Riddle vs Anakin, or how Lucas should have written the Star Wars Prequels.

[Walker in Eternity]

I saw the "Half Blood Prince" on Saturday, not the best Harry Potter film or book, but a well crafted piece of cinema nontheless.

One thing that stood out for me was that there were a number of flashbacks to the life of Tom Riddle (Lord Voldemort) as a youth and the thing that struck me was that even as a child he had an air of slight darkness about him and this only became more pronounced as he grew up.

If only Lucas had been prepared to do the same thing with Anakin the Star Wars prequels would have been much better.

Instead of the annoyingly McCauly Culkin like character in Phantom Menance or the whiny petulant Anakin in 'Clones and 'Sith we could have had a character who had dark leanings from the very start and tried but failed to keep them under control as a child.

He could have succumbed earlier and hidden his true intentions from Kenobi while fooling them into revealing secrets of the force to him.

In short Tom Riddle has a much more realistic backstory leading to his becoming Lord Voldemort, whereas Anakin's fall is never really convincing. Also it doesn't seem to make sense that the whiny Anakin became one of the greatest screen villains in history.

Anyone else have an opinion on this?

[AK84]

1) Voldemort never gets redeemed. Vader does.

2) Vader never does anything inherently evil; at least in the original trilogy, he is vicious, ruthless true, but not evil. He did not order the Death Star destroyed.

3) Prequel was hemmed in by the sequel, they had to keep "the good in him."

[cactus waltz]

To be crass, I don't think Lucas could have directed that in a satisfying way. It would be hamhanded and overstated. There would be a Pernilla August whimpering: "Already as an infant... I could sense there was something... Very dark about him".

[Walker in Eternity]

Originally Posted by AK84

1) Voldemort never gets redeemed. Vader does.

True, but then Vader's fall was never really convincing in the first place.

2) Vader never does anything inherently evil; at least in the original trilogy, he is vicious, ruthless true, but not evil. He did not order the Death Star destroyed.

Not sure about that, he tortures Leia (surely an evil act?), kills underlings who fail, hunted down and killed the last of the Jedi (off screen I know, but it is still stated in the plot that he did this). And while it is true that he didn't destroy Alderaan, neither did he act to prevent it, so therefore is guilty by association at least.

3) Prequel was hemmed in by the sequel, they had to keep "the good in him."

True, but they could have made him a darker character to start with without making him irredeemable. In fact his redemption occurs only to prevent Luke being killed, so he would not have been redeemed for any other reason.

The trouble with Lucas' universe is that it is too black and white, reality has more shades of grey. Admittedly good and evil; in Rowling's world are fairly black and white too, but she does have some shades of ambiguity.

[AK84]

There is not much he could have done to prevent the destruction of Alderaan if he wanted, was not his call. He interrogates Leia, a member of the rebal alliance, for information, that; we don't know about torture; its implied, but not expressly said. He kills underlings who mess up badly, Ozzel, I don't think he killed Needa (he he shown being helped away, but is walking).

Finally, the story is of the good man who fell to the dark side, as opposed to the guy who was evil throughout and became more so.

[Grumman]

Originally Posted by AK84

There is not much he could have done to prevent the destruction of Alderaan if he wanted, was not his call.

Correction, he didn't make it his call. Had he chosen to stop the firing, Tarkin could not have stopped him.

[AK84]

He was under Tarkins command in A New Hope from what I can tell.

[MEBuckner]

Vader definitely kills Needa. (Admittedly, Needa was at least as incompetant as Ozzel--He didn't notice that the ship he was pursuing is now stuck to the side of his own Star Destroyer?) Whether or not he tortures Leia in the original movie, he definitely tortured Han and company in Empire Strikes Back--admittedly, this is not for any sadistic reason, but solely to produce the psychic emanations (or whatever) to lure Luke into a trap--but that just means Vader's a cold-blooded bastard, as opposed to some sadistic pervert who actually gets off on torturing people.

And the very first thing we see him do is murder that hapless Rebel officer on board Leia's ship.

[Grumman]

Originally Posted by AK84

He was under Tarkins command in A New Hope from what I can tell.

In theory, sure. But only if the cyborg right-hand man of the Emperor, who is effectively immune to blasters and can kill you with his brain, decides to play along.

[AK84]

He stopped Boba Fett fromm blasting Chewbacca in the freezing room.

I agree he is a cold blooded calculating bastard. But unlike, Voldemort, he is not sadistic and evil.

[Walker in Eternity]

Originally Posted by AK84

T
Finally, the story is of the good man who fell to the dark side, as opposed to the guy who was evil throughout and became more so.

Well, if you like to see it that way. I see it more as the whiny annoying kid who actually becomes more interesting by falling to the dark side.

Besides the more evil he is the more his ultimate redemption actually matters, so making him lean towards the dark side to start with would not have prevented his redemption.

[AK84]

^
Oh he is whiny and annoying as well. Not mutually exclusive you know.

[Captain Amazing]

Originally Posted by AK84

I agree he is a cold blooded calculating bastard. But unlike, Voldemort, he is not sadistic and evil.

It's probably better to say that he's evil but he's not sadistic. Somebody like Voldemort commits evil acts because he enjoys doing so. Somebody like Darth Vader commits evil acts because he finds them expedient. An Admiral shows his incompetence? Kill him and promote the next person in line. Princess Leia won't tell you the location of the rebel base? Destroy her home planet and torture her. Need to get Luke to Cloud City? Torture his friends. That's certainly utilitarian, but it also shows an indifference to the rights of others that's sociopathic., and that's how Vader is portrayed in the original trilogy, as a sociopath who doesn't care who's hurt as long as he accomplishes his goals. That's why he's redeemed in the end, because he finally shows an ounce of concern for somebody who's not Darth Vader (although, admittedly, it's his son), when he dies keeping the Emperor from electrocuting Luke.

[Tanbarkie]

Huh. I'm no fan of the prequels, but I thought Young Voldemort's depiction in the new HP movie was remarkably off-base. Dumbledore gives this whole monologue about how nobody knew Tom Riddle would grow up to be the greatest dark wizard of all time, and how he oozed charisma and well-meaning from his very pores, and yet both times we actually see Riddle, he's the creepiest kid this side of "The Omen." Like, cold, imperious, and threatening to the point that Slughorn is visibly unnerved the moment Riddle starts talking to him, long before the topic of Horcruxes even comes up. It's not "morally ambiguous" at all - Tom Riddle is presented as being pretty much just as evil as Voldemort, just slightly more subtle about it. He doesn't "fall" or "turn to the dark side"; he's on the dark side from Day 1, and Dumbledore was just too stupid to realize it despite staring straight into those baleful eyes.

So I think presenting Anakin as a "white hat" to start with was the right idea. However, as usual, it's Lucas's execution that is his downfall. He should have presented Anakin as a well-meaning but prideful young man whose wish to do good is subverted by his impatience - y'know, the way Luke is described in "Empire Strikes Back." But whereas Luke is able to learn to control his flaws, Anakin becomes overwhelmed by them, gradually moving down the "ends justify the means" continuum (with a healthy dollop of emotional manipulation by Palpatine), until he comes to view order as the purest ideal, and specifically the Emperor's "New Order" as the means to make that a reality.

In other words, follow the basic rules of Shakespearean tragedy and have your hero brought down by his primary flaw.

[Ferret Herder]

Originally Posted by AK84

2) Vader never does anything inherently evil; at least in the original trilogy, he is vicious, ruthless true, but not evil. He did not order the Death Star destroyed.

In the original trilogy, perhaps, but this is definitely not true in the prequels. He goes to the Jedi temple and slaughters them by the dozens, including a room full of maybe 5-year-olds.

[smiling bandit]

Originally Posted by Tanbarkie

Huh. I'm no fan of the prequels, but I thought Young Voldemort's depiction in the new HP movie was remarkably off-base. Dumbledore gives this whole monologue about how nobody knew Tom Riddle would grow up to be the greatest dark wizard of all time, and how he oozed charisma and well-meaning from his very pores, and yet both times we actually see Riddle, he's the creepiest kid this side of "The Omen."

This is so grossly correct it's almost funny. Seriously, there were two things I did not like about the HP6 movie, and this was one of them. Young Master Riddle was so blatantly, obviously, ineffably evil I'm surprised they didn't have him stroking a white cat (or maybe an albino snake) while commanding some young death eaters to "Kill James Bond! Now!"

The worst, part, however, is that this makes incredibly good sense in the context of Harry Potter, where all adults are incredibly, awesomely stupid, except for Dumbledore (half the time) and Snape.

[johnspartan]

I think the prequels HAVE a half-assed attempt to show that he always had some seeds of evil... a couple of his lines, esp. in 2 (Clones)... "people should be MADE to listen and obey", killing the village of sandpeople, etc.

The problem isn't that he didn't try to put in the "it was always there if you knew what to look for", it's just that it was pretty poorly handled. Single-handedly slaughtering an entire village indiscriminately isn't a "stepping stone" to being a bad guy. It's not an "inkling" of someone's being amoral. It's full-on evil already. It's akin to saying someone punching you in the face is one indicator they might be the kind of person who would punch you in the face.

[AK84]

The prequels don't show him as evil, right up to the time he goes and slaughters the kids in the Temple. Which is my biggest complaint; his fall is not convincing, uh I stopped Windu from killing Palpatine guess I should turn to the dark side now. The attacks on the tribe in in anger; understanable if vicious.

They could have shown him turn by altering the plot a little bit; having the marriage discovered, him getting chucked out; despite being the hero of the wars and risking his life time and time again; and taking comfort in Palpatine and following him once he decides that Sith ain't so bad.

What am I saying; it makes scence; Lucas would never allow that.

[Reno Nevada]

Originally Posted by Walker in Eternity

Not sure about that, he tortures Leia (surely an evil act?),.

I think you mean that he employed enhanced interrogation techniques when questioning a suspected terrorist.

[The Great Sun Jester]

Riddle: "There is no good or evil, only 'power' and those too weak to seek it."
Dumbledore: "It is our choices far more than our ability that makes us who we are."

IIRC, Dumbledore saw in Riddle an undirected, powerful wizard. He attempted to foster and guide the kid to make better choices, a sentiment he echoes when helping Draco think through his murder attempt. At the orphanage Riddle is already identified as a thief and a bully by Dumbledore, but D. is confident that some structure can help the kid to make better choices. He's wrong of course and end up setting the wolf loose amongst the sheep.

Anakin's story is way different:
Senator Palpatine on Dooku: "He was too dangerous to be kept alive."
Windu on Palpatine/Sidius: "He is too dangerous to be kept alive."
No shades of grey in Star Wars? Nuts. It was Anakin who saw things in black and white and it was his inability to navigate the grey that took him down. Anakin's objective was always to minimize suffering of the larger population. In Clones he struggles with rule by a wise dictator vs. allowing people to "suffer" in a democratic morass which respects free will. This is the same picture of evil Tolkien paints with the ring: absolute power to control the minds of others is evil regardless of your intent to impose a peaceful, prosperous condition.

As an aside, that's a lot different from Voldemort who ruthlessly pursues power for its own sake. He is mirrored in the muggle world by Dudley who grows increasingly sadistic as his physical and social strength increases. But even Dudley shows signs of redemption in the end, as does Draco.

Of course, Dudley and Draco were loved, and Selfless Love is some powerful magic: Harry Potter, Star Wars, Narnia, Tolkein....

[Tanbarkie]

Originally Posted by Inigo Montoya

Riddle: "There is no good or evil, only 'power' and those too weak to seek it."
Dumbledore: "It is our choices far more than our ability that makes us who we are."

IIRC, Dumbledore saw in Riddle an undirected, powerful wizard. He attempted to foster and guide the kid to make better choices, a sentiment he echoes when helping Draco think through his murder attempt. At the orphanage Riddle is already identified as a thief and a bully by Dumbledore, but D. is confident that some structure can help the kid to make better choices. He's wrong of course and end up setting the wolf loose amongst the sheep.

Yes, that's how Rowling wrote Riddle in the books. It is almost entirely unlike how Riddle is depicted in the movie version of "Half Blood Prince." Movie-Riddle appears about as undirected as Grand Moff Tarkin.

[The Great Sun Jester]

Originally Posted by Tanbarkie

Yes, that's how Rowling wrote Riddle in the books. It is almost entirely unlike how Riddle is depicted in the movie version of "Half Blood Prince." Movie-Riddle appears about as undirected as Grand Moff Tarkin.

True. Rowling's Riddle makes a good showing in Chamber, but in Prince I kept thinking, "Samara!" I guess Columbus was more focused on making Riddle appear as written: Very adept at masking his evil intent, and Yates was more focused on the peril of making eye contact with a legilimens. It bugs, I preferred Columbus' version. Macaulay Culkin in "The Good Son" would have been a better model.

[silenus]

Originally Posted by AK84

1) Voldemort never gets redeemed. Vader does.

2) Vader never does anything inherently evil; at least in the original trilogy, he is vicious, ruthless true, but not evil. He did not order the Death Star destroyed.

3) Prequel was hemmed in by the sequel, they had to keep "the good in him."

1. Mistake
2. Banthashit
3. Even bigger mistake

Evil he was, and evil he should have remained.

[Voyager]

Originally Posted by Grumman

In theory, sure. But only if the cyborg right-hand man of the Emperor, who is effectively immune to blasters and can kill you with his brain, decides to play along.

But the Emperor assigned him to be there. Stopping the attack would have been an act of rebellion against the Emperor - Vader was no doubt planning one eventually, but it was too early.

[Voyager]

Originally Posted by silenus

1. Mistake
2. Banthashit
3. Even bigger mistake

Evil he was, and evil he should have remained.

That would have destroyed the most important part of the original trilogy. The reason Luke was the true hero, and a far better Jedi than either Yoda or Obi-wan, was that he truly lived up to what I take as the Jedi code of avoiding hatred and revenge. Only Luke's mind was so free from this that he could see the good in Vader, which turned out to be the reason he defeated the Emperor. Say he had killed Vader when he got the chance. I suspect the Emperor would have confronted him with the fact that he had just killed his father, and if this didn't turn him to the dark side it would have made him ineffective.

Lucas actually gave a hint. The name leaked for the movie was "Revenge of the Jedi" I suppose to see if anyone was leaking it. I believe Lucas said that it was called return because Jedis don't do revenge. Unlike the Sith.