And even if he was supposed to be noble, so what? The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Jar Jar Binks and Anakin Skywalker... am I the only one who understood what George Lucas made?
- Thread starter VulcanMindBlown
- Start date
I think we got more development out of Anakin as a young adult from... Robot Chicken...
Most people who turn evil can become whiny or annoying, but later turn into bullies. I am not saying that that was always the case, but it can be. For people who didn't believe in Anakin Skywalker turning into the Dark Side, look at Darth Sidious... he had less of a gripe against the Jedi and the Republic in the novel Darth Plagueis.
Character development was certainly lacking across the board. With the exception of Obi-Wan, we learn nothing about the individual jedi except for the fact they look cool swinging a lightsaber. We don't even learn their names.So when the time comes for them all to die the emotional impact is the same as the death of any random stormtroopers. It doesn't have the same impact as Obi-wans death in ANH or Yodas death in ROTJ.
Simply put, the PT was just plain boring. When I first saw the OT, it was an exhilirating experience. I cared about the characters, feared the villain and just plain enjoyed the experience. With the PT the characters were mostly forgettable, some were just plain irritating and I was constantly checking my watch. It was very obvious to me that Lawrence Kasdan was a huge part of the success of those earlier films which probably explains why the Force Awakens was so good.
You can be noble and be angry. Humans are capable of expressing and feeling multiple emotions, even conflicting ones.
The idea that Anakin isn't supposed to be noble is fine, but he also was supposed to be good friends with Obi-Wan, a cunning warrior and a good pilot. Well, we know he can fly, so, one out of three?
As for being noble and not really falling...
This. Look at the story of Lancelot and Guinevere. Lancelot is supposed to be Arthur's best friend, right hand man, and loyal knight. And, he ends up betraying Arthur in some stories because of Guinevere. Or, you can look at Macbeth and his arc of trying to make a prophecy happen, committing heinous crimes in the process. He wasn't a brute at first. In fact, he was the king's most loyal thain.
So, as @The Wormhole states above, Anakin could start out noble and slide towards evil.
This is true, and many evil people are portrayed as whiny and petty in their quest for power. I think that Anakin would have been better serve to show more of the better aspects of his nature when he is older so that we have a better sense of his character.
As the story goes now, I feel like he not very well defined other than his whining and anger towards Obi-Wan.
The point is that he was never, ever said to be "noble" outside of fandom. We know that he had issues and it stands to reason that something which distinguished him from other Jedi would have been a factor in his turn. Else why did the other Jedi not turn? If one can fall, another can fall. What is the difference?
So... throwing under the bus the things that we were told about Anakin helps support things we weren't told about Anakin?
The Wormhole said:
While the path paved by bad intentions leads to nothing but hugs and rainbows, I guess?
As defined in the story, I have no idea what's the difference. Why did Dooku leave?
Not my point. My point is, at least from what I read of GL's BTS, is that Anakin's fall in the PT was supposed to be tragic and how it showecased a good buy becoming bad. Yes, I read "noble" in to that, because the Jedi were based off of knights. I didn't think that was an unreasonable conclusion.So... throwing under the bus the things that we were told about Anakin helps support things we weren't told about Anakin?
Anakin was not the only member of the Jedi Order who turned. The founder of the Sith Order was a former Jedi Master (at least in the EU novels). And let us not forget . . . Count Dooku.
There was nothing special about Anakin that led him to embrace evil. Anyone can do it, given the right circumstances, mindset or moment. I'm beginning to wonder if this is a philosophy that very few people are willing to accept. Is that why so many have written articles trying to describe Anakin as some kind of sociopath, who could easily give in to evil? Because they do not want to admit that anyone, given the right circumstances, can do exactly that?
I do not understand this comment.
While the path paved by bad intentions leads to nothing but hugs and rainbows, I guess?
Sometimes, that can actually happen. There are no absolutes in this world. You never know what can happen.
The way Obi-wan describes Anakin to Luke in the Original Trilogy is how Anakin is portrayed in The Clone Wars TV show from 2008 onwards. This also fits Ahsoka's description of him in Rebels. He is described as kind, a good friend, generous to his friends, a great pilot, a cunning warrior, a good man, and had ideal which took him away from Tatooine.
There are many books on this, but in short, the Jedi Order failed him. Should I show you a link from Wookiepedia?
Really? You don't think that Revenge of the Sith, he was Obi Wan's frenemy?
Have you read Stover's ROTS novelization?
Ever hear of the Knights of Ren?
LJones41 said:
...or there was, and the PT focused on it?
I'm more specifically referring to the films themselves. The novels are much better at Dooku's rationale that the PT even came close to. It felt like a *gasp* prequel.
Many times. Far better than the films, in my opinion.
Nope. Never heard of them.
Never in a believable manner or one that made Anakin sympathetic....or there was, and the PT focused on it?
So I guess you know all about how Dooku was portrayed.
Well, I don't think they were noble, exactly.
...who cares? That's a subjective personal opinion anyway, nor does the question of "sympathetic" have anything to do with my point.
In a much better way than "evil guy."
You're right. Not all knights or knight inspired figures are noble. Quite correct. Thank you.
My larger point is that Lucas based the Jedi of of Arthuian inspiration of knights and their noble deeds. There is a lot of romanticism associated with the term and Lucas capitalized on it. Nobility can be infered.
Who cares if it's believable? Well, it's hard for me to get invested in a character if their actions and motivations are not believable.
Yes, as "born sociopath".
So that kind of answers the question, doesn't it?
Only if one assumes that "nobility" is granted by mere membership in a group... which smacks of something akin to circular logic.
Makes him more interesting.
That's one way of looking at it. Regardless. It doesn't change my response to Anakin as a character or if I find him believable as character. His character arc doesn't work as presented in the films. It works far better in the books, and give better insight and sympathy to the character than we ever saw across three films.
Maybe others apply the books to the films in order to make it work. I personally have tried to see it that way, and it works well with Dooku and Palpatine and even the Jedi, but not for Anakin, save in some small ways, such as his desire to save everyone. It's a throwaway line in the novel, but it sheds so much light on him.
Even Arthur's knights and the king himself were flawed. Very flawed. The combination of characters being "noble" and "romantic" should not be a guarantee that they are ideal or nearly flawless. That's just boring writing. At least to me.
.or there was, and the PT focused on it?
Why? Why is it so important that there was something special about Anakin that made him succumb to evil? So you can pretend that only certain kinds people are capable of evil?
How? Can you provide a little more in-depth?