But I think you could've done all that with the Arthurian love triangle, too. Anakin would've still been manipulated. A sitting member of the Jedi Council would've broken the Order's own code by falling in love with Padmé; we'd have questions about who knew and what they hid. And as that all played out, the Clone Wars would still go on e…
But I think you could've done all that with the Arthurian love triangle, too. Anakin would've still been manipulated. A sitting member of the Jedi Council would've broken the Order's own code by falling in love with Padmé; we'd have questions about who knew and what they hid. And as that all played out, the Clone Wars would still go on exactly as it does -- because what Anakin goes through in the films, as presented, doesn't really involve the Clone Wars. It's a separate story of a child who was abused by the Jedi Council into suppressing his grief and then love. Again, all that would still play out in the same way, I think -- except, at the end of it, the tipping point is that the Council doesn't just abstractly ef him. They literally do through Obi-Wan. That all said, I like your point about Padmé's love being pure imbuing Luke and Leia's situation with love and sacrifice...but I'm not sure I would care about their journey any less if I knew what Obi-Wan "had done". When Luke finally confronts Obi-Wan and Obi-Wan admits he's kind of a lying, manipulative asshole...I mean, that tracks even harder if he broke Anakin because he couldn't adhere to the Jedi Code either...
In both scenarios Anakin’s fear of losing someone he loves is a catalyst for succumbing to the dark side; Maybe Lucas decided fear of losing a child and wife in child birth was a greater fear and thus more reasonable to think it would topple Anakin then just losing his wife to infidelity alone. The Arthurian love triangle is classic but maybe Lucas decided to raise the stakes higher.
The stakes argument is certainly a solid one. The fear of your spouse dying (and possibly your kid) is much more broadly relatable as a human experience. It's universal. Being betrayed by the person you love is similarly so, but the consequences inherently feel smaller. But in that "smallness" might also be the reason why it dramatically works better. It's emotionally cruel/tragic rather than objectively heartbreaking. It's far more operatic, which STAR WARS has always been. But see-sawing again, by it simply being the fear of losing the person you love to death, it shows how we can all "turn to the Dark Side". All this said, nothing gets around how tacked on this sudden fear of Padmé feels to the narrative because it's not organically baked into it. It just comes out of nowhere, which is technically realistic, but not dramatically interesting.
Okay, I think I understand. While raising the stakes like this in a vacuum is justifiable or even desired, taken in context it feels forced because it’s unsupported by what came before. So while the stakes are higher, it jars the audience out of the narrative flow thus lowering their engagement.
I would argue, yes. But that said, I still think REVENGE OF THE SITH is the best of the Prequels and one of the best of all three trilogies. So, while I can academically wonder at these decisions and muse about what might've been, it is, again, an academic exercise. The art is what it is now, and I enjoy it based on the artist's intentions. I'm not going to tell anyone what George Lucas should've done.
For sure, as I get further along in my writing and storytelling (only a few years in now) analyzing things like this is quite helpful, but in no way would I want to question or judge the decisions the creators like Lucas made along the way. Seeing other possibilities and having some understanding of their impacts on the story is an educational exercise for me, so no judgements here either.
But I think you could've done all that with the Arthurian love triangle, too. Anakin would've still been manipulated. A sitting member of the Jedi Council would've broken the Order's own code by falling in love with Padmé; we'd have questions about who knew and what they hid. And as that all played out, the Clone Wars would still go on exactly as it does -- because what Anakin goes through in the films, as presented, doesn't really involve the Clone Wars. It's a separate story of a child who was abused by the Jedi Council into suppressing his grief and then love. Again, all that would still play out in the same way, I think -- except, at the end of it, the tipping point is that the Council doesn't just abstractly ef him. They literally do through Obi-Wan. That all said, I like your point about Padmé's love being pure imbuing Luke and Leia's situation with love and sacrifice...but I'm not sure I would care about their journey any less if I knew what Obi-Wan "had done". When Luke finally confronts Obi-Wan and Obi-Wan admits he's kind of a lying, manipulative asshole...I mean, that tracks even harder if he broke Anakin because he couldn't adhere to the Jedi Code either...
In both scenarios Anakin’s fear of losing someone he loves is a catalyst for succumbing to the dark side; Maybe Lucas decided fear of losing a child and wife in child birth was a greater fear and thus more reasonable to think it would topple Anakin then just losing his wife to infidelity alone. The Arthurian love triangle is classic but maybe Lucas decided to raise the stakes higher.
The stakes argument is certainly a solid one. The fear of your spouse dying (and possibly your kid) is much more broadly relatable as a human experience. It's universal. Being betrayed by the person you love is similarly so, but the consequences inherently feel smaller. But in that "smallness" might also be the reason why it dramatically works better. It's emotionally cruel/tragic rather than objectively heartbreaking. It's far more operatic, which STAR WARS has always been. But see-sawing again, by it simply being the fear of losing the person you love to death, it shows how we can all "turn to the Dark Side". All this said, nothing gets around how tacked on this sudden fear of Padmé feels to the narrative because it's not organically baked into it. It just comes out of nowhere, which is technically realistic, but not dramatically interesting.
Okay, I think I understand. While raising the stakes like this in a vacuum is justifiable or even desired, taken in context it feels forced because it’s unsupported by what came before. So while the stakes are higher, it jars the audience out of the narrative flow thus lowering their engagement.
I would argue, yes. But that said, I still think REVENGE OF THE SITH is the best of the Prequels and one of the best of all three trilogies. So, while I can academically wonder at these decisions and muse about what might've been, it is, again, an academic exercise. The art is what it is now, and I enjoy it based on the artist's intentions. I'm not going to tell anyone what George Lucas should've done.
For sure, as I get further along in my writing and storytelling (only a few years in now) analyzing things like this is quite helpful, but in no way would I want to question or judge the decisions the creators like Lucas made along the way. Seeing other possibilities and having some understanding of their impacts on the story is an educational exercise for me, so no judgements here either.