Star Wars: The Complete Saga (1977-2005)

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Hardback247

It's not really a plot hole. You just have to think about it a little.

Taken in isolation the whole 'well, Leia wasn't remembering Padme, she was remembering force images of Padme' is one of the easier retcons to rationalize away.

But it nags for two reasons, I think.

First, the idea that Luke and Leia are not simply siblings but twins raises a lot of questions to which there are no satisfying answers, not the least of which is, how the hell did nobody else know she was carrying twins. That one's kind of hard to swallow and it makes even the more reasonable logical leaps one needs to make in order to square various circles a little harder to swallow.

Beyond that, though, my main issue with this whole subset of retcons is that they were done in service of a truly terrible plot device. If Padme's death had, as intended, come off as romantic and tragic I might have been willing to give The Creator a little more leeway about the corners he had to cut in order to get there.

But Padme's death wasn't romantic and tragic, it was melodramatic and ridiculous. And that makes me a lot less willing to say 'well, yeah, it doesn't all add up but so what, it's still pretty cool'.

Cause, you know, it wasn't.

Originally Posted by Hardback247

You can't just disregard these movies. They are official Star Wars canon whether you like them or not.

Look, if we can tie ourselves into pretzels - ignoring this while focusing on that and shoehorning a whole variety of things that only make sense from 'a certain point of view' - trying to make these things work surely we can just ignore whole swatches of stuff too.

I mean, if we can ignore the fact that nobody around Padme (and perhaps not even Padme herself) knew she was carrying twins then we can ignore pretty much anything, no?

[ElvisForever]

Originally Posted by Caseyscott

Of course I can. What's good and bad about the saga is fun to discuss but there's nothing legally binding about how I enjoy them. I watch them as if the PT never happened (just like I did before the PT). Just as you can watch them and pretend that Leia having force imprints is intersting at all.

Or you accept what the artist intends for you to see. It may not be the story you want, but like fan edits it bastardizes the intended meaning.

George Lucas in the end wanted you to see it a certain way. Freedom is freedom, but Leia force imprint makes sense even in old trilogy. Strong with the force brings all kinds of freedom in writing and I have seen evidence that Lucas had different ideas written early on.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Caseyscott

Also Han shooting Greedo before Greedo could do anything was important too. That scene is a very clever and economically sound way of telling the audience who Han Solo is. After that scene is over we know everything we need to about him. Han dodging a laser or Greedo (a bounty hunter) missing at point blank range creates a totally different effect.

Agreed. And I always kind of shake my head when people argue that changing this scene doesn't really change anything anyway because that just raises the question 'then why change it'.

It's certainly no more aesthetically pleasing. Quite the contrary.

So if there's no substantive change then what the hell was the point in the first place.

[Falaskan]

Originally Posted by The Fallen Deity

I'd still like to know how the hell Leia can remember Padmé. The woman died in childbirth!

That inconsistency could have easily been fixed if Lucas had cut out the bit when Luke talks to Leia about her mother. Have the scene start where Leia asks Luke what's troubling him.

They should recton this in Ep VIII, where we will learn Padme faked her death in ROTS, and gave birth to Mara Jade with Obi-wan, (Rey's mother)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Caseyscott]

Originally Posted by ElvisForever

Or you accept what the artist intends for you to see. It may not be the story you want, but like fan edits it bastardizes the intended meaning.

George Lucas in the end wanted you to see it a certain way. Freedom is freedom, but Leia force imprint makes sense even in old trilogy. Strong with the force brings all kinds of freedom in writing and I have seen evidence that Lucas had different ideas written early on.

I certainly champion the artist's vision. I think it's painfully obviously (as I've outlined above) that his vision was different upon Jedi's release, and I can own, as I do, just the OT and enjoy them in the same way I did before the PT's existed. To your point, that is why these discussions are fun, because we have a situation where an artist has repeatedly applied revisionist content to a previously completed work and it's changed the viewers perception of said work.

I think to a broader point, what made the OT so great was that there was enough exposition to make a prequel trilogy, but that doesn't mean that the exposition should have been made into films, it kind of does a disservice to the wonderful world building tools used in IV-VI.

Starting the series at episode iv was a brilliant way to throw the audience into the middle of an exciting story and give them the feeling of the old serials that they pay homage to. It's almost a self aware gimmick but it I feel it succeeded tremendously.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Hardback247

Padme's death was supposed to be melodramatic. You know what, there seems to be a perception among latter-day Star Wars fans that the franchise is something meant to be taken completely seriously. It was always a pastiche of the cheesy, silly adventure serials of the ’30s and ’40s. Its titles were always meant to evoke their melodramatic bombast. It's as if they think it was meant to be some kind of sophisticated, pretentious drama rather than popcorn movies aimed at kids (“of all ages”).

Latter day? Hardly. I've been there from the very beginning.

And melodramatic could have been fine.

Melodramatic and ridiculous?

No so much.

[Caseyscott]

Originally Posted by octagon

Agreed. And I always kind of shake my head when people argue that changing this scene doesn't really change anything anyway because that just raises the question 'then why change it'.

It's certainly no more aesthetically pleasing. Quite the contrary.

So if there's no substantive change then what the hell was the point in the first place.

Agreed. I think he changed it because he decided he didn't want Han to be so cold blooded, but that was so paramount to his character arc that it completely diffuses what happens later in the film. He develops as a character by showing that he is more than just a hired gun. His character starts off as someone who is in a desperate situation and looking to do anything to get out. We actually believe there's a chance he doesn't come back and help in the end because of all the information we are given early in the story. But he's slowly being revealed as more than that and he is forced to make a big decision in the end (the crux of every character's development) and the pay off is emotionally rewarding.

[Hardback247]

Originally Posted by octagon

Latter day? Hardly. I've been there from the very beginning.

And melodramatic could have been fine.

Melodramatic and ridiculous?

No so much.

Believe it or not, this kind of so-called "ridiculous" plot device is Shakespearean. Broken heart deaths also happened in Antony and Cleopatra, Romeo and Juliet, and King Lear. I think you're taking Padmé's death too literally.

[Caseyscott]

Originally Posted by octagon

Latter day? Hardly. I've been there from the very beginning.

And melodramatic could have been fine.

Melodramatic and ridiculous?

No so much.

Right, melodrama and good storytelling do not have to be mutually exclusive.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Hardback247

Believe it or not, this kind of so-called "ridiculous" plot device is Shakespearean. Similar broken-hearted deaths happened in Antony and Cleopatra, and King Lear.

Did they suck too?

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Hardback247

I think you're taking Padmé's death too literally.

I'm not taking it literally, I'm taking it seriously.

She was an heroic character. She was a warrior and a leader. She had just given birth.

Having her 'lose the will to live' was not only completely unsatisfying from a dramatic perspective, it turned an awesome character into some sort of two-dimensional prop out of a bad Harlequin romance.

That was a horrible, horrible choice.

[Caseyscott]

Originally Posted by Hardback247

Believe it or not, this kind of so-called "ridiculous" plot device is Shakespearean. Broken heart deaths also happened in Antony and Cleopatra, Romeo and Juliet, and King Lear.

I don't think the plot device was necessarily bad, just how it was written. The OT has its fair share of cheese that's been muddled by nostalgia, but what it does well that the PT fails in doing is using those Shakespearean story building techniques to creating an engaging narrative. (Full disclosure: I'm not qualified to say which of those techniques (3 act drama, secondary character development, etc.,) are uniquely Shakespearean in origin, but they are utilized in an effective way however they came into being.

[Hardback247]

I just found about about this. Here's an interesting theory:

https://www.retrozap.com/padme-didnt...-broken-heart/

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Caseyscott

I don't think the plot device was necessarily bad, just how it was written.

Having her die in childbirth would have been sappy and cheesy no matter how it was written but it definitely could have worked. I mean, one of the reasons things become sappy and cheesy in the first place is because so many people use them and people use them because they work.

It's hard to remember my first impressions from my first viewing but I don't think they totally lost me until the 'will to live' bit. Up until then I think I was still pretty much on board.

Of course, they would have lost me anyway with that stupid Nooooo and Palpatine's moustache twirl but be that as it may

[Hardback247]

The dark side killed Padme. Her dying was part of Palpatine's ingenious plan. Otherwise, how else would he have known about it, when he told Vader?

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by octagon

I mean, if we can ignore the fact that nobody around Padme (and perhaps not even Padme herself) knew she was carrying twins then we can ignore pretty much anything, no?

Obi-Wan and Bail didn't know. Doesn't mean nobody else did. It was a secret & forbidden pregnancy after all.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Obi-Wan and Bail didn't know. Doesn't mean nobody else did. It was a secret & forbidden pregnancy after all.

I could talk myself into accepting that Yoda and Obi-wan and the rest of the Jedi had absolutely no idea Padme was carry little force-balls around inside her. It's a stretch but I suppose I could get there.

But Anakin didn't learn his wife was carrying midichlorian-packed twins until decades after the fact.

Sure, we could probably gin up some lame 'oh, they were blinded by the dark side' or 'his vision was obscured by his visions' or 'he wasn't that kind of force user' or 'she probably told him but men don't listen' rationalizations but that seems like a logical leap too far.

And like I said, if it were in service of a really cool resolution I might be willing to try.

But it wasn't so I'm not.

[Mighty Max]

Originally Posted by octagon

I could talk myself into accepting that Yoda and Obi-wan and the rest of the Jedi had absolutely no idea Padme was carry little force-balls around inside her. It's a stretch but I suppose I could get there.

But Anakin didn't learn his wife was carrying midichlorian-packed twins until decades after the fact.

Sure, we could probably gin up some lame 'oh, they were blinded by the dark side' or 'his vision was obscured by his visions' or 'he wasn't that kind of force user' or 'she probably told him but men don't listen' rationalizations but that seems like a logical leap too far.

And like I said, if it were in service of a really cool resolution I might be willing to try.

But it wasn't so I'm not.

Decades?
No. Padme' told anakin that she was pregnant.
Not even she knew she was having twins though.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Mighty Max

Decades?
No. Padme' told anakin that she was pregnant.

Decades. Yes.

He knew she was pregnant but didn't learn she was carrying two little bundles of potentially turnable joy until decades later.

Originally Posted by Mighty Max

Not even she knew she was having twins though.

Right. Because a galaxy with laser swords and hyperdrives probably hasn't mastered something as complex as an ultrasound.

This whole storyline is ridiculously implausible.

[Martoto]

Originally Posted by ElvisForever

Your real mom could mean the mom that took care of you.
.

I someone asks you to talk about your mother, they expect you to talk about the mother that raised you by default. They wouldn't specify "real mother" in order to get you to talk about the mother that raised, as opposed to some other mother.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re The sound mixes. According to Ben Burtt, the mono sound mix made for the wider release after the 70mm opening of each Star Wars film was the final mix. I gather that very few home releases ever featured this final mix ported over though. The blu rays have a "best of" mix from the 70mm, Dolby Matrix and Mono release mixes.