Subject:
|
Re: Padme Naberrie
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.starwars
|
Date:
|
Tue, 26 Sep 2000 18:52:05 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
713 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.starwars, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.starwars, Eric Joslin writes:
> > 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.
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 happens to be amusing.
> > 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.
Ah. Well. Ok. I can't say that it's not something that's been done before,
but I do think you hiton the reason that Lucas uses it later on in your post.
I'll save it for then.
On another level, though, much of the Star Wars cycle is a distilling of
various myths and legends into a bit of an uber-legend... so in that way, a
plot device that's been used often before does have a place.
> > 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.
Well, yeah, that is true- it's not at all unreasonable to ask why Obi-Wan
didn't figure it out. I guess I was skipping to a possible answer to that
reasonable question, is all. :D
> 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.
I think it's pretty clear that Panaka *does* know. As the Queen's security
coordinator (or whatever it says on his business card), I would assume him to
be an integral part of the process. I think that the rather disapproving way
in which he says that Padme is coming along into Mos Espa, and the sideways
glance at Padme when he says "the Queen desires it", pretty much make it clear
that he knows and disagrees... but, heck, she's the Queen, so he can't really
do anything to stop her.
And you're right, it does make Obi-Wan even more oblivious if he doesn't
notice Panaka's anxiety.
I don't really like the fact that Obi-Wan stays behind on Tatooine, to be
honest. To me, it makes little or no sense. I think it's an artifact of the
period when there wasn't another Jedi- there was only Obi-Wan, and for some
reason Lucas was dead set on only having one Jedi in Mos Espa.
> 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.
And here we come down to that same hermaneutical space (ah, the wonders of a
Liberal Arts education...) that started the argument- I can come up with
reasons that Qui-Gonn might have known, you can come up with reasons that he
might not have known, but neither of us can say we are 100% sure we are right.
> By the way, is QG a Jedi Knight or a Master--I
> don't know. What's the difference?
I almost said that Qui-Gonn was a Master, but I stopped myself. Certainly
Obi-Wan refers to him as "Master Qui-Gonn" in the same way he referred to Yoda
as "Master Yoda", but that could have as much to do with the Padawan/Teacher
relationship as anything else. I *think* that Qui-Gonn was a Jedi Master, as
opposed to a Jedi Knight, but I can't back that up.
> 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.
Actually, Lucas has made a couple of allusions to everything in that vein not
being quite what it seems, but I don't trust him to just not be planting seeds
of doubt. Certainly the assumed timeline- Sidious gains power as Palpatine and
declares himself Emperor Palpatine and rules- makes good, solid sense. I hope
if there is some kind of bait and switch thrown in that it's done well.
> 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.
But I think Lucas is so defensive of him because he came under such heavy
criticism. I dunno. Certainly Jar-Jar isn't my *favorite* character, but I
don't see what inspires such rabid hate for him.
> I think we're both muddling the actual dialogue a little; I have a slightly
> different recollection of the sequence.
Could be. Looks like I know what I'll watch tonight. :D
> There's a fine (though hard to define) line between useful ambiguity and
> harmful ambiguity.
True. In the matter of Qui-Gonn knowing or not knowing Amidala is Padme, I
don't think it's overly useful *or* harmful. I think it just is. I think it
makes an interesting debate mostly because of what the two possibilities say
about Qui-Gonn's personality- if you take the same line, and the same delivery,
with the two different backgrounds (he knows vs. he doesn't know) it makes him
seem like two totally different people.
> 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.
And here is what I was talking about before- I think this is the major reason
for it. If the Queen had been the Queen the whole time, the other characters
wouldn't have had much access to her at all, let alone time to get to know her.
This is the most likely reason for the "switch" plot to be there, in my mind,
although I'd never been able to put it quite into words before. Thanks!
> Still,
> though, this doesn't benefit from QG's realization, either.
Nope. In the end, they're a couple of throwaway lines that leave us with
something to ponder while we wait for Episode II.
> I haven't either. I was thinking that some other indication might have
> appeared there to demonstrate whether QG actually realized it or not.
It's possible, especially in the novel, which apparently has all kinds of
scences that Lucas had envinsioned/scripted that didn't make it into the movie.
> Again, ambiguity in itself isn't a problem, but arbitrary ambiguity, as I
> believe we see in TPM, can be a real shortcoming.
I don't know if it's even supposed to be ambiguous. Lucas is a bit notorious
for saying things like "well, of *course* those red fields that broke up the
lightsaber duel were dangerous to people. I thought that was obvious! I guess
I'll have to add something to the Special Edition to make it more clear".
That, by the way, was an actual example. Not a direct quote, but Lucas did say
something much like that. It's possible Lucas thought it was *obvious* that
Qui-Gonn knew/didn't know.
eric
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Padme Naberrie
|
| (...) Do we have any indication of what those were actually supposed to be? I mean, they looked cool, but what function did they serve in the running of the Naboo Palace? Dave! (24 years ago, 26-Sep-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Padme Naberrie
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
