Discussion of Anakin's behavior in AOTC

Nice attempt at sarcasm, but completely beside the point. Let's not pretend the critisism of Anakin's character has anything to do with not liking character complexity. I'm sure many PT critics appreciate the brilliance of Michael Corleone in the Godfather series, which is probably one of the best example of a complex character's descent into darkness on film. The difference in appreciation for the two characters is related to the execution of the character arc, not it's complexity.

 

Am I the only one who thought that was in-character for Anakin to do? If something threatens what he thinks is stability, he will tear it down with brute force.

 

IMO it was a good show and i honestly dont have a problem with Anakin in the clip, and i did enjoy the arc the clip originates from. My problem is with some peoples reactions, apparently Clovis deserved to get beat up because he tried to kill Padme with poison 4 seasons ago, even though it was Lott Dod that poisoned Padme.

I would recommend the show, even if you dislike this clip.

 

It's not solely the fault of that clip, but I'm not a fan of how they handled certain plotlines and how they contradict the films. The retconning of the Syfo-Dias mystery probably bugs me the most. Anakin having a padawan just doesn't work for me. You also have Anakin and Obiwan fighting Dooku again before ROTS, which very openly contradicts what was conveyed in the film.

The Clone Wars themselves are not interesting to me; what's interesting is Palpatine playing both sides. I think Lucas was right to skip them given the rigged nature of the conflict.

 

Okay, thats a fair reason for not wanting to watch the show.

 

I didn't think he was creepy. I think guys are just jealous.

 

Jealous of someone who kills kids and chokes his own wife? On what planet does that constitute jealousy?

 

By that point he was a tragic figure. We were talking about the courtship.

 

Something that came across as creepy to me, probably unintended, was at the start of the film.

Padme has cameras in her room, that are there for her safety as she is the target of an assassin.
But she covers them up because apparently, she doesn't like how Anakin looked her.
So a woman prefers to put her own life on the line rather than have a guy stare at her?

I can't help but to think that Padme was a little creeped out by Anakin. Or she is a terrible prude.

Bye for now.
Mr "Insert-Name-Here."

 

I don't think it's at all intentional that Anakin be portrayed as creepy. Awkward, yes. Creepy, no.

I mean, the scene where Padmé and Anakin meet for the first time tells the viewer everything they need to know about those two for the rest of the movie. Padmé lays eyes on Anakin and the camera pushes into her reaction, telling us that she is struck by him in an attracted sort of way, and then Anakin attempts to sound poetic as he talks to her and ends up sounding awkward. Which I'm sure Padmé thinks is kind of adorable.

Cue the rest of the movie.

 

I see him as troubled, but mostly in sympathetic ways. The Tusken slaughter is horrific, but I can understand the circumstances that led to it happening. As for creepy? At least Anakin ceases his advances when Padme initially informs him that things won't happen between them. Less creepy than the "no means yes" vibes I get from Han and Leia in ESB.

 

He's definitely not meant to be a Han-style 'charming rogue' type, clearly. (Obi-Wan, with his accent, beard and witticisms is actually far more 'charming' in the traditional sense.) I think his awkwardness and intensity were supposed to be there as he's clearly a young man with no romantic experience whatsoever and it shows. Where it fell a little short for me is that he REMAINED awkward/intense well beyond the point it would convincingly still be endearing.

 

Well, technically he was Darth Vader at that point.

 

Not sarcasm. I tried to satirically show how ridiculous some people's criticism of the prequels is. I have seen all Godfather films, and know Michael Corleone's character. So? I don't see how Anakin is so totally different. But so what? That's a different story. As a prequel fan, I do appreciate Corleone's character. I also appreciate Anakin. What is wrong with that? Different stories and different characters. SW is not trying to be another Godfather and that's well. I appreciate Lucas' making Anakin different and not someone we have already seen in other movies. What exactly is your point?

 

Yes, but your premise is, that the critisism is ridiculous, which seems to ignore the fact that many fans, including myself genuinly feel Anakin's portrayal was less than successful, and the portrayal of his descent to evil less than compelling. Another premise was, that this is, because us critics want black and white characters, and are adverse to complex characters. I use the Michael Corleone example to illustrate, that many of us like complex characters just fine, except we feel that there's a distinct difference in quality between the way Michael Corleone's descent to evil was portrayed, compared to the way Anakin's descent to evil was portrayed. The fact that you appreciate Anakin's character is just fine, however, your portrayal of critics as people who just like simple characters is not.

 

DrDre - do you like these films ? I mean most of your posts seam to imply you don't. Just wondering.

 

I think I would rate the PT as follows:

TPM 3/5
AOTC 2/5
ROTS 3.5/5

OT:

ANH: 5/5
TESB: 5/5
ROTJ: 4/5

TFA: 4/5

So, I don't dislike them absolutely (except for the romance scenes in AOTC, which I think are atrocious), but was dissapointed by them, because I felt GL failed to turn Anakin into a compelling character, and I felt the films were too glossy, compared to the grittiness of the OT, particulary ANH and TESB. I really like TCW on the other hand, because I feel it's more character driven, and I prefer character driven Star Wars over plot driven Star Wars.

 

Grittiness would feel out of place in the prequels. We're talking about a more "civilized age". TPM especially captures that world. The rot sets in during AOTC and by the time of ANH the galaxy is in complete decay. If we don't see how pristine and orderly the galaxy was in TPM; if it was always the galactic-size equivalent of the Cantina on Mos Eisley, then it makes one wonder what the Rebels were trying to restore anyway?

 

Even in the OT Luke says Tatooine is the furthest from the bright center of the universe and calls MF a junk. And still we see Tantive IV and Cloud City - just a simple mining colony, but looks quite gorgeous. The PT deals with "the bright center of the universe" in more civilized times. And a lot of Naboo was shot in the real palaces.

 

I found Anakin on the dark side more psychologically and physically disturbing then Kylo. Anakin was almost a grim reaper in his movements. Hell, even physically he didn't look well. I found it kinda interesting that when he was with Padme, after Operation Knightfall and on Mustafar, he looked like "Anakin" but you could notice his skin becoming more pale, his eyes turning yellow and almost a ghostly appearance. With Kylo, he just looked and acted like a Saturday morning villain. I just wasn't buying the mystery factor of Ren.

 

That maybe the case, but IMO civilized does not mean everything has to be glossy, and shiny, and that everybody has to look like a mannequin. I get what you're saying, but even in a civilised society there's dirt, and wear and tear to a certain degree. Are there no coffee stains in a galaxy far far away?

 

Yes, I think the prequels show us the golden age of Republic, its democracy and respect of diversity. It's good it's completely different to the uniform and kind of sterile look of the Empire.

 

I am fine with appropriate criticism and even your premise. There is nothing wrong with people saying what they liked and disliked about a certain movie. What I don't agree with is when opinion gets confused with absolute fact, things like "we all know the prequels are bad" or "nobody likes the love story in AOTC". As is quite obvious on this forum we do NOT all agree on these opinions. Many of us feel the prequels are fine and the actors generally did a decent job. You can say "I hate TPM and Jar-Jar" etc., just don't assume everyone else necessarily has to agree. The prequels have their fan base, that can't be denied, and their opinion is no less valid than the haters'. They are not saying good things about the PT for the sake of disagreeing but give good reasons. You feel that Anakin's portrayal is "less than successful", which is totally OK. But there are those of us that feel otherwise. We are not "stupid" or "fanboys" or whatever, just happen to have a different opinion.

Arguably, yes. But we are really comparing two very different characters in very different situations here. I would even agree with you that Al Pacino is a better actor than Hayden Christensen. He has more experience and had lots of good roles. Would Al Pacino have been a better Anakin Skywalker however? No way. I still feel HC is perfect for the role. And what we should not forget, Michael Corleone could exist in our real world while Anakin could not. He is a 100% fictional character while Michael Corleone is probably based on real-life gangsters. We can accept the fact that a guy walks around in a black suit and chokes people just for fun, but not that that same guy acts different from real-life teenagers when he was younger? You might as well say there is a "difference in quality" between SW and The Godfather. Latter is quite possibly the better movie. But then we should stop watching SW altogether. Nothing about it is realistic. So why use different standards judging PT and OT? I don't see anybody comparing the OT to Godfather. Why is the PT expected to live up to standards the OT did not meet?

 

I certainly agree nobody is stupid for liking the PT, and criticism by nature subjective. With regards to comparing Star Wars to the Godfather, the comparison may be a bit unfair. GL took on a daunting task, when he decided to depict someone's descent to evil. It's arguably a more difficult story to depict than the OT. However, the fact that it takes place in a galaxy far, far away does not mean it can't be criticised for the way that journey to evil was depicted. Let's take another example from the realm of fantasy. I found the depiction of the steward of Gondor in LOTR to be a very successful depiction of a man corrupted and destroyed by the loss of his son. So, I personally feel the strength of a character is not really that dependent on the whether the character exists in our reality.