main
side
curve
  1. In Memory of LAJ_FETT: Please share your remembrances and condolences HERE

PT A Better Continuity Between Prequels and the Original Trilogy

Discussion in 'Prequel Trilogy' started by Kyris Cavisek, Nov 13, 2012.

  1. darkspine10

    darkspine10 Chosen One star 8

    Registered:
    Dec 7, 2014
    Vader uses a lightsaber though.
     
  2. Darth Downunder

    Darth Downunder Chosen One star 6

    Registered:
    Aug 5, 2001
    & he's a Jedi turned bad. The OT emphasised this. Tarkin all but says he's the last remaining Jedi. To me in the OT taken by itself, Vader is depicted as a "Dark Jedi" more than a Sith.
     
  3. Samuel Vimes

    Samuel Vimes Force Ghost star 4

    Registered:
    Sep 4, 2012
    And I addressed that,
    Also, see Darth Downunder's post.

    Bye for now.
    Blackboard Monitor
     
  4. dagenspear

    dagenspear Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Registered:
    Sep 9, 2015
    That's another assumption. I didn't say that you came up with it after or that anyone did. I didn't say that you or everyone who made that assumption about the line use it for that either. I said that people took that line and made huge assumptions about it. It was saying that those that use it as an attack on the prequels do so because they created assumptions about the SW universe and instead of accepting that it wasn't what they thought and understanding that Lucas doesn't have to appeal to that, they pretend it's a problem.
    That was a concept from a jedi. It's unreasonable to assume that the sith wouldn't use what a jedi considered a weapon for a more civilized age. Mocking Luke's skills doesn't automatically mean he hasn't or won't use a lightsaber himself. Have a very great day!

    God bless you! God bless everyone!
     
    ConservativeJedi321 likes this.
  5. Samuel Vimes

    Samuel Vimes Force Ghost star 4

    Registered:
    Sep 4, 2012
    [/QUOTE]

    Since you responded to ME and made that comment about people making assumptions in order to bash Lucas, I couldn't help but to feel included. Why even bring that up in the first place?
    If you disagree about what Palpatine meant, say that and what you think he means instead.
    Going off about people wanting to bash Lucas doesn't contribute much except animosity.

    I explained what I thought his comment to mean and why, that's it.

    Why is it unreasonable to assume that the Sith, who are evil bad guys, would use the good guys weapon? A "elegant weapon" for a more "civilized age". The Sith don't care about honor, courage or chivalry. So would they use a weapon that is in some ways the symbol for a Jedi?

    As for Palpatine, as I've said, he had weaponized the Force itself. This is about as far from Yoda's "A Jedi uses the Force for knowledge and defense, never attack." as you can get. Force Lightning is very much attack.
    So what need does he have for a lightsaber? His Force Powers are way more powerful.
    Does Superman need a gun?

    Lastly, and this will be my final word on this matter, Lucas established certain things in the OT.
    Like Owen and Beru clearly knew Anakin well, Leia remembered her mother but Luke did not.
    The Old Republic had existed for over 1000 generations, Anakin wanted Luke to have his lightsabre, etc.
    With the PT he choose to ignore some things because of the story he wanted to tell, which is his choice. But the consequences of that choice is that people can notice these changes and be bothered by them. That isn't their fault, they simply accepted what the story said to be true. And when the story changed, they noticed. It isn't a PT thing either, quite a few thought that making Leia Luke's sister was rushed and didn't fit with the other two movies all that well.
    In short, don't blame people for noticing ret-cons.
    If they get rude, nasty and overly hostile to Lucas about it, then that is crossing the line and not fine.

    Bye
    Old Stoneface
     
  6. darklordoftech

    darklordoftech Force Ghost star 6

    Registered:
    Sep 30, 2012
    "Darth" shouldn't be a title. Everyone in the OT seems to except that Mrs. and Mr. Vader named their son, "Darth."
     
  7. dagenspear

    dagenspear Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Registered:
    Sep 9, 2015
    It was a statement about the fandom. Of course, you brought up things that weren't connected to my statement either.
    Doesn't responding to that do similar things? I don't care what Palpatine means. He's just poking at Luke. Examining his words has no point in the issue. The movie gives me no reason to take it at anything other than face value.
    You keep asking the wrong questions. Instead of, "Why would they?" The question is, "Why wouldn't they?" Evil beings don't care about why a person uses a weapon for good or how they use it. Any weapon being for good or not, is defined by the person who uses it. It makes no sense to assume that evil wouldn't use a weapon for evil means when someone uses it for good.
    None of that has to do with the lightsaber assumptions. But Obi-Wan never stated that the Old Republic had existed for over 1000 generations. He said that for over 1000 generations the jedi knights were the guardians of peace and justice in the Old Republic. Obi-Wan saying that Anakin wanted him to have the lightsaber can just as easily be Obi-Wan's perception, not that it is, but it could just as easily be. But Anakin wanting him to have the lightsaber gets thrown out the window when he's revealed as Darth Vader and shown that he finds him having kids impossible. The Leia thing, eh, I don't think it would have made much sense if she had actually known her.
    This isn't an issue about noticing retcons. It's an issue about people making assumptions about characters and the universe, when those things are never stated and not liking that the prequels didn't apply that headcanon. Have a very great day!

    God bless you! God bless everyone!
     
    AshiusX and ConservativeJedi321 like this.
  8. Samuel Vimes

    Samuel Vimes Force Ghost star 4

    Registered:
    Sep 4, 2012
    The initial post about lightsabers being just a weapon for jedi was by Lt. Hija.
    Then Oissan responded and I responded to Oissan.
    My response had NOTHING about fandom, it was just about what Palpatine could have meant and what I took him to mean.
    You responded to my post and started attacking a section of the fandom.

    If we take his words at face value then he has no lightsaber as he specifically says that he is unarmed.
    He also says that a lightsaber is a Jedi's weapon, echoing Obi-Wan's words.
    So if we take what the film says at face value, then Jedi use the lightsaber, Palpatine does not.
    Glad we agree.

    I have given reason why they wouldn't. You want more? Fine, the lightsaber is a short range weapon, it can't kill at a distance. At least not directly, it can deflect bolts back. But if no such bolts exist, then you have to get close to the enemy.
    An evil person wouldn't want to risk his/her life by closing to melee distance unless he/she has to. Far better to use some range weapon or even better, a bomb or disposable soldiers. An evil, dishonorable person wouldn't care about fair fight or anything like that. The Sith just want the Jedi dead, they don't care about honor or duels or the like.

    Read through what you just wrote again. If the Jedi have been the guardians of peace and justice IN the old republic for over 1000 generations then obviously the old republic has existed for at least that long. Possibly longer, we don't know. The Jedi can't be the guardians of the republic before it existed, now can they?

    But making Obi-Wan into a liar or unreliable narrator bothers some people.
    Also, making Anakin into Vader does NOT have to mean that his wish for Luke to have his lightsaber is false. He could have talked with Obi-Wan about passing his lightsabre on to his son in a general way. Or he could have been talking specifically about his son, ie Luke but then Obi-Wan somehow faked Luke's death along with Anakin's wife and Vader bought it. Plenty of ways to keep the line and have Anakin be Vader.


    [/QUOTE]

    Why wouldn't it make sense for Leia to know her mother?
    The backstory, as envisioned by Lucas, was that Luke and Leia were split up at birth, Luke went to Tatooine and Leia went to Alderaan as Bail took her and her mother in. She lived with her mother for a few years before her mother died.
    It doesn't fit the PT as is given how obsessed Anakin is with Padme but it was perfectly possible to make a PT that fitted with these lines.
    Lucas choose not to, which is fine but then he also has to accept that people notice the ret-con.

    Since Palpatine DIRECTLY states that he is unarmed then that means he doesn't have a ligthsaber.
    Palpatine also DIRECTLY states that the lightsaber is a Jedi's weapon.
    At NO point in the OT is it said that the lightsabre is also a weapon of the Sith. Sith aren't even mentioned at all. But Palpatine obviously isn't a Jedi nor has he ever been one.
    So taking the OT at face value, the ONLY people that use lightsabers as weapons are Jedi and one fallen Jedi, Vader. Palpatine does not.
    So it is NOT unreasonable to think that he doesn't use them as he never does and says that he doesn't have one.
    So people didn't make assumptions, they did what you said they should, take the films at face value.
    And at face value, Palpatine doesn't use a ligthsaber neither does he have one.

    Bye.
    Blackboard Monitor
     
    DarthCricketer likes this.
  9. dagenspear

    dagenspear Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Registered:
    Sep 9, 2015
    I didn't attack anyone. I made a comment in regards to those who do what I said, not that everyone in that side of the fandom did it. I was saying that my statement was about fandom, not that yours was. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding.
    He doesn't say that.
    You keep providing reasons why you think it should be that way, instead of actually giving a definitive factual reason why it should be that way. Evil people are just likely to do all that you say, as non evil people.
    The republic, as it stands, could just as easily not have lasted as long as the jedi's defense of the republic in general. But I'm just saying what he said in the movie.
    We know he is. All of that is just as much of an assumption as him simply saying what he thinks Anakin, as he knew him, would have wanted.
    Making Leia, a known princess and diplomat by Vader, of Alderan, have a relationship with her mom, who was taken in by a known senator, begs just as much questions about why it was never known by Palpatine or Vader, particularly because Obi-Wan himself says that they knew that if Emperor found out about them, they would be in danger. Really, it makes no sense to hide her with a senator anyway.
    It's never said that they don't use them either. Palpatine saying that he doesn't have one isn't him saying that he never had one or would never use one. It's an assumption.
    At face value, Palpatine doesn't have one. That's it. The movie doesn't state anything else. Have a very great day!

    God bless you! God bless everyone!
     
    AshiusX likes this.
  10. Samuel Vimes

    Samuel Vimes Force Ghost star 4

    Registered:
    Sep 4, 2012
    Yes, he does say that. He says that he is unarmed at least once and he call the lightsabre a Jedi's weapon and compares it to Vader's, who is a fallen Jedi. He does NOT say it is also a Sith's weapon or compares it to the lightsaber he has.
    Ergo, he has no lightsaber.
    Vader has his lightsaber on him at all times, if Palpatine has one, why wouldn't he also carry it?
    It is not like it is heavy or bulky.

    Imagine that cops in the US stopped using guns and instead had battle axes. But guns did still exist. What do you think is most logical for criminals to use, guns or axes?
    Guns is obviously the better choice for them as it gives them a big advantage over the cops.

    If you have a gun and a sword and have to kill someone dangerous, which is easier, the gun or the sword? Again the gun is easier and also safer as you can kill at range. With the sword you have to get close to your opponent and the risk is thus greater to you.

    Lastly, if you have the power of say shooting lasers from your eyes, why would you need a sword?
    If have a better weapon built in.

    ??? How can the Jedi protect a Republic that does not exist?
    In ANH, Obi-Wan says that the Jedi have been guardians of peace and justice in the OLD REPUBLIC for over 1000 generations. Tarkin later uses the same phrase when he says "The last remnant of the OLD REPUBLIC has been swept away."
    Ergo, the old republic has existed for at least 1000 generations and with the dissolving of the senate, it is now gone. Also the use of the definitive article "THE" and lack of plural, the obvious interpretation is that there was just one republic, not several.

    But in the PT, Jedi aren't allowed to marry or to have children. So Anakin can not have a son and remain a Jedi. And if he quits the Jedi order in order to marry and have children, what sense does it make for him to want his son to be a Jedi when he himself have turned his back on that life?

    [/QUOTE]

    First, in the OT, Leia's father was not a known senator, from what the film say, it seems he was the ruler of Alderaan. Leia was a senator.

    It is simple to explain and Lucas did have a plan in mind. Luke and Leia's mother left Anakin before Anakin knew she was pregnant, she had her children but for safety's sake, they were split up and Leia and her mother were taken in by the Organas, whom Obi-Wan knew well.
    If Leia is known as Bail's daughter then Vader and Palpatine have no reason to look at her. Esp if Vader and Palpatine does not know that Vader had any children.
    You could also have this story, Anakin has an affair with Bail's wife and gets her pregnant but doesn't know about it. Or Luke and Leia's mother marries Bail after she leaves Anakin. So Leia would again be Bail's daughter to the rest of the galaxy. If you want to explain why Luke is hidden then you can have Anakin having a vision about a son and he talks with Obi-Wan about it. And mentioning his lightsaber. So to keep the secret, the son, Luke, is hidden.

    In short, very possible to do.

    Bye.
    Old Stoneface
     
    DarthCricketer and KaleeshEyes like this.
  11. Qui-Riv-Brid

    Qui-Riv-Brid Force Ghost star 5

    Registered:
    Apr 18, 2013
    Not really since the OT was the second half of the story. It was incomplete. Things were no more established than Vader killing Luke's father.

    The Sith were not established nor were any number of things which were simply left unsaid and incomplete.

    It's just that the questions weren't being asked.

    Yes that he was a navigator on a spice freighter.

    Oh wait!!

    As it is they do know Anakin well from Shmi's accounts.

    No that was already thrown out by the OT as Vader didn't know about Luke (or Leia). Much like various other things that Obi-Wan said in ANH that were based on the POV that Vader killed Anakin.

    The problem is though that these people created things that didn't really happen at all in the movies themselves but from what they think happened. How many people thought they saw the Biggs scenes in the movies at some point?

    It's not about fault it's about mixing the movies with the books, comics, records etc.

    Except that what they noticed depended on various factors outside of the movies.

    Inside the movies it all works amazingly well if look at just the movies.
     
  12. Samuel Vimes

    Samuel Vimes Force Ghost star 4

    Registered:
    Sep 4, 2012
    Wrong, the OT was THE story, the PT is just backstory.
    It a sequel set before the original story, thus a Prequel.
    Same with "The Magicians nephew" It is a prequel/backstory to TLWW.

    The OT was not and is not incomplete. You can watch it today and get a full experience.
    The PT wasn't needed to complete the OT. The OT stood on it's own for over 15 year just fine.
    Had Lucas never made the PT, the OT would not be harmed by that in any way.

    Take "Raiders of the lost Ark." That is a complete story. We get some backstory about Han, Marion and her father and they all know each other from the past. You do a prequel about that if you want but doing that wouldn't cause Raiders to suddenly become "incomplete."
    Did the "Indiana Jones chronicles" cause the Indy films to become "incomplete"?

    The film "Prometheus" is a prequel to the film "Alien". Does that suddenly cause the Alien film to become "incomplete."?

    That doesn't mean that it was wrong to make more movies and people certainly wanted more stories set in the SW universe. And it is fun to fill in the backstory and see waht happened before and how the character got to the place they were.



    Wrong again, look at the scene when it is just Owen and Beru, Luke isn't there so no reason to keep lying. Look at their expressions, Beru has a slight smile to her face remembering Anakin.
    In short, they clearly knew him and the PT failed to match up with that.




    Wrong a third time, it was very possible to have Anakin mention to Obi-Wan about wanting to give his lightsabre to his son. Either in a general way or about Luke specifically.
    But since the PT made families and children a big no no for Jedi, that is now gone.


    No, these people simply took what the films said at face value and didn't engage in convoluted scenarios or having to come up with increasingly absurd and twisted logic to explain the various ret-cons.
    The simple idea that pretty much everyone that watched RotJ back in 83 got is that Luke never knew his mother but Leia did. She lived with her for a few years and then died. Nothing complicated about that.
    Now fans have to make up Force powers or twist words around in order to avoid admitting that a ret con happened.


    ALL films have to stand on their own. If a film needs a book or comic and game in order to work then the film is poorly made. SW is no exception. The films should work as their own thing and not need 30-40 books in order to make sense of the story.


    [/QUOTE]

    No what people notice was IN the movies. Some have just used outside sources to prove what they noticed was in fact what the movie was trying to establish. So they were not wrong.
    The Leia thing for ex, the story at the time was that Leia did live with her mother for a few years and this is why she remembers her and Luke does not. The film establishes this and the script/novel just makes it abundantly clear.

    If you think it works well, good for you. To others it doesn't and their opinion is just as valid as yours.

    Bye for now.
    Blackboard Monitor
     
  13. AshiusX

    AshiusX Jedi Knight star 3

    Registered:
    Feb 7, 2016
    If you considered the events of TCW. Anakin was literally a ''navigator aboard a spice freighter''. The ship he constantly flew ''Twilight'' during the early-mid stages of the Clone Wars was a spice freighter. I am assuming Own heard the exploits of Anakin through the HoloNet new or something. Through out the galaxy Anakin was known as the ''Hero with No Fear''.
    http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Spice_freighter
     
  14. {Quantum/MIDI}

    {Quantum/MIDI} Force Ghost star 5

    Registered:
    Dec 21, 2015
    After giving it some thought, I think Sam is kinda right on this. However, Qui had some good points also.

    All in all, I presume for me, that the continuity does not affect the films themselves because of how Lucas structured the 6 movies. The various little things are there, but the over relying story is not.

    I think more so, Lucas rather looks at the big picture than the small trivial stuff.
     
  15. Qui-Riv-Brid

    Qui-Riv-Brid Force Ghost star 5

    Registered:
    Apr 18, 2013
    Not wrong.

    You don't have to like it but just accept it.

    The OT is one THE story. The PT is one THE story. Together they are the THE story.

    Yes. It's also the start of the THE story.

    Yes you can still get Luke's complete The story. What you can't get is the COMPLETE the THE story.

    Fine? Yes but what question was asked for all those years?

    "When are we getting the prequels?"

    That's is true. Until he made them we didn't really realize how much of the THE story was missing.

    Now we do so it's impossible to imagine Star Wars without them. The THE story is so much deeper richer and better in every way imaginable.

    I have many times. They did know him. They met him and knew him through Shmi. The only "failure" is what some fans want it to be as opposed to what the movies show.

    You answered your own question. Again it's about what some fans want it to be.

    Once again then all of these fans must despise TESB and further ROTJ already for all the twisting and ret-cons etc etc.

    We went over this over and again already. Once again look at the movies. The real story is there. We all know their were constant ret-cons in the materials themselves but those aren't in the actual movies themselves. The "twisting" going on is trying to insert things not in the movies into them because someone "knows" it's true.

    Padme dies in ROTS. Therefore she did not go to Alderaan with Leia. All Leia remembers is this:

    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.

    In the same scene she also says this:


    LUKE Yes. It's you Leia.

    LEIA I know. Somehow...I've always known.

    So did she really always know Luke was her brother? Obviously not. This is right in the movie.

    Actually as Lucas has said ultimately it's one big movie. Hence the Episodes I through VI tags.

    Besides that I don't see how this works in your favour at all. On the one hand you want the movie/s to stand on their own but then refer to materials that support it from outside the movie itself.

    The Star Wars movie that is really poor in this regard " If a film needs a book or comic and game in order to work then the film is poorly made" is TFA. The new Bloodline book changes the way you see TFA working.


    Isn't that confirmation bias?

    Use the movies.

    All the movies.

    No it doesn't.

    That is why Lucas could "change" it in the first place.

    Just like Luke's father.
     
  16. dagenspear

    dagenspear Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Registered:
    Sep 9, 2015
    Who said he does have one? He didn't. He doesn't say he never had one either. That's what I was trying to say. I'm very sorry for the misunderstanding. He doesn't say he never had one. Because of that we have no reason to believe that he never did have one or use one and that no sith has ever had one or used one.
    But even then, there's no reason to think that they wouldn't use an axe too.
    I said the republic, as it stands at the time of the prequels. But my point was that Palpatine and Obi-Wan say different things in regards to different contexts.
    I'm not sure how this is connected to me saying that what Obi-Wan says in ANH is his perception of what he thinks Anakin, as he knew him, would have wanted.
    That's just as much an audience assumption as any other explanation that could be came with. But even then, Vader has no reason to assume that it's impossible, if he had a relationship with a woman who lived and had a life after he became what he is. Have a very great day!

    God bless you! God bless everyone!
     
  17. Samuel Vimes

    Samuel Vimes Force Ghost star 4

    Registered:
    Sep 4, 2012

    He says he is unarmed, ie he doesn't have a lightsaber.
    Why? Why doesn't he have or use a ligthsaber, at this point?
    Either because he feels he doesn't need one or he thinks that a lightsaber is not a weapon for a Sith.
    The former is easily explained by Palpatine having weaponized the Force and for someone that can do that, a weapon is of no use. Under this scenario it is possible that Palpatine had a lightsaber until he mastered Force lightning.
    Under the latter, Palpatine never had a lightsaber as he didn't want to use the weapons of the puny, goody, goody Jedi.


    The republic that exists in the PT is the same republic that Obi-Wan said had existed for over 1000 generations. Palpatine gives a different figure for no reason. So two characters give conflicting data on how old the "Old Republic" is and no way to determine who is right. Thus we have a contradiction.


    [/QUOTE]

    Why would he assume it is possible? If he has a relationship with a woman, they separate for some reason and he doesn't know that she is pregnant. Later he hears on the news that this woman has married Bail Organa and they have a daughter together.
    Why would he assume that this daughter is his child?

    I would imagine that there are plenty of men that had relationships with women, they go their separate ways and the woman finds someone else and has a child. Would all those men automatically think that this child is theirs? I don't think so.

    Vader in RotJ doesn't want to acknowledge that name Anakin Skywalker. So it is very possible that he doesn't want to think about things from "Anakins" life. Such as the girl he was with for a time.
    So that he doesn't go looking for her or want to think about her of her new life is not hard to understand.

    @Qui-Riv-Brid
    Yes it does.

    ANH established that Luke's father was dead and ESB contradicted that.
    Hence why Lucas had to spend a little time explaining this ret-con ONSCREEN.
    Had the issue of Vader being Luke's father and how Luke was told differently never been addressed onscreen, then you would have a point. Imagine a RotJ where Luke never asks Yoda if Vader is his father or he never asks why Obi-Wan told him that Vader betrayed and murdered his father.
    I would imagine most in the audience would have a problem with that.

    So Lucas KNEW that he was doing a ret-con and he KNEW that he had to explain it.
    The Leia thing is never explained. Either Lucas didn't consider it or he didn't feel like explaining it.
    But it was still a ret-con.


    I am using the movies, I don't rely on off-screen stuff.
    RotJ clearly established that Leia knew her mother but Luke did not.
    RotS contradicts that.
    Case closed.


    Lucas has also said that SW was the adventures of Luke Skywalker then it was suddenly the tragedy of Darth Vader. He has also said that there would be a ST and that he had short outlines for them. Later he denied that he ever had any plans for a ST and claimed it was all an "invention by the media" and that SW was only ep I-VI and it was never intended to be any more than that.
    Then he wrote some outlines for a ST anyway.
    Lucas has also said that Luke and Leia became twins in 1975, ie before ANH was made.

    I respect Lucas and he has done a lot of great things. But one does have to take what he says with a grain of salt as he changes his mind a lot.


    Except I don't. The Leia thing is established IN the film, as I've said above.

    I can use off-screen material when discussing things like "what did Lucas intend back in 1977, what was the original idea for Vader?", "Who was Sido-Dyas?" etc.
    I can also use it when debating with some people that argue "Vader was always Luke's father."
    Then I can point to early versions of the script where Darth Vader was a human general that died in the end. Or script where he is a Sith but still dies. Or scripts where the ghost of Luke's father appears. And so on.

    I can also use it when debating things like "Lucas NEVER intended for Leia to having spent time with her mother, you have just made that up"
    In this case, I can point to the script and say, yes Lucas DID intend for Leia to know her mother and that she lived with her for a few years. And RotJ was made with this in mind. And the dialogue in the finished film says so.
    So I have not made that up, the film says so and the script provides more details.


    I have already dealt with ESB and that ret-con WAS talked about in the film. I think that Obi-Wans "certain point of view" was a weak excuse on his part. Be man enough to admit that you lied.
    The RotJ ret-con of Leia being Luke's brother is much weaker. And RotJ is considered weaker by a number of people, this is one reason why.
    It comes out of nowhere and exists mostly to wrap up the story, as Lucas was tired of SW, and to provide a neat end of the love triangle and a reason for Luke to get really angry at the end.
    Vader is also Leia's father but she never talks about that or how that revelation makes her feel.
    It isn't great or even good, it is serviceable.

    The ret-cons ARE in the films, that is what this thread is about.
    One film says Luke's father is dead. The next says he is alive. Contradiction. And this was dealt with in the third film.
    On film says Leia knows her mother and has actual memories of her while Luke does not.
    Then another film says that Luke and Leia never knew their mother as she died in child birth.
    Contradiction. But this is never dealt with.
    One film says the republic is over 1000 generations old, an other that is 1000 years old.
    Again contradiction and again this is not explained.

    Instead fans that insist that no plot holes exist have to invent Force powers or twist words around endlessly in order to justify that claim.

    Try and read what I wrote and what I was responding to.
    You wrote;
    To which I responded with;
    In short, you tried to claim that the OT made it impossible for Anakin to mention to Obi-Wan about giving his lightsabre to Luke.
    I showed that this is wrong and it is very possible to make a PT where this happens.
    Lucas just choose not to.

    If a story has things missing then that is very noticeable from just seeing/reading it.
    Those are sometimes called plot holes.

    The OT is complete and has been since 1983.

    But since we seem to have totally different ideas about what complete and incomplete is, question:
    Take the film Alien, is that a complete story?
    Does the existence of the sequel, Aliens, or the prequel, Prometheus, cause it to become incomplete?

    Bye for now.
    Blackboard Monitor
     
  18. AshiusX

    AshiusX Jedi Knight star 3

    Registered:
    Feb 7, 2016
    The way I see it. Palpatine is referring to the republic in its current form is 1000 year old at the time of the ATOC. After the final battle of Ruusan in which the Jedi supposedly defeat Sith once and for all. The Republic and its structure under went heavy reform.

    http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Ruusan_Reformation

    The closest real world examples would be to look the various republics of France. If the each of the constitutions is heavily modified then they become a new Republics. So in France they have various republics.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_First_Republic

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Second_Republic

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Third_Republic
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Fourth_Republic
     
    Cryogenic and dagenspear like this.
  19. Cryogenic

    Cryogenic Force Ghost star 5

    Registered:
    Jul 20, 2005


    And also...

    This Republic.

    Sith Republic.

    ;)
     
    Ezon Pin likes this.
  20. SeventySeven

    SeventySeven Jedi Grand Master star 3

    Registered:
    Jul 18, 2002
    This is totally silly.

    What we know for a fact is tha Lucas has bunch of core concepts that he uses / used to make these films, and that the details are not necessarily that important.
    Ok - we have Obi-Wan come back to explain himself because Lucas realised that the 'big reveal' was boxed in somewhat by having already written ANH thinking this would be his only - maybe last film, so lets ditch the father thing - and many other ideas.

    Note 'the certain point of view' only explains some things - there are loads of little things peppered in ANH that don't make sense after ESB. So do we need Luke to interview every character and explain what they meant?

    There are retcons every where - and in a way having to get a major characters to help with the continuity, or shoe horn in "will this do?" dialog is worse than leaving it to the imagination.

    You can't accept the intra-trilogy inconsistancies and at the same time cry foul for the inter trilogy ones with your only defence being that - well at least people came back from the dead to make up a suitable story !

    Lucas is basically saying - 'things could be this way or that' - it's all interesting. Life is to short to have to stick to your first penciled in notions.