Vaderisnothayden

I'm in the Boba Fett is overrated camp. I see him as an overrated thug ("bounty hunter scum") who got his just comeuppance in ROTJ and never rose again (unless you count coming back from the sarlacc without his memories in the Marvel comics only to be flushed back down it again, never to be heard from again). Nifty outfit, excellent voice acting from Wingreen, but overall an annoying character who had the cheek to kidnap the great Solo. Loved his death. Hate the 90s EU's resurrection of him and its flogging of him and the way he's built up into The Greatest Thing Ever. I don't get why he's seen as so cool. Yeah, he fucked up things for the main characters, but not without a lot of help from Darth Vader. Dirty little scumbag working for the empire like that.  And fucking up things for the main characters hardly gets him points in my book. I was so ELATED that he was offed in ROTJ. I wanted to twist his head off myself, but I settled for Solo sending him into the Sarlacc.

I mostly didn't see what the big fuss was with the bounty hunters, though I liked Bossk and IG88. The toy packs advertised a mail-in Dengar and I wondered why anybody would want that idiot. And like wtf did he have bandages around his head for anyway? Looked scruffy.

I didn't welcome the Fetts being shoehorned into the prequels and I was prejudiced against Jango from the beginning for being the proto-Boba, though he was an annoying motherfucker in his own right too. The best part of AOTC was when Jango got his head chopped off. I was very disappointed that Lucas chickened out and didn't show the head drop out of the helmet when kid Boba picked it up. And we're supposed to feel sorry for that nasty little creep just because daddy Jangle got his just comeuppance? I certainly felt no sympathy. The AOTC Fett story stinks of pandering to fans, which also pissed me off. I can't understand Fett fandom. The Fetts are just crude thugs, not worth being fans of. Vader, Han, Luke, Leia, Lando, old Kenobi, ROTJ Jabba (a thug but a cool one) -those are characters worth being fans of.

I also dislike it when Star Wars flogs anything as cool. That's because the old films didn't really do that. There were plenty things that were cool in there but the films didn't push them as being such. The prequels push a lot of things as being cool. Notably lightsaber battles, Yoda with a saber, the Jedi and Darth Maul. It's a showier more self-satisfied mentality. The EU pushed things as cool even in the days of the OOT and Boba Fett was a focus of this. The holiday special pushed him as the best bounty hunter in the galaxy and the 1980 newspaper comic strip flogged how he was invulnerable in his armor and was so effective with the gadgetry in his outfit. It was rubbed in. The 90s EU built up on this massively. Boba Fett was everywhere and the coolest thing ever and they even retconned that he was a very moral guy in his own right and looked down on Han's supposed lack of morality. Barf me out.

If you want Mandalorians (a lot of people seem to), there's Fenn Shysa (who shared my view of Fett) and Tobbi Dala (who died really well) and Rohlan Dyre isn't half bad either. We don't need Fetts.

Lol!

I am going to look for logic though, because I want a bit of logic in all things.

Mistake. Not everything goes by logic. Certainly not ROTJ. 

Most things in Star Wars had some kind of logic behind it, why should logic suddenly go out the window as soon as the Emporer dies?

Logic was never the number one priority with Star Wars and it was certainly a lower priority than wrapping up the story with a happy ending. You know, you can find plenty logic holes in ANH and ESB. The imperial stormtroopers have this fancy armor and it's no good against the most common weapon in the galaxy. They always miss. Why the hell are these morons employed by the empire? Because Star Wars isn't terribly concerned with logic.

(I agree, the Ewoks defeating the Imperials with sticks and stones was no logical, and it has always bothered me. But the Rebels are out there fighting too, so it can be reasoned that the Ewoks were more of a distraction than anything. Ultimately, the whole Ewok battle is a very minor part of the whole trilogy. The Han rescue was the other bit of the that was devoid of logic.)

No, the ewoks were beating the crap out of imperials quite well by themselves. We saw it onscreen. The ewoks weren't just a distraction. We saw them do plenty damage to imperials. The ewok battle was not a minor part of the trilogy (I'm sure you wish it was). It was a significant event in ROTJ. And the ewoks were beating the crap out of the imperials. Big sign that ROTJ wasn't as interested in logic as you are. You think the Han rescue was also illogical. Fine, another sign. If the first part of the film and the middle of the film are both illogical, why is it so hard to believe that the ending wasn't concerned with logic either?

Let's remember, if the ending was concerned with logic the ewoks would be getting pelted with debris from the destroyed Death Star and there would be no room for celebration.

I consider the logical lapses of ROTJ to be a major black mark on the trilogy. I'd like to assume the Imperial fleet simple retreated when they realized the Executor and the Death Star were lost. That would be a perfectly logical thing to do. No sense in waiting around to be dealt more damage.

Perfectly logical, fine, but we're not operating in the realm of logic here. You're insisting on logic in a fiction where logic is not the priority. You're coming at ROTJ the wrong way. You're in conflict with the film. Which should come as no surprise, considering how much issues you have with the film. I don't consider ROTJ's lapses in logic to be any sort of black mark, because I accept it and Star Wars as what they are. You however are not accepting ROTJ as what it is. You want it to be something different and you want the ending to be different from what it was. So you're trying to convince yourself it was different.

Why impose more illogical nonsense on the poor film by making assumptions when the end is left pretty vague?

The ending of ROTJ wasn't left vague. There was a clear emotional message of the war and the conflict being ended. Very different from the end of ANH.

I also don't believe the film needed a happy ending where the Empire was entirely defeated. The other two films didn't end that way. Movies about war can still end on a happy note even if the war doesn't end with the film.

You're forgetting you're talking about a trilogy of fairytale kid films here. That sort of film needs a fully wrapped up happy ending and it got such an ending. The conflict was over so the story could be wrapped up neatly. As Baronlando said, it was a fairytale ending. And they lived happily ever after. The other two films didn't end that way because they weren't the end of the trilogy. And ROTJ was less logical than the other 2. ROTJ wasn't a "movie about war". It was a fairytale kids' film.

I'll remind you that on the other thread you told me that your view was wrong and mine was right. To quote:

Vaderisnohayden, this conversation is not worth wasting so much time on. We could go on forever. Obviously I am wrong. I was very young when ROTJ came out, and I obviously misunderstood it, and honestly, who can blame me since it was an unfinished version of the film I grew up with. George's original vision all along was to shows the entire galaxy celebrating the end of the Empire, but it simply wasn't possibly due to technology limitation of the eighties.

I get where you are coming from, and understand what you are saying. I concede that you are right, I am sure that was George's original intention to have the Empire be 100% finished at that point, the story is just a hell of a lot more interesting to me if this isn't the case. Just as Star Wars is a lot more interesting to you if Hayden is not Darth Vader.

Also, a very good post by Zombie on the topic:

zombie84 said:

I agree--logically, the ROTJ ending makes no sense; yet emotionally, it was always quite obvious to me that the message conveyed was that the Empire was defeated, and good guys won. I mean you practically could have had

"And they lived happily ever after"

when the iris closes on the final shot. Thats the point--thats the message you get. They can't live happily ever after if ROTJ just amounts to a strategic victory, the message throughout the entire movie, emotionally, is that "this is the final battle--it gets decided tonight", which is why all the sacrifice and basically putting your eggs in one basket approach (ie send the entire Alliance in a last-ditch battle to destroy the death star). 

Personally, i never considered that there was the Empire out there, and I never knew anyone that did either--the film says "the good guys won, the Empire is defeated." Certainly that is what Lucas was trying to convey, and I think it largely worked, even if it doesn't work in a real-life setting, but then Star Wars has always been full of logical holes like this. While we are contemplating why the Rebels are celebrating what is only a strategic victory, we might also be contemplating how they can be celebrating on a planet that should be having nuclear winter.

Btw, on the set of ESB lucas said that in the next film the empire would be finally defeated. Add that to the 83 novelization saying the empire is dead and the SE scenes saying it's over and the EU before Zahn's revisionism treating the empire as over. Yeah I think Lucas's intention in 1983 was for the empire to be over.

Don't look for logic. This is the film in which teddy bears with sticks and stones defeated armored soldiers with high tech weapons. They stopped fighting because the trilogy was to end with a happy ending with the bad guys defeated and the conflict over.

OzoneSherrif said:

Even in the original ROTJ version without shots of all the planets celebrating... you still have the problem of that massive fleet of Star Destroyers just fleeing after Death Star 2 explodes.

Well presumably you're supposed to assume they surrendered after the death star fell, just like the rest of the imperials in the galaxy.

warwon said:

What about all Lucas talk about the next 3 movies after Return of Jedi, thats what I mean. He has said more then once that he planned more movies with luke, then in a interview a few months later he says the opposite.

 

It just really bugging me

That's not movies about fighting the empire. That's movies about running the new government and stuff like that.

C3PX said:

I agree. What the hell? Is there supposedly some group of SW fans out there begging the flanneled one not to release the originals on DVD in watchable form?

Knowing certain types of fans, there probably is.

C3PX said:

Just to be clear, I am agreeing with you, warwon. I think it is dumb. And while I was not a huge fan of the trilogy ending with a song that includes the words, "Yub nub" and "celebrate the love", I am even less fond of the ridiculousness of the abrupt end to the Galactic Empire just because their decrepit old leader bites the dust. Surely they had some plan in motion in the event of his death. Even a Sith Lord has to die sometime.

However, in the previous discussion, I was out numbered by those who thought the EU was crap and Star Wars worked better featuring The Amazing Instantaneous Crumbling Empire® (just kill the Emporer and add water and have your very own crumbling empire in mere seconds! Adult supervision required.)

You weren't outnumbered. But you admitted you were mistaken and claimed to see my point of view. Nor was it an issue of whether the EU was crap or Star Wars worked better with an instantaneously crumbling empire. The issue was whether the original intention back in 1983 was that the empire ended after Palpatine's death. As for the EU, the point was not that it was crap. The point was that it was just the EU and that the 90s EU was doing a revisionist take when it had the empire continue in a major way after ROTJ. 

warwon said:

Geez, I can get over the whole thing with the dath vader ghost being replaced as it fits into the new series.

I can't. That was a travesty.

The empire ending after the death of the emperor is the way a lot of people understand the end of ROTJ, including before the SE and back in 83. It's in the ROTJ novelization too. The last words of the novelization are "The empire was dead. Long live the rebellion."

Another reflection on the film: It's terribly bland. It's the blandest of the prequels.

skyjedi2005 said:

I don't care what Lucas put in the prequels.  To me Boba will always be Jaster Mareel a former stormtrooper .

Clone of some no name Jango played by a bad actor, nope.

Just like Vader is not pictured in my mind while watching the oot as a whiny Hayden in a suit.

The EU backstory for fett from the early days is much more acceptable to me than Lucas revised version in the prequels.  Having Fett being a little kid like Anakin was in Episode 1 and just as annoying but actually more than Jake was.

The prequels gave FETT's motivation as he hates Jedi because Windu killed his daddy, roflmfao.

I always wondered why fett hated Han Solo personally. What was their history.  Did they bump into one another in the imperial navy?

The EU had some sort of cockeyed explanation why Fett had it in for Solo. Something along the lines of Fett had a moral code (riiiight) and Solo didn't fit with that code.

DarkFather said:

Essentially, their facial structures are similar (objectively so), they're both ethnic (as someone said, if they got gotten a blond haired, fair-skinned boy instead it would be a problem), and it was aesthetically a good casting choice. The next best thing they could have done is actually generated a young clone of Morrison, and the only one asking that of Lucas is you.

Vaderisnothayden, I suggest looking up "cognitive dissonance" and reflecting on how it applies to this situation for you.

Are you turning into a broken record now? Is there some purpose in you reposting you previous post? 

Also, there's a hell of a lot more that matters about people's appearances than hair and skin color. I also find it pretty strange that you think blond fair-skinned people don't have any ethnicity. That use of the term "ethnic" is insulting to both the people it is used to refer to and the people who it counts out. Everybody has ethnicity, because everybody belongs to one or more ethnic groups. And people who are not stereotypical northern white should not be all lumped under one heading like they're all the same and have no distinct identity of their own.

Temuera Morrison and Daniel Logan are Maori, not just "ethnic". Maori is an ethnic group native to New Zealand. But whatever you do, don't go saying this makes Daniel Logan brilliant casting. Being of the same ethnic group does not make two people look the same. And if the aim was to find a Maori kid who looked like Morrison, there are bound to have been a lot of Maori kids in New Zealand who looked much more like Morrison than Logan did. I can't help but suspect there's a sort all-Maori-look-the-same-let's-get-any-old-Maori-kid attitude active in the casting. People can be really stupid about seeing differences between members of non-white groups. Apparently some people even mistake Samuel L Jackson for Laurence Fishburne, according to Jackson himself. Jackson looks nothing like Fishburne, but to some people all black people look the same.

Also, the whole question of whether my original post was ridiculous or not does NOT hinge on whether or not the kid looked like Morrison. Let's pretend for a moment that he DID look like Morrison. Then my view would simply be a case of me being a bit too particular about actors' appearances. That would hardly be a huge issue. It wouldn't be "RIDICULOUS". You and some other people would have made way too big a fuss about this. Maybe THAT would be ridiculous, have you considered that? A huge fuss made just because a poster would be (shock! horror!) a bit more particular than most people about actors being similar. I mean, really.

(As it is stands, Daniel Logan's face is significantly different in a number of major ways from Morrison's and he has overall a different sort of face. Casting him as Jango's clone is just bullshit.)

DarkFather said:

It would be me basically saying the same thing that others have already so grandly said themselves.

Essentially, their facial structures are similar (objectively so), they're both ethnic (as someone said, if they got gotten a blond haired, fair-skinned boy instead it would be a problem), and it was aesthetically a good casting choice. The next best thing they could have done is actually generated a young clone of Morrison, and the only one asking that of Lucas is you.

Vaderisnothayden, I suggest looking up "cognitive dissonance" and reflecting on how it applies to this situation for you.

No, the facial structures are not objectively similar. They are similar only in the perceptions of people who fail to see the distinct differences. And it's ludicrous to say the next best thing they could have done was get an actual clone of Morrison. There are a ton of kids who look more like Morrison than Logan does. What this comes down to is you can't grasp that the two faces are different and you refuse to acknowledge that there might be something you are failing to see, so you assume I must be wrong. And to you wrong seems to mean "ridiculous".

And this isn't about cognitive dissonance. This is a simple case of two people looking different and me not being willing to accept them as the same because I can see they're not the same and I think Lucas could have done a lot better and I think passing the kid off as a clone of Jango is an insult to the audience's intelligence.

I'm not entirely sure you mean to imply by your reference to cognitive dissonance, but I'm going to guess that you are entertaining the dumb notion that I wanted Boba to be not a clone so I convinced myself that he looks different. But I'm actually a lot more concerned about faces than I am about Boba Fett's story. I never liked Boba Fett. I like Wingreen's voice work and the outfit, but the character has always annoyed me. I loved it when he got killed in ROTJ and I hate the EU resurrection of him. When I first saw Attack of the Clones, Boba's story didn't matter to me. I was much more concerned about them fucking up Anakin. But I WAS bothered by them trying to pass off the kid as a clone of Jango, because he didn't look like Jango. Like I said, faces matter to me. I wasn't going to accept the bullshit that this kid was a clone of that guy when they looked so different. I was insulted that Lucas should consider us so dumb as to buy that. The issue of Boba's story has come to matter a bit more to me since I considered the prequels more over the years, but I'm still more concerned with the issue of the kid being insult-to-the-intelligence casting than with the issue of Boba being turned into a clone of Jangle-all-the-way Fett.

So you're getting it upside down. It's not because I dislike the clone idea that I think the kid is bad casting. I think the kid is bad casting because I think the kid is bad casting (as in because he doesn't look enough like Morrison). To some extent you might even say I dislike the clone idea because I dislike the casting. Like I said, you got it upside down (or backwards, or however you want to put that).

So how about you don't try coming up with stupid dismissive theories about what's going on in my head when you don't have a fucking clue what's going on in there? This is the second stupid theory about me you've come out with on this thread. Not so long ago you were accusing me of being 007 the undercover TFN agent. Your theories are way more ridiculous than anything I've said.

How about you refrain from theorizing about what's going on in my head from now on? Because you're not very good at it.

Watching it again now. Having fun laughing at it. The worst thing about the romance is that Annie and Padme come off utterly moronic, like they haven't a brain cell between them.

I'm not sure I like that either. I think more harm than good can be done by restricting editing.

TheBoost said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

If people start debating with me it's only reasonable for me to debate back. I don't think it necessarily follows that if some people seem to dislike my posts then they must have a good reason. People can dislike things for bad reasons too.   

 

 While I still think your original post borders on the silly, (which is of course your right as a sentient being to have an opinion) I apologize for saying I thought you were a parodist. I didn't mean to stir up any bad feelings on this thread.

Ok. :) You're entitled to think my opinion is silly if you want to.

DarkFather said:

 

That bit about the suspect list makes you sound like you think you're a cop. It's pretty funny.

 

Hey, I half apologized to you jackhole. That's all you're getting from me.

Yeah, but you also grandly declared I was on your suspect list, which wasn't too friendly and sounded pretty funny. Also, you haven't explained why you think my original post was so ridiculous.

I don't know, I think the Clone Wars Anakin is pretty limited. He comes off too much like a bland Joe Shmoe. He's better than Hayden Anakin, but that's about it. The only real Anakin as far as I'm concerned is Sebastian Shaw's.

As for Mace Windu's Vapaad, I can't stand how the EU builds up Mace Windu into this bloody god figure. Oh he's got a special lightsaber style that's better than anybody else's and allows him to use his anger without going dark, and hardly anybody else can master it and those who try go dark. Isn't he so fucking wonderful and cool. And he has this shatterpoints ability to see weak points or something. And he was on the council at 28. And he's the bestest lightsaber fighter in the galaxy. And isn't he so cool. And he has a purple lighsaber because he's just the coolest. It's nauseating. Onscreen he was totally flat because Samuel L Jackson (who's actually a great actor) was totally miscast.

Anyway, prequels Annie is dumb, too dumb to know what "oblate" means.

Sluggo said:

Seriously.  The Death Star didn't need to be in either Episodes 2 or 3.

Yeah. The second death star took about 4 years to build and the first one took 20? The Death Star was supposed to be the cutting edge in new tech, not something worked out 20 years before. Having the death star appear in ROTS and Tarkin appear with Vader was having the end of the prequels match the beginning of the OT too much. Same goes for having R2 and 3PO being on the Tantive IV with Captain Antilles at the end. Does nothing change or develop in 20 years? It's like the small galaxy thing of having Yoda be best buddies with Chewbacca and C3P0 be built by Annie. It's dumb and artificial and unimaginative.

generalfrevious said:

Well then, Lucas couldn't even realize that Anakin was the lynchpin of his vision and not be some emo kid that nobody likes.

I think when Lucas came back to Star Wars in 94 (or maybe even as early as 90, judging by a quote), he had a thoroughly revised interpretation of the story and the characters and he totally changed the sort of person Anakin was supposed to be. Hayden's performance makes it worse, but if you look at the writing for Anakin it's not good either. Whiney megalomaniac who goes "I hate you!" and all that. Hayden's performance may actually be what Lucas was looking for, what he envisioned Anakin as. In other words, his vision of Anakin got totally screwed and became entirely incompatible with the OT. I mean, no way is Sebastian Shaw playing an older version of the guy we saw in the prequels and no way is the OT's Vader the same guy as Hayden's Anakin, or as Mr "Nooooooo!" either.

Please don't restrict the editing of posts. Post editing can be invaluable for correcting stupid mistaks you make. Like you post something you thought was well thought-out (and you read it over before you post it), but when it's posted you find it was too aggressive and you can go back and edit it so it doesn't provoke a fight.

Also, I'm against locking the first post of a thread. I started a thread which got me ridiculed and it became obvious to me that one reason I was getting so much ridicule was that people were misunderstanding the view I was presenting. So I went back to the first post. I didn't do what you are clearly worried about. I didn't edit out anything from it. I didn't remove any text. I just added an end note explaining my viewpoint better. The reason posting it later in the thread wasn't good enough is that people were clearly coming to the thread and reading the first post and then posting a reaction rather than reading all my explanation way later on in the thread. I wanted an explanation that would be read along with my first post, to counter the negative impression the first post gave. I didn't want a post sitting there encouraging people to laugh at me for all eternity. I've had some very uncomfortable experiences on this site and the ability to edit that post made me feel a bit better. My approach does not remove anything but allows correction. I clearly labeled my edited-in end note as something that was added in later, complete with a date.

Now if you made it impossible to take text out of a first post but not impossible to add text then I could still do what I did. So please if you do lock first posts, only do so partially and allow addition of new text at the end of the post.

If people start debating with me it's only reasonable for me to debate back. I don't think it necessarily follows that if some people seem to dislike my posts then they must have a good reason. People can dislike things for bad reasons too. If you look at this thread, I got mocked before I did any debating with anybody. I'm not so sure that absolutely everybody is happy with me looking at things differently. Difference bothers people. That is well documented. I don't mean any offense to anybody by saying that (or anything else I say in this post), but I do seem to get an awful lot of trouble for disagreeing with the majority.

Thank you for your thoughts, though. I understand you're trying to help. But it would perhaps be more comfortable if you took that sort of thing to PM.

(And I know I just did what you say I do, I debated with you, but I kind of had to, because what you said was unintentionally accusatory. I had to defend how I post. But I understand you were trying to help and I appreciate your insight. However, like I said, I would appreciate if such stuff was done by PM in the future.)

DarkFather said:

Your first post in this thread wins as most ridiculous thing here. Bar none.

And why is that exactly? Come on, explain it to me, because I don't see what's so ridiculous about it.

You must be new to the fan community, or you'd know that sort of thing isn't exactly unheard of. With militant PT gushers, you're scraping the very bottom of the weird barrel. They'll do all sorts of things to give the PT a better name.

I don't care whether it's unheard of or not. It's ridiculous in the extreme to accuse me of that.

If I'm wrong about you specifically, and accusing an innocent person, I do apologize. However, you remain on my suspect list.

That bit about the suspect list makes you sound like you think you're a cop. It's pretty funny.

I vote ROTS as the worst prequel. Hayden ranting and the horribly overacted emperor, the Mustafart battle and the Yoda/Palpatine fight, plus Padme being reduced to a total nothing, all topped off with "Noooooo!!"

But AOTC is pretty rotten. It's just not as extreme as ROTS. Those two films are way worse than TPM. TPM actually has some charm, just not when compared to the OT films. AOTC and ROTS are total dogshite and have some of the lamest stuff in cinema history. "You underestimate my POWER!!!" "I hate you!!!"

The Yoda/Dooku fight is idiotic. Yoda buzzing around, flitting around, like a big glowing bug. And Dooku also comes off so full of himself. The arena battle was pathetic. All this big spectacle with all these Jedi and it was done so feelinglessly. I totally fail to see the point of that droid factory obstacle course nonsense. I did like the Kenobi/Jango fight, though. It had atmosphere and, unlike most of these two films, it was actually involving. The flying car chase at the beginning wasn't bad either.

The romance in AOTC is of course bad news. That goes without saying. And Padme seems to find Anakin charming even when he's talking like a psycho or admitting he's murdered a whole tribe. Hayden Christensen's performance is painful. I mean, THIS is the Anakin we waited all these years to see? 

Akwat Kbrana said:

The PT leaves us with basically three options:

1. Obi-Wan is lying about much that happened in the prequel-era. Some of this is understandable (Obi-Wan has a natural disinclination to tell Luke, "Your father was a whiny, bratty, creepy, immature sociopath who somehow managed to bungle up everything that the previous thousand generations had built and accomplished, and all of the evil and suffering in the universe is his fault." Or, "Your father would've wanted you to have this when you were old enough, provided he hadn't turned to the dark side, murdered children, choked your mother, and forced me to dismember him and leave him to burn to death in a pool of lava."), but some of Obi's other "lies" just don't make sense. The way he refers to Yoda as "the Jedi master who instrcuted me" seems incongruous with the depiction of Obi-Wan's training in the PT, but why would he lie about it? Seems pretty irrational to me. Likewise, as has been pointed out, Obi-Wan in the PT was anything but reckless...why would he lie about it, to Yoda of all people, the one person who really would know one way or another?

2. Obi-Wan is remembering everything wrong. Senility has set in, and in order to cope with the troubles of the past, Obi-Wan has invented a fantasy history in which Anakin really was a good (though ultimately misguided) guy, he really did smilingly ask Obi-Wan to give Luke his lightsaber, Qui-Gon never existed (perhaps a defense mechanism to deal with the pain of losing his one father figure), and what stray memories of Anakin's recklessness have gotten through Obi's senility, he has reinterpreted to be his own recklnessness before reaching maturity. I admit this is a stretch, but I much prefer it to the "liar Obi-Wan" interpretation given above. Of course, the biggest problem with this is that Obi seems to misremember the past even as a Force Ghost. Do the effects of psychological trauma and repressed memory really continue to afflict a person after becoming "one with the force"? I'm inclined to say no, though I suppose it's not impossible.

3. The PT is an elaborate forgery, and Obi-Wan is right (save, of course, for the little white lie about Vader killing Anakin). Some meddling wannabe historian pieced together a hodge-podge representation of the history of the Clone Wars, and ended up getting a lot of details wrong. The PT should be disregarded when it clashes with the account of a credible eye-witness: Obi-Wan Kenobi.

Of course, I find option '3' the easiest to swallow, but it won't fly with TFNers. I don't really see any other way out, though. I'm perfectly happy to just write off the PT as poorly-written revisionist historical-fiction and consider "canon" only that which doesn't conflict with the OT...

 Good post. Fun. I agree with option 3.

bkev said:

-"You are reckless!"

-"So was I, if you'll remember."

Shoot me, for I'm about to cite the dreaded EU.  Obi-Wan almost wasn't chosen as a Padawan by anyone - heck, he even got sent off to work as a farm boy - because of his recklessness.  So there. :p

We shouldn't have to depend on the EU to patch up the holes in Lucas's storytelling.