Padme/ROTJ/Vader's Redemption A Big Inconsistency (well, I think so..)
#1
Posted 02 November 2005 - 11:42 PM
I wonder what kind of award winning commentary by Lucas on the DVD does to explain something like this, in the "Noooo!!!!" scene. I get the feeling that there's dead silence during it, probably reflecting the sound herr creator had when coming up with it.
#3
Posted 03 November 2005 - 04:35 AM
"Take that for Padme!" as he throws the emperor down the shaft?
It's just an unmitigated disaster.
Ya know the scene where Vader interrogates Leia and possibly tortures her with the Syringe Droid is even more horrible.
Darth Vader in thought:
She reminds me of Padme... the same complicated hair styles.
The same height... she almost feels like family... still we need to recover those Death Star Plans. No matter...
Later on he's OK when they blow her planet up!
Can you really be redeemed from the Dark Side after wasting a few billion lives?
This stuff is really starting to wear thin with me...
Maybe I'm finally cured.
Thanks for the break through all...
Now for the rest of my life...
This post has been edited by arius: 03 November 2005 - 04:39 AM
#4
Posted 05 November 2005 - 06:40 PM
In the symbolism of the movies, mother becomes lover becomes daughter. Leia represents her mother, who is Anakin's lover *and* a stand-in for his mother. She is the omnipresent female for which the trials of the hero are undergone.
In the end, She was right. There's no need for an explicit reference to Padme in Jedi, because there already is an implicit one.
____________
On a separate note...
You imply that no one can be redeemed after destroying a planet -- but what are you basing this on?
First of all, every Western religion would disgree with you. Christianity, to use an obvious example, is very specific about the fact that redemption is open to anyone at any time, even the most heinous of individuals. All it requires is sincere contrition.
Of course, the unforgiving attitude towards Vader actually seems to be rooted in the worldview of Western religions, where the idea of Hell and punishment for sins is too often emphasized over forgiveness. This is where it may help to realize that Star Wars is far more inspired by Eastern faiths, particularly Buddhism.
In the Buddhist worldview, it's not a question of doing "good" actions to atone for "evil" actions in an attempt to reach a make-believe afterlife called "heaven." That's not what's going on in Star Wars at all. A Buddhist avoids the mind state that produces attachment -- an action is "bad" only if it is performed with this mindset of attachment. Hence, Anakin saving Palpatine for his own selfish motives is bad, while his saving of Luke through selfless surrender is what liberates him.
Liberates. Not redeems.
#5
Posted 06 November 2005 - 09:48 AM
In the symbolism of the movies, mother becomes lover becomes daughter. Leia represents her mother, who is Anakin's lover *and* a stand-in for his mother. She is the omnipresent female for which the trials of the hero are undergone.
In the end, She was right. There's no need for an explicit reference to Padme in Jedi, because there already is an implicit one.
____________
On a separate note...
You imply that no one can be redeemed after destroying a planet -- but what are you basing this on?
First of all, every Western religion would disgree with you. Christianity, to use an obvious example, is very specific about the fact that redemption is open to anyone at any time, even the most heinous of individuals. All it requires is sincere contrition.
Of course, the unforgiving attitude towards Vader actually seems to be rooted in the worldview of Western religions, where the idea of Hell and punishment for sins is too often emphasized over forgiveness. This is where it may help to realize that Star Wars is far more inspired by Eastern faiths, particularly Buddhism.
In the Buddhist worldview, it's not a question of doing "good" actions to atone for "evil" actions in an attempt to reach a make-believe afterlife called "heaven." That's not what's going on in Star Wars at all. A Buddhist avoids the mind state that produces attachment -- an action is "bad" only if it is performed with this mindset of attachment. Hence, Anakin saving Palpatine for his own selfish motives is bad, while his saving of Luke through selfless surrender is what liberates him.
Liberates. Not redeems.
Well by putting an end to the Emperor, Vader did save other planets from the same fate.
Still that Jedi tenet, There is no death there is only the force, begs the idea that
you could just imagine Anakin spending eternity apologizing to the doomed planet's residents.
The other thing is:
Padme is comparable to Princess Diana. Famous in life and death.
Padme would be Galaxy Famous.
You'd think that Leia would have lots of holocrons and news footage to learn all about her mother.
I guess that's where she got the head buns hair style.
When Luke asks Leia what she remembers you'd think she'd reference some of that info.
Oh why bother.
It is hard to build a whole galaxy out of your imagination.
You got to expect a few continuity errors.
This post has been edited by arius: 06 November 2005 - 10:10 AM
#6
Posted 06 November 2005 - 11:32 AM
Um hm. And if it were revealed Padme and Annie gave Beru and Owen a tupperware set when they got married, that too would somehow improve the original.
Actually the tupperware was an heirloom. Have you ever heard the of the tragedy of Mister Mean-guy?
#7
Posted 06 November 2005 - 07:57 PM
[...]
When Luke asks Leia what she remembers you'd think she'd reference some of that info.
Oh why bother.
Do you think Leia's adopted parents actually told her who her real mother was? There would be no logical reason to do that.
#8
Posted 06 November 2005 - 08:45 PM
if killing a few billion people and then taking out someone who lied to you is a path to jedi heaven...
why is shooting a bounty hunter under the table such a problem for a character who wingmans the dude destroying the deathstar, and becomes a general in the rebellion against an evil empire?
This post has been edited by barend: 06 November 2005 - 08:46 PM
Also: The Chefelf.com Lord of the Rings | RoBUTZ (a primative webcomic) | KOTOR 1 NPC profiles |
Music: HYPOID (industrial rock) | Spectrox Toxemia (Death Metal) | Cannibalingus (80s style thrash metal) | Wasabi Nose Bleed (Exp.Techno) | DeadfeeD (Exp.Ambient) |||(more to come)
#9
Posted 06 November 2005 - 09:15 PM
Well, not just taking someone out, but changing the state of one's mind. And not "heaven."
Good move changing the topic, you're certainly not going to make any progress trying to diminish Vader's redemption. It's actually brilliant to turn the conversation towards the Greedo scene, something that no one on Earth can defend.
I'm hoping the Greedo scene is one of the things that will change when the movies are altered again...I have never heard a good, serious defense of making Greedo shoot first, and I can't think of one. Can anyone??
#10
Posted 06 November 2005 - 11:29 PM
i haven't changed the topic. a lawyer isn't changing the topic when he sites a previous case. it's called precident.
and i'm citing it.
the Greedo -v- Solo case adds light to to the situation. how can we be expected, as an audience, to feel alright about a life of flamboyant evil being washed away in an apology when a good guy can't be forgiven for drawing first blood in a situation where second prize is death?
it makes vaders redemption unnacceptable by previously established standards.
Also: The Chefelf.com Lord of the Rings | RoBUTZ (a primative webcomic) | KOTOR 1 NPC profiles |
Music: HYPOID (industrial rock) | Spectrox Toxemia (Death Metal) | Cannibalingus (80s style thrash metal) | Wasabi Nose Bleed (Exp.Techno) | DeadfeeD (Exp.Ambient) |||(more to come)
#11
Posted 06 November 2005 - 11:46 PM
Made more sense with the original version because the audience didn't know that Han was a good guy and his shooting first demonstrated that Ben and Luke could have been in trouble leasing passage with partial payment in a desperate manner, maybe taking a wrong turn during their intended journey to Aldeeran. His shooting Greedo also snet a message to other bounty hunters that they wouldn't have it easy if they wanted to cash in on the bounty. Greedo firing first ruined a perfectly balanced scene for nothing.
Good example, Barend. Another thing is when Yoda says all living things are connected through the Force to Luke in ESB and its a source of their power. Vader's 11th hour actions and getting to become one with the living Force in the end must have sparked many "oh, its you, how do you do?" from innocents later on. Even if he did a momentary act of good, he also would have had to own up to the fact he did many bad things along the way and prospered from it, as many people do when they make life changes. Saying or doing a few good things doesn't wope the slate completely clean.
#12
Posted 07 November 2005 - 02:47 AM
Ahahaha. I'm with you guys on this one -- I liked it alot better when Solo shot first!
However, I think you're being rather harsh on Vader. And you're moralizing in a way that is far too Western for the movies in question.
"Oh, it's you, how do you do" -- you make it sound as if there's a heaven that these people are going to, that they'll retain their individual personalities, that they'll continue to bear grudges. Not in the East! With these movies, we're dealing with the worldview of, say, the Tao Teh Ching, not the Divine Comedy.
And if you must be Western about it, it wasn't even Vader's idea to blow up Alderaan. It was Tarkin's. Vader just went along with it, because he was an underling in the first movie.