|
euphronius posted:Movie fact: Vader cannot detect leia. Conclusion: when the author wrote scene 1 he did not think that Vader had any connection to Leia, and when he wrote scene 2 he was trying to cover up the obvious logical inconsistency.
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 04:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 00:37 |
|
|
Tezzor posted:Conclusion: when the author wrote scene 1 he did not think that Vader had any connection to Leia, and when he wrote scene 2 he was trying to cover up the obvious logical inconsistency. So what your saying is that it is a work of fiction? Great!!! Let's move on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 04:46
|
|
|
Gentlemen I have detected that Star Wars is fictional and does not make sense
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 04:48
|
|
|
I don't know if this is better or worse than the guy who started writing about Laura Mulvey for no reason.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 04:48
|
|
|
euphronius posted:The Jedi were obviously clouding themselves with their own use of the dark side. This is trivial tezzor. Come on man. What use of the dark side? They openly reject any emotion. They never deliberately do anything established to be evil. The morality at play is GI Joe levels of depth. The structure requires that they are heroes and their betrayal and death is a tragedy. Why am I responding to you
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 04:49
|
|
|
In Jedi Leia says that she remembers her mom from when she was small, that she was sad all the time and died when Leia was young. I like that story better. Maybe we should ignore the prequels because they are bad?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 04:52
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:What use of the dark side? They openly reject any emotion. They never deliberately do anything established to be evil. The morality at play is GI Joe levels of depth. The structure requires that they are heroes and their betrayal and death is a tragedy. Why am I responding to you Tezzor posted:What use of the dark side? They openly reject any emotion. They never deliberately do anything established to be evil. The morality at play is GI Joe levels of depth. The structure requires that they are heroes and their betrayal and death is a tragedy. Why am I responding to you Did you even watch the prequels.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 04:52
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:In Jedi Leia says that she remembers her mom from when she was small, that she was sad all the time and died when Leia was young. I like that story better. Maybe we should ignore the prequels because they are bad? Even if you don't like the prequels, which you should, they make the originals better, unless you have a powerful allergy to trivial inconsistencies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 04:54
|
|
|
euphronius posted:So what your saying is that it is a work of fiction? But it is a terribly conceptualized and created work of fiction that a small minority of idiots seem to incorrectly have determined to be something else for reasons that are ridiculous, so until they admit these things the morally involved man cannot simply move past their obvious error.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 04:54
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:In Jedi Leia says that she remembers her mom from when she was small, that she was sad all the time and died when Leia was young. I like that story better. Maybe we should ignore the prequels because they are bad? I'd like it if we could forget about Luke and Leai being related. The worst part of Jedi by far in an already mediocre movie. Bongo Bill posted:Even if you don't like the prequels, which you should, they make the originals better, unless you have a powerful allergy to trivial inconsistencies. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 04:54
|
|
|
Why should using the dark side make a Jedi less perceptive? A dark Jedi is not less powerful. It's one thing if another individual uses the dark side against them, but the Jedi's ethics or lack thereof have no bearing on their Force powers. The whole point, in fact, is that the dark side is easier and quicker to master.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 04:55
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:But it is a terribly conceptualized and created work of fiction that a small minority of idiots seem to incorrectly have determined to be something else for reasons that are ridiculous, so until they admit these things the morally involved man cannot simply move past their obvious error. I challenge you to say something good about the prequels.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 04:55
|
|
|
BrianWilly posted:Why should using the dark side make a Jedi less perceptive? A dark Jedi is not less powerful. It's one thing if another individual uses the dark side against them, but the Jedi's ethics or lack thereof have no bearing on their Force powers. The whole point, in fact, is that the dark side is easier and quicker to master. Being deeply in denial is what makes them less perceptive.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 04:56
|
|
|
Bongo Bill posted:Even if you don't like the prequels, which you should, they make the originals better, unless you have a powerful allergy to trivial inconsistencies. Isn't a sad Leia's mom raising her alone and being sad all the time a more interesting story than Leia's mom just dropping dead after naming her? There could even be acting involved.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 04:56
|
|
|
BrianWilly posted:Why should using the dark side make a Jedi less perceptive? A dark Jedi is not less powerful. It's one thing if another individual uses the dark side against them, but the Jedi's ethics or lack thereof have no bearing on their Force powers. The whole point, in fact, is that the dark side is easier and quicker to master. Denial and confusion about their corruption.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 04:57
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Did you even watch the prequels. I did. I do not recall Obi-Wan using lightning to torture information out of someone because he was enraged. I do not recall negative-color Yoda screaming in T-Pain voice about how all shall love him and despair. Can you link some youtubes, or is this asinine headcanon?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 04:57
|
|
|
Carrie Fisher seemed so normal in Star Wars and Blues Brothers. What happened to her after?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 04:58
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:Isn't a sad Leia's mom raising her alone and being sad all the time a more interesting story than Leia's mom just dropping dead after naming her? There could even be acting involved. Stories that haven't been told have a difficult time being more interesting than ones that have. It is better to take a work of art for what it is, rather than obsess over how it differ from what you want it to be.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 04:58
|
|
|
Bongo Bill posted:I challenge you to say something good about the prequels. I think Ewan McGregor was a great casting and did better than could be expected. That's two things.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 04:59
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:Carrie Fisher seemed so normal in Star Wars and Blues Brothers. What happened to her after? Drugs happened.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 04:59
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:I think Ewan McGregor was a great casting and did better than could be expected. That's 2 things. The first of those two things is a thing about the production rather than about the film, and the second is actually a veiled insult. Edit: But I understand that you mean he gave a good performance. I acknowledge the effort this represents, and in return I will say something bad about the prequels. Please stand by. Bongo Bill fucked around with this message at 05:02 on Jan 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 05:00
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:Carrie Fisher seemed so normal in Star Wars and Blues Brothers. What happened to her after? Drugs, boozin, and bipolar disorder.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 05:06
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:Isn't a sad Leia's mom raising her alone and being sad all the time a more interesting story than Leia's mom just dropping dead after naming her? There could even be acting involved. No, having a long epilogue consisting of timelapse over a span of years in which Natalie Portman acts sad while taking care of a baby and then toddler, which then leads into scenes where, unconnected to the rest of the events of the movie, we see Bail Organa adopt Leia doesn't seem very interesting to me. Besides the thematic potency of their mother dying while bringing new life into the world and Vader becomes a ghostly monstrosity, it doesn't really make sense story economy-wise to not have these events all happen roughly at the same time, as Star Wars never does year long leaps in the same movie. Nor would an Animal House-style "Padme later died for some reason while taking care of Leia and Bail Organa adopted her and brought her to Alderaan" really work all that well, either.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 05:07
|
|
|
Yes how could the militant and violent order of dogmatic monks obsessed with keeping power and supporting an Inhumane and corrupt government and teach radical detachment from normal human emotions possibly be considered to be using the darkside. They are the good guys.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 05:07
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:Ok. "Obi-Wan defeats General Grievous the same way Luke defeats Darth Vader--by realizing that, deep down, behind all that hard metal plating, underneath the cold robotic exterior, there indeed lies a human heart." This is a bad analysis. First, on a purely technical level, it's overwritten. Second, it's false on a purely literal level. Luke literally defeats Darth Vader by getting pissed and cutting his hand off. Obi-Wan literally defeats Grievous by shooting him repeatedly, killing him, and then making Obi-Wan Fanservice Quip #45. I can't understand this. Try re-phrasing it. quote:Back to Luke: He didn't "realize" anything. He seemed to have faith that there was good in Vader, but his plan was clearly to meet him at Endor, try one last time to talk him into not being evil, but if that failed, go with him to make sure that Vader and the Emperor were on the defenseless Death Star when the entire Rebel fleet sneak-attacked it: The reason Luke refuses to give in to evil is because he is finally able to reconcile his father's dual personas as being two complementary aspects of the same being. This is in contrast to before, where Luke is only able to see his father in terms of being a "true self" locked inside of a false alter ego. Luke hasn't yet come to truly accept the bad father Vader as being an intrinsic and inextricable part of the good father Anakin Skywalker. At the beginning of ROTJ, Luke has faith in Vader because he believes that he is not truly Vader--he is truly Anakin Skywalker. Going in with this mindset, it is easy for the Emperor to twist Luke's love for his father into hatred for Vader. All he has to do is to convince Luke that Anakin Skywalker no longer exists, and that Vader is all that is left. By the time Vader threatens Leia--his own daughter--and sets Luke off, Luke has successfully been convinced that Anakin has in fact been completely eclipsed by Vader. This is what makes his ultimate decision not to kill Vader so powerful. He's not making the decision to spare Anakin Skywalker. He's making the decision to spare Darth Vader. When Luke looks at his own robotic hand, we're witnessing him finally coming to terms with his own Jungian shadow, which allows him to also come to a greater understanding of the true nature of his father: His father is neither truly Anakin Skywalker nor truly Darth Vader--he is both, at the same time. There is no such thing as an Anakin Skywalker which does not also contain a Darth Vader within himself. And by that token, there is no such thing as a Darth Vader which does not also contain an Anakin Skywalker within himself. It's this realization that pulls Luke back from the brink, and makes him decide to spare Vader. This isn't an especially heterodox reading. In fact, given Lucas's Jungian leanings, I'd say it's the default reading. The narrative arc of the movie makes no sense otherwise. Under your interpretation, Luke hasn't actually learned anything. He begins the movie believing that there's good in Vader, and he ends the movie believing that there's good in Vader. As I've pointed out, the real lesson learned by Luke is that he has the ever-present potential for evil within himself. That's what allows Luke to take pity on Vader even when he seems past any hope of redemption. quote:Now, it certainly could be argued that Luke helped to save Anakin Skywalker (god I have to try to avoid even typing that word now because I can't help imagining Christensen Anakin's whiny, rapey face) by being a heroic example. But by the same token it could be argued that Palpatine helped to save Anakin Skywalker (ugh) by losing his poo poo and trying to torture the guy's son to death right in front of him when he's apparently radiating conflicted feelings, instead of like having him taken away to be executed out of Vader's sight, or locking him up and spending more than 20 minutes trying to make him evil or something. But ultimately, it's Anakin's decision, and he saves himself, just as Luke did. This is important. If doing the right thing isn't your own choice it's cheapened. My eyes glazed over here. quote:Also, real quick, the footage does seem to show Grievous being shot in the chest. Let's check what Lucas intended for this scene, maybe he notes the metaphor with just a quick line like “just like Luke did with Vader” or something. Revenge of the Sith posted:GENERAL GRIEVOUS's stomachplate is loose. OBI-WAN grabs it and rips it off, revealing the alien life form's guts encased in a bag in the Droid's chest. GENERAL GRIEVOUS grabs OBI-WAN, hoists him over his head, and tosses him across the platform. OBI-WAN dangles off the edge of the platform. He clutches the rim, trying to hold on. The DROID then grabs the staff and charges OBI-WAN. At the last second, OBI-WAN reaches out his hand and uses the Force to retrieve the Droid's laser pistol. FYI, this would be a pretty lovely argument even if the script excerpt you yourself posted didn't end up making you look kind of silly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 05:16
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:I did. I do not recall Obi-Wan using lightning to torture information out of someone because he was enraged. I do not recall negative-color Yoda screaming in T-Pain voice about how all shall love him and despair. Can you link some youtubes, or is this asinine headcanon? You fundamentally misunderstand Star Wars if you think the dark side is limited to shooting lightning or murdering children. Those are its final manifestations, but the "dark side" is simply knowingly doing the wrong thing. That's what Qui-Gon is doing when he's planning to intimidate and strong arm the Trade Federation at the start of TPM. That's what the Jedi as a whole do when they consent to lead slave troops in to battle - in a war they don't agree with. Much of the evil done in the prequels is the result of bureaucracies being too entrenched to change. It's a nebulous sort of thing, but everyone decided to "follow orders" in the face of challenging situations, even if they felt uneasy about it. It was the wrong thing to do. A dark side thing to do - suffering resulted. You might say that their unwillingness to make the hard choices, break with tradition, break with dogma etc was clouding their minds. The dark side, in the form of their own moral weakness and institutional inertia, was clouding their minds. It's the same with you and me. We're all causing suffering with our self delusions and abdications of responsibility. This is the point: From the interview Cnut quoted earlier: Lucas hopes his "Star Wars" tale, when completed, will simply portray on epic scale what ordinary mortals deal with on a daily basis. You don't have to shoot lightning to be doing the wrong thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 05:16
|
|
|
Why wasn't that bug-eyed alien with the lightsaber in the basement Bea Arthur's character from the Christmas Special?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 05:21
|
|
|
The dialog throughout the prequels lacks texture. To the extent that characters (excepting those with contrived affectations like Yoda) have distinctive voices, it clearly originates in the acting rather than the script. Far less characterization than could have been is delivered by this vector; many lines add little more than plot context to the emotional situation that is already plainly evident. Although the phrasing is strong and clear, it's largely graceless statements of fact. Scenes of types that are traditionally carried by dialog lack tension as a result. For example, the scene on Kamino where Obi-Wan confronts Jango badly wants to be filled with verbal sparring, double entendres, a show of wit; but instead some characters who are clearly not fooling each other tell a few perfunctory lies. You might say that the dialog reveals too much about what the characters think and feel.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 05:22
|
|
|
Y'know, now that I think about it, it's really weird how people happily accept the Jedi Order taking children away from their parents to be raised in seclusion. It's pretty similar to what monks did back in the Dark Ages. Are we ever given an indication that the parents can refuse? Do the parents ever refuse, then not have some dramatic accident occur that makes them change their mind? Do we ever see Force-sensitive (as in, has spooky space magic) characters that don't join the Jedi Order or become Sith? It really feels like the Jedi Order are trying their hardest to keep things black and white between Jedi and Sith because they're afraid of the flaws in their beliefs being exposed by someone who isn't dogmatically following one or the other. Then Luke turns up and demonstrates exactly that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 05:23
|
|
|
You ever get the feeling that Liam Neeson took on young Darth Vader because maybe Obi Wan was getting a little old? Like maybe it just wasn't exciting with him any more and he needed to groom a new kid? That kid dodged a bullet imo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 05:26
|
|
|
Bongo Bill posted:In exchange I will say something bad about the prequels. Don't strain yourself lol
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 05:28
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:Don't strain yourself lol Bongo Bill posted:The dialog throughout the prequels lacks texture. To the extent that characters (excepting those with contrived affectations like Yoda) have distinctive voices, it clearly originates in the acting rather than the script. Far less characterization than could have been is delivered by this vector; many lines add little more than plot context to the emotional situation that is already plainly evident. Although the phrasing is strong and clear, it's largely graceless statements of fact. Scenes of types that are traditionally carried by dialog lack tension as a result. For example, the scene on Kamino where Obi-Wan confronts Jango badly wants to be filled with verbal sparring, double entendres, a show of wit; but instead some characters who are clearly not fooling each other tell a few perfunctory lies. You might say that the dialog reveals too much about what the characters think and feel.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 05:30
|
|
|
Bongo Bill posted:The dialog throughout the prequels lacks texture. To the extent that characters (excepting those with contrived affectations like Yoda) have distinctive voices, it clearly originates in the acting rather than the script. Far less characterization than could have been is delivered by this vector; many lines add little more than plot context to the emotional situation that is already plainly evident. Although the phrasing is strong and clear, it's largely graceless statements of fact. Scenes of types that are traditionally carried by dialog lack tension as a result. For example, the scene on Kamino where Obi-Wan confronts Jango badly wants to be filled with verbal sparring, double entendres, a show of wit; but instead some characters who are clearly not fooling each other tell a few perfunctory lies. You might say that the dialog reveals too much about what the characters think and feel. George Lucas should have asked Quentin Tarantino to guest direct the scene where Obi-Wan confronts Jango on Kamino.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 05:42
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Yes how could the militant and violent order of dogmatic monks obsessed with keeping power and supporting an Inhumane and corrupt government and teach radical detachment from normal human emotions possibly be considered to be using the darkside. They are the good guys. -Not militant, actively resisting having to fight a war, actively uncomfortable fighting a war, not very good at fighting a war, by their own admission incapable of fighting a war without the army whose creation they were unaware of and not involved in, forced into the war by circumstances beyond their control -Not obsessed with keeping power, apparently lack much if any benefits of power beyond political clout they do not seem to parley into material benefits, concerned perhaps with maintaining the status quo, against an invading army of robots led by mustache-twirling villains whose motivations are unclear other than that they hate the Republic for no clear reason, and are being manipulated by Dracula -An inhumane and corrupt government. That is, a government where everything bad that happens to anyone is ultimately the fault of one guy with incredible mind control powers. A government that votes off-screen to continue using what we have no reason to believe are anything other than replaceable, indistinguishable, irrelevant sub-people who conveniently appeared, instead of sacrificing millions of real people's lives or surrendering to evil robots. -Teach radical detachment from normal emotions: while perhaps ultimately an inadvertently terrible policy, nevertheless one that had previously apparently persisted without much trouble for centuries. Failure to conform to the policy by one rear end in a top hat was the problem, not the policy itself, or perhaps their irrational decision to train the little child version of this rear end in a top hat despite feeling weirded out and predicting grave danger, rather than just sending him back to Tatooine or throwing him down a well. Tezzor fucked around with this message at 06:08 on Jan 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 05:44
|
|
|
What's all this stuff about emotional detachment? Don't they just say that fear leads to hate? Everybody seems pretty laconic in those movies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 05:46
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:Ok. "Obi-Wan defeats General Grievous the same way Luke defeats Darth Vader--by realizing that, deep down, behind all that hard metal plating, underneath the cold robotic exterior, there indeed lies a human heart." This is a bad analysis. First, on a purely technical level, it's overwritten. Second, it's false on a purely literal level. Luke literally defeats Darth Vader by getting pissed and cutting his hand off. Obi-Wan literally defeats Grievous by shooting him repeatedly, killing him, and then making Obi-Wan Fanservice Quip #45. Tezzor, your posting is losing effectiveness because you're taking that shotgun approach to criticism - the one familiar from internet debates where someone responds with a unique argument for each individual line of text and, consequently, generates confusion as to what they are actually saying. In this entire lengthy post you make essentially one point: you don't know what you are supposed to feel. A metaphorical character becomes non-metaphorical, to you, when you aren't told what you are supposed to feel. In a very bad misreading of my post, you assert that I am telling you to feel something you are not supposed to feel. And so-on. Your assertion is supported with a series of plot synopses. For example, you recap the plot of Episode 6 and write that Vader feels conflicted therefore you know to feel conflicted. Luke is the hero therefore you feel heroic(?). The Emperor performs acts of subterfuge, therefore you feel subterfugal(??), etc. You refer to things like "pain" and "choice" as "emotional tones". Tezzor (paraphrased): "Choice is an emotional tone." And, of course, the person to blame for removing such emotional tones (e.g. 'love", "a sandwich", or "walking") from the plot of Episode 3 is The Lucas. That's just the first post in this scattershot tirade. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 06:19 on Jan 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 05:48
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:What's all this stuff about emotional detachment? Don't they just say that fear leads to hate? Everybody seems pretty laconic in those movies. Maybe it's the After Earth effect where the characters are supposed to be suppresing or controlling an emotion but the director and actors don't know how to handle it so they act autistic instead. It's what makes the difference between TOS-Spock and Will Smithbot in After Earth edit: I didn't read Tezzor's post and I probably won't, this may not be relevant at all
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 05:52
|
|
|
BrianWilly posted:http://smaskvxn.tumblr.com/post/137772850441/im-still-laughing-at-this-stupid-thing Is looking like Uncle Fester a scar?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 05:57
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:-Not militant, actively resisting having to fight a war, actively uncomfortable fighting a war, not very good at fighting a war, by their own admission incapable of fighting a war without the army whose creation they were unaware of and not involved in, forced into the war by circumstances beyond their control Yoda picks up an entire army and brings them with him on a rescue mission for three people. The fact that they start the movie saying they can't fight a war and then end the movie fighting a war is significant. What do you think this fact means? Tezzor posted:-Not obsessed with keeping power, apparently lack much if any benefits of power beyond political clout they do not seem to parley into material benefits, concerned perhaps with maintaining the status quo, against an invading army of robots led by mustache-twirling villains whose motivations are unclear other than that they hate the Republic for no clear reason The Jedi live in a spacious palace just down the street from the Senate and towering over the slums of a densely-packed city. The robes they wear, ostensibly symbols of voluntary poverty, are made of noticeably finer materials than the coarse-spun ones that actual farmers wear. They openly plot a coup d'etat to preemptively protect the Jedi Order from the political repercussions if they should move against the Chancellor. The war begins with Jedi-led clones invading the droids' homeworld. The villains' goal is to secede from the Republic, which even you can see has problems. Tezzor posted:-An inhumane and corrupt government. that is, a government where everything bad that happens to anyone is ultimately the fault of one guy with incredible mind control powers. A government that votes off-screen to continue using what we have no reason to believe are anything other than replaceable, indistinguishable, irrelevant sub-people who conveniently appeared, instead of sacrificing millions of real people's lives or surrendering to evil robots. Clones are people. Droids are people. Darth Sidious is never depicted using mind control powers; only Jedi are ever shown to do this. Tezzor posted:-Teach radical detachment from normal emotions: while perhaps an inadvertently terrible policy, one that had previously apparently persisted without much trouble for centuries. Failure to conform to the policy by one rear end in a top hat was the problem, not the policy itself, or perhaps their irrational decision to train the little child version of this rear end in a top hat despite feeling weirded out and predicting grave danger, rather than just sending him back to Tatooine or throwing him down a well. Yes: if only the guardians of peace and justice had murdered a child, they might not have suffered karmic punishment for their hypocrisy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 06:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 00:37 |
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:In Jedi Leia says that she remembers her mom from when she was small, that she was sad all the time and died when Leia was young. I like that story better. Maybe we should ignore the prequels because they are bad? There's no difference between the two stories except one makes the narrative of the prequels more emotionally satisfying and one doesn't. Leia remembers her mother because that's explicitly one of the things the Force is said to allow you to do: The Empire Strikes Back posted:YODA: Concentrate... feel the Force flow. Yes. Good. Calm, yes. Through the Force, things you will see. Other places. The future... the past. Old friends long gone. The reason Leia remembers her mother and Luke doesn't is because Leia was more intellectually aware as a baby. Luke doesn't remember Padme because he was too busy dreaming as a baby. These inherent differences in their personalities, which persist into their adulthood, shaped the way the events of their birth were or weren't imprinted on their memories:   Sure enough, Baby Leia is shown with her eyes wide open, with the light of wisdom reflected in them (a specific lighting effect which would have to have been intentionally arranged), while Baby Luke is shown with his eyes closed, asleep. It's interesting to note that Leia was emotionally imprinted with the memory of her mother's death because she was both present and awake when it happened. Meanwhile, Luke seems to have little interest in his mother growing up. Instead, he is obsessed with his father. Later, he holds fast to a unwavering belief in the goodness of his father, even when everyone else tells him he is wrong. Perhaps this is because, at the time of his birth, Luke was aware not of what was going on in the delivery room around him, but of what was going on light-years away on an operating table on Coruscant. It is heavily implied that Padme is also aware of Anakin at this moment, as her last words to Obi-Wan (who is holding Luke in his arms) are "Obi-Wan . . . there . . . is good in him. I know there is ... still . . . " Obi-Wan then looks down and studies Luke intensely. A clear connection is drawn between Padme's dying words and the significance of the baby in Obi-Wan's arms. I don't think it's such a major leap to propose that Luke, already a dreamer even as a newborn, may have forged an emotional connection with his "dying" father even as Leia formed one with her dying mother. edit: The Empire Strikes Back posted:YODA: This one [Luke] a long time have I watched. All his life has he looked away...to the future, to the horizon. Never his mind on where he was. Hmm? What he was doing. Hmph. Cnut the Great fucked around with this message at 06:11 on Jan 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 06:02
|
|