Badmovies.org Forum

Movies => Good Movies => Topic started by: Flick James on June 27, 2011, 12:46:15 PM



Title: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: Flick James on June 27, 2011, 12:46:15 PM
There seem to be a number of sites and articles out there that talk about plot holes and inconsistencies, particularly between Episodes IV-VI and the I-III prequels. I've always had a spot in my heart for the original trilogy, and can't stand, for the most part, the prequels. I've never bothered much about any inconsistencies with A New Hope, mainly because at the time it was being produced, there was a snowballs chance that there would ever be more than one movie.

I just recently started watching the original trilogy with my 3 1/2 year old son, who is getting hooked and asking to watch them again and again. Anyway, I noticed a plot inconsistency that I hadn't noticed before, and so far I haven't found any online articles about it.

It involved Return of the Jedi. In it, we see Luke reveal to Leia that she is his sister. Right before the revelation, he asks her if she remembers her mother. Leia relates that she has only very early memories where she is "beautiful, but sad." Luke, of course, has no recollection at all. This suggests pretty strongly that Luke was separated from his mother at birth, but that Leia at least spent enough time with her to have had some memory of her.

Yet, at the end of Revenge of the Sith, Padme is shown giving birth, naming them, and then immediately dying.

I personally despise the prequels and think they essentially took a huge dump on the original trilogy. I prefer to try not to even think about them.

What are some of the other plot holes between the two that get on your nerves?


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: venomx on June 27, 2011, 01:07:50 PM
In Episode II Attack of the Clones Anakin experienced haunting visions of his Mother being attacked by the Sand People BUT he was never there (it was just a vision) After finds that to be true, finds his Mother and he wipes out most of the Sand People in rage, so on...

Maybe thats what Leia was talking about. (maybe that was a vision of her Mother?)


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: indianasmith on June 27, 2011, 01:48:39 PM
Either that, or she was remembering Senator Organa's wife, her stepmother (she never knew she was adopted).


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: Flick James on June 27, 2011, 01:52:35 PM
In Episode II Attack of the Clones Anakin experienced haunting visions of his Mother being attacked by the Sand People BUT he was never there (it was just a vision) After finds that to be true, finds his Mother and he wipes out most of the Sand People in rage, so on...

Maybe thats what Leia was talking about. (maybe that was a vision of her Mother?)

Maybe. It just seems like a bit of a stretch. Besides, I prefer the notion that Leia had some sort of bond with her mother, even if it was short-lived. The prequels just kind of destroyed a lot of mystery of the original trilogy, and that's just one example.


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: Skull on June 27, 2011, 02:34:04 PM
Among all the plot holes... the most difficult for me to digest is C3-PO...


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: AndyC on June 27, 2011, 03:20:12 PM
As far as the birth of Luke and Leia goes, I can overlook just about everything, except the downright stupid idea of Padme "losing her will to live." Besides it being a lame cause of death, and her character suddenly going all soft and useless from one movie to the next, what about her two newborn children? Would they not maybe restore some of her will to live? The idea that her husband's corruption has caused her to die essentially of a broken heart is bad enough, but I can't buy that it hopelessly trumps the bond between mother and children.

As for inconsistencies between old and new, there are a few lines of dialogue in the original that sound a little odd when compared to the history established later. Such as Ben talking about Uncle Owen's concern that Luke would "follow old Obi-Wan off on some damn-fool idealistic crusade like his father." Or his opinion that Anakin should have "stayed home and not gotten involved." That doesn't make much sense when Owen and Anakin became stepbrothers years after Anakin left Tattooine, and barely knew each other.

Now, when Uncle Owen talks about his concerns about Luke being like his father, they actually make more sense. But Obi-Wan's account of events doesn't fit, unless he was trying to avoid telling Luke any more about his father than necessary, and stuck somewhat to the fictional biography Luke had grown up with.


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: Fausto on June 27, 2011, 05:09:26 PM
Now, when Uncle Owen talks about his concerns about Luke being like his father, they actually make more sense. But Obi-Wan's account of events doesn't fit, unless he was trying to avoid telling Luke any more about his father than necessary, and stuck somewhat to the fictional biography Luke had grown up with.


Everything Obi-Wan said was true...from a certain point of view.  :wink:


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: Criswell on June 27, 2011, 06:24:40 PM
The prequels really are a fun ruiner. In the Originals the Jedi were these mythical people who you knew next to nothing about aside from they use something called the force and they have lightsabers.

Then in the prequels we learn they enjoy solving tax disputes, Have midiclohirens(Yeah I probably spelled that wrong, but i'm not in the mood to look it up), and are hilariously stupid when it comes to investigating things, and are completely oblivious to the lord of the Sith living right under their noses. They really do take away from the originals. I mean you can try to push them out of your head as much as you like, but you'll always know that Darth Vader built C-3P0.


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: venomx on June 27, 2011, 06:37:30 PM
What I didn't like about Ep1 is WHY didn't Yoda or Mace pick up on young Anakin being evil right away! Like get rid of that thing! Kinda glad they did'nt though as I like Darth Vader the best...

Yoda: Finaly I did, but too late I was... Ehhhh, anyway.

The originals ARE the best I agree. I just didn't think Porken's was fit for that Xwing, thats' all...

(http://www.gifsoup.com/webroot/animatedgifs2/1424924_o.gif)


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: Criswell on June 27, 2011, 06:58:43 PM
I forgot one of the inconsistencies that i'm surprised haven't been mentioned

"I seem to remember owning a droid"

No you didn't have one.


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: WilliamWeird1313 on June 27, 2011, 08:30:23 PM


What are you guys TALKING about? There aren't any plot inconsistencies between episodes 1-3 and 4-6. George Lucas had ALL this stuff planned out THE WHOLE TIME, right from the beginning.

 :wink:



Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: Mr. DS on June 27, 2011, 09:06:53 PM
Either that, or she was remembering Senator Organa's wife, her stepmother (she never knew she was adopted).
Yep...maybe the senator's wife was very very sad.  

Plot loopholes in Star Wars........don't get me started.   I will say you can pretty much scrap all of the dialog between Obi Wan and Luke based on the prequels.  One of the top things that bothered me was Obi Wan saying something about he thought he could train Anakin better than Yoda.  I was always under the impression Vader was trained in private by Obiwan unknown to Yoda based on that statement.  Then we find out through the prequels that Yoda plays hardly a role in training Jedi, rather he leaves it up to the help.  Matter of fact Yoda seems to sit on his green @ss more than anything in the prequels.  

Another big part of the dialog that is lost in the prequels is Obiwan telling Luke that Vader hunted down and exterminated the remaining Jedi.   It seems to me all Vader did was kill a bunch of kids in the Jedi temple.  Much of the big names were taken out by Palpatine and the Clone Troopers.  

And yes...Vader building 3PO is just plain stupid.  You have to figure when he saw him in Bespin he would have confiscated him to try to at least try to read his memory. 


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: dean on June 28, 2011, 06:10:26 AM
As far as the birth of Luke and Leia goes, I can overlook just about everything, except the downright stupid idea of Padme "losing her will to live." Besides it being a lame cause of death, and her character suddenly going all soft and useless from one movie to the next, what about her two newborn children? Would they not maybe restore some of her will to live? The idea that her husband's corruption has caused her to die essentially of a broken heart is bad enough, but I can't buy that it hopelessly trumps the bond between mother and children.


I like the Dr Ball character in the Robot Chicken Star Wars who mocks that very notion.


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: Flick James on June 28, 2011, 08:38:20 AM
I made the enormous mistake of buying the 2004 release of the original trilogy that was enhanced to tie in with the prequels. What can I say? I didn't realize what I was buying at the time. The only one I can stomach is Empire because it is the least altered. Return of the Jedi is hideous. The complete reconfiguring of the band scene at Jabba's Palace is atrocious, and sticking Hayden Christensen (sic?) in at the end to show Anakin's spirit was unforgiveable.

I saw that there is a special edition of the original trilogy that contains both the 2004 abortion and the originals, completely unaltered. I must pick that up because I can't take the altered versions except for Empire.


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: Cthulhu on June 28, 2011, 09:08:45 AM
Remeber, when you think about the prequels:Don't.
Let's just pretend they never happened.


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: AndyC on June 28, 2011, 10:37:42 AM
And yes...Vader building 3PO is just plain stupid.  You have to figure when he saw him in Bespin he would have confiscated him to try to at least try to read his memory. 

The one thing I did like about the way they handled the droids was that it suggested R2-D2 knew everything the whole time. Which does fit with his behavior at the beginning of A New Hope.

And Anakin building 3P0 was at least consistent in that his memory was erased, and there are plenty of droids who look and behave just like him. Having him built by Anakin didn't work for me because it was an unlikely coincidence that didn't serve the plot in any way. Maybe it was supposed to be more interesting than having him just enter the story by doing his job, as they did with R2, but R2's first appearance worked fine, and 3P0's didn't.

Chewbacca was another one. He seemed to be a pretty high-ranking Wookie officer to be working with Yoda. Yet, in spite of his age, experience, knowledge, etc., he becomes a sidekick to Han Solo, who is younger and at least starts out kind of foolish and ignorant. And through the first three movies, he's essentially the muscle, and never shows more than average intelligence and a knack with machines. Now, I have read fan speculation that Chewbacca was working for the rebellion the whole time, and hooked up with Solo as the guy most likely to get Luke off Tattooine when the time came. But there are so many easier and more direct ways to do that.

That is my biggest problem with the prequels - the need to work everybody into the story. Completely ruins the idea of a band of unlikely heroes coming together by chance or by fate, when so many of them have some existing connection. I like the idea of Luke and Ben walking into a bar and hooking up with some unsavory pirate who turns out to be a good guy. It loses something if you know Solo's first mate fought with the Jedi in the Clone Wars, and might even have been there as Ben's contact. That also makes Han something of a patsy from the beginning.


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: Flick James on June 28, 2011, 10:50:05 AM
Remeber, when you think about the prequels:Don't.
Let's just pretend they never happened.
:thumbup: :cheers:


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: Flick James on June 28, 2011, 10:53:29 AM
Quote
That is my biggest problem with the prequels - the need to work everybody into the story.

Well, that's the problem with prequels to begin with. The Star Wars prequels had a cool scene here and there, but essentially took a giant dump on anything that made the original trilogy cool in the first place. Like Cthulu said, it's best to just pretend they didn't happen.


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: AndyC on June 28, 2011, 11:06:13 AM
On the other hand, the Star Wars prequels are among the funniest things Rifftrax has done. Especially Episode 3. Hilarious.


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: Mr. DS on June 28, 2011, 11:19:00 AM
I made the enormous mistake of buying the 2004 release of the original trilogy that was enhanced to tie in with the prequels. What can I say? I didn't realize what I was buying at the time. The only one I can stomach is Empire because it is the least altered. Return of the Jedi is hideous. The complete reconfiguring of the band scene at Jabba's Palace is atrocious, and sticking Hayden Christensen (sic?) in at the end to show Anakin's spirit was unforgiveable.
The whole Jabba scene was indeed an autrocity.  It literally killed the coolness of Boba Fett in one second, referring to when he is flirting with the backup singers.  Jesus H Lucas you are a moron at times!  Boba Fett ladies man, give me a break.  The whole remixed song number too was just friggin' lame. Another idiotic attempt to have another stupid comedic character enter the plot.  

Hayden's ghost ruined a tearful moment for me at the end of that film.  Anakin became one with the force again right before dying hence his ghost being older makes much more sense.  

Quote
Chewbacca was another one. He seemed to be a pretty high-ranking Wookie officer to be working with Yoda. Yet, in spite of his age, experience, knowledge, etc., he becomes a sidekick to Han Solo, who is younger and at least starts out kind of foolish and ignorant. And through the first three movies, he's essentially the muscle, and never shows more than average intelligence and a knack with machines. Now, I have read fan speculation that Chewbacca was working for the rebellion the whole time, and hooked up with Solo as the guy most likely to get Luke off Tattooine when the time came. But there are so many easier and more direct ways to do that.

Chewy had a Wookie life debt to Solo because he saved his life.   When the life debt started isn't exactly clear.  I heard there was supposed to be a young Solo hanging in Kasyyk in ROTS that was written out.  


Quote
That is my biggest problem with the prequels - the need to work everybody into the story. Completely ruins the idea of a band of unlikely heroes coming together by chance or by fate, when so many of them have some existing connection. I like the idea of Luke and Ben walking into a bar and hooking up with some unsavory pirate who turns out to be a good guy.

Which brings me to another thing I hate that Lucas did.  Although he later found his role as a leader, Solo was a scumbag in ANH. The whole Greedo shooting first thing is dumb.  Han shot first.




Title: Star Wars
Post by: Trevor on June 28, 2011, 01:21:45 PM
The biggest plothole is that we never find out if that head banger soldier was ever given an aspirin. : wink :


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: Criswell on June 28, 2011, 01:56:24 PM
I know this sounds like complete blasphemy, but I actually like the 2004 special edition of Empire Strikes back. Don't get me wrong Star wars and Return of the Jedi's special editions are horrid. But the Empire Strikes back one actually does some decent things to the movie and doesn't do anything outrageously dumb.


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: AndyC on June 28, 2011, 02:47:10 PM
Chewy had a Wookie life debt to Solo because he saved his life.   When the life debt started isn't exactly clear.  

I'd read that somewhere too. Still, you'd think with Chewy's age and military background, he'd be more than a big, hairy goon. I don't know, maybe a brilliant Wookie leader only has the intelligence of an average human. Or it might just be that they stuck things in the prequels that seemed cool, but didn't think enough about their implications for the earlier stories.


Quote
Which brings me to another thing I hate that Lucas did.  Although he later found his role as a leader, Solo was a scumbag in ANH. The whole Greedo shooting first thing is dumb.  Han shot first.

Yeah. I thought the whole point was that his association with Luke, Leia and Ben made him question his priorities and see the good in himself he'd been trying to deny all along. Han's transformation from hardened criminal to caring hero fits very nicely with the theme of redemption that becomes so important to the original trilogy. It parallels the balance of the force tipping back from dark to light, not to mention Vader's own redemption later on. That's what seems so bloody ridiculous. Vader can slaughter innocent people left and right, but ultimately decide to be a good person in the end. That's come to be what the entire series is about - Vader's fall and redemption. But Han can't gun down one fellow criminal in cold blood, in an act of self-preservation, because he throws in with the good guys relatively soon and can't set too bad an example. Is Lucas' big message not that there's good in everyone, and you can find heroes in the least likely of places?


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: bob on June 28, 2011, 06:07:52 PM
The Jedi say that only the Sith deal in absolutes, yet the Jedi also deal in absolutes.

In Episode 4 the lightsaber given to Luke was "from his father" which is a lie.


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: Mr. DS on June 28, 2011, 07:30:54 PM
The Jedi say that only the Sith deal in absolutes, yet the Jedi also deal in absolutes.

In Episode 4 the lightsaber given to Luke was "from his father" which is a lie.
Actually Obi Wan did snatch up Anakin's Lightsaber in ROTS.  So...and damn you Obi Wan you're right again...from a certain point of view its right.  Perhaps that's Lucas's catch all, that quote from Obi Wan.  From a certain point of view Anakin hunted down and killed the Jedi.  Um wait, thats not true at all still.   :bouncegiggle:

Quote
I'd read that somewhere too. Still, you'd think with Chewy's age and military background, he'd be more than a big, hairy goon. I don't know, maybe a brilliant Wookie leader only has the intelligence of an average human. Or it might just be that they stuck things in the prequels that seemed cool, but didn't think enough about their implications for the earlier stories.
I've always assumed his kind were forced into slavery by the Empire.  Oh wait, they were alive and still living on Kasyyk during the Xmas Special.   :bouncegiggle:

The whole Order 66 thing kind of hits me as odd based souly on the Clone War cartoons.  The Clones in that one kind of develop personality and caring thoughts.  But yet they don't seem to care when the order is given.  Maybe its a hypnotic mind control thing they installed down at the clone plant.  Its yet another thing Lucas has given us to wonder about.

Oh and the ability to see dead Jedis.  Whats up with that?  How come Luke and Yoda can but all others seem to lack that aspect?  That would make people dying kind of less stressing.  You'd seem them in their glowy form eventually.


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: SPazzo on June 28, 2011, 07:58:06 PM
Return of the Jedi is hideous. The complete reconfiguring of the band scene at Jabba's Palace is atrocious, and sticking Hayden Christensen (sic?) in at the end to show Anakin's spirit was unforgiveable.



Also, in the end when the people of Naboo are tearing down that statue of the Emperor (?) you can see and hear Jar Jar Binks yelling in the crowd if you look closely.

Quote
In the Naboo celebration scene inserted into the end of the 2004-version of Return of the Jedi, several Gungans are seen taking part in the celebrations. One Gungan can be heard shouting "Wesa free!".

-Source (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Jar_Jar_Binks#Jar_Jar.27s_fate)

Don't you just wanna give George Lucas a big bear hug right now?  :evilgrin:


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: WingedSerpent on June 28, 2011, 08:26:01 PM
For me, any nitpicking about Star Wars-the prequels became obsolete once Plinkett was done with his reviews.


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: AndyC on June 28, 2011, 08:32:07 PM
From a certain point of view Anakin hunted down and killed the Jedi.  Um wait, thats not true at all still.   :bouncegiggle:

If I remember correctly, he said that Anakin helped the emperor to hunt down the Jedi. That could be true, from a certain point of view.


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: Flick James on June 30, 2011, 10:38:54 AM
Here's another one that bugs me.

So, after all but two of the jedi are destroyed, Yoda and Obi-Wan go into hiding, and while they're at it, they take Leia and Luke into hiding. Leia is adopted and assumes the name Organa rather than Skywalker. However, Luke is taken to live with his uncle under the name Skywalker. How dumb is that? They conceal Leia pretty well, but they take Luke and have him live with the same family that his father had grown up with, and use the name Skywalker. It just doesn't seem like there were trying to hard in Luke's case to hide his identity.


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: AndyC on June 30, 2011, 10:48:05 AM
Here's another one that bugs me.

So, after all but two of the jedi are destroyed, Yoda and Obi-Wan go into hiding, and while they're at it, they take Leia and Luke into hiding. Leia is adopted and assumes the name Organa rather than Skywalker. However, Luke is taken to live with his uncle under the name Skywalker. How dumb is that? They conceal Leia pretty well, but they take Luke and have him live with the same family that his father had grown up with, and use the name Skywalker. It just doesn't seem like there were trying to hard in Luke's case to hide his identity.

I can see why Vader wouldn't go back to Tattooine, since it has bad associations for him and he hates sand. His stepbrother and the farm have no other significance to him. So Luke was safe there. But why they didn't adopt him outright and change his name to Lars, given the circumstances, I have no idea. They were taking a huge and unnecessary risk. Again, just Lucas thinking of stuff later on and trying to fit it into his original story without entirely succeeding.


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: Skull on June 30, 2011, 11:12:35 AM
Oh Flick James, your hurting your brain.

Originally, Luke was supose to be Vaders son and in Star Wars they were supose to battle in the Death Star. Although, most Star Wars fans keep forgetting that George Lukas has rewritten the script several times before the final version.

I believe George droped the idea of Father vs Son and decided to cook a revenge tale of the boy vs the man that killed his father... And I do believe in the rewrite Luke and Leia was supose to fall in love.

Although I do recall most of the girls liking Han over Luke and Harrison Ford started to emerge into a very successful actor, so in part 2 the script was writen for Han to fall in love with Leia. I also believe the concept of boy vs the man that killed his dad begin to work its way into that man is my father! A twist that shocks most Star Wars fans, especially since we didnt have such sorces as the internet.

The plot hole from this point... is the Skywalker/Tatooine... If Darth Vader was actually Lukes father it would be smarter for him to scoop up his kid when he was young and convert him into the darkside... But instead of doing all that we tend to forgive the plot hole with the concept of space coolness and Darth Vader is too buisy in ruling the stars to worrie about his almost forgotten son... And remember the story then suggests he always knew he had a son.

The twist between Luke and Leia was cooked up in part 3... I believe since the "I'm your father" was such a hit that George and company decides to repeat themselves once more and make Leia his sister... [there could be several reasons why, but I feel the intent was aimed towards the chemistry of Han and Leia and it was felt that Luke's character is hinder by the romance]

This plot hole becomes bothersome by most fans that kept the storyline seriously since Darth Vader stars to assume the ability to recongnize his sons presence, then Star Wars fans start questing why didnt Vader realize Leia was his daughter in Star Wars... it's quite easy to understand why he didnt notice Luke because Obi-Wan was in the area and it was then assumed that maybe he did something to mask Luke. But Leia was another story.


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: Bmeansgood on June 30, 2011, 09:18:14 PM
Here's another one that bugs me.

So, after all but two of the jedi are destroyed, Yoda and Obi-Wan go into hiding, and while they're at it, they take Leia and Luke into hiding. Leia is adopted and assumes the name Organa rather than Skywalker. However, Luke is taken to live with his uncle under the name Skywalker. How dumb is that? They conceal Leia pretty well, but they take Luke and have him live with the same family that his father had grown up with, and use the name Skywalker. It just doesn't seem like there were trying to hard in Luke's case to hide his identity.

there wasn't really much of a reason to hide them.  Obi Wan left Anakin for dead and as far as Anakin knew he accidentally killed Padme and his own kids.


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: Mr. DS on July 01, 2011, 06:48:38 AM
Here's another one that bugs me.

So, after all but two of the jedi are destroyed, Yoda and Obi-Wan go into hiding, and while they're at it, they take Leia and Luke into hiding. Leia is adopted and assumes the name Organa rather than Skywalker. However, Luke is taken to live with his uncle under the name Skywalker. How dumb is that? They conceal Leia pretty well, but they take Luke and have him live with the same family that his father had grown up with, and use the name Skywalker. It just doesn't seem like there were trying to hard in Luke's case to hide his identity.

there wasn't really much of a reason to hide them.  Obi Wan left Anakin for dead and as far as Anakin knew he accidentally killed Padme and his own kids.
Kind of my initial reaction too.  Skull also brings up some good points about massive Lucas plot holes.  Though the Leia/Luke plot twist kind of began at the end of ESB with Luke using the Force to contact Leia. 


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: Skull on July 01, 2011, 09:52:04 AM
Here's another one that bugs me.

So, after all but two of the jedi are destroyed, Yoda and Obi-Wan go into hiding, and while they're at it, they take Leia and Luke into hiding. Leia is adopted and assumes the name Organa rather than Skywalker. However, Luke is taken to live with his uncle under the name Skywalker. How dumb is that? They conceal Leia pretty well, but they take Luke and have him live with the same family that his father had grown up with, and use the name Skywalker. It just doesn't seem like there were trying to hard in Luke's case to hide his identity.

there wasn't really much of a reason to hide them.  Obi Wan left Anakin for dead and as far as Anakin knew he accidentally killed Padme and his own kids.
Kind of my initial reaction too.  Skull also brings up some good points about massive Lucas plot holes.  Though the Leia/Luke plot twist kind of began at the end of ESB with Luke using the Force to contact Leia.  

Or as Yoda said to Obi-Wan's ghost "there's another."

Although at the end of Empire, Luke was calling for help so was seen as he was using his Jedi powers to contact Leia. Sure the intent could of made Leia into Lukes sister at that point, but Leia was also captured by Vader for a second time. So you would think Vader would sense that Leia is a jedi or his daughter at the second time, especially since Vader starts to show his uncanning ability to sense his son's existance... And thru the prequel's the Jedi's seem to have an uncanning ability to sense each other or recognize those with the ability to become Jedi's (some silly blood cell theory)

Oddly, it also seems from the start of Empire Vader was on a mission to capture Luke.

Quote from: Opening crawl
The evil lord Darth Vader, obsessed with finding young Skywalker, has dispatched thousands of remote probes into the far reaches of space….

This doesnt seems so bad at first because we believe Vader is out to stop Luke from his revenge, then it seem to change as a new plot evolves into trapping Luke and convert him into the darkside, then later it becomes that Luke is actually Vader's son... Which doesnt actually becomes the problem. There is a billion upon billion of planets so Luke could be hiding anywhere.

The problem starts when we discover Vader was born in Tatooine, when it was shown in Episode One: Anakin The Menance... and suddenly rewatching Star Wars takes a new dirction... "So Vader knows Luke is his son and he was living with his family from Tatooine then why was Vader so stupid in not collecting his son from the start?" Yep, Vader looks stupid in Star War and quite foolish in Empire since he doesnt seem to know who is C3-PO...

Outch! the prequels hurt my brain...






Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: Flick James on July 01, 2011, 10:22:02 AM
Here's another one that bugs me.

So, after all but two of the jedi are destroyed, Yoda and Obi-Wan go into hiding, and while they're at it, they take Leia and Luke into hiding. Leia is adopted and assumes the name Organa rather than Skywalker. However, Luke is taken to live with his uncle under the name Skywalker. How dumb is that? They conceal Leia pretty well, but they take Luke and have him live with the same family that his father had grown up with, and use the name Skywalker. It just doesn't seem like there were trying to hard in Luke's case to hide his identity.

there wasn't really much of a reason to hide them.  Obi Wan left Anakin for dead and as far as Anakin knew he accidentally killed Padme and his own kids.
Kind of my initial reaction too.  Skull also brings up some good points about massive Lucas plot holes.  Though the Leia/Luke plot twist kind of began at the end of ESB with Luke using the Force to contact Leia.  

Or as Yoda said to Obi-Wan's ghost "there's another."

Although at the end of Empire, Luke was calling for help so was seen as he was using his Jedi powers to contact Leia. Sure the intent could of made Leia into Lukes sister at that point, but Leia was also captured by Vader for a second time. So you would think Vader would sense that Leia is a jedi or his daughter at the second time, especially since Vader starts to show his uncanning ability to sense his son's existance... And thru the prequel's the Jedi's seem to have an uncanning ability to sense each other or recognize those with the ability to become Jedi's (some silly blood cell theory)

Oddly, it also seems from the start of Empire Vader was on a mission to capture Luke.

Quote from: Opening crawl
The evil lord Darth Vader, obsessed with finding young Skywalker, has dispatched thousands of remote probes into the far reaches of space….

This doesnt seems so bad at first because we believe Vader is out to stop Luke from his revenge, then it seem to change as a new plot evolves into trapping Luke and convert him into the darkside, then later it becomes that Luke is actually Vader's son... Which doesnt actually becomes the problem. There is a billion upon billion of planets so Luke could be hiding anywhere.

The problem starts when we discover Vader was born in Tatooine, when it was shown in Episode One: Anakin The Menance... and suddenly rewatching Star Wars takes a new dirction... "So Vader knows Luke is his son and he was living with his family from Tatooine then why was Vader so stupid in not collecting his son from the start?" Yep, Vader looks stupid in Star War and quite foolish in Empire since he doesnt seem to know who is C3-PO...

Outch! the prequels hurt my brain...






And you said I was hurting MY brain. Yeesh.  :teddyr:


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: Skull on July 01, 2011, 11:22:13 AM
~rant warning~
~rant warning~
~rant warning~

I wish I wasnt so forced into looking deeply into the Star Wars franchise, I'm not even sure where I can point my finger. I would partly blame the movie critics since every space move that came out after Star Wars (1977) was consider inferior because of the plotting and special effects. And then again it took over 20 freaking years for the prequels to come out.

If I had 10 million dollars, 20 years to write a script and a respectable fan base... Crap I'd be writing one hell of a masterpiece...

Instead, George Lucas ends up producing a move that was inspired from the success of Home Alone. Freaking Home Alone! Gee! (actually worse... the pod race almost looked like something inspired from The Little Rascals (1994) )

And then we must believe that little Anakin...who save the ass of everybody that was stuck on Tatooine (because it was him and only him that won the pod race) and then he and only he stoped the robot army attack... and knowing Padmé character tends not to follow any rules... so what reward is Anakin given for his deeds... Jack! And we must believe that his mother was still a slave... Gee you would think Padmé could spend a few pennies; least free the kids mother from slavery.

But no and it becomes the fuel of Anakins anger...

Like I said many times before: if George written that Padmé was a plot from the darkside and revealed it in Episode III we would be saying how great the prequels is... but George fails and so did the prequels.


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: Mr. DS on July 01, 2011, 11:51:44 AM
^  Agreed on many points.   George Lucas suffers from a few different things as an artist.  The first and foremost being the complete lack of focus on worthwhile plot points and characters.  Most of the whole Episode 1 foolishness SHOULD have been wrapped up in an opening scroll.  

Quote
A trade federation attempted to overtake the once peaceful city of Queen Amidala.  During Queen Amidala's escape her Jedi protectors found a young boy who harnessed great strength in the Force named Anakin.  Upon return to Amidala's return to her home planet the Jedi's came across an evil Sith Lord.  


This is where we join up with Qui Gon and Obi Wan taking on Darth Maul. Now you have two hours to fill of decent action and characer development.  We didn't need the damn "Lil Annie" hyjynks and no Star Wars fan wanted it!  After we lose Qui Gon we could have fast forwarded into Anakin dealing with some anger issues but let him get over that crap by the second one.  Then let the unfortunate events surround him (death of mother, girlfriend, loss of friends) turn him to the dark side.   One day he just cracks and kills a bunch of people out of pressure.  But alas, it didn't happen that way.   How can I feel bad for Anakin when he was a whiny little beeyotch.  

George also created a bad situation for Jedis.  They honestly kind of come off as wimpy.  Every time they take on a Sith Lord they have to outnumber them and often still lose! 

George can say all he wants how "Star Wars is for kids" but has this guy even looked at his fan base???



Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: Flick James on July 01, 2011, 12:20:59 PM
Quote
George can say all he wants how "Star Wars is for kids" but has this guy even looked at his fan base???

Perhaps one of the simplest and finest points made thus far, DS. George Lucas simply lost his edge in the years between these two trilogies. What we're left with is a sad attempt to tie in to the original trilogy laced with the likes of Jar Jar Binks. I mean, it's not like GL couldn't write meaningful dialogue before. The romantic tension between Han and Leia was perfectly believable and natural, yet when you hear the horrid dialogue between Anakin and Padme it's like nails on a chalkboard. What the hell happened? It's like he's trying to make a Disney film and doesn't know how.


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: AndyC on July 01, 2011, 01:16:39 PM
...when you hear the horrid dialogue between Anakin and Padme it's like nails on a chalkboard.
"Hold me, like you did by the lake on Naboo." :bouncegiggle:


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: Mr. DS on July 01, 2011, 01:49:23 PM
...when you hear the horrid dialogue between Anakin and Padme it's like nails on a chalkboard.
"Hold me, like you did by the lake on Naboo." :bouncegiggle:
Oh Annie...

Which brings me to this...there are some very important things Lucas needed to establish in the prequels.  #1 Anakin's fall to the Dark Side...it came off as simply stupid and unbelievable.  I actually would have bought it more if Anakin flipped a coin.  FAIL

Secondly, we need to believe that Anakin and Padme had the love of a lifetime.  A love that ends up costing him too much in the end.  Their romance once again...stupid and unbelievable.  Anakin carries a hard on for her since he call her an "angel" (groans.......) on Tatoonie.  Thus this boyhood crush leads into his teenage years.  They spend a weekend on Naboo and then she gives it up to him after being in a death arena.  FAIL

Lastly, the rise of the Emperor which was mildly pulled off somewhere in the background behind Jar Jar, Annie and the other horsesh!t.   Its almost as if it were a subplot thrown in for the heck of it.  However, and disagree with me if you want, it IS the story.  Anakin's rise, fall and redemption to me is simply a silly thing to base this whole thing around.  For me its about fun characters and intergalatic warfare.  What lil Annie is feeling inside I could have given a frog's fat @ss for in the long run.  So once again..........FAIL


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: Fausto on July 01, 2011, 10:42:57 PM
I mean, it's not like GL couldn't write meaningful dialogue before.


Actually, from what I've heard, its a lot like that. Its quite arguable that the reason the original trilogy turned out as good as it did was because Lucas was surrounded by people who could reign in his bs, including his ex-wife, and as the link below indicates, his actors. The real problem with George is that he actually believes himself to be an incredible visionary whose ideas are perfect, forgetting or ignoring those who steered him in the right direction.

http://geektwins.blogspot.com/2010/11/harrison-ford-george-lucas-writes-bleep.html


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: 66Crush on July 01, 2011, 11:05:23 PM
I'll tell you what bugs me, if Yoda is such a bad ass, why did he hide from Vader and the Empire all of these years?  If Anakin was the most powerful Jedi ever, then why did he loose the battle with Obi-Wan? This one answers itself: If Anakin is the most powerful Jedi ever why did it take both him and the Emporor to destroy Mace? Answer: Samuel L. Jackson is such an over-rated ego maniac that he bullied Lucas into writing Mace as the "FAKE" bad ass he always plays. And the thing that bugs me most, why did they get a wuss like Hayden Christensen to play the biggest bad ass in sci-fi history and turn him into a big F'N p***y?


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: AndyC on July 02, 2011, 07:25:50 AM
Which brings me to this...there are some very important things Lucas needed to establish in the prequels.  #1 Anakin's fall to the Dark Side...it came off as simply stupid and unbelievable.  I actually would have bought it more if Anakin flipped a coin.  FAIL

He went too far too fast. One minute he's worried about his wife and kind of disgruntled, and the next he's completely bought into the Sith point of view and prepared to do anything the emperor asks.

I know he slaughtered a whole village of Sand People earlier, but even that seemed a huge leap, regardless of what the circumstances were. And so little was made of it afterward. He commits an act of mass murder that would indicate some serious mental instability on his part, and Padme might as well have responded with "Oh you poor thing." And then later on it's a big shock when he goes over to the Dark Side.

Anakin's basically been a troubled good guy all along, who does nothing wrong most of the time, but suddenly turns into a homicidal maniac on a couple of occasions. Kevin Murphy put it really well on Rifftrax, when Anakin leads the assault on the Jedi temple. "Wow, from noble Jedi to child murderer without even some cheque kiting as a warmup."


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: RD on July 03, 2011, 08:00:39 AM
Have to go with the obvious, all the smooching between Luke and Leia before the end of Return of the Jedi.

"I've had all 6 of these stories planned out from the beginning!" No, you didn't.


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: 66Crush on July 03, 2011, 11:57:17 PM
Vader building C3-PO was a shark jumping moment. Leia being Luke's sister was the only weak moment in the original  "Return of the Jedi." And by original I don't mean the special edition with "Jumper" Boy's face CGI'd over Sebastian Shaw's Anakin.


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: RD on July 04, 2011, 06:18:06 AM
I also hated the ewoks. I know they're meant to represent nature dominating technology, but man are they annoying. It's sad to hear they were wedged in for their cute factor and marketability, replacing an army of Wookies.

Who couldn't get behind a bunch of wookies tearing storm troopers' arms out of sockets?


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: Skull on July 04, 2011, 06:56:33 AM
I'd never liked the ewoks either, also at the time Star Wars was making a butt load of money with thier toys. The Ewoks was purly a marketing choice to enter a line of toys that would be aimed towards girls (similar to the success of carebears).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPllh36-38c


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: Mr. DS on July 04, 2011, 06:59:16 AM
^ I...um...had one of those... :bluesad:


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: Mr. DS on July 04, 2011, 07:01:51 AM
Have to go with the obvious, all the smooching between Luke and Leia before the end of Return of the Jedi.

"I've had all 6 of these stories planned out from the beginning!" No, you didn't.
Funny how we've neglected one of the most obvious plot consitencies in this thread until the third page.  Yep, thats just creepy...incest is best in a galaxy far far away apparently.


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: ghouck on July 04, 2011, 11:17:37 PM
The Jedi say that only the Sith deal in absolutes, yet the Jedi also deal in absolutes.

In Episode 4 the lightsaber given to Luke was "from his father" which is a lie.
Actually Obi Wan did snatch up Anakin's Lightsaber in ROTS.  So...and damn you Obi Wan you're right again...from a certain point of view its right.

But that still leaves the "You father wanted you to have this" lie intact.


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: ghouck on July 04, 2011, 11:26:07 PM
There's also Luke and his light saber in the snow cave, moving it with teh force after no training?


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: Flick James on July 05, 2011, 09:17:18 AM
Have to go with the obvious, all the smooching between Luke and Leia before the end of Return of the Jedi.

"I've had all 6 of these stories planned out from the beginning!" No, you didn't.

Personally I think SW super fans created that myth and George Lucas started to believe it.


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: AndyC on July 06, 2011, 01:26:22 PM
Just thought I'd post this for the hell of it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NalOGLYXzwY&feature=related

Whoever cut this together missed a couple of my favourite riffs though:

Yoda: I hope right you are.
Mike: Or else predicate will I put before subject and gibberish shall I spout.
Kevin: True that is, Mike. An idiot sounds he like.
Bill: And yet by many sci-fi geeks beloved he is, though Muppet he is also, and tiring his use of anastrophe is.
Mike: Also true that is. Annoying it very is. Off it pi$$es me.

Palpatine: Henceforth, you shall be known as Darth....
Kevin (as Palpatine): Pumpkin. No, wait.
Palpatine:...Vader.
Kevin: Nah, don't like that either. What about Darth Timberlake?

(Anakin is fighting with Dooku)
Kevin: This reminds me of the time my brother and I got slapped around by George Burns.
Mike: Yeah, a couple of my buddies and I got pummelled by Burgess Meredith once. He was brutal.
Bill: That's nothing. My whole wrestling team once got the living crap beaten out of us by Eli Wallach!  He put a few of us in the hospital!

(Anakin defeats Dooku)
Kevin: Spare me, and a gently-used palantir is yours.

(Anakin is about to slice off Dooku's head)
Bill: You'll get Dooku all over your hands.

And while Mace Windu battles Palpatine, Mike shows Kevin and Bill how to make a delicious and simple spread using roasted red peppers. (I actually tried making it myself. Wasn't bad.)


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: Fausto on July 06, 2011, 04:34:57 PM
The Jedi say that only the Sith deal in absolutes, yet the Jedi also deal in absolutes.

In Episode 4 the lightsaber given to Luke was "from his father" which is a lie.
Actually Obi Wan did snatch up Anakin's Lightsaber in ROTS.  So...and damn you Obi Wan you're right again...from a certain point of view its right.

But that still leaves the "You father wanted you to have this" lie intact.

Not necessarily, Vader did want Luke to have the lightsaber, but Obi-wan never said how Vader wanted him to use it, which was ruling the galaxy rather than being a jedi. That, or "the good man that was his father" would have wanted him to have it.  The certain point of view strikes again!


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: ghouck on July 06, 2011, 11:49:28 PM
The Jedi say that only the Sith deal in absolutes, yet the Jedi also deal in absolutes.

In Episode 4 the lightsaber given to Luke was "from his father" which is a lie.
Actually Obi Wan did snatch up Anakin's Lightsaber in ROTS.  So...and damn you Obi Wan you're right again...from a certain point of view its right.

But that still leaves the "You father wanted you to have this" lie intact.

Not necessarily, Vader did want Luke to have the lightsaber, but Obi-wan never said how Vader wanted him to use it, which was ruling the galaxy rather than being a jedi. That, or "the good man that was his father" would have wanted him to have it.  The certain point of view strikes again!

I don't remember dad saying that, had to be in ROTS, I watched it once and never cared to again.


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: ghouck on July 06, 2011, 11:53:26 PM
Have to go with the obvious, all the smooching between Luke and Leia before the end of Return of the Jedi.

"I've had all 6 of these stories planned out from the beginning!" No, you didn't.

Personally I think SW super fans created that myth and George Lucas started to believe it.

Yea, back then it was also said that He had #s 7, 8, & 9 written as well. I wish the prequels and the SEs were never made, then I could just enjoy the original 3 without knowing that most of what I like about the series were things that didn't go the way Lucas had planned. He literally stumbled into success. 


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: Skull on July 07, 2011, 06:57:46 AM
He literally stumbled into success. 

I dont believe that. He was consider a success for American Graffiti. If Star Wars failed, he'll be directing More American Graffiti or working on simular projects. Although, THX 1138 has been seen as a cult film in the 1980's (especially towards the punks) so it's likely George would be attempting to make another version of THX 1138 in the 1990's.

Also, George was good friends with Francis Ford Coppola since he had a stronger faith with THX so I wouldnt be surprise that he may ask George to help direct Apocalypse Now.

Although if Star Wars did fail I wonder how long would it take for a summer movie concept? (although another topic)


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: Mr. DS on July 07, 2011, 07:36:59 AM
He literally stumbled into success.

I dont believe that. He was consider a success for American Graffiti. If Star Wars failed, he'll be directing More American Graffiti or working on simular projects. Although, THX 1138 has been seen as a cult film in the 1980's (especially towards the punks) so it's likely George would be attempting to make another version of THX 1138 in the 1990's.

Also, George was good friends with Francis Ford Coppola since he had a stronger faith with THX so I wouldnt be surprise that he may ask George to help direct Apocalypse Now.

Although if Star Wars did fail I wonder how long would it take for a summer movie concept? (although another topic)

Agreed though I really feel ANH was lightning in a bottle for Georgie.  He didn't have the best script in the world, matter of fact the dialog was quite atrocious in parts.  The storyline had been done many times before, see Flash Gordon.  However, George gave us characters and great action sequences which made up the difference.  You wanted the action figures so you could "be" Obi Wan and Vader dueling.  Sadly this proved to be a huge downfall for the franchise come ROTJ.  It was more about marketing than what made the films great.  Though I will say ROTJ did have good action sequences.  However, the Ewoks are what stick out about that film and get hammered into our heads.

Then by the prequels, George seemed to honestly think he was a great script writer.  Nope........I don't buy the whole "planned out" thing either btw. Maybe there was an idea or two but not a plan.  It shows on screen.


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: Flick James on July 07, 2011, 08:28:26 AM
Have to go with the obvious, all the smooching between Luke and Leia before the end of Return of the Jedi.

"I've had all 6 of these stories planned out from the beginning!" No, you didn't.

Personally I think SW super fans created that myth and George Lucas started to believe it.

Yea, back then it was also said that He had #s 7, 8, & 9 written as well. I wish the prequels and the SEs were never made, then I could just enjoy the original 3 without knowing that most of what I like about the series were things that didn't go the way Lucas had planned. He literally stumbled into success. 

You know, I remember all that talk about there being a 7-9. I've always believed that fans are who really created the prequels. I'm not saying that GL didn't have basic ideas in mind about preceding events, but I'm much more convinced that they were VERY basic, like not much more developed than what was already revealed in the original trilogy. I mean, you have a movie that starts out with the words Episode III, and concepts built up about preceding events, and a series of films that became legendary, so naturally the superfans are going to create the mythos themselves and GL, once CGI became available and he didn't have to go to Africa or Norway for location shooting anymore in order to make a movie, now you have the prequels.

Oh well, we could go on and on about it. Some say it's hard to erase the damage done by the prequels, but I'm finding that I can manage to watch the originals and still appreciate them.


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: AndyC on July 07, 2011, 08:47:22 AM
He literally stumbled into success.

I dont believe that. He was consider a success for American Graffiti. If Star Wars failed, he'll be directing More American Graffiti or working on simular projects. Although, THX 1138 has been seen as a cult film in the 1980's (especially towards the punks) so it's likely George would be attempting to make another version of THX 1138 in the 1990's.

Also, George was good friends with Francis Ford Coppola since he had a stronger faith with THX so I wouldnt be surprise that he may ask George to help direct Apocalypse Now.

Although if Star Wars did fail I wonder how long would it take for a summer movie concept? (although another topic)

Agreed though I really feel ANH was lightning in a bottle for Georgie.  He didn't have the best script in the world, matter of fact the dialog was quite atrocious in parts.  The storyline had been done many times before, see Flash Gordon.  However, George gave us characters and great action sequences which made up the difference.  You wanted the action figures so you could "be" Obi Wan and Vader dueling.  Sadly this proved to be a huge downfall for the franchise come ROTJ.  It was more about marketing than what made the films great.  Though I will say ROTJ did have good action sequences.  However, the Ewoks are what stick out about that film and get hammered into our heads.

Then by the prequels, George seemed to honestly think he was a great script writer.  Nope........I don't buy the whole "planned out" thing either btw. Maybe there was an idea or two but not a plan.  It shows on screen.

Star Wars brought new special effects techniques to the screen, and higher production values than had previously been seen in space movies, on a scale not previously seen. It had eye candy and attention to detail that surpassed 2001: A Space Odyssey, with lots of action and adventure, and a rousing score by John Williams. I think we forget that this was less than a decade after movies like Green Slime and Mars Needs Women. The technology behind moviemaking began growing by leaps and bounds in the 70s, and the industry was just beginning to see science fiction as more than kids' stuff, and worth putting some effort into. Movies in general were typically smaller and cheaper before the 70s. After Spielberg's Jaws ushered in the blockbuster era just two years before the release of Star Wars, kicking off an annual competition to make the big summer "event" movie that continues today. It could also be argued that after Vietnam, Watergate, etc., and the often darker movies the early 70s, people were looking for a movie like Star Wars.

Much of Star Wars' success is a result of it being made in the mid to late 1970s, when conditions were just right, in terms of technology, the industry and the filmgoing public. Earlier, and it might not have looked as good, or gotten the backing it needed. Later, and we might already have been dazzled by some other movie, and not found it as novel or impressive. It was the right movie at the right time.


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: Skull on July 07, 2011, 12:19:47 PM
Star Wars brought new special effects techniques to the screen, and higher production values than had previously been seen in space movies, on a scale not previously seen. It had eye candy and attention to detail that surpassed 2001: A Space Odyssey, with lots of action and adventure, and a rousing score by John Williams. I think we forget that this was less than a decade after movies like Green Slime and Mars Needs Women.

I feel slightly different, 2001 is a product from the success of James Bond as the attempt to use "real world technology" slightly modified it into a not too distant future design. I'm dont want to discredit 2001 but the movie would never be made the why we see it if wasnt for the success of Goldfinger (1964), Thunderball (1965) and You only live Twice (1967).

And then there were other films that also adopted the "real world technology" instead the super distant futrue tech as Green Slime and Mars Needs Women... movies like: Way... Way Out (1966) and In Like Flint (1967).

So there was a movement to make a 'realistic' space film even before 2001 (1968); and lets not forget people were intrested about the current technology for the projected moon landing in 1969. This is why we have such movies as: Planet of the Apes (1968), Countdown (1968) and Marooned (1969) (again using an almost realistic science) which was made during the same time and not "Influenced" by the success 2001 (1968).

The success of 2001 has became a major influence with some early 1970's SF movies... Silent Running (1972) and Solaris (1972)... (but the more I think of it; I'm not sure how much beyond that...)

Although I would like to point out that more I see Silent Running (1972) the more I can see the connection to Dark Star (1974), Star Wars (1977), Alien (1979), The Black Hole (1979), Saturn 3 (1980), Blade Runner (1982), etc. Since Silent Running was influenced by 2001 it would be fair to point the other SF movies towards 2001. The only thing 2001 is missing is the "lived in feeling" that Silent Running introduced.


Quote
The technology behind moviemaking began growing by leaps and bounds in the 70s, and the industry was just beginning to see science fiction as more than kids' stuff, and worth putting some effort into. Movies in general were typically smaller and cheaper before the 70s. After Spielberg's Jaws ushered in the blockbuster era just two years before the release of Star Wars, kicking off an annual competition to make the big summer "event" movie that continues today.

I dont think anybody really consider the idea of big summer event films after Jaws was made (there were too many people trying to rip-off the natural monster story), Star Was was held back a few month due to production and it was "blackmail" for it's release date. And the idea of big summer event films didnt stop Superman (1978) and Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979) in making their December release.

The early 80's summer movies was either Lucas, Spielberg, maybe a few James Bond films. I believe most Hollywood producers were so scared of not making any money that they actually pushed the films back a few months. If Hollywood did take the time in considering the major success of Friday the 13th (1980) was mostly based upon it's May release weeks before Empire Strikes Back, then maybe the idea of summer blockbuster films would start to take off. Friday the 13th was an ok slasher film (little boreing at times) and would not do as well if it was relased in the winter dates. On the otherhand everybody seemed to project the success of Halloween (1978) lead towards the success of Friday the 13th.

Maybe early May isnt seen as Summer months but it's typically at the right time when School ends and/or at the point that there's nothing to do in School.

Summer blockbuster films didnt really start until 1986, I believe it was more or less gear towards the idea of Video rentals in December, since a typically summer movie would be released in video in 6 months later. So Predator (1987) and Die Hard (1988) were more or less accidently summer hits. Another unexpected surprise was the success of megaplex, therefore film producters wouldnt feel so threaten against money hogs like Lucas or Spielberg.


Quote
It could also be argued that after Vietnam, Watergate, etc., and the often darker movies the early 70s, people were looking for a movie like Star Wars.

Much of Star Wars' success is a result of it being made in the mid to late 1970s, when conditions were just right, in terms of technology, the industry and the filmgoing public. Earlier, and it might not have looked as good, or gotten the backing it needed. Later, and we might already have been dazzled by some other movie, and not found it as novel or impressive. It was the right movie at the right time.

agree.

:)


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: AndyC on July 07, 2011, 01:25:05 PM
I feel slightly different, 2001 is a product from the success of James Bond as the attempt to use "real world technology" slightly modified it into a not too distant future design. I'm dont want to discredit 2001 but the movie would never be made the why we see it if wasnt for the success of Goldfinger (1964), Thunderball (1965) and You only live Twice (1967).

And then there were other films that also adopted the "real world technology" instead the super distant futrue tech as Green Slime and Mars Needs Women... movies like: Way... Way Out (1966) and In Like Flint (1967).

So there was a movement to make a 'realistic' space film even before 2001 (1968); and lets not forget people were intrested about the current technology for the projected moon landing in 1969. This is why we have such movies as: Planet of the Apes (1968), Countdown (1968) and Marooned (1969) (again using an almost realistic science) which was made during the same time and not "Influenced" by the success 2001 (1968).

The success of 2001 has became a major influence with some early 1970's SF movies... Silent Running (1972) and Solaris (1972)... (but the more I think of it; I'm not sure how much beyond that...)

Although I would like to point out that more I see Silent Running (1972) the more I can see the connection to Dark Star (1974), Star Wars (1977), Alien (1979), The Black Hole (1979), Saturn 3 (1980), Blade Runner (1982), etc. Since Silent Running was influenced by 2001 it would be fair to point the other SF movies towards 2001. The only thing 2001 is missing is the "lived in feeling" that Silent Running introduced.

My point there was more that Star Wars raised the bar in terms of eye candy, and achieved effects not seen in earlier movies. Things like the starship fly-over or the attack on the Death Star, or even that first shot after the opening scroll, where the camera pans down from the starfield to Tattooine. And by attention to detail, I did not mean realism as much as literal attention to detail, such as on the very intricate spaceship models. Everything looked great.

As far as 2001 goes, I didn't really mean to imply a connection, except to use 2001 as a benchmark for the best looking space movie prior to Star Wars. And compared to movies like 2001 or Silent Running, Star Wars aimed to be a much more accessible movie, forgoing a lot of the artistic and hard SF elements in favour of a simple adventure story with lots of action. Star Wars took the kind of pulp space opera story you'd find in an old serial, and put the kind of effort into it that was previously reserved for weightier fare. That's where Green Slime comes in, as a typical pulp sci-fi flick of a decade earlier, compared to 2001, which strove to be something great. Star Wars was a simple, fun story combined with more cool stuff happening on screen than the best serious science fiction films anyone had seen at the time.

That is what I see as Star Wars' winning combination. Cutting edge special effects on an old-fashioned adventure plot. You didn't have to like science fiction to enjoy Star Wars. You didn't have to follow a complex story to enjoy Star Wars. You didn't even need much of an attention span to enjoy Star Wars. An average kid could see more robots, more ships, more aliens, and more cool space stuff than 2001, Solaris or Silent Running without having to follow the plot or sit through the slow parts. That is where Star Wars was a revolutionary science fiction film - high production values on a simple, straightforward, action-oriented story. Of course, it's harder to appreciate that today, when big, spectacular popcorn movies have become the norm.

And that's one area where I think the prequels failed. The stories got weighed down with political intrigue and other crap, while visual effects have progressed to the point where it's hard to really impress people, no matter how many starships you put on the screen. A gigantic space battle in Episode 3 can't inspire the same awe as a single ship flying over in 1977. At the same time, lightsaber battles have become almost boring, and the story is weighed down by committee meetings, senate debates, holographic conference calls, political maneuvering, a crappy love story, etc.


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: Skull on July 07, 2011, 02:31:16 PM

My point there was more that Star Wars raised the bar in terms of eye candy, and achieved effects not seen in earlier movies. Things like the starship fly-over or the attack on the Death Star, or even that first shot after the opening scroll, where the camera pans down from the starfield to Tattooine. And by attention to detail, I did not mean realism as much as literal attention to detail, such as on the very intricate spaceship models. Everything looked great.

Oh, your are completly right on target. And this is why Star Wars (1977) is a major influence and Star Wars did set the bar. But I'm saying it didnt start the summer movie trend that we see today.


Quote
As far as 2001 goes, I didn't really mean to imply a connection, except to use 2001 as a benchmark for the best looking space movie prior to Star Wars. And compared to movies like 2001 or Silent Running, Star Wars aimed to be a much more accessible movie, forgoing a lot of the artistic and hard SF elements in favour of a simple adventure story with lots of action. Star Wars took the kind of pulp space opera story you'd find in an old serial, and put the kind of effort into it that was previously reserved for weightier fare. That's where Green Slime comes in, as a typical pulp sci-fi flick of a decade earlier, compared to 2001, which strove to be something great. Star Wars was a simple, fun story combined with more cool stuff happening on screen than the best serious science fiction films anyone had seen at the time.

I dont want to discredit 2001 but I do believe if Stanley Kubrick has never made 2001 we might be pointing our fingers towards Countdown (1968) and/or Marooned (1969). But 2001 was a major success and it's easy to point our fingers at.

Silent Running never had the success of 2001. But if you look the robots and space crafts in Star Wars it screaming more towards "Silent Running" then "2001"

I do see the Green Slime angle as you put it.


Quote
That is what I see as Star Wars' winning combination. Cutting edge special effects on an old-fashioned adventure plot. You didn't have to like science fiction to enjoy Star Wars. You didn't have to follow a complex story to enjoy Star Wars. You didn't even need much of an attention span to enjoy Star Wars. An average kid could see more robots, more ships, more aliens, and more cool space stuff than 2001, Solaris or Silent Running without having to follow the plot or sit through the slow parts. That is where Star Wars was a revolutionary science fiction film - high production values on a simple, straightforward, action-oriented story. Of course, it's harder to appreciate that today, when big, spectacular popcorn movies have become the norm.

I'm not actually sure if it's harder to appreciate today. The movie before the facelift was solid.

Quote
And that's one area where I think the prequels failed. The stories got weighed down with political intrigue and other crap, while visual effects have progressed to the point where it's hard to really impress people, no matter how many starships you put on the screen. A gigantic space battle in Episode 3 can't inspire the same awe as a single ship flying over in 1977. At the same time, lightsaber battles have become almost boring, and the story is weighed down by committee meetings, senate debates, holographic conference calls, political maneuvering, a crappy love story, etc.

You are so right.



Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: RD on July 08, 2011, 07:23:10 AM
Quote
And that's one area where I think the prequels failed. The stories got weighed down with political intrigue and other crap

Agreed. The series went from fun serial matinee homage with high production values to C-SPAN raw feed with high production values.


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: AndyC on July 08, 2011, 07:40:57 AM
I'm not actually sure if it's harder to appreciate today. The movie before the facelift was solid.

The movie itself still holds up. What's harder to appreciate today is that in 1977, there was nothing else like it.


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: Ted C on July 08, 2011, 10:11:21 AM
"I seem to remember owning a droid"

Poor R4, always forgotten.


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: BoyScoutKevin on July 09, 2011, 02:23:27 PM
Happenstance happens.

I just happened to pick up Robert K. Elder's "The Film that Changed My Life" subtitled "30 Directors on Their Epiphanies in the Dark" and director Danny Boyle's choice is "Apocalypse Now." And Elder mentions that "Apocalypse Now" was supposedly to be called "Psychedelic Soldier" and directed by George Lucas, but George Lucas went off to direct "Star Wars," which gets Boyle to mention the change that "Star Wars" brought to the motion picture industry, and that is whereas "Apocalypse Now" is the peak and one of the last films that were part of a film trend that could be called "director cinema." "Star Wars" was one of the first films that was part of a film trend that could be called "producer cinema." Which makes sense, as "producer cinema" continues even today, especially if you consider the films of Michael Bay.

Thus, you could say that "Star Wars' was the end of "director cinema" and the beginning of "producer cinema."

Anyway, I highly recommend the book for a couple of reasons. (1) The questions. Alot of people do not understand the importance of the question, but asking the smart question, for the most part which Elder does here, leads to the smart answer. (2) And whereas these films, most of which are well known and/or popular, have been critiqued before, one of the best people to critique another director's film is another director, which happens here.


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: 66Crush on July 10, 2011, 11:48:50 PM
Star Wars in my opinion, could be a so-called "producer's film" as well as a "director's film" since Lucas was writer, director and producer. The film was entirely his vision in the same way "Citizen Kane" was Orson Wells vision. I don't think it's fair to compare it to a Micheal Bay film because, unlike "Transformers" Star Wars was not written around effects. The technology had to be invented as the movie was being made. The reason that the cut's dictate the action and drive the pace of the movie was simply because Lucas had to fire his editor and re-cut the film from scratch. These fast cuts would influence filmmaking after Star Wars became a hit, but in reality it was an accident. The first cut of Star Wars had a slow pace driven by the actors. Lucas hated the way it turned out. The editor refused to re-cut it and was fired. Lucas, his wife and two editors borrowed from another film cut together the final cut. I think the reason "The Empire Strikes Back" was better is because Lucas wisely turned over the directors seat to his mentor Irvin Kirshner.


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: Skull on July 14, 2011, 12:54:36 AM
I dont agree with the term Producer's Films since producers has been known to take over, make last minute judgement calls and demand such and such for the role; Orson Welles has issues with producers in Touch of Evil. Although I would love to give Star Wars full credit I still believe the summer blockbuster trend (that we see today) was started by the success of Die Hard. I've also believe the factors of MTV, Multiplex theaters and the success of video rentals has made an impact towards the success of summer movies.

:)


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: RD on July 14, 2011, 08:37:55 AM
The Blockbuster killed the "director's film" because movies like Jaws and Star Wars didn't go drastically over budget and brought in a huge 100+ million dollar boxoffice take. Films like Heaven's Gate and Apocalypse Now went way over budget, over schedule over everything and didn't earn a large enough profit.


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: AndyC on July 14, 2011, 09:26:39 AM
Agreed. The series went from fun serial matinee homage with high production values to C-SPAN raw feed with high production values.

That is probably the most concise criticism of the prequels I've seen yet, and hits the mark exactly.


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: Mr. DS on July 14, 2011, 11:28:14 AM
Quote
And that's one area where I think the prequels failed. The stories got weighed down with political intrigue and other crap, while visual effects have progressed to the point where it's hard to really impress people, no matter how many starships you put on the screen. A gigantic space battle in Episode 3 can't inspire the same awe as a single ship flying over in 1977.
Well put.  The "wow" factor simply wasn't there in the prequels.  I belive its because Episodes 1-3 didn't raise the bar a single bit from what it was currenlty set at during that time.  Matter of fact a lot of the action sequences just came off as way too fake with the CGI.  Give me a muppet any day over that crap. 

Quote
At the same time, lightsaber battles have become almost boring, and the story is weighed down by committee meetings, senate debates, holographic conference calls, political maneuvering, a crappy love story, etc.
I don't think I'd mind the political maneuvering if they actually spent some time on developing what was in fact interesting.  Tell us why Dooku left the Jedi order.  Tell us more about General Grievous and his Jedi hunting exploits.  Both of these villains come out to equalling a pile of sh!t plot wise.  Episodes 4-6 had an obvious source of evil.  Villain wise the prequels really have nothing going on for them if you really think about it. 


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: Skull on July 14, 2011, 12:18:09 PM
The Blockbuster killed the "director's film" because movies like Jaws and Star Wars didn't go drastically over budget and brought in a huge 100+ million dollar boxoffice take. Films like Heaven's Gate and Apocalypse Now went way over budget, over schedule over everything and didn't earn a large enough profit.

very close to the truth. (I was going to write a 2 page detail on why I think what happen although it was getting late and I was starting to rambling)

First take account that before and during the 1970's the majority of the theaters had one screen and when a hit movie was played the theater owner would play the same movie multiple weeks. Such movies like Jaws and Star Wars were running in the same theaters for weeks to almost months, so film producters were forced to push their films later in the year.

The early surprise summer hit film is Friday the 13th (1980) it was released in the theater a few weeks before Empire Strikes Back and if Friday the 13th was released at the sametime as Empire Strikes Back, it would flopped and the slasher trend is likely to die by 1981, that's because most of the slasher films made after 1981 were copies of Friday the 13th's success (not Halloween).

In 1982, a major lesson in Hollywood was leaned... Never release a film when Steven Spielberg name is on the poster.

In the in 1970's Spielberg and Lucas had mega success in drawing up big dollars. In 1980 Empire Stirkes Back did extreamly well and then Spielberg and Lucas combined forces for Raiders in 1981 (another mega success)... It was assumed that Star Wars 3 isnt comming out until 1983 and it's looks like another Indiana Jones 2 may come out in 1984 so Hollywood put their big guns into play in 1982 (I believe the first test of the summer films)... Blade Runner, Tron and The Thing and all 3 films were destroyed by a silly movie about a little naked alien that eats candy off the floor... ET. Why? Again most theaters in the early 1980's were still playing with the same limited number of screens.

So because of 1982 Hollywood was cautious upon releaseing "big budget films" when it was against Spielberg and Lucas.

The Multiplex system started in the late 1960's but didnt take off until the later 1970's and it wasnt until the death of neighborhood/drive-in theaters, thanks to success of video rentals in the mid 1980's that finally forced people into multiplex theaters. I believe we started to see the start of the effects in between 1984/1985 but it hasnt been noticable until 1988 when 6 of the top 10 grossing films were summer films. I call this the Die Hard effect because Die Hard was able to over come Who Framed Roger Rabbit which was racing with Coming to America an indicator that these movies were being played in more then one screens.

:)







Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: Jim H on July 21, 2011, 01:40:22 PM
On another note, I remember hearing George Lucas is one of the most important technological pioneers in film for several reasons.  There's a long article about it somewhere on the internet.  Does anyone know what I'm referring to?

Quote
Another big part of the dialog that is lost in the prequels is Obiwan telling Luke that Vader hunted down and exterminated the remaining Jedi.   It seems to me all Vader did was kill a bunch of kids in the Jedi temple.

From my understanding, ALL the Jedi (discounting Obi-Wan and Yoda) aren't quite dead at the end of part III.  Vader hunted down and killed the few remaining holdouts.


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: AndyC on July 21, 2011, 04:29:52 PM
On another note, I remember hearing George Lucas is one of the most important technological pioneers in film for several reasons.  There's a long article about it somewhere on the internet.  Does anyone know what I'm referring to?

Quote
Another big part of the dialog that is lost in the prequels is Obiwan telling Luke that Vader hunted down and exterminated the remaining Jedi.   It seems to me all Vader did was kill a bunch of kids in the Jedi temple.

From my understanding, ALL the Jedi (discounting Obi-Wan and Yoda) aren't quite dead at the end of part III.  Vader hunted down and killed the few remaining holdouts.

That's right. Obi-Wan did broadcast a warning to any remaining Jedi, so it makes sense that there would be some left. We saw all the Jedi in the temple killed, and the most powerful Jedi shot down by their troops, but there were bound to be others who needed to be mopped up afterward. I believe Palpatine even made a declaration to that effect - "The remaining Jedi will be hunted down and defeated."


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: Skull on July 21, 2011, 05:00:29 PM
On another note, I remember hearing George Lucas is one of the most important technological pioneers in film for several reasons.  There's a long article about it somewhere on the internet.  Does anyone know what I'm referring to?

Quote
Another big part of the dialog that is lost in the prequels is Obiwan telling Luke that Vader hunted down and exterminated the remaining Jedi.   It seems to me all Vader did was kill a bunch of kids in the Jedi temple.

From my understanding, ALL the Jedi (discounting Obi-Wan and Yoda) aren't quite dead at the end of part III.  Vader hunted down and killed the few remaining holdouts.

That's right. Obi-Wan did broadcast a warning to any remaining Jedi, so it makes sense that there would be some left. We saw all the Jedi in the temple killed, and the most powerful Jedi shot down by their troops, but there were bound to be others who needed to be mopped up afterward. I believe Palpatine even made a declaration to that effect - "The remaining Jedi will be hunted down and defeated."

wow that would make sense in the next 3 Star Wars movies before New Hope...

Star Wars 3.25 (The Fall of the Jedi) - Darth Vader (as Darth Vader not crybaby b***h boy) hunts and defeats all the Jedi's except Yoda and Obi-Wan...

Star Wars 3.5 (The Hunt for Yoda and Obi-Wan) - it would take 2 -1/2 hours to figure what happen and why Darth Vader failed.

Star Wars 3.75 (The last Jedi) - some how the Princess of Alderaan knew that the Jedi Master Obi-Wan Kenobi is on the nearby planet of Tatooine. It's also funny that Darth Vader didnt connect the dots... we need 2 - 1/2 hours to figure how Darth Vader knew she was a rebel leader but not aware that she is his daughter or her knowledge of Obi-Wan.

wow George Lucas is right, this is a 9 part series... although he then changed his mind and told us it was 6... :)


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: AndyC on July 22, 2011, 12:20:29 AM
Some how the Princess of Alderaan knew that the Jedi Master Obi-Wan Kenobi is on the nearby planet of Tatooine.

Well, that information presumably came from her adoptive father, who knew all about it. As I understood the first movie, Leia was going to Tattoine because her father told her there was a Jedi master there whose assistance she would need.

Vader, I'm guessing, knew she was a member of the rebel alliance because she was aboard a ship known to be smuggling stolen plans in the service of the Rebellion. She might have been suspected and under investigation for some time. Don't need the Force to know that, just ordinary police work.

And I don't think it was ever established that anyone had the power to sense relatives. My interpretation was that Vader or the Jedi could pick up certain feelings when someone is nearby, which they could then associate with a particular person. Recall Vader knowing Obi-Wan was aboard the Death Star by recognizing a feeling he hadn't experienced since their last meeting. So, in Star Wars, all Vader knows about Luke is that one pilot has a strong connection to the Force. In Empire Strikes Back, Vader is aware that Luke is his son because the Empire investigated the destruction of the Death Star, came up with Luke's name and investigated his background, then the Emperor called Vader up and told him. Father and son then met face to face, and it was only after that, in Return of the Jedi, that they could sense each other's presence.

So yeah. It makes perfect sense that Leia would know Obi-Wan was on Tattooine, that Vader would know she was a rebel, and that he wouldn't know she was his daughter.

And it's not hard to see why Yoda and Obi-Wan would escape any attempt to mop up the remaining Jedi. First, they were two of the most powerful Jedi who were all supposed to have been wiped out by their troops before they knew what was happening. Both of them managed to escape that first strike. I would have to think that any other Jedi who survived would either be of lesser ability and easily left for later, or just far enough out of the way to be missed, but by the same token, not as well prepared. And we must give credit to Yoda and Ben for making an extraordinary effort to hide. I mean, Yoda went to live alone as a hermit in a swamp, and Ben did much the same in a desert.


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: El Misfit on July 22, 2011, 01:06:35 AM
"I seem to remember owning a droid"


Poor R4, always forgotten.

R4-P17 you mean? :wink:
(http://botwt.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/r4p17gadgets.jpg)


Remember about the Holiday Special: It doesn't exist.


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: Skull on July 22, 2011, 06:02:05 AM
Some how the Princess of Alderaan knew that the Jedi Master Obi-Wan Kenobi is on the nearby planet of Tatooine.

Well, that information presumably came from her adoptive father, who knew all about it. As I understood the first movie, Leia was going to Tattoine because her father told her there was a Jedi master there whose assistance she would need.

Vader, I'm guessing, knew she was a member of the rebel alliance because she was aboard a ship known to be smuggling stolen plans in the service of the Rebellion. She might have been suspected and under investigation for some time. Don't need the Force to know that, just ordinary police work.

And I don't think it was ever established that anyone had the power to sense relatives. My interpretation was that Vader or the Jedi could pick up certain feelings when someone is nearby, which they could then associate with a particular person. Recall Vader knowing Obi-Wan was aboard the Death Star by recognizing a feeling he hadn't experienced since their last meeting. So, in Star Wars, all Vader knows about Luke is that one pilot has a strong connection to the Force. In Empire Strikes Back, Vader is aware that Luke is his son because the Empire investigated the destruction of the Death Star, came up with Luke's name and investigated his background, then the Emperor called Vader up and told him. Father and son then met face to face, and it was only after that, in Return of the Jedi, that they could sense each other's presence.

So yeah. It makes perfect sense that Leia would know Obi-Wan was on Tattooine, that Vader would know she was a rebel, and that he wouldn't know she was his daughter.

In Return of the Jedi it seemed they everybody had the ability to sense their relative... I believe Luke even said, the Force runs strong in our family. And in Phantom Menace baby vader was leaking the force... so it's hard to understand why Vader didnt know Leia was his daughter.


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: Mr. DS on July 22, 2011, 06:39:10 AM
Some how the Princess of Alderaan knew that the Jedi Master Obi-Wan Kenobi is on the nearby planet of Tatooine.

Well, that information presumably came from her adoptive father, who knew all about it. As I understood the first movie, Leia was going to Tattoine because her father told her there was a Jedi master there whose assistance she would need.

Vader, I'm guessing, knew she was a member of the rebel alliance because she was aboard a ship known to be smuggling stolen plans in the service of the Rebellion. She might have been suspected and under investigation for some time. Don't need the Force to know that, just ordinary police work.

And I don't think it was ever established that anyone had the power to sense relatives. My interpretation was that Vader or the Jedi could pick up certain feelings when someone is nearby, which they could then associate with a particular person. Recall Vader knowing Obi-Wan was aboard the Death Star by recognizing a feeling he hadn't experienced since their last meeting. So, in Star Wars, all Vader knows about Luke is that one pilot has a strong connection to the Force. In Empire Strikes Back, Vader is aware that Luke is his son because the Empire investigated the destruction of the Death Star, came up with Luke's name and investigated his background, then the Emperor called Vader up and told him. Father and son then met face to face, and it was only after that, in Return of the Jedi, that they could sense each other's presence.

So yeah. It makes perfect sense that Leia would know Obi-Wan was on Tattooine, that Vader would know she was a rebel, and that he wouldn't know she was his daughter.

In Return of the Jedi it seemed they everybody had the ability to sense their relative... I believe Luke even said, the Force runs strong in our family. And in Phantom Menace baby vader was leaking the force... so it's hard to understand why Vader didnt know Leia was his daughter.

I'm with Skull on that last point.  Once again though George did write these all together.  (snicker...that joke never gets old to me  :bouncegiggle:)


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: AndyC on July 22, 2011, 07:40:39 AM
Some how the Princess of Alderaan knew that the Jedi Master Obi-Wan Kenobi is on the nearby planet of Tatooine.

Well, that information presumably came from her adoptive father, who knew all about it. As I understood the first movie, Leia was going to Tattoine because her father told her there was a Jedi master there whose assistance she would need.

Vader, I'm guessing, knew she was a member of the rebel alliance because she was aboard a ship known to be smuggling stolen plans in the service of the Rebellion. She might have been suspected and under investigation for some time. Don't need the Force to know that, just ordinary police work.

And I don't think it was ever established that anyone had the power to sense relatives. My interpretation was that Vader or the Jedi could pick up certain feelings when someone is nearby, which they could then associate with a particular person. Recall Vader knowing Obi-Wan was aboard the Death Star by recognizing a feeling he hadn't experienced since their last meeting. So, in Star Wars, all Vader knows about Luke is that one pilot has a strong connection to the Force. In Empire Strikes Back, Vader is aware that Luke is his son because the Empire investigated the destruction of the Death Star, came up with Luke's name and investigated his background, then the Emperor called Vader up and told him. Father and son then met face to face, and it was only after that, in Return of the Jedi, that they could sense each other's presence.

So yeah. It makes perfect sense that Leia would know Obi-Wan was on Tattooine, that Vader would know she was a rebel, and that he wouldn't know she was his daughter.

In Return of the Jedi it seemed they everybody had the ability to sense their relative... I believe Luke even said, the Force runs strong in our family. And in Phantom Menace baby vader was leaking the force... so it's hard to understand why Vader didnt know Leia was his daughter.

I'm with Skull on that last point.  Once again though George did write these all together.  (snicker...that joke never gets old to me  :bouncegiggle:)

Luke knew Leia was his sister because he was told that. Vader knew Luke was his son because he was told that. Luke knew Vader was his father because he was told that. These all happened on the screen. By the time Return of the Jedi came around, all of the relationships were known to nearly everyone, and everyone had met and sensed one another previously. So yeah, Luke could sense his father and Vader could sense his son. But there is nothing to suggest that knowing their family relationship is a Force ability. Actually, there's plenty of evidence to the contrary.

And there is no indication Vader ever knew Leia was his daughter, even at the end. He read Luke's thoughts and learned that he had "a twin sister." Vader wasn't aware he had a daughter up to that point, and he still didn't know who she was, but he could certainly find out.

Now, I do question why Vader is picking vague thoughts out of someone's head there, when in the previous two movies he was resorting to torture and coercion. I don't know, maybe he can only get a vague impression from mindreading, and interrogation is how he gets the specifics, but it seems a little wierd.


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: Skull on July 22, 2011, 09:46:09 AM
The Y-Fighter (or whatever the 'Y' craft is called in Jedi) illustrate both character uncanning ability to detect each other... Although Luke did have some special Jedi training in Empire, but Yoda also pointed out that Luke wasnt ready and it seem the training was within a matter of a few days at most, and his powers didnt seem to be anymore developed then what was shown in Hoth.

Sure it can be implied that Lukes training was a few months long... but I'm not sure if Han would deal with C3-PO for a week. And the way Han and Leia were acting towards each other; I bet within the a week Chewbacca would of dump those two love birds at the nearest astroid.


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: El Misfit on July 22, 2011, 01:00:06 PM
My question about Star Bores is this: What Paint thinner was George Lucas was sniffing when he approved C3-PO, Jar Jar, Anakin (kid), and The Ewoks? What made him give the thumbs up for these things? :hatred:


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: Skull on July 22, 2011, 04:34:53 PM
My question about Star Bores is this: What Paint thinner was George Lucas was sniffing when he approved C3-PO, Jar Jar, Anakin (kid), and The Ewoks? What made him give the thumbs up for these things? :hatred:


C3-PO??? (C3-PO and R2-D2 was the not so slapstick of abbott and costello) although I do agree he must be smoking something when C3-PO becomes the creation of Darth Vader.

Ewoks... Kenner toys! Because the success of Carebears toys.

Jar Jar... Assuming that Hip Hop may think he's cool [if that's true I feel really sad for Lucas], or he was watching "the 13 ghosts of scooby doo" and thought that hip hop kid was a smart addition to the Scooby Doo series [then he needs to stop huffing paint thinner]...

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_l4nLMqCccf0/SdaPcqkr0-I/AAAAAAAAAhk/io3WfBiF8hE/s320/13_Ghosts_of_Scooby_Doo.jpeg)

Anakin (kid)... The success of Home Alone. It only shows that he either ran out of ideas or the story was written from random draws in the hat.



Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: Flick James on July 22, 2011, 04:51:29 PM
I really didn't expect this thread to last this long.


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: Mr. DS on July 22, 2011, 09:37:14 PM
Quote
Sure it can be implied that Lukes training was a few months long... but I'm not sure if Han would deal with C3-PO for a week. And the way Han and Leia were acting towards each other; I bet within the a week Chewbacca would of dump those two love birds at the nearest astroid.

You know whats funny, I really didn't give that much thought but yeah it doesn't seems like Luke had all that much time with Yoda.  If it was real time with Han and company's problems after the Hoth then I honestly think it couldn't have been more than a day or two. 

You have to figure they bailed on Hoth on...lets say a Monday morning.  They couldn't have been on the asteroid belt for longer than a few hours.  That includes their dilmea with the worm they were in.  Then by the time they bolted off to the Cloud City it was probably the next morning Tuesday.  By that evening Han was in carbonite and Luke had his hand chopped off.  Wow, that means Luke really did a lot of Force development between ESB and ROTJ. 

Wow...that just seems beyond stupid for some reason. 


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: Skull on July 22, 2011, 10:21:51 PM
Quote
Sure it can be implied that Lukes training was a few months long... but I'm not sure if Han would deal with C3-PO for a week. And the way Han and Leia were acting towards each other; I bet within the a week Chewbacca would of dump those two love birds at the nearest astroid.

You know whats funny, I really didn't give that much thought but yeah it doesn't seems like Luke had all that much time with Yoda.  If it was real time with Han and company's problems after the Hoth then I honestly think it couldn't have been more than a day or two. 

You have to figure they bailed on Hoth on...lets say a Monday morning.  They couldn't have been on the asteroid belt for longer than a few hours.  That includes their dilmea with the worm they were in.  Then by the time they bolted off to the Cloud City it was probably the next morning Tuesday.  By that evening Han was in carbonite and Luke had his hand chopped off.  Wow, that means Luke really did a lot of Force development between ESB and ROTJ. 

Wow...that just seems beyond stupid for some reason. 

Oh the magic of a montage... :)

Although I believe there is a science theory that a person could travel in space while real time passes on earth, therefore a person could be in space for 1 year and return to earth 100 years later, but I would expect this from a Star Trek movie... :)


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: Mr. DS on July 24, 2011, 09:21:45 PM
Quote
Oh the magic of a montage... :)
Wait, I didn't hear any music from Survivor in the SW movies.  :question:   

 :bouncegiggle:


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: 66Crush on July 31, 2011, 12:04:37 AM
I don't think that George Lucas was worried too much about time inconsistencies when he wrote these movies. Yes, there are a number of things you can pick apart, but that doesn't really bother me as long as I am entertained. What bugs me are some of the resolutions. But that has to do with growing up with these movies as a child, and almost feeling like you know the characters because you've invested so much time into them. I had a preconceived notion about what Dart Vader would be like in the prequels and what I got didn't match my expectations. But there is a big difference in seeing Star Wars at age 6, and seeing Phantom Menace at age 27. But I never really cared about wheather Luke was on Dagaboah for two weeks or fifteen minutes, as long as he there having this adventure is what was important. As adults we care about things that don't matter. We gripe about the "science" but we seem to have forgotten the about the "fiction." I'm one of the few sci-fi fans that was never any good at science, I like the fantasy. Do you like the story or do you hate the story? That's all that really matters.


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: Skull on July 31, 2011, 06:51:39 AM
66Crush, I love Star Wars for what it is and Empire Strikes Back for what it has become.

Return of the Jedi does work although the Ewoks can become annoying and the idea of sticks and stones breaking down the stormtroopers does make you think how clumsy the empire is according to Lucas.

The face lift of the series is an ill mistake that should never happen. It cheapens the reason why we love Star Wars.

The Prequels fails. I'm not actually sure what was the intent on making the prequels if they didnt respect the original story.


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: wickednick on August 01, 2011, 12:49:11 AM
One of the things that always strikes me is how the fans know the movies better than George Lucas. Yes I might have watched the first three almost a hundred times, but you would think George would at least try and keep the prequels relevant to the original three.
The thing with the prequels is that we all know Anakin is going to turn bad, the jedi will be destroyed and Luke and Leahia (excuse me if I messed up her name) will be separated, the ending is already known. What the prequels should have focused on was creating new twists in the story so that when we get to the parts we know will happen we can still be all "Holy s**t, can you believe that just happened!"
These movies were made completely for kids with out any regard for the people who grew up with the originals. Thats also why George changed the original three around so they could be more kid friendly. A good point is when Han shot after Greebo did. Someone told me they had no problem with it because Han was supposed to be a good guy and having him shoot first makes him a bad guy, that a bunch of bull. Han was supposed to be a scummy smuggler and didn't turn good until the end on A New Hope.
The prequels also had a habit of glossing over, or connecting the series in the most ridiculous ways possible. The droids are great examples of this point. George seemed to just have to have them in the prequels and put them in without any good reason for them to be in there. Anakin building C3-PO was just dumb and really made no sense that Anakin would build him. But what was worse was how they dealt with the situation at the end by just simply wiping their memories and pretending that none of it happened even though Obi-Wan should have at least recognized the droids names when he heard them.


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: Skull on August 01, 2011, 07:55:34 AM
One of the things that always strikes me is how the fans know the movies better than George Lucas. Yes I might have watched the first three almost a hundred times, but you would think George would at least try and keep the prequels relevant to the original three.

I really believe that Star Wars was not intended to have any sequels and or prequels. The 1977 movie was a surprise, especially for George Lucas and he needed to keep the legend alive. Empire Strikes Back was fluke that worked.

I'm not a *true fan* to the series... but it pains me when I know when people can do better and they dont. (I could also go off on Godfather 3)


Quote
The thing with the prequels is that we all know Anakin is going to turn bad, the jedi will be destroyed and Luke and Leahia (excuse me if I messed up her name) will be separated, the ending is already known. What the prequels should have focused on was creating new twists in the story so that when we get to the parts we know will happen we can still be all "Holy s**t, can you believe that just happened!"

Mostly, we all want to see Darth Vader killing all the Jedi's. The background story (orginal series) tells us that Darth Vader was a really good fighter pilot... which was seen as a joke.

The bothersome part of the prequels is trying to figure out "slave" especially when baby vader has the freedom to built C3-PO, built pod racers and pod race. It then becomes comfusing why a child (or child size) characters can only podrace... it makes sense when we are talking about Horse Racing since the animal is living and body weight is a factor... but a bulky machine is a different story.

Quote
These movies were made completely for kids with out any regard for the people who grew up with the originals.

Which may explaine the pod racing... but there is no way a kid (nor adult) that can figure the trade war issue or the logic about a Jedi... Seriously speaking I have trouble trying to figure out the purpose of a jedi even when Luke fails the test in Empire Strikes Back.

Although it's hard to sell kids an idea that the story is about how a kid jedi (hero) that becomes a killer. And then the love story in part 2 would make every kid vomit...

Baby vader could of worked in Phantom Menace if the story was something like Damien: Omen II (1978).

Quote
Thats also why George changed the original three around so they could be more kid friendly. A good point is when Han shot after Greebo did. Someone told me they had no problem with it because Han was supposed to be a good guy and having him shoot first makes him a bad guy, that a bunch of bull. Han was supposed to be a scummy smuggler and didn't turn good until the end on A New Hope.

Actually Han is a untrusted scummy smuggler that did change into a good guy towards the end. If George wanted to change Han from a scummy smuggler to a good guy hero 24/7 then the motive (money) needs to be tossed out the window.



Quote
The prequels also had a habit of glossing over, or connecting the series in the most ridiculous ways possible. The droids are great examples of this point. George seemed to just have to have them in the prequels and put them in without any good reason for them to be in there. Anakin building C3-PO was just dumb and really made no sense that Anakin would build him. But what was worse was how they dealt with the situation at the end by just simply wiping their memories and pretending that none of it happened even though Obi-Wan should have at least recognized the droids names when he heard them.

It boggles the mind.

I would respect the prequels a little more if C3-PO and R2-D2 were in dfferent parts of the story and end up meeting in the last story.


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: 66Crush on August 07, 2011, 10:35:17 PM
George Lucas says he gave up some of the money on the condition that he could make the sequels. He chose to take a large chunk of the merchandise because the studio didn't realize you could make money off of that kind of stuff (what a goof). He was also able to promote the movie with merch deals, because he knew the studio wouldn't. He ended up making more than the studio in the long run. My only real regret about "Return of the Jedi," is that Lucas had to resign from the directors guild because they were being jerks about the credits or some insignificant thing. So he was forced to use a non union British director instead of his original choice, Steven Spielberg. Imagine the possibility, it's the ultimate "what if?"


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: Skull on August 08, 2011, 10:32:58 AM
George Lucas says he gave up some of the money on the condition that he could make the sequels. He chose to take a large chunk of the merchandise because the studio didn't realize you could make money off of that kind of stuff (what a goof). He was also able to promote the movie with merch deals, because he knew the studio wouldn't. He ended up making more than the studio in the long run. My only real regret about "Return of the Jedi," is that Lucas had to resign from the directors guild because they were being jerks about the credits or some insignificant thing. So he was forced to use a non union British director instead of his original choice, Steven Spielberg. Imagine the possibility, it's the ultimate "what if?"

I dont see how that would change much. We will still learn that Luke has a Sister and the final battle will still have Ewaks vs stormtroopers. The only factor Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom might be delayed for another year... and I've also sense Spielberg is more intrested in the Indiana Jones series then Star Wars.



Although, I do suspect that if William Girdler didnt die he would be directing Poltergeist (1982) and Tobe Hooper would finish Venom (1981) and went on to Jaws 3 (1983)


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: bob on April 08, 2012, 12:38:31 PM
In Empire Obi-Wan says that Luke is the Jedi's only shot at defeating Darth Vader, however in Revenge of the Sith he was present when Leia was born and knows that she like her brother was hidden from Annikin/Vader


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: Chainsaw midget on April 08, 2012, 07:14:37 PM

Quote
Hayden's ghost ruined a tearful moment for me at the end of that film.  Anakin became one with the force again right before dying hence his ghost being older makes much more sense.
There's also the fact that Anakin was NOT a good person when he was Hayden.  His act of redemption came when he WAS an old man.

Quote
The biggest plothole is that we never find out if that head banger soldier was ever given an aspirin. : wink :
 
And what happened to the Stromtrooper that said those weren't the droids they were looking for and waved Luke and his pals through? 

Quote
And thru the prequel's the Jedi's seem to have an uncanning ability to sense each other or recognize those with the ability to become Jedi's (some silly blood cell theory)
and yet nobody ever seems to notice the (future) Emperor's powers. 

Quote
Which brings me to this...there are some very important things Lucas needed to establish in the prequels.  #1 Anakin's fall to the Dark Side...it came off as simply stupid and unbelievable.
Frankly, it was hardly a  fall from grace at all.  Anakin was a punk.  He didn't like listening to others, he showed off, he whined when things didn't go his way, and generally demanded more respect than he rightfully deserved... and that's all before we get into his anger issues and homicidal tendencies. 


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: Pacman000 on April 09, 2012, 11:09:11 AM
Quote
I feel slightly different, 2001 is a product from the success of James Bond as the attempt to use "real world technology" slightly modified it into a not too distant future design. I'm dont want to discredit 2001 but the movie would never be made the why we see it if wasnt for the success of Goldfinger (1964), Thunderball (1965) and You only live Twice (1967).

And then there were other films that also adopted the "real world technology" instead the super distant futrue tech as Green Slime and Mars Needs Women... movies like: Way... Way Out (1966) and In Like Flint (1967).

So there was a movement to make a 'realistic' space film even before 2001 (1968); and lets not forget people were intrested about the current technology for the projected moon landing in 1969. This is why we have such movies as: Planet of the Apes (1968), Countdown (1968) and Marooned (1969) (again using an almost realistic science) which was made during the same time and not "Influenced" by the success 2001 (1968).

The success of 2001 has became a major influence with some early 1970's SF movies... Silent Running (1972) and Solaris (1972)... (but the more I think of it; I'm not sure how much beyond that...)

Although I would like to point out that more I see Silent Running (1972) the more I can see the connection to Dark Star (1974), Star Wars (1977), Alien (1979), The Black Hole (1979), Saturn 3 (1980), Blade Runner (1982), etc. Since Silent Running was influenced by 2001 it would be fair to point the other SF movies towards 2001. The only thing 2001 is missing is the "lived in feeling" that Silent Running introduced.

If we're talking about special FX, 2001 beats everything that came before or after it.  Not a single scene, not even one shot looks fake.  Even Avatar failed to do that.  Star Wars, however,  was a more entertaining movie. :smile:


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: Pacman000 on April 09, 2012, 11:13:13 AM
Quote
Chewbacca was another one. He seemed to be a pretty high-ranking Wookie officer to be working with Yoda. Yet, in spite of his age, experience, knowledge, etc., he becomes a sidekick to Han Solo, who is younger and at least starts out kind of foolish and ignorant. And through the first three movies, he's essentially the muscle, and never shows more than average intelligence and a knack with machines. Now, I have read fan speculation that Chewbacca was working for the rebellion the whole time, and hooked up with Solo as the guy most likely to get Luke off Tattooine when the time came. But there are so many easier and more direct ways to do that.

In the expanded universe, the Empire decided to use Wookies as slaves.  I believe Han Solo rescued Chewie, somehow.  Then again, George Lucas claims that he doesn't like to use the expanded universe as a reference.   :lookingup:


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: Pacman000 on April 09, 2012, 11:16:14 AM
Quote
The prequels really are a fun ruiner. In the Originals the Jedi were these mythical people who you knew next to nothing about aside from they use something called the force and they have lightsabers.

Then in the prequels we learn they enjoy solving tax disputes, Have midiclohirens(Yeah I probably spelled that wrong, but i'm not in the mood to look it up), and are hilariously stupid when it comes to investigating things, and are completely oblivious to the lord of the Sith living right under their noses. They really do take away from the originals. I mean you can try to push them out of your head as much as you like, but you'll always know that Darth Vader built C-3P0.

How true.  The prequels spoil Star Wars, the Jedi seem less mysterious/mystical,  the Clone Wars seem less cool, etc.  Somethings are best left to the imagination.


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: Pacman000 on April 09, 2012, 11:40:21 AM
Quote
Instead, George Lucas ends up producing a move that was inspired from the success of Home Alone. Freaking Home Alone! Gee! (actually worse... the pod race almost looked like something inspired from The Little Rascals (1994) )


I thought the pod race was inspired by this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOSmIJCHqcQ

(At one time, there was a video of the "thread the needle" segment. I couldn't find it, but it is very simular to the pod race in Episode One.)


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: 66Crush on April 10, 2012, 12:45:34 AM


How true.  The prequels spoil Star Wars, the Jedi seem less mysterious/mystical,  the Clone Wars seem less cool, etc.  Somethings are best left to the imagination.
[/quote]

I totally agree with this. I hated the way Anakin was written in the prequels. I was hoping for duel between Anakin and Yoda, where Yoda is badly defeated. Hell, Anakin doesn't even get to defeat Obi-Wan, and he's supposed to be the most powerful jedi ever? Even in the first movie it's hinted at that Vader had surpassed his old master. It also bugs me that it took the Emperor and Anakin both to defeat Mace Windu. This was simply George Lucas trying to kiss Samuel L. Jackson's ass, 'ol Sam's gotta look tough in every movie or he won't do it. The face of Hayden's Anakin being digitally used in the Return of the Jedi special edition is simply annoying. It bugs me almost as much as everyone calling the first movie "A New Hope." I know it was the original title but an entire generation of fans grew up simply calling it Star Wars.


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: bob on April 11, 2012, 09:25:18 PM
And it was ALWAYS planned right from the get go that Luke and Leia were actually brother and sister, right George? That's why they have a kissing scene in 'Empire'.

And it was ALWAYS planned that R2-D2 was with Obi-Wan during 90% of the clone wars timeline, right George? That's why Owi-Wan tells Luke he doesn't seem to remember ever owning a droid in 'New Hope'.


And let's not forget the fact that Uncle Owen seems to forget his family used to own C-3P0 in Attack of the Clones when he buys him from the Jawas in A New Hope.



Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: A_Dubya on April 11, 2012, 09:29:03 PM
I personally despise the prequels and think they essentially took a huge dump on the original trilogy. I prefer to try not to even think about them.

Definitely agree here. I mean, I can only tolerate Revenge of the Sith, and even that I have ranked lower than any film of the original trilogy.


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: bob on April 11, 2012, 09:31:21 PM
Either that, or she was remembering Senator Organa's wife, her stepmother (she never knew she was adopted).

I rewatched A New Hope earlier today and chose to believe The Princess was talking about her adopted mother


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: 66Crush on April 11, 2012, 11:43:24 PM
And let's not forget the fact that Uncle Owen seems to forget his family used to own C-3P0 in Attack of the Clones when he buys him from the Jawas in A New Hope.



Wow, I never thought about that one. Spot on! Let's see George Lucas explain his way out of that one.


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: bob on April 22, 2012, 10:07:33 AM
not really a flaw, but more of an observation

with all the adjustments Lucas has made with the Star Wars franchise frankly I'm a little surprised he didn't insert the ghost of Qui-Gon Jinn inserted at the end of Return of the Jedi...


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: 66Crush on April 26, 2012, 03:05:53 AM
Not a plot point here, but some flawed science. In The Empire Strikes Back, Han and Leia go outside with the ship with gas mask on to track the little creature (mynock or something). They don't yet know they have been swallowed by a giant creature. So, if they really thought they were on an asteroid, wouldn't they be wearing full spacesuits to compensate for the lack of gravity?


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: Pacman000 on April 30, 2012, 12:18:07 PM
Not a plot point here, but some flawed science. In The Empire Strikes Back, Han and Leia go outside with the ship with gas mask on to track the little creature (mynock or something). They don't yet know they have been swallowed by a giant creature. So, if they really thought they were on an asteroid, wouldn't they be wearing full spacesuits to compensate for the lack of gravity?

In real life, yes.  In fiction they can wear whatever the writer/director/producer thinks is appropriate.  As long as it doesn't break the audience's suspension of disbelief it's ok.


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: 66Crush on May 01, 2012, 11:30:42 PM
Not a plot point here, but some flawed science. In The Empire Strikes Back, Han and Leia go outside with the ship with gas mask on to track the little creature (mynock or something). They don't yet know they have been swallowed by a giant creature. So, if they really thought they were on an asteroid, wouldn't they be wearing full spacesuits to compensate for the lack of gravity?

In real life, yes.  In fiction they can wear whatever the writer/director/producer thinks is appropriate.  As long as it doesn't break the audience's suspension of disbelief it's ok.

I agree. That's the main reason I brought it up, because I don't like too much real science in my science fiction. I think that is a problem with almost all of today's science fiction. I also hate all the realistic military stuff that began with "Aliens." I loved the cheesy uniforms and cheap ray guns of the original "Battlestar Galactica." That's part of why I hate the newer one. It looks more like the Colonial Warriors are going to invade Iraq instead of attacking the Cylons.


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: Archivist on May 02, 2012, 01:23:07 AM
I made the enormous mistake of buying the 2004 release of the original trilogy that was enhanced to tie in with the prequels. What can I say? I didn't realize what I was buying at the time. The only one I can stomach is Empire because it is the least altered. Return of the Jedi is hideous. The complete reconfiguring of the band scene at Jabba's Palace is atrocious, and sticking Hayden Christensen (sic?) in at the end to show Anakin's spirit was unforgiveable.

I saw that there is a special edition of the original trilogy that contains both the 2004 abortion and the originals, completely unaltered. I must pick that up because I can't take the altered versions except for Empire.

OMG.  I watched The Return of the Jedi just a few weeks ago and I had no idea that they had inserted Hayden Christensen!  It has been well over a decade, maybe more, since I had seen the movie, and I thought it a remarkable coincidence to get an actor (Hayden) who looked like the actor they used at the end of Return!  You're saying that it was someone ELSE in the original version?  I feel seriously duped now.  George Lucas, eat my mucus.  I will have to hunt down the original versions now.


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: Chainsaw midget on May 02, 2012, 04:02:24 AM
Quote

OMG.  I watched The Return of the Jedi just a few weeks ago and I had no idea that they had inserted Hayden Christensen!  It has been well over a decade, maybe more, since I had seen the movie, and I thought it a remarkable coincidence to get an actor (Hayden) who looked like the actor they used at the end of Return!  You're saying that it was someone ELSE in the original version?  I feel seriously duped now.  George Lucas, eat my mucus.  I will have to hunt down the original versions now.

Here's the original guy.
(http://i.imgur.com/oZpdK.jpg)


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: 66Crush on May 03, 2012, 11:01:44 PM
If it's the first time a person has seen "Return of The Jedi" and they haven't seen Episode II or III, they probably won't know what the hell is going on when they see Hayden's ghost at the end.


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: AndyC on May 03, 2012, 11:18:45 PM
If it's the first time a person has seen "Return of The Jedi" and they haven't seen Episode II or III, they probably won't know what the hell is going on when they see Hayden's ghost at the end.


You can solve that problem by watching them in Machete Order! http://static.nomachetejuggling.com/machete_order.html (http://static.nomachetejuggling.com/machete_order.html)

This is actually a pretty good idea, if you take the point of view that the prequels exist, for better or worse, and the best you can do is fit them in where they won't detract too much from the originals. And if you leave out Episode I, you really don't lose anything important, but you do tighten up the story and get rid of most of the Jar-Jar, midichlorians, little Annie, pod racing and whatnot.


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: 66Crush on May 03, 2012, 11:35:33 PM
It would be OK with me there was a way to digitally replace Hayden Christiansen with a better actor.


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: Chainsaw midget on May 03, 2012, 11:38:03 PM
If it's the first time a person has seen "Return of The Jedi" and they haven't seen Episode II or III, they probably won't know what the hell is going on when they see Hayden's ghost at the end.


You can solve that problem by watching them in Machete Order! [url]http://static.nomachetejuggling.com/machete_order.html[/url] ([url]http://static.nomachetejuggling.com/machete_order.html[/url])

This is actually a pretty good idea, if you take the point of view that the prequels exist, for better or worse, and the best you can do is fit them in where they won't detract too much from the originals. And if you leave out Episode I, you really don't lose anything important, but you do tighten up the story and get rid of most of the Jar-Jar, midichlorians, little Annie, pod racing and whatnot.

But... but if you skip episode 1, you miss out on all the awesomeness that was Darth Maul!  Remember that scene where he ...umm... or where... hmm... pretty sure he did something at some point. 


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: bob on May 04, 2012, 01:39:07 AM
as individual movies I love all of them except Episode 2........but when you're trying to peice them together, especially with the many changes Lucas has made, as as series of events with the happenings iwthin them directling resutling it just gives me headaches pointing out all plot holes/inconsistencies


Title: Question
Post by: WyreWizard on May 16, 2012, 06:36:12 PM
Yes this question is about one of Star wars most beloved characters, Chewbacca.

I have read many articles that say Chewbacca is a 200-year-old wookie from the planet Kashyyk.  What these articles don't clarify is where Chewbacca is 200 in Kashyyk years or Earth years.

I highly doubt Chewbacca is 200 in Earth year so it must be in Kashyyk years.

Kashyyk has to be an Earth-like planet that orbits a small red star.  And because its star is so small, then the golden radius for life is closer to it.  And with that, Kashyyk orbits much closer to its star, 2 to 3 times close than Earth is to its parent star Sol.

So with that, Kashyyk takes around 3 months to make a full orbit around its parent star.

So if that was the case, in Earth years Chewbacca is really around 70 years old.

This is not a conclusion, just an analysis.


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: Jim H on May 18, 2012, 11:53:39 PM
Chewbacca really is supposed to be 200ish by Earth standards. 

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Chewbacca (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Chewbacca)

He lived from 200 BBY (BY = Battle of Yavin) to 25 ABY (225 years, in other words).  Each year in there is 368 days with each day 24 "standard hours".  So almost identical to standard human calendars, coincedentally enough.

Humans just get the short end of the stick as far as life expectancy goes, apparently.  Though it might be noted humans with force powers can live Yoda-type lifespans too, so hey.


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: Mr. DS on May 19, 2012, 07:41:52 AM
This was probably already pointed out somewhere in this thread but R2 knew everything in ANH and doesn't bother to inform anyone.   That kinda makes him lose street cred in my eyes.


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: AndyC on May 19, 2012, 09:23:04 AM
This was probably already pointed out somewhere in this thread but R2 knew everything in ANH and doesn't bother to inform anyone.   That kinda makes him lose street cred in my eyes.

To me, it kind of puts him more on the level of Ben or Yoda, part of the trusted inner circle. He knows what's going on, he's in on all the secrets, and he's much more of an instigator of events than a sidekick. It's pretty consistent with his behaviour when we first meet him. He knows the situation, he knows where to go and who to see. And if he's privy to inside information that only a handful of people share, he has a better grasp of the situation than the princess does, even though she's sending him on the mission. Makes him into a bit of a mastermind, in my view.


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: tracy on May 19, 2012, 11:33:32 AM
It would be OK with me there was a way to digitally replace Hayden Christiansen with a better actor.
No kidding!


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: tracy on May 19, 2012, 11:34:22 AM
not really a flaw, but more of an observation

with all the adjustments Lucas has made with the Star Wars franchise frankly I'm a little surprised he didn't insert the ghost of Qui-Gon Jinn inserted at the end of Return of the Jedi...

You know,I've wondered about that one myself.


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: thinkhector on November 30, 2012, 04:01:31 PM
One of the biggest inconsistencies between the prequels and orignal trilogies is that Darth Vader is unaware that he has produced any offspring. In fact, Obi-Wan along with several people has gone to great lengths to conceal the children from being discovered. Yet Anakin (Darth Vader) is told in very clear terms by Padme that she is indeed pregnant. At no point, does Anakin have any reason to believe that his children are not alive and well. Even in his vision of Padme dying during childbirth, she still gives birth. It seems almost impossible to believe that Darth Vader is clueless to having fathered children.


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: AndyC on November 30, 2012, 04:29:18 PM
One of the biggest inconsistencies between the prequels and orignal trilogies is that Darth Vader is unaware that he has produced any offspring. In fact, Obi-Wan along with several people has gone to great lengths to conceal the children from being discovered. Yet Anakin (Darth Vader) is told in very clear terms by Padme that she is indeed pregnant. At no point, does Anakin have any reason to believe that his children are not alive and well. Even in his vision of Padme dying during childbirth, she still gives birth. It seems almost impossible to believe that Darth Vader is clueless to having fathered children.

Vader was told that he killed Padme on Mustafar. Remember that whole "Nooooooo!" business at the end? He choked her unconscious, and that was the last he saw of her. Vader had no reason to believe she'd survived long enough to give birth.


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: bob on November 30, 2012, 05:01:07 PM
No Jar Jar Binks in the OT. He played a big role in Episode 1. Lesser in Episode 2. He played a key role in giving The Emperor all that power. Seems kinda odd that that he apparently turned into a force ghost.


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: Kaseykockroach on November 30, 2012, 06:11:23 PM
(http://stuffpoint.com/spongebob-square-pants/image/thumb/75110-spongebob-square-pants-nobody-cares.jpg)


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: Pacman000 on December 07, 2012, 11:38:23 AM
No Jar Jar Binks in the OT. He played a big role in Episode 1. Lesser in Episode 2. He played a key role in giving The Emperor all that power. Seems kinda odd that that he apparently turned into a force ghost.
For awhile I've believed that the Emperor eliminated underlings after they were of no use to him.


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: bob on December 07, 2012, 07:29:29 PM
([url]http://stuffpoint.com/spongebob-square-pants/image/thumb/75110-spongebob-square-pants-nobody-cares.jpg[/url])


Ain't that the truth!


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: Rev. Powell on December 07, 2012, 07:46:30 PM
([url]http://stuffpoint.com/spongebob-square-pants/image/thumb/75110-spongebob-square-pants-nobody-cares.jpg[/url])


Ain't that the truth!


Yeah, if anybody cared, there'd probably be a nine-page thread about it somewhere!


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: bob on December 08, 2012, 06:52:55 PM
([url]http://stuffpoint.com/spongebob-square-pants/image/thumb/75110-spongebob-square-pants-nobody-cares.jpg[/url])


Ain't that the truth!


Yeah, if anybody cared, there'd probably be a nine-page thread about it somewhere!


I wonder where something like that would be?


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: Trevor on December 10, 2012, 12:37:42 AM
([url]http://stuffpoint.com/spongebob-square-pants/image/thumb/75110-spongebob-square-pants-nobody-cares.jpg[/url])


Ain't that the truth!


Yeah, if anybody cared, there'd probably be a nine-page thread about it somewhere!


I wonder where something like that would be?


 :teddyr: :teddyr:

I must throw this in:

Why does Mr Lucas feel the need to constantly bugger around with the magic he created for me and millions of others when I was ten?  :question:


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: Trevor on December 10, 2012, 04:30:12 AM
Here's the original guy.
([url]http://i.imgur.com/oZpdK.jpg[/url])


Ahh: Sebastian Shaw - much better.  :thumbup:


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: Pacman000 on December 12, 2012, 11:50:06 AM
This was probably already pointed out somewhere in this thread but R2 knew everything in ANH and doesn't bother to inform anyone.   That kinda makes him lose street cred in my eyes.

To me, it kind of puts him more on the level of Ben or Yoda, part of the trusted inner circle. He knows what's going on, he's in on all the secrets, and he's much more of an instigator of events than a sidekick. It's pretty consistent with his behaviour when we first meet him. He knows the situation, he knows where to go and who to see. And if he's privy to inside information that only a handful of people share, he has a better grasp of the situation than the princess does, even though she's sending him on the mission. Makes him into a bit of a mastermind, in my view.
"That little droid's going to get me in a lot of trouble."
"Oh, he excels at that sir."  :wink:


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: Pacman000 on December 12, 2012, 12:04:23 PM
"I seem to remember owning a droid"

Poor R4, always forgotten.
I believe R4 was the republic's property, not Obi Wan's personal property.


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: Pacman000 on December 12, 2012, 12:11:15 PM
Quote
Sure it can be implied that Lukes training was a few months long... but I'm not sure if Han would deal with C3-PO for a week. And the way Han and Leia were acting towards each other; I bet within the a week Chewbacca would of dump those two love birds at the nearest astroid.

You know whats funny, I really didn't give that much thought but yeah it doesn't seems like Luke had all that much time with Yoda.  If it was real time with Han and company's problems after the Hoth then I honestly think it couldn't have been more than a day or two. 

You have to figure they bailed on Hoth on...lets say a Monday morning.  They couldn't have been on the asteroid belt for longer than a few hours.  That includes their dilmea with the worm they were in.  Then by the time they bolted off to the Cloud City it was probably the next morning Tuesday.  By that evening Han was in carbonite and Luke had his hand chopped off.  Wow, that means Luke really did a lot of Force development between ESB and ROTJ. 

Wow...that just seems beyond stupid for some reason. 
They traveled to Bespin at sub-light speeds; it may have taken them years to get there.  :wink:


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: Pacman000 on December 12, 2012, 12:17:24 PM
Quote
George can say all he wants how "Star Wars is for kids" but has this guy even looked at his fan base???

Perhaps one of the simplest and finest points made thus far, DS. George Lucas simply lost his edge in the years between these two trilogies. What we're left with is a sad attempt to tie in to the original trilogy laced with the likes of Jar Jar Binks. I mean, it's not like GL couldn't write meaningful dialogue before. The romantic tension between Han and Leia was perfectly believable and natural, yet when you hear the horrid dialogue between Anakin and Padme it's like nails on a chalkboard. What the hell happened? It's like he's trying to make a Disney film and doesn't know how.
Much of the Han/Leia dialog was rewritten/ad libbed on-set because the script wasn't working.


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: AndyC on December 12, 2012, 02:15:58 PM
I know I've said it before, but the prequels were not all that drastic a change from the original trilogy in some regards. More of a continuation of what was already happening in Return of the Jedi. That movie was loaded down with puppets and silly, cartoonish characters that served little purpose other than to sell more action figures. The puppets looked like puppets, the Ewoks looked like stuffed toys and the pig guard costumes looked like some kind of bizarre theme park mascots. It was helped by having the same story arc we already enjoyed, and central characters we already liked, as well as some decent action.


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: Pacman000 on December 12, 2012, 04:17:12 PM
I don't think II or III are that bad.  Episode II's love story slowed the movie down, but it was needed for the overall plot.  Episode I could've been good, but there were too many dumb scenes.  Anakin accidentally flies defeats a space station, shutting down an entire robot army? Come on!  Jar-Jar was ok at first, when he introduced the Jedi to the Gungans, but most of his later scenes serve no purpose.  They're supposed to be funny, but they're not; they're annoying.

I've read some synopsis's of Lucas's earliest Star Wars drafts; they're just as complicated as Episodes I, II, III.  He decided that he didn't have enough money/the right technology to make the movie, so he wrote more drafts.  Gradually, the plot got tighter, simpler, and better.  When Episodes I, II, III were released, he had more money, and technology had improved.  He could do anything he wanted.  Perhaps that's the problem with a lot of new movies, technology has gotten to the point where a director can do anything, so they make fewer drafts, resulting in worse plots.


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: ulthar on December 13, 2012, 04:45:30 PM

Episode II's love story slowed the movie down, but it was needed for the overall plot. 


That's certainly a matter of perspective.

This is just my pov, but I think the whole enchilada loses with all this humanizing backstory Lucas gave Vader.

In SW, before any sequels/prequels, we had:

--Vader was this super scary villain that could choke people from across the room and 'sense' the presence of an old nemesis on board his star ship

--The Empire would destroy entire inhabited planets - millions of people - just to spite one possible Rebel and demonstrate the power of their new weaponry.

--Obi Wan/Ben was mysteriously gifted - he could slink around undetected in an enemy military base and teach Luke to fight things he could not even see.

--Luke was a whiny brat that happened into heroism mostly out of Honor to Ben; Ben may have seen his destiny, but Luke sure did not 'feel' it.

--Han was super cool and actually acted like a pirate/smuggler.

Frankly, all this is the makings of a GOOD story.  I don't CARE what made Vader angry/evil, I don't care about ANY of the crap Lucas put on us in ANY of the sequels/prequels.  It's just not that interesting.

The story telling in every movie after SW is nowhere near as tight at SW itself.  All those drafts Lucas went through to get SW made  MADE IT BETTER.  Going back and making additional movies to fill in all dreck he had to revise OUT just ruin it for me.

Yes, ESB is interesting because it's 'darker,' but the Vader is Luke's father bit just made me gag at the time and I still cannot stand it.  That's Soap Opera BS and, imo, beneath the tightness/interestingness of the first story. (*) 

If I want a Soap Opera, I'll watch "Days of Our Lives." 

I think one of the reasons fans cannot stand the prequels is because there's just nothing there.  Nothing.  They introduce nothing new story wise and make 'connections' to the original in stretchy, reachy ways.



(*) Is the first SW perfect?  No.  But it's FUN.  It's very, very different from everything else in the series.  Maybe the first one was 'better' because it was based on other, better written, stories in classical literature, and the rest were truly from the mind George Lucas.  I don't know.


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: AndyC on December 13, 2012, 08:39:40 PM
George Lucas is a lot like Gene Roddenberry in some ways. Both produced their best work when they had to work within limitations and answer to other people.

The more control Lucas got, and the more resources he had at his disposal, the worse his movies got. Compare that with what happened when Roddenberry got carte blanche from Paramount and made his slow, pretentious, long and expensive epic.

That's why I'm optimistic about Disney owning the Star Wars franchise. Somebody else is in control, and Lucas is reduced to consultant/figurehead, just as Roddenberry was.


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: Pacman000 on December 14, 2012, 08:08:33 AM

Episode II's love story slowed the movie down, but it was needed for the overall plot. 


That's certainly a matter of perspective.

This is just my pov, but I think the whole enchilada loses with all this humanizing backstory Lucas gave Vader.

In SW, before any sequels/prequels, we had:

--Vader was this super scary villain that could choke people from across the room and 'sense' the presence of an old nemesis on board his star ship

--The Empire would destroy entire inhabited planets - millions of people - just to spite one possible Rebel and demonstrate the power of their new weaponry.

--Obi Wan/Ben was mysteriously gifted - he could slink around undetected in an enemy military base and teach Luke to fight things he could not even see.

--Luke was a whiny brat that happened into heroism mostly out of Honor to Ben; Ben may have seen his destiny, but Luke sure did not 'feel' it.

--Han was super cool and actually acted like a pirate/smuggler.

Frankly, all this is the makings of a GOOD story.  I don't CARE what made Vader angry/evil, I don't care about ANY of the crap Lucas put on us in ANY of the sequels/prequels.  It's just not that interesting.

The story telling in every movie after SW is nowhere near as tight at SW itself.  All those drafts Lucas went through to get SW made  MADE IT BETTER.  Going back and making additional movies to fill in all dreck he had to revise OUT just ruin it for me.

Yes, ESB is interesting because it's 'darker,' but the Vader is Luke's father bit just made me gag at the time and I still cannot stand it.  That's Soap Opera BS and, imo, beneath the tightness/interestingness of the first story. (*) 

If I want a Soap Opera, I'll watch "Days of Our Lives." 

I think one of the reasons fans cannot stand the prequels is because there's just nothing there.  Nothing.  They introduce nothing new story wise and make 'connections' to the original in stretchy, reachy ways.



(*) Is the first SW perfect?  No.  But it's FUN.  It's very, very different from everything else in the series.  Maybe the first one was 'better' because it was based on other, better written, stories in classical literature, and the rest were truly from the mind George Lucas.  I don't know.
Actually, I can agree with pretty much everything here.


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: Jim H on December 29, 2012, 02:17:02 PM
Quote
Maybe the first one was 'better' because it was based on other, better written, stories in classical literature, and the rest were truly from the mind George Lucas.  I don't know.

Have you seen the Hidden Fortress?  You'd find your thoughts backed up pretty well, as it really is an obvious influence (one Lucas admits). 


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: Jaer on January 09, 2013, 04:37:49 PM
Sorry if anyone said this--I didn't quite read every post--but one of the big inconsistencies to me was the scene in ANH where Darth Vadar gets insulted by...empire office #5 (???) and Vadar chokes him.

He says something about Vadar's ancient religion being hocus pocus and that the space station is totally badass and the force is nothing. I had always assumed that the Jedi had been in the shadows for generations, that it was stories from centuries ago that few people believed. It would be like hearing stories about fireball-throwing, lightning summoning medieval knights who whooped up on everyone back in the day...but everyone assumed they were myths and yet this guy over hear acts like he's one of them. And Vadar proves the power of the force by choking him--something that seemed to surprise everyone in the room as if acts of Force power are not normal.

And yet the Jedi where a ruling body of galactic police only 30 years earlier! Everyone knew about the Jedi, they were jumping all over the place and mind-effing drug dealers into being better people. It seems odd that suddenly Jedi had become this forgotten ancient order in 30 years.

I had assumed, growing up, that the way Jedi training worked was, a Jedi student was found by a master, trained a bit, and then ultimately sent to Yoda for the final training. Obi-Wan's "I thought I could train your father better than Yoda" meant in his arrogance, he trained Anakin himself, never sending him to Yoda for the final bit, the bit Luke got. I assumed that Jedi were always small in number, a secret order, and one that was long out of the public eye. Rumors, and nothing more.

I think it would have been much cooler had I been right.


Title: Re: Star Wars Plot Inconsistencies
Post by: 66Crush on January 13, 2013, 12:49:18 AM
It seems jaded to me to see Luke as "whiny."  He's just a kid trying to find his way through the dangerous new world he's been introduced to. The kids are supposed to relate to Luke, this is why he's written that way. Now Anakin in Episode I, there's a brat! But I would expect little Darth Vader to be nothing less.