Discussion in 'Classic Trilogy' started by Dark_Faith, Feb 19, 2007.
Uh, we see Beggars Canyon in the PT. Anakin Pod Races through it.
I really wish that thew Bigg scenes hadn't been deleted.
It really doesnt matter if we know the back history or not. It's like saying "I used to do something similar to that when I was a kid back at beggars canyon in my skyhopper". We don't need to know who he was doing it with. It was a reference to his youth. We've all done that a time or to.
And we never saw the skyhopper, so it doesn't matter. They didn't show what wasn't important. No wamprats, no Beggar's canyon. Did it really confuse people that badly to mention something that wasn't shown?
I agree. I don't WANT 100% of all lines from the movies explained with a scene. Not knowing what Beggar's Canyon is only makes it more intriguing.
Anakin's line about podracing was boring in comparison because we knew EXACTLY what he was talking about.
I agree. I certainly don't want every little thing that is referenced or mentioned fleshed out in the film, there simply isn't enough time (or plot lines). I was always sort of interested in Beggar's Canyon but not to the point that I'm upset it hasn't ever been seen on screen.
The model that Luke's playing with in the garage is a model Skyhopper
the new scenes lucas put in with biggs before the battle of yavin are horrid.
People say that the acting in the prequels is bad...........luke had some horrible over racting and cheese in the last 30 min of the movie.
I could care less about biggs and those extra scenes just come off as forced and do more to skewer my dwindling respect for a new hope as a work.
Well he probably kept it in there so that we would know a little more about what Luke did on Tatoonie. He even mentions one of te local animals that you never see. The womprats remember?
For me the line never stood out any more than the many other lines that reference something we've never seen. I like when characters in films make a subtle reference to something or someone we don't get to see because it makes things seem a bit more realistic. Kind of like over-hearing a strangers conversation.
I do get your point though about how it could potentially have more of a meaning if some earlier scenes were left in to make the exact connection.
Part of the actual Skyhopper is visible in the background of this scene as well.
I think that's... really irrelevant, either way. The skyhopper isn't labeled as a skyhopper, so it could as likely be something else as far as an uninformed viewer is aware, and it's only seen very briefly. It doesn't matter, though, because we don't need to know what a skyhopper looks like.