Chefelf.com Night Life: "Your Father wanted you to have this..." - Chefelf.com Night Life

Jump to content

Star Wars Fan Convention

  • (8 Pages)
  • +
  • « First
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • Last »

"Your Father wanted you to have this..."

#46 User is offline   Mnesymone Icon

  • Champion
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1,836
  • Joined: 08-April 04
  • Location:Somewhere near my collarbone
  • Interests:Food, books, movies, history, languages, religions (though I'm an atheist), miracles of nature and marvels of technology.<br /><br />Particularly: steak, the Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, The Dark Ages in Europe, the 'created' languages, the mythologies of defunct European cultures, fish and cars.
  • Country:Australia

Posted 30 May 2005 - 11:12 PM

Still - the white lie was a much better idea than telling the Truth, Whole Truth, Nothing But the truth.
Bit like the thing I put here earlier.

"You knew my father?"
"Yes, I was once a Jedi Knight just like your father."
"I wish I'd known him."
"He was a good pilot, and a handy fighter - I understand you've become quite a fair pilot yourself - and, after his apprenticeship was over he became a good friend."
"How did my father die?"
"He didn't... when he turned to Dark Side I confronted him and hacked all his living limbs off... and he was horribly burnt by lava... very badly burned. Which reminds me - as he lay there screaming in intolerable pain I stole his lightsaber, and I want you to have it. He survived his horrible, horrible burning and was rebuilt by the Emperor. He became Darth Vader... your father was seduced by the dark side of the Force."
Luke's exp​ression of fear, disgust, horror, nausea and grief fades for a moment. "The Force?"
"Well the Force is what gives a Jedi his power - it is a euphemism for tiny organisms in your blood that create an energy field. You must have a midichlorian test, if you are to come with me to Alderaan."
"I'm not going to Alderaan with you - you left my father to burn in horrible pain! Nasty nasty man!"

That is why Obi-Wan was being metaphysical.
Also George probably hadn't thought of the final story at that point.
That same argument doesn't apply to something like Artoo - it doesn't carry the same emotional loading as that bit.
0

#47 User is offline   Radu094 Icon

  • Mini Boss
  • PipPip
  • Group: Junior Members
  • Posts: 192
  • Joined: 02-February 04
  • Location:Romania
  • Country:Nothing Selected

Posted 31 May 2005 - 01:02 AM

QUOTE (Mnesymone @ May 31 2005, 01:16 AM)
I didn't mind the way they treated the lightsaber in ROTS, but if, say, he made a new one when he heard of Padme's pregnancy and gave his old one to Padme to give to the child if it was a son, and Padme gave it to Obi-Wan before Obi-Wan set out for Mustafar I might have liked that better. It also would have been an excuse to have Darth Vader with his iconic red saber in ROTS.


How' bout when he becomes a Sith he receives a new lighsaber ( a red one ). Then he secretly gives his old one to Padme to give it to their son. Something along "I know I'm fucked now..too late for me, I failed .... but maybe my son can fix all this mess someday."

But noo.. instead we get the duel between Anakin and Obi Wan using 2 blue light sabers
I know that you believe you understood what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you read is not what I meant.
0

#48 User is offline   Devout Catalyst Icon

  • Henchman
  • Pip
  • Group: Junior Members
  • Posts: 59
  • Joined: 16-May 05
  • Country:United States

Posted 31 May 2005 - 01:02 AM

I'm not bothered by one or two small, stray inconsistencies. Anyone can find them in any movie.

I am bothered by dozens of glaring inconsistencies.

I think that pretty well sums up us nitpickers' stance with the PT.
0

#49 User is offline   Veer Icon

  • Mini Boss
  • PipPip
  • Group: Junior Members
  • Posts: 168
  • Joined: 30-April 05
  • Country:Canada

Posted 31 May 2005 - 01:48 PM

QUOTE (Dunedain @ May 30 2005, 04:47 PM)
The explanation for "Vader killed your father" is reconciled by explaning that Ben was being a bit metaphysical in his statement. So, if that works for the one, then I can easily conclude that Ben could very well, and likely, have been speaking metaphysically in the other as well.


Allright, we can ignore the fact that the two sentences are constructed differently, but I still havenít got the 'metaphysical' explanation for "Your father wanted you to have this".
As a society we are familiar to some extent with death referring to the 'death of the soul' rather the physical body. For example "Gautama died and Buddha was born" is not referring to the actually physical demise of Gautamas body, but the change in his soul.

QUOTE (Dunedain @ May 30 2005, 04:47 PM)
Granted, I agree it would have been simple enough. If it were so simple just to shoot one scene; and if Lucas knew what Ben said about the saber in e4; do you really think he just said "Fuck it". Or, maybe he just thought, I have to tie up quite a few things- I'll concentrate on the more important ones and leave the others in the area of "explain it however you, the viewer, wants to". I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and go with the latter. I expect that in his wildest dreams Lucas never imagined leaving one or two unexplained lines would cause the entire story to suck. If so, I would tend to agree.


Lucas had 3 movies in which to ties up the ends. And there weren't that many to begin with.

Actually I think Lucas didn't really bother too much. Lucas is a creative guy, and as he has grown older he probably sees the OT story as unfinished and unpolished. Perhaps because of the very fame of Star Wars he has distanced himself from it. Nonetheless he has clearly changed his ideas on what the back-story of the OT was and perhaps has even developed new ideas on what the story of the OT should be. As such we are given 2 separate versions of events. One was Lucas's original vision, the other is Lucas's new/updated/revised vision.

I doubt there was a serious attempt by Lucas to tie the two together.



QUOTE (Dunedain @ May 30 2005, 04:47 PM)
I'll surely agree that Ben seems to give the impression he never saw the two droids before. BUT, that leads to a pretty fair plot-hole. If r2 and Ben never knew each other, how did r2 know where to go to find Ben?


How did you answer this question before the PT was made? Not to mention Ben knowing or not knowing R2 before 'Star Wars' has little to do with how R2 knew where to find him...

QUOTE (Dunedain @ May 30 2005, 04:47 PM)
In case of the lightsaber:

a) Obi-Wan was speaking metaphysically, just like he was when he said "Vader killed your father".


So letís see. If your father says "Son, your mother wanted you to eat your vegetables", the best retort is not going to be "Oh!, Dad you're only speaking metaphysically." Now if Dad had said "your mother would have wanted...." then all would be fine.

QUOTE (Dunedain @ May 30 2005, 04:47 PM)
Well, Ben didn't own a droid, so he could be surprised by the statement "this droid belongs to Obi-Wan". Who knows what was going through Ben's mind at the time. The dude was living as a crazy hermit in a desert for 20 years. I'm sure as soon as he saw the droids with Luke, he was a bit "surprised".


Obi-wan was never a crazy old hermit. biggrin.gif
0

#50 User is offline   Dunedain Icon

  • New Cop
  • Group: Junior Members
  • Posts: 39
  • Joined: 25-May 05
  • Location:The White City
  • Country:United States

Posted 31 May 2005 - 02:42 PM

Mnesymone:

QUOTE
""And guess what, HE does comment on R2D2 in way that contradicts what occurred in the PT."

Like how?"

'I can't seem to recall ever having owned a droid'
Ben owned R4 - he was his personal astromech.
He also knew Artoo, as Artoo belonged to Anakin (who, even after his apprenticeship was finished, remained brother-in-arms to Kenobi)


See, I'm not seeing it. That isn't a contradiction. A contradiction is "In my pockets is $1.25 in American currency" to "I have no American currency in my pockets". That is a contradiction.

"I have one son" does not contradict "I have one daughter". If you have both, you can state either, and it's true.

What you're stating isn't a contradiction. Luke states r2 is the "property of an Obi-Wan Kenobi" to which Ben denies ever owning a droid (read- as property). Ben didn't own r4 anymore than he owned his starfighter. It was not his.

Don't you remember the whole "possessions are forbidden" statement made in e2? The Jedi don't own droids. They have no possessions as such.

>>>>

barend:

QUOTE
All things have to tie up. that's what it is to make a prequel.


No, what makes it a prequel is that the events occur before the events of the former. All things do not have to tie up. Plot-driving lines do have to tie up. But every utterence made in the former do not have to be empirically confirmed in the latter.

There were no direct contradictions. If someone in e4-6 would have said "we have just begun construction on our first death star prototype" and then we see a death star prototype being constructed in e1-3, then that would be a contradiction. But "Ben said his father wanted him to have this" and "I did not see Anakin state that in e1-3" is not a contradiction; it is an unexplained. If "unexplained" equates to "lazy" which makes "sucks", then, as I said before, good luck in finding any fiction that does not suck.

In the LOTR trilogy, Gandalf flies on the back of the Lord of the Eagles. So, why doesn't Gandalf just fly to Rivendell, pick up Frodo, fly to Mount Doom and throw the ring in the crater of the volcano?

Who knows. It's unexplained. But I have never seen anyone say Tolkien (and, Jackson for that matter) was lazy for not explaining why this option was not undertaken. Neither have I heard anyone say the fiction sucked because of it.

>>>

Veers:

QUOTE
but I still havenít got the 'metaphysical' explanation for "Your father wanted you to have this".


Obi-Wan holds up Anakin's lightsaber in AOTC and says "This weapon is your life". Anakin's life was given into Luke's hands by Obi-Wan. There is no doubt that Anakin wanted Luke to save his life. Obi-Wan was metaphysically right. Anakin wanted Luke to have his life entrusted to him. It was the only way to bring about "the return of the Jedi".

QUOTE
How did you answer this question before the PT was made? Not to mention Ben knowing or not knowing R2 before 'Star Wars' has little to do with how R2 knew where to find him...


That was in reference to "I'll surely agree that Ben seems to give the impression he never saw the two droids before. BUT, that leads to a pretty fair plot-hole. If r2 and Ben never knew each other, how did r2 know where to go to find Ben?". The answer is: I said "Hey, I wonder how that r2 unit knew where to look?" then I continued to watch the rest of the movie. I was fairly certain that when 3po said "no more adventures" that the two droids must have been through some adventures and somehow because of this r2 knew where to go. Did I have full exposition? No. Did I need it? No. Whatever the reason was, he knew where to go. That's all I needed to know.

That's the point. I don't need full exposition on every concept and utterence made as long as it's not effecting the plot. And, as much as the phrase is erroneously used, a plot-hole is not the same as an unexplained unless it's directly related to forwarding the plot.

If the Falcon was approaching the Death Star in e4 and Luke said "We got to get onto that station and rescue the princess" then that would be a plot-hole and I wouldn't like it at all. How did Luke know that Leia was on the station? It effects the plot, and it's unexplained.

"Your father wanted you to have this" and "Hey, I never heard him say that in e1-3" isn't a plot-hole.

This post has been edited by Dunedain: 31 May 2005 - 02:50 PM

0

#51 User is offline   Veer Icon

  • Mini Boss
  • PipPip
  • Group: Junior Members
  • Posts: 168
  • Joined: 30-April 05
  • Country:Canada

Posted 31 May 2005 - 03:42 PM

QUOTE (Dunedain @ May 31 2005, 12:42 PM)
In the LOTR trilogy, Gandalf flies on the back of the Lord of the Eagles. So, why doesn't Gandalf just fly to Rivendell, pick up Frodo, fly to Mount Doom and throw the ring in the crater of the volcano?



That is a famous plot-hole. And actually it has been brought up. In the DVD commentary of LOTR Jackson and team specifically bring that point up when they were discussing the script. Jackson justifies it as saying the Nazgul creatures would have stopped them.

Tolkien I believe address the point more directly. Firstoff he establishes that the Eagles are not beasts of Burden, and don't concern themselves with the wishes of men, elves and wizards. They are equal if not greater beings. There are no eagles at the council of Elrond. When Gandalf is rescued by an eagle from Orthanc it is shown as a one time affair. Its been a while since I read the book, but this point could have been brought up in FOTR, something about the people of middle earth (Eleves, men, dwarves) not being able to rely on outside help, but having to solve/face this problem themselves.
0

#52 User is offline   Veer Icon

  • Mini Boss
  • PipPip
  • Group: Junior Members
  • Posts: 168
  • Joined: 30-April 05
  • Country:Canada

Posted 31 May 2005 - 03:57 PM

QUOTE (Dunedain @ May 31 2005, 12:42 PM)
Obi-Wan holds up Anakin's lightsaber in AOTC and says "This weapon is your life". Anakin's life was given into Luke's hands by Obi-Wan. There is no doubt that Anakin wanted Luke to save his life. Obi-Wan was metaphysically right. Anakin wanted Luke to have his life entrusted to him. It was the only way to bring about "the return of the Jedi".


When Obiwan says "This weapon is your life" it establishes that Obi-wan feels that lightsabers are a Jedis most important object. This is not necessarily the opinion of all Jedi, but is his, and that's fine. How you make the jump from Obi-wan believing lightsabers are important to Anakin wanting Luke to entrust/save his life is beyond me. Anakin doesnít saying ANYTHING to Obi-wan about lightsabers (which is the point), and he does not say anything to Obi-wan about Luke either - infact he doesnít even know about Luke.

' there is no doubt.... biggrin.gif , golly.
0

#53 User is offline   Veer Icon

  • Mini Boss
  • PipPip
  • Group: Junior Members
  • Posts: 168
  • Joined: 30-April 05
  • Country:Canada

Posted 31 May 2005 - 04:10 PM

QUOTE (Dunedain @ May 31 2005, 12:42 PM)
That was in reference to "I'll surely agree that Ben seems to give the impression he never saw the two droids before. BUT, that leads to a pretty fair plot-hole. If r2 and Ben never knew each other, how did r2 know where to go to find Ben?". The answer is: I said "Hey, I wonder how that r2 unit knew where to look?" then I continued to watch the rest of the movie. I was fairly certain that when 3po said "no more adventures" that the two droids must have been through some adventures and somehow because of this r2 knew where to go. Did I have full exposition? No. Did I need it? No. Whatever the reason was, he knew where to go. That's all I needed to know.


Reaching aren't you? Itís not a plot hole, and never has been. Firstoff, C3PO is not R2. C3PO doesnít know who Obi-wan is, he doesnít even know where Obi-wan is supposed to be. This makes sense considering C3PO had his memory wiped at the end of ROTS. Certainly the two droids - R2 and C3 - could have had many adventures before 'Star Wars', however none of these adventures could have involved a trip to Obi-wans home on Tantoonie.

Secondly, there is the MOST obvious answer - Leia told R2 where to find Obi-wan. Leia afterall knew where he was, and she entrusted R2 with her mission. Makes sense that she would have told him where to go.

QUOTE (Dunedain @ May 31 2005, 12:42 PM)
If the Falcon was approaching the Death Star in e4 and Luke said "We got to get onto that station and rescue the princess" then that would be a plot-hole and I wouldn't like it at all. How did Luke know that Leia was on the station? It effects the plot, and it's unexplained.


Once again no plot-hole. Luke and Han only find out the princess in board the detah star after they have landed on the station, and R2 is doing something on the central computer.

QUOTE (Dunedain @ May 31 2005, 12:42 PM)
"Your father wanted you to have this" and "Hey, I never heard him say that in e1-3" isn't a plot-hole.


It's an inconsistency, and it portrays Obi-wans character in a negative light. Not only does Anakin never say anything remotely resembling that to Obi-wan, there is no time when he could have said it. That is all.
0

#54 User is offline   barend Icon

  • Anchor Head Anchor Man
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Crappy News Team
  • Posts: 11,839
  • Joined: 12-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nieuw Holland
  • Interests:The Beers of Western Europe, Cognac, and constantly claiming the world would have been a better place if Napoleon had won.
  • Country:Australia

Posted 31 May 2005 - 07:33 PM

QUOTE (Dunedain @ May 31 2005, 02:42 PM)
barend:
No, what makes it a prequel is that the events occur before the events of the former. All things do not have to tie up. Plot-driving lines do have to tie up. But every utterence made in the former do not have to be empirically confirmed in the latter.


so kingdom of heaven is a prequel to bladerunner? thumbsup.gif

every utterence made in the former do not have to be empirically confirmed in the latter.

no but instead of having baby greedo, chewbacca, baby bobafett, boba fetts dad, the millenium falcon, and references to gundarks, to constantly pathetically tie in the franchise only to be out cheesed by every mother fucker and his dog saying, "i have a bad feeling about this" and "poodoo"...

perhaps one of the things that may have some actual worthy point of refernce to documented events, may have prooven a little more effective to impress the more discerning viewer...

please tell me you don't disagree with that!!!

duuuuuuuuude....

QUOTE (Dunedain @ May 31 2005, 02:42 PM)
There were no direct contradictions. If someone in e4-6 would have said "we have just begun construction on our first death star prototype" and then we see a death star prototype being constructed in e1-3, then that would be a contradiction. But "Ben said his father wanted him to have this" and "I did not see Anakin state that in e1-3" is not a contradiction; it is an unexplained. If "unexplained" equates to "lazy" which makes "sucks", then, as I said before, good luck in finding any fiction that does not suck.


Lost Highway is a movie that shows what "unexplained" should be like.

leaving something unexplained is fine... the problem is that we already had the explanation and to represent it we instead got "I HATE YOU!!!"

blured transference, wont sit here... accusing every other film of having errors, doesn't justify the errors in this. it's like littereing... virtually everybody does it, but does that really justify it? NO!!!!

people need to sit the fuck down before making films, and think about what they are doing...

a whole bunch of yes men, are totally fucking useless... because they won't tell you when you're doing something wrong... and that is exactly what happened here... they could have made things right, but they didn't.
they wasted alot of effort on episode one when anikan could have just been a really good pilot for the republic who obiwan noticed had force sensitivity, and the PT could have started during halfway through where ep 2 sat.

and don't give me that "coulda, woulda, shoulda" bullshit, because that is exactly what preproduction meetings are for. a proper film has a lot of non filming components to it's schedule. lucas is in a big ass rush to get to post production everytime. he won't discuss continuity in meetings, he wont confirm that dialogiue he has written is not what people would say, he doesn't do second takes, etc.
these are things i have heard directly from people who have worked with him and others in the industry who have spoken to his slaves, and these practices and lack thereof are not the calling cards of a professional film maker...

trust me....
there is alot to be said for people who break the rules when it comes to creative things... the problem with george is that breaks the wrong ones.

QUOTE (Dunedain @ May 31 2005, 02:42 PM)
In the LOTR trilogy, Gandalf flies on the back of the Lord of the Eagles. So, why doesn't Gandalf just fly to Rivendell, pick up Frodo, fly to Mount Doom and throw the ring in the crater of the volcano?

Who knows. It's unexplained. But I have never seen anyone say Tolkien (and, Jackson for that matter) was lazy for not explaining why this option was not undertaken. Neither have I heard anyone say the fiction sucked because of it.


yeesh... that's like saying: Why didn't luke and han destroy the death star while they where inside it, seeing as R2D2 had already had the plans on him and had hacked into the system to controll the garbage crusher... why not set the reaactor to overload ten minutes after they expected to be out of there... huh? HUH?!?!

the eagle thing, (like tom "not my job" bombadil) is covered in the book FOTR. and the film is not on trial here...
(because it was great, and they didn't rely on CGI to to tell the story)

again, stop trying to defend these films on the premise that y'ou can find errors with any film if you dig deep enough...'

the whole point is that you don't have to dig to find errors in SW:PT, they are all on the surface calling attention to themselves...
0

#55 User is offline   Mnesymone Icon

  • Champion
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1,836
  • Joined: 08-April 04
  • Location:Somewhere near my collarbone
  • Interests:Food, books, movies, history, languages, religions (though I'm an atheist), miracles of nature and marvels of technology.<br /><br />Particularly: steak, the Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, The Dark Ages in Europe, the 'created' languages, the mythologies of defunct European cultures, fish and cars.
  • Country:Australia

Posted 31 May 2005 - 08:51 PM

Something that comes before something else does not necessarily need to tie every bloody thing in - however, a prequel, something made after but set before has to oblige all elements of the backstory laid down in the prior story. Revisionism of the prior does not allow the prequel free rein to do whatever it wants either.
The PT are prequels to the OT - something like the Silmarillion is not a prequel to Lord of the Rings, but a precursor - the PT must connect and must not contradict the OT, the onus is on the prequel.
0

#56 User is offline   Despondent Icon

  • Think for yourself
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4,684
  • Joined: 31-October 03
  • Location:a long time ago
  • Interests:Laughter. Louis pups. Percussion. What binds us. Bicycling, Tennis.
  • Country:United States

Posted 31 May 2005 - 11:11 PM

the PT exists to show how Anikan and Ben fought Darth Vader. Well, that was the original intention I guess.

George Lucas "wanted you to have this." Fine. Doesn't mean we have to follow the way.
0

#57 User is offline   Madam Corvax Icon

  • Buggy Purveyor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2,031
  • Joined: 15-July 04
  • Country:Nothing Selected

Posted 01 June 2005 - 12:47 AM

QUOTE (Mnesymone @ May 30 2005, 11:12 PM)
"How did my father die?"
"He didn't... when he turned to Dark Side I confronted him and hacked all his living limbs off... and he was horribly burnt by lava... very badly burned. Which reminds me - as he lay there screaming in intolerable pain I stole his lightsaber, and I want you to have it. He survived his horrible, horrible burning and was rebuilt by the Emperor. He became Darth Vader... your father was seduced by the dark side of the Force."
Luke's exp​ression of fear, disgust, horror, nausea and grief fades for a moment. "The Force?"
"Well the Force is what gives a Jedi his power - it is a euphemism for tiny organisms in your blood that create an energy field. You must have a midichlorian test, if you are to come with me to Alderaan."
"I'm not going to Alderaan with you - you left my father to burn in horrible pain! Nasty nasty man!"


Mnesymone, thank you very much. I stumbled here by mistake and I am happy somebody expressed so explicitly something that has been bothering me very much since I saw the ROTS.

Whereas Ewan MCGregor looks really gorgeaus in the new hairstyle and Jedi robes, I suddenly stopped liking Obi as a character. I re-watched the scene and Obi does not even flinch when watching Anakin burn. A guy who declared that Anakin is like brother was able to do this? I always imagined that Anakin fell into a lava pit, or somewhere where he would be beyond help, but have his friend watch him scream in pain without batting an eyelid after spying on his wife to get him - I am sorry, but I don't like Obi in PT at all.

Edit - and I can't believe gushers are finding exuses like that for continuity holes. I won't even comment on that...

This post has been edited by Madam Corvax: 01 June 2005 - 12:47 AM

0

#58 User is offline   Veer Icon

  • Mini Boss
  • PipPip
  • Group: Junior Members
  • Posts: 168
  • Joined: 30-April 05
  • Country:Canada

Posted 01 June 2005 - 01:19 AM

QUOTE (Madam Corvax @ May 31 2005, 10:47 PM)
Whereas Ewan MCGregor looks really gorgeaus in the new hairstyle and Jedi robes, I suddenly stopped liking Obi as a character. I re-watched the scene and Obi does not even flinch when watching Anakin burn. A guy who declared that Anakin is like brother was able to do this? I always imagined that Anakin fell into a lava pit, or somewhere where he would be beyond help, but have his friend watch him scream in pain without batting an eyelid after spying on his wife to get him - I am sorry, but I don't like Obi in PT at all.


Just to add to this, I recently watched ANH again, and i'm sorry to say that as good as McGregor was in ROTS and the PT, he just can't compare, can't compare at all to Alec Guinness. It's something about that mans eyes - the warmth, the wisdom, the gentleness, that just dosn't come across in the PT.
0

#59 User is offline   Dunedain Icon

  • New Cop
  • Group: Junior Members
  • Posts: 39
  • Joined: 25-May 05
  • Location:The White City
  • Country:United States

Posted 01 June 2005 - 05:10 PM

QUOTE
That is a famous plot-hole. And actually it has been brought up. In the DVD commentary of LOTR Jackson and team specifically bring that point up when they were discussing the script. Jackson justifies it as saying the Nazgul creatures would have stopped them.


Yes, I agree it is a plot-hole. What I am saying is that, show me a forum where people post "Tolkien ruins the series!" "Thanks a lot Tolkien". etc.

Now, Jackson can comment on the DVD, but Lucas does the same thing. So, most of the legitimate questions raised have been addressed and answered. ie, Lucas says that Leia remembers her mother through the force in the ROTJ commentary.

QUOTE
Tolkien I believe address the point more directly. Firstoff he establishes that the Eagles are not beasts of Burden, and don't concern themselves with the wishes of men, elves and wizards. They are equal if not greater beings. There are no eagles at the council of Elrond. When Gandalf is rescued by an eagle from Orthanc it is shown as a one time affair. Its been a while since I read the book, but this point could have been brought up in FOTR, something about the people of middle earth (Eleves, men, dwarves) not being able to rely on outside help, but having to solve/face this problem themselves.


Well, Gwaihir was sent by Radagast the Brown, so Radagast could tell Gwaihir to do just about anything. But, point taken. The only reason I bring it up is to illustrate the seeming prejudice against one creative work, whereas another seems exempt from over-harsh criticism. Case in point is the deus ex machina appearance of the eagles in Jackson's ROTK. In Tolkien's work, I know that it was Radagast the Brown that was involved, and their appearance made sense. But since Radagast was demoted to "moth" in the films, then there is no competant cinematic reason for the arrival of the eagles at the Black Gate. None.

HOWEVER, one will be hard-pressed to find a single post on the web, or statement by some critic "Deus Ex Machina eagles? Thanks for ruining the films, Jackson!"

To my notion, the prejudice against Lucas is not a cinematic one, it is a psychological one.

QUOTE
When Obiwan says "This weapon is your life" it establishes that Obi-wan feels that lightsabers are a Jedis most important object. This is not necessarily the opinion of all Jedi, but is his, and that's fine. How you make the jump from Obi-wan believing lightsabers are important to Anakin wanting Luke to entrust/save his life is beyond me. Anakin doesnít saying ANYTHING to Obi-wan about lightsabers (which is the point), and he does not say anything to Obi-wan about Luke either - infact he doesnít even know about Luke.


Simple. Obi-Wan refers to a Jedi's weapon as his "life". He equates in some sense that a Jedi's lightsaber is representative of his very being. "Your father wanted you to have this" is simply Obi-Wan's way of saying "I'm giving your father's life into your hands."

Now, sure, you can say "BUT Obi-Wan didn't KNOW that Anakin wanted that, so he was lying". Yeah, you could argue that. IF "lying" means "saying something you know in your heart is true, but don't have empirical evidence to confirm".

QUOTE
Reaching aren't you? Itís not a plot hole, and never has been. Firstoff, C3PO is not R2. C3PO doesnít know who Obi-wan is, he doesnít even know where Obi-wan is supposed to be. This makes sense considering C3PO had his memory wiped at the end of ROTS. Certainly the two droids - R2 and C3 - could have had many adventures before 'Star Wars', however none of these adventures could have involved a trip to Obi-wans home on Tantoonie.


No, you're right, it's not a plot-hole. It is an unanswered question. How does the droid know where to find Obi-Wan? We don't know. We don't need to. We don't have to have full eposition on every detail, and every question answered. It's not relavent to the plot. It doesn't have to have an answer directly given to us. We assume that the droid has been given the information sometime, off-screen. Which is exactly the same as "your father wanted you to have this".

QUOTE
Secondly, there is the MOST obvious answer - Leia told R2 where to find Obi-wan. Leia afterall knew where he was, and she entrusted R2 with her mission. Makes sense that she would have told him where to go.


Sure, the MOST obvious answer is that Leia told r2. BUT, we never see Leia plugging in co-ordinates which read-out "directions to Obi-Wan's". We never HEAR Leia say to r2 "go south-south-west until you come to the bear-shaped rock, from there, go east until..." We don't NEED to hear it.

Likewise, we don't NEED to hear Anakin say "give this to my son". It's not relevant to the plot. It's simply an unexplained. The MOST obvious answer is that Anakin mentioned it off-screen at some time during the clone wars campaigns. Just like Leia MOST obviously gave r2 the directions.

So, still, e1-3 are being scrutinized and deemed contemptable for doing the same thing as e4-6; while e4-6 are still being portrayed as some kind of paragonic cinema.

>>>

barend:

QUOTE
yeesh... that's like saying: Why didn't luke and han destroy the death star while they where inside it, seeing as R2D2 had already had the plans on him and had hacked into the system to controll the garbage crusher... why not set the reaactor to overload ten minutes after they expected to be out of there... huh? HUH?!?!


Yes, exactly. That IS the point. Float around the SW "critiques" and you will find mountains of "WHY didn't Anakin just...it sucks!" "WHY didn't the Jedi...it sucks!" "WHY? It sucks!"

"Why" is not a reason for anything, let alone saying "It sucks!". WHY didn't Luke destroy the death star when he was there? WHO knows. But it doesn't make e4 suck, does it? No.

All I am illustrating here is that, deny it or no, there is a double-standard going on. The same things that make e1-3 suck, are totally ignored in any other work. If anything, it is psychologically fascinating.

QUOTE
he wont confirm that dialogiue he has written is not what people would say


The bulk of the post was basically statements to that effect. They don't make sense. What is "dialogue he has written is not what people would say" even supposed to mean? Are you telling me that people MUST talk a certain way, and NEVER speak certain words or phrases? It doesn't even make sense.

>>>>>

Mnesymnoe:

QUOTE
the PT must connect and must not contradict the OT, the onus is on the prequel.


I agree that contradictions are not good. But I will state again that, as far as I am recalling, there are no contradictions between e1-3 and e4-6. None. A contradiction is something that directly counters another statement. "I am a man" "I am not a man". These are contradictions. "I have a son" "I have a daughter" These are not contradictions.

>>>>

QUOTE
I re-watched the scene and Obi does not even flinch when watching Anakin burn.


The dude is practically weeping, which Jedi aren't supposed to do anyway. He's turning his head away trying not to look at Anakin. Come on.

QUOTE
Edit - and I can't believe gushers are finding exuses like that for continuity holes. I won't even comment on that...


Well, you did just comment on that. But, seriously, it doesn't mean anything. A gusher can just say "I can't believe bashers are nit-picking like that for continuity holes which don't have to exist. It's really just a subjective statement of opinion.

What I am more interested in is the basher's (man, I have to admit I really hate using these ridiculous labels) attempt to turn subjective into objective. I consider myself neither, but I do like the films. Maybe that makes me a - no, I won't even say it. But, honestly and intellectually, the ones who say "e1-3 are bad movies because of X" are the ones who are intellectually dishonest since they are stating subjectives in disguise as objectives.

That's the truth. Sure, you can say "I don't like those movies." "I don't like sci-fantasy." "I don't like how he talks" and that is subjective truth. BUT, when you say "e1 is an objectively bad movie because the story is boring". No, that's wrong.
0

#60 User is offline   barend Icon

  • Anchor Head Anchor Man
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Crappy News Team
  • Posts: 11,839
  • Joined: 12-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nieuw Holland
  • Interests:The Beers of Western Europe, Cognac, and constantly claiming the world would have been a better place if Napoleon had won.
  • Country:Australia

Posted 01 June 2005 - 08:07 PM

you have got to be joking...

who the fuck would honestly say "you're breaking my heart." to someone who was doing something wrong...

even if it were in an appropriate context, it just not something a person would say, anymore than you would excuse yourself from the dinner table at your parents house with: "i'm leaving the table to go masturbate to some porn, excuse me."

the dialogue is shit.

and there is no douible standart... this is a star wars forum, and i have already stated that errors in other films do not justify errors in this.

that's a lame argument.
0

  • (8 Pages)
  • +
  • « First
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • Last »


Fast Reply

  • Decrease editor size
  • Increase editor size