couple of RotS questions (spoilers)

[Ranger REG]

Second, why can't you show things like that in a "kids" movie? I've never understood why childrens' movies have to be all sweetness and light, and nothing 'bad' or scary. I know some people will say we should shield children from the bad things in the world as long as possible, but I disagree. Anyway, it's only a movie.

Hehehe. Let me tell you a secret of mine...

When Star Wars first hit my theater, I didn't watch it at first. One look at Darth Vader on the billboard poster and I was scared. I thought it was a horror film. I even had nightmares about Vader coming to get me. For an 8-year-old, I have not begun to process what is real and what is not. I mean I don't know why I dreamt that Vader would come after me.

I grew up and two years later I finally watched Star Wars as a TV movie. Vader didn't scare me now, not when I have my action figures standing guard.

Whether a child should be allowed to see certain content or not, that's up to the parents, because for the most parts, they [should] know their kids well. Let them grow up at their own pace, not what society demand nor expect of them.

 

[Eosin the Red]

Um, how is it a stretch to believe what the movies say flat out (back in TPM, in case you wiped your memory after suffering through, err, seeing it )? Aside from it being an embarassingly common construction, Prophecy--Chosen One--Immaculate Conception, that, at least for me, doesn't suit the feel of Star Wars at all, this is the material the story gives us. Everything else is superimposed by the viewers.

Contrary to being mind wiped, I understand character perspective opposed to "the truth." Shimi states that there was no father. From her POV that is probably true but still offers us no insight into his birth - did angels sing to her, was she bathed in white light, were roofies involved, or did some whacky sith lord implant her with a force baby? All are equally legitimate postulations at this point, as opposed to "a character said it just happened" which is sort of like answering "because." It is no crime to contextually interpert film and literature to come at a conclusion that is different than a literal word for word rendering and it will usually get you closer to "groking" it.

That doesn't mean this particular theroy is right but it is as valid as "because."

 

[Brother Shatterstone]

I just wish people would stop using the term "younglings." Bleh.

I see it as a "rank" like padawan...

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

I see it as a "rank" like padawan...

Exactly. There's a difference between children and Younglings.

Younglings are children training to be Jedi...not just 'children'. Anakin didn't run around killing random children, he kileld Younglings.

 

[Greatwyrm]

Second, why can't you show things like that in a "kids" movie? I've never understood why childrens' movies have to be all sweetness and light, and nothing 'bad' or scary.

Forgive me, but don't Bambi, The Lion King, and Finding Nemo all have a parent of the lead character die in the first 15 minutes?

 

[Brother Shatterstone]

Forgive me, but don't Bambi, The Lion King, and Finding Nemo all have a parent of the lead character die in the first 15 minutes?

Bad examples.

Bambi, no, it’s more like 30 minutes or so as is the death in the Lion King.

 

[Wayside]

Contrary to being mind wiped, I understand character perspective opposed to "the truth."

Then you ought to understand the difference between your perspective, audience perspective in general that is, and truth. Part of the way narrative works is by manipulating your beliefs, but no narrative can control itself or you completely, so unintended beliefs always emerge, and if you're being a medieval reader and trying to reduce the text to complete consistency by filling in its gaps with questionable added material, I'd say that, yes, it is potentially a crime, a crime against and violation of the text, in this case RotS. If there's any moral we should take away from Star Wars, it's about the conflict between different points of view. "Contextual interpretation" is nebulous to the point of being nearly meaningless, since you, the viewer, and your point of view, are the source of all contexts.

That doesn't mean this particular theroy is right but it is as valid as "because."

Shmi's story is far from the equivalent of "because." As I said in another thread, Anakin's birth is a motif you can find in any number of mythologies, and at its base it's simply an expression of the possibility of a divine birth ex nihil in human terms. Most mythologies contain a kind of uncreated god, an unmoved mover who is a cause without being caused; when a divine savior is posited, the archetype of the spontaneous birth is applied, just like it would be to a creator god, as a way of representing the power of his absolute autonomy. Anakin's being spontaneously conceived is absolutely consistent with Lucas' mythological interests. In pursuing the possible contexts of the plots of the films, you're trying awfully hard to ignore the definite contexts of their production.

 

[Eosin the Red]

If there's any moral we should take away from Star Wars, it's about the conflict between different points of view. "Contextual interpretation" is nebulous to the point of being nearly meaningless, since you, the viewer, and your point of view, are the source of all contexts.

I don't want to put words in your mouth but what you appear to be saying is that we shouldn't talk about SW because we all take different things away from it? If true then why post in threads about speculation?

I disagree with my inferred understanding of your post, which is why I post on threads about SW. I like hearing half baked ideas and making up my own half-baked ideas about what things were said and what things meant. I have since I spent the summer of my sixth grade year puzzling over who could be "the other Skywalker." It is, to me, part and parcel of the SW experience - one of the things that make is so much fun. I think your post just struck me as rude and I responded in kind - my apologies for that, I was home with strep and in a foul mood.

Shmi's story is far from the equivalent of "because." As I said in another thread

Your answer here is a wordy "because." Perhaps you did explain it in another thread - there are way too many for me to keep up with and I am only reading the ones that I have posted in and even those have begun to suffer from lack of time. Point the way and I will read your reasoning.

 

[Eosin the Red]

Anakin's birth is a motif you can find in any number of mythologies, and at its base it's simply an expression of the possibility of a divine birth ex nihil in human terms. Most mythologies contain a kind of uncreated god, an unmoved mover who is a cause without being caused; when a divine savior is posited, the archetype of the spontaneous birth is applied, just like it would be to a creator god, as a way of representing the power of his absolute autonomy. Anakin's being spontaneously conceived is absolutely consistent with Lucas' mythological interests. In pursuing the possible contexts of the plots of the films, you're trying awfully hard to ignore the definite contexts of their production.

Whoops, it's right here.

I don't really disagree with this train of thought. I still don't know if it is the opinion that I hold since I don't quite know what to make of Shimi's miracle birth. Myth is full of spawned children but usually there is a preface for that - one that we don't get in SW. I would be further inclined if there was something more to her story than "Anakin doesn't have a dad (but he does have a mom)." Maybe if Qui-Gon had done a midichlorian count on her and said "wow, you have a freaky high residual MC count" or if there was more elaboration on the event or even surprise or suspicion voiced by anyone in the movies. As is we are left with the experience of immaculate conception being completely silent other than it seems to be a pretty accepted event in that time so long ago. Maybe there are other vergences in the force in the past that we don't know about? All this adds up to the SW-Geek in me to mean that it is speculation time!! Since nothing can be proven within the context of the movie any ideas that don't directly contradict canon are equally right and equally wrong.

Now I just need to figure out what my own unsupportible theory on Anakin's birth will be and present it for public denouncement Maybe I will start with the idea that there were prior vergences in the force?

 

[Danzauker]

...Prophecy--Chosen One--Immaculate Conception...

Pardon my little nitpicking.

In this thread it has been used the term "Immaculate Conception" to refer to the fact that Anakin was supposedly conceived without a father.

That's a mistake. In Christian religions Immaculate Conception means being born WITHOUT THE WEIGHT OF THE ORIGINAL SIN, it has no reference to sex.

Jesus was born without sex AND he did not carry the original sin.

Her mother, for the Roman Catholic Church only, as far as I know, was born from "mortal" people, BUT also did not carry the original sin.

Catholics revere the Immaculate Conception of Mary on Dec the 7th (or was the 8th?).

Just clarifying.