CT What is wrong with Hayden as Anakin in the end scene of Return of the Jedi

Kasdan knew the basic backstory that Lucas had told him in 1981. But I'm referring to when TESB was made and it is in that film that Yoda says the Jedi can see the past and the future.

YODA: "Concentrate... feel the Force flow. Yes. Good. Calm, yes. Through the Force, things you will see. Other places. The future...the past. Old friends long gone."

No, it wasn't meant for the mother back then. Lucas wasn't focusing on her character anymore, after giving up on her with the third draft of ANH.

"The man Leia called Father was obviously not her father. He is part of the group that ends up having to fight Darth Vader in the film that will be out in 2003 [laughs]. The part that I had never really developed is the death of Luke and Leia's mother. I had a back story for her in earlier drafts, but it basically didn't survive. When I got to Jedi, I wanted one of the kids to have some kind of memory of her because she will be a key figure in the new episodes I'm writing. But I really debated on whether or not Leia should remember her."

--George Lucas, Star Wars-The Return Of The Jedi: Annotated Screenplay, 1997.


But because the Force can allow visions in both directions of time, this is how Lucas could hand wave it. And Kasdan just demonstrated that it is true, a Jedi can see the past, even if they are not present for it. Thus supporting that notion.

As to Leia's reaction, she doesn't know yet that she's a Force sensitive. She assumes that her images and feelings are just very faint memories. Some people can have very vivid dreams and she might have interpreted her dreams as memories. Luke's reaction is based on the sudden realization that he has no memory of her whatsoever. Because they don't know the full truth of their pasts, Luke has assumed that her memories would be stronger because they had more time together.

No, let's do include it. There's no reason not to, just because you didn't like it. It's canon. It's part of the story. Kasdan and Abrams followed Lucas's lead regarding the Force and what it can and cannot do. Lucas and Kasdan discussed Force visions during the making of TESB and established what can happen with them. Lucas wrote Anakin having a dream which is in truth a vision, for TPM. Kasdan and Abrams followed suit in TFA.

 

Given that Qui-Riv-Brid wrote this;

It sure sounds like saying that it wasn't REALLY a ret-con as it only changed a back story that wasn't in the film.
So there was no ACTUAL ret-con.
I don't agree and I think the film makes it clear that the reason that Leia remembers her mother but Luke does not is that she spent time with her and he did not.

And what Leia is describing is totally consistent with early memories from when you are 2-3 years old. Such memories ARE often in the form of images and feelings.
I can remember how my old house looked but not give a detailed account of what I did there.

And this was the plan when he wrote those lines of dialogue. Leia lived with her mother for a few years but Luke did not, thus she remembers a little about her but he has no memories of her.
If he had know that Leia never knew her mother and her "Memories" are not actually that but something else, he most likely would have written something quite different.

[/QUOTE]

Some people have tried to explain this by making up a "Force Memory" power.
That the Force can allow you to remember everything that has ever happened to you.
So that what Leia is talking about is her ACTUAL memories of the time she spent with Padme, ie getting born and getting a quick look at her. So she can remember this because of this Force-memory thing.

Others are doing what you are doing, saying that it was a Force vision. So Leia is getting flashes of Padme's life and interprets this as her actually spending time with her.
This however runs into several problems.

One, all the other people that had such visions either thought they were dreams or knew they were visions.
No one thought they were actual memories. So it is not established that the Force can fool you into thinking that you knew someone when you never did.

Two, given that Leia came to Alderaan as almost a new-born and given that her parents were quite prominent people. The official story would be well-known and as I said, Bail might be able to fudge the date of her birth by maybe a month, so Leia would know full well that she never spent any time with her mother.
So these "visions" would run counter to what she knows happened, her mother died in child birth or very soon after and she has lived all her life with her adoptive parents.
No room for memories of her real mother there.
And no, Bail would have no reason to make up some story that Leia lived with her mother for a few years. And it would be stupid of him to try.

Three, Leia talks about how her mother looked, her overall mental state and that she was kind TO HER. The first can be gotten from a vision, the second is a bit iffy but the third does not work at all.
Leia experienced her mother being kind to her. That requires her to be there and have her experience this herself.
Luke sensed Han and Leia's pain, he didn't think he was the one being hurt.
Anakin had dreams of his mother in pain but he knew that he wasn't the one in pain.

So in order to twist the Force vision thing into fitting this, not only do we have to ignore how old Leia was when she came to Alderaan and all that. But we also have to twist this power into working quite different from how it has been showed to work.
And we also have to make up some reason why Luke somehow would not get these "Visions/Memories".
Or why Leia did not get any of her father, Anakin.

Also, if the Force can do this, then Obi-Wan and Yoda are wasting their time in keeping Luke in the dark about Vader. Luke could get these "Memories" and know exactly who Vader is.

Lastly, in all the examples of these visions, something triggers it.
Shmi is in pain and Anakin senses it. Same with Luke and Han/Leia.
Anakin has visions of Padme dying because he is worried about loosing her.
Rey has a bunch of visions triggered by the light saber.
What triggered Leia?
She knew she was adopted? Luke knows that Owen and Beru and not his parents.
Luke was curious about his father and wanted to know more about him, did Leia think much of her real parents?

Bye for now.
Blackboard Monitor

 

It really depends on what one subscribes as fact. In a technical sense, Qui-Riv-Brid is right since the backstory that Lucas had in mind for the mother's fate was never used in the final film, other than she died. A lot of what Lucas had come up with for the fall of Anakin Skywalker and the rise of the Empire in the 81 story meetings was utilized in ROTS, even though portions of it were altered. The same basic make up was there. Anakin was separated from Obi-wan, he spent a lot of time with Palpatine who turned him to the dark side, he did go around killing Jedi with the surviving Jedi being clueless, Obi-wan learns of the children's existence, they're hidden and the duel on a volcanic planet takes place.

ROTJ never states anything definitive and is very vague. The backstory that Lucas had in mind was retconned and ROTS reflects that.

Plans change. Lucas himself was aware of that even in the era of writing the OT. But as to what he would write from a later point of view, that's hard to say. Remember, he had debated with what she should remember and even if she should have a memory. And also take note about how Anakin saw the future in his dream, a glimpse of something. He cannot see the full details, he just intuits that she dies in childbirth. Images and feelings.

[/QUOTE]

Some people have tried to explain this by making up a "Force Memory" power.
That the Force can allow you to remember everything that has ever happened to you.
So that what Leia is talking about is her ACTUAL memories of the time she spent with Padme, ie getting born and getting a quick look at her. So she can remember this because of this Force-memory thing.

Others are doing what you are doing, saying that it was a Force vision. So Leia is getting flashes of Padme's life and interprets this as her actually spending time with her.
This however runs into several problems.

One, all the other people that had such visions either thought they were dreams or knew they were visions.
No one thought they were actual memories. So it is not established that the Force can fool you into thinking that you knew someone when you never did.[/quote]

I didn't say that the Force was fooling anyone. I said that Leia believes that her dreams were memories and not knowing that they were glimpses into the past.

We don't know what all Bail said or didn't say. He and Breha can give a royal decree to lie. Bail can easily fudge the dates so that she was born on Alderaan and that her mother worked for the family, but died when she was two and the Organas adopted her. And why would it be stupid of Bail to do this?

She never said that Padme was kind to her. Just that she was kind and yet said. You're putting in something that was never spoken of.

Why is it important that Luke has a memory of his mother? Why does Rey have a vision of a man that she doesn't know and apparently never met? Also, remember that Yoda was able to sense Luke's own emotions when he would observe him through the Force.

That's always a risk. Fortunately, it didn't come true.

Anakin had a vision of his being a Jedi without being triggered by anything. There is no rhyme or reason when it happens. Luke had his vision of Han and Leia before they even made it to Cloud City.

 

Yoda had been making him meditate, in order to get the vision, in the first place:


“Concentrate...feel the Force flow. Yes. Good. Calm, yes. Through the Force, things you will see. Other places. The future…the past. Old friends long gone.”

 

Right, but said vision was just random. Yoda wasn't specifically trying to make him have that vision. Luke just happened to have seen it because it came into focus.

 

Sinister you're still making the same mistake you made here in the earlier conversation. You're taking what we know happened in RotS, which is problematic when compared to RotJ, then working backwards & trying to make it fit. That's not how linear time & character behavior works. You need to look at the situation from the beginning & then work forwards. Which we know occurs like this:

1. Leia is taken by Bail back to Alderaan as a newborn. Here Bail has a clear reason & motive to conceal who Leia's real parents are. That's all. No other lie/concealment is required. At this point there's no reason or motive to create a ruse where Leia's mother is alive & well & living with them on Alderaan for the first 2-3 years. That would be just as absurd as Owen & Beru doing the same thing. Pretending Padme lived on their homestead for a few years...just in case Luke has visions of her!

2. We know that Leia was told that she was adopted. However we also know what I mentioned above, that the true identity of her parents must be kept secret from everyone. So clearly Bail & Breha had to either (a) say they didn't know who the parents were, or (b) invent some fake people. (B) seems very unlikely. Surely it's easier to say that Leia was a war orphan from TCW & that Bail took her in. Which is essentially true as far as Bail knew, & was probably common following that war. It's a perfect cover story. Now, it doesn't really matter which of those 2 they chose. What they don't need to do, again is pretend that one of her parents was alive & well & living on Alderaan. Which given they're the famous royal family living in the public spotlight, it would necessitate a massive co-ordinated lie that a very large no of people would need to be in on.

3. When Leia is old enough to speak, say 2-3 years old, she perhaps mentions to Bail that she sees images & has thoughts about a sad but pretty young lady. If that happens, so what? Why would Bail care about this? Kids have all kinds of dreams & thoughts. How would Bail even know this has anything to do with Padme? Since he knows that Padme died when Leia was a minute old he'd surely assume it's someone else Leia is imagining. Or just random thoughts. For that matter how would 3 year old Leia know who the lady is? Keep in mind that at this point it's impossible to believe that Bail had pre-emptively concocted a ruse where Leia's birth mother has been alive & well & living on Alderaan. That would be a bonkers thing to do without a very good reason. Really, this is where the plothole reveals itself. How can a young Leia actually believe that some thoughts about some random lady are literal memories of her mother? How can what she observes & discovers in the following years reconcile within herself that as a fact?

Trying to make this all fit becomes so ridiculous that you know it's a plothole just by the attempt. Firstly, Bail would need to be told by a 2-3 year old girl that she has those thoughts & feelings. Just vague images mind you - nothing specific, & it's explained to him in the language of a small infant. He then somehow has to know that it's Padme she's talking about (despite how vague the description is). He then has to consider this as such a huge problem that he springs into action & concocts the lie that Leia's mother was alive & well until very recently, & living among them on Alderaan. Since this lie can never be exposed to the Princess, the palace staff, the Organa's relatives, friends & possibly even the planet's media will need to be informed & brought into line. Just one person slips up over the following years & decades & the jig is up. Then, to make it convincing those who supposedly knew this made up woman, including Bail & Breha would need to describe her. Have some stories & anecdotes about her when Leia asks, & most importantly, tell Leia her mother's false made-up name!

Not only that, if Bail does somehow think Leia is having visions of Padme at that very young age, his only conclusion would be that she's Force sensitive. So imagine him then deciding to come up with all of that BS when there's a very good chance that as Leia grows older her abilities will develop & she'll see even more about Padme. To the point of knowing who she is & what happened to her! Thereby catching out Bail & all of her friends & family in a complicated lie! He'd probably think to himself, what if Leia sees images of her father next? Do we have to pretend he lived here too??
Telling Leia most of the truth on the other hand - that her mother was an off-world woman & that she died during childbirth - is far easier & far less dishonest. That complicated deception wouldn't need to be arranged. Going down the other avenue he has to be prepared for all kinds of questions & problems. As absurd as all that is, it's not as ridiculous as Bail's initial decision to even go that way. All bcs a toddler has some vague mental images of a lady. The sort of thing that little kids think of all the time. None of it adds up, & you know why? Bcs it's not supposed to add up. The scene in RotJ was written based upon Leia actually living with her mother for the first few years of her life. As Lucas confirms here.

 

Neither lie is about Force visions. It's about creating a plausible lie that the children will believe. The Lars chose to say that Anakin was a navigator on a freighter and the Organas chose to say that Padme lived on Alderaan and was a friend of the family. It's no different from the Kents saying that their adopted alien baby is an orphan child that they found abandoned along a rural road, or whose mother was unwed and died giving birth. Or saying that they tried one more time to have a child, but had laid low for several months prior to that, had a home birth and thus they could pass the child off without being questioned.

No, it wouldn't. A fake name is all that's required. Nothing more, nothing less.

Why is it preposterous to believe that Bail wouldn't cover his tracks and create a simple, easy to create lie in case Leia ever asked about her birth parents? First off, you're making an assumption that she's told that she is adopted when she's three. Second, you're even assuming that she has these visions when she was three. For all we know, she could have had them at nine or ten. Hell, Anakin doesn't even think his vision of becoming a Jedi is a vision, but chalks it up as a dream. Third, when the subject would be brought up, that doesn't mean it starts because of those visions. It could be something as simple as, "Leia, dear, it's time we talk about your birthright." Leia would, in turn, think that these vague images and feelings that she's had over the years were just memories of her mother.

You're overthinking things.

 

Excpet what you propose is not plausible in any sense of the word.
It is in fact, absurd, contrived, moronic and totally stupid.

What you totally fail to understand is that Luke had no way to verify what Owen said about his father as he had no contact with the fleet, navy or whatever ship Owen said his father served upon.
Leia however is living on Aldreean and if she is told that her mother lived there for a few years then she CAN go around and ask questions. So either the lie would get exposed or Bail would have to involve pretty much the whole planet in this lie. And for NO reason.

When Bail took Leia he had to cower his tracks a bit as he couldn't say that this was Padme's child.
And when he came to Alderaan, Leia was a new-born and given how prominent his family is, he could not keep this a secret for long.
So the logical and sensible thing would be for him to say that Leia was a war orphan, whose parents are both dead. He could fudge the date of her birth a little so that the official records say that she was born two weeks earlier than she really was.
So as far as the records say, Leia can't be Padme's child as she was born when Padme was still pregnant.
Perfect cover and would satisfy Leia.

You again fail to understand what would be required here.
If Bail wants to make up some lie that Leia's mother was alive when she came to Alderaan and lived there for a few years.
Then he has to do MUCH more than just make up a fake name.
If this woman worked/lived in the palace, then he has to let the whole palace staff in on this lie so that they know what to say in case Leia asks a question.
If she lived somewhere else then he has to make up where that was and involved all that live there in this lie.
Since Bail is such a prominent figure, that he and his wife adopted a new born girl would be news.
So would he tell the news that the mother of this girl is alive and living with them?
Or would he tell the news that the girl is an orphan and both her parents are dead?
If the former, now the lie is huge. If the latter, then Leia can expose the story as a lie very easily if Bail told her that her mother lived with them for a few years..

Also, Bail and his wife would no doubt fill in some forms to formally adopt Leia.
And they would do this pretty much as soon as Leia was brought to Alderaan.
So in those forms would they write the name of some fake mother but also that this person is alive?
Wouldn't that then require some statement from this person that she is is giving up her daughter for adoption? So more lies. And she would have a name and Leia could then try to back track to this persons family. If this was a real but dead person, Leia could find some relatives so Bail would need them in on this lie.
If the person never existed, then lots of records needs to be altered, and again more lies.

And the simple lie is this, Leia is a war orphan, both her parents are dead and they died when Leia was just born. Bail either doesn't know their names or he takes the name of someone that died in the war and has no family or next of kin.

What is preposterous is that Bail, for NO reason, would go about and make up some elaborate lie that Padme's mother lived on Alderaan for a few years and then died.
AND, if he would do this, then odds are good that word migth reach the empire.
IF he has to involve thousands if not millions of people in this ruse then if some of them mentions this to some imperial agent then word might reach Palpatine. "Bail Organa has adopted an baby girl but he making up this elaborate story that the mother lived with them for a few years but she didn't."
Then Palpatine might get curious and look into this. And Bail does NOT want this.

So not only does Bail have ZERO reason for this elaborate lie, he would also know that involving this many people in the ruse would increase the chance of word getting to the wrong people and the jig is up.

[/QUOTE]

And you are not thinking at all about what would be involved here, the number of people, the risk of Leia exposing the lie or worse, that Palpatine exposes it.
Again, Luke has no way to check what Owen says is true but Leia has a lot more resources available and she travels around a lot more and she is part of a very prominent family. Owen and Beru and pretty much nobodies on some remote planet.

Ex. say that Luke LIVED on the ship that Owen said his father was captain of.
Do you think it is possible that Luke would ask the crew what they knew of his father?
If so, either they deny even hearing about Luke's father and Luke knows that Owen lied.
Or Owen has to involve the whole crew in this ruse.
Now imagine that there is a whole planet involved in this and you would seen how absurd and ridiculous this whole thing is.

Bye.
Old Stoneface

 

What lie is required other than different identities/jobs/positions for their real parents? Is there any requirement for Luke or Leia to be told their parents were alive for longer than they were, or that they lived with them for a time?

Huge difference between those two lies. One was to avoid saying their dad was a Jedi turned Sith. Similarly, they can't tell the kids their mother was a Senator from Naboo. They need to either say they didn't know her well enough or she had some other position. Why on earth would they say that either Anakin or Padme lived with them for years?

It's massively different. Those lies don't involve a ruse where a fake person lives with them for years afterwards. In the case of the royal family of Alderaan that means Padme should've been known by a great many people.

How can all of the questions & conversations with Leia, for the rest of her life about her mother that lived with them on Alderaan for years begin & end with just her name?? Do you want to reconsider that statement?

What tracks is he trying to cover? How does saying Padme lived with them cover tracks? You're suggesting he created this lie pre-emptively. Why would he do that? As opposed to just not revealing her parents' identity. Why just the mother? Why not say her father lived with them too? How would Bail think it's more likely for Leia to sense her mother & not her Jedi Force sensitive father?

Problem with that is, if it's that late Leia has already had years as a child who has been speaking & communicating with her parents. What have they told her during all of that time? That she was their real child? That she was adopted? If it's the latter, which we presume it is, we go back to the original problem. If she hasn't mentioned anything about having visions why would they say that one of per parents, her mother specifically for unknown reasons, lived with them for years? They wouldn't say that. It's a ridiculous suggestion. They'd tell her she was adopted at birth & her parents died at that time. Therefore if she had those visions years later at age 10 they can't then change their earlier story.

Great point. So if a young Leia mentions some vague description of some lady she had a sense of why wouldn't Bail just assume it's a child having a random dream? How would Bail identify that Leia was seeing Padme, given how vague the "images & feelings" were? Which raises yet another problem. This retcon leads towards Bail discovering that Leia had visions of Padme, & then concocting this absurd ruse. Which can mean only one thing. That Leia is Force sensitive. So now the Organas knowing that Leia was Force sensitive becomes part of the story

 

This is incredibly simple. Leia remembering Padme only works if you don't bother thinking about it for more than 5 seconds. Anything beyond that and it falls apart. George would prefer you stick with the 5 second rule. His writing is ill-equipped to handle scrutiny.

 

I think when it comes to problematic scenes, people should just choose what to believe.

And it is not that the writing is ill- equipped to handle scrutiny. It is just, the story changed with each new movie.

In ANH Vader and Anakin weren't even the same person, and Ben's explanation wasn't really a lie, or point of view at the time. It was was it was. But since Anakin and Vader became the same person people had to make explanations for his words.

The same is with Luke and Leia kissing. They weren't siblings at the time that scene was made, nor they were siblings when the scene with Leia talking about remembering her mother was made.

But they are now, and it is what it is. It is not perfect in terms of continuity. But SW was always like that, and sometimes you just gotta chose what you want to believe, and just look at the things from your point of view.

Which is why I said I prefer Hayden's ghost for continuity. Because it allows future films to use him and expand even more on his story...

But that is just me.. I know SW isn't perfect, far from it. But I love the saga anyway... I won't let small things bother me, because they are explainable, you just got to think outside the box sometimes.

 

With one huge difference - The OT was moving forward so he could make it up as he went along. The PT was the backstory to the information we already had so there is no excuse... "Anakin was already a great pilot" had to be ticked off (and was) so the rest should have followed suit! Does that make sense?

 

Exactly.

The story changes and transforms.

At one point Lucas was fine with having Anakin's spirit look like SS. Then he wasn't.

At one point he was fine with Vader killing Luke's father. Then he wasn't.

There is no difference between these two things except one made it visually into a movie while the other didn't.

For Lucas there is no difference nor would there be from his perspective.

He changes his story as he always did.

Some people just seem to not like it when they notice.

 

Just wanted to point out that the part I made bold is wrong. They were definitely siblings during that scene, that is when Luke is telling Leia that they are siblings.

Also, I agree with the post that said the problem is that ANH moving forward was moving the story forward, and everything should really have built off it, not mess it up. Some checkboxes just needed to be ticked off and they weren't.

 

Except when it comes time to actually tell a compelling story on-screen, it sometimes turns out that remaining faithful to every minute detail of the written backstory just isn't the correct solution. There's nothing in the PT that's egregiously at odds with the spirit of the story of the OT, and all the minor retcons are sufficiently papered over whether people want to accept them or not.

 

The difference is where some retcons create plotholes & some do not. For example, we only know that Vader was not originally planned to be Luke's dad bcs Lucas has said so. Or we've read early drafts or behind the scenes material. If you just watch the OT it all tracks perfectly. Ben initially lies to Luke to protect him from a horrible truth. It's so perfect it seems as if it was planned. That's a stark contrast to problems like Leia thinking she had real & actual memories of Padme, or the Old Republic 1000 years/generations thing, or Lucas screwing around with Vader's knowledge of Luke in TESB SE, etc etc. The first example can't be detected as a retcon just by watching the movies. With those others, if you're an observant viewer, the type who likes to think deeply about your favorite stories you will easily see the retcon, & the problems it creates. That's not good. Those types of viewers should be able to hope & expect that their favorite stories have been well put together, with a high degree of care & skill.

 

A retcon/plot hole/change that doesn't fit with previous shown is just what it is, a retcon/plot hole/etc. The fact that it doesn't bother you is fine. But to deny that it exists or say it's sufficiently papered over is disingenuous to me at least. There are a plenty that are obvious and don't fit b/t the OT and PT. It is that simple. And yes, it is bc GL decided to make changes, but those changes caused issues. You can be okay with them. Others will not be and that's fine too. Also, just saying, I'm pretty sure a story that didn't make all these changes could have still been a "compelling story on-screen". It wasn't an either or situation with that.

 

And it worked especially well when you consider that Owen Lars told Luke the exact same lie about Obi Wan:

"He died around the same time as your father."

And that one WAS planned. It was absolutely perfect and as you said, no one knew it was a retcon until all the behind the scenes info came out. It's ridiculous for anyone to claim that all retcons are created equal.

 

I'm not being disingenuous at all, thank you.

 

You've lost me.

Minute details? *shakes head* Let's see how you feel if the ST drops a "Obi Wan was the chosen one" chestnut and completely forgets Anakin - after all it's just a "minute detail" ...who cares about continuity!

 

What I mean is there are actual plot holes/retcons b/t events/people in the OT and PT movies. Yet you just tried to wipe them away with "sufficiently papered over." They were not "sufficiently papered over" bc many people noticed them!!! Like I said, you can be okay with them bc they don't affect your enjoyment. You can not ignore they exist and tell others they are wrong for not accepting it.

Ex. - Obi-Wan not remembering R2 or C-3PO then GL making them a major part of the PT with Obi-Wan constantly around them

R2 not remembering anyone (Luke and Leia being sibs, Vader was his master, possibly Chewbacca, etc)

Above issues with AS not being Vader, then being Vader since it affected dialogue parts in the movies

Issues with Obi-Wan and Vader relationships in OT and PT due to dialogue in OT

Issues with Luke and Leia as sibs and kissing since he later made them sibs (Just think if you kissed someone and then found out later you were sibs, they make it any better to you?)

 

I never said that Bail claimed that Padme Amidala was the name of her mother. Just that she had lived with them for a time and died.

Simple, Bail tells Leia that if she has any questions, to come ask him or Breha. And why is it a problem to have the staff lie? It's a royal decree.

He would tell Leia that he mother was alive for a time and died. Everyone else would only be told to repeat that lie. Simple as that.

Why would there be forms to fill out? Has it ever been said that forms are needed to be filled out?

No, but it doesn't hurt to color a story. Let me ask you this, is there any reason to lie to either child and not just be upfront about it?

Why is it an issue? What does it hurt to say that your parents died when you were two, instead of when you were born?

And? "You're mother's name was Padme Starkiller, she was an aide to us and died unexpectedly when you were two and we adopted you." Simple.

You're being a bit too literal.

"We don't know who your father was, as your mother never told us about him. We assumed that he died during the war."

Again, simple.

If Leia is ten and either asks about, or is just told outright that she's adopted, she can say, "I do vaguely remember a woman once. Very beautiful. But I haven't seen her since. Was that my mother?" "Yes, dear. She was very beautiful and very kind." "It's a shame I didn't get to know her."

Simple.

He already knows that the children of Anakin were Force sensitive. Why wouldn't he know it?

No, he said, "I don't seem to remember owning any droid." Not, "I don't remember these droids."

Artoo last saw Luke when he was a baby. He doesn't know him when they first meet. Artoo is never around Vader in the OT. He never met Chewbacca.

The only dialogue that was affected was the bit about the Lightsaber.

What issues? We see them (Anakin and Obi-wan) as good friends in AOTC and ROTS. Lucas never wrote what the relationship was between Vader and Obi-wan, other than Vader was his Apprentice and then became evil.

Have you watched "Games Of Thrones"?

 

People stop with this reasoning. It's the weakest ever. It would be foolish for Obi-Wan to just say "I don't seem to remember owning any droid" and nothing else when he actually does recognize the droids. No one would say what he did there if he recognized the droids.

So? I'm sure R2 understood who the baby was. So, he might not have known Luke was that baby at the beginning of ANH, but by halfway through that movie and the rest of the OT he sure did. Also, R2 has been in service to the Alliance ever since ROTS and didn't have his memory wiped, so he heard Bail Organa say that he was taking the girl. So he definitely knows who Leia is. And thus knows Luke and Leia are bro and sis. Also, it's not about being around Vader or not, it's that many convos were had about Vader in R2's presence, and there's never any indication that R2 already knows him. I wrote possibly Chewie bc of the fact Yoda and Chewie are shown as friends in ROTS. We don't know how far that reaches to others knowing so I wrote possibly.

You can't be serious. Then Vader referring to AS as a different person than himself. This is known bc GL himself said that during ANH Vader and AS were different people. Then, at some point during TESB he changed his mind. The above reference is a well-known issue created by this.

All the dialogue in Ben's hut with Luke. Then Obi-Wan's explanation to Luke about training AS. It doesn't match with how it played out in the PT.

No, but it doesn't matter. Showing other places where it happened doesn't make it better/right here. It still is a huge problem created by the fact GL made a change after a set in stone scene. If you don't think kissing your sibling would be a huge issue.......

 

Obi-wan is also shown in AOTC, TCW and in ROTS as having a low opinion of droids. Even going so far as to make loose wire jokes towards Artoo. He's almost never seen being friendly towards Threepio, Artoo and R4 in the PT. Not like Anakin and Padme.

Right and as Lucas said, Artoo is the keeper of the secrets. He's better at keeping secrets than Threepio. So, what's the problem?

Artoo knows Vader is Anakin. So what is the issue? That he doesn't tell Luke?

Why would he know anything? He doesn't know Yoda is alive and Luke never mentions him during TESB and ROTJ. So why even bring him into the conversation?

And nothing is ruined, other than as Obi-wan said, he told the truth just from a point of view.

What's affected? Anakin and Obi-wan were Jedi Knights during the Clone Wars. We see that. Obi-wan called him a cunning warrior, a great pilot and a good friend. We saw that as well. The only contradiction has to do with passing on the Lightsaber.

How so? When he first met Anakin, he was already a good pilot. And he was amazed at how strongly in the Force he was, both from his Midichlorian count and from his destroying the Federation control ship. He took it upon himself to train him. Sure, he did it because he made a death bed promise, but he still fulfilled that promised. And he thought he could train him as well as Yoda. We see that as well. What's the problem?

Leia kisses him on the cheek once and then on the lips. It wasn't that big a deal. It wasn't like they did anything else.

 

darth-sinister, those are all good reasonings for you....as has been said that's fine.....do you really not see how those type of answers leave questions for others though? to me, it comes across as you saying these should work for everyone..

on the kissing, that's more a personal thing I'm sure....I would never kiss a sibling on the lips (especially the way that Leia kisses Luke even if just to make Han jealous) and if I found out after I did it, I'd be.....well it would leave good feelings