Spoilers Are Anakin and Darth Vader really the same person?
- Thread starter Unimatrix Q
- Start date
I call Palpatine Palpatine too.
As for Anakin, i think Lucas intended complexities of the character but it fell flat.
It depends on your point of view...
Indeed.
And, for many, Anakin works great and moving him from slave boy to Jedi to Sith works extremely well. But, for others, such as myself, it works less well and the cracks show in the attempt to bring disparate pieces together. It's funny as I was having this conversation with a client and parent about Darth Vader (I have a poster of his emotional expressions in my office). The parent was stating how interesting it was to watch this child try to sort out Anakin in TPM and then in the OT. And they were still wrestling with it.
Always interesting to see that reaction, especially for a younger person who is relatively new to the franchise.
I disagree. I strongly don't believe Lucas had fell flat in making Anakin a complex character. If anything, I would say that Anakin was one of his best character creations. The only mistake Lucas had made was trying to label the different aspects of Anakin's character with the use of names - Anakin Skywalker="the good man" or "Darth Vader"=evil, machine-like man". Many "Star Wars" fans had picked up on it and utilized it in a more literal way.
I sometimes wonder if a lot of people - especially adults who had seen "A New Hope" as a child don't really want to connect the slave boy from "The Phantom Menace" to the Sith Lord from the Original Trilogy. One, a lot of people still associate Darth Vader as the best villain of the saga. He was the first true villain in the saga . . . even before Palpatine. And two, I also wonder if deep down, many fans want to believe that Darth Vader and Anakin Skywalker are one and the same. That would be saying that if someone like Anakin can grow up to become a monster, anyone can. And let's face it - most humans pay lip service to the idea that anyone can become a monster or commit monstrous acts. But I do wonder if deep down, most humans do not want to accept the possibility that they can become a monster if their emotions are triggered or pushed. Is that why a lot of "Star Wars" fans refuse to acknowledge the flaws and mistakes of the main protagonists in the OT, especially in "The Empire Strikes Back"? Or they tend to view Anakin as someone who might have mental health issues? I don't recall anyone saying the same about Count Dooku.
Last edited:
That is an interesting take, because I do agree that humans do not like to acknowledge their own potential for darkness. I think Trek fans struggle with that especially because they want to be optimistic about humanity, while distancing from the capacity for evil. Though, I do find it quite interesting that they are willing to accept Vader's redemption.
However, in terms of Anakin, it isn't that I can't connect the boy to the monster; it's that they don't feel like natural progressions in the same person. It isn't that I personally disagree with humans can become monsters; I fully believe my own capability of being evil. It's just that moving from Anakin to Darth Vader is not something I found was done very well in the films.
I'm sorry, but I did. The main reason Anakin had embraced evil in "Revenge of the Sith" was his fear of loss and inability to deal with loss. This was hinted in his reluctance to leave his mother behind in "The Phantom Menace". This was definitely shown in his reaction to Shmi's death in "Attack of the Clones" and his fear of losing Padme in "Revenge of the Sith". Anakin had claimed that killing Palpatine was the wrong thing for Mace Windu to do inside Palpatine's office. It was, but eventually Anakin had slipped that his only concern over saving Palpatine from Mace was his desire to get the Sith Lord to prevent Padme's death. He made this clear before he sliced off Mace's sword hand.
When you write it out it makes sense. When I watch it in the films it completely falls flat.
It isn't logical but that is where I'm at. The books did a better job with it.
I think the man reason fans rarely call Dooku Darth Tyranus is because the stories with him rarely ever used that name. I honestly can't remember anything other than the reference books ever actually calling him that.
Jango states he was hired by a man called Tyranus when Obi-Wan asked after Sifo-Dyas. And then, right at the end Sidious welcomes Dooku back as "Lord Tyranus. "
Which also led to one of my favorite jokes from SF Debris:
"You'll be meeting with our lead negotiator, Lord Tyranus."
"*in old woman type voice* Oh, he sounds like a nice young man. "
I didn't mind the novelization of "Attack of the Clones". It was okay. But I didn't care for Matthew Stover's "Revenge of the Sith" and especially his slow and pretentious writing style. I prefer the movies.
That's funny. I'm the complete opposite.
Early 2000s some hero got magic genie wishing powers and tried to save Bruce Wayne by saving his parents.
End result was "You idiot, I am Batman. Bruce Wayne is the mask."
OK, I haven't watched AotC in a while, so I forgot about those
It cropped up in Clone Wars a few times too, though not often.
But yeah; it's understandable why he's known more as Dooku since that's the persona he openly used throughout the whole war. Seems he only went by Tyrannus when he was directly on shady errands for Sidious.
Speaking of whom; most people also refer to Palpatine as Palpatine more often than Sidious, because again as with Dooku, he was a prominent public figure and that's what he went by 90% of the time.
So far Maul is the only one that was only ever known by his Sith title (even he can't remember his birth name.)
I agree that was the intent, but all that ever indicated to me was that he was a human child who didn't want to leave his mother in slavery.
