implying Lucas put that much thought into his ham fisted Vietnam allegory
this post was submitted on 23 Feb 2025
248 points (99.6% liked)
19684
286 readers
32 users here now
Welcome to 19684, please make sure to read the rules:
- You must post before you leave
- No hornyposting
Matrix chat: https://matrix.to/#/#19684:matrix.org
founded 1 month ago
MODERATORS
As a huge SW fan (don't get me started on the sequels though), SW is shit. It's very poorly written.
As a huge writing fan, nah. Star Wars is well written in many ways, even if the world has serious flaws. It's success is a testament to that.
It literally can't be ham-fisted if everyone didn't get it immediately
threatening star wars to have substance
heavy james earl Jones tears
What if Darth Vader and Padmé are brother and sister from two mothers but same father ?
Ew?
Well Anakin's father is the Force, so there probably wouldn't be genetic issues from the inbreeding.
I'm not convinced this is what Anakin's Mom meant
Then why would she say "There was no father. I carried him, I gave birth to him, I raised him. I can't explain what happened." Rather than "His father left (or died) before he was born", or "His father was a spacer passing through and I never saw him again", or something like that.
If you take the new EU novels as canon, you could argue that Anakin's father was Darth Plagueis, who had been experimenting with creating life through the Force around the time of Anakin's conception.
So this is my interpretation. It still makes sense if there was no father who stuck around. She doesn't know who the father was. The father was never part of her or Anakin's life, so she can't explain who the father is.
The explanation that it was a virgin birth is a possible interpretation, but when I saw the movie that didn't occur to me. I thought she was like all the other single mothers who've had to raise a kid without a father.
She is also a slave and we don't know a lot about her history. It might be that Anakin's mother had some history she didn't want to share.
Then why did she say "I can't explain it."?
"I don't know who the father is" is really easy explanation if the father is an unknown person. Or "his father wasn't around and I raised him myself". Or maybe "I don't want to get into it" if it was an unwilling pregnancy related to her status as a slave
"I can't explain it" implies she can't trace it back to a person (or group of people) at all.
Anakin not having a biological father is a major factor in the council seeing him at all despite his being already "too old" for training according to Yoda. If he weren't unique the council wouldn't have wasted their time with him and just rejected a meeting all together.
He was seen by the council because Qui Gon believed he was the prophesied one and had the midi chlorians blood test.
I think my post already explains why Simi might have said it that way. You're not wrong that she can't trace it back to a person. There might be multiple possible fathers or gaps in her memory. People don't always answer with full honesty especially with difficult topics, and since she raised anikin herself, it's true enough that there was no father.
"I can't explain it." Implies one thing to you, but a different thing to me.
To me, virgin birth is so unlikely that unless they went more in depth into it, I wouldn't believe that happened based solely on what she said to Qui-Gon.
Why is virgin birth so unlikely to you in the world of magic space knights (and all the other wacky shit)?
Let me make it clearer for you, I think this will change your mind.
"There was no father" vs "There is no father"
It doesn't make sense to use the past tense unless she's referring to the past (in?)action of conception. Because there is still no father.
If you look it up in the wiki, it confirms your point of view. So if you want to be right, you are right.
I'm saying as someone who was watching the phantom menace with only the first three original films and maybe some expanded universe novels as well, Virgin birth has never come up, although we have heard about how the force connects all living things and extends influence over objects and predicting the future.
In this universe it still seems more likely to me that it was not virgin birth based solely on this one scene. Especially when the other interpretation springs to mind so easily. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence.
It's not about being right to me, I already know that the majority of people agree with me, and I really don't care about Star Wars as a franchise in the first place.
I was curious about the argument so I did my own researching and came to my own conclusion. Truly, I think that phrasing argument should have convinced you.
At this point, I just want you to either refute my phrasing argument somehow or change your own mind. Doing neither is frustrating to me because it reflects the stubbornness of people that refuse to change their mind even when presented with strong evidence they cannot refute.
But it's cool, we can agree to disagree if you really want to, I'm an annoyingly stubborn person myself but this is an argument that I don't care about even a little.
I have already explained my reasoning earlier about how I interpreted her exact words so I don't have anything new to say, sorry.
Like father, like son.
I love this idea.