CT What is wrong with Hayden as Anakin in the end scene of Return of the Jedi

In the case of others, it's a matter of people not paying attention. Like the droid/Obi-wan issue. Artoo knowing secrets isn't a problem. It really isn't. Really, most of what you listed isn't a big deal.

 

If you say so......I'll assume you aren't trying to tell me what's a big deal to me or not....

 

Lucas covered over the plot hole he created in TESB in ROTJ with the certain point of view about Vader betraying and murdering his father.

Not actually. He also said so through the characters in ANH and then contradicted that in TESB. This was resolved by Obi-Wan in ROTJ.

Perfectly? No. Because the Vader in ANH who isn't Luke's father is quite different from the Vader who is in TESB.

It works though because of all the things that Lucas didn't actually say in ANH that allowed him to redirect the characters and story. It the same way that Lucas was able to have Qui-Gon find Anakin rather than Obi-Wan because as he says in ROTJ he took it upon himself to train Anakin and that is exactly what we see in TPM.

Which is the point.

What it also odd to me is the very selective way about what Obi-Wan told Luke on Tatooine is taken. Once you accept that Obi-Wan is telling a tale then you have to look at everything he says. Yet some people get riled up about how Obi-Wan references Owen's relationship to Anakin and how that was non-existent in the prequels. But wait! Obi-Wan is not telling the truth. He isn't acknowledging he knows R2 or 3PO either.

Where does that come from though? When does she say she has real and actual memories the way people assumed they were?

It doesn't track with what she actually says:

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

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

LUKE
What do you remember?

LEIA
Just...images, really. Feelings.

Lucas knows his story really well and far better than we do. The same leeway that he used in regards to Anakin and Vader is used again here as well as with Luke and Leia and so many other areas.

Why is it that the one is alright and the other doing the same thing isn't? Leia only remembers images and feelings. Anything else she was told was by her adoptive parents just as Luke was told a story about Anakin on a spice freighter.

Yet somehow this becomes Leia with her mother on Alderaan until she was a few years old.

There is no "thing". It's simply two clear statements that like so many things in Star Wars are not given to overt explanation to the nth degree.

The answer is in the movies themselves but it's not just handed to us.

In TFA there is a "new" Republic but it's not called the New Republic. By the time of ANH the Republic is gone. In TPM the Republic has stood for 1000 years. Are we told there is no Republic before that? No. Clearly there is a Republic around with the Jedi the guardians for a 1000 generations.

Is it impossible to thing that there was some other interruption in the line of the Republic? No.

In TFA that Republic is yet another iteration that has only been around for a few decades. The previous one was 1000 years.

We don't get explicitly told in dialogue that Vader is a cyborg until ROTJ. Is that a problem to us? Did we not figure he was one before?

Again there is no screwing around.

I find that premise very confusing to follow because it's trying to have things both ways at the same time. If you are the observant viewer then the retcon of Vader and Anakin being merged into one character will be easy to see just as the Luke and Leia being brother and sister and the problems they create. But for some reason that is alright and these are two MAJOR over arcing things. By the same logic that Obi-Wan was not supposed to be killed off and he was replaced by having Obi-Wan recreated as Yoda is also MAJOR.

In comparison things like 1000 years and generations (which are separate trilogies no less!) or Leia remembering her mother (again across two trilogies) are minor in comparison and the type who likes to think deeply like ourselves come up with fairly easy "solutions" to these "problems" (or non-problems as far as I am concerned).

Which is exactly what happened as far as I am concerned. The way Lucas was able to work over the Anakin/Vader and Luke & Leia was well done as were the other things like Leia remembering Padme and Vader's knowledge of Luke.

It clearly isn't and Lucas made a very specific point of this. If he thought it was then he would have had R2's memory erased as well.

 

I think a bigger issue is Owen & 3PO. Following the PT it's a fact that as the two are having that conversation in ANH they had lived together for years in the very home they're both standing in front of! Of course any minute now the hand-wavers will ride in & say "don't worry about that, & Owen doesn't care about droids, & 3PO's personality is standard issue & etc etc".

No, a lie for obvious reasons is not a plot-hole. It was "covered" at the end of TESB when Luke was heard saying "Ben, why didn't you tell me!". Clearly implying that Ben may have lied to him earlier to avoid him knowing the horrible truth. Luke's reaction & pain in finding out that truth from Vader showed exactly why Ben was reluctant to tell him. It all fit perfectly. By the end of the OT you wouldn't know it wasn't planned that way unless you'd found that out via external sources. Whereas many of those other examples don't fit together just from what's in the movies themselves. That's the key difference you're having trouble grasping.
As a different example, in TDKR the character played by Marion Cotillard says she's Miranda Tate, when in fact she's really Talia al Ghul. This is a lie. Is it a plothole? No, bcs by the end her lie made sense. There was good reason for it. What if we discovered that the writer changed his mind while writing the script & had planned for Miranda to be herself, & then re-drafted the story to make her become Talia? Would that suddenly be considered a plothole? No it would not. In the same way, Anakin/Vader was never a plothole in the OT. The plan for the character having been changed behind the scenes is irrelevant. Ben's lie made perfect sense by the end of the story. Just like Miranda's.

Nice try omitting the other key part of her dialogue. Where she says she remembers her real mother as kind & beautiful. That's a personality trait & the way she looked. The point is, if Leia believes that they're only images & feelings of her mother who she never knew beyond her birth then she must know she's Force sensitive. And that they're not memories at all. On the other hand if she believes that she actually lived with Padme until she was a few years old, which is the only way to justify her having real memories, then how is it possible for her to believe that? Who told her that was the case, & why? If you want to jump on this merri-go-round, be my guest. You won't get it all to fit together. It's like putting together a jigsaw puzzle with half of the pieces missing.

Great, then you'll have no trouble explaining how that problem gels together in this thread. I look fwd to it.

Why did he do that? And can you pls clarify one thing, which may help save time here. Are you saying that Bail told Leia that her mother lived with them for years before Leia reported her visions or after? This is a key point.

"What does it hurt??" That's a good enough reason to tell her Padme lived with them for years? Bcs it won't hurt? Are they insane? Why not tell Leia her father lived with them until she was 2? How would it hurt? You're not making sense bcs you're not clearly explaining Bail's motive for that part of the lie. Maybe if you answer the question above & then explain his motivation we can get some clarity on your position.

 

To my way of thinking its a given that what was established within the OT is the starting point and building blocks for stories before and after. To start tinkering with certain elements that happened within the OT and to try and change things, however slight, is going to be noticed. Obviously the degree with which these things bother individual viewers is going to differ.

To me little things like that matter, the devil is in the detail, in fact thinking about it actually they are big plot points. Overall you should not have to consult ditched story ideas or EU material or making of books or directors notes to be able to follow what is going on. In the case of the points being discussed, they stand out like a sore thumb to me when watching the films, and to people that are bothered by these details they are a real 'hang on a minute........' moment. If you watched these films in order and had never heard of them before you'd think it was episodes 4, 5 & 6 that were the ones that couldn't keep the continuity details.

Its a given that those who have a positive answer for everything Lucas has done are trying to play things down and come up with some wooly reasoning, vague answer or are trying to pass it off an minor. But then some of the posts you quoted Darth Downunder above are tripping over themselves with excuses, convientiently missed out information and trying to make out the originals were in fact a problem too in a desperate effort to be defensive for the sake of being defensive. Its an issue for some people and I can't believe that even the most hardened can't accept or see why these things bother some.

More importantly I can't believe the writers thought they could get away with doing stuff that went against what was established in the OT, (no matter how slight), and hope that either people don't notice or they'll brush it off as nothing. Owen knowing the droids, Obi Wan seemingly not remembering the very droid owned by the Padawan he had spent years with and then left for dead, Leia being a newborn when her mother died so how did she remember her, changing the Emperors Empire dialogue later. Its sloppy writing IMO, they had no excuse to not make things fit.

Then you get into the territory of adding Hayden in Jedi, nothing against Hayden, but was it really necessary? Was Sebastian Shaw an issue prior to this change. I don't think so.

I hope is that going forward Disney make sure that they keep to the coninuity of whats been established and they don't end up having to paper over any details in the films they do.

 

Lucas also said it directly when talking to some of the people working on SW in the early stages, Alan Dean Foster etc. He mentioned the Battle of Condawn, where Luke's father was killed. And he also mentioned a possible prequel movie with young Obi-Wan, Luke's father and Darth Vader.

Except we DON'T see that in TPM.
What we see is Qui-Gon making Obi-Wan promise to train Anakin.
That is not the same as "took it upon himself."
Fulfilling a promise and deciding on your own to do something, are a bit different.

It 100% comes from what she says IN the film.
You and others try to ignore what she says or rewrite it to what you want it to mean.

Right there!
Leia is asked if she remembers her mother and she says "Just a little bit."
That there says with no uncertainty that she does remember her real mother.

You try to alter "Just a little bit" into meaning "Not at all."

If a person is asked "Do you have any money?" and the response is "Just a little." then the person HAS money, just not a lot.
Or if a person is asked "Have you eaten anything?" and responds "Just a little bit."
Again the person has eaten something, just not a lot.

Leia remembers her mother, she says so IN the film, stop ignoring it.

A memory can be in the form of an image or a feeling.
You somehow try to pretend that a memory in the form of an image is somehow NOT a real memory.
I remember what my old room looked like but nothing else.
That does not change the fact that it is a REAL memory.

Also, Leia remembers what her mother looked like. that she was sad about something and that she was kind TO her.
So for that sentence to work, Leia must have actually been on the receiving end of her mothers kindness.
Meaning she would have to have spent time with her.

Except we don't know that she was told anything by the adoptive parents.
With Luke we ARE told about Owen telling the lie about his father being a navigator.
What, if anything, Leia has been told about Padme is totally unknown. Hence, if you want to assume that her "memories" are based on what Bail told her, then you have a plot hole as that is not IN the films.

What RotJ establishes is that Leia can remember a little about her real mother but Luke has no memory of her. The film also establishes that the children were hidden from their father when they were born.
So the answer is obvious, Leia went with her mother but Luke went directly to Tatooine.
Thus Leia can remember her mother as she spent some time with her but Luke remembers nothing as he never knew her.
This explanation fits all the available evidence and makes sense.
Invoking the Force runs into the obvious problem of why Luke has no such "memory" and he was just as strong in the Force and more training and experience.

@darth-sinister

When did I say you did?

As for the other, WHY does Bail do this?
This is big question.
Why does Bail make up a story about Leia's mother being alive and living on Alderaan when she is dead?
Why did he make up this elaborate ruse as opposed to just saying "Your parents both died in the clone war and we adopted you when you were a new born."
It is much easier, involves far less people and has a much lower chance of being discovered.
Owen didn't make up some story about Luke's father or mother living on Tatooine, as that would be stupid. He only lied about what Luke's father actually did.
And since Luke had no way to check that, it was pretty safe.

So he tells Leia about her mother but insist that she only ask him and his wife about her?
Yep, that sure doesn't sound like he is hiding something.

And getting the staff to lie, what you keep ignoring is what happens if they mention this to other people and gossip starts going around.
Bail does not want anyone in the empire to look too closely at the child he has adopted.
Making a big effort into spinning an elaborate lie is the sort of thing NOT to do in this instance.

Also, the problem with getting the staff to lie, now he has to make up a lot of things for them to say or the lie becomes obvious.
Say Leia asks "What did my mother do here?" and the response is "Don't know."
If she asks "What did my mother like to do, did she like to dance?" If the answer again is "Don't know."
This would make it very clear that the staff doesn't really know her mother and would expose the lie.
Remember this is meant to be a person that they knew, that lived in the palace and that they saw regularly.
So Bail would have to make up a lot of details about Leia's mother, basically cover anything that Leia could possibly ask.

And then you have further problems, if he makes up this story when Leia is brought to Alderaan and tells them this then. But if Leia starts to ask question say five years later, would they remember everything? Or would people have gotten details wrong?
Again, this isn't about a person they actually know, it is a lie they are told to tell.
So Bail would have to have regular courses to teach the staff what they should say in case his daughter asks any questions.

Other problems, the idea that Leia's mother is dead.
Did Bail have that pre-planned when he took Leia in?
That they would have a story about her mother living for 2 years and then dying?
Or did he make this up after Leia started to ask questions.
And he would then have to inform everyone about how long this fake person lived there but he also has to make up a cause of death.

If Bail wants to engage in this elaborate lie, then a far simpler option exists.
Have a real woman play Leia's "mother". Have this actual person be presented as Leia's mother and have her live with Leia in the palace. Now he does not have to get the whole planet in on this lie, just him, his wife and this person.
And it would make it hard for anyone to connect Leia to Padme's child as Leia's mother is alive.
Of course this would mean that the person that Leia is talking about is not her mother but someone pretending to be her mother.

Simple?
Get essentially the whole planet to play a part in this lie?
Make sure that they all know what to say and make sure that they don't contradict each other.
And that not one person mentions this to someone in the empire?
This is simple?
I can not imagine what hard would be.

And on top of that, Bail does this FOR NO REASON.
He engages in this absurd and stupid behavior for no reason what so ever.

Unlike Luke, Leia is formally adopted, she has Bail's family name so yes forms are needed.
Plus Leia was elected to public office, so again forms and official records are needed.

Bail needs to cover his tracks, he has to make sure that no one connects Leia to Padme's child.
So having official records and the like to point in different directions is good way to achieve that.
Simply having Leia as his adopted daughter and no other info, now it looks like he is hiding something.

Bail, unlike Owen and Beru, were in the public eye and also under the eye of the empire.
Thus they had to be careful and not draw attention to Leia. And engaging in a big lie would draw attention.
So much better to say that Leia's parents both died in the war and she came to live on Alderaan when she was just a month old. Simple and no need for elaborate lies.

Bye.
Old Stoneface

 

Actually, I did.

Does it matter when? It could go either way. He may have anticipated that she would have questions about her past if she is told that she was adopted and thus created a backstory for her that wouldn't connect her to anyone in particular, but would be enough to satisfy her curiosity. She may have brought it up to him, she may not have and didn't say anything until Luke brought it up.

Yes, what does it hurt that he tells a lie? People lie. How are they insane?

How do we know that Luke wasn't told that his mother died when he was two and had lived with them on the farm? There are dead bodies buried on the farm. Simple enough. As to Bail, maybe he tells her to give her a less sad backstory than just being a war orphan. Maybe by telling her that she was born on Alderaan, it keeps her from searching for any possible family that could exist away from Alderaan. If she's told that she was from Jakku, Hosnian Prime or Corellia, she would want to go there to find relatives. If she's told that she was born on Alderaan, much easier to control the flow of information.

Also, why wouldn't Owen tell Luke that Anakin lived on Tatooine, when he wasn't off being a navigator?

Not really. It just means that they knew her well and they're the ones who adopted her. So if she has questions, just ask them.

They know that she's adopted. Even the Empire knows. They just don't care. There's no reason for the Empire to look at her unless given a reason and the people of Alderaan, who will never go to the Empire, isn't one.

She was an aide that worked for him and the staff didn't know her that well. Again, simple.

Having official records doesn't mean that a lie about the mother cannot be constructed ahead of time and thus be in place to keep her identity a secret. Saying that she is a war orphan would make the Empire curious, as opposed to saying that she was a daughter of an aide and had died when Leia was two. Besides, the Sith believe Padme's child is also dead. So there's no reason to worry there unless Bail says that he was on Polis Massa when she died. And he wouldn't.

 

hey all, there's no point to argue with darth-sinister or Qui-Riv-Brid, they believe this stuff whole heartedly, they are on other boards too, and I have no problem with them believing it, but they treat everyone else like we are wrong for not having the same opinions....arguing with them will forever be circular....if any questions if true, look at beginning of post 1707 directed at me

 

Did I say you were wrong? No. I said that it isn't that big a deal. You, in particular, don't like that Lucas had characters lie or that some people couldn't pay attention to dialogue that said something that was very clear and distinct. Hence it isn't a big deal.

1. Owen recognizes the droids after Luke says that Artoo claims to belong to Obi-wan Kenobi. That's why he wants the memories wiped. He and Beru never told Luke that name before, which Luke himself confirms when he wonders if they mean Old Ben. You don't need the PT for that.

2. Obi-wan says that he never recalled owning a droid. Not that he doesn't remember Artoo and Threepio. The PT shows Obi-wan never owning a droid.

3. I already went over Leia's memories and TFA backs up this claim.

4. Lucas changed Palpatine's dialogue which isn't really that much of a change other than calling Skywalker by his full name and Vader being uncertain as to how this child is his son, when he was told that the child died. The original dialogue was vague as to what Vader did and didn't know.

 

Sorry but I really don't get that. I might as well say the same thing about those who don't agree with me.

The point is that is exactly what I do not say. It's not about "right" or "wrong" or "winning" and "losing". The entire point is to state your point of view. Test it against others and see what that does to your own opinion. It's about agree and disagree.

The great point for me is that from Samuel Vines, Darth Down Under, Dr Dre and others I delve that much deeper into my own opinion, look at theirs and come out the better for it. If I didn't find what they had to say interesting then I wouldn't converse with them in the first place.

I get the points they are making and they are not and cannot be wrong for themselves just as I cannot be for myself. We just disagree.

As I have said the basic difference at the end of the day as far as I am concerned is that I accept that it's Lucas' story and I have no reason to believe that he didn't know what he was doing on the PT anymore than on the OT. In fact if anything he knew far more because he had to create the PT while keeping the OT in account and he did that brilliantly.

I don't know why there is suddenly this personalization going on rather than actually going at the points presented.

There was no "nice try" to omit dialogue. I don't even know why it would be brought up as it changes nothing:

LEIA Luke, what's wrong?

Luke turns and looks at her a long moment.

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

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

LUKE What do you remember?

LEIA Just...images, really. Feelings.

LUKE Tell me.

LEIA (a little surprised at his insistence)
She was very beautiful. Kind, but...sad.
(looks up)
Why are you asking me all this?

He looks away.

LUKE I have no memory of my mother. I never knew her.

Luke asks Leia to tell him about the images and feelings she just talked about having. There is no merry go round. Leia was told her mother died when she was young
and she has these images and feelings of her. I really don't know what it is that you want.

The fact is that Padme didn't live on Alderaan with Leia. Leia only remembers through images and feelings. I'm sorry but I really see no problem in the least here.

From what you are talking about it seems even more to the point of the dialogue:

LUKE You're wrong, Leia. You have that power too. In time you'll learn to use it as I have. The Force is strong in my family. My father has it...I have it...and...my sister has it. Leia stares into his eyes. What she sees there frightens her. But she doesn't draw away. She begins to understand. LUKE Yes. It's you Leia. LEIA I know. Somehow...I've always known.

So we are to believe that Leia has always known that Luke is her brother
but didn't bother to tell him?

Of course not. Even without that Leia's image and feelings of her
mother work but on top of that we have this. This is why I believe that
Lucas knows what happens in his story far better than any of us do.

 

Look it's cool that you both have your opinions, and I even get you both think that you're fighting for your side and just expressing your opinion like others are, I would agree with you that you have the right to do that, but you both use certain expressions that I think give off a "you're wrong" vibe to others....

"It isn't a big deal" - that might true to a poster not to others though, and expressed that way it says others are wrong if they think it is a big deal...it takes away views as opinions and states the poster's is right and others' opinions are wrong

"He did that brilliantly" - that's a statement that others are going to read as the poster thinks everyone else must be wrong if they disagree with the poster (even if the poster doesn't mean it that way)...like above it takes away views as opinions and creates an objective right/wrong concept that shouldn't be there when dealing with opinions

but I definitely understand your opinions on the presenting of opinions, and acknowledge you don't see any problems, I'm just saying how I see it and think a lot of others are seeing it based on their adamant responses to your points

 

I am not fighting for "my side". I am stating my views. If others agree. Great. If not. Great.

Well in that case then I have to say they are "wrong" because that isn't what I intend.

Yet clearly others thing Lucas got it wrong and say so. I don't think he did. They do think he did.

Yet others give the same adamant responses on the other "side" so it's really no different.

 

.

 

To lie to your child, someone of the integrity of Bail would only do so for a good very reason. As he did with concealing Leia's parents' identities. Additional lies on the basis of "what does it hurt?" is laughably stupid.

Bcs we don't believe the Lars are idiots, compulsive liars, or both. Luke's parents didn't live on the farm for years. Leia's parents didn't live in the palace for years. So where's the value in telling them they did?

That's what a liar would do. An honest person would keep the lies to a bare minimum. To only what's required. Looking at it practically, having Leia believe that her parents were Alderaanians opens a can of worms. Who were they? Where are their families? What were their names? Where are they buried? What were they like? Bail, his wife & many other people should be able to regale Leia for hours with stories about them. The other option: tell Leia the truth. Her parents died at the end of TCW. Bail took her in for her own safety. The only lie: he doesn't know anything about her parents or where they were from. End of story. End of conversation with Leia. No loose ends. No inquiries which could raise Imperial attention.

Pls stop saying "why wouldn't" & start answering "why would". The latter is all that matters. You need to establish clear & reasonable motivations for characters' decisions. Not justify them by shrugging your shoulders & saying "why not".

Problem is that Leia believes they're actual memories. She, at that point doesn't think she has the Force. Unlike with her realisation that somehow, subconsciously she "always" knew Luke was her brother. Describing her vague memories of her mother wasn't a light-bulb moment like that. Leia was calmly recounting what she could remember of her mother before she died when Leia was "very young". That's all very simple. No issues so far. The problem is that now we know Leia didn't spend any time with her mother, other than a few seconds at birth. Bail adopted her immediately after that. Clearly from Leia's RotJ dialogue Bail told her she was adopted. So if he told her about the adoption, how is it remotely conceivable that he would lie to her & pretend that Padme lived with them for a few years? Or that he took Leia in when she was 2 or 3 years old, when Padme "died". That's bonkers, but it's the only way that Leia could genuinely believe the vague images of the sad & kind lady were of her actual mother. Not some other person from her early childhood on Alderaan. This is why to try to cover up an obvious plothole, Sinister is running with these bizarre scenarios where the Organas, their family & friends, the Royal staff & possibly the whole planet are in on some ruse to convince Leia that her mother was living with the Royal Family for years. As hard as he tries he can't get it to work. He's just continually proving that this is a plothole. Have a try yourself if you like.

 

Totally agree,

This line of reasoning is absurd, implausible, ludicrous and ridiculous.

Let's take this lie that Bail is telling, that Leia's "mother" lived for a few years on Alderaan.

Since we know that Leia came to Alderaan as a newborn and Bail could not hide that he has adopted her.
So either A), he started spinning this story soon after Leia came to Alderaan.
Or B) he only started with this story some years later, maybe when he told Leia she was adopted or after Leia had started to tell him of her "dreams"

Problems with A), under this scenario, there would be a time when Leia's "mother" would be "alive."
If Bail had in mind that her "mother" would "die" when Leia was two, when Leia was one year old, this person would be "alive". At least that is the story Bail would tell.
So did anyone ever meet this person? Given that she does not exist, how could they?
So wouldn't people start to wonder? Bail keeps talking about Leia's real mother and yet no one ever sees her.

Problem with B), if he starts to tell this in response to Leia having "dreams" then it could and would likely conflict with what he has said earlier.
Like when he announced that he was adopting Leia, he would have to explain who she was. And if he then said that both her parents were dead and now he is altering his story to the mother being alive for a few years. That would look mightily suspicious.

A problem with both scenarios, pictures. Wouldn't Leia ask to for any pictures of her real mother?
If Bail told her that she was adopted without any prompting by her dreams, and he said that he knew her and that she lived with them in the palace.
Then Leia could ask to see some pictures of her mother.
And if Bail shows her some of some random dead woman, that would conflict with Leia's "dreams".
Would he show her pictures of Padme?
That would be very risky.
And if he made some official photos of Leia's "mother", then using Padme would be even more stupid.
And if he were to say that there are no pictures?
So a person works as his aide for two years, lived in the palace and spent some time with Leia and yet there are NO pictures? That would also seem very iffy.

To sum up,
Bail has to obscure some facts about Leia, like who her parents were.
But since he took her to Alderaan when she was a few days old, then the simplest story is that her parents are both dead and either he does not know who they were or he gives the name of two people that died in the war.
Starting some elaborate lie about Leia's "mother" actually being with her on Alderaan is stupid and senseless. And the only reason why Bail would do this is if he has read the script to RotJ and wants to make sure that there is no plot hole.

Bye for now.
Old Stoneface

 

Why does this have to be some elaborate lie? Couldn't Leia have just asked Bail in private, and Bail said that Leia was adopted, and might be remembering her real mother. Leia then leaves the matter, as she's content with the explanation, and Bail has no need to ever bring it up again.

I mean, Leia being adopted is itself a retcon in ROTJ, so it hardly seems much different to defend one minor retcon over another.

 

Several reasons,

1) Bail has no way to know how Leia will react. If she will ask no, a few or many questions.
If she will start to get really curious and want to know more or if she will be content.
What kind of questions she will ask etc.
So telling a story that invites loads of further questions makes much less sense than telling one that leads to few.

2) The circumstances around Leia coming to Alderaan.
Leia came there when she was a newborn. And Bail said that he and his wife had been thinking of adopting a small girl. So they would not try to hide her, nor could they realistically do that. They would go ahead with that as soon as possible. But they need to cover up a few facts, like who Leia's real parents are. So a story needs to be told right away.
And deciding, for no reason what so ever, to make up some big lie that Leia's mother is not dead but actually alive and living on Alderaan, is stupid.
It is far simpler to say that her parents are both dead.

Given this, that Leia has been on Alderaan since essentially her birth and the people would know it.
If Bail, for some bizarre reason, tells Leia that her mother lived with them for three years and Leia mentions this to some other people and they respond "What are you talking about, your mother never lived here."
Then the lie is now exposed.

Owen could lie to Luke about his father as there was few if any way that Luke could verify if any of that was the truth. Leia however has many more resources. And she is a much more public person.
So IF Bail wants to spinn this lie, then he has to get basically the whole planet in on it.

So say Bail has decided to tell Leia that she is adopted, say that she is five years old now.
So does he go with the simple, "Your parents both died right around when you were born and you came here as a newborn." Which is pretty true.
Or go with "Your mother lived here for a few years and then died."

If Leia gets curious and wants to know more, now Bail has to keep making up stuff to satisfy her.
Plus if Leia asks other people, the whole thing unravels.

No, Bail would have no reason to engage in this hoax, he would tell her simply, "Your parents died right around the time you were born, you never knew them."
Also, Bail had no way of knowing ahead of time, that Leia would get these "Force Memories". So he could not possibly plan for that.

Bye for now.
Blackboard Monitor

 

All Bail has to say is that Leia's parents died when she was young, she vaguely remembers this, and Bail adopted her. There doesn't need to be an elaborate conspiracy behind it about Padme living on Alderaan.

 

And Bail will have to tell other people to tell her the same thing, lest they let slip on the fact that her mother died almost immediately.

 

I know. All this massive spinning of the why's and wherefores to the nth degree of detail is far too much to go into.

Where are you getting this story from?

Here's what we know for certain.

1) Padme died in childbirth.

2) Leia knows her mother died when she was young. It's not much to think that is what Bail told her when she was old enough to understand. When this was we have no idea.

3) Leia herself does not have conscious memories as such but "Just...images, really. Feelings." "She was very beautiful. Kind, but...sad."

It all fits quite well very easily. What exactly the intricate details are of interest of course but they simply don't exist. If anyone wants to spend time making them up then that is great.

The point being that it does fit because Leia didn't say "I've got holo-images of my mother and myself on Alderaan."

There is no "hoax" ie malicious deception intending to do harm.

The thing that always gets me about these kinds of things is that compared to actually make Leia Luke's sister in the first place when she wasn't before fitting this in with ROTS is about as simple as simple can possibly be.

Lucas left so many things vague so as not to box himself in. Even when he did like with Vader not being Luke's father and Leia not being his sister he still was able to find his way around it.

 

It can fit if you turn your brain off & just accept it all without any further thought. If you're happy to sum it up with those simplistic one-sentence scenarios which bare no resemblance to how people actually converse or how they would act. What your brief hand-waving explanations ignore are the following:

- For Leia to believe that her "Force visions" of Padme are actual memories then "very young" has to mean at least a year or two after her birth. Leia believing these are memories = Leia believing Padme lived with her for a few years. No way around that.
- Why would Bail tell Leia her parents died when she was "very young" & not at birth, which is the truth as far as Bail knew? Bail also knows it's gravely important that Leia's parentage never becomes known. Why would he leave any room for further questions & inquiries from her? He surely needs to say he never knew her parents & that he knows nothing about them. He & Leia don't live in a desert on an outer-rim wilderness planet like the Lars. They're the royal family of Aldereaan & Bail is a Senator. Bail knows that if he concocts a bunch of lies about Leia's fake parents those lies could easily unravel if Leia speaks to other people about this.
- How would Leia even know that her vague unclear mental images of a sad & kind lady are of her real mother who she never even met after she was a minute old? How is she fooled into thinking of those visions as memories, & how did she identify who those memories were about?

 

Sure anyone can think further on it but here's the problem though.

Anything we try to do in very intricate detail is not going to be based on anything that we can infer from the movies themselves. It's going to be severe supposition in the extreme.

It's one thing to infer from the movies themselves and at times use secondary sources outside the movies from the script, book, Lucas comments from various places etc. From that we can talk in broadstrokes and infer and use conjecture or comparison to and from within the movies themselves.

This has nothing to do with "turn your brain off". That terms denotes to stop thinking because it's too hard to continue. It's not about it being too hard it's about that there is nothing more to go past a certain point.

I don't see how that applies. These are not real people we are talking about so they don't actually converse or act that way. Star Wars is not sci-fi but grand mythic fantasy. It's a movie not a tv series or a book series were backstory can be gone into intricate detail through long passages of characters exchanging dialogue.

So the real question is why do the lack of explanations in detailed dialogue bother someone for some things and not others? This is the basic question I've asked.

The OT is "lousy" at explaining things in that dialogue based way. The prequels are better at explaining things in that dialogue based way but that is still not the primary way they are done. We have to see the characters in action, see the interaction, read the situations. The dialogue is excellent support but even then Lucas doesn't spell it out to the nth degree. We actually have to listen and examine. He leaves it there for us to take from it but he doesn't force it.

What are you even talking about here?

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

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

LUKE What do you remember?

LEIA Just...images, really. Feelings.

LUKE Tell me.

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

Fact Padme did not live with Leia for a few years. Fact Leia had just images and feelings.

Again what are you even talking about here? You want intricate nth level details that are simply not in the movies. Were never going to be in the movies and the level of supposition and conjecture needed to conjure these details would need just can't find support. So the real question I would have is why base the entire premise on something you decided has to be the case in the first place? Someone else who wants to do the same thing can used the opposite point to base the premise on and create a whole scenario that totally clashes with yours. The only difference is that yours would not work with the movies and theirs would because in you scenarion Padme lives on Alderaan with Leia (which didn't happen).

What's more in any scenario where Padme is on Alderaan with Leia it makes the whole thing far more complex because you have Padme alive and Vader knowing she is alive and therefore knowing that he has at least one child which is totally at odds with the OT since he didn't know he had a child.

The next thing is someone will say that Anakin should not have known that Padme was pregnant. Except that was never in the OT.

How did she "always know" that Luke was her brother? These are images and feelings she has and knows they are true just like she knows that Luke is her brother and Vader her father.

She wasn't "fooled" at all. These are her images and feelings she has. I really don't know what it is that you want here. This is a mythology where a boy dreams of being a Jedi and that happens. Where people have dreams/visions/experiences of the past, present and future. I really don't see what is so "unbelievable" about any of this for the way Star Wars movies work.

She says she remembers these images and feelings. People seem to forget that Luke and Leia are all the way through ROTS because Padme is carrying them. They are with her on Coruscant, Mustafar and Polis Massa.

That there was not some detailed dialogue explanation about exactly how the why's and wherefores of Luke and Leia's birth and Anakin's transformation isn't in the OT didn't seem to bother people at the time. The facts of the movies are clear. Padme did not go to Alderaan with Leia. So trying to explain that she did can never and will never work. The only premise that can be the starting point is that Leia remembers images and feelings of Padme.

 

Yes it does require a massive conspiracy and no Bail has to do a LOT more if he wants to sell this lie.

Remember, Leia did not arrive come to Alderaan, to be adopted by Bail, when she was 2-3 years old.
She came to Alderaan, to be adopted by Bail, when she was 2-3 DAYS old.
Unless Bail was spinning a massive and elaborate web of lies, that is what the official story would be, what all records would say and what pretty much everyone on the planet knows.

So IF Bail, for some unfathomable reason, decide to tell Leia "You lived with your real parents until you were two years old and then you came here and I adopted you.
There is about a million ways that this lie would be quickly exposed.
Because again, Leia is not some random nobody, she is the daughter to one of the most prominent people on the planet.

The truth of the matter is that Leia came to Alderaan days old and Bail could not keep her being there a secret, so he has to go ahead with the adoption pretty much right away.
So he would think that she would have no memory at all of Padme.
So no reason at all to make up some story that she lived with her parents for a few years.
Esp when such a story would contradict the reality of her living on Alderaan almost since birth.

And Bail would have no way of knowing just how curious Leia would get about her "real" parents.
Luke was quite curious about his father and Owen quickly shut down such questions.
So what happens if Leia starts to ask loads of questions, "What did my parents do, do you have any pictures of them, what did they die of, do they have any family anywhere." Etc.
Bail would just have to make stuff up as he goes along and that could very well lead to him contradicting himself, exposing the lie.

Why do you think that Owen was so against Luke getting his father's ligthsaber?
Part of it was because it would contradict the lies he had been telling Luke.
He had told Luke that his father was nothing more than a navigator on a freighter.
Luke getting his father's lightsaber, the weapon of a Jedi Knight, would totally destroy that lie.

@Qui-Riv-Brid

What Bail would have told her is that her mother died in child birth, which is what happened.
Unless Bail is engaged in absurd levels of cover up that involves millions of people, he has NO reason to make up some story that she lived with her parents for some years before coming to Alderaan.
All records would show her living on Alderaan since she was days old. All people on Alderaan would know this. As would a fair few people outside Alderaan as Bail is not some random nobody.
So her "memory" is a real mother would conflict with the reality that she has lived with Bail on Alderaan almost since birth.

Stop peddling this made up nonsense. This is just as false as "Leia does not remember Leia" that also gets brought up in these discussions.
Leia has MEMORIES of her mother, what she looked like, how she was like TO Leia and that she was sad about something. She also remembers when she died.
These are real, conscious memories.
Stop trying to rewrite the film into what you want it to say.

Your versions if things relies on either ignoring what is said in the film or rewriting the dialogue into something totally different. And having people do absurd things for no reason what so ever.
Hence why your version of things does not work and shows the cracks of the story.

Bye for now.
Old Stoneface

 

"Just...images, really. Feelings." "She was very beautiful. Kind, but...sad."

That's not explicitly saying memories at all.

It would be no problem whatsoever if Bail just said that her parents died when she was very young, and that's probably what she's remembering. No-one needs to come up with some 'Padme lived on Alderaan' or anything. It's as simple as that.

 

'Cause as we know, 'just images' and 'feelings' are totally not memories at all are they, particularly not if it involves distant memories or those from very early childhood. Basically this is an arbitrary distinction only put out there to support a certain argument.
And not only Bail would have to say that, 'your mother died when you were young,' (as opposed to, 'your mother died when you were born'), but anyone else she who was around at the time would have to say the same thing in order to maintain the lie.