I mean, he was a massive momma’s boy. Maybe he’d genuinely stay too attached either way, and maybe she’d just have gotten merc’d a different way.
hzl@piefed.blahaj.zone
on 26 Jan 04:05
nextcollapse
Makes sense. The Jedi see love as a bad thing. Even Yoda wasn’t able to learn from his mistakes and realize that Luke following his heart was actually good. Sure, he lost his hand, but he was able to redeem Anakin because of it. The mistake was clinging to authoritarian ideology and suppressing emotions until the steam needs to go somewhere and explodes into rage and murder.
Imagine if someone had told Anakin it was okay to fall in love, or if they’d actually helped his mother, or both. If the kid had had some genuine support and someone he could talk to about his actual feelings other than Palpatine there might still be a Galactic Senate.
On the flip side, if Luke had been raised to shun his emotions and hadn’t been raised by his aunt and uncle we might have seen an Imperial victory in the galactic civil war. His impatience (and R2’s) is what gets his entire story going, and his concern for his friends is what makes it a success.
The Jedi are based on the Samurai who put honor above all else. Samurai are basically extremists, who will follow their code into death. Like they rather kill themselves than lose face. So yeah the Jedi being extremist ideologues is just Lucas copying Kurosawa’s homework. I’m not even sure if Lucas intentionally wrote the Jedi like that or the deeper subtext is by accident.
That makes sense. It does seem to me like they leaned more heavily into an outlook on non-attachment that comes off as a little hamfisted in the prequels. Like, the movies appear to mistake avoiding attachment with avoiding emotion and relationships that might produce strong feelings. Sort of a clunky take on Buddhism. Though at the same time, the Jedi seem very much attached to particular outcomes on a galactic scale, as well as to a strictness about how the force ought to be used.
It could be worse, but it certainly interferes with their ability to mitigate disaster. In the end, their approach ends up causing the mess that they’re trying to avoid, but it’s that mess itself that brings the balance they claim to want. Which, to be fair, is pretty good storytelling.
RightHandOfIkaros@lemmy.world
on 26 Jan 05:02
nextcollapse
threaded - newest
WHO IS ANAKIN’S FATHER?
It’s always Palpatine.
Can’t think of anything.
What about shmi?
Who?
Anakin’s mother?
Oh, her… She was more of a one nighter.
No, because that probably had a lot to do with why Anakin turned into Darth Vader.
Oh, what? No he was destined to do that, something, something balance.
I mean, he was a massive momma’s boy. Maybe he’d genuinely stay too attached either way, and maybe she’d just have gotten merc’d a different way.
Makes sense. The Jedi see love as a bad thing. Even Yoda wasn’t able to learn from his mistakes and realize that Luke following his heart was actually good. Sure, he lost his hand, but he was able to redeem Anakin because of it. The mistake was clinging to authoritarian ideology and suppressing emotions until the steam needs to go somewhere and explodes into rage and murder.
Imagine if someone had told Anakin it was okay to fall in love, or if they’d actually helped his mother, or both. If the kid had had some genuine support and someone he could talk to about his actual feelings other than Palpatine there might still be a Galactic Senate.
On the flip side, if Luke had been raised to shun his emotions and hadn’t been raised by his aunt and uncle we might have seen an Imperial victory in the galactic civil war. His impatience (and R2’s) is what gets his entire story going, and his concern for his friends is what makes it a success.
The Jedi are based on the Samurai who put honor above all else. Samurai are basically extremists, who will follow their code into death. Like they rather kill themselves than lose face. So yeah the Jedi being extremist ideologues is just Lucas copying Kurosawa’s homework. I’m not even sure if Lucas intentionally wrote the Jedi like that or the deeper subtext is by accident.
That makes sense. It does seem to me like they leaned more heavily into an outlook on non-attachment that comes off as a little hamfisted in the prequels. Like, the movies appear to mistake avoiding attachment with avoiding emotion and relationships that might produce strong feelings. Sort of a clunky take on Buddhism. Though at the same time, the Jedi seem very much attached to particular outcomes on a galactic scale, as well as to a strictness about how the force ought to be used.
It could be worse, but it certainly interferes with their ability to mitigate disaster. In the end, their approach ends up causing the mess that they’re trying to avoid, but it’s that mess itself that brings the balance they claim to want. Which, to be fair, is pretty good storytelling.
“Things”
<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/5428ece0-072c-4f3b-a0e0-4a9b8726e690.gif">
I mean, he did try. For all of three seconds.