Warbler

adywan said:

Warbler said:

adywan said:

Warbler said:

adywan said:

Warbler said:

2. the minor interaction with surroundings we see in ROTJ don’t matter near as much as finding out that force ghost Obiwan and Yoda maybe could have appeared before the Emperor and Vader and zapped them.

But Yoda didn’t just zap the tree out of thin air like the force lighting the Emperor uses. This has already been explained to you.

Whatever you want to call it, it sure would have been nice if had used it on the Emperor in ROTJ after Yoda died.

Please point me to the scene in the Emperors throne room where there were storm clouds over head so we could have had the same lightning and then i’d agree with you.

He needs storm clouds? That is never explained. What if in a future movie a force user does it without storm clouds, then can I ask why force ghost Yoda doesn’t zap the Emperor in ROTJ?

The fact that there are storm clouds coming in overhead and the lightning comes from those clouds that we clearly see in the film, isn’t enough to explain where the lightning comes from? What more did you need? Ric Olie suddenly popping his head from behind a rock to explain where it came from? 😉

We are talking about the force here, he doesn’t necessarily need storm clouds.

ChainsawAsh said:

Warbler said:

chyron8472 said:

We don’t need to have everything explained by the film. There are other non-film sources with which to draw on for relevant information to people who would care.

Those other sources aren’t canon.

Actually, yeah, they are. Unless they were published before the Legends EU rebranding.

I am pretty sure the novels are not canon. If they are, explain the differences between the novels and the movies.

Mrebo said:

Warbler said:

adywan said:

Warbler said:

adywan said:

Warbler said:

2. the minor interaction with surroundings we see in ROTJ don’t matter near as much as finding out that force ghost Obiwan and Yoda maybe could have appeared before the Emperor and Vader and zapped them.

But Yoda didn’t just zap the tree out of thin air like the force lighting the Emperor uses. This has already been explained to you.

Whatever you want to call it, it sure would have been nice if had used it on the Emperor in ROTJ after Yoda died.

Please point me to the scene in the Emperors throne room where there were storm clouds over head so we could have had the same lightning and then i’d agree with you.

He needs storm clouds? That is never explained. What if in a future movie a force user does it without storm clouds, then can I ask why force ghost Yoda doesn’t zap the Emperor in ROTJ?

The point is that we can draw these inferences about what we did see. We don’t need to exactly pin it down. Does the idea that Yoda could influence the path of lightning bother you?

no. However if it would have been convenient to influence the path of lightning at some point in the OT and he didn’t, that would bother me.

Lets say in some future movie, force users can force transport themselves wherever they want. Now, wouldn’t you then question why Obiwan didn’t do this in TPM and get past the shield in the Maul fight?

chyron8472 said:

Warbler said:

chyron8472 said:

We don’t need to have everything explained by the film. There are other non-film sources with which to draw on for relevant information to people who would care.

Those other sources aren’t canon.

Then why do you care? Why do you want the film itself, by itself without external sources, to explain everything when the film is already over two and a half hours long?

Most viewers don’t need characters to exposit information only relevent to the hardcore fandom. Especially when this is fantasy, not science-fiction.

1. I’m a Star Wars fan

2. I like things to make sense

3. You can either offer an explanation to make it make sense or you can take it out of the movie.

chyron8472 said:

TV’s Frink said:

yotsuya said:

How is Leia a princess?

When a prince and a woman love each other very much, they get “married” and the woman becomes a princess.

Actually, Leia is a princess because her adoptive mother was a queen.

It is not explained in the films. But as has been said, Warb, just because something is left unexplained does not mean it is unexplainable. Before you call out TLJ for not explaining things you wish it had, I suggest you read the novel because it might answer those questions.

again, the novels aren’t canon.

SilverWook said:

Warbler said:

SilverWook said:

I thought Yoda was just guiding the lightning not creating it.

sure looked like he created it to me.

Big difference between manipulating the weather to create lighting and firing it out of your fingertips. It’s been suggested in the past Yoda used the Force to make sure Luke crashed in just the right spot on Dagobah. That was some choppy weather he hit coming into the atmosphere.

I don’t think he just manipulated the weather.

Mrebo said:

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

The problem, warb (and others), is there’s some ambiguity and you’re taking that ambiguity and assuming automatically that it must be an inconsistency, whereas you could just as easily explore all the other possible explanations for it. Just because it’s not explained doesn’t mean it’s unexplainable. Movies, and Star Wars especially, are all about the possible, not the impossible. So to go right to the latter is essentially watching it wrong.

But sometimes things do need to be explained. Again if in the next movie Han(not a ghost) suddenly walked into a room, wouldn’t that require an explanation?

What if in a future movie it is found out that sith can appear as force ghosts and kill people, wouldn’t it need to be explained why we haven’t seen that before, why dead Emperor, Maul, and Dooku don’t come back force ghosts can get revenge?

Trying to explain spiritual happenings leads to dumbness. Like Dom says there is a difference between ambiguity and inconsistency. The truth is we know very little about the Star Wars afterlife.

When we are talking about a power that would have made sense to use in the OT and wasn’t it is an inconsistency.

chyron8472 said:

We don’t need to have everything explained by the film. There are other non-film sources with which to draw on for relevant information to people who would care.

Those other sources aren’t canon.

adywan said:

Warbler said:

adywan said:

Warbler said:

2. the minor interaction with surroundings we see in ROTJ don’t matter near as much as finding out that force ghost Obiwan and Yoda maybe could have appeared before the Emperor and Vader and zapped them.

But Yoda didn’t just zap the tree out of thin air like the force lighting the Emperor uses. This has already been explained to you.

Whatever you want to call it, it sure would have been nice if had used it on the Emperor in ROTJ after Yoda died.

Please point me to the scene in the Emperors throne room where there were storm clouds over head so we could have had the same lightning and then i’d agree with you.

He needs storm clouds? That is never explained. What if in a future movie a force user does it without storm clouds, then can I ask why force ghost Yoda doesn’t zap the Emperor in ROTJ?

DominicCobb said:

The problem, warb (and others), is there’s some ambiguity and you’re taking that ambiguity and assuming automatically that it must be an inconsistency, whereas you could just as easily explore all the other possible explanations for it. Just because it’s not explained doesn’t mean it’s unexplainable. Movies, and Star Wars especially, are all about the possible, not the impossible. So to go right to the latter is essentially watching it wrong.

But sometimes things do need to be explained. Again if in the next movie Han(not a ghost) suddenly walked into a room, wouldn’t that require an explanation?

What if in a future movie it is found out that sith can appear as force ghosts and kill people, wouldn’t it need to be explained why we haven’t seen that before, why dead Emperor, Maul, and Dooku don’t come back force ghosts can get revenge?

SilverWook said:

I thought Yoda was just guiding the lightning not creating it.

sure looked like he created it to me.

adywan said:

Warbler said:

2. the minor interaction with surroundings we see in ROTJ don’t matter near as much as finding out that force ghost Obiwan and Yoda maybe could have appeared before the Emperor and Vader and zapped them.

But Yoda didn’t just zap the tree out of thin air like the force lighting the Emperor uses. This has already been explained to you.

Whatever you want to call it, it sure would have been nice if had used it on the Emperor in ROTJ after Yoda died. Heck, why didn’t Yoda and Obiwan just kill themselve after the events of ROTS and use this whatever-you-want-to-call-it power on the Emperor and Vader and end the whole thing right then and there? Sure they’d be dead, but surely Yoda and Obiwan would have no problem sacrificing themselves if it would save the galaxy.

yotsuya said:

Since when did movies have to start explaining everything? I don’t get that. Even books don’t. You explain what you need to get across the main points. Why can’t movies make you think? Leave things out and make you wonder?

again, if in the next movie Han (not a ghost) suddenly walked into a room, don’t you think that would require an explanation?

somethings need to be explained.

And just why does one force user doing something in one movie mean that no one has ever been able to do that before.

it doesn’t. But when we discover that forces users can do x, and it would have made sense for a certain force user to do x in previous movie, doesn’t that beg for an explanation? For example lets say we find out in the next movie that force users can make themselves invisible. I am willing to bet there are all kinds situations in the previous movies where it would have made sense for a force user to make himself invisible and yet they did not. It would require an explanation.

Lucas gave us new force powers in nearly every film. In Episode I, Qui-gon and Obi-wan run super fast. Why can’t they do that in the OT? Yikes, a mistake.

yep it is mistake. and some are worse than others.

Any ongoing franchise is a living thing that grows and changes as each new installment comes out. With luck, the new ones enhance the old ones.

but the new ones need to fit in with the old ones.

But this idea that we’ve seen it before so these new films must follow those rules exactly is very funny to me.

it is called consistency. it is called continuity.

If you take that back far enough it means that we should have seen everything the force could do in ANH. Because everything since then had changed things. Oh my.

no, but if we discover the force can now do x it would have made sense to do x in a situation in ANH, it begs the question as to why x wasn’t done in ANH.

So here’s a big one that was never explained in the movies. How is Leia a princess?

don’t know.

Mocata said:

CHEWBAKAspelledwrong said:

How are we supposed to explain it in the film? A brief interlude with a soliloquy by Pablo Hidalgo ecplaining the continuity?

The answer is of course to stop the movie at a suitable moment, insert a bell sound effect and have a brain dead Cinemasins voice over complain about it.

or, maybe that if that is what isrequired to have something you’ve put in the movie make sense, maybe you don’t put that thing in the movie in the first place.

adywan said:

Warbler said:

How can he sit on a log when before he was just kinda floating? All these answers and more in the next exciting chapter of just try and relax it doesn’t make any difference.

somethings need to be explained somethings don’t. When force ghosts can now do something they couldn’t do before, it requires an explanation. If in the next movie Han Solo(in the flesh, not a ghost) suddenly walks into a room, don’t you think that would require an explanation.

So, when things aren’t explained why force ghosts can suddenly do something that they couldn’t do before, like interact with their surroundings, in the OT, then that’s fine because you say it doesn’t need to be explained. But when they do something they didn’t do before and it isn’t explained in The Last Jedi, a film you don’t like, then it is bad because it requires an explanation, even though it doesn’t?

1. I agreed that why Obiwan didn’t warn Leia is a good question.

2. the minor interaction with surroundings we see in ROTJ don’t matter near as much as finding out that force ghost Obiwan and Yoda maybe could have appeared before the Emperor and Vader and zapped them.

3. I will however agree with you that one tends to focus more on plot holes and continuity errors and whatnot in movies they don’t like as compared to movies they do like.

Mocata said:

Warbler said:

Mocata said:

Maybe Yoda is just that strong even in death. Maybe being dead for 30 years powered him up. Maybe the temple location gives him more energy. Maybe it’s just a thing that wanted to do for fun and Obi-wan takes things too seriously. Maybe the the question isn’t why can he do this out of nowhere, but why shouldn’t he? There are so many options in a magical space fantasy and

again the movie never explains why Yoda can and Obiwan can’t. It never explains that it takes 30 years for him to be able to do what he did.

again I say don’t you think it would have been nice if Yoda after he died in ROTJ made an appearance in the Emperor’s throne room and zapped Palpatine? Oh yeah it takes 30 years to be able to do that but the movie doesn’t explain that.

people are arguing over the supposed rules, again.

excuse me for wanting the Star Wars universe to make sense, and not liking plotholes/continuity errors.

You’re excused.

What I offered were possibilities, because in the end it doesn’t matter at all.

Last time someone tried to provide exposition and explanations it was in Episode III: The Worst One Yet. Why does Old Ben only appear as a ghost in Empire and not before, maybe at Luke’s medal ceremony?

He didn’t need to.

If he can appear to Luke and give him directions why doesn’t he show up and tell Leia about the trap?

I suppose this is a good question.

How can he sit on a log when before he was just kinda floating? All these answers and more in the next exciting chapter of just try and relax it doesn’t make any difference.

somethings need to be explained somethings don’t. When force ghosts can now do something they couldn’t do before, it requires an explanation. If in the next movie Han Solo(in the flesh, not a ghost) suddenly walks into a room, don’t you think that would require an explanation.

because in the end it doesn’t matter at all.

it doesn’t make any difference

to you.

CHEWBAKAspelledwrong said:

How are we supposed to explain it in the film? A brief interlude with a soliloquy by Pablo Hidalgo ecplaining the continuity?

It is called expository dialogue.

Mrebo said:

Warbler said:

Mrebo said:

Warbler said:

adywan said:

Warbler said:

In ESB, Obiwan says that if Luke goes to face Vader he will face him alone, “I can not help you”. But look what Yoda did in TLJ. Sure seems like Obiwan could have lent a hand now.

He says “If you chose to face Vader, you will do it alone. I cannot interfere” . This wasn’t that he couldn’t do anything, but the fact that Luke had to face this challenge on his own. He was being warned that he needed to complete his training, but he refused to listen and needed to face the consequences and not feel that Obi-Wan could just come along and save his ass.

Well that makes Obiwan to be a real jerk. An incomplete Luke is going to face Darth f-ing Vader. He knows Luke is not ready. For he knew, Luke would have gotten killed and then things would really be up the shaft. He was the second to last hope for the galaxy and Obiwan is going to risk the whole galaxy just to teach Luke a lesson???

And don’t forget Obi-Wan’s line in ANH: “If you strike me down, i shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.” . Up until TLJ, the most we see a force ghost being able to do is interact with their surroundings by moving some twigs and sitting in a log. A force ghost being able to use that power has been there since day one.

I never understood the line as a kid, but when I grew up, understood it mean that he’d be more powerful as a martyr for the cause.

adywan gives one possible reading of why Obi Wan couldn’t interfere. I assumed there was some spiritual reason, like ghosts can’t get revenge, can’t use violence, or something.

As for Obi Wan’s line about becoming more powerful, I thought a spiritual reason there too - that a spirit is a more powerful being than a man. But the martyr idea is good too.

Again the movie never explains adywan’s idea.

Would Obiwan’s reason for helping Luke fight Vader in ESB be revenge?

Yoda’s use of lightening sure seemed violent to me.

I don’t agree with adywan, the movie does leave the reason unspecified. Dominic gives a plausible reason that I tend to agree with.

Dominic’s reason is not explained in the movie.

Lightening is violent but Yoda does didnt commit an act of violence with it.

He didn’t? He set a building on fire.

On the revenge point, killing the guy who killed you may be antithetical to existence as a Force ghost.

again this is not explained in the movie.

TV’s Frink said:

“Why is this happening to me???”

?

DominicCobb said:

He doesn’t use force lightning though.

he doesn’t?

DominicCobb said:

Notice that Yoda didn’t conjure the lightning out of thin air. Plus it’s possible that Force Ghosts have more power in places that are powerful in the force.

again it would have been nice if the movie had explained this.

Not to mention that Obi-wan doesn’t make it clear that he is physically unable to help. It can be easily interpreted to mean “this is a challenge you must face as an individual,” much like when Yoda had Luke go in the cave by himself.

read I wrote in previous post about this.

CHEWBAKAspelledwrong said:

why does everything need to be explained? Shouldn’t there be some mystery?

maybe not everything needs to be explained, but I do think if one force ghost can use force lightning and one can’t, that needs to be explained.

Mrebo said:

Warbler said:

adywan said:

Warbler said:

In ESB, Obiwan says that if Luke goes to face Vader he will face him alone, “I can not help you”. But look what Yoda did in TLJ. Sure seems like Obiwan could have lent a hand now.

He says “If you chose to face Vader, you will do it alone. I cannot interfere” . This wasn’t that he couldn’t do anything, but the fact that Luke had to face this challenge on his own. He was being warned that he needed to complete his training, but he refused to listen and needed to face the consequences and not feel that Obi-Wan could just come along and save his ass.

Well that makes Obiwan to be a real jerk. An incomplete Luke is going to face Darth f-ing Vader. He knows Luke is not ready. For he knew, Luke would have gotten killed and then things would really be up the shaft. He was the second to last hope for the galaxy and Obiwan is going to risk the whole galaxy just to teach Luke a lesson???

And don’t forget Obi-Wan’s line in ANH: “If you strike me down, i shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.” . Up until TLJ, the most we see a force ghost being able to do is interact with their surroundings by moving some twigs and sitting in a log. A force ghost being able to use that power has been there since day one.

I never understood the line as a kid, but when I grew up, understood it mean that he’d be more powerful as a martyr for the cause.

adywan gives one possible reading of why Obi Wan couldn’t interfere. I assumed there was some spiritual reason, like ghosts can’t get revenge, can’t use violence, or something.

As for Obi Wan’s line about becoming more powerful, I thought a spiritual reason there too - that a spirit is a more powerful being than a man. But the martyr idea is good too.

Again the movie never explains adywan’s idea.

Would Obiwan’s reason for helping Luke fight Vader in ESB be revenge?

Yoda’s use of lightening sure seemed violent to me.

dahmage said:

technical training documentation can sometimes be the worst.

• User windows basted clients are …
• Browser hosted thin clients are …

huh?

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

You know, somehow I must have gotten cursed into to having bad experiences at the movies. I decided to to use the free ticket I got from tlj incident, and I saw “The Post”. I sat next to an asshole who didn’t think the directive to turn off your cell phone applied to him. The jerk didn’t even put it on vibrate. It rang, twice. He didn’t even turn it off or to vibrate after the first time it rang and it rang again later on in the movie. He had it in the space in the chair for drinks, where when it rang it shined it’s bright screen right in my face. I was very temped to grab the thing and break it in two. Fuck that guy.

Why didn’t you just take the phone and shove it up his ass?

tempting, but I was afraid someone would call the cops and I’d get arrested for assault and battery.

In all seriousness though you should take situations like these as lessons to never go to the movies again unless it’s a midnight showing on Wednesday of a movie that’s in the last week of it’s theatrical run.

maybe.