Similarities Between the Original Trilogy and the Prequel Trilogy — Page 2

yotsuya said:

The one thing that a lot of people have issue with is Leia remembering her mother. I don’t. Leia is obviously force sensitive and picked up something from her mother in the womb. As many of us have confusing memories from when we were young (Luke making two throws with the grappling hook for instance), Leia may have confusing memories of a mother she never really saw with her own eyes. Lucas did a good job creating a character in ANH that fits with being Luke’s sister even if that wasn’t his original intention. But such surprising story revelation are common in myths. I’m curious if TROS will have some and if we can’t make another topic for that one after the film comes out (we can only intelligently discuss about half the ST because we don’t know how events in TROS might recolor what we have already seen as the revelation of Luke’s father and sister colored dialog and events in ANH and TESB).

Always love your posts so I promise I’m not trolling, but I think this ‘sister’ business is giving Lucas waaaay too much credit. George was basically clumsily writing his way out of a corner on this one, and it absolutely shows. We have obvious romantic overtones in the first two films, we have no evidence of Leia’s having been adopted other than a clumsy “hey Leia, you know how you were adopted” line from Luke in ROTJ, we have Yoda rejecting Luke on age grounds yet supposedly thinking an entirely untrained twin would not only be viable but also be amenable to being a potential Jedi despite the shock of suddenly being Vader’s daughter, we have Yoda making the initial ‘other’ claim while Leia was a prisoner on Bespin whose unforeseeable fate Yoda himself had implored Luke to sacrifice for the greater good etc etc etc. To then add the extra layer of Leia’s memories not squaring with the prequels (Lucas is demonstrated to have assumed that Leia’s mother had survived until the twins were toddlers back in ‘81) just shows Lucas’ very relaxed views when it comes to continuity, rather than some sophisticated grasp of mythology.

Agreed. The real answer was just like you said, Lucas’ relaxed views on continuity and if it is really that important. There’s definitely ways to explain it though I think. I did use to feel that it was one of the weaker elements of the OT, as far as it having very little set up and feeling tacked on. But over time I’ve realized the very PG incest vibes give Luke another similarity to King Arthur, who in some iterations of his legend had unknowingly slept with his own sister, resulting in Mordred, who would go on to betray Arthur and destroy Camelot.

Not really prequel related I suppose. Though you could argue the prequels parallel Arthurian legend as far as the Republic being like Ancient Rome which feel in the time before Arthur, and his father Uther Pendragon being analogous to Anakin in some ways. So the prequels continue that tradition of mirroring real myths that the OT started.

I don’t think these parallels were intentional but they do make me enjoy them more. Repeating ideas, even if it was unknowingly.

RogueLeader said:

Agreed. The real answer was just like you said, Lucas’ relaxed views on continuity and if it is really that important. There’s definitely ways to explain it though I think. I did use to feel that it was one of the weaker elements of the OT, as far as it having very little set up and feeling tacked on. But over time I’ve realized the very PG incest vibes give Luke another similarity to King Arthur, who in some iterations of his legend had unknowingly slept with his own sister, resulting in Mordred, who would go on to betray Arthur and destroy Camelot.

Not really prequel related I suppose. Though you could argue the prequels parallel Arthurian legend as far as the Republic being like Ancient Rome which feel in the time before Arthur, and his father Uther Pendragon being analogous to Anakin in some ways. So the prequels continue that tradition of mirroring real myths that the OT started.

I don’t think these parallels were intentional but they do make me enjoy them more. Repeating ideas, even if it was unknowingly.

I absolutely hear ya! And I find this fascinating from the perspective of having occupied both camps - I was a fan who happily squared all the round holes to make it all fit, just as I am now a fan with a more ‘ruthless’ canon-sense. Neither is ‘correct’ of course, it’s just down to personal credulity and subjectivity. I mean is Jar Jar Binks a clever riff on some kind of mythological ‘jester trope’ (and a homage to Charlie Chaplin) or is he just a badly written cartoon character that annoyed everyone over the age of 9? It’s an interesting question with no true answer. But it’s so fun to discuss!