Saga Leia remembering Padme?

"....This doesn't strike me as fans being logical. This strikes me as an example of fans being selective over what they want to believe and what they don't want to believe."

I like this statement, because that is the essence of debate; being selective over what one wishes to believe and discredit. Just like religion, politics, art,...the Force/Dark Side.....theories on plots holes in movies. Even when someone has a great theory that seems to perfectly address an unknown...there will always be others who will dissect the brilliance of the theory into a meaningless heap of words. It would be nice to know that the writers were just lazy and did not want to spend time thinking the storyline all the way through, or if "the clarifying piece of film" was cut at the editing stage because an editor thought the scene was too long and unimportant to the overall story....

 

To be honest, Lord Miggler, I'm not sure that Luke having training would necessarily mean that he's going to be more likely to have these visions. Anakin still had his precognitive abilities before training. And once his training had progressed, he still seemed rather powerless to control his visions. With his mother, for example, he tried telling himself (and even Obi-Wan said) that they were just dreams and not to worry, but that never seemed to work at all. Additionally, Luke never seems to have given much thought to his mother or have known anything about her.

The notion of triggers isn't explicitly said in the film, but I think the timing in ROTS is rather too coincidental for me to believe that Anakin just happened to start dreaming of Padmé dying in childbirth as soon as he found out she was pregnant. True, it's not flat-out stated by the film, but I do think that there is a connection between the two events and circumstantial evidence supports it.

The problem I have with Leia actually remembering her mother (i.e., Padmé living with Leia for a few years) is the it creates an enormous plot hole for me. If Padmé took Leia and went off in hiding with her, then why not send Luke to live with the Organas, who are more well off than the Larses and would likely have an easier time caring for a new baby? Furthermore, the Larses never adopted Luke (not that they didn't love him) while the Organas did adopt Leia. Wouldn't it make more sense to send a newborn baby with people who wanted to adopt a child? If you think Padmé went into hiding with Leia at the Organas' then, again, that makes it a bit of an issue for me in that, why would Padmé go and hide with a high-profile family? The Organas are royalty -- there's every possibility that they would have to play host to high-ranking Imperials and among them might be Darth Vader. You don't think that having his ex hiding out there would raise a few eyebrows? The children were already split up to keep them safe so, to me, it seems unnecessarily risky.

The only thing the OT told us is that Leia remembers her mother -- has images of her in her mind and associates feelings with her -- that Luke does not. That's not an inconsistency because we've seen the Force grant users such abilities before. When Anakin sees his mother suffering, he knows she is in pain and can see her as clearly as he sees Padmé standing before him. Anakin and Luke are both shown to be able to see into possible futures and Yoda flat out states that the Force can allow us to see those who are long gone. I don't think there's anything at all inconsistent with the idea that Leia, as she grows up and is exposed to more of Padmé's life, might begin to have foggy Force-induced "recollections" of her mother that she believes are memories.

I won't deny that the story was changed. I've read the ROTJ novelization. But I do think that to flat out state that what the PT presents is inconsistent with the OT is unfair. Based on your interpretation, yes, perhaps it would be. Based on mine, no -- everything fits well together. But changing the implications of a scene, in my opinion =/= an inconsistency or a plot hole. It all depends on how you interpret the scene.

That, and I like this interpretation a great deal because it helps make the "Leia as Luke's sister" twist more credible to me. Leia has latent abilities of her own.

 

Well, if you want all your movies to be that simplistic, then...

Actually, quite a lot.

What are all those people doing flying around in egg boxes? Why do they wear pyjamas? What the heck is the Force, anyway?

Why does the Empire seem to believe that retrieving the Death Star plans is the same as destroying knowledge of them? What, the rebels couldn't have made a billion copies, already?

Artoo: poor design. Can barely go across sand and no-one but Threepio can understand a thing he says.

Why does Leia have such a muted reaction to her own planet being destroyed?

Why is Vader still standing there in the next scene after Tarkin tells him to terminate Leia?

Why can't the stormtroopers ever seem to hit anything?

How does Luke hear Obi-Wan in his head?

Why was Leia content to fly straight to the rebel base while believing that the Empire was tracking them?

"It'll be just like Beggar's Canyon back home". Convenient.

What causes Han to change his mind and help Luke out at the end? And how the heck does he just sneak up on Vader and his wingmen like that at the last second?

Luke Skywalker: my best friend from back home just died, and our losses are terrible, but imagonna scream out a cast member's name right now, then run off for a big party.

 

Still a lot less than ROTS:

Who is General Grievous, why should we care, and where was he the past two movies?

Why does Anakin want to help a clone in danger?

Why does Anakin want to become a Master?

How do the Jedi conveniently not find Palp's identity at every turn?

What is that thing going on at the Opera House?

Why is R2 in Anakin's care and C-3PO in Padme's?

Why does the Senate not do an investigation on Palpatine's claims that the Jedi have become traitors?

Why are the Jedi Mace brought against Palpatine so incompetent in the battle?

Why did Yoda go to Kashyyyk and not help fight the Sith Lord?

Why did Mace need to fight Palpatine immediately instead of bringing Yoda, Obi-Wan, Ki-Adi Mundi, or Plo Koon with him?

How do Obi-Wan, Anakin, and Palpatine survive a broken window in the ship by grabbing on to a control panel?

Why does Anakin turn so fast and why does he despise all the Jedi within two seconds of them being his family?

Why did Palpatine's face melt and voice go deep for a few minutes?

Why does Obi-Wan say "Only a Sith deals in absolutes," which is an absolute?

Why does Yoda face Palpatine alone instead of fighting along with Obi-Wan, then fighting Vader?

How does Leia remember her mother?

 

Those actually aren't real problems for me to be honest. Luke living on Tatooine is hardly a connection to his father. That's like saying because I live on Earth, I would understand what someone in Madagascar or Vietnam's life was like. It gives me a small connection, but it's extremely tenuous. Moreover, Shmi is an entirely different person than Anakin and Luke hardly seems to have spent any time with Obi-Wan. He didn't even know the man's name or anything about him (that he had been a Jedi Knight for example) so I highly doubt that Obi-Wan ever told Luke anything about Anakin before ANH. I think you'd agree with that. Bail wasn't some small presence in Leia's life -- he was her father and her role model. She became a Senator just as he and her biological mother were. That isn't nothing -- Bail likely had a huge influence on Leia's life considering she followed him into politics.

And while Luke is curious about his father, he is fed complete misinformation. Leia would have had access to public records of the Senate which would have shown her how her mother voted. Padmé was a public figure and even if the Empire tried to censor what she had done, a lot of it was on the public record. And Bail would have been able to tell her even more considering they worked together.

I think also, it's a mistake to presume that Leia wouldn't have been as interested in her biological parents. I know people who are happily adopted who still have a deep curiosity. One simple reason that Leia's curiosity isn't as focused upon is simply due to Luke being the main character and thus we see everything from his perspective. There's also the fact that Owen and Beru seem to have dissuaded Luke from asking questions about his father (for good reason) which would have doubtlessly made him more curious. If Bail was more honest with Leia (although he still may have kept some facts vague to protect her), then I think it's likely she would have been more at peace. And, again, she also has the option of learning about Padmé Amidala not just as her mother, but as a fellow Senator. Even if she never realized that her mother was Padmé, I do think she could have felt a connection with her through their shared goals, work, and motivations.

Luke didn't know his father. And he didn't know anything about him even. He was completely misinformed about him. Which is why the revelation in ESB is such a heart-rending shock to him. Leia, though, wouldn't necessarily have been the same way. Learning more about her mother (whether as a Senator or as her actual mother), in my opinion, could very well have allowed Leia to have Force visions of her -- to have a connection to her -- that Luke never could establish with a man he obsessed about but didn't really know.

It depends, honestly. I say Leia would doubtlessly have known about Padmé's life and work because Padmé was a Senator and shared many of the same beliefs as her daughter regarding democracy. I don't think it's impossible, for example, that Leia looked to her as a role model. Additionally, I think you're being a tad pedantic regarding Leia's wording. Yes, she says that her mother died when she was very young rather than when she was born, but that in and of isn't proof of much, especially given that the loss of parents can be a bit of a sensitive subject for people who sometimes would prefer to keep details vague. Plus, it can sometimes be painful for people to associate the loss of their parents with the beginning of their own lives.

And again, there's always the possibility that Leia may not know that Padmé is her mother, but does know about her due to her relationship with Bail and her work in the Senate. Leia's life followed a course pretty similar to her biological mother's so, even if she didn't know of their familial relationship, I think it's not unlikely that Leia could look up to her. The visions she had would probably be too vague to recognize as Padmé but I still think they could be induced.

What exactly is the problem here? If Leia has such visions when she's still quite young, it's possible she could mistake them for memories, especially since she hasn't had any training. Heck, when Anakin had his visions, he mistook them as simple dreams. I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility. And the word kind can mean that her mother looked friendly, approachable, and sympathetic. You've never had anyone tell you you have a "kind" face, for example? Perhaps not, but it is a descriptor applied to women.

You only have to "make up an explanation" for Luke if one assumes that he should also naturally have experienced the same memories/visions as Leia. Which I don't think is the case since they're different people with different skills/inclinations.

And I think that the lines serve to demonstrate Leia's potential in the Force which helps to make her position as Luke's sister feel more organic. I won't lie, when I watch the OT alone, I always find it hilarious when Obi-Wan says "your insight serves you well" to Luke when he realizes that Leia is his twin sister because, seriously, who else could it possibly be? Mon Mothma? But with the PT and the Force explanation, it feels like Leia is part of his family and also has his gifts that she uses on a truly unconscious level and that she doesn't really understand. But there's potential there.

I'm not saying you have to agree. But I am saying that the "plot hole" or inconsistency is only an inconsistency if you choose to interpret the films a certain way.

 

To put what PiettsHat is saying another way, this whole thing is only an issue if you choose to make it an issue.

I'm also going to repeat what I said earlier: retcons are not plot holes, and any inconsistencies they create are irrelevant because the retcon overrides whatever is being retconned.

 

They all have relatively simple answers if you want them to.

That's my point. The perception of plot holes and how best to handle them are matters entirely subjective.

 

I had to sign up here just to post my take on the "Leia remembers her mother" controversy. In the deleted scenes for Episode II they show Padme's place, and as I recall, there were holographic pictures on the walls. After seeing those, I assumed that there would have been more such pictures and that Leia would have had access to them on Alderaan. Bail Organa knew Padme and would most likely have access to similar holographic images of her. In the movies, Padme *did* look sad most of the time, which would have lead to Leia's comment.

As it's been said here before though, it's just my opinion, you may see it differently.

 

The problem is those answers are not in the movie.

 

Reprise:

The perception of plot holes and how best to handle them are matters entirely subjective.

 

Who was Governor Tarkin and why should we care? It's circular logic. As to the past two movies, he wasn't there in TPM and was in the caves on Geonosis.

Because he's a good guy?

Because as Anakin said, "How can you be on the Council and not be a Master?" Which means that it is unheard of for the Council to put a Knight on the Council full of Masters.

Because there are no clues for it.

Does it matter?

Why Artoo in Luke's care and Threepio in Leia's in TESB? Astromech droids work best in starfighters and Protocol droids work best in matters of protocol and personal care.

Padme tells Bail that he was laying out his evidence, when he arrived.

They're not. Palpatine is that good.

Because they didn't know where the Sith Lord was and Yoda had good relations with the Wookiees.

Because he underestimated how powerful Palpatine was. Even Pell, Saesee Tinn and Agen Kolar were among the best the Jedi Order had to offer.

How did the Millennium Falcon avoid being crushed by the Hoth Asteroid Field.

Anakin's been turning since he killed the Tusken Raiders. He doesn't despise the Jedi until Mustafar. Prior to then, he said, "I will do whatever you ask. Just help me to save Padme. I cannot live without her."

That's his real face and he's connecting to the dark side. The better question is why does Vader sound like an African American with the helmet on and a British man with it off.

He's saying that he realizes that Anakin is lost and that he has to fight him, because the way he's talking is the same way Dooku talked.

Obi-wan would be killed just like the others. And it's called divided and conquer.

SIDIOUS: "Tell Captain Kagi to prepare my shuttle for takeoff."

MAS AMEDDA: "Yes, Master."

SIDIOUS: "I sense Lord Vader is in danger."

The Force.

It's like you haven't even watched the film.

 

They exchanged droids in the Tartakovsky cartoon.

 

But it's not in the movies.

 

We didn't see the exchange in TESB, either. Does it matter?

 

There is no exchange in TESB.

 

Garrett Atkins: You really have no clue as to what things in Star Wars are actual plot holes and what things are simply aspects of the story that go unexplained or un-elaborated upon because the nature of the Saga's storytelling doesn't require that they be explained or elaborated upon.

 

You don't have a clue what I am talking about.

Those points I mentioned above aren't all necessarily plot holes, but they require interpretation by the audience.

 

They don't 'require' anything because having explanations for them isn't in any way important to the overall narrative of the Saga. They're 'threads in the tapestry' that were 'pre-woven',and we don't need to see or be told how they were woven Into the tapestry in order for them to fulfill their purpose.

 

Once again, threads about questions like this keep coming back not simply because the answers aren't elaborated enough in the films. As everyone's been pointing out, there are lots of unelaborated things in the films. The reason people fixate on this question, or Yoda as Obi-Wan's master, etc, is because those things actually were 'elaborated' on. Or at least, they were described in the OT in terms that referred to an existing and already logical backstory in GL's head and notes, which was partially relayed to the audience as well (through interviews, scripts, etc). But it was then changed, and this generated quite a few retcons (as well as some modifications to the 'sensibility'/'feel' of Star Wars - less specific than individual retcons).

 

It relates to "trophy" points I guess.
Just look at the help section to "trophies" to see the details.

Doesn't show up to me either. Have to go to the profile page to see it...

 

This is what I see:

A group of people asks how Leia remembered her mother when her mother died shortly after childbirth.

A second group of people provides an explanation, all based on things that are done and said in the movies.

The first group of people completely fails to dispute that those things were in fact said and done in the movies, or that they could potentially explain the discrepancy. As far as I can see, their only real recourse is to insist that if Leia had a vision of her mother, Luke must have too. So I suppose Obi-Wan should have had a vision of Padme's future death. I mean, he knew Padme pretty well, too. Then again, he was also a different person with different experiences, different capabilities, and a different relationship to Padme, but all of that is irrelevant, apparently.

I really do think you guys have just staked out a position and refuse to budge because you want to dislike these aspects of the prequels. Here's how things could have gone: Padme could have survived the events of the prequels like was originally planned and gone into hiding, only to die a few years later off-screen. That would have been pretty confusing and unsatisfying from a dramatic standpoint, but at least you'd be able to see the implications of a line in Episode VI play out literally on screen, exactly as you expected, in exactly the way you expected. The line in Episode VI, rather than potentially revealing differences in the twin's personalities and the effects their divergent experiences had on their use of the Force, would instead just be redundant exposition about something we all already knew thanks to Episode III. And all would be well with the world, I guess, because at least nothing changed.

Really? Obi-Wan has to be reinterpreted as a manipulative liar, whereas before he was a wise, sage-like speaker of truths.

e: And it's funny, because the line that justifies this retcon is practically the mantra of Star Wars when it comes to later movies changing what we thought we knew: "You're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."

If the films had been made in order, I believe everyone here would have much less of an objection to the line in Episode VI. It clearly would have been put in the movie for a purpose other than exposition. The prequels were meant to make you rethink the originals and view them from a different angle. I know this is very hard to do for some people.

 

But, anakinfan, Luke's motive hasn't changed. He still wants information on his mother now that he knows Leia is his sister. The difference is that Leia never actually lived with their mother. But, from my point of view, this makes more sense. Obi-Wan says in ROTJ that Luke and Leia were split up for their safety, to keep them hidden from their father. Hiding with your mother isn't a great deal of protection, especially considering Luke was sent away.

I would still argue, though, that ANH is a movie that does require a good bit of interpretation. Why, for example, does Leia lead the Imperials directly to the Rebellion when she knows they are being tracked? That's a point that requires a good deal of interpretation and it's essential to the plot, unlike the issue with Leia and her memories.

 

Yes, and Luke is still trying to get some information on his mother. If that had changed, you would have a point about the scene having been diminished by Episode III. Luckily, it has not changed.

The goal did change, though. Luke gave up any hope of ever being able to destroy the Sith when he refused to kill his father out of hate, thus giving up the opportunity to survive another day to plot against Palpatine while serving as his apprentice. Luke decided it was more important to hold to his principles and submit to probable death than to execute a defeated adversary.

The retcon about Vader being Luke's father changed the entire plot, not to mention the moral trajectory, of the OT.

e:

This is one issue, but I think the main issue was one of plot and pacing. Lucas wanted Anakin's turn and the birth of the twins to be the climax of the prequels. Once that decision was made, the only way to preserve the original backstory would be either to have Padme die off-screen between movies, or to end the entire prequel trilogy on a clumsy flash forward scene where Padme drops dead for some reason or another years after the other events of the movie. Both would be unsatisfying from a dramatic standpoint.

The only other option would be to completely restructure the prequel trilogy so that Anakin becomes Vader and Padme gives birth in Episode II, and Episode III takes place years later and consists of Vader rampaging around slaughtering Jedi while Padme raises Leia on Alderaan and dies at the end of the movie. I know I may have just described a prequel basher's wet dream, but I agree with Lucas's decision to do things the way they were done. Vader and the twins shouldn't appear until the end.