The Padmé Amidala Thread

[James William Alexander Atreides]

One thing that could have been done is have Dooku live longer and then kill Padme at the end. That would have driven Anakin mad and his killing Dooku would have completed his fall to the darkside.

[James]

Originally posted by samrosenbaum@Sep 16 2005, 04:53 PM
I'm sorry for what happened to your cousin.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>


Thanks samrosenbaum - I apreciate that.

[James William Alexander Atreides]

Yes, I'm sorry too. Perhaps some emotional wounds are too severe to heal.

[James]

Do you think then, that Padmé's emotional wounds are too sever to heal?

[James]

Originally posted by James William Alexander Atreides@Sep 17 2005, 02:07 AM
Yes, I'm sorry too. Perhaps some emotional wounds are too severe to heal.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>


oh and thanks JWAA

[James William Alexander Atreides]

I see it this way. The emotional distress caused by the Force-choke along with the pain of giving birth was too much for her to bear. She just gave up. But still, if she would have, Padme could have survived it. She just had to put her mind to it.


style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/bow.gif style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/dictator.gif style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/bow.gif

[James]

And also:

Anakin's turn to the dark side
The fall of the Republic and the betrayal of Palpatine

[Sam]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>One thing that could have been done is have Dooku live longer and then kill Padme at the end. That would have driven Anakin mad and his killing Dooku would have completed his fall to the darkside.[/b][/quote]

Unfortunately, that would mess up what was, for me, the best scene in the movie. I really liked the subtle way that Lucas visually linked Palpatine in the observation tower in ROTS to the Emperor in the throne room in ROTJ. And the look on Dooku's face when Palpatine urges Anakin to kill him proves the saying that a picture is worth a thousand words. Many critics missed the significance of the scene as a major turning point in Anakin's character arc. It bookends with the scene in ROTJ, where another Skywalker has to make a similar decision and makes the opposite one.

I disagree with the people who complain that Anakin’s turn to the Dark Side in the middle of the film is too sudden. The moment that Anakin kills Dooku, he’s hooked. He doesn’t know it yet, but he just became the new apprentice of Darth Sidious. He flops about near the edge for a while, but it’s only a matter of time, and his “journey to the Dark Side will be complete.” His later intervenetion against Mace Windu only finishes the process.

I suppose that a scene like it could take place at the end, but then all of the subtlety would be lost.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Perhaps some emotional wounds are too severe to heal.[/b][/quote]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Do you think then, that Padmé's emotional wounds are too sever to heal?[/b][/quote]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>I see it this way. The emotional distress caused by the Force-choke along with the pain of giving birth was too much for her to bear. She just gave up. But still, if she would have, Padme could have survived it. She just had to put her mind to it.[/b][/quote]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>And also: Anakin's turn to the dark side
The fall of the Republic and the betrayal of Palpatine[/b][/quote]

On the one hand, you've cited a real-life example, so it appears to be true for at least part of the population. On the other hand, I agree with the last two quotes that a character like Padme would require multiple factors to cause her to die of emotional distress.

There was a lot in the recent Supreme Court hearings about the importance of precedent. The same goes for dramatic structure. Padme comes into the story with a precedent for being a strong character who is willing to risk her life for her people. She also has a precedent for compartmentalizing her personality. These things that were set up should have been allowed to pay off.

It isn't good enough to say (You haven't, but others have.) that her secret marriage to Anakin caused her to lose all of that and become a weak character sometime in-between the stories. We need to see it happen within the story. And just like with climate change, where more and bigger storms happen during the transition, Padme should go through some pretty spectacular throes, before she gives up and dies.

Yes, she could have survived, if she really put her mind to it. Also, there are her last words about there still being good in Anakin. If she knows this, that Anakin can still be brought back to the light side of the Force, then why doesn't she put her mind to surviving, so that she can live to see it happen in ROTJ? I still think it's because she knows that, long before it can happen, the Sith will find her and take her children away, unless she dies in a way that discourages the Sith from looking for them.

[James]

Originally posted by samrosenbaum@Sep 17 2005, 04:46 PM
Yes, she could have survived, if she really put her mind to it. Also, there are her last words about there still being good in Anakin. If she knows this, that Anakin can still be brought back to the light side of the Force, then why doesn't she put her mind to surviving, so that she can live to see it happen in ROTJ? I still think it's because she knows that, long before it can happen, the Sith will find her and take her children away, unless she dies in a way that discourages the Sith from looking for them.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>


If Vader had known that Padmé was alive he would have found her before ROTJ. It's highly unlikely that she would have been able to persuade him to come back to the light.

[Sam]

That's right. For one thing, she already tried to bring him back to the light side and got choked as a result. On the other hand, could Obi-Wan have picked a worse time to appear in the doorway of the ship? I mean, what if the scene between Padme and Anakin had gone on a little longer? There's a chance she might have succeeded.

I think that, in the end, Padme knows that the only people who will be able to bring Anakin back to the light side are Luke and Leia, and only if they grow up free from the Emperor's influence.

[James William Alexander Atreides]

That's what I think. If Yoda and Obi-wan had teamed up and defeated Palpatine, Obi-wan would not be there to disrupt Padme and Anakin's conversation. Maybe she would have had a chance.

[James]

No. I doubt Padmé would have been able to persuade him. He was far too immersed in bloodshed and the dark side to go back now.

[Sam]

I'll split the difference with you. You're probably right that the weak Padme who is in the movie could not have persuaded him. But the stronger Padme whom some of us wanted to see instead would have had a chance.

[James]

style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif

[lovelucas]

padme couldn't bring him back, she tried. if obiwan hadn't compromised her position by sneaking on the skiff perhaps......

george implied that anakin by believing that "love can't save you - only my new powers can" and his emphasis on "my new empire" turned him into someone she no longer knew; that his ambition for yet more power actually took precedence over his love for her....and he punctuated that with a forcechoke.

loss of the jedi; loss of the republic and providing the pathway for palpatine to become chancellor and now emperor are some pretty dang heavy burdens. and then you throw on the ultimate coup de grace - the love that you sacrificed your principles for, the love that you allowed to weaken yourself, the love you changed your entire life for has tried to kill you. ya think padme might just be doubting herself, her direction, her life, her decisions? and she knows the force-sensitive children will be like magnets to the emperor IF he knows they are alive.

i buy it folks.

[James William Alexander Atreides]

I still don't know. With Obi-wan and Yoda defeating Palpatine, the Sith corruption of Anakin ends. Without Obi-wan on Mustafar as a disruption, Anakin could calm down and not turn on Padme and create his own self-fulfilling prophecy of Padme's death.

I also still think Padme's death could have been done better or different. It was just too weak.

style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/bow.gif style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/dictator.gif style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/bow.gif

[James]

Originally posted by lovelucas@Sep 20 2005, 05:30 AM
padme couldn't bring him back, she tried. if obiwan hadn't compromised her position by sneaking on the skiff perhaps......

george implied that anakin by believing that "love can't save you - only my new powers can" and his emphasis on "my new empire" turned him into someone she no longer knew; that his ambition for yet more power actually took precedence over his love for her....and he punctuated that with a forcechoke.

loss of the jedi; loss of the republic and providing the pathway for palpatine to become chancellor and now emperor are some pretty dang heavy burdens. and then you throw on the ultimate coup de grace - the love that you sacrificed your principles for, the love that you allowed to weaken yourself, the love you changed your entire life for has tried to kill you. ya think padme might just be doubting herself, her direction, her life, her decisions? and she knows the force-sensitive children will be like magnets to the emperor IF he knows they are alive.

i buy it folks.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>


I agree with you, absolutely. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cheers.gif

[James William Alexander Atreides]

So passes one person's opinion. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/huh.gif style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ohmy.gif

[James]

^ ummm... what?

[Obidobi]

Originally posted by James William Alexander Atreides@Sep 20 2005, 03:32 AM
So passes one person's opinion. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/huh.gif* style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ohmy.gif
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>

You have already given your opinion about her death.... A lot of times in a lot of threads actually.... style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/whip.gif

[James]

Bear this in mind, JWAA: there is no way she could have lived beyond ROTS. It was GL's intent to kill her off. No matter how hard you try to beileve she is alive and whether she died lamely or whatever, she is dead as a doornail.

[James William Alexander Atreides]

So death is death no matter how you cut it, huh? style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/skullwink.gif style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/scratchchin.gif

[James]

yeah style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif

[Sam]

Since the other Padme thread, the one about the babies, was ordered back on topic, I'm posting my reply to this thread instead.

I think you're right that Padme would not have given emergency powers to Palpatine, had she been there. There was a reason the Sith wanted her out of the way, or at least sidetracked. I also think that, had she been there, she would not have taken the announcement of the Clone Army at face value. She would have launched an investigation into its mysterious and illegal procurement.

I'm assuming here that, if Padme, or the proxy appointed by her, had the power to give emergency war powers to the Chancellor, then she must have a high position in the Senate. My guess would be whatever their equivalent is to a committee chairman.

Now, imagine what could have been done with that in ROTS, when Palaptine tries to take oversight of the Jedi Council away from the Senate. Anakin wouldn't just be caught between the Chancellor and the Council. He'd be caught between the Chancellor and the Council and his wife.

[James]

Originally posted by Sam@Sep 21 2005, 04:49 PM
I think you're right that Padme would not have given emergency powers to Palpatine, had she been there. There was a reason the Sith wanted her out of the way, or at least sidetracked. I also think that, had she been there, she would not have taken the announcement of the Clone Army at face value. She would have launched an investigation into its mysterious and illegal procurement.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>


Interesting never thought of it that way before style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/yeah.gif

[James William Alexander Atreides]

One wonders why the Jedi Counsel, or Padme, or even the Senate didn't launch an investigation into the creation of the Clone Army. An army doesn't come out of nowhere. It takes time to build. And what about Yoda's findings about it? style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/y.gif

[Sam]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>One wonders why the Jedi Counsel, or Padme, or even the Senate didn't launch an investigation into the creation of the Clone Army. An army doesn't come out of nowhere. It takes time to build. And what about Yoda's findings about it?[/b][/quote]

Very good question. I can offer only a partial answer, that most in the Senate didn't want to look a gift Clone in the mouth when they were at war. But this doesn't answer it for those characters inclined to be more supsicious.

I can imagine, however, that a Senate investigation would likely lead to an impasse. They would use Obi-Wan's report as a starting point, but then would find no one else to be as forthcoming, certainly not anyone from the Chancellor's Office. The Kaminans would be subpoenaed and questioned about the person who assumed the name of the dead Jedi Master "Siphadeus." (Excuse me, if that isn't the correct spelling.) "What did he look like? What did his voice sound like? What did he say? What kind of ship did he travel in? Was anyone with him?" etc. The Kaminans' likely response would be that the only one with whom Siphadeus interacted was the Prime Minister, who just happens to be the one individual on Kamino who cannot be forced to give testimony. The Senate would also demand to see the purchase order and the signature on it, and the Kaminans would probably produce it, but I don't know if they would be able to trace it to anyone.

Why Yoda didn't dig deeper, I haven't a clue.

[James]

Yeah I wish that GL had resolved the mystery of the clone army properly in ROTS. Suddenly this army appeared out of nowhere. It didn't even satisfactorily resolve who had ordered the army.

And btw it's Sifo-Dyas style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif

[James William Alexander Atreides]

Also, once the Clone War began, most of the considerations about the army vanished or were forgotten in the emergency. I'm sure the Republican government, especially the Chancellor's Office, had some good experience and practice at doing cover ups. Martial Law has a tendacy to do that.

[Obidobi]

Hey guys... This is the one and only Padme thread!!! Not the investigating of the clones thread!!

[James]

If Padmé had decided to investigate into the clone army's origins, the Sith would have covered their tracks.

[Sam]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Hey guys... This is the one and only Padme thread!!! Not the investigating of the clones thread!![/b][/quote]

Since Padme's role in the Senate isn't well defined in the films, nor is the organization of the Senate well-defined, people are free to speculate. In terms of story structure and tying things together, wouldn't it be neat if Padme were in a position not only to investigate activities by the Clone Army that foreshadow what it would do later, but also do something about Palpatine's move to take over the Jedi Council, which, as I mentioned before, would really make Anakin feel like a pawn? It would also make it easier for Palpatine to insinuate to Anakin that there's something going on between Padme and Obi-Wan.

[James William Alexander Atreides]

But there never was anything really going on between Padme and Obi-wan.

[James]

style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/scratchchin.gif

[Sam]

No, but Palpatine wants Anakin to think there is. It's a subplot in the Lucas screenplay, that he dropped from the movie. In it, Anakin becomes insanely jealous, and it leads to the Force-choking. What I'm saying is that the subplot would have fit into the story better, if Padme's position in the Senate were such that, when the Jedi reported to the Senate, it was be Obi-Wan reporting to Padme.

[James]

Yeah you're right. I would have liked to have seen more of Anakin getting jealous of Obi-Wan through Palpatine's lies.

[James William Alexander Atreides]

Yeah, there was suppose to be a love triangle with those three, wasn't there? I remember reading something about that before AOTC came out.

[Sam]

The way Lucas writes it, it's ambiguous as to what, if any, feelings Obi-Wan has toward Padme. If he is in love with her, he's too repressed by the Jedi Code to express it. That doesn't stop mad Anakin from jumping to conclusions, however.

I don't favor there being a traditional love triangle in the story, since that would be a cliche. But there are more original ways to approach it, that can make it interesting. My preference is to take advantage of something that is set up earlier in the PT'; the implied tendency for Obi-Wan to form, not romantic attachments, but attachments as substitutes for family that he either lost or never had. Then, whether or not there is a love triangle would depend upon what is the definition of love.

[James William Alexander Atreides]

Yeah, it make no sense since Obi-wan would be more repressed by the Jedi Code than Anakin was. Especially considering he was a Jedi Master. But then Anakin would have known that and probably wouldn't be jealous. So the whole situation wouldn't work out that way.

[James]

There doesn't necessarily have to be a love triangle, just subtle lies which Palpatine feeds to Anakin to turn him against both Padmé and Obi-Wan. His anger against them both would further lead to his fall to the dark side.

[James William Alexander Atreides]

Okay, but if Anakin really understands the Jedi Code and traditions, he would know that Obi-wan can't be romantically involved. He would know that Palpatine is lying.

[James]

No, look at how much he was sucked in by Palpatine in ROTS! Anakin would listen to anything even if it was an absolute lie.

[James William Alexander Atreides]

He so wanted to save Padme that he would listen to anything.

[James]

Palpatine could easily have stretched it even further to include a story about a Padmé and Obi-Wan relationship.

[James William Alexander Atreides]

That would have been a very long stretch.

[Sam]

The way Palpatine brings it up in the original script is by talking about "rumors in the Senate" about Obi-Wan's mind having become "fogged by the influence of a certain female Senator."

[James]

Originally posted by James William Alexander Atreides@Sep 30 2005, 05:59 PM
That would have been a very long stretch.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>


Palpatine stretched many things a very long way. It's easy for him.

[silentbaboon]

Originally posted by James+Sep 30 2005, 09:42 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(James @ Sep 30 2005, 09:42 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-James William Alexander Atreides@Sep 30 2005, 05:59 PM
That would have been a very long stretch.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>


Palpatine stretched many things a very long way. It's easy for him.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>
[/b][/quote]

yeah he did and it would've played out well if they included that.
palpatine coul have told anakin anything like obiwan having an affair with padme and anakin would've believed him.

[James]

^yeah absolutely

[James William Alexander Atreides]

Nobody could be that blind, could they?

[James]

Anakin was really blind in ROTS.

[James William Alexander Atreides]

True. But some lies are so outright and outrageous that anyone could tell that they are untrue.

[James]

Anakin would believe anything though no matter how outrageous the lie was.

[Sam]

Yes, I agree that Anakin would believe practically anything Palpatine tells him. It's very common in people who do not think critically, but instead follow someone or something blindly.

[James]

Anakin does not seem capable of rational thought in ROTS.

[James William Alexander Atreides]

Maybe so, maybe so.

[Sam]

OBI-WAN
I have failed you, Anakin . . . I was never able to teach you to think.

[James]

And we can relate that back to Padmé - Anakin would not having wasted a moment's thought but gone to hunt down her and Obi-Wan not even considering the truthfulness or the consequences of Palpatine's lies.

[James William Alexander Atreides]

Maybe, but then Anakin was never too bright in the head. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/drool.gif style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wacko.gif

[James]

But he was bright in the ways of the Force.

[Sam]

Since Anakin was saturated with the stuff (midichlorians), like no other Jedi, he probably didn't have to be very bright to learn the ways of the Force. It came naturally to him. Others had to use their brains and work harder at it.

[James]

indeed.

[James William Alexander Atreides]

Originally posted by Sam@Oct 13 2005, 12:41 AM
Since Anakin was saturated with the stuff (midichlorians), like no other Jedi, he probably didn't have to be very bright to learn the ways of the Force. It came naturally to him. Others had to use their brains and work harder at it.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>

It may have came natural to him and may have had a "knack" for it, but it certainly didn't make him very wise to the ways of the Force or very patient to learning it. Patience and wisdom is the one thing Anakin never learned. It might have made a big difference.

[James William Alexander Atreides]

By the way, isn't this suppose to be the Padme Thread? style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/offtopic.gif style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/whip.gif

[borgmatrix]

Originally posted by James William Alexander Atreides@Oct 15 2005, 12:15 AM
It may have came natural to him and may have had a "knack" for it, but it certainly didn't make him very wise to the ways of the Force or very patient to learning it. <div align="right">Quoted post</div>

Yeah. In terms of raw power, he might have been beyond everyone around him, but he still needed to know how to harness that power. Obi-wan commented early in AOTC that Anakin wasn't spending enough time practicing with his lightsaber, for instance. And he seemed to be right, based on the quickness with which Anakin was downed by Tyranus. Being the Chosen One didn't allow Anakin to fare any better against the Sith Lord than Obi-wan. That, coupled with his "failure" to save his mother, seemed to give him the jolt he needed, since he had clearly elevated his prowess as a fighter by the time of ROTS.

[James William Alexander Atreides]

Very true. He should have trained more and learned patience.

Again, isn't this suppose to be the Padme Thread? style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/offtopic.gif


style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/bow.gif style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/dictator.gif style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/bow.gif

[James]

If you look a couple of pages back it was you who actually dragged us off topic style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif

[James William Alexander Atreides]

Okay, I'm very sorry. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/butbut.gif style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/thud.gif Let's get back with Padme, shall we?

style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/bow.gif style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/dictator.gif style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/bow.gif

[James]

No worries JWAA style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif

OK what shall we talk about now

[Sam]

How about the music John Williams' composed for Padme's scenes in the films? It sounded to me like the composer liked Padme more than the director did.

His music for the scenes in TPM, where Padme is leading the commando raid to take back her palace, includes the motif for the Rebellion that was first heard in the original Star Wars Main Title. My guess is that Williams assumed, as did I and probably most of you, that Padme would go on to either start or participate in the Rebellion.

For AOTC, he composed a love theme, derived from other Star Wars themes but done very beautifully, that I found to be much better than the love story itself.

His music for Padme is ROTS becomes heavily choral, almost religious in nature, as if he sees her as a martyr. She doesn't come across that way in the film, but perhaps she should have.

[DonSwoosh]

Sam, still on the Padme argument, I see....

[James William Alexander Atreides]

She is a martyr. She should have been a stronger one though.

[James]

She'd lost all her strength though.

[Sam]

But most of that loss of strength should have happened near the end of the movie, not before the movie even started.

[techno-union]

Originally posted by Sam@Oct 27 2005, 04:29 PM
But most of that loss of strength should have happened near the end of the movie, not before the movie even started.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>


How do mean before the movie started.

Padme died of a broken heart, because of what she stood for (all things good)

[James]

^I agree with you.

[Sam]

Originally posted by techno-union+Oct 27 2005, 02:24 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(techno-union @ Oct 27 2005, 02:24 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Sam@Oct 27 2005, 04:29 PM
But most of that loss of strength should have happened near the end of the movie, not before the movie even started.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>


How do mean before the movie started.

Padme died of a broken heart, because of what she stood for (all things good)
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>
[/b][/quote]
What I mean is that Padme is a much weaker character when we first see her in ROTS than when we last saw her in AOTC. As she appears in the movie, the bulk of her psychological destruction occured before it started, and only the last stage remains. That isn't fair, either to her or to the audience. A fall is more tragic, if it is from a great height. During that fall, a character like Padme should be able to do some spectacular, desperate things that leave a lasting impact, and not just on Anakin, before finally succumbing in the end.

[Ben-jit]

I thought Padme's fall was very tragic. The "apparent" weakness of her character in the 3rd episode really epitomises what Palpatine (maliciously) and Anakin (selfishly, albeit initially innocently) did to her and what she stood for.

[James William Alexander Atreides]

Originally posted by Sam+Oct 28 2005, 12:30 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sam @ Oct 28 2005, 12:30 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'>Originally posted by techno-union@Oct 27 2005, 02:24 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-Sam@Oct 27 2005, 04:29 PM
But most of that loss of strength should have happened near the end of the movie, not before the movie even started.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>


How do mean before the movie started.

Padme died of a broken heart, because of what she stood for (all things good)
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>

What I mean is that Padme is a much weaker character when we first see her in ROTS than when we last saw her in AOTC. As she appears in the movie, the bulk of her psychological destruction occured before it started, and only the last stage remains. That isn't fair, either to her or to the audience. A fall is more tragic, if it is from a great height. During that fall, a character like Padme should be able to do some spectacular, desperate things that leave a lasting impact, and not just on Anakin, before finally succumbing in the end.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>
[/b][/quote]

I agree. She should have handled the situation much better than she did until the end.


style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/bow.gif style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/dictator.gif style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/bow.gif

[DonSwoosh]

And you expect people to handle situations better when emotions and passionate feelings are involved?

Padme is tragic in this film because she is a victim of who she is in the Prequels.

There is no loss of character in this film. Again, we're seeing the personal side of her more than we are use to seeing. In Episode I, we saw mostly her public image; the political and heroic Queen. In Episode II, we see a balance of the political/public side and the personal side. In Episode III, it's just the personal side...as it should be because the events that happen around her are personal for her and the most personal of all the situations is her husband. And he is the sole focus of the film. For me, it makes sense. Her character has no weakened at all in my eyes.

[Sam]

I think I can explain the controversy over Padme in terms you may not have heard before. It goes to the culture war in America. On most of the controversial issues that the PT takes up, it comes down on the side of Blue America, which includes me and, I think, most of the Star Wars audience in the US. Although politically Padme remains in the Blue camp in ROTS, socially it's the reverse. The idea that marriage or pregnancy shifts a woman's priorities to where she's incapable of being effective in her profession or Government position, plays to the way that much of Red America views women. This same view of women has them trying to do things primarily through their husbands instead of themselves. Much of Blue America is offended by this portrayal, which we see as being from the dark time before women emerged as equals to men.

I don't think Lucas consciously intended for it to come out that way. You, or someone here, talked about the Anakin/Padme relationship being a throwback to 19th Century literature. That would be fine, if the rest of the story was about the 19th Century. Then, you would expect the characters' values to be of that time. Unfortunately, it is not. The story of the Jedi is about another time also, a time of ancient myth, but it works in the setting, since the myths that were chosen are relatively timeless. The political plot is decidedly modern. For TPM, Lucas created Padme with modern elements mixed with her traditional ones, so she could handle the plot she was thrust into. That plot retained its modern aspects throughout the PT. Yet, by ROTS, Padme's modern elements, if not taken away, were at least supressed. That incompatibility resulted in a movie that many of us see as divided against itself.

[DonSwoosh]

Interesting notion, Sam.

I can definitely see the argument when you put it into terms such as you did above. Yet, Padme, in my opinion, avoids that for the most part simply by her actions at the end of the Episode III when she confronts Anakin. Again, I see the reasons as to why some might say that her confronting Anakin isn't enough to redeem her but in the context of the story within the film, she is the Padme we've seen in the Prequels. Obi-Wan tells her the news and she immediately springs to action.

Again, the public image of Padme is greatly repressed in this film as compared to Episodes I and II but we get the hint that she is still in the political arena. Lucas could've avoided this entire split in the fanbase if she showed Padme, in her apartment, doing office work or something...something that visually hinted that she was busy with something in the Senate. As the film stands, we get verbal hints that she's still very active in the Senate. But, as the film points out, her pregnancy complicates alot of matters. It's not only their union that gets complicated by the pregnancy, it's her image that will take a hit if others found out. It must remain a secret to all.

At the end of the day, you make an interesting point, Sam. But, I still feel that we get enough of the Padme that we've seen in Episodes I and II in Episode III. Would I have liked to see her directly working on the Rebel Alliance in Episode III to give her more character? Sure. But, given the deleted scenes on the DVD and the film itself, it just doesn't fit. Plus, I feel that she has enough character in the film. It's clear that Lucas made her the more tragic figure in Episode III than Anakin per se. And, I think that's very poignant, from my perspective.

The Rebel Alliance, and how it's formed, is explained if you watch Episodes III and IV back to back. It becomes more clear.

[James]

People go on about how Padmé should be stronger but what can she do? The Republic is crashing down around her, her stress over the war and her husband's involvement in it is breaking her down. With Palpatine revealing himself as a Sith, she's in way over her head anywayz.

[Porthas]

Wow, when I saw the movie, never once did thoughts of Dems or Republicans enter my head. She just died of a broken heart. I can relate, I almost did, and I'm a man. It actually happens to males more often than females, from what I've heard, especially in cases of long marriages and the spouse dies. The male just loses the will to live. Anyway, it's something that really happens, and you can make judgements about whether or not she was strong or enough (I'm not saying your a bad person if you do), but I tend to just respect that she was a human being and we're all fragile at times.

[Sam]

At least two of ROTS' political messages made big news in the US. There was much commentary about it. It even came up in the US Senate fight between Democrats and Republicans over Bill Frist's "Nuclear Option." And Lucas has discussed the political theme in interviews. He did so in historical terms, but indicated that history may be repeating itself.

I'm not arguing that Padme shouldn't die of a broken heart at the end. What I am arguing is that she should be doing more things prior to it and showing more strength in doing them. Her descent into despair and ineffectiveness happens too early. (And if you see those deleted scenes, at least the way they're written in the original script, she isn't effective in them.) It should happen only after her best efforts are exhausted. A fall is more tragic if it is from a great height. And were she to do something that has a lasting impact (besides being a baby maker and what happens between her and Anakin), her fall would have more meaning.

To those who say it can't be done, I offer evidence that it can in "Episode 3.1, Revenge of the Sith Revisited," over in the Fan Fiction.

[DonSwoosh]

Sam,

In those deleted scenes, she's torn between her duty and her husband. That's what the deleted scenes show and I think that was a right choice. She knows how close Anakin is to Palpatine. She wants to be apart of the Delegation yet she also doesn't want to betray her husband either. It's a very delicate situation for Padme.

Even in the film, she uses Anakin to try and resolve the matter. Lucas basically takes the three deleted scenes of the Rebellion and just has Padme ask Anakin to talk to Palpatine about ending this war in one scene. Again, yes I know the show, don't tell mantra used for screenwriting, but in this case it was effective. It showed that Padme has real concerns about what's going on and what better way to do that than to go through your husband who is basically Palpatine's number 2. It makes sense. Yet, when she sees Anakin's conflict, she natural wants to help her husband out more.

[Sam]

But the bottom line is that makes her the weakest link in the potential rebellion, and that's what I don't like about those scenes. After Bail Organa and Mon Mothma tell her not to discuss their plans with anyone, she goes and talks to Anakin, not exactly about their plans, but about something close enough to them that it makes him suspicious. In a later scene, she suggests to the group that there's a Jedi they should consult, and she's frustrated when they rebuff her. I was hoping that maybe she was suggesting Obi-Wan, but I fear she was suggesting Anakin, which would have been a REALLY bad idea. Then, in the meeting with Palpatine, she caves.

Since you've read the rewrite, you know what it does about all of that, and also how it puts in a different context Padme's conflict over whether what she's doing is helping or betraying Anakin.

[DonSwoosh]

In those scenes, as much as Lucas says that she's suggesting Anakin, I personally believe she's suggesting Obi-Wan only because throughout the film, she always asks about Obi-Wan to Anakin. Whenever they have a decision to be made or she sees Anakin is having trouble with something, she immediately throws in Obi-Wan in the conversation.

I believe she's suggesting Obi-Wan. And, I don't think it makes her the weakest link. It just puts her in a real tight spot. On one hand, she wants to be active in this alliance but on the other, she doesn't want to betray her husband. It really is a no win situation for her.

But as her scenes stand in the film itself, it is clear that while Padme is conerned about the diplomatic matters during this time, she is more concerned about her husband and what he's going through. All she's really trying to do in the film is make sure that Anakin comes out of this whole situation in one piece so they can go to Naboo and start a family. That's all and there's nothing wrong with that.

[Sam]

Then why does Lucas say she's suggesting Anakin?

If Padme's priorities have shifted as far over to Anakin as you suggest, then I do find something wrong with it, as per my earlier post regarding the culture war. We seem to be in it here, having such very different ideas over what constitutes a strong woman. There's nothing wrong with Padme loving Anakin and wanting to help him. There is something wrong with it rendering her incompetant in her other duties, especially at a point when the stakes for those duties have never been higher.

And, instead of Padme being in a no-win situation, where everything is continuously going against her, isn't it more suspenseful to set up what, in screenwriting, is called, a "reversal"? Have it look for a while like she's going to win, then Anakin's actions, which ironically he thinks he's taking to save her, remotely pull the rug out from under her. You know the scenes in the rewrite that I'm talking about.

[DonSwoosh]

For me, it's more tragic to watch this character be a victim in this entire Episode. She's not incompetent. We just don't see her as active as we've seen her previously but that doesn't mean she's not. But again, I stress that when she does get active, it's more dramatic and more emotional not only for her but for the audience. I mean, had she turned Anakin back to the good side, for me, it would've been her greatest moment. And for the audience, we know that Anakin is doing these things to save her and so when Padme goes to him, we know that she can bring him back. The tragic part comes in that we see she can't. Her character, as strong as she's always been, can't even fix the one thing she desires most in the world.

Sam, I understand what a strong woman is suppose to be in the modern age today and I have nothing against it. All I;m saying with Padme is that just because we don't see her do the things we are use to seeing her do, doesn't mean she's inactive. Again, her pregnancy comes into play for most of the film. She has to keep this a secret from everyone, including her collegues.

Padme becomes active on the screen when she needs to be. Of course, I would like to see Lucas give her more but given the structure and style of Star Wars, something had to go. Unfornuately, it was Padme's subplot, which while interesting, isn't nearly as interesting as her story with Anakin. Plus, Episode III is the story of the rise of the Empire. We get the rise of the Rebellion in the later Episodes. All this Episode had to do was to hint at hope toward the end and it does.

On top of all that, she does make a significiant contribution to the Rebellion in the form of two kids....the saviors so to speak.

[Sam]

A consensus was reached earlier, either in this thread or the one about why did Padme die when she just had two babies, that Padme as she is in the movie could not have brought Anakin back to the Light Side, but Padme as some of us wanted to see her would have had a chance. In the movie, she goes to Mustafar more to find out whether or not Obi-Wan was telling the truth about Anakin, than to save Anakin, and, only at the last moment realizes that he's gone to the Dark Side and tries to bring him back. Yet, her famous lines have no effect on him, and how he will react upon seeing Obi-Wan is a foregone conclusion.

If you recall from the rewrite, the alternate scene uses many of the same lines of dialogue, but the buildup and the context is different. Here, Padme goes to Mustafar, knowing what she is up against. She's more forceful in her atttempt to bring Anakin back to her, and appears to be making a dent. Then, tragically, Obi-Wan appears in the doorway of the ship just at the right (or wrong) moment to set Anakin off.

I do not buy the argument that Padme's pregnancy justifies restricting her activities to the extent that they are in the movie, and having her appear as incompetant as she does in the deleted scenes. Even though I don't think Lucas intended it to, it sends the wrong message. It plays into the old sexism, which was never really eliminated from our culture. It was just driven underground. It could re-emerge (like the Sith re-emerge in the PT). In some ways, it already has.

The purpose of the rewrite was to debunk that stereotype. Here, Padme, initially, is as concerned as she is in the movie about keeping her pregnancy a secret. But events overtake that. The Clone Army is committing atrocities. Palpatine is trying to take oversight of the Jedi away from the Senate. As chairman of the committee that oversees the Army and the Jedi, Padme must act. (This puts more pressure on Anakin. He's caught not just between Palpatine and the Council, but between Palpatine, the Council, and his wife. No wonder he turns to the Dark Side (just kidding).) Even so, Padme talks to Anakin first to get him persuade Palpatine to end the war. Anakin rebuffs her and says angrily, "Make a motion in the Senate, where that kind of request belongs." In the next scene, she's meeting with the other Senators.

Another thing that prompts Padme to be more, rather than less, active in the rewrite, is her figuring out earlier than in the movie that Anakin is headed for the Dark Side. It's when he tells her that he's developing new powers to save her from what he saw in his nightmare. It's clear from her reaction that she knows exactly what that means, though how she knows isn't revealed until later. It's why she drops a revelatory bombshell on Obi-Wan in the moved and rewritten version of their early scene. It's to help Anakin, though she's conflicted about it. Sensing her conflict, Obi-Wan assures her that she's doing the right thing, that it isn't a betrayal. It's also why she accelerates her efforts against Palpatine, because she suspects he's the
cause of what's happening to Anakin, as well as what's happening to the Republic.
By this time, having to keep her pregnancy secret is the least of her problems.

It's true that Episode III is the story of the rise of the Empire. But it happens too easily. There's a screenwriter's rule, "make it difficult," which the movie all but ignores. In the rewrite, Padme is a constant thorn in Palpatine's side. (Why do you think he used his minions to get her out of the way in AOTC?) In the end, she isn't able to stop him, but she greatly shortens the potential life of his Empire, and I don't mean just by the babies she has.

[Jacy]

I was wondering if anyone knew the answer to this. How pregnant is Padme when she gives birth to the twins? I just assumed that she was not full term and then she gives birth to two full term babies. I was just hoping that someone could spread light on this for me.

[James]

I think she was quite heavily pregnant in ROTS. I'm not sure though I'll have a look round on the net for you

Welcome to the GS btw style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif

[DonSwoosh]

"BTW. You told me you've been rewriting the ROTS script, also. But why go to the trouble of rewriting it, if you not only agree with, but are highly defensive about, virtually everything that's in the original?"

I'm only added things into the script that were already there but didn't make it into the film. And all my additions only extend scenes a bit, give it a bit more room to breathe. That's all I'm doing. I agree, 95%, with Lucas' cut of the film but I wanted to go back and add the things I still believe should've made it in after having seen the film.

"I will admit that I'm unusual, not in taking this position on the Padme controversy; many have; but in the intensity of my reaction. It took a long time to figure out precisely why this reaction was so intense. It turns out to be about the culture war, only this time it's on the opposite side. On most of the controversial issues that the PT takes up, it comes down on the side of Blue America, which includes me and, I think, a majority of the Star Wars audience in the US. Although politically Padme remains in the Blue camp in ROTS, socially it's the reverse. The idea that marriage or pregnancy shifts a woman's priorities so far that she's incapable of being effective in her profession or Government position, plays to the way that much of Red America views women. This same view of women has them trying to do things primarily through their husbands instead of themselves. Much of Blue America is offended by this portrayal, which we see as an attempt to turn back the clock.

"I don't think Lucas consciously intended for his love story to send that message. I accept that he was attempting to do a 19th Century romantic tragedy. The problem arose from its being taken out of its element and placed in an environment where, for those sensitive to the issues, it became incompatible with the rest of the story. That incompatibility resulted in a movie that many of us see, although probably more sub-consciously than consciously, as culturally divided against itself. Its other themes still appear to have gained ROTS more audience that it lost, but I expect this situation is hampering the ability of that extra audience, and much of the existing audience, to fully embrace the film."

Sam, this is the best way to look at the situation. For starters, I'm all about Blue America if you want to call it that. But, here's the thing; for me, Padme changing her priorities has alot to do with the fact that she's been in public service probably 20 out of her 27 years. So to me, her finally thinking about herself and watch she wants instead of the greater good is a natural, good progression. It's not wrong. She's done things at such an early age that she has never truly figured out who she is. She's been defined by her service, not by who she is. When she falls for Anakin, we see Padme for the first time. So, when Padme and Anakin are on the balcony and she talks about going home and fixing up the baby's room, I think that's great. She's done her duty. It's time for her to do what she wants, live a peaceful life with her family. Now, if she had lived, who's to say she wouldn't return to service after a while. We'll never know. But again, given what she's done in her 27 years, she's earned the right to think selfishly for once. And in Episode III, we see a woman who is still in public service but clearly wants something else out of life. And again, that's not wrong. For her character, it makes sense.

[Sam]

It would make sense, except that the plot Padme was a party to setting up during her years of public service is coming to a head. She's obligated to deal with it, regardless of what she may want out of life. Until she does so directly, not just through Anakin, and not just through a half-hearted attempt to impress Palpatine with a delegation, she hasn't done her duty.

And I'm sorry if I mistook you for being on the Red America side of the culture war. I assumed it, becuase the tone of your posts gave me the sense that the smarter, more active Padme in the rewrite threatens your world. I've opened up about the way Padme is constrained in the movie, and naive until almost the very end of it, threatens my world. That is why I changed her in the rewrite.

[Sam]

Originally posted by nadas97@Nov 6 2005, 04:48 PM
I was wondering if anyone knew the answer to this. How pregnant is Padme when she gives birth to the twins? I just assumed that she was not full term and then she gives birth to two full term babies. I was just hoping that someone could spread light on this for me.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>

I ran into a problem with this myself, when doing a fan fiction rewrite of the ROTS screenplay. At first glance, the story appears to take place over several months and, according to what I've heard about Lucas' timeline, the twins are supposed to be near full term. Yet, examining the plot structure of the screenplay closely reveals that it takes place over a much shorter period - weeks instead of months. That has to do with the Palpatine/Anakin/Jedi Council plot and the logistics of the war. Who goes where, when, etc. It's tightly structured, and there isn't a lot of room for gaps.

So, if Anakin was gone for five months, Padme would probably be no more than six months pregnant at their reunion, and no more than seven months when she has the babies. I've been advised that they could survive, but would need to go on life-support for awhile. I don't know why Lucas showed full-term babies in the movie, becuase it seems unlikely to me that they would be.

style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/welcome.gif

[DonSwoosh]

In one of the Insider Magazine Qan A, Pablo says that when Padme has the babies, she's close to 7 months pregnant. The babies are premature. Granted, they didn't look it in the film, but that's okay. She was far enough along to where the babies can survive.

But since the film doesn't really specify the last time Anakin and Padme were together, I just say that she was 8 months pregnant for it to be a little more realistic.

[Jacy]

That is kinda what I figured. Even at the beginning of the film she looks to be about 5-6 mths pregnant, then towards the end of the film she looks to be about
7-8 mths. It just seemed to me more time went by than what was seen on the movie. Thanks for helping me more understand this. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif

[James]

You're welcome Jacy. I suppose it was about 2-3 months covered in ROTS - it would have taken that time for Palpatine to get Anakin.

[DonSwoosh]

Actually, in another Insider Q an A session with Pablo, he says Episode III takes place over 9 days.

Plus, Natalie's a small girl anyway. Realistically, sometimes small girls when pregnant don't gain that much weight. Even with twins.

But, this is just a film; a fantasy film no less so we all should suspend disbelief when it comes to this issue.

[James]

9 days!?!?!? I dunno... I find that hard to believe.

OK Anakin was away for 5 months. He only found out that Padmé was pregnant when he returned. So she must have been about 6 months and she only found out after he left. If she was 9 months, she would have been 3 months pregnant when Anakin left and she would have told him before he went.

[DonSwoosh]

Well the film never specifies how long he's been gone. Yes, of course, the novel tells us but I, personally, don't go by that.

If you just go by the film, you can make up anything you want. Anakin could've been gone for 8 months to make it feel more natural.

And yes, the Insider Q an A by Pablo states that Episode III takes place over 9 days. I swear, he said it.

[Sam]

I don't find 9 days hard to believe. When I examined the structure, all I could account for, except for the final wrapup secnes, was one week. I was giving it some benefit of the doubt, when I said "weeks instead of months."

[Luminara Skye]

Originally posted by DonSwoosh@Nov 8 2005, 07:07 PM
And yes, the Insider Q an A by Pablo states that Episode III takes place over 9 days. I swear, he said it.

I remember reading 9 days, also.

[James William Alexander Atreides]

I heard 9 days too but I really don't accept that. It seems to be much longer then just over a week.

[James]

for once we're in agreement JWAA style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif

[Master Magnus]

It seems perfectly plausible, at least to me, that the movie takes place over nine days.

[Ant]

I woul have thought a month or so

[Obi_Ben_Kenobi]

I concur. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif

[Erick Landrider]

Originally posted by Master Magnus@Nov 20 2005, 05:00 AM
It seems perfectly plausible, at least to me, that the movie takes place over nine days.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>


No. Padme finds out that she is pregnant at the start of the film. She pops out two babies at the end of the film.

Try Nine months. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif

[JediMasterJamz]

this might have already have been asked/answered...but how strong was padme's connection 2 the force?

[Suzanne (ex CoS Leia)]

Originally posted by Erick Landrider+Dec 2 2005, 10:54 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Erick Landrider @ Dec 2 2005, 10:54 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Master Magnus@Nov 20 2005, 05:00 AM
It seems perfectly plausible, at least to me, that the movie takes place over nine days.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>


No. Padme finds out that she is pregnant at the start of the film. She pops out two babies at the end of the film.

Try Nine months. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>
[/b][/quote]

The LFL people say it's a little over a week.

Padme doesn't find out that she's pregnant at the beginning of the movie - that's just the first chance she's had to tell Anakin because he's been away for so long.

style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif

[Erick Landrider]

So she goes from not showing at all to giving birth in a week? Nah.

[Sam]

Padme isn't showing at the beginning, because she's dressing to hide it.

On her giving birth, I think, in terms of the story structure, the babies are premature. Lucas just didn't bother to make them look premature in the movie.

[Suzanne (ex CoS Leia)]

Originally posted by Erick Landrider@Dec 2 2005, 02:38 PM
So she goes from not showing at all to giving birth in a week? Nah.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>


I think it's probably worth having another look - the dress is designed to hide the bump, but there is very clearly a bump there. And look at her in that first night shot - very clearly pregnant in the nightdress.

[thepepgal]

LFL offically may say it was over 9 days but I doubt it.

No government, including dicatorship, can get all the things done, that happen in the film, in only 9 days.

No government has that much military just waiting to go somewhere when they are at war, it has to be co-ordinated. They would have to be running short of new clones.

Padme wouldn't have lasted 9 months carrying twins. I think she look about late 7 or just 8 months near the finish of the film. She was probably about 6 months at the begining.

Hence I have always believe the film was about a 6 weeks timefame.

[Erick Landrider]

Originally posted by Suzanne (ex CoS Leia)+Dec 2 2005, 07:01 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Suzanne (ex CoS Leia) @ Dec 2 2005, 07:01 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Erick Landrider@Dec 2 2005, 02:38 PM
So she goes from not showing at all to giving birth in a week? Nah.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>


I think it's probably worth having another look - the dress is designed to hide the bump, but there is very clearly a bump there. And look at her in that first night shot - very clearly pregnant in the nightdress.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>
[/b][/quote]

She'd have something slightly more than a bump is she was 7 months pregnant with twins.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Lucas just didn't bother to make them look premature in the movie.[/b][/quote]

or they weren't premature...

[Sam]

They have to be premature, because, if you examine the plot stucture closely (which I had to for the script rewrite) you'll see how tightly integrated the events are (who goes where, when, etc.) and that there isn't the opportunity for months to pass.

[Suzanne (ex CoS Leia)]

Leland Chee, who posts at TOS as "Tasty Taste" and keeps the records as to the timeframes of all of the Star Wars products in his "holocron" has said:

The events of ROTS take place in the time frame of a little over a week, which is pretty much the time frame of all of the films, with the possible exception of ESB.

Hyperspace travel, as seen in the films, is usually measured in hours, not days. Film characters tend to fly the fastest ships and take the quickest hyperspace routes.

http://forums.starwars.com/thread.jspa?thr...25719&start=717 (http://forums.starwars.com/thread.jspa?threadID=125719&start=717)

[Sam]

Yes, I was wondering about the travel times. "The Outer Rim" sounds very far away, and one would think it would take a long time to get there. But, in ROTS, it seems the characters are traveling there overnight.

[James]

Originally posted by Erick Landrider+Dec 4 2005, 07:58 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Erick Landrider @ Dec 4 2005, 07:58 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'>Originally posted by Suzanne (ex CoS Leia)@Dec 2 2005, 07:01 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-Erick Landrider@Dec 2 2005, 02:38 PM
So she goes from not showing at all to giving birth in a week? Nah.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>


I think it's probably worth having another look - the dress is designed to hide the bump, but there is very clearly a bump there. And look at her in that first night shot - very clearly pregnant in the nightdress.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>


She'd have something slightly more than a bump is she was 7 months pregnant with twins.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Lucas just didn't bother to make them look premature in the movie.[/b][/quote]

or they weren't premature...
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>
[/b][/quote]

Padmé was quite pregnant in ROTS- look at her bump when she's lying in her starship as they're flying away from Mustafar, the bump is quite large.

[Erick Landrider]

Okay, I just rewatched 'Revenge' closely for the first time and I'll agree that she does look quite pregnant at the beginning of the movie, but I still in no way believe that the movie took place over the course of a week and the babies were not premature (IMHO).

[Obi-wannabe]

When padme' is dying and says to Obi Wan " there is still good in him, I know there is". Does she assume he is still alive, did OBW tell her he did not kill him?
did I miss that part?

[Erick Landrider]

She proabaly assumed that he was alive. Remember, was unconscious during the trip from Mustafar to Polis Massa (where the twins are born).

On top of the, Obi-Wan likely didn't want to stress her out any more.

However she had recognizd that Anakin had fallen into the dark side of the Force, so she had a basis for her statement.

For me personally, it was one of my favorite parts. It was what kept Luke going during all of RotJ, then for her to say it after everything thing that Anakin had done was really touching.

[Darth Vegas]

Plot hole!

[DarthAnakin]

Originally posted by Obi-wannabe@Jan 5 2006, 04:05 PM
When padme' is dying and says to Obi Wan " there is still good in him, I know there is". Does she assume he is still alive, did OBW tell her he did not kill him?
did I miss that part?
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>


My guess is that she just assumed Anakin was alive and well.

[Sam]

I think it works better if she's slightly Force-sensitive. That way, her last words are due to something more than just blind faith, and become more closely connected to what Luke says to Vader in ROTJ.

[James]

In AOTC I think GL had Yoda originally say to Padmé about her being strong in the Force.

[Sam]

Also, in a scripted, but either unfilmed or deleted, scene in ROTS, Obi-Wan says, "You'd make a good Jedi, Padme."

[James]

I wish that scene had been put in. It's one of my favourite in the novelisation.

Obi-Wan and Padmé should've had more interaction throughout ROTS - the first time they had a scene together was when Obi-wan was trying to find Anakin.

[lovelucas]

no plot hole -
padme and anakin have/had a symbiotic relationship - very much in evidence in the padme ruminations scene. she actually knows more about anakin at this stage than obiwan does. obiwan thinks he died.......padme can sense he didn't - she dies as vader is born.....there's a reason for that.

[James]

exactly.

[James William Alexander Atreides]

Originally posted by James@Jan 28 2006, 12:33 AM
In AOTC I think GL had Yoda originally say to Padmé about her being strong in the Force.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>

Yes, he says that the Force was with her or something to that effect.

Originally posted by Sam@Jan 28 2006, 03:23 AM
Also, in a scripted, but either unfilmed or deleted, scene in ROTS, Obi-Wan says, "You'd make a good Jedi, Padme."
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>

I want to know where that is written or filmed.






style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/bow.gif style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/dictator.gif style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/bow.gif

[James]

Originally posted by James William Alexander Atreides+Feb 8 2006, 01:54 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(James William Alexander Atreides @ Feb 8 2006, 01:54 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Sam@Jan 28 2006, 03:23 AM
Also, in a scripted, but either unfilmed or deleted, scene in ROTS, Obi-Wan says, "You'd make a good Jedi, Padme."
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>


I want to know where that is written or filmed.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>
[/b][/quote]

It was written by GL its in the novelsation too.

[lovelucas]

all i'm sayin' is this:


what other movie - please name just one................ have you ever torn apart scene by scene, word by word - compared to the written word 20 years before. slow mo - and judged

to be less than perfect???




just asking

can anyone come up with even one?

[Sam]

No other movie I have seen has shown such a maddening disparity between what is
wonderful and horrible about it. This is the cause, not the result, of much of the tearing apart scene by scene.

Some other films, having huge disparities between good and bad in them, which come to mind:

"Casino Royale"
"Excalibur"
"Firestarter"
"Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom"
"Bram Stoker's Dracula"

[James William Alexander Atreides]

Originally posted by lovelucas@Feb 17 2006, 09:59 PM
all i'm sayin' is this:


what other movie - please name just one................ have you ever torn apart scene by scene, word by word - compared to the written word 20 years before. slow mo - and judged

to be less than perfect???




just asking

can anyone come up with even one?
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>


The problem just is that this saga was done 20-25 years apart. And that is just my point. If they had been done sequentually together either now or years ago, there would be no discrepancies or inconsistancies in the storyline or with the characters. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/duel.gif




style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/bow.gif style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/dictator.gif style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/bow.gif

[James]

Say, in a hypothetical situation, GL did Episodes I to III right after ROTJ. There would still be great inconsistincies, and the films would be no better or worse than they are now. That's what happens when you write a story starting from half way through.

[Ant]

Exactly, the prequels would all be an extra hour longer if in everyone they had to explain something that would happen in 20 years time in lots of detail.

[James William Alexander Atreides]

It would have been easier though to do them sequentually instead of 4,5,6 and then 1,2,3. :hmmm: :huh:

[James]

If GL had created a story in 1977 about a trade dispute and unfair taxations everyone would have been bored out of their minds. Mind you, many were in 1999 when TPM came out. He needed the three originals because they are what many think of when Star Wars is mentioned - Darth Vader, Luke Skywalker etc.

There aren't many memorable characters like that from TPM except for Jar Jar's stupid goofs which had many walking away with a bitter taste in their mouths.

[jayce78]

Originally posted by James William Alexander Atreides+Feb 7 2006, 09:54 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(James William Alexander Atreides @ Feb 7 2006, 09:54 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>Originally posted by James@Jan 28 2006, 12:33 AM
In AOTC I think GL had Yoda originally say to Padmé about her being strong in the Force.
Quoted post

Yes, he says that the Force was with her or something to that effect.

<!--QuoteBegin-Sam@Jan 28 2006, 03:23 AM
Also, in a scripted, but either unfilmed or deleted, scene in ROTS, Obi-Wan says, "You'd make a good Jedi, Padme."
Quoted post

I want to know where that is written or filmed.
:bow: :dictator: :bow:
Quoted post
[/b][/quote]



Obi-wan visits Padm'e from Episode III. . . .

There is also a suposed deleted scene from EII where Anakin teases ( and sugests to the audiance) Pad'me might have force powers . . .

[James]

Bump!!!!!

lets continue our off-topic discussion from the what we see wrong with the prequels thread here.

[Sam]

Transported from the Romance in the PT thread.

Originally posted by James+Apr 18 2006, 01:30 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(James @ Apr 18 2006, 01:30 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'>Originally posted by Sam@Apr 17 2006, 07:08 PM
For the purposes of this film political filibustrering isn't so important. The declaration of the empire, fall of the republic and the senate etc. are sub-themes to the main overall theme, which was of course the seduction and fall of Anakin Skywalker.

Then explain TPM, where Anakin, Padme and Obi-Wan are given equal weight as co-protagonists, where the seduction and fall of Anakin hasn't even started (unless you count a little boy's crush on Padme as part of it), and where the main theme is of a "Phantom Menace" to the galaxy who is hiding in plain sight.
Quoted post


Politics is important in TPM but thankfully is given a smallish role in what we see upfront. AOTC was all the boring political stuff - at the beginning of Ep2 for the first 30 minutes or so all Anakin, Padmé, Obi-Wan etc did was talk, talk talk. GL got this out of the way for ROTS - politics was of course there but the transformation of Anakin into Darth Vader was by far the most important part. I would say that a Padmé vs. Palpatine standoff is a tad ... fanboyish.[/b]

GL made some bad editing choices in AOTC. He left in all the little "talk, talk, talk," scenes, but he left out a spectacular Senate Arena scene, where Padme, in a sense, returns from the dead. The deleted scene shows how beloved and influential figure she is and why Palpatine wants her out of the way before he makes his moves to acquire Emergency Powers and announce the Clone Army.

Strange that you would call the major Senate setpiece in Episode 3.2 "fanboyish," since a majority of the raves it's gotten have been from women. And I should add to what was said earlier, that it goes beyond "political filibustering," when Padme no longer sees a politician with too much power but is staring into the face of evil, and when she and practically everyone witnessing it believes she's probably going to die for what she's doing.

Some people see the image of a small but determined woman, half-mad with grief, standing up to the most powerful man in the galaxy, as powerful and moving. Apparently you don't, which is why you're saying it's unnecessary. Apparently, you buy the story's outdated attitudes about women and pregnancy and see the image of a woman made helpless by pregnancy, who accomplishes absolutely nothing except having babies and dying of a broken heart over her man, as powerful and moving. I don't. I find it repulsive, as do others, which is why I'm saying the movie is unbalanced.

Originally posted by James@Apr 18 2006, 01:30 AM
The fall of the Republic, and of the Jedi, and the rise of the Sith are the main plot of the PT. The romance is the subplot. But by reducing Padme from a co-protagonist in the political plot at the beginning, to a "desperate housewife" who can't do anything about anything at the end, Lucas has made the PT unbalanced.

The reduction of Leia to a high ranking senator, princess of Alderaan and important leader of the Rebels in ANH to just a member of the rank and file in ROTJ made the OT unbalanced too.

Yet, in ROTJ, Leia was anything but helpless.

<!--QuoteBegin-James@Apr 18 2006, 01:30 AM
What has attitudes towards women got to do with SW anyway?

Attitudes toward women has EVERYTHING to do with the treatment of Padme in ROTS.

Says who?
Quoted post
[/quote]

I've posted lots of material about this already, both composed myself and from other sources. Here's one more; from The Nation magazine, where they analyzed both the movie's political and social messages.

"Spectacle

"by RICHARD GOLDSTEIN

"[from the June 20, 2005 issue]

"It's been twenty-eight years since Han Solo and his multimorphic crew set out to destroy the Evil Empire. That was a long time ago in a cineplex far, far away. The original Star Wars audience is now nearly old enough to worry about Social Security, and any new episode in the saga has to engage that aging generation as well as its spawn. No wonder Revenge of the Sith, the sixth and final installment, is darker and more reflective than what came before. The need to be mature--and "relevant"--may explain why George Lucas chose to make this film so overtly political.

"Revenge of the Sith is salted with anti-Bush insinuations, none more telling than the moment when the villainous chancellor, Palpatine, wins sweeping new powers from the galactic senate in the name of security. Watching from her seat, the virtuous Padmé observes, "This is how democracy dies: to thunderous applause." It remains to be seen whether this line will join the many maxims Star Wars has contributed to American discourse, but it's already stuck to Bill Frist's back, thanks to a media campaign against his war on the filibuster by MoveOn.org. ("One senator, seduced by a dark vision of absolute power, seeks to destroy the fabled order, replacing fair judges with right-wing clones.") Of course, partisans have always tried to latch on to the power of this formative saga, the closest thing in entertainment to Wagner's Ring cycle. Many politicians have been dubbed Darth Vader; Henry Kissinger is only the most deserving. But usually Lucas remains hors de combat. This time he's waving a blue light-saber and hoping the film "will waken people to the situation." A sincere sentiment? Granted--but also a canny way to make another sequel seem like more than that.

"The truly newsworthy thing is not that Star Wars has an ideology but how it has changed over the years. The best way to track this evolution is to watch the latest episode alongside the original 1977 feature (now called A New Hope). Lucas masterfully played to the retro yearnings of the late 1970s, channeling the feeling of forgotten movie serials and introducing a new emblem of rugged individuality in Han Solo, the free agent with a heart of gold. The 1977 film prefigured the contours of Reaganism in its manichean tropes, right down to its fabled Evil Empire. Revenge of the Sith has a very different feeling. Gone are the verities of light and darkness; now complexity rules--or as Obi-Wan Kenobi counsels, "Only the Sith think in absolutes." This isn't just about aging; it's also Lucas's sense of what his audience is thinking now. In Anakin Skywalker, who crosses over to the Darth side, we see how evil can flow from smug naïveté. He is as prophetic an American type as Han Solo once was, and Sith offers as striking an image of our anxiety as the original feature did in its time. Let's hope the new film is as predictive of social change.

"Still, there's something ill fitting about the liberal platitudes Lucas sprinkles over Sith. They clash with the conservative hallmarks of the series as a whole. Consider the galactic government: Even before Palpatine's power play, it was a "democracy" overseen by a clique of spiritual warriors--something like a benign version of Iran. Lucas's cosmic order may be a highly diverse place, with many species mingling over drinks and subtitles, but authority tends to flow upward toward humans--usually male humans. Here is the ideology of Star Wars that never changes, and it has less to do with left and right than with the values of machismo. If this saga has an authoritarian streak, that's because macho narratives often do. They are mystifications of hierarchy, and Star Wars is one of the best. Take the Jedi. For all their noblesse, they are basically a gang of wand-wielding guys passing power from member to member in a top-down way. As the mini-patriarch Yoda puts it, "Always two there are: a master and an apprentice." Is there a more succinct summation of the way machismo confers and confines clout?

"Star Wars has always been a male preoccupation. By now the series holds a sacred place in the temple of dude. Tamper with its codes and there's hell to pay, as Lucas learned in 1999 when he dared to insert an androgynous character into The Phantom Menace: the fearless but flouncy Jar Jar Binks. With his West Indian accent and dreadlocks, he seemed like a shuffling black man to some brothers, but white boys simply saw him as gay--and the Internet exploded with cries of "Jar Jar must die!" Apparently Lucas learned his lesson, since everyone--or -thing--in his current galaxy is saber straight (though some fans detect a touch of the queer-brush in C-3PO). But the memory of that fey moment lingers on, informing Bill Frist's response to being compared to Palpatine. Through a spokesperson, he proclaimed that Howard Dean is Jar Jar Binks--a Republican way of saying faggot.

"Revenge of the Sith doesn't just recapitulate this sexist structure; it's the most reactionary film in the Star Wars series when it comes to gender. In the 1977 feature Luke Skywalker's sister, Leia, was a fighting babe. In 2005 Leia's mother, Padmé, is a helpmeet to her husband, Anakin--all the more striking since she's a former queen who saw action in an earlier episode. How fitting that she dies of a broken heart when her man becomes a Sith-ophant. Back in the Alien days, when a female astronaut named Ripley was slaying slimy monsters, Padmé would have looked laughably retrograde. Today she seems like a proper heroine--and critics are so taken with the idea that a blockbuster disses the President that they overlook its sexual politics.

"Like all great pop artists, Lucas can read the dream life of the nation. The good news is that he's picked up an underlying uneasiness about the government. The bad news is that he's also noticed a retro trend in gender attitudes. The important thing is to be aware of both."

[James]

Sam, That cut scene where Padmé addresses the senate is long, boring and out of place. The film needs to get moving quickly and it is political enough as it is at the beginning of AOTC. We get to see more than enough of Padmé's personality elsewhere.

I don't take Goldstein's article that seriosly. He got 2 quotes wrong!!!

Originally posted by Richard Goldstein+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Richard Goldstein)</div><div class='quotemain'>Only Sith think in absolutes[/b]
it should be "only Sith deal in absolutes"

<!--QuoteBegin-Richard Goldstein
So this is how democracy dies: with thunderous applause[/quote]
it's actually "so this is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause."


Padmé was still senator but according to you she was weak, while before she had been strong. The PT is therefore "inbalanced". Leia was still strong-willed but her *status* was greatly diminished. Going by your assumptions, the OT is thrown completely out of balance.

Padmé was not helpless to get a grip on the situation, any more so than Obi-Wan. Padmé could not prevent the tragedy of Anakin any more than the Jedi could.

[James William Alexander Atreides]

^Here, here!
But I still think she could have been strong enough to get a better grip on the situation. Only an act of extreme violence could have stopped her.






:bow: :dictator: :bow:

[Master Magnus]

Originally posted by Sam
GL made some bad editing choices in AOTC. He left in all the little "talk, talk, talk," scenes, but he left out a spectacular Senate Arena scene, where Padme, in a sense, returns from the dead. The deleted scene shows how beloved and influential figure she is and why Palpatine wants her out of the way before he makes his moves to acquire Emergency Powers and announce the Clone Army.
I agree, Sam. That scene would've been great to accentuate the seriousness of the situation.

[James]

In the special features for the AOTC DVD GL and Rick explained why it had to be cut out - it was getting very political, it slowed down a little after the assasination attempt, and they really needed to get the story moving. The senate scene with Padmé wasn't pivotal to the storyline therefore it had to go.

[Sam]

Originally posted by James+Apr 19 2006, 02:32 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(James @ Apr 19 2006, 02:32 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'>Sam, That cut scene where Padmé addresses the senate is long, boring and out of place. The film needs to get moving quickly and it is political enough as it is at the beginning of AOTC. We get to see more than enough of Padmé's personality elsewhere.[/b]

In the special features for the AOTC DVD GL and Rick explained why it had to be cut out - it was getting very political, it slowed down a little after the assasination attempt, and they really needed to get the story moving. The senate scene with Padmé wasn't pivotal to the storyline therefore it had to go.

I think all this just makes my point about GL and company making the PT unbalanced. It's necessary for Padmé to have, not just a personality, but a strong and active role throughout the PT. It's necessary to counteract the sexist message, which otherwise appears in ROTS, that, in the great power struggle between dark and light, only men are important, that all a woman is good for is to be the fall of Man, have babies, and die of a broken heart when her man betrays her. I think it was irresponsible for GL, whether or not he did it knowingly, to send such a message to young female fans, many of whom have, since TPM, viewed Padmé as a role model.

And political scenes don't have to be boring. I think one of the reasons people were bored with the politics in the PT is the way the scenes were written and performed. It was as though GL and his actors (except Ian McDiarmid) were themselves bored with politics, which is strange, given that politics is a major theme of the PT. The way to make political scenes entertaining is simple. Make the political players PASSIONATE about what they are doing, as though the future of everyone in the galaxy, and of their children, is at stake, which it is!

Originally posted by James@Apr 19 2006, 02:32 AM
I don't take Goldstein's article that seriosly. He got 2 quotes wrong!!!

How about addressing the substance of the article, rather than nitpicking about Goldstein's memory of the dialogue not being 100% accurate?


<!--QuoteBegin-James@Apr 19 2006, 02:32 AM
Padmé was still senator but according to you she was weak, while before she had been strong. The PT is therefore "inbalanced". Leia was still strong-willed but her *status* was greatly diminished. Going by your assumptions, the OT is thrown completely out of balance.

Padmé was not helpless to get a grip on the situation, any more so than Obi-Wan. Padmé could not prevent the tragedy of Anakin any more than the Jedi could.
Quoted post[/quote]

Padmé takes strong and decisive action to save the day in TPM. In AOTC, the scene which shows her political strength was cut (though what Jar Jar Binks does later implies that she left him with a lot of power), but at least we do get to see her enter the fray on Genosis and take part in the action there. In ROTS, she doesn't get to do anything but cry over and at Anakin, have his babies and die of a broken heart because of him. And the deleted scenes don't fix it, because, in them, she's the weakest link in her group of Senators. Obi-Wan, on the other hand, is nearly as active in the story as is Anakin. That is unbalanced.

Interesting that you say Leia's role diminishes through the OT. In ANH, she's mainly a damsel in distress, albeit a strong and defiant one, with a bad hairdo. She grows, rather than diminishes, in ESB. And, in ROTJ, even though she seems to have lost her official "status," she's into more of the action than ever before.

The only thing I might have done differently with Leia's development in the OT would have been to explore how she deals with the fact that the planet where she's Princess, and from which is a Senator, no longer exists. Technically, if everyone above her in the line of succession is dead, that would make her Queen, but Queen of what? In the OT, she appears to deal with it by not dealing with it, gradually dropping the royal title, in exchange for taking part in both "Mission Impossible"-style and Special Forces-style missions. Some psychological insight could have proved useful, especially if it involved Leia's Force-sensitivity, which would make Darth Vader's threat to turn her to the Dark Side more real.

But, as they are, I'll take what Leia becomes in ROTJ over what Padmé becomes in ROTS any day.

[James]

I liked what Padmé was in ROTS.

And if Goldstein has a poor memory for memorable movie quotes he can't have much of a knowledge of the SW universe.

This is a long time ago in a galaxy far far away - why do we need to start comparing what happens there to ideals in the 21st century in our galaxy. It's like comparing chalk and cheese IMO.

[DonSwoosh]

I'd have to agree with James on the Padme addressing the Senate scene in Episode II.

It's not very good and we basically get the same thing in the scene that's in the film now...so what's the big deal? We still understand the situation (political) with the scene as it stands now.

And you know my position of Padme in Episode III already, Sam. :D

[James]

Yeah we basically know what Padmé's stance is on the military creation Act why do we need a long scene to elaborate on it?

[DonSwoosh]

Again, that's why the Opening Crawl on these films are so important. Essentially, the Opening Crawl is the exact same as the deleted scene of Padme addressing the Senate.

I prefer the Opening Crawl.

[James]

Me too.

[Sam]

Originally posted by James@Apr 24 2006, 12:14 AM
I liked what Padmé was in ROTS.

And if Goldstein has a poor memory for memorable movie quotes he can't have much of a knowledge of the SW universe.

This is a long time ago in a galaxy far far away - why do we need to start comparing what happens there to ideals in the 21st century in our galaxy. It's like comparing chalk and cheese IMO.
Quoted post


You're still using ad hominem arguments against the writer, instead of addressing the substance of the article. You haven't addressed any of the other articles I've posted either, except to make blanket denials of what they're saying.

It's not a long time ago in a galaxy far far away. It's a time and place made up in GL's head within the last 30 - 35 years. And if what happens there isn't relevant to anyone's ideals in the real world, then why should anyone care about what happens in the story?

[James]

That's like saying Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs are relevant to the real world - are they? Of course not, it's just a kiddie's flick.

Why bother allowing our youngsters to watch it then, if it's not relevant?

[Leiafan]

If GL had created a story in 1977 about a trade dispute and unfair taxations
Good Lord, not this pedestrian criticism again. Entertainment Weakly has already dredged it up for the billionth tiresome time.

By the way, he didn't create a story about a trade dispute and unfair taxation. He made that the smokescreen for the real story: the discovery of Anakin Skywalker and the beginnings of the rise of the Empire.

everyone would have been bored out of their minds.
Wow...your powers of reading minds are impressive -- you can even project them almost 30 years into the past.

Mind you, many were in 1999 when TPM came out.
And many weren't. Many were bored out of their minds in 1977 when ANH came out. What's your point?

He needed the three originals because they are what many think of when Star Wars is mentioned - Darth Vader, Luke Skywalker etc.

There aren't many memorable characters like that from TPM
Nonsense. There are sizable fanbases for Qui Gon, Padmé, Anakin, and Palpatine. Obi Wan already had a fanbase, but it has increased exponentially since the PT started coming out.

except for Jar Jar's stupid goofs which had many walking away with a bitter taste in their mouths.
Yet here you are, nearly 7 years later, obsessing over it. Move on, for heaven's sake.

Why do PT-haters always feel the need to turn every single thread into a bashing thread?

[James]

Um I wasn't bashing TPM as such - in fact I like the movie. But it is not as good as the others.

Sometimes I find the Tatooine scenes in ANH and the Jedi training scenes in ESB to be rather hard-going.

Come on Leiafan I usually back you up in arguments.

[Sam]

Originally posted by James@Apr 29 2006, 11:14 PM
That's like saying Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs are relevant to the real world - are they? Of course not, it's just a kiddie's flick.

Why bother allowing our youngsters to watch it then, if it's not relevant?
Quoted post


Just to show that I'm consistent, I have long found Disney's "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" to be the most blatantly sexist of all their animated films. The title character is an absolute Wimpette. She does absolutely nothing in the story but sing to animals and wait on dwarfs, while waiting for her Prince to come, and being a victim. The stronger woman in the story is an evil Queen, who must be destroyed. It's relevant to the attitudes toward women prevalent at the time the Grimms wrote the fairy tale, and which still exist in some forms today. It isn't a movie I would show to my youngsters, though I wouldn't stop them from watching it if they really wanted to. I would, however, tell them what I think about its message.

I also found it subtly racist. The story emphasizes how beautiful Snow White is, becuase her skin is so white like snow, hence her name. This movie came out just one year before the official start of the Nazi Holocaust. Talk about timing! I'm not saying Snow White caused the Holocaust. That would be stupid. But she certainly didn't do anything to discourage it.

In her book, "Brave Dames and Wimpettes," Susan Isaacs writes, "This canonization of female degradation and malaise is dangerous. It depreciates the suffering of women who truly are victims. It degrades women's views of themselves. Yet the mantle of victimization seems so chic that I expect to see it on the cover of Vogue. Everyone wants to try it on. There is an often-cited, unattributed statistic wafting in the media ether and on college campuses these days that a fourth of all American women have been abused or sexually assaulted. Does "abused" mean physically battered? Does it refer to a sex act consummated without a woman's explicit verbal consent but with her implicit agreement? Or is it about something nasty in between? We don't know, yet we renounce skepticism and rush to outrage.

"I cannot understand why our art does not reflect the strong women I meet every day. Now, I'm not saying the dames I know--my friends, my colleagues, my neighbors--are invincible. But pound for pound, they are heartier, more high-spirited, more valorous, and infinitely less frivolous than so many wimpettes we see today in literature, film, and television. Their paradigmatic experience is neither forcible violation nor abuse. Yes, their lives are sometimes tough, but in the worst of times--in the face of illness, death, economic worries, family traumas--they show amazing resilience. I am not talking about Cabinet-level women: I'm talking about nursery school teachers, poets, secretaries, interior decorators, community volunteers. Ordinary citizens. And while we're on the subject, how come when women on-screen or in books do manage to act assertively, as in Thelma and Louise and What's Love Got to Do with It, they are often pitted against one specific evil--bad men? The cosmos gets reduced to gender warfare.

"Turn on the TV, read a book, or go to a movie, and you'll find hurt women disturbingly prominent in our art. This worries me. The Big Lie repeated often enough becomes truth. I, for one, don't want to be assumed to be weak or wounded. Further, art not only reflects society, it is society's collective memory: It can become history the way a Supreme Court decision does, by ultimately changing the minds--or at least the behavior--of Americans. Do we want our descendants to look back at the women who bore them as wimpettes? Worse, do we want them to inherit the belief that women are inherently less stalwart than men?"

[Rabid Whiphid]

Originally posted by Sam+May 10 2006, 08:02 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sam @ May 10 2006, 08:02 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-James@Apr 29 2006, 11:14 PM
That's like saying Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs are relevant to the real world - are they? Of course not, it's just a kiddie's flick.

Why bother allowing our youngsters to watch it then, if it's not relevant?
Quoted post


Just to show that I'm consistent, I have long found Disney's "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" to be the most blatantly sexist of all their animated films. The title character is an absolute Wimpette. She does absolutely nothing in the story but sing to animals and wait on dwarfs, while waiting for her Prince to come, and being a victim. The stronger woman in the story is an evil Queen, who must be destroyed. It's relevant to the attitudes toward women prevalent at the time the Grimms wrote the fairy tale, and which still exist in some forms today.

I also found it subtly racist. The story emphasizes how beautiful Snow White is, becuase her skin is so white like snow, hence her name. This movie came out just one year before the official start of the Nazi Holocaust. Talk about timing! I'm not saying Snow White caused the Holocaust. That would be stupid. But she certainly didn't do anything to discourage it.
Quoted post
[/b][/quote]



OK, wait... I admit it. You got me. All this time, I've been under the impression that you were actually being serious. But after this post, now I know you are putting us on. Haha, Sam you are quite the practical jokester.

[Sam]

Wrong! I'm being completely serious. The same prejudices, which are taken for granted in "Snow White," have in their more extreme forms, led both to massive abuse of women and to racial genocide.

And when I see someone who uses terms like "politically correct mumbo jumbo" and who launches wholesale bashes against modern feminists, I see a cultural warrior of the right who is attempting, and to some extent has succeeded in the attempt, to undo the social advances of the 1960s and 1970s and take the country back to the so-called "traditional values" of the "Father Knows Best," McCarthyistic 1950s and earlier repressive eras.

[Rabid Whiphid]

Originally posted by Sam@May 10 2006, 08:34 PM
Wrong! I'm being completely serious. The same prejudices, which are taken for granted in "Snow White," have in their more extreme forms, led both to massive abuse of women and to racial genocide.

And when I see someone who uses terms like "politically correct mumbo jumbo" and who launches wholesale bashes against modern feminists, I see a cultural warrior of the right who is attempting, and to some extent has succeeded in the attempt, to undo the social advances of the 1960s and 1970s and take the country back to the so-called "traditional values" of the "Father Knows Best," McCarthyistic 1950s and earlier repressive eras.
Quoted post



HAHA!

[James]

This has gone way off-topic. I suppose next you'll be claiming that Dorothy from the Wizard of Oz was a wimpette as well because she had no idea what to do until she met up with TinMan and the others.

Attitudes towards women were different back then. I wouldn't say they were sexist, just accepted in general. And the holocaust thing - it didn't start until around 1940-41. People knew Jews in Nazi Europe were being discriminated against but the first death camp was not set up until half-way through the war.

I have no problem with feminism. But it has been taken to extremes. Snow White, Dorothy, and the other classic female characters are now unacceptable. It's sad. Why let politics and racial ideas get in the way of a kiddie flick?

Come on Sam. Lighten up. I'm not flaming or baiting you, this is a sincere and honest plea. Enjoy movies for what they are, don't start getting things out of it which aren't there in the first place.

[Master Magnus]

To take this back on topic. I've said this before, but I've become even more convinced that the deleted scene "A Stirring in the Senate" should've stayed in ROTS (but not the deleted scenes "Seeds of Rebellion" or "Confronting the Chancellor" even if I like the last one). That scene alone would have sufficed to show from where Padmé's doubts came about the Chancellor and the war. As it is now, her reservations during the Verandah scene comes out of the blue.

[elelohesterling]

she's dead.... get over it..... urg... waste of life....

[Blizzard]

^Then why are you wasting your life making trollish comments?

[Sam]

Originally posted by James+May 11 2006, 12:26 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(James @ May 11 2006, 12:26 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'> I suppose next you'll be claiming that Dorothy from the Wizard of Oz was a wimpette as well because she had no idea what to do until she met up with TinMan and the others.[/b]

Isaacs considers Dorothy to be at least a semi-brave dame. She is stronger in the novel, however. MGM