STAR WARS: EP VI -RETURN OF THE JEDI "REVISITED EDITION"ADYWAN - ** PRODUCTION HAS NOW RESTARTED ** — Page 57

Editroid said:

TV’s Frink said:

Editroid said:

doubleofive said:

Editroid said:

doubleofive said:

adywan said:

Editroid said:

doubleofive said:

Editroid said:

TV’s Frink said:

EddieDean said:

Just another voice to back up this ^.

While the PT isn’t as great as the rest of the saga, a lot of us here do consider it canon and part of the full Star Wars story. So even though it’s understandable that some want to ignore it, please at least don’t make any changes that contradict it!

The PT did it first.

Examples?

Examples of what the Prequels changed from the Original Trilogy? You can find those on many other threads.

I’m sure there are very legitimate explanations for them.

Explanations made after the fact to try and cover up the bad writing

Oh come on, Ady! You know as well as I do that having someone die in childbirth 20 years after writing that her daughter remembers her is poetic and rhymes or something.

In Chapter 19 of Star Wars: Bloodline (a CANON novel), in a voice recording Bail Organa addresses Princess Leia “not expressing much interest in knowing who her birth parents were.”

This means that in that scene in ROTJ, Leia WAS, in fact, talking about Padme, because Luke clarifies that he is talking about Leia’s REAL mother and the recording of Bail obviously is from before Episode IV, which means Leia would have had some form of conversation about the adoption with him FAR before this scene happened.

adywan said:

Explanations made after the fact to try and cover up the bad writing

The point is they shouldn’t HAVE to try to explain it on a novel decades later. Why not just write the new movie to line up with the movie you made years before?

It’s easy to explain how Leia remembers Padme, without any outside material. It’s because she has the Force. Plain and simple.

“We’ll use the force!”

That IS how the Force works. What I’m referring to are “Force visions,” aka An ability to see into the past and the future.

I can use the force to look into the past too! Watch!

[smoke swirls about]

I see…

…in the darkness…

…shadows moving…

…to reveal…

…
…

[smoke dissipates]

…Lucas making it all up as he goes along! And not even paying attention to what he did in the previous movie!

[is given lightsaber]

VOICE: YOU ARE NOW JEDI

adywan said:

Editroid said:

It’s easy to explain how Leia remembers Padme, without any outside material. It’s because she has the Force. Plain and simple.

And yet leia said that she died when she was very young and NOT that she died when she was born ( which is how anyone would have talked if their parent had died in childbirth) . And that is because Leia’s mother WAS still alive during the first few years of her life when Jedi was written. Silly excuses cannot hide the fact that George forgot his own films and screwed up when doing the prequels.

Very young, newborn, whatever. Same thing in this case.

TV’s Frink said:

Editroid said:

TV’s Frink said:

Editroid said:

doubleofive said:

Editroid said:

doubleofive said:

adywan said:

Editroid said:

doubleofive said:

Editroid said:

TV’s Frink said:

EddieDean said:

Just another voice to back up this ^.

While the PT isn’t as great as the rest of the saga, a lot of us here do consider it canon and part of the full Star Wars story. So even though it’s understandable that some want to ignore it, please at least don’t make any changes that contradict it!

The PT did it first.

Examples?

Examples of what the Prequels changed from the Original Trilogy? You can find those on many other threads.

I’m sure there are very legitimate explanations for them.

Explanations made after the fact to try and cover up the bad writing

Oh come on, Ady! You know as well as I do that having someone die in childbirth 20 years after writing that her daughter remembers her is poetic and rhymes or something.

In Chapter 19 of Star Wars: Bloodline (a CANON novel), in a voice recording Bail Organa addresses Princess Leia “not expressing much interest in knowing who her birth parents were.”

This means that in that scene in ROTJ, Leia WAS, in fact, talking about Padme, because Luke clarifies that he is talking about Leia’s REAL mother and the recording of Bail obviously is from before Episode IV, which means Leia would have had some form of conversation about the adoption with him FAR before this scene happened.

adywan said:

Explanations made after the fact to try and cover up the bad writing

The point is they shouldn’t HAVE to try to explain it on a novel decades later. Why not just write the new movie to line up with the movie you made years before?

It’s easy to explain how Leia remembers Padme, without any outside material. It’s because she has the Force. Plain and simple.

“We’ll use the force!”

That IS how the Force works. What I’m referring to are “Force visions,” aka An ability to see into the past and the future.

I can use the force to look into the past too! Watch!

[smoke swirls about]

I see…

…in the darkness…

…shadows moving…

…to reveal…

…
…

[smoke dissipates]

…Lucas making it all up as he goes along! And not even paying attention to what he did in the previous movie!

[is given lightsaber]

VOICE: YOU ARE NOW JEDI

I don’t think he forgot about that scene, I just think he kinda sorta wrote himself into a corner. Padme would have to die somewhere in the prequel trilogy regardless. It is bad story telling to have a principle character survive a chapter, but to never be shown again in the rest of the story.
You could argue the twins would need to be older to remember her, but that creates an issue of Vader knowing that Padme survives and may be with their child somewhere. He had no idea he had a daughter until he read Luke’s mind.
This tie in isn’t in the prequel trilogy, but is actually in The Empire Strikes Back. First, Vader learns he has a son and is obsessively tying to track him down, mainly to recruit him to overthrow Palpatine. Palpatine wants Luke to get rid of Vader, but that’s a whole different thread. The point is Vader and Palpatine have no idea of Luke until Death Star 1 is destroyed. This means the twins would need to be hidden before Vader had any idea they existed/survived.
While training with Yoda, Luke learns that “through the force many things you will see…the future, the past, good friends long gone”. Later in the movie Luke calls out to Leia from Bespin and she receives his “force message” and his exact location without realizing she is using the force herself. So we know Leia is force capable (Luke confirms this to her in ROTJ as well) so it is entirely possible that Leia can remember “images” of her real mother being “beautiful, but sad”.

Editroid said:

TV’s Frink said:

Editroid said:

TV’s Frink said:

Editroid said:

doubleofive said:

Editroid said:

doubleofive said:

adywan said:

Editroid said:

doubleofive said:

Editroid said:

TV’s Frink said:

EddieDean said:

Just another voice to back up this ^.

While the PT isn’t as great as the rest of the saga, a lot of us here do consider it canon and part of the full Star Wars story. So even though it’s understandable that some want to ignore it, please at least don’t make any changes that contradict it!

The PT did it first.

Examples?

Examples of what the Prequels changed from the Original Trilogy? You can find those on many other threads.

I’m sure there are very legitimate explanations for them.

Explanations made after the fact to try and cover up the bad writing

Oh come on, Ady! You know as well as I do that having someone die in childbirth 20 years after writing that her daughter remembers her is poetic and rhymes or something.

In Chapter 19 of Star Wars: Bloodline (a CANON novel), in a voice recording Bail Organa addresses Princess Leia “not expressing much interest in knowing who her birth parents were.”

This means that in that scene in ROTJ, Leia WAS, in fact, talking about Padme, because Luke clarifies that he is talking about Leia’s REAL mother and the recording of Bail obviously is from before Episode IV, which means Leia would have had some form of conversation about the adoption with him FAR before this scene happened.

adywan said:

Explanations made after the fact to try and cover up the bad writing

The point is they shouldn’t HAVE to try to explain it on a novel decades later. Why not just write the new movie to line up with the movie you made years before?

It’s easy to explain how Leia remembers Padme, without any outside material. It’s because she has the Force. Plain and simple.

“We’ll use the force!”

That IS how the Force works. What I’m referring to are “Force visions,” aka An ability to see into the past and the future.

I can use the force to look into the past too! Watch!

[smoke swirls about]

I see…

…in the darkness…

…shadows moving…

…to reveal…

…
…

[smoke dissipates]

…Lucas making it all up as he goes along! And not even paying attention to what he did in the previous movie!

[is given lightsaber]

VOICE: YOU ARE NOW JEDI

I don’t think he forgot about that scene, I just think he kinda sorta wrote himself into a corner.

I agree with you, actually. And do you know how he got out of that corner?

adywan said:

Editroid said:

doubleofive said:

Editroid said:

TV’s Frink said:

EddieDean said:

Just another voice to back up this ^.

While the PT isn’t as great as the rest of the saga, a lot of us here do consider it canon and part of the full Star Wars story. So even though it’s understandable that some want to ignore it, please at least don’t make any changes that contradict it!

The PT did it first.

Examples?

Examples of what the Prequels changed from the Original Trilogy? You can find those on many other threads.

I’m sure there are very legitimate explanations for them.

Explanations made after the fact to try and cover up the bad writing

So here we are yet again.

ray_afraid said:

Editroid said:

adywan said:

Editroid said:

It’s easy to explain how Leia remembers Padme, without any outside material. It’s because she has the Force. Plain and simple.

And yet leia said that she died when she was very young and NOT that she died when she was born ( which is how anyone would have talked if their parent had died in childbirth) . And that is because Leia’s mother WAS still alive during the first few years of her life when Jedi was written. Silly excuses cannot hide the fact that George forgot his own films and screwed up when doing the prequels.

Very young, newborn, whatever. Same thing in this case.

If Leia’s mother died giving birth, she wouldn’t tell Luke, a close friend in an intimate conversation, that she died when she was very young, she’d tell him she died giving birth and wouldn’t have memories of her at all.

Keep in mind that Leia doesn’t have any concrete memories of her mother, just the images and feelings she described.

Editroid said:

adywan said:

Editroid said:

It’s easy to explain how Leia remembers Padme, without any outside material. It’s because she has the Force. Plain and simple.

And yet leia said that she died when she was very young and NOT that she died when she was born ( which is how anyone would have talked if their parent had died in childbirth) . And that is because Leia’s mother WAS still alive during the first few years of her life when Jedi was written. Silly excuses cannot hide the fact that George forgot his own films and screwed up when doing the prequels.

Very young, newborn, whatever. Same thing in this case.

There is a clear difference between “newborn” and “very young” no matter how much you try to ignore and brush it aside. The very evidence that Leia was not a newborn is in the damn movie…

Princess Leia Organa: Luke, what’s wrong?

Luke Skywalker: Leia, do you remember your mother? Your real mother?

Princess Leia Organa: Just a little bit. She died when I was very young.

Luke Skywalker: What do you remember?

Princess Leia Organa: Just images, really. Feelings.

Luke Skywalker: Tell me.

Princess Leia Organa: She was very beautiful. Kind, but sad. Why are you asking me all this?

Now, you tell me how she remembers all that if she was newborn, fresh from the womb and only had seconds with her mother before she died?

Clearly if you focus on the OT and ignore the stupid retconning happening in the PT, you would easily deduce from what Leia says that she was at least 2-3 years old when her mother died, 1-2 years at the youngest.

.Val

ray_afraid said:

Editroid said:

adywan said:

Editroid said:

It’s easy to explain how Leia remembers Padme, without any outside material. It’s because she has the Force. Plain and simple.

And yet leia said that she died when she was very young and NOT that she died when she was born ( which is how anyone would have talked if their parent had died in childbirth) . And that is because Leia’s mother WAS still alive during the first few years of her life when Jedi was written. Silly excuses cannot hide the fact that George forgot his own films and screwed up when doing the prequels.

Very young, newborn, whatever. Same thing in this case.

If Leia’s mother died giving birth, she wouldn’t tell Luke, a close friend in an intimate conversation, that she died when she was very young, she’d tell him she died giving birth and wouldn’t have memories of her at all.

LEIA: Luke, I have some news.
LUKE: What is it?
LEIA: Our mother died when we were very young.
LUKE: Really?
LEIA: Yeah…or maybe it was during the birth. Whatever. It’s all the same. Also, I’m gonna have a steak for dinner.
LUKE: Really?
LEIA: Yeah…or maybe fish. Whatever. It’s all the same. Also, I’m a vegetarian.
LUKE: Really?
LEIA: Yeah…or maybe a different word that has something to do with what I eat. Whatever. It’s all the same.

ray_afraid said:

Editroid said:

adywan said:

Editroid said:

It’s easy to explain how Leia remembers Padme, without any outside material. It’s because she has the Force. Plain and simple.

And yet leia said that she died when she was very young and NOT that she died when she was born ( which is how anyone would have talked if their parent had died in childbirth) . And that is because Leia’s mother WAS still alive during the first few years of her life when Jedi was written. Silly excuses cannot hide the fact that George forgot his own films and screwed up when doing the prequels.

Very young, newborn, whatever. Same thing in this case.

If Leia’s mother died giving birth, she wouldn’t tell Luke, a close friend in an intimate conversation, that she died when she was very young, she’d tell him she died giving birth and wouldn’t have memories of her at all.

Exactly.

And with that, I’m stopping here as I can see another thread derailing OT vs PT argument about to take off again…

.Val

Valheru_84 said:
Clearly if you focus on the OT and ignore the stupid retconning happening in the PT, you would easily deduce from what Leia says that she was at least 2-3 years old when her mother died, 1-2 years at the youngest.

.Val

So?

Here’s my final post on the matter.

“The part that I had never really developed is the death of Luke and Leia’s mother. I had a back story for her in earlier drafts, but it basically didn’t survive. When I got to JEDI, I wanted one of the kids to have some kind of memory of her because she will be a key figure in the new episodes I’m writing.”

–George Lucas, Star Wars-The Return Of The Jedi: Annotated Screenplay, 1997

“Leia’s recollection as described in Return of the Jedi have no inherent flaws and are valid given the greater context of the saga. But I suspect those looking for contradictions always find them.”

–Rick McCallum

adywan said:

Editroid said:

I don’t think he forgot about that scene, I just think he kinda sorta wrote himself into a corner. Padme would have to die somewhere in the prequel trilogy regardless. It is bad story telling to have a principle character survive a chapter, but to never be shown again in the rest of the story.

But her disappearance was already explained in the 6th film, so there was NO need to kill her off. That’s not bad storytelling. What is bad storytelling is to contradict so many things in a saga where the second part was filmed prior to the first part, where the story was already set, but you still end up screwing things up that were mentioned in the original films. For eg:

OT- Owen was afraid that Luke would follow Obi-wan on some damn fool idealistic crusade, like his father did
PT - Owen never even met Obi_wan while anakin was alive and Anakin didn’t follow him on a crusade either as, by the time owen was even in the picture, Anakin was already a jedi and it was Qui-Gon that he followed originally

The reference is to when Anakin went off to fight in the Clone Wars. Following the death of his mother and the funeral, Anakin and Padme are summoned back to their ship when a message from Obi-wan has been detected. Anakin leaves shortly thereafter and three years later, the Jedi are blamed for trying to overthrow the Republic and Anakin is among the casualties in the Jedi Purge. Owen felt that Anakin shouldn’t have left to fight in a war that he was going to lose. This anger is directed towards Obi-wan, after bringing him Luke to raise. This is why he doesn’t want Obi-wan around him and doesn’t want Luke to know about his Jedi heritage. And why he doesn’t want Luke to go to the academy. He’s afraid that he will lose his life like Anakin did.

Editroid said:

“Leia’s recollection as described in Return of the Jedi have no inherent flaws and are valid given the greater context of the saga. But I suspect those looking for contradictions always find them.”

–Rick McCallum

LOL

adywan said:

Editroid said:

adywan said:

Editroid said:

I don’t think he forgot about that scene, I just think he kinda sorta wrote himself into a corner. Padme would have to die somewhere in the prequel trilogy regardless. It is bad story telling to have a principle character survive a chapter, but to never be shown again in the rest of the story.

But her disappearance was already explained in the 6th film, so there was NO need to kill her off. That’s not bad storytelling. What is bad storytelling is to contradict so many things in a saga where the second part was filmed prior to the first part, where the story was already set, but you still end up screwing things up that were mentioned in the original films. For eg:

OT- Owen was afraid that Luke would follow Obi-wan on some damn fool idealistic crusade, like his father did
PT - Owen never even met Obi_wan while anakin was alive and Anakin didn’t follow him on a crusade either as, by the time owen was even in the picture, Anakin was already a jedi and it was Qui-Gon that he followed originally

The reference is to when Anakin went off to fight in the Clone Wars. Following the death of his mother and the funeral, Anakin and Padme are summoned back to their ship when a message from Obi-wan has been detected. Anakin leaves shortly thereafter and three years later, the Jedi are blamed for trying to overthrow the Republic and Anakin is among the casualties in the Jedi Purge. Owen felt that Anakin shouldn’t have left to fight in a war that he was going to lose. This anger is directed towards Obi-wan, after bringing him Luke to raise. This is why he doesn’t want Obi-wan around him and doesn’t want Luke to know about his Jedi heritage. And why he doesn’t want Luke to go to the academy. He’s afraid that he will lose his life like Anakin did.

According to the PT, Owen never even knew Anakin. A step-brother he met very briefly. Why the hell would he have even cared what the hell happened to him? And why the hell woudl he be angry at Obi_wan fro bringing him Luke to raise? That would just make Owen an asshole that never wanted Luke in the first place, so why the hell would he be so protective? He wouldn’t. All of that is just trying to make stuff up to try and forgive bad writing.

AARRRGGGHHH!!! 😠

adywan said:

Editroid said:

adywan said:

Editroid said:

adywan said:

Editroid said:

I don’t think he forgot about that scene, I just think he kinda sorta wrote himself into a corner. Padme would have to die somewhere in the prequel trilogy regardless. It is bad story telling to have a principle character survive a chapter, but to never be shown again in the rest of the story.

But her disappearance was already explained in the 6th film, so there was NO need to kill her off. That’s not bad storytelling. What is bad storytelling is to contradict so many things in a saga where the second part was filmed prior to the first part, where the story was already set, but you still end up screwing things up that were mentioned in the original films. For eg:

OT- Owen was afraid that Luke would follow Obi-wan on some damn fool idealistic crusade, like his father did
PT - Owen never even met Obi_wan while anakin was alive and Anakin didn’t follow him on a crusade either as, by the time owen was even in the picture, Anakin was already a jedi and it was Qui-Gon that he followed originally

The reference is to when Anakin went off to fight in the Clone Wars. Following the death of his mother and the funeral, Anakin and Padme are summoned back to their ship when a message from Obi-wan has been detected. Anakin leaves shortly thereafter and three years later, the Jedi are blamed for trying to overthrow the Republic and Anakin is among the casualties in the Jedi Purge. Owen felt that Anakin shouldn’t have left to fight in a war that he was going to lose. This anger is directed towards Obi-wan, after bringing him Luke to raise. This is why he doesn’t want Obi-wan around him and doesn’t want Luke to know about his Jedi heritage. And why he doesn’t want Luke to go to the academy. He’s afraid that he will lose his life like Anakin did.

According to the PT, Owen never even knew Anakin. A step-brother he met very briefly. Why the hell would he have even cared what the hell happened to him? And why the hell woudl he be angry at Obi_wan fro bringing him Luke to raise? That would just make Owen an asshole that never wanted Luke in the first place, so why the hell would he be so protective? He wouldn’t. All of that is just trying to make stuff up to try and forgive bad writing.

AARRRGGGHHH!!! 😠

I guess you can’t handle the truth 😉

You have your theories, I have mine.

adywan said:

Editroid said:

adywan said:

Editroid said:

I don’t think he forgot about that scene, I just think he kinda sorta wrote himself into a corner. Padme would have to die somewhere in the prequel trilogy regardless. It is bad story telling to have a principle character survive a chapter, but to never be shown again in the rest of the story.

But her disappearance was already explained in the 6th film, so there was NO need to kill her off. That’s not bad storytelling. What is bad storytelling is to contradict so many things in a saga where the second part was filmed prior to the first part, where the story was already set, but you still end up screwing things up that were mentioned in the original films. For eg:

OT- Owen was afraid that Luke would follow Obi-wan on some damn fool idealistic crusade, like his father did
PT - Owen never even met Obi_wan while anakin was alive and Anakin didn’t follow him on a crusade either as, by the time owen was even in the picture, Anakin was already a jedi and it was Qui-Gon that he followed originally

The reference is to when Anakin went off to fight in the Clone Wars. Following the death of his mother and the funeral, Anakin and Padme are summoned back to their ship when a message from Obi-wan has been detected. Anakin leaves shortly thereafter and three years later, the Jedi are blamed for trying to overthrow the Republic and Anakin is among the casualties in the Jedi Purge. Owen felt that Anakin shouldn’t have left to fight in a war that he was going to lose. This anger is directed towards Obi-wan, after bringing him Luke to raise. This is why he doesn’t want Obi-wan around him and doesn’t want Luke to know about his Jedi heritage. And why he doesn’t want Luke to go to the academy. He’s afraid that he will lose his life like Anakin did.

According to the PT, Owen never even knew Anakin. A step-brother he met very briefly. Why the hell would he have even cared what the hell happened to him? And why the hell woudl he be angry at Obi_wan fro bringing him Luke to raise? That would just make Owen an asshole that never wanted Luke in the first place, so why the hell would he be so protective? He wouldn’t. All of that is just trying to make stuff up to try and forgive bad writing. It’s bad writing plain and simple when fans, and spin off books that come later, have to try and make sh*t up to try and fix massive problems that shouldn’t have even been there in the first place when the ground work and situations were there from the start. A good writer would know how to do that.

Owen knew enough from the five years Shmi lived with him. And the fact that Anakin failed in his endeavors, which got him killed and force Owen to take care of his kid, these are reasons why he feels this way later on. If Anakin hadn’t gotten involved, he’d still be alive and taking care of his own kid. Rather than dying in a senseless and futile conflict.

I guess

Editroid said:

Here’s my final post on the matter.

doesn’t mean what it used to mean.