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

Yes it does!
Leia is asked directly by Luke if she REMEMBERS her real mother.
And Leia says "Just a little bit."
That right there says that Leia DOES remember her real mother.

She does not remember much and her memories are mostly in the form of images and memories, like early memories often are.
But what you and others keep trying to do is to either ignore the film or rewrite it into Leia saying "I don't remember my real mother at all."
Leia remembers what her mother looked like, how she was like TO Leia and that she was sad about something. And she also remembers when she died.

So bottomline, Leia REMEMBERS her real mother, RotJ is clear on that.
Stop ignoring it.

[/QUOTE]

I have explained it to you again and agan that it would not be that simple. But you seem to keep ignoring it and repeat the same argument over and over again.

Answer me this, what happens if Leia asks someone in the palace, not Bail,
"How old was I when I came to Alderaan?"
Unless Bail has instructed this person to lie, the answer would be "You came here right after you were born, you were a few days old, maybe a week or two."
How would this work with Bail saying that she came there when she was 2-3 years old?

Or if she look into the official records of her adoption and the file says "Age:1 month"?
Or is stamped with a date that would make her only weeks old at the time?

Why would Bail lie and say that she came to Alderaan at age 2-3 years old?
That is not what happened and he would know that pretty much everyone on the planet knows this did not happen.
So why would he make up a lie that would get exposed quickly?

And why would Bail make up a lie that would invite a lot of follow up questions as opposed to a lie that says, "Your parents died right around when you were born and I took to Alderaan and adopted you. I don't know anything about them, sorry."
Simple, no risk of Leia finding out that he lied and Leia has no reason to ask further.
Also, this way, their deaths could be pinned on the clone war, which was still going on.
2-3 years later, now the war is over and a new reason for their deaths would be needed.

In closing, your version of events relies on ignoring the film or twisting what it said. And it ignores the reality of Leia's situation.
And has Bail do very stupid things for no reason.
In short, it is full of holes and is not convincing.

Bye.
Blackboard Monitor

 

I never said anything about this 2-3 years nonsense. Bail only has to say Padme died when Leia was very young, and then Bail adopted her.

As for her remembering, she states that all she can remember are images and feelings. That can very easily be interpreted as something the force can show, enhancing her actual memories from being a baby.

 

Yeah there really is some spin going on here. Leia clearly says she remembers her mother "a little bit". Only a little bit bcs she died when Leia was very young. Hence she didn't get a chance to know her better & remember more of her. Bcs of her young age those memories are made up of images & feelings. I'm sure we all have similar earlier memories that lack more detail than that. Yet they're still memories. What this clumsy retcon is trying to have us believe is that Leia doesn't remember her mother at all. Which is completely at odds with how that scene in RotJ was written. Now she had Force visions of her mother - not memories. When Luke had a vision of Han & Leia at Cloud City they were not memories. So let's be clear, those pushing this theory are saying that Leia does not have memories of her mother. Anyway, somehow an adult Leia has been fooled into thinking they are memories. Among the myriad of problems this creates, another one is when Leia had or is having these visions. Did she only have them when she was a child? In other words, is she remembering the visions she had when she was "very young" & thinks they're memories? If so why did the visions stop at that very early age? Why wouldn't they continue & grow stronger & come into more of a focus as she develops & gets older? Why didn't she have visions of her father? Why didn't Luke, the more Force sensitive of the two at that point in the story have visions of their mother? Inexplicably, his twin sister had visions of Padme to the extent that she thinks she knew her at an early age! Quite bizarre.

Why would Bail say that & not the truth, that her parents died when she was born? If little Leia is mentioning having a feeling about some sad & kind lady how would Bail know who she's talking about? How would that motivate him to lie about Padme's time of death?

It's not that simple. By saying that an obvious question from Leia is "Now Dad, when you say "very young" how young do you mean"? What then? Bail must now give an answer that makes sense in the context of Leia "remembering" her mother. Therefore the answer needs to be at least a couple of years after her birth. By saying that Bail is saying he knew her parents. Knowing them means being able to describe them. Who they are. Who else they knew. What their names were. A hundred other details. So how is it simple when Leia asks about her real parents? Which is very likely. Are you suggesting that Bail would rest all of his hopes, including the risk that these lies could all be exposed on the chance that Leia won't be the least bit inquisitive about her own parents??

Great point. This really highlights the HUGE difference in the size of the problem faced by the Organas & the Lars. The Lars live by themselves in the desert in the middle of nowhere in the Outer Rim. Deceiving Luke about the identities of his parents was easy. They only had one potential problem - Obi-Wan. He's the only one who could unravel their lies. Who Luke could speak to & refute their story. Which he eventually did but he waited until Luke was an adult. He didn't go against Owen's wishes until then. Contrast this with the Organas. They're the royal family living on a planet within the Empire. Bail is an Imperial Senator, now under the watchful eye of the Emperor's cronies. He brings a newborn baby home to their world in full view of everyone. He adopts this girl. Clearly the Organas need to explain this immediately. They need to provide their story & this must stand for all time as the official story. They can't change their minds later. Again, they're the royal family of an Imperial world. They're introducing their planet to their new Princess. Clearly at this point they're not thinking of the possibility that one day their kid will maybe have Force visions & see one of her real parents. That's not going to be a factor in their decision here. So what is their story? The one that will go down in Alderaanian history. A story that will not raise Imperial alarm bells. We can speculate but the most logical is a version of the truth. That Leia is a war orphan from TCW. Bail has taken her into his care & has generously adopted her into his family. Her real parents were killed in XYZ battle in the closing stages of that war. What other options are there? They can't pretend that Breha, Queen of Alderaan has been pregnant for the past 9 months & "surprise" here's your new princess. One thing's for sure, whatever they say here that becomes the official historical account must surely be the same thing they tell Leia when she's older. Their family is too high profile & the truth would be far too easy for Leia to discover to attempt lying to her & inventing a different story. Someone above said they can tell her something different when she's older & issue a "royal decree" commanding the whole planet to be in on this ruse. Clearly that is a completely nonsensical idea. Fact is the story of Leia & the timing in which she came to Alderaan would not be decided when Leia is old enough to report "visions" of her mother. But rather when she's first brought to the planet. Let's face it, this plothole can't be made to work. Unless you handwave it all away & refuse to engage in deeper analysis. Which is perfectly fine. Just don't waste everyone's time by telling us that it does stand up to scrutiny.

 

So Bail would only say "very young" and refuse to give an exact age?
What happens if Leia ASKS how old she was when this happened?
Will Bail keep saying "I adopted you when you were very young."
Over and over again until Leia stops asking him?

What happens if Leia asks someone else on Alderaan "How old was I when I came here?"
This person would say that Leia was basically a newborn baby.
Or what happens if Leia reads the official records of her adoption?
Or if there are any pictures of her, with Bail and his wife, and she is clearly just a few months old?

Again, you keep ignoring the reality that Leia came to Alderaan and was adopted by Bail when she was only days old.
There is NO getting around that fact. Unless Bail involves the whole planet in a massive cover-up.

[/QUOTE]

No, she also remembers that her mother was kind TO her. So she would have to have been present and received her mothers kindness.
She also remembered when her mother died.

"Her actual memories from being a baby"? Do you mean when she was born?
Those memories?
All she could possibly get from that is Padme's face, not the rest that she talked about.
And no, the Force does not work as an explanation.
Because every other person that has gotten Force visions were quite aware that they were visions or dreams.
Absolutely NO ONE thought they were actual memories.

On top of that, you have the question as to why Luke remembers nothing at all.
And if the Force can do this, then Obi-Wan and Yoda are wasting their time with trying to keep Luke in the dark about his father. He can get these "Force memories" and know everything.

And lastly, the reality that Leia has lived her whole life as the adopted daughter of Bail would make her reject these "memories" as actually having happened.
She would know that she came to Alderaan as basically a newborn and never knew either of her parents.
And if Bail told her anything, it would be exactly this, that her parents died right around the time when she was born. So she would know that she couldn't remember her real mother or father.

As Darth Downunder said, if you want to dismiss all the problems here, that is fine, just don't try to argue that it makes sense.

Bye.
The Guarding Dark

 

Yes. There is a ton of spinning of trying to change the absolute facts of the movies.

Padme dies on Polis Massa.

Leia remembers images and feelings she has of her beautiful and kind but sad mother.

Leia knows that she was adopted and found out at some point.

It all starts from there.

Anyone who wants to try to create some highly detailed point by point account is welcome to go from those basic facts.

I would also say you should stop peddling this made up nonsense.

Look at what she actually says.

I would also say your version of things relies on either ignoring what is said in the film or rewriting the dialogue into something totally different. The facts of the movies are there. There is no way around it. Padme did not go to Alderaan. There is no version where she does.

The only "cracks" are in the version where she does because that does not happen.

It's not my version it's Lucas' version and it's his story.

Again why is it that this seems to bother some people no end but the Vader as father doesn't or the Leia as sister? Those are MASSIVE "cracks" in the story that for some reason are just fine.

Of all of the "cracks" in the Star Wars story the Leia remembers Padme is just about the least one there is.

 

Leia would believe that they're memories because she doesn't know that she's a Jedi and for her, they would be what she considers memories and not Force visions.

If she asks questions about it, she can ask him and he can tell her whatever. She'll be just as inquisitive if she was an orphan of the war and would start looking into various records, to see if someone matches the criteria.

The Force. Just as she always knew that there was something to Luke other than a potential lover. Her insight served her well, as it did for Luke to believe that there was good in his father.

 

I have, and what she says is this;
1) Luke asks her if she REMEMBERS her real mother and she says "Just a little bit."
This is evidence that she does in fact remember her mother and so she has actual, real memories of her.
2) Luke then asks her for more details and Leia says that she remembers what her mother looked like, that she was kind TO her and that she was sad about something. And she also remembers when her mother died.
All of this is consistent with early childhood memories from age 2-3 years old.
I can remember my first room but just as an image, not much else.
3) Luke then says he has no memory of his mother, that he never knew her.
Given the other info in the film, what happened is pretty obvious, Luke and Leia were split up at birth.
Luke went to Tatooine and Leia went to Alderaan with their mother and her name changed to hide her identity.

That Padme does not go to Alderaan is the reason why this has been debated and why this discussion is happening.
RotJ established one thing then RotS showed something else that does not fit with this.
So we have a contradiction. What is explained in one film is contradicted by another film. And the films offer no explanation for this.

So one can either accept that this was a ret-con and that there is a bit of mismatch between the films but if that impacts the films or not is up for each person to decide.
Or you can make stuff up in order to explain away this inconsistency.
Theories I have seen are; Leia is talking about Bail's first wife, Bail showed Leia lots of pictures of Padme and told her what she was like, the Force "gave" Leia these memories. The Force has a power that allows Force users to remember everything they have even experienced. So what Leia is talking about is her memories of her birth.
And so on.

Why there is this much talk about it is because some argue that there wasn't really any ret-con and what is shown in RotS fits perfectly with RotJ.
I and others don't agree and we have explained why the various fan-theories don't work.

Again with the "It's Lucas story" as that is some magic formula that makes all problems go away.
The truth is that Lucas changed his story, which is fine and totally up to him.
However him doing this caused cracks to appear and Lucas made no effort to patch over these cracks.
Since he is so fond of special editions, he could have made one of RotJ where this bit of Luke and Leia's dialogue is edited out. Simple and now there is no problem anymore.

Ahh the good old "Hey look over there!" tactic.

People can view those as issues as well but if the topic is Leia's memories of Padme then don't be surprised that this is what people talks about.

To me, both the Vader is Luke's father and Leia is Luke's sister cause issues.
The father thing causes issues mostly with ANH and how Obi-Wan talks about Luke's father.
I am also not fond of Obi-Wan's "certain point of view" bit. It sounds like he does not want to admit that he lied or misled Luke earlier. That was weak, admit to what you did, don't hide behind the twisting of words.

The Leia things has even more issues, like why Yoda is so calm about her dying, or that he says that there is another when Luke is leaving. Leia is already in Vader's hands and soon Luke will be as well.
So BOTH hopes are now lost.
And the clear attraction between Luke and Leia gets a little icky.

[/QUOTE]

It is the one that has a very small impact on the overall story and characters yes.
Leia's "memories" of Padme is talked about only once and then are never mentioned.
And it did not seem like they had a big influence on Leia as a character.
So you could cut it out and loose hardly anything.
It was there as part of the backstory that Lucas had in mind at the time.

The sister thing causes more issues and the films don't try to explain why Yoda was so cool about her dying when she was this important.
But I also know that this was something that Lucas cobbled together on the fly as he was tired of SW and wanted to wrap everything up. So he could either not bring up the other, which certainly would have gotten complaints. Or he could introduce a new character in RotJ, which already has a lot.
Or he could make one of the current characters the other. And there Leia makes the most sense.

The father thing is something that Lucas worked on a lot and worked it into the story as a great twist.
And unlike the other two, there was an attempt to explain the ret-con.
Had RotJ been made with Luke never once asking Yoda or Obi-Wan about Vader being his father and he acted like he had known that from the start, then there would have been a lot of issues.

I have talked about this in other threads and I think that Lucas could have made Vader Luke's father but still separate from Luke's "father" in ANH. That both Owen and Obi-Wan think he is Luke's father and he is really dead but he isn't actually Luke's father, Vader is.
They just didn't know it.
This might have caused less issues but would have required a bit more explaining as to how Vader made Luke's mother pregnant.
I don't know if Lucas ever considered this.

Bye for now.
Old Stoneface

 

Nothing.

Hayden is more known for his role of Anakin Skywalker, so it made sense to include him.

 

Which of Alec Guinness and Ewan McGregor is more known for playing Obi-wan? After determining this, we can then erase one from their films and C.G. the other in or something like that.
Question is, what was Lucas' intention in putting Christensen in R.o.T.J.; was it simply because Christensen is better known in that role? If so, that seems a pretty weak reason to me, given that Anakin is played by Shaw elsewhere in the film, making the change violate continuity. It lacks sense from the perspective of telling a story in a single film, and that aforementioned reason does not justify the change story-wise. If it was storytelling reasons, I'm sure that there are 69 other pages thrashing those out.

 

No. Lucas doesn't care about that. It's about what he wants. The fact that HC played Anakin in two entire movies that are known worldwide while SS played Anakin in 2 scenes in total and for 1 minute with the Vader mask off and still under a mask of make-up then as briefly seen Force ghost is nice and all but the point is that Lucas cast HC to be Anakin while SS was cast because he needed somebody with an old face to look kindly under make-up.

At that point he was worried about that movie not about who he would get to be Anakin in the prequels if he ever got around to making them. If he didn't then it really wouldn't matter but when he did then it did matter.

Having Anakin actually look like himself now was important to the story.

 

They aren't real memories though. That's the entire reason the dialogue was written that way. People generally don't retain many real, episodic memories of events from when they were very young infants. They retain vague feelings, images, and impressions. Not "memories." That's what makes the dialogue so evocative.

What Lucas did is take advantage of this fact to retrofit the explanation for Leia's recollections so as to accord with the story he wanted to tell in Episode III. Leia's evocative, vague recollections of her mother make just as much sense as the lingering impressions of a Force-sensitive child in utero as they do the lingering impressions of an infant living with her mother. It fits perfectly with the logic of how things work in the Star Wars universe. There's absolutely nothing nonsensical about given the rules of the fictional universe these characters live in.

I've pointed it out before but there's a reason the only visible traits Lucas provided in the film to distinguish the two babies in Episode III was in their level of consciousness of the world around them:




That's no accident. You have to specifically pose the babies that way, specifically shoot one awake and take great pains not to wake the other up while filming, specifically stage the lighting in order to put a twinkle of awareness in baby Leia's eye.

And personally I find it to be a far more poetic way of explaining Luke's lack of memory of his mother than the strictly literal and mundane explanation that Leia was raised with her and Luke simply wasn't. Leia is more aware of and conscientious about the present than Luke is, and this is reflected in the fact that she has been absorbing impressions and feelings all her life, even as a baby, and has retained them up until the present day. But Luke is a dreamer, always looking away "to the horizon. Never his mind on where he was. Hmm? What he was doing. Hmph." That's why he's always been obsessed with his father, with the avatar of the masculine, of the active principle, of the man he himself might grow into someday--rather than with his mother, the avatar of the feminine, of the passive principle, of the person he should exist as in the moment.

It's only in ROTJ when Obi-Wan reveals to him the existence of his twin sister, his female doppelganger, that Luke starts to explore the feminine side of his personality, and grows curious about his mother. And it is also at this point that Luke starts to learn how to be passive, and serene, and compassionate, and in so doing achieves balance within himself, triumphs over the Emperor, and redeems his father by reminding him of Padme's love. All this was present in the original film but with the addition of the prequels it takes on a whole new level of spiritual significance.

The only reason people don't buy any of this because they had the original idea in their head and refuse to let go of it because they don't like the prequels and they don't like Lucas. Simple fact.

There are a lot of niggling, far less explainable, and far less creatively utilized plot holes in TFA but despite my other reservations about the film I've never complained about them because frankly I don't care. They don't affect basic truths about the characters or the story so I just accept them. I don't hold them against J.J. or Kasdan because I have nothing against them as people and in fact respect that they told a story that had meaning to them even if it did not have so much meaning to me. With that in mind I will voice my personal disagreements about that story, but complaining about irrelevant holes in the plot that can easily be explained away mechanically and don't actually affect anything truly important or alter the spirit of the story strikes me as just plain petty.

 

What complete and total utter rubbish!

That would presuppose that George Lucas knows what he is doing with his own story!

I mean come on man!

Where is the evidence that Lucas has any idea how to tell his own story?

Oh wait...

Nevermind!



What we really need here is obviously for Luke and Leia to do the Look Who's Talking thing:

I wish I could say it that well but this is the point.

No one is disputing it's a retrofit. Of course it is. Just like so many other retrofits that Lucas did over and over again in each and every single movie on a regular basis.The big difference is that this one actually works far better than others like Vader as Luke's father and Leia as sister because it's so vague as to be next to meaningless. After the fact Lucas could and did apply a whole other story than the one intended but never even actually made solid in the first place.

This is how the characters are in the stories themselves. Luke is always looking to somewhere else while Leia is in the present. Now of course Leia was not the sister until ROTJ and so Lucas was fortunate that this was the case but the point is that he recognized that in the characters he created and used it to his advantage. The point that Leia does remember Padme and Luke doesn't plays into their strengths. That Luke actually has Padme's nature while Leia has Anakin's is another point Lucas worked from when crafting the PT since he clearly gave Padme various attributes of Luke's and Anakin's of Leia's. Each has some of both parents but a bit more of one than the other.

 

Is it? Strange, since at the time the dialogue was written the intention was to convey that Leia actually lived with the twins' mother during her first few years. So when Leia said "She died when I was very young" she meant a couple of years, not 2 minutes. When Luke asked her is she remembers her real mother Leia's reply was an affirmative: "a little bit". Now...they not real memories. Yet Leia thinks they are

People retain nothing from when they're 2 minutes old. Thus for Leia to believe she has early memories she must also believe that she knew her mother up until she was a "young infant", ie 2-3 years old. How Leia can believe this is the point at which the can of worms opens up to reveal the plothole. No matter how many walls of text you write you can't close it. Feel free to keep trying.

Sure, but there's also nothing wrong with fans looking into these things more deeply. Or expecting things to track well & fit together. In other words, expecting good writing devoid of plotholes. The problem is that Leia at this point is not supposed to know she's Force sensitive. So if she's having womb-memories which are so clear that she can see her mother & know how sad & kind she was, that's fine but she has to also reconcile this with the fact that she didn't spend time her mother. At all. She has to do this in a way that does not reveal her Force sensitivity. At the same time, the facts she has at hand about her birth & adoption must also be taken into account. What she knows must be consistent with what Bail, the King of Alderaan & Imperial Senator reported to everyone back at the time he brought home a new Princess to his world. That official historical record does not plausibly include a ridiculous lie where Leia's mother is alive & well & living in the royal guest house. Then two years later she dies & they have a mock funeral. Or any other such nonsensical scenario. This whole thing simply cannot be explained in a fitting way. So it's a plothole. Whether it's one that matters or is significant is an individual thing

Really? How do you know it wasn't an accident? Source? If Lucas wanted us to think that baby Leia had the opportunity to get a better sense of their mother, one way might've been to have her born first. To get a couple of precious extra minutes with her compared to Luke. But he didn't even do that. I don't think there was any significance in how he presented the two babies.

You keep saying that but you neglect to mention the plotholes or issues that created. Incredibly you claim that Leia remembering her mother who died at the time of her birth "works better" than Luke as Vader's son. Despite the plothole that's been clearly described here. While Vader as Luke's father became the core of this entire Saga. Among so many other great things, it resulted in the "I am your father" scene in TESB, one of the most iconic cinema moments of all time. ...But Leia remembering Padme works better

 

The interesting thing is that the two babies act exactly the same during the actual birth scene. There's no closeup shot of Leia's eyes to show that they are open or anything. In fact, baby Luke is the one shown to have spent more time with Padme:

Spoiler

Luke actually gets close enough to where Padme touches him. On the other hand, the most we see of Leia is this:

Spoiler

If Lucas really wanted to show that Leia was more likely to have had memories of Padme, why wouldn't this situation be reversed? Why not have Leia be the baby that Padme actually touches and somewhat interacts with? If I recall, the ROTS novelization tried to fix this by saying that Leia was intently trying to look at Padme as if to memorize her face or something. Too bad this wasn't actually in the movie. What we got instead was Luke spending more time with Padme and actually interacting with her for a few seconds. We don't see Leia doing this at all. In fact, Leia is never seen looking at Padme during that entire scene! Her face is always pointed upwards towards either the robot or Obi-Wan.

And let's actually think about what Leia actually says in ROTJ. When Luke asks if she remembers her real mother, she says "Just a little bit, she died when I was very young". Now, we know from what we saw in ROTS that Leia never even looks at Padme, so the "little bit" part can't work in a normal sense. Now, if we're going to try and rationalize it by saying that they were Force memories, then we should also look at the next part of her sentence: "she died when I was very young". Based on how this sentence is constructed, we can interpret this second part as a sort of explanation for the first part. In other words, Leia is saying that she remembers her mother only "a little bit" because she died when Leia was "very young". And that makes sense; if your mother dies when you are very young, then you might only remember her a little bit. BUT, if we're instead going with the explanation that these are Force memories (and we have to now, since they can't possibly be "normal" memories), then the second part of her sentence seems a bit odd to say. Why even mention the "very young" part? Doesn't she know that her mother died in childbirth? It's not normal to say that your mother died when you were "very young" if she actually died in childbirth. I mean, talk about understatement. Unless...Leia actually believed her mother died when she was a little older, and thought that her Force memories were real memories. That might work....although, then wouldn't Bail just say to her that her mother died in childbirth? Unless.....he lied to her.....for some reason. Yeah, I dunno. This one has never worked for me and probably never will.

 

That's actually pretty good The_Phantom_Calamari !

 

Not really. When lil' Leia's eyes flickered open Padme was buried 6 ft under far away on Naboo. What happened during the birth is what matters. There Luke had more time with their Mother & seemed far more attentive.

 

jw, are we really supposed to watch that birthing scene looking for those type of things to relate back to other events? do we really think GL put that into it for those reasons?

I know I never did think anything about that while watching, just saw 2 babies being born....what did a few seconds tell me anything....

 

You're missing the point. The point isn't that Leia remembers Padme more because her eyes were literally open at birth and Luke's weren't. That's not even how childbirth works. The shots of the babies later are merely symbolic ways of showing their personalities.

The point is that Padme retains recognizable memories of her mother because her nature allowed it. Luke, on the other hand, seemingly has no memory of his mother--except for her conviction that there is still good in Anakin, communicated with her dying breath. He has a memory, he just doesn't realize it. Maybe that was what was "transmitted" (and I don't mean literally) my his mother's touch when he was born: Compassion.

 

What, exactly, is it in Leia's nature that allows her to "remember" this?
Just the fact that she does?
She remembers her mother because her nature allowed it and because of her nature allowing it, she remembers?
Also, Leia and Luke were newborn babies, not much of their "nature" there yet.
Unless her "nature" is "she is female."

Given their circumstances, Luke is a much more logical person for this.
He has no parents, adopted or otherwise. Leia does.
She has a person to call "father" and presumably a person to call "mother".
Luke was curious about his father and later his mother as well. He wanted to know more, he yearned for more about his parents.
Was Leia ever shown as curious about her real parents?
Leia does not even really acknowledge the fact that Vader is also her father in RotJ.

As for Luke, good job is weakening his accomplishments and diminish him as a character.
The unwavering faith he had in his father? Nothing to do with him now, not his own insight, not anything he gleaned during his fight with Vader, nothing to do with him as a person.
Now it is nothing more than something that was "dumped" into him from his mother.

So his faith, his compassion, it's not his, it's his mothers.

To me, this does not really explain the problem and carries more problems with it.
It is like finding yourself in a hole and deciding to dig your way out.

Bye.
Blackboard Monitor

 

Well having memories about someone you have never even looked is also not how things actually work. But if the explanation for that is "the Force", then a newborn looking at & remembering her mother because of the Force can also be plausible. In fact I'd say that the latter actually works better from a visual storytelling perspective because we get to see the moment where baby Leia would first lay eyes on her mother; then we could later theorize that this brief moment of visualization created some kind of Force connection that allowed Leia to have images and feelings of her mother. But...that's not what we got.

Let's first try to nail down what you mean by "her nature". So the open eyes symbolize her personality that.....she's more aware of the world and more receptive to external stimuli which give her insight into the world? Is that kind of what you're trying to say? So why does she never have insight into who her father is? She's had images & feelings of her mother (supposedly through the Force), has "always known" that Luke was her brother, yet has a reaction of surprise & disgust when Luke mentions Vader being his father? Did she even put two and two together to figure out that Vader was her father too? I dunno. It's plausible if you choose to interpret things this way, but things still don't fit as well as they should.

Plus, all of this is still ignoring Leia's line, "She died when I was very young", which is not something people typically say if their mother died in childbirth. The line is a bit wonky when you try to reconcile it with what happened in ROTS.

Or he just inherited his mother's compassion? No need to overcomplicate things by spinning it as a "memory". His mother was compassionate. And now he's compassionate (perhaps with a little help from his aunt & uncle, who raised him). Simple. Sometimes the simpler explanations are the ones that make the most sense.

 

Exactly which is the whole point of what I am talking about.

The simple explanation with what Luke and Leia remember about Padme is given to us to infer from the movies themselves by the events we see and the characters actions.

The fact is that Leia remembers her beautiful, kind but sad mother. There is no way around that. Saying that she can't because of this, this and this doesn't work because she does.

Easy explanation? Leia who is Anakin Skywalker's child and a child of the Force who was carried by her mother to around full term was aware of her surroundings and felt her mothers emotions and has images and feelings of her. Luke does not. Anything Luke has is buried deep. Clearly he has his mothers kind and gentle nature. She believed there was still good in Anakin and Luke does as well. Was he influenced by something deep inside of him that he wasn't even aware was from his mother? Seems likely but we can't sure for sure though from a mythological standpoint (and Star Wars is that not SF) then it makes sense.

Simple easy answers as presented by and supported in the story itself as opposed to fighting the story and saying it can't be that because it isn't "logical".

Now outside of the fiction it's a different story. That is how Star Wars works. The story was constantly in flux. TESB rewrote ANH, ROTJ then rewrote both of them and each prequel rewrote those in turn.

We use suspension of disbelief to accept that the Vader of ANH and the Vader of TESB are the same person when clearly they are not. If the Vader of TESB was in ANH it'd be a very different movie. But enough is not said to lock things down 1000% with that and the gaps between movies we can justify the new story directions. The Empire should be on the run in TESB and falling apart. Instead the Death Star being destroyed is all but forgotten. A mere incident that has little baring.

 

Which is why I don't subscribe to the idea that one child sees and thus remembers. I subscribe to what Yoda said and what Rey sees, which just comes through the Force and can come from any point in time. Not one that they're not even at. Simple. Elegant. Clean.

 

Thanks for sharing. I thought Leia had known her mother for a few years when I first saw that. Made me sad for her.

 

I don't like it for 2 reasons:

1. We have just seen a redeemed Anakin Skywalker on the Death Star as a middle aged man. The ghost appears before Luke, who would recognise him as a middle aged man.

2. Does ghost Anakin forget his Vader years? Of course not - it is part and parcel of his life experience, which in turn gives him greater wisdom. Rejecting his true image/self is a sign of running away from his experiences, which isn't very Jedi-like at all.