StarDestroyer.Net BBS

A) Taking liberties with the preceding continuity is an entirely valid artistic choice, and itself says nothing about the quality of the new installment - however, the natural consequence is that what could've been one continuous narrative is now fractured, and any declared "canonicity" starts losing substance and justification.
And because it's a natural consequence, it has nothing to do with "insulting" or "disrespecting" any work or material - it's simply what it is.

B) What is a "dramatic inconsistency"? It's a contradiction in which at least one contradicting plot point diminishes the dramatic impact of the other - meaning that even if no logical contradiction exists, or it can be explained away, the previous impact of a scene is diminished as a result.

Attempts to reconcile the inconsistencies ultimately stand and fall with their ability not to take away meaning or impact from any element involved - in some cases, an entire well-crafted story might be required to do that job.





IV -- V:
From what I can tell, there are no problems between Star Wars and Empire - the Vader twist is so well done, IV seems to be written with that in mind.


IV+V -- VI:
Luke's storyline with Vader and Yoda are blatantly rewritten, and seem to continue some different version of V that was never filmed, in which Vader didn't kill Luke for what could be interpreted as mercy - whereas in V, he's trying to convert him right up until the point Luke jumps... and continues to do so telepathically up until the Hyperspace jump.
Vader inexplicably goes from having ambitions to overthrow the Emperor to basically a Nazgul without free will; no indication that he was lying to get Luke on board, and his enigmatic final scene in V is nowhere enough to set up a change in motivation.

Even though Luke is surprised to hear that Yoda has taught him everything he was supposed to, V *really* drives that point home. Had he merely said "you are not ready yet", this would make sense.


The biggest problem with Leia is that her being the "other hope" completely diminishes the enigmatic nature of that V scene - which clearly implies that Luke is about to fail, but there is SOME other option less obvious and more enigmatic than "his sister's next to train".

While Leia's scenes with Vader in IV dont seem to ring true in that context, the rest works surprisingly considering the ridicule this twist received (even though not QUITE natural): instead of a beautiful brave princess to aspire to, Luke sees his long lost sister for the first time; the musical theme can easily be taken as conveying unexplained familiarity; and there's enough in Ben's mischievous glances after the message is played to read all kinds of things out of.
Encountering and even making out with an unwitting relative is a classic narrative trope, and unlike certain uptight jokers I've got no problem at all with incest fantasy (it's quite hawt actually).



while Boba Fett works as Jabba's gadgetty superhenchman and the punchline at the end is funny - V set him up as an intriguing 3rd party, and his death is a sloppy pay-off to that. But that's just an aside.





PT -- OT
According to the OT, Leia was living with her real mother for what's implied to be at least a few years - disregarding that takes away the scene's emotional impact.

Luke's father more or less grew up with or lived with Owen, whether lightyears apart or in the same house is irrelevant - what matters is that at one point both were "not involved" in anything big, and then Luke's father decided to go on an "idealistic crusade" while Owen disapproved and stayed a simple mayen.

Luke's father inherited his sword to his son.

Obi-Wan "owned" R2.
Obi-Wan dropped this name way before Luke's birth.

Obi-Wan was trained by Yoda, and had been reckless/impulsive before he was - in the PT, Yoda is Obi-Wan's "Council elder", not his teacher; the implication that he trained him as a baby in a gym is a mere implication, diminishes the dramatic impact of Dagobah/Hoth, and renders "so was I unti" meaningless.

Obi-Wan discovered Anakin, and thought he could train him as well as Yoda - the 1st part COULD be seen as a "from a simpler point of view" retelling, the second half most certainly not.





continuing if I manage to stay awake...

sorry, I edited some of the above content even though I thought I wouldn't - so I'm just posting the whole OP in its final form.
Feel free to delete the 1st (shorter!) OP if that's a problem.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



A) Taking liberties with the preceding continuity is an entirely valid artistic choice, and itself says nothing about the quality of the new installment - however, the natural consequence is that what could've been one continuous narrative is now fractured, and any declared "canonicity" starts losing substance and justification.
And because it's a natural consequence, it has nothing to do with "insulting" or "disrespecting" any work or material - it's simply what it is.

B) What is a "dramatic inconsistency"? It's a contradiction in which at least one contradicting plot point diminishes the dramatic impact of the other - meaning that even if no logical contradiction exists, or it can be explained away, the previous impact of a scene is diminished as a result.

Attempts to reconcile the inconsistencies ultimately stand and fall with their ability not to take away meaning or impact from any element involved - in some cases, an entire well-crafted story might be required to do that job.





IV -- V:
From what I can tell, there are no problems between Star Wars and Empire - the Vader twist is so well done, IV seems to be written with that in mind.


IV+V -- VI:
Luke's storyline with Vader and Yoda is blatantly rewritten, and seems to continue some different version of V that was never filmed, in which Vader didn't kill Luke out of what could be interpreted as mercy - whereas in V, he's trying to convert him right up until the point Luke jumps... and continues to do so telepathically right up until the Hyperspace jump.
Vader inexplicably goes from having ambitions to overthrow the Emperor to basically a Nazgul without free will; no indication that he was lying to get Luke on board, and his enigmatic final scene in V is nowhere enough to set up a change in motivation.

Even though Luke is surprised to hear that Yoda has taught him everything he was supposed to, V *really* drives that point home. Had he merely said "you are not ready yet", this would make sense.


The biggest problem with Leia is that her being the "other hope" completely diminishes the enigmatic nature of that V scene - which clearly implies that Luke is about to fail, but there is SOME other option less obvious and more enigmatic than "his sister's next to train".

While Leia's scenes with Vader in IV dont seem to ring true in that context, the rest works surprisingly considering the ridicule this twist received (even though not QUITE natural): instead of a beautiful brave princess to aspire to, Luke sees his long lost sister for the first time; the musical theme can easily be taken as conveying unexplained familiarity; and there's enough in Ben's mischievous glances after the message is played to read all kinds of things out of.
Encountering and even making out with an unwitting relative is a classic narrative trope, and unlike certain uptight jokers I've got no problem at all with incest fantasy (it's quite hawt actually).



while Boba Fett works as Jabba's gadgetty superhenchman and the punchline at the end is funny - V set him up as an intriguing 3rd party, and his death is a sloppy pay-off to that. But that's just an aside.


IV---V---VI
In IV, Tarkin thinks Vader is the only mage left; by VI, everyone knows the Emperor is an even scarier wizard. V is unclear.
What happened in the background there?




PT -- OT
According to the OT, Leia was living with her real mother for what's implied to be at least a few years - disregarding that takes away the scene's emotional impact.

Luke's father more or less grew up with or lived with Owen, whether lightyears apart or in the same house is irrelevant - what matters is that at one point both were "not involved" in anything big, and then Luke's father decided to go on an "idealistic crusade" while Owen disapproved and stayed a simple mayen.

Luke's father inherited his sword to his son.


C-3P0 was present at Owen's homestead at a critical, memorable stage of his life, and actually TOOK OFF WITH ANAKIN - no way in hell wouldn't Owen remember him.


Obi-Wan "owned" R2.
Obi-Wan dropped this name way before Luke's birth.

Obi-Wan was trained by Yoda, and had been reckless/impulsive before he was - in the PT, Yoda is Obi-Wan's "Council elder", not his teacher; the implication that he trained him as a baby in a gym is a mere implication, diminishes the dramatic impact of Dagobah/Hoth, and renders "so was I unti" meaningless.

Obi-Wan discovered Anakin, and thought he could train him as well as Yoda - the 1st part COULD be seen as a "from a simpler point of view" retelling, the second half most certainly not.


Vader left Obi-Wan as a learner - had ROTS conveyed that "Obi-Wan has had the highground i.e. been the stronger one all along" properly, this could've worked as Vader having realized he was still only a n00b back then.


Vader was seduced by evil, not brainwashed by a conspiracy theory. At no point does the OT hint that the dark side works by confusing the mind, or can present itself as a force for good - and whether to a fault or not, Anakin's ulterior motives in III are merely hinted at, before they suddenly come out in full force in the Mustafar scene.
Whether this is truly an inconsistency, can be discussed - however, all of this is undermined by the aforementioned inconsistency between Vader and VIader.


If Jedi and the Force were mainstream knowledge at any point, it certainly wasn't 20 years ago, right before the collapse of the Old Republic, while Han was already around 10.
And that ignoring the fact that the EMPEROR ANNOUNCED THE JEDI'S TREASON TO THE WHOLE GALAXY and cited THAT as a reason for the new order.




No prophecies or chosen ones - the Emperor says "destiny" a lot, but in V, turning Luke wasn't even his idea, and it's pretty clear that Luke was free to reject his destiny.
Try to find ANY hint in the OT that Vader was supposed to be some kind of unique prodigy; or that his decision in the end was anything more than a grand spiritual version of Reek/Myranda.
By contrast, you'll fid lots of hints in IV that Vader is the Father, even if it wasn't intended or thought of at that point.


Emphasis on Force physicality: the most powerful representatives of the Light and Dark side, Yoda and the Emperor, were shown as rejecting / in no need of weapons in the OT; in the PT, they're the best master swordsmen.


Probably several more I've forgotten about atm.




I -- II:
I implies that the Senate could've dealt with the Naboo crisis, physically, had it only made the decision to. in II, they have no army and are debating about the creation of one.


The poignant scene with Mace and Yoda where they conclude that there is another Sith out there, probably the master, hasn't happened in II: Dooku isn't considered as a possible candidate; and Obi-Wan's unreliable information about a Sith Lord is taken without any recognition.



II -- III:
The romance is retconned when ROTS dialogue describes an idyllic period on Naboo prior to any wars or plotting.

Anakin's determination to find supernatural ways to save Padme is undermined by the fact that he could've just physically gone back to Tattoine and freed his mother without any magic.
III is vague about what exactly happened there


I+III -- II:
In II, Obi-Wan is skeptical of Anakin and Mace Windu reminds him that he's the chosen one.
in I and III, Mace is the most skeptical about Anakin, and in a similar scene Obi-Wan reminds Windu about the prophecy.

This rivals "even I get boarded sometimes" in how blatantly it erases a previous element of a script, except this time it's not a deleted scene.





Conclusion:
VI is not the continuation of V. V is not the predecessor to VI.
I-III isn't the backstory to VI-VI.
II isn't the middle part between I and III, and I isn't the prelude to II and III.

Not really.
Filming alternative versions of either would create a coherent unified story in either of those sectors, and you'd notice the different at once.

I think you've misused the word 'important' there. My eyes glazed over for most of it. But still the 'Uncle Owen should recognise 3PO' argument is complete bunk on both counts. 1) That's not important to anything and 2) 3PO's plating has changed, his memories been wiped and 3PO's are a mass produced model. Owen has no way to recognise he's met this one before.


Being disappointed with how plot points turned out in sequels is not inconsistency nor is it breaking canon. It's just you disliking something.

Boy, I sure am used to wider editing limits LOL - should I stick around, I'll adapt quickly, but yeah...


Anyway, this is a response to http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 5#p3936665,
to the part that wasn't replied to here: http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 8#p3936668

The Romulan Republic wrote:

lGrand Anhoop wrote:

You're taking this whole "canon" thing way too seriously - there is no canon, only movies and stories that acknowledge and don't acknowledge other movies and stories.
If the ST decanons the PT, then within the context of the ST only the OT will exist, and within the context of the PT only the OT (well... minus certain parts). IV can be viewed within the context of V, or outside of it - none of this is real, all that counts is what works and how well.

Of course its not real.

But I do think canon matters. Without consistent continuity, their is no unified story and suspension of disbelief suffers.

Are you seriously arguing that it doesn't matter if an author's writing is consistent and makes sense? Because to me that's throwing one of the basic principles of writing out the window.

Now, if you want to create an alternate continuity, that's fine. But if you're trying to treat it as all one saga, then you have to remain reasonably consistent with what came before, unless you have a really good reason not to.

I think the Holocran Masters up there should get honest about this stuff and stop pretending like I-VI is a consistent narrative.
Didn't the writers behind X-Men 1st Class admit they were taking liberties, and no one had any problems with that?

Treating it as "one saga" is a nice intention, but when that saga isn't consistent within itself you're inherently on a shaky ground.


However, I agree with the general premise that there should be some clarity and classification with regards to what is part of what continuity bubble, what takes place in one version and what takes place in alternate ones.
But this should be done with diligence, and not sloppily and religiously as it is being done right now, and has been pretty much since day 1.


My original issue was with people getting upset about "the new movies disregarding I-III and hence deserving decanonization themselves", on the grounds that the whole house of continuity is built on sand right now and declaring VII-IX the new canon while disregarding I-III wouldn't be a more egregious offense than anything that came before at worst, and an improvement at best.

OK... so here's a list of subjective nitpicks?

Honestly most of these can be explained away. Yoda and Palpatine use lightsabers in the prequels, and then don't in the original trilogy? Maybe that's because, I don't know, it's twenty years down the road and the contexts are very different? Yoda is shown in the prequels training the younglings before they become Padawans, presumably he would have trained Obi-wan at that point. There's twenty years between ROTS and ANH, of course Obi-wan might not have used his name in that time (seeing as he's trying to, you know, not get caught by the Empire).

This is entirely pickiness and subjective criticism. As mentioned before, there's very little here that can't be explained. Simply because you don't think things work together and therefore the movies don't go together! doesn't mean that's the case. They go together because they were made that way. Did you make them? Did you have a contributing part in the creation of the Star Wars film series? No? Then get over it.

I will be fair-- if the consistencies are ridiculously blatant, such as, for example, Anakin going from being a 9-year-old in the first movie to being ~40-something in the second, that would have merited criticism. But these are nothing that can't be rationalized or justified using source material.

As for X-Men First Class... different series, different rules. The universe they're working with there has a history of alternate versions of characters and continuities.

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 4#p3936674

Channel72 wrote:I can imagine ROTJ failing to meet certain expectations for the original audiences that saw it. Leia being the "other" sort of seems half-assed, I guess, even though it was somewhat foreshadowed in ESB - mainly because other than being a new revelation, it doesn't really effect the plot in any meaningful way (other than neatly resolving a love triangle).

Well, that wasn't really needed as Luke turning into a zen monk already would've made that scenario natural.

However, what it did neatly resolve was, well, "the other"; and it played a central role in the finale... in fact, I remember reading that was the primary reason why they did that twist.

But I think ROTJ's biggest failing was that the central dilemma of the movie, which was the possibility of Luke fucking up and turning to the Dark Side, never really seemed like an actual possibility. In Empire they had that surreal scene in the swamp where he fights an apparition of Vader - which strongly hinted that Luke might follow in his father's footsteps. But in ROTJ, despite the Emperor's taunts and all that, for whatever reason I never picked up on it being a really serious danger to Luke. So when he throws his lightsaber away and refuses to kill Vader, I never got the sense that he overcame some monumental temptation to embrace the Dark Side. It just wasn't built up as a major seductive force, in the way that, for example, the Ring was in LOTR.

Well, there's no problem with that, is there? If you learn the ways of the Force... you own your soul to the demons. Once you see them, they see you...

You're right in the sense that there was a certain lack of actual dark side temptation outside of the warnings by Ob1 and Yoda, and then the actual duels at the end - and in Empire's case, a big component of that was intimidation and blackmail, not quite unlike ROTS.
In V, they were building up the danger of seduction, but what it ultimately came down to was that Luke was trapped in a dangerous situation, and ended up facing the decision between death and conversion - so not quite the "dark impulses and aggression" Yoda was warning about.

VI actually was the first to pay that off, because the Emperor was provoking Luke's ire all the time, and it visibly worked at least twice - you're giving it way too little credit.

That said, ROTJ still kicks ass. It has the best space battle ever put to film, which somehow inexplicably still hasn't been surpassed, in my opinion, and the throne room scene with the Emperor, despite my criticism above, was really phenomenal all around.

I don't agree with your criticism, but this whole discussion started when I said they should film an alternate sequel to Empire - not because ROTJ is inferior in quality (well it is, but not that storyline), but because it continues some other cliffhanger and not Empire.

As I've explained in the OP.

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 5#p3936675

Elheru Aran wrote:Don't be absurd. There's a canon because people have established that it exists.

Officials declaring something as canon has about as much meaning as what it sounds like - and I think its the arbitrary nature has been demonstrated recently when they just changed what they considered canon overnight, after changing companies.

Yes, there are inconsistencies. That happens even IRL, it wouldn't be the first time someone unconsciously made up a memory.

IRL, people also slip on soap and break their neck - however while that'd be an ape plot twist in Game of Thrones, Star Wars isn't about freak accidents as IRL.

It's a dramatic structure where at least all the heavy and serious events, dialogues and scenes are supposed to be meaningful, stylized and structured.

Wanna go with "false memory"? Then convey that narratively; this isn't just something you throw at the board and declare "resolved".

Anyway, it's just a bloody story, a series of movies that happen to be related. Have a little perspective.

Considering I'm not the one insisting on canonical unity where none is, I'm pretty sure I'm the one with the required perspective.

Crazedwraith wrote:I think you've misused the word 'important' there. My eyes glazed over for most of it. But still the 'Uncle Owen should recognise 3PO' argument is complete bunk on both counts. 1) That's not important to anything and 2) 3PO's plating has changed, his memories been wiped and 3PO's are a mass produced model. Owen has no way to recognise he's met this one before.


Being disappointed with how plot points turned out in sequels is not inconsistency nor is it breaking canon. It's just you disliking something.

1) Congratulations - you've focused on the least important bit, which might be the least important because it deals with a supporting comic relief character rather than the main anchor points in the life of a main character.
2) Excuses - he's named the same, and is the only one with that particular voice for all we know.

Plus:
"C-3P0 was present at Owen's homestead at a critical, memorable stage of his life, and actually TOOK OFF WITH ANAKIN - no way in hell wouldn't Owen remember him."
As you see, I knew you'd say what you said, and had already addressed this before you posted it.

[No I read that. I just disagreed with your conclusion that he would recognise him. Again, 3PO units are generic and they're all called something-3PO. And there are only so many letters to use as designators. For all we know C-3PO is the droid equivalent of John Smith.

Yes, I realise it was one of the lesser examples but you still apparently deem it 'important' and it was probably typical of your so-called reasoning.

Elheru Aran wrote:OK... so here's a list of subjective nitpicks?

Honestly most of these can be explained away.

I could stop reading here, because I've made clear in my OP that "explaining away" doesn't fly - that's not how storytelling works, at least not the "classic" kind Star Wars is built on.

Minor details can be explained away, or should even - but major events, character developments are supposed to build and lead from one to each other.

That's why Padme's death in ROTS works, and the duel ending doesn't - one is set up and built up from the beginning; the other one is a sudden artificial ending not based on anything.
"Oh but it could be explained away!" = still bad storytelling.

Yoda and Palpatine use lightsabers in the prequels, and then don't in the original trilogy? Maybe that's because, I don't know, it's twenty years down the road and the contexts are very different?

Maybe shmaybe - doesn't sound particularly engaging does it?
The two trilogies use two different archetypes, and there's no connection between the two, or any acknolwedgement of the contrast.

Yoda is shown in the prequels training the younglings before they become Padawans, presumably he would have trained Obi-wan at that point.

Already addressed that in OP.

There's twenty years between ROTS and ANH, of course Obi-wan might not have used his name in that time (seeing as he's trying to, you know, not get caught by the Empire).

So you haven't even read anything, have you? I really should've stopped reading after the first sentence.

This is entirely pickiness and subjective criticism.

This coming from someone who hasn't read the OP properly.

They go together because they were made that way. Did you make them? Did you have a contributing part in the creation of the Star Wars film series? No? Then get over it.

That's just religious thinking.

I will be fair-- if the consistencies are ridiculously blatant, such as, for example, Anakin going from being a 9-year-old in the first movie to being ~40-something in the second, that would have merited criticism. But these are nothing that can't be rationalized or justified using source material.

i think your post is evidence to the contrary.

You find it hard to believe that a grey droid Owen knew twenty years earlier might not be recognisable to him as the gold one who just showed up, and showed no recognition of him?

Or it's possible that Owen just doesn't give a shit about droids, and they all look the same to him. Considering droids are essentially the slave class, this isn't too unbelievable.

Crazedwraith wrote:[No I read that. I just disagreed with your conclusion that he would recognise him. Again, 3PO units are generic and they're all called something-3PO. And there are only so many letters to use as designators. For all we know C-3PO is the droid equivalent of John Smith.

Yes, I realise it was one of the lesser examples but you still apparently deem it 'important' and it was probably typical of your so-called reasoning.

Well, you've picked the weakest link in the chain and still bit out your teeth on it

Let's see, a robot with a personality not shown in any other robot of that type, arrives with the father's new wife whom they all love, who gets brutally killed after months long searches, and then her super-Jedi son arrives, the one they later take the baby from, finds the mother and then that's where the robot leaves them.
Let's just say, the odds of him not remembering the name are 1:923092348, and the odds of him not even having a hint of haunting recognition is 1:999843984928492844erkeltk3u4oiuwe4utekjthk5w4kthwkerthre.

Humans tend to remember things associated with major dramatic events in their life - particularly if they're organized film characters in a structured story.
On the one hand, you've got a dramatic episode in which we find the robot on the farm, being the first to take us inside, and then leaving after the tragedy has been resolved - and on the other, a scene where that robot returns to his old home and Owen's reactions are exactly as if he had never met him before.

Not only implausible, but also fails as cohesive storytelling which is the exact opposite of throwing together random elements that not only are disposable in relation to each other, but actually make each other less believable.



So that's what on my side of the weighing scale. And all you've got on yours is "how do I make it fit what some officials said about canon".

Gandalf wrote:You find it hard to believe that a grey droid Owen knew twenty years earlier might not be recognisable to him as the gold one who just showed up, and showed no recognition of him?

Or it's possible that Owen just doesn't give a shit about droids, and they all look the same to him. Considering droids are essentially the slave class, this isn't too unbelievable.

When Vader is revealed as Luke's father, I don't see anyone making excuses for it - they look at various scenes in IV, see the hints, and wonder how it ever could NOT have been the plan all along.
But now, with not a single hint from Owen that anything's ringing a bell (and that with him later realizing the blue robot actually has something to do with the past), you need to look for excuses to "explain it away".

Oh, well maybe he didn't remember. Well maybe he just hates droids. Why not really? If he doesn't remember, we get to keep our sacred continuity as decreed by Lucasfilm!

That's at least until you get to the other bits...

lGrand Anhoop wrote:When Vader is revealed as Luke's father, I don't see anyone making excuses for it - they look at various scenes in IV, see the hints, and wonder how it ever could NOT have been the plan all along. But now, with not a single hint from Owen that anything's ringing a bell (and that with him later realizing the blue robot actually has something to do with the past), you need to look for excuses to "explain it away".

So, what sort of point are you trying to make, exactly? That the film industry often produces sequels/prequels which ignore/reinterpret elements from previous productions? Everyone already knows that. The desire to mentally create a single coherent narrative is simply an exercise in trying to, I don't know... enjoy and process the films as a single chunk of fiction - I guess, which is how they are marketed anyway.

I mean, I agree with a lot of what you say regarding the Prequels. Lots of dialogue/tidbits from the Original Trilogy - especially Obi Wan's dialogue concerning the old Jedi order, Anakin Skywalker, the timeline of the Republic falling to the Empire, etc., created a lot of assumptions and mental imagery which turned out to be a bit incongruent with the actual Prequels. These discrepancies can all be "explained" to a certain extent, if you really care to - but it's obvious that Lucas's ideas about all this just changed/evolved over time. I mean, it's well known that Lucas changed his mind many times, altering a lot of elements in the saga, as time went on. The Emperor, for example, was, if I recall - at the time of Episode IV - supposed to be something of a powerless figurehead subservient to military bureaucrats - not some sort of all-powerful, clairvoyant evil wizard, as he turned out to be in Episode 6. But whatever - I mean, Lucas and the other writers involved obviously just thought the Emperor as portrayed in Episode 6 made for a better production, regardless of what ideas they might have had about him earlier.

So... what exactly are you arguing? That we shouldn't even attempt to try and mentally form a coherent narrative around the 6 films as presented? Why not? Nobody really expects perfect continuity - thematic or otherwise. Most people who process fiction make some mental attempt to "explain away" continuity problems in order to better enjoy the experience of watching the films, even if, intellectually, we realize that most of these continuity problems are a result of the fact that these stories are written by non-omniscient, fallible humans, with deadlines and constantly changing creative tastes/perspectives.

More generally the OP's problem is that he seems to take the idea that you can nitpick something as a problem. Any story will always have problems that can be brought out. The question is whether or not it has enough of an impact to ruin the story. The six Star Wars films at least have less plot holes than the Bible.

Look at the discussion in the OSF forum recently about the attack on the first Death Star that I was involved in. We largely pointed out that it makes no sense for pilots to use visual scanning rather than some sort of visual sensor. Even if every possible wavelength other than visual light is blocked, visual sensors would still beat human eyes.

Anyway for a point by point caused by boredom:

lGrand Anhoop wrote: IV+V -- VI:
Luke's storyline with Vader and Yoda is blatantly rewritten, and seems to continue some different version of V that was never filmed, in which Vader didn't kill Luke out of what could be interpreted as mercy - whereas in V, he's trying to convert him right up until the point Luke jumps... and continues to do so telepathically right up until the Hyperspace jump.

Vader clearly was holding back somewhat in both duels with Luke as a result of the fact that he wasn't wanting to kill him. How is that a contradiction? The fact that he was trying to convert him doesn't change this.

Vader inexplicably goes from having ambitions to overthrow the Emperor to basically a Nazgul without free will; no indication that he was lying to get Luke on board, and his enigmatic final scene in V is nowhere enough to set up a change in motivation.

How about the fact that in ROTJ he was directly in front of the Emperor. If you pay attention to their dialog in the first meeting onboard the Second Death Star the Emperor clearly realized this fact and was attempting to convert Luke himself. It was potentially a factor that led to their failure. Vader alone would have had a better chance, but in doing so he would have turned Luke against the Emperor.

Even though Luke is surprised to hear that Yoda has taught him everything he was supposed to, V *really* drives that point home. Had he merely said "you are not ready yet", this would make sense.

How is that a contradiction?

The biggest problem with Leia is that her being the "other hope" completely diminishes the enigmatic nature of that V scene - which clearly implies that Luke is about to fail, but there is SOME other option less obvious and more enigmatic than "his sister's next to train".

There isn't really a problem there. If you had no problem with the scene in ESB of them communicating the rest of the plot twist was somewhat obvious.

While Leia's scenes with Vader in IV dont seem to ring true in that context, the rest works surprisingly considering the ridicule this twist received (even though not QUITE natural): instead of a beautiful brave princess to aspire to, Luke sees his long lost sister for the first time; the musical theme can easily be taken as conveying unexplained familiarity; and there's enough in Ben's mischievous glances after the message is played to read all kinds of things out of.
Encountering and even making out with an unwitting relative is a classic narrative trope, and unlike certain uptight jokers I've got no problem at all with incest fantasy (it's quite hawt actually).

Since neither Vader nor Leia knew at the time, it had little relevance. It might have had relevance after the revelation, but they never interacted after that point. That is like criticizing a character in a mystery novel for not realizing who the killer was before the critical evidence was revealed.

while Boba Fett works as Jabba's gadgetty superhenchman and the punchline at the end is funny - V set him up as an intriguing 3rd party, and his death is a sloppy pay-off to that. But that's just an aside.

I have never understood why Boba Fett was considered a badass. The only thing he did was stand around in menacingly ESB and somehow he was considered a badass because of it.

IV---V---VI
In IV, Tarkin thinks Vader is the only mage left; by VI, everyone knows the Emperor is an even scarier wizard. V is unclear.
What happened in the background there?

Tarkin made this comment in the context of referring to Obi-Wan. Obviously he meant that he believed that Vader was the only survivor of the Jedi Order, not that he was the only Force sensitive in the Empire.

PT -- OT
According to the OT, Leia was living with her real mother for what's implied to be at least a few years - disregarding that takes away the scene's emotional impact.

Notice what Yoda's criticism of Luke was when he first revealed himself. Yoda pointed out that Luke never had his mind on the present. Leia on the other hand did. So it stands to reason that the memory was created by her Force sensitivity. Especially if you subscribe to the idea that Vader subconsciously drained Padme's life energy as he fell to the Dark Side. That would mean that this event had a major impact in the Force and thus Leia could have sensed it while Luke was not focused on the present.

Though this is probably the biggest outright plot hole.

Luke's father more or less grew up with or lived with Owen, whether lightyears apart or in the same house is irrelevant - what matters is that at one point both were "not involved" in anything big, and then Luke's father decided to go on an "idealistic crusade" while Owen disapproved and stayed a simple mayen.

This was the point at which Obi-Wan was being rather dishonest. Though Owen clearly did believe that to some degree considering his dialog with Beru about Luke's parentage.

Luke's father inherited his sword to his son.

This was the same scene in which Obi-Wan claimed Anakin Skywalker was dead, the fact that he also lied about that shouldn't be too surprising. He was obviously being metaphorical again. If Anakin hadn't turned to the Dark Side and had known he had children he would have believed this.

C-3P0 was present at Owen's homestead at a critical, memorable stage of his life, and actually TOOK OFF WITH ANAKIN - no way in hell wouldn't Owen remember him.

Who says he didn't. Owen never heard 3PO's name and 3PO had a different skin at the time

Obi-Wan "owned" R2.
Obi-Wan dropped this name way before Luke's birth.

What is the contradiction there?

Obi-Wan was trained by Yoda, and had been reckless/impulsive before he was - in the PT, Yoda is Obi-Wan's "Council elder", not his teacher; the implication that he trained him as a baby in a gym is a mere implication, diminishes the dramatic impact of Dagobah/Hoth, and renders "so was I unti" meaningless.

Obi-Wan's first dialog in the TPM mentioned a lesson he had learned from Yoda in contrast to what he learned from Qui-Gon. He clearely was taught by both. In AOTC he also clearly considered Yoda his surrogate master and often sought his counsel. Why would he mention a dead Jedi Master that had no relevance to Luke's training?

Obi-Wan discovered Anakin, and thought he could train him as well as Yoda - the 1st part COULD be seen as a "from a simpler point of view" retelling, the second half most certainly not.

In AOTC, Anakin referred to Obi-Wan being as wise as Master Yoda. As for the rest, we never really saw much of the actual training, but you also have to consider that Obi-Wan was looking at this in retrospect in which he saw his only apprentice as an absolute failure as a Jedi. That tends to cause people to consider things in a slightly biased perspective.

Though another plot hole you could point out there is that Yoda's former apprentice also turned to the Dark Side. Ob-Wan's apprentice even killed Yoda's. So perhaps he wasn't a worse teacher after all.

Vader left Obi-Wan as a learner - had ROTS conveyed that "Obi-Wan has had the highground i.e. been the stronger one all along" properly, this could've worked as Vader having realized he was still only a n00b back then.

Obi-Wan wasn't stronger, he was smarter. A key plot point in ROTS was that Anakin sat on the Jedi Council without having been promoted to Master. That is what he was referring to. The line was "I was but the learner." That is actually quite accurate to what was portrayed.

Vader was seduced by evil, not brainwashed by a conspiracy theory. At no point does the OT hint that the dark side works by confusing the mind, or can present itself as a force for good - and whether to a fault or not, Anakin's ulterior motives in III are merely hinted at, before they suddenly come out in full force in the Mustafar scene.
Whether this is truly an inconsistency, can be discussed - however, all of this is undermined by the aforementioned inconsistency between Vader and VIader.

Look at Luke's struggles in ROTJ. The instant power of the Dark Side was clearly alluring for him due to the possibility of instant power as a solution to his problems. As for Anakin's ulterior motives, obviously that was him attempting to justify his new position to himself as much as to Padme.

If Jedi and the Force were mainstream knowledge at any point, it certainly wasn't 20 years ago, right before the collapse of the Old Republic, while Han was already around 10.
And that ignoring the fact that the EMPEROR ANNOUNCED THE JEDI'S TREASON TO THE WHOLE GALAXY and cited THAT as a reason for the new order.

You have to consider where Han lived in his career. In a group of professional criminals that once were chased by Jedi. With that environment, it makes sense that they would be big on boasting that Jedi were never what they were cracked up to be. Notice Anakin's comments in TPM, that no one can kill a Jedi. They relied on that myth of invincibility to get by. Notice how quickly they died in AOTC when they faced an enemy aware of their weaknesses(Dooku). This myth was especially destroyed by their deaths at the hands of mere Clone troopers in Order 66.

The same could be said for the Imperial officer(Motti) with the same beliefs. The Imperial military also clearly had the same beliefs as the smuggler community.

No prophecies or chosen ones - the Emperor says "destiny" a lot, but in V, turning Luke wasn't even his idea, and it's pretty clear that Luke was free to reject his destiny.
Try to find ANY hint in the OT that Vader was supposed to be some kind of unique prodigy; or that his decision in the end was anything more than a grand spiritual version of Reek/Myranda.
By contrast, you'll fid lots of hints in IV that Vader is the Father, even if it wasn't intended or thought of at that point.

There were some references to the idea that Vader was important as the Jedi that turned. In any case, ROTS also agrees with this problem. When Obi-Wan points out that he is the chosen one who is destined to destroy the Sith, Yoda points out that they likely misread the prophecy. Mace Windu likewise pays it no mind when he goes to confront Sidious by himself.

Emphasis on Force physicality: the most powerful representatives of the Light and Dark side, Yoda and the Emperor, were shown as rejecting / in no need of weapons in the OT; in the PT, they're the best master swordsmen.

That is a consequence of their increases in age. When Morihei Ueshiba(the founder of Aikido) was a young man he was much more physically active than when he was older.

I -- II:
I implies that the Senate could've dealt with the Naboo crisis, physically, had it only made the decision to. in II, they have no army and are debating about the creation of one.

It is a question of scale. Dealing with the TF alone is doable. Dealing with the entire CIS after a military buildup is much harder. In 1928, Andrew Jackson had no problem with his threats to send troops into South Carolina when they refused to acknowledge the authority of the federal government. When the entire CSA formed, it took a five year civil war to bring them back in line.

The poignant scene with Mace and Yoda where they conclude that there is another Sith out there, probably the master, hasn't happened in II: Dooku isn't considered as a possible candidate; and Obi-Wan's unreliable information about a Sith Lord is taken without any recognition.

Though notice that they also recognize that they should start watching the Senate and because of this are on to Palpatine in ROTS. Between TPM and AOTC, they do nothing because there was nothing to find. Palpatine was laying low and consolidating his power as Chancellor while Dooku was acting as a former Jedi turned political idealist. What could they really investigate? They were obviously waiting for a new lead.

II -- III:
The romance is retconned when ROTS dialogue describes an idyllic period on Naboo prior to any wars or plotting.

How is that a retcon? That is exactly what happened. It was an idyllic romance in contrast with the troubles that were brewing around them. Those that they were oblivious to.

Anakin's determination to find supernatural ways to save Padme is undermined by the fact that he could've just physically gone back to Tattoine and freed his mother without any magic.
III is vague about what exactly happened there

Did you miss his speech to his mother's grave, about how he wasn't powerful enough to save her?

I+III -- II:
In II, Obi-Wan is skeptical of Anakin and Mace Windu reminds him that he's the chosen one.
in I and III, Mace is the most skeptical about Anakin, and in a similar scene Obi-Wan reminds Windu about the prophecy.

He obviously changed his mind. After Anakin had already served as a Jedi for a period of time he had proven his abilities. He reverted to being suspicious because of the connection to Palpatine who he recognized as a problem. Obi-Wan was obviously nervous about letting his Padawan off on his own for the first time, he never gave any indication that he didn't trust him.

Channel72 wrote:

lGrand Anhoop wrote:When Vader is revealed as Luke's father, I don't see anyone making excuses for it - they look at various scenes in IV, see the hints, and wonder how it ever could NOT have been the plan all along. But now, with not a single hint from Owen that anything's ringing a bell (and that with him later realizing the blue robot actually has something to do with the past), you need to look for excuses to "explain it away".

So, what sort of point are you trying to make, exactly? That the film industry often produces sequels/prequels which ignore/reinterpret elements from previous productions? Everyone already knows that. The desire to mentally create a single coherent narrative is simply an exercise in trying to, I don't know... enjoy and process the films as a single chunk of fiction - I guess, which is how they are marketed anyway.

I mean, I agree with a lot of what you say regarding the Prequels. Lots of dialogue/tidbits from the Original Trilogy - especially Obi Wan's dialogue concerning the old Jedi order, Anakin Skywalker, the timeline of the Republic falling to the Empire, etc., created a lot of assumptions and mental imagery which turned out to be a bit incongruent with the actual Prequels. These discrepancies can all be "explained" to a certain extent, if you really care to - but it's obvious that Lucas's ideas about all this just changed/evolved over time. I mean, it's well known that Lucas changed his mind many times, altering a lot of elements in the saga, as time went on. The Emperor, for example, was, if I recall - at the time of Episode IV - supposed to be something of a powerless figurehead subservient to military bureaucrats - not some sort of all-powerful, clairvoyant evil wizard, as he turned out to be in Episode 6. But whatever - I mean, Lucas and the other writers involved obviously just thought the Emperor as portrayed in Episode 6 made for a better production, regardless of what ideas they might have had about him earlier.

There's a difference between changed plans, and contradictions - for instance, while making SW the plan didn't include the V twist, but they made it WORK.

The Emperor is an interesting case because:
1) There's no direct contradiction, only in what the Imperials are aware of.
2) If there's some background that "wasn't featured" including the Emperor revealing his true nature to the fleet or maybe the public in general, it probably also included a dramatic increase in rebels based on the Death Star incident, and some kind of radical increase in tyranny.
2a) While it's debateable to which extent this is a flaw of the OT, it can of course get entirely pinned on ROTJ - SW did the most with the background exposition, Empire was a claustrophobic chase through the woods, and Jedi with its return to to the rebel base and grand finale was the one that would've brought back the clarity on things. V's opening crawl migh've done the job, too...
3) The viewer is led naturally through the process, made to accept the final version of the Emperor as something natural and self-evident. First, the Empire and Vader turn noticeable more "Mordor-esque", congruent with Vader taking command - then the Emperor is revealed to the audience through Vader. And then the Imperials who notified Vader about the Emperor's call, also happen to know and fear him, and the Rebellion is looking for ways to kill him.

So... what exactly are you arguing? That we shouldn't even attempt to try and mentally form a coherent narrative around the 6 films as presented? Why not? Nobody really expects perfect continuity - thematic or otherwise. Most people who process fiction make some mental attempt to "explain away" continuity problems in order to better enjoy the experience of watching the films, even if, intellectually, we realize that most of these continuity problems are a result of the fact that these stories are written by non-omniscient, fallible humans, with deadlines and constantly changing creative tastes/perspectives.

While watching or mentally replaying the movies, you can do anything you like - from approaching it as a six part saga (or the mere cornerstone of a huge expanded universe), to watching SW as a standalone about the son of a great warrior who wins the favors of the princess and sets out the avenge his father by killing the evil black knight.

Ultimately, the reasonable thing to do is to recognize that starting with VI, they easily could've stayed consisten, but instead chose to rewrite the continuity and ignoring previous dramatic set-ups.
That should be the general default position, instead of following whatever the "officials" as Lucasfilm or Disney decide at a given day, imnsho.


What gives you more enjoyment or immersion is ultimately a subjective issue - I tend to get much more out of it if I treat them as alternate continuities, but I don't need to go through mental contortions to do so... rather, it's natural.

Adam Reynolds wrote:More generally the OP's problem is that he seems to take the idea that you can nitpick something as a problem. Any story will always have problems that can be brought out.

How does the exact opposite of nitpicking - focusing on the largest cornerstones of the narrative - qualify as nitpicking?

The question is whether or not it has enough of an impact to ruin the story.

1) CHANGE the story.
2) Diminish the impact of key scenes at the very least.

That's all I've been ever talking about, you know?

The six Star Wars films at least have less plot holes than the Bible.

Well as an ardent follower of the Bible, I see myself gezwungen to defend its honor and now treat SW as a bible, too.

Look at the discussion in the OSF forum recently about the attack on the first Death Star that I was involved in. We largely pointed out that it makes no sense for pilots to use visual scanning rather than some sort of visual sensor. Even if every possible wavelength other than visual light is blocked, visual sensors would still beat human eyes.

Now THAT's a nitpick - see the difference?!

Anyway for a point by point caused by boredom:

Your opposition here is so phoned-in and stupid, I honestly don't feel motivated to respond to you at all.

So I'll respond to one point for now, and that might encourage you to back and read the OP - if you still think your other points hold any merit after that, we can discuss.

Vader clearly was holding back somewhat in both duels with Luke as a result of the fact that he wasn't wanting to kill him. How is that a contradiction? The fact that he was trying to convert him doesn't change this.

Of course it does - why would Luke assume Vader was holding back out of love or whatever, when he was following the Emperor's order to convert him?

His objective is to: convert or kill. Which means, only if the conversion fails and Vader still hesitates to kill him, only then could that indicate some "inner conflict".
There's also a clear implication in Empire that Vader doesn't mind if Luke dies as a result of falling out of the window or what not - if he proves too weak, he's not a worthy asset.
In VI, it's even worse because Luke is already rejecting the offer and Vader actively attacks him.

So even BEFORE his final, irrevocable rejection to convert, Vader's already giving him a rough time - and he talks of having been spared by him? This clearly isn't happening in Jedi, so he's holding on to something that happened in Empire.. except it never happened there.

How about the fact that in ROTJ he was directly in front of the Emperor. If you pay attention to their dialog in the first meeting onboard the Second Death Star the Emperor clearly realized this fact and was attempting to convert Luke himself. It was potentially a factor that led to their failure. Vader alone would have had a better chance, but in doing so he would have turned Luke against the Emperor.

This isn't backed up by anything in the film.
If proximity to the Emperor, even while on Endor played a role, where's the hint that Vader is holding back his ambitions rather than not having any? Where's Luke picking up on that, knowing or unknowing about this "proximity" factor?

Face it - ROTJ acts as if taking over the Emperor with Luke's help has never been on the menu.
You can try to imprint your own explanations on it, but yours are neither good in themselves, nor based on any valid premise - why try to force the movies to fit together when they clearly don't?

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 6#p3936856 - http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 0#p3936910
So Padme dies, and then her adopted mother dies but she thinks it's her real mother, and then she has a second adoptive mother who she thinks is her first adoptive mother who died later, or is still alive somewhere?
Now Breha died with Alderaan or how many versions are there of her biography?

Horse Shite.
Unless this is conveyed in a really compelling narrative, but that's something someone else came up with and isn't required thinking (of) when discussing the movies. If anything that proves my proves my point that the only sensible way to go is acknowledge multiple continuities.

God, you're a stubborn one. It's really not difficult to rationalize Leia's memory there. Here's the dialogue from that scene:

LUKE
Leia... do you remember your mother? Your real mother?

LEIA
Just a little bit. She died when I was very young.

LUKE
What do you remember?

LEIA
Just...images, really. Feelings.

LUKE
Tell me.

LEIA
(a little surprised at his insistence)
She was very beautiful. Kind, but...sad.

Luke asks Leia about her REAL mother. So Leia knew she was adopted and that the Organas were not blood relatives. She also specifies that she doesn't even really have a specific memory, just "feelings". Several lines later, Luke tells Leia that she is his sister:

LUKE
Yes. It's you Leia.

LEIA
I know. Somehow...I've always known.

I mean, the script pretty much spells it out for you right there in that fucking scene. It is an incredibly obvious implication that Leia is force sensitive, and that her "memories" of Padme were a result of that, just as she somehow knew that Luke was her brother.

That you are unable to comprehend this is not an inconsistency on the part of the film, the deficit is on your end.

And it isn't even clear what the hell you are blathering about here:

This isn't backed up by anything in the film.
If proximity to the Emperor, even while on Endor played a role, where's the hint that Vader is holding back his ambitions rather than not having any? Where's Luke picking up on that, knowing or unknowing about this "proximity" factor?

Face it - ROTJ acts as if taking over the Emperor with Luke's help has never been on the menu.

What the hell are you talking about? Are you sure you've ever actually seen these movies? Literally the entire theme of the entire fucking franchise is the fall and subsequent redemption of Anakin Skywalker. And you are calling it an inconsistency that Vader's motives change from ESB to ROTJ? That's not a plot hole, that's you being a thunderous moron who somehow missed the central tenet the entire plot is built around. It's literally the point of the movie that Vader's motives have changed.

He's probably referring to how in ESB, Vader explicitly tempts Luke with the idea of overthrowing the Emperor, and ruling the galaxy as "father and son". Then, in ROTJ, when Luke meets Vader on Endor, they don't talk about that idea anymore, and Vader seems totally loyal to the Emperor (until the last moment when he turns on him.)

I guess I never really thought of that as an inconsistency. I always assumed that Vader's proposed "plan" to overthrow the Emperor in ESB was basically just a tactic to tempt Luke with power, in an effort to turn him to the Dark Side, or at least probe his susceptibility to the Dark Side.

Channel72 wrote:He's probably referring to how in ESB, Vader explicitly tempts Luke with the idea of overthrowing the Emperor, and ruling the galaxy as "father and son". Then, in ROTJ, when Luke meets Vader on Endor, they don't talk about that idea anymore, and Vader seems totally loyal to the Emperor (until the last moment when he turns on him.)

I guess I never really thought of that as an inconsistency. I always assumed that Vader's proposed "plan" to overthrow the Emperor in ESB was basically just a tactic to tempt Luke with power, in an effort to turn him to the Dark Side, or at least probe his susceptibility to the Dark Side.

Yeah, but was that ever revealed as a lie, or were Luke and Vader so aware of it when they met again that they were just acting as if it had never happened

My point remains the same - there needs to be some narrative connecting the dots, not fans trying to rationalize. As it stands, we've got two different things that don't acknowledge each other.

Ziggy Stardust wrote:What the hell are you talking about? Are you sure you've ever actually seen these movies? Literally the entire theme of the entire fucking franchise is the fall and subsequent redemption of Anakin Skywalker. And you are calling it an inconsistency that Vader's motives change from ESB to ROTJ? That's not a plot hole, that's you being a thunderous moron who somehow missed the central tenet the entire plot is built around. It's literally the point of the movie that Vader's motives have changed.

Actually the redemption of Anakin Skywalker only became a thing in he 2nd act of Episode VI, and it's directly tied to (though not necessarily absolutely reliant on) those retcons I've listed.

Yes it's an inconsistency, no development from state A to state B is even implied.
And how is that the point of the movie? The point of the movie is that Vader can be redeemed, which is an idea that appeared as suddenly as his obedience, is tied to it directly, and also to the retcon that "hd couldn't kill him then".

So now it's not the point of the movie that his motivation has changed, the point of the movie relies on said motivation change.



And if you're gonna talk about how the "entire point of the franchise" is this redemption, well why was such an essential segment of his character development left out?

Ziggy Stardust wrote: Luke asks Leia about her REAL mother. So Leia knew she was adopted and that the Organas were not blood relatives.

Yeah, we know that already.

I mean, the script pretty much spells it out for you right there in that fucking scene. It is an incredibly obvious implication that Leia is force sensitive,

Pretty much? So Luke saying "you have these powers too" is pretty much spelling it out?

and that her "memories" of Padme were a result of that, just as she somehow knew that Luke was her brother.

LOL there's a colossal rift between having a subconscious sense of familiarity to a sibling enhanced by psychic abilities, and having actual visions mistaken for memories.

One doesn't lead to the other, and of course, did ROTS manage to establish that narratively when changing what was "assumed" to have happened based on Leia's recollection? NO.
The contradiction just hovers there, left for your to reassemble out of little more than an obsession with there having to be a seamless continuity.

lGrand Anhoop wrote:Yeah, but was that ever revealed as a lie, or were Luke and Vader so aware of it when they met again that they were just acting as if it had never happened

My point remains the same - there needs to be some narrative connecting the dots, not fans trying to rationalize. As it stands, we've got two different things that don't acknowledge each other.

Meh... it's definitely a pretty weak criticism. I've actually never even heard anyone complain about that until now. Basically the reason they don't mention the "overthrow Emperor" idea is because in ESB Luke pretty clearly indicated he wasn't interested. And in ROTJ Luke and Vader have their own separate agendas - Luke wants to "redeem" his father, while Vader is still interested in turning Luke to the Dark Side, as per the discussion with the Emperor in ESB. The "overthrow Emperor" idea simply isn't relevant anymore in that context. Vader is more interested in proving to Luke that the Dark Side is where it's at.

I mean, again, obviously Lucas/Kasdan weren't entirely sure how things would play out in ROTJ when they wrote ESB - so I guess the idea of Vader trying to use Luke to overthrow the Emperor was an idea they were toying with - but the fact that it never really goes anywhere is hardly detrimental. It actually adds some nice ambiguity and depth into Vader's motivations at the end of ESB. Also, remember that ROTJ was written by a different writer than ESB, so it's not surprising that some of the ideas in that script weren't explored. I mean, even when a series of movies is written by the same writer, it's often the case that some plot point or foreshadowed future plot line is dropped or forgotten.

I wonder how that conversation would have sounded.

Vader: "So I gather by your willingness to plunge to your own death a big "no thanks" to working together?"

Luke: "yeah...duh"

Vader: "Just checking"

Channel72 wrote:

lGrand Anhoop wrote:Yeah, but was that ever revealed as a lie, or were Luke and Vader so aware of it when they met again that they were just acting as if it had never happened

My point remains the same - there needs to be some narrative connecting the dots, not fans trying to rationalize. As it stands, we've got two different things that don't acknowledge each other.

Meh... it's definitely a pretty weak criticism. I've actually never even heard anyone complain about that until now. Basically the reason they don't mention the "overthrow Emperor" idea is because in ESB Luke pretty clearly indicated he wasn't interested. And in ROTJ Luke and Vader have their own separate agendas - Luke wants to "redeem" his father, while Vader is still interested in turning Luke to the Dark Side, as per the discussion with the Emperor in ESB. The "overthrow Emperor" idea simply isn't relevant anymore in that context. Vader is more interested in proving to Luke that the Dark Side is where it's at.

Now you can't just say "weak criticisms" and then follow that up with such a weak argumentation now can you.

Vader wants to turn Luke to the dark side in both - however, in one of them it's to unite against the Emperor; in the other, he's doing his master's bidding and wants to add Luke to the triumvirate presumably.
He clearly says "I must obey my master", directly contradicting what came before - it's not "irrelevant anymore", it's contradicted.

I mean, again, obviously Lucas/Kasdan weren't entirely sure how things would play out in ROTJ when they wrote ESB - so I guess the idea of Vader trying to use Luke to overthrow the Emperor was an idea they were toying with - but the fact that it never really goes anywhere is hardly detrimental. It actually adds some nice ambiguity and depth into Vader's motivations at the end of ESB.

By taking away those motivations?

Also, remember that ROTJ was written by a different writer than ESB, so it's not surprising that some of the ideas in that script weren't explored. I mean, even when a series of movies is written by the same writer, it's often the case that some plot point or foreshadowed future plot line is dropped or forgotten.

And I'm pointing out they were forgotten

Or maybe changed on purpose, I don't know.