Discussion in 'Visual Arts' started by MLutthans, Nov 10, 2015.
How does that retcon Obi-Wan’s death?
It appeared as if he died - or did he really?
He did really (well, apart from retaining the ability to return as a ghost). Nobody would find it ambiguous if they weren’t looking for a loophole to bring him back in Carrie’s place.
You know for sure?
I'll have to spot the timing when I see it again, but I seem to remember Han's dice disappearing from Kylo's hand after Luke dies on Ahch-to.
I know for sure that within the context of this film, the scene means he dies. The ending is meaningless otherwise. I do not know for sure that Disney and JJ Abrams won’t concoct some contrived way of bringing him back. Clearly some fans would be fine with that.
And both Rey and Leia sense that he’s gone.
I had read about the qui-gonn thing previously, and I've seen some of the Clone Wars series, but a lot of this stuff I'm just googling.
'why didn't qui-gonn disappear?' turns up a lot of pages. Evidently early on it was said he learned it after death and therefore could only appear as a voice, since his body did not disappear as Obi-Wan or Yoda.
But later there was an episode of the Clone Wars show that explains it - sometime when he was alive he had a mystical encounter with ancient force ghosts that taught him the technique, but he didn't learn it perfectly, so he can only physically appear in locations that are naturally strong in the force. Otherwise he's just a disembodied voice. (and maybe that's why his body didn't disappear when he died? )
That's if I'm keeping it straight, I may have left something out.
The prequels retconned his ability to manifest himself after his death - rather than 'I'll become more powerful than you can possibly imagine' - the explanation that it was a result of his communing with the spirit of his former master who was never mentioned in the OT.
The actual disappearing thing is not explained. (except kinda as above.)
To bad that genius was executed so poorly by the way of everything that was crappy about the prequels.
I saw the film a second time and like many people I was more forgiving the second time around but I still found the Finn subplot rather silly and pointless. The horseys and the casino slapstick took me right back to the prequels, in terms of cheese. And yeah....the ForceChat© stuff was kinda ikcy, but the "Twlight" fans will gobble it up. I get it. Sell dollies and romance novels. 50 Shades of Jakku Garb.
Anyway, overall I accept the film for what it is. I hate seeing favorite characters from the old films die, but such is life, I guess. But I do still wonder why some elements of the previous film (Kylo helmet, Knights of Ren, Grandpappy Vader worship) got thrown away.
The prequels explain that Qui-Gon Jinn taught Yoda and Obi-Wan to do it... I don't see how that contradicts the original movie, just because he doesn't mention it (he wasn't going to say "And now I will disappear and become a ghost using the techniques my master Qui-Gon Jinn taught me")
One piece of trivia that is confirmed by the director in an interview to a French film magazine.
When Luke stop projecting himself on Crait, he's shown to be back on Acht-To.
Acht-To is a planet with one sun, as it was shown repeatedly during the first half of the film.
Yet, at one moment, there's a shot of the skyline with a second sun. Apparently, if you watch closely, first, there's this shot with one sun and a small black spot.
The black spot is Tattooine. Luke actually projects himself a second time to contemplate for a final time the sunset (sunsset?) from Tattooine, something he already did in A New Hope. At that time, he was thinking about what was still to be done, now he ponders the work of a lifetime.
Go to 10:54
I don’t agree with you but funny is funny
the wiki article on retcon says 'Retcons sometimes do not contradict previously established facts but instead fill in missing background details, usually to support current plot points. [Roy] Thomas [Comic book writer] referred to "retroactive continuity" in this sense, as a purely additive process that did not undo any previous work; such additions were common in All-Star Squadron.' (my brackets)
I hadn't previously seen that but that's the way I was using the term, details added to a previously written story from the retroactive perspective of a later work.
Put plainly, the "Ring Theory" is horse sh!t.
I see... I think of a retcon as something that actually changes the past of the story... like saying a character now has one sibling where previously they had two... or saying Luke Skywalker's father is now Darth Vader.
The original movies gave you the impression that becoming a force ghost was something all Jedi could do... but I guess in the prequels George realized, I have to be able to kill all these Jedi without them all popping up again.
That's your take on it. I'm not a fan of the prequels either, but many are, particularly young people who's first exposure to the saga were the prequels. In the interest of objectivity, many of the same criticisms leveled at the prequel trilogy can be leveled at the original trilogy as well.
As this thread has evolved Im thinking it has divided the dark from the light.....
great post. nailed my own thinking. I really think the prequels could have been decent if he'd gotten good collaborators.
I'd have more of a problem with the prequels doing retcon if there wasn't already a bunch of it in the OT as well.
One of the appeals of Star Wars was the epic setting that it references - the Galaxy, the Empire, the Force, etc., partly because they raise a lot of questions. It points to a vast backstory that can't possibly be elaborated in the space of one film, or even six films, or the entire expanded universe apparatus. I can't nitpick too many of the clarifications too hard, it's a natural extension of all of the references in the original trilogy.
I don't mind the prequels as 'reference' works - they're not among my favorite films, but I will typically watch them (like if I come across them on TV) because there is a lot of Star Wars information to be found there, which I find interesting. (contrast that with the Hobbit trilogy - although I love Tolkien, I'll flip right by those.)
Also, I found this old interview regarding obi-wan/qui-gon etc.
Star Wars archive: George Lucas 1999 interview
If the payoff was what he gave us in episode 3, I don't know that really explained it all, though it was better elaborated in the animated series.
Or they just couldn't get Liam to come back for a two minute cameo. It was so lame. "Have someone here to say hi, I do!" "Oh, it's master qui-gon!" "Yes, just off screen is he."
I wonder if at that point (1999) he was still expecting to have Neeson appear, and then couldn't get it done during filming of Episode 3?
Don't start asking yourself questions about the prequels. It will only lead you down a rabbit hole, with no return.
Is the french magazine online by any chance?
Separate names with a comma.