logo Sign In

No explanation necessary (but we got one anyway)

Author
Date
Author
Time
Post link

One of the things that we complain about so very often in regard to SE and the PT is the overkill of explanation:

"The Sith have a Rule of Two."

"Obi-Wan was once instructed by Yoda. Qui-Gon was his Master, but all younglings are taught by Yoda."

"The Clonetroopers were cloned by Jango Fett, who raised an unaltered clone names Boba as his son"

"The more midichlorians a Jedi has, the more Force-power he is capable of"

"You see, Anakin died just before he became Darth Vader, so that's why he is younger as a Force ghost than Obi-Wan or Yoda."

"This is my apprentice, Darth Maul. Follow him, the apprentice called Darth Maul, for he is my apprentice. His name is Darth Maul, by the way."

Lucas is so convinced of our collective idiocy, isn't he? You know, not everything in the OUT was explained to a T. And that's just fine! We can fill in the blanks, as long as what we just saw is plausible.

Want to book yourself or a guest on THE VFP Show? PM me!

Author
Time
Post link
I don't like how they showed Palpatine's face getting deformed, the Republic turning into the Galactic Empire with Palpatine placing himself as Emperor, the construction of the Death Star and Vader putting on the suit.. It's like, they had to sum up everything at the end of the trilogy because we wouldn't have been able to fill in the gap. "Huh? Why do they calling him Vader? That's not what Darth Vader looks like. Who is that?".

So all that happends in between is that they age twenty years.
Author
Time
Post link
He pretty much made it so that if you were a first time viewer you would have to watch the Original films first. Well that and alot of surprises are pretty much ruined. I think Lucas relied too much on the fact that a vast majority of people have seen the Originals.
http://img416.imageshack.us/img416/7823/starwarssuppersmallerxx5.jpg
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: vote_for_palpatine One of the things that we complain about so very often in regard to SE and the PT is the overkill of explanation:

"The Sith have a Rule of Two."

"Obi-Wan was once instructed by Yoda. Qui-Gon was his Master, but all younglings are taught by Yoda."

"The Clonetroopers were cloned by Jango Fett, who raised an unaltered clone names Boba as his son"

"The more midichlorians a Jedi has, the more Force-power he is capable of"

"You see, Anakin died just before he became Darth Vader, so that's why he is younger as a Force ghost than Obi-Wan or Yoda."

"This is my apprentice, Darth Maul. Follow him, the apprentice called Darth Maul, for he is my apprentice. His name is Darth Maul, by the way."

Lucas is so convinced of our collective idiocy, isn't he? You know, not everything in the OUT was explained to a T. And that's just fine! We can fill in the blanks, as long as what we just saw is plausible.


Good examples vote_for_palpatine. The way those items are expressed in the films only raises more questions. I mean how exactly does Yoda know about this “rule of two”? Should I assume he was a Sith? He sure seems to know more about the Dark Side than anyone in the films.

It kills me how George over-explains some things and then totally abandons other points that might benefit from further embellishment. How about someone explain to me what the Sith want revenge for? I mean that revenge is so important that it merited being the title of one of the films, but it was never explained. Who are the Sith seeking vengeance against? Is it the Jedi? Is it the Republic? Is it both? There are really only two lines in the PT that deal with the Sith and their motivations for revenge:

In TPM Maul says, “At last we will reveal ourselves to the Jedi, at last we will have our revenge”

So they will gain revenge by revealing themselves to the Jedi? This line doesn’t do much except reinforce the aforementioned rule of two. It is inferred that the Sith want revenge, but no motivation is revealed at any point in any of the movies.

In ROTS Mace says, “The oppression of the Sith will never return. Your plot to regain control of the Republic is over”

What does this really tell us about the Sith and their motivations? Well it indicates that the Sith once controlled the Republic and they were oppressive when they had that control. So what lost them their control? Perhaps the Jedi working in league with some sort of rebel group destroyed the Sith and took control. That would mean that the Sith want Revenge on both the Jedi and the Republic because they robbed them of their power. Of course I only reach that conclusion by making a bunch of assumptions and guesses, none of which are educated or based on anything more than conjecture.

In the end I know what the “New Hope” was, I know why and how the Empire Stuck Back and I know why the Jedi needed to return and how they did so. I know who the “Phantom Menace” was and I even saw a little bit of the Clones attacking. Shit I know why Dr. Evil wanted to get Austin Powers, but I don’t have a clue why the Sith wanted Revenge or what they wanted revenge for. I guess they just want revenge because that’s what bad guys want. One or two lines from ANY Sith could’ve provided an explanation, but I guess those had to be cut in the interest of more CG or juvenile humor.


"Look, going good against bashers/gushers is one thing. Going good against the living? That's something else."
- Darth-Adroit

“I also thought George could be turned back to the good side. It couldn't be done. He is more CGI now than story. Twisted and evil.”
- Darth-Adroit
Author
Time
Post link
The PT was designed to be future proof. In about 50 years or so if anyone is still watching old two dimensional movies on video screens the poor little 21st/22nd century tikes wouldn't get confused watching the movies in numericall order.
Author
Time
Post link
I also dislike the directions that Luca$h took the character of Anakin Skywalker. Having him be a mythical figure in Jedi lore and, particularly, using the tag 'The One' - I know I won't be the only one that was thinking of 'The Matrix'. I particularly hate the Immaculate Conception idea. The character of Anakin Skywalker would have been much more interesting without any of that shit. And the Force was much more interesting when it was something that permeated the entire universe and that you could learn to use through training, rather than the result of some kind of symbiotic protozoan.

Now I think about it, I reckon TPM is closer to a combination of 'Harry Potter' and 'The Matrix' than the OOT. It may just be me on this one, but I don't like many stories about legendary children with powers beyond their peers. I'm more interested in the quiet kid at the back who has to try really hard to do anything. That's why Roald Dahl writes stories that I still enjoy. On the face of it, there's nothing special about Charlie Bucket or Matilda or Sophie in 'The BFG'. But, as the stories unfold, you find that they are very special characters.

Luke Skywalker didn't exhibit strange powers. Sure, he was known to be a decent pilot amongst his friends but nobody in ANH is running around saying "He's The One!! He's The One!!!" and he's a much more engaging character because of that.
Don't you call me a mindless philosopher...!
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: auraloffalwaffle
I also dislike the directions that Luca$h took the character of Anakin Skywalker. Having him be a mythical figure in Jedi lore and, particularly, using the tag 'The One' - I know I won't be the only one that was thinking of 'The Matrix'.

The Matrix was the best Star Wars movie of the 1990s, possibly since 1983.

I particularly hate the Immaculate Conception idea. The character of Anakin Skywalker would have been much more interesting without any of that shit.


There was no Immaculate Conception idea in the PT, not as far as I can tell.

And the Force was much more interesting when it was something that permeated the entire universe and that you could learn to use through training, rather than the result of some kind of symbiotic protozoan.


Indeed, it went from "(binding) the universe together" to a telekinetic power battery that occasionally gave people misleading prophecies.
"It's the stoned movie you don't have to be stoned for." -- Tom Shales on Star Wars
Scruffy's gonna die the way he lived.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Scruffy
I particularly hate the Immaculate Conception idea. The character of Anakin Skywalker would have been much more interesting without any of that shit.


There was no Immaculate Conception idea in the PT, not as far as I can tell.


And thus starts another confusing debate between immaculate conception and virgin birth! Have fun!

There is no lingerie in space…

C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.

Author
Time
Post link
Scruffy, are you suggesting that the midichlorians all left their host cells, clubbed (sorry!) together and made themselves into some kind of phallus, shagged Shmi (try saying THAT 10 times, fast!) and then disbanded before she had time to see what was going on?
Don't you call me a mindless philosopher...!
Author
Time
Post link
No, he's suggesting that you're misusing the term "immaculate conception."

There is no lingerie in space…

C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.

Author
Time
Post link
Indeed (sorry for formatting my keyboard is broke)

Immaculate Conception is the miraculous conception of the Virgin Mary without Original Sin

There is no evidence that "Original Sin" exists in the Star Wars universe therefore no Immaculate Conception can take place (or all conception is immaculate)

Even is Anis did lack original sin he was never used as the vessel of a virgin birth (no uterus and no divinity trying to incarnate itself via Ani) and he certainly committed many of his own sins so the IC would be kind of pointless
"It's the stoned movie you don't have to be stoned for." -- Tom Shales on Star Wars
Scruffy's gonna die the way he lived.
Author
Time
Post link
Oh Jesus Christ. Has this debate really come down to this? The whole Mary and Jesus/ Shmi and Anakin thing is pretty thinly veiled in terms of its reference to Christian mythology. There's a definite allusion to the christ figure, savior thing in Anakin. 90% of the people I know refer to the birth of Jesus as the immaculate conception, and when they use the term in relation to the PT, that's the connection that they're making.
Author
Time
Post link
Scruffy's not arguing the obvious Christian parallels here, please understand. He's simply saying that the term immaculate conception is being misused to describe something completely different.

There is no lingerie in space…

C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.

Author
Time
Post link
I was using the term to highlight what, for me, is one of the most sickening introductions into the SW saga of blatant hijacking of Christian symbolism. I agree that it is totally inappropriate. But Luca$h put it in there, not me. I used the term to mean 'conception without sexual intercourse'. If that's not how you understand the term then fair enough. I am not suggesting that concepts of sin should be applied when considering the SW universe. I am suggesting that Luca$h was stupid enough to think that it would be really moving to have Anakin be conceived in a way guaranteed to remind most viewers of the conception of Jesus Christ. He, presumably, did this to try to tie the 'midichlorian' bollocks in with the 'Anakin as saviour of the universe' bollocks that he's tried to shoehorn in to the saga...

I was not intending to be reckless with the term and did not want to give offence to any Christian members, okay?
Don't you call me a mindless philosopher...!
Author
Time
Post link
Sigh. We know what you're saying. And I agree. It's stupid that he made Anakin a virgin birth. You're not offending any Christians. You're simply using a different Christian term to describe it. An incorrect one. That's all we're saying. You're not being reckless with it. You're just using one Christian term to describe a situation that's completely different.

To recap: Virgin birth and immaculate conception are two different phenomena.

There is no lingerie in space…

C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Darth-Adroit
Good examples vote_for_palpatine. The way those items are expressed in the films only raises more questions. I mean how exactly does Yoda know about this “rule of two”? Should I assume he was a Sith? He sure seems to know more about the Dark Side than anyone in the films.

It kills me how George over-explains some things and then totally abandons other points that might benefit from further embellishment. How about someone explain to me what the Sith want revenge for? I mean that revenge is so important that it merited being the title of one of the films, but it was never explained. Who are the Sith seeking vengeance against? Is it the Jedi? Is it the Republic? Is it both? There are really only two lines in the PT that deal with the Sith and their motivations for revenge:

In TPM Maul says, “At last we will reveal ourselves to the Jedi, at last we will have our revenge”

So they will gain revenge by revealing themselves to the Jedi? This line doesn’t do much except reinforce the aforementioned rule of two. It is inferred that the Sith want revenge, but no motivation is revealed at any point in any of the movies.

In ROTS Mace says, “The oppression of the Sith will never return. Your plot to regain control of the Republic is over”

What does this really tell us about the Sith and their motivations? Well it indicates that the Sith once controlled the Republic and they were oppressive when they had that control. So what lost them their control? Perhaps the Jedi working in league with some sort of rebel group destroyed the Sith and took control. That would mean that the Sith want Revenge on both the Jedi and the Republic because they robbed them of their power. Of course I only reach that conclusion by making a bunch of assumptions and guesses, none of which are educated or based on anything more than conjecture.

In the end I know what the “New Hope” was, I know why and how the Empire Stuck Back and I know why the Jedi needed to return and how they did so. I know who the “Phantom Menace” was and I even saw a little bit of the Clones attacking. Shit I know why Dr. Evil wanted to get Austin Powers, but I don’t have a clue why the Sith wanted Revenge or what they wanted revenge for. I guess they just want revenge because that’s what bad guys want. One or two lines from ANY Sith could’ve provided an explanation, but I guess those had to be cut in the interest of more CG or juvenile humor.
Do you realize how hypocritical you're being? First you're saying how they explained things in the prequels you would've liked to imagine happen in your demented little head instead, yet now you're making it sound bad that they're making questions like that with the new prequels! There was a 16 year difference in between RotJ and TPM, why would you not want those questions answered? I think it was great the way George Lucas gave people all that time to answer them, so people could wonder for years and then finally find out the truely canon answer, than just releasing the prequels three years after RotJ. Of course, you people know nothing about being creative.
Author
Time
Post link
Yeah, because, you know, it's just so darned creative to make three movies that totally contradict every bit of backstory mentioned in your previous three movies to the point that you have to go back to those three movies and make changes to them to cover your ass.

God bless creativity!

There is no lingerie in space…

C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.

Author
Time
Post link
You know, I'm sick of people saying this crap about contradictions. Okay, I will explain every contradiction I've heard about, and why it's not contradicting, and if there are any I left out, then go ahead and tell me what I did leave out and I will explain that.

Obi-Wan saying that he had two pupils, Anakin Skywalker and Darth Vader: He said this in order to make the tale sound more dramatic to Luke and the audience, claiming that Darth Vader was a different pupil of his, showing that Darth Vader and Anakin Skywalker knew each other.
Obi-Wan not telling Luke his father was Vader: Okay, ever since the prequel trilogy, many mentally retarded people have been asking this for some odd reason. It was a fucking secret, they're not going to change that just because the prequel trilogy came out and not let Luke know his father was Vader.
Obi-Wan claiming he was trained by Yoda and not Qui-Gon: Why exactly would Luke need to know about Qui-Gon? He's in the snow, he's trying his best to stay alive, why would Obi-Wan say "Run to Dagobah, and find master Yoda. Oh and Qui-Gon taught me as a padawan."
The new emporer scene: Have you ever thought maybe Vader asks "how is this possible" because he's just in disbelief that a Jedi gave birth when it's against the Jedi code? I'd be surprised too.
"Jedi Rocks" being a song about Jedi after the extermination: Jabba knows about Jedi. Remember when he tells Bib that he was fooled about a Jedi mind trick? Jabba's lair is very secretive, there are absolutely no imperials there. So why not sing a song about Jedi? Now if Jedi Rocks was played in a cantina or something, that'd be a different story. Also note that even if there were stormtroopers there, they probably don't even know what Jedi are either, nor that they are supposed to be extinct. That's something only people who lived during the prequel trilogy would know.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Whiners
You know, I'm sick of people saying this crap about contradictions. Okay, I will explain every contradiction I've heard about, and why it's not contradicting, and if there are any I left out, then go ahead and tell me what I did leave out and I will explain that.

Well, how kind of you, Mr. All-Knowing and All-Seeing. There's no need to be condescending, alright?

Obi-Wan saying that he had two pupils, Anakin Skywalker and Darth Vader: He said this in order to make the tale sound more dramatic to Luke and the audience, claiming that Darth Vader was a different pupil of his, showing that Darth Vader and Anakin Skywalker knew each other.
Obi-Wan not telling Luke his father was Vader: Okay, ever since the prequel trilogy, many mentally retarded people have been asking this for some odd reason. It was a fucking secret, they're not going to change that just because the prequel trilogy came out and not let Luke know his father was Vader.

Honestly, I agree with you. I never considered that to be a contradiction caused by the prequels. So your point is moot to me.


Obi-Wan claiming he was trained by Yoda and not Qui-Gon: Why exactly would Luke need to know about Qui-Gon? He's in the snow, he's trying his best to stay alive, why would Obi-Wan say "Run to Dagobah, and find master Yoda. Oh and Qui-Gon taught me as a padawan."


Not necessarily a contradiction, but did you ever think that maybe Qui-Gon was a pretty useless character to begin with? The contradiction lies in that Qui-Gon's character is suspiciously like how Ben described himself in the original movies. You know, impressed at Anakin's flying skills and his strength with the Force? Hmm, in TPM, it seemed that Qui-Gon thought all that, and Obi-Wan thought he was a dangerous, pathetic lifeform and only decided to train him when his dying master guilt tripped him into it. Also, and this is just my personal opinion, but Padawan is a stupid word. As are Youngling and Dooku.

The new emporer scene: Have you ever thought maybe Vader asks "how is this possible" because he's just in disbelief that a Jedi gave birth when it's against the Jedi code? I'd be surprised too.


But he is the Jedi! He knew his wife was pregnant! He knew it was against the code. I'm not sure how this argument of yours makes any sense. Once again, I've never said that scene contradicts anything in lieu of the prequels. It was just totally unnecessary and contradicts things within its own movie.

"Jedi Rocks" being a song about Jedi after the extermination: Jabba knows about Jedi. Remember when he tells Bib that he was fooled about a Jedi mind trick? Jabba's lair is very secretive, there are absolutely no imperials there. So why not sing a song about Jedi? Now if Jedi Rocks was played in a cantina or something, that'd be a different story. Also note that even if there were stormtroopers there, they probably don't even know what Jedi are either, nor that they are supposed to be extinct. That's something only people who lived during the prequel trilogy would know.


First of all, I really don't know this. Perhaps you do. Is "Jedi Rocks" really a song about Jedi in the first place, or is that just what it was named in the real world? Personally, I don't find anything contradictory about this. It's just a damned stupid song and a completely unnecessary change.

So most of the "contradictory" points you brought up... aren't really contradictory at all. You can try again if you want to unless you want me to help.

There is no lingerie in space…

C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.

Author
Time
Post link
If they're not contradicting at all, than why do you people whine about contradictions?

And yes, the thing about Vader being the Jedi, of course that's the real reason he's asking "How is this possible?", but to people watching it for the first time could think he's just talking about another Jedi existing. But this scene actually works much better if you watch the whole saga in episode order anyway. Vader being the real father is no secret anymore anyway, thanks to pop culture.
Author
Time
Post link
Because you didn't bring up any of the real contradictions. There are contradictions, some of which I brought up in my last post that you didn't feel the need to address.

Ben (ROTJ): When I first knew him, your father was already a great pilot, but I was amazed at how strongly the Force was with him. I took it upon myself to train him as a Jedi. I thought that I could instruct him just as well as Yoda. I was wrong.

Read that line while you have images of TPM in your head. Does that really seem to match up with this?

Obi-Wan (TPM): The boy is dangerous. The council senses it. Why can't you?

Doesn't sound very amazed to me. Does he to you?

New Emperor scene: Well, I just want to ask you why you think it's better to watch them in numerical order. Since the prequels exist solely to explain the events in the original trilogy, doesn't that ruin the emotional impact? Also, the prequels contain so many "cool" in-jokes to the original trilogy that you simply wouldn't get if you didn't watch the originals first.

The big contradiction. How in the world does Leia remember her mother if her mother died three seconds after she was born? The way ROTJ Leia talks about her, it sounds like they were together for at least a few years before she died. It simply does not make sense that Leia would remember her and Luke not if they were both newborn infants. Explain that one, please.

There is no lingerie in space…

C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Gaffer Tape
The big contradiction. How in the world does Leia remember her mother if her mother died three seconds after she was born? The way ROTJ Leia talks about her, it sounds like they were together for at least a few years before she died. It simply does not make sense that Leia would remember her and Luke not if they were both newborn infants. Explain that one, please.


Absolutely. That, for me also, was the big contradiction. So much so that I started a thread about it in General Star Wars Discussion. It should still be in there, gathering dust...

Whiners, the events you listed are not contradictions and, what's more, I've yet to find them mentioned as such on this site. So what, exactly, is your point?

Hey, Gaffer Tape! Sure beats debating Christian terminology, huh? Sorry about that, by the way. I read back my last post and it was a little... histrionic. I had always assumed that virgin birth and immacculate conception were more or less synonymous but, to be honest, I don't care enough about it to discuss it further. As you've said, we all know what I was trying to say, and that's the main thing, ain't it?!
Don't you call me a mindless philosopher...!
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: auraloffalwaffle
I was using the term to highlight what, for me, is one of the most sickening introductions into the SW saga of blatant hijacking of Christian symbolism. I agree that it is totally inappropriate. But Luca$h put it in there, not me. I used the term to mean 'conception without sexual intercourse'.

Then you are using the term incorrectly. It would be like me using the term "star destroyer" to describe what the Emperor was building over the Sanctuary Moon of Endor. Yes, it belongs to the technical vocabulary of Star Wars, but that doesn't mean it describes the Star Wars notion that I think it does.

If that's not how you understand the term then fair enough.

It's not a matter of my understanding, it's a matter of universal denotation and exacting definition by an authoritative source.

I am not suggesting that concepts of sin should be applied when considering the SW universe.


But the term you chose derives directly from the concept of sin and is meaningless without that concept. If you seek some concept that does not relate to sin, you would be well advised to choose your words more carefully. "Virgin birth" is the obvious choice; although Schmi probably wasn't a virgin, the parallel to Christianity is correct. "Parthenogenesis" might also work.

I am suggesting that Luca$h was stupid enough to think that it would be really moving to have Anakin be conceived in a way guaranteed to remind most viewers of the conception of Jesus Christ. He, presumably, did this to try to tie the 'midichlorian' bollocks in with the 'Anakin as saviour of the universe' bollocks that he's tried to shoehorn in to the saga...


Probably. Or maybe he just didn't want to bother with a real Skywalker family history going back further than Anakin. I suspect there's some truth in both.

I was not intending to be reckless with the term and did not want to give offence to any Christian members, okay?


Fair enough. I don't even believe in the Immaculate Conception. But there's no reason to go around raping the language.

And I'm surprised so few people have brought that up as a possible origin for little Ani.
"It's the stoned movie you don't have to be stoned for." -- Tom Shales on Star Wars
Scruffy's gonna die the way he lived.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Gaffer Tape
Because you didn't bring up any of the real contradictions. There are contradictions, some of which I brought up in my last post that you didn't feel the need to address.

Ben (ROTJ): When I first knew him, your father was already a great pilot, but I was amazed at how strongly the Force was with him. I took it upon myself to train him as a Jedi. I thought that I could instruct him just as well as Yoda. I was wrong.

Read that line while you have images of TPM in your head. Does that really seem to match up with this?

Obi-Wan (TPM): The boy is dangerous. The council senses it. Why can't you?

Doesn't sound very amazed to me. Does he to you?

New Emperor scene: Well, I just want to ask you why you think it's better to watch them in numerical order. Since the prequels exist solely to explain the events in the original trilogy, doesn't that ruin the emotional impact? Also, the prequels contain so many "cool" in-jokes to the original trilogy that you simply wouldn't get if you didn't watch the originals first.

The big contradiction. How in the world does Leia remember her mother if her mother died three seconds after she was born? The way ROTJ Leia talks about her, it sounds like they were together for at least a few years before she died. It simply does not make sense that Leia would remember her and Luke not if they were both newborn infants. Explain that one, please.


Basically, they should of had the character of Qui-Gon to have been Obi-Wan instead. That would also make the ages of Obi-Wan and Anakin make more sense.

The problem is that there really is no 'proper viewing order' anymore. If you watch them in numerical order, you ruin the whole "I am your father" bit. I guess that release order (IV-VI;1-III) is better but that one then isn't in chronological order in my opinion leaves the series hanging without a happy ending. I personally like happy endings.

Leia remembering her mother: this is something that shows why prequels are hard to do. Yes, this is a contradiction. But I'm not sure that having Padme live would be a good idea. The character needed closure, and her death does that. Otherwise, you have the question of "whatever happened to Padme?" If she's dead, why? How did she keep her survival secret from Vader/Anakin. Why would she want to, when she seemed to think she could talk some sense back into Anakin and turn him back to the light side. I just don't see how Padme surviving through ROTS would work. But then you are stuck with the contradiction, and the lame attempts to explain it, which usually center around "its the force".

Of course, my personal things I wished they didn't explain was the rule of 2,which then messes up lots of stuff in the OOT. Why did Vader suggest turning Luke to the dark, if he knew there 'couldn't' be three sith? Why didn't Vader let Luke cut Palpatine down in ROTJ? Why couldn't there be three dark Jedi, all working together for evil (this is how I thought it would of worked if Luke turned, when I first saw ROTJ as a kid, and would still like to think of it today.)
I also hated the bit about Palpatine isn't that old in ROTJ, but he's just scarred. And why couldn't they get the make-up in ROTS match ROTJ? Did they not even see how the Emperor looked in that movie?
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: auraloffalwaffle

Hey, Gaffer Tape! Sure beats debating Christian terminology, huh? Sorry about that, by the way. I read back my last post and it was a little... histrionic. I had always assumed that virgin birth and immacculate conception were more or less synonymous but, to be honest, I don't care enough about it to discuss it further. As you've said, we all know what I was trying to say, and that's the main thing, ain't it?!


No big deal, man. I hope I didn't come across as too harsh. But I used to think they were referring to the same thing, too, so I'm just trying to do some looking out.

There is no lingerie in space…

C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.