Do you want to go over the differences? War: a state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state. Trek: a long arduous journey, especially one made on foot. Just a starting point. Science Fiction is not one entity.
Evil is part of the human journey, especially within the history of Star Trek in which there are multiple wars between contemporary time and Star Trek future. Vs. someone who slaughters allies for fun, and people cheer watching slaughter hero troops. Sorry, the clamoring for a Vader film is very off-putting to me, given the outcry against Rey as an overpowered Mary Sue who never goes through any changes in the films she's in. A Vader film would largely be around a Vader being a dark presence with little dynamic to it in terms of character development, as well as overpowered abilities that the comics insist upon giving him. Sorry, it doesn't appeal to me, and I would rather revisit the Mirror Universe 100 times over than see a Vader film.
I was only clamoring to shore up his characterization. I don't like Vader at all. He scared me when I was five, nightmares and all, and he is a murderer, selfish, power hungry, and controlling. He wouldn't be the hero; this is dystopic. He would turn bitter, trying to kill what little is left of his humanity in running from emotions he cannot control. If you see me on this board, I am much more drawn to Picard stories, than Vader. My read is that his lust for power is from being told he is "the chosen one," feeling powerless, and grabbing for more power. Over, and over, and over again. My read on the character is that he is sadly devoted and incredibly selfish. He cannot lose his wife, he never should have married, and will throw away the Republic, and the lives of the Jedi, in order to save her. That's not love. That's avoiding loss. I don't feel he is redeemed or ever a great man. He competes and hates Obi-Wan for "holding him back!" He kills the Sand People, confesses to Padme, she does nothing but marry this murderer, and say nothing. The same murderer in II is the same murderer in VI. Telling cautionary tales is possible. Doing so in the universe Gene Roddenberry created, difficult to do behind the three-pointed star. This isn't glamorizing it like Sopranos or Breaking Bad. This is truly a man with serious defects of character. We are not to be like him.
Because she understood and agreed with what he did. Jedi are killers, it a integral part of who they are and what they do.
Which is funny because that's why GR created what he did. As for the rest, I see no reason to make this a film. A great novel, a comic series, or some other medium. As a SW film? No, thank you. For many, I'm sure it did. For me, and I know I'm the outlier on this topic, I cannot stand the scene and it doesn't appeal to me on any level.
And yet later, when Obi-Wan tells her about Anakin slaughtering the Jedi younglings her reaction is "No! Annie could never do that!" And later Anakin admits it to her and Padme's all "I don't know who you are anymore!" Despite the fact that he's still the man she fell in love with. But apparently killing sand people's children is good, but killing Jedi children is horrifying. Nice to have standards.
Because Sand People are not people. Once you dehumanize someone, a very common psychological defense, it makes it much easier to cope, albeit in an extremely unhealthy way. And I think Padme lacked a lot of real-world experience, despite her demands of Anakin to return to the real world. There is a lot of psychological problems to unpack here, but that I think is the crux of it. Which, brings me back to on topic, making Vader the protagonist (note: not the hero) of a film on his own is highly difficult to do because of the nature of Vader. Even in films where the protagonist is morally ambiguous or evil they often times have a hook that makes them relatable. In terms of screenwriting, Shane Black called it a "save the cat moment." The character may be a monster in many other respects but they have one moment, usually in the first act. It could be very short, brief, but it humanizes the character so we can identify with them in some way. But, Vader is a highly different character. First of all, many people already have preconceived notions around the character, i.e. he's a monster from my youth and scared me when I was younger. That's why the idea of a cautionary tale strikes me as quite odd, and very difficult because many could not identify with Vader, or regard that as possibly happening to them. Now, I'm not saying it is impossible. I'm saying it is highly difficult, as Shakespeare and Greek dramas would demonstrate. And, a Vader film doesn't take Vader anywhere, and it would come across as an effort to create a showcase real of Vader just being a badass. Which, by extension, makes evil look very badass. That may appeal to many but it doesn't strike me as a very SW movie.
Sandpeople are assholes. They tortured Shmi and left her to die. They killed 87% of the people who went after her. They shoot at podracers for fun. That's why people shrug when they get killed.
It's still dehumanization. Because then we don't have to identify with them. "They're assholes" is a label that puts them outside of ourselves, and let's us, like Anakin, hate them.
No, it's not. Not everything is dehumanization. You're effectively putting Anakin's words in my mouth. Hardly. Usually when that term is used it's in reference to a human.
Hardly. I rarely meet people who call themselves assholes. Lots of people use labels for others they will not use for themselves. And my intent was not to put words in your mouth. I am observing the tendency to dehumanize in many small ways. Labels are one such way. It is not always malicious or meant to do so but the effect is similar in response. They are an other who cannot be identified without outside of behavior.
It's not dehumanizing? Then, what is your explanation for Anakin never being told by Padme to tell Master Yoda about the deaths of the Sand People? Why would she see him as a good man? He is a Jedi, after all, taught to have compassion and respect all life? They are defenders of peace and justice. Count Dooku is assumed, by Mace Windy, that being a former Jedi, it's not in his character to try to assassinate Padme. "He is a political idealist. Not a murderer." So, what is you explanation?
Indeed, I remember the writers of the Vader comic talking about the dilemma they had regarding showing Vader killing Rebels. It's something he did, so they couldn't ignore it, but then they knew they couldn't exactly have the audience cheering as Vader slaughtered heroes. In the end they skirted around the issue by having it be a minor plot point in the comic. Their children didn't do any of that.
Of course. That's an excellent point. To me, this is why a stand-alone Vader film feels very difficult to construct, especially the requests for him slaughtering the Jedi. It strikes me as highly odd, especially with the place that Star Wars comes from, that the protagonist of a film is killing the "good guys" (re: the Jedi). How do you craft such a film in a way that doesn't glorify Vader's acts?