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

This made me lol cuz its so true.

 

Didn't say everyone. Just pointing out that it's not a choice for someone to be suffering in that way.

 

Wait wait wait, you're suggesting that Lucas made Padme die of sadness so that the audience wouldn't hate Vader for it?

Because they didn't already see him as villainous for murdering children? And violently choking Padme into unconsciousness is forgivable as long as it didn't directly kill her?

 

Yeah that ship of Vader being a murdering monster sailed way earlier in the film.

 

It would have been neat of Padme remained a royal, and Anakin had to get permission to date her, and she had to propose.

 

I think Padme is almost never really wilting, in Lucas' original version where she's more active or even in the movie as is.

 

Another option is that Padme and Anakin talk, she tries to get him to walk away from the path he is on but he hears none of it. Then Obi-Wan comes out, Anakin is angry and wants to fight but Padme steps in his way and keeps pleading with him. Obi-wan also tries to talk. Anakin is still not listening and orders Padme out of the way but she does not move. Finally he is fed up with her getting in the way and uses the Force to push her to the side. But he is careless and she is thrown into a wall quite hard and is injured. Anakin at first goes "Padme!! NOO, what did I do?" But then quickly blames Obi-Wan for it and attacks.
Later Padme dies due to complications of those injuries and her being pregnant. Her situation could even be that the droids could save her life or her children, not both. So she chooses her children.
So her death is on Anakin's hands but he did not fully intend for her to die.

Bye for now.
Old Stoneface

 

She's lost the will to live - in RL that's more of a figure of speech, but in this it's a literal thing.
to me that means she has nothing left, mentally, spiritually done etc. So she's not making any choices.

So how has this happened - well she's suffered all this defeat and personal tragedy and loss etc. Except that she still has hope : that there's still good in Anakin, and that doesn't fit with a feeling of total despair.
It's muddled .
I remember my initial reaction - Ooh , that's a bit klunky, Lucas just trying to get her off-stage .

I do think it could've been better if they'd worked into it some angle that Padme gave her last bit of strength to ensure the birth of the twins.

or just not have the droid say anything at all.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if someone tries to do a ret-con one day -

so Kenobi asks Bail to take care of Padme's personal effects since he was her friend, he then discovers various holo-video diaries by Pame talking to her future kid, he then plays these vids to infant Leia which she absorbs as real.

yeah, it's terrible.

 

Oh that would be like Ronini Kenshin accidentally stabbing his love in a duel. That could work.

 

I still don't think it needs to be that complicated. Even the Kenobi show, in it's, to me, limited abilities, covers the idea that force users can carry memories of their family from early life. I think it makes fine enough sense, if they really just explored the idea that Leia remembers the feelings and images of her mom.

 

Y'all, in the real world, there are adoptive parents who play recordings of the birth parents of their adopted children to the adopted children as a way to show where the child came from and to connect them with their biological family. Especially if they're unable to actually make contact with said family for one reason or another.

W-why, then, do some people think, in a galaxy where we have FTL travel and can heal charred whiny Sith lords from the brink of death, that Bail couldn't simply show Leia holo-videos of Padme in a 'this is where you came from' fashion. Especially since this is the King of Alderaan we're talking about. Not Mr. and Mrs. 'dirt-poor moisture farmers' Lars from Tatooine.

Hell, I think it's even implied they did that when Leia asked Obi-Wan if he were her real dad in the Kenobi series. They showed her images and videos of Padme, gave a basic overview of Padme's life and legacy while omitting the whole 'she married a Jedi named Anakin' business, maybe even saying they just couldn't find records of the dad. Otherwise she would've just said she wished she knew who her parents were, not just 'my father'. And let's not forget that Obi-Wan brought up both his mom and dad when he said, 'My mother's shawl, my father's hands...' so they weren't strictly talking about fathers.

 

Oh you just solved the problem I’ve had. That Leia said her mother seemed sad, but Padme died when Leia was a newborn; probably not only did Bail let her hear recording of Padme, but hologram recordings of her! So she then the words in ROTJ Leia speaks can be reconciled with what happens in ROTS!

Bravo! That solves me issues with continuity!

 

It is an explanation but to me it still has problems.

If we go with Bail telling Leia about Padme, showing pictures and even videos. Ok.

First question, why is Bail doing this? That Leia is the daughter of Padme must not reach the empire and Bail is a pretty important person. Leia, being his daughter, would likely meet a fair amount of people and if she blabs "Oh, my mother was Padme Amidala", then that could reach Palpatine and that would be very bad. Secrecy is vital, so why risk it?
If Bail tells her stuff but also says that she must never talk about this with anyone, then that would raise further questions with her. Why is it so important that she never say anything about this?
And if he refuses to tell her anything about her father, that too could get her curious and then she starts digging.

And this leads us to the second question, how old was Leia when Bail told her this? If she was quite young, 3-4 years old, then making sure she never says anything is hard. If she was older, say 10-12 then she would have a better chance of keeping quiet.

And then third question, did Bail tell Leia that her mother died in child birth? If he told her stuff and all that, why would he not say this as well? It is what happened. But if Leia KNOWS that her mother died when she was born, why did she not say that? Why did she say "She died when I was very young."?
And it is clear that Leia has memories of her real mother. Now if she mistook Bail telling her stuff, pictures and videos for actual memories, that again raises the question of how old she was when Bail told her this.
If she was 10-12 then she would not confuse pictures with actual memories. That could have happened if she was very young when Bail did this, say 2-3 years old. But then again, if Bail had told her stuff when she was very young, did he stop? If the subject came up again when Leia is older, why would Bail not make it clear that Padme died in child birth?
If he lied about that and tried to spin some tale that Leia lived with her real mother for a few years and then came to Alderaan. Then why? Why would Bail make this up, esp since Leia came to Alderaan as a newborn so all records would say pretty much that.

Owen and Beru kept stuff from Luke and he was far from the eyes of the Empire. Leia is right in the middle of their power she here, making sure that word does not get out is even more important.

Bye for now.
Old Stoneface

 

I think the way Leia describes what she remembers of her mom aligns pretty nicely with how someone would interpret force memories, especially Leia, who herself says that she doesn't understand the force. "Just images, really. Feelings." She sees that she was beautiful, maybe even sees that she was sad, feels her mother was kind and maybe feels that she was sad. This is basically how I think you could describe Padme just before she died.

 

yeah I think it was pretty clear

Images, really,,...feelings" was meant to be force memories, not hologram home movies shown to her when she was very young.

However we are talking about Bail here..he was a big idiot in The Obi-Wan Kenobi series, the way he was as conspicuous as an elephant in an outhouse regarding Luke being on Tatooine, and...well...contacting Kenobi in such a manner in the first place.

 

I doubt that what Leia said in RotJ was meant to be Force memories as the script had a far more normal and better explanation.

Leia went with her mother to Alderaan while Luke went to Tatooine. So Leia spent more time with their mother than Luke did. Thus she has memories of her but Luke does not. These lines also explains why Luke suddenly asks Leia about her mother, her real mother. Since neither ANH, nor ESB had set up that Leia was adopted or that Luke knew about it. And since he had been told that Leia went with their mother and since he has no memories of her, he asks. As it is now, the question comes a bit out of nowhere.

And are "Force memories" an actual established thing in the OT/PT or is it something that fans have made up to explain away an inconsistency?
And they do not give a very good explanation of the situation to me.
If Leia knows her mother died in childbirth and why would she not know that? Then any "memories" of her real mother would be really confusing. How come Luke does not have any of these "Force memories"?
If Leia is recalling all her experiences with Padme right after she was born, kind of hard to get "kind and yet sad" from that. "Heartbroken" or "dying of despair" would fit better.

As it was, it gave a little insight into the mother and what happened to her. She was with Leia for a short time, enough to give Leia some memories of her. Those tells us that what happened with Anakin and her children left a mark on her.
Now, it seems that Leia for some reason thinks that she spent time with her mother but really she didn't and now Luke thinks that as well.
If Obi-Wan tells them, "Your mother died right after you were born" they could get puzzled.

Bye.
Blackboard Monitor

 

Maybe not, but a lot of things said in previous movies may not have been intended to mean something that they ended up meaning. As is, I think this is a solid explanation for it now, especially considering the choice of words used in the movie.

 

Call it what it is, a Ret-Con. As explanations go, it is about as solid as damp tissue paper.

Bye.
Old Stoneface

 

oh I have no doubt its a Ret-Con, but as Ret-Con's go it isn't one that is as quite as top of the pile as some are. At least to me.
Should the script have included the bits you posted, yeah..., would have been nice if that was Lucas' original idea, but as abstract as Leia's comments were 'force memories' work for me. Especially since Lucas obviously went with Padme dying when she did.

Well, sometimes fans have to, since some things are so vague you have to connect the dots yourself, is it ideal? nope I really don't like head canon and have expressed so elsewhere, but sometimes it is the difference between sitting watching a movie with a vacant expression, or having your brain trying to rationalize it so you can connect with what you are watching. In a franchise where electricity can be shot from your fingertips and be called 'a physical manifestation of the force' to have a force sensitive having memories that might be beyond that of a normal human doesn't draw the line, at least to me.

 

Retcons can exist in Star Wars. That's not a bad thing. As far as I think, within the stories, Leia being Luke's sister and Vader being Luke's dad are both retcons, with handwaved character explanations. I think it's far more solid, and has a legit basis in what Leia says and the conversation just after that being about Leia's force sensitivity. Personally I think it's a fairly simple explanation for the situation.

 

But if you acknowledge that this was a ret-con then saying things like "meant to be" is not accurate.
Lucas intentions changed, when he made RotJ, he had one backstory in mind and wrote lines to that effect. Later, when making the PT, he changed his mind, which is fine. It is his choice.
But now we have a ret-con and what the lines meant originally is now in conflict with what happened.
So the lines were NOT written to mean "Force memories", they were written to mean actual memories because that was the backstory at the time.

Force memories does not work for me, because it is a power made up by fans to explain away an inconsistency but it is not used consistently.
If Leia has these Force memories, why does Luke not have them?
If I want to make up a "magic" explanation then it has to be consistent. Otherwise it is just "A wizard did it."
So as explanations go, it has flaws.

Bail telling Leia about Padme works better in that regard at least because we know Owen lied to Luke about his father. That has other issues, like I said.

An other explanation is that Leia is talking about Bails' first wife, not her real mother.
Some EU I think had the explanation that there was a statue of Padme on Alderaan that Leia saw a lot.

If people want to make up explanations for some holes in the films, I have no problem with that. I have slightly more issues if they present those made up explanations as intended by the filmmaker.
Like how did vader learn Luke's name between ANH and ESB? My theory, either imperial spies or rebel propaganda. I can not prove that nor can I say that this is what Lucas intended.

But a difference with say Vader being the father is that the films actually acknowledge the ret-con and talks about it. Luke asks Obi-Wan about what he said earlier and Obi-Wan sort of admits that he misled Luke. I still think that his "Certain point of view" is a bit weak. Admit that he lied, I would like that better.
Interestingly, the RotJ script has more lines here as well;.

Here Obi-Wan admits that Luke has every reason to be mad at him, that he made mistakes.
So that was better.

But Leia's memories of her real mother are not given any explanation onscreen. We just have an inconsistency with no attempt at a reason as to why and how it is there. So with Vader, Lucas knew he had to adress it. With Leia's memories, Lucas seemingly just ignored it and hoped that people would not notice or care.
And like I said above, the explanation is not simple because it is a made up power that is not applied consistently. A simple explanation would be that Leia is mistaken and talks about Bail's first wife.

Bye.
Blackboard Monitor

 

Then the issue isn't so much the retcon, but that it's not explored enough. I think similarly.