Saga Leia remembering Padme?

Would that include Luke blowing up the Death Star with his eyes closed, despite being an untrained and inexperienced military pilot? Or a nine-year old Anakin participating in the Battle of Naboo?

 

All of that.

Greedo missing Han from close range, etc

 

Ok… so here's the scene...



Luke: Leia, do you remember your mother. Your real mother...
Leia: Just a little bit. She died when I was very young.

English may not be my first language and maybe I don't always get every little nuance. But if you're willing to believe that when Leia says: She died when I was very young, she actually meant: She died when I'd just been born...

 

At the time the time that wasn't the intent - the novelisation makes reference to memories of playing hide and seek with her mother in a wardrobe or similar (the novelisations of the films are considered on the same canon level as the films).

Having her die immediately after birth with just enough time for new born Leia to clap eyes on her mother was the best that they could do to match up to this in the prequels apparently.

 

I honestly don't know what to attribute this particular inconsistency to. It's either poor writing or I don't know what.

To me, this is the biggest inconsistency between the OT and the PT, along with the: your father wanted you to have his lightsaber scene from ANH.

Call me crazy, but judging by the OT, you'd think Luke and Leia were born way before the Anakin and Obi Wan duel, that at some point Anakin told Obi Wan he wanted his son to have his lightsaber and that Leia did spend some time with Padme before she died, thus making the scene where she tells Luke she does remember her mother logical.



If there weren't any inconsistencies like these between the PT and the OT, I'm sure a lot of fans' contempt for the PT would not be as strong.

 

Technically, there are no inconsistencies -- or there are, but they can be resolved.

It all depends on your "point of view".

Obi-Wan teaches this to Luke and the audience in ROTJ.

And by that movie, Star Wars had already become a bit of a tangled rug of rejigged themes, characters, concepts, and elusive tonalities.

The characters in the OT, in light of the PT, obviously inhabit a bigger tapestry than they are aware of. They just get little hints and intimations, which the Luke-Leia bridge conversation now -- at least, in retrospect -- goes some way to illustrating.

 

And apparently the Force was not kind to Luke at the time.

 

Or the memories aren't from that time.

 

It's what they call in the movie industry a "plot hole" usually brought about by lazy writing.

 

It's not a plot hole; it's a retcon and can easily be explained away, particularly in light of what we see or are told about the Force and its nature in the rest of the Saga and because RotS introduces the implication that Padme herself could possibly be a very weak Force-latent (in the montage sequence when they're both staring out windows - he at the Temple and she at her apartment), although it's never followed up or focused on.

 

How does that mean it's a retcon?

 

^ Do you even know what the word 'retcon' means?

Because of the order in which the movies were produced, Lucas introduced an idea in one film that he altered in a subsequent film; that is the textbook definition of a retcon.

When the films are viewed in their proper chronological order, Leia's statement takes on a different context because of Lucas retconning Padme's fate, but the way in which he's demonstrated the Force being used up to that point in the narrative compensates for the slight discrepancy created by said retcon.

The only reason it's an issue is because people are either genuinely curious because they missed the subtle nature of the retcon and its affect on the narrative - which appears to be the case with the OP - or they're just looking for something to complain about.

 

As Xena said on the Simpsons "When you notice something like that, a wizard (aka Force) did it."

(Yes I know this was mentioned before but it made me think of that one Simpsons Treehouse of Horror episode where inconsistencies are mentioned.)

 

The reason people have an issue with this particular "retcon" is because it is a plot hole.

 

How is it a plot hole? People can use the Force to see the future in the Star Wars universe. Why couldn't they see the past? And it's not like you need to be trained, necessarily, to do this -- Anakin could race pods and "see things before they happen" without any training.

 

It's a plot hole because Leia remembers Padme and her emotions immediately after she was born. It is not humanly possible to remember that.

And if "the Force did it" is used as an excuse, why doesn't Luke remember her when he was with Leia and Padme in the same room for the exact same amount of time?

It's a huge plot hole.

 

I'm not saying she has a memory, such as what we would have. But that these are glimpses of her mother through the Force -- she sees her mother's beauty, her kindness, and her sadness as well.

Luke and Leia aren't the same person. Why exactly do you expect Luke to remember? Luke seems to have focused a lot more on his father, to be honest, throughout his life.

 

You're dicking with us, right?

Art is a subjective experience.

Your implication that the story isn't good or consistent is a point of view.

Just like mine would be if I said or implied it is.

If you want it to be, sure.

If you don't want it to be, it isn't.

That said, I think a hardcore fan has to be pretty bone-headed not to recall images and feelings being a key part of the way characters in SW experience the Force.

And that there is something mysterious about the Force, which doesn't give everyone equal visions. Everyone's perception in SW -- like in life -- is unique.

The asymmetry between Luke and Leia is interesting, in my view, and certainly not worth getting all bent out-of-shape about. They have their own journeys and their own strengths and weaknesses.

It's totally congruent, in my opinion, that one might be focused on the father, and the other on the mother. They're the yin and yang offshoots of Anakin and Padme, continuing the yin and yang legacy of their parents, in a new configuration.

 

I expect Luke to remember because he and Leia both were in the same room with their mother for the same amount of time. Heck, in the movie, Luke is the one focused on Padme.

 

Exactly. Also note that what Leia describes doesn't accurately depict Padme's emotions immediately after she was born.

Because Luke's not Leia, and it's not about what happened in that room.

 

So?

Again, you're placing arbitrary limits on the film and then declaring it a plot hole because it doesn't fit your arbitrary limits. Yes Luke and Leia were both there. That doesn't mean that Luke must remember simply because Leia does. The trajectory of their lives, in all likelihood, greatly influenced their focus and their Force abilities. And, don't forget, "your focus determines your reality."

Let me give you an example. In ROTS, you'll notice that Anakin only starts having his visions of Padmé after he finds out she is pregnant. Why? I'd argue it's because the knowledge itself was likely the triggering event.

In a similar vein, I think both Luke and Leia had the potential to have visions of their mother, but only Leia did. Why? Because Luke focused on his father a lot more and Leia's life was submerged in reminders of her mother. Her adoptive father was a close colleague of Padmé's. Leia became a Senator just as her mother did and likely worked in the same building. Leia, unlike Luke, probably knew much more about who Padmé was and what she had done with her life. I doubt Luke ever had the chance to look at a picture of his mother, but Leia certainly would have.

It's only a plot hole if one insists that it is impossible for Leia to do something that Luke does not.

 

It's a plot hole because it's impossible for a baby to remember what her mother looked like immediately after birth.

 

Nice post here, PiettsHat.

I'd give up, though. You're clearly talking to robots.