Discussion in 'Classic Trilogy' started by Slowpokeking, Jan 29, 2013.
Answer the rest.
Just keep reading this until you get it:
Answer my question first, why do you keep bothering me.
Also, learn what a plot hole is, I'll give you a hint. Internal logic. Internal......................
This is pretty redundant guys.
Then by that definition, it is not a plot hole, since the EU explanation results in no problem with "internal logic". The problem is your own assumptions about the films. Your own assumptions are not necessarily part of the film's "internal logic", if they were not shared by the creators of the films.
I think for a true SW fan, any plot holes should be filled by the EU and accepted readily, and most are. However as a film fan/critic you also have to take a step back and let the films stand alone as most people who watch the movies haven't also read the 20+ books in between them. If there are plot holes not explained in the film then as a stand-alone series it is flawed.
So now if you don't like EU explanations you aren't a fan. Really. What crap
Actually, in this case, the explanation appeared in the rough draft of ROTJ as recounted in the Annotated Screenplays. So that would be before the fact.
So then it was something that was not put in the film before the fact. Lots of things like that. Vader pushing Palpatine into a Lava river on Coruscant, all kinds of ideas. ObiWan and Yoda being involved in the final battle. These ideas aren't put into action, so they don't count for much. Unless you want to argue over whether or not these other things happened to.
You judge the movies on their own
But the point is:
* it is consistent with the film
* it ultimately comes from Lucas & Co., not some EU writer
And my point is, it was a decision to not put it in the film in the first place
That was an artistic decision made by your beloved creator too, should you not respect that choice?
If it's consistent with the film, it doesn't matter.
What about the decision to talk about it on the ROTJ DVD commentary? Should we respect that?
Lucas says lots of things, so no. His work should speak for itself.
And it does matter, it matters a great deal. A choice to not include something is as important as the choice to include it.
Early versions of Vader's death made his redemption unclear, resulting in a need for post death scenes to make that redemption clear.
That was replaced with Vader dying in his son's arms telling him that he is saved. A different vision, a different version, a different ending.
That is the only ending that counts. What is actually in the story is the only thing that counts.
So, not including it in ROTJ should be "respected", but putting it on every single copy of the ROTJ DVD should not be respected. Right. You act as if Lucas not including something in a film must mean that he doesn't believe in it. But anyone familiar with film can tell you that there are any number of reasons to not include something in a film, even when the content in question matches the director's vision. For example, films are cut for length, or things are skipped because of special effects considerations. Take the Qui-Gon/Yoda scene which did not appear in ROTS. Was this left out because its content did not match Lucas' vision? Doubtful, because it survived his line-edit to the novelization. As another example, take the Jabba scene from ANH. This was deleted for technical reasons and because it wasn't necessary to move the story along given that it more or less repeats Han's conversation with Greedo. Not because it failed to be consistent with Lucas' ideas.
Not in this context. It's still an explanation, which contradicts claims that no such explanation can possibly exist.
Which has nothing to do with the issue at hand: no different ending, no different version, no different vision ( the 1983 version being the same as the one expressed in the 2004 commentary ). An explanation cannot be different from an explanation that was not given in the first place. Comparing apples and oranges, as usual, is a fail.
I act as if the story is what is actually presented to us in the story.
Lucas' vision on this point has been consistent since the OT days, and is expressed on the commentary.
Where in that quote did I say that? What crap.
The implication being that those who do not accept these explanations readily are not true Star Wars fans, which is crap.
How else should that be taken?
You're the one trying to shout people out of a thread on a Star Wars forum because they quote the bits of Star Wars that you want to pretend don't exist.
I don't pretend they don't exist, in fact early on the thread I even state that there are EU explanations for people who like them I just don't like EU explanations being forced on me.
That's not going to change, and I shouldn't have to keep telling the same people that. Just leave me alone with it
It's just merchandising in my view, and it doesn't count. I shouldn't have to justify that opinion on what is supposed to be a movie forum.
There are lots of people here who like EU explanations. I'm not having a problem with most of them.
I had to go back three pages to find out what in the world this argument is about!!
And now that I know...Imma gonna say that CTC is wrong (again)
.....but wouldn't that be a good way for people who watched the OT first to want to watch the PT?....Qui Gon was the reason Anakin even left Tatooine, he deserves his spot at the end of Jedi
Oh good lord let's just put the entire cast and crew in as force ghosts too, make it an overhead crane shot.
If they have Qui-Gon, next thing you know they'll have Dooku too. Just to round out the line, since they are all of course Jedi of the "Dookuan" line. Dooku > Qui-Gon > Obi-Wan > Anakin. Even though Dooku died while still a darksider, and thus probably shouldn't turn up. I mean, IIRC we have had darksider Force ghosts before, in the EU anyway, but I don't see why he would turn up with the rest of them and smile at Luke.
Mind you, if they did have Dooku, that also would leave open the question of the fifth and final member of said line... its sole non-human and sole female. Leaving her out, under the circumstances, would then possibly imply that she still lived, and thus be a setup for a shoe-horning in the ST era.
I guess they won't ever have Dooku. And I hope to be honest they don't have Qui-Gon either. Because Luke never knew him. He knew Obi-Wan, he knew Yoda and he knew his father. But Qui-Gon died 13 years before he was even born. There's no reason for him to show up. Luke would just be like "who's this guy?"