PDA

View Full Version : Was it Love...or was it Lust?



stillakid
06-14-2005, 01:05 PM
Apparently, we are meant to believe that Anakin was in true deep love with Padme.

I disagree. It wasn't love...it was OBSESSION which evolved into unhealthy LUST. Both are qualities indicative of PASSION which is just one of the major components that lead someone to the darkside. Love...TRUE love would never allow someone to take that road.


No?

2-1B
06-14-2005, 01:07 PM
Good points, I certainly hope that True Love would not lead someone to do for me what Anakin did for Padme . . . Padme herself even pointed out the horror of such behavior.

At the same time though, I think Anakin DID love her. He chose the wrong path at the end of the day but I think he genuinely cared about her. :)

JimJamBonds
06-14-2005, 01:31 PM
I think it was love, he was concerned about her but it was on the lusty/obsessive side of things. Although who would want to lose a loved one? Especially if you're 20ish yrs old you have a wife and a kid on the way? In that sense I can't blame Anakin for wanting to protect her. One question though what was the love that Padme felt towards Ani? She likely thought he was a cute little kid the first time they met but then what? Was she also blinded that she couldn't see what was going on with Anners?

Jim Jam

JetsAndHeels
06-14-2005, 01:51 PM
I think it was both, but I too am leaning a little more towards the obsession angle myself. When Ani first meets Padme in TPM, its innocent enough. They share a few words and go their separate ways. As he is around her more in the film you can see where things are starting to develop, even at his young age. However later in AOTC we hear him make a comment to the effect of "I've thought about her everyday for the last 10 years"...that to me shows as Ani got older he began to obsess over her. When he saw her there in her quarters on Coruscant, all those feelings came out and from there he starts his quest to gain her attention and affection.

Captain Spoon
06-14-2005, 02:02 PM
Hmmm... let's see.. Turn Evil and kill a bunch of kids or don't sleep with Natalie Portman every night. Hmmm.... that is a tough decision. Hmm... Bring on the darkside!!

JimJamBonds
06-14-2005, 02:08 PM
Hmmm... let's see.. Turn Evil and kill a bunch of kids or don't sleep with Natalie Portman every night. Hmmm.... that is a tough decision. Hmm... Bring on the darkside!!

While I do like the shackin' up with Nat idea I hope you like sleeping with a corpse Captain Spoon 'cause thats what she is!

Jim Jam

darko666
06-14-2005, 02:24 PM
Was she also blinded that she couldn't see what was going on with Anners?

no, Anakin was clearly the blind one as stated by Padme when they have their 4th grade discussion about "love" in their suite.

Anakin did love her, but i think it turned to lust when he started to lean towards the dark side. you don't choke the ones you love, unless your a suspect on Cops. he lost it when Padme told him she loved him. Anakin called her a liar and didn't want anything to do with her. that sure as hell aint love. if it is, i would hate to see him with his kids.

Captain Spoon
06-14-2005, 02:55 PM
I meant a pre-choking Padme of course hehe :D , (P.S. choking Padme would make a relly cool fig, or Gentle Giant Bust)

JimJamBonds
06-14-2005, 03:01 PM
no, Anakin was clearly the blind one as stated by Padme when they have their 4th grade discussion about "love" in their suite.

Anakin did love her, but i think it turned to lust when he started to lean towards the dark side. you don't choke the ones you love, unless your a suspect on Cops. he lost it when Padme told him she loved him. Anakin called her a liar and didn't want anything to do with her. that sure as hell aint love. if it is, i would hate to see him with his kids.

I agree with you darko, my comment was coming from the "she fell in love with him rather quick too" angle so what's up with that? (no comments from the peanut gallery on falling in love the first time you meet them etc)

Jim Jam

JimJamBonds
06-14-2005, 03:05 PM
I meant a pre-choking Padme of course hehe :D , (P.S. choking Padme would make a relly cool fig, or Gentle Giant Bust)

How about a pre-choking post 18 Padme! :D


(P.S. choking Padme would make a relly cool fig, or Gentle Giant Bust)

YES! That could be pretty cool! How about some sort of Unleashed set up similar to the Obi-Wan and Anakin figs? You could have Ani and Padme set up one way 'in love' and another 'choking'! lol

- "Is Anakin Skywalker going to have to force choke a b*tch?"

Jim Jam

Captain Spoon
06-14-2005, 03:16 PM
. if it is, i would hate to see him with his kids.

We do see him with his kids. The first one he locks up and probes with needles, and the second one he cuts his frigg'n hand off. Add that to the fact that he choked his wife damn near to death and it's a surprise Vader dosn't sport a dirty tanktop and a Captain Morgan's bandana in place of the black armor

Devo
06-14-2005, 05:34 PM
Well I guess we were meant to believe that it was true love between them. I can't see Lucas (and the evidently ineffectual Jonathan Hales on AOTC) writing it deliberately that we would have doubts about this.

Whatever about Anakin, deprived jedi and all, she has no excuse for being so idiotic. She, presumably, has not been thinking about Anakin romantically during the 10 years they were apart especially if, to her, he is still 'the little boy I knew on Tatooine'. Even if she hasn't had time to be involved with other males with her senatorial duties etc she probably has seen enough fanciable blokes to not be thinking about Anakin - unless she's some kind of deviant. So, unlike Anakin who is supposedly always in love with her, she has to reach that point after they are reunited. This is apparently achieved by Anakin through a blend of whiny complaints, observations about sand, the Hayden-patent 'rapist leer', a "he....could..be joking I suppose" praising of dictatorships capped by a confession of psychotic behaviour. Impressive it has to be said, imagine what he could do if he were charismatic and likeable. But I wonder if all this says more about Padme than it does Anakin? Or indeed more about how poorly written she is .

JediTricks
06-14-2005, 06:31 PM
Well I guess we were meant to believe that it was true love between them. I can't see Lucas (and the evidently ineffectual Jonathan Hales on AOTC) writing it deliberately that we would have doubts about this.

Whatever about Anakin, deprived jedi and all, she has no excuse for being so idiotic. She, presumably, has not been thinking about Anakin romantically during the 10 years they were apart especially if, to her, he is still 'the little boy I knew on Tatooine'. Even if she hasn't had time to be involved with other males with her senatorial duties etc she probably has seen enough fanciable blokes to not be thinking about Anakin - unless she's some kind of deviant. So, unlike Anakin who is supposedly always in love with her, she has to reach that point after they are reunited. This is apparently achieved by Anakin through a blend of whiny complaints, observations about sand, the Hayden-patent 'rapist leer', a "he....could..be joking I suppose" praising of dictatorships capped by a confession of psychotic behaviour. Impressive it has to be said, imagine what he could do if he were charismatic and likeable. But I wonder if all this says more about Padme than it does Anakin? Or indeed more about how poorly written she is .
Great point Devo, no matter what Anakin's excuses, nobody ever explains why Padme reciprocates.


I don't think Anakin should even know what love was really, he had a puppy-love crush on Padme in Ep 1 while he was prepubescent, and when he finally does go through puberty he is living as a loveless warrior monk and has apparently no concept of what love should be beyond his feelings created from his mother, which are something else entirely from how he acts with Padme in Ep 2 and 3. Anakin shouldn't know lust at first meeting with Padme I think, unless the Jedi aren't as hardcore loveless as we're led to believe in which case his idolization of Padme that leads into "love" makes more sense, though I don't believe it's the love Lucas meant to portray in Ep 2.

stillakid
06-14-2005, 10:58 PM
Exactly, JT. From where I'm sitting, lil' Ani "liked" Padme in TPM but didn't "like her like her." Not like that anyway.

Somewhere between TPM and AOTC, Anakin apparently has little else to do but develop an obsession over girl he met when he was still at an age when girls were icky.

Then like a moronic stupid socially inept teenager, he begins on some lame quest to, I don't know, get her to like him or something. It's a little unclear whether he actively trying to impress her or just force his way into her life. Naturally she is kind of sick too having absolutely no reason at all to reciprocate this, dare I say, affection (?) But anyway, we're supposed to believe that this obession of his turns into TRUE LOVE. Obviously that was the intent of Lucas, but the execution of it just isn't there (and anyone that looks at the Anakin/Padme relationship and sees genuine true love there belongs in therapy...and marriage counseling probably...at the very least, Dr. Phil )

Anakin is an obsessed teen who exhibits behavior consistent with being bipolar with an unearned sense of entitlement. What Padme sees in that is beyond me.

But once she "gives in" (for no apparent reason other than that was what was in the script), that obsession gives way to LUST, where Anakin's emotions are ruled by POSSESSION (of her) and JEALOUSY (of Obi Wan). Anakin doesn't want to love Padme....he wants to OWN her.

So this really goes deeper than the question of love/lust. This really indicts Anakin as being fundamentally f'd up in such a way that he has always been sick...sick to the point that he'd always be a bad guy, costume or no. He's an idiot, a moron, a loser teenager who is angry at the world and anyone who doesn't say "yes" to his every whim. With this in mind, he didn't start down the darkpath with the disarming of Mace Windu...no, he was well on the path long before that, when he began to obsess over a girl he thought was an angel. :(


I knew it. It's always a woman. Always stirrin' up trouble. :ermm:

;)

Elliejabbapop
06-15-2005, 05:21 PM
Great point Devo, no matter what Anakin's excuses, nobody ever explains why Padme reciprocates.

Only a woman can understand why she reciprocates, I do ;) .
And stilla women are "trouble" only because men can't handle them (Weaker genes :D).

stillakid
06-15-2005, 05:50 PM
[QUOTE=Elliejabbapop]Only a woman can understand why she reciprocates, I do ;) .
QUOTE]

Sincerely, please explain this seemingly irrational behavior to us dumb men so that we too can take advantage of a woman like Padme. Thanks. :D

JediTricks
06-15-2005, 08:11 PM
Only a woman can understand why she reciprocates, I do ;) .Girls like the bad boys, huh? Maybe even "I can fix him" type of feelings? I could buy that for short-term flings and even quicky relationships, but these people claim to be in an epic love that we the audience are supposed to be heartbroken over when it doesn't end with them as wrinkly old lovebirds who still gaze lovingly at each other, and I don't believe those 2 types of relationships can be the same thing. That's why Padme's responses to this love seem way off to me.

2-1B
06-16-2005, 12:19 AM
JT, my sister was engaged twice before she got married last year and by her own admission both engagements were with men she thought she had to "fix." Thankfully she was wise enough to call it quits before taking the full plunge but she learned from that and is now quite happy. Anyway, both of those relationships were pretty long term and not quicky.
That's interesting that you just made that post because it was only yesterday that she told me that. Odd timing. lol

FYI, these "fixer uppers" weren't total dirtbags or anything, they were decent enough guys I guess.

Elliejabbapop
06-16-2005, 03:00 AM
Girls like the bad boys, huh? Maybe even "I can fix him" type of feelings?

JT, sometimes a relationship that starts with these feelings turns into something much deeper, the attempt to "save" someone causes a deep understanding of the person's character and consequently a long-lasting and serious love story.
I've got a living example very close to me. ;)
This doesn't happen in a flash of course, I could accept someone saying that maybe in epII their love is not love yet, but by the time they reach epIII there's something deeper going on.
Above all that, love is a strange feeling, you never know how it gets you. Sometimes a few weeks can be enough for people to fall in love, whereas it takes a lifetime for others. I've given up on judging other people's marriages a long time ago 'cause you never know what's behind them.

Devo
06-16-2005, 10:02 AM
The thing I find hilarious about their whole relationship is that she's actually shocked and horrified at the end of ROTS when she finds out he's gone on a killing spree. She actually says something to the effect that "you've changed(to Anakin) you're not the man I fell in love with/married" .Well all I can say is she must have a very selective memory because he bloody tells her he's all for dictatorships and then later proceeds to tell her he's murdered a village full of sand people. How then can she be surprised when he gets slash happy again? No wonder Anakin looks confused when she confronts him (though maybe that just Haydens acting style), he probably took the fact that she still went on and married him as a solid endorsment of this sort of behaviour.

Elliejabbapop
06-16-2005, 10:11 AM
She thought that he had changed before she realised he had changed. Get it?

ps. Personally I didn't feel the same way with the Tuskens as I felt with the younglings. Maybe Padme did the same ;) .

2-1B
06-16-2005, 11:00 AM
The Tusken "murder" and the slaughter of the Jedi younglings are very different.

Elliejabbapop
06-16-2005, 12:11 PM
Isn't that what I said? :confused:

stillakid
06-16-2005, 12:31 PM
She thought that he had changed before she realised he had changed. Get it?

ps. Personally I didn't feel the same way with the Tuskens as I felt with the younglings. Maybe Padme did the same ;) .

I will grant you that some relationships are like this in real life...

HOWEVER, a movie doesn't generally deal with the minority stereotype, particularly a movie in this genre. Perhaps a small indie film with that story to tell (about a woman bent on trying to "save" a man by "fixing" him) makes sense in that context, but it isn't a viable or believable avenue for "romance" to take in an epic such as this.

The Han/Leia relationship almost goes that way, except that Leia isn't out to "fix" Han. In fact, she pretty much blows him off until HE decides to get his own act together. Only then does she see that he is changing for the better and then finds something to truly love about him.

And from a personal opinion, I sincerely doubt that a "fix it" type of relationship is truly based on real "love." Love isn't about trying to change someone else into a preferential vision of what should be. It's about accepting others for who they are and allowing their whole person to complement who you are. Engaging another person with the intention of changing them isn't love, it's a game being played by the mechanic. Kudos to everyone if you win...but if you don't, as Padme didn't, the results could be catastrophic. :dead:

Elliejabbapop
06-16-2005, 12:47 PM
HOWEVER, a movie doesn't generally deal with the minority stereotype, particularly a movie in this genre.

stilla this is George's saga, he doesn't follow any rules of genre and stuff :D.



And from a personal opinion, I sincerely doubt that a "fix it" type of relationship is truly based on real "love." Love isn't about trying to change someone else into a preferential vision of what should be. It's about accepting others for who they are and allowing their whole person to complement who you are. Engaging another person with the intention of changing them isn't love, it's a game being played by the mechanic. Kudos to everyone if you win...but if you don't, as Padme didn't, the results could be catastrophic. :dead:

I agree stilla, but sometimes you try to change someone for their own good, because you love him/her and want him/her to be as happy as possible.
The problem is that if you don't understand the person's psychology you misjudge his/her behaviour, that's when everything turns into a catastrophe. It happened to me and I can assure you that the intentions are always good, the problem is how you persue them :) .

stillakid
06-16-2005, 12:56 PM
stilla this is George's saga, he doesn't follow any rules of genre and stuff :D.
I noticed. :D





I agree stilla, but sometimes you try to change someone for their own good, because you love him/her and want him/her to be as happy as possible.
The problem is that if you don't understand the person's psychology you misjudge his/her behaviour, that's when everything turns into a catastrophe. It happened to me and I can assure you that the intentions are always good, the problem is how you persue them :) .
I'm not trying to discredit what you're saying at all, but my question would be twofold: Why would you fall in love with someone who is "broken" in the first place? What is there to love about that person when they are effectively bad to begin with? I mean, unless it's a family member or someone you are compelled to "fix," what is the initial draw?

The second part of the query is in regard to whether it is really possible to truly love a person pre-fixing. This is reminiscent of those women who "fall in love" with losers in prison. I can only imagine that they either have a genuine unhealthy attraction to dangerous idiotic men or that they are merely playing a game of "fix him" as a challenge to themselves. Is that love? Or does it fall under "passion" (option one) or boredom (option two)?

The question of Anakin's motivation toward Padme certainly seems clear that it wasn't true love. And his lustful passion toward her is reciprocated in a way that bespeaks of a woman who doesn't know what's good for her. That would be all well and good except that she comes off as a completely logical and reasonable person in regard to absolutely everything else she does. This one thing about her doesn't fit in any way shape or form. Therefore the relationship seems forced if only because the script demands it in order to push the plot along to its predetermined conclusion.

2-1B
06-16-2005, 01:35 PM
Isn't that what I said? :confused:

YES, I was just agreeing with you in reply to the previous comment. :)

Elliejabbapop
06-16-2005, 05:17 PM
I'm not trying to discredit what you're saying at all, but my question would be twofold: Why would you fall in love with someone who is "broken" in the first place?

That my friend is one of the greatest misteries of the universe. Have you ever seen a couple and thought: "Ugh! How do these two stick together?".


The second part of the query is in regard to whether it is really possible to truly love a person pre-fixing. This is reminiscent of those women who "fall in love" with losers in prison. I can only imagine that they either have a genuine unhealthy attraction to dangerous idiotic men or that they are merely playing a game of "fix him" as a challenge to themselves. Is that love? Or does it fall under "passion" (option one) or boredom (option two)?

Women in love are always irrational (unfortunately :cry: ). I sometimes think how idiotic I am in my regard towards my loved one.


Therefore the relationship seems forced if only because the script demands it in order to push the plot along to its predetermined conclusion.

I think the real problem is that George tried to follow a "Romeo & Juliet" storyline so instead of a human love story we get a more "theatrical" one.
However, my deepest compliments go to the actors. I think in episode III Hayden and Natalie, maybe 'cause they already knew each other, made it a natural and believable love story, although I already loved them in episode II.
What I'd really like to see is the time lapse between the two episodes, because the truth is we don't know enough about their relationship, those daily and precious little details that make someone special to their loved one's eyes.

ps. It's ok Caesar, you are still THE MAN!!!

JediTricks
06-17-2005, 02:43 AM
JT, my sister was engaged twice before she got married last year and by her own admission both engagements were with men she thought she had to "fix." Thankfully she was wise enough to call it quits before taking the full plunge but she learned from that and is now quite happy. Anyway, both of those relationships were pretty long term and not quicky. FYI, these "fixer uppers" weren't total dirtbags or anything, they were decent enough guys I guess.She didn't marry either one though, did she? Padme is supposed to not only be wise beyond her years, but an experienced diplomat so she should know something of human behavior, yet she jumped right into marriage and spent 2 years with the guy who she just saw go crazy with rage and admit to killing dozens of innocents.



This doesn't happen in a flash of course, I could accept someone saying that maybe in epII their love is not love yet, but by the time they reach epIII there's something deeper going on. Perhaps, but keep in mind that I was talking about why Padme reciprocates in AOTC.



The thing I find hilarious about their whole relationship is that she's actually shocked and horrified at the end of ROTS when she finds out he's gone on a killing spree. She actually says something to the effect that "you've changed(to Anakin) you're not the man I fell in love with/married" .Well all I can say is she must have a very selective memory because he bloody tells her he's all for dictatorships and then later proceeds to tell her he's murdered a village full of sand people. How then can she be surprised when he gets slash happy again? Great point again, you are totally right, the only thing that's changed for her is that she can no longer go on pretending she can change him, I guess. :p



The Tusken "murder" and the slaughter of the Jedi younglings are very different. How so?
(BTW Ellie, I am not ignoring you, feel free to answer, but yours had a smilie which left it up in the air and Caesar's didn't so it makes a better quote).



stilla this is George's saga, he doesn't follow any rules of genre and stuff :D. I know I keep going back to this, but in Star Wars Lucas does (or "did" now, I guess) use easily-grasped contexts and motivations so that they are familiar to the audience even in the most unfamiliar setting, as he says here:

when I would get thrown into something like 'Seven Samurai' or 'Yojimbo' or 'Ikiru' or any of the movies, it was like, I had no idea what was going on, but I could follow the human story, but the culture was completely complex and oblique - and I liked that! I liked that feeling of being thrown into an environment, you know, trying to get my bearings, and still be able to tell a story in that environment that made sense, that you weren't so confused that you just couldn't follow it.... I was able to use archetypes which helped develop the characters and put them in a context where they could be easily-grasped, because they are traditional characters that are easy to understand, I felt that was important in a movie like this because if you're in a really bizarre, strange environment, if the lead characters have emotions and motivations that are very very familiar to you, then it's very easy for you to grab onto something in the movie and make sense out of it.


Women in love are always irrational (unfortunately :cry: ). I sometimes think how idiotic I am in my regard towards my loved one. Ah, but how did Padme *get* in love there? You even say that in Ep 2 it's not love. What are we supposed to think made Padme reciprocate Anakin's creepy over-the-top confused love?


I think the real problem is that George tried to follow a "Romeo & Juliet" storyline so instead of a human love story we get a more "theatrical" one. It's been a while for me, but didn't Shakespeare totally sidestep any pretext of why those 2 were actually in love? Wasn't it just one of these "they fall in love with each other only because that's how the story starts" sort of things? I think it works there because the love is really just the driving plot point of the story there, whereas in Eps 2 and 3 it's supposed to be just another tragic player in a larger tale and does not afford itself that luxury.

Elliejabbapop
06-17-2005, 03:09 AM
You can't explain the reasons for love JT, as I said in a previous post. It's sad but true.

ps. The Tuskens are monsters, if they did that to my mother I wouldn't hesitate. Anakin was never a "proper" jedi, he was always a human being before anything else, killing children is totally different my friend and we all know that. You kill a murderer and nobody cares, you kill a child and you get a death penalty or life sentence.

stillakid
06-17-2005, 07:52 AM
You can't explain the reasons for love JT, as I said in a previous post. It's sad but true.
That's a cop out invented by poets. If you look at any relationship and truly examine it honestly, you will be able to discover the specific elements that two people share and find that which has brought them together.

Sometimes it is deep and meaningful and is true love.

What one doesn't necessarily want to admit is that their relationship isn't truly love but is instead based on superficial attraction or this "mechanic" syndrome we're talking about. I can't say for sure, but it seems that being able to parade around a "fixed" man is quite the feather in a cap and cause for quite a bit of gossip with the girlfriends about how broken he used to be and how he got "fixed." Is that love? Or a darkside trait called "pride"?

Elliejabbapop
06-17-2005, 10:20 AM
That is totally untrue,
only the two people that form the couple know, and sometimes even they don't.
I still can't understand why my parents got together.

Elliejabbapop
06-17-2005, 10:30 AM
Sometimes it is deep and meaningful and is true love.

Sorry, what are you referring to?


What one doesn't necessarily want to admit is that their relationship isn't truly love but is instead based on superficial attraction or this "mechanic" syndrome we're talking about. I can't say for sure, but it seems that being able to parade around a "fixed" man is quite the feather in a cap and cause for quite a bit of gossip with the girlfriends about how broken he used to be and how he got "fixed." Is that love? Or a darkside trait called "pride"?

So by your standards what Luke did to Vader was done because of pride. Family or non-family member, it's still someone you love and whose situation you want to improve to prevent them from suffering any longer. FYI the women I know who "fixed", as you like to put it, their loved one did not go blabbering around about it. ;)

stillakid
06-17-2005, 11:51 AM
That is totally untrue,
only the two people that form the couple know, and sometimes even they don't.
I still can't understand why my parents got together.
Just because they haven't stopped to figure it out, doesn't mean that it can't be figured out. There's a difference. Some people have a relationship merely because of an extended infatuation based on physicality or whatnot. That doesn't mean it's "love." But admitting to yourself that your relationship isn't really based on mutual caring and admiration isn't the easiest thing to do.




So by your standards what Luke did to Vader was done because of pride.
Um, yeah, I suppose so. It sure wasn't done out of love. He wanted to save daddy because of the family connection, but love wasn't a driving force at all. Luke had absolutely no impetus to begin "loving" a guy he never knew. He may have cared about his dad, but that still isn't "love." Luke may not have gone to save Anakin for his sense of pride...in that case, it was probably just a bi-product of trying to bring down the demon which just happened to be inhabiting the body of his father. Whether Anakin repented or not, the primary goal was to kill Darth Vader. The redemption was a (welcome) bonus.

Elliejabbapop
06-17-2005, 04:45 PM
Just because they haven't stopped to figure it out, doesn't mean that it can't be figured out.

Of course, but in my opinion only by those two who are actually part of the couple. That whole thing of "putting yourself in one's shoes" is bull****.


There's a difference. Some people have a relationship merely because of an extended infatuation based on physicality or whatnot. That doesn't mean it's "love." But admitting to yourself that your relationship isn't really based on mutual caring and admiration isn't the easiest thing to do.

I hope there's no direct implication with my parents. ;)



Um, yeah, I suppose so. It sure wasn't done out of love. He wanted to save daddy because of the family connection, but love wasn't a driving force at all. Luke had absolutely no impetus to begin "loving" a guy he never knew. He may have cared about his dad, but that still isn't "love." Luke may not have gone to save Anakin for his sense of pride...in that case, it was probably just a bi-product of trying to bring down the demon which just happened to be inhabiting the body of his father. Whether Anakin repented or not, the primary goal was to kill Darth Vader. The redemption was a (welcome) bonus.

I hate to say this but it seems you've had a terrible childhood.
What if Luke wanted to know his father?

JediTricks
06-17-2005, 08:36 PM
You can't explain the reasons for love JT, as I said in a previous post. It's sad but true.Again, this isn't "true love" we're talking about, it's movie love, it's a fiction concocted by a writer to be acted on the screen as a plotpoint in a movie, in this case we're shown HOW they get together so the WHY should have been put in there with it giving the audience something to grab onto and make sense out of, and it wasn't so the audience cannot. There's no foundation for Padme to love Anakin except in the most artificial reasoning: it says so in the script.


ps. The Tuskens are monsters, if they did that to my mother I wouldn't hesitate. Anakin was never a "proper" jedi, he was always a human being before anything else, killing children is totally different my friend and we all know that. You kill a murderer and nobody cares, you kill a child and you get a death penalty or life sentence. Killing children is totally different, unless they're Tusken children and then it's hunky-dory? Bullspit, even Anakin shows that he thinks killing those innocent Tusken women and children was wrong. Mass-murder is not an excuse, even for revenge.


Of course, but in my opinion only by those two who are actually part of the couple. That whole thing of "putting yourself in one's shoes" is bull****. Except that the job of the movie is basically that, to put the audience into the shoes of its characters and take them on that part of the journey as they move through the story.

2-1B
06-18-2005, 12:00 AM
JT, I don't condone the killing of the Tusken children but those women surely weren't innocents. No, I don't condone their slayings either but it's more sympathetic than most other movie killings I have seen. :)
As to the example of my sister, no she didn't marry either of them but she was with each of them probably longer than Padme was with Anakin. lol

Stillakid, Luke kept saying that there was good in Vader and he had to try to turn him back to the good side so I disagree that his primary goal was to kill Vader. Oh, he didn't plan on Vader leaving that Death Star alive (Luke himself planned to die up there) but I think there's a difference. :)

Elliejabbapop
06-18-2005, 06:26 AM
Again, this isn't "true love" we're talking about, it's movie love

Where do you think "movie love" comes from or, even better, by what do you think it's inspired?



the audience cannot

Nope, you can't.


Killing children is totally different, unless they're Tusken children and then it's hunky-dory?

Little T. becomes Big T., Big T. is a murderer (and Anakin knows, he thinks it's wrong only 'cause he's a Jedi).


Except that the job of the movie is basically that, to put the audience into the shoes of its characters and take them on that part of the journey as they move through the story.

I never really felt that way about movies. It's more about learning than becoming.

stillakid
06-21-2005, 10:44 AM
I hate to say this but it seems you've had a terrible childhood.
What if Luke wanted to know his father?

Fortunately, you're 100% wrong. One things for sure, though. It seems as if you and I are living in completely different universes with two completely definitions of love and caring. Mine is more "Hallmarky." Yours? I can't even begin to find a word to describe it. ;)




Stillakid, Luke kept saying that there was good in Vader and he had to try to turn him back to the good side so I disagree that his primary goal was to kill Vader. Oh, he didn't plan on Vader leaving that Death Star alive (Luke himself planned to die up there) but I think there's a difference.
Of course he went there to kill "Darth Vader"...the personality. :) His primary goal was to "save" Anakin and if that meant killing the physical body to do it, that was one of the options. Naturally he probably would have preferred to just kill the personality of Vader so that the personality of Anakin could return, but it didn't turn out that way. :)




I never really felt that way about movies. It's more about learning than becoming.
That's what documentaries are for. A fictional story is supposed to offer the audience characters with whom they can empathize with in one manner or another.

Elliejabbapop
06-21-2005, 12:22 PM
I disagree with you stilla. When I watch a movie I try to learn about the "human type" a certain character represents. However, we do indeed live in two different universes, I just hope that in the future these two universes can find something in common. :)
I'm just curious about one thing: what do you mean by "Hallmarky"? ;) You can pm me if you like.

2-1B
06-21-2005, 12:36 PM
If anything is fake, it's Hallmark. lol

stillakid
06-21-2005, 01:43 PM
I disagree with you stilla.
But of course you do, EJP! ;)



When I watch a movie I try to learn about the "human type" a certain character represents. However, we do indeed live in two different universes, I just hope that in the future these two universes can find something in common. :)
I'm just curious about one thing: what do you mean by "Hallmarky"? ;) You can pm me if you like.
Hallmarky, as in, romantic kind of love. Sappy, corny, "get a room"...all that goes with that. True caring, understanding, sharing...complimentary personalities adding to one another's lives. That's "Hallmarky" as in Hallmark Greeting cards. :)

Ani and Padme were more "Springy," as in "Jerry Springer" trailer park...co-dependent...obsessive...destructive. That's not love in my opinion and I have to believe that the majority of civilization would agree with me. But then again, I haven't run any major surveys either. :classic:

Droid
06-21-2005, 04:09 PM
The Tusken "murder" and the slaughter of the Jedi younglings are very different.

That strikes me as a position that in the Star Wars universe would amount to racism. In both instances Anakin killed children, just of different races (or species). I admit that killling monkeys and human babies is not the same thing, but I think, especially in the Star Wars universe, that all sentient beings, such as humans, Wookies, sandpeople are supposed to be equal. I guess I could see a bit of a distinction if Anakin had slaughtered a bunch of Stawr Wars animals such dewbacks or banthas that eaten his mother. But Anakin was killing children. The only difference between the Tuskens and the younglings is that the Tuskens didn't have white faces and cute little English accents.

As for Anakin and Padme, their relationship was a mess, both in the way it was written and in terms of just accepting it as a real relationship. There was no reason offered for why Padme falls for Anakin, which really only occurs once he admits that he killed the Tuskens.

I think part of their problem was that Attack of the Clones happened over a very short period of time. After that, the Expanded Universe and Episode III lead us to believe Anakin and Padme only had stolen moments together over the next three years. They were always apart. They would get together, have a short period of passion, and be on their way. Anyone can have a great date or visit with someone, the test of love is making it work day in and day out. Anakin and Padme never had to work out their finances or who would pick up the dry cleaning or other issues that real couples have to deal with. Owen and Beru, making it work alone on the farm, now that was probably a marriage. Since Anakin and Padme never had to discover if their relationship would work when they were together day in and day out (without someone shooting at them), it is no surprise their marriage could not survive real problems.

Elliejabbapop
06-21-2005, 05:14 PM
That strikes me as a position that in the Star Wars universe would amount to racism. In both instances Anakin killed children, just of different races (or species). I admit that killling monkeys and human babies is not the same thing, but I think, especially in the Star Wars universe, that all sentient beings, such as humans, Wookies, sandpeople are supposed to be equal. I guess I could see a bit of a distinction if Anakin had slaughtered a bunch of Stawr Wars animals such dewbacks or banthas that eaten his mother. But Anakin was killing children. The only difference between the Tuskens and the younglings is that the Tuskens didn't have white faces and cute little English accents.

I think the way of the killing is different opposed to the race of those who are slaughtered. When Ani kills the Tuskens his mind is no longer his own, he is out of control and later it's like he's woken up from a bad dream, whereas when he kills the Younglings he is fully conscious. That's why, as a woman, I'd forgive the first one as an act of pure anger.


As for Anakin and Padme, their relationship was a mess, both in the way it was written and in terms of just accepting it as a real relationship. There was no reason offered for why Padme falls for Anakin, which really only occurs once he admits that he killed the Tuskens.

Oh I see, so you think Padme fell in love with him because of what he did to the Tuskens. lol Talk about bad writing. lol lol lol


I think part of their problem was that Attack of the Clones happened over a very short period of time. After that, the Expanded Universe and Episode III lead us to believe Anakin and Padme only had stolen moments together over the next three years. They were always apart. They would get together, have a short period of passion, and be on their way.

We don't know that for sure.


the test of love is making it work day in and day out.

Honey, I can assure you that's just a load of crap that men invented to keep their women at home and my own personal experience, which I will not discuss here, proves it. When you really love someone you want to be with him/her but if you can't the relationship still works out. What about soldiers eh? By your standards they should never be able to love.
Some people spend every day together and never get to know each other for real. This doesn't mean what you say is total crap, spending as much time as possible together helps to understand and possibly accept your loved one's flaws but sometimes it's just not enough and it can make things worse.

Elliejabbapop
06-21-2005, 05:16 PM
I have to believe that the majority of civilization would agree with me.

Have a good illusion! :D Not everybody "calculates" the odds of love like you do.

JediTricks
06-21-2005, 11:39 PM
That strikes me as a position that in the Star Wars universe would amount to racism. In both instances Anakin killed children, just of different races (or species).Ha! Interesting point, espcially since so many of the Jedi and younglings were non-human races, they were just as foreign to Lil Orphan Ani as any Tusken, only Ani wasn't mad at any of them.


I admit that killling monkeys and human babies is not the same thing, but I think, especially in the Star Wars universe, that all sentient beings, such as humans, Wookies, sandpeople are supposed to be equal. Keep in mind, in Star Wars your namesakes, droids, are supposed to represent a slave underclass. But of course, I can't imagine not being incredibly horrified at anybody who killed dozens of monkeys out of anger, so for me it's still pretty close and Anakin by admitting he killed not just the men but the women and children as well seems impossible for anybody who saw that to fall in love with.


As for Anakin and Padme, their relationship was a mess, both in the way it was written and in terms of just accepting it as a real relationship. There was no reason offered for why Padme falls for Anakin, which really only occurs once he admits that he killed the Tuskens. I think part of their problem was that Attack of the Clones happened over a very short period of time. After that, the Expanded Universe and Episode III lead us to believe Anakin and Padme only had stolen moments together over the next three years. They were always apart. They would get together, have a short period of passion, and be on their way. Anyone can have a great date or visit with someone, the test of love is making it work day in and day out. I still don't see in all of that why Padme would marry Anakin, not even a hint of a clue.



I think the way of the killing is different opposed to the race of those who are slaughtered. When Ani kills the Tuskens his mind is no longer his own, he is out of control and later it's like he's woken up from a bad dream, whereas when he kills the Younglings he is fully conscious. That's why, as a woman, I'd forgive the first one as an act of pure anger. That's sick! Killing kids is fine so long as you're really angry about it? It's not like we ever see Anakin go into a zombie-like trance before killing the Tuskens, murder is nearly always a hate crime so how can you justify the murder of one group of children and not another simply because he was POed? I could understand forgiving someone smashing the wall with his fist in a fit of rage, but there's a huge difference between a quick violent outburst and killing an entire encampment of Tusken men, women, and children.


Oh I see, so you think Padme fell in love with him because of what he did to the Tuskens. lol Talk about bad writing. He didn't say that's why she did it, but at least Droid has marked down a point where she changes - nobody here yet has explained WHY she reciprocates his obsessive love.

2-1B
06-22-2005, 01:10 AM
That strikes me as a position that in the Star Wars universe would amount to racism. In both instances Anakin killed children, just of different races (or species). I admit that killling monkeys and human babies is not the same thing, but I think, especially in the Star Wars universe, that all sentient beings, such as humans, Wookies, sandpeople are supposed to be equal. I guess I could see a bit of a distinction if Anakin had slaughtered a bunch of Stawr Wars animals such dewbacks or banthas that eaten his mother. But Anakin was killing children. The only difference between the Tuskens and the younglings is that the Tuskens didn't have white faces and cute little English accents.

That is not at what what I meant to imply, and I am uneasy with my comment being associated with racism.

I didn't mean they were "different" scenarios because of skin color, but rather the mitigating circumstances surrounding the acts. In the case of the Tuskens, I don't blame Anakin for killing those Tusken Men who killed his mother. The women were also guilty in their failure to do anything. The children were not at all guilty of anything so I do not condone their killing.

And of course I'm not saying it was RIGHT to kill them, I'm just saying it's understandable. Like this guy at work whose daughter was molested by a coworker/friend. If he would have gone off and popped the guy, I would say it was "wrong" to do so but not 1st degree murder. If somebody ever did to my mom what those Tuskens did to Ani's mom, you better believe I would want to wipe out those responsible. lol

Anyway, wer'e moving beyond the realm of "movie killing" into real world killing and I'm getting creeped out . . . and besides, even Anakin showed remorse and knew what he did was wrong, I'm not totally excusing his behavior.

JediTricks
06-22-2005, 02:19 AM
I didn't mean they were "different" scenarios because of skin color, but rather the mitigating circumstances surrounding the acts. In the case of the Tuskens, I don't blame Anakin for killing those Tusken Men who killed his mother. The women were also guilty in their failure to do anything. The children were not at all guilty of anything so I do not condone their killing.So many movies with cowboys and indians have the indians simply raiding a cowboy town and stealing and raping their women, the cowboys eventually track down the indians and kill everybody in sight in the name of "justice", but that doesn't make killing the indian guy who just came back from his mother-in-law's place and had nothing to do with that raid any less racist.

And what if these Tuskens had a REASON to take Shmi? What if they took her and held her because of something some other moisture farmer did to their women, or that the Lars moisture farm is actually on Tusken land? What if the Tusken women are basically a secondary caste and could not stop what the males did to Shmi? Would those mitigate the Tuskens' actions or the Tusken women's culpability in Shmi's death, either of which making Anakin's wholesale slaughter of their village more evil, and if so why do mitigating circumstances affect the murder of dozens of innocents whether they be men or women? If the mindset is simply that "they're evil so it's ok to kill 'em all", that is racism because it attaches the trait and culpability of a single individual or small group onto a larger group based on their common racial background.


And of course I'm not saying it was RIGHT to kill them, I'm just saying it's understandable. Like this guy at work whose daughter was molested by a coworker/friend. If he would have gone off and popped the guy, I would say it was "wrong" to do so but not 1st degree murder. Let's turn this around and change the racism angle for a second to just guilt-by-association... what if the father at work whose daughter was molested by another party, what if that father tracked down that molestor at a crackhouse and killed 20 people at the crackhouse because 1 of the people there was the molestor who touched his daughter? Would you not feel that the father who killed 19 other people for revenge on his daughter was a murderer? Would his rage in any way mitigate the slayings of those 19 non-molesting people? The law defines what first-degree murder is, not some random guy on the street, the jury has to apply that law to the case that is presented to them but the bottom line is still that the law applies whether you or I think it doesn't -- hence, justice is blind.


Anyway, wer'e moving beyond the realm of "movie killing" into real world killing and I'm getting creeped out . . . and besides, even Anakin showed remorse and knew what he did was wrong, I'm not totally excusing his behavior.Well, we're supposed to relate to Anakin's actions here even if we find them abhorrent, and more to the point, we're supposed to be able to accept that Padme is able to fall in love and marry a man who has admitted to killing an entire camp of Sandpeople and he KNOWS it was at least somewhat wrong. I can't rectify that, I can't even figure out how she loves him in the first place, let alone loves him enough to forgive such a heinous crime.

2-1B
06-22-2005, 02:45 AM
I understand what you are saying about Cowboys and Indians, yes I know that shot of Anakin looking over the cliff aped that John Wayne movie, and I'm still not going to discuss this in racial terms.

I'm not going into the crackhouse scenario because in the case of AOTC Anakin found his mom and killed those who were there, he didn't hunt down a DIFFERENT group of Tuskens and slaughter them.

No, justice isn't blind so I'm not going to argue that either, we'd have to move to the Rancor Pit. ;)


Well, we're supposed to relate to Anakin's actions here even if we find them abhorrent,

And I do relate to them. :) That's why I can put myself in that situation and say "Okay, the objective part of my brain sees that what he did was wrong and he went overboard in seeking revenge, to the point where he killed innocents . . . (I believe I have the moral fiber to not give in as he did) . . . BUT if I were in that situation, having just found my tortured and dead mother with the "satisfaction" of vengeance packed conveniently within my lightsaber hilt, then Yeah, I can see myself WANTING to do that." lol

Beyond that, we're talking 1st degree, 2nd degree, manslaughter, Juries, Racism, and I'm just not interested so I'll bid this topic a good day. :beard:

edit: Okay I couldn't resist, I'll add one more quick thought:

If "we" DO go ahead and read into it to the point where we are discussing Racism, then I will give Lucas credit for showing things the way he did, the way people in general throughout history have demonized and marginalized people under certain labels thus making it more "excusable" to kill them. JT, that point you made about the how the racial stuff works IS a valid one, it just doesn't come into play for me when I watch AOTC.

Elliejabbapop
06-22-2005, 02:57 AM
so for me it's still pretty close and Anakin by admitting he killed not just the men but the women and children as well seems impossible for anybody who saw that to fall in love with.

Monkeys don't kill human beings do they? As a woman, I'd have no problem marrying a guy who's taken his revenge towards murderers in this society WITHOUT JUSTICE so bear with it.


That's sick! Killing kids is fine so long as you're really angry about it?

I'm not justifying anything.


but there's a huge difference between a quick violent outburst

That's what it was, like it or not. You're not very keen on studying human behaviour are you?


He didn't say that's why she did it, but at least Droid has marked down a point where she changes - nobody here yet has explained WHY she reciprocates his obsessive love.

It's implied. However, I have no respect for someone who enjoys bashing the prequels without even thinking, especially a mod who could use it to his advantage which is disgusting, so our discussion ends here. Bash all you want, I've noticed I'm not the only member who disapproves of your behaviour.

Droid
06-22-2005, 09:08 AM
That is not at what what I meant to imply, and I am uneasy with my comment being associated with racism.

I apologize if in any way you thought I was accusing you of racism or making a racist comment. I actually rewrote my post several times before posting it because I kept thinking, "No, no, that's not right. I don't want him to think I am accusing him of racism."

I think your initial comment somehow implied that IN THE STAR WARS universe, Tuskens were beings of lesser value than Younglings. If that was not your meaning, I apologize for misinterpreting.

I in no way assume you have any racism in you or that you make racist comments. I was having a Star Wars discussion.

Droid
06-22-2005, 09:12 AM
However, I have no respect for someone who enjoys bashing the prequels without even thinking, especially a mod who could use it to his advantage which is disgusting, so our discussion ends here. Bash all you want, I've noticed I'm not the only member who disapproves of your behaviour.

I think most of your comments were directed at JediTricks, but I would not say I enjoy bashing the prequels, or that I even bash the prequels. I just think there are some inherent problems with the way they were done. I still love all six movies. If you would like, I could give you a few things I think should have been done differently in the original trilogy. For example, I think Boba Fett's death was poorly executed in Return of the Jedi, which Lucas admitted on the Return of the Jedi audio commentary.

I was not trying to cause people to have a personal argument by anything that I said, nor was I trying to offend anyone. If I have done either, I apologize.

CaptainSolo1138
06-22-2005, 09:46 AM
However, I have no respect for someone who enjoys bashing the prequels without even thinking, especially a mod who could use it to his advantage which is disgusting, so our discussion ends here. Bash all you want, I've noticed I'm not the only member who disapproves of your behaviour.
I have no respect for people who feel the need to always talk down to others. Go ahead and argue, I've noticed I'm not the only member who disapproves of your behavior.

Anyway, there's a difference between "Prequel bashing" and "criticism of the Prequels". I can't stand "bashing" and I'm usually quick to point it out and call someone on it. Nothing I have read here qualifies, IMO, to "bashing". Example:

*"WTF was with that stupid 'NOOOOOOOOOO'? That ruined the movie!"=Bashing
*"WTF was with the hairbrushing on the balcony? That ruined the movie!"=Bashing

But.........

*Questioning someones motivations for wanting to get married to a killer = A critical discussion about the Prequels.

The keyword is discussion. Bashing leaves nothing open to discussion and accepts no counter-points.




Oh, yeah: :)

2-1B
06-22-2005, 11:23 AM
I apologize if in any way you thought I was accusing you of racism or making a racist comment. I actually rewrote my post several times before posting it because I kept thinking, "No, no, that's not right. I don't want him to think I am accusing him of racism."

I think your initial comment somehow implied that IN THE STAR WARS universe, Tuskens were beings of lesser value than Younglings. If that was not your meaning, I apologize for misinterpreting.

I in no way assume you have any racism in you or that you make racist comments. I was having a Star Wars discussion.

thanks Droid. :)

No apologies necessary though, I guess I knew what you were getting at, I just didn't want anybody reading that to think that *I* was dismissing the slaughter of the Tuskens because of their "subhuman nature" or whatever . . . in fact, I even started a thread awhile back asking if "Sandpeople" was a slur of some kind.

Like I was saying to JT, I think there is some validity to the comparison between Tuskens and the depiction of Native Americans in films and society, it's just that *I* was not making my posts under any of those comparisons.

If that makes any sense ? :D

Elliejabbapop
06-22-2005, 12:48 PM
I think most of your comments were directed at JediTricks

You're right, they were.


I just think there are some inherent problems with the way they were done. I still love all six movies.

That's not what bothers me I just didn't like your tone.

Elliejabbapop
06-22-2005, 01:18 PM
I have no respect for people who feel the need to always talk down to others.

Look who's talking. You bump out of nowhere in the middle of a discussion in which you didn't even take part and express your sincere (!) hate towards me. I don't recall even having a discussion with you.
I'm not the one talking down here, that's a basher's job.


Go ahead and argue

Thank you, but I don't need your approval to discuss.


I've noticed I'm not the only member who disapproves of your behavior.

You've just discovered hot water. lol
BTW these friends of yours are not upset by my behaviour, but by my point of view. I have the right to express my opinion just like everybody else so bare with it.


Nothing I have read here qualifies, IMO, to "bashing".

Are you blind (or even worse)? Seriously, I'm not naming names.


*"WTF was with that stupid 'NOOOOOOOOOO'? That ruined the movie!"=Bashing
*"WTF was with the hairbrushing on the balcony? That ruined the movie!"=Bashing

You don't need to use bad words to bash, it can be done in a more subtle way.


Questioning someones motivations for wanting to get married to a killer = A critical discussion about the Prequels.

The difference between bashing and discussing a topic all depends on the way it's done. Any prequel topic is good for one or the other.
(BTW revealed your opinion is: that plain "killer" thing depends on points of view, if you wish to know my take on it read my previous posts)


The keyword is discussion. Bashing leaves nothing open to discussion and accepts no counter-points.

Ta-Da :p A lot of people are saying the same things with different words, it's a very subtle technique.

CaptainSolo1138
06-22-2005, 01:56 PM
Look who's talking. You bump out of nowhere in the middle of a discussion in which you didn't even take part
Sometimes I'd just rather read until I have something to say, not just get my post count up.


and express your sincere (!) hate towards me.[
Those are your words, "sweetie", not mine.



Thank you, but I don't need your approval to discuss.
Never said you needed it. Again, your words, certainly not mine.


Are you blind (or even worse)?
:confused:



You don't need to use bad words to bash, it can be done in a more subtle way.
You don't need to. If it makes you feel better, remove the "bad words". My point still stands.




The difference between bashing and discussing a topic all depends on the way it's done.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's what I was getting at.

Elliejabbapop
06-22-2005, 04:45 PM
Your point still stands does it? Where??? Nowhere.
I think it's useless to build castles in the air so let's just end this pointless debate.
Does that seem fair to you or is this bickering worthy of your divine and honest "deus ex machina"?
Be careful, people might start thinking you want to get your post count up just like the other unworthy members. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

JediTricks
06-22-2005, 07:32 PM
Last night I had an epiphany about this topic: Padme finally reciprocates Anakin's love only after he has given in to the dark side of the Force, so it is entirely possible that Anakin taps into the dark side to use his Force powers to persuade her to fill the void in his heart and love him back. This would explain why there seems to be no suggestive evidence of why Padme loves Ani back before this beyond "she just does", and fits with his journey towards the dark side to boot. Do I really believe this is what happens? Probably not, but I do think that it's possible and seems to be at least as plausible an explanation of any we've come up with so far.



No, justice isn't blind so I'm not going to argue that either, we'd have to move to the Rancor Pit. ;) If political discussion is directly within the scope of a movie thread's discussion, it's allowed. In any case though, justice is supposed to be blind (I actually typed that in my previous post, put the "supposed to be" in parenthesis and then removed it because I didn't want to end that part of the discussion on a negative and open-ended note).


And I do relate to them. :) That's why I can put myself in that situation and say "Okay, the objective part of my brain sees that what he did was wrong and he went overboard in seeking revenge, to the point where he killed innocents . . . (I believe I have the moral fiber to not give in as he did) . . . BUT if I were in that situation, having just found my tortured and dead mother with the "satisfaction" of vengeance packed conveniently within my lightsaber hilt, then Yeah, I can see myself WANTING to do that." lol

Beyond that, we're talking 1st degree, 2nd degree, manslaughter, Juries, Racism, and I'm just not interested so I'll bid this topic a good day. :beard: First off, if you're not willing to discuss the gray area created by the mitigation aspect, then either you are chalking him up as guilty or not guilty - and it seems to me that you're chalking it up on the "not guilty" side of that which seems wrong to me, killing innocents is killing innocents.

Secondly though, my point wasn't that we're supposed to relate to Anakin's actions so much as it was that we're supposed to relate to them and apply that to how Padme can fall in love with the reality of those actions.


If "we" DO go ahead and read into it to the point where we are discussing Racism, then I will give Lucas credit for showing things the way he did, the way people in general throughout history have demonized and marginalized people under certain labels thus making it more "excusable" to kill them. JT, that point you made about the how the racial stuff works IS a valid one, it just doesn't come into play for me when I watch AOTC. Racism has been a factor of Star Wars since ANH, the droids are meant to represent a third-class slave group of people and only Luke treats them as equals; TPM deals with racism directly by showing the racism on both sides that kept the Gungans and Naboo apart; AOTC and ROTS deal with literally an entire RACE of second-class citizens in the form of the disposable army. Lucas doesn't avoid the topic, he just doesn't jam it down our throats either, he lets its statement be quiet and work in the background so you don't get taken out of the story by it. In AOTC, Anakin equates the sentient Tuskens to animals, both guilty and innocents, as if his slaughter of them is somehow justified by that when I believe we're supposed to see that it's anything but.



Monkeys don't kill human beings do they? As a woman, I'd have no problem marrying a guy who's taken his revenge towards murderers in this society WITHOUT JUSTICE so bear with it. Monkeys do kill each other, and they have been known to attack humans with what appears to be the same intent. I don't really get your point though, killing to me is wrong no matter what. Your argument that killing a bunch of murderers doens't seem valid as we are talking about Ani's slaughter of the innocents.


I'm not justifying anything. You are as long as you don't take those dead innocent Tusken women and children into account. You're also not answering the query at hand either, what are we led to believe makes Padme reciprocate Anakin's love, what motivates her to feel that kind of love for him beyond simply that she does.


It's implied. How, what was it? Point to it, not the actions taken, but the motivation that led to them.


However, I have no respect for someone who enjoys bashing the prequels without even thinking, especially a mod who could use it to his advantage which is disgusting, so our discussion ends here. Bash all you want, I've noticed I'm not the only member who disapproves of your behaviour. I'll try not to drown myself in my tears at the notion. However, I'm not bashing here, I'm exploring my opinions and feelings on these topics through discussion with other people - I make no request of you to accept my takes on things.



No apologies necessary though, I guess I knew what you were getting at, I just didn't want anybody reading that to think that *I* was dismissing the slaughter of the Tuskens because of their "subhuman nature" or whatever . . . in fact, I even started a thread awhile back asking if "Sandpeople" was a slur of some kind. Is that what your Sandpeople thread was getting at? I think I missed that part, I took it very technically I suppose. Just to clarify, I was only discussing the mindset I thought you were describing from the movie, and what the movie's writer wanted us to take away, it never was meant to say that you are a racist by saying so, and apologize if it came off that way to you.

stillakid
06-22-2005, 11:00 PM
Last night I had an epiphany about this topic: Padme finally reciprocates Anakin's love only after he has given in to the dark side of the Force, so it is entirely possible that Anakin taps into the dark side to use his Force powers to persuade her to fill the void in his heart and love him back. This would explain why there seems to be no suggestive evidence of why Padme loves Ani back before this beyond "she just does", and fits with his journey towards the dark side to boot. Do I really believe this is what happens? Probably not, but I do think that it's possible and seems to be at least as plausible an explanation of any we've come up with so far.

Perhaps, but as sad as it sounds, Ellie's explanation seems sickeningly more plausible to me. We have real world proof of mentally skewed women who purposefully go after Fu**-ups in and out of prison because they are drawn to "broken" men for some bizarro reason. Because we know it exists in reality, I can buy it as plausible.

My only problem with it at this point is that it is being used as an absolutely major plot device within a movie saga that otherwise uses fairly conventional themes and archetypes. As I mentioned before, I think that this example of a sick and codependent relationship is fine for an independent film which specifically explores that nutty side of human behavior, but in no way should it have ever reared it's crazy head inside this storyline. A Star Wars love story should always err on the traditional side much like what we saw develop between Han and Leia. Anything else is radically out of place. George might as well have dropped Roger Rabbit into the movie. At least another cartoon would have made at least a little bit of sense. :ermm:

darko666
06-22-2005, 11:34 PM
George might as well have dropped Roger Rabbit into the movie. At least another cartoon would have made at least a little bit of sense. :ermm:

i wonder what the dialouge between Roger and Jar Jar would be like. i can see the Oscar now.

as for Padme "falling" in "love" with Anakin, as i stated in the begining of this thread, it just does't make sense. she even tells Anakin in AOTC that she was dying a little inside ever since he came back into her life. then she also tells him right after that, that she has fallen in love with him. which one is it... dying or loving? their so called "love" isn't the love we see with Han and Leia. this seems like a love between... well, honestly, i don't know what kind of love this is. but the way it happens and how it appears to the audience isn't believable. nothing in the scenes provide any reason for them being truly in love. but thats just how i see it.

2-1B
06-23-2005, 12:51 AM
JT - oh no worries, my comments to Droid about the racism thing goes for you as well, no apologies necessary and no insult taken by me. :)

Well, briefly on the gray area, I thought I was touching on it a bit in my position that the men were guilty and I don't mind them getting Lighstsaber Vengeance lol , the women are guilty in one way but not as guilty in another, and the children are definitely innocent. Anakin went too far in his revenge, I don't condone the extent to which he went but I sympathize with how it started, and beyond that I honestly don't look at it any deeper. He, too, ackknowledges that he is "better than this."
(thankfully that line got put back in the DVD ! ! !)

Elliejabbapop
06-23-2005, 02:52 AM
Last night I had an epiphany about this topic: Padme finally reciprocates Anakin's love only after he has given in to the dark side of the Force, so it is entirely possible that Anakin taps into the dark side to use his Force powers to persuade her to fill the void in his heart and love him back. This would explain why there seems to be no suggestive evidence of why Padme loves Ani back before this beyond "she just does", and fits with his journey towards the dark side to boot. Do I really believe this is what happens? Probably not, but I do think that it's possible and seems to be at least as plausible an explanation of any we've come up with so far.

If I were a man I could think of this as a legit theory. However, unfortunately for you I'm a woman, I know what we girls are like towards men so I can safely say your theory is absolute crap. BTW do you remember that scene next to the fireplace? That "we're guardless of the way we feel for each other" implies that she's already been "zapped" ;), before our Tusken friends.
Perhaps the film doesn't show the love story's evolution as well as the book, read it (in a non-prejudiced way).


Monkeys do kill each other, and they have been known to attack humans with what appears to be the same intent.

Willingly? No.


the innocents.

???


You are as long as you don't take those dead innocent Tusken women and children into account.

Do we know that Tusken women and children are not murderers themselves? No.


You're also not answering the query at hand either, what are we led to believe makes Padme reciprocate Anakin's love, what motivates her to feel that kind of love for him beyond simply that she does.

This is the ultimate proof that you haven't read my previous posts. lol


I make no request of you to accept my takes on things.

But you do. I am unsusbcribing from this thread, it's useless to go round in circles with bashers (you're not the only one I see) who have but one intent and are not open to CONSTRUCTIVE discussion. So go ahead, "win" (sic!) the discussion, let's see if you're so dumb as to answer while knowing I'll never be able to read.

Droid
06-23-2005, 09:27 AM
Here's a terrible line from Padme in Revenge. It went something like:

I wish we were back on Naboo. Life was so simple then. No war, no plotting, no politics, no problems.

Did that strike anyone else as insane? Has she forgotten Attack of the Clones? SENATOR Amidala was hiding on Naboo because people were trying to kill her, as the legislation to create an army was hotly debated in the Senate. Meanwhile the Separtists and Republic were gearing up for war as the galaxy began to split apart.

I personally think it is the dumbest line of dialogue in the whole Saga. I used to think the dumbest lines were both from Leia. Empire: "Why are they doing this?" (BECAUSE YOU'RE A PART OF THE REBEL ALLIANCE AND A TRAITOR) Jedi: I know (you're my brother), somehow I've always known. (Like when I kissed you in a New Hope and made out with you in the infirmary on Hoth in Empire?)

stillakid
06-23-2005, 10:14 AM
But you do. I am unsusbcribing from this thread, it's useless to go round in circles with bashers (you're not the only one I see) who have but one intent and are not open to CONSTRUCTIVE discussion. So go ahead, "win" (sic!) the discussion, let's see if you're so dumb as to answer while knowing I'll never be able to read.

Run and hide when nobody can find reason to agree with a point? That's mature. :rolleyes: Just saying, "well, you don't know women so you must be a basher," is a poor line of reasoning in a true discussion. If anyone is a "basher" here, it would be Ellie for bashing men for not agreeing to agree with her reasoning based on the faith of her words. "Because I said so" may work with her kids, but I'm certainly not interested in the trite emotionally-based "rationales" when more solid reasoning is called for.

And if our (bashers :rolleyes: ) comments were meant only for one person, they would be sent in a private message instead of out here on the floor. So a response to such an insulting ("you're so dumb") comment is not only appropriate, but necessary.

JediTricks
06-23-2005, 11:09 PM
Perhaps, but as sad as it sounds, Ellie's explanation seems sickeningly more plausible to me. We have real world proof of mentally skewed women who purposefully go after Fu**-ups in and out of prison because they are drawn to "broken" men for some bizarro reason. Because we know it exists in reality, I can buy it as plausible.Someone who is able to quickly rise to the position of leadership and then senator doesn't seem like a women who not only falls for "the broken man" but immediately marries him. I don't buy that, and that only compounds when you take into account, as you said, it being not the type of codependent behavior that fits with the traditional archetypes which Lucas tries to base his work here upon.


as for Padme "falling" in "love" with Anakin, as i stated in the begining of this thread, it just does't make sense. This is how I feel about it as well.


she even tells Anakin in AOTC that she was dying a little inside ever since he came back into her life. then she also tells him right after that, that she has fallen in love with him. which one is it... dying or loving? She says a lot of things that don't go together. During the "vacation from the movie" sequences, she is not showing any interest in Anakin when they get to the lake house on Naboo, then later after a dinner, all of a sudden she says that even if she had feelings, they could never do this because they could not live a lie - is this where her feelings first appear? Is she saying that she does have feelings for him? Where did this come from, and why does she just melt her convictions away before we get to Geonosis and she says she's been dying a little each day since they met again and since she's about to die anyway, oh yeah, now she deeply loves him? What has happened between then and now, besides Ani admitting to killing innocent children, which makes her feel a deep love for him? Like you, I totally don't get it.



Well, briefly on the gray area, I thought I was touching on it a bit in my position that the men were guilty and I don't mind them getting Lighstsaber Vengeance lol , the women are guilty in one way but not as guilty in another, and the children are definitely innocent. Let's just assume that all the men are 'guilty', as Anakin did and I'll accept for this argument that this is the case (classic cowboys & injuns movie stuff), when he separates out the women by saying "and not just the men, but the women and children too", that seems to be separating those 2 groups from the 'guilt' of the men -- he doesn't say "and not just the men and women, but the children too" which would have suggested culpability in Ani's mind on the part of the Tusken women.


Anakin went too far in his revenge, I don't condone the extent to which he went but I sympathize with how it started, and beyond that I honestly don't look at it any deeper. Even if you sympathize with what he did, that doesn't make it acceptable, does it? You don't have to look deeper, you don't have to use detached-from-emotionless consideration that the law would require, but I think even on the level you're at, it's not just "totally condemn" vs "totally accept", there is sympathy and even possibly understanding but it's still a condemnable, horrific act.



If I were a man I could think of this as a legit theory. However, unfortunately for you I'm a woman, I know what we girls are like towards men so I can safely say your theory is absolute crap. I thought you were "done" with me and my end of the discussion. And as for your theory, to me it holds no validity, it comes off as the kind of pap from B-level romance novels where the author just throws the man and woman together for no reason at all except to move the story along.


BTW do you remember that scene next to the fireplace? That "we're guardless of the way we feel for each other" implies that she's already been "zapped" ;), before our Tusken friends.Yes, I know she admits to feelings for him during the fireplace scene, but not to the level that he is at, she is not reciprocating that. What "we're guardless..." line are you talking about? I just queued up the movie and watched the scene while comparing it to the script, there's no line like that in either version.


Perhaps the film doesn't show the love story's evolution as well as the book, read it (in a non-prejudiced way). Here's a question I posed to DarthAngel a few weeks ago:
you tell me, if the movie requires the novel to explain characterizations, isn't that a sign of BAD writing on the movie's part?
And DarthAngel's response:
JT you are absolutely right. If a movie needs the novel adaptation to expand on characterization, then you are in a heap of trouble.
Here's how I feel about this, as I posted on 6/2/05 (showthread.php?p=405069#post405069):

(it) sounds to me like you're saying the movie is not a "whole story" on its own. Either way though, the movie is canon, the book is not. For me, the movie is the "story", the book is written by someone else to suppliment the movie with Expanded Universe material, fine for the book, but I have no interest in a movie requiring any sort of homework. I should be reading the EU for the movies because I want to, not because the movie fails to tell the story correctly.


Monkeys do kill each other, and they have been known to attack humans with what appears to be the same intent. Willingly? No. Yes, willingly. Remember back in March when a couple was viciously attacked by several chimps, the guy's face was literally ripped off: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-03-04-chimp-attack_x.htm



the innocents.??? What next, just gonna do one-word quotes at me?


a What's that mean???
Anyway, if you had quoted my comment in even a single sentence's worth of context, you'd see "Your argument that killing a bunch of murderers doens't seem valid as we are talking about Ani's slaughter of the innocents." and that was in response to a lengthy discussion we had been having about Anakin killing Tusken children, "the innocents".


Do we know that Tusken women and children are not murderers themselves? No. Oh, that's surely a viable argument, "we have absolutely no proof to suggest it, but since they're Tuskens, for all we know they killed other people that weren't involved here". :rolleyes: Anyway, as I mentioned earlier in this post, within the movie's context Anakin separates the men's culpability from the women and children.


This is the ultimate proof that you haven't read my previous posts.Actually, I have, and I asked you to point out where you answered the "query at hand", remember? And you declined to respond.


let's see if you're so dumb as to answer while knowing I'll never be able to read. I'm responding in the hopes that someone else with a similar point of view to your own will pick up the pieces and try to show us what you were getting at, because you have not done so, instead choosing to go with cheap personal attacks.



Did that strike anyone else as insane? Has she forgotten Attack of the Clones? SENATOR Amidala was hiding on Naboo because people were trying to kill her, as the legislation to create an army was hotly debated in the Senate. Meanwhile the Separtists and Republic were gearing up for war as the galaxy began to split apart. Heh heh, don't forget that Naboo was also home to the Trade Federation blockade previously as well, not the most pleasant part of her recent past there. I must confess that I don't remember the line though, I had to find it in the script...

PADME: Hold me . . . like you did by the lake on Naboo, so long ago . . . when there was nothing but our love ... No politics, no plotting ... no war.
I suppose she's referring to that day when they arrived at the lake house, she bristled at his touch and then he stole a kiss, then the next day or so they rolled around in the grass, she longs for a time when everything was marginally good for 2 days even though her life was in danger, she had just lost a close friend and protector in Corde, there was a civil war brewing and massive refugee efforts on her planet. ;)

JimJamBonds
06-23-2005, 11:25 PM
Here's a terrible line from Padme in Revenge. It went something like:

I wish we were back on Naboo. Life was so simple then. No war, no plotting, no politics, no problems.

Did that strike anyone else as insane? Has she forgotten Attack of the Clones? SENATOR Amidala was hiding on Naboo because people were trying to kill her, as the legislation to create an army was hotly debated in the Senate. Meanwhile the Separtists and Republic were gearing up for war as the galaxy began to split apart.

I personally think it is the dumbest line of dialogue in the whole Saga. I used to think the dumbest lines were both from Leia. Empire: "Why are they doing this?" (BECAUSE YOU'RE A PART OF THE REBEL ALLIANCE AND A TRAITOR) Jedi: I know (you're my brother), somehow I've always known. (Like when I kissed you in a New Hope and made out with you in the infirmary on Hoth in Empire?)

No that line did not strike me as being insane, while it is true she went to Naboo due to attempts on her life the time spent in Naboo was pretty good. These were good memories for her, going to the lake, rolling around in the flowers with Ani etc. The reason for going there was bad but WHAT HAPPENED there was great in her mind, she was removed from her problems and had only their love etc. as stated While the issues you presented were going on they weren't known to everybody so I don't think she had all of those issues going on between her ears. I'll have to watch AOTC again to be sure of this. :D

2-1B
06-24-2005, 12:00 AM
What Jim Jam said is pretty much what I was gonna post when I read the criticism of that line. Not only did they romp around DURING the last movie, but they also went back there at the end of the movie and got married. As married couples will do, I'm sure there was more time spent together ;) as Rick McCallum's screen credit was rolling and for awhile afterward.


Even if you sympathize with what he did, that doesn't make it acceptable, does it? . . . but I think even on the level you're at, it's not just "totally condemn" vs "totally accept", there is sympathy and even possibly understanding but it's still a condemnable, horrific act.

Of course, and in that same post of mine that you quoted, I said I didn't condone it. :)

JediTricks
06-24-2005, 01:40 AM
Of course, and in that same post of mine that you quoted, I said I didn't condone it. :)
You said you didn't condone the extent of which he did it, but I wasn't totally clear about your meaning since you never said whether you actually condemned the act, only that you thought he went too far but you could sympathize with him and you didn't look any deeper. My question I guess is how does that apply to Padme coping with this, especially from the audience's point of view? How is she able to almost immediately get past that and totally and openly (to him anyway) love Anakin enough to marry him? And where do we see this in the movie?

2-1B
06-24-2005, 01:56 AM
Gottcha. Okay, I do condemn the act. While I do say that I would WANT to do the same thing he did (at least, to the men) I HOPE that I would be able to restrain myself from such behavior.

As for Padme, she didn't witness the killings . . . she saw him ride up with Shmi's corpse, she talked to him while he was heartbroken and got him to spill his guts, expressing remorse as he recounted the tale. I think she was sympathetic in the same ways I am.

stillakid
06-24-2005, 07:05 AM
it comes off as the kind of pap from B-level romance novels where the author just throws the man and woman together for no reason at all except to move the story along.
...and porn, except we never get to see Natalie's goods. :mad: Maybe we're all looking at this the wrong way. Think of the Prequels as really tame soft-core and suddenly the bad acting and thin plot starts looking good in comparison. :beard:

Droid
06-24-2005, 10:10 AM
What Jim Jam said is pretty much what I was gonna post when I read the criticism of that line. Not only did they romp around DURING the last movie, but they also went back there at the end of the movie and got married. As married couples will do, I'm sure there was more time spent together ;) as Rick McCallum's screen credit was rolling and for awhile afterward.

Yes, but by the time they went back to Naboo to get married, there was clearly a war, which she said there was not.

2-1B
06-25-2005, 01:07 AM
yeah, and as Jim Jam said they were "removed from their problems" so in that sense, no there wasn't really any war. ;)

Besides, I think her saying anything about "no war" was more a reference to Anakin being gone for so long. While reuniting with her, he said he thought they might have never returned from the Outer Rim sieges had the Chanc. not been kidnapped. :)

JediTricks
06-26-2005, 05:28 PM
As for Padme, she didn't witness the killings . . . she saw him ride up with Shmi's corpse, she talked to him while he was heartbroken and got him to spill his guts, expressing remorse as he recounted the tale. I think she was sympathetic in the same ways I am. We didn't see Anakin kill any women or children either, we experienced him telling her that part exactly the way she did, yet we are meant to be shocked and disgusted by the act, why isn't she, and why is she so quickly able to get past it?



...and porn, except we never get to see Natalie's goods. :mad: Maybe we're all looking at this the wrong way. Think of the Prequels as really tame soft-core and suddenly the bad acting and thin plot starts looking good in comparison. :beard:At least in porno, the point is just to show sex, it's not meant to tell a story, so the prequels don't even enjoy that luxury.

stillakid
06-26-2005, 09:27 PM
At least in porno, the point is just to show sex, it's not meant to tell a story, so the prequels don't even enjoy that luxury.

Its "kiddie" porn, only that the point is to show flashy action scenes and potential Hasbro merchandise. At the end of the day, it's all just "product" to be sold to freaks like us. :crazed: