following the passions and prejudices of the Senators."

ANAKIN: "I think he is a good man. My instincts are very positive about..."

He was already not a fan of Palpatine and this was before the war and Anakin's instincts about him were way off.

 

First of all, not that it really matters to the discussion at hand, but didn't the PZ break when Superman tossed a nuke into space?

Second, Kent/Superman, didn't go nuts and willingly kill innocent people the way Anakin did. He went against the natural order of things and turned back the clock with Lois, but he did not harm anyone in the process. I would say that if Superman had to kill others to save Lois, he wouldn't do it.

 

i vote for a genuinely tragic casting. hayden christensen has all the charisma of room-temperature mayonnaise.

 

That's pretty much what a Jedi was supposed to be. Did any of the Jedi have "charisma?"

 

Obi-Wan doesn't like politicians. Nothing there implies he has personal prejudice against Palpatine.

 

Because of Lois. In the Donner version, said nuke was the one that caused the earthquake that killed her. In the Lester version, he saves Lois and then tosses the bomb into space.

1. No, but his actions had consequences because he couldn't accept the natural order of things. Just as Anakin had that problem.

2. You might want to check out this comic.

 

What were the negative consequences of Superman's actions? IIRC, he flew around the Earth several times at an extremely high speed and caused time to reverse. Doing so saved Lois Lane's life. Maybe he should have let it be and not interfere, but I don't think his actions had negative consequences. Certainly nothing like Anakin's actions toward the end of ROTS and throughout the rest of the saga. Even the Kryptonite/Tar that was given to him in Superman III didn't turn him anywhere near that bad.

And I don't read comic books, so I have no comment on it. I am referring strictly to the Christopher Reeve version.

 

In the Donner Cut, Superman changes history by sending the second missile into space. It frees Zod and his crew, who then come to Earth and take over. Meanwhile, because Lois lived, Clark wound up having his dual identity blown and then they go to the Fortress where he promptly ignores the rest of the world for his own desires and even gives up his powers. In the Lester Cut, it is a bit different in that the missile isn't the cause, but a hydrogen bomb is sent into space because of his desire to save Lois and then his identity is blown and the rest is similar to Donner's version. Clark puts himself ahead of the world and the world suffers. Anakin puts himself ahead of the galaxy and it is the galaxy who suffers.

In the comic, the Joker poisoned Lois and tells Superman that he can save her, but he has to inject the Joker with the chemicals which will interact with his blood to provide a cure. The catch is that the Joker will die while doing so. Superman considers doing it, but Batman stops him from doing it. Lois dies, but it turns out to be a trick as the poison only stops her heart for thirty seconds and then it starts again on its own. Batman had deduced that this would happen and that it would be the Joker's twisted revenge making, Superman kill for a second time.

 

There's a big difference between being selfish and purposefully destroying others. All of us could make the world a better place if we gave up expensive cars, homes and vacations and gave that money to various charities. But we don't. That's selfish to at least some degree, but I don't think it makes any of us evil people. It is certainly a lot different from taking the intiative in killing other people. Anakin intentionally led an attack on the Jedi Temple and killed many Jedi five minutes after pledging his allegiance to Sidious. Are you really going to say that in any way compares to Superman inadvertently breaking the Phantom Zone while saving Paris from a Hydrogen Bomb? Sure, Lois was saved in the process, but saving people's lives in ways normal humans can't is kinda Superman's MO. And even in the Joker's twisted plot, I wouldn't begrude Supes killing the Joker (not exactly an innocent person) to save Lois. And so what if Superman blew his identity or gave up his powers? Since when has ever been obligated to fly around the world saving people 24/7? Most people (if they had such godlike powers) would be more like Zod. Just the fact that he doesn't toy with and enslave the world (as he easily could) says a lot for his character.

I just don't see how any of this compares. I think you're reaching. I can understand Superman's approach in every scenario you mentioned. However, in my opinion, there is no justification for Anakin's actions.

 

And that is why Anakin is the far more interesting character, and a genuine tragic hero; whereas Superman is a cartoon. A cartoon is someone you can always cheer for. A tragic hero is someone you sometimes want to yell at and give a hard shaking and a couple of slaps, even as you're feeling utterly wrecked that they're doing what they do -- because there was no justification or even excuse.

 

anakinfansince1983 Well, yelling is something I do to people I'm fond of (I wouldn't want to slap Palpatine either.)

Basically, I think a tragic hero makes me feel "why, why, why did you have to do that!? I was rooting for you; we were all rooting for you!", while at the same time seeing where this idiocy is coming from in their personal history and character, and how it is, tragically, the natural outcropping (as in "causally-related", not as in "inevitable" or "excusable") of what I love about them. Villains and their motivations don't really matter to me, and while I might be tempted to occasionally think about their motivations, I don't particularly care how their evilness is related to their goodness/humanity. (Unless it's someone like Dooku, whose pathology I'll happily obsess over -- but there we'll be going into the issue what we mean by "villain".)

I'm sure you must be tired of answering this question, but (as I wasn't around for the legendary old Obi-Wan/Anakin flamewars ) may I ask what you like about Anakin? It seems very different from what I like about him.

 

I do not like how Anakin's development was handled at all. He does not come off as tragic to me. Instead, he comes off as someone psychologically disturbed who is selfish, power hungry and too possessive. When Padme and Obi-Wan are no longer a use to him (and a means to his ends), he treats them as mere objects as a sociopath would.

 

I agree to a point. I wish his character arc was more of a gradual thirst for power instead of the "emotional" train wreck. I, myself, find it extremely hard to believe that Darth Vader became Darth Vader because he couldn't save the people he loved. Lame-sauce. In the OT, he was Darth Vader because he had an insatiable lust for power which had eroded almost all good in him. He wanted to overthrow the emperor, he crushed people's throats, he supported his own daughter's execution. If he was handled in the PT, as someone whose ideals became obsessions which killed the good in him, it would have been more believable and more
Enjoyable to witness. Instead we get a little punk who became Palpatine 's puppet. Yawn.

 

No such thing was ever established in the OT. It's a figment of imagination.