PT Why some people hate "Padme dying of Sadness" ?

Did I tag you or mention you in that post?

"Move along. Move along."

 

I felt like it was implied. If you were talking about some other(s) who offered an different perception for some things, and meant only them, me not included, and I apologize if I misunderstood.

 

Nor does the original Evil Dead match up to part 2. A group of 5 people suddenly end up as just a couple in the sequel. To me it's quite obvious that's intentional, not really an inconsistency. Someone from the crew, I think Sam Raimi himself, even said they are not meant to be direct sequels, just loosely connected, as alternative stories more or less. But ED is more of an exception. Most other sequels or franchises at least try to be consistent if possible, like Godfather, Jaws, Terminator, Matrix, Alien up until part 4....

 

The opening of PART 2 is just supposed to be a brief rap up of PART 1. Part 1 ends with Ash getting attacked by the phantom. As soon as that happens in PART 2 and Ash starts getting spun around and thrown into a tree... THAT'S when PART 2 officially starts.

They still don't match up properly. If I remember correctly, he never finished burying his GF in PART 1, but she climbs out of a grave in PART 2.

 

Oh, Ash did bury her alright, just didn't have the heart to dismember her first. So naturally she came out of her grave to attack him again. She was only stopped when he decapitated her with the shovel.
In part 2 basically the same happens, with changes of course. Ash still finishes her off, but with a chainsaw this time.
But as you said, all this is more like a prolog or "flashback" to part 1. ED2 really doesn't start until Ash hits that tree, and it's not until the sequel that the slapstick elements really take over, progressing even more with Army, more dark comedy than horror. The original was still mainly pure horror.
But going too far off-topic here, sorry.

 

To answer OP:

like, I don't mind Padme dying of sadness as an idea, but it fits the prequels pretty poorly I'd say.

The prequels (besides the chosen one prophecy, which while its not a lot of peoples cup of tea, is laid out expectations-wise pretty clearly and brought up plenty of times) are pretty grounded films. There's sketchy quasi-governmental corporations, government corruption, wars by proxy, organizations that haven't adapted to face their times' realities. Stuff we're familiar with and happens in the real world all the time.

And then Lucas just drops some straight high fantasy stuff in the final act of the last film with Padme dying of sadness. It really doesn't jive with what the prequels are mostly concerned with and hasn't been previously established as a thing.

I wish SW was more high fantastical sometimes, but this isn't how you go about doing it.

 

I honestly do not remember where as it has been that long but it came from Lucas I think. Maybe it was "the making of Revenge of the Sith" book? It is possible it was a rumour but I do not think so as then I would not remember it still. He thought Anakin would be a total monster and not redeemable if he murdered Padmé. He was meant to force choke her and then throw her which is what caused the injury that led to her death. And in regard to Luke not remembering; Bail showed Leia pictures or video of Padmé. Luke never met Bail.

 

See, I never understood that (assuming the rumor is fact.)

Anakin turning to the Dark Side, enslaving the Republic to a Sith Empire and killing everyone he’s ever known for the last 13 years of his life, including children- “Okie dokie”

Anakin strangling his wife and hurting her- “Noooo! He’d be too irredeemable!!!”

 

It could have been worse. She could have died from flatulence. MEDICAL DROID; We're losing her. For reasons we can't explain, she won't stop farting.

 

Irredeemable, I think, to me, may be not the best way to put it. Maybe it was more so. But I also think if Vader basically literally killed the mother of his children, that would add an issue to the relationship of Luke and Vader, moreso than already, and one that's never resolved or even brought up in the OT.

I think what's done in the movie, as is, is the stronger written concept, for the character, showing how far he's fallen to attack the woman he's claimed this was all for, but not so far as to lead to a weird random thing that could hang over the OT that's never really resolved or mentioned going forward.

 

The Star Wars/HP crossover event of the summer!

 

It seemed like an easy way to write her out of the plot when she stopped being. You can argue it's somewhat in-congruent with her character. Padme has demonstrated herself to be a stoic and duty driven individual. She seemed like the person that can look at a situation, with cool detachment when need be. Then again she lived for two reasons, the Republic and her relationship with Anakin, loosing both those things at once left her with no emotional or identity anchor.
Dying of a broken heart is not fanciful grief has been known to cause heart attack like symptoms, this is phenomenon is known as broken heart syndrome. I myself once experienced heart palpitations due to grief. Padme has just given birth so her heart had already undergone hours of strain.

 

Perhaps many wanted Padme to go out as a "badass". Many people tend to view female characters in a superficial way. Or expect them to be portrayed in a superficial way.

 

It wasn't even Padme's idea to be a senator. She was asked to be one. In the films, we don't ever even see her step foot in the senate chamber until the scene where the Empire is created in ROTS. To say the Republic was one of the things she lived for seems a bit hollow considering what we actually see in the movies. Hell, she's actively despondent toward the Republic by the end of TPM.

Now, I will say she is supposed to be in a deep and meaningful relationship with Anakin, but the execution of that love leaves a lot to be desired as well.

 

I think we should be glad, we don't have anymore Senate scenes than what we got, when you consider how beefy the prequel films were. That's the problem with film as a medium, when you're trying to pack in a lot lore within strict time constrains. Script writers have the difficult task of demonstrating something that is important but not vital to the plot in a few lines of dialogue or a very short scene. Chances our because the real world is less then ideal, that the movie audiences usually have a negative conception of politicians. By having Padme state in earnest that she was asked to be senator, shows that she's in politics out of a sense of duty, rather then for personal ambition. Also for all we know this might be normal for the Republic. A fun fact most people don't seem to be aware of, is that senators in the U.S used to be chosen, by the governor of the State, rather then being elected directly. This was a way of insuring that the senator would best represent the interest of the state, it would also force people to pay more attention to their state elections, which was a means of keeping power decentralized. So maybe the current elected leader of a planet, chooses the senator to represent them? If this is explained I wouldn't know (new to the fandom.)

Anyways back to Padme, she does mention the importance of democracy a few times, in the films. I would expect her to be more loyal to Naboo then the Republic which is all well in good, that just made her a good senator for Naboo, but regardless Naboo would have lost it's freedom, at the advent of the Empire. This would be cause to break heart. Personally I think the Clone Wars, does a fantastic job of fleshing out her personality and Anakin's, as well as what happened between AoC and RoS, and why things were the way they are at the start of Ros, so I take what happened in the clone wars into consideration. I do believe show is canon too? Being new to the fandom, I still get confused with what is 'canon' and what is 'legends' or whatever. Yes! i would have wanted to see the romance blossoming, but alas Star Wars is not in the romance category.

NGL, I think it would have been totally plausible, if Palpatine had arranged for her to meet with an 'unfortunate fate'. If she would have stayed alive, there would have come a time where he would have t order his apprentice to kill her, since a Sith shouldn't have personal attachments, but fearing that this could back fire on him, and that such an order might have turned his walking WMD against him, he would have taken care of the problem himself in a way he would think Vadar would never link back to him.

 

I never thought that only because, had Vader believed the Jedi killed her, Vader would have definitely brought that up to Luke in the OT.

 

It would have worked too considering how hard he argued with Obi Wan in AOTC when she fell from the gunship.....

 

Again, if that had happened, then Vader would have used that info to try and sway Luke away from the Jedi. "The Jedi let your mother die." would have come out of that mask sometime in ROTJ as a way to get Luke to second guess becoming a Jedi.

 

I feel that's a cheap out for his villainy and doesn't say much about Vader, as a character.

 

I'm glad that didn't happen. Not that I don't like badass characters of any gender elsewhere, but to me the PT was not that type of story. As it stands I was incredibly moved by both Anakin and Padme's roles in the trilogy, how each of them are intertwined with the flawed world around them and ultimately become just two more bright lights extinguished with the fall of the Republic.

 

Off topic, but Thunderpants is a pretty charming flick (it was on Best of the Worst, and the crew liked it) but good god that is the worst DVD cover I've ever seen.