Another faux pas Princess?
#1
Posted 14 July 2004 - 11:23 PM
Hell no, then Naboo would be 90% royality. How is Leila a Princess if her Mother, Padme' was elected. She does not come from a royal line, she was elected. Just another stupid little fuck up by Lucas.
Has anyone found any more over looked errors?
I found one more actually-----
Vader looks like he stands about 6'7. hayden Christiansen can't be more than 5'11. Where does this added height come in? Does he really grow that much during his twenties? Even after his body would expend all it's energy in healing his torn apart body?
I rest my case
#2
Posted 14 July 2004 - 11:40 PM
As for Darth Vader's hight. I think that can be explained by the life support suit he was wearing. It was probably 70% mechanical and they made it to make him really tall.
(P.S. This keyboard is HELL )
#3
Posted 15 July 2004 - 03:47 AM
Calling Amidala a 'queen' is just stupid. She's not a queen, she's a President. Yeah, I suppose there's technically no reason why you shouldn't call your democratically elected leader a 'queen', but why would you bother when the word implies something totally different? You might as well call her 'Supreme Dictator-For-Life' or something like that.
And another thing: didn't everyone think that Leia was Bail Organa's daughter anyway? Is he a king? I've said it once and I'll say it again: Naboo should have been Alderaan. Padme or Amidala or whatever you want to call her should have been a constitutional monarch, who ended up married to Bail Organa despite being in love with Anakin. Or possibly Organa himself could be the monarch; either way, it would make sense that Leia calls herself a 'princess', whereas at the moment it blatantly doesn't.
- J m HofMarN on the Sand People
#4
Posted 15 July 2004 - 04:10 AM
George is an idiot.
#5
Posted 15 July 2004 - 04:41 AM
Lucas took well defined terms such as democracy, senate, queen, etc... Redefined them and then attempted to sell them back to us.
A queen making her plea at a senate? Ha.
This post has been edited by Jordan: 15 July 2004 - 04:42 AM
#8
Posted 15 July 2004 - 05:57 AM
George is an idiot.
Ah yes, the age thing. While many people feel that we should try to give children a better understanding of political and social issues, I seriously doubt that anyone would want them to actually run the country! (Or, in this case, the planet.) Even in the days when a hereditary monarch had actual political power, child monarchs would have advisors to rule on their behalf until they were mature enough to do it themselves. The idea that you would actually choose to elect a fourteen-year-old as your ruler simply beggars belief.
And sheesh, just how much money does she spend on those outfits? It can't be her own because her family doesn't seem particularly rich. Imagine the uproar in any other democracy if their leader started wasting the national treasury on personal adornment! Honestly, I'm beginning to think that the people of Naboo would probably have been better off under the rule of the Trade Federation, or anyone else for that matter - they're clearly not capable of setting up a sensible democratic system.
- J m HofMarN on the Sand People
#9
Posted 15 July 2004 - 08:09 AM
You know, just after I'd posted that struck me as well. But the mere thought of that particular scene made me violently ill, so I didn't edit. I wonder what reasons George had to include that little gem of dialogue? In that love scene I don't know which is worse, the dialogue or Anakins giant pig ride. Hmmm, alright it's the dialogue. Damn you George!
It seems to me that George is desperately trying to patch together the perfect utopian society that is both familiar, modern and democratic, while at the same time being a benevolent monarchy ruled by a beautiful teen-aged fairy-tale queen. It simply doesn't mix.
Suspension of disbelief is critical when it comes to sci-fi and fantasy. My main problem with this situation, as with most flaws in the PTs, is that George doesn't seem to give a shit. For some reason, he doesn't think it's important.
This post has been edited by HK 47: 15 July 2004 - 08:18 AM
#10
Posted 15 July 2004 - 09:16 AM
Yes, I completely agree. It's a simplistic, ham-fisted approach that is typical of Lucas - remember his attempt at an anti-smoking message in Episode II?
Of course, another point about Amidala being 14 is that it wouldn't have been necessary if Lucas hadn't insisted on making Anakin a little boy in Episode I. Yet another reason why he should not have done this. How the hell can he ever have thought it was a good idea?
- J m HofMarN on the Sand People
#11 Guest_Guest_*
Posted 15 July 2004 - 09:28 AM
You went from having the coolest Avatar (the Aragorn one) to having the most disgusting avatar in the history of avatars. Fix it.
#13
Posted 15 July 2004 - 11:40 AM
Helena, that's a great point. I had always thought that in prequels there will be a love triangle - Bail Organa, Anakin and "The girl". Bail Organa should have been the "eligible" guy, "nice guy" who by all political connections should have been a perfect match for Padme. Then Anakin comes along, a lovable rascal, who steals the girl by his sheer charm. And Anakin should be this troubled guy, who realises his power and this encourages him to abuse the power he got. But he gets away with it by being a real charmer - sort of equivalent of Han Solo in prequels. And in the end, instead of turning good like Han, he turns nasty, and by that time Padme is pregnant with him, and afraid of him, and flees to Bail, her former love for support. And Bail, being really noble and since the marriage to Anakin is secret , agrees to pretend that thay are married and rises Padme's daughter as her own. Amidala later dies, but nobody know that she in fact never was Bail's wife and has another son.
And Anakin should have never known that he has any children at all. Perhaps thay should have not married, but have an affair, but of course that would do not agree with Lucas's target audience of slightly retarded twelve-year-olds. But I really miss the romance and real chamistry between the characters - I am hopeless romantic, I think....
#14
Posted 15 July 2004 - 12:29 PM
I have also thought much the same.
That Bail Organa was the jilted lover in a romance with Leia.
I also kind of though Bail Organna would be a King rather than a Senator.
And wasn;t he supposed to be a more prominent character than.
I love Jimmy Smiths as an actor but NEVER in the history of film has there even been a more out of place actor in a Sci-Fi film.
I still to this day believe that casting Jimmy Smits was some weak attempt by Lucas at introducing "diversity" into his cast.
#15
Posted 15 July 2004 - 12:57 PM
Sorry, Mike, but not being from US I just do not recognise this actor at all - he is supposed to be in some TV series, right? So I think the whole point of diversity is lost to at least a part of polulation outside US. It is like the rumours that were about before AOTC that N'Sync would be in the film, and I thought , who the hell are N'Sync and what is the significance of this? Anyway, I knew there was something called Bail Organa in the film only after reading the credits. Did he have one line to speak?
This was such a wasted opportunity to make an intelligent connection to OT.