Star Wars... Something I can't quite understand...

Anakin, the little critter in the first episode, seems to be a 6-8 year old, nice helpful kid. Padme, the Chancellor, seems to be in her 20s.

And they get married in the second episode...

Does anyone else find this... wrong? Pretty big difference in my opinion :D

Or maybe I'm just being childish :P

She's supposed to be like 14 or so in Episode 1, if I recall correctly.

Anakin, the little critter in the first episode, seems to be a 6-8 year old, nice helpful kid. Padme, the Chancellor, seems to be in her 20s.

And they get married in the second episode...

Does anyone else find this... wrong? Pretty big difference in my opinion :D

Or maybe I'm just being childish :P

SkullShooter17

From a google search:

"Anakin Skywalker and Padmé Amidala Naberrie (Skywalker) are 4.5 (four and half) years apart in age.
In Ep I TPM Anakin is 9 and Padmé is 14. EP I take place just before Anakins 10th birthday that year.
In Ep II AOTC Anakin turns 20, as noted by Shmi his mom and Padmé is 24. The film is a decade later from the first film.
In Ep III ROTS, Anakin is 23 and Padmé is 27. Ep III is thirteen years after Ep I and 3 years after Ep II"

So it's really not too bad.

She's supposed to be like 14 or so in Episode 1, if I recall correctly.

1oh1nine1

Really? She seemed much older than that. Also, just the fact that she didn't age at all really...........

Ah, just a movie I guess.

Fourteen?! She didn't act fourteen at all. And why would they employ a fourteen year old to act as the Queen's double? Is the Queen a teen as well?SolidSnake35

I'm pretty sure she actually WAS the Queen...

[QUOTE="SkullShooter17"]

Anakin, the little critter in the first episode, seems to be a 6-8 year old, nice helpful kid. Padme, the Chancellor, seems to be in her 20s.

And they get married in the second episode...

Does anyone else find this... wrong? Pretty big difference in my opinion :D

Or maybe I'm just being childish :P

Atmanix

From a google search:

"Anakin Skywalker and Padmé Amidala Naberrie (Skywalker) are 4.5 (four and half) years apart in age.
In Ep I TPM Anakin is 9 and Padmé is 14. EP I take place just before Anakins 10th birthday that year.
In Ep II AOTC Anakin turns 20, as noted by Shmi his mom and Padmé is 24. The film is a decade later from the first film.
In Ep III ROTS, Anakin is 23 and Padmé is 27. Ep III is thirteen years after Ep I and 3 years after Ep II"

So it's really not too bad.

Fourteen?! She didn't act fourteen at all. And why would they employ a fourteen year old to act as the Queen's double? Is the Queen a teen as well?SolidSnake35

She was the elected queen, not the double.

[QUOTE="Atmanix"]

[QUOTE="SkullShooter17"]

Anakin, the little critter in the first episode, seems to be a 6-8 year old, nice helpful kid. Padme, the Chancellor, seems to be in her 20s.

And they get married in the second episode...

Does anyone else find this... wrong? Pretty big difference in my opinion :D

Or maybe I'm just being childish :P

spazzx625

From a google search:

"Anakin Skywalker and Padmé Amidala Naberrie (Skywalker) are 4.5 (four and half) years apart in age.
In Ep I TPM Anakin is 9 and Padmé is 14. EP I take place just before Anakins 10th birthday that year.
In Ep II AOTC Anakin turns 20, as noted by Shmi his mom and Padmé is 24. The film is a decade later from the first film.
In Ep III ROTS, Anakin is 23 and Padmé is 27. Ep III is thirteen years after Ep I and 3 years after Ep II"

So it's really not too bad.

:lol:

I was surprised to find out the age difference was supposed to be only 4.5 years. I thought it was creepy too when I first saw it.

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"]Fourteen?! She didn't act fourteen at all. And why would they employ a fourteen year old to act as the Queen's double? Is the Queen a teen as well?dercoo

She was the elected queen, not the double.

Maybe becasue Episode 1-3 were terrible? Filled with horrid plothole, crap dialog, horrible characters, and bad acting,

Maybe becasue Episode 1-3 were terrible? Filled with horrid plothole, crap dialog, horrible characters, and bad acting,

Wasdie

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Maybe becasue Episode 1-3 were terrible? Filled with horrid plothole, crap dialog, horrible characters, and bad acting,

spazzx625

And killing him.

[QUOTE="spazzx625"][QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Maybe becasue Episode 1-3 were terrible? Filled with horrid plothole, crap dialog, horrible characters, and bad acting,

Atmanix

And killing him.

Maybe becasue Episode 1-3 were terrible? Filled with horrid plothole, crap dialog, horrible characters, and bad acting,

Wasdie

Episode 3 is a genuinely good film.

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Maybe becasue Episode 1-3 were terrible? Filled with horrid plothole, crap dialog, horrible characters, and bad acting,

BluRayHiDef

Episode 3 is a genuinely good film.

You changed your avatar...

How could a 14 year old girl be a leader of a planet?Jd1680a

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Maybe becasue Episode 1-3 were terrible? Filled with horrid plothole, crap dialog, horrible characters, and bad acting,

SkullShooter17

Episode 3 is a genuinely good film.

You changed your avatar...

You don't like it? It's been like this for over a week, now. Do you prefer Dr. Manhattan?

[QUOTE="Atmanix"]

[QUOTE="spazzx625"] They really dropped the ball by adding Sam Jackson but not having him say something hilarious.spazzx625

And killing him.

I'd have bought it on Blu-Ray if that was included.

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Maybe becasue Episode 1-3 were terrible? Filled with horrid plothole, crap dialog, horrible characters, and bad acting,

Episode 3 is a genuinely good film.

[QUOTE="1oh1nine1"]

She's supposed to be like 14 or so in Episode 1, if I recall correctly.

YellowOneKinobi

Really? She seemed much older than that. Also, just the fact that she didn't age at all really...........

Ah, just a movie I guess.

I think she was around 17 in real life when that movie was made.

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Maybe becasue Episode 1-3 were terrible? Filled with horrid plothole, crap dialog, horrible characters, and bad acting,

spazzx625

[QUOTE="Jd1680a"]How could a 14 year old girl be a leader of a planet?YellowOneKinobi

No, Bush hasn't been in office for over two years now.

[QUOTE="SkullShooter17"]

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

Episode 3 is a genuinely good film.

BluRayHiDef

You changed your avatar...

You don't like it? It's been like this for over a week, now. Do you prefer Dr. Manhattan?

Yeah that one was better. And the sig too :P

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"]Fourteen?! She didn't act fourteen at all. And why would they employ a fourteen year old to act as the Queen's double? Is the Queen a teen as well?SkullShooter17

I'm pretty sure she actually WAS the Queen...

I'm pretty sure she was too. So Naboo elected a Queen, who is a teenager. That's good. That makes sense.

[QUOTE="SkullShooter17"]

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"]Fourteen?! She didn't act fourteen at all. And why would they employ a fourteen year old to act as the Queen's double? Is the Queen a teen as well?Palantas

I'm pretty sure she actually WAS the Queen...

I'm pretty sure she was too. So Naboo elected a Queen, who is a teenager. That's good. That makes sense.

Nothing I can do about that :D

And it is pretty weird. She seemed pretty naive to me.

[QUOTE="SkullShooter17"]

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"]Fourteen?! She didn't act fourteen at all. And why would they employ a fourteen year old to act as the Queen's double? Is the Queen a teen as well?Palantas

I'm pretty sure she actually WAS the Queen...

I'm pretty sure she was too. So Naboo elected a Queen, who is a teenager. That's good. That makes sense.

Does that really surprise you considering that Lucas had a bunch of teddy bears pwn the Empire?

[QUOTE="SkullShooter17"]

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"]Fourteen?! She didn't act fourteen at all. And why would they employ a fourteen year old to act as the Queen's double? Is the Queen a teen as well?Palantas

I'm pretty sure she actually WAS the Queen...

I'm pretty sure she was too. So Naboo elected a Queen, who is a teenager. That's good. That makes sense.

Well, Mary Queen of Scots was 6 days old when she became Queen. So, 14 isn't so bad or unrealistic. Anyway, I have the same opinion of Star Wars as I do of Metallica. The older stuff is the best, but I like most of the new stuff too.

[QUOTE="1oh1nine1"]

She's supposed to be like 14 or so in Episode 1, if I recall correctly.

YellowOneKinobi

Really? She seemed much older than that. Also, just the fact that she didn't age at all really...........

Ah, just a movie I guess.

I try to justify her appearance by saying that she is royalty, and thus they demand she look older to suit her role in the film, i.e. im not a little 14 year old, I am a mature 14 year old

plus she could have been on some growth hormone made in a pharmacy far, far away

[QUOTE="YellowOneKinobi"][QUOTE="Jd1680a"]How could a 14 year old girl be a leader of a planet?worlock77

No, Bush hasn't been in office for over two years now.

[QUOTE="Jd1680a"]How could a 14 year old girl be a leader of a planet?YellowOneKinobi

BTW: the elected queen thing isn't as far-fetched as some people may think:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elective_monarchy

Yeah the age differences are not as big as they seem.

BTW: the elected queen thing isn't as far-fetched as some people may think:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elective_monarchy

worlock77

Yes, I'm aware of the Holy Roman Empire. I play the Europa Universalis series. :P But really now, I'm not saying there isn't a historical example of a country that elects a queen, for a term, and that queen is a kid. I'm just saying I sure as hell don't know of any.

So here's something else I don't get. I'm guessing this was Mr. Lucas' thought process (George Lucas, not JustPlainLucas):

1. Princess Leia was a princess.
2. So her mother needs to be a queen.
3. But her mother needs to support democracy.
4. So it'll be an elected queen.

That's weird enough. Except that Amidala died in childbirth, and Leia's parentage was hidden. So I guess Senator Organa is also a Prince? Or something? Don't worry, Mr. Lucas; there's always EU writings waiting to come up with stupid explanations for everything.

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Maybe becasue Episode 1-3 were terrible? Filled with horrid plothole, crap dialog, horrible characters, and bad acting,

BluRayHiDef

Episode 3 is a genuinely good film.

Maybe becasue Episode 1-3 were terrible? Filled with horrid plothole, crap dialog, horrible characters, and bad acting,

Wasdie

You aren't meant to understand it... just pay to see it.

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Maybe becasue Episode 1-3 were terrible? Filled with horrid plothole, crap dialog, horrible characters, and bad acting,

Second_Rook

Episode 3 is a genuinely good film.

There are much, much worse films than the Star Wars prequels: Anything by Uwe Boll and a whole hoard of B movies. The Star Wars prequels are terrible in what a huge missed opportunity they were. Lucas assembled an immense team of incredibly talented movie artists and spent an ungodly amount of money. As Plinkett says: "And this was the result??" The prequels come nowhere close to living up to the quality that was Star Wars and Empire Strikes Back. With the resources that were put into them, there's no reason for that. Even Jedi, the weakest of the original three, is on an entirely different level than the prequels.

EDIT: Example....

The battle over Endor in Return of the Jedi is the greatest space battle ever put on film. The prequels did not change that. Why not? With all the technology and money available to Lucas in the prequels, why couldn't he make a better space battle than in 1983? Because just filling the screen with special effects isn't enough. In the battle in Jedi, there was a clear logic to it: They attempted to fly into the Death Star, but found the shield was still up. Then the star destroyers flanked them. Then they found the Death Star was operational. So on and so on. The battle told it's own story, and the special effects served the story (and still look great today).

What happens in prequel space battles? A titanic armada of ships shoot at each other. Who's who? Who's winning? What's going on? I have no idea. There's no emotional connection to any of it. I found a number of space battles in Babylon 5 to be better than anything in the Star Wars prequels, in spite the prequels' effects being leagues beyond B5.

[QUOTE="spazzx625"][QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Maybe becasue Episode 1-3 were terrible? Filled with horrid plothole, crap dialog, horrible characters, and bad acting,

And killing him.

[QUOTE="spazzx625"][QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Maybe becasue Episode 1-3 were terrible? Filled with horrid plothole, crap dialog, horrible characters, and bad acting,

Atmanix

And killing him.

Everything was just better with him in it though, so it's ok :P

Although I agree Anakin looks younger than 9 and Padme looks older than 14.

[QUOTE="Palantas"]

I'm pretty sure she was too. So Naboo elected a Queen, who is a teenager. That's good. That makes sense.

jshaas

Well, Mary Queen of Scots was 6 days old when she became Queen. So, 14 isn't so bad or unrealistic. Anyway, I have the same opinion of Star Wars as I do of Metallica. The older stuff is the best, but I like most of the new stuff too.

King Tut was 9 years old when he became king or pharaoh.

I think a bigger question is... Could Lucas make Anakin out to be any more of a dbag than already has in episodes 1 through 3.. Even in the first one where Anakin is not a lead character for the most part, Lucas still manages to make the kid instantly unpleasant. sSubZerOo

He wasnt quite as stupid of a character as Jar Jar was. I almost threw up when I saw that thing

In regards to the topic, I think they should have tried to make the characters look more age appropiate at the very least. At first I thought Padme was like 20 and anakin was like 5

He got lucky, that's all.

The princess was a cougar. Every true Star Wars fan knows this.

Its called growing up, he did that in the second episode.

EDIT: Nvm I miss read your question :P

No one can explain it because george lucas **** up