Obi Wan slicing off an arm in ANH- accepted as incorrect?

I'm having a debate in TCW forum about lightsaber cauterization. I'm of the mind that lightsabers cauterize instantly and another poster has cited two examples that may or may not prove otherwise.

The first, as it is a thread about Darth Maul, is the spray of blood when he is cut in half, which we needn't discuss here.

The second in the arm that is cut off in the cantina in ANH.

I claimed that it is widely accepted as the blood there being incorrect, possibly due to Lucas having not formulated his ideas fully at that time and at least partially due to the low budget.

Another thought occurs: perhaps if there wasn't any blood they thought it wouldn't be understood.

Regardless,

Am I right? Is this widely accepted as wrong?

Do you accept it?

 

I think in the vast majority of cases, the wound is cauterised, but there are many reasons why this might not happen from time to time.

Different species have different biological make-ups. Perhaps the bloke in the Mos Eisley bar was high on drugs which affected his blood and/or metabolism. Maybe he was a hemophiliac.

 

I always assumed he was a goo-filled species. I know he probably has bones and muscles, but maybe he's just much oozier than most species.

 

I think the case in the cantina with Ponda, its the first time we see the lightsabre in action and its Lucus' way of showing us its not just some usless weapon. Unless Lucas changed it to cauterize for future films to keep ratings down and to implement the use of prosthetic limbs and not just bleeding out.

I like to think that the red mist from Maul is just a visual reference for the audience to let you know Obi Wan has cut him across his mid section before he finally falls and splits in two after cauterization.

My opinion, its a goof on Lucas' part. I won't try and explain it away as a different type of blood or something like that to fit the story. A bloodless limb would have sufficed.

Im suprissed Star Wars got a U rating in the UK.

 

what would those reasons be, may I ask?

His blood/metabolism/disease status wouldn't effect how well or not the lightsaber burned his skin as it cut him, nor would whether his species is "goo-filled" or not [though that sounds oddly delicious? ].

 

His skin has a higher resistance to heat?

I'm not a doctor (clearly )

 

I think there'd still be some blood even if the wound is cauterized .

doesn't the guy in the cantina also grow fingers ?

 

There is probably blood on the severed arm in the cantina simply because the idea of a lightsaber cauterising a wound had not been properly considered at the time. The shot of the severed arm is also a pick-up that was filmed later. The action of Ponda Baba losing his arm was originally done in one shot where the camera moves down to show the severed arm on the ground - a fin-hand rather than the one with fingers used in the final shot - and there is no blood on the floor. I think blood was added to the retake shot simply for effect - to make it look better as a severed limb. An arm's been cut off, so there'll be blood, right?

Afterwards though, Lucas definitely decided that lightsabers do cauterise and so there was no more blood seen when limbs are severed. It's more of an inconsistency than a mistake. Not every saber cut is going to be the same. Sabers may cauterise a wound instantly but you can't say for sure that there would never be any blood. As others have suggested, it helps that Ponda Baba/Walrus Man is non-human. If his flesh is different than a human's it may well react differently to the saber cut, maybe not cauterising so readily, hence there was some blood from the severed limb.

So you could say that the bloody arm in the cantina is incorrect if you look at how such action is done over the course of all the films, but it's not really incorrect in and of itself.

 

I know it's PT related but when Dooku nicks Kenobi on Geonosis there is blood on his fingers...it can be seen when he's using the force to call his saber to throw to Anakin

 

A little bit of blood is not unusual. If the arm had been cut off by a regular metal sword for example, there would be a lot more blood pooling on the floor. The wound was partly cauterized, but a little bit of blood leaked through.

 

THIS.

A out of universe explination is that Lucas wanted to show the power of a lightsaber. Also, as other posters said, Lucas hadent fully formulated his idea of what lightsabers do. He was in financial trouble and he didn't think that the movie would even be made, so I doubt that lightsabers cauterizing wounds was the last thing on his mind.

Also, remember that we didn't even know that lightsabers cauterized wounds at all until Luke had his hand cut off in ESB, probobly because a bloody hand wouldn't sit well with the rating systems since cutting a human's hand off would be deemed more graphic than cutting off Ponda's arm in ANH.

 

I guess if you get burned, your skin does bleed, but isn't it more of a bloody puss type thing?

As far as there being blood because of a higher resistance to heat?

I think that would only affect how long the lightsaber took to cut through it. A lightsaber doesn't really have a sharp edge- it is literally melting through things. So, if the lightsaber cuts through something, it has been sufficiently burned enough to cut through it and thus, sufficiently burned enough to be cauterized. I don't understand how it could be cut and not cauterized.

Iluvjarjar, captain yossarian, and ig85, this is my line of thought as well. I appreciate you all expressing them better than I could.

I wish there was some official thing that explained this, though.

 

It was a very quick cut, with not enough time for complete cauterization. No other explanation is necessary.

 

However I don't remember seeing any blood when Vader cuts off Luke's arm. Shouldn't some blood have seeped into his shirt when he stuffed his arm into his clothes?

 

quick cut or not, I don't think it matters. how hot do you think a lightsaber is?

Once again, as I understand it, it's literally burning through things.

 

Good point. It would be appropriate to change on the BluRay. Remove the blood.

 

gah. I'm sick of changes.

The BluRay should have an option to turn on and off the things Lucas has changed.

 

Yes, there should definitely be a dual film feature for original theatrical cut and extended cut. A lot of the new additions were more distracting than anything.

 

It would also be nice to see the ORIGINAL version of the films. Like... the ORIGINAL version. There is nothing close to this that exists on DVD and it's even hard to find on VHS [pretty sure, anyway], not that anyone watches VHS anymore, anyway.

But I digress.

edit:

in response to below, that sucks you have the full screen ones.

Mostly I hate Hayden Christensen in my ROTJ. That was one of my favorite parts as a kid, when a restored Anakin shows up, and Lucas ruined it. It doesn't even make any sense. Plus, the scene where Solo talks to Jabba looks silly and is unnecessary.

ANYways...

 

I actually have the original VHS release copy of all three films. In some ways much better than the new ones, although wide screen is superior to full screen any day of the week.

 

I've never noticed this...

I'm sure this is something that will be much more obvious and clear to see once we have the blu-rays...

 

I just accept it as ANH being the first in the series, so a few things were not set in stone yet, such as Vader being Luke's father, or blood being shown after a lightsaber amputation..

 

This was the first time we saw a lightsaber being used so I assume everything wasn't concrete yet concerning them. Because of that it doesn't really bother me and I don't give it much thought.

 

Another in-story idea:

Obi-Wan deliberately cuts off the crook's arm in such a way that it'll leave blood to make a point.

In short, as has been said (thanks, Wascally) ... Don't **** with Kenobi.

 

One of the buttons on his lightsaber cranks the heat up and down, perhaps.