Chefelf.com Night Life: Definitive List of Inconsistences between the OT and PT? - Chefelf.com Night Life

Jump to content

Star Wars Fan Convention

  • (7 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Last »

Definitive List of Inconsistences between the OT and PT?

#31 User is offline   Casual Fan Icon

  • Mini Boss
  • PipPip
  • Group: Junior Members
  • Posts: 118
  • Joined: 25-March 05
  • Country:United States

Posted 02 April 2006 - 08:23 PM

Admittedly I didn't think much of the prequels, but I find the explanations for what seem to be inconsistencies between the prequels and the original movies to be fascinating. Maybe Lucas will produce a series of movies about those.
0

#32 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 02 April 2006 - 08:31 PM

QUOTE (KurganX @ Apr 1 2006, 06:22 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
23) Plot hole: Why does Owen Lars try to "hold Luke back" and exhibit anger and resentment towards Obi-Wan. We only get hints of what's going on in ANH (he's "afraid" that Luke is too much like his father), does he know about Anakin being Vader? Is it all an act? Obi-Wan makes it sound like he is in great tension with Owen, but this is never truly explained.


don't know if i'm i'm just expanding on this one or if we want to call it a new one...

oh what the hell...

48) Obiwan; "You're father wanted you to have this when you were old enough but your uncle wouldn't allow it. He was affraid you'd follow obiwan on some damn fool adventure like you father did."

hmmm... sounds like Owen knew Anikan before obiwan did. It rather imples that, aside from the already established lighsabre having issue that;
a. owen had in some way be a witness to 'obiwan luiring anakin away on some adventure' like gandalf in the hobbit.
b. at some point owen and obiwan sat down and talked about luke scoring his fathers weapon when he was of age, and owen took the view that it would encourage him to get dragged away from his duties to his family to go out and about with obi, JUST LIKE HIS FATHER WOULD. even though they only met once, breifly.
c. that luke wasn't really old enough to be carrying a lightsabre before... even though we now 'know' that lightsabres are recomended for ages 4 up.
0

#33 User is offline   KurganX Icon

  • Soothsayer
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 566
  • Joined: 06-June 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Country:United States

Posted 02 April 2006 - 08:48 PM

Yeah, I think the biggest problem in analyzing inconsistencies is that a large number of "Star Wars Fans" (the vocal ones who post on the internet) are more familiar with the EU than with the movies. Thus they interpret the movies through the lense of whatever EU stuff they've absorbed. There was a LOT of bitching about the prequels, but not all of it was the accusation of conflicting with the spirit of the original trilogy or just being badly put together films or disappointing, much of it was resentment upon Lucas for bulldozing what he'd said in the past about this backstory, implied, and encouraged in the development of the EU up to that point. They basically wanted the Prequels to be consistent with the "reality" of Star Wars as it stood, which was the movies, as interpreted by the EU.

The problem is the EU itself is full of inconsitencies and it's constantly changing, falling over itself to reinterpret everything and fill in every gap, elminate every mystery, repeat every compelling part of the story in a bigger and bolder fashion (and often failing) and then not quite getting there. The EU's job isn't really to retcon all the mistakes Lucas makes. And no, eliminating the EU does NOT get rid of all the inconsistencies or even a large number of them, but since the EU is so much less accessible for the average viewer, I'm choosing to just ignore it in this discussion for the most part (except for a couple of asides, just for illustration's sake).

By ignoring the EU in this list, I not only ignore the retcons it has proposed for George's errors and oversights, I also ignore the many additional problems the EU creates via it's OWN inconsistencies. Personally I think if Lucas is serious about continuity (doubtful, I think he's just more interested in making money off the franchise now that he's finished the movies he intended to make, or so he says) he should just restart the EU. Get everyone on the same page and hold his writers to task representing the series. They can bring back some of the old EU characters in the new continuity if they want, using the movies as they exist today as the foundation. That would piss off a lot of fans, but it might ultimately be the best thing for the franchise (plus it could make them a huge profit, by keeping things fresh and making people go out and buy the whole thing again in a few form).

Anyway, sorry for the rant, I'm just seeking to justify the rational for ignoring the EU in the question.

Ultimately the practicality about it is that we don't all have Leeland Chee with us as we watch the movies to straighten everything out. We mostly have a few geeks that half-know the stuff and make up the rest, and can't agree on a lot of things because their source material is in a constant state of flux and much of it badly written by people even further removed from Lucas's original story (If Lucas can't keep it straight in his own head, how much chance do these folks have of getting it right?).

Also, I KNOW there are people on this forum who really started their hatred of "the new stuff in Star Wars" not with the Prequels or the Special Editions, but with Return of the Jedi itself. That's fine, but I carefully laid out the details. I don't care if you use either version of the SE's or the originals, and any details that relate only to specific versions of the movies will be noted. ROTJ is in a different class than the SE's and the Prequels which were made with different cast and crew, different technological limitations and a timespan of decades later. ROTJ, like it or not, is much closer to ESB and ANH than TPM, AOTC and ROTS.

Those inter-trilogy inconsistencies don't interest me, like the EU inconsistencies, that's a topic for a different thread.

Okay here's another one, but I hestitate to put it in there because it's more of a loose end, attributable to Threepio's memory wipe:

"My first job was programming binary load lifters, very similar to your vaporators in most respects."

We never see this in the movies, but there's room for it to happen under "our first master... Captain Antilles." The EU ROTS Visual Dictionary (if memory serves) depicts a "Binary Loadlifter" as a kind of dumb bipedal heavy construction droid that physically lifts up stuff and moves it around. I suppose Capt. Antilles could have used those to load his ship when it was docked or something. So more of a loose end than a contradiction or inconsistency. What a construction droid has to do with a moisture vaporator (I doubt he could BS Owen that easily, it'd be like comparing a forklift to a solar collector) I don't know. He speaks of "programming" in answer to his question about "the binary language of moisture vaporators" so programming a droid doesn't sound so hard. So I think I'll let this one pass. It's just a part of Threepio's past we never see that wouldn't conflict with anything we do see. Threepio thinks it was his first job since his memory was wiped, the contradiction is explained in the prequels themselves, so it's consistent within that trilogy. Ditto with Threepio's quips about "getting the hang of" starships.

This post has been edited by KurganX: 02 April 2006 - 09:02 PM

0

#34 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 02 April 2006 - 08:53 PM

this was a good idea for a thread just to have a neat list.

it's too bad the idea was beyond some.
0

#35 User is offline   jariten Icon

  • making the nature scene
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1,845
  • Joined: 18-August 04
  • Location:in the bin
  • Country:Nothing Selected

Posted 02 April 2006 - 09:07 PM

QUOTE
Nobody asked you to refute or apologize, no offense. If you're just going to whine and gush here, don't bother posting


Heh. The trouble is that if the OP wanted a definative list of contradictions thats great, but if someone posts stuff that clearly isnt a contradiction then its a good idea if someone points that out because it shouldn't be on the list, right? Or are we just allowed to post anything that springs to mind? and if you look back you'll see i've been posting a few of my own too, but anyway...

(not sure the number, sorry) I thought the Emperor was anti-alien (as seen by the leagues of human imperial troops) or whatever, so whats the deal with that blue skinned guy whos on his side in Ep. 1 2 and 3? Where did he vanish too? Did old Sid just become a rasist inbetween 3 and 4?
0

#36 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 02 April 2006 - 09:24 PM

the problem is people posting essays on why they disagree with each point, one by one, attacking every last point posted.

If one point is truley obvious as to not belong on the list, then one should be able to refute it with the fewest of words, should they not?
0

#37 User is offline   KurganX Icon

  • Soothsayer
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 566
  • Joined: 06-June 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Country:United States

Posted 02 April 2006 - 09:25 PM

QUOTE (jariten @ Apr 2 2006, 09:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Heh. The trouble is that if the OP wanted a definative list of contradictions thats great, but if someone posts stuff that clearly isnt a contradiction then its a good idea if someone points that out because it shouldn't be on the list, right? Or are we just allowed to post anything that springs to mind? and if you look back you'll see i've been posting a few of my own too, but anyway...

(not sure the number, sorry) I thought the Emperor was anti-alien (as seen by the leagues of human imperial troops) or whatever, so whats the deal with that blue skinned guy whos on his side in Ep. 1 2 and 3? Where did he vanish too? Did old Sid just become a rasist inbetween 3 and 4?



Yeah but that's not what some people are doing. They're dismissing the entire thing with snippy one liners (like you did) or they're picking it apart line by line when half the stuff are not really answers (note how many quotations were replied to with question marks or signs of misunderstanding).

Long posts disagreeing with the contradictions are useless if they don't follow the rules of the post.
Let me lay out some things to clarify what I mean:

1 - You can't dismiss a contradiction with an EU fix.
2 - You can't dismiss a contradiction with a behind the scenes interview or special.
3 - You can't dismiss a contradiction with a fan-inspired "common sense retcon."

To answer a contradiction or inconsistency introduced in the prequels, you have to answer it with material within the prequels that fixes it. Not material from outside, offical or unofficial.

I'm not saying you can't contest certain ones, I think people are just generally saying you're wrong without explaining why from the movies themselves. I wasn't accusing you personally of doing this, except in your "grasping at straws" retort.

QUOTE
(not sure the number, sorry) I thought the Emperor was anti-alien (as seen by the leagues of human imperial troops) or whatever, so whats the deal with that blue skinned guy whos on his side in Ep. 1 2 and 3? Where did he vanish too? Did old Sid just become a rasist inbetween 3 and 4?


The "anti-alien bias" thing is something developed in the EU. It was similarly declared by some people that the Jedi Order was racist because they were mostly white males (Yoda being the sole exception) or that the Rebellion was solely white humans, so they threw in those aliens and non-white people (Lando was the "token black guy" remember?) at the end to even it out, so we got explanations like "Well the Mon Calamari joined the war late" and stuff. The EU contradicts itself by saying that Palpatine really wasn't racist, he only favored force sensitives over non-force sensitives, and they depict Dooku as being a racist who thinks humans are supreme. But we see none of that in the movies, it's simply an interpretation of us not seeing any prominent exceptions. Of course the EU contradicts that too by giving us plenty of exceptions like female admirals, alien admirals, etc. We can throw all that out in this discussion, it doesn't help.

We don't see the Senate in the classic trilogy but we know they exist and were finally disbanded. Princess Leia is the only representative (well and I guess Mon Mothma is at least a former Senator, via the ROTS deleted scenes). So since we have that gap, it's merely filling in the details. I don't have a problem with that aspect of the Prequels. Where's the inconsistency?

Also in ROTS we don't hear about the setting up of the regional governors EXCEPT in the deleted scenes (which also establish Mon Mothma and other senators as opposing Palpatine, which one might conclude was the "support in the Imperial Senate" that the admirals in ANH feared the Rebellion was gaining). The lack of govenors could be considered an inconsistency, but since the deleted scene explains it, I'm inclined to say it's fair. Since the Senate was disbaned, and the govenors given control, we lose all these alien dudes. So the only cause for "anti-alien bias" is in that the blue guy is gone. We don't know what happened to him. Instead we get those pale guys in the purple outfits in ROTJ that we're told in behind the scenes are "burecrats and toadies." In ROTS we already see the crew of that Star Destroyer made up of white males, not an alien, minority or female visible. So if this anti-alien bias exists, I think ROTS shows it as much as could be expected. The rest is in the EU, so therefore not relevant.

Also the blue guy seemed part of Vallorum's administration in TPM and was supposedly one of the guys who were the "real power" behind the Chancellor, at least according to Palpatine's smooth talk to Queen Amidala. Yet in ROTS he is calling Palpatine his "master." The fact that he's gone, doesn't really say one way or the other if Palpatine is racist. I guess as an inconsistency it could be more simply restated: "What happened to the blue burecrat who worked with Palpatine?" Was it part of the "re-organization"?

The Deleted Scenes are good, and somewhat iffy point. There are a ton of deleted scenes, and only a few of them ended up on the DVD. The DVD is where most people will see them. The directors commentary and behind the scenes stuff are also included on the DVD's. Not everyone will watch those, and not everyone will see the deleted scenes either. But we could leave the deleted scenes out of our analysis and Mon Mothma would not be an inconsistency. She's never called a Senator in ROTJ, and nothing really rests on her being it. She's also not called a leader of the Rebellion, she's just the person moderating a Rebel briefing for all we know, and it's all we need to know at that point.

People who saw the prequels in the theaters are not missing very much (ROTS was basically unchanged from its theatrical release, TPM changed in the most ways that had negligable effect on the plot and characters, AOTC in very subtle ways and with only one valuable character point BUT the version shown on DVD was shown on Digital screens in select theaters). Many of the Deleted Scenes actually would not work in the movies as they are because they actually contradict what is shown (especially in ROTS, some scenes repeat dialouge in different settings or depict it happening differently, or show a character getting killed and then showing up later on safe and sound in another scene).

Agreed barend. I get wordy myself because I want to avoid misunderstanding. But some of the objections seem like they're addressing every point because they object to the IDEA of admitting there are inconsistencies, rather than explaining why they aren't, based on the movie material only as the rules state. If it's obvious and they know the answer, we'd like to hear it, by all means.

This post has been edited by KurganX: 02 April 2006 - 09:40 PM

0

#38 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 02 April 2006 - 09:46 PM

exactly... but unfortunatley, its beyond some, so don't expect it to seize.
rolleyes.gif
0

#39 User is offline   jariten Icon

  • making the nature scene
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1,845
  • Joined: 18-August 04
  • Location:in the bin
  • Country:Nothing Selected

Posted 02 April 2006 - 10:32 PM

Fair enough, maybe my last one wasn't, but it still sticks out. Surrounded by aliens in 1, 2 and 3, surrounded by humans in 4, 5 and 6.

QUOTE
If one point is truley obvious as to not belong on the list, then one should be able to refute it with the fewest of words, should they not?


FAIR E-NUFF.
0

#40 User is offline   Little Nippatiz Icon

  • New Cop
  • Group: Junior Members
  • Posts: 26
  • Joined: 24-March 06
  • Country:United States

Posted 02 April 2006 - 11:41 PM

Just a comment after reading all the posts and my only thought is" What a mess! ".

A film(s) of this maganatude of creative talent and budget shouldn't have this many questions about whats going on?
I don't care if George has a half-witted explanation about this or that in the commentary, A film (story) should be able to stand on it's own with out help. any any questions the audience would be left with would be on the level of speculation, --not "Uhhh???"
0

#41 User is offline   KurganX Icon

  • Soothsayer
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 566
  • Joined: 06-June 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Country:United States

Posted 03 April 2006 - 12:22 AM

Ah, here's one:

49) "And these blast points, too accurate for Sandpeople, only Imperial Stormtroopers are so presice." Obi-Wan in ANH. And this isn't the inconsistency you all think it is (that Stormtroopers are lousy shots in the classic trilogy), rather that we see DANGED ACCURATE Sandpeople in TPM, nailing passing pod racers with their rifles! Compare shooting speed pods vs. shooting the tank treads of some big lumbering Sandcrawler. Which shows more shooting prowess? Explain this away with ignorance or the falling standards of Sandperson marksmanship, but I think it stands out as an inconsistency. wink.gif

50) Threepio's head is blown off by Imperial Stormtroopers (or it could have been Boba Fett, that sounds more like his voice, but then then he says "Stormtroopers, here?" when he's revived, in any case...) on Bespin in ESB and his head immediately "goes dead" until it's re-activated by Chewbacca later on. In AOTC his head is knocked off by some machines in the Geonosis factory and continues to be aware as he's bolted onto a battledroid body. Later on his head is torn off and dragged around by R2D2 and then welded back on his own body again. Throughout he remained aware, his eyes stayed lit up and he continued to talk as if there was no interruption in function. Likewise his body without his head wandered about with no problems. And before somebody argues that being blown apart by blasters was much more violent, recall that his head didn't show anymore physical damage on it in ESB than it did in AOTC when knocked off.

51) Not only do we not know how Obi-Wan and Luke stayed hidden, but how did Yoda stay hidden all those years in exile? And even with the deleted scene of Yoda arriving on Dagobah we aren't told what happened to that ship he used to take there or how he built that stone looking shelter (why wasn't the shelter made of metal if he made it from the craft as the EU suggests?) if he lives in a bog? Loose end: how did the cave become a "domain of evil"? It might have been better to leave this unexplained, then we could theorize he just got dropped off by someone.

Edit: Okay, I'm retracting part of this one. Keep the Yoda's ship/shelter inconsistency, disregard the "stay hidden" one. In ROTJ Luke is able to hide his presence from the Emperor somehow ("I have felt him Master.""Strange that I have not."), which is reaffirmed in the prequels with Palpatine somehow hiding his presence from the Jedi who fail to detect him until late in ROTS (and Obi-Wan goes undetected by Vader until the Falcon lands in the Death Star hangar). Yoda's hiding on Dagobah is far less objectionable than Obi-Wan hiding on Tatooine, since at least we don't presume that Anakin knows his way around Dagobah like he knows his way around Tatooine (Obi-Wan lives "somewhere out beyond the Dune Sea" according to ANH, making him much more well hidden than Luke, who is living in the same house that Anakin visited in AOTC).

If we disregard deleted scenes (they are DELETED after all), we can ignore this inconsistency. Somehow Yoda got to dagobah and remained undetected the same way Palpatine or Luke could. Being untrained perhaps Luke doesn't give off the same presence. But Vader and the Emperor should know that Tatooine is "a haven for those who don't wish to be found" (Qui Gon knew this, in TPM) and at least do some checking. Vader had reason enough to keep tabs on "his family" as well, since they're his only remaining link to his mother.

52) Why are Stormtroopers suddenly different heights with different voices, and lose all color identification marks and extraneous details like binocular visors, skirts, etc. (not just the loss of camo). not to mention all those ground vehicles they used to have which seemed much more useful and powerful than what they had in the classic trilogy (even if the new technology is superior, why do they not even have the equivalent of LAATs, those carryall for AT-TE's, etc.)?

53) Why doesn't the Empire use battledroids, droid fighters or other droid technology? (and only droids in non-combat roles like protocol and astromech droids) This is never explained (even if you consider Lama Su's statement that clones are superior to droids in being able to think creatively, that says nothing about the fact that you can make many times more droids much faster than you can raise clones, and you can make them much more loyal much easier than brainwashing conscripts, and so many other advantages... and we know his statement isn't true, because we've seen Threepio and R2D2 who seem incredibly clever), really. With the Seperatists defeated, the Empire would have access to all their technology, and yet they don't use it. And no, I don't consider hiring IG-88 as a bounty hunter a fix to the problem.

54) And conversly, why doesn't the Rebel Alliance use droids for combat? They seem able to afford all kinds of other gear and equipment.

Possible inconsistency: Why doesn't the Empire have/use "Ray Shields" (like in ROTS) to capture the Rebels on the Death Star? You could say ANH itself shows us that "they let us go" in order to find the Rebel base to wipe them all out, but before Vader's plan was put into action it would seem useful for them to use Ray Shields. Obi-Wan could have been captured this way (they're useful for capturing Jedi), although you could say Vader said "escape is not his plan, I must face him alone" and that's why they were not used. Those are the only real opportunities they had to use Ray Shields (assuming it's a technology only present on starships). The Trade Federation didn't use them to capture Qui Gon and Obi-Wan, so (within the prequel continuity) not all ships may have them or we could chalk it up to an internal inconsistency in the Prequel trilogy and not applicable (like the reason why Jedi never use "force speed" ever again after that one instance in TPM).

This post has been edited by KurganX: 03 April 2006 - 12:38 AM

0

#42 User is offline   civilian_number_two Icon

  • Canada's Next Top Model.
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Head Moderator
  • Posts: 3,382
  • Joined: 01-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In Your Dreams
  • Interests:I like stuff.
  • Country:Canada

Posted 03 April 2006 - 12:23 AM

Something pointed out as an inconsitency that is really an inconsitency of another sort:

55) Obi-Wan pulling out his lightsaber in the Cantina: NOT an inconsistency in the sense that he has revealed himself as a Jedi (or ASith), but an inconsistency in the sense that in STAR WARS, the lightsaber is introduced as a weapon used in an earlier time, while by the time of the prequels (maybe by the time of JEDI) it was established as a weapon used only by the Sith and the Jedi. This tore STAR WARS away from its obvious Samurai roots and thrust it into the worst sort of fantasy tradition, the tradition of the story wuth the rules that we make up as we go along. IN STAR WARS, there is nothing special about Ben surviving as long as he did wothout even bothering to change his name; he is simply a disgraced and masterless former warriopr living as a hermit. See THE SEVEN SAMURAI for the character template. By JEDI, it's idiotic that he survived withour really hiding, since his history is so intrinsically tied to every major player in the empire.

56) Owen wanting to erase the droids' memories, of course, was originally because he wanted to remove any information about the wars of which he tried to remain neutral, the wars that had apparently taken the life of his brother, former moisture farmer turned pilot. Lars resented Ben for THAT reason. It is a rewrite and unconvincing to say that he remembered 3P0, since if he had he wouldn't have bought him in the first place. Also if he had been so eager to remove the droids' memories because he KNEW that they had belonged to Darth Vader, then he would have done it himself instead of grumpily ordering Luke to do it. The story Lucas wrote in STAR WARS is tighter than the sloppy justifications offered by prequel apologists. Also, in the prequels, if I understand correctly, Owen is not related to Anikin at all and the term "Uncle" is meaningless.

57) Major significant point: Luke is not an important player in the universe in STAR WARS, only an eager kid whose father had fought on the side of order and who takes up a lost art under the tutelage of an old Samurai warrior. By JEDI, and then embraced in the prequel trilogy with both arms, Luke is a predestined superhero who inherits his powers by the blood from which he was born. This is a massive change of focus from the idea of the first film. In STAR WARS, the idea of an Exodus-derived slaughter of the innocent would have been unnecesary, since anyone with the appropriate drive and mentor might have done what Luke did. By JEDI, Luke's very survival is idiotic, since he wasn't exactly hidden.

edit - changed my numbering to match KurganX's concurrent post

This post has been edited by civilian_number_two: 03 April 2006 - 05:05 PM

"I had a lot of different ideas. At one point, Luke, Leia and Ben were all going to be little people, and we did screen tests to see if we could do that." -George Lucas, in STAR WARS: the Annotated Screenplays (p197).
0

#43 User is offline   KurganX Icon

  • Soothsayer
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 566
  • Joined: 06-June 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Country:United States

Posted 03 April 2006 - 01:19 AM

QUOTE (civilian_number_two @ Apr 3 2006, 12:23 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Something pointed out as an inconsitency that is really an inconsitency of another sort:

55) Obi-Wan pulling out his lightsaber in the Cantina: NOT an inconsistency in the sense that he has revealed himself as a Jedi (or ASith), but an inconsistency in the sense that in STAR WARS, the lightsaber is introduced as a weapon used in an earlier time, while by the time of the prequels (maybe by the time of JEDI) it was established as a weapon used only by the Sith and the Jedi. This tore STAR WARS away from its obvious Samurai roots and thrust it into the worst sort of fantasy tradition, the tradition of the story wuth the rules that we make up as we go along. IN STAR WARS, there is nothing special about Ben surviving as long as he did wothout even bothering to change his name; he is simply a disgraced and masterless former warriopr living as a hermit. See THE SEVEN SAMURAI for the character template. By JEDI, it's idiotic that he survived withour really hiding, since his history is so intrinsically tied to every major player in the empire.


Okay, this is a bit problematic, because the stuff about the lightsaber being in widespread use across the galaxy during the more civilized time is something from the original Star Wars novelisation. This part isn't covered in the movie, so we could consider it EU. George Lucas is credited as the author of "From the Adventures of Luke Skywalker" but apparently it was ghost written by Alan Dean Foster (who also wrote "Splinter of the Mind's Eye" arguably the first EU novel, even though it was written long before the term was coined).

From the movies we only learn that the Jedi considered the Lightsaber "their weapon" ("this is the weapon of a Jedi Knight") and it was from a "more civilized age" (since Ben is talking about the Old Republic, we assume he means when the Republic was in control and the Jedi were guardians of peace and justice, before "dark times," before the Empire was in control and the Jedi almost extinct). Saying that this is a betrayal of thematic elements is also problematic, since it assumes Lucas is using one theme, rather than a combination of themes (this gets into "behind the scenes stuff" and interpretation. Recall that Lucas admits not only Kurosawa's influence especially the Hidden Fortress, but also saturday matinee serials like Flash Gordon, myths, legends and Arthurian romances). So Lucas can always argue if he does something out of place for one influence, that he's just drawing on some other influence in his "canon" of acknowledged influences. If using his lightsaber revealed himself as a Jedi, it was a huge risky move, I agree. But, the Prequels do establish that even non-Jedi/Sith occasionly use lightsabers (General Grievous is the only example, but at least it's one). Anakin does identify the "lasersword" with a Jedi of course. I'm sure even in the time of the Samurai, they were not the only people to use swords (though admittedly, being skilled with one would be attributed to Samurai in popular imagination in the era of their prime).


QUOTE
56) Owen wanting to erase the droids' memories, of course, was originally because he wanted to remove any information about the wars of which he tried to remain neutral, the wars that had apparently taken the life of his brother, former moisture farmer turned pilot. Lars resented Ben for THAT reason. It is a rewrite and unconvincing to say that he remembered 3P0, since if he had he wouldn't have bought him in the first place. Also if he had been so eager to remove the droids' memories because he KNEW that they had belonged to Darth Vader, then he would have done it himself instead of grumpily ordering Luke to do it. The story Lucas wrote in STAR WARS is tighter than the sloppy justifications offered by prequel apologists. Also, in the prequels, if I understand correctly, Owen is not related to Anikin at all and the term "Uncle" is meaningless.


So he'd be a step-uncle? I'm not sure about this one, but you could try to explain it as part of the cover story (SO, it could be an inconsistency as you say). I'm not sure quite the point you're making with the erasing memories thing. If Owen buys the droids specifically to take them off the market and prevent any vital information they have from fallen into the wrong hands, that's fine, but he never really lets on his motives for buying them. If he did recognize them, yes, it would give new motivation for erasing the memories. In the movie as is, it looks like he's wanting them erased so Luke stops looking into information about his true past. Since we can only guess at Owen's motives, I'd say that his not recognizing Threepio is the inconsistency, not his reasons for erasing their memories. The movie makes it look like he didn't recognize them and so it was all just a big accident/coincidence. Having Luke do it would have been a mistake, so I agree, that looks like an inconsistency. Re-word it and it works as an inconsistency. There's SOMETHING wrong with the incident, so I'm with you there.

QUOTE
57) Major significant point: Luke is not an important player in the universe in STAR WARS, only an eager kid whose father had fought on the side of order and who takes up a lost art under the tutelage of an old Samurai warrior. By JEDI, and then embraced in the prequel trilogy with both arms, Luke is a predestined superhero who inherits his powers by the blood from which he was born. This is a massive change of focus from the idea of the first film. In STAR WARS, the idea of an Exodus-derived slaughter of the innocent would have been unnecesary, since anyone with the appropriate drive and mentor might have done what Luke did. By JEDI, Luke's very survival is idiotic, since he wasn't exactly hidden.


I disagree (not trying to be prequel apologetic here, only to explain why I think this is not an inconsistency), because even before the prequels, we're told that Anakin (well, he's unnamed in ANH, but still, we're talking the OT as a whole here) is the greatest starpilot in the galaxy, a cunning warrior, and a good friend of Obi-Wan Kenobi, who was a general in the Clone Wars. They both were veterans of that conflict and Jedi Knights. Luke was the son of this war hero (or at least war veteran), so much like (again we run into the problematic view of thematic betrayal, but bear with me) Arthurian romances which Lucas draws on for some of his inspiration we have the "young unknown" who turns out to actually have some noble blood (the tale of King Arthur himself for example, who's raised by somebody else and given lowly status as a youth, and doesn't realize he's destined to be King, or Sir Gareth who poses as a kitchen boy until he's proved himself to be a worthy knight of noble birth). I hestitate to use thematic betrayal as a true inconsistency, again. Since ROTJ is part of the OT, we can't disregard it and consider this an inconsistency with the Prequels on its own. In ANH his true lineage was to somebody important. In ESB, his true lineage was to Darth Vader, somebody important who was alive and evil, rather than somebody important who was a good, dead man. ROTJ doesn't give him any prophetic destiny except what others try to thrust on him (Obi-Wan thinks his destiny is to kill Darth Vader and the Emperor, which he fails to fulfill, since they kill each other when he refuses to fight anymore; Palpatine thinks Luke's destiny is to kill Vader and take his place as the Emperor's right hand man, again which Luke fails to cooperate with). ESB has Obi-Wan say "that boy was our last hope." So if anything the problem of Luke's "destined for greatness" is already present in the OT, even before ROTJ.

No real development of Luke's "destiny" is given in the Prequels. Yoda merely says "disappear we must, until the time is right." And says they have to hide the kids. Nothing about one of them being some chosen one who will defeat Vader. Luke's training seems to occur again by accident. Yoda never comes out of hiding, really, since he stays on Dagobah. Obi-Wan is the only one who reveals himself to fight Vader again. So really everyone just has tentative plans. Incidentally, and I hate to ramble on this, so this'll be the last detail... there is a prophecy of Luke in the Star Wars novelisation:

QUOTE
And in the time of greatest despair there shall come a saviour, and he shall be known as the Son of the Suns.


Which obviously refers to Luke, since at the time of the novel's release (1976) Lucas had not planned to make the entire saga about Darth Vader, a man destined to destroy the Sith and bring balance to the Force... nor had he planned to make Vader into Luke's father (and thereby make Obi-Wan a stinkin' liar just like Owen). Both Luke and Anakin are "son of the suns" in the sense that Tatooine has twin sons. There is the "son of the suns!" easter egg (it's some random voice in the crowd shouting it during the Coruscant celebration scene of ROTJ:SE and the Naboo celebration of TPM... so here it looks like Lucas is retroactively referring the prophecy to Vader, since it happens as the Palpatine statue on Coruscant falls)... but this is all interpretation, so I think we can leave it alone and say that all this predestined stuff for Luke is part of the OT, not the PT. ROTJ plays up Vader being a "good man" with "good still in him" but that's all Luke's thinking, as nobody else agrees with him in the movie.

edit - changed the numbering of the quoted passages, to reduce confusion -civ2

This post has been edited by civilian_number_two: 03 April 2006 - 05:08 PM

0

#44 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 03 April 2006 - 01:32 AM

QUOTE (KurganX @ Apr 3 2006, 12:22 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
50) Threepio's head is blown off by Imperial Stormtroopers (or it could have been Boba Fett, that sounds more like his voice, but then then he says "Stormtroopers, here?" when he's revived, in any case...) on Bespin in ESB and his head immediately "goes dead" until it's re-activated by Chewbacca later on. In AOTC his head is knocked off by some machines in the Geonosis factory and continues to be aware as he's bolted onto a battledroid body. Later on his head is torn off and dragged around by R2D2 and then welded back on his own body again. Throughout he remained aware, his eyes stayed lit up and he continued to talk as if there was no interruption in function. Likewise his body without his head wandered about with no problems. And before somebody argues that being blown apart by blasters was much more violent, recall that his head didn't show anymore physical damage on it in ESB than it did in AOTC when knocked off.


and why the hell does he still control his head but not dominate the body?

not that this helps the thread but seriously...
0

#45 User is offline   KurganX Icon

  • Soothsayer
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 566
  • Joined: 06-June 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Country:United States

Posted 03 April 2006 - 01:36 AM

QUOTE (barend @ Apr 3 2006, 01:32 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
and why the hell does he still control his head but not dominate the body?

not that this helps the thread but seriously...


Right, and right. wink.gif

Internal prequel problem, that part, but funny nonetheless!
0

  • (7 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Last »


Fast Reply

  • Decrease editor size
  • Increase editor size