CT Plot Holes in the CT

"If I don't pay off Jabba the Hutt, I'm a dead man." doesn't mean "If I don't go to Jabba of my own volition and pay him, bounty hunters will take me to him and he'll kill me."

He means that he wants to pay Jabba off before running into any more more trigger happy bounty hunters, like the one on that he ran into on Ord Mantell. And I don't think that one changed Han's mind about getting the death mark of his head with a friendly conversation.

Or...

Bounty Hunter : "Going someplace Solo? If you like I can escort you to Jabba where you can pay what you owe hi... (KA-BLANG!!!!)"

Solo : "Yeah right... But on second thoughts. Maybe I should take care of business rather than just smoke every messenger/courier that Jabba sends."

 

Would Jabba have an autopsy performed to try to determine who killed him? Why would Jabba care?

That's a reasonable theory when looking at that dialogue alone. Although I'd disregard the "death mark" comment, since it came from Riekaan who'd just heard about it & knows jack **** about the situation. So, that dialogue from Han could either mean that Han must pay Jabba before the next bounty hunter kills him, or that Han will be brought before Jabba & if he doesn't pay up he's dead. Two plausible scenarios that both make sense. Then we add Fett's dialogue. Which makes it clear that only taking in a living Han Solo is an option. In fact if he's dead he's "no good to him". Which leaves us with the conclusion that it's the second of those options. Han will be brought in & if he can't pay he's "a dead man". Which is the only scenario that matches up with both Han and Fett's dialogue.

 

Fett's dialogue is what Fett wants. He wants the prestige of taking Solo in alive. Not shooting him in the back as he's running or letting some clumsy ugnaut kill and therefore devalue the asset.

Han doesn't disregard Reikann's dialogue. Probably because he's the one that just told him that he was a dead man if he didn't leave to pay Jabba.

Han wants bounty hunters off his back. Some kill, which Solo definitely doesn't want . Experts like Boba only kill if absolutely necessary. Maintaining that reputation is more valuable than the bounty. But Han's not keen on that either.

It's very inconvenient to have people looking for you. Particular if some look with their blasters, nor with their eyes.

 

It's very clearly active continuity as Vader wanted Luke to team up with him and destroy the Emperor and rule at his side. He couldn't do it by himself. The Emperor wanted Luke to destroy Vader and take his father's place at his side.

So there is the Rule of Two in action. It's right there in the movies. That is the obvious point which Lucas then crafted the rule around. It didn't obfuscate the original context and meaning but gave it clarity. Clearly in pure numbers why not have all 3 of them together? The three together are more powerful than just two but Vader wants Luke to destroy the Emperor so he can rule while the Emperor wants the same.

A question that is never answered or even really asked in the first place is why are there only two Dark Side users? The Jedi were hunted down and destroyed so that is why they are all but wiped out.

So why aren't there more Dark Side users? Should there be some more? Dozens more? Hundreds more? Thousands more?

Yet there is no one. People think Vader is a traitorous Jedi. No one seems to know the Emperor has any extras powers. The actual amount of things NOT said in the OT is really staggering. Why? Because Lucas intentionally didn't bring them up. Why didn't Obi-Wan and Yoda train any new Jedi in the interim? Why wait around specifically for Luke? Why is he so important? Why is he the "only hope" the new hope etc? If not him them Leia. Why? Why are Anakin's children so important? Why was Anakin so important that the Emperor wanted him and him alone as the only other Dark Side user? Why is it that the only one who could replace him be his son?

No. They don't talk about it openly which is the whole point. They both know about the possibility. That is if Luke can be turned and is powerful enough.

Vader only makes the offer to Luke AFTER he tests him. This is the whole point of what goes on in TESB. Vader could easily have captured Luke and taken him straight to the Emperor. He doesn't do that. He tests Luke and finds out his is powerful and worthy to train.

No, that was ANH. By the conception of TESB all the other Sith were gone and the Emperor himself went from a brilliant politician to a Dark Side user himself. Exactly when he became a Sith is another matter. The basics of the RO2 didn't have to be tied directly to the Sith as such of course which is the point that the entire context for this power positioning wasn't set out though the practice itself clearly existed as per TESB and ROTJ.

Exactly. The context and reasoning for the rule is one thing as opposed to the actual actions and story which shows it being.

 

Or Fett shows a recording from his helmet camera, or Fett provides DNA-tested Han remains. The point is, Jabba (and other criminal clients for that matter) are stingy and cautious - they won't pay for "death by Empire" only "death by bounty hunter/assassin". Thus, the onus is on the assassin to prove to the client that they are indeed the killer.

 

I think there's a distinction to be made between the methods of different bounty hunters. Some were competent, such as Fett, others less so, like Greedo.

Greedo just overstepped the mark - Jabba asks of Han, "Why did you fry poor Greedo?" - the obvious reply is that Han aggravated Greedo, and Greedo was going to kill Han in a fit of rage (and presumably clean up later.)

By TESB, Jabba's priorities had changed - he wanted a trophy to ward off future betrayals. Perhaps in this case the bounty hunters (except Fett) are all inadequate and couldn't take Han alive out of a matter of ability. Or rather, it was Fett's reputation, and that he wouldn't kill an opponent unless necessary, as Martoto77 identifies.

 

I think it's ambiguous-while in Empire Vader does offer Luke that they can overthrow the Emperor (which may or may not have been genuine but probably was), in Jedi it feels more like Vader is pretty confident or at least optimistic that he and Luke can both be the Emperor's apprentice.

 

They are Sith. They both know the rule of two. If they talk about successfully turning someone else, openly, they are talking about potentially doing away with the other, openly. By definition of the rule of two. It's open and shut.

 

The rule of two leaks into the Prequel Trilogy, where it received proper development, so it's arguably a plot hole over the whole saga, not just the OT.
Remember Palpatine's boast to Yoda: "Darth Vader will become more powerful than either of us", which seemed to openly contradict Palpatine's desires to reign as Emperor and Master of the Sith forever.

CLee - I think the presentation of Vader's attempt to turn Luke is a genuine one, serving to show the deceit and treacherous nature of the Sith, the Rule of Two notwithstanding.
Regarding Vader's presentation in ROTJ - it is dramatically different, and he is conveyed as being far more the broken man, following the Emperor out of cold, bitter obligation, having lost all notion of compassion and hope.

This aside - I think that if you try to deconstruct the plot of the OT, and scrutinize all the unanswered questions or possibilities - you will diminish the pleasure of the SW experience considerably. The OT was made in a sweeping, thematically bold style - it is not a subtle, psychological movie that places emphasis on small detail and controversy. Go watch Hitchcock for that.

 

Yes.

I don't care much for the term "plot holes" concerning Star Wars. To do so I would want to be very specific. If one were to look at the OT broadly then it's a maze of plot-holes in that sense. The major ones are filled in by the PT which has it's own if you look at it like the OT and ask "What about this thing never brought up and presented as is."

Is it a plot-hole that we don't get real information about the Jedi, Sith, Republic, Empire, the purge etc etc in the OT? No because that information is contained in the earlier episodes. That they didn't exist at that time is beside the point.

Now we know the answers or at least all the most important ones.

 

That's a decent theory but that's all it is. Why do you discount that Han must be brought in alive for Fett to be paid the bounty? That's the plain reading of this line. I think we should always take dialogue like this at face value, unless there's conflicting evidence.

That's all very complicated & there's no hint that Fett has any interest or desire to take in a dead Solo. In fact he's completely against it. What's wrong with this scenario, which is based on what we see & hear in the films: Jabba places a bounty on Han's head. He's to brought before Jabba to answer for the lost shipment. Which Greedo's dialogue clearly states. Han knows that this is a death sentence if he doesn't have the money at the time he's taken in. Hence Han's dialogue such as "If I don't pay I'm a dead man". What we also know about Jabba is that he likes to kill those who cross him in dramatic theatrical ways, with an audience watching. By feeding them to the rancor or the sarlacc. In fact Han would have to answer to Jabba while standing over the rancor pit. It all seems to fit that Jabba's bounty is for Han to be brought in to face those gruesome penalties that Jabba loves so much. Hence Boba Fett's two lines: "He's no good to me dead!" & "What if he doesn't survive? He's worth a lot to me!". The plain reading when we put those lines together is that the bounty is conditional on Han being alive. So Fett takes Han in alive but instead of feeding him immediately to the rancor after he can't pay up Jabba is surprised by the carbonite freezing capsule. He delights in placing it on his wall as his new "favorite decoration". However after Han is defrosted, sure enough it's off for a public death via one of Jabba's creatures. I don't see any holes or doubts with that description. It all tracks & requires no additional guesswork.

 

He's no good to Fett alive, Fett says. But that's nothing to do with what Greedo wanted "for a long time".

The funny thing is that it's Vader trying to convince the bounty hunters not to use lethal force earlier.

Fett wants what Fett wants. Or doesn't necessarily mean it's what Jabba needs. More than likely Fett is only after the greater reward of a live trophy for Jabba.

Jabba doesn't bother unfreezing Solo so there doesn't appear to be any practical purpose for Jabba preferring him brought in alive. And Han is practically dead until it's decided to thaw him.

Capturing a live prisoner is much more difficult. Capturing a live Solo then letting him be killed by hapless imperial stooges is somewhat less than honourable, for want of a better word. It's possible Fett cut a better deal than the other hunters with Jabba, guaranteeing Solo whole and alive.

The truth is, Fett's line is meant to goose the audience about the possibility of Han not surviving.

 

What some people have suggested, which is suppose is reasonable is that Greedo was supposed to bring Han to face Jabba. Hence saying "You can explain that to Jabba, maybe he'll only take his ship". Then when Han says "Over my dead body" Greedo is somewhat glad that Han won't come quietly, & he'll get to shoot him instead. While I'm not really sold on that I guess it's the best explanation we have.

All of the other stuff is guesswork. Fett says "He's no good to me dead" not "He's worth less to me dead". That confirms exactly what it states: Han was no good to a bounty hunter as a dead man. Add Greedo's dialogue from ANH & Fett's other line & it's clear that Jabba wanted to Han brought before him alive to answer for the lost shipment. Anyway, I think we've exhausted this one. Maybe agree to disagree.

 

Qui-Riv-Brid wrote

It's very clearly active continuity as Vader wanted Luke to team up with him and destroy the Emperor and rule at his side. He couldn't do it by himself. The Emperor wanted Luke to destroy Vader and take his father's place at his side.

Correct, but that's not the point we are arguing about. This premise doesn't require the Sith "Rule of Two".

No. They don't talk about it openly which is the whole point. They both know about the possibility. That is if Luke can be turned and is powerful enough.

Pardon me. Under the assumption that both are aware of "The Rule of Two" they DO openly talk about mutual betrayal, because they both know that the ultimate outcome means one of them will be dead. It's brutally simple.

Original ESB dialogue = No "Rule of Two" required (the servant simply wants to overthrow his master with the help of his son, the master wants a younger servant but he needs to get rid of the new servant's father to exclude the possibility both servants join to overthrow their master)

ESB dialogue retroactively fixed (bold) to be compliant with the Rule of Two:

EMPEROR The Force is strong with him. The
son of Skywalker must not become a
Jedi.

VADER Yes, my master.

(i.e. Vader will prevent Luke from becoming a Jedi by killing him, while in fact he will try to recruit Luke to overthrow his master - according to the Rule of Two)

 

Vader is having Han tortured at the time:

"He's no good to me dead" is shorthand for

"It sounds like you might kill him - and if you kill him, I don't get anything from Jabba"

hence Vader's reassurance "He will not be permanently damaged."

The "death mark" term implies that killing Han is an option for bounty hunters, even if it may pay much less.

 

Why do you say that as if you're sure? Why can't it be the obvious meaning: 'he's no good to me dead bcs if he's dead he's no good to me. Ie I won't get my bounty'. Your theory that if someone else kills him the bounty is voided is just made up. There's nothing in the movie to back it up. Like I said earlier, it's quite silly since Jabba would have no way of proving who killed someone. Fett could just claim that he killed Han. In fact if a bounty hunter were to kill him, as you've been suggesting how could they prove to Jabba that it was them who did it? Are you really suggesting Go-Pro cameras on helmets? Come on now.

"Death mark" is only something Rieekan said, who knew diddly-squat. He was just commenting on Han's very brief description of being a "dead man" if he doesn't pay up. In any case it was in effect a death sentence & a death mark...if Han wasn't able to pay.

 

It's common sense - if you're claiming the reward for carrying out a killing, you need to be able to convince the client that you did, indeed, carry it out.


According to A Certain Point of View's Fett story, when Fett disintegrated targets, Vader refused to pay him since there were no bodies - making it hard to prove that the targets were, in fact, dead - it's hard to DNA-test a pile of ash.


Similar principles apply here. A bounty hunter who claims to have carried out a killing, needs to present the corpse (ideally with marks from the bounty hunter's own weapons) to convince their client - if, that is, they haven't got a recording of the killing being carried out.

If Vader accidentally kills Han, and Fett goes to Jabba and says

"I killed Han"

Jabba's response will be "Prove it".


Think of bounty hunters as a hybrid of assassin and kidnapper. People who hire assassins, are not going to pay them for deaths, unless they are certain the deaths were due to the assassins.

 

He's a criminal genius in the EU. You don't really get that in the movies. You see the drug addict more.

 

TCW does play up Jabba as "a senior figure in the Hutt criminal empire" at least. With Jedi negotiating with him for safe passage through space (find his son, and he'll give them safe passage and deny it to the Confederacy).

 

You're skipping over a step. Where it is established that a dead Han will attract any bounty at all? Fett says "He's no good to me dead!". He doesn't say "He's no good to me if you kill him!".

Vader isn't Jabba. Vader would just want his enemies eliminated. No bodies means no evidence that they're dead at all. They could be still alive - different issue. Jabba on the other hand likes feeding people to his rancor. Perhaps that's why Fett only wanted Han alive & that he was "no good" to him dead.

 

It's how bounties are established as working in the EU - something like- Wanted: Alive (10000 credits reward) or Dead (2000 credits reward).

The bounty hunters with good kidnapping skills will go for the big payout. Those who are only good at killing, will go "cheaper but easier".

Boba is skilled enough that, to him, a tiny reward, is "nothing" or "no good". Thus, what Boba says, cannot be taken as proof that Jabba offered an "Alive ONLY" bounty.

When Han says "that bounty hunter we ran onto on Ord Mantell changed my mind" and "If I don't pay off Jabba I'm a dead man" the point he's trying to make is:


"sooner or later a bounty hunter who is willing to settle for the lower fee, for me dead, is going to kill me - I can't keep evading them forever"



Jabba sums it up best in the original ANH novel:


"Han, my boy, I'm only doing this because you're the best and I'll need you again sometime. So, out of the greatness of my soul and a forgiving heart—and for an extra, say, twenty percent—I'll give you a little more time." The voice nearly cracked with restraint. "But this is the last time. If you disappoint me again, if you trample my generosity in your mocking laughter, I'll put a price on your head so large you won't be able to go near a civilized system for the rest of your life, because on every one your name and face will be known to men who'll gladly cut your guts out for one-tenth of what I'll promise them."
"I'm glad we both have my best interests at heart," replied Solo pleasantly as he and Chewbacca started past the staring eyes of the Hutt's hired guns. "Don't worry, Jabba, I'll pay you. But not because you threaten me. I'll pay you because…it's my pleasure."

 

Dialogue too ambiguous to know for certain so both sides of the discussion here fall into speculation.

There's also the trap of literal interpretation - "If I don't pay off Jabba the Hutt I'm a dead man" is quite easily seen as a turn of phrase, and fits with Han's characteristic sarcasm. I.e. read: "If I don't sort out the payment, I'll constantly be in danger from bounties, and they'll probably start not caring whether I'm dead or alive". So there's that reading, perhaps. Perhaps not.

This said, we don't know much about carbonite freezing or the nature of the 'trophy' that Jabba sought when Solo is captured. Jabba's decision to keep him in carboinite was probably ad hoc, whimsical and the best form of revenge he could come up with.

Perhaps it is also worth mentioning Vader's instruction to all the bounty hunters that they are not to destroy the Falcon, and by extension kill the Falcon's occupants - "But I want them alive. No disintegrations!" So they operate then on with the intention to take alive, rather than go for the kill - regardless of Jabba's intent. Only a sloppy hunter would kill them, and he would do so by mistake or due to emotion in the heat of battle (Greedo is the example).

 

& in those cases you go with the option that requires the least amount of speculation. Fett says "He's no good to me dead!". So is the bounty for Han valid if he's delivered dead or if he's alive? Why are we even asking that question.

Yes it can. Unless you put that kind of spin on his words to suit your argument. Which has nothing to back in up within the movie. Fact is the bounty hunter part of the story is based on the old Westerns. In which you'd have wanted men with prices on their heads. Some would be wanted alive & for some the bounty would be "dead or alive". In those westerns, if the bounty hunter was paranoid about the prisoner dying, & he also said "He's no good to me dead!" the audience would be in no doubt about which of the two types of bounties apply in that case. In fact a writer with an ounce of skill wouldn't be stupid enough to include a line of dialogue such as that if the target was wanted "dead or alive". Even if there was a reduced bounty for the former.

That's not established as the point he was making. It's your personal theory on the point he was making. Unfortunately it's contradicted by dialogue from the actual bounty hunter who's pursuing the contract on Solo. Who would know more than anyone, including Han himself. A bounty hunter who's now been established as having close ties to Jabba going back years. In this case, Fett represents the "horses mouth", so what he says about the bounty stands.

 

What you're describing is exactly what the Rule of Two is, though.

Lucas put it in very familiar terms during the story conference for ROTJ:

The nature of evil is that it inevitably turns on and consumes itself. The Emperor and Vader are perfect representatives of this concept. This is the Rule of Two in all but name.

 

Quite. I really don't see that there is or should be any question or controversy here and if any then very marginal.

The onscreen actions speak for themselves. There are only two "Dark Side" Force users ( which we now know as Sith) at any one time because if there are three then two will destroy the other. On top of that we have the context from the PT about the Sith and Rule of Two to inform and support the actions that we see and going deeper to Lucas' own thinking at the time.

Some would argue that authorial intent doesn't matter. I think that gets too overplayed since in this case the intent is clearly in action both within the OT story itself in it's original context and in the story of the saga itself in I-VI.

Trying to get around that the Rule of Two existed in all but a formalized name as a precept of the Sith is an exercise in verbal gymnastics.

Did the actual term itself exist before the PT? No.

Did the actual story of the Rule of Two exist before the PT? Yes.

The term Sith wasn't in the OT either but no one questions that Vader was a Sith or that the Emperor was one in all but name because we know that particular term was used.

The fact is that there are no Dark Side users outside of the Emperor or Vader. That each wants to replace the other (Vader to replace the Emperor, the Emperor wants Luke to replace Vader) rather than work together shows that there can never be more than two of them. Both know this to be the case and it's an accepted part of their entire dynamic.

All the Rule of Two does is give a name to something that is already occurring in a Dark Side relationship of Master and apprentice.