CT Qui Gon Jinn's Force Ghost in the end of RotJ

There is no point. Anakin, Yoda, and Kenobi have relevance to the scene in their relation to Luke, Jinn does not

 

So we can make things up to fill in plot holes?

 

They do all the time

 

Sure seems like it.

 

Whadda you think your some kinda Jedi?

 

So, in other words, to you a plot hole isn't an unanswered question from the movies; it's a question that has an answer, in fact one appearing in licensed products, but you reject the answer so you can keep calling it a plot hole? In what way is something that's been filled in still a hole?

 

Plot holes can be answered in different ways, but they can't just be out of the blue. They should, well, need, to be accurate and make sense. You can't just say something fills in a plot hole if it has absolutely nothing to do with what the plot hole is about.

 

Licensed products count for nothing, only what's in the work in question matters

 

You don't seem to understand the point. You can't just yell "plot hole" as though a question not answered in the films constitutes a logical problem with someone's position, if that question has been answered by someone else who thought about it more than you did, proving that there is in fact no insurmountable logical flaw with the position in question as alleged. Repeating "I ignore the EU" over and over again is pointless in light of this.

 

Pointing out that a movie must be judged on it's own merits is never pointless. It's the standard by which all films or film series are judged.

 

Try reading it again. You called something, quote, a "problem". The Windham citation shows that under that interpretation ( which happens to be consistent with the films ) it is not in fact a problem.

 

What is the Windham citation? Are you talking about Donald Windham?

Oh, more EU stuff

 

It's the standard by which most films or film series are judged, because most of them don't have an officially-authorised expanded universe in which the parts of the story not told directly in the films are explained at length. Simply shouting "no EU! no EU! no EU!" over and over again doesn't change the fact that every single one of the EU stories was authorised by the people George Lucas delegated that task to, and are therefore part of his universe and an entirely valid means of explaining points which are not explained in the films..

 

His marketing of the EU means nothing to me. The story on film is what it is. It means little to him too, because he shows no hesitation at disregarding it whenever he sees fit.

He knows how to market. He can sell more books if he puts the "official" stamp on the EU. It doesn't change anything for me.

The EU is fine to enjoy, I really liked TCW cartoon as an example, but I enjoy it on it's own merits. The EU doesn't mean a thing to me when discussing the films.

I'm not telling anyone they are wrong for enjoying EU explanations if they like how it fits. Where it crosses the line is when those same people try and push it on people like me

 

He can very well ignore the EU. There is still no plot hole even if we go by the movies alone.

 

The EU is a mess of conflicting ideas and stories. Quite frankly, it's absurd to consider it as anything other than what it is, merchandising. And don't get me started on that whole tiered level of canon gimmick. Rubbish.

As I said, I do enjoy some of it, but I don't give it any more credibility than I think it deserves. They are stories that are best enjoyed separately on their own merits.

As to the movies, I still don't see any way to reconcile how Anakin is able to force ghost in light of this idea that it is a skill that must be taught.

If the trick is to maintain your identity after death, you must know how to do that before death. If you don't, you have no identity with which to learn a new trick.

I see no reasonable way around this, Lucas made a mess of it. He probably should have never introduced the Jinn angle at all.

 

But the tiered level of canon 'gimmick' is simply that the films are made by George Lucas and therefore anything he decides to put in them overrides any conflicting material in the expanded universe. Would you prefer that he give the expanded universe equal status with the films and tell people that the authoritative version is whichever source was published most recently?

 

Actually, you do, because it's been spoonfed to you several times. But it's EU, so you insist on ignoring it, so you can say "Lucas made a mess". Simply shouting "no EU! no EU! no EU!" over and over again isn't an argument.

 

Spoonfed is one way to phrase it, or shoveling crap in my direction would be another. I have ignored nothing, I have rejected plenty

 

Honestly, I don't care what he does. I've explained how I see the EU, that doesn't change for Lucas

It's merchandising.

 

You only reject the EU explanation because it's EU, not for any reason having to do with its merits. Thus, when you say you see no reasonable explanation, that is false. The EU explanation is reasonable. You see it, and reject it, because it proves you wrong.

 

It's not proof of anything. It's crap written after the fact. No more valid to me than any other invented explanation anyone can come up with.

You know this about me, you knew it about me from my very first interaction with you months ago, and yet you continually bother me with this crap. Why?

What do you think is going to change?

 

"I still don't see any way to reconcile how Anakin is able to force ghost in light of this idea that it is a skill that must be taught."

"I see no reasonable way around this, Lucas made a mess of it."

The way around this is explained in the EU. Thus, in fact, you do know that there is an explanation. But it's EU, so you reject it. Because it's EU. Not because there is anything wrong with the explanation. Just because it's EU. You've had numerous chances to explain what is wrong with the EU's explanation, other than "just because", and you've failed to do so. You seem to think that if you simply keep chanting "No EU! No EU! No EU!" over and over again, then you've rendered the EU invalid and the EU cannot prove you wrong. The problem is that you imply there is no reasonable explanation for something, when in fact there is a reasonable explanation. You claim Lucas made a mess, when in fact the EU shows there is in actuality no mess. By all means continue to repeat ad nauseam that you reject the EU; it doesn't matter. When you allege insurmountable plot holes in an attempt to make your position look right, and the EU shows the plot holes are not in fact insurmountable, it has proven you wrong.

 

If it was not a plot hole, it would not require these outside sources for explanation. That's the problem. The fact that you can point to some book for an answer is meaningless. The plot hole is still a plot hole. It is something that within the work in question goes against the established internal logic of the work. What's found in outside works is irrelevant.

When the internal logic of a given work breaks down, that is a plot hole. And only what is found in the work in question is relevant

George Lucas himself could come on here and post an explanation, if it's not in the movie it doesn't fix the logic problem.

You just don't get it.

This is just basic story composition

And you keep editing my posts when you respond and ignoring the question I really want answered which is this:

What more is there to say on this tired EU subject. There are plenty of people here you can talk to about the EU if that is what you wish to do. there is a whole forum for it in fact

 

It doesn't technically require outside sources for explanation, if an EU writer could figure it out just from watching the films. That means others could figure it out too. But I notice "there is no reasonable explanation" has changed to "the reasonable explanation whose existence I previously denied exists in outside sources".

Wrong. It means that claims like "no possible answer exists" are false.

And the story changes yet again. Before there was an explanation in outside sources; now, as usual, because the explanation is in outside sources, the explanation is invalid "just because". The very existence of an explanation in "outside sources" shows that there is no problem with internal logic.

Anything that fixes a logical problem fixes a logical problem. It doesn't have to be in the movie just because you say it does. If it is consistent with what is in the movie that is all that is necessary.