# Anakin's path to darkness too steep! (SPOILERS)



## Phaedrus (May 23, 2005)

How does one go from angst over the possible death of your wife to slaughtering children in such a short time?

I'm troubled, and I love my wife and my brother Obi-Wan.
I'm upset because these visions really scare me.
I'm confused because this evil Sith Lord keeps talking to me.
I'm unspeakably evil and I slaughter everyone in sight, and kill my wife.

TOTALLY unconvincing.

Almost ruined the whole movie for me.


----------



## Jdvn1 (May 23, 2005)

The power of the dark side is strong.


----------



## Mouseferatu (May 23, 2005)

Point one: When one is dealing with the Force, one has to remember that outside influences exist. You may have to turn to the Dark Side, but once you do, it can influence you as much as you influence it.

Point two: This is Star Wars. Character development _always_ happens at super-speed.

Point two-point-five: Considering the fact that it takes more time than Vader's turn back to the light side in RotJ, it's at least consistent with what we've seen before.


----------



## fett527 (May 23, 2005)

Jdvn1 said:
			
		

> The power of the dark side is strong.




As is the power of running time.


----------



## BiggusGeekus (May 23, 2005)

I disagree.

Here he is, the Chosen One.  Obviously the most powerful Jedi of his generation, possibly the most powerful alive.  He's been saving the council since he was eight years old, he's saved Obi-Wan's life around ten documented times.  He is completely dedicated to galactic peace.  This is a guy who has done a lot of exceptional work and regularly put others first.

How does the Council treat him?

They leave his mother in slavery.  They forbid him from getting married.  He gets his place on the Council only because Palpatine forced their hand and even then Anikin gets dissed by being denied the rank of master.  When he reveals to Yoda that he worried about a loved one dying, he's told to "rejoice" for them.  

On the other hand, Palpatine is cool with his being married and is offering him a way to keep his wife (and potentially child, Ani's not sure about that) from dying.  

I'd turn.  I'd turn even faster.  You put the lives of my wife and daughter against the lives of a lot of other people and as far as I'm concerned those other people are in for a very bad (albiet short) day.

Hmmmm.  Maybe I should practice with that force lightning stuff.  It looks cool.....


----------



## Hand of Evil (May 23, 2005)

The Chosen One or shall we call him the Eternal Champion?


----------



## Desdichado (May 23, 2005)

Phaedrus said:
			
		

> How does one go from angst over the possible death of your wife to slaughtering children in such a short time?
> 
> I'm troubled, and I love my wife and my brother Obi-Wan.
> I'm upset because these visions really scare me.
> ...



It would help if you didn't leave out a number of steps there.  Like, his murder of the sand people, his belief that the Jedi are purposefully excluding him from all kinds of things, his convincing that the Jedi are traitors, his constant non-help from exactly those who should have helped him understand what to do, like Yoda or Mace Windu.

He's not just "troubled" and "confused" and if that's all you got out of the movies, you _really_ need to watch all of the prequels again, and wake up this time when they're doing something else besides fighting.


----------



## Darrin Drader (May 23, 2005)

There's a couple things here that are being overlooked in the assessment.

Anakin was asked by the council to spy on Palaptine. He considered that a violation of the jedi code (which it was), and he believed it to be a betrayal of the trust he had with Palpatine. He saw the jedi as hypocritical, unpatriotic, and possibly dangerous to the survival of the republic.

The other thing is that Palpatine didn't make it sound like it was either black or white. He made it sound like he included the dark side teachings in a balanced system of beliefs as opposed to standing on dogma and excluding options.

I feel that those two issues, combined with the fact that he desperately wanted to save Padme like he had not been able to do with his mother are the main factors that led to his decision. Regardless, his decision was forced when Mace and Palpatine were fighting. It isn't like he could reconsider his decision after Mace had been killed.

_Edit:_ forgot to add that the movie takes place over the course of several months, and Palpatine begins asserting his influence at the beginning.


----------



## CrusaderX (May 23, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> It would help if you didn't leave out a number of steps there.  Like, his murder of the sand people, his belief that the Jedi are purposefully excluding him from all kinds of things, his convincing that the Jedi are traitors, his constant non-help from exactly those who should have helped him understand what to do, like Yoda or Mace Windu.
> 
> He's not just "troubled" and "confused" and if that's all you got out of the movies, you _really_ need to watch all of the prequels again, and wake up this time when they're doing something else besides fighting.




Right.  I watched Attack of the Clones again last night, and Anakin's scenes on Tatooine, after he slaughters the Tusken Raider men, women, and children, really foreshadow his turn quite nicely. 
_
PADMÉ: Sometimes there are things no one can fix. You're
not all-powerful, Annie.

ANAKIN: (angry) I should be! Someday I will be... I will be
the most powerful Jedi ever! I promise you, I will even
learn to stop people from dying.

PADMÉ: Anakin...

ANAKIN: (furious) It's all Obi-Wan's fault. He's jealous!
He knows I'm already more powerful than he is. He's holding
me back!

ANAKIN hurls the wrench across the garage. It CLATTERS to
the floor. He looks at his trembling hands. PADMÉ stares at
him, shocked.

PADMÉ: Annie, what's wrong?

ANAKIN: I... I killed them. I killed them all. They're
dead, every single one of them...

ANAKIN focuses on her like someone returning from far away.

ANAKIN: Not just the men, but the women and the children
too. They're like animals, and I slaughtered them like
animals... I hate them!

There is silence for a moment, then ANAKIN breaks down,
sobbing. PADMÉ takes him into her arms.
_

I didn't even realize he talked about stopping people from dying back in Episode II.   I think Episode III actually improved I and II a good bit.


----------



## WayneLigon (May 23, 2005)

BiggusGeekus said:
			
		

> I'd turn. I'd turn even faster. You put the lives of my wife and daughter against the lives of a lot of other people and as far as I'm concerned those other people are in for a very bad (albiet short) day.




Thus why they have the prohibition against being married.

Yes, Anakin has done all those good things but the way he reacts makes me think he's just doing them to prove himself, as a way of denying the fear and anger he still feels. It doesn't matter in the least what he _does_, it's what is stil inside him that counts as far as him going to the Dark Side. He does it for himself rather than others, even as he tries to tell himself and Palpatine that that's not the Jedi Way. I think that's the reason he deals with the children the way he does. He's eager to (again) prove himself, this time to his new master. He's doing it for his family, he thinks, but again he's really doing it for himself.


----------



## Plane Sailing (May 23, 2005)

Just seen it this afternoon and I agree with Phaedrus to the extent that he in the confrontation between Windu and Sideous everything seemed reasonable, including his "what have I DONE" angst when he turned against Windu... but then within a few heartbeats he was professing devotion to Sideous as his apprentice.

I have no complaints over the pacing of his journey to the Dark side - in fact in the opening of Ep III he had largely overcome the temperamental teen-ager he was in Ep II, and seemed a very credible knight. 

It was just that the final act of turning to the dark side seemed too... precipitous, compared to the way the rest of it went.

Cheers


----------



## KenM (May 23, 2005)

Well, he slaughtered the jedi at the temple after he pledged himself to the Emperor. Right after he had a hand in killing Mace Windu. after that, the only path he had was to go to the dark side.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (May 23, 2005)

You don't know the POWER of the Dark Side!


----------



## Jdvn1 (May 23, 2005)

CrusaderX said:
			
		

> I didn't even realize he talked about stopping people from dying back in Episode II.   I think Episode III actually improved I and II a good bit.



Synergy bonus!  I guess that makes III better than I thought.


----------



## Mallus (May 23, 2005)

Sometimes the only way to eliminate --or at least stave off- guilt and paralyzing doubt is to relentlessly pursue the course of action you've began. I imagine this is true for many real-life acts of staggering brutality.

Anakin just cut off Windu's arm... no going back after that. And certainly no time to wonder if that was the smartest thing to do.


----------



## Menexenus (May 23, 2005)

*I wrestled with the same misgivings.*

I was also concerned about Anakin's rapid decent into evil brutality in the movie.  But after watching it a few times, here's what I came up with.

Palpatine told him that in order to find the way to defeat death, he'd have to be stronger with the dark side of the force.  Indiscriminant killing is a good way to "rack up dark side points" really fast.  And he had some (misguided) reason to think that the Jedi were traitors.  So he went to the Jedi temple to a) deal with the insurrection, b) gain power with the dark side, c) obey his master. 

But (you might say) that doesn't explain why he slaughtered the defenseless kids that were there.  I agree.  So my explanation for this is that, by the time he got to the kids, he was literally "intoxicated" by the dark side.  Much like a drug user, he found that he was unable to stop.

Now, I have not read the book or the comic, so all this is pure speculation on my part.  But it is the best explanation I was able to come up with.  It put my misgivings to rest.  I hope it will do the same for someone else out there.


----------



## Phaedrus (May 23, 2005)

I understand the constraints of 2.5 hours to get the story told.
I know I oversimplified the progression, and I know there were foreshadowings in the early movies.

Perhaps I just choked on the truly DREADFUL dialogue. Or maybe his acting ability.

But it left a very bad taste in my mouth.

I wanted so much for episodes I - III to be good. I grew up with Star Wars. The figures, the lunch box--it was a definitional part of my childhood. Maybe that's my problem. Perhaps my deep love for the first 3 movies prevents me from liking the last 3. But to me the difference between them is night and day and I can't get past my disappointment.


----------



## Plane Sailing (May 24, 2005)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Sometimes the only way to eliminate --or at least stave off- guilt and paralyzing doubt is to relentlessly pursue the course of action you've began. I imagine this is true for many real-life acts of staggering brutality.
> 
> Anakin just cut off Windu's arm... no going back after that. And certainly no time to wonder if that was the smartest thing to do.




Ironically, I think it would have made more sense for Anakin to have NOT shown any remorse at disarming )) Windu - if Anakin had instead had dialog that went something like "You were right all along Chancellor! Their power, their greed, their disrespect for the jedi code! I had been blind to it but now I see it so clearly! What must I do?" Then Palpatine closes the loop and finally draws Anakin over to the dark side and the relationship is formed.

THAT would have made more narrative sense to me. Without Anakins regret at disarming Windu there is a less abrubt flip over to the dark side.

Cheers


----------



## Desdichado (May 24, 2005)

Phaedrus said:
			
		

> I understand the constraints of 2.5 hours to get the story told.
> I know I oversimplified the progression, and I know there were foreshadowings in the early movies.
> 
> Perhaps I just choked on the truly DREADFUL dialogue. Or maybe his acting ability.
> ...



Yeah, 'coz, y'know, Darth Vader had this _huge_ build-up in the original trilogy.  He didn't abandon the dark side and switch sides again in a heartbeat or anything like that.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (May 24, 2005)

Other than some scenes in Empire I don't think any SW flick had great dialogue.  I'm more of a plot/overall story type guy so that doesn't bother me in the least though.


----------



## frankthedm (May 24, 2005)

Menexenus said:
			
		

> Palpatine told him that in order to find the way to defeat death, he'd have to be stronger with the dark side of the force.  Indiscriminant killing is a good way to "rack up dark side points" really fast.



It is like clearing a dungeon for X.P.



> But (you might say) that doesn't explain why he slaughtered the defenseless kids that were there



Hello? He is getting X.P. for every evil deed! Can you imagine a BoVD group who got x.p. for killing commoners? No town is safe.



			
				Big Daddy G. said:
			
		

> How does the Council treat him?
> 
> They leave his mother in slavery.



I Agree on this. There may be reasons for her to stay in slavery, but I'm unconvinced


			
				Big Daddy G. said:
			
		

> They forbid him from getting married. He gets his place on the Council only because Palpatine forced their hand and even then Anikin gets dissed by being denied the rank of master. When he reveals to Yoda that he worried about a loved one dying, he's told to "rejoice" for them.
> 
> On the other hand, Palpatine is cool with his being married and is offering him a way to keep his wife (and potentially child, Ani's not sure about that) from dying.
> 
> I'd turn. I'd turn even faster. You put the lives of my wife and daughter against the lives of a lot of other people and as far as I'm concerned those other people are in for a very bad (albiet short) day.




Protecting one's family is not a Good act, it is a neuetral act even animals do and can be an evil act [see the ending of the first "Ring"]. The jedi were wise enough to know this and forbid their order from being placed into such situations. Pademe knew about the anakin's evils, but rather than inform the Jedi order of anakin's deeds she protected him leading to the fall of The Jedi order


----------



## jaycrockett (May 24, 2005)

Ulitmately, the Jedi order betrayed itself.  It was Mace Windu choosing the 'easy' way,  in trying to just kill Palpatine rather than take him prisoner, that forced Anakin to take sides.  He broke the Jedi code, as did the Jedi when they asked Anakin to spy on Palpatine.


----------



## frankthedm (May 24, 2005)

jaycrockett said:
			
		

> Ulitmately, the Jedi order betrayed itself.  It was Mace Windu choosing the 'easy' way,  in trying to just kill Palpatine rather than take him prisoner, that forced Anakin to take sides.  He broke the Jedi code, as did the Jedi when they asked Anakin to spy on Palpatine.




They betrayed themselves when they ignored thier instincts and allowed anakin to becom a Jedi.


----------



## Kralin Thornberry (May 24, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> It would help if you didn't leave out a number of steps there.  Like, his murder of the sand people, his belief that the Jedi are purposefully excluding him from all kinds of things, his convincing that the Jedi are traitors, his constant non-help from exactly those who should have helped him understand what to do, like Yoda or Mace Windu.
> 
> He's not just "troubled" and "confused" and if that's all you got out of the movies, you _really_ need to watch all of the prequels again, and wake up this time when they're doing something else besides fighting.




Also, in the novel, his turn wasn't as sudden as it was in the movie.  It was more described and drawn out.


----------



## Banshee16 (May 24, 2005)

This was building even from the first movie, when he was afraid of being on his own without his mother.  He was a good kid, but he let his fear rule him.  That's not to say that it's *wrong* for a young child to be afraid of being separated from their parents.  It's quite normal.  But with a child who has "phenomenal cosmic power", maybe it's not so cool.

In the second movie....he was conflicted....he was powerful, and chafing at the bit, but the other Jedi kept pulling him back, not trusting him.  He experienced strong emotions, but from what I saw, the way that Obi-Wan tried to manage them, by cutting him down, was not the right way to handle that type of person.  All it would do is cause resentment, which is exactly what happened....and exactly what Hayden Christensen portrayed in the second movie.  Which is kind of funny, because that's what people *complained* about in them movie.  In actuality, he was doing exactly what he was supposed to do.

The Jedi didn't trust him.  And yes, because of his power, and immaturity, they had reason to act that way.  But by treating him like a child, they made the situation worse.

Then his mother died.  He couldn't stop it, nobody did anything to help her....and he felt horrible for having abandoned her to a horrible death.  And he snapped.  Could happen.  Except that instead of pulling out a gun and shooting people he had a lightsaber and "phenomenal cosmic power" and butchered an entire tribe of sand people.  And because nobody knew about it, they couldn't help him deal with it.

And, finally, in the third movie, he experiences fears of his wife dying.  It's already established that he can't deal with loss.  He said in the second movie that he would find a way to keep people from dying.  A noble goal, but one that leaves us asking.....just how far would he go to keep someone from dying?  Pushing himself to the limit?  That could be noble.  Killing other people to keep another alive?  Not so noble..

The council didn't trust him.  Especially because of his relationship with Palpatine.  They knew he wasn't completely emotionally stable.  And his power was growing so quickly that they were probably afraid of giving him a position of power.....because though he had massive powers, he didn't have the wisdom yet to temper their use.  But instead of managing it properly, they didn't really explain why they were doing what they were doing.  Even when Mace went to confront Palpatine, he just told Anakin to follow orders...but didn't explain *why* those orders were being given.  It was like a slap in the face to someone with Anakin's abilities and pride.  It showed a fundamental lack of understanding of how to manage people, IMO.

On the other hand, the Emperor was all nice, and gradually began inserting doubts as to the Jedi path.  He showed a path that he claimed could save Padme.  He made it seem that the Jedi's reticence to teach Anakin everything they knew, because they didn't trust him, might cost his wife her life.

So, Anakin made his choice.  I think he was on the knife's edge for a long time.  Finally, Palpatine showed him an alternate path, and it met his goals of saving his wife.

Once he made the choice, I believe that cognitive dissonance could have taken care of the rest.  He made a decision, and took action which flew contrary to his core beliefs (ie. joining the Dark Side).  Because he made that decision, and there wasn't an immediate and tangible reward, he actually adjusted his core beliefs to justify the actions he was now taking.  This likely made it easier to take the actions he did.

I suspect the Force had a lot to do with it at all.  I think that the Force, light side or dark side, has a way of feeding on and magnifying emotions....more importantly, it gives a powerful means of acting on those emotions.....that's why Jedi teachings said that they had to control their emotions.  Think of how paralyzing fear can be.  It can make someone freeze even as they are about to be shot, or run over or whatever...even when action could lead to their survival.  Or anger.....anger can make people who have loved each other for years say hurtful things to each other than they'd never say in an ordinary day.  And that's normal people.  Now imagine having phenomenal cosmic power.  If someone had that kind of ability, and hadn't been able to master their emotions, then their emotions could take control of them, and they could then enforce a solution on the world around them.  I think that's partly what happened to Anakin.  If he didn't have a belief that there was a possibility of saving Padme through his abilities, I would be willing to bet he wouldn't have turned.

Anakin was troubled, and taken from his mother after he'd bonded with her, and put in an emotionally "cold" environment, where he may not have received the warmth he was used to receiving.  In her absence, this affected his further development.  The Jedi didn't have the means of teaching him what he needed to learn, since they were usually trained from an earlier age, where children could be moulded to avoid some of these problems.

It's an incredibly sad story, in a lot of ways. And I don't think that it's an entirely unbelievable character progression.  It took 3 movies to get to where Anakin turned.  All the movies showed were pivotal events in that development.

Banshee


----------



## Kralin Thornberry (May 24, 2005)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> This was building even from the first movie, when he was afraid of being on his own without his mother.  He was a good kid, but he let his fear rule him.  That's not to say that it's *wrong* for a young child to be afraid of being separated from their parents.  It's quite normal.  But with a child who has "phenomenal cosmic power", maybe it's not so cool.
> 
> In the second movie....he was conflicted....he was powerful, and chafing at the bit, but the other Jedi kept pulling him back, not trusting him.  He experienced strong emotions, but from what I saw, the way that Obi-Wan tried to manage them, by cutting him down, was not the right way to handle that type of person.  All it would do is cause resentment, which is exactly what happened....and exactly what Hayden Christensen portrayed in the second movie.  Which is kind of funny, because that's what people *complained* about in them movie.  In actuality, he was doing exactly what he was supposed to do.
> 
> ...




Very well stated.


----------



## Phaedrus (May 24, 2005)

Yes, well stated. 

To hijack my own thread... if he's the chosen one, and SO powerful, why is he subordinate to Grand Moff Tarkin in IV?

As to Vader turning back to redemption so quickly... given the gymnastics people have performed to explain Episodes 1-3, it should not be that difficult to do the same for 4-6.

My child lived? 
I have twins?
The emperor wants to get rid of me and take my son instead? (a little weak since he proposed to ditch the emperor himself)
My son is calling me back... maybe I should do it... for Padme...
My son didn't kill me and join the emperor, and now he's being killed?
Take the hint about Qui Gonn coming back from the dead (end of III), ObiWan's "death" (in IV) and possibly the 2 of them have been ganging up on him from the "grave"... "You're the chosen one, your job is to destroy the Sith once for all... this is your purpose... all you've done has led you to this..."


----------



## Desdichado (May 24, 2005)

Phaedrus said:
			
		

> To hijack my own thread... if he's the chosen one, and SO powerful, why is he subordinate to Grand Moff Tarkin in IV?



I never got the impression that he was.  He and Tarkin seemed to be more or less equal at least, and Vader deferred to him in matters relative to the administration of the Death Star and its staff, because of chain of command issues.  But Vader over-ruled him, in terms of what to do about Kenobi, if nothing else, and also about going out in his special TIE fighter.  I always got the impression that if he had wanted to, Vader could have taken Tarkin out like the chump he was at any time, and not have to worry about repurcussions.


----------



## takyris (May 24, 2005)

Regardless of the internal justification, while I really enjoyed watching the buildup to the fall, the fall itself struck me as stupid, and his actions afterward stupid as well. A coworker nearby said, "Wow, there was some interesting moral ambiguity, right up until Anakin became the biggest idiot in the universe." That summed it up for me.

My own opinion, and not a statement of fact. If it worked for you, then that's wonderful, and you probably had a better two hours and change than I did, which means that you win.


----------



## Davelozzi (May 25, 2005)

Kralin Thornberry said:
			
		

> Also, in the novel, his turn wasn't as sudden as it was in the movie.  It was more described and drawn out.




Quick aside....how was the book?  any good?


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (May 25, 2005)

Phaedrus said:
			
		

> I wanted so much for episodes I - III to be good. I grew up with Star Wars. The figures, the lunch box--it was a definitional part of my childhood. Maybe that's my problem. Perhaps my deep love for the first 3 movies prevents me from liking the last 3.




No I don't think that's your issue as you have many people on this board who loved the first trilogy and who also liked this movie/trilogy.  (I proudly consider myself one of them.)

I think you went in to the theater with blinders on cause of you over simplified process.  You forgot much of the foreshadowing of the first two movies.  (Of course only you really know.)


----------



## Kesh (May 25, 2005)

Just to follow up: Anakin killing the children makes sense from his perspective. First, he was told to kill _all_ of the Jedi in the temple. If he wanted to please his new master, he had to finish the job. And trying to say, "well, they were just kids," would never cut it with a Dark Master of the Sith.

Second, these kids were already Jedi-in-training. Each one had the potential to threaten the stability of the new Empire and the power of the Sith.

Finally: those kids represented everything Anakin never had. He grew up a slave on a harsh desert planet, surrounded by killers and thieves, was always told he was a failure by his boss & the other children with his dreams of pod racing, and was finally freed... because he was the prize in a gamble. And he had to leave his mother behind, which ultimately cost her life.

These kids grew up in relative comfort, with supportive friends and adults, able to focus entirely on their dreams instead of struggling to survive, and being treated with respect he never had.

In Anakin's mind, by that point, they were the epitome of _everything_ he never had. They represented the hypocrisy that the Jedi Order was based on, and he wanted *revenge*.


----------



## Trickstergod (May 25, 2005)

One thing I will say is that Anakin's fall, while I do believe it credible, gave me the sense that George Lucas was off in the background saying "And this is where you fall," like the actors were taking their cues rather than Anakin was falling to corruption while Palpatine manipulated him. I believed in the fall, but the scene itself seemed a bit artificial. 

For what it's worth, I think a few extra lines on Palpatine's behalf could have spelled things out directly enough for anyone - something like "You have helped killed Master Windu, Anakin. There's no turning back from this; the Jedi will kill you as surely as they would have me. There is no one to turn to but me. There is no one else who can save you now, and more importantly, your wife." Something like that would have helped seal Anakin's fall well enough, or provided satisfactory enough explanation. 

And as others have pointed out, there was ample enough foreshadowing beyond the original trilogy for Anakin's fall. I think back to the beginning of Sith; Anakin wants to go back and save the clone pilot and has to be reined in by Obi-Wan. Then Anakin does the same with Obi-Wan. If the roles had been reversed, and Palpatine was raising up his lightsaber to strike down Windu, then Anakin would almost assuredly have lopped off Palpatine's hand. Anakin wasn't so selfish as he appeared - just easily manipulated. 

Though I am curious as to how the Jedi asking Anakin to spy on Palpatine qualifies as breaching the Jedi Code. Sure, when Mace was getting ready to lop off Palpatine's head, that seemed like a violation, but spying? The Jedi are defenders of the Republic, and Palpatine would surely be a threat to it once war was over (which proved all too true). The Jedi wouldn't be very good defenders if they didn't engage in some degree of espionage.


----------



## Desdichado (May 25, 2005)

Kesh said:
			
		

> They represented the hypocrisy that the Jedi Order was based on, and he wanted *revenge*.



...of the Sith, no less.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (May 25, 2005)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Sometimes the only way to eliminate --or at least stave off- guilt and paralyzing doubt is to relentlessly pursue the course of action you've began. I imagine this is true for many real-life acts of staggering brutality.
> 
> Anakin just cut off Windu's arm... no going back after that. And certainly no time to wonder if that was the smartest thing to do.



 I like this idea.  I know I've done that myself.  Found myself doing something I knew was wrong, but to convince myself that I was doing the right thing I threw myself into it headlong.  As if I could prove to myself that I was right by doing it with more gusto.


----------



## Larcen (May 26, 2005)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Ironically, I think it would have made more sense for Anakin to have NOT shown any remorse at disarming )) Windu - if Anakin had instead had dialog that went something like "You were right all along Chancellor! Their power, their greed, their disrespect for the jedi code! I had been blind to it but now I see it so clearly! What must I do?" Then Palpatine closes the loop and finally draws Anakin over to the dark side and the relationship is formed.
> 
> THAT would have made more narrative sense to me. Without Anakins regret at disarming Windu there is a less abrubt flip over to the dark side.
> 
> Cheers




That new dialog won't work because it implies that Anakin becomes a Sith because of somewhat good intentions.   Ultimately he needs to become a Sith because of selfish and EVIL reasons.  Such as, "The needs of my wife outweigh the needs of all these innocent Jedi children."


----------



## Welverin (May 26, 2005)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> This was building even from the first movie, when he was afraid of being on his own without his mother. >snip long explanation<




Well you just explained things in the exact same way I see them and negated my need to reply to anything.


----------



## Victim (May 26, 2005)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Just seen it this afternoon and I agree with Phaedrus to the extent that he in the confrontation between Windu and Sideous everything seemed reasonable, including his "what have I DONE" angst when he turned against Windu... but then within a few heartbeats he was professing devotion to Sideous as his apprentice.
> 
> It was just that the final act of turning to the dark side seemed too... precipitous, compared to the way the rest of it went.
> 
> Cheers




He basically didn't have a choice at that point.  He was trying to save Palpatine so he could learn how to save his wife and to keep Mace from making the same 'mistake' he did earlier in the movie.  But he effectively killed the head of the Jedi Order.  Yeah, like he's going back to the Jedi after that.  At that point, his only option is throw in with Palpatine.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (May 26, 2005)

Victim said:
			
		

> But he effectively killed the head of the Jedi Order.  Yeah, like he's going back to the Jedi after that.  At that point, his only option is throw in with Palpatine.




Or so Anakin thought...  Believe it or not if he had told Obi-Wan the truth, and if Obi-Wan had been around at the time, then forgiveness wouldn't have been impossible and would probably have been likely.  Luke strayed from that narrow path many a times and was always able to right himself but his father wasn't so lucky as Palpatine pushed him towards the dark side...  "Only then will you be strong enough in the Dark Side to save your wife."  (in reference to going to the Jedi Temple.)


----------



## Plane Sailing (May 27, 2005)

Larcen said:
			
		

> That new dialog won't work because it implies that Anakin becomes a Sith because of somewhat good intentions.   Ultimately he needs to become a Sith because of selfish and EVIL reasons.  Such as, "The needs of my wife outweigh the needs of all these innocent Jedi children."




You mean I can't write film-quality dialog with a few seconds consideration? I'm shocked 

The main thing that doesn't make sense to me is Anakin showing remorse at helping to kill Windu and then instantly going over to becoming an apprentice with hardly any further persuasion. I just don't buy it. Let him chop off Windu's arm for selfish and evil reasons then so that there is no remorse. That would be more consistent.

However, I firmly believe that the film needed to give Anakin a more concrete reason to hate and despise all that the jedi stood for in order to massacre them. It was hate that ignited his killing rage amongst the sandpeople, I think it should have been used to ignite it here. Perhaps if Palpatine had played a card that 'proved' that the jedi would never let him save Padme.

Whatever, it was still the weakest part of the film for me, where it should have been the strongest. I loved all the rest of the movie.

Cheers


----------



## Belen (May 27, 2005)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Just seen it this afternoon and I agree with Phaedrus to the extent that he in the confrontation between Windu and Sideous everything seemed reasonable, including his "what have I DONE" angst when he turned against Windu... but then within a few heartbeats he was professing devotion to Sideous as his apprentice.
> 
> I have no complaints over the pacing of his journey to the Dark side - in fact in the opening of Ep III he had largely overcome the temperamental teen-ager he was in Ep II, and seemed a very credible knight.
> 
> It was just that the final act of turning to the dark side seemed too... precipitous, compared to the way the rest of it went.




Ever notice how many parallels exist within the movies.  Anakin's fall closely parallels the scene with Luke in ROTJ.  The only difference being role reversal. Luke lost his anger when he defeated Vader after cutting off his hand.  Anakin turned after cutting off Windu's arm and allowing the Emperor to kill him.

Episode 1 and 4: Save the Princess/ Defeat the Enemy ship
Episode 2 and 5: Love story/ large set battle/ spoiler revealed (I am your father vs. Join me, I trained your master)
Episode 3 and 6: Betrayl vs. redemption


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (May 27, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Ever notice how many parallels exist within the movies.  Anakin's fall closely parallels the scene with Luke in ROTJ.  The only difference being role reversal. Luke lost his anger when he defeated Vader after cutting off his hand.  Anakin turned after cutting off Windu's arm and allowing the Emperor to kill him.
> 
> Episode 1 and 4: Save the Princess/ Defeat the Enemy ship
> Episode 2 and 5: Love story/ large set battle/ spoiler revealed (I am your father vs. Join me, I trained your master)
> Episode 3 and 6: Betrayl vs. redemption




I did notice the same thing.  To me it actually felt a little too forced, the parallels a little too contrived.  Kind of the same way that I felt it was too contrived to have Boba Fett's father be the model for the clones and having Chewbacca save Yoda just to try and tie things into the other movies.

As for Anakin's turn to the dark side.  I agree that there was plenty of buildup and the reasoning for it was sound, but I think the final acting out of the fall was a bit clumsy.  I think it easily could have been handled in a more elegant and dramatic manner.  I also think the same thing could be said for the dissolution of the Republic and the creation of the Empire.  Admittedly to do so would have required more time and therefore would have had to result in fewer or shorter amazing battle and fight scenes, and since those seemed to be the real passion of Lucas, it was not going to happen.


----------



## mojo1701 (May 27, 2005)

Thornir Alekeg said:
			
		

> As for Anakin's turn to the dark side.  I agree that there was plenty of buildup and the reasoning for it was sound, but I think the final acting out of the fall was a bit clumsy.  I think it easily could have been handled in a more elegant and dramatic manner.  I also think the same thing could be said for the dissolution of the Republic and the creation of the Empire.  Admittedly to do so would have required more time and therefore would have had to result in fewer or shorter amazing battle and fight scenes, and since those seemed to be the real passion of Lucas, it was not going to happen.




The question is: will the casual movie-goer notice this? I'm going to go see Sith with my cousin on Saturday (second time for me), and see if he gets this. He's only seen Episodes I and II before, and I'm gonna show him IV-VI afterwards on DVD.


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (May 27, 2005)

Phaedrus said:
			
		

> TOTALLY unconvincing.




They cut out the part where Palpatine tricks Anakin into watch the entire Star War Christmas Special and it drives him to evil, madness and poor choices.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (May 27, 2005)

The Grumpy Celt said:
			
		

> They cut out the part where Palpatine tricks Anakin into watch the entire Star War Christmas Special and it drives him to evil, madness and poor choices.


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (May 27, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Ever notice how many parallels exist within the movies.




Episodes 3 and 6 open with a rescue, Han and Palpatine.

There is also a kind of harmony to the titles, only reversed.

Phantom Menace is a thematic opposite of New Hope

Attack of the Clones is thematically similar to Empires Strikes Back.

Revenge of the Sith is also thematically opposite to Return of the Jedi.


----------



## DM_Matt (May 29, 2005)

I agree that Vader took a bad deal.  Palpy offered him the following:

"Join with me, your friend Palpy, who turns out to also be the murderous bastard indirectly responsible for cutting your arms off that it turns out that you've been dedicating your life to hunting down.  We'll kill all the Jedi, and if we do it quickly enough, we'll have a month or so figure out  from scratch this ultra-advanced power that only one guy has ever developed which might save your wife."

Heck, if Vader truly understood how to be a Sithy bastard, his reaction should have been to kill Palpy and use the publicity to develop a combination of fame, political power, and force ability that would make him the most powerful guy in the universe.  He could even stick with the light side at that point, at least for a while.  The Jedi Council would have no choice but to make him a master then.

He could EASILY parley that into leeway regarding his relationship with Padme, such that he could expect her to not have to hide form getting proper medical care, and/or be able to garner a whole lot of resources towards making sure she survives.


----------



## Arnwyn (May 30, 2005)

At first blush while watching the movie, I thought the fall seemed a bit fast, but upon quick reflection I thought it was relatively reasonable (for Star Wars, at least). I knew that the foreshadowing was certainly there, and realized that the real problem was that the fall was done in such a clumsy and hamfisted manner that it took away what otherwise would have been a reasonable series of events, and that I would have to apologize for/justify the events in my own mind (which wasn't that hard, as evidenced from the number of very good reasons in this thread).

In any case, I am very thankful I saw Ep I and II (and Clone Wars) right before seeing Ep III, so it sure helped a lot. _A lot_.

(I still have a hard time with how fast it went to _killing children_ though...)


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (May 30, 2005)

arnwyn said:
			
		

> (I still have a hard time with how fast it went to _killing children_ though...)




Yeah, I was expecting that to be an Episode III thing not an Episode II thing.


----------



## Arnwyn (May 30, 2005)

Brother Shatterstone said:
			
		

> Yeah, I was expecting that to be an Episode III thing not an Episode II thing.



Heh... I see your point. Though in my mind I was heavily differentiating between Tuskan Raiders (monsters) and civilized Republic children. Thinking about it, Star Wars doesn't really work that way (nor should it).

Dumb mistake on my part, actually.


----------



## Banshee16 (May 30, 2005)

DM_Matt said:
			
		

> I agree that Vader took a bad deal.  Palpy offered him the following:
> 
> "Join with me, your friend Palpy, who turns out to also be the murderous bastard indirectly responsible for cutting your arms off that it turns out that you've been dedicating your life to hunting down.  We'll kill all the Jedi, and if we do it quickly enough, we'll have a month or so figure out  from scratch this ultra-advanced power that only one guy has ever developed which might save your wife."
> 
> ...




All I can say is that people do foolish and not very logical things for love every day.....Anakin was effectively a teenager....immature, emotionally unstable, confused, being actively manipulated by a super-genius, and madly in love.

To me it's really no mystery why he made the decision he did.  How many people stay in a bad relationship, put themselves at risk, or even worse, put other people at risk due to an infatuation.  I've known parents who threw away marriages, despite the fact that they have children, people who have cheated on each other, and many other things that were done out of love.

Anakin made a decision, which wasn't necessarily a good one.  But he wasn't an actively "evil" person.  But once he made that decision, and chose the wrong path, he had to justify his actions to himself.....so he built a mental framework through which his choice made sense.  Once he did that, his actions changed to keep him consistent with his new "world view"......and hence, he firmly chose darkness.

Banshee


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (May 30, 2005)

arnwyn said:
			
		

> Dumb mistake on my part, actually.





Hardly, actions speak louder than words...  He said he did it in EP II and you saw the actions in EP III.  

As for the raiders, I think your opinion of them is pretty standard as they where presented as antagonist in ANH, there ugly, they don’t speak basic, and their civilization isn’t on par with most of the republic.  So all in all, it’s a very common mistake but Obi-Wan didn’t kill a single one when he could have killed them all… and he probably did so for a very good reason.


----------



## Vocenoctum (May 30, 2005)

Brother Shatterstone said:
			
		

> Yeah, I was expecting that to be an Episode III thing not an Episode II thing.




You can kill all the orcs, er... tuskan raiders you want, they're just like robots. 

Realistically though, rage filled slaughter when you just found your beat and murdered mother, is quite a bit different from cold blooded slaughter of children you may have been working with last week.
Also, he at least acknowledged and felt guilty at the sandpeople's death. There's no remorse as he kills the defenseless kids in the Temple.


----------



## Staffan (May 30, 2005)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> Realistically though, rage filled slaughter when you just found your beat and murdered mother, is quite a bit different from cold blooded slaughter of children you may have been working with last week.



The difference is one of scale, though. The acts are similar. And given the emphasis the Jedi place on keeping your emotions under control, one might argue that slaughtering in rage is *worse* than cold-blooded killing for a purpose.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (May 30, 2005)

Staffan said:
			
		

> The difference is one of scale, though. The acts are similar. And given the emphasis the Jedi place on keeping your emotions under control, one might argue that slaughtering in rage is *worse* than cold-blooded killing for a purpose.




It has my vote.  They're both heinous acts but at least killing the younglings served a purpose.


----------



## TwistedBishop (May 30, 2005)

I can't believe there were more people in a sand person village than the entire Jedi Temple.

As far as emotions go, I completely disagree.  Negative emotions lead to the dark side, they're not all the dark side is.  Don't give in to anger and hate, because it might lead you to do evil deeds.  It's the deeds that you do which matter.  Palpatine was probably never happier than when he was killing off the entire Jedi order, and that didn't suddenly make him turn to the Light.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (May 30, 2005)

TwistedBishop said:
			
		

> I can't believe there were more people in a sand person village than the entire Jedi Temple.




I don't think it really matter which had more people in it but consider the republic was at war I would almost venture a guess that the sand people's village had more people.  Harsh environment, lots of deaths, equals alot of children.



			
				TwistedBishop said:
			
		

> As far as emotions go, I completely disagree.  Negative emotions lead to the dark side, they're not all the dark side is.    Don't give in to anger and hate, because it might lead you to do evil deeds.  It's the deeds that you do which matter.




Interesting, but since each action can be viewed from many different angles one’s deeds should necessary be what one is judge by.  While emotion cannot be viewed any other way, anger is anger, hate is hate, its unchanged no matter how you look at it and cause of this emotion is the only fair and unaltered…

And I never heard Yoda or another Jedi say, or hint at, otherwise.



			
				TwistedBishop said:
			
		

> Palpatine was probably never happier than when he was killing off the entire Jedi order, and that didn't suddenly make him turn to the Light.




Huh?   Sorry, I don't follow here.


----------



## Kesh (May 30, 2005)

Remember, as far as Palpatine was concerned, those kids were Jedi-to-be. They _weren't_ innocent, and they had to be killed to protect the new Empire's stability.

Anakin knew this. He knew what he was being asked to do. And, he "knew" that doing it was the only way to learn power enough to save his wife and stop the war. He rationalized it away... and then used his own resentment towards the Jedi to help fuel that.

I wasn't surprised he killed the children. And, in fact, I think the director did an _excellent_ job with that scene. We never see Anakin do anything... but the second that lightsaber snaps on, and you see the kid jump back, you _know_ he's going to do it. They can then cut to another scene, and your own imagination is more disturbing than anything they could have filmed.


----------



## TwistedBishop (May 30, 2005)

Brother Shatterstone said:
			
		

> Interesting, but since each action can be viewed from many different angles one’s deeds should necessary be what one is judge by.  While emotion cannot be viewed any other way, anger is anger, hate is hate, its unchanged no matter how you look at it and cause of this emotion is the only fair and unaltered…
> 
> And I never heard Yoda or another Jedi say, or hint at, otherwise.




It just wouldn't make sense for "Anger" to *be* the dark side, or else every ten year old in history would be a sith lord.  It has to be a path to the dark side, where you let negative and selfish emotions rule your decisions.  





			
				Brother Shatterstone said:
			
		

> Huh?   Sorry, I don't follow here.




I was trying to show that negative emotions by themselves aren't what keeps you dark.  Palpatine is a murderer, and it doesn't matter if he's happy or angry at the time.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (May 30, 2005)

TwistedBishop said:
			
		

> It just wouldn't make sense for "Anger" to *be* the dark side, or else every ten year old in history would be a sith lord.  It has to be a path to the dark side, where you let negative and selfish emotions rule your decisions.




Quite right, but that still isn't one's deeds.   (Oh and I think you hit the hammer right on the head when you said the ten year old comment...  Jedi are trained from a young age for good reason.  )



			
				TwistedBishop said:
			
		

> I was trying to show that negative emotions by themselves aren't what keeps you dark.  Palpatine is a murderer, and it doesn't matter if he's happy or angry at the time.




Was there a time he was happy in any of the movies?  Honest you can wear a smile and not be happy, you can be a dark lord and have moments, abit few, of happiness and still be quite evil.


----------



## TwistedBishop (May 30, 2005)

It is deeds though, isn't it?  No Sith ever got really angry and adopted a kitten.

Palpatine cackled with glee a lot during RotS, especially during his Yoda fight.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (May 30, 2005)

TwistedBishop said:
			
		

> Palpatine cackled with glee a lot during RotS, especially during his Yoda fight.




Of course, a Sith uses his passion to power his force abilities...  Palpatine either laughed or was mad  before he used any force power in all the movies. 



			
				TwistedBishop said:
			
		

> It is deeds though, isn't it? No Sith ever got really angry and adopted a kitten.




Nor did a Jedi adopt a kitten in the movies...


----------



## Vocenoctum (May 31, 2005)

Brother Shatterstone said:
			
		

> Nor did a Jedi adopt a kitten in the movies...




But we can suppose that they did, given that most of this thread is supposition. Guessing Anakin's motive's is all fine and dandy, but they're not there. So, while it's a given, I think it bears mentioning, this is all opinion.

For all we know, Vader went and killed the kids while being force persuaded by Palp. Or perhaps he was always psychotic and he stopped taking his medication.
Maybe it was the fact Padme just wouldn't shut up! I mean, all her nagging and crying would drive a man to murder alone!

Or maybe the Dark Side is not something a person follows. Maybe the Force is Life, and once you give in to the Dark Side, an alien moves into your body, and you're now Evil.

Regardless though, in the movie, the motivation of Vader killing the children is because "now he's evil." Nothing more is given.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (May 31, 2005)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> Regardless though, in the movie, the motivation of Vader killing the children is because "now he's evil." Nothing more is given.




Of course mean in your opinion on that.   Thanks, cause I know my differs greatly from yours.


----------



## Vocenoctum (May 31, 2005)

Brother Shatterstone said:
			
		

> Of course mean in your opinion on that.   Thanks, cause I know my differs greatly from yours.



Do you mean more is given? If there's something more concrete then I may have missed it, but I don't believe so. Everything posted is trying to reconcile why he did something. In reality, Palp said to clear the temple and he went and did it. I don't recall any return comment or justification offered by Vader?


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (May 31, 2005)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> Do you mean more is given?




Yes I do.  In summery and paraphrases as I can’t quote it line for line, Palpatine said that the Council did not trust Anakin, that they  didn't tell him of theirs plan to kill Palpatine and take over the senate.  That the Jedi need were stubborn that they wouldn’t be left alone unless they were all killed.

Rather it was the truth, and in with any good lie there is some truth, or an outright lie doesn’t really matter nor was it, as you suggested:



			
				Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> Regardless though, in the movie, the motivation of Vader killing the children is because "now he's evil." Nothing more is given.




Vader was ending the war, which he hated, was one step closer to saving his wife, which he wanted more than anything else, and protecting the government, which he believed in.


----------



## mojo1701 (May 31, 2005)

TwistedBishop said:
			
		

> It just wouldn't make sense for "Anger" to *be* the dark side, or else every ten year old in history would be a sith lord.




There's a difference between anger and a tantrum.


----------



## Psychic Warrior (May 31, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> It would help if you didn't leave out a number of steps there.  Like, his murder of the sand people, his belief that the Jedi are purposefully excluding him from all kinds of things, his convincing that the Jedi are traitors, his constant non-help from exactly those who should have helped him understand what to do, like Yoda or Mace Windu.
> 
> He's not just "troubled" and "confused" and if that's all you got out of the movies, you _really_ need to watch all of the prequels again, and wake up this time when they're doing something else besides fighting.




Bingo!  Exactly what I thought when a friend of mine made similar arguements as the original poster of this thread.

Anakin's turn to the dark side was very well handled - if you actually count what happened in the last movie as well.  When he strikes down Mace Windu that is the last, final act that pushed him over the edge.  To him there is no other recourse but to follow the Sith Lord - the Jedi will kill him for his actions (at least in his mind).

I was quite pleasently surprised at how well Anakin's fall was done.  Of course it takes a lot longer for him to fall than it did for him to be 'redeemed' in RotJ.


----------



## takyris (May 31, 2005)

Ironically, the sand-people scene was one of the worst and shoddiest parts of AotC for me, which might explain why I didn't factor it in, and why the fall in RotS was so disappointing for me after the good lead-up (watching Palpatine say all the right things while the Jedi say all the wrong things).

Regardless, if a movie requires a massive online defense by its fans to explain why important plot points did not suck as much as the casual observer thought, that probably says something about the movie's direction and script.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (May 31, 2005)

takyris said:
			
		

> Regardless, if a movie requires a massive online defense by its fans to explain why important plot points did not suck as much as the casual observer thought, that probably says something about the movie's direction and script.




Actually, I have yet to meet a casual observer who has complaints (beyond the Portman-Christiansen dynamic).  By posting about this on a geek messageboard, you have officially lost your casual status, Taky.

Essentially, we have two groups of fans here.  One that requires explanation, and one that is happy to fill in the gaps.  Oh, and the third, that just had a good time and isn't too worried about the gaps, but they're notoriously quiet on the boards.


----------



## mojo1701 (May 31, 2005)

Canis said:
			
		

> Oh, and the third, that just had a good time and isn't too worried about the gaps, but they're notoriously quiet on the boards.




It's not that we're quiet. It's that everyone else is LOUD!

LOUD NOISES!


----------



## takyris (May 31, 2005)

Canis said:
			
		

> Actually, I have yet to meet a casual observer who has complaints (beyond the Portman-Christiansen dynamic).  By posting about this on a geek messageboard, you have officially lost your casual status, Taky.




I hate losing my casual status! 

I guess I hang out in mostly geek cultures, then. My office (which is a computer game company) is full of people making the general complaints that have been raised in this forum (dialogue bad, love scenes bad, Anakin's fall too fast, even among the people who liked the movie overall), and my online buddies raised the same complaints. The only complaint I've raised that wasn't raised by many of my friends as well is the fight-scene complaint (although another geek buddy and I talked shop on that for awhile), but I'm willing to chalk that one up to just me.

Then there are the movie reviewers -- but again, I'm guessing that you don't consider these people to be casual observers, so whatever their average response is (I'm guessing that most share my complaints to a certain extent, although the ratings may be higher because they said "I'm ignoring the dialogue and focusing on the fight scenes", which they liked -- but I've only read a few reviews, so my random sampling is nowhere near enough to be conclusive), it doesn't factor in here.

So, nobody on this board fits your casual observer profile. I'm guessing that my office buddies don't fit, and neither do my computer geek buddies, the vast majority of whom shared my opinion of the major problems with the movie. Movie reviewers don't fit. So who does? 

And more importantly, why are we using this definition of "casual observer", when it removes pretty much all of us?

By "casual observer", I meant myself -- someone who is not a film student or a Hollywood wannabe, who went in looking to be entertained and not to schmooze or make deep literary judgments. By "casual observer", I also meant "person who has read a few of the Star Wars extended universe novels, but not all of them, and doesn't know the names of every race featured in the movie or the various ship configurations beyond the easy obvious ones in the original three movies, so I'll be watching the movie as someone who has seen all of the other movies but doesn't have an encyclopedic knowledge of the universe."

That's what I meant by "casual observer." People who had seen all the movies leading up to this one (the three original movies and the two prequels) and came in looking to be entertained.



> Essentially, we have two groups of fans here.  One that requires explanation, and one that is happy to fill in the gaps.  Oh, and the third, that just had a good time and isn't too worried about the gaps, but they're notoriously quiet on the boards.




I wouldn't say "requires explanation" for my group, if indeed I'm in one of those groups. I said it in another thread: if you're swimming in a lagoon, and you can't see the bottom, it's either because the water is deep, or because the water is murky. Deep is good. Murky is not. Episode III was not deep enough for the problems to be the result of deep mythic themes that can only be understood by people who work hard to study its intricate mysteries. That's my group: the group that thought it had promise but ended up not living up to that promise because of poor execution on the director's part.

On a just-me note, I'm disappointed that so many people don't seem to care about lousy dialogue, as this means that the movie industry will not take this as a message that the dialogue in their movies has to improve -- just as if the movie had lame enviornments and wonderful dialogue, I'd be a happy camper but several people here would be complaining that we need to send a message to movie-folks that they have to have better effects and more CG-intensive environments in their movies.


----------



## Banshee16 (May 31, 2005)

mojo1701 said:
			
		

> There's a difference between anger and a tantrum.




What's the difference?  They're both anger.  A tantrum, IMO, is just anger being expressed by somebody with an inability to control or moderate their emotions....or at least how they act while experiencing that emotion.

Banshee


----------



## mojo1701 (May 31, 2005)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> What's the difference?  They're both anger.  A tantrum, IMO, is just anger being expressed by somebody with an inability to control or moderate their emotions....or at least how they act while experiencing that emotion.
> 
> Banshee




They DO eventually wear themselves out, though. Anger can fester.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (May 31, 2005)

takyris said:
			
		

> That's what I meant by "casual observer." People who had seen all the movies leading up to this one (the three original movies and the two prequels) and came in looking to be entertained.




Well how about we look at a poll on a casual website for movies: (Note I'm only bringing over the percentage.)

Ours
0: 2.19%
1: 0% 
2: 0.63%
3: 2.19%
4: 3.13%
5: 6.88%
6: 10.00%
7: 15.00%
8: 29.38%
9: 17.19%
10: 13.44%

IMDB
1: 3.3%
2: 0.7%
3: 1.1%
4: 1.3%
5: 2.2%
6: 3.9%
7: 7.8%
8: 13.4%
9: 20.7%
10: 45.5%

It seems like most people got the movie...  :shrugs:


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 31, 2005)

Brother Shatterstone said:
			
		

> Well how about we look at a poll on a casual website for movies: (Note I'm only bringing over the percentage.)
> 
> Ours
> 0: 2.19%
> ...




I tend to think that most people that discuss longer than 1 hour about a movie are probably no longer "casual viewers". They got too involved. A casual viewer watches a movie, enjoys or dislikes it, and then goes on with "his life" ...


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (May 31, 2005)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> I tend to think that most people that discuss longer than 1 hour about a movie are probably no longer "casual viewers". They got too involved. A casual viewer watches a movie, enjoys or dislikes it, and then goes on with "his life" ...




If you have another poll that would be as unbiased as IMDB please post it up.  If not I would assume that it’s as casual as you can get. :shurg:

They've also had 39,714 votes.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Jun 1, 2005)

takyris said:
			
		

> I hate losing my casual status!
> 
> I guess I hang out in mostly geek cultures, then.



As do I.  It's very strange to wander around the lab and hear a few complaints, check the boards and see LOTS of complaints, and then get phone calls from my family and non-geek friends that go something like, "Wow!  That was great!  You must have REALLY loved it, huh?"

Of course, most of those people liked I and II also.  Again, barring the total lack of chemistry between Portman and Christiansen, which is something that seems to bug everyone.  But the non-geeks and non-reviewers seem more able to shrug their shoulders and say, "Meh.  You can't have everything.  And wasn't Obi-wan freakin' cool?"

Personally, as I get older I favor that approach.  It allows you to enjoy your entertainment a lot more.  I can nitpick my research, my finances, etc. and let the fun things be fun without my interference.



> So, nobody on this board fits your casual observer profile. I'm guessing that my office buddies don't fit, and neither do my computer geek buddies, the vast majority of whom shared my opinion of the major problems with the movie. Movie reviewers don't fit. So who does?



90% of the people I know in real life (though only about half of the people I work with).  10% of the people I know on-line.



> And more importantly, why are we using this definition of "casual observer", when it removes pretty much all of us?



It removes most of the people here.  It removes a lot of the people I work with.  It leaves the balance of the population that is causing the movie to break records.



> By "casual observer", I meant myself -- someone who is not a film student or a Hollywood wannabe, who went in looking to be entertained and not to schmooze or make deep literary judgments.



Dude.  You're a WRITER.  If you can STOP making literary judgments, I'll be surprised.



> That's what I meant by "casual observer." People who had seen all the movies leading up to this one (the three original movies and the two prequels) and came in looking to be entertained.



Assuming you meet that definition (and I have my doubts) there's one of you who didn't enjoy it and a few dozen people I know who really, really did.  And then there's the imdb results.

Very interesting how different the skew is on that poll compared to ours.

For the record, I'm not saying that we should all dumb ourselves down to the point of completely ignoring the lumps in a movie.  However, it might pay people to step back for a second, and see the lumps in the context of the creamy mashed potatoes they inhabit.


----------



## fett527 (Jun 1, 2005)

takyris said:
			
		

> ...Regardless, if a movie requires a massive online defense by its fans to explain why important plot points did not suck as much as the casual observer thought, that probably says something about the movie's direction and script.





How do you come to this conclusion?  If someone has the right to get on this board and describe something that they feel almost ruined the entire movie for them then why can't I, or someone else, respond to that accusation with why we feel it didn't ruin the movie.  How does that turn into "a massive online defense by its fans"?


----------



## takyris (Jun 1, 2005)

Canis: Good points. I don't remember whether it was this thread or the general rate-the-movie thread, but I am not denying movie-rating results. I am disappointed in them, and I am specifically disappointed that people are saying what they are saying in their reviews and then still giving the movie 4.5 stars, because if they really believe the things they are saying, I personally don't think they should give them those reviews.

Fett, that's also a good point. Perhaps I've gotten overly defensive. I have no intention of wandering into a thread titled "I loved Revenge of the Sith!" and raining on people's parades with my own disappointment, but in a thread whose stated purpose is to talk about a problem with the movie (this one, with the shoddy execution of Anakin's fall, after a nicely done lead-up), or in a general thread whose purpose is to get opinions from both sides (rate-the-movie), I'm getting feelings from people that suggest that the opinions of anyone who didn't like the movie are not welcome. As a result of getting that impression, I've gotten a bit more entrenched in my position than I initially was. If you want me to shut up about how I was largely disappointed by the movie, the best way to *not* get me to do that is to a) tell me that I'm wrong because I didn't understand the true depth of a poorly written popcorn flick, b) tell me that I'm elitist, or c) act like it's a sacred relic and it's too close to your heart, and that I'm personally insulting you by saying something bad about it, and you're just really not ready to hear any complaints about it yet.

a) and b) are truly pernicious working in tandem, because you've got one group coming up with massively deep extrapolated explanations for why the plotholes you saw weren't actually plotholes, and if you counter with an appropriate level of criticism for that, you're informed that you're just being a literary snob, and that the average folks on the street don't care about such minutiae. c) is fine, but if you really feel that way, you shouldn't hang out in threads whose stated purpose is to talk about a flaw or get a full spectrum of opinions. You should stick to the fan-threads, much as I would stick to "I love Buffy!" threads or "Firefly is awesome!" threads and not hang out in "Why Firefly sucks" or "Wonderfalls: Totally lame", getting huffy about people insulting the religious experience that was my Firefly series marathon.

Hence, me getting defensive. I'm not an idiot, I'm not an elitist, and I'm not trying to ruin anybody's happiest day evar, but I am going to post in threads related to full-spectrum discussion about the movie with my opinion. And either I've done a much better job at surrounding myself with geeks than the average Joe, or I've got a weird random sampling, because I *haven't* heard that the movie was the bestest thing ever as the average response from the people I know. The average response has been more positive than mine, but basically boiled down to "Fun action stuff, but Lucas really shouldn't try to write. There was a lot of stupid stuff in there, so at the end I was just watching for the fight scenes."


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jun 1, 2005)

I don't think your trying to be elitist, just like your saying your not, but this...



			
				takyris said:
			
		

> I am disappointed in them, and I am specifically disappointed that people are saying what they are saying in their reviews and then still giving the movie 4.5 stars, because if they really believe the things they are saying, I personally don't think they should give them those reviews."




Works very much against you...  cause it really seems like your saying that shouldn't be able to give reviews because they don’t agree with you?   



			
				takyris said:
			
		

> ...because if they really believe the things they are saying, I personally don't think they should give them those reviews."




Really??? I hope not cause if that what you really mean then I'm very much sorry for you...  Everyone is entitled to his or her opinions, and everyone in titled to give their own review. :\


----------



## Henry (Jun 1, 2005)

Brother Shatterstone said:
			
		

> Works very much against you...  cause it really seems like your saying that shouldn't be able to give reviews because they don’t agree with you?




I read it rather as _"Why are reviewers shooting holes in the movies, and then turning around and giving the movie 4 or 5 stars?"_ Tacky, however, only knows for certain if that's what he meant.


----------



## takyris (Jun 1, 2005)

Brother Shatterstone said:
			
		

> ...  cause it really seems like your saying that shouldn't be able to give reviews because they don’t agree with you?




That's a misreading of what I wrote. If someone absolutely loved the dialogue, thought the plot had no holes whatsoever, thought the love-scenes were top-notch, and felt that Anakin's fall was handled beautifully, then I have no problem with them giving it a 9 or a 10. You had no problems with the dialogue, the love scenes, the handling of Anakin's fall, the fact that a woman dies because of "losing her will to live", or anything else -- therefore, the assumedly high rating you gave the movie is completely fine with me. I disagree with you, but it doesn't bother me, unless you come after me under the assumption that I'm not understanding something because of my rating.

However, if someone says in their review that the dialogue was weak, the plot was forced in some places, and the fall could have been done better because of several noted errors (in the reviewers opinion), and then says, "But because this was a Star Wars movie with lots of lightsaber fights and I got to see Chewbacca, I gave it a 9," that's disappointing to me. The implicit (and, from some people here, quite explicit) inflation of rating because Lucas let you see the Falcon in one brief shot, or because the guy who plays Scorpy in Farscape gets to be a young Tarkin in the background -- stuff that isn't a reflection of the movie's merits as a film but a bump-up because of easter-eggs and fan-throw-ins -- is a little annoying to me, but understandable in a franchise, much like the big comics fans will bump up their rating of a comic-book movie if a minor character they like has a brief role (if Daredevil's alter-ego, the lawyer, defended Spider-man in a brief cameo, for example).

The implicit (and, from some people here, quite explicit) inflation of the rating because people either feel bad giving a Star Wars movie a low rating or feel that lame dialogue and stupid plotholes shouldn't bring down the rating of a movie when that movie has a sword with a glow-effect in it rather severely bums me out.

It's not because they disagree with me. I'm fine with a difference of opinion with people who disagree with me, like you, Shatterstone, provided that everything is mutually respectful and nobody puts words in anyone else's mouth. What I'm not fine with is people who have the same problems with the movie that I did but don't have the nerve to use any of the numbers below 6. I'm not saying that I'm going to try to stop them. I'm not saying that I want moderators to remove their posts. I'm saying that if you actually did have problems with the movie but gave it a cushy grade so that you could get into the nice comfortable part of the bell curve with all the people who had no problems whatsoever with the dialogue or the plot, that's disappointing to me. There's no objective system for rating, but in my ratings sytem, a movie with stuff that I have to grit my teeth to get through to the good parts is not a 9. If there are multiple parts that made me cringe for more than a few seconds, it's not even an 8 or a 7, even if there are really good parts elsewhere in the movie.

Giving anything above a 7 to Revenge of the Sith if you had problems with the dialogue or love-scenes or plotholes is effectively saying, "Dialogue, love-scenes, and coherent plots aren't important in films like this." And while, like I said, I won't report the post and try to get your vote blocked, I will quite honestly admit that that's pretty disappointing to me. If the world at large rates the movie that way (and the world at large seems to be doing so), that doesn't bode well for dialogue, love-scenes, or coherent plots (by the standards of people who had trouble with them) in SF movies in the future. The message that sends to studios is "Big effects, and write the plot around the effects, and get a hot chick to sleepwalk through the love story with."

Anyone willing to live with the crushing despair that comes from knowing that somewhere, Takyris is disappointed with their rating of the most recent Star Wars movie can go their merry way. 



Really??? I hope not cause if that what you really mean then I'm very much sorry for you...  Everyone is entitled to his or her opinions, and everyone in titled to give their own review. :\[/QUOTE]


----------



## Henry (Jun 1, 2005)

takyris said:
			
		

> Giving anything above a 7 to Revenge of the Sith if you had problems with the dialogue or love-scenes or plotholes is effectively saying, "Dialogue, love-scenes, and coherent plots aren't important in films like this." And while, like I said, I won't report the post and try to get your vote blocked, I will quite honestly admit that that's pretty disappointing to me.




That's what I thought you said. 

However, one can be nitpicky while still objectively realizing that a movie has all the elements that make it great entertainment: Action, nice allegory and allusion, stylish scenery, and beautiful musical score. This would still net a decent score (say, 7 or 8 like ENWorld seems to warrant) but not be completely happy with it. These are the people who are being nitpicky for nitpicky's sake, because they love it so much. The fact that it wasn't the best of the series doesn't mean it wasn't good. You're also dealing with the fact that it's fresher in their minds than the other movies right now on average, so there's a memory bias that goes on too.

Example: There have been gaming sessions that have gone by where I recognize that NOTHING got done - we cut up, chatted, did little in-character other than a shopping trip, and out of comparison to other gaming sessions it sucked; however, the fact is that we still gamed and had a good time.  It was still entertaining.

My Take? I liked it, and would solidly rate it #2 or #3 out of 6, right behind Empire Strikes Back, and possibly A New Hope.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jun 1, 2005)

Takyris, aye that made alot more sense.  Sorry for not understanding the first time around. 

To me a rating is more than its mechanical nature…  It comes down to one thing and one thing only…  Was I entertained? Very much so. 

My only darn complaint is that after viewing it three times at the theater I want to see it again and I still haven’t figure out what Padmé says at the very end…

“blah blah blah blah blah name… No I know, I know.” (I think...)


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Jun 1, 2005)

Taky, you may have a point.  But then, most people are not nearly as objective as they pretend to be.  I'm certainly not.  Ultimately, I walked out of all 3 of the prequels with happy feelings in my tummy.  My brain interpreted this as "me likee."

That's as far as I need to go with it.

Sure, I can talk all about the good and bad points, the plot holes or lack thereof.  I can give you a detailed analysis of the parts I didn't like for all 3 of them.  I can tell you how I (in my clearly superior wisdom) would do them "better."

But I probably can't tell you in a logical manner why I liked it.  I just did.

It's much easier to sound smart when you're tearing something down than when you're building it up.

No wonder it's so fashionable to hate things on the internet.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jun 1, 2005)

Brother Shatterstone said:
			
		

> My only darn complaint is that after viewing it three times at the theater I want to see it again and I still haven’t figure out what Padmé says at the very end…
> 
> “blah blah blah blah blah name… No I know, I know.” (I think...)




[sblock]"There is still good in him...I know...I know there's still...."[/sblock]

But you didn't hear it from me, and you should probably see it again just to make sure you get the EXACT wording just right.


----------



## exile (Jun 1, 2005)

*Anakin was inherently/predestined to be evil*

I'd like to propose a theory that Anakin's fall was not too fast because he was inherently/predestined to be evil. If you harken back to Episode I, you'll recall Shmi Skywalker stating that "there was no father". Back then, I though it might mean that Anakin was the product of rape or maybe that this was some attempt to portray him as a Christ figure. I was finally treated to a much more satisfactory answer in Episode III when Palpatine shared the tale of Darth Plaguis the Wise, saying something to the effect that Darth Plaguis learned to create life. This leads me to believe that Anakin was some sort of "test tube Sith" made out of midichlorians and grown inside Shmi. If he was made using the Dark Side, would it nots tand to reason that he was in fact inherently evil?
Chad


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Jun 2, 2005)

exile said:
			
		

> I'd like to propose a theory that Anakin's fall was not too fast because he was inherently/predestined to be evil. If you harken back to Episode I, you'll recall Shmi Skywalker stating that "there was no father". Back then, I though it might mean that Anakin was the product of rape or maybe that this was some attempt to portray him as a Christ figure. I was finally treated to a much more satisfactory answer in Episode III when Palpatine shared the tale of Darth Plaguis the Wise, saying something to the effect that Darth Plaguis learned to create life. This leads me to believe that Anakin was some sort of "test tube Sith" made out of midichlorians and grown inside Shmi. If he was made using the Dark Side, would it nots tand to reason that he was in fact inherently evil?
> Chad



When did everyone decide that Lucas wasn't allowed to use mythic concepts anymore?

The man has said it was indeed supposed to be a virgin birth, why MUST it be a Sith conspiracy instead?  What's wrong with prophecy and predestination in Star Wars?

Plus, if he was inherently evil, doesn't the end of the whole saga make a LOT less sense?  If anything, I would suspect the opposite was true.


----------



## Trickstergod (Jun 3, 2005)

Canis said:
			
		

> When did everyone decide that Lucas wasn't allowed to use mythic concepts anymore?
> 
> The man has said it was indeed supposed to be a virgin birth, why MUST it be a Sith conspiracy instead?  What's wrong with prophecy and predestination in Star Wars?
> 
> Plus, if he was inherently evil, doesn't the end of the whole saga make a LOT less sense?  If anything, I would suspect the opposite was true.




Many people find the virgin birth thing obnoxious at the very least, sacriligeous at worst. I prefer a Sith conspiracy because, while I don't mind destiny completely, I prefer it not to be so heavy-handed nor for the Force to necessarily have a will of its own. 

As for Anakin being inherently evil, it makes his fall make much more sense _and_ makes his redemption all that more the powerful. The circumstances behind his redemption are plausible and an inherent tendency to evil gives his throwing it off all that stronger of a message about ideals overcoming nature.


----------



## Joshua Randall (Jun 3, 2005)

Brother Shatterstone said:
			
		

> My only darn complaint is that after viewing it three times at the theater I want to see it again and I still haven’t figure out what Padmé says at the very end…



I know how you feel. The first time I saw _Return of the Jedi_, I could not for the life of me figure out what Yoda was trying to say just before he died. Given that he says something pretty damn important, I felt like I missed out on a big revelation.

I know it's dramatic for people to gasp out a final message as they die, but can't they speak more clearly while doing so? Sheesh.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jun 3, 2005)

I think Obi-Wan in EP IV tells Luke the Force does partially control you, but you can direct it as well.  So the Force creating Anakin to be an antibody that will rid it of the cancer that is the Sith is ok with me.  Or maybe it was a Sith conspiracy.  Qui-Gon and others were always talking about listening to the living Force, and let the Force guide you and other stuff like that.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jun 3, 2005)

Joshua Randall said:
			
		

> I know how you feel. The first time I saw _Return of the Jedi_, I could not for the life of me figure out what Yoda was trying to say just before he died. Given that he says something pretty damn important, I felt like I missed out on a big revelation.




Yeah but it is revealed a few seconds later.... (If I remember correctly)  While what Padmé says isn't even mentioned again.  

Of course I could be wrong… I still have no clue what she was trying to say.  



			
				Joshua Randall said:
			
		

> I know it's dramatic for people to gasp out a final message as they die, but can't they speak more clearly while doing so? Sheesh.




First showing I saw, midnight showing, everyone in my area of the theater turned to look at each other and everyone just had to shrug...  So yeah she could/should have spoken more clearly.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Jun 3, 2005)

Trickstergod said:
			
		

> Many people find the virgin birth thing obnoxious at the very least, sacriligeous at worst.



 That is spoken in ignorance of the pervasiveness of virgin and otherwise "special" births throughout mythology and most religions.  If a virgin birth other than Christ's is sacriligeous, than we need to ban a lot of books fast.



> As for Anakin being inherently evil, it makes his fall make much more sense _and_ makes his redemption all that more the powerful. The circumstances behind his redemption are plausible and an inherent tendency to evil gives his throwing it off all that stronger of a message about ideals overcoming nature.



 No, it makes his redemption inexplicable to my mind.  If he's inherently evil and really only wants Luke with him to further his own power, why do what he did when Luke proved "inferior"?  It makes a LOT more sense that Luke's actions brought to mind his own youth, Padme, and all that he was before the Clone Wars and his fall.  That combined with yet again witnessing the true depths of Palpatine's dedication to people (and thereby the true selfishness of the Dark Side that Anakin seemed to be ignoring in Ep. III) is more than enough break through to the core of goodness in a person gone wrong, but doesn't seem enough to seed it on infertile ground.  YMMV, of course.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jun 3, 2005)

Brother Shatterstone said:
			
		

> First showing I saw, midnight showing, everyone in my area of the theater turned to look at each other and everyone just had to shrug...  So yeah she could/should have spoken more clearly.




Everytime I've seen it, everyone seemed to understand it. It took me a moment at first, but it wasn't as raspy or quiet as Yoda's last words were. And if you do want to know what she said, BS, I posted it up some in this thread.


----------



## sniffles (Jun 3, 2005)

My fiancee and I have concluded that the real reason for Anakin's descent into evil was because everyone kept calling him "young Jedi" or "young apprentice" or "my young friend".  Heck, even his own -wife- called him 'Ani'!!  


That's enough to drive anyone to the Dark Side.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jun 3, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Everytime I've seen it, everyone seemed to understand it. It took me a moment at first, but it wasn't as raspy or quiet as Yoda's last words were. And if you do want to know what she said, BS, I posted it up some in this thread.




The other two showings seem to have done better at understanding her…  and cool somehow I missed your post.


----------



## Hijinks (Jun 3, 2005)

Quick hijack... I know the "quote" button is handy, but if someone posts something that's multiple paragraphs long, say more than 5 paragraphs, and you just want to put "Very well stated," can you please snip the quote, instead of quoting the guy's 10 paragraphs right below where he just posted it?  I don't want to scroll through it all after I just read through it.  Thank you *bow*

Anyway...



> There may be reasons for her (Shmi) to stay in slavery, but I'm unconvinced




Why DID Obi-Wan leave Shmi behind?  When she'd specifically told him that Anakin was a virgin birth?  And Obi-Wan sensed such promise in the child?  And if Anakin loved his mother so much, why didn't he get some money and go back and buy her from the little blue flying guy?  Why didn't he just TAKE her once he gained some power?  I've thought that was odd since I first saw Episode I, that the poor lady gave birth to the kid then got forgotten...


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jun 3, 2005)

Hijinks said:
			
		

> Why DID Obi-Wan leave Shmi behind?  When she'd specifically told him that Anakin was a virgin birth?  And Obi-Wan sensed such promise in the child?  And if Anakin loved his mother so much, why didn't he get some money and go back and buy her from the little blue flying guy?  Why didn't he just TAKE her once he gained some power?  I've thought that was odd since I first saw Episode I, that the poor lady gave birth to the kid then got forgotten...




_Obi-Wan_ never once encountered Shmi at all. Qui-Gon was the one who met her...and he left her behind because getting into trouble with the Hutts was not a good thing to do when the Queen was already being hunted. If they'd been found out, the Hutts wouldn't hesitate selling them all back to the Trade Federation.

As for why they didn't go back...they had to go to Naboo and keep the Queen safe. Not only that, but Qui-Gon DIED, so any realy motivation of going back to get her was left with Anakin. And even then, his mother told him not to look back. He didn't...at least not until he started having those dreams around AotC.


----------



## Hijinks (Jun 3, 2005)

Yeah my bad, was Qui-gon not Obi-wan.


I find it extremely hard to see any good qualities in Anakin's character, even when he was a child, if he was that eager to run off and leave mom behind without a look back.  Folks here in this thread have stated that he was afraid to leave his mother's side, but then he never thinks of her again in ten years or so?  Peculiar.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jun 4, 2005)

Hijinks said:
			
		

> I find it extremely hard to see any good qualities in Anakin's character, even when he was a child, if he was that eager to run off and leave mom behind without a look back.




What about tossing the Emperor to save his son?  



			
				Hijinks said:
			
		

> Folks here in this thread have stated that he was afraid to leave his mother's side, but then he never thinks of her again in ten years or so?  Peculiar.




He was still a young child and hardly the master of his own destiny...


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jun 4, 2005)

Brother Shatterstone said:
			
		

> He was still a young child and hardly the master of his own destiny...




Not only that, but he had a bunch of smaller adventures all through his training, so he was very busy. Really, its not that bad at all. His mother believed that it was best that he go on. She wasn't thinking about herself at all. Even when Anakin asked Qui-Gon if his mother had been freed, Shmi was neutral and didn't look angry/sad/whatever.


----------



## Demmero (Jun 5, 2005)

Originally Posted by Hijinks
I find it extremely hard to see any good qualities in Anakin's character, even when he was a child, if he was that eager to run off and leave mom behind without a look back.



			
				Brother Shatterstone said:
			
		

> What about tossing the Emperor to save his son?
> 
> Watching the movie, I had a lot of the same feelings about Anakin's fall seeming rushed.  After reading through this thread, though, I now know what really bugs me.  Hijinks is right: we don't see enough good qualities in Anakin in the movies; when he's doing something admirable, more often than not he's either following Obi-Wan's lead or rushing off against orders to save the day and show off what a great Jedi he is.  When Mace plans on doing the same thing to Palpatine that Anakin himself did to Dooku, he gets all high-and-mighty and takes the Sith's side.  As he turns to the Dark Side, he has no qualms about killing the Jedi younglings.  For the most part, IMHO, he's a selfish monster.
> 
> ...


----------



## Templetroll (Jun 5, 2005)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> I think Obi-Wan in EP IV tells Luke the Force does partially control you, but you can direct it as well.  So the Force creating Anakin to be an antibody that will rid it of the cancer that is the Sith is ok with me.  Or maybe it was a Sith conspiracy.  Qui-Gon and others were always talking about listening to the living Force, and let the Force guide you and other stuff like that.





Chewie was the jedi agent to get Han and the Falcon in the right place to help Luke and Obi-Wan.      jedi plans take years to come to fruition.

At least the one guy said, "Wipe the protocol droid's memory."  Finally, someone acknowledged that no one was remembering having seen those damn droids before.  Darth Vader sensed something (Obi-Wan) but didn't recognize the droids he _built/used _ for several years?!?

I've come to the conclusion that the Dark Side of the Force is not far removed from the Force as exhibited by that Jedi Council.  The change for Darth did not take a long time because it was not that far a jump from their training to the Dark Side.

The prequels improved as they went along.  This was decent movie, although it still had its bits that annoyed me.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jun 5, 2005)

Templetroll said:
			
		

> Darth Vader sensed something (Obi-Wan) but didn't recognize the droids he _built/used _ for several years?!?




Vader actually never saw 3PO until he was in pieces on Cloud City. There's an EXTREMELY well written comic with him reflecting on it, which has one of my favorite images ever of Vader holding 3POs head to his helmet.

Of course, thinking about it now...I don't think Vader ever actually sees R2 through the OT at all. Well, except for shooting him in A New Hope, but that was starfighter combat and doesn't count.


----------



## Vigilance (Jun 5, 2005)

Demmero said:
			
		

> Attachment is a bad thing when it comes to the Force




Ok, I keep seeing this and I think people are WAY over reacting to the "no attachment" thing.

Jedi don't strive to be feeling-less, cold and inhuman.

Qui-Gon tried to free Annakin's mother, "but Wato wouldn't have it". Remember that line? Everyone harps on the attachment line. 

And remember Qui-Gon also stated that "nothing happens by chance". So his inability to free Shmi was an expression that her destiny lay along a different path from her son. And you know what, he was right. 

She was freed, married and happy. Yes she eventually died, but as a result of something that was a hazard of living where she lived. Based on their various appearances in the films, the sandpeople are responsible for a lot of deaths on Tatooine.

So her slavery didn't kill her, yet Annakin still has a fit and acts like its the Jedi's fault that she died.

Ahhh, now we're getting to this attachment thing. Misplaced rage. Taking YOUR guilt over choosing the exciting life of a Jedi over being a slave's fix-it man and DISPLACING it on people who have helped you.

That's the sort of "attachment" I think Yoda warns against.

Its the bordering-on-obsession-need-a-restraining-order type of attachment.

You know, like lying to your closest friends about being in love. About having mixed feelings when she turns up pregnant and the secret will be revealed (did anyone else see that look on Annakin's face when she says she's pregnant? he didn't look HAPPY to me). 

For me THAT moment was when Annakin started looking for a way out. He already felt he should be in charge. Why wasn't he already on the council? Oh yeah, they were "jealous".

And if they had LET him on the council, how long before he wanted to know why Yoda and Mace were in charge and not him? 

And Palpatine knew exactly how Annakin thought. How he wanted to be "special". Special in the sense that the rules didn't apply to him. That was why he appointed him to the council, to fuel his ambition.

Oh and when the woman Annakin "loved so much" wasn't willing to go along with him and thought about leaving, he force-choked her. He was the stalker-abusive type of mate we see so often in the real world. They are kind and loving some of the time too.

THAT is attachment.

Chuck

PS For those "Annakin fell too fast" folks. Sheesh, its a movie. Othello went from devoted husband to wife-murderer in 2 hours too. Mostly cause audiences don't prefer to watch events happen in real time.


----------



## Demmero (Jun 5, 2005)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Ok, I keep seeing this and I think people are WAY over reacting to the "no attachment" thing.
> 
> Jedi don't strive to be feeling-less, cold and inhuman.
> 
> ...




Addressing the second part of the quote first, I don't agree.  It seems (and maybe I'm wrong; I haven't read the SW novels) that Jedi aren't allowed to marry, period.  Not all married couples have a "bordering-on-obsession-need-a-restraining-order" variety of attachment; some are soulmates who can have a soothing, calming, strengthening effect on their partner.

Going back to the first part of the quote, I agree, yet it seems that some of their rules push its members in that direction.  I especially like your use of the word "inhuman."  Maybe some of the Jedi rules are indeed meant to make its members inhuman, or at least less human.  (Are Obi-Wan, Mace, Annakin, Leia, etc. considered "human" in the Star Wars universe?).  Maybe there's a message in there...maybe love and attachment are more powerful in humans than in other intelligent life forms that fill out the ranks of the Jedi and the other people of the galaxy.  As such they can be dangerous and should always be kept at arm's length.


----------



## Kaledor (Jun 5, 2005)

A minor thought of mine:


			
				Vigilance said:
			
		

> [Shmi] was freed, married and happy. Yes she eventually died, but as a result of something that was a hazard of living where she lived. Based on their various appearances in the films, the sandpeople are responsible for a lot of deaths on Tatooine.




After seeing AotC the first time, I didn't think it was an accident that Shmi was taken by the sandpeople.  I half expected to find out in number III that the Emporer did it.  Isn't it commmented on in II that sandpeople rarely take people and even rarer to they just do it to torture them?  If the Palp was somehow behind it, it ended up being a great way to start Vader's path...  Besides, we see Vader himself use a similar method in Empire when he tortures Han ("He didn't even ask me any questions...") to try and draw Luke to Bespin... so the dark side recognizes it at as a tried and true tactic.

Just a thought.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 5, 2005)

Demmero said:
			
		

> Addressing the second part of the quote first, I don't agree.  It seems (and maybe I'm wrong; I haven't read the SW novels) that Jedi aren't allowed to marry, period.  Not all married couples have a "bordering-on-obsession-need-a-restraining-order" variety of attachment; some are soulmates who can have a soothing, calming, strengthening effect on their partner.
> 
> Going back to the first part of the quote, I agree, yet it seems that some of their rules push its members in that direction.  I especially like your use of the word "inhuman."  Maybe some of the Jedi rules are indeed meant to make its members inhuman, or at least less human.  (Are Obi-Wan, Mace, Annakin, Leia, etc. considered "human" in the Star Wars universe?).  Maybe there's a message in there...maybe love and attachment are more powerful in humans than in other intelligent life forms that fill out the ranks of the Jedi and the other people of the galaxy.  As such they can be dangerous and should always be kept at arm's length.



Maybe it also tells us that the Jedi were not as smart and wise as they believed. There must be a reason (or several ones) why the were able to be fooled by a single Dark Lord, even coming to his aid several times before they finally figured that something might be wrong - annd then utterly destroyed by one of their own...

Maybe not only the Dark Side was a problem for the force and its balance - maybe the Jedi did also unbalance things. 

I think part of the episode I to III did show that neither the "Old Republic" nor the Jedi Order were perfect and good institutions. They had severe problems, and the whole appearence of the two Sith and the resulting destruction of the Republic and the Jedi was a neccessary evil for the Universe. 
This view is even further confirmed when I add the Expanded Universe (especially New jedi Order) into the mix, and the computer games (most notably Knights of the Old Republic I and II). The past indicates the failures and shortcoming of Jedi and the Republic, and the new ones do also indicate that all this will happen again... (Reminds me a bit of the Battlestar Galactica TNS belief - all of this has happened before, and all of this will happen again)


----------



## Vigilance (Jun 5, 2005)

> Addressing the second part of the quote first, I don't agree. It seems (and maybe I'm wrong; I haven't read the SW novels) that Jedi aren't allowed to marry, period. Not all married couples have a "bordering-on-obsession-need-a-restraining-order" variety of attachment; some are soulmates who can have a soothing, calming, strengthening effect on their partner.




I didn't say I thought it was ok Annakin and Padme were married did I? What I said was that I keep seeing Yoda's "avoid attachment" speech as an implication that Yoda thought the Jedi ideal was to be a cold-hearted bastard.

Jedi were supposed to put the order first as long as they WERE Jedi.

But as illustrated by Count Dooko, Jedi are allowed to leave without predjudice. It isnt the Mafia. Not only had Dooko left to pursue his other affairs in the eyes of the council, Mace still has a very high regard for him (until it was revealed he was a Sith natch).

So if Annakin wanted to take care of mom, get married, settle down and have a family with Padme all he had to do (as near as I can tell) is give his two weeks' notice and stop going on the cool Jedi missions and stop being trained in his kewl powers.

In other words, it was HIS choice, and "avoid attachment" doesn't mean that the Jedi think all human compassion is evil. It means that as an adult Annakin has to make a choice. Is he going to be part of a smaller world, taking care of family and friends and lovers, or is he going to put his concerns aside for the greater good?



			
				Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Maybe it also tells us that the Jedi were not as smart and wise as they believed. There must be a reason (or several ones) why the were able to be fooled by a single Dark Lord, even coming to his aid several times before they finally figured that something might be wrong - annd then utterly destroyed by one of their own...




I agree with this.

I have thought since the first film that the "balance" Annakin brings to the Force is a sweeping away of a Jedi order that become way too rules-bound. It was unnatural which is alien to the Force.

Look at Episodes I-III and we see Jedi living high in a temple that basically worships them. Taking children from their parents at birth and denying them any further contact with their parents. Refusing candidates based on solely artificial reasons ("he's too old").

Well, if you get them at birth, I guess its easier to indoctrinate them huh?

In IV-VI what we see is much more organic. Instead of living in a glittering temple Yoda lives in a simple hut and the students seek him out when they have already had a chance to LIVE somewhat. Instead of being sucked in and indoctrinated from birth, Luke *chose* to be a Jedi.


----------



## Templetroll (Jun 5, 2005)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> ......
> I have thought since the first film that the "balance" Annakin brings to the Force is a sweeping away of a Jedi order that become way too rules-bound. It was unnatural which is alien to the Force.
> 
> Look at Episodes I-III and we see Jedi living high in a temple that basically worships them. Taking children from their parents at birth and denying them any further contact with their parents. Refusing candidates based on solely artificial reasons ("he's too old").
> ...




The way Luke became and grew as a Jedi was far more satisfiying than the training, and what I saw of the Jedi in I-III.  Luke gained as a Jedi by living a life, dealing with seriously stressful situations; the training helped, but was a catalyst for some new abilities.  Note also, Luke had the wisdom to choose attachments to his friends instead of completing training with Yoda.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jun 5, 2005)

Templetroll said:
			
		

> Note also, Luke had the wisdom to choose attachments to his friends instead of completing training with Yoda.




Um...Luke did NOT make the right choice to go off to Bespin to 'save' his friends. He should have stayed back and completed his training so that a) he could actually stand a chance against Vader and b) he would be ready for the "I am your father" that was likely to come up.

Luke was NOT ready at all for any of that, and that's why he pretty much failed at everything he tried to do on Bespin. That wasn't wisdom, that was impulsiveness and not accepting that his friends would have to do things on their own. He did, however, learn from that...Anakin, on the other hand, didn't learn when presented with similar situations.

That's the real turning point between father and son, that Luke learned from his mistakes and didn't continue to build on them and make things worse for himself and everyone else.


----------



## Vigilance (Jun 6, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Um...Luke did NOT make the right choice to go off to Bespin to 'save' his friends.




Agreed. 

Not only would Han have been captured whether or not Luke showed up, but its likely that Leia, Lando and Chewie escape without Luke showing up.

In fact, if Leia hadn't rescued Luke he would likely have died or turned to the dark side.

The reverence in his voice when he answers Vader says it all. If he hadn't gotten away from Vader enough to clear his head and escape his influence, he would have turned.

This is something else I think folks are missing about Annakin seeming to "skip" a couple of steps on his path to evil.

Sure the force can only outright control the weak minded, but it sure seems to have an EFFECT on anyone, especially those receptive to it.

Yoda teaches Luke to use the Force to calm himself on Dagobah, and I infer from both Annakin's and Luke's encounters with the Emperor that he's stoking their emotional fires of hatred and desperation.

I also don't think Annakin really intends to serve the Emperor when he kneels. That's lip service. If you listen to what he says later he plans to kill the Emperor even then and take his place.

Sure he cooperates in taking out the Jedi, but A) as has been pointed out he has reasons not to like those guys and B) he could rationalize it by telling himself they were being killed anyway (remember all those scenes of Jedi Annakin did NOT kill?).

Chuck


----------



## Demmero (Jun 6, 2005)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Sure he cooperates in taking out the Jedi, but A) as has been pointed out he has reasons not to like those guys and B) he could rationalize it by telling himself they were being killed anyway (remember all those scenes of Jedi Annakin did NOT kill?).
> Chuck




A) One of his reasons for not liking them may have been that their assessment of Palpatine was more accurate than his own and that was a blow to his precious ego.

B) Or if he had a conscience, he'd realize that the other Jedi were being killed because he chose to help palpatine kill Windu.

The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that Annikin's turning to the dark side really wasn't all that rushed...he was pretty much a monster as soon as he reached adulthood.

That Annakin was so easily turned to the Dark Side is understandable--he was selfish, egotistical, weak-minded and short-sighted.  How he gets a measure of redemption at the end of RotJ is still beyond me.


----------



## Templetroll (Jun 6, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Um...Luke did NOT make the right choice to go off to Bespin to 'save' his friends. He should have stayed back and completed his training so that a) he could actually stand a chance against Vader and b) he would be ready for the "I am your father" that was likely to come up.
> 
> Luke was NOT ready at all for any of that, and that's why he pretty much failed at everything he tried to do on Bespin. That wasn't wisdom, that was impulsiveness and not accepting that his friends would have to do things on their own. He did, however, learn from that...Anakin, on the other hand, didn't learn when presented with similar situations.
> 
> That's the real turning point between father and son, that Luke learned from his mistakes and didn't continue to build on them and make things worse for himself and everyone else.




Okay, Luke, like his father, lacked some wisdom.  But, my view is that Luke, with Yoda's training, might have been able to beat Vader, thus not having the opportunity to appeal to 'something' in his father to allow Anakin to redeem himself.  

I believe that doing without 'proper training' is what allowed Luke's basic humanity to shine through and bring it out in his father.  that is why the Empire fell.  Humanity's inability to conform, to do what is expected, to obey.  It always messes up the uber computers trying to take over the world, it messed up the medichlorans that day.


----------



## David Howery (Jun 6, 2005)

I asked this in another thread, but it didn't have the spoiler tag, so noone answered it... just how did Vader find out that Luke was his son?  From what I saw in ep. 3, he thought Padme died before giving birth.  Granted, the last name is a big clue, but not a definite one... in any of the EU books, did it ever mention that Vader investigated Luke's background?


----------



## Vigilance (Jun 6, 2005)

The same way Vader realized that Luke had a sister... Force intuition.

Chuck


----------



## ddvmor (Jun 6, 2005)

Templetroll said:
			
		

> Chewie was the jedi agent to get Han and the Falcon in the right place to help Luke and Obi-Wan.  jedi plans take years to come to fruition.



In retrospect, I can't help thinking that it might have been slicker to have Obi-Wan track Grevious down to Kashyyk, giving the wookies a larger part and setting up a relationship between Obi-Wan and Chewie that would work well in Ep4.  As it is, the wookies are kind of incidental - their bit of the movie smells slightly of toy sales!

In addition, this could have given Yoda the chance to be skulking around the Jedi Temple when Anakin shows up and have a brief confrontation - obviously Ani would have had to be pretty underhand and ingenious about how he dealt with Yoda, rather than just going at it with yet another lightsaber duel.


----------



## Particle_Man (Jun 6, 2005)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> I also don't think Annakin really intends to serve the Emperor when he kneels. That's lip service. If you listen to what he says later he plans to kill the Emperor even then and take his place.




I wonder about this, and think it has something to do with the Dark Side taking over.  When one becomes evil, then one becomes selfish (natch).  And so the Sith Master-apprentice relationship becomes an interesting duet, with the master always willing to sacrifice the apprentice (alas poor dooku...and maybe poor maul...and I kinda thought Grievous was a potential if the whole Anakin thing didn't pan out) and the apprentice always ready to betray the master (how did Darth Pelagius die?).  Of course, the Emperor would know about this and so would be ready for it.  Note he doesn't spend much time agonizing over Vader's betrayal in RotJ...he just starts blasting the crap out of him.  And he never taught Vader the force lightning trick.

Therefore it says something about Vader's badassness that no other "apprentice" ever steps up to the plate to take out Vader, and also something for the Emperor's power and subtlety that Vader is not able to take out the Emperor and become the head of the two person Sith relationship (seeking a new apprentice) before RotJ.

I frankly wonder if Sidious used some Dark Side ju-ju to weaken Padme, but that is only speculation.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jun 6, 2005)

Particle_Man said:
			
		

> ITherefore it says something about Vader's badassness that no other "apprentice" ever steps up to the plate to take out Vader, and also something for the Emperor's power and subtlety that Vader is not able to take out the Emperor and become the head of the two person Sith relationship (seeking a new apprentice) before RotJ.




I think it shows more of Vader's need for a companion...  He never tried to overthrow the Emperor without the “aid” of his wife or son.  He wasn’t really living life at the time and had no ambition of his own…  He was the perfect pawn/appetence.  A true follower and not a leader.


----------



## fett527 (Jun 6, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Vader actually never saw 3PO until he was in pieces on Cloud City. There's an EXTREMELY well written comic with him reflecting on it, which has one of my favorite images ever of Vader holding 3POs head to his helmet.
> 
> Of course, thinking about it now...I don't think Vader ever actually sees R2 through the OT at all. Well, except for shooting him in A New Hope, but that was starfighter combat and doesn't count.




The issue I have with C3PO (and I'll put this here since it came up with Vader) is when Owen purchases Threepio and R2 from the Jawas.  3PO lived at the Lars homestead for quite awhile.  He doesn't leave until towards the last half of EP II.  So do we explain Owen and Beru not recognizing C3PO as them keeping up the charade for Luke?  Droids in the Star Wars universe are unique and this one even more so.  Hard pill to swallow that one.


----------



## Arnwyn (Jun 6, 2005)

fett527 said:
			
		

> The issue I have with C3PO (and I'll put this here since it came up with Vader) is when Owen purchases Threepio and R2 from the Jawas.  3PO lived at the Lars homestead for quite awhile.  He doesn't leave until towards the last half of EP II.  So do we explain Owen and Beru not recognizing C3PO as them keeping up the charade for Luke?  Droids in the Star Wars universe are unique and this one even more so.  Hard pill to swallow that one.



Really? From my watchings of all the Star Wars movies, I assumed that most droids are the same. A protocol droid is a protocol droid. Maybe others have "close enough" personalities/voice sounds that any familiarity is dismissed. (Heck, I thought 3PO and that Trade Federation protocol droid at the beginning of Ep 1 were fairly close enough - then add in the fact that they're mass-produced in the [probable] millions and millions...)


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jun 6, 2005)

arnwyn said:
			
		

> (Heck, I thought 3PO and that Trade Federation protocol droid at the beginning of Ep 1 were fairly close enough - then add in the fact that they're mass-produced in the [probable] millions and millions...)




They are mass-produced...  In all honesty I'm trying to remember when C3P0 got his out frame finished…  I know he walked around with his innards only for some time.


----------



## fett527 (Jun 6, 2005)

Brother Shatterstone said:
			
		

> They are mass-produced...  In all honesty I'm trying to remember when C3P0 got his out frame finished…  I know he walked around with his innards only for some time.




the look may be similar (if not identical), but the designations (names) are different and they have unique personalities.  And their step-brother actually built this one that they lived with for some time.


----------



## fett527 (Jun 6, 2005)

Brother Shatterstone said:
			
		

> They are mass-produced...  In all honesty I'm trying to remember when C3P0 got his out frame finished…  I know he walked around with his innards only for some time.




He has his frame, though it was dull and gray, in EP II when Anakin and Padme go back to find out about Shmi.


----------



## Villano (Jun 6, 2005)

fett527 said:
			
		

> He has his frame, though it was dull and gray, in EP II when Anakin and Padme go back to find out about Shmi.




What I find interesting about that scene is that Anakin recognizes C-3PO right away.  I guess that's what's helping to fuel the "Why doesn't Vader recognize him?" questions.  

But, what I find funny is that 3PO and R2 are still in service.  They have to be about 40 years old.  R2 is still compatible with starships?   That seems odd.


----------



## fett527 (Jun 6, 2005)

Villano said:
			
		

> What I interesting about that scene is that Anakin recognizes C-3PO right away.  I guess that's what's helping to fuel the "Why doesn't Vader recognize him?" questions.
> 
> What I find funny is that 3PO and R2 are still in service.  They have to be about 40 years old.  R2 is still compatible with starships?   That seems odd.




The Vader thing I don't have a problem with.  Im trying to pick through my brain and I think I agree that Vader never even sees C3PO or R2D2 in the original trilogy.

I don't try to explain things like them still being in service, I don't have a problem with it.  Just think upgrades!


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Jun 6, 2005)

And some more philosophical bits...



			
				Demmero said:
			
		

> Addressing the second part of the quote first, I don't agree.  It seems (and maybe I'm wrong; I haven't read the SW novels) that Jedi aren't allowed to marry, period.  Not all married couples have a "bordering-on-obsession-need-a-restraining-order" variety of attachment; some are soulmates who can have a soothing, calming, strengthening effect on their partner.



But what happens when that soothing, calming presence in your life betrays you?  Or dies?

I know from being reliant upon another person for stability and strength.  If she were to leave me or die, I would be a basket case.  If I *knew* she was going to die, and there was something, anything, I could do to save her... well, there's nothing else in the world that could motivate me more to do something I would otherwise regret.

Attachment, even the most benevolent kind, is risky for that reason.  It can make you do awful things.  That is why the Jedi fear it.  Yep.  Fear it.  "There is no fear."  Yeah, right.  The Jedi _fear_ the Sith.  Most of all they fear _becoming_ the Sith.  They know what kind of emotions lead directly to the abuse of their power.  So they tried to eliminate them.  But there are indirect paths to those places.  So they threw out the baby with the bathwater and tried to get rid of those as well.  As a result, they do not serve their true purpose in the universe.  And they stagnate, becoming vulnerable to the Sith more than ever.

The novelization makes this point during the conversation between Yoda and Qui-gon Jinn (who has been my pick as the "true" ideal Jedi since his appearance in tPM).  I can only hope that the scene will be put back in for the DVD (or at least be among the deleted scenes).

As for the plot-y bits...



			
				David Howery said:
			
		

> I asked this in another thread, but it didn't have the spoiler tag, so noone answered it... just how did Vader find out that Luke was his son?  From what I saw in ep. 3, he thought Padme died before giving birth.  Granted, the last name is a big clue, but not a definite one... in any of the EU books, did it ever mention that Vader investigated Luke's background?



I'm not much of a fan of the EU, but it seems to me that between noting that the pilot who destroyed the Death Star was drawing on the Force ("The Force is strong in this one."), and hearing about the new "Hero of the Rebellion," Luke Skywalker, he could have put 2 and 2 together.



			
				Villano said:
			
		

> But, what I find funny is that 3PO and R2 are still in service.  They have to be about 40 years old.  R2 is still compatible with starships?   That seems odd.



They were in service to a Rebellion that probably wasn't swimming in cash, after all.  Perhaps they were upgraded piecemeal, much as my computer is.  Perhaps they simply weren't upgraded at all but were good enough.

It certainly seems that no one ever performed much maintenance on R2.  His jets at the very least were clearly out of service by the time of IV.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 6, 2005)

Villano said:
			
		

> What I find interesting about that scene is that Anakin recognizes C-3PO right away.  I guess that's what's helping to fuel the "Why doesn't Vader recognize him?" questions.
> 
> But, what I find funny is that 3PO and R2 are still in service.  They have to be about 40 years old.  R2 is still compatible with starships?   That seems odd.



From everything I saw in the movies and in parts in the Expanded Universe, I tend to believe that there is little to no technical advancement.

The Death Star might seem impressive, but I doubt there is anything new behind it - the Empire just happens to be the only organization with enough money and the will to build such a thing. The old Republic Senate would never have been able to start such a project, unless every member planet could have its own Death Star - and in consequence, no member could have built one of its own - no resources, no way to keep it secret. 
And there are no other indenepdent organizations with the same magnitude as the Republic.

In fact, there might have been some decline - watch the Naboo starfighters and their design - shimmering, shining, sleek - compare it to a ship like a Y-Wing - ugly, dirty, seemingly half-completed. (Though I prefer the Y-Wing or any episode IV+ ship to the old episode I-III designs)


----------



## Demmero (Jun 7, 2005)

Canis said:
			
		

> And some more philosophical bits...
> 
> But what happens when that soothing, calming presence in your life betrays you?




You either come to grips with the betrayal, learn from it, and get over it (more or less), or let it tear you apart.



			
				Canis said:
			
		

> I know from being reliant upon another person for stability and strength.  If she were to leave me or die, I would be a basket case.  If I *knew* she was going to die, and there was something, anything, I could do to save her... well, there's nothing else in the world that could motivate me more to do something I would otherwise regret.




I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but unless there are some major medical breakthroughs in this century...this lady you depend upon IS going to die.  So why aren't you working 20-hour days looking for a way to make humans immortal?    



			
				Canis said:
			
		

> Attachment, even the most benevolent kind, is risky for that reason.  It can make you do awful things.  That is why the Jedi fear it.  Yep.  Fear it.  "There is no fear."  Yeah, right.  The Jedi _fear_ the Sith.  Most of all they fear _becoming_ the Sith.  They know what kind of emotions lead directly to the abuse of their power.  So they tried to eliminate them.  But there are indirect paths to those places.  So they threw out the baby with the bathwater and tried to get rid of those as well.  As a result, they do not serve their true purpose in the universe.  And they stagnate, becoming vulnerable to the Sith more than ever.
> 
> The novelization makes this point during the conversation between Yoda and Qui-gon Jinn (who has been my pick as the "true" ideal Jedi since his appearance in tPM).  I can only hope that the scene will be put back in for the DVD (or at least be among the deleted scenes).




I'm with you on these points.  Just as there's a danger in attachment, there's one for becoming too detached as well.  Ep. 3 did a decent job of showing some of this.  I originally thought that Qui-gon was pretty damned boring; now I have a better appreciation for him.  He didn't try to do it all; he picked his spots and tried to do his best on those things he invested his time in.


----------



## Templetroll (Jun 7, 2005)

Demmero said:
			
		

> Ep. 3 did a decent job of showing some of this.  I originally thought that Qui-gon was pretty damned boring; now I have a better appreciation for him.  He didn't try to do it all; he picked his spots and tried to do his best on those things he invested his time in.




Qui-gon was a good Jedi.  You'll note that he stood up to the Council and went his own way from time to time.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Jun 7, 2005)

Demmero said:
			
		

> You either come to grips with the betrayal, learn from it, and get over it (more or less), or let it tear you apart.



Exactly.  But not everyone has the capacity to come to grips with it.  And the more you love a person, the more it hurts.



> I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but unless there are some major medical breakthroughs in this century...this lady you depend upon IS going to die.  So why aren't you working 20-hour days looking for a way to make humans immortal?





There is a significant difference between knowing that we will booth one day die of old age or something and knowing that she was definitely going to die in the next few months or so.  I flatter myself that I don't have a particularly well-developed fear of death, but I have a certain fear I prefer not to look at closely about _life_ without one particular person.  I can only hope that if I'm 80 years old and she has the ill grace to die first, I will be able to be more philosophical about it.



> I'm with you on these points.  Just as there's a danger in attachment, there's one for becoming too detached as well.  Ep. 3 did a decent job of showing some of this.  I originally thought that Qui-gon was pretty damned boring; now I have a better appreciation for him.  He didn't try to do it all; he picked his spots and tried to do his best on those things he invested his time in.



And he was compassionate, even when it wasn't within the rules to act.  And he listened to the Force more closely than to tradition or his "elders."

Best.  Jedi.  Evar.


----------



## Demmero (Jun 7, 2005)

Canis said:
			
		

> There is a significant difference between knowing that we will booth one day die of old age or something and knowing that she was definitely going to die in the next few months or so.




Yes, there's a difference.  But does Annakin truly KNOW that Padme is going to die?  He had a similar dream concerning his mother, and she DID die.  Does one instance make for such a definitive track record that he could know for certain that his dream concerning Padme would come true?  But where did these dreams come from?  Do they emanate from the Force itself?  Or can they be sent by powerful users of the Force (such as Sith lords)?  Might Annakin have been able to rescue his mother if he'd heeded the dreams about her earlier?  Could Padme's fate have been changed by him being at her side in her time of need?

I don't know the answers to these questions.  Annakin, for whatever reason, seems to believe that he does.

So he turns against the Jedi and aligns himself with the Sith lord Darth Sidious.  Because Sidious says that his old master could prevent people from dying, and Annakin's decided that he's got to prevent Padme from dying.  The Sith lord asks if the Jedi still teach the tale of his mentor, who learned the power of keeping people from dying (they don't, which most likely means one of two things: 1) such knowledge is forbidden among the Jedi or B) this mentor or his knowledge never existed).  Sidious even mentions the irony that his master, who could keep people alive, was nonetheless killed by his apprentice.  Sidious seems to have knowledge of Annakin's dreams concerning Padme, even though it appears that Annakin never told him about them.

Seriously, this stuff should have sent all sorts of alarms off in Annakin's head.  Even if he DOES believe Sidious' story and that the power to conquer death exists...why oh why would he believe that Sidious would give such a power away to his brand new unproven apprentice?  Why didn't he use that power to save Darth Maul or Count Dooku?  Didn't want to use the power...or doesn't have the power to use in the first place?  And Annakin never seems to do any independent investigation into the matter--he just takes Sidious at his word, hearing what he wants to hear.

And then he'd still have to find a way of getting Padme to accept him after what he'd done in pursuit of his gift to her.

I guess what I'm getting around to saying is that Annakin IS pretty much the scientist who devotes 20 hours a day to find a way to cheat death.  It consumes his life, but unlike the guy in my example who doesn't have a life outside his obsession, Annakin still finds time to betray his associates, friends, and wife as well as slaughtering children.  His single-mindedness in trying to prevent Padme from dying goes beyond attachment and/or love for his wife.  In fact, it's not even about Padme dying--it's all about Annakin himself.  He failed in saving his mother and vowed not to fail again.  HE's going to become the greatest Jedi ever, HE's going to become all-powerful, conquering even death, HE's going to use that power to save HIS wife and child(ren), etc.  No thought about the consequences his actions might have on his wife or others.

To my eye, there's very little tragic hero to Annikin; he's an ignorant, weak-willed monster.


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (Jun 7, 2005)

Owen was exposed to 3PO relatively little in New Hope. The Moisture Farmer spoke to Golden Rod for less than a minute, and then turned the fussy protocol droid over to Luke for cleaning and maintenance. The last time he was with the android was:

A. 25 years ago

B. When 3PO was in different platting (the brushed nickel plats, not the copper plates)

C. 3PO (due to the memory wipe) did not recognize Owen

Change any of these elements, and Lars may have recognized 3PO.

For example, if I were exposed to a person that I new 25 years ago, their appearance was totally different, they did not recognize me, and we spoke for about a minute or two, it would not be surprising if I did not recognize them.

***

I agree with most of Demmero assessment of Anakin (not Annikin). I, for one feel that the magnitude of Anakin/Vader’s sins where such they he deserved neither forgiveness nor redemption. Yet he got both. It is an imperfect saga.

***

For one thing, trying to find scientific clues and elements in Star Wars is a mistake. It is more space-fantasy than science fiction. Further, there is a difference between science and technology. If we are going to look at science and technology in the Star Wars universe, then perhaps the technology (more than the science) reached a maximum level of practical usefulness for humanoid creatures about 10,000 years ago. Thus little change to the hardware used through out the galaxy, throughout the ages.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jun 8, 2005)

The Grumpy Celt said:
			
		

> I agree with most of Demmero assessment of Anakin (not Annikin). I, for one feel that the magnitude of Anakin/Vader’s sins where such they he deserved neither forgiveness nor redemption. Yet he got both. It is an imperfect saga.




But the fact is, his sins were because he was human. The idea is that NO ONE is beyond redemption, even the most evil, if given the chance. Of course, if they pass by that chance, then they could very well be beyond redemption...but Anakin did accept it, and saved the life of his son by killing the man who'd really been the cause of it all.

YES, Anakin did horrible things. But he never would have gone so far without the influence of Palpatine.

Also, remember that Star Wars is essentially a fairy tale in space, so its not really 'imperfect' at all. It makes sense within the setting, and that's all that's necessary. This isn't our galaxy or our time.


----------



## Vigilance (Jun 8, 2005)

There's an old Samurai expression: you can tell more about a man by the way he dies than anything else he does.

Vader/Annakin died well.

Within the setting that makes sense.

Hell, he even DIED as a direct result of HIS crimes.


----------



## Demmero (Jun 8, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> But the fact is, his sins were because he was human.




I don't buy it.  I'd say his sins were because he was an impatient, self-centered, weak-willed, egotistical individual.  All human traits, no doubt, but these traits are also prevalent in other villains in Lucas' universe.



			
				Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> The idea is that NO ONE is beyond redemption, even the most evil, if given the chance. Of course, if they pass by that chance, then they could very well be beyond redemption...but Anakin did accept it, and saved the life of his son by killing the man who'd really been the cause of it all.




I guess that's Lucas' message.  The problem is that Vader's actions in killing the Emperor aren't necessarily "good;" his track record is that he'll do anything to protect those he loves (and slaughter those he doesn't).  He and his motivations are usually selfish, not noble.  Does Palpatine earn "redemption" for bringing "peace" to the galaxy through his tyranny?



			
				Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> YES, Anakin did horrible things. But he never would have gone so far without the influence of Palpatine.




He had others who could have influenced him (Obi-Wan, Yoda, Padme).  He had a choice of whose influences would shape his life and legacy, and he chose the dark side.



			
				Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Also, remember that Star Wars is essentially a fairy tale in space, so its not really 'imperfect' at all. It makes sense within the setting, and that's all that's necessary. This isn't our galaxy or our time.




Maybe, but the movies are shown in theatres in our galaxy, and our morals, beliefs, and sensibilities affect our reactions to the whole Star Wars saga...including some finding the circumstances of Anakin's fall and redemption to be hard to swallow.


----------



## Vigilance (Jun 8, 2005)

The Grumpy Celt said:
			
		

> I agree with most of Demmero assessment of Anakin (not Annikin). I, for one feel that the magnitude of Anakin/Vader’s sins where such they he deserved neither forgiveness nor redemption. Yet he got both. It is an imperfect saga.




There was a book... damn if I could only remember its name.

It was about this guy, he was real big on forgiveness, even said that no matter WHAT you had done you too could be redeemed.

I wish I could remember his name... or the book... they're both right on the tip of my tongue.

Anyway, they were similarly "imperfect"... written a couple of millenia ago.

With all that imperfect talk of forgiveness in there, its a wonder they're still around.


----------



## Demmero (Jun 8, 2005)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> There was a book... damn if I could only remember its name.
> 
> It was about this guy, he was real big on forgiveness, even said that no matter WHAT you had done you too could be redeemed.
> 
> I wish I could remember his name... or the book... they're both right on the tip of my tongue.




LOL, good point.  But that book wasn't exactly put out for entertainment purposes like the Star Wars films were.  And the guy in that book--his death scene was more moving than Vader's.  Probably because his sacrifice at the end was in-character with the way he'd lived his life while Vader's was more of an aberration.


----------



## Villano (Jun 8, 2005)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> There was a book... damn if I could only remember its name.
> 
> It was about this guy, he was real big on forgiveness, even said that no matter WHAT you had done you too could be redeemed.
> 
> I wish I could remember his name... or the book... they're both right on the tip of my tongue.




You're thinking of Ziggy.  You probably have one of the books of his comic strips.  Sounds like Ziggyisms: Notable Quotes of Wisdom for Everyday Living or maybe The Zen Of Ziggy. 

I'm not really a fan, myself.  It's too preachy for me.


----------



## Taren Seeker (Jun 8, 2005)

Along the lines of what Demmero has been saying, one of the things that really disappointed me was that according to Obi Wan in ANH, Anakin was one of the best of the Jedi. He was supposed to be good and wise, a model jedi. You got the impression that he had lived a life of virtue and accomplished great things, helped many people. This makes his fall all the more tragic.

However, with the new trilogy, we got a petulant punk that wasn't even a good apprentice. He was powerful and had great fighting skills, but never even approached the greatness that would have made his fall tragic. It's mostly pathetic.

And veiled references to Catholicism aside, you don't slaughter children (even if they are referred to as "younglings"; way to rob the emotional impact of your dialogue George), betray all that is good, murder billions and then get a free pass because you don't kill your own son.


----------



## Kesh (Jun 8, 2005)

Villano said:
			
		

> What I find interesting about that scene is that Anakin recognizes C-3PO right away.  I guess that's what's helping to fuel the "Why doesn't Vader recognize him?" questions.
> 
> But, what I find funny is that 3PO and R2 are still in service.  They have to be about 40 years old.  R2 is still compatible with starships?   That seems odd.



 Keep in mind that Anakin left Threepio with his mother. In Ep 2, he returned to Tatooine, went to find his mother, and the place where he was told she was living had a protocol droid working out front. I don't think it's that much of a stretch for him to figure it out.  

In the Rebellion trilogy, he barely runs into Threepio, who is on a different planet, with people he hates, and the droid is in pieces (and more obnoxious than originally built). Not surprising he didn't recognize him.

As for the droids' age... well, you probably don't want to know how old some of the airframes currently in use are, then.


----------



## Vigilance (Jun 8, 2005)

Taren Seeker said:
			
		

> And veiled references to Catholicism aside, you don't slaughter children (even if they are referred to as "younglings"; way to rob the emotional impact of your dialogue George), betray all that is good, murder billions and then get a free pass because you don't kill your own son.




He didn't get a free pass. The man DIED. He just got to go to the "good" afterlife. I wasn't aware that death constituted a free pass. I guess you just think he should continue to be punished AFTER his death.

Now who's making veiled mythological/religious references? 

Chuck


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (Jun 8, 2005)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> There was a book... damn if I could only remember its name...




Pppbbbttt!!!


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Jun 8, 2005)

Demmero said:
			
		

> Yes, there's a difference.  But does Annakin truly KNOW that Padme is going to die?  He had a similar dream concerning his mother, and she DID die.  Does one instance make for such a definitive track record that he could know for certain that his dream concerning Padme would come true?  But where did these dreams come from?  Do they emanate from the Force itself?  Or can they be sent by powerful users of the Force (such as Sith lords)?  Might Annakin have been able to rescue his mother if he'd heeded the dreams about her earlier?  Could Padme's fate have been changed by him being at her side in her time of need?
> 
> I don't know the answers to these questions.  Annakin, for whatever reason, seems to believe that he does.



We know that Jedi (even half-trained ones like Luke in ESB, can sometimes see the future.  And Anakin has long been told how powerful he is.  Of course he's going to think that his visions are meaningful.  He doesn't know the circumstances leading up to the birth, only that she's going to die during it.  With little specific to go on, he clamped onto a general "save her from death" idea.  Makes some sense to me.  And if he had found a way to do it that didn't involve betraying the Jedi, I imagine he would have taken it.  His tendency towards possessiveness and selfishness would have come to the fore some other way, eventually, I imagine, as I do agree with you that he is selfish.  Even monstrously so at times.  But then, I think that was part of the point.  To that point...



> ...I'd say his sins were because he was an impatient, self-centered, weak-willed, egotistical individual...



Yep.  He's a child prodigy alright. 

Though I might disagree with weak-willed.



			
				Demmero said:
			
		

> ...the guy in that book--his death scene was more moving than Vader's.  Probably because his sacrifice at the end was in-character with the way he'd lived his life while Vader's was more of an aberration.



I'll agree with that, at least insofar as what we've been shown.  I think Lucas really needed to spend more time on the Clone Wars.  We should see Anakin as a hero, a flawed one, an impetuous one, but someone who always has to do his best to SAVE people.  The novelization makes a point of this at the very beginning when Anakin wants to help out the clone fighter pilots and Obi-wan tells him to stick to their job, and again when he refuses to abandon Obi-wan twice.  To really sell the whole thing as his Fall and Redemption, we needed to see more of his positive qualities, but then we probably would have needed another 3 or 4 hours of movie.  Personally, I wish he had originally numbered A New Hope as 5 or 6.  Would have given him the time to really develop Anakin in the prequels.  (Plus it would have provided another movie or two  )

But back to Anakin... He's actually fairly dogmatic, even in the movie, taking Obi-wan and the council to task for infractions of the Jedi code.  Dogmatic in the way that only someone who really _wants_ to break the rules can be when other people break them.  For me, that really helped me buy his turning on the Jedi.  They come off as hypocrites to him.  They won't let him break the rules, but they get to if they "want to."  He does not yet have the wisdom to know that rules are only the beginning of wisdom (arguably few of the Jedi really do, either, but that ground has been covered).


----------



## jasper (Jun 8, 2005)

Humm Tatooine desert planet, the biggest beaches on the outer rim. Only three hours from the galactic core. 
Just ignore the jawas, the sand people, the hutts, the critter with the very slow digestion. Gee just a few miles outside town we have all these dangerous things and races and no one cares. 
No it is make easier to watch the SW movies with a big tub of buttered popcorn. Both are the same, over priced fluff, sticky junk food, which leaves you filled when leaving the theatre but not much meat in them and goes stale quickly.


----------



## Demmero (Jun 8, 2005)

Canis said:
			
		

> Though I might disagree with weak-willed.




I might too.  I think I meant to say weak-minded.  Part of me is convinced that Palpatine was using a form of "Jedi mind trick" to make Anakin focus on things that would lead him to the Dark Side while ignoring or twisting what the Jedi had done/were doing for him.



			
				Canis said:
			
		

> I think Lucas really needed to spend more time on the Clone Wars.  We should see Anakin as a hero, a flawed one, an impetuous one, but someone who always has to do his best to SAVE people.  The novelization makes a point of this at the very beginning when Anakin wants to help out the clone fighter pilots and Obi-wan tells him to stick to their job, and again when he refuses to abandon Obi-wan twice.  To really sell the whole thing as his Fall and Redemption, we needed to see more of his positive qualities, but then we probably would have needed another 3 or 4 hours of movie.




Agreed.  We get to see some of Anakin's positive characteristics in the movies, but often there's a string attached or an asterisk next to the deed.  As a child he invites strangers to his house to avoid a sandstorm and competes in the pod race so they can get their ship fixed...but it also gives him an excuse to be in the race in the first place, something he loves.

The going back to help out the clone fighter pilots seems like a good and noble deed on the surface...but then Obi-Wan rightly points out how each person has their own job to do in the attack as a whole.

The closest Anakin comes to a selfless act (IMHO) is when he doesn't abandon Obi-Wan, even after Palpatine suggests it.  This could be selfless, or he could simply see it as a bit of payback in thanks of his master's past training.  I needed a few more scenes like this one to give me a better feeling that there is indeed "good in him" as Padme and Luke say.



			
				Canis said:
			
		

> But back to Anakin... He's actually fairly dogmatic, even in the movie, taking Obi-wan and the council to task for infractions of the Jedi code.  Dogmatic in the way that only someone who really _wants_ to break the rules can be when other people break them.  For me, that really helped me buy his turning on the Jedi.  They come off as hypocrites to him.  They won't let him break the rules, but they get to if they "want to."  He does not yet have the wisdom to know that rules are only the beginning of wisdom (arguably few of the Jedi really do, either, but that ground has been covered).




I can see some of this, but if Anakin wants to see a hypocrite he needs only look in a mirror.  He kills Dooku though it's against Jedi code, yet he won't allow Windu to do the same to a Sith lord.  I supposed part of that might be a sort of "Ha!  Here's where your precious Jedi rules come back to bite you in the ***!" deal, but I didn't get a sense of vindictiveness from Anakin when he chose Sidious' side.  I felt that he simply saw his last chance to save Padme's life about to vanish before his eyes and didn't allow that to happen.

BTW, I more or less enjoyed RotS; there were just a few parts that I thought could have been handled better.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Jun 9, 2005)

Demmero said:
			
		

> ...We get to see some of Anakin's positive characteristics in the movies, but often there's a string attached or an asterisk next to the deed.



Exactly.  Ultimately, I suspect the problem comes in because Lucas has a piccture of Anakin that includes all these positive characteristics, but he doesn't feel compelled to show them, because it's more important in his mind to set up the fall.  And it's more or less a given that people don't argue with him too much.  I can't say that he's surrounded himself with yes-men, not actually knowing anything about the dynamics of Lucasfilm, but I wouldn't be surprised.  I really think someone needed to sit down with him and say, "George, why are people supposed to LIKE this character?" back when they were writing AotC, and again in tRoS.

Of course, a lot of the fans didn't _want_ to like him.  They wanted him to be bad-ass Vader-boy from the get-go.  And perhaps a lot of Lucas' staff felt that way too.  To my mind, that robs the story of any power and makes it especially nonsensical that anyone would train the kid.  But who the heck am I, anyway?



> I can see some of this, but if Anakin wants to see a hypocrite he needs only look in a mirror.  He kills Dooku though it's against Jedi code, yet he won't allow Windu to do the same to a Sith lord.  I supposed part of that might be a sort of "Ha!  Here's where your precious Jedi rules come back to bite you in the ***!" deal, but I didn't get a sense of vindictiveness from Anakin when he chose Sidious' side.  I felt that he simply saw his last chance to save Padme's life about to vanish before his eyes and didn't allow that to happen.



People don't tend to notice their own hypocrasy unless forced to.  Also, I agree with you that there was no vindictiveness in the moment where he chose to save Sidious.  That was driven primarily by his concerns over Padme.  However, his lack of trust in the Jedi helped get him to that place.  And that lack of trust stems partially from his own guilt over Dooku.  He killed Dooku in cold blood.  An act that was wrong, and also against the Jedi code.  He feels guilt and remorse over this, knowing he has failed to meet standards.  However, immediately afterwards, the people who set those standards fail to meet them by asking him to spy and so on.  It's a "I've been beating myself up about that thing with Dooku, and now they turn around and do this!" moment.  It's self-centered, certainly, but that's within Anakin's MO.  It's also short-sighted, failing to see where the rules become a hindrance to the greater good rather than a service to it, but Anakin hasn't acquired that understanding, at least partly through the Jedi Order's failures.

Heck, you could read the whole saga as an indictment of organized religion, if you wanted, but that goes far beyond the scope of a space opera styled after old serials.  Not that we aren't there already.


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (Jun 9, 2005)

Canis said:
			
		

> Heck, you could read the whole saga as an indictment of organized religion...




So, when did you start channeling Kevin Smith? 

As I mentioned in the other thread, Star Wars is space opera and so has more in common with something like Faust or Don Giovanni than with 2001. If the dialog had been sung and not spoke it would have been less grating. And Anakin's fall into evil would have seemed less startilingly abrupt.

On the other hand, the idea of Palpatine belting out a tune is enough to turn me to the dark side.

In any event, the novelization more fully explores what happened and why Anakin did what he did and what he was feeling as it all happened.

However, I still stay he deserved neither redemption nor forgiveness.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Jun 9, 2005)

The Grumpy Celt said:
			
		

> So, when did you start channeling Kevin Smith?



I had actually forgotten about that    But "Jersey Represent!"  Or maybe I should simply acknowledge that lapsed Catholics seem to find indictments of organized religion under every rock.  We're silly that way.

That said, I think it does apply a bit more cleanly than to the Walrus & the Carpenter.   Did Lucas intend it?  Heck.  I don't know.

As for whether or not Anakin deserved redemption... I'm going to beg lack of data.  Maybe the ongoing Clone Wars cartoon will provide us with more evidence of his good side, since the snapshots we have really don't fill out the character, and most of the EU books that I've glanced at irk me too much to consider them part of the story.


----------

