@pandaofsecrets / pandaofsecrets.tumblr.com
Artist: jakebartok "A chance meeting'
From the artist: "Anakin likes to loiter outside the Republic Palace of Coruscant for no reason at all. It's definitely not because this is the route the Queen of Naboo walks every day. Thankfully, Obi-Wan always seems to be looking elsewhere..."
This will always be my favorite gifset. Ever.
im morally obligated to reblog this every time i see it
It’s back on my dash. 😂
probably waiting for Padme and Luke at the spaceport or sth ajshdgkasd
fuck it homebrew boop button. reblog this post to boop the person you reblogged from.
Domhnall Gleeson in RUN “Kiss”
why is this post completely broken in every way imaginable
Broken notes… deactivated account… removed image….
Finally, we have them all.
In addition: OP’s name is just… gone. No “[insert username]-deactivated[insert a bunch of numbers]” as is the standard for deactivated blogs.
Just the world “deactivated.” Look upon their post, ye mighty, and despair.
It’ll be almost impossible to find this post unless it wanders across your dash.
It wandered across mine. I shall help it travel forward.
lot of people are going to be sent careening three posts down their dash and crashing into a brick wall because of this post
kat.aang fails as a friends to lovers dynamic for multiple reasons, but one of the most egregious is that katara’s friendship alone is never once valued by either the narrative or aang.
a good friends to lovers romance bases the will-they-won’t-they on the potential consequences of rejection. what if confessing ruins your friendship? what if by trying to be something different you lose what you already have? not only is this a relatable and interesting conflict that maintains romantic tension without making it seem contrived, it also does something more important: it denotes the importance and meaning of the characters’ existing bond, thus making it a worthwhile, believable framework upon which to build a romance.
but this is never the case in kat.aang. not once does aang worry about what confessing his feelings might do to his friendship with katara, or even entertain the possibility that their relationship could be strained or ruined as a result. rather, the romantic tension in kat.aang is driven by the fear of rejection itself: the worst outcome of this situation is not the loss of aang’s supposedly close friendship with katara, but the dreaded confirmation that friendship is all that will ever exist between them.
katara and aang don’t work as a friends to lovers ship because their platonic/familial relationship is framed as an obstacle to their romance, not a stepping stone. this is made most evident in the ember island players, when actress katara’s re-affirmation of her sisterly feelings for aang (coupled with her interest in zuko) is the catalyst for aang’s confrontation and subsequent violation of katara. katara’s platonic love here is a source of frustration to aang, not comfort; a reminder of what he does not yet have instead of what he stands to lose.
aang wanting “more” than friendship is not inherently bad, and his desire for a romance with katara does not, on its own, invalidate their relationship. but you cannot predicate a romance on friendship all while disparaging the continuation of said friendship in its current state as the worst thing that could happen to the dynamic of these two characters! doing so not only cheapens kat.aang’s platonic bond, it also reinforces the idea that the only type of relationship worth having with women is a romantic one; that friendship is nothing more than a poor consolation prize for the romance women rightfully owe their male friends. it’s a leaf taken right out of the good old Nice Guy misogyny and amatonormativity playbook.
and if even the narrative can’t be bothered to respect or buy into kat.aang’s friendship as the foundation of their romance, why exactly should i or anyone else be expected to do so?
Kataang literally isn't a friends to lovers dynamic, though. Aang fell in love with Katara at first sight, and was trying to woo her from the very beginning. There was never a point where she was just a friend to him. Sure, Kataang fans might call it "friends to lovers", but that's not what the writers were going for and the show makes that pretty clear.
St. Athanasius' Day is on May 2nd. I find this very interesting, because that's also a key date in George Orwell's 1984—it's when Winston and Julia slip away to be together for the first time, beginning a love affair that leads to their eventual capture by the Thought Police. Considering what Cat Blanc is about, I'd be very surprised to learn this wasn't done on purpose.
Something that has just occured to me: Ozai didn't seem to have a military title - which is odd, considering that Iroh was a general of the glorious Fire Nation army. He was leading the siege of Ba Sing Se while Ozai... sat on his ass at the palace, sharing the space with his resentful father? Why? Was Ozai known as the loser prince that never brought the Fire Nation any glory? Especially compared to his remarkable brother and nephew? Was that it? Was Azulon against Ozai's military carreer? Why? Did he consider his second son this much of a fuckup? Did he hate him? Did Ozai secretly itch to kill the old bastard for years? Did Azulon? Did Zuko ever have a chance of being accepted by his father, or was he doomed by the circle of abuse the second he was born a boy, destined to be hated by his father the same way he had once been hated himself?
Iroh seems to be much older than Ozai. My theory is that by the time Ozai was the right age to be sent to the army, Iroh had already established himself as a skilled general and so there was no need for Ozai to get involved.
Image description: it's three separate drawings of Darth Vader and Princess Leia. They're in the iconic scene where Vader tells Luke he's his father but Leia is in Luke's place. Vader says "Bail Organa never told you what happened to your father." And Leia responds with "Dad told me enough" and opens her fist to reveal she's holding sand. End of description.
forbidden knowledge
Can we see this frame by frame? Please and thank you.
Yes Here Are All The Frames
THAT IS NOT WHAT WAS ASKED FOR
How dare you hide this in the notes
Now that I've ranted about all the ways I think the Miraculous don't make sense, it's only fair I tell you what I would've done instead.
My goal here is for each Miraculous to have its own distinct identity and a broad range of powers all built around the same theme, and to have as little overlap with the others as possible. That way we don't have to bring in a new character for every single power under the sun. Each Miraculous would also then have a lot of ways to interact with its user's character development, something I feel was sorely lacking from the actual show.
I know what I said in the last one about how I like the idea of the Miraculous being based on abstract concepts, but the kwami actually being embodiments of said abstract concepts in universe doesn't really make a lot of sense from a worldbuilding perspective. I mean, the kwami don't really make sense from a worldbuilding perspective in a lot of ways, but that's a story for another time.
So, instead, the kwami are conduits of the primordial magic that holds the universe in balance; think the Cosmic Forces from World of Warcraft and you're basically on the right track. In this world, there's eight Fundamental Forces of magic, organized into four equal and opposite pairs: Reality (Creation/Destruction), Structure (Subjection/Transmission), Information (Illusion/Vision), and Substance (Protection/Evolution).
The Ladybug is the Miraculous of Creation, and is basically a combination of the canon Ladybug, Goat, Peacock, and Dragon. Kiiiinda.
The Ladybug's most basic power is to create an inanimate object. The user can either call for their power and get something random (actually random, not "seems random but turns out to be the exact object needed to win"), or they can create something specific, like Adrien did with his Lucky Charm in Reflekdoll. From there, the user learns to create things that are a little more abstract, like flames, bursts of lightning, or gales of wind, and finally living beings—usually barely sentient minions with a single, simple goal. Unlike with the canon Peacock Miraculous though, the creature's life isn't tied to an object, and there's no convenient way for the user to control or dispel their creation. They have to rely on the Miraculous that actually have the power to do that, the Bee and Black Cat respectively. The most talented Ladybug wielders can create beings so complex as to be indistinguishable from humans, but only a scarce few of those are born in any generation. Marinette is one of them, unsurprisingly.
The Ladybug works most effectively in the hands of someone who is brave and has a lot of trust in themselves, and will backfire if the user second-guesses what they're doing. The logic here is that perfect is the enemy of done.
The Cat grants the power of Destruction, and is used to well, destroy stuff. Very straightforward, I know. Jokes aside, the Black Cat can destroy literally anything, both concrete and abstract. It can bring solid objects to rubble, disrupt and cancel magical abilities, break magical bonds, and even do things like erasing memories from the minds of others. (Thanks for canonizing that last one, S6!) This makes it a very powerful tool and, together with the Turtle, a check against the power of all the other Miraculous.
The Cat's powers are fueled by negative emotion, especially hatred. For the user to destroy something, they must well and truly want it gone.
Alongside the Ladybug, the Cat forms the Reality pair, which when used in tandem can reshape the universe.
With this one I'm using the more conventional meaning of the word "subjection". To put it simply, the Bee gives its user the power to control anything. This manifests in telekinesis, in bestowing matter with instruction such that for example a weapon can only be wielded by a chosen master, and finally in controlling the minds of animals and other people.
This Miraculous works most readily in the hands of those who value order and act for the good of others, and will go haywire if the user acts selfishly and tries to upset the balance of the world for personal gain. If the other forces of magic don't particularly care about moral alignment, Subjection has to: rules must apply equally to everyone if they are to mean anything. On the flipside, the Bee Miraculous can end up empowering extreme zealotry, and the user must never fall into the trap of becoming a pitiless crusader who viciously hunts down the nonbelievers.
This one would see one of the most radical changes, incorporating the abilities of the canon Butterfly, Horse, Rabbit, and Dog.
The equal and opposite of the Bee, the Butterfly is the Miraculous of Transmission, and governs change and movement in all its forms: of matter, of ideas, of emotions, of state, of magic, and of time.
The most straightforward of these is the movement of matter. The user can open portals to teleport themselves or other people, and can also teleport objects away from someone else.
Next up there's the movement of ideas and emotions. Butterfly users can feel and influence the emotional state of others, read their thoughts, and communicate telepathically.
Then there's the change of state and of magic, which is only available to advanced users. This manifests in transmutation of objects and shapeshifting, and in turning the emotions and internal motivations of other people into magical power (akumatization). Unlike the Miraculous, akumatization can only give one power at a time, and the user has little control over what the power is going to be, so they have to choose who to transform very carefully.
Finally we have movement in time, but like with the Ladybug's ability to create life, only a scarce few who can actually use it are born in any generation. I like to think this is because while time travel sounds straightforward, few people can actually conceptualize it and just end up moving in space instead.
The Butterfly works best when the user frees themselves of mental barriers. Unfortunately, this makes it prone to falling into the hands of people who have no scruples and for whom the rules are just suggestions.
The Miraculous of Illusion, this is another straightforward one, giving the user the ability to fool the minds and senses of others. Aside from vanilla illusions, it also has the power to make someone else believe anything the Fox user says is true, as well as induce hallucinations of all kinds. It can also conceal things, such as allowing the user to become invisible.
For this power to work, the user needs to trust it completely, and get into a mindset where they truly believe their own lie. If they acknowledge at any point that it's not real, the illusion breaks down.
With its canon concept going to the Butterfly and its abilities to the Ladybug, this is essentially a new one altogether, and I'm going with the power I initially thought it was going to have.
The equal and opposite of the Fox, the Peacock has the power of Vision. Whoever uses it can see into both the future and the past, find the answer to any question, remotely observe and track other people, be a living lie detector, and see through any illusion, including the glamour that conceals Miraculous users' identities.
The Peacock works best if the user keeps an open mind. If they go in thinking they already know the answer or expecting to see something, their powers will fail.
Together with the Fox, the Peacock forms the Information pair. Whoever has access to both is a one-person Ministry of Truth—while this pair can't actually change reality like the Ladybug and Cat can, it can change how reality is perceived.
The Turtle is the Miraculous of Protection, and is the immovable object to everyone else's unstoppable force. In its most basic form, the Turtle's power creates a shield that protects someone from a physical threat. With time and experience, a Turtle user can make themselves and others invulnerable, imbue objects with durability, deplete objects of their momentum, and prevent others from entering a space or taking a certain action.
The Turtle's powers are fueled by the user's will. The logic is that the ability to protect something comes from how much the user wants to cling on to that thing.
I considered two animals for this one, the crane and the rabbit, but I eventually chose the crane, for two reasons. One, in Asian cultures the crane and the turtle are both associated with longevity; there's a saying in Japanese that goes something like "the crane lives for a hundred years, and the turtle for a thousand". This makes the crane a great choice for a counterpart to the Turtle. Two, Kagami's last name contains the Japanese word for crane, "tsuru". Okay, the second one is not that important, I just thought it was a fun Easter egg.
Anyway, this is the Miraculous of Evolution, and it has the power I feel should've gone to the canon Rooster: upgrading the user's already existing abilities and that of other people, including other Miraculous users. This also manifests into minor healing and restoration abilities, but this is far from the reset button the Ladybug and Cat would provide. For one, the Crane's ability is much more localized. For another thing, the Miracle Cure brings something back exactly the way it was, while the Crane brings something to its optimal state.
The Crane's abilities are fueled by the power of love. Aww.
When used together, two Miraculous (or three, or four, or five...) can unlock a new range of powers that is a combination of their existing domains. This can be done by wearing both Miraculous like in canon, or more simply by combining one's power with that of another wielder. The second option is considered the preferable way to unify—for one person to wear multiple Miraculous would require a good spiritual balance that most people don't have. Those who unify still have to be in sync with each other, though, otherwise the unification might either not work, backfire, harm the wielder, or damage one or both Miraculous. I like to think this is how the Peacock would come to be broken.
Some common unifications include:
Unlike in canon, the Miracle Box is a magical object in and of itself. It's bound to the Guardian, who essentially has admin powers over the box and all the Miraculous inside, and can: locate Miraculous (Observation), summon Miraculous and the Miracle Box to their location (Transmission), prevent certain people from using the Miraculous or opening the Miracle Box (Protection), assign Miraculous to specific people so that only they can activate it, and making sure that the Miracle Box can only open by their or their chosen successor's hand (Subjection), repair damaged Miraculous (Evolution), and even sever the bond between a rogue wielder and their Miraculous (Destruction).
Alas, Fu never had access to these powers. For security reasons, the ceremony that binds the Box to a new Guardian can only be performed by the current Guardian or, in the absence of one, by all off the eight kwami. With the previous Guardian dead and Nooroo lost, there was simply no way to give Fu the Guardianship. As Guardian-in-training he was allowed to open the box and give out Miraculous, but nothing more than that.
He takes the ounce of good still left in him and destroys the Emperor out of compassion for his son.
I love this articulation by Lucas of the what and why of Anakin's redemption - specifically the ideas that i) it doesn't make what he did ok, it doesn't undo any of the harm but it does - on a forward looking basis - allow for good and ii) it is centred on his compassion for his son, on his love for his son, on his acceptance of Luke's belief that Padme was right and that he still has good inside him.
I also find this so interesting because it problematises a lot of what I think GL is trying to say when he talks about selflessness and love vs possession etc.
We are - and there are other GL quotes to support this - supposed to see this choice as the opposite of Anakin's choice to embrace the dark in ROTS. In ROTS Anakin make's a selfish choice for selfish reasons but here he makes a selfless choice for selfless reasons.
Specifically this bit: "I will throw away everything I have, everything that I have grown to know - primarily the Emperor - and throw away my life to save this person."
This is intended to be the high point, the "aha" moment of Anakin's understanding of love vs possessiveness or attachment.
Except... it isn't really?
What motivates Anakin in this moment is love for his son - a love so great that Anakin is willing to sacrifice everything he has, everything he knows and loves, including the only man who has always been there for him (in a deeply twisted and fucked up way).
It is not clear to me that this is actually any different to how Anakin has thought or acted at any other point in his life.
What motivated him to do great evil was his desire to save Padme's life - no matter the cost. What motivated him to throw everything he had away was his desire to save Luke's life - no matter the cost.
I think it is worth drawing a distinction between the choice Anakin make's in the chancellor's office: "I will do whatever you ask... just help me save Padme's life" & his later behaviour on Mustafar and his ranting political ambitions.
The first is very clearly a commitment to do whatever is required to save his loved one. If Palpatine told him in that moment "stab yourself in the heart right now and I promise Padme will live" it seems very clear to me that he would do so. At no point has Anakin demonstrated a fear of death or an unwillingness to risk himself for the people he loves. He is in fact sacrificing everything he cares about - his friends, his community, his best friend and father figure, hell even his soul. Anakin knows exactly how bad it is to commit to the dark side and he does it anyway - out of love for Padme.
So even at the moment of his Fall Anakin was doing whatever was required - sacrificing whatever was required, sacrificing everything he had grown to know and love, including the only man who had ever really been there for him - to save his family.
We then get to Mustafar and suddenly he is ranting about moral relativism and the pros & cons of different political systems and leadership candidates.
How did we get here? What is going on?
As much as I love this movie and am eternally grateful to GL for creating them the simplest explanation is... GL didn't do a good job connecting these dots. At literally no point prior to this has Anakin demonstrated any personal political ambition. Like ever. So was he a) lying and had secretly been out for unlimited power all along or b) this is hamfisted storytelling that we need to try and reconcile for ourselves?
I think b) and in universe the explanation that seems to fit is that the dark side is basically space meth and Anakin is high as a fucking kite right now. The dark side - which he embraced for good reasons - has corrupted him and twisted him and changed him (something we have plenty of textual support for). So the person wearing Anakin's face on Mustafar isn't really Anakin at all - it's Vader. Again, the text backs this quite heavily.
The point here is not Mustafar though.
The point is that deliberately or not the quotes in this gif set don't draw a distinction between Anakin's choice in Palpatine's office and Anakin's choice on DS2 - they instead highlight how similar they are.
it was always for love.
This was always one of the most confusing parts of the prequels for me. Anakin's fall and his redemption are the exact same act done for the exact same reasons.
Honestly, the more I think about how Anakin fell to the Dark Side the less sense it makes. OT Anakin has never demonstrated an inability to let go of the things he can't change—the opposite, actually. He hates the Death Star ("Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed."), but goes along with it anyway. He hates the Emperor, but only tries to overthrow him when he's 100% he's got a chance ("Luke, you can destroy the Emperor. He has forseen this."). When Luke turns him down, Anakin completely gives up on that ambition, and next we see him he's serving Luke to Palpatine on a silver platter because "I must obey my master", only intervening when Luke is about to die.
Anakin's problem in the OT that he overcomes by saving Luke isn't "unhealthy attachment", it's that he cannot conceive of life outside of power dynamics. He's either giving orders or taking them. Either he's under someone's heel or someone is under his. And the prequels clearly get this. Even Anakin's relationship with Padmé is fraught with power imbalances: in the first movie she's a queen and he's a slave, and in the second and third she's a senator and the Jedi are subordinate to the Senate (both of them). And of course, the very fact that he's a former slave compounds this and makes it all the more tragic. Then the films decide to ignore all that and make everything about how Anakin doesn't want to lose his mother or his wife, which comes completely out of left field.
I think it ultimately comes down to what you think the films are about. I think part of the confusion is you have variously intersecting through lines in the story.
Anakin Skywalker as a character I think basically tells a straight forward story: a good person in the wrong circumstances can do incredible evil. Despite that evil, they always have the option of choosing to do good.
We see the good person Anakin at various points choose to do evil things. We then see the evil person Darth Vader choose to do good.
This is I think the most coherent “big” thesis of the 6 films. Good and evil are not essential and immutable components of character but rather outcomes of choices and actions. I have always read this as a deliberate rejection of essentialism and - for what it’s worth - a subversion of genre tropes about good and evil etc.
This is made more clear by the fact the films spend a lot of time dedicated to the “good” (Jedi) and “bad” (Sith) and expounding a very typical view of good and evil (“once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny” and “by now you must know, your father can never be turned from the dark side”), only to dramatically have them both proven wrong.
All of the above is - to me - very clear and coherent across the films.
I think where the story is weaker (or maybe just less clear to ME, maybe it’s very clear to Lucas or others) is when it goes one level down and tries to address “why” someone chooses what they do.
The explicit mechanism Lucas tries to use to address this “why” is “attachment”. He spends a lot of screen time having characters talk about it but it’s never really clear. I 100% agree with you that Anakin’s logic is basically consistent in episodes 3 and 6. For me it rings hollow to say in episodes 3 he acts based on attachment, that’s bad, but in 6 he acts on something else, that’s good.
They seem the same to me.
I think what Lucas is getting at is intent. This is consistent with his wider cosmology - in the same way that your mental state can influence you (in universe) to use the light or dark side for similar looking acts (e.g. fighting/violence/stabbing people with lightsabers), I think Lucas is saying that some significant part of the moral value of an action is your intent.
Anakin’s intent in episode 6 to save Luke is selfless and good; his intent in episode 3 is selfish and bad.
That is a plausible moral argument many have made, deontology is a thing. I think where that through line breaks in episode 3 is somewhere between “rise, Lord Vader” and “I don’t want to hear any more about Obi-Wan”.
In Palpatine’s office, Anakin is very clearly making a choice to save Padme’s life. The wild political ramblings and insane jealousy come later - after the choice has been made.
The issue, is in trying to make a point about “attachment” Lucas basically uses a sleight of hand to replace Anakin’s selfless motivations with selfish ones off screen.
In effect he crams in the conclusion without having made the argument.
If in Palpatine’s office Anakin had said “I can’t live without power” or something, or if his dreams had been about becoming the most powerful Jedi, then it would work. His motivations would have been clearly selfish, that’s the seed of evil, dark side, got it.
That isn’t what happened though.
This is further confused by the fact that what is shown on screen (both in episode 2 and 3) is a slightly different - arguably opposite - implied argument.
Anakin was not wrong to want to save his mother. Anakin was not wrong to want to save Padme.
What he did, however, was monstrous and evil. Murdering an entire village - after Shmi is already dead - serves no possible function and is horrific. Wiping out the Jedi temple, even if it saved Padme, is (externally) far too high a price to pay.
His intent didn’t matter, only his actions.
That, however, is something closer to either virtue ethics (actions have inherent value regardless of outcome ie murder is never ok regardless of intent) or even utilitarianism (though that is weaker and more a sense of Anakin being bad at math).
I think a lot of this confusion is honestly a function of the genre. It’s fantasy action. It’s about knight and evil knights with swords and both of them need to swing them.
The genre requires you have violence on both sides. I think the OT is strongest in its articulation that while violence can sometimes feel necessary it is never just.
It’s why the peak of the entire series is Luke throwing away his lightsaber. It’s honestly kind of amazing that 6 films with the word “Wars” in their title reach their crescendo when the hero lays down their weapon.
The PT - and specifically Anakin - are a far more confused text because Lucas tries to maintain that basic idea (violence is inherently unjust and pointless, as writ large by the Clone Wars being a manufactured war) while also trying to achieve nuance that I don’t think he achieves.
Anakin blowing up a ship (and killing at least several Nemoidians) is good. Anakin killing Tuskens is bad. Anakin killing Geonosians is good (or maybe neutral?). Anakin chopping off Dooku’s hands is fine. His head is bad.
I think, ultimately, all the intent stuff is besides the point. I go back to the first big thesis: a good person in the wrong circumstances can do great evil.
I think Star Wars is at its clearest when you read the characters (and their actions) as happening within a context, a set of circumstances and it is that context which is to be examined and critiqued.
It’s a kid movie about space wizards and yet it spends significant screen time on trade deals and parliamentary procedure and sub committee meetings and executive 1 on 1s etc etc etc.
This is where your point about power dynamics comes in - you’re absolutely correct, as a function of his lived experience both pre and as a Jedi, Anakin simply cannot divorce himself from power dynamics, and he constantly finds himself in circumstances that honestly justify that.
Star Wars is a story in large part about the actions of one man, put into the wrong circumstances, but it’s also about the circumstances themselves.
Yeah, the prequels definitely have their wires crossed.
I mostly chalk it up to Lucas being too married to "it's like poetry, it rhymes". He tries to brute-force Anakin into being a foil to Luke by mirroring Luke's desire to save the people he loves and readiness to anger when they're threatened, only to remember at the last second that Vader had his own personality and goals and scramble to fix it, leading to Anakin's motivations changing off-screen. This is to say nothing of the fact that Anakin ended up filling the same slot in the prequel trio that in the OT trio was filled by Han—male romantic lead, shady dude with a bad past, female lead spends most of the second movie rejecting him only to confess her love when she thinks he's about to die, designated pilot, you get the idea. He's even the guy whose help they use to get off Tatooine in the first movie, fucking hell. Meanwhile, the closest Luke analogue in the prequels is actually Obi-Wan. They watch their mentor die in front of them in the first movie, go off to do something else and end up walking into a trap in the second, and fight Anakin only to refuse to kill him in the third.
