CT An ESB plot hole?

Yes, yes, we all change over time, I know that for a a fact. And Lucas is not the same person who made the original films, I know that for a fact as well from all the interviews I've seen with him and the people who know him personally. This change can be seen in the movies post ESB.

If the PT conflicts with the original movies then it's the PT at fault simply because they were made after the OT. It was up to Lucas to fit the PT in with the OT, not visa-versa. If the films were made in order then it would've been up to the OT to fit with the PT, but they weren't. The PT has the continuity errors, not the OT, because of the order in which they were made. Simple logic.

 

He's changed. But I wouldn't say he's changed in any sinister way, or that he's changed for worse. I'm sure he doesn't have that same hunger and drive to succeed or prove himself anymore. But then again, I think on balance he's probably a more complete, sophisticated storyteller than he was back in the 70's. Steven Spielberg made what many remark as one of the greatest movies ever made in Jaws at only 26 years of age. Asked to look back on the person and the filmmaker he was then, he remarked he was a braver individual but also equally dumb with it. While Lucas might be much less prolific and work to a very different agenda these days, I think on the whole he's a much smarter, more sophisticated individual/filmmaker. Like Spielberg, he's obviously lost some of that youthful exuberance and edge - but thats not to say he's worse off for that. Were he just beginning to make ANH for the first time tomorrow, for various reasons, as hard as it might seem to believe, I think he'd do a much better job than he did the first time round.

 

I don't know what PT you've been watching, but it must be a different one to the PT I watched! I think it had the sophistication of the Mr. Men! It's actually totally the opposite to what you said. What started out as a relatively mature pulp space fantasy Lucas has turned into a little kids' franchise, a complete parody of itself!

 

One thing to remember is that at the point ESB was released, we did not have the "two Sith" rule in place. Little was known about the Emporer other than that he was a mean person. So when we see Vader discussing his plan with the Emporer to turn Luke, at that point it was entirely plausible for there to be a three man team. What I got from this prior to seeing the prequels was that in ESB, Vader was already obsessed with finding and turning Luke. When the Emperor found out about it, Vader talked him into capturing Luke and using their combined power and influence to turn Luke. But then on Bespin as the fight progressed, Vader realized that even though Luke was still young he was capable enough to eventually overthrow the Emperor. He therefore tries to get Luke to join him. I think this was Vader's last grasp at freedom and power. It was a spur of the moment attempt rather than a premeditated plot. That spirit is gone by ROTJ; the Vader present in that film is much more resigned to his role of second fiddle. So his attempt to turn Luke after cutting off his arm was a spur of the moment thing.

I don't really see this as a hole in the originals as much as a hole in the plot conveniences of the prequels. George fixed the problems with the droids memory of all that went on by wiping C-3P0's memory. However he was left with the problem that Obi-Wan, Anakin, and Owen Lars all would have known who these droids were. Did they simply think it was a random chance that these two droids had the same identifications and looked identical to the two that followed them around for years? I doubt it. This was just really sloppy story telling, including the characters from the originals for no other reason than to placate fans and get them to buy tickets, similar to Chewbacca's appearance in ROTS.

 

Relatively mature? The first film is a farmboy saves the kingdom story. Kid friendly to the core. Someone asks me for a mature pulpy action SF piece from the 70s, I suggest they watch Rollerball.

More on topic, I'd say Vader's freezing of Luke was a bit of a test (although perhaps an unconscious one). If Luke is that easily captured physically, then once he's transported to the Emperor Vader most likely believes it won't be too much trouble to turn Luke. As it turns out, Luke defeats the carbon freeze trap, causing Vader to see his son's potential worth to such a degree that he makes the offer of co-rule once the Emperor is dealt with.

That's not to say that ESB doesn't have any plot hole/nitpick moments. For instance I think the manner in which Luke slips out the apparent back door on Hoth while Han and company run into immediate trouble is a pretty obvious "the plot needs it to happen" kind of thing. Stuff like this happens in all six films, though, and most often I can look past the "huh?" moments given that I like where they take us.

 

I think there were a lot of issues with the originals in terms of "If this were real, that wouldn't happen". But the way the overall story itself moved, there weren't a lot of major gaps or contradictions.
It was kid friendly, but it was a plot that was mature in the sense that it was acceptable by adult audiences.

 

The same one, I'd hazard a guess. Merely different interpretations. What's that famous Lex Luthor line?

"Some people can read War and Peace and come away thinking it?s a simple adventure story. Others can read the ingredients on a chewing gum wrapper and unlock the secrets of the universe."

In your opinion.

Nonsense. This was always aimed at kids. A cynic could have merely labelled it a "little kids franchise" from the very first release. You read more into the OT in the same way I read more into the PT. Either can be just as deep or shallow as we choose to make it. None of the films need be considered meaningful or complex. You'll only get out as much as you're compelled to put in.

 

What you said.

Oh god help me! Look, at 15 you?re still a kid. You know, there is a period between babies and adults, it?s called ?teenager?. You know, it?s the period where you?ve grown out of Sesame Street and are into things like Marvel, DC and G.I. Joe. That?s the age range the OT was aimed at, until that is Lucas got his baby marketing head on with the Ewoks. Now the PT are more directed at the pre-teen Sesame Street audience; the really little kids who get off on comical slap-stick aliens and cuddly critters, which turns most teenagers and adults right off.

 

You can't honestly compare the PT to War & Peace? More like the ingredients on a chewing gum wrapper. So then, what great "secrets of the universe" did you find in the PT? Personally I think you're one of those who's in denial, someone who accepts anything Lucas writes and puts on screen just because of the OT.

"The OT was great so the PT must be great! Has to be great! Oh look, that SW movie's about a spud! Wow, Lucas is sooo great! Genius!"

And yes, it's more than just my opinion that believes the PT was a parody of SW. Many, many more people have the same views.

 

I was considering the whole kid audience/adult audience issue, and one thing really stood out (besides the plots). That was the difference between the alien side-kicks in these movies. The typical alien side-kick in the originals was and is a loved member of the Star Wars legacy, but the character who fills that role in the prequels is like a bad meal that leaves you wanting to vomit.
I think the reason that the original alien companion (Chewbacca) trumped the prequel alien companion (Jar-Jar) and was accepted by adult audiences is that:
A) he actually spoke what actually sounded like an alien language, not some retarded pig-latin.
B) even when Chewie didn't really grasp everything that was going on in a situation (fouling up the repairs to the Falcon, getting caught by booby-trapped roadkill), he exhibited admirable traits such as loyalty, responsibility, and selflessness, whereas there were no redeeming qualities about Jar-Jar. Even having Jar-Jar recognize his mistakes and show some genuine efforts to change would have made him a little bit likable; but the few attempts to show something like that in the movies came off as ridiculous.
C) Chewie filled his role as the burly side-kick, keeping quiet and kicking butt whenever needed; Jar-Jar was given the role of dumb comic relief and then never stayed in it! He went from side-kick to general to doorman to senator, but never once demonstrating any understanding of those roles or doing anything to show us he deserved them. Thus Chewie's role was believable whereas Jar-Jar's...wasn't.

 

Don't take the quote so literally. I'm not comparing the PT to War and Peace. They're entirely different things. The point is, different people see the same things differently. What you find inspiring, I might not. And vice versa.

Go ahead and assume away. You'll only make an idiot of yourself if you continue doing that with the folks on here. I don't rate all the movies the same. There are some that, at times, float in or around mediocrity. I don't hate any of them, no. But then again, I do hate The Holiday Special if thats any consolation to you.

I won't even dignify this particular bit of lunacy with a response.

And "many, many more people" share my views. Since when was subjective matters like this a matter of democracy, outside of the box-office takings. Is that how you judge films? "I quite liked this film but everyone I know hated it. Oh well, I guess I'm an idiot and it really must suck"?

 

Chewbacca was lovable because he exhibited a more mature humour, like being a crappy mechanic and slightly thick but aggressively loyal partner to a roguish gunslinger, whereas Jar-Jar was simply an all out Jerry Lewis!

And yes, I think torture, space Nazis and planetary slaughter was really quite mature for anyone, wouldn?t you agree?

 

Or how about Darth Vader snapping the Rebel captain's neck in the opening of ANH and then sending his troops to Bar-B-Q Luke's family? No the movie wasn't aimed at the same adult audience as Terminator, but it was meant to include both adults and children, not necessarily one or the other.

 

I was implying that he WROTE the stories....geez

 

Hmm, not so much, actually. The depiction or suggestion of violence in itself doesn't automatically equal mature storytelling for me. Personally I think the manner in which Leia shrugs off both torture and the destruction of her planet is a bit cartoonish. Anakin's reaction to seeing his mother tortured in AOTC, on the other hand, strikes me as more chillingly human. There's real consequences to both the torture he sees and the violent acts he resorts to in order to "answer" the horror that killed his family. Honestly the violence in the original film strikes me as more white-washed by comparison. Darth Vader is Evvvvill because he's Evvilllll, and all is well by blowing up his huge space station. But what of the civilians that were likely on the Death Star? I find it hard to believe there weren't more innocent prisoners in the various cell blocks on the Death Star. Why is the Princess the only one who is rescued?

ANH may have less "critters" than some of the other films in the saga, but in many ways I view it as cartoonish in its own way. TPM has it's cartoonish turns as well (especially in the slapstick physical comedy), but it also has a flawed Jedi Order, subtle politician Palpatine, and a royal queen whose "fight now!" policy turns out to hurt her and the galaxy at large in the long run. I'd dare say it's a film that has stuff for both young viewers and adults.

 

Then there's the slicing up of thugs in bars, shooting gun-toting mercs under tables, strangulation of your own officers when they fail in their duties, and cutting off of your relative's body parts.

Admittedly the PT had some of this stuff too, but its effects are watered down by the bad scripting, clunky plot, continuity errors, bad acting, bad characterisations, bad directing (having to be reminded to say "Cut!" and lounging around drinking coffee in a chair???) and sometimes overpowering infantile slapstick humour, rather than the subtle humour we had in the OT.

 

I for one think it was a trap.

 

This is what passes for maturity now? How are violence and dismemberment are a sure sign of a "mature" storyline? If that were so, videogames would be widely viewed as our most prestigious art form and the Saw franchise would be transcendental. There's no connection between violence and the maturity or depth of a piece. ESB's implication that good mentors can lie and manipulate while villains tell the truth -- now there's a mature storyline. ROTS's demonstration of how decisions made in fear can readily lead to negative consequences (to say the least) is also a mature storyline. But snapping necks, slicing up men, and shooting mercenaries do not a sophisticated story make.

As for the "subtle" humor of the OT, I wouldn't exactly call aliens playing keep-away with C3PO's head and Chewbacca "subtle."

 

Shakespeare has violence. The Arthur Legend has violence. I guess they're not mature well written stories then?

 

They're well-written, in my opinion, but violence cannot in and of itself give a work meaning, depth, or "maturity." It can be a tool, to be sure, such as the fight between Macbeth and MacDuff at the end of the play which is the pinnacle of Macbeth's downfall, but the violence isn't what the story is about. Shakespeare isn't that reknowned for his exhilarating fight scenes, after all. When used appropriately, though, it can bolster the themes and ideas a story is trying to get across.

I found your point contentious because it's a mentality I've encountered in the past -- where something bright and colorful, but which makes some pretty deep statements, is dismissed as "kiddy" while a dark, grisly bloodfest that is nothing but death, death, death, and dismemberment is praised for being geared towards "mature" audiences. Making your story palatable to children does not rob it of its profundity, in my opinion. You may disagree, however.

As for Shakespeare, he's one of the English language's greatest playwrights, but his humor isn't exactly what you'd call "subtle". Half of it is dick jokes or a play on words for brothels.

 

It's not the violence in and of itself that shows maturity in story telling. The level of violence and how it is used shows that the movies were meant to engage mature audiences as well as younger audiences.

For instance, mature audiences could quickly identify the villain and understand why he was evil because of the violent things he did (Vader snapping the captain's neck, Tuck blowing up a whole planet, the Emperor zapping a writhing, helpless Luke with lightening). There was violence in the PT, but it did not serve the same purpose.

 

No, I was saying that they're about to mess with the Rule of Two. If they become three, they've broken it.

My point was that it's not a plot hole to break an established rule.

 

Do we know for sure that Lucas had the rule of two in place at that point, or if it was an addition during the prequels?

 

Most likely an addition with the prequels, but there's no plot hole there.

 

One could also argue that the violence in A New Hope was conventional for its time. The codes are different these days, but ANH looked pretty much like you'd expect a 70s blockbuster to do when it came to violence.

Personally, I find Revenge Of The Sith to be more violent than the OT.

And how would a 9 year old boy not get that?

For my money, the plot of the PT is more complicated than the OT. It's much more difficult for a young audience to see through the layers of deception in the PT than it is for them to understand the black and white conflict of the OT. That's why I agree with d_arblay.

This doesn't mean that I prefer the PT to the OT, but I concur that it's got a more "mature" plot.