CT Why did they have Empire Strikes Back take place three years after ANH?

Which was an idea at one point, when Brackett wrote her draft it was to end with Luke going back to Dagobah to complete his training. Lucas instead opted to have Luke stay away and rescue Han first, showing his commitment to his friends. But the consequence of this would be Yoda's death during the interim. This then lead to Yoda dying afterwards and not before hand, so that Luke would keep his promise to come back.

 

I don't want to railroad this thread BUT in relation to this 3 year gap question I would also like to know - How did it take Han and Leia 3 years to hook up...?? 3 years is a very long time to be around one another (with the kind of tension they had) I am surprised Han wasn't "friend zoned"

 

That's why he was leaving for good, instead of a quick jaunt to Tatooine to pay off Jabba and then coming right back. He was tired of being in the friend zone.

 

It took a while to seal the deal but I guess they were a little busy fighting a war. I don't know what the new canon has to say about it, or if it's been addressed, but in the old EU Han and Leia aren't always together and Han's not always working for or with the Rebels. He takes off with his reward and gets robbed, takes part in the heist from Scoundrels, goes to Aduba-3, etc. Even when he is working with the Alliance he's not always working with Leia. The very first EU novel has Luke and Leia off on a mission without Han. So it wasn't like they were spending every day together for all that time.

 

Because it wasn't written by Rian Johnson.

Before TLJ, every SW movie took place at least 1 year after its predecessor. This gives the saga a sense of epicness, it feels like The Silmarillion or the Bible.

In the ten years between TPM and AOTC, Anakin grown, learned the ways of the Force, Padme became a politician, etc. Between ANH and ESB, Luke developed his jedi powers and Han established himself as a great warrior.

 

Just to add to that previous post by Avnar, it's not really railroading because I think it does kind of go back to how the 3 year gap works well. There wasn't much of a romantic tension between Han and Leia in the first film and they spent most of the time at each other's throats. She doesn't warm up to him until they return to Yavin after destroying the Death Star when the film is basically over. It doesn't really turn into a romantic tension until the opening of TESB when they establish what appears to be an ongoing unspoken attraction building up between films.

 

Oh look, another unnecessary shot at Rian Johnson, what a surprise...

TFA ended with a cliffhanger, no Star Wars movie before ever ended on such a note. The closest thing would be the end of ESB, but even that one allowed for significant times to pass due to what is actually happening in the last scene. TLJ could have started with a relatively small time jump, but there would have been a gaping hole in the story due to how TFA ended.

 

They had other adventures as well. In ESB, Han told Leia that the bounty hunter on Ord Mantell changed his mind about staying.

I'm showing my age, but I remember an audio drama on cassette back then. The storyline was that the Rebels were relocating to Hoth, but that they needed a distraction...

Here's the publisher's synopsis:

"A Story from the Star Wars Saga: Rebel Mission to Ord Mantell

The Rebel Alliance has just destroyed the dreaded Death Star—but their fight against the evil Galactic Empire is far from over.
Forced to set up a new base on the inhospitable ice world of Hoth, the Rebels must divert the Empire's attention from the move. Han Solo and Luke Skywalker are sent out as decoys against what they think is a lone Imperial Star Destroyer. Unfortunately, the Rebel attack analysts haven't given our heroes all the facts!
And without money, the Rebellion cannot continue its fight for freedom. Princess Leia and her Rebel team attempt a daring heist of Imperial funds—unaware of the treachery that awaits them.
It is a time for daring, clever droids and a lightning fast trigger finger. Join Han, Luke, Leia, Chewbacca, R2-D2and C-3PO on their REBEL MISSION TO ORD MANTELL!"

These events could account for the 3-year-gap.

 

I think you are wrong with the passage of time between ESB and RotJ.

ESB ends with Lando and Chewie going to Tatooine and Luke saying that he'd met them there.
And at the start of RotJ, that is where they are.
As far a the films go, very little time is implied to have passed.

They did make a plan and Lando infiltrated the palace as a guard.
So say a few weeks, maybe a month or two has passed.

A year or more?
No, that does not fit.
They say that they are going to rescue Han at the end of ESB.
And then what, they spend a year or more just standing around?

ESB end with a cliffhanger and RotJ takes up that thread almost immediately.

Bye for now.
Old Stoneface

 

If that deleted scene had been included, it would have meant Luke waited a year before constructing a new lightsaber.

 

It wouldn't make sense for Luke to wait a whole year to question Rey about why she's on Ach To. That's more the fault of Kasdan and Abrams for how they structured TFA.

Deleted scene or no, Luke took his time preparing to rescue Han. That included continuing his training. Whether it was eight months or a full year, Luke wasn't ready to do this until he was. The old EU had stretched it out to a year, in order to accommodate stories like "Shadows Of The Empire" and the Marvel Comics stories that took place during this period. Luke being on Tatooine and in seclusion, meant that he didn't need a Lightsaber right away. In canon, some Jedi take weeks to months to construct their Lightsaber.

 

I never thought about how long it takes Luke to build his Light Saber as show in the deleted scene. When did Luke start using a Light Saber as his primary weapon? Seems like in Empire he reaches for his blaster first and only uses the Light Saber for specific jobs like cutting off wampa arms and breaking into AT-ATs. Luke doesn't deflect Boba Fett's blaster bolts with a Light Saber.

 

And yet he manages to "train himself" for a whole year, sans lightsaber.

 

A Lightsaber isn't necessary to strengthen one's connection to the Force. Luke strengthens himself by continuing to use the same lessons Yoda taught him on Dagobah, which didn't necessitate a Lightsaber.



Luke isn't using his Lightsaber to strengthen himself in the Force. Note that he often takes off his weapons belt while training. As Luke became stronger and stronger, feeling more and more ready for the coming confrontation, then he began work on building a new Lightsaber.

When Luke builds his own Lightsaber. By that point, he has decided that he will no longer carry a blaster as he is ready to be a Jedi as Obi-wan and the Jedi of old had, who had turned away from blasters as they were clumsy and random weapons.

 

A previous poster stated that in ESB, Luke was using a saber as his main weapon, to defend laser blasts etc, so that should explain his lack of urgency. Seems strange to be completely without one for a year leading up to adopting it as your only weapon.

Nobody mention "strengthen connection with the force". This is another one of your non-sequiturs. No movie describes "connection" with the force as a concern any way. People are strong with the force or they aren't. They let the force guide them and they control it. Better control of the force through purging or controlling negative emotions is the key. Connectedness to the force isn't mentioned. You are either connected or you aren't.

 

Because unlike the ST, the OT (and PT) knew that development, rapport etc take place over TIME. The Rebels couldn't also build up a base out of thin air. Time allows for natural progression etc. Perhaps with the filmmaking constraints of the day, they also needed time to make the film and allowed for potential physical changes/filming issues in the time lapse between the films.

I mean it contrasts with the ST considerably.

 

My assumption for the time gap was that they were staying in line with the actual gap in production as in they knew it would take three years after ANH to get the sequel out there, so they set the story three years later.

 

All the main characters display the same rapport at the beginning of ESB as they did at the end of ANH. As if they hadn't missed a beat.

The rebels had a base on Yavin that they still needed to evacuate. But it was decided that it was desirable to open the film in a different setting. The three year release time gap was inferred by default as the time gap in the story.

There is no propriety to the time gaps adopted by the stories except in and of themselves. The ST is doing what it needs the same way the other trilogies did. And not to adhere to some set criteria for off screen character development.

 

The "same" way? Quite the opposite.

What about criteria for ON-screen character development actually making sense?

 

The gaps in other movies are self serving. Same as the one's in the ST.

You don't need off screen gaps to justify character development that takes place on screen.

 

All true. I'm saying though that the LACK of a gap in the ST tends to undermine it's story, or rather undermines the logic of it's characters' progression

 

I concur. Making sense is not something the ST looks to do unlike the PT and OT.

I think the time gap in ESB makes sense and is explained properly. You also have a clear exposition of the situation. Not to mention ESB is the second film in a trilogy which ties in to the former. And if you take it as part of a 6 film saga, it also fulfils it's purpose to build up all the characters, relationships, and the big reveal (depending on whether you watched the PT or OT first).

 

Please identify some character development in ESB that is explicable only due to a supposed three year gap since Yavin.

Remember that the no three year gap is declared by the film itself. So how that qualifies as ESB trying to make sense of "something" in that way that other films don't, I can't imagine.

 

Vader certainly has become more powerful and is much more in command than in ANH, where he was just that guy Tarkin orders around. Now he is practically in charge of everything the Empire does. The Emperor doesn't seem to interfere much. Also now he has a Super Star Destroyer, a ship multiple times the size of previous SDs. That must have taken SOME time to build. How about the Rebel base on Hoth? Finding a suitable location and setting up a base there didn't happen in a day either.
OK, so Luke, Leia and Han are basically the same. But what would you have expected? Besides, Han is now entirely a Rebel. In ANH he only helped out a little and got paid, now he's with the Alliance full-time. He only wants to leave to pay Jabba, then plans to rejoin them. Leia is now #1 in command of the Alliance. There doesn't appear to be anyone above her in the chain of command. In ANH it doesn't become clear what her exact position is from a military perspective.
So I'd say enough has been going on to justify the 3-year gap. But it doesn't have to be 3. Make it 2 or 1 1/2 and there still wouldn't be any major contradictions.

 

The Imperial military hierarchy, which he was always detached from to not a part of, was wiped out on the first Death Star. Vader effectively assumed that same power at the end of ANH.

I wasn't expecting anything. I was responding to the claim that there is off-screen character development (the rapport) that is explicable and justifiable mainly due to the assumed time gap.

I say, make it 2 weeks / 2 months since Yavin and the rebels are just finding their feet on Hoth, which had always been their planned fall back point after Yavin. There would be no contradictions there either.