Friendly reminder that Padme had a subplot in Episode III where she was going against Palpatine’s actions and she, Bail Organa, and Mon Mothma (her only appearance in the prequel trilogies) basically formed the early version of the Rebel Alliance, but the entire thing was deleted.
Apparently this subplot was cut at the last minute because Lucas wanted to keep the focus on Anakin, but tbh this would have strengthened Anakin’s storyline as well as the film overall. In the final scene of the subplot, Palpatine starts sowing seeds of doubt in Anakin about Padme’s loyalty to the Republic and to Anakin himself, and it helps show that not only did the Empire begin in ROTS, but so too did the Rebellion.
Plus, it has the added value of reinforcing how Palpatine essentially had full control of the Republic long before it formally became the Empire; by the time he declares himself Emperor, the title is little more than a formality. The Petition Of The Two-Thousand is a blacklist that Palpatine can use in the early years of the Empire to scapegoat any political opponents and eliminate them, silencing any opposition. It also gives Padme and clear and powerful legacy in the history of the Rebellion, almost as a martyr.
Finally, we have the artistic value – the contrast between Anakin and Padme, as their politics divides them and they each help to form the Empire and the Rebellion respectively, culminating in the final symbolism of them lying on their respective operating tables clad in black and white.
Also a friendly reminder that Padme also had a subplot where she was beginning to see the evil in Anakin and was actually working with the Rebellion to kill him before it was too late,
REMEMBER THIS SCENE? Remember how sappy and forced the dialogue was?
According to someone who worked on ROTS, there was supposed to be a reveal right after their sappy talk where Anakin leaves and members of the consul come out, revealing that Padme is working with them to try and see Anakin’s motives and whether he is turning to the dark side or not, basically turning Padme from a lovesick girl to an informant who is betraying her husband for the greater good
REMEMBER THIS SCENE AS WELL?
According to the same guy, the original scene would be Padme coming to the planet after Anakin kills the younglings to assasinate Anakin for the Rebellion while there is still time to do so (here’s the original scene art for it)
According to the cast member, as the two are embracing, Padme has a knife in her hands aimed at Anakin’s jugular, knowing the situation and almost accepting that he has lost Padme, he at first doesn’t say anything, basically saying ‘ok then, kill me’. But at the last minute Padme breaks the bond because she realizes she can’t kill the man she loves, this anakin kills her.
This would have done so much not only for Padme’s character, but also for the movie’s overall plot and story and I will be forever angry at Lucas for cutting it! Like…what the hell was he thinking?????
do you guys ever get to that point where hobbies are literally stressful? like people are like “oh youre depressed and/or anxious? just do something you love!” but literally doing the things you actually do still like doing stresses you out because you don’t know if you’re doing them often enough or right enough or if you’re having enough fun doing them
Speaking of linguistics, there’s one particular linguistic tick that I think clearly separates Baby Boomers from Millennials: how we reply when someone says “thank you.”
You almost never hear a Millennial say “you’re welcome.” At least not when someone thanks them. It just isn’t done. Not because Millenials are ingrates lacking all manners, but because the polite response is “No problem.” Millennials only use “you’re welcome” sarcastically when they haven’t been thanked or when something has been taken from/done to them without their consent. It’s a phrase that’s used to point out someone else’s rudeness. A Millenial would typically be fairly uncomfortable saying “you’re welcome” as an acknowledgement of genuine thanks because the phrase is only ever used disengenuously.
Baby Boomers, however, get really miffed if someone says “no problem” in response to being thanked. From their perspective, saying “no problem” means that whatever they’re thanking someone for was in fact a problem, but the other person did it anyway as a personal favor. To them “You’re welcome” is the standard polite response.
“You’re welcome” means to Millennials what “no problem” means to Baby Boomers, and vice versa.The two phrases have converse meanings to the different age sets. I’m not sure exactly where this line gets drawn, but it’s somewhere in the middle of Gen X. This is a real pain in the ass if you work in customer service because everyone thinks that everyone else is being rude when they’re really being polite in their own language.
Something interesting to note is also the more literal meaning behind these two phrases and how they themselves differ and oppose each other
‘No problem’, coming from a millenials mouth, within the context of helping someone – whether it be holding a door open/picking up something someone may have dropped/ect. – and, naturally, being thanked for it, implies that the kind gesture was indeed, not a problem, that it was just the thing to do, that they were happy to help and that no thanks was really necessary.
While a Baby Boomer’s ‘You’re welcome’ in contrast, says something miles different, it actually highlights the fact that the person went out of their way to help someone; almost brings attention to it in a way, saying ‘Yeah, I helped you, I did you this favor I accept your thanks.’ which, malicious intent or not, is strikingly different than the millennial downplay of their act of kindness for the sake of helping someone.
JainaSolo1994 