Subject:
|
Re: Padme Naberrie
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.starwars
|
Date:
|
Tue, 26 Sep 2000 17:58:51 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
653 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.starwars, Eric Joslin writes:
> > > It's called the Force. You have three other movies full of people doing all
> > > kinds of wierd crap with the Force, why not this?
> >
> > That's a total cop-out, unless the true Power of The Force is to gloss-over
> > weaknesses in plot, characterization, dialogue, and acting.
>
> So, you're suggesting that the Force itself is nothing but a cheap plot
> device? I mean, it is used in a very Deus ex Machina way many times
> throughout the series.
Actually, the Force is fundamental to the plot of the original trilogy and
also (likely) to the prequels. However, it wasn't used simply to explain away
shortcomings in the plot, characterization, or dialogue (which have, by the
way, been my entire complaint all along).
> I'm *not* suggesting that to say that the Force is wholly a way for Lucas to
> advance plot points is an incorrect interpretation, either, by the way.
>
> > > Let me put it another way: The first time anyone in the Star Wars trilogy
> > > used the Force to levitate something was Luke, stuck in the Wampa cave
> > > without his lightsaber. Yet no one then or now shrieks "Deus ex Machina!
> > > The Force has never been shown to do that!"
> >
> > Always in those cases there has been an obvious indicator that the Force • was
> > in use, even if it was a quick comment about a feeling or disturbance.
>
> Always? I don't know how accurate that is. How obvious is it that Vader uses
> the Force to determine anything about Luke? In the trench, however, he
> comments that "The Force is strong in this one". How does he mean that,
> exactly? I know people who assume that Vader reached out with the Force and
> judged Luke's potential, but there's no direct evidence of that.
That's a good point. Still, though, Vader does remark specifically on
Luke's "Force-ness," and during Vader's entire monologue near the end of RotJ
it's fairly apparent, through what Vader says, that he's actively using the
Force to examine Luke's thoughts. I'm not willing to equate those obvious
indicators with QG's sarcastic rebuff, but if some viewers take QG's comment
to be the same type of rhetorical indicator.
> The same phrase could just as easily mean that Vader thinks fate favors Luke
> in some way, or that he's a skilled pilot.
Another good point; it might be kind of a "God is on his side" style of
comment, or "he has a guardian angel."
>
> > To excuse feeble plot devices as The Mysteries of the Force is to hold Star
> > Wars to a lower standard than you seem to think it deserves.
>
> How are Qui-Gonn's comments a feeble plot device? They're just there.
Not QG's comments; I mean that the whole Padme/Amidala switcheroo is a
hackneyed, feeble plot device. QG's comments are incidental to that, and they
are further examples of George's inability to write effective dialogue.
> Whether he actually knew that Padme was Amidala in disguise has no real
> bearing on the plot, although knowing for sure would tell us something about
> Qui-Gonn's personality. Was he really just chastising a handmaiden for
> questioning his wisdom? Or was he having fun at the expense of the disguised
> Queen? Hardly a major plot point.
Exactly! Yet it took up about an hour of screen time, all for the benefit
of a two second "this one's the decoy" from one of the Nemoidians (who should
have, by the way, blasted both the decoy and the "real" Queen, but that's
beside the point). The whole plot device is a waste of time.
> > It's a fine explanation, and I wrote it. There's no onscreen, canonical
> > evidence that this is what happened.
>
> That Obi-Wan is a weaker Jedi? There's plenty of evidence of that.
You're missing my point, which may have resulted from my imprecison; let me
correct that. There's no evidence, on-screen, that Obi-Wan was involved in
maintenance and/or meditation to the point of spending no time in
the "queen's" presence, so it's not unreasonable to wonder why he wouldn't
have figured it out. I accept that Panaka might have known, and he kept quiet
about it, as a loyal supporter of the queen. (Alternatively, he may not have
known, so that's why he let "Padme" go without any fuss. I'll have to think
about that.) If Panaka knew, though, I think Obi-Wan might have been able to
discern some anxiety in him about the Queen's absence.
> Another [reason] could be that it didn't occur to him to be suspicious and
> inquisitive of an ally.
That's true too. Even if he weren't suspicious, though, I just can't shake
the feeling that he should have/could have picked up on some "vibe," just as a
non-Jedi might, that something was afoot. Having sensed that (which I admit
is pure speculation on my part), it's not unreasonable to suppose that he
might look a little more deeply with whatever Force-sense he thought
appropriate.
> To believe that Qui-Gonn had the motive and the ability to work out that.
> Padme was Amidala while Obi-Wan missed it just isn't inconsistant in my eyes.
Logically, you're right. An experience Jedi would certainly see things that
a novice wouldn't. But I still don't accept, given what we see on-screen,
that Qui-Gonn really knew. By the way, is QG a Jedi Knight or a Master--I
don't know. What's the difference?
> > I imagine that when Obi-Wan faces Lord Sidious in the near future he will
> > likewise conveniently fail to recognize the Senator.
>
> Assuming that Senator Palpatine is, in fact, Lord Sidious. If you don't want
> to assume things not on screen, I wouldn't jump to this conclusion, either.
That's not a bad point, either. Since we all "know" that Palpatine turns
out to be the Emperor, it might be interesting to find out that we all "knew"
incorrectly. Time will tell.
> > No need to be patronizing.
>
> You're right, I apologise.
Thanks! No harm done!
> I am tired of people whinging about how awful Jar-Jar was, and how Episode I
> doesn't live up to the other movies, though. It is a natural extension of
> the last three movies. I think, if anything, that the people who claim to be
> great fans of the original trilogy are oblivious to some of *it's*
> shortcomings (see the Wampa cave example).
I think a lot of people are so strongly against Jar-Jar because George
himself is so sharply in favor of the annoying little Gungan. While
admittedly a marvel of CGI, the characterization (which, ultimately, is what
people complain about--well, that and the voice) is so awful that he detracts
from every single scene he's in.
And don't get me started on the original series.
> I have to admit I don't have the script in front of me, and although I do own
> a copy of the (shudder) videotape, I haven't watched it in a while. However,
> in the scene as I remember it it's pretty clear that Obi-Wan is focusing on
> things *outside* the ship- as he puts it, "elsewhere, elusive", whereas Qui-
> Gonn is more focused on what is going on around them- the fact that the
> Nemoidians are fearful for some reason. Qui-Gonn wasn't concerned about the
> external motives of the Trade Federation, whereas Obi-Wan was sensing there
> was a bigger picture.
I think we're both muddling the actual dialogue a little; I have a slightly
different recollection of the sequence.
> > I wonder, then, when exactly QG makes the Padme/Amidala connection.
>
> Once again, the fact that Qui-Gonn is concerned about things happening around
> him, whereas Obi-Wan misses the smaller details in favor of a larger picture.
> Seems consistant to me.
>
> > For that matter, I'd be interested to learn when you believe that
> > realization takes place. You cite several momentarily forgotten clues on
> > Tattooine that demonstrate QG's recognition of the queen, but there's no
> > moment when the realization takes place.
>
> True. To be honest, I wouldn't want to see a scene in which it's clear
> Qui-Gonn recognises her, because I like the ambiguity and room to interpret,
> though.
There's a fine (though hard to define) line between useful ambiguity and
harmful ambiguity.
> > The fact that it must be inserted
> > retroactively into the scene--to justify a shortcoming of plot--makes QG's
> > perception seem more like spin-doctoring than vaunted Jedi prowess.
>
> Why? Why do you perceive Qui-Gonn's realisation that Padme is Amidala as an
> important plot point? It makes no difference in the end. He doesn't out her,
> she outs herself. He makes no major decisions based on whether it's true or
> not.
Exactly, once again! Very little in the entire film, except for the brief
exchange with the Nemoidians, results from the switcheroo. The only other
benefit (and it's a big one--possibly what George actually had in mind in the
first place, though it's pointless to guess an author's motives) is that
Anakin is able to act naturally around Padme, who later falls for him, while
if he'd been around "the Queen," he'd likely have behaved differently. Still,
though, this doesn't benefit from QG's realization, either.
> > Readings of scripts and Terry Brooks are separate from viewings and, in
> > serious critical interpretation, should remain separate.
>
> I haven't read either one, so they aren't influencing my decision.
I haven't either. I was thinking that some other indication might have
appeared there to demonstrate whether QG actually realized it or not.
> I guess the reason I lean toward Qui-Gonn knowing is simply that I would
> prefer to think that Qui-Gonn was having fun at the Queen's expense, rather
> than being heavy-handed with a handmaiden. I an see that neither
> interpretation can really be said to be 100% correct based on the information
> on-screen. But I also don't see the ambiguity as a failure of the plot or
> scripting, which you seem to.
Again, ambiguity in itself isn't a problem, but arbitrary ambiguity, as I
believe we see in TPM, can be a real shortcoming.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Padme Naberrie
|
| (...) If viewers do, then what? Just curious. To me, it seems to be the same kind of situation as you mention in RotJ. But, as I said, it's a little clearer in RotJ that Vader *is* using the Force and *isn't* just saying something that is true, not (...) (24 years ago, 26-Sep-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Padme Naberrie
|
| (...) Mmm. To be clear, I was not suggesting that Star Wars is an "enduring work of literature" per se, but the one quality that all great works of literature, from Moby Dick to the Bible, have in common is the ability to be interpreted in different (...) (24 years ago, 26-Sep-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
15 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
