Saga Favorite Pet Peeve of the Star Wars Saga

Really? Your rebuttal is basically saying, "Hey, look at the OT! They're just as bad!" Why does everyone feel the need to defend the PT by going back to the OT and making comments like that? And this can go both ways, but it seems to be more frequent with PT defenders. Shouldn't the two be able to stand on their own merits - you know, something you can get behind and use as an example instead of, "the OT/PT had it too, so your argument is moot!"


To answer the original question of the thread, my number one pet peeve has to be Hayden Christensen appearing as the Force ghost at the end of ROTJ.

@HanSolo29

You're seeing more "the OT did it, too" posts because a lot of the PT fans see/hear the same complaints over and over and over, and yet the same complaint can be but is not leveled against the OT. This seems like hypocrisy to many. If something is "bad" or "poorly done" in the PT, it's no longer getting a pass if ignored in the OT.

If something truly is objectively bad/poor, it's bad/poor in the OT as well, in other words.

Or to put it another way, a lot of the PT fans are tired of being insulted (by some), looked down upon (by some), told how childish they are or lacking in taste (by some), or how blind they are to poor movie-making when those same "flaws" show up in the OT.

I hope this helps to explain "why" to your "why?"

It does. Thank you for the post! However, I would like to comment on one point:

I do see this happening a lot across the boards, from both parties actually (believe me, as an OT fan, I feel it just as bad as you do from the so-called 'gushers'). But it makes me wonder - does responding with the same kind of comments make us any better than the ones doing the insulting? I totally understand where the frustration is coming from, but it all comes across as something you see on the playground when school-age children have disputes. It's sad, really, and I wish we could all just get along and hold a decent conversation without the name-calling and insults, you know?

Anyway, I doubt this is the appropriate place for this kind of conversation and I didn't mean to derail the thread. It's just the little things that get under my skin...a 'pet peeve', if you will.

Move along, move along...

Oh, I don't think it's derailing at all and I think a honest discussion is what is needed because for all the time I've been around, there has been little "PT folks bashing the OT" threads. But even my "not so legendary patience" is getting strained nowadays and I consider myself a fan of Star Wars. The Saga. Not a certain trilogy.

But there is an element of truth in the "reverse finger pointing."

If something is held up as bad plotting, a plothole, bad/poor whatever, it needs to be pointed out when it is accepted in the OT and derided in the PT. That truly is hypocrisy and tailoring your argument to fit your wishes rather than objective "fact."

Glad we could have a "civil exchange" on this.

Because they wish to express their taste in film, which may involve finding similar flaws/traits in both trilogies.

It doesn't really help your cause. Actually it makes you seem extremely defensive. This attitude is exactly what made me leave these boards for a year or two.

Han&Leia scenes are done in a completely different style compared to Padmé&Anakin. I don't see what's hypocritical if you prefer one to the other. Oh, and there's also the issue of Anakin killing children before he and Padmé became engaged. For some people (me), this is a "bit" of a problem. Han was only a smuggler, he never slaughtered an entire village.

Gee, here I try to be civil and you point fingers. I'm not even really one of those posting "but the OT did too," but since I understand the position, I tried to explain it and now you're on my case. No thanks. Won't participate.

For the record, *I* have never compared Anakin-Padme to Han-Leia nor do I ever plan to. They are very different. You seem almost dismissive of anyone else's views and paint with a broad brush. There are some similar "issues" (not the romance) between the two sagas that are fair game to some and seemingly invisible to others. I don't always agree with the particular issue, though - I only agree that some OT fans are willing to overlook things in the OT that they will not forgive in the PT.

It depends on the reasoning.

If, for example, you said you liked Han and Leia but you didn't like Anakin and Padmé because of the Tusken slaughter, that's certainly understandable. But it's when people make the claim that they don't like the Anakin-Padmé romance specifically because Anakin (supposedly) acts like a "rapist" or "stalker" yet they continue to enjoy the Han and Leia romance that I think there's an element of hypocrisy.

People don't have to like a particular element of either set of films, but if they enjoy an aspect about the OT and then deride it in the PT it does seem rather fallacious to me.

It'd be like PT fan complaining about Obi-Wan and Vader's duel in ANH and saying the reason they didn't like it is because Obi-Wan threw in an unnecessary spin and it looked dumb. Well, if you look at the PT, there's a lot of spinning, so their reasoning would seem off. At least to me. If they said they didn't like it because it was too slow or there wasn't any music, though, that would be a different story.

Yes, that would be weird reasoning, I agree.
But A'rden Skirata only said he didn't like the Padmé-Anakin love scenes. This is imo a completely innocent opinion.

Again with the "victim routine". Don't you get this only makes me respect you less, not more?

So, what exactly were you trying to imply by quoting Skiratas statement and following with "Han Leia scenes in ROTJ"? If you were venting your frustrations at another poster I think that poster deserves and apology. Or maybe you think passive aggressive behavior is all dandy.

Oh, I recognize that, I was just speaking more generally. I wasn't targeting A'rden Skirata in particular since I don't have a problem with his/her post.

I think there's been a bit of miscommunication. Valairy_Scot didn't make that remark, that was DRush76. Val simply provided her perspective as to why people might be making comparisons between the PT and the OT when it came to complaints after HanSolo29 posed the question. But she never initially said that remark about Han and Leia.

Oh, then it was an error on my part. Sorry about that. Also, my snide remarks where uncalled for in that case.

ANH - "Door's locked, move on to the next one"

REALLY? REALLY??

See-Threepio talking.

Padme losing the will to live. Why couldn't it just be due to physical medical complications?

Luke is in the same room with the Emperor and Vader in ROTJ, and he tosses his lightsaber to the side. Just...why? Why would you do that?

Why would the Council send Obi-Wan to face Grievous and his droid army alone?? Wouldn't it make more sense to send multiple Jedi?

I can't help but find Luke's training, or lack of, in the original trilogy extremely inadequate when compared to the prequels. So Anakin has trained since he was around 10 years old and been in countless battles and is very comfortable with a lightsaber in his hands. Luke's very first time using his lightsaber in a combat situation is against a former Jedi Knight and Sith Lord after a few days chilling with Yoda on Dagobah. Not to be negative but.. it'd be an absolute whitewash and Vader would be able to toy with him and make him look absolutely stupid. I'll put it into terms I understand as a Muay Thai fighter and instructor, I've been training since I was 11 and I'm now 26. If you were to come into the ring with me on the back of a few months training then I'd be able to do whatever I wanted, simply through my years of experience.

Am I just being picky?

Isn't that exactly what we see- Vader toying with him to make him overconfident?

This guy. There are many weird creatures in the SW saga, but this one doesn't even look alive. It just looks like a cheap stuffed animal won at a circus.

That's the idea, Vader wasn't even trying. He needed Luke alive. Thus, he won without breaking a sweat (That is, if his sweat glands didn't burn off in lava)

First, dying because of a broken heart is a common theme in classic tragedies (and operas). Second, if Padme died because of medical complications there would be no reason for Anakin to turn to the dark side, and thus no self-fulfilling prophesy (another common theme of classic tragedies). Odd to see someone disliking what is IMO the most mature bit of writing in any SW movie. Oh well.

Leia and Luke begin twins is the one I hate the most. I understand what GL was trying to do by wrapping up the loose plot points, but that felt so contrived that it isn't even funny. I bet if he could go back in time, he may have changed that one titbit in ROTJ.

True, however it should be exactly the same in their second encounter. I understand Vader still needs Luke, but he could just as easily have ended the battle by removing yet another limb, instead complacency causes a loss that isn't really believable.

In their ROTJ duel, Vader was having an internal conflict the whole time, so it still makes sense that that, coupled with the extra year of training that Luke had had, that the duel turned out the way it did.

This is reverse continuity. Originally there was nothing wrong with Lukes training time. Back then you didn't know how long Jedis were trained before they were ready for combat.

But then the PT came around and switched everything around with no regard for what came before.

So really, if this bothers you, point your anger in the right direction. Instead of "Why was Lukes training so short?" the question must be "Why was the PT jedi training so long?".