CT Plot holes in the OT that weren't plot holes until they made the PT

To be honest, this attire debate is of no concern to me. Anakin could of been wearing a track suit throughout the films for all I cared. As long as (IMO) his fall from grace is portrayed in a way where you can feel the tragedy. Its got to be emotive, its got to move you. And the way to achieve that is having believable characters you can identify with. The Chosen One no father BS instantly blows that all that out of the water. Yes its fantasy, but the main character must be based in our own human reality so you can connect and actually give a **** what happens to them.You know, I desperately wanted the films to be good and was looking forward to them in a big way. But after seeing them I was numb.

 

The fact that Anakin had no real father figure leaves a void especially after his parting from his mother. He seeks a male role model and Palpatine fills that void, as he demands nothing from him (Obi-Wan, Yoda etc all expect things from him). I agree that the "force conception" didn't need to be there, but the absence of a father does facilitate his manipulation by Palpatine.

 

Um, no. No one is arguing that. The chosen one is self-evidently "not perfect" by inspection of his behavior on screen. However, you refuse to accept that the prophecy never says the chosen one would be perfect until you get to see the text of the prophecy. In effect, this is tantamount to a stance that the prophecy can be assumed to say whatever you want it to say unless proven otherwise, which is not particularly meaningful.

Children behave like that all the time. If you're somehow taking it as predestination to evil, you're extremely confused.

That's why Lucas showed you Anakin behaving in the fashion she described while on Tatooine, so that you could figure it out. ( But as long as we're throwing out dialogue, the Sith see the "destiny" of the Skywalkers with dark side-colored glasses. )

Once again, wearing black clothing does not make someone evil, no matter how many times you might insist that it does. You've now effectively decided that anyone wearing black is evil, and any child not somehow well-behaved at all times ( read: "murderous" ) is predestined to evil. These concepts are, indeed, expressed nowhere in the PT. They do not come from Lucas. They only come from you. They are sick jokes, and imply a twisted view of children. Luke wore black in ROTJ, and was not predestined to evil.

They said the same thing about "predestined to evil" Luke, but things didn't turn out that way, did they? So much for the Sith and their talk of "destiny".

Do "at risk of falling to evil" and "predestined to evil" mean the same thing? Um, no.

You're ignoring plot information which contradicts your "criticism of the storytelling". Thus the so-called criticism is invalid.

You're saying the PT argues that life's predestined. Except it does no such thing. It just has people sometimes wearing black clothing and children who don't behave to your standards. We might imagine that in a universe without predestination these kinds of things would still happen. ( Well, some of us might. ) You're saying Anakin "can't choose good", except he does choose good in ROTJ. How exactly does the PT argue that life's predestined if it's meant to be in the same continuity with ROTJ?

No, it wasn't. Nothing of the sort was established in the films. Just because characters throw around the word "destiny" does not mean everything is predetermined. Didn't work in Luke's case, did it? Lucas said that you have the choice to either follow your "destiny" or not follow it. That statement becomes meaningless if in fact your so-called "destiny" is guaranteed no matter what you do.

By the way, Dark Vader? Really? Do you people actually ever watch the films, or are you just professional trolls?

 

Psychology also used to state being gay was an illness, different theories come and go. Also that link shows a very generalized and simplified version of that theory, as this link shows http://www.bhcmhmr.org/poc/view_doc.php?type=doc&id=12770&cn=462, moral development doesn't follow a uniform set of steps at each age, but is largely determined by external factors, and not by some set clock like you tried to prove. So Anakin can have reached an unusually advanced stage due to his environment of being a slave on a alien world. Something that can't be studied yet.

As I posted before, the OT is full with just as many plot holes as the PT, and most of the rest of your statement is mere opinion you are presenting as fact, yet again.

It is a fact, look how easy it is for me to defeat them so far. If they had real merit, I could not defeat them so easy, if at all.

He was not a resentful 9 year old, it was the council's fault for starting the ever growing rift between them and Anakin. Luke also dressed in black, does that mean he is resentful 20 something? Why portray the hero like that? In both cases it is merely foreshadowing. Luke complained and threw fits in both ANH and TESB, so by your logic Luke is a bad seed, especially if his father was one according to you.

Because like you, the serial killer Nate was going on how he didn't have a choice, he was predestined by his MAO-A gene to be a killer, to be evil, that he never had free choice not to do harm. While CSI Langston proves him wrong, since he also has the MAO-A gene. Despite also being predestined to be evil, he still made the free choice to help people rather than harm them, that fate and free will coexist, not mutually exclusively. That Nate also had free choice but choose to do harm anyway. LOST also portrayed Fate and Free Will as coexisting, that you can always choose to follow fate or not.

Just because Anakin was predestined to destroy the Sith doesn't mean he has no free choice to follow it or not. Most of the Sega, he didn't, only after letting go.

 

And my point was that the Force is also a possibility in this case. Points made and taken!

Again, this is a story in which the Force takes part - especially when it comes to these characters.
Luke may have been born first and he may have been the one closest to Padmé's face, but I wouldn't say that he spent more time with her. They were both with her all through the pregnancy and they were both present when she died.

If the story had taken place in our reality and the Force had not been a part of it, I would've agreed with you.

The ability to interact with physical objects extended beyond one's body.

The ability to manipulate and convince others enhanced - but still only usable on the weak-minded.

The ability to communicate verbally extended beyond the old mouth-to-ear method.

The ability to live extended beyond the physical realm.

Memory enhanced by the Force.

She was beautiful, kind and sad when she died.

She sensed her through the Force and formed a mental image of her.

Again? I'm with you there!





- I will never join you, Dooku.
- If you only knew the power of the dark side!
/LM

 

Children also are known to break down crying, sobbing, when something they really wanted was denied to them. Why then did the writer choose a reaction of anger for Anakin in that scene rather than grief? As for "i iz angry, disappointed, devastated because dreams have been denied": Rudyard Kipling would like to talk to you about that. Although I agree with you adults can behave like children. Oddly enough, fanatical defenders of the PT who won't concede or hear criticism of it seem to behave like that.

[

No. They're an opinion. One of many. Anakin also gets annoyed with people on the slightest provocation and the Jedi Council self-evidently is pret-ty hesitant to train him not just because of his age, but because they can see through him and see his emotions -- something his mother can't. If we're going to bootstrap levitate by going into a muddled film to justify the flawed storytelling, the Jedi Council arguably has a much better bead on Anakin's true face than his mother does.

 

Would you like to point me to a reputable scientific study that psychoanalyses Anakin and provides a sound basis for the suggestion he's morally advanced in the film? That's generally what we do when we're engaged in logical debate using facts. You are yet again resorting to argumentiam ad ignorianiem.

As I posted before, the OT is full with just as many plot holes as the PT, and most of the rest of your statement is mere opinion you are presenting as fact, yet again.

It is a fact, look how easy it is for me to defeat them so far. If they had real merit, I could not defeat them so easy, if at all.[/quote]

fact
/fakt/

Noun

1. A thing that is indisputably the case.
2. Information used as evidence or as part of a report or news article.

o·pin·ion
/əˈpinyən/

Noun

1. A view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
2. The beliefs or views of a large number or majority of people about a particular thing.

Protip: you are not providing facts.

You haven't actually "defeated" the points I raised, not that I committed mine to a deathmatch Thunderdome of opinions unlike yourself. The reason you've not actually debunked/defeated/disproven/whatever inappropriate term you'd like to use today is because you've not provided a logical or factual basis for your responses. Despite me asking you. Repeatedly. And asking you not to engage in logical fallacies, which is intellectually dishonest debating. Repeatedly.

There are only two forms of intellectually honest debating tactic: debate the facts, or debate the logic. All other debating tactics -- whether it be your perennial favourites of argumentiam ad ignoraniam or appeal to popularity -- are intellectually dishonest. On internet forums, in my personal experience they tend to turn up a lot because the person's ego is invested in his argument because he isn't sufficiently mature to advance an argument without investing himself in it. Another marker of this tendency is the inability to admit to intellectually dishonest debating tactics or concede a point.

This, oddly enough, seems to characterise arguments made by PT defenders as compared with critics of the PT, possibly because of the difference in age between the two groups in general. But that is a generalised hypothesis only from my own observations, I might add.

Because like you, the serial killer Nate was going on how he didn't have a choice, he was predestined by his MAO-A gene to be a killer, to be evil, that he never had free choice not to do harm. While CSI Langston proves him wrong, since he also has the MAO-A gene. Despite also being predestined to be evil, he still made the free choice to help people rather than harm them, that fate and free will coexist, not mutually exclusively. That Nate also had free choice but choose to do harm anyway. LOST also portrayed Fate and Free Will as coexisting, that you can always choose to follow fate or not.

Just because Anakin was predestined to destroy the Sith doesn't mean he has no free choice to follow it or not. Most of the Sega, he didn't, only after letting go. [/quote]

Still don't see the relevance. Protip, repetition doesn't make your argument bigger, and expansion in this case makes it worse.

 

It's a pity, then, that Direct87 -- who made the original argument which you're now twisting -- didn't say that.

Don't be nearsighted. Children also sob or cry when they're refused something. Why did they choose to show Anakin's reaction as anger rather than sorrow at that scene? That was a choice of the filmmaker, not the character. It's a marker towards predestination because it's a directorial and/or scriptwriting choice to show that Anakin gets angry rather than upset when he's denied something he wants. When you combine that with the rest of the PT, including choices such as costuming, it paints a very different picture to Luke who grudgingly complies with expectations made of him rather than rebel against them consistently -- as Anakin does.

You just proved my point: the PT is horribly muddled on showing or pronouncing its philosophy as to free will. The competing views only buttress that assertion.

Maybe that sort of misstatement of my remarks -- an intellectually dishonest debating tactic -- works better in the verbal forum. It doesn't wash here. Stop doing it.

The rest of your assertions are bootstrap levitation and are clearly coming from a desire not to change your mind, open it, or concede that you might be wrong. Common enough ailment on the Internet, but it doesn't mean I have to engage you further or concede any of your points as valid.

Well, someone has to keep the rose-coloured glasses off your face. Or at least tell you they're there, since you seem to have a problem comprehending you're interpreting the PT through them.

 

You guys have derailed this thread. Could you please take it elsewhere?





- Uh, my teams ready. I don't have a command crew for the shuttle.
- Go, I will. Good relations with the wookiees, I have.
/LM

 

I'm happy to drop it, at least.

 

I imagine that having been a slave for all of his life, such a reaction would have been beaten out of Anakin at an early age. Anger is a perfectly normal reaction to that situation.

Yes, and fanatical haters of the PT can behave the same way if people happen to disagree with their arguments (not that I see much of either on this board). I fail to see, though, what this has to do with the argument you’re making..?

So you’re saying that what we see on screen is a falsehood? Hmm, I must have missed the scene where Anakin tells Qui-Gon “I’ll race for you, but only if I get this in return” – could you point it out to me?

When? Where?

Yes, the Jedi Council knew Anakin had issues, but I don’t think Shmi was blind to them either; I just think she trusted in Qui-Gon’s judgement, and Qui-Gon had no reservations about Anakin becoming a Jedi.

Anyway, returning to the topic: to me, Leia remembering her mother is a plot hole – and a somewhat unnecessary one. I realise the necessity of tying up Padmé’s fate in RotS, but I don’t think the only way to do it is by having her die on screen. She could have been poisoned with a slow-working toxic (like anakinfansince1983 has suggested at some point) or maybe she had an incurable disease no one knew of – just something that would give her a few years to live but ultimately seal her fate.

 

Debating the fashions of the GFFA again?

In regard to what the thread is supposed to be about, not sure I see plot holes. Inconsistencies sure, but nothing major that ruins the story. But it's all fantasy and I love me some OT, I love me some PT.

It would have been better if Padme had lived a few years with Leia, agree completely. But Leia's vague description can be retconned through feelings in the force, so again, not sure if it's a plot hole, more a small inconsistency. To me anyway.

 

Well in trying to get this more on-topic.

Plot holes/inconsistencies:

The age of the Republic. OT says 1000 Generations, PT says 1000 years. Quite a big difference.
And yes I heard the EU bits about Rusaan and what not. But none of that is in the films so they don't count.
And Obi-Wan says that the Jedi have been the guardians of THE Old Repulbic for 1000 Genrations and later Tarkin says that with the Senate gone the last remains of THE Old Republic has been swept away. So the same republic that Obi-Wan talked about, that Tarkin says is gone with the disbanding of the senate. So THE Old Republic existed for 1000 generations and came to an end in ANH.

Why didn't Yoda warn Luke about Palpatines Force lightning power? Yoda wanted Luke to "conquer Vader and his emperor." If so then Luke would need to know about the powers Palpatine has and how to deal with them.
Before the PT the reason could be that Yoda did not know about it but the PT shows that he does. And so does Obi-Wan and he could also have told Luke.

Tech issues, in the PT there are some handheld automatic weapons with rapid fire but none of the handheld weapons in the OT are automatic or have rapid fire. Or why aren't missiles used in the OT?

This is more in the realm of unanswered questions:

Where did all the imperial officers etc come from? During the clone wars we only see Jedi and Clone troopers, no mention is made of regular forces. Do the Republic even have some military accademies?

When did the empire take over Tatooine? Tatooine was not a part of the republic in the PT.
Perhaps it was conquered but then that would have been when the Senate was still around.

Bye for now.
The Guarding Dark.

 

Yeah it works for me when I'm in an exceptionally overbearing mood, but generally I think it raises more questions than it answers. But I’m glad it works for some.

 

I always assumed that the imperial officers were recruited from the academy that Luke references in ANH. If you have a huge empire to police you need an academy to bring them through. (no police academy style spin-off please in the sequals please) The clone troopers will have bridged the gap until they were bringing through graduates i assume. For all the different species that made up the Jedi council and the senate is it not strange that only "human" imperial officers were featured (or is this suppossed to infer some genocidal agenda of the empire?).


I wasn't aware of Imperial rule on Tattooine.

 

But if there were no military accademies at all back in the Old Republic then wouldn't it take a long while to build all of that up and who were the teachers if noone had any military experience? It also means that none of the imperial officers had any actual war experience.

As for Tatooine, there were some strom troopers on Tatooine and their armour looks very well used so it seems that there was a constant imperial presence there. And Jabba has seemingly changed from one of the rulers to just a crime lord in the shadows. Luke was also angry at the empire and said he hated it. If there was imperial presence at all on Tatooine why would he say that?

Bye for now.
Blackboard Monitor

 

I would assume that there was some sort of military pressence on most planets, i'd then take that they have academies, put them under one umbrella and it'd give you imperial acadamies in several locations feeding those sectors. As for none of the imperial officers having any real war experience, Tarkin is appointed at the end of RotS so there must be some officers with some experience.

I thought the stormtroopers were from a detachment ship sent to recover the plans.

 

I also always assumed the troopers came from the Star Destroyer

 

Because I think my post might have gotten lost - I'd just point out that one solution that many seem to overlook is that the twins could have been born in Episode II, with Padme taking Leia to Alderaan and later dying there - in Episode III. Of course, this would seem to necessitate a slightly different chronology of events for the PT - probably starting with Anakin being older in Episode I. But in fact it seems that this was the plan, back in the day. The early designs for Anakin in Episode I look older (if I recall), there's Old Man Anakin in the original version of ROTJ (he could be interpreted as a range of ages, but he looks older than 45 to me), and GL said in the 70s/80s that Luke would be "a little boy" or "three" in Episode III. This solution would solve a bunch of slight incongruities.

 

"Dramatic" is maybe too much here, as something's shown on-screen is in a way necessarily more dramatic than what's not. I think that's what you mean here.
Emotional and moving are more relevant I guess, at least to me, as Padme's fate was basically known from ROTJ.

Everybody who saw the OT knew she was supposed to have died some time after the events of Episode III. Therefore there was no absolute need to show her fate on-screen.
Although I can understand Lucas' motivation here, especially for those who might have seen the PT before the OT.

 

Post, not poster. -mod edit.

 

It also feeds into the theme used in the later films (and moreso in the Clone Wars series) of Mace Windu as the hyper-doctrinaire member of the Jedi council, and the one with whom Anakin has the most difficult relationship. This is central to his moment of 'turning' - had it been another Jedi Master with his lightsaber at Palpatine's throat (say if Kit Fisto rather than Mace had survived the duel) I think it would have gone differently. Having to choose between Palpatine and the Jedi Master he disliked more than any other was, I think, what tipped the balance.

 

I believe the beginning of all the apparent plot problems was the actuality of Luke's paternity. If it was a lie, all was O.K. But since it was true, many plot problems occur. First and foremost, the venerable elder Jedi Masters, Obi-Wan and Yoda become liars. Did they think Luke wouldn't find out? And 'from a certain point of view' is the lamest excuse for a patch in this huge hole. I actually think making Vader Luke's father, although a great surprise and now legendary movie/plot point, marks the beginning of the end to the best two films. If it had been a lie it could have been worked out. I think it actually limits the scope of the story, which was probably preferable at the time. I know Lucas was exhausted, tired and divorced within that nine year span, and wanted or needed a break.

Think about Anakin's story...it would have been completely different. The same as the relationship between Obi-Wan and Vader...That story would have been sweet, too. Just my contention.

Second problem, I think, was making Leia Luke's sister. It could have been much more epic.

 

It's an attempt to co-opt the Christian 'virgin birth' story - the perfection of Anakin's mother, the suffering he undergoes, his resurrection (at the very end of ROTJ). Even Obi-Wan's 'certain point of view' for telling Luke that Anakin was dead ties into it.