My Long Anakin Critique I'd Love Your Opinion On

[suarezguy]

That being said, if Anakin and Obi-Wan had had this great relationship (which I myself was assuming going into the prequels) then it would make even less sense for Anakin to have such hatred for him later on. In hindsight, at least Lucas got that right in terms of giving them a strained relationship right out the gate, one that was ambiguous, perhaps to match Anakin's own conflicted feelings about the Jedi.

I kind of found it disappointing but also understandable/believable and even entertaining that the prequels reveal in the original films Obi-Wan lied to Luke about a whole lot of his relationship with Anakin, greatly over-exaggerated how close friends they were and sidestepped their tensions.

It's also disappointing that so much was skipped in the gap between I and II but it is still an interesting question, was Anakin doomed to go bad from in his training from the start and if so was it actually a mistake for him to be taken away from Tatooine and start training at a later age?

 

[HugeLobes]

I kinda think the idea of a conflict between Obi-Wan and Anakin is one of the biggest problems. Lucas seems to have tried to make their fractured relationship an indication of Anakin's fall while still suggesting they have this great connection, so you get this weird issue where they talk about being friends but always seem to dislike each other.

Why not make them actual friends? It's one of the easiest ways to make Anakin likeable. Anakin is just a normal Jedi who gets seduced by the dark side because he thinks he needs more power. I mean, they're supposedly in a huge war, so it would make sense for Anakin to yearn for greater control so he can stop all the suffering. Instead, he's corrupted and turns to the dark side.

Killing Mace is more important to me because of who Mace was and what he represented. In Star Wars, the Sandpeople were antagonistic and perhaps not even human, they were more obstacles and fodder really, but Mace was a character in all three prequel films. He had a name, he had a face, he was a respected leader on the Jedi High Council, so killing him, from a story standpoint carried more weight because the audience could better identify with him instead of a group of Sandpeople, who had just tortured Shmi Skywalker to death essentially.

But the whole idea was 'once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny'. So, killing a whole tribe of people, even antagonistic ones, seems like it would pretty much set you up. Killing one person to save someone you love? I understand your points about Mace, but damn he's already done so much worse than that. Just feels ridiculous to say this is where Anakin turns.

Doesn't really seem like he 'turns' or 'gets seduced by the dark side' as much he just burns his bridges with the Jedi.

Lucas didn't do enough to build up to Anakin's massacre of the Sandpeople. I never got why he cut the Episode I scene of young Anakin getting into a fight, which showed his anger and propensity for violence

Honestly, I think this idea is a little too obvious. Just look at Luke Skywalker. He's a good person, but he's also impulsive, prone to impatience, and desperate to prove himself. In Empire these qualities push him towards a huge mistake because his friends are in danger. All that helps explain why he almost turns to the dark side in ROTJ, and it informs his powerful attack against Vader. You didn't need Luke to do anything bad to understand his anger, frustration, and willingness to exploit them.

Thinking you need your 'tragic hero' to commit massacres, kill unarmed prisoners, and generally act like an entitled dick to set up a fall from grace is too clumsy.

 

[Spot261]

Puberty.

Padme likes bad boys.

Well done team, thread answered.

 

[Tosk]

You didn't need Luke to do anything bad to understand his anger, frustration, and willingness to exploit them.

But we never had to endure Luke murdering entire villages, or cutting down large groups of children. If we did would it have been tragic, or a complete betrayal of what his character had been previously?

 

[HugeLobes]

But we never had to endure Luke murdering entire villages, or cutting down large groups of children. If we did would it have been tragic, or a complete betrayal of what his character had been previously?

I can't see how it would even be the same character :/ Doesn't fit with Luke's character at all.

 

[publiusr]

A question I have about old Vader. Sebastian Shaw played him, but I seem to remember him sounding a lot like some of the voice-over work of some cartoons from years ago---there was one actor who was known for doing the voice of older individuals. Can't remember the name.....

 

[LJones41]

So, there you go. A lot of people would call this nit-picking, but I just see it as exploring the underlying issues. Anakin’s development is as poorly written as his ‘I hate sand’ speech.

Your article doesn't work for me. I'm sorry, but it doesn't. I get the feeling that you're working from this viewpoint that fictional characters have to be either this or that - without anything in between. You seemed to think that a person who is intelligent is incapable of making bad mistakes, based on his/her emotions, ego, etc. And that doesn't work. Because sentient beings - even intelligent and decent types - are capable of making incredibly stupid or criminal decisions, when their emotional buttons are punched. Anakin wasn't the only one in the franchise who did this. It seems as if you're ignoring how emotions and desires can lead a person to make certain mistakes . . . and I'm not just talking about Anakin. And It seems as if you're trying to paint the failure of Anakin's characterization under Lucas in black-and-white terms . . . without the ambiguity. And I just don't buy it.

 

[LJones41]

Ultimately, there's really no way to understand Padme's actions, even if what you're saying is true.

I undestood Padme's reaction to Anakin's confession about the Tuskens. Now, I blame Lucas for not making this clear in the movie, but it was made clear in the novelization. She thought the Tuskens had deserved what Anakin had done to them for kidnapping Shmi and torturing the latter to death for a month. I think she was appalled by that, especially since she got to know Shmi.

Was she right to feel that way? NO. She wasn't. She should have been appalled. Why is this so hard to accept? Even after fifteen years or so, fans STILL expect Padme to be some ideal feminist figure. She is simply a characters with virtues and flaws - like most of the characters in this saga.

 

[suarezguy]

Padme wasn't flawless but I think in that scene she was reacting/supposed to react like the contemporary viewers ... killing some Tuskens was wrong but understandable, killing all of them including children was outrageous even if still understandable (with children not really even understandable). She just says to be angry is to be human which seems too much an understatement for how poorly he dealt with his anger, maybe she feels (and Lucas feels?) that Jedi suppressing anger in general would lead to terrible outbursts and, more likely, that Anakin already felt bad and remorseful enough about it.

 

[HugeLobes]

You seemed to think that a person who is intelligent is incapable of making bad mistakes, based on his/her emotions, ego, etc. And that doesn't work.

I'm not saying that at all.

I get the feeling that you're working from this viewpoint that fictional characters have to be either this or that - without anything in between.

Where did you get that?

I undestood Padme's reaction to Anakin's confession about the Tuskens. Now, I blame Lucas for not making this clear in the movie, but it was made clear in the novelization.

To me, this is everything wrong with prequels fandom. Earlier in this thread, someone defended Padme's reaction to Anakin's Tusken killing spree by saying the audience would be aware of 'subtextual' links to the American West. Now it's 'made clear in the novelization'.

I'm sorry, but you can't get around the movie. Anakin is freakin' weird to Padme from the get-go and then makes a psychotic speech about how he slaughtered these people. Padme literally just stands there completely blank the whole time.

She thought the Tuskens had deserved what Anakin had done to them for kidnapping Shmi and torturing the latter to death for a month. I think she was appalled by that, especially since she got to know Shmi.

Even making the massive leap that Padme thinks an entire tribe of adults and children deserves to die, the way Anakin speaks in that scene should be enough to put anyone off, especially considering his other incredibly unsavoury behaviour. Maybe if Anakin had been filled with remorse or fear of his own power, or if Padme had really challenged him on what he did, I would agree with you. As it is, her behaviour makes no sense.

And she does it again! Even after she hears about Anakin slaughtering children and turning to the Dark Side she's ridiculously passive. Even after Anakin starts talking about overthrowing the Chancellor and ruling the galaxy, her reply is "Stop now. Come back. I love you." A real person would have been angry or disgusted with Anakin, but Padme isn't a real person. She's barely a character. Her reactions in II and III aren't the result of good characterisation - it's just whatever Lucas needed at that moment for an easier scene.

Talk all you want about how she has 'virtues and flaws', this is just horrible writing.

 

[LJones41]

I can't take the above seriously. I just can't. Sorry.

 

[HugeLobes]

I can't take the above seriously. I just can't. Sorry.

Maybe you should try the novelisation? It’s much clearer.

Honestly, it kinda seems like you’re just not willing to accept anything bad about these movies. Just flat denial or calling points ‘prequel bashing bullshit’.

 

[LJones41]

To me, this is everything wrong with prequels fandom. Earlier in this thread, someone defended Padme's reaction to Anakin's Tusken killing spree by saying the audience would be aware of 'subtextual' links to the American West. Now it's 'made clear in the novelization'.

What in the fuck? What exactly are you saying about the Prequel Trilogy fandom? Please tell me that you don't believe that all fans of that trilogy have defended Padme's reaction to the Tusken massacre.

Maybe you should try the novelisation? It’s much clearer.

Honestly, it kinda seems like you’re just not willing to accept anything bad about these movies. Just flat denial or calling points ‘prequel bashing bullshit’.
Maybe you should try the novelisation? It’s much clearer.

Honestly, it kinda seems like you’re just not willing to accept anything bad about these movies. Just flat denial or calling points ‘prequel bashing bullshit’.

Dear HugeLobes, I have read the novelization. Two, I have made some criticisms of the Prequel movies in my reviews of them, just as I have made criticisms of the Original movies. But I still love both trilogies. The point is . . . I don't agree with the criticisms of the Prequel films I have read on this thread and on this board. I have my own criticisms, but they don't match those I have read on this board.

Actually, I don't agree with those who dislike the Sequel Trilogy for not being enough like the Original Trilogy. In fact, I don't even understand that criticism. Personally, I don't like the Sequel Trilogy, but I have very different reasons for not liking it.

 

[HugeLobes]

Dear HugeLobes, I have read the novelization.

I think you might have missed the joke there.

What in the fuck? What exactly are you saying about the Prequel Trilogy fandom? Please tell me that you don't believe that all fans of that trilogy have defended Padme's reaction to the Tusken massacre.

Erm, no. I'm talking in a broader sense using these excuses as an example. Whereas people are ready to accept certain things not making much sense in the OT, PT fans always seem to have some convenient excuse for why something completely ridiculous is actually perfectly plausible. These excuses almost always turn on having read or seen something outside the movie, which is a problem in and of itself.

The point is . . . I don't agree with the criticisms of the Prequel films I have read on this thread and on this board. I have my own criticisms, but they don't match those I have read on this board.

You don't agree with any criticisms of the prequels on this board?

 

[crookeddy]

Maybe you should try the novelisation? It’s much clearer

You win the internet for the day.

 

[HugeLobes]

You win the internet for the day.

Lol, I get so annoyed with that ‘read the novelisation’ way of thinking.

 

[DarKush]

The Padme reaction to Anakin confessing to mass murder never worked for me. It was a very big understatement, though I felt it was about Lucas galloping toward having them fall in love, and perhaps Padme felt sympathetic at the intense pain and grief Anakin was experiencing to express horror at what he told her. I also wonder if it was one of the things, his raw vulnerability in that moment, his trust of her, in her, that brought her closer to him as we see later on in the film.

But the Padme as presented up to that moment was a person who had clear ideas of what was morally right-even if she didn't always live up to them (i.e. the past relations with the Gunguns on Naboo), but at the same time she was willing to stand and die on principle (like in her advocating for the Military Creation Act; her being against it didn't make much political sense to me though, because if a Grand Army of the Republic had existed during the time of Episode I, then the Trade Federation would have been real skittish about blockading Naboo, but go figure. I think Padme should've been for the Military Creation Act, and that would have given Dooku a political reason to want her out of the way. I take it Padme's stance was because Lucas wanted her to be a more liberal/dovish/idealistic public figure, not a politician in the way that Obi-Wan described them). And we also see hints of Padme's idealism and commitment to peace in Episode III as well, when she is part of the group that wants to bring the war to a swift end (though I think more of that is in the novelization if I recall correctly). So I wrote all that to say that Padme's reaction didn't fit with what had been established about her character. Perhaps we can see it as a lapse, it happens, but Padme was so underdeveloped in the films, she does come across as a statue more than a fully three-dimensional person. What pulse is there I credit more to Natalie Portman's acting than Lucas's direction.

 

[arch101]

I will eternally wonder if perceptions of Anakin would have been different if Jonathan Brandis had played him.

 

[HugeLobes]

I will eternally wonder if perceptions of Anakin would have been different if Jonathan Brandis had played him.

Hayden wasn't a bad actor, he just got atrocious dialogue and a terrible character. I don't see how anyone else would have made a difference.

Saying that, I wish Anakin had been cast as older and less attractive. Hayden looks like he should be on The OC. Of course, that's about the character more than the casting.

 

[USS Firefly]

Hayden wasn't a bad actor, he just got atrocious dialogue and a terrible character. I don't see how anyone else would have made a difference.

Saying that, I wish Anakin had been cast as older and less attractive. Hayden looks like he should be on The OC. Of course, that's about the character more than the casting.

I agree, Hayden is a good actor, most actors in the PT had troubles with their lines.