Hapax legomena of the saga (or lack there of) -- Debate!

I'm not denying that Lucas used Boba Fett for fan appeal. What's been stated is that he didn't only use him for fan appeal. The evidence rests in the films themselves. Material dating back to Boba Fett's conception at the time of TESB also indicates he has always been connected to the Clone Wars in some manner (though his exact connections and the exact definitions of the Clone Wars may have altered over time).

 

Yeah, that was obvious from your opening statement.

I've had to hear this rant about Boba for the past 5 years. This topic is just another basher thread where Greek words are used as a deflection tactic to make the author sound like well whatever. But the word "spice" is never used as a stand alone word ever in the movies and "gundark" is used twice so that's dis legomenon, so in the end all this topic is really about is the author's perception that Boba was only used to get fans in the theater and to sell toys. Isn't that right, Darth Poppy. You know what just stuns me about bashers is their lack of originality. Honestly, after all these years, don't you just get tired of posting the same tired rants. It just all still sounds the same after 7 years.

 

Good to see that all the users here understand the "films not fans" rule! I did not say that Fett was only there to sell toys. I stated that I thought his back story was unfortunate and really there to appeal to fans rather than to advance the story. However all of this is neither here nor there as the intent of this thread wasn't to trash the story that is the saga, but rather to ask if others find the strongest parts of the saga to be those which are often unexplained (which I do). Another question which this topic suggests is, following the hypothesis present in Zombie's book The Secret History of Star Wars, that the current Saga story evolved over time and that originally Lucas intended the movies to be a series of unrelated adventures of Luke and friends, ala Buck Rogers, is this why this style of narrative is used only in the original? Because Lucas chnaged from this type of serial to a continuous narrative? Does the style I prefer only work in that context? How about answering some of these questions or any others you might have instead of providing me with free psychoanalysis and penetrating knowledge of my motivations!

 

But you did ask to be tarred and feathered.

The randomness of the original film is something to admire. Think of the derivations for "Wookie" and "R2-D2": random phonemes that Lucas heard and liked. And they just seem to fit perfectly. There is an instinctiveness to the first film that is lost in the more calculated and layered plotting of the sequels and prequels. And what about things like the framing and musical flourish when Obi-Wan says: "Mos Eisely spaceport..."? They have this magical aspect to them also lost in the sequels and prequels. The first film is just about perfect for what it became. If anyone is looking for something halfway comparable, I strongly recommend "Firefly". It has that rugged, stripped-down, anything-goes feel. And the same sense of poetry. It defamiliaries the familiar, just as SW once did (though, from a certain POV, that's *exactly* what each film in the series has done, too). Anybody who watches the pilot to "Firefly" and sees the approach to food will know EXACTLY what I mean.

 

Tarred and feathered, yes Cryo--and God knows you and I have clashed in the past, but everything you have posted in this thread has been thoughtful and interesting. I'm no wimp and love a good debate, but having "the immulated one" resort to calling people bashers and psychoanalyzing me is neither thoughtful nor interesting, so tar me and feather me, but please no amateur hour psychology! I'll have to check out Firefly, I have heard great things about it but have yet to give it a try--it sounds like it contains alot of what I love about the original Star Wars.

 

Oh, it does. (Well, I think so, and I think a lot of other people who've seen it agree). Of course, it's not as lofty as Star Wars -- what is? -- but it has the "scraping by" feel and genuine warmth and banter people remember between Han, Luke and Leia. What also surprised me about the series, although I didn't catch on initially, is Whedon's good eye. There are some very nice compositions. The photography is extremely impressive for a TV show. It's weird how 20th Century Fox links the two. (And damn them for screwing Joss over multiple times and finally cancelling it!).

 

DarthPoppy, you've never acknowledged that Lucas never stopped not explaining things and all you've done is turn your original topic into something else. The topic has taken a 180 from hapax legomena to how Lucas changed the story per zombie's book. The only thing you've got is a back story to Boba Fett which was all this topic was really about in the first place. Your fancy Greek words were just decoration to try and sell the Boba-Fett-was-just-there-for-fan-appeal angle that has been around on the net since 2002. Lucas never explained "spice" which wasn't spice at all but "spice mines" and "spice miners". Lucas never explained the Kessel Run. Lucas never explain gundarks. Lucas never explained that the Gungans and Sandpeople were indigenous. Lucas never explained why the Jedi brainwash children. Lucas never explained why the opening dialogue of "The Phantom Menace" totally contradict Yoda's teachings in "The Empire Strikes Back". It was never explained why Obi-Wan says, "Only a Sith deals in absolutes" when clearly the Jedi do as well. These things all went unexplained in the five other episodes so what is the point of your topic other than Boba Fett's backstory?

 

Yeah, okay. See, I've gave you what I feel was a thoughtful and what I feel was an interesting post but you just chose to overlook it and then turn your topic into an advertisement for zombie's book. I explained why Boba was used in "Attack of the Clones" but I guess that wasn't good enough to respond to. I actually gave what I feel is proof that Lucas uses the Fett's ship to mirror events in "The Empire Strikes Back" and Boba's back story is not only to help the audience appreciate Boba's choice of carreer but to also understand the situation the clones and the Jedi are in. But that was just all overlooked so what I can only assume is that you see my post as nothing but products of my imagination but wait a moment: Didn't you say, "That is where imagination comes in; that is what fantasy is all about!"

 

It's not that simple though.

Yeah, sure, those things weren't in the movies, but this was, and the question is why.

What made George Lucas answer this one thing out of all the others? Because he "always intended it?" I don't buy that. The whole Fett-with-stormtrooper-connections thing was fine and dandy but it was pretty much a scrapped idea. If it wasn't, there would have been some mention of it some how, a line blurb about it in ESB to show that there was more hinted than what was on screen. It was never alluded to. Fett was reduced to the guy who tracked Han to Cloud City, nothing more.

Was he popular? Yes. That had to be one of the main driving factors in having Lucas blow the dust off that old idea. Just because he was dealing with the Stormtroopers, doesn't mean Boba Fett HAD to be in it. Jango didn't HAVE to be a Fett. If Lucas was "doing stuff he always intended on originally" why wasn't there a Kaiber crystal in ROTS? It would have gone with Anakin's desire for more power and so on.

Because there were no "Kaiber Crystal" fans.

Lucas knew fans would get a kick out of seeing Boba Fett in some butt kicking action, so the story was written, and he was given blue and silver armor.

The question is why. Lucas adhered to the used-universe MO, but what made him ditch it in this case?

 

I'm surprised no one has brought up "Jedi Master Sipho Dyas" yet...

 

I think the point of this topic is to inspire other posters like myself, to take notice of certain things in the Star Wars Saga that we might not have before. I think this is a very interesting thread and really the whole debate about Boba is tired. I think that it really shouldn't bother people so much, because we still got to see awesome action from the Fett boys and while some answers were given, a lot of questions were also brought up as well. It's just a matter of how deep you want to look into it from a symbolic point of view or rather from a more pragmatist viewpoint. Again, I'm not here to argue about that, but really to each his/her own.
Some other interesting stuff that is only alluded to are Mace and Dooku's relationship before the prequels, the lost 20 (which was fleshed out in the deleted scenes, but going by the films as they are it's still a mystery as to who those busts represent), Sifo-Dyas' killer, disintegrations(?). Now that I think about it actually, there are probably more things like that given to us just visually, rather than through dialogue. It's been fun reading what things people have noticed and wondered about! Take care everyone and may the Force be with you!

 

You can't really conflate the two. Lucas had already written the crystal out by 1977, or at least 1980. The fan reaction to Boba Fett may have catalysed Lucas' decision to involve him, but the idea was already swirling somewhere in the back of his mind (that Boba was linked to the stormtroopers and / or the Clone Wars) long ago. Sure, Lucas could have used a different bounty hunter and retained some of the same themes, but using Boba Fett and creating Jango allowed him to bring even more to the table -- and yes, satiate fan desire. Boba was really the logical choice on MULTIPLE levels.

 

Fett was just one example, which others in this thread picked up. I am interested in general in the fact that the first film thrived on loose ends and benefitted (in my opinion) from them. I am not advertising Zombie's book, merely using it as one source in a debate. My problem is with your tone, not your substance. Yes, I used to post in the old Basher's Sanctuary (my signature even shows this); last time I checked, that was not a crime. I think those terms, basher and gusher, are silly. We all are fans here. Some think the whole saga is perfect, others prefer some films or plot lines to others; that is all cool. It is your attacking someone because they don't agree with you, or because they use Greek words or whatever that I find insulting and offensive. So lets get back to the topic here. Regarding the importance of Fett, we can agree to disagree. My point wasn't that spice miners were important, but rather that referencing things that were unexplained created a certain feel of authenticity in the original film, one that hearing things being explained on screen for the home audience lacks. So when Obi Wan explains the force to Luke in his hut, we are learning what it is, but so is Luke, we are learning with him, and this is clearly one of the most important moments in the film. When we hear the explaination of Midi-Chlorians in TPM, it seems like we are hearing a science lesson necessary for the film, not like we are learning with the character (Anakin)--this, to me feels forced and artificial. The vagueness of so much in the original contributed, again to me, to its glory and wonder. I think this is part of the reason why Star Wars, the film, is so special to so many people and why it ranks so high on so many general "best film" lists, etc.

And I agree with the poster who mentioned the "lost 20" as a great example of what I was talking about from the PT.

 

Anakin asking Qui-Gon to explain midi-chlorians might just be the most contrived line of the film. "I've been wondering ... what are midi-chlorians?" I think Lloyd could have maybe embellished the line a little less and it might have come across better. As I said earlier, less is sometimes more. That said, I think Qui-Gon's explanation works. One of the things to note here is that Anakin's mind is just as inquiring as Luke's, but he fails to truly listen to the spirit of Qui-Gon's literal explanation, whereas Luke successfully learns the spirit of Obi-Wan's words in time to avoid the pit of the Dark Side. Essentially, they both connote symbiosis -- an equal give and take. The telling difference is that Anakin admits that he doesn't understand, while Luke absorbs what Obi-Wan has said, even if it takes some time to sink in. We're with Luke because we have the same sort of knowledge and maturity towards the subject matter, but by the time we're shown Anakin, there's a deliberate disparity between the two: we now exceed his knowledge and grasp of the road ahead and the world around him, but we still need to learn a few lessons ourselves (hence the explanation still serving to inform us).

 

Fair enough.

Well you may not remember but at one time I had a problem with your sardonic tone in one of my threads, so you're not exactly lily white yourself.

It's not your basher status that irks me. It's that I feel you started a thread that is nothing but a five year old basher opinion that is cleverly dressed up with a biblical scholar's term and full of inaccuracies. The word "spice" as a stand alone word is not spoken in the original movie and is never spoken in any of the five follow up episodes. The word "gundark" is spoken in a sequel and a prequel and not in the original episode. I find it hard to acknowledge you as a "fan" that has fully dissected and understands these movies since only one of your three examples of hapax legomena is correct.

Of course we can.

Yeah, I got that.

What I think is you're taking the midi-chlorians out of context. Anakin's lesson about midi-chlorians does not diminish the mystery of the Force in the least. The midi-chlorians are nothing but another example symbiosis in the story of Star Wars. When you combine Anakin's lesson with dialogue from earlier in the movie then the audience is told why Darth Vader cannot ever take the title of Sith Master from Palpatine which is key to understanding the saga as a whole. Many fans think that it's about who is and who isn't Force sensitive, but it isn't. Anyone can become a Jedi or Sith, but some people are just inherently better at it than others, so the Jedi pick those people who are inherently better at it because the Jedi are afraid to lose their power.

Yeah, it's a great movie, but the glory and wonder is there in the saga but you have to believe in it and not just listen to people who only want to trash it.

 

Indeed. The loose ends of all loose ends.

Turns out, IMO, that he was just a red herring. Sidious was behind it all. Nevertheless, the films NEVER explain fully what happened to Sifo. Its implied to a degree that Dooku killed him. But as you say - its never confirmed. This annoyed me really. It was the mystery element of AOTC that had me hooked. It was my favourite element of the film (which I rate my least favourite of the six). Sure, we don't really need to be told everything. Its clear Sidious was behind the Clones and that Dooku erased the archives. But Lucas did say on the AOTC DVD that the whole mystery would be answered in ROTS but for me it wasn't - at least, not to a satisfactory level.

 

LOL. Yeah. I hated that on my first viewing: I was like "We're FINALLY going to find out who Sifo Dyas is!", then later, I was like "Who cares? Everybody is dead!" lol

On subsequent views I tried to figure out how revealing his identity even mattered to the plot: it doesn't.

 

No, it's not.

No, he's not.

Lucasfilm confirmed that Sifo-Dyas did order the clone army right after he found out about the Sith's return. Why would Sifo-Dyas order an army? I would say because Jedi Master Sifo-Dyas is afraid. So per Lucasfilm, Sidious was not behind the initial procurement of the clones but only picked up where Sifo-Dyas left off.

It was confirmed by Lucasfilm but it's just not in the movies.

Of course "Attack of the Clones" is your least favorite because it shows just how corrupt the Jedi are.

Sifo-Dyas did order the clone army and Dooku killed him thus beginning his descent into the darkness, and then Dooku and Palpatine picked up where Sifo-Dyas left off. This is never explained because as you pointed out all the audience really had to know was that Dooku hired Jango and then we can connect the dots to Palpatine. But the reason Sifo-Dyas is part of the story is because Sifo-Dyas serves to explain why Lama-Su believes what he believes. Lama-Su believes that a Jedi ordered the clones so therefore a Jedi can stop the cloning but the Jedi do not because they're apathetic towards the clones, thus beginning the Jedi's descent into the darkness.

Okay so this is where you tell me the-devil-made-the-Jedi-do-it.

 

We're talking about what the movies tell us, not what Lucasfilm may or may not have told us, aren't we?

 

I felt I clearly explained why the Sifo-Dyas was never explained in the movies in the final paragraph of my post. Perhaps you need re-read the post instead of just copy and pasting it. I was merely explaining that it was confirmed that Sifo-Dyas did order the clones and he was killed by Dooku. Master Shaitan said it was not confirmed but it just wasn't confirmed in the movies because: See final paragraph of my post.

 

While I know you don't like Greek words and concepts from biblical studies, this is where they are quite useful; what we have here is two different systems for interpretation of the films.

One is the canonical sense (in the sense of the term is used in biblical studies--not the LucasFilm sense, with G-level and all of that!)--the sense that what is in the bible is all that counts, so in this case what is in the films.

The other is the deutero-canonical sense; this includes "apochrapha" from the bible, patristic texts, medieval commentaries (like the Jewish Talmud, etc.). For Star Wars this would include Lucas quotes, LucasFilm quotes, EU, etc.

As we all know, there are all different types of fans who attach different weight to these different approaches. Your explaination of Sifo-Dyas is fine from the deutero-canonical approach and we all respect your acceptance of that material. However, others here are more interested in what I call the "canonical approach" and here we do not have the evidence to judge that interpretation one way or another.

I think we can all agree that there are good arguments in favor and against both positions of interpretation here and we have all decided on where we stand after much thought, so we can respect each others views without having to try to convince each other that we are right and they are wrong. So lets discuss and use our various interpretations and sources without insisting that they are the only way. Hell, sometimes it seems there are more schisms and sects among Star Wars fans than there are among Christians or Buddhists!

 

Actually, the two are very similar. Fett's connection to the Stormtroopers was not so much as hinted in ESB, and his armor was redesigned, leaning it away from any Imperial influence. Fett's relation to the troopers was phased out, otherwise it would have made its way into the film.

It's the same, the only difference is that the time in which the Prequels were set coincided with a twenty year old idea, and audiences would have gotten a kick out of it. If Boba were not as popular with the fans in the first place, Jango would not have been a Fett, much less had that identifying armor. Had he not been a Fett, and had the ship not been the Slave I, Boba's character would not have been diminished in the slightest bit in ESB.

 

I for one count myself among the "Kaiber Crystal" fans. I was actually dissapointed, albeit mildy, not to see that in the PT. In Episode I, I thought Lucas made an effort to really cull from his original discrded material. Mace Windu, Valorum, Bail Antilles. But alas, he strayed from that heavily particularly in AOTC. As Loco said, Jango didn't have to be a Fett. The clone - Boba Fett - Stormtrooper connection feels thrown together, almost Soap Opera style, when it could have been a compelling underthread of the whole PT.

 

Maybe Chewbacca is that 10-year old character. Rob Coleman said something along the lines of Chewie being a child Wookiee in ROTS, but from the films, there's nothing else to go on.

I'm pretty sure GL said Chewie is 200 in ANH.


"Attack of the Clones":
Obi-Wan tracks Slave 1----Slave 1 goes into a hole in the ground----Anakin takes his first step into the darkness

"The Empire Strikes Back":
Slave 1 tracks Han---Slave 1 flies away into a beautiful sunlit sky---Vader takes his first step towards the light

This is one of the big issues you and I differ on. Where some see deep philosphical meaning, I merely see good good art design and composition, created for the purpose of being good art design and enhancing the look of the film. I really don't think GL was trying to put that deep a level of meaning into the Saga.


The Boba plot does go somewhere, but I guess just not in the direction you wanted it to go.

I didn't really care where it went, I was just surprised when they take all the time to show us kid Fett and then just drop it out of the plot. Once Jango was gone, so was Boba. His return in ESB had nothing to do with his role in the clone war. He didn't even work directly for Vader or the Empire, but for Jabba.


What's been stated is that he didn't only use him for fan appeal. The evidence rests in the films themselves.

Meaning that he needed him for the clone origin? He could easily have created a new character for that (and he kind of did, since Boba isn't the source of the clone).


Material dating back to Boba Fett's conception at the time of TESB also indicates he has always been connected to the Clone Wars in some manner (though his exact connections and the exact definitions of the Clone Wars may have altered over time).

His armor hinted at a history, for sure, but much of the early lore around Fett was created by EU author and fan speculation. Since GL himself admitted that only 20% of AOTC existed back then and 80% was created during the production of the PT, since we know much of that 20% focused on Anakin's backstory, since GL allowed EU to create backstories for Boba that turned out to be completely different than what GL decided to do, it's a fair assessment that GL never decided on Boba's origin until working on the PT. Am I wrong? Well, who knows.


I've had to hear this rant about Boba for the past 5 years. This topic is just another basher thread where Greek words are used as a deflection tactic to make the author sound like well whatever.

LOL! I guess I should be upset that you're derailing the thread with old fan war fights, but at some point it stops being irritating and starts being funny. Well, I won't try to change your mind. However you feel about so-called bashers is up to you, but take it out of Saga and somewhere else. We're talking SW here, OK?


I strongly recommend "Firefly". It has that rugged, stripped-down, anything-goes feel. And the same sense of poetry. It defamiliaries the familiar, just as SW once did (though, from a certain POV, that's *exactly* what each film in the series has done, too). Anybody who watches the pilot to "Firefly" and sees the approach to food will know EXACTLY what I mean.

I hear it's really good.


Tarred and feathered, yes Cryo--and God knows you and I have clashed in the past, but everything you have posted in this thread has been thoughtful and interesting.

Indeed!


Lucas never explained why the opening dialogue of "The Phantom Menace" totally contradict Yoda's teachings in "The Empire Strikes Back". It was never explained why Obi-Wan says, "Only a Sith deals in absolutes" when clearly the Jedi do as well.

Yeah, but I'm not sure that's a good thing. That being said, I think Poppy is referring to in-universe elements, not in-universe ideas or ideologies.

 

George Lucas is an editor. That's where he truly excels. I am sure he has thought very deeply about this and other things. He has paid extremely close attention to the composition of his films and the relationships between them on macroscopic and microscopic levels.

That's EXACTLY the point! Boba was a victim of the machinations of the Sith and the actions of the Jedi. He was forgotten and left to fend for himself. The point is that we shouldn't forget about people or treat them like meat. Actions have consequences. The seed sown in the second episode of the "Republic" trilogy came back to haunt the characters in the second episode of the "Empire" trilogy. Boba is emblematic of the past catching up with the present -- just as Han's past catches up with him when Boba begins his pursuit and acquires his bounty. TESB is even more coherent now.

Thank you, gentlemen!

Yes, that's a fair point. But maybe it can also be said that the PT transcended the OT's approach to hapax legomana -- moving from unexplained elemental references to unexplained philosophical conundrums. Of course, I don't think that they're truly unexplained, but the approach is documentarian: either you draw your own conclusions or you don't (that is the proper function of a documentary, but most modern-day documentaries have become crude echoes of the word).