PDA

View Full Version : Amidala's Fate(May Conatain Spoilers)



Arament
23 April 2001, 07:11 PM
As we all know, Amidala is most likely going to meet death first hand in Epidsode III. The other night I was sitting around and thinking about Star Wars and such and such...and wondered, how will Amidala's life come to an end? Will she be shot by a blaster? Fed to a bantha? Dismembered by a light saber? Eaten alive by an angry pack of sullustans? Will she be trampled by fifty Star Wars geeks at a Sci-Fi convention?So many possibilities! Does anyone have any word on Amidala's death?

Zak'irek
23 April 2001, 09:26 PM
How do we know Amidala will die in Ep 3? Leia only ststes that her mother died when she was very young. If she is able to remember her, perhaps she lives a little longer than Ep 3.

I doubt Anikin would kill her, purposely any way.

Arament
23 April 2001, 09:58 PM
A couple things Zak...
Well I am pretty sure Amidala does in fact die in episode III. I read it on various websites(although none of them were official). You mention the fact that Leia says her mother died when she was very young(Return of the Jedi). In Episode II Amidala is pregnant with Luke and Leia(I beleive I read that at starwars.com, although I have been to so many star wars sites in the past few days I cannot keep track of what I read and where) and I beleive that is when she gives Leia(and luke) away. I read in Star Wars Insider a couple years back(about 5 or so, when they first started talking about the prequels) that Episode III would lead right up to the events of Episode IV: A New Hope. I also read that James Earl Jones will return for the voice of Darth Vader. If these things are true then Anakins tranformation into Vader is complete and the twins, luke and leia, are now 17 or 18 years old and Amidala must have been dead for some time.

Does anakin kill Amidala? I doubt it. I think Palpatine will kill her somehow, although I am not sure what his motives are. Most of the information I have stated above, though, are just rumors so I could be totally wrong about everything.

The Admiral
26 April 2001, 09:41 AM
I'd say one likelihood is that she's killed accidentlly. Something has to drive anakin over tothe dark side, and I'm figuring either Amidala or Shmi's death would do the trick. Whilst it might be Palpers that does it, it'd make sense for Anakin to at least believe that OB1 was resposible, there's got to be a reason at some point for the two of them to fight, my evil mind pictures,,,

(Palpatine in background making Sithy gestures)
Ami: "What are those silly swords anyway?"
OB1: "Magnetically constrained plasma beam."
Ami: "Oh. Can I see yours?"
OB1: "Sure, but look out for the end with the round thing on."
Ami: "Thanks,,,"
(Palpatine makes dramatic Sithy gestures, OB1 ignites his saber as he passes it to Amidala,,,)
Ami: "Uh huh, that itching burning sensation in my chest,,,"
OB1: "Uh, yeah?"
Ami: "Oh, it's a big hole!"
OB1: "Sorry, it's never happened to me before, honest."
Ami: "Oh well. Urrkkkkggghgle,,,,,,,"
(Palpatine starts giggling)
Ana: "What's going on?! NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!"
OB1: "Sorry mate, it just went off!"
Ana: "I am Anakin Diego Montoya Skywalker, you killed my Queenie, prepare to die!"
OB1: "Oh fine. I've been getting really tired of you recentlly,,,"
<Snap, hiss,,,>
<Snap, hiss,,,>

FVBonura
11 January 2006, 09:17 PM
From the shooting script of “Return of the Jedi”:

LUKE
Luke, what's wrong?
Luke turns and looks at her a long moment.
LUKE
Leia... do you remember your mother? Your real mother?
LEIA
Just a little bit. She died when I was very young.
LUKE
What do you remember?
LEIA
Just...images, really. Feelings.
LUKE
Tell me.
LEIA
(a little surprised at his insistence) She was very beautiful. Kind, but...sad. (looks up) Why are you asking me all this? He looks away.
LUKE
I have no memory of my mother. I never knew her.



Questions:
How can Amidala have died at child birth if Leia remembers her mother?
How can a newborn remember her mother was “beautiful. Kind, but...sad”?
How can Amidala be dead at childbirth, if Leia said “She died when I was very young”?
Does very young mean newborn?
If Leia is remembering her foster mother, and not her real mother, why would Luke care, and be so insistant?
Why is Luke asking Leia these questions?

Please help.
:thrawn: :noghri:

djas_puhr
12 January 2006, 02:36 AM
Well for starters Leia states, Just...images, really. Feelings could be that force inprinted her those feelings and images that is how I took it.

We all assumed that Luke was stronger in the force then Leia, but I have a new look at it.

Yes Luke was born first, but Leia was born shortly before, (a few second to a minute or so) before Padme died. In that brief moment Leia was conected, through the force, to Padme and was given a type of Force Memory. Sorta like genetic memory, but using the force.

Well that's how I've explained it in my head. HTH.

The Admiral
12 January 2006, 05:20 AM
There are a variety of perfectly plausible reasons for the discrepancy.

A: Leia is in error. It's quite possible she's had two foster mothers but is only aware that one of them actually was a foster parent, thus she is referring to Bail's spouse seen in RotS

B: Leia is lying. More charitably she is a skilled diplomat and is instinctively aware that Luke is needing some support before he can complete his mission. As she is aware of the importance of the mission, she offers a bolstering lie.

C: Leia is confabulating. She may be well aware of her genetic mother's history and character and has simply constructed a confabulous sense about her as a self defense mechanism against feelings of guilt and loss over a mother she never knew. Many people have claims that they remember their birth despite there being very strong evidence that this is ipossible. It is generally accepted by psychologists that this is a rationalisation created by the subconscious to permit the superconscious to function is a given way (i.e. a confabulation.)

There are bound to be more.

The actual reason of course is a change in plot to allow for the action of Episode Three to fit into the two hour time slot. Amidala would have had to have had the children secretly and after discovering that Anakin had fallen to the dark side, but then been killed by another factor. This would have meant Anakin would have had to be fallen for a lot of the film, and an entirely new element brought in to kill her off. Given the amount of material that was required to be in this film already it was easier to ignore a minor discrepancy.

Faraer
12 January 2006, 06:39 AM
It isn't a discrepancy, as Paul Ens establishes here (http://blogs.starwars.com/ghent/26).

FVBonura
12 January 2006, 08:16 AM
Originally posted by Faraer
It isn't a discrepancy, as Paul Ens establishes here (http://blogs.starwars.com/ghent/26).

Why thank you Faraer, I read it. Paul makes some excellent points, and raises more questions for me. In reading Paul's blog, I noticed he can not explain the reasoning for Luke's lack of memory of his real mother, and confesses to Leia he never knew her.

Questions:
Is not Luke stronger in the force?
If not then why must he face and defeat Vader instead of Leia defeating Vader?
Luke does have visions as Paul indicated, so are Leia’s memories through the force or from actual experience?
Why does Leia not seem surprised when Luke says “real mother”?
Does anybody know if George Lucas has addressed this, or responded to any questions of this sort?
Is there an "official" answer or do we not know if we are dealing with a error or not?

Please help.
:thrawn: :noghri:

Tramp
12 January 2006, 12:05 PM
The most likely, and most logical source of Leia’s memories is from pictures and a few anecdotal stories about her from her adoptive father. Leia knows what Padmé looked like and knew the kind of person she was, even if she didn’t know her name. This strongly suggests that when Leia was about four or five, she asked Bail Organa what her mommy was like and he showed her som pictures of her, and told her how her mother was a very kind woman, but a terrible thing happened and she became very sad. This is all a small child would need to know, and stories like this very easily form what are referred to as “false memories”, as exampled in the multiple instances of people saying that they “remember“ seeing the deleted scene of Luke and Biggs at Tosche Station; a scene that has never been shown, except as stills and descriptions in the novelization and radio dramas.

Thinithil
12 January 2006, 12:20 PM
Go to ebay and search for "Beyond the Magic". You can see some of the scenes on the CR-ROM. People then confuse those memories (momories?) with reality. No time to delve deeper. Good thread though.

Tramp
12 January 2006, 12:21 PM
There are many reasons why the Force cannot be the source of Leia’s memories. First off, Leia was not trained in the Force, and had no skill in seeing Force Visions. In game terms, this means that she did not yet have the Sense feat, nor training in Farseeing, an ability which requires training to use. Leia didn‘t have this untill after she began training as a Jedi in Heir the the Empire.

Some people say it is the result of a Force bond. This too is impossible. the Force Bond is a skill known in the D6 system as Life Bond which requires that both individuals be Force Sensitive, and be trained in the ability. It also states that the bond is broken immediately following the death of one of the individuals. Given that Padmé was not only not Force Sensitive, but also died almost immediately after giving birth, a Force Bond is impossible. The only other form of a Force Bind is what is known as a Twin Bond, which also is common among normal twins, just not to the same degree. Since Padmé is certainly not Leia’s twin, this eliminates that possibility. Therefore, Leia’s memories cannot be from any use of the Force. nor a Force Bond of any kind.

Rostek
12 January 2006, 12:27 PM
An interesting thought that occurred to me was this: perhaps Obi-Wan, conciously or unconciously (more likely the latter) imparted his thoughts and feelings at the time of Padme's death into Leia- perhaps while holding her or somesuch. Sort of like an "intangibles only" version of Caamasi memnii. I don't recall the scene from the movie too terribly well, I'm afraid, so I don't know who or what Obi-Wan was holding (if anything) at the time of or directly after Padme's death. A strong rush of emotion and thought from so powerful a Jedi could, potentially, impart those thoughts upon a particularly force sensitive mind. If Luke weren't in as close physical proximity as Leia, that could explain why he has no such memories, or if he were, perhaps his mind didn't "take" (i.e. failed roll or something) as well as Leia's... empathy always was her strong point, after all, not Luke's.

Perhaps this is far too elegant for it's own good, but like I said- I don't recall the scene exactly.

Tramp
12 January 2006, 03:18 PM
No. That doesn’t work either. First off, Leia’s brain hasn’t developed enough to maintain such long-term memories yet. Secondly, that is still a form of Force Bond, and that still requires specialized training on both participants. There is also no evidence that Leia ever formed a Bond with Obi-Wan, or he with her. Her memries have to have come from a second-hand source much later; a mundane second-hand source.

Rostek
12 January 2006, 03:58 PM
If I might respectfully point out: the answer is whatever GL feels like it is, and thus discounting anything is probably a bad idea.
The Force supposedly concieved Anakin all by itself (yes, I'm aware of the argument that this isn't the case, but there is no evidence to point out that is true), and so talking about what the Force can and can't do without specific referance by GL is an exercise in theory.
Still- the mundane explaination is entirely possible and is at least provable to be capable of producing the effects, which the Force is currently unable to be proven either way.
I don't know as if we'll ever get an answer to this one (or if one even exists)... not that it's a problem, of course, it's only fiction.

Tramp
12 January 2006, 04:02 PM
Well, Lucas Licensing, and its licensees, have placed certain limitations on the Force already, most of which I have covered already. Based upon these limitations, as well as that of human brains at birth, Leia could not have first hand memories of Padmé. They have to be from second-hand sources.

Rostek
12 January 2006, 04:17 PM
That's what I meant- LL is, of course, a legitimate determiner of limits. My poor choice of terms.
Funny- I've never read that any and all forms of Force Bond (excluding, presumable, the bond between twins) require specific and specialized training.
Quite the opposite, in fact: In KotOR II (which, granted, as a source of canon is not one of the best) the main character is able to form force bonds easily (even before his/her, ahem, condition) with even untrained force-sensitives. This is a quite one sided affair, of course, at least initially and the character does it unconciously. I'm not saying this is the case here, but it at least shows there are some exceptions to the supposed rule regarding force bonds.
I don't dispute that the human brain is not capable of retaining such long term memories, but whether or not there is some residual force imprint in ther cannot be determined.
Like I said- where the Force is concerned, unless it has been definitively established, then I am unready to make definitive judgement.
(If you can bring up specific examples, please do so- and I will happily incorporate them into my analysis).

Tramp
12 January 2006, 04:24 PM
Actually, the Force Bond in KotOR did not occure over night, but during a long time while Bastilla was healing Revan’s mind. They were linked for a rather long period of time. Secondly, another thing that discounts the Force imprint idea is that Luke would have had those same memories and imprints. In fact, he is more likely to have developed an imprint since it was Luke that Padmé actually held, not Leia. Leia never even got to look at her mother, and even then would not have been able to focus on her since her retinas, and the visual cortex isn’t fully developed until two months of age. So, we have even more evidence against Force imprints and first hand memories.

Rostek
12 January 2006, 04:30 PM
KotOR II- differant circumstances.

I'm not positing Padme did anything- she wouldn't have been capable of doing so, nor am I saying Leia initiated anything, that again is not possible- I am suggesting that Obi-Wan's powerful emotions at the time coupled with his observations would be virtually the only possibility of such a Force-related cause.

I think we're actually agreeing here more than not. I believe there is only one source (outside of the Force itself doing something) of such a thing even being possible.

Tramp
12 January 2006, 04:34 PM
Obi-Wan is still not an option. He can’t simply impose a memory on someone. And why would he even if he could. We may agree partially on Leia’’s memories, but I completely rule out any Force involvement entirely. The only possible source is second hand memories from pictures and anecdotal stories.

Rostek
12 January 2006, 04:56 PM
Which is why I suggest it was unconcious (this was all in my original post, btw).
Outpouring of emotion can (interpreting various suggestions from canon) lead to the force imprint; I would think Obi-Wan's emotions were pretty powerful at the time. But yes, as you point out- there is no proof.

In any case- I think that we've made our positions and thoughts clear- and they are mutually exclusive and thus any more arguing the point would be a waste of time.
No problem, really- it's not unlike discussions I've had with athieists (you remind me of a certain one in particular, actually). We shall just have to agree to disagree- without acknowledging that the other's position is correct and privately lament the stubborness of the other. :D

Tramp
12 January 2006, 04:59 PM
The big problem with imprints is that Leia remembers what her mother looks like, not just what she felt. An imprint would not have given this knowledge to her, not even one from Obi-Wan.

Rostek
12 January 2006, 05:12 PM
An interesting point- though not discounting of imprint in of itself. Since I don't know the precise nature of imprints (whether they manifest in animal brain emotional impulses or that sort of thing combined with images...) I can't speak with certainty.
Like I said- debating the point more is not going to convince either of us. I'll stick to my "I don't know" position until told otherwise by Lucas or a duly appointed representative, with all proper respect.

Tramp
12 January 2006, 05:17 PM
The nature of imprints, even Force imprints is emotional, not visual. An imprint could give a person a sense of the emotional state of another person, but it wouldn’t give visual image of that individual.

Rostek
12 January 2006, 05:34 PM
I think assigning psychological phenomena to a supernatural force is not ideal evidence, though evidence it is. In any case- as I said, I shall retain my stance of "I don't know" until certain conditions are met ;)

Tramp
12 January 2006, 05:37 PM
And, I’ll just have to keep on trying to convince you:P :D

Rostek
12 January 2006, 06:00 PM
Heh heh, I'm stubborn like that ;)

Tramp
12 January 2006, 06:02 PM
Me too.

Rostek
12 January 2006, 06:08 PM
Originally posted by Tramp
Me too.

So I supsected :)

Tramp
12 January 2006, 06:13 PM
:D

FVBonura
12 January 2006, 06:54 PM
OK the two of you are discussing the mechanics of force bonds, and I see you both have different views as to how force bonds work. I am still somewhat confused, and I have a few more questions.

Questions:
We don't have an official answer do we? :?
I guess it is safe to say George Lucas has been silent on this? :?
Is there a possibility this could be a mistake of some sort? :?
Should the average movie-goer have to do this much reasoning, and explaining to answer a story inconsistancy like this? :?

Please help.

Tramp
12 January 2006, 07:14 PM
Originally posted by FVBonura
OK the two of you are discussing the mechanics of force bonds, and I see you both have different views as to how force bonds work. I am still somewhat confused, and I have a few more questions.

Well, the only official source for details on Force Bonds is from the WEG sourcebook The Truce at Bakura Sourcebook. The only known Force bonds were one Dev had with his mother, the one Luke shares with Mara, and the Twin Bonds shared between Jacen and Jaina, and, to a lesser degree, between Luke and Leia.


Questions:
We don't have an official answer do we? :?
I guess it is safe to say George Lucas has been silent on this? :?[/quote[ Nope. Nop official answer.
[quote]Is there a possibility this could be a mistake of some sort? :?

No, not a mistake, just a serious continuity error created between RotS and RotJ which needs a fix.


Should the average movie-goer have to do this much reasoning, and explaining to answer a story inconsistancy like this? :?

Please help.
Depends upon the movie-goer. If someone were to watch the movies in order and they saw the scene of Luke asking Leia about her mom, he would probably be very confused at how could Leia remember Padmé if she had died giving birth. I know I would be. Therefore, this would cause serious confusion and in need of an answer.

Rostek
12 January 2006, 07:16 PM
Originally posted by FVBonura
OK the two of you are discussing the mechanics of force bonds, and I see you both have different views as to how force bonds work. I am still somewhat confused, and I have a few more questions.

Questions:
We don't have an official answer do we? :?
I guess it is safe to say George Lucas has been silent on this? :?
Is there a possibility this could be a mistake of some sort? :?
Should the average movie-goer have to do this much reasoning, and explaining to answer a story inconsistancy like this? :?

Please help.

In order:

Correct

Correct

"Mistake" as in "severe continuity oops", then yes, absolutely.

Never underestimate the power the average moviegoer has to dismiss inconvinient plot facts ;)
We only notice because we're nerds...

hisham
12 January 2006, 07:23 PM
I understand where Frank is coming from. I don't have the answers, but I have a couple of points here that might augment your questions.

Bottom line: A story should stand on its own merit.

Point 1:
If you're talking about a movie, you should be looking at its internal story structure. As much as I love the EU, it shouldn't be in a position where this conversation would be happening:

Casual fan: "Why did Leia say she remembered her mother, when she died at childbirth?"

Fans like us: "Her force sensitivity is implied, so based on Force powers seen in [insert EU book name here] she might be able to remember bla bla bla...."

... and that will totally throw off the casual fan, which should not happen.

Point 2:
There is no in-movie evidence that says Leia saw any pictures of her mother. She implied she actually saw her.

This could have been averted earlier in the OT by having Leia show Luke a blurred holo of her mother. And to catch this in the PT, having Bail say something like, "I will tell her stories and show her pictures of her real mother" would alleviate the problem.

There are merely some examples of continuity shown via visuals and script to avoid this debate. I'm sure real writers out there can come up with something better and (more important to a movie) something more dramatic.

boccelounge
12 January 2006, 07:32 PM
It seems we've discussed this before, but (again) I'll just throw my POV into it: it never occurred to me that this was a "continuity error" of any kind.

It makes perfect sense to me that a newborn infant with an inherent aptitude in "the Force" could retain vague impressions of her mother as an adult. That is, it makes "sense" in terms of the fantastical bounds of the SW universe.

I mean... we buy Death Stars, FTL travel, and "Sith"... but we quibble about childhood memories? :? ;)


EDIT: I'm not really trying to argue this point, or to change anyone's mind... it's just a very curious issue, to me. I honestly never would've thought this would be an issue. :)

Tramp
12 January 2006, 07:34 PM
The problem of that theory is that no other Jedi, nor Force user has any consious knowledge of their birth nor infancy. In fact, everything about the Jedi practice of taking Force Sensitive infants at infancy reflects that they are taken too early for them to remember their families and thus have no attachments to them. Therefore, Force Sensitivity is not a answer for memories of Padmé. It can’t be. As one of those SW geeks, I would certainly not answer with Force Sensitivity as the answer. I would say that her adoptive father had to have told her abpout Padmé and shown her some pictures. It is the simplest, and most logical answer.

FVBonura
12 January 2006, 08:45 PM
Originally posted by boccelounge
[B]It seems we've discussed this before, but (again) I'll just throw my POV into it: it never occurred to me that this was a "continuity error" of any kind.
boccelounge where did you discuss this? I would like to read more please.


Originally posted by hisham
I understand where Frank is coming from. I don't have the answers, but I have a couple of points here that might augment your questions.

Bottom line: A story should stand on its own merit.
If this story can not stand on its own merit, is there an error or not? :?

Please help.
:thrawn: :noghri:

Tramp
12 January 2006, 09:00 PM
This same discussion has taken place among fans on multiple boards from this one to the WotC boards to the Official SW message boards and The Fan Force boards.

FVBonura
12 January 2006, 09:13 PM
Originally posted by Tramp
This same discussion has taken place among fans on multiple boards from this one to the WotC boards to the Official SW message boards and The Fan Force boards.

Wow, I did not know that.

If they have been disgussed on the Official SW message boards, has their been any Official word, or answer?
If not what is George Lucas waitng for?

Tramp
12 January 2006, 09:16 PM
Nope. No official word from any of the VIPs.

FVBonura
13 January 2006, 05:51 AM
Originally posted by Tramp
Nope. No official word from any of the VIPs.

Bummer :(

Don't you guys think something this important should be answered by Official sources, or George Lucas himself?
Why do you think the VIPs have not spoken?
Do you think the VIPs will ever address this?


:thrawn: :noghri:

Lucas Carr
13 January 2006, 06:33 AM
I have to say a word or two on this.

Just because the mind works a certain way here, in the real world, it doesn't mean that it works the same way in the Star Wars galaxy.

And even if newborns generally don't have any memories of their parents, there is no evidence that Leia didn't. There is no evidence that Leia doesn't have some Force ability, previously not described in game terms, that would allow her to form those memories, either normally or through the Force.

But on the other hand there is no evidence that it wasn't second hand info either.

Tramp
13 January 2006, 08:09 AM
Actually, there is plenty of evidence that she couldn’t have. No Force user has ever been recorded as being able to remember their births, Force Sensitive children were taken from their families in infancy to prevent attachments because the child would not even remember their families. Mace Windu himself said in Shatterpoint that he cannot remember his time with his native people before being taken to the Jedi Temple. In the Last of the Jedi series, Feris Olin makes a comment that the only familiy he ever knew was the Jedi. This can be seen across the board. Children were taken before they developed long-term memory so that they would not remember their families, and thus not become attached to them. Force sensitivity has nothing to do with how developed your memory is.

Faraer
13 January 2006, 08:10 AM
Originally posted by FVBonura
Is there a possibility this could be a mistake of some sort? :?Yes, it might be a mistake. But Episodes IV–VI don't establish anything concrete enough to be contradicted by Episode III, and not knowing exactly how something comes to pass doesn't constitute an inconsistency or a continuity error.


Originally posted by hisham
Casual fan: "Why did Leia say she remembered her mother, when she died at childbirth?"

Fans like us: "Her force sensitivity is implied, so based on Force powers seen in [insert EU book name here] she might be able to remember bla bla bla...."Only a non-casual fan is likely to have watched the older episodes enough times to (a) remember what Leia says about her mother and (b) come to a solid conclusion about what she means.

Lucas Carr
13 January 2006, 10:31 AM
Originally posted by Tramp
Actually, there is plenty of evidence that she couldn’t have. No Force user has ever been recorded as being able to remember their births,

So what? No Force user had ever been recorded to become a Force Spirit before Qui-Gon did. But that didn't prevent him.



Force Sensitive children were taken from their families in infancy to prevent attachments because the child would not even remember their families. Mace Windu himself said in Shatterpoint that he cannot remember his time with his native people before being taken to the Jedi Temple. In the Last of the Jedi series, Feris Olin makes a comment that the only familiy he ever knew was the Jedi. This can be seen across the board. Children were taken before they developed long-term memory so that they would not remember their families, and thus not become attached to them. Force sensitivity has nothing to do with how developed your memory is.
I never said that "Force Sensitivity had anything to do with how developed your memory is", I said that the ability to develop long-term memories might be developed much earlier there than it is here. Besides I have forgotten many things I've learned since I developed long-term memory, and I'm sure that goes for Mace and Feris too.

So just because the Jedi took children in infancy doesn't mean that those children were unable to form long-term memories, just that they were more likely not to remember if there wasn't much to remember. And Leia may just be an example of that. Not that I say that she is, because I don't know that. I'm just saying that there is no proof either way.

FVBonura
13 January 2006, 10:48 AM
Originally posted by Faraer
Yes, it might be a mistake. But Episodes IV–VI don't establish anything concrete enough to be contradicted by Episode III, and not knowing exactly how something comes to pass doesn't constitute an inconsistency or a continuity error.

A very interesting way to look at it Faraer. What criteria would have to be satisfied for it to be considered an error?


Originally posted by Faraer
Only a non-casual fan is likely to have watched the older episodes enough times to (a) remember what Leia says about her mother and (b) come to a solid conclusion about what she means.

Humm... True, very true.

Questions:
How long have we been exposed to this scene between Luke, and Leia?
Has your interpretation of the scene changed since seeing Episode 3?
Prior to seeing Episode 3 (1983 to 2004), what was your old interpretation of the scene mentioned above between Luke and Leia?
Were your expectations/explanations met regarding this scene in ROTJ after watching Episode 3?

You have made me curious.
:thrawn: :noghri:

Tramp
13 January 2006, 10:59 AM
Originally posted by FVBonura


A very interesting way to look at it Faraer. What criteria would have to be satisfied for it to be considered an error?



Humm... True, very true.

Questions:
How long have we been exposed to this scene between Luke, and Leia?[quote]

Since the movie first came out back in ’83.
[quote]Has your interpretation of the scene changed since seeing Episode 3?

Not really.

Prior to seeing Episode 3 (1983 to 2004), what was your old interpretation of the scene mentioned above between Luke and Leia?

Originally, It was assumed that Padmé had gone to stay on Alderaan in hiding with Baiil Organa and raised Leia for a number of years until she died, This is how the NEGtC implies Leia remembered Padmé. because she actually lived with ehr for a few years.


Were your expectations/explanations met regarding this scene in ROTJ after watching Episode 3?
No. This is one scene which left me wanting because, without some official explaination, it leaves questions as to how leia could remember her real mother. While having Padmé die was dramatic, it does create a plot hole in the series in oits entirety.



You have made me curious.
:thrawn: :noghri:

I hope I have saisfied some of that curiousity.

FVBonura
13 January 2006, 11:02 AM
Originally posted by boccelounge
I mean... we buy Death Stars, FTL travel, and "Sith"... but we quibble about childhood memories? :? ;)

Would it be safe to say the story/script itself is more important than the setting or the special effects?
Would it also be safe to say that character development is more important than the props or the computer graphics?
Would not a good story/script do well in any setting regardless of budget or genre?
Is a movie, a sequel, or a prequel if it does not tell the same story as the original?
If this was an error, what effect would it have on the story, and/ or its characters?

I am curious.
:thrawn: :noghri:

FVBonura
13 January 2006, 11:04 AM
Thank you tramp, this is most interesting.

Faraer
13 January 2006, 03:04 PM
It is a continuity gap, in somewhat the same way as if the droids had been left with someone other than Captain Antilles.

It's an error if George Lucas meant one thing in VI, then didn't realize he did another thing in III. And if no one told him during production, which is what makes this less than likely, also given how closely the end of III generally ties in with IV–VI.

I'm not sure what you call it if George meant one thing in VI then realized the overall dramatic needs of III, or of the saga as whole, were best met by revising the story (though not so as to outright contradict VI).

Personally, I didn't form the definite impression that Leia grew up with her mother for any time, and on seeing III, no discrepancy struck me, either in continuity (which I really don't care much about) or mythic and emotional congruence. I don't think that all these little things need to be explained -- the Force holds infinite mysteries (and more than usually with the daughter of the Chosen One). Filling in such gaps can be fun, as long as people realize it's speculation.


Originally posted by FVBonura
Would it be safe to say the story/script itself is more important than the setting or the special effects?
Would it also be safe to say that character development is more important than the props or the computer graphics?
Would not a good story/script do well in any setting regardless of budget or genre?The story is most important, and both the script and the effects contribute to it -- since Star Wars storytelling is more visual (as well as musical, like opera) than dialogue-based. In these films the whole universe -- characters, planets, weather, spaceships -- is emotionally and mythically charged, and meaning is located everywhere, as opposed to modern psychological realism which locates meaning in individual characters' heads (where it's largely inaccessible to us). The last question is complex!

FVBonura
14 January 2006, 06:01 PM
Ok I took some time to digest everything said here, and decided to do some digging. You have ALL increased my curiosity ten fold. Well done!!!

I found the following site that has scripts from the movies as well as earlier drafts as well.

Starkiller Scripts (http://www.starwarz.com/starkiller/scripts.htm)

I looked at the script of STAR WARS - EPISODE VI : "REVENGE OF THE JEDI"
Written by GEORGE LUCAS REVISED ROUGH DRAFT June 12, 1981 at the following address:

ROTJ Revised Rough Draft (http://www.starwarz.com/starkiller/scripts/revenge_revised_rough_draft.htm)

This is not the shooting script but an earlier revised rough draft. It revealed the following clues:



YODA
The Force runs strong in the Skywalker line. If you will not destroy your father, there is only one other left who can…your sister.

LUKE
Sister!!! I don't have a sister.

YODA
Strong with the Force is she; but untrained.

LUKE
My sister?

YODA
Taken to Alderaan by your mother, was she. Safer it was to keep you apart.

LUKE
Leia?!?

YODA
Your twin sister… If you fail to destroy your father, our only hope is she.

YODA
Your twin sister… If you fail to destroy your father, our only hope is she.

Luke is stunned by this bit of information, and quickly becomes lost in thought.



Questions:
Does this earlier script fit your older, earlier interpretations of the scene in Ep6 with Luke, and Leia?
Do you think George Lucas’ original idea points closer to Ep6 or Ep3?

I took a look at the shooting script again on the following site:

ROTJ Shooting Script (http://www.stormforcepictures.com/moviescripts/scripts/scripts_qrstu/returnofthejedi.htm)

I took a look at part of the script that was not used in the final edit of ROTJ, and it revealed the folowing clues:



BEN
Your insight serves you well. Bury your feelings deep down, Luke. They do you credit. But they could be made to serve the Emperor.

Luke looks into the distance, trying to comprehend all this.

BEN (continuing his narrative)
When your father left, he didn't know your mother was pregnant. Your mother and I knew he would find out eventually, but we wanted to keep you both as safe as possible, for as long as possible. So I took you to live with my brother Owen on Tatooine... and your mother took Leia to live as the daughter of Senator Organa, on Alderaan.

Luke turns, and settles near Ben to hear the tale.

BEN (attempting to give solace with his words)
The Organa household was high-born and politically quite powerful in that system. Leia became a princess by virtue of lineage... no one knew she'd been adopted, of course. But it was a title without real power, since Alderaan had long been a democracy. Even so, the family continued to be politically powerful, and Leia, following in her foster father's path, became a senator as well. That's not all she became, of course... she became the leader of her cell in the Alliance against the corrupt Empire. And because she had diplomatic immunity, she was a vital link for getting information to the Rebel cause. That's what she was doing when her path crossed yours... for her foster parents had always told her to contact me on Tatooine, if her troubles became desperate.

Luke is overwhelmed by the truth, and is suddenly protective of his sister.

LUKE
But you can't let her get involved now, Ben. Vader will destroy her.

BEN
She hasn't been trained in the ways of the Jedi the way you have, Luke ... but the Force is strong with her, as it is with all of your family. There is no avoiding the battle. You must face and destroy Vader!



WOW, Luke is not the only one overwhelmed by the truth. I wish this scene was included back in 1983, it would have answered a lot back then. This is quite a discovery for me!!!

Questions:
Wow what is going on here this is amazing?
Should knowledge of the STAR WARS novels, and SWRPG be necessary to interpret the movies?
If so then how are the majority of regular STAR WARS fans to figure this out?
If not then can somebody realistically solve this inconsistency based on move footage alone?

Please help:
:thrawn: :noghri:

Codym
14 January 2006, 09:29 PM
Knowledge of the EU or RPG is not needed to understanding the movies, as they are designed to stand on their own and they do. In fact, I tend to blame the EU for most of the confusion over SW. I've yet to see a mystery that cannot be explained away from evidence only found in the movies, including Leia's "memories" of her mother, and only look to the EU for entertainment purposes.

The idea that everything in SW must be explained, on screen, in huge displays of exposition annoys me. SW is one of the few film franchises that doesn't treat it's fans as idiots, and trusts them to figure things out on their own.

Tramp
15 January 2006, 10:03 AM
The problem here is though, that the movies are where the conflict is in. It has nothing to do with the EU. RotS created a continuity error with RotJ by having Padmé die in childbirth. Sure, for the story of RotS, having her die was rather dramatic, but it created a big plot hole with Leia’s line in RotJ about having memories of he from when she was young. Therfore, blame RotS for this, not th EU. The EU is there to fix these kinds of plot holes, but they haven’t done so yet.

Lucas Carr
15 January 2006, 04:02 PM
After seeing RotJ I believed that Leia had known her mother longer than we see in RotS, though that has now been established as not being the case.

It doesn’t matter where GL’s original idea pointed as he didn’t use it and we don’t know why he changed it. It may very well be because the old script didn’t support death at childbirth.

I think the movies establishes fairly well that Owen isn’t Obi-Wan Kenobi’s brother, so whatever you want this unused sequence to say about our topic doesn’t necessarily say anything at all.

Knowledge of novels and rpg aren’t needed to understand the films. And I have to agree with Codym that not everything has to be shown, that some things can be left for the viewer to figure out on his own, even if the information we have can be interpreted in more than one way. And many have given suggestions as to why there is no inconsistency regarding Amidala’s fate as presented in RotJ and RotS.

jmanski
15 January 2006, 04:05 PM
Actually, tramp, Leia could have been thinking about her adopted mother.

coldskier0320
15 January 2006, 05:12 PM
WOW, Luke is not the only one overwhelmed by the truth.

He used up all his "overwhelm" in the movie before that, in his "Noooooooooo!!!" ;)

Codym
15 January 2006, 06:08 PM
Originally posted by Tramp
The problem here is though, that the movies are where the conflict is in. It has nothing to do with the EU. RotS created a continuity error with RotJ by having Padmé die in childbirth. Sure, for the story of RotS, having her die was rather dramatic, but it created a big plot hole with Leia’s line in RotJ about having memories of he from when she was young. Therfore, blame RotS for this, not th EU. The EU is there to fix these kinds of plot holes, but they haven’t done so yet.

Matter of opinion. As I said, I don't see this as a plot hole, and that Leia is talking from memories left to her through the Force. I doubt that was the intention when ROTJ was originally scripted, but it still works. Some friends and I recently watched all six films, and out of those friends, only one did not assume this reasoning straight away, but agreed that it was the most like explaination. If you cannot see it that way, so be it. I doubt much anyone can say that will change your mind, or mine.

Tramp
15 January 2006, 07:03 PM
Originally posted by jmanski
Actually, tramp, Leia could have been thinking about her adopted mother.

No, she couldn’t. Luke specifically asked if she remembered her real mother, and Leia knew exactly who he was referrring to. Leia knew she was adopted. She was not talking about Bail’s wife. She was talking about Padmé.


originally posted by Codym Matter of opinion. As I said, I don't see this as a plot hole, and that Leia is talking from memories left to her through the Force. I doubt that was the intention when ROTJ was originally scripted, but it still works. Some friends and I recently watched all six films, and out of those friends, only one did not assume this reasoning straight away, but agreed that it was the most like explaination. If you cannot see it that way, so be it. I doubt much anyone can say that will change your mind, or mine.

The problem with that theory, as I have already explained is that her “memories” can’t be from the Force.If that were the case, Luke would have them as well, and he doesn’t. We also have the fact that no Force user has ever had memories from birth. It is impossible for her memories to be first-hand. Leia can only have gotten her “memories” second-hand from pictures and stories.

Codym
15 January 2006, 10:26 PM
Originally posted by Tramp

The problem with that theory, as I have already explained is that her “memories” can’t be from the Force.If that were the case, Luke would have them as well, and he doesn’t. We also have the fact that no Force user has ever had memories from birth. It is impossible for her memories to be first-hand. Leia can only have gotten her “memories” second-hand from pictures and stories.

Leia was born after Luke, and the last to have contact with her mother, which is why I assume she had the link and not Luke (Luke also seemed to have a strong connection to Vader, so the parental link may also divide down the gender line - but that's another speculative discussion.)

You have stated before that "no Force user has memories from birth" yet no where is this said in the movies, explicitly or figuritively. Leia describes her memories as "images, feeling mostly," indicating that they are fragmented and emotion based (in fact of her memories, only "very beautiful" hints of visual recollection, and even that is an emotional reaction.) These do not sould like secondhand memories, but as fragments remember by someone too young to properly form them. If they come from a connection from the Force, then this sounds exactly like one would expect (perhaps augemented by pictures, but not necessarily so.)

Lucas Carr
16 January 2006, 12:01 AM
Going on the movies alone, there is nothing that states that the memories Leia has of her mother isn't her own of her real mother. And the only time she could have gotten those memories is at her birth.

How she actually formed those memories isn't stated, and in my opinion that isn't important.

Tramp
16 January 2006, 05:39 PM
Originally posted by Codym


Leia was born after Luke, and the last to have contact with her mother, which is why I assume she had the link and not Luke (Luke also seemed to have a strong connection to Vader, so the parental link may also divide down the gender line - but that's another speculative discussion.)

:uke didn’t develope any connection to Vader until after they faced one another. Also, since Luke was born first it would have been he who would have developed any form of connection. He was actually held close to her. Leia was not. She looked upon him and he looked upon her, though he cetainly couldn’t focus on her. Secondly, Leia never even laid eyes on Padmé, and yet she has visual memories of her. And, as I have already shown, any connection would have been broken upon the death of one individual.


You have stated before that "no Force user has memories from birth" yet no where is this said in the movies, explicitly or figuritively. Leia describes her memories as "images, feeling mostly," indicating that they are fragmented and emotion based (in fact of her memories, only "very beautiful" hints of visual recollection, and even that is an emotional reaction.) These do not sould like secondhand memories, but as fragments remember by someone too young to properly form them. If they come from a connection from the Force, then this sounds exactly like one would expect (perhaps augemented by pictures, but not necessarily so.)

Without evidence supporting Force users having memories form birth, we have to surmise that the cannot. Also, further sources outside the movies clearly state that Jedi cannot remember that far back. Not even Yoda nor Mace Windu have memories that far back. Also, newborns can’t form any long-term memories. This does not develop until about three or four years of age. This has been proven. Also, traumatic events like that would be completely blocked out, even in a slightly older child. Her memories have to have come from second hand sources.


Originally posted by Lucas CarrGoing on the movies alone, there is nothing that states that the memories Leia has of her mother isn't her own of her real mother. And the only time she could have gotten those memories is at her birth.

How she actually formed those memories isn't stated, and in my opinion that isn't important.

Actually, Lucas, Yes there is movie evidence that Leia was talking about Padmé. Luke asked her about her memories of her real mother. She knew exactly who Luke was talking about, and it wasn’t her foster mother. Also, as I have already shown, her memories could have, and in fact have to have, come from stories and pictures. There is no way they could be first hand from birth. Not only is there no evidence in either the movies nor EU to support that, but all evidence points to just the opposite. No other Jedi has memories from that far back, and if her had come from birth, Luke would have the same memories, and he clearly does not. He states as much. There is no way, Leia’s memories are first hand from birth, nor Force related.

Codym
16 January 2006, 07:17 PM
Tramp, you're beating a dead horse (in fact, so am I.) You state we must assume that her memories cannot be Force related, saying there is no evidence. That's merely one way to look at it. My theory is an educated guess based on what we see in the movies. The Force allows people to move starships with their mind, see into the future, sense danger to a loved one halfway across the galaxy, and come back from the dead but imprinting someone with a memory of her mother is unbelievable? Please. It is a logical and consistant conclusion based on the events in the films.

I have never encounter a source that that's this cannot happen, regardless of what modern Earth science may have to say on the matter (much like lightsabers, the Force and sound in space.) Unless you can point to a spot in the movies where Yoda or Mace state they cannot remember that far back (and that their mothers died under mysterious circumstances - Padme died from a lack of will to live rather than her injuries,) I might consider revising my point of view. But the truth is, unless George answers the question in an interview or the EU manages to decide on a clear answer (yeah right,) my theory holds.

I'm sure you will respond to this, claiming I'm wrong. That's your right. However, since were are now just going in circles, I'm heading out to green pastures, where I'm sure there are plenty of other dead horses to beat.

FVBonura
16 January 2006, 07:21 PM
Originally posted by Tramp
Also, as I have already shown, her memories could have, and in fact have to have, come from stories and pictures. There is no way they could be first hand from birth. Not only is there no evidence in either the movies nor EU to support that, but all evidence points to just the opposite. No other Jedi has memories from that far back, and if her had come from birth, Luke would have the same memories, and he clearly does not. He states as much. There is no way, Leia’s memories are first hand from birth, nor Force related. [/B]
Questions:
If we are dealing with a hole in the script of Ep3, could Leia's memories be real, and not from pictures, and stories?
Why is luke so insistant for answers from Leia in the script?
If Luke is a fully trained Jedi, would he not be able to sense what Leia is remembering, and discern if its false or genuine?
Why does Luke appear frustrated when he confesses he never knew his mother?
Did he sense Leia knew something he did not?


Originally posted by Codym
I've yet to see a mystery that cannot be explained away from evidence only found in the movies, including Leia's "memories" of her mother, and only look to the EU for entertainment purposes.

The idea that everything in SW must be explained, on screen, in huge displays of exposition annoys me. SW is one of the few film franchises that doesn't treat it's fans as idiots, and trusts them to figure things out on their own.
Questions:
Should we be "explaining things away", or is that George Lucas' job to tell us the story?
Is it not the Job of a "prequel" to "explain", or answer questions created by the original movies?
Would a "big exposition" be required to show Leia's mother fleeing to Alderaan?
If we are not being treated as idiots, how do you explain Jar Jar Binks (TPM), fart jokes (TPM), C3PO loosing his head (AOTC), and R2D2's slapstick (ROTS)?
Can we "figure things out on our own", or are we just creating more questions, and theories?

Please help.
:thrawn: :noghri:

Tramp
16 January 2006, 07:24 PM
Originally posted by Codym
Tramp, you're beating a dead horse (in fact, so am I.) You state we must assume that her memories cannot be Force related, saying there is no evidence. That's merely one way to look at it. My theory is an educated guess based on what we see in the movies. The Force allows people to move starships with their mind, see into the future, sense danger to a loved one halfway across the galaxy, and come back from the dead but imprinting someone with a memory of her mother is unbelievable? Please. It is a logical and consistant conclusion based on the events in the films.

How can iot be an “Educated guess” when there is no evidence to support it? In fact, all evidence, even in the movies contradicts it.


I have never encounter a source that that's this cannot happen, regardless of what modern Earth science may have to say on the matter (much like lightsabers, the Force and sound in space.) Unless you can point to a spot in the movies where Yoda or Mace state they cannot remember that far back (and that their mothers died under mysterious circumstances - Padme died from a lack of will to live rather than her injuries,) I might consider revising my point of view. But the truth is, unless George answers the question in an interview or the EU manages to decide on a clear answer (yeah right,) my theory holds.

I'm sure you will respond to this, claiming I'm wrong. That's your right. However, since were are now just going in circles, I'm heading out to green pastures, where I'm sure there are plenty of other dead horses to beat. Read Shatterpoint and Last of the Jedi #1. They both show evidence that Jedi do not remember that far back, not even one of the greatest Jedi of that era. Also, there is the fact that Force sensitive children are taken when they are infants to prevent them from becomming attached to their families, because they cannot become attached to someone they don’t even remember. All evidence suggests that Leia’s memories has to have formed much later in life. This means that they have to have come from second-hand sources.

Tramp
16 January 2006, 07:33 PM
Originally posted by FVBonura

Questions:
If we are dealing with a hole in the script of Ep3, could Leia's memories be real, and not from pictures, and stories?

No, they can’t.


Why is luke so insistant for answers from Leia in the script?

Because Luke has no real knowledge of his family. All he knows is what he learned from his aunt and uncle. it is quite common for orphans to want to know about their natural parents. Luke needed to fill that gap.

If Luke is a fully trained Jedi, would he not be able to sense what Leia is remembering, and discern if its false or genuine?

Not necessarily.


Why does Luke appear frustrated when he confesses he never knew his mother?
Did he sense Leia knew something he did not?

Probably, to some degree.



Questions:
Should we be "explaining things away", or is that George Lucas' job to tell us the story?

Actually, it’s the job of the EU to explain awy loose threads from the movies; to fill in the gaps.


Is it not the Job of a "prequel" to "explain", or answer questions created by the original movies?

Only within the confines of the story being told. Sometimes, certain questions have to be set aside.

Would a "big exposition" be required to show Leia's mother fleeing to Alderaan?

No, just a simple answer from the VIPs. or a small passage in a book.


If we are not being treated as idiots, how do you explain Jar Jar Binks (TPM), fart jokes (TPM), C3PO loosing his head (AOTC), and R2D2's slapstick (ROTS)?

It's called comedy used to break the tension.


Can we "figure things out on our own", or are we just creating more questions, and theories?

Please help.
:thrawn: :noghri: Often it is a bit of both. Really, it is always better to have an official explaination rather than just leaving it up to speculation.

Rostek
16 January 2006, 07:55 PM
Originally posted by Tramp
It's called hamfisted comedy, often ineptly used to break the tension.

Fixed it for ya :P

Tramp
16 January 2006, 07:58 PM
Cute Rostek. Real cute.:raised: :D

Rostek
16 January 2006, 08:22 PM
My user title says it all, my friend :D

FVBonura
16 January 2006, 09:42 PM
I get the sense this thread has hit a dead end, no?
I am forced to wonder, Will there ever be an answer?

I do apreciate everyone, for all of your help. Thank you very much. It would appear this thread has created more questions than answers, much like Episode 3. Enjoy your day.
:thrawn: :noghri:

Lucas Carr
17 January 2006, 08:13 AM
Originally posted by Tramp

Actually, Lucas, Yes there is movie evidence that Leia was talking about Padmé. Luke asked her about her memories of her real mother. She knew exactly who Luke was talking about, and it wasn’t her foster mother.

That's what I was saying. That Leia's memory was of her real mother. Reread my post and you'll see that.



Also, as I have already shown, her memories could have, and in fact have to have, come from stories and pictures. There is no way they could be first hand from birth. Not only is there no evidence in either the movies nor EU to support that, but all evidence points to just the opposite. No other Jedi has memories from that far back, and if her had come from birth, Luke would have the same memories, and he clearly does not. He states as much. There is no way, Leia’s memories are first hand from birth, nor Force related.

You have stated your opinion, or theory, but I have stated my theory that is equally based on what we see in the movies as yours is. There is no way to find out which one is true without further information.

You say that there is no way she could have had first hand memories, I say that she could. The fact that there is sound in space is just one thing that shows us that not all things are the same there as they are here.

I've already given you one reason why Leia can have first hand memories of her mother that is just as supported by the movies as your theories are. And if we should invoke Shatterpoint as you like to do we see that Mace Windu has a unique ability no one else has. That just puts an end to all statements that Leia couldn't remember just because no other Jedi can remember that far back.

But as Codym pointed out, we don't seem to get any further. You're sticking to your point of view as if it was the truth. And I'm sticking to my point of view that you don't have any way of knowing that it is the truth based on the information we have at this point.

Lucas Carr
17 January 2006, 08:20 AM
Originally posted by FVBonura

Questions:
If we are dealing with a hole in the script of Ep3, could Leia's memories be real, and not from pictures, and stories?

Yes. And there doesn't have to be a hole in the script, unless that's the way you want to see it.

The rest of your questions I wouldn't answer substantially different than Tramp did.

Tramp
17 January 2006, 08:35 AM
Lucas, one of the things you are forgetting is that Leia never even laid eyes on her mother when she was born, and wouldn’t have been able to focus on her even if she had. That is one of the reasons why her memories cannot be first hand from birth. Remember, Leia remembers what her mother looked like, and Leia never looked upon her in RotS. Another is the fact that Luke would have also remembered Padmé if that were the case, and he clearly cannot. Secondly, Leia does not have a photographic memory like her friend Winter. All of the evidence is against her memories being first hand. There is nothing supporting it.

coldskier0320
17 January 2006, 09:21 AM
Originally posted by Tramp
Lucas, one of the things you are forgetting is that Leia never even laid eyes on her mother when she was born, and wouldn’t have been able to focus on her even if she had. That is one of the reasons why her memories cannot be first hand from birth. Remember, Leia remembers what her mother looked like, and Leia never looked upon her in RotS. Another is the fact that Luke would have also remembered Padmé if that were the case, and he clearly cannot. Secondly, Leia does not have a photographic memory like her friend Winter. All of the evidence is against her memories being first hand. There is nothing supporting it.

Tramp, I think what Lucas is trying to say is that it IS possible for Leia to have firsthand memories of her mother. He's not saying that there's incontrivertible evidence of it, but then again, all of the evidence you point out uses either real world limitations, or things we see in the movies exclusively. Lucas is saying that it IS possible for Leia to have posessed some kind of Force power that we've never seen before that allowed her to establish a bond with her mother, even before birth. It would be totally believeable, from the few descriptives that Leia gives (kind, beautiful, sad) to surmise that the Force could have given her that impression. Even if the only reason for it was so that 20+ years later, she could reveal this to Luke. The Force has been known to do stranger things.

It's also equally valid that Leia simply has memories of her adopted mother, or even a different woman all together. Perhaps her nurse on the Tantive grew attached to her over the trip to Alderaan and was sad to have to give her back to the Organas? Who knows? Nobody. That said, anyone's ideas hold water, and for that reason, nobody here has any sort of autority to simply say, 'No, you're wrong.', because you don't KNOW that, you think it.

Tramp
17 January 2006, 09:30 AM
I know what he is saying. What I am saying is that it is impossible for her to have first-hand memories from birth. All of the evidence points to this. Leia remembers what Padmé looks like, yet never looked upon her during the movie, and would not hyave been able to focus anyway. Babeis can’t focus properly until about two months of age. Luke was born first, and was actually brought close to Padmé, ane he has absolutely no memory of her. Also, no Jedi has any memory of their families, much less births. They were intentionally taken away before such memories and subsequent attachments could be formed. And remember, Leia did not have any[b] Force training until [b]after the fall of the Empire, and her game stats list no Force ability until that time. Simple Force Sensitivity does not allow you to remember your birth.

All of these factors completely eliminate the possiblity that Leia’s memories are first hand.

Also, it is not valid that Leia could be remembering her “adoptive” mother, since Luke asked her about her real mother, and Leia knew just who Luke was referring to. Leia knew she was adopted. Luke asked her about her birth mother. That is who she referring to as having memories of.

coldskier0320
17 January 2006, 09:49 AM
It's not impossible.

I'm not saying I totally subcribe to it either, but it's certainly not impossible. You're really sticking to the concrete, physical world, aren't you? While Lucas, myself and others are making the leap into the supernatural, which is, really, the only explanation for it. If you want to remain in the world of hard facts, which you apparently do, then no, Leia doesn't remember her mom, she's lying, it's all a sham, let's go watch the Matrix instead, its more realistic.

However, what we're doing is more along the lines of what I've seen the EU do time and time again: explain the conundrums we see in the films. Now if you're one of those who rejects the EU, then yes, this again, is all bogus. Then again, if you reject EU, this isn't your thread.

As far as your sight, using light through the lens of the eye onto the retina, you're absolutely right, nobody's arguing that. And while babies in SW might see differently than babies on earth, you can have that little thing. What I'm saying, is of course she never saw Padme physically. It had to be through the Force, if at all. That's the only possible way.


Also, no Jedi has any memory of their families, much less births. They were intentionally taken away before such memories and subsequent attachments could be formed. And remember, Leia did not have any[b] Force training until [b]after the fall of the Empire, and her game stats list no Force ability until that time.

Just because no other Jedi has an ability, suddenly that bars any and all future Jedi and/or Force users form having unique abilities? Please. And you gotta remember, we're talking about the children of the Chosen One. That's gotta count for something. As far as the Force training, how are you gonna train a baby to remember their mother? That's a totally invalid argument because of the circumstances. Obviously if she does or doesn't remember her mother, its not something she learned, it was something she was born with, which is what we're trying to say. Finally, the stats aren't any sort of ground to base this sort of an argument off of. Basically this boils down to a simple opinion, 'Does Leia really remember her mother?'. You don't think she does, Lucas thinks she might, and I don't really know. That's fine. We aren't ever going to come to a definitive answer, we can just exchange ideas and larn from one another. What we're doing is expanding. If we went strictly by the RPG stats, not only would there be a huge amount of holes in out ideas, but there would be no reason for a board like this for discussion. But even if you want to go with the stat tangent, there's the bloodline specializations in the GCG (can't remember the exact name at the moment). Not only do these clearly provide for Force phenomena that we've never seen before, but they also encourage you to come up with your own. A bloodline type of thing that allows a prenatal link to ones mother sounds totally plausible to me.

Anyway, I have to get to class. Hopefully we can continue this later. :)

Peace,

Cold

Tramp
17 January 2006, 10:18 AM
Originally posted by coldskier0320
It's not impossible.

I'm not saying I totally subcribe to it either, but it's certainly not impossible. You're really sticking to the concrete, physical world, aren't you? While Lucas, myself and others are making the leap into the supernatural, which is, really, the only explanation for it. If you want to remain in the world of hard facts, which you apparently do, then no, Leia doesn't remember her mom, she's lying, it's all a sham, let's go watch the Matrix instead, its more realistic.

However, what we're doing is more along the lines of what I've seen the EU do time and time again: explain the conundrums we see in the films. Now if you're one of those who rejects the EU, then yes, this again, is all bogus. Then again, if you reject EU, this isn't your thread.
The EU evidence goes against the possibility of Leia’s memories being first hand as well. I have already pointed to two different book sources—Shatterpoint and Last of the Jedi #1. I have also pointed to Leia’s game stats. All of which discounts the possibility that Leia’s memories are first hand or Force related.


As far as your sight, using light through the lens of the eye onto the retina, you're absolutely right, nobody's arguing that. And while babies in SW might see differently than babies on earth, you can have that little thing. What I'm saying, is of course she never saw Padme physically. It had to be through the Force, if at all. That's the only possible way.

Leia doesn’t have that kind of ability as a child, nor does she learn any Force ability until after the death of the Emperor. Look at her game stats. She has no Force Skills or Force Feats, not even ones usable untrained. And a Force Bond can ponly be developed between two Force users, and only lasts until the death of one of them. That throws that possibility out as well.



Just because no other Jedi has an ability, suddenly that bars any and all future Jedi and/or Force users form having unique abilities?

But Leia does not have any “special abilities” other than what is listed in her stat block.

Please. And you gotta remember, we're talking about the children of the Chosen One. That's gotta count for something.

No, it doesn’t. If that were the case, then Luke would be able to remember as well.

As far as the Force training, how are you gonna train a baby to remember their mother? That's a totally invalid argument because of the circumstances.

How is it invalid? The Jedi took children before they could develop memories of their families. They don’t want them to remember. That is why they take them away from their families so young to begin with. Therefore, they certainly would not train them to do so even if it were possible.

Obviously if she does or doesn't remember her mother, its not something she learned, it was something she was born with, which is what we're trying to say.

No, what it means is that her memories have to be from second hand sources., not from first hand experience.

Finally, the stats aren't any sort of ground to base this sort of an argument off of.


Sure they are. The game stats are a conrete measure fo a given character’s abilities and relative power level. Leland Chee himself has said that the game stats are valuable and valid in this regard.

[quote]Basically this boils down to a simple opinion, 'Does Leia really remember her mother?'. You don't think she does, Lucas thinks she might, and I don't really know.

No, the argument is the source of her memories. I am saying that it is impossible for her memories to be first hand. They have to come from second hand sources.

That's fine. We aren't ever going to come to a definitive answer, we can just exchange ideas and larn from one another. What we're doing is expanding.

Expanding in the wrong direction when all evidence totally invalidates this possibility.
[quote] If we went strictly by the RPG stats, not only would there be a huge amount of holes in out ideas, but there would be no reason for a board like this for discussion. But even if you want to go with the stat tangent, there's the bloodline specializations in the GCG (can't remember the exact name at the moment). Not only do these clearly provide for Force phenomena that we've never seen before, but they also encourage you to come up with your own. A bloodline type of thing that allows a prenatal link to ones mother sounds totally plausible to me.[;/quote]

If that were the case, then Luke would remember as well, and this is clearly not the case. Also, since the Skywalker bloodline trait has already been clearly spelled out then no, it does not factor into this. Even the GCG version does not allow for memories from birth. All the Skywalker bloodline allows is for the Force Sensitve feat for free; ignoring of the Force Level First requirements on Control, Sense, and Alter; and using Force Points as if three levels higher. The Skywalker bloodline does not allow for memories from birth.

There is nothing in any source that allows for Leia’s memories to be first hand. They all totally discount it as a possibility. Her memories have to have come from second hand sources.

Uron Teff
17 January 2006, 10:21 AM
Hey folks I really enjoyed the discussion so far.
I just wanted to point out that cold is absolutly right about the fact that the Star Wars Universe may be similar at some points to our own understanding of the Universe, physics and whatever. But on the other hand there are such things like aliens, hyperdrives and above all something called the Force.
In an universe where a small amount of people can ignore the laws of physics (f.e. levitation or the simple movement of objects) there might be something like the impressing of a moment and/or feeling isn't that far away. Therefor I think that it might be a possibilty that Liea had something comparable impressed on her mind. Nonetheless we all forget that Padmé was dying and that the memory Leia could remember had its source in Padmé. Maybe.
On the other hand it might be possible that Leia thought that she could remember her "real" mother, just as cold pointed out previously. Fact is that Leia could differ between her adopted mother and an other woman. This woman could be Padmé or someone else. No where (IIRC) is stated that her memories are true and no confusion of her new born mind. Who knows. Only the Maker, George Lucas.

Uron:)

Tramp
17 January 2006, 10:36 AM
Actually, all he is doing is assuming that there are differences in human biology between the real world and the SW galaxy, when this too is not supported. Based upon the evidence we have to conclude that Humans in the GFFA are no different than us. This is supported throughout the books and movies. Based upon that, and all of the other evidence, Leia’s memories have to have come from second hand sources. As established by RotJ, Luke was asking about Leia’s real mother, and Leia knew whoi he was talking about. There was no confusion. She remembers Padmé. Secondly, since she remembers what Padmé looks like. This means that she has seen Padmé, yet, she never looked upon her in RotS, and would not have been able to focus on her anyway. Therefore, she had to have seen pictures of her later. Also, Leia knew the kind of person that her mother was, not necessarily her name. These too can be gotten from second hand sources. Bail Organa kne Padmé well and could veey easily have told a young Leia what kind of person Padmé was without revealing anything which would endanger Leia. Once again this points against the possibility of first hand or Force impression. Everything points to second hand memories.

Uron Teff
17 January 2006, 10:56 AM
Originally posted by Tramp
As established by RotJ, Luke was asking about Leia’s real mother, and Leia knew whoi he was talking about. There was no confusion. She remembers Padmé. Secondly, since she remembers what Padmé looks like.

You might have also pointed out that Leia could have known the name name of her real mother but nonetheless she's not telling it Luke. Furthermore you're totally ignoring this point. Leia never says that her mother's name was Padmé. And she never describes her so far that an identification was/is possible.
Nonetheless in the EU nevels The Black Fleet Crisis Luke tries to find out more about their mother and wants to scan once more Leia's memories for new or not found evidence about their mother. Leia refuses his request. The cause for this refusal is that Leia knows most of all feelings - either towards her mother or from her mother.
This is an indicator for me that her memories are either first hand or from a second (not named) woman.
Furthermore I just wanted to point out that I'm confused about your theory, tramp. If Leia has her memories from a second source, why are they incomplete? Okay, maybe she was young and cannot remember all the context of the pictures/holovids/whatever was shown to her. But nonetheless you forget that if she saw her mother on a screen how do you explain the strong feeling Leia has towards her mother? And third: Why is Leia stating in RotJ that she mostly recalls feeling about her mother?

Uron:)

FVBonura
17 January 2006, 10:58 AM
Would not the simplest explanation still be we are dealing with an error?
Do you think George Lucas pondered as much over this one element of the Episode 3 script, as we have, in this thread?
Do you think it makes more sense that he may have forgotten what he wrote 22+ years ago?
Is there a major problem in admitting it is a simple error or lapse of George's memory?
What harm is there, in just saying we are dealing with a flawed script?
:thrawn: :noghri:

Tramp
17 January 2006, 11:12 AM
Originally posted by Uron Teff


You might have also pointed out that Leia could have known the name name of her real mother but nonetheless she's not telling it Luke.

Furthermore you're totally ignoring this point. Leia never says that her mother's name was Padmé. And she never describes her so far that an identification was/is possible.
Actually, it is quite possible tyhat Bail never told Leia Padmé’s name in order to protect her.


Nonetheless in the EU nevels The Black Fleet Crisis Luke tries to find out more about their mother and wants to scan once more Leia's memories for new or not found evidence about their mother. Leia refuses his request. The cause for this refusal is that Leia knows most of all feelings - either towards her mother or from her mother.
This is an indicator for me that her memories are either first hand or from a second (not named) woman. No, it is simply an indicator that her memories are very vague. All she remembers is what her mother looked like and the kind of person she was. Further evidence from i[]The Pricess Leia Diaries[/i] (from SW Tales Volume 3 TPB (a story that details everything in Leia’s official bio file about her childhood) shows an image of Padmé as Leia thinks about her while writing in her diary.

Furthermore I just wanted to point out that I'm confused about your theory, tramp. If Leia has her memories from a second source, why are they incomplete? Okay, maybe she was young and cannot remember all the context of the pictures/holovids/whatever was shown to her. But nonetheless you forget that if she saw her mother on a screen how do you explain the strong feeling Leia has towards her mother? And third: Why is Leia stating in RotJ that she mostly recalls feeling about her mother?

Uron:)

Leia’s memories are incomplete because of a variety of factors. First off, Bail would not have told Leia everything about her mother. To do so would have piut Leia’s life in danger. He would only hacve told her enough to give her some knowledge of the kind of person she was. Secondly, as Leia herself said, her memories are from when she was a [b]small child[b], probably no older than four or five years old. This is an age when children are only just developing long-term memory ability. As she grows older, these memories begin to fade. It also means that stories and pictures can easily be falsly remembered as actual memories of seeing this event or person for real even if this could never be the case. Also, Leia does not say mostely feelings. She says “images, rally, feelings.” Both of these types of memories can be formed from second hand sources, especially by a small child.

Tramp
17 January 2006, 11:15 AM
Originally posted by FVBonura
Would not the simplest explanation still be we are dealing with an error?
Do you think George Lucas pondered as much over this one element of the Episode 3 script, as we have, in this thread?
Do you think it makes more sense that he may have forgotten what he wrote 22+ years ago?
Is there a major problem in admitting it is a simple error or lapse of George's memory?
What harm is there, in just saying we are dealing with a flawed script?
:thrawn: :noghri:
There is no question that it was an error. the thing is, because of that error, there needs to be a fix to correct that error. The only one that actually works is that Bail Organa showed Leia a few pictures and told her a little about what her mother was like.

coldskier0320
17 January 2006, 11:30 AM
Tramp, obviously you think you can win an argument, any argument, by simply being persistent, ignoring or twisting any evidence against your point of view, and refusing to accept that an idea that conflicts with your own MAY hold water.

I never assumed anything about differences in biology, just pointed out that this may be possible and would but another flaw in your supposedly solid reasoning.

You talk about EU sources...well what about the ones that show new and different manifestations of the Force. Of course, they don't count for whatever reason.

Again back to the stats...its blatantly obvious that the stats don't show this. Nobody's arguing that. What I'm saying about it is that it doesn't mean anything. WotC isn't going to go ahead and make a call on something that hasn't been touched by the EU or GL, it just ain't gonna happen, so please lay off. What we're trying to do is explain something that noone else has. Also, who says it would be something she could use at will, any time? It may well have been a one time occurrence.


Expanding in the wrong direction when all evidence totally invalidates this possibility.

Boy, I sure wish I saw things as clearly as you...

How can you say something is totally invalid when we continually see "impossible" things happen in the SW universe? Do you have a private line to GL on which he tells you how it really is? Again, i'm not saying that there HAD to be a special, one of a kind thing going on, only that it's totally plausible, in a setting where people levitate stuff, choke people with their minds, travel faster than light, and fight with swords made of light.

Explain how a ship completes a successful hyperspace jump without entering some bit of something that we don't see today. Explain levitation without once mentioning anything about the Force. You can't. That's because in the SW universe the rules don't apply. Sure, alot is similar, but alot is different too. And just because you don't see something on the screen doesn't mean that it's totally impossible. If that were the case, then the entire EU is wrong, because we don't see it on the screen. Victory star destroyers and dreadnaughts were used in the clone wars. We don't see them, so automatically, they weren't used. I'm just trying to show you that just because you don't see something spelled out for you doesn't mean that it's impossible. And when you refuse to accept that, you're lying to yourself.

Although I don't really think this will help, let me throw this unique circumstance out there:

I think we're all in agreement that Anakin Skywalker is something special. Now, obviously Luke has something that Leia doesn't. Right? Now, is it really so hard to look at it from the other side and admit that maybe, just maybe, its possible that Leia has something Luke doesn't? Not even in terms of ability, jut maybe, maybe, she has a real, honest to goodness "Force-memory" that Luke didn't get? If you're ruling that out, I can't help you. The idea that just because one twin has something, the other should automatically get it is some pretty weak reasoning, even in the SW universe. It wouldn't even have to be an ability. In fact, it might be none of her doing at all. Perhaps the Force itself gave her a moment of supernatural empathy, where some of the strongest emotions of the mother were passed on to the child. In fact, from the RotJ script:


LEIA
Just...images, really. Feelings.


Sounds pretty Force-y to me. Is this possible? In the SW universe? I think so. If you don't, fine, whatever, believe what you want, just don't tell me that I'm wrong. It's impolite.

Peace Again,

Cold

Lucas Carr
17 January 2006, 11:34 AM
The only way you can see to fix it is secondary information Tramp, I don't agree.

Lets return to Shatterpoint. It shows us that Mace Windu has a unique ability, but I haven't seen it on any of his official stats. Does that mean he doesn't have that ability? Of course not!! It merely shows that the stats are incorrect.

Based on that fact, there is no evidence that Leia's stats are correct either. Thus she could have been born with a unique Force Ability that allowed her to have a vague memory of her mother. And just to point it out, unique means no one else has it, not even her brother Luke.

Exactly how she got those memories doesn't matter. I don't make any assumption about how infant eyes work in the Star Wars Galaxy. Maybe it's different or maybe it's the same. We know that the Force can help you see things without eyes. Somehow the Force imparted certain memories to Leia. How, or even when, I cannot say. Though depending on your definition that too might be "secondary information".

Tramp
17 January 2006, 03:35 PM
That is just it, Leia hasn’t demonstrated any such ability. In fact, it has been stated that Leia’s memory is not better than anyone elses. Her friend Winter was the one with the photographic memory. In fact, Leia didn’t even know she was Force sensitive until Luke told her. So once again, this pokes holes in the idea that it comes from the Force. or she has an extraordinary memory. She doesn’t. There is no evidence what so ever to even suggest she does. As for it being possible that human biology is different in the GFFA; how do you figure that? There is no evidence to even suggest this. Humans are Humans, whether here or in the GFFA. There is no difference. There is no evidence to suggest that human memory capacity, nor visual development is any different in the GFFA than on Earth. In fact, most of the evidence from both the EU and movies suggests otherwise.

Some things which are clearly impossible by normal means, such as Levitation, are obviously uses of the Force. This is not one of these cases. In fact, everything suggests otherwise. In this case, a normal mundane explaination makes more sense; that being Bail Organa showed her pictures of her mother when Leia was small, and told her a little about the kind of person Padmé was.

The whole idea that Leia’s memories are Force related or first hand is not even remotely supported, and is in fact contradicted by every canon source. It is not a sound theory. The most sound one is that she was shown a few pictures and told a little about her mother, by Bail Organa. This too will create the same kinds of memories that Leia has, and makes much more sense.

coldskier0320
17 January 2006, 04:12 PM
That is just it, Leia hasn’t demonstrated any such ability.

Yeah, sure...umm...other than the fact that she does. I mean, we just sat here all day talking about her supposed memories. If they ARE real firsthand memories, that's HOW they got there. It's beyond obvious that if they're not firsthand, there's nothing special going on. Nobody is arguing against things that anyone with a 50+ IQ could deduce.


Her friend Winter was the one with the photographic memory. In fact, Leia didn’t even know she was Force sensitive until Luke told her. So once again, this pokes holes in the idea that it comes from the Force. or she has an extraordinary memory. She doesn’t. There is no evidence what so ever to even suggest she does.

Nobody said she DID. Once again, read what we're typing, not what you'd like to think we're typing. There's a big difference between memory in the sense of the capability for mental recall and memory, the thing recalled. Even people with very poor memory can still recall SOME things. We're not saying Leia is a mental sponge. We're saying she HAS a memory of her mother. The dispute is where she got this memory. Once theory I tossed out there was that it was a memory granted by the Force. Heck, the Force could have given Gartogg the gamorrean the same memory of his mother.


As for it being possible that human biology is different in the GFFA; how do you figure that?

OK, can you really not read, or do you just choose to ignore half of what I post? Every single time I've mentioned this, I've clearly said that it was very unlikely, and that even I wouldn't buy it unless it had some very good evidence to back it up. It was a tangential thought. Please, please, please ignore it for the sake of progress from now on. I'm sorry I ever brought it up.


Some things which are clearly impossible by normal means, such as Levitation, are obviously uses of the Force. This is not one of these cases.

Oh, so now you have the authority to make this call for Lucas, Zahn, and everyone else who's helped add to SW? I'd like to see your qualifications.


The whole idea that Leia’s memories are Force related or first hand is not even remotely supported, and is in fact contradicted by every canon source. It is not a sound theory.

OK, you send me the list, of every single piece of SW material, and show me an excerpt from each which absolutely proves that it's impossible for the Force to have given Leia a mental image of her mother, and then I'll think about changing my viewpoint.

My email address is in my profile.


The most sound one is that she was shown a few pictures and told a little about her mother, by Bail Organa. This too will create the same kinds of memories that Leia has, and makes much more sense.

You've apparently never heard of the terms objective and subjective, eh? Just because something works for you, doesn't mean its gospel truth. I totally agree that it is a plausible, workable, and sufficient explanation. that doesn't mean its the only explanation.

Tramp
17 January 2006, 04:35 PM
Originally posted by coldskier0320


Yeah, sure...umm...other than the fact that she does. I mean, we just sat here all day talking about her supposed memories. If they ARE real firsthand memories, that's HOW they got there. It's beyond obvious that if they're not firsthand, there's nothing special going on. Nobody is arguing against things that anyone with a 50+ IQ could deduce.[quote]

Her having memories of Padmé does not suggest special Force talent. Nor is there any evidence to suggest that her memories are first hand. everything,suggests that her memories are second hand. The images of Padmé that Leai remembers are not how she appeared when she died. They are completely different. Leia is also not known to have had visions. In fact, she has shown no aptitude in that area, nor any training until the Thrawn Trilogy.\. Nothing suggests a special Force talent is involved here. She has never shown any type of aptitude in this area at all inj any canon source.


Nobody said she DID. Once again, read what we're typing, not what you'd like to think we're typing. There's a big difference between memory in the sense of the capability for mental recall and memory, the thing recalled. Even people with very poor memory can still recall SOME things. We're not saying Leia is a mental sponge. We're saying she HAS a memory of her mother. The dispute is where she got this memory. Once theory I tossed out there was that it was a memory granted by the Force. Heck, the Force could have given Gartogg the gamorrean the same memory of his mother.

My point is though, that there is nothing to support that theory. All of the evidence is against that theory


OK, can you really not read, or do you just choose to ignore half of what I post? Every single time I've mentioned this, I've clearly said that it was very unlikely, and that even I wouldn't buy it unless it had some very good evidence to back it up. It was a tangential thought. Please, please, please ignore it for the sake of progress from now on. I'm sorry I ever brought it up.

Oh, so now you have the authority to make this call for Lucas, Zahn, and everyone else who's helped add to SW? I'd like to see your qualifications.

It isn’t a matter of authority, but of evidence.


OK, you send me the list, of every single piece of SW material, and show me an excerpt from each which absolutely proves that it's impossible for the Force to have given Leia a mental image of her mother, and then I'll think about changing my viewpoint.

My email address is in my profile. I have already posted it al, more than once.

First off, Leia never laid eyes on Padmé; never looked at her at all. Luke, the first born, did. So, if either were to have had any connection or visual memory, it would have been him, and he clearly has no memory of their mother. Her retinas, and visual cortex were also not developed enough yet to be able to focus on, or recognize her mother anyway.

Second, the image of Padmé Leia remembers is not how Padmé appeared in RotS. It is completely different in clothing, hairstyle and make-up.

Both of these prove that Leia’s visual memories of Padmé had to have come later from a secondary source.

Third, Force-bonds can only happen between two Force users who are extremely close (like twins or lovers), and terminates upon the death of one of the pair.

Fourth. The Jedi Order took Force Sensirtive children away from their families when they were too young to remember them so that they would not develop familial attachment. You can’t become attached to someone you never knew.

Both of these eliminate the possibility that any of her memories could be first hand.

Everything we know about the Jedi and Force users suggests that Leia’s memories are not first hand from birth, nor from any form of Force connection. This leaves only second hand sources as the last possible source of Leia’s memories.


You've apparently never heard of the terms objective and subjective, eh? Just because something works for you, doesn't mean its gospel truth. I totally agree that it is a plausible, workable, and sufficient explanation. that doesn't mean its the only explanation. [
When all other options have been eliminated, there is on ly one left, therefore, by process of elimination, the only logical source of Leia’s memories is from second hand sources.

When all other options are completely implausable and impossible, then yes, it remains as the only one.

coldskier0320
17 January 2006, 06:34 PM
First off, Leia never laid eyes on Padmé; never looked at her at all. Luke, the first born, did. So, if either were to have had any connection or visual memory, it would have been him, and he clearly has no memory of their mother. Her retinas, and visual cortex were also not developed enough yet to be able to focus on, or recognize her mother anyway.

The horse is DEAD Tramp! The horse...is [expletive deleted]-ing dead. Try reading before you post next time, you sound like a broken record. I'm not going to go through it again, just let the crap go.


I have already posted it al, more than once.

You have four pieces of piss poor evidence. you said every single bit of SW lore has some part in it where it directly disproves the Force theory. I'll only ask for one: give me the evidence you got from Brian Daley's Han Solo Trilogy.



First off, Leia never laid eyes on Padmé; never looked at her at all. Luke, the first born, did. So, if either were to have had any connection or visual memory, it would have been him, and he clearly has no memory of their mother. Her retinas, and visual cortex were also not developed enough yet to be able to focus on, or recognize her mother anyway.

I'm not even going to dignify this garbage with a response. I dealt with this in my last post.


Second, the image of Padmé Leia remembers is not how Padmé appeared in RotS. It is completely different in clothing, hairstyle and make-up.

I don't think the Force gives a darn about the makeup and hairstyle it gives Leia. As I quoted fom the script, "Just images, feelings."


Third, Force-bonds can only happen between two Force users who are extremely close (like twins or lovers), and terminates upon the death of one of the pair.

Does the word unique mean anything to you? Some people tend to think of Anakin Skywalker as unique. Maybe this mind-image imprint isn't your normal everyday "Force-bond". Maybe it's unique.


Fourth. The Jedi Order took Force Sensirtive children away from their families when they were too young to remember them so that they would not develop familial attachment. You can’t become attached to someone you never knew.

This is just a little bit of the first and third thrown together. Normal biological kids, even most Jedi won't remember, you're right. Leia's unique. She's the only daughter of the Chosen One. This mind-image imprint (can't call it a force bond anymore) may have been unique to her.


When all other options have been eliminated, there is on ly one left, therefore, by process of elimination, the only logical source of Leia’s memories is from second hand sources.

I'm suggesting that you're too hasty in eliminating things. You disagree, that's wonderful, even splendid. Think whatever it is that helps you sleep at night. Me? I'm undecided. But don't tell anyone that they're wrong because they don't agree with you. That'd be like saying you think there's life on Saturn's moons, and then when someone else doesn't agree with you, you flat out tell them, 'Well you're wrong.' It doesn't make sense, man.

Uron Teff
17 January 2006, 06:34 PM
Okay folks, this is my last round at this thread. Therefore lets start:


First off, Leia never laid eyes on Padmé; never looked at her at all. Luke, the first born, did. So, if either were to have had any connection or visual memory, it would have been him, and he clearly has no memory of their mother. Her retinas, and visual cortex were also not developed enough yet to be able to focus on, or recognize her mother anyway.

The easiest reply to this is fact that in the Star Wars Universe there is something called the Force. Due to the Force species (like for example the blind Miraluka) are able to see. Therefore I do not see any evidance in your point saying just because of the human physionomy Leia wasn't able to see/sense her mother.


Second, the image of Padmé Leia remembers is not how Padmé appeared in RotS. It is completely different in clothing, hairstyle and make-up.

Olay folks, have I missed something or was Padmé never ever shown in the Original Trilogy?If she wasn't how can you, Tramp suggest that clothing, hairstyle, and make-up were different?


Third, Force-bonds can only happen between two Force users who are extremely close (like twins or lovers), and terminates upon the death of one of the pair.

Well, let me just say it this way: Luke and Leia are son and daughter of the Chosen One. Before the birth of Anakin Skywalker there was a prophecy in which was stated that someday there will come someone who was given birth by the Force itself. Now despite the fact that there might be canon that stats that Leia hasn't got special capabilities in the Force I see no evidance in the point that you say: This has never happened before, therefore this is impossible. Well once it's everythings first time.


Fourth. The Jedi Order took Force Sensirtive children away from their families when they were too young to remember them so that they would not develop familial attachment. You can’t become attached to someone you never knew.

Once again: Both Leia and Luke are the children of the Chosen One (a.k.a. the guy embraced by the Force). Therefore nothing is impossible.

Altogether:
I think that Leia had a Force-imprinted picture of her mother in her mind. Even though you might prove that my arguementation is complete bull I do think that the Star Wars Universe with all its wonders and especially with the Force can make impossible thing happen (such as firing lightnings from your fingertips and imprinting a mothers' picture in a new born mind). I do not care you (whoever this you is) start to burn me here. I don't care.

Therefore:

I'm out of here, Peace!

Uron:)

P.S.: See you in an other thread. :P

Lucas Carr
17 January 2006, 07:43 PM
Originally posted by Tramp

First off, Leia never laid eyes on Padmé; never looked at her at all. Luke, the first born, did. So, if either were to have had any connection or visual memory, it would have been him, and he clearly has no memory of their mother. Her retinas, and visual cortex were also not developed enough yet to be able to focus on, or recognize her mother anyway.

We've already covered this, it's a moot point.



Second, the image of Padmé Leia remembers is not how Padmé appeared in RotS. It is completely different in clothing, hairstyle and make-up.

I've never seen Padmé in the OT, there is nothing establishing what Padmé looked like in OT.



Both of these prove that Leia’s visual memories of Padmé had to have come later from a secondary source.

As I've shown, no it doesn't.



Third, Force-bonds can only happen between two Force users who are extremely close (like twins or lovers), and terminates upon the death of one of the pair.

I've never said it's a Force Bond, not that I agree with you on that either. Leia was given a memory of her mother by the Force (or at least that's the theory I'm defending because you're unable to see it).



Fourth. The Jedi Order took Force Sensirtive children away from their families when they were too young to remember them so that they would not develop familial attachment. You can’t become attached to someone you never knew.

Leia's ability is unique, just like Windu's Shatterpoint (if we should invoke EU), Qui-Gon's ability to not become one with the Force (though it turned out others could learn how to do that too), and even if we don't use Qui-Gon, there is nothing in the movies that state it is impossible for unique Force abilities to exist.



Both of these eliminate the possibility that any of her memories could be first hand.

We obviously disagree on this, as I have shown that there are other ways. And as I have pointed out before, I'm not saying your wrong. I'm saying that we don't have enough information to know which theory is correct.



Everything we know about the Jedi and Force users suggests that Leia’s memories are not first hand from birth, nor from any form of Force connection. This leaves only second hand sources as the last possible source of Leia’s memories.

Not correct, as I have shown.



[
When all other options have been eliminated, there is on ly one left, therefore, by process of elimination, the only logical source of Leia’s memories is from second hand sources.

When all other options are completely implausable and impossible, then yes, it remains as the only one.
They haven't been eliminated, as I have shown.

FVBonura
17 January 2006, 09:00 PM
"There are two worlds here," explained Lucas. "There's my world, which is the movies, and there's this other world that has been created, which I say is the parallel universe - the licensing world of the books, games and comic books. They don't intrude on my world, which is a select period of time, they do intrude in between the movies. [b]I don't get too involved in the parallel universe." - George Lucas

Questions:
In light of this statement by George Lucas, can we use the EU to explain this error or only movie material?
If Leia's mother died at childbirth, what purpose would their be for Bail Organa to tell Leia, anything about her if Leia was to be hidden?
Would it not be safer for Bail to tell Leia nothing to prevent her acidental discovery?
Does this suggest that Leia's mother acctually lived for several years, and hid with her daughter?
:thrawn: :noghri:

Tramp
17 January 2006, 09:03 PM
First off, there are sources which show how Leia remebers Padmé looking, I have already mentioned one such source. It is clearly different from how Padmé appeared in RotS. Seconldy, Leia has no unique Force Abilites outside those already established in the Skywalker bloodline, and she doesn’t even make use of that except having the Force Sensitive feat. She hasd never difinatively demonstrated any such abilites. Threfore, by canon, we have to conclude she does not have any. Secondly, Luke being born first is not a moot point. nor is he having actually been held close to his mother. This is a defining factor. Biology is also a defining factor which cannot be ignored, There is nothing in SW canon to suggest any difference in human biology between the GFFA and Earth. To say that there is without any evidence to back it up is ludicrous. There is no difference. Threfore, Leia cannot have direct, first hand memories from birth. Also, considering that according to all canon evidence, she has no difinitively demonstrated unique abilites. Her only special qualities,are those listed in her stats in the RCRB, and she doesn’t even make full use of those either. Therefore, her memories cannot be Force induced. Also, why would the Force give her a memory in the first place; especially one so inconsequential? It wouldn’t. Padmé was dead, What would good would it do? None what so ever. The Force does not give visions without reason, and there isn’t any. NOt only that, but Leia has not demonstrated any talent for Force visions anyway. There are no difinitively recorded instances of her having definate visons. That requires training and she had not had any yet. As far as Sensing Padmé goes; using game terms, Leia did not yet have the Sense feat. She had no training in the Force what so ever. Therefore, she would not have been able to sense Padmé using anything but her five senses; one of which was clearly not yet fully developed.

I have to wonder why the first thing you guys think of as the solution to everything is the Force, when a mundane answer is much more logical, and none of the evidence supports the Force being the answer?

And, for the record, Lucas, you have not shown any difinitive evidence that contradicts what I have posted. Nothbing in canon supports The Force as the source of Leia’s memories, nor that there is any other first hand source. All of it debunks that theory. Both the movies and EU debunk it.

As far as Qui-Gon goes, most Jedi of the era hed to be burned. Their bodies did not disappear upon death. That was a lost ability only rediscovered after the spirit of Qui-Gon taught it to Obi-Wan and Yoda. Mace Windu’s “unique ability” to see Shatterpoints does not mean anything either. It isn’t really all that special. It’s nothing more than an application of []i]Farseeing[/i] and a very limited one at that. Leia does have special abilities, but those are already listed, and Force induced memory is not one of them.
Therefore, the only logical source of her memories is second hand from pictures and stories told by Bail Organa.

Tramp
17 January 2006, 09:13 PM
Originally posted by FVBonura
"There are two worlds here," explained Lucas. "There's my world, which is the movies, and there's this other world that has been created, which I say is the parallel universe - the licensing world of the books, games and comic books. They don't intrude on my world, which is a select period of time, they do intrude in between the movies. [b]I don't get too involved in the parallel universe." - George Lucas

Questions:
In light of this statement by George Lucas, can we use the EU to explain this error or only movie material?
If Leia's mother died at childbirth, what purpose would their be for Bail Organa to tell Leia, anything about her if Leia was to be hidden?
Would it not be safer for Bail to tell Leia nothing to prevent her acidental discovery?
Does this suggest that Leia's mother acctually lived for several years, and hid with her daughter?
:thrawn: :noghri:
More recent statements by GL state that he considers the EU just as valid as the movies. His most recent, given while talking about the new TV series, in particular He refers to the books, comics, games and such as offshoots. Which means branches off the main source. This means that it is oone universe; one story with many branches.

As for why Bail would say anything at all? That is easy. HE would do so to give Leia a liittle piece of who her mother was to lay to rest a little girl’s need to connect with her real mother on some level, just as Owen and Beru told Luke a little about his father, even though much of that was a lie. FI Owen and Beru felt safe enough to tell Luke a little about his father, and allow Luke to use his real last name, why would Bail Organa not gice Leia a little piece of Padmé? There isn’t any; especially when such a piece of knowledge like that would inspire her on to follow in her mother’s, and Bail’s, footsteps.

coldskier0320
17 January 2006, 09:15 PM
Well, I'm now going to heed a great peice of advice my father gave me:

Never argue with an idiot, because then nobody can tell the difference between the two of you.









Go debunk yourself. Trying to have a mature discussion with you is like playing chess with a camel. I'm done with you.

FVBonura
17 January 2006, 10:54 PM
Originally posted by Tramp

More recent statements by GL state that he considers the EU just as valid as the movies. His most recent, given while talking about the new TV series, in particular He refers to the books, comics, games and such as offshoots. Which means branches off the main source. This means that it is oone universe; one story with many branches.

Did George Lucas consider the EU to be an "offshoot" in the above statement, or a "parallel universe"?
What does George Lucas mean by, "There are two worlds here"?
Did the term mean the same or different when he said "parallel universe"?
Would you consider his new statements consistant with the ones I quoted above?
If it is not consistant, is it possible in some future time, that George Lucas may again change his mind, and consider the EU a separate entity?
If the recognition of the EU as part of the STAR WARS universe is in intermitant flux, can it, or should it be used to address this script error?
:thrawn: :noghri:

Tramp
17 January 2006, 10:58 PM
Originally posted by FVBonura


Did George Lucas consider the EU to be an "offshoot" in the above statement, or a "parallel universe"?
What does George Lucas mean by, "There are two worlds here"?
Did the term mean the same or different when he said "parallel universe"?
Would you consider his new statements consistant with the ones I quoted above?
If it is not consistant, is it possible in some future time, that George Lucas may again change his mind, and consider the EU a separate entity?
If the recognition of the EU as part of the STAR WARS universe is in intermitant flux, can it, or should it be used to address this script error?
:thrawn: :noghri:

He specifically used the term offshoot. Offshoot comics, offshoot novels, etc.

Here is his exact quote:

"Ultimately, I'm going to probably move it into television and let other people take it. I'm sort of preserving the feature film part for what has happened and never go there again, but I can go off into various offshoots and things. You know, I've got offshoot novels, I've got offshoot comics. So it's very easy to say, "Well, OK, that's that genre, and I'll find a really talented person to take it and create it." Just like the comic books and the novels are somebody else's way of doing it. I don't mind that. Some of it might turn out to be pretty good. If I get the right people involved, it could be interesting".— George Lucas

Lucas Carr
18 January 2006, 12:18 AM
As there is nothing more to add, and this discussion has been going around in circles for a while now, I'm graciously bowing out.

And it should in no way be construed that I have changed my position, there is just nothing to be gained here.

FVBonura
18 January 2006, 04:36 AM
Originally posted by Tramp


He specifically used the term offshoot. Offshoot comics, offshoot novels, etc.

Here is his exact quote:

Would you consider the statements you quoted consistant with the ones I quoted above?

Tramp
18 January 2006, 09:52 AM
Originally posted by FVBonura

Would you consider the statements you quoted consistant with the ones I quoted above?

Check out this blog on the Official SW website and decide for yourself. George Lucas quotes (http://blogs.starwars.com/hydrospanner/5)

Based upon the collected quotes, the blog writer is pretty confident that GL has always copnsidered the EU to be a part of Star Wars, He simply focuses on the movies as far as what he himself works on.

FVBonura
19 January 2006, 05:12 AM
Originally posted by Tramp


Check out this blog on the Official SW website and decide for yourself. George Lucas quotes (http://blogs.starwars.com/hydrospanner/5)

Based upon the collected quotes, the blog writer is pretty confident that GL has always copnsidered the EU to be a part of Star Wars, He simply focuses on the movies as far as what he himself works on.

Thank you Tramp, but I was allready there, and was quoting from this same source.

Questions:
Do you believe everything you read on the web?
Does the fact it is a blog on the "Official STAR WARS Website" automaticly make it correct?
Is Darth Talas being honest with himself, and his readers?
Darth Talas "appears" confident in his conclusions, but are you?
I asked if you believe George Lucas' comments are consistant, are they or do they fluctuate in meaning over time?
Does the term "offshoot" mean not part of the main trunk, as in branch, as in separate?
If the EU has branched from the main trunk, are we our own separate entity?
If the EU is separate, is it equiped or designed to address the death of Amidala, or is the jurisdiction of this error exclusive to George Lucas?
Can the EU world continue to "expand", and grow separate of George Lucas' "my world"?

Tramp
19 January 2006, 06:14 PM
Originally posted by FVBonura


Thank you Tramp, but I was allready there, and was quoting from this same source.

Questions:
Do you believe everything you read on the web?
Does the fact it is a blog on the "Official STAR WARS Website" automaticly make it correct?

No, I don’t believe everything I read on the web. However, I do pay close attention to official sources such as the VIPs like SUe Rostoni and Leland Chee.

Is Darth Talas being honest with himself, and his readers?
Yes, he is. His blog is not the first place I have read that last GL quote. It comes from an interview he had following the official announcement of the new TV series that will be coming out within the next year or so.

Darth Talas "appears" confident in his conclusions, but are you?[/quotw]

Yes, I am very confident in his and my conclusions. When all of GL’s statements are put together, and each is read in its entirety, not just individual sentences or phrases, it is clear that GL has noever said that the EU is separate from the movies, just that he himself is only involved in the production of the Movies themselves. In other words, the movies are his pet project, the rest of the universe he lets others take care of.

I asked if you believe George Lucas' comments are consistant, are they or do they fluctuate in meaning over time?I would say that he has been pretty consistant. He has never said that the EU is not a part of Star Wars canon, just that he does not work on the EU; he lets others deal with that.

Does the term "offshoot" mean not part of the main trunk, as in branch, as in separate?

By its very definition an offshoot is not separate from the main source, but intristically attached to it. It is a branch that grows from the main utin but is still intristically linked to it. It is part of the whole that is [i]Star Wars
[quote]If the EU has branched from the main trunk, are we our own separate entity?

It is absolutely not its own entity, but intristically linked. That is what it means to be an offshoot or branch. It grows from but is still a part of the original source. It is not a separate entity.

If the EU is separate, is it equiped or designed to address the death of Amidala, or is the jurisdiction of this error exclusive to George Lucas?

It is not a separate entity, and is fully capable of addressing this issue. One of the main purposes of the EU is to address continuity errors and other questions lthat the movies did not deal with.

Can the EU world continue to "expand", and grow separate of George Lucas' "my world"? [/B] Once again, the EU is not separate. It never has been and never will be. It is intristcally linked to the movies. All GL has been saying is that he himself does not work on the EU, he has focused purely on the movies as his pet project; the movies are his story, the other stories told within his universe are covered by the EU. This is statesd right in one of the very first quotes he ever made on the subject. The EU is not a separate univers, but a part of the real Star Wars history, integrated fully with the movies.

jmanski
23 January 2006, 07:16 PM
Wow, try catching up on this thread when you haven't been reading it.....

Here's from the ROTJ script:

LUKE
Leia... do you remember your mother? Your
real mother?

LEIA
Just a little bit. She died when I was very
young.

LUKE
What do you remember?

LEIA
Just...images, really. Feelings.

LUKE
Tell me.

LEIA
(a little surprised at his insistence)
She was very beautiful. Kind, but...sad.
(looks up) Why are you asking me all this?


Here's what I want to know:
How old was Leia when her mother died? "She died when I was very young."
What does Leia remember? "Images, really. Feelings. She was beautiful. Kind, but...sad."

What does this tell us exactly? Not a lot. Lets recap: Leia was "very young" when her mother died, and she remembers ", really. Feelings. She was beautiful. Kind, but...sad". From this, the ROTS script can be correct, from a certain point of view.

Tramp
23 January 2006, 09:40 PM
She also remembers images, and Leia was never brought close to Padmé, and her ability to focus was not yet developed anyway. Also, as I have already mentioned, newborns don’t have the capacity for long-term memory. Also, given that Luke was first-born, and was actually brought close to Padmé, it would have been he who should have had some memory if it were even possible. Therefore, Leia’s memories have to be second hand. They cannot be first hand from birth.

FVBonura
24 January 2006, 05:54 AM
Originally posted by jmanski
Here's what I want to know:
How old was Leia when her mother died?
I would say 3 to 5 years old, but the real question is What was George Lucas' original idea?
...And was the original idea: lost, abandoned, revised, or just forgotten?


Originally posted by jmanski
"She died when I was very young."
What does Leia remember? "Images, really. Feelings. She was beautiful. Kind, but...sad."
Yes, correct, but what was George originally trying to say?
What was the original audience supposed to come away with from viewing the original scene in 1983?
What have STAR WARS fans collectively interpreted the scene to mean prior to 2005?
What did earlier versions of the script say that is contrary to this “new vision”?


Originally posted by jmanski
What does this tell us exactly? Not a lot. Lets recap: Leia was "very young" when her mother died, and she remembers ", really. Feelings. She was beautiful. Kind, but...sad". From this, the ROTS script can be correct, from a certain point of view. [/B]
...And do you think from some points of view, we have an error or a lapse of memory on the part of the "creator/Script-writer"?
:thrawn: :noghri:

Tao
26 January 2006, 05:48 AM
The problem with this discussion is that it is being dictated largely by science and fact. Anyone who has taken the time to watch Star Wars should immediately realize that it is not meant to be understood scientifically. Star Wars, clearly put, is not science fiction. Star Wars is a "space opera" or "space fantasy". It is based primarily on the laws of fiction, not on the laws of science. Almost nothing within the Star Wars universe has a workable scientific explanation... so STOP TRYING!!!

The real reason that Leia can remember her mother is this: It's more poetic that way.

That's all. It just makes for a more interesting story.

I recently had the privilege of being with someone that was watching Star Wars for the first time and it was wonderful to see the emotional impact that the prequels gave to the original trilogy. Heck, there were even tears shed.
Leia's statement seemed to make perfect sense to someone who had just gone on the ride from the beginning because the viewer was watching it objectively, as if it were a fictional movie and not as if it were a documentary.

Watching the two trilogies with this new perspective completely changed my opinion on the prequel trilogy. I had long been a proponent of the classic trilogy, and was very anti-Episode 1-3. However, when I put my own expectations and desires away and was simply open to the experience I found that the movies far exceeded what I had originally felt. The two series truly do fit together perfectly, each complementing the other. Sure, there are plenty of parts that weren't exactly my cup of tea, but overall it was a great experience to see these movies in a whole new light.



My point in bringing all of this up is the following:
If you spend your time trying to make the world logically fit into your concept of truth, you are bound to be disappointed. The fact that the whole world, myself included, had previously felt that things had happened a certain way are irrelevant. We were all wrong. So what? The fact of the matter is, it's Lucas' story and he is free to write it how he wants to. You are free to either like it, or not. Unfortunately, all the complaining in the world isnt going to change things.
Over the course of this discussion, logical explanations have been given. Sone people have chosen to regard them as incorrect simply because they don't fit into their concept of what is "scientifically accurate". While it is fine that you are sticking to your convictions, I do worry about the soundness of basing your opinions so heavily on science, which is subject so full of divergent opinion and lack of fact. Therefore, I would like to pass on an old addage: Progress stems from a willingness to change. Be open and accepting of new concepts. You will enjoy your life much more.

FVBonura
26 January 2006, 07:33 AM
Originally posted by Tao
The problem with this discussion is that it is being dictated largely by science and fact. Anyone who has taken the time to watch Star Wars should immediately realize that it is not meant to be understood scientifically. Star Wars, clearly put, is not science fiction. Star Wars is a "space opera" or "space fantasy". It is based primarily on the laws of fiction, not on the laws of science. Almost nothing within the Star Wars universe has a workable scientific explanation... so STOP TRYING!!!
What are you afraid of Tao?
Why do you try to silence us?
All I am doing is asking questions, Is asking questions wrong?


Originally posted by Tao
The real reason that Leia can remember her mother is this: It's more poetic that way.
That's all. It just makes for a more interesting story.
Tao please let me ask you some questions about the STAR WARS “story/saga” and not “science”:
Tao How do you explain the discrepancy of Leia (untrained) remembering her mother and Luke (The Trained Jedi Knight) NOT remember her if their mother died at their premature birth?
Do you think there is the possibility of an error or oversight here on George Lucas' part?
Tao what do YOU think George originally was trying to say through Luke and Leia’s talk on Endor in ROTJ in 1983?
Tao what have YOU interpreted the scene on Endor to mean prior to 2005?
Tao what is your opinion of earlier versions of the script (seen above) in regard to what is contrary to this “new vision” we see in Episode 3?


Originally posted by Tao
I recently had the privilege of being with someone that was watching Star Wars for the first time and it was wonderful to see the emotional impact that the prequels gave to the original trilogy. Heck, there were even tears shed.
Leia's statement seemed to make perfect sense to someone who had just gone on the ride from the beginning because the viewer was watching it objectively, as if it were a fictional movie and not as if it were a documentary.
Tao let me ask you some more questions about prequels and such:
Tao do you think the STAR WARS saga is meant to be viewed in episode order (I, II, III, IV, V, VI), or if the prequels are truly prequels, should they not be viewed (IV, V, VI, I, II, III)?
Tao what do you consider a Prequel to be?
Did you actually ask the “Crying viewer” about this topic, or is this an assumed conclusion based on the individual not bringing the topic up at all?
I am curious how old this “Crying viewer” is if I may be so bold?


Originally posted by Tao
My point in bringing all of this up is the following:
If you spend your time trying to make the world logically fit into your concept of truth, you are bound to be disappointed. The fact that the whole world, myself included, had previously felt that things had happened a certain way are irrelevant. We were all wrong. So what?
But what if it is not "WE" who are wrong?
Tao what if George Lucas made a major mistake?
We have heard nothing official, so what are the implications, if "WE" were right?


Originally posted by Tao
The fact of the matter is, it's Lucas' story and he is free to write it how he wants to. You are free to either like it, or not. Unfortunately, all the complaining in the world isnt going to change things.
Is there something wrong about being “disappointed” about the prequels?
If there is a legitimate error/oversight on George Lucas’ part, would not disappointment be the logical response from fans?
Do you think complaining is wrong?
If something is wrong, does it make sense to be silent about it?
Can a problem get worse by doing or saying nothing?


Originally posted by Tao
Therefore, I would like to pass on an old addage: Progress stems from a willingness to change. Be open and accepting of new concepts. You will enjoy your life much more.
Let me pass a "new concept" on to you Tao in light of the wisdom you have shared with us:
Have you been "open" to the idea we are dealing with a simple error, or hole in the story that was overlooked by George Lucas as we have been "open" to your ideas and opinions in this thread?
:thrawn: :noghri:

Uron Teff
26 January 2006, 09:39 AM
Originally posted by Tao
My point in bringing all of this up is the following:
If you spend your time trying to make the world logically fit into your concept of truth, you are bound to be disappointed. The fact that the whole world, myself included, had previously felt that things had happened a certain way are irrelevant. We were all wrong. So what?

Funny thing about the english language is that the "you" could mean both singular and plural. Once it could mean "you as in we" and once it can mean "you as in I". Funny, isn't it. :P
But hey... I said I'm out of this thread... Oops!
Sorry! :D

Thinithil
26 January 2006, 10:29 AM
All I am doing is asking questions, Is asking questions wrong?


Getting closer :P

FVBonura
26 January 2006, 10:55 AM
Originally posted by Thinithil

Getting closer :P
Getting closer to what Thinithil???:?
What is your opinion of Amidala's fate?
:thrawn: :noghri:

Thinithil
26 January 2006, 11:36 AM
All I am doing is asking questions, Is asking questions wrong?


Getting closer


Getting closer to what Thinithil???

B)
I meant "closer" to the first quoted passage above and I can't possibly add enough smilies...

I've watched this thread with great interest.

I have found myself interpretting it as a three way battle:

1) those who say the movies are the movies and no additional explanation seemed necessary o them pertaining to Amidala's fate and Leia's quote.

2) Those who can't reconcile the two storylines without Terran science intruding on a science (fiction/fantasy) movie

3) Those who believe GL bleeped up


I had decided to sit back and watch the show as the thread evolved but, alas, those who argued side 1 gave up as there was no reconciliation possible. The issue is fascinating but apparently black and white to those with the strongest, or absolute (read-Sith ;) ) opinions.

And several debaters have departed this threads hallowed posts unable to make an inroad.

As I said I have really enjoyed the debate.

At risk of being pulled in to the quagmire (Uron could you hold the end of this rope for me? Thanks) I have to admit I'm squarely in camp 1.

At the risk of sounding Sithy myself (read-absolute) It seems clear to me that Luke and Leia are the children of the Chosen One. It seems clear to me that Luke is obsessed with saving his father to the point of perhaps being bonded to him in a father--son sort of way and that clearly this operated via the Force as Vader could sense Luke while the Emperor could not.

It seems therefore clear to me that there is no reason Leia should not be equally bonded with her mother. I realize no "role playing game" stat or article says a non-Force user should bond with a Force sensitive but clearly Anakin was bonded to his mother. And if we are prepared to cite "real-life" scientific principles in this argument we shouldn't be arguing the lack of a missing and completely arbitrary "Force power" or rule interpretation.

This daughter of the Chosen One has via visions, birth, dreams, (even Anakin's prophetic dream-good point someone-in the ether of the Force) via some tenuous and non-scientific/biological reason aquired a feeling/image/concept of her mother. NOT a memory!!! An image/feeling. Exactly what I would have expected from a non trained but powerful Force sensitive.

I leave this specific post now since my coffee is getting cold and I may be debating the point until June -- which is fine, I guess.

FVBonvura -- I will answer one question at a time. Please limit yourself to ONE question. O cannot possible respond to ten or twenty in one post and remain coherent...Such as it is anyway...:)

I welcome the discusion

Nobody is trying to silence anybody...

Bring it on...

Tramp
26 January 2006, 11:51 AM
Actually, Anakin wasn’t “Bonded” to his mother, he had strong emotional attachments to her though. There is a difference. As far as Luke goers, his connection to Vader only developed after their duel on Cloud City, when Luke learned Vader was his father. They developed a mental familiarity, but not a true Bond. With Leia, this is even more evident. She had no training in the Force, nor had she ever shown any signs of the Force sensitivity. To say that her memories are Force connected when this is clearly not supported by anything in the movies nor EU makes no sense. Secondly, there is a Force power in exsistance for Force Bonds. It can be found in the Truce at Bakura Sourcebook[/b] by WEG. It is called [i]Life Bond, and it clearly blows the Force induced memory out the window. Force bonds terminate immiediately upon the death of one of the individuals in the bond. It is also an ability that requires some training, or, in rare cases (such as between twins) created by an extremely close connection with someone. Luke and Leia had a Twin Bond, though they never knew it. Jacen and Jaina also have one. However, this does not grant them memories of their births. Force bonds can only be formed between two Force sensitives. Padmé was not Force Sensitive. All of these factors combined eliminates your theory.

Tao
26 January 2006, 12:21 PM
Why do you try to silence us?
I was not trying to silence anyone. I was simply adding my opinion to those already offered, and hoping that someone would make a fair assesment and response. It looks like that was too much to hope for.

All I am doing is asking questions, Is asking questions wrong?
Asking questions is not wrong if it is done in the pursuit of knowledge. If it is done in an effort to start or perpetuate an argument, then it is not only wrong, but ignorant. When you ask questions, you should expect to recieve the opinions of others and be respectful of those opinions even if they do not necesarily agree with your own.

How do you explain the discrepancy of Leia (untrained) remembering her mother and Luke (The Trained Jedi Knight) NOT remember her if their mother died at their premature birth?
A great many opinions on the subject have been given in the last seven pages worth of posts. My personal opinion is that Leia could distinctly remember the emotions surrounding her early childhood, whether it be through supernatural (Force-related) means or otherwise. The differences between their respective guardians also could have had a lot to do with it. Leia was nurtured from a young age and encouraged towards intellectual and emotional pursuits. Luke, on the other hand, was a farm boy repeatedly reprimanded for any talk of his parents or the events concerning their lives.
I personally am of the opinion that it was a combination of both literal imprintation and the conglomarate of stories that each had heard over the years.


Do you think there is the possibility of an error or oversight here on George Lucas' part?
Certainly. There is the possibility that it was a fairly huge error. I personally doubt it though, considering the number of people concerned that would have had to "miss" this fairly obvious loophole. More likely it was a conscious decision to retcon a prior statement.

Tao what do YOU think George originally was trying to say through Luke and Leia’s talk on Endor in ROTJ in 1983?
I think he was trying to lead into the "I have a sister" remark by showing Luke's desire to know more about his family. I think he was showing that Leia knew about her "real" family in a way that Luke didn't. I think the amount of time that Leia spent with her mother, or the manner in which she aquired such information, is completely irrelevent.

Tao what have YOU interpreted the scene on Endor to mean prior to 2005?
I honestly always assumed that Leia's mother had died fairly early, and that she had been raised for most of her life by her foster parents (otherwise the "real mother" would have been supurfluous). I had assumed that Leia's conception had coincided fairly closely with Anakin's fall to the dark side, as I had a hard time imagining "Darth" getting jiggy with anyone after his fall. I also assumed that her mother's death would logically have to come shortly after her birth, as Vader would have been fairly likely to track her down.

Tao what is your opinion of earlier versions of the script (seen above) in regard to what is contrary to this “new vision” we see in Episode 3?
My honest opinion is that the "old vision" was forced and contrived. Lucas was right to take it out. If those scenes had been left in (read: if Padme had lived longer), there would have been other unanswered questions (why did Vader leave a former lover roaming the galaxy?). Furthermore, an ignominious dissapearance didn't do justice to a bold and powerful character like Padme. She HAD to die in episode III, or there would have been a fairly big loose end that wouldn't ever be adequately wrapped up.


Tao do you think the STAR WARS saga is meant to be viewed in episode order (I, II, III, IV, V, VI), or if the prequels are truly prequels, should they not be viewed (IV, V, VI, I, II, III)?
I think it can be viewed either way.
I prefer the classic trilogy, and generally speaking, when I introduce someone, I start with A New Hope. Watching them in this order conserves important plot surprises (Luke/Vader, Luke/Leia, etc) and leads to a richer overall story.
To fully comprehend the whole plot, however, it is probably preferable to watch them from 1-6.
However, each trilogy is a completed work in and of itself. I don't think it's meant to be seen in any particular order. Arguments could be made in either case, and in the end it comes down to personal preference.

Tao what do you consider a Prequel to be?
A prequel is a work (film, book, or otherwise) whose plot takes place chronologically before that of a preexisting work.

Did you actually ask the “Crying viewer” about this topic, or is this an assumed conclusion based on the individual not bringing the topic up at all?
I actually discussed this later with her boyfriend (my best bud... the two of us were asked to give an interview/review for the Atlantic City Press newspaper and were discussing our answers to several questions), and she actually defended it, pointing out that the way we would have preferred it wouldnt have been as interesting. That's what reminded me that the prequels weren't necesarily written with the intention of explaining. They were made to be entertaining and fun to watch.

I am curious how old this “Crying viewer” is if I may be so bold?
That is fairly bold. The viewer in question is the girlfriend of a close friend of mine. She is twenty-three years old. We showed her the movies (4-6, 1-2) leading up to the release of Episode 3. Actually, both her and my fiance got choked up during Padme's death, although my fiance was able to hide it better.

But what if it is not "WE" who are wrong?
Tao what if George Lucas made a major mistake?
It would mean that George Lucas is human. Does George Lucas come into your job and correct your typographical mistakes? Give the guy a break. If you think you could do better, go right ahead. Make a better movie. Until you have done that, however, you dont really have the credentials to criticize someone else's major motion picture.

We have heard nothing official, so what are the implications, if "WE" were right?
Implications? Ummm... maybe a Special Edition version of the movie, where they throw a "Two Months Later" subtitle beneath that particular scene.

Is there something wrong about being “disappointed” about the prequels?
Not at all. There IS something wrong about being arrogant, critical, obnoxious, argumentative, etc. when other people try to answer the questions that you have posed. (This is not directed soley at you either, FVB... nearly everyone here has been a little bit more coarse than was needed)

If there is a legitimate error/oversight on George Lucas’ part, would not disappointment be the logical response from fans?
I would imagine that would be true.

Do you think complaining is wrong?
Absolutely. Complaining is one of the greatest banes of this century. If people put one-tenth the energy that they spend complaining into actually doing things, the world would be a much better place. Like I said, if you can write a better movie, by all means... please go right ahead. At the very least, accompany your complaints with a better solution.

If something is wrong, does it make sense to be silent about it?
See above answer.

Can a problem get worse by doing or saying nothing?
Yes. But now I will pose a question: HAS COMPLAINING EVER SOLVED A PROBLEM

Have you been "open" to the idea we are dealing with a simple error, or hole in the story that was overlooked by George Lucas as we have been "open" to your ideas and opinions in this thread?
I have. You have asked for an explanation to a percieved incongruity. Several people have given you viable "in-universe" explanations. I gave you a viable "real-world" explanation. I have been open to the fact that it could possibly be an oversight. I personally feel that it was probably a conscious decision to overwrite an existing bit of dialogue with new dialogue. I also think that considering the scope of the project, Mr. Lucas did a fair job at maintaining the overall integrity of his work.

Thinithil
26 January 2006, 12:27 PM
It's good to be back. My coffee was a lost cause I'll buy more later...



Actually, Anakin wasn’t “Bonded” to his mother

I do not accept that premiss. In my opinion he clearly was. His emotional attachment led to a Force sensitive bond between son (Chosen One) and only know parent and stable adult figure in young life (Mother)

Training is unecessary. Anakin used the Force/Jedi instincts/reflexes for some time before meeting Qui-Gon let alone being trained. Like Chosen One like Daughter



nor had she ever shown any signs of the Force sensitivity

I would debate that. Her skills are great with a blaster--possibly more than a young senator from a pacifistic planet ought to be, Obi Wan once admitted "There's no such thing as luck" I believe Leia is downright lucky, She easily recieves Luke's plea for aid and tells him that "she has somehow always known" about their relationship. I would argue that these and other examples are "proof" of latent Force sensitivity.




To say that her memories are Force connected when this is clearly not supported by anything in the movies

In my opinion it is suported in the movies -- The Force is capable of many things. Merely because nobody else speaks of their parents is no reason to discount this argument and I reject yours.



there is a Force power in exsistance for Force Bonds. It can be found in the Truce at Bakura Sourcebook[/b] by WEG. It is called [i]Life Bond

Yes I know. I'm not sure what your point is here. I tend not to let the RPG interfere with my interpretations of the films though. The Force of the films is an interesting ephemeral thingy not limited to the rules listed in any sourcebook.



Force bonds can only be formed between two Force sensitives

I reject this argument. My imagination and GL's storytelling trump your RPG. And mine as well. Nothing in those books is gospel as well as nothing in the EU.

My imagination and enjoyment of the films allows me to enjoy them even if they don't agree with page such, chapter such, paragraph such.

It's a beautiful story "reality" need not intrude.



All of these factors combined eliminates your theory.

rejected -- all of my factors combined eliminates your theory -- So there... :D

Tramp
26 January 2006, 07:05 PM
Originally posted by Thinithil
It's good to be back. My coffee was a lost cause I'll buy more later...




I do not accept that premiss. In my opinion he clearly was. His emotional attachment led to a Force sensitive bond between son (Chosen One) and only know parent and stable adult figure in young life (Mother)

Emotional attachment does not mean Force Bond, and there is no clear evidence that he shared one with his mother. He missed his mother and feared losing her. that is all. Once he had training in the Force, he then started having Force Visions. (use of the skill Farseeing).


Training is unecessary. Anakin used the Force/Jedi instincts/reflexes for some time before meeting Qui-Gon let alone being trained. Like Chosen One like Daughter

For many Force abilities, training is very necessary. Certain skills like being able to enhance your reflexes can be used untrained, but others require training to be able to tap into the Force that way. Having Force Visions is one such ability that requires training. This is canon fact. Leia had no such training.



I would debate that. Her skills are great with a blaster--possibly more than a young senator from a pacifistic planet ought to be, Obi Wan once admitted "There's no such thing as luck" I believe Leia is downright lucky, She easily recieves Luke's plea for aid and tells him that "she has somehow always known" about their relationship. I would argue that these and other examples are "proof" of latent Force sensitivity.

Leia’s skill with a blaster comes from years of training under a weaponsmaster that Bail Organa hired to train her. This is stated clearly in her bio on the official Databank, and in the NEGtC. As far as her hearing Luke’s sending. Luke projected that call to her, and it has already been stated in canon that they share an inherent “Twin Bond” similar to Jacen and Jaina, though she and Luke never knew it. She heard his call because he sent it directly to her.


In my opinion it is suported in the movies -- The Force is capable of many things. Merely because nobody else speaks of their parents is no reason to discount this argument and I reject yours. The Force is capable of many things, but not allowing newborn infants to remember their births. no Force User has ever remembered that far back in their lives. It is one of the reasons why Jedi take Force Sensitives as infants.


Yes I know. I'm not sure what your point is here. I tend not to let the RPG interfere with my interpretations of the films though. The Force of the films is an interesting ephemeral thingy not limited to the rules listed in any sourcebook.

It isn’t just the rules, but the canon information within those rules. That information went through Lucas Licensing and has since been used outside of hust the RPG and often times preceded the RPG stats. The Force, or more to the point, in what ways a person can tap into the Force is limited. There is only so much a person can do with the Force, and it has been evidenced that an untrained Force Sensitive simply cannot remember their birth. Not even a fully trained Jedi can remember his or her birth.


I reject this argument. My imagination and GL's storytelling trump your RPG. And mine as well. Nothing in those books is gospel as well as nothing in the EU.
Nothing I hqave shown from the RPG or the rest of the EU contradicts what the movies present. In fact, the movies don]t say one way or the other how Leia remembers her mother. The EU does show that Jedi cannot remember that far back in their lives; that they are taken before they develop long term memory to prevent familial attachments; attachments that can’t be formed if you don’t remember your family.


My imagination and enjoyment of the films allows me to enjoy them even if they don't agree with page such, chapter such, paragraph such.

It's a beautiful story "reality" need not intrude.

Without a certain amount of reality, suspension of disbelief falls apart.


rejected -- all of my factors combined eliminates your theory -- So there... :D [/B]What factors? There is no evidence to support your position. Nothing to explain how Leia remembers her mother, or through what means. I do have evidence that shows certain factors are impossible even through the Force. Often times, a mundane answer simply makes more sense, and this is one of them. Leia was simply shown a few pictures of Padmé and told a little about the kind of person she was. This is more than enough to form the kind of “memories” Leia has of her mother.

Thinithil
26 January 2006, 07:19 PM
Somebody yank that safety line... Must...pull...out of...mire....

coffee, more coffee.....

Tao
27 January 2006, 03:29 AM
Tramp,
Before we start, you may want to read my last statement. I, personally, believe the same explanation as you do, albeit I do not discount any other possibilities. Unfortunately (for you), I don't feel like you've really given the other options a fair shake. Throughout the discussion you have been fairly intolerant towards the opinions presented by others, while you have done very little to back up your own. So, that said, I'm going to argue one for the little guys...


For many Force abilities, training is very necessary. Certain skills like being able to enhance your reflexes can be used untrained, but others require training to be able to tap into the Force that way. Having Force Visions is one such ability that requires training. This is canon fact. Leia had no such training.
If this is canon, perhaps you would honor us with an official source...
Otherwise, it is a matter of your opinion against someone elses. Arbitrarily choosing which skills can and can't be used without "Jedi-school" seems a little ridiculous to me.
In game terms, if I recall correctly, little Anakin was using some form of Far Sight or Telepathy untrained in the Jedi Council hall as part of his test to be accepted into the Jedi Order. According to every other source this is impossible. But we all saw it. He also used several Force abilities throughout his childhood without ever even knowing that he was Force sensative. Obviously, training and foreknowledge matter very little to the Force.

no Force User has ever remembered that far back in their lives.
Using the term "No Force User has ever" is fairly bold, and more than a little unwise. Since this is a fictional universe, there is a lot going on offscreen that you or I do not know about. Hypothetically speaking there are billions and billions of people in the Star Wars universe. You are saying that out of those billions and billions of people, not a single one could possibly have recieved a vision of their own birth or possibly even remembered it naturally? Are you then also saying you know the backstories to all of these billions and billions of people for whom stories have not been written? What you really mean is that "Of the handful of Force Users we know about, none of them have...". Overall, your statements seem a little haughty. There is a lot out there still waiting to be written, and every book develops the universe just a little more. I'm sure that you're the local Star Wars guru, but noone knows everything (including Mr. Lucas).

It isn’t just the rules, but the canon information within those rules. That information went through Lucas Licensing and has since been used outside of hust the RPG and often times preceded the RPG stats.
How do you know this? I assume you work for either West End or Wizards? Lucas Licensing perhaps? Otherwise you really can't know that much about the creation process, as a result of the massive non-disclosure agreement signed by everyone who touches the RPG. All that I can say is that the process for approving an RPG is very different than the process for writing a book.

The Force, or more to the point, in what ways a person can tap into the Force is limited. There is only so much a person can do with the Force, and it has been evidenced that an untrained Force Sensitive simply cannot remember their birth. Not even a fully trained Jedi can remember his or her birth.
Again, this is not documented anywhere. It's a matter of your opinion against someone elses. Jedi are very much discouraged from having anything to do with their parents, and this could be the reason that most haven't tried. As far as whether or not it's possible, YES, of course it is. If they can "remember" things that are going to happen in the future or that happened a thousand years in the past, if they can connect with others to share thoughts, feeling, and emotions, and if they can do all the other wonderous things that they can do, remembering what happened to them, in their lifetime, is a fairly small accomplishment.

Nothing I hqave shown from the RPG or the rest of the EU contradicts what the movies present. In fact, the movies don]t say one way or the other how Leia remembers her mother. The EU does show that Jedi cannot remember that far back in their lives; that they are taken before they develop long term memory to prevent familial attachments; attachments that can’t be formed if you don’t remember your family.
The EU does NOT conclusively show this anywhere. They are taken from their families early to prevent family attachments, not through the Force, but through regular, normal, everyday emotion. They are then discouraged from seeking out their parents, a tenent they accept since they've never met their parents anyway. Nowhere does it say that they can't, it simply states that they don't. I believe you're really looking for explanations that aren't there.

Without a certain amount of reality, suspension of disbelief falls apart.
And with too much reality, good storytelling falls apart. This is an epic space opera. When people watch it, they are pretty certain that it's not real, and thus fairly willing to suspend reality completely. The fact that a handful of nerds (myself included) is concerned about how a couple of minor plot points evolved is really of very little consequence.

What factors? There is no evidence to support your position. Nothing to explain how Leia remembers her mother, or through what means.
Dozens of possible answers have been given. Your willingness to leave your preconcieved notions behind and be more open to new ideas is currently the only real factor.

I do have evidence that shows certain factors are impossible even through the Force.
None that I've seen...

Often times, a mundane answer simply makes more sense, and this is one of them. Leia was simply shown a few pictures of Padmé and told a little about the kind of person she was. This is more than enough to form the kind of “memories” Leia has of her mother.
Actually, this is probably the only thing we agree on. If you read my above post, I feel exactly the same way and have been a proponent of this explanation since day 1. However, I am not above considering the other options as possibilities. Maybe she dreamt it. Maybe it was a vision. Maybe she thinks she remembers, but its really just what she wants to believe...


My point is, you have been consistently bashing other people for their theories, when yours are no different. As of now, there is no answer. Leia remembers. Thats all that really matters. The how and why are pretty inconsequential.
Furthermore, I would suggest that you adjust your demeanor when interacting with the rest of the community here. Noone enjoys talking to someone who refuses to listen to the opinions of others. You seem to know a lot about Star Wars and the RPGs, but all the useless knowledge in the world isn't going to do you any good if you don't know how to communicate. Try and be as accepting and open to the opinions of others as you want other people to be of your ideas.

FVBonura
27 January 2006, 07:55 AM
Originally posted by Tao
Does George Lucas come into your job and correct your typographical mistakes?
He is welcome to if he wants, but he may regret it after I pick his brains for some “official” answers. If he does, I will share his words to me with all.

Originally posted by Tao
Give the guy a break.
Perhaps it’s the fans who deserve a break, and an official answer no?

Originally posted by Tao
If you think you could do better, go right ahead. Make a better movie. Until you have done that, however, you dont really have the credentials to criticize someone else's major motion picture.
I am a paying customer, am I not?
Is it said “the customer always right”?
Is not customer satisfaction a hallmark of corporate excellence?
As for my own script, I will have to think about that.

Originally posted by Tao
There IS something wrong about being arrogant, critical, obnoxious, argumentative, etc. when other people try to answer the questions that you have posed. (This is not directed soley at you either, FVB... nearly everyone here has been a little bit more coarse than was needed)
Have I done something wrong Tao? If so please tell me. I as you, am looking for answers that do not seem to exist, but I will keep searching.

Originally posted by Tao
Complaining is one of the greatest banes of this century. If people put one-tenth the energy that they spend complaining into actually doing things, the world would be a much better place. Like I said, if you can write a better movie, by all means... please go right ahead. At the very least, accompany your complaints with a better solution.
Very well Tao. I am put on the spot, so I will come up with a solution for the prequel trilogy for you right here and right now.

I have noticed an overlooked opportunity on George Lucas’ part for prequel story telling so I will share it with you. STAR WARS shares some common elements with the legend of King Arthur. Luke is given his fathers light saber, just as King Arthur uses Excalibur, Uther’s (his father’s) sword. Luke is raised by foster parents, Owen ,and Beru Lars, just as Arthur was raised by foster parents as well, Sir Ector, and his family. It would be my solution to integrate the early elements of the Arthurian legend of Camelot into the prequel story of STAR WARS.

Instead of a whinny wimpy Anakin, I would pattern the early life of Darth Vader after the power hungry father of King Arthur, Uther Pendragon. Like Uther, Anakin was driven for the need for order, and control in his life. Anakin must come from a horrible, traumatic, chaotic past for this story idea to work. Perhaps as a young teen, he was a gladiator for the Hutts of Nal Hutta, and is rescued by Obi Wan. Obi Wan is “the Merlin figure” in this way, and mentors the young Anakin, as Merlin tried to mentor Uther. Obi Wan is much more reckless, and more like Han Solo’s character in this time in history. He never brings Anakin to Yoda, as he should have, but teaches him the way of the force on his own. The two become good friends, and go on many adventures together during the first Clone war.

Like in the Arthurian legend, Anakin lusts for a woman, a Senator Galiana, just as Uther Pendragon Lusted for the wife of his ally Gorlois, the lady Igraine. Anakin never marries Galiana, but arranges for Galiana’s husband Rainer to have an accident, so he can use the force to disguise himself as Rainer, for a night of pleasure. In all the commotion of the second Clone war, Anakin lost track of this Galiana, never knowing she carried his twins. Senator Galiana hides on Alderaan, a planet with a massive military fighting force in the second Clone war, and is forgotten by Darth Vader, because his desire for power, and order was too great a distraction, and she was really just an itch to be scratched, a notch in his belt, Just as it was with Uther, and the lady Igraine. Igraine would bare Arthur, and Galiana would bare Luke and Leia, hidden on Alderaan, by Bail Organa, a fellow senator, and close friend of Obi Wan.

At last the lust for power, control, and order catch up to Anakin. Anakin has been the servant of the Emperor’s lies, and is killed like Uther, by his own ally, Obi Wan, striped of his light saber, and cast into a molten pool left for dead. However he is not dead, and Anakin’s “Dark Will” is so powerful, his rage from Obi Wan’s betrayal, is so great, the pain of the lake of fire is so intense, a charred blackened agent of evil rises like a hell bent corpse from the flames. The emperor takes pity on the broiled Anakin, and reinvents the Jedi in his own image, Darth Vader.

That’s the best I could do in two hours, how is that Tao?
:thrawn: :noghri:

Tao
27 January 2006, 08:32 AM
As a paying customer you are given exactly one right: you may choose to no longer pay. Speaking in terms of business, you and Mr. Lucas had a contract that was valid for exactly 1.5 hours. You agreed to pay $X.00 and he agreed to let you see his film in its completion. There were no garauntees that you would enjoy it. Any expectations or desires that you might have had were your own, and not the fault of any one else. As a paying customer, you recieved exactly what you paid for.

You may or may not have liked the movie. That is completely irrelevant. A lot of other people did enjoy the movie.

As the old saying goes, you can please some of the people some of the time.


As for 'your' plot... well, it's pretty good. It's a little over-derivitive, obviously, and, as such is the case, if you tried to publish anything of the sort you would immediately be labled a theif. Then again, some people have built careers out of retelling old classics (Disney) and that's just fine. While Lucas' work derives from several classic archetypes, the work itself and its plot are fairly unique, which is what has made it so immensely popular.
Unfortunately, 'your' plot also ruins the entire point of the story. This is, and has always been, the story of an essentially good person gone bad, and the efforts of his children to redeem him. That much is obvious even from the earliest drafts of the Star Wars story. Your plot doesn't include any of that. Anakin, in this story, was never really a good guy. There was never "good in him" and so his redemption would have been fake and hollow.

I personally think there was a lot that could have been done differently. There was also a lot that he did right. As a freelance artist and writer I have begun to internalize some of these concepts, in an effort to write my own comic book series. I will tell you one thing... it's not nearly as easy as it sounds. Avoiding parallels between established sources, creating a unique setting, making compelling and interesting characters... its all a lot of work.
George Lucas, and the others that have contributed to the immense project that is Star Wars, deserve a lot of credit. They have done something that few other franchises have accomplished. As epic as other series may be, there are a scant few that are as all encompassing as the Star Wars universe. The sheer volume of material, in the forms of movies, books, games, comic books, etc, is staggering.
And in the end, despite all that has been done, there are still people complaining that it isn't "complete" enough. Or that there are still "unanswered questions". Well, that is to be expected. This is an alien world with alien concepts and a completely different history and people. There are likely to be thousands of unanswered questions, based purely on the amount of ground covered. Accept that sometimes there aren't answers to all of life's many questions and move on.
To squip and squabble over a few almost inconsequential loopholes seems ridiculous. To be beligerent towards other posters and completely unnaccepting of their ideas, as has happened in this thread, is absurd. All I have asked is that people not take this argument so seriously, that they actually listen to others ideas before writing them off as impossible. That this be a dialogue instead of an accusation. So far, no one seems to be capable of that particular type of communication. Every idea has been assaulted, every concept judged, and every person found incorrect in their opinions. But in the end, there is no answer, at least not in the definitive sense. Which means every single one of us is equally correct and equally incorrect.

Anyways, I've typed enough. And I'm sure that this will simply inspire another backlash. So for now...

FVBonura
27 January 2006, 08:51 AM
Humm...

Well done Tao, you got my mind spinning.

Well in the Arthurian legend, Uther Pendragon dies, and then years Later, Arthur rises to power. In STAR WARS this did not happen, Vader lives, and Luke isn’t crowned a king. I suppose if given more time, redemptive qualities, could be worked into Uther/Vader's character, that is not a part of the Arthurian Legend. Uther's lust, and fall is loosely patterned after King David, in the bible. Perhaps we need less Uther, and more David. This actually helps me a bit Tao, good work. If we use the King David influence a little more, then on Nal hutta, we could have Obi Wan witness tiny little 13 year old Anakin the gladiator slave in a pit fight, battling a huge alien, a tunroth, or an esoomian, and Anakin slays the giant, as David slew Goliath. This also parallels Luke and his battle with the rancor artistically. Man Tao you got me really wondering/thinking now.

Tao should I further develop "my solution"?
:thrawn: :noghri:

Tramp
27 January 2006, 01:06 PM
Originally posted by Tao
Tramp,
Before we start, you may want to read my last statement. I, personally, believe the same explanation as you do, albeit I do not discount any other possibilities. Unfortunately (for you), I don't feel like you've really given the other options a fair shake. Throughout the discussion you have been fairly intolerant towards the opinions presented by others, while you have done very little to back up your own. So, that said, I'm going to argue one for the little guys...


For many Force abilities, training is very necessary. Certain skills like being able to enhance your reflexes can be used untrained, but others require training to be able to tap into the Force that way. Having Force Visions is one such ability that requires training. This is canon fact. Leia had no such training.
If this is canon, perhaps you would honor us with an official source...

Otherwise, it is a matter of your opinion against someone elses. Arbitrarily choosing which skills can and can't be used without "Jedi-school" seems a little ridiculous to me.

Both versions of the RPG for one. They are canon sources approved by Lucas Licensing. Leland Chee has said that even they have used the RPG as a guage of how powerful a character is. Any skill that says Trained Only requires special training. Any ability that has Control, Sense or Alter requires the person to have formal Force Training. (i.e. levels in a Force using class). Anakin Skywalker (in TPM) had levels in Enhance Ability a skill which only requires you to be Force Sensitive without any formal training. Leai herself, has absolutely no Force skills what so ever; nor any Force Feats. All she has is Force Sensitive. That effectively limits her “Force use” to Empathy and Enhance Ability, two skills which only require Force sensitivity and can be used without any training.


In game terms, if I recall correctly, little Anakin was using some form of Far Sight or Telepathy untrained in the Jedi Council hall as part of his test to be accepted into the Jedi Order. According to every other source this is impossible. But we all saw it. He also used several Force abilities throughout his childhood without ever even knowing that he was Force sensative. Obviously, training and foreknowledge matter very little to the Force.

Actually, it was the Sense Surroundings technique. Now, this does require the Sense feat, (though Anakin’s OCRB stats didn’t give him that feat) but does not require any training. Given that Anakin’s special quality allows him to have any of the three Force Feats without having actual levels in a Force using class, we can assume he tapped into the Sense feat to instictively use that technique, either that, or Qui-Gon taught him enough during their travel to Coruscant to use that feat (i.e. the GM—George Lucas—ruled that Anakin was in the process of learning the ability).


no Force User has ever remembered that far back in their lives.
Using the term "No Force User has ever" is fairly bold, and more than a little unwise. Since this is a fictional universe, there is a lot going on offscreen that you or I do not know about. Hypothetically speaking there are billions and billions of people in the Star Wars universe. You are saying that out of those billions and billions of people, not a single one could possibly have recieved a vision of their own birth or possibly even remembered it naturally? Are you then also saying you know the backstories to all of these billions and billions of people for whom stories have not been written? What you really mean is that "Of the handful of Force Users we know about, none of them have...". Overall, your statements seem a little haughty. There is a lot out there still waiting to be written, and every book develops the universe just a little more. I'm sure that you're the local Star Wars guru, but noone knows everything (including Mr. Lucas).

Actually, if anyone knows everything about SW, it’s GL. As far as no one ever remembering that far back in their lives, I would have to say that is accurate. There is no recorded instance in real life nor in Star Wars of anyone having memories from birth. Both Mace Windu and Feris Orlin have stated that they remember nothing from before coming to the Temple. We have that Jedi practice of taking children as infants to prevent them form becoming attached to their families, attachments that would develop if they had any memories of their families.


It isn’t just the rules, but the canon information within those rules. That information went through Lucas Licensing and has since been used outside of hust the RPG and often times preceded the RPG stats.
How do you know this? I assume you work for either West End or Wizards? Lucas Licensing perhaps? Otherwise you really can't know that much about the creation process, as a result of the massive non-disclosure agreement signed by everyone who touches the RPG. All that I can say is that the process for approving an RPG is very different than the process for writing a book. Everything published in the rules passes through Lucas Licensing editor Sue Rostoni and is verified by Leland Chee for accuracy through the Holocron Database. This has already been stated by Ms Rostoni and Mr Chee in multiple public statements, as well as by WotC’s own GM Sarli. The information is C-Level canon, and, in some cases, even G-Level.


The Force, or more to the point, in what ways a person can tap into the Force is limited. There is only so much a person can do with the Force, and it has been evidenced that an untrained Force Sensitive simply cannot remember their birth. Not even a fully trained Jedi can remember his or her birth.
Again, this is not documented anywhere. It's a matter of your opinion against someone elses. Jedi are very much discouraged from having anything to do with their parents, and this could be the reason that most haven't tried. As far as whether or not it's possible, YES, of course it is. If they can "remember" things that are going to happen in the future or that happened a thousand years in the past, if they can connect with others to share thoughts, feeling, and emotions, and if they can do all the other wonderous things that they can do, remembering what happened to them, in their lifetime, is a fairly small accomplishment.

Actually this is documented. When Kevin Anderson and crew were working on the original Tales of the Jedi, they sent a list of Force powers to GL for approval. Many were rejected as too powerful and god-like. GL has put limits on the use of the Force.


Nothing I hqave shown from the RPG or the rest of the EU contradicts what the movies present. In fact, the movies don]t say one way or the other how Leia remembers her mother. The EU does show that Jedi cannot remember that far back in their lives; that they are taken before they develop long term memory to prevent familial attachments; attachments that can’t be formed if you don’t remember your family.
The EU does NOT conclusively show this anywhere. They are taken from their families early to prevent family attachments, not through the Force, but through regular, normal, everyday emotion. They are then discouraged from seeking out their parents, a tenent they accept since they've never met their parents anyway. Nowhere does it say that they can't, it simply states that they don't. I believe you're really looking for explanations that aren't there.And those empotional attachments form through memory and continued contact. If you can’t remember your family, you won’t develop attachments to them. Also, The EU shows multiple instances of Jedi who have absolutely no memory of their lives before the Jedi Temple, there are no recorded instances of any one conclusively remembering their births. The evidence, therefore, favors no one having memories that far back. Also, The one recorded source which shows how Leia remembers her mother looking does not show Padmé as she appeared in RotS. Rather, her appearance is completely different. This shows that Leia’s memories are not from birth.


Without a certain amount of reality, suspension of disbelief falls apart.
And with too much reality, good storytelling falls apart. This is an epic space opera. When people watch it, they are pretty certain that it's not real, and thus fairly willing to suspend reality completely. The fact that a handful of nerds (myself included) is concerned about how a couple of minor plot points evolved is really of very little consequence. Agreed, too much reality can, but usually doesn’t. Also, Human limitations is not one of the things that would destroy a good story.

[/quote]What factors? There is no evidence to support your position. Nothing to explain how Leia remembers her mother, or through what means.
Dozens of possible answers have been given. Your willingness to leave your preconcieved notions behind and be more open to new ideas is currently the only real factor.[/quote]

Dozens of answers with no evidence to back it up. They fight for their view simply because they think that the Force can do everything. No canon source shows Leia having any conclusive ability to have Force Visions or any other supernatural source for her memories, nor is their any canon evidence showing anyone has the ability to remember their births. All they have thrown around is wild speculation, no evidence.


I do have evidence that shows certain factors are impossible even through the Force.
None that I've seen...

Actually, I have shown multiple pieces of evidence. Mace Windu, Feris Olin, the stats and limitations of Life Bond from the Truce at Bakura Sourcebook, Leia’s RPG stats, and the rest of the EU, Leia’s statments regarding having visual memories od her mother, sources showing that these visual memories do not match up with RotS, the Jedi proactice of taking Children as infants to prevent attachments (can‘t become attached to someone you don’t remember‚ Leia not being held close to Padmé, nor even looking upon her while Luke was (and did), and real life limitations of the human body (i.e. Long term memory not formed in children until about the age of 3 or 4, and the ability to focus visually not being fully developed until age 2 months). All of this refutes the Force theory and first hand memory.


Often times, a mundane answer simply makes more sense, and this is one of them. Leia was simply shown a few pictures of Padmé and told a little about the kind of person she was. This is more than enough to form the kind of “memories” Leia has of her mother.
Actually, this is probably the only thing we agree on. If you read my above post, I feel exactly the same way and have been a proponent of this explanation since day 1. However, I am not above considering the other options as possibilities. Maybe she dreamt it. Maybe it was a vision. Maybe she thinks she remembers, but its really just what she wants to believe...


My point is, you have been consistently bashing other people for their theories, when yours are no different. As of now, there is no answer. Leia remembers. Thats all that really matters. The how and why are pretty inconsequential.
Furthermore, I would suggest that you adjust your demeanor when interacting with the rest of the community here. Noone enjoys talking to someone who refuses to listen to the opinions of others. You seem to know a lot about Star Wars and the RPGs, but all the useless knowledge in the world isn't going to do you any good if you don't know how to communicate. Try and be as accepting and open to the opinions of others as you want other people to be of your ideas.

I haven’t been bashing, I have been refuting their theory because they have nothing to back it up. It just does not work based upon canon. The only possibility that still holds up is that Leia was shown pictures and told some anecdotal stories about her mother by Bail Organa.

Tao
27 January 2006, 03:13 PM
Originally posted by FVBonura
Humm...

Well done Tao, you got my mind spinning.

Well in the Arthurian legend, Uther Pendragon dies, and then years Later, Arthur rises to power. In STAR WARS this did not happen, Vader lives, and Luke isn’t crowned a king. I suppose if given more time, redemptive qualities, could be worked into Uther/Vader's character, that is not a part of the Arthurian Legend. Uther's lust, and fall is loosely patterned after King David, in the bible. Perhaps we need less Uther, and more David. This actually helps me a bit Tao, good work. If we use the King David influence a little more, then on Nal hutta, we could have Obi Wan witness tiny little 13 year old Anakin the gladiator slave in a pit fight, battling a huge alien, a tunroth, or an esoomian, and Anakin slays the giant, as David slew Goliath. This also parallels Luke and his battle with the rancor artistically. Man Tao you got me really wondering/thinking now.

Tao should I further develop "my solution"?
:thrawn: :noghri:

See... now isn't this much more productive. Everyones getting along better, and we're actually discussing things, instead of arguing.

I do agree that the story you are putting together does seem to be solid so far. I would suggest turning these efforts into doing something original that you can call your own. Heck, as a comic book writer/penciller I would be enthusiastic about working with you to transition any stories you come up with into a visual form that you could pitch. Unfortunately, I'm not in the film industry, so I couldn't help you if you decided to go that route.

My point is, you can do a lot with your ideas. George Lucas turned one little partially concieved idea into an enormous enterprise. You could do the same.




Tramp,
I'm not arguing with your statements. You're 100% correct in saying that there is currently no precedent for Leia having first hand memories of her birth. However, that doesn't mean its not possible. If you read my first post, I state that I feel that Leia's impression of her morther came first from what she was told by her foster parents, and secondarily from her innate ability to sense emotions and feelings through the Force (a very limited form of farsight/empathy).
As for your elevation of the RPG, it's not entirely warrented. While everything does have to be approved, the creative process in creating a sourcebook is not monitered as carefully as that of a novel, comic book, or other product. This is primarily due to the ease of revising RPG material compared to a book and its placement outside of normal cannon.

Codym
27 January 2006, 03:48 PM
"Ever time I try to leave, they pull me back in..."

Tramp, you are showing a lot of knowledge but absolutely no wisdom my firend. Your arguements have grown more desperate over time, and you keep posting statements as facts without backing them up with evidence. save for the illogical use of roleplaying stats. You cannot say has refutted a single theory because you never producing any evidence to discount it. In fact, your fear of such theories is disturbing for a Star Wars fan.

To clarify on thing - when answering this question, I turn only to the movies because of one overriding factor. Because to the majority of people, they are all that exists. The average person does not wade obsessively through decades of Expanded Universe, especially as obscure as the RPG. Nor do they have to shift through the tons of information that has been rendered irrelevent by the prequels. They have to make decisions on what is on screen, and only what is on screen, and sometimes it is easier to say "A wizard did it."

Leia's memory of Padme is shown in context of the movies to be a real, genuine memory, not second hand or based on some old story. Yet we know Padme died shortly after Leia's birth. Since we know Leia is Force sensitive and, though untrained, as powerful as Luke, it is not a great leap to say the Force is involved. This theory is supported by movies, as we see that both Anakin and Luke can sense loved ones far away, and Yoda states that the Force can allow you to see loved ones long departed. That no other Jedi in the movie says they can remember parents that died at birth does not mean it does not, nor cannot, happen. It merely means they do not talk about it (or do it in closed sessions, such as Anakin with Yoda.)

Tramp, you state that Mace cannot remember his parents, but what is so remarkable about Mace Windu that this should be concidered absolute evidence that this cannot happen?

You also state that Leia's memories of Padme do not match ROTS, yet can never produce evidence of this wild claim. Leia never discribes Padme in more than emotional, personal terms, so to cite this so-called discripency is not only misleding, but malicious. You cannot just invent evidence to support a theory (or in your case, disprove one.)

You say that people believe the Force can do anything. No so, we who support this theory merely say that this one incidence can be explained for it. I'm actually known for being tough on Force abilities back home, and in my RPG will only let people use abilities shown in the movies themselves. You also state that is well known that Lucas put restrictions on the Force (which I agree with) but again state a incident which I have never seen any evidence of. Post direct references, as we have, so we can validate or discredit them in our own minds. Simply stating something does not make in fact, and putting it in bold just tends to show you lack evidence.

You state the movies contridict this theory, but again you can never point to anything but obscure and possibly eroneous EU references, never a scene in the movies themselves. If such scenes exist (which I believe they don't) point to them so we can discuss it.

Now I pose a new question to you. You hold the stance that if it isn't in the EU, it doesn't exist. That's fine, that's your opinion and you are entitled to it. What if the EU comes out and validates our theory? Will you appologize to all of us you have been bashing, or refuse to accept that your opinion could be wrong? I'm willing to re-evaluate my position on future evidence, are you?

FVBonura
27 January 2006, 07:47 PM
Tao I"m not really concerned with making this story my own, that would be selfish. Now that you ignited this idea in me, what I think would serve the greater STAR WARS community better is to expand this story into a workable document that could serve as an alternate history book for Game Masters who were disappointed with the prequels, and are looking for a piece of history/back story to fill the void from 45 to 18 years before the battle of Yavin. Tao do you think this is a good idea? Does anybody else in this thread think this is a good idea?

I know I have asked this before, but I must ask again. Surely there must be something we can do for an official answer. What are our options for bringing this question about Luke, and Leia's mother to an official who can give the STAR WARS fans of the world, a solid answer? Can we focus on finding somebody who does know? To be honest, I would love to hear from Lucas himself, but anything from an Official LFL representative would shed some light no? I find the fact that official answers like this are so hard to come by very disappointing. Any suggestions?
:thrawn: :noghri:

Tramp
27 January 2006, 09:04 PM
Originally posted by Codym
"Ever time I try to leave, they pull me back in..."

Tramp, you are showing a lot of knowledge but absolutely no wisdom my firend. Your arguements have grown more desperate over time, and you keep posting statements as facts without backing them up with evidence. save for the illogical use of roleplaying stats. You cannot say has refutted a single theory because you never producing any evidence to discount it. In fact, your fear of such theories is disturbing for a Star Wars fan.

Actually, I have shown evidence, you just choose to ignore it.


To clarify on thing - when answering this question, I turn only to the movies because of one overriding factor. Because to the majority of people, they are all that exists. The average person does not wade obsessively through decades of Expanded Universe, especially as obscure as the RPG. Nor do they have to shift through the tons of information that has been rendered irrelevent by the prequels. They have to make decisions on what is on screen, and only what is on screen, and sometimes it is easier to say "A wizard did it."

Well, the movies are not the only Canon, so every canon source is valid evidence, and I have used every valid source of evidence.


Leia's memory of Padme is shown in context of the movies to be a real, genuine memory, not second hand or based on some old story. Yet we know Padme died shortly after Leia's birth. Since we know Leia is Force sensitive and, though untrained, as powerful as Luke, it is not a great leap to say the Force is involved. This theory is supported by movies, as we see that both Anakin and Luke can sense loved ones far away, and Yoda states that the Force can allow you to see loved ones long departed. That no other Jedi in the movie says they can remember parents that died at birth does not mean it does not, nor cannot, happen. It merely means they do not talk about it (or do it in closed sessions, such as Anakin with Yoda.)

The movies do not make a distinction of the source of Leia’s memories, only that she knew what her mother looked like and the kind of person she was. That kind of memory is more linked to second hand memoriy not first hand. And, given that there is no evidence to suggest that Any Jedi is capable of first hand memory from birth, and all other evidence suggests just the opposite, Which seems more likely.


Tramp, you state that Mace cannot remember his parents, but what is so remarkable about Mace Windu that this should be concidered absolute evidence that this cannot happen?

It isn’t just Mace Windu, but others as well. No Jedi has ever been recorded as remembering their births, In fact, Jedi practice of taking children as infants to prevent familial attachment, strongly implies that they can’t.


You also state that Leia's memories of Padme do not match ROTS, yet can never produce evidence of this wild claim. Leia never discribes Padme in more than emotional, personal terms, so to cite this so-called discripency is not only misleding, but malicious. You cannot just invent evidence to support a theory (or in your case, disprove one.) Leia states that she remember images of her mother. The comic story The Princess Leia Diaries, (SW Tales Volume 3 TPB)which tells about Leia’s childhood from the age of 10-17 has Leia writing in her diary and remembering Padmé. The image she remembers in this story is nothing like how Padmé looks in RotS. This image is in the third panel of the first page of the story. Now, since this story details everything in Leia’s canon biography, and everything in the story is cooborated by other canon sources, we can also place this story in canon.


You say that people believe the Force can do anything. No so, we who support this theory merely say that this one incidence can be explained for it. I'm actually known for being tough on Force abilities back home, and in my RPG will only let people use abilities shown in the movies themselves. You also state that is well known that Lucas put restrictions on the Force (which I agree with) but again state a incident which I have never seen any evidence of. Post direct references, as we have, so we can validate or discredit them in our own minds. Simply stating something does not make in fact, and putting it in bold just tends to show you lack evidence.

And I am saying that there is no evidence to suggest the Force has anything to do with it and that there is no evidence to even suggest this is possible through the Force. All of the Force Abilities which would allow for such an event require training. Farseeing: Trained only, Life Bond (from the Truce at Bakura Sourcebook) Trained only, has multiple prerquisites (Including Control and Sense), and terminates upon the death of either individual. This is clearly stated in that sourcebook on page 145. Leia’s RPG stats show no evidence that she is capable of Force Visions. She does not have the Sense feat; she does not have training in Farseeing, and she does not have, nor has ever had Life Bond (A D6 power). She cannot have had Force Visons, she lacks the training and ability.


You state the movies contridict this theory, but again you can never point to anything but obscure and possibly eroneous EU references, never a scene in the movies themselves. If such scenes exist (which I believe they don't) point to them so we can discuss it.

I said that the movies show no evidence to support your theory. In the movies, Leia has shown no definitive use of the Force. not even in ESB when she heard Luke. Luke projected that call into her mind. This can be done even to a non Force user. I have shown evidence outside of the movies which refutes it; and unless the movies specifically contradict an EU source, then that source is completely valid.

[/quote]Now I pose a new question to you. You hold the stance that if it isn't in the EU, it doesn't exist. That's fine, that's your opinion and you are entitled to it. What if the EU comes out and validates our theory? Will you appologize to all of us you have been bashing, or refuse to accept that your opinion could be wrong? I'm willing to re-evaluate my position on future evidence, are you? [/QUOTE]

I hold the stance that if it isn’t in any of the canon sources, we have to conclude it didn’t happen. Neither the movies nor EU shows any evidence of any person, Force Sensitive or not, Jedi or not, having memories of their births. Multiple EU sources, including Shatterpoint, and Last of the Jedi #1 clearly suggsts that that can’t remember that far back, Jedi Practices support this. I also, have not been bashing, I have been refuting your theory because it simply does not work based upon Leia’s ability and training established by canon.

Tramp
27 January 2006, 09:09 PM
Originally posted by Tao


Tramp,
I'm not arguing with your statements. You're 100% correct in saying that there is currently no precedent for Leia having first hand memories of her birth. However, that doesn't mean its not possible. If you read my first post, I state that I feel that Leia's impression of her morther came first from what she was told by her foster parents, and secondarily from her innate ability to sense emotions and feelings through the Force (a very limited form of farsight/empathy).
As for your elevation of the RPG, it's not entirely warrented. While everything does have to be approved, the creative process in creating a sourcebook is not monitered as carefully as that of a novel, comic book, or other product. This is primarily due to the ease of revising RPG material compared to a book and its placement outside of normal cannon.

Actually, According to GM Sarli, yes, the RPG does go through just as rigorous monitoring and always has. Not only that, but Leland Chee has stated that the RPG is on the same level of canon as the books and comics, as are the video games, and CCGs, as far as the source information contained goes. So, yes, it is entirely warranted and valid. It does go through the same exact monitoring and approval process. this is whay it takes so long for the Jedi Counselings to be put out, and why it took so long for RPG suppliments to come out.

coldskier0320
29 January 2006, 12:10 PM
The comic story The Princess Leia Diaries, (SW Tales Volume 3 TPwhich tells about Leia’s childhood from the age of 10-17 has Leia writing in her diary and remembering Padmé.

Read your sigline, Tramp.

Grimace
29 January 2006, 02:58 PM
You all are just going around in circles in this arguement. I suggest a step back. It doesn't seem anyone left debating is going to change the other's mind, so continuing to pick at each other is going to do nothing but lead to trouble.

Consider this a friendly nudge.

Tramp
29 January 2006, 03:29 PM
Originally posted by coldskier0320


Read your sigline, Tramp.

Yes, and if anything is referrenced in ahigher level canon source, that it is canon even if in Tales. Remember, the Boba Fett story about his having a family was in Tales and it is canon. everything in The Princess Leia Diaries has been referenced in other canon sources. In fact, it is based upon several of those very sources. Therefore, it is canon, even though it appeared in Tales.

FVBonura
29 January 2006, 05:16 PM
Originally posted by Grimace
You all are just going around in circles in this arguement.
You said "all" Grimage, exactly where in this thread have I argued with anyone?

Is it a good idea to make sweeping statements, and accuse everyone of arguing when "all" are not arguing?


Originally posted by Grimace
I suggest a step back. It doesn't seem anyone left debating is going to change the other's mind, so continuing to pick at each other is going to do nothing but lead to trouble.

Consider this a friendly nudge.
Grimace, What is your opinion on all this Amidala confusion anyway? I am curious.
:thrawn: :noghri:

Reverend Strone
30 January 2006, 03:47 PM
I would reiterate my esteemed fellow moderator's request for a chill out please. The circular arguements are getting tiresome and tempers are clearly wearing thin, as evidenced in some posts. I would ask everyone who feels they have anything new to add to be mindful of the mood that has infected this thread and post "gently" from this point forward.

Thank you folks.

FVBonura
31 January 2006, 05:40 AM
Greetings good Reverend,

What is your opinion of Amidala's Fate?
:thrawn: :noghri:

Tao
31 January 2006, 07:38 AM
Originally posted by Tramp


Actually, According to GM Sarli, yes, the RPG does go through just as rigorous monitoring and always has. Not only that, but Leland Chee has stated that the RPG is on the same level of canon as the books and comics, as are the video games, and CCGs, as far as the source information contained goes. So, yes, it is entirely warranted and valid. It does go through the same exact monitoring and approval process. this is whay it takes so long for the Jedi Counselings to be put out, and why it took so long for RPG suppliments to come out.

Tramp,
Actually, it goes through the same approval process... not the same monitoring process. There is actually a fairly large distinction. For example, a comic book or novel has to be pitched to Lucas Licensing and the storyline has to be approved. There are group brainstorming sessions with editors and VIPs either from the book publishers or DarkHorse, and sometimes both (as happened near the launch of the NJO series) and representatives from LFL which result in further development of the series' plot and characters. Finally, the author is given the freedom to write the individual stories, which is then reviewed. An RPG supplement, on the other hand, does not have as much input in the beginning stages, since they generally are not expected to have a substantial impact on the plot or continuity of the Star Wars universe as a whole. They use existing materials to shape the product, adding or adjusting as necesary to fit the existing game system. The final review process is identical. The initial planning stages and writing stages are not. RPGs are generally not intended to supercede anything that has already been written, nor are they expected to advance the plot. They are supplemental materials that enforce and expand what has already been created, and that are specifically designed to be easily modifiable as more information comes to light. As you said yourself, they are as cannon as the books "as far as their source material goes". The RPG's are a derivitive-type of cannon. They get their information from established sources and couple that with the best statistical approximation possible. It has all the inherant difficulties and inacuracies of any Roleplaying system, including the need to adjust some things to keep the system itself balanced, which accounts for many of the supposed inconstencies and "bugs" in the game. I respect all the work that the writers and all the other people at WotC do (I have to say that or I'd probably lose my job). However, there are inherent limitations in game design that make it sometimes unsound to base real-world (or even fantasy) logic on in-game rules and explanations.

That's all I was ever implying.


FVB,
If you want to put together an Infinities type project, I think that would be great. As for me, I'm currently running a Star Wars Rebellion era campaign on Naboo that is doing (I believe) a fairly good job of dovetailing the Original Trilogy with the Prequel Trilogy. I actually think it's a lot of fun, since there isn't a lot known about most of the characters, which gives you the freedom to put an aging Ric Ollie in the local cantina, or make the Gungans a slave race, or have the Imperial governor live in the palace of Theed, or put ex-Senator Binks at the head of a horribly incapable and inefficient Gungan Revolution... the possibilities are endless. And if the heroes ever meet Mr. Binks they may just learn a little something about Luke and Leia's parents. Well... before he dies that is... :D

Tramp
31 January 2006, 10:15 AM
Actually Tao, in many cases (as was the case with WEG for instance) the game itself creates the source material first and is then used by the other sources. Fore instance, many of the ships and vehicles in the EU and prequels got their start in WEG sourcebooks, as did a number of Force powers. As far as the monitoring and approval, they are the same thing. Sue Rostoni and Leland Chee go over anything from the game designers with just as fine-toothed a comb as they do the novel and comics. This has been stated by our own GM Sarli as well as others who have worked on the sourcebooks, and by Leland Chee himself over on the official boards.

Reverend Strone
31 January 2006, 01:09 PM
Originally posted by FVBonura
Greetings good Reverend,

What is your opinion of Amidala's Fate?
:thrawn: :noghri:

Thank you.

In all honesty FV I am not interested enough in the Amidala's fate debate to have much of an opinion one way or the other so I will refrain from adding to the discussion. Thank you for asking of course.

May I suggest also, that it it may be more appropriate for you to make your question to Grimace in a PM rather than in an open forum. This isn't the place to debate a moderator's calls.

FVBonura
31 January 2006, 09:03 PM
Thanks Rev, will do! :)


Originally posted by Tao
FVB,
If you want to put together an Infinities type project, I think that would be great.

Tao can I have your permission to use your idea name of "Infinities"?

I like it. It sounds very "Marvel Comics", and such.
:thrawn: :noghri:

wisper_sr
13 February 2006, 07:58 AM
Hey FVB,

"Infinities" is already used by George Lucas to state anything that works outside of the "cannon" timeline.

FVBonura
14 February 2006, 05:49 AM
Originally posted by wisper_sr
Hey FVB,

"Infinities" is already used by George Lucas to state anything that works outside of the "cannon" timeline.
Does this mean George Lucas admits the EU is separate from the movies ("His Vision")?
Where did you find this please?
:thrawn: :noghri:

Tao
14 February 2006, 09:28 AM
No. "Infinities" is a classification given to certain storylines to differentiate them as "not cannon", similar to the "What If..." storylines in Marvel comics and the "Elseworlds" stories from DC.

All of the "Tales" books and comic books, darkside endings to most video games, and several older books fall into the realm of "Infinities", as does fan-fiction and some RPG content.

Tramp
14 February 2006, 02:24 PM
Actually, some of the Tales stories have found their way into canon. Also, the ones from issues 21-24 are definately canon.

Aldaron
17 February 2006, 05:29 AM
I dunno about Leia and Padme, but I'm goggling at the length of this thread!

Tramp...mate. C'mon. We've got Jedi leaping 20 metres straight up, crushing droids with their bare hands, not to mention "seeing things before they happen" long before they have any training.

What the hell is so far-fetched (in that context) about Leia forming a bond with her mother? And please...no game mechanics, stats or rules! The game rules were written by WotC and WEG - George Lucas couldn't give a fat rat's testicle about them, and for the purposes of the films, neither should we.

'Seasy...Luke was more powerful and reached out further during his unconscious time in utero. He didn't form a bond with anyone in particular until he met Anakin. Leia, on the other hand, was not only somewhat less powerful than Luke, but also female, meaning there was already a mystical connection between daughter and mother anyway, strengthened by the Force.

So she picked up images, emotions, feelings. Flashes of Padme's memories, of looking in mirrors and the like. Enough to stay on the edge of her subconscious and later be brought more to the fore, along with her own imagination - no doubt coupled with the images and such that Bail showed her.

I think you're getting too bogged down in the pseudo-science, logic and EU stuff, and missing the mythical elements of the story.

I mean, if you have to bring in the fact that a comic book has Leia's mother dressed differently from Padme in Eps II and III, then I think there's a problem...

Tao
17 February 2006, 07:33 AM
Originally posted by Tramp
Actually, some of the Tales stories have found their way into canon. Also, the ones from issues 21-24 are definately canon.

Umm... If I'm not mistaken, "Fett Club" was featured in issue 24, and is most certainly NOT cannon. The change in editors and style has not made "Tales" any more canon than it has ever been.

The presumption around the latest run of Tales as canon stems from the blurb on the Star Wars website reading "Starting issue #21, more stories will be told as part of the growing Star Wars expanded universe, denoted with era symbols to indicate where they fit in the timeline. These stories will be longer, more sophisticated, but will still feature a diverse range of writing and illustrating talent."

Though they are admittedly longer and more sophisticated, they still have been classified as S- and N-cannon. The distinction is that in the early run (pre-20) there was no distinction between the stories that were Secondary Canon and those that were Non-Canon, and so they were all classified as N-Canon. Starting with issue #21, N-cannon stories are clearly labeled, so as to avoid confusion.

As for games, I have had it officially confirmed that for the most part characterization and story are considered to be canon. Game mechanics and stats are not considered on par with other sources (coincidentally, the same holds true for video games). Game stats can serve as a relative scale or gauge, but they never supercede other sources.

Tramp, in the past I have always respected your opinions. You always seem fairly knowledgable concerning the Star Wars universe. However, on this occasion, you are really arguing yourself into a corner.

In the end, the truth behind Leia's memories could have any one of a thousand different explanations. Right now, we do not know, and there is not enough evidence to form a conclusive decision, nor do we have sufficient information to rule out any of the major theories.

FVBonura
17 February 2006, 07:42 AM
Originally posted by Aldaron
I dunno about Leia and Padme, but I'm goggling at the length of this thread!
Is this not an important topic if George Lucas has made an error?
Why should this topic not be discussed at length?
What are you afraid of Aldaron?

Originally posted by Aldaron
What the hell is so far-fetched (in that context) about Leia forming a bond with her mother? And please...no game mechanics, stats or rules! The game rules were written by WotC and WEG - George Lucas couldn't give a fat rat's testicle about them, and for the purposes of the films, neither should we.
OK no WOTC OR WEG:
Why is Luke so frustrated that he knows nothing?
Is he not the stronger in the force?
Why is a fully Trained Jedi knight pleading with his untrained sister for answers about his mother?

Originally posted by Aldaron
'Seasy...Luke was more powerful and reached out further during his unconscious time in utero. He didn't form a bond with anyone in particular until he met Anakin. Leia, on the other hand, was not only somewhat less powerful than Luke, but also female, meaning there was already a mystical connection between daughter and mother anyway, strengthened by the Force.
Did not Yoda train Luke to see the past, and the future on Degobah?
Did not Luke see a city in the clouds?
Did not Luke sense the evil of the cave?
How is it Luke can't sense his mother or see her in the past if both twins spent the same time with their mother?
Does this not suggest more time was spent with Leia, and almost none with Luke?

Originally posted by Aldaron
So she picked up images, emotions, feelings. Flashes of Padme's memories, of looking in mirrors and the like. Enough to stay on the edge of her subconscious and later be brought more to the fore, along with her own imagination - no doubt coupled with the images and such that Bail showed her.
Do you think it is possible George Lucas may have made an error, or overlooked the issue?
Is George Lucas Human and capable of making mistakes, or forgetting things as we all do?

Originally posted by Aldaron
I think you're getting too bogged down in the pseudo-science, logic and EU stuff, and missing the mythical elements of the story.

I mean, if you have to bring in the fact that a comic book has Leia's mother dressed differently from Padme in Eps II and III, then I think there's a problem...
Aldaron, what did you think the scene between Luke, and Leia meant on Endor prior to seeing Ep.3?

:thrawn: :noghri:

Tao
17 February 2006, 08:29 AM
Oh... and since Leland Chee has been brought up repeatedly by almost everyone in this debate, I figured I should quote his opinion on the matter. (Which I know that Tramp is already aware of). Mr. Chee has said essentially the same thing as I have. "The Leia remembering Padmé thing is one of those things that's probably best left unexplained. I've got nothing official." He further referenced the following blog on the topic. As of right now, that's Lucas Licensing's only "unofficial" comment on the subject.


SW Exegesis: How does Leia remember Padme? (http://blogs.starwars.com/ghent/26)


As for the one unanswered loop hole:
Why didn't Luke remember his mother (through the Force or otherwise)? I think there is a very simple explanation...

Poll any number of kids about their life goals and perspective. My suspicion is that a fairly high percentage of boys will have views and opinions closer to those of their fathers, while a majority of girls will side with those of their mothers. Socially, our early role-models are generally gender specific. Even children who have been seperated from their families often show a predisposition to the types of pursuits pursued by their relatives.

It would make sense that the twins in question would reach out (subconsciously) to the role-model they most desired to know.

For Luke, it was his father. Luke, even before meeting his father, had similar talents and abilities, as well as similar aspirations, to those of his father. Both had the desire to leave their "common" life behind and serve in what they felt was a good cause. Both were expert pilots in their respective circles, and later became known pilots galaxy-wide. Both chose the life of the Jedi when the path was offered to them. It is interesting to note that any similarities that they shared would have had to have been formed pre-natalaly, as Luke never knew his father to be anything more than a freighter pilot. Also, note that he had no aspirations to follow his mother into politics, nor was he particularly well suited to politics. In all matters, Luke was "his father's son".

If Luke, why not Leia?
Conversely, Leia chose to follow her mother's path as a senator. While this may have been due to the nature of her upbringing as a senator's duaghter, you have to admit that she was ideally suited to the position. Even her character was similar to that of her mother. Note that she didnt care to be a pilot or a hero. She was a politician first and foremost.

These parallels don't really prove anything. However, they do lend credence to the thoery that there was some sort of a bond that connected the Skywalkers, father to son, mother to daughter.

FVBonura
17 February 2006, 09:06 AM
Now I am very curious about member motivations:
Why is it that WE are doing all the explaining, yet LFL, and George Lucas are not?
Why are WE making excuses for George Lucas?
Why are WE justifying, or down playing what could still be just an honest mistake or lapse in memory?
Why do WE feel it is so necessary to produce an answer to this riddle, instead of a diagnosis of error?
Why can't it just be a hole, or is the idea so terrifying, it prevents many from thinking about it?


At this point, this is what I would really like to know.
I truly sense fear here, or am I wrong?
:thrawn: :noghri:

Tramp
17 February 2006, 09:48 AM
Originally posted by Aldaron
I dunno about Leia and Padme, but I'm goggling at the length of this thread!

Tramp...mate. C'mon. We've got Jedi leaping 20 metres straight up, crushing droids with their bare hands, not to mention "seeing things before they happen" long before they have any training.[

What the hell is so far-fetched (in that context) about Leia forming a bond with her mother? And please...no game mechanics, stats or rules! The game rules were written by WotC and WEG - George Lucas couldn't give a fat rat's testicle about them, and for the purposes of the films, neither should we.

Because Of many factors. First off, Leia has not demonstrated any skill in any areas of th Force before she began training. The ability to have Force visions, or make a Force bond (other than a Twin Bond) must be taught. This is evidenced not only in the games, but also the movies and books. Leia could not do this.


'Seasy...Luke was more powerful and reached out further during his unconscious time in utero. He didn't form a bond with anyone in particular until he met Anakin. Leia, on the other hand, was not only somewhat less powerful than Luke, but also female, meaning there was already a mystical connection between daughter and mother anyway, strengthened by the Force.

What are yyou talking about? There was no Mystical connection. Just because she is female does not mean squat. Leia actially had less time with Padmé, and Padmé died immediately after she was born. She really only had enough time to name her and make one last statement to Obi-Wan before passing away. There was no bond formed, and it would have been broken immediately upon Padmé’s death even if it had been.


So she picked up images, emotions, feelings. Flashes of Padme's memories, of looking in mirrors and the like. Enough to stay on the edge of her subconscious and later be brought more to the fore, along with her own imagination - no doubt coupled with the images and such that Bail showed her.

Isn’t the simplest answer that her memories originated from those pictures and stories?


I think you're getting too bogged down in the pseudo-science, logic and EU stuff, and missing the mythical elements of the story.

This has nothing to do with pseudoscience, Rather, it has to to with real science. Also, Mythic elements do not have to be Magical. The source of Leia’s memories of Padmé do not have to be supernatural to have a mythic quality.


I mean, if you have to bring in the fact that a comic book has Leia's mother dressed differently from Padme in Eps II and III, then I think there's a problem...

Not really; especially when that comicbook is the only source which shows how Leia remembers her mother looking.

Tramp
17 February 2006, 09:56 AM
Originally posted by Tao
Oh... and since Leland Chee has been brought up repeatedly by almost everyone in this debate, I figured I should quote his opinion on the matter. (Which I know that Tramp is already aware of). Mr. Chee has said essentially the same thing as I have. "The Leia remembering Padmé thing is one of those things that's probably best left unexplained. I've got nothing official." He further referenced the following blog on the topic. As of right now, that's Lucas Licensing's only "unofficial" comment on the subject.


SW Exegesis: How does Leia remember Padme? (http://blogs.starwars.com/ghent/26)


As for the one unanswered loop hole:
Why didn't Luke remember his mother (through the Force or otherwise)? I think there is a very simple explanation...

Poll any number of kids about their life goals and perspective. My suspicion is that a fairly high percentage of boys will have views and opinions closer to those of their fathers, while a majority of girls will side with those of their mothers. Socially, our early role-models are generally gender specific. Even children who have been seperated from their families often show a predisposition to the types of pursuits pursued by their relatives.

It would make sense that the twins in question would reach out (subconsciously) to the role-model they most desired to know.

For Luke, it was his father. Luke, even before meeting his father, had similar talents and abilities, as well as similar aspirations, to those of his father. Both had the desire to leave their "common" life behind and serve in what they felt was a good cause. Both were expert pilots in their respective circles, and later became known pilots galaxy-wide. Both chose the life of the Jedi when the path was offered to them. It is interesting to note that any similarities that they shared would have had to have been formed pre-natalaly, as Luke never knew his father to be anything more than a freighter pilot. Also, note that he had no aspirations to follow his mother into politics, nor was he particularly well suited to politics. In all matters, Luke was "his father's son".

If Luke, why not Leia?
Conversely, Leia chose to follow her mother's path as a senator. While this may have been due to the nature of her upbringing as a senator's duaghter, you have to admit that she was ideally suited to the position. Even her character was similar to that of her mother. Note that she didnt care to be a pilot or a hero. She was a politician first and foremost.

These parallels don't really prove anything. However, they do lend credence to the thoery that there was some sort of a bond that connected the Skywalkers, father to son, mother to daughter.

Following it their respective parent’s footsteps is definately not proof of any form of Bond, it doesn’t even lend credence to it. Leia went into politics not because of her mother, but mainly because of Bail Ograna. It was he that groomed her for politics and set her upon that path. As far as Luke goes, he inherited Anakin’s talents as a pilot and mechanic. This is quite common. He also inherited his mother’s ability to mediate, and her level-head, as demonstrated later in life. Leia inherited Anakin’s fiery temper. These have more to do with genetics not any subconscious Bond with either parent.

Tramp
17 February 2006, 10:06 AM
Originally posted by Tao


Umm... If I'm not mistaken, "Fett Club" was featured in issue 24, and is most certainly NOT cannon. The change in editors and style has not made "Tales" any more canon than it has ever been.

Club Fett was not one of the stories I was referring to. The one where we learn about him having beem married and having a child is.


The presumption around the latest run of Tales as canon stems from the blurb on the Star Wars website reading "Starting issue #21, more stories will be told as part of the growing Star Wars expanded universe, denoted with era symbols to indicate where they fit in the timeline. These stories will be longer, more sophisticated, but will still feature a diverse range of writing and illustrating talent."

Though they are admittedly longer and more sophisticated, they still have been classified as S- and N-cannon. The distinction is that in the early run (pre-20) there was no distinction between the stories that were Secondary Canon and those that were Non-Canon, and so they were all classified as N-Canon. Starting with issue #21, N-cannon stories are clearly labeled, so as to avoid confusion.

Actually, if they have the era logo, they nare C-level canon, not S-level. And once a story, or element from that story is referenced in a higher level source it becomes that higher level canon, as was the case of the Fett story mentioned above, as well as Vader’s battle against the Dark Woman. The Princess Leia Diaries is full of references from canon, and everything in it has mention in other canon sources. It is, essentially, Leia’s Databank entry told in comicbook form.


As for games, I have had it officially confirmed that for the most part characterization and story are considered to be canon. Game mechanics and stats are not considered on par with other sources (coincidentally, the same holds true for video games). Game stats can serve as a relative scale or gauge, but they never supercede other sources.

And in this case, there is nothing to superscede. The game stats simply show imperically that Leia has no talent for, or trsaining in the ability that would have allowed her to see into the past and see Padmé first-hand. This is an accurate guage of Leia’s ability in the Force. Thus, it is valid evidence here.


Tramp, in the past I have always respected your opinions. You always seem fairly knowledgable concerning the Star Wars universe. However, on this occasion, you are really arguing yourself into a corner.

Not really, Not when the evidence in canon supports my position.


In the end, the truth behind Leia's memories could have any one of a thousand different explanations. Right now, we do not know, and there is not enough evidence to form a conclusive decision, nor do we have sufficient information to rule out any of the major theories.

There aren’t that many, but only one really makes any sense.

Tao
17 February 2006, 12:05 PM
Originally posted by Tramp
There aren’t that many, but only one really makes any sense.
To you.


You can invalidate everyone else's opinions on the matter, but in the end, yours are no more substantiated than any of the others that have been offered. Other people have referenced as much or more material than you. Other people have explained, to their understanding, as well, and in many cases better, than you have. Your persistance in clinging to your personal perception of what can and cannot be done, to the point of not acknowledging the possibility of other explanations, is what has turned a potentially productive conversation into a session of beating the rest of the community's collective head against the brick wall that is your ego.

My point is, there are other possible explanations. This has been corroborated by Leland Chee and others within LFL.

Just because it has not happened in another source, does not make it impossible. Just because it's unprecedented doesn't mean it didnt happen.

The list of changes as far as what is "canon" over the course of "Star Wars history" is too long to count. There are hundreds of instances of retroactive patches to continuity. There are dozens of minor mistakes and errors. In the end, you can either justify it to yourself and move on or complain until someone cares (good luck).

This forum is a place for people to share their opinions. I don't know if maybe you're someone special in real life, but around here, everyone's opinions is equal. Give people a little more respect and at least acknowledge when another's perception is possible. Maybe your idea is more logical. Maybe it follows established canon more closely. However, the other opinions are possible, and since there isn't any official statement on the issue, that makes their ideas every bit as valid as yours.



In the end, it comes down to one thing: In any forum for open discussion there are two general types of people.

One type of person examines all available perspectives, listens to and encourages the ideas of others, and is willing to admit that there are things that she may not completely understand. This type of person is a delight in a community based discussion, because she is often the catalyst to deeper thought and more concrete conclusions.
The other type of person studies and learns things on their own, makes decisions and judgements based on their perception, and sets out to teach the rest of the world the error of their ways. This type of person causes otherwise enjoyable conversation to stagnate and degrade to the point that no progress is made, and everyone walks away without garnering any further knowledge on the subject.

Tramp, I do not presume to place you in either group, but from the discussion to this point, you are certainly seeming to be the latter. Feel free to prove me wrong.


As for your misplaced assumption on the Boba Fett piece, I was simply pointing out that Tales #21-24 were not all canon as you had inferred. Fett Club was in issue 24 and was most certainly not canon. As for the C/S-level canon, you are correct. I tend to group C and S level together, since they are generally equal for all intents and purposes.
Also, can you please direct me to whoever it is that made the "official announcement" that the new Tales are C/S-level. All I can find on the subject is the quote I placed above from StarWars.com as well as the previews on Darkhorse. Neither of these blurbs actually say that the official "Tales isn't Canon" statement has been retracted, simply that they are trying to fit their stories more in line with established events and timelines.

Tramp
17 February 2006, 12:31 PM
Originally posted by Tao

To you.


You can invalidate everyone else's opinions on the matter, but in the end, yours are no more substantiated than any of the others that have been offered. Other people have referenced as much or more material than you. Other people have explained, to their understanding, as well, and in many cases better, than you have. Your persistance in clinging to your personal perception of what can and cannot be done, to the point of not acknowledging the possibility of other explanations, is what has turned a potentially productive conversation into a session of beating the rest of the community's collective head against the brick wall that is your ego.[quote]

That}s just it, there is no evidence to support the Force as the explaination. All of the evidence pints to a mundane souce, that being pictures and stories. Also, better articulation does not mean more accurate. I have never claimed to be tactful or elequent, far from it.

[quote]My point is, [b]there are other possible explanations. This has been corroborated by Leland Chee and others within LFL.

The problem with those “other“ possible explainations is that they don’t work with the evidence presented.


Just because it has not happened in another source, does not make it impossible. Just because it's unprecedented doesn't mean it didnt happen.

No, but it doe mean that until] provben possible, that it is impossible. In Leia’s case, we have a clear guage of what she is capable of and the extent of the Skywalker bloodline. This does not include innate ability to see Force visions without any training, particularly since Leia shows no affinity for this in any source.


The list of changes as far as what is "canon" over the course of "Star Wars history" is too long to count. There are hundreds of instances of retroactive patches to continuity. There are dozens of minor mistakes and errors. In the end, you can either justify it to yourself and move on or complain until someone cares (good luck).

The Retcons you refer to all happen because of changes in the movies. In this case though, there has been no retcons,


This forum is a place for people to share their opinions. I don't know if maybe you're someone special in real life, but around here, everyone's opinions is equal. Give people a little more respect and at least acknowledge when another's perception is possible. Maybe your idea is more logical. Maybe it follows established canon more closely. However, the other opinions are possible, and since there isn't any official statement on the issue, that makes their ideas every bit as valid as yours.

When all of the evidence shows them toi be impossible, then what are you left with.


In the end, it comes down to one thing: In any forum for open discussion there are two general types of people.

One type of person examines all available perspectives, listens to and encourages the ideas of others, and is willing to admit that there are things that she may not completely understand. This type of person is a delight in a community based discussion, because she is often the catalyst to deeper thought and more concrete conclusions.
The other type of person studies and learns things on their own, makes decisions and judgements based on their perception, and sets out to teach the rest of the world the error of their ways. This type of person causes otherwise enjoyable conversation to stagnate and degrade to the point that no progress is made, and everyone walks away without garnering any further knowledge on the subject.

Tramp, I do not presume to place you in either group, but from the discussion to this point, you are certainly seeming to be the latter. Feel free to prove me wrong.

Actually, I tend to be a bit of both



As for your misplaced assumption on the Boba Fett piece, I was simply pointing out that Tales #21-24 were not all canon as you had inferred. Fett Club was in issue 24 and was most certainly not canon. As for the C/S-level canon, you are correct. I tend to group C and S level together, since they are generally equal for all intents and purposes.

More like a misinterpretation of what I said, than my misplaced assumpltion.

Also, can you please direct me to whoever it is that made the "official announcement" that the new Tales are C/S-level. All I can find on the subject is the quote I placed above from StarWars.com as well as the previews on Darkhorse. Neither of these blurbs actually say that the official "Tales isn't Canon" statement has been retracted, simply that they are trying to fit their stories more in line with established events and timelines. For one thing, Nathan of ChronoRadio, who wrote one of the stories in Tales 21, mentioned it when he announced he was writing it. Secondly, by placing the actual era logos on each story, places them within official continuity.

Aldaron
17 February 2006, 04:08 PM
Is this not an important topic if George Lucas has made an error?

Well, yeah, I guess. But only you and Tramp seem to have a problem with it! :D


Why should this topic not be discussed at length?

I didn't say it shouldn't. I merely commented that I was surprised it was discussed at this length.


What are you afraid of Aldaron?

Wasps. Hate 'em. I have spheksophobia.

Oh, you meant with regard to Star Wars? Err...nothing. What would give you that impression, unless you equate a comment expressing surprise at the length of a thread (to which I am contributing, you might like to note) to being opposed or afraid of discusion of the topic.

In which case you'd be mistaken.


OK no WOTC OR WEG:

Glad we can agree on something! :D


Why is Luke so frustrated that he knows nothing?

Well, that's pretty self-evident. He's frustrated because he wishes he knew his mother, and has no memories of her.


Is he not the stronger in the force?

Possibly. Probably. We'll probably never know. Nothing on screen ever suggests Leia is less strong in the Force than Luke. She just hasn't had any training.

When Obi-Wan met Anakin was Anakin not stronger in the Force, yet untrained?

*shrug* Really, we're arguing the finer shades of the colour of the Invisible Pink Unicorn, here. We simply have no idea who was stronger in a type of magic in a made up world.

Why do I feel like I'm tilting at windmills?


Why is a fully Trained Jedi knight pleading with his untrained sister for answers about his mother?

Because he never formed any bond with her in utero. He can't travel back in time. His one (1) attempt at what the game calls Farseeing was disastrous. Leia remembers a few fragmentary images and feelings, which Luke is pleased to grab.

*shrug* Seems pretty human to me.


Did not Yoda train Luke to see the past, and the future on Degobah?

Yes, and Luke wasn't very good at it.


Did not Luke see a city in the clouds?

Yes, which he'd never seen. That kinda puts paid to Tramp's assertion that Leia couldn't know what Padme looked like because she'd never seen her.

Mysterious, the ways of the Force are!


Did not Luke sense the evil of the cave?

I think the most incompetent Padawan in the Temple could have sensed that...


How is it Luke can't sense his mother or see her in the past if both twins spent the same time with their mother?

I've already suggested one solution. A gender split. Every bit of mythology in existence uses the concept of a quasi-mystical connection between mother and daughter. The whole female-power thing comes from that.

Is it such a stretch that Leia may be capable of things Luke is not?


Does this not suggest more time was spent with Leia, and almost none with Luke?

Not in the slightest. I'm talking about a magical bond formed in utero, not anything conscious.


Do you think it is possible George Lucas may have made an error, or overlooked the issue?

Not in this case, because he has specifically stated that that particular scene would be addressed in Ep III.


Is George Lucas Human and capable of making mistakes, or forgetting things as we all do?

Of course he is. Just look at Jar-Jar. My point is that Lucas specifically addressed this issue in at leaset one interview I read back before Ep III's release. He was making a point of making these things reconcile.


Aldaron, what did you think the scene between Luke, and Leia meant on Endor prior to seeing Ep.3?

I thought Padme must have died when Leia was two or three years old. That was the simplest explanation. I was wrong. The "next simplest" (within the context of the SW universe) is that Leia formed a Force-driven connection with her mother in utero.

If GL comes out tomorrow and says: "Yeah, I screwed up the whole Leia/Padme thing", then please remind me and I'll be the first to apologise and admit I was wrong again.

It won't be the first time, nor will it be the last!

Aldaron
17 February 2006, 04:21 PM
Because Of many factors. First off, Leia has not demonstrated any skill in any areas of th Force before she began training.

Hasn't she? She's incredibly lucky, she managed to resist Vader's mind probe, she managed to resist Vader reading her mind to discover the location of the Rebel base.

She knew Luke was her brother ("I know...somehow, I've always known.")

Just because we haven't seen her leaping tall buildings in a single bound doesn't make her not influenced by the Force. I'll have to check, but I have a vague memory of the novelisation mentioning something about her using the Force unconsciously when she strangled Jabba, as well. Not that the novelisations are canon - but I bring it up only to make a point that your claim is shaky at best.

There is potentially ample evidence for Leia having a solid strength in the Force.

Even Luke senses it and says it: "The Force is strong in my family. My father has it. I have it. My sister has it..."


The ability to have Force visions, or make a Force bond (other than a Twin Bond) must be taught.

Says who? You?

"He can see things before they happen..."


This is evidenced not only in the games, but also the movies and books. Leia could not do this.

Where is any mention of Force-bonds made in the films?


What are yyou talking about?

I'm offering a possible explanation.


There was no Mystical connection.

Says you. I say there was.

Hey, this is easy! :)


Just because she is female does not mean squat.

You might like to read up on mythology if you think there is no mysticism involved in mothers-daughters.

And bear in mind that SW is all about mythology.


Leia actially had less time with Padmé, and Padmé died immediately after she was born. She really only had enough time to name her and make one last statement to Obi-Wan before passing away.

Nonsense. She had nine months with Padme. Her midichlorians had plenty of time to chat with Padme's midichlorians! :D


There was no bond formed,

Again, says you.


and it would have been broken immediately upon Padmé’s death even if it had been

Which is precisely why her memories of Padme are just: "Images, feelings..." and nothing more concrete.



Isn’t the simplest answer that her memories originated from those pictures and stories?

Possibly, but that's ignoring the dramatic reason for her memories.


This has nothing to do with pseudoscience, Rather, it has to to with real science. Also, Mythic elements do not have to be Magical. The source of Leia’s memories of Padmé do not have to be supernatural to have a mythic quality.

No, but it has to if it is to be that bit of on-screen evidence you were seeking that shows Leia is strong in the Force!


Not really; especially when that comicbook is the only source which shows how Leia remembers her mother looking.

Well, forgive me if I don't rush out to buy a comic book, written by someone else years before George Lucas (the guy who invented all this stuff) showed us precisely what Padme looked like.

I'll go with GL's vision of Padme, not a comic-book artist's.

Thinithil
17 February 2006, 07:22 PM
The ability to have Force visions, or make a Force bond (other than a Twin Bond) must be taught.


Says who? You? "He can see things before they happen..."


Tried that one... ;)

Tramp
17 February 2006, 11:26 PM
Actually, the next simplest solution is that Bail Organa told Leia anecdotal stories about the kind of woman her mother was, and showed her pictures of her. zThat is the next most basic and most logical explaination. As has already been stated, a Force bond is not an optiion because, first, they termoinate upon the death of one of the individuals; secondly, Leia did not have the training; and thirdly, Padmé was not Force Sensitive. Al of these factors negate that possibility. Magic is not always the best answer, and in this case, the least likely answer.

Tramp
17 February 2006, 11:52 PM
Originally posted by Aldaron


Hasn't she? She's incredibly lucky, she managed to resist Vader's mind probe, she managed to resist Vader reading her mind to discover the location of the Rebel base.

That is the sign of a very strong willpower, not necessarily any aptitude in the Force, (which, she does have, just no training)


She knew Luke was her brother ("I know...somehow, I've always known.")

This can be traced to what is called a Twin bond. Jacen and Jaina also have such a bond. It is common among twins, but especially powerful among Force strong twins. It has nothing to do with a mother and child. or a standard Force bond, It is unique to twins.


Just because we haven't seen her leaping tall buildings in a single bound doesn't make her not influenced by the Force. I'll have to check, but I have a vague memory of the novelisation mentioning something about her using the Force unconsciously when she strangled Jabba, as well. Not that the novelisations are canon - but I bring it up only to make a point that your claim is shaky at best.

In game terms that would be Enhance Ability, which can be used by anyone who is Force sensitive without any conscious thought or training. And, yes, the novelizations are canon.


There is potentially ample evidence for Leia having a solid strength in the Force.

Even Luke senses it and says it: "The Force is strong in my family. My father has it. I have it. My sister has it..."

Having solid strength in the Force has nothing to do with demonstrating it. Leia never denmonstrated Force ability, nor had she any training in it until after Luke began training her.



Says who? You?

No, canon says it. The Force Power Life Bond—which is what a Force Bond is—as described in the Truce at Bakura Sourcebook says it. It requires abilities that Leia had yet to learn.


"He can see things before they happen..."


Where is any mention of Force-bonds made in the films?

The first mention of Force Bonds is in The Truce at Bakura, and given stats in the Truce At Bakura Sourcebook by WEG.




I'm offering a possible explanation.

One that doesn’t work given the canon evidence.


Says you. I say there was.

Hey, this is easy! :)

Based upon what evidence?


You might like to read up on mythology if you think there is no mysticism involved in mothers-daughters.

Actually,m I am well versed in mythology. I used to study it extensively as a kid.


And bear in mind that SW is all about mythology.

Yes, I know. That doesn’t mena that everything needs to have a mystical explaination when a mundane one is more suitable.


Nonsense. She had nine months with Padme. Her midichlorians had plenty of time to chat with Padme's midichlorians! :D

Padm´had minimal Midichlorians. Remember, she was not Force Sensitive. And, as has already been stated, If that were the case, Luke would have developed just a strong a bond with Padmé and would also “remember” her, and he does not.


Again, says you.

No, says the evidence. Which is all that matters here.


Which is precisely why her memories of Padme are just: "Images, feelings..." and nothing more concrete.

No, which means that Leia would not have had any memories of Padmé. No Bond could have formed or been maintained. Given that Infants do not yet develop the ability to focus visually until two months of age, nor develop long term memory unitl at least two years of age (usually not until three or four years), Leia could not have remembered that far back, nor have known what Padmee looked like, and a Force Bond would not have granted images either.


Possibly, but that's ignoring the dramatic reason for her memories.

How do you figure that? The source of her memories is not going to affect the “Dramatic” impact of her having memories.


No, but it has to if it is to be that bit of on-screen evidence you were seeking that shows Leia is strong in the Force!

Trength in the Force does not equate to exceptional memory.


Well, forgive me if I don't rush out to buy a comic book, written by someone else years before George Lucas (the guy who invented all this stuff) showed us precisely what Padme looked like.

I'll go with GL's vision of Padme, not a comic-book artist's.

The image is of Padmé and looks like Natalie Portman. The difference is the make-up, hair and clothing are not how she appears in RotS, and the image is not of Padmé in childbirth. Rather, she is wearing her hair down, with a tiara on, dressed in a deep blue cloak, staring off into the distance. That is how Leia remembers her mother looking like.

Aldaron
18 February 2006, 01:59 AM
Well, I can't believe I'm still answering this, but here goes...


That is the sign of a very strong willpower, not necessarily any aptitude in the Force, (which, she does have, just no training)

So she does have aptitude? Right...remember that for a minute.


This can be traced to what is called a Twin bond. Jacen and Jaina also have such a bond. It is common among twins, but especially powerful among Force strong twins. It has nothing to do with a mother and child. or a standard Force bond, It is unique to twins.

Oops. You brought in Jaina/Jacen. They're not in the films, remember? The films that are 1) far and away the most important canon, 2) the only things Lucas gives a ×××× about with regard to canon and 3) the only source the majority of fans bother with.

So some yobbo who writes a non-canonical, post RotJ novel can invent something, but we can't assume that's what GL had in mind? Or something similar?

You're kidding, right?


In game terms that would be Enhance Ability, which can be used by anyone who is Force sensitive without any conscious thought or training. And, yes, the novelizations are canon.

Stop with the game stuff! Who cares what the RPG rules say! What percentage of SW movie watchers have even heard of the SWRPG, let alone played it, let alone gone into such depth that they know what are trained and untrained skills!

I seriously doubt GL has ever cracked a SW RPG book. He's writing a story for dramatic effect, not recording a gaming session!

Geez! This is like arguing that a Balrog shouldn't be able to take out a 20th level wizard because it can only do X amount of damage per round!

Oh, by the way, the novelisations are only canon insofar as they don't contradict the films.


Having solid strength in the Force has nothing to do with demonstrating it. Leia never denmonstrated Force ability, nor had she any training in it until after Luke began training her.

Did Anakin demonstrate Force ability prior to being trained? Yes or no.

And no comments about trained and untrained skills, okay? Lucas wasn't writing an RPG sourcebook, he was writing a movie.


No, canon says it. The Force Power Life Bond—which is what a Force Bond is—as described in the Truce at Bakura Sourcebook says it. It requires abilities that Leia had yet to learn.

No, the RPG says it. The movies show what could be a mysterious Force bond generated between mother and daughter.

The RPG rules mean squat with regard to the movies.

You're trying to jam square pegs into round holes.


The first mention of Force Bonds is in The Truce at Bakura, and given stats in the Truce At Bakura Sourcebook by WEG.

That's not what I asked. Here, I'll repeat my question:

"Where is any mention of Force-bonds made in the films?"


One that doesn’t work given the canon evidence.

It works perfectly well unless you assume that George Lucas sat down with all the SW RPG rulebooks when writing the prequels, ensuring that he didn't violate their "canon".


Based upon what evidence?

The same as yours. Look at A and B, see evidence for both, then summarily reject evidence for B and claim that therefore A must be true.

The biggest mistake you keep making is that you fall back all the time on the claim that Force Bond/Connection/Nexus/Synchronicity or whatever else you want to call it can't occur because of "XYZ" in the RPG rules.

Again, my response is: "So what?"

Lucas is not constrained by the RPG rules, nor should we be.


Actually,m I am well versed in mythology. I used to study it extensively as a kid.

Then you'll be fully versed in concepts of the sacred feminine, of Anakin's Oedipan relationship with Shmi-Padme-Leia and all the rest of the female mystique in mythology.


Yes, I know. That doesn’t mena that everything needs to have a mystical explaination when a mundane one is more suitable.

Actually, that's completely untrue. In Star Wars, just about everything is mystical or metaphorical.


Padm´had minimal Midichlorians.

I don't remember quoting numbers. The point was that she had 'em.


Remember, she was not Force Sensitive.

Wasn't she? You sure about that?


And, as has already been stated, If that were the case, Luke would have developed just a strong a bond with Padmé and would also “remember” her, and he does not.

Ziiiiip! Back we go around the circle.

Luke wouldn't remember her if he never formed any kind of bond with her because he wasn't female. His connection was the masculine connection; father - son. Leia's was the feminine connection; mother - daughter, and you can add in "lover" as well, because that's part of the whole feminine thing in mythology. Shmi, Padme and Leia all represent three sides of the same thing for Anakin - mother/lover/daughter.


No, says the evidence. Which is all that matters here.

No, the evidence is inconclusive either way, which is why this argument is taking place.


No, which means that Leia would not have had any memories of Padmé. No Bond could have formed or been maintained.

Yes, according to the Truce at Bakura Sourcebook. Like I said, I doubt GL had that on his desk whilst writing the prequels...


Given that Infants do not yet develop the ability to focus visually until two months of age, nor develop long term memory unitl at least two years of age (usually not until three or four years), Leia could not have remembered that far back, nor have known what Padmee looked like, and a Force Bond would not have granted images either.

Are you eventually gonna drop that strawman? Nobody but you, Tramp, is arguing that Leia could physically see Padme, nor that she was laying down long-term memories

If Leia bonded with Padme whilst she was in utero then she could easily have had flashes of Padme's memories in her mind. Padme staring into a mirror, for exampl,e, could easily explain your point with the comic book. Leia would remember "images, feelings'. Disconnected and fragmented, without context or substance, because they were formed in her immature mind.

But people remember their births, remember? Near death experiences are considered by many to be a regression to birth. Some psychologists think that phobias can be created by exposure to something long before you can create a conscious, long-term memory of it.

The fact is that we don't know enough about memory to make comprehensive, absolute claims about it.

Moreover we're not dealing with ordinary people. We're dealing with imaginary characters that have magical powers passed on from their prophesied father, the Chosen One. You keep making the claim that Leia never manifested any Force abilities in the films - I dispute that. I think she manifests them all the time, in reflexes, in luck, in her ability to rally people about as a diplomat and leader.

Nothing in the films says that someone must be trained to manifest subconscious Force powers. Anakin did it all the time - that was how Qui-Gon first picked him out of the crowd, so to speak.

"He can see things before they happen."

Did Anakin have Farseeing, then? No? What did he have? He had a subconscious manifestation of Force ability that made it appear as if he had incredibly fast reflexes.

Yet you are so convinced you are right that you completely dismiss this monstrously huge piece of evidence that Force-sensitives can manifest these powers in order to claim that Leia could not have developed a bond with her mother because she wasn't trained???

Did Arthur have to be trained to remove Excalibur from the stone? Did Pug have to be trained to see the vision in Kulgan's crystal ball? Did Harry Potter have to be trained to make the glass disappear on the snake's enclosure?


How do you figure that? The source of her memories is not going to affect the “Dramatic” impact of her having memories.

Of course it is! Nothing in Star Wars is mundane! It's all about destiny and prophecy and the Oedipal-type myth and magic.


Trength in the Force does not equate to exceptional memory.

Oh, come on! That's like saying I'm claiming Luke has phenomenal eyesight because he saw Cloud City from Dagobah!


The image is of Padmé and looks like Natalie Portman. The difference is the make-up, hair and clothing are not how she appears in RotS, and the image is not of Padmé in childbirth. Rather, she is wearing her hair down, with a tiara on, dressed in a deep blue cloak, staring off into the distance. That is how Leia remembers her mother looking like.

Point 1) Read what I said again. I'll go with Lucas' vision, not some comic artists's.

Point 2) My hypothetical scenario explains this quite neatly - the memory, the image, is something Padme herself saw while bonded with Leia, looking in a mirror or the like.

The upshot is that neither of our positions are aboslutely conclusive. There is simply no way to be 100% sure, yet you are disparaging and castigating those who have the temerity to take a different viewpoint.

You claim the evidence fits your theory, but you dismiss out of hand.other evidence that doesn't fit it This is called the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy.

This is what Tao (IIRC) was talking about when he was speaking of a dogmatic approach to Internet discussions - one that comes across as lecturing, not discussing.

Ultimately, I couldn't care less what you or anyone else thinks about Leia's memories. I personally think it was laziness on GL's part, coupled with a willingness to let the audience decide for themselves what happened.

But to claim that you are right and everyone else is wrong smacks of dogmatic devotion to a position, rather than an open-mind.

More importantly, you keep bringing in extraneous bits of evidence for your position that in no way would have been thought about by George Lucas. Your constant falling back on RPG game rules as explanatory demonstrates this. I doubt GL has ever looked at an RPG book, let alone read one. The same as he himself has said that he really doesn't care what has been written in the EU novels and comics - that's not his stuff. The same as he earned the ire of Tales of the Jedi fans when he ostentibly "messed" with the timeline (like he can "mess" with a timeline from his story out of his head!).

*sigh* I'm not going to keep this going. I am in no way admitting "defeat", but I don't see the point in arguing in circles. I am never going to convince you, and I doubt you will convince me. Since it's all about what the undecided may decide, I'll leave them with the arguments I've presented so far.

The defence rests, and you can have the last word...

Cheers... :)

Tao
18 February 2006, 06:58 AM
Alright, so lets go through the evidence and see if it really is conclusive...

You have acknowledged the existence of a “Life Bond”. This is, presumably, a pseudo-emotional link between two people, formed through the Force. You cite as the original source for this ability “The Truce at Bakura” by Kathy Tyers, published in 1994. The ability appeared in the related sourcebook at approximately the same time. In the book, a relatively young Jedi, Luke Skywalker, was able to form a bond with a person relatively-untrained in the Force. The stats that follow the ability are relatively similar, though they do have an extensive list of prerequisites (Receptive Telepathy, Life Sense, Life Detection, Magnify Senses). The in-game reason for this is obviously game balance.

There also seems to exist a similar bond between Luke and Leia, though this seems to be an even more natural link. Throughout their time on-screen they seem to have an understanding of one another, as well as an emotional connection. Further, the only on screen mention of any type of bond is made by Leia after the explosion of the Death Star. While this doesn’t mean that Luke didn’t feel Leia as well, it is indicative that an untrained Leia was able to feel Luke’s presence. This is yet another example of a “Life Bond” though this particular bond exists well outside the standard prerequisites. You would, I assume, call this a “Twin Bond”. It is also well documented that Jacen and Jaina Solo shared a similar bond since their infancy.

These particular incidents infer that, under certain circumstances, it is possible to form a connection, similar to a “Life Bond”, without meeting the previously accepted prerequisites. Indeed, it is apparently possible to form a type of “Life Bond” with no training at all. This means that the established prerequisites, as outlined in the Truce at Bakura Sourcebook, do not hold true universally. The two examples above, however, reference connections formed between twins. Now we will see if the same is true for other types of connections.

The recent video game Knights of the Old Republic II took the concept of Life Bonds to a whole new level, introducing the Exile, a Jedi with the ability to form Life Bonds far more powerful than previously thought possible. This deserves only passing mention, since it does not directly tie into the argument at hand. However, it does illustrate that some people have an innate ability to form Life Bonds. Furthermore, it shows that there are varying potencies of life bonds, and that the ability depends highly on the individual.

In the finale of the “Dark Empire” series, Leia’s unborn child lends her a bit of a Force boost in order for her to overcome the reborn Emperor. Interestingly enough, though Leia had some experience in the Force by that time, she had certainly not yet met the prerequisites for the “Life Bond”, nor had her unborn child. This is evidence that shows that, at least in the Star Wars Universe, unborn children share a fairly powerful connection. While this may, or may not, fall under the category of a “Force Bond” it shows that some connection does exist even before birth. Leia quit her training shortly thereafter, though her bond with her children continued to grow. In fact, the bond a partially trained Leia Organa Solo shared with her children was even stronger than the powers and abilities that the rest of the Jedi Order possessed. While Luke, Jacen, Jaina, and the combined Jedi Order were unable to sense the missing Anakin Skywalker and presumed him to be dead, Leia was able to sense his presence and maintained that he was alive. This shows that the bond shared between Leia and her son is stronger than the senses and bonds formed or created by other Jedi. Whether this is due to the ease that Leia has in forming bonds, or the power between a mother and child is irrelevant, as either possibility could be used in favor of the argument that Leia could have been capable of forming bonds outside what would be considered normal.

Furthermore, in all available sources, Leia is shown to be as powerful, if not moreso, than her twin. In the Dark Empire and Heir to the Empire series, she was able to access many of the same powers as Luke with far less training.

The preceding sources have established numerous things:
1. Emotional bonds can be formed through the Force (Truce at Bakura).
2. Some bonds exist outside that do not follow the established “rules” of bonding (Luke/Leia, Jacen and Jaina). It thus follows that the "rules" for bonding are far from concrete and can vary from circumstance to circumstance. The most established bond was that between twins, but there is precedence for a similar bond between mother and child, even while the child is still unborn.
3. Certain individuals are more capable of forming bonds than others (Knights of the Old Republic II)
4. Leia formed a bond with her children (untrained) while they were still en utero (Dark Empire).
5. Leia’s bond with her children was stronger than that of a bond between siblings or between a Jedi Master and his students (New Jedi Order).

This evidence seems to point to one of many possible conclusions:
1. Leia was particularly adept at creating Force bonds. As shown with her bonds with both Luke and her children, she was capable of forming bonds with little to no training.
2. Force bonds are particularly strong for members of the Skywalker bloodline (This is unlikely as neither Luke nor Anakin before him show any real abilities in that regard).
3. Bonds are particularly strong between mothers and children, as well as between twins. (This could be a sign that bonds are, in fact, formed while the children are within the womb, similar to the modern concept of “Mother’s Instinct”).

In the end, the evidence (both mine and yours) is inconclusive. However, there is enough precedence that it could be considered a possibility. I have already stated my opinion, which is that it was more than likely a combination of Leia’s abilities in the Force combined with stories and holos shown to her as a child. However, at this point, there is NO CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE to either prove or disprove any theory.

As an alternative theory, it could even be something as seemingly bizarre as Padme's "Force Spirit" still existing within the Force. While she did not have the training or the ability to mamnifest it, the Force Sensative Leia could have possibly felt her presence through dreams. Maybe baby Leia sat in her windowsill every night and talked to her dead mother (I've met orphans that do that regularly), and maybe, due to her Force abilities she felt a resonance. Ironically, this would be closer to the Shinto/Taoist philosophy upon which the Jedi perspective of the Force has drawn.
Another possibility has to do with the ability within the Force to imprint sites and artifacts with emotion or power. One such instance was that of the Darkside cave on Dagobah, caused by the death of a Sith on that planet. The darkside sourcebook, which is no longer in my posession, unfortunately, also details several locations tainted by the presence of the darkside. There are also instances of these types of impressions centered around individuals, such as the crime lord Uda Khalid, whose crimes caused him to gather an aura that Mace Windu was able to track well enough to bring him to justice. It is possible that the trauma of Padme's death caused such an impression on Leia herself. This is supported by what little evidence that we have concerning the subject, and Padme's death fullfils all the established prerequisites. Her death was related to a powerful darkside influence, there was significant emotional distress at the time of death, and the object or person in question was present during the events. Again, not likely, but possible.
Or maybe it's something none of us have thought of. Fact is... we may never know. Until then, just accept it for what it is: at worst a minor inconsistency.

Tramp
18 February 2006, 09:28 AM
Originally posted by Aldaron
Well, I can't believe I'm still answering this, but here goes...



So she does have aptitude? Right...remember that for a minute.

Having Force aptitue isn’t the issue here.


Oops. You brought in Jaina/Jacen. They're not in the films, remember? The films that are 1) far and away the most important canon, 2) the only things Lucas gives a ×××× about with regard to canon and 3) the only source the majority of fans bother with.

So some yobbo who writes a non-canonical, post RotJ novel can invent something, but we can't assume that's what GL had in mind? Or something similar?

You're kidding, right?

Well, first off, the EU are canon so it is valid evidence here. Just because you don’t like it does not invalidate it. This ia all approved by Lucas Licensing. Deal with it.




Stop with the game stuff! Who cares what the RPG rules say! What percentage of SW movie watchers have even heard of the SWRPG, let alone played it, let alone gone into such depth that they know what are trained and untrained skills!

I seriously doubt GL has ever cracked a SW RPG book. He's writing a story for dramatic effect, not recording a gaming session!

No. The game stuff is just as valid as anything else, and as Leland Chee said, does give an accurate guage of a character’s ability.


Geez! This is like arguing that a Balrog shouldn't be able to take out a 20th level wizard because it can only do X amount of damage per round!

Oh, by the way, the novelisations are only canon insofar as they don't contradict the films.

They’re still canon. Unless there is a direct, irreconsilable contradiction, They are considered [true. Since there is no such contradiction here. They are valid evidence.



Did Anakin demonstrate Force ability prior to being trained? Yes or no.

Not in the way you are trying to show.


And no comments about trained and untrained skills, okay? Lucas wasn't writing an RPG sourcebook, he was writing a movie.

There is movie evidence of certain skills requiring training. Luke could not see Force Visions until Yoda guided him through the process, for instance. Anakin did not start having Force visions until well after he had begun training, which shows that he had to be taught how to do it. They aren’t something that just happens.



No, the RPG says it. The movies show what could be a mysterious Force bond generated between mother and daughter.

No. The movies show that Leia has memories of her mother, nothing more. There is no evidence there for a mystic connection.


The RPG rules mean squat with regard to the movies.

No, the RPG stats give a guage of what the characters in the movies and EU can and can’t do.


You're trying to jam square pegs into round holes.

No, I’m not. I am using all available evidence to prove my point.


That's not what I asked. Here, I'll repeat my question:

"Where is any mention of Force-bonds made in the films?"

That doesn’”t matter. It has been mentioned im canon.


It works perfectly well unless you assume that George Lucas sat down with all the SW RPG rulebooks when writing the prequels, ensuring that he didn't violate their "canon".

No, it doesn’t. The movies do not support a Force Bond. The books do not support a Force Bond, nor does the game. Nothing supports your theory.


The same as yours. Look at A and B, see evidence for both, then summarily reject evidence for B and claim that therefore A must be true.

Again, What evidence? the movies show no evidence that Leia had a Force Bond with Padmé, and all fo the other evidence eliminates this possibility.


The biggest mistake you keep making is that you fall back all the time on the claim that Force Bond/Connection/Nexus/Synchronicity or whatever else you want to call it can't occur because of "XYZ" in the RPG rules.

Again, my response is: "So what?"

Lucas is not constrained by the RPG rules, nor should we be.

No, GL isn’t, however, GL hasn’t made a determination on how Leia is able to remember Padmé, and he never left any clues as to it either. There is no evidence in the movies that she had a Force bond with her mother. Force Bonds aren’t even brought up.



Then you'll be fully versed in concepts of the sacred feminine, of Anakin's Oedipan relationship with Shmi-Padme-Leia and all the rest of the female mystique in mythology.

Yes, I am. And there is no evidence that this applies in this case. Leia represented the Sacred Feminine in the OT, This, however, has no bearing on how she is able to remember her mother. She never difinitively demnonstrated her Force affinity, and certainly does not show remarkavble memory skill, nor the ability to see visions. having strength in the Force, does not mean that you can automatically see your own birth.



Actually, that's completely untrue. In Star Wars, just about everything is mystical or metaphorical.

Wrong. There are many things in SW that are quite mundane, if futuristic. The only things magical are the Jedii, The Force, and their lightsabers. Everything else is pretty mundane.


I don't remember quoting numbers. The point was that she had 'em.

All living things have them, so that’s a moot point.


Wasn't she? You sure about that? Positive. She lived on a Republic world and would have been tested for Force affinity as an infant. Given that she is not a Jedi, means that she did not have Force Affinity. Secondly, She never demonstrated any Force Affinity in the movies. Thirdly,her game stats say she is not Force Sensitive.


Ziiiiip! Back we go around the circle.

Luke wouldn't remember her if he never formed any kind of bond with her because he wasn't female. His connection was the masculine connection; father - son. Leia's was the feminine connection; mother - daughter, and you can add in "lover" as well, because that's part of the whole feminine thing in mythology. Shmi, Padme and Leia all represent three sides of the same thing for Anakin - mother/lover/daughter.

Male or female does not matter in this case. In many cases in mythology, Sons often have a stronger connections to their mothers than their fathers, and vice-versa. It is just as common as sons having a connection to their fathers, if not more so. Ever hear of the term “Momma’s boy”?



No, the evidence is inconclusive either way, which is why this argument is taking place.

Only if you look at the movies. Whan you look at all of the other evidence, It is very conclusive.



Yes, according to the Truce at Bakura Sourcebook. Like I said, I doubt GL had that on his desk whilst writing the prequels...

When GL was writing RotS, I don’t think he even factored in that line from RotJ about Leia remembering her mother. The movies don’t show some form of bond between Leia and Padmé.


Are you eventually gonna drop that strawman? Nobody but you, Tramp, is arguing that Leia could physically see Padme, nor that she was laying down long-term memories

Are you gonna stop ignoring non-movie evidence? Leia remember images of Padmé. This means that she has had to have seen her.


If Leia bonded with Padme whilst she was in utero then she could easily have had flashes of Padme's memories in her mind. Padme staring into a mirror, for exampl,e, could easily explain your point with the comic book. Leia would remember "images, feelings'. Disconnected and fragmented, without context or substance, because they were formed in her immature mind.

No, she couldn‘t, nor could she have formed a Bond with Padmé, in utero, because Padme did not have the affinity to the Force necessary. That type of Bond happens only between twins. Standard Force Bonds don’t work that way.


But people remember their births, remember? Near death experiences are considered by many to be a regression to birth. Some psychologists think that phobias can be created by exposure to something long before you can create a conscious, long-term memory of it.

People do not remember their births! where do you get the idea that they do. Human beings do not develop the capacity for long-term memory until aboput the age of three or four, Two years old is the earliest. None of the Jedi have memories of their infancy. Not Mace Windu, not Feris Olin, not Yoda, not Obi-Wan; none of them.


The fact is that we don't know enough about memory to make comprehensive, absolute claims about it.

Actiually, yes we do. Science has already shown that the parts of a baby’s brain that deals with long-term memory is not yet fully developed, noether is the retina’s nor the visual cortex. All of them would need to be fully developed for Leia to have seen Padmé clearly enough to know what she looked like, and to retain that image of her.


Moreover we're not dealing with ordinary people. We're dealing with imaginary characters that have magical powers passed on from their prophesied father, the Chosen One. You keep making the claim that Leia never manifested any Force abilities in the films - I dispute that. I think she manifests them all the time, in reflexes, in luck, in her ability to rally people about as a diplomat and leader.

We are still dealing with people, not gods. Everything leia demonstrated in the movies comes from skill and training, not the Force. She is very strong willed, was trained in diplomacy from a young age, and grew up in that environment, was trained in weapons by a Weaponsmaster. All of these can be learned by anyone. It has nothing to do with the Force.


Nothing in the films says that someone must be trained to manifest subconscious Force powers. Anakin did it all the time - that was how Qui-Gon first picked him out of the crowd, so to speak.

Certain Force abilities are innate. Others have to be taught. Anakin innately used Enhance Ability to boost his natural reflexes. This can be used by any Force Sensitive without training. Anakin used the Danger sense that every Force Sensitive can use (read the Force Sensitive feat).


"He can see things before they happen."

Did Anakin have Farseeing, then? No? What did he have? He had a subconscious manifestation of Force ability that made it appear as if he had incredibly fast reflexes.

What you are using as you example is a description of the Danger sense part of the Force Sensitive feat as described in the RPG. He caught brief glimnpses of danger before they occured so he could avoid them. It can also be chalked up to Enhance Ability for boosting his reflexes. It isn’t Farseeing, which is the actual ability to see true Force Visions.


Yet you are so convinced you are right that you completely dismiss this [i]monstrously huge piece of evidence that Force-sensitives can manifest these powers in order to claim that Leia could not have developed a bond with her mother because she wasn't trained???

And you ignore the evidence that certain abilities require training as evidenced in all canon sources.


Did Arthur have to be trained to remove Excalibur from the stone? Did Pug have to be trained to see the vision in Kulgan's crystal ball? Did Harry Potter have to be trained to make the glass disappear on the snake's enclosure?

Being able to draw a sword form a stone does not require training. Arthur was destined to draw that sword. As mfar as your other two examples, I can’t answer that question because I have never read A Midsummer’s Night’s Dream, nor Harry Potter.



Of course it is! Nothing in Star Wars is mundane! It's all about destiny and prophecy and the Oedipal-type myth and magic.

Actually, quite a bit is, otherwise the Heroes would not stand out from the crowd. The ships, weapons, and other characters are all pretty mundane. Only the Heroes—particularly the Jedi —and the Villains—the Sith— and their Lightsabers and ability to use the Force is mystical.




Oh, come on! That's like saying I'm claiming Luke has phenomenal eyesight because he saw Cloud City from Dagobah!

No, Luke saw Cloud City because Yoda taught him how to. Luke was being guided through the process of how to see into the past, present and future. He was being taught how to see Force Visions. He was being taught Farseeing


Point 1) Read what I said again. I'll go with Lucas' vision, not some comic artists's.

GL doesn’t have a vision of how Leia is able to remember her mother. Therefore, the Comic is valid.


Point 2) My hypothetical scenario explains this quite neatly - the memory, the image, is something Padme herself saw while bonded with Leia, looking in a mirror or the like.

No.


The upshot is that neither of our positions are aboslutely conclusive. There is simply no way to be 100% sure, yet you are disparaging and castigating those who have the temerity to take a different viewpoint.

When you add in all of the other evidence, yes, it does become pretty conclusive.


You claim the evidence fits your theory, but you dismiss out of hand.other evidence that doesn't fit it This is called the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy.

No I don’t discount any evidence. The problem is that there is no evidence to support you. The movies don’t show any evidence either way except that certain abilities do require training while others don’t. However, The EU does, and it supports my position.


This is what Tao (IIRC) was talking about when he was speaking of a dogmatic approach to Internet discussions - one that comes across as lecturing, not discussing.

Well, in this case, cal it a lecture if you want. it doesn’t change the fact that the evidence does not support your theory.


Ultimately, I couldn't care less what you or anyone else thinks about Leia's memories. I personally think it was laziness on GL's part, coupled with a willingness to let the audience decide for themselves what happened.

It was not necessarily laziness. Having Padmé die was more dramatically appropriate. It just created a plot hole that needs to be filled in.


But to claim that you are right and everyone else is wrong smacks of dogmatic devotion to a position, rather than an open-mind.

Only when the evidence is solid, which in this case it is.


More importantly, you keep bringing in extraneous bits of evidence for your position that in no way would have been thought about by George Lucas. Your constant falling back on RPG game rules as explanatory demonstrates this. I doubt GL has ever looked at an RPG book, let alone read one. The same as he himself has said that he really doesn't care what has been written in the EU novels and comics - that's not his stuff. The same as he earned the ire of Tales of the Jedi fans when he ostentibly "messed" with the timeline (like he can "mess" with a timeline from his story out of his head!).

It isn’’t “extraneous” it is completely valid canon evidence. You just choose to ignore it because it doesn’t come from the movies. Sorry. When the movies don’t answer a question, look to the EU until you find the answer. For example. GL was asked by John Knoll how Anakin got his scar. He told him to ask Howard Kaufman, President of Lucas Licensing. It is in the EU that Anakin got his scar. The movies don’t go into it. The same is true here. The answer is in the EU when you look at all of the source materials.


*sigh* I'm not going to keep this going. I am in no way admitting "defeat", but I don't see the point in arguing in circles. I am never going to convince you, and I doubt you will convince me. Since it's all about what the undecided may decide, I'll leave them with the arguments I've presented so far.

The defence rests, and you can have the last word...

Cheers... :) [/B]

Have a nice day.

Tao
18 February 2006, 03:17 PM
Originally posted by Tramp
They’re still canon. Unless there is a direct, irreconsilable contradiction, They are considered [true. Since there is no such contradiction here. They are valid evidence. However, this particular game mechanic has already been modified once to allow it to be used untrained under certain circumstances. There is nothing saying that it could not be further modified to include other circumstances... and if you consider Dark Empire canon, it should certainly be modified to include that a mother can establish a bond with her unborn child.


Originally posted by Tramp
No, the RPG stats give a guage of what the characters in the movies and EU can and can’t do. Not entirely correct. The RPG stats give an accurate gauge as to what the characters have and have not done. For example, in the case of Adi Gallia, she is shown by the RPG stats to have no real talent in flying. It was later written that she was a great pilot that was partially responsible for test flying the newly minted Jedi starfighter. Is this an error? No. According to the previously revealed story, she was not shown to have any talent in flying. Story revealed later proved this to be incorrect. Stat blocks have to be constantly revised as new sources are unveiled. At this point, there has been no need to revise Leia's stats, especially considering the current state of the RPG.



Originally posted by Tramp
No, I’m not. I am using all available evidence to prove my point. You are, however, consciously ignoring the fact that Star Wars canon is not a concrete thing. What may be accepted as canon today may not hold true once the next book is released.


Originally posted by Tramp No, it doesn’t. The movies do not support a Force Bond. The books do not support a Force Bond, nor does the game. Nothing supports your theory. See my above post for quite a bit of evidence that supports the possibility of a Force bond, including definate evidence that Leia shared an untrained Force bond with several people.


Originally posted by Tramp
Again, What evidence? the movies show no evidence that Leia had a Force Bond with Padmé, and all fo the other evidence eliminates this possibility. I haven't seen any evidence to eliminate the possibility. The only evidence in your favor is a rule in the RPG which has been proven to have several exceptions already, with the possibility for others.



Originally posted by Tramp
Yes, I am. And there is no evidence that this applies in this case. Leia represented the Sacred Feminine in the OT, This, however, has no bearing on how she is able to remember her mother. She never difinitively demnonstrated her Force affinity, and certainly does not show remarkavble memory skill, nor the ability to see visions. having strength in the Force, does not mean that you can automatically see your own birth. Leia shows an untrained ability in ESB and RotJ to sense the presence and well being of others through the Force. She found Luke through the Force at Bespin and sensed his well being through the Force at Endor. These are the only two "G-Level" mentions of anything approaching our concept of a "Force Bond" and both involve Leia. Far from conclusive evidence, but evidence nontheless.


Originally posted by Tramp
Only if you look at the movies. Whan you look at all of the other evidence, It is very conclusive.Again... according to you and your preconcieved notions. According to Lucas Film it is not conclusive.


Originally posted by Tramp
No, she couldn‘t, nor could she have formed a Bond with Padmé, in utero, because Padme did not have the affinity to the Force necessary. That type of Bond happens only between twins. Standard Force Bonds don’t work that way. Dark Empire proves that some sort of connection can exist naturally between a mother and child. Also, there is not yet any conclusive evidence that Padme wasn't Force Sensative. She may not have been Jedi material, but everyone has some connection to the Force... even the rocks.


Originally posted by Tramp
People do not remember their births! where do you get the idea that they do. Human beings do not develop the capacity for long-term memory until aboput the age of three or four, Two years old is the earliest. None of the Jedi have memories of their infancy. Not Mace Windu, not Feris Olin, not Yoda, not Obi-Wan; none of them.Recent research has shown that newborn babies are far more aware than previously thought. The conditions surrounding the birth of a newborn can greatly influence the future development of a child. While they cannot consiously remember their births, there is a definate subconcious imprint. This is true for ordinary people under ordinary circumstances. It is not entirely improbably that people with extraordinary abilities, born under extreme stress and trauma might be effected more than others.


Originally posted by Tramp
Actiually, yes we do. Science has already shown that the parts of a baby’s brain that deals with long-term memory is not yet fully developed, noether is the retina’s nor the visual cortex. All of them would need to be fully developed for Leia to have seen Padmé clearly enough to know what she looked like, and to retain that image of her.Science has also shown that faster than light travel is theoretically impossible. Yet you don't seem to question that...
As I have stated above, the scientific community is currently divided on many issues, including the point at which a fetus is considered alive. Trusting that kind of science may not be the smartest idea.


Originally posted by Tramp
We are still dealing with people, not gods. Everything leia demonstrated in the movies comes from skill and training, not the Force. She is very strong willed, was trained in diplomacy from a young age, and grew up in that environment, was trained in weapons by a Weaponsmaster. All of these can be learned by anyone. It has nothing to do with the Force.Her ability to sense her brother through the Force, however, was neither trained nor natural.


Originally posted by Tramp And you ignore the evidence that certain abilities require training as evidenced in all canon sources. Actually, the RPG shows many many instances of "rules being bent" to accomodate for story elements. Many of these are included in the Galactic Campaign guide and the Power of the Jedi sourcebook. There are even very specific templates for several members of the Skywalker bloodline. Just because Leia doesn't have one listed, doesn't preclude the possibility.


Originally posted by Tramp
When you add in all of the other evidence, yes, it does become pretty conclusive. But it doesn't. Because the Star Wars universe has been shown to be in a state of constant change. Rules are constantly being rewritten to accomodate for newly revealed story evidence. Multiple stat blocks are available for all of the primary characters, each showing different abilities and skills. None are considered more canon than the other. As a former editor for Lucas Books has said "Each story is like looking through a window into the Star Wars universe. Some may be clearer than other, but they are all true. From a certain point of view."


Originally posted by Tramp
No I don’t discount any evidence. The problem is that there is no evidence to support you. The movies don’t show any evidence either way except that certain abilities do require training while others don’t. However, The EU does, and it supports my position. According to LucasFilm, the established EU doesn't support anyone's position. There is not enough conclusive evidence to make a solid decision.


Originally posted by Tramp
Well, in this case, cal it a lecture if you want. it doesn’t change the fact that the evidence does not support your theory. See my above post for more evidence that supports my theory than yours.


Originally posted by Tramp Only when the evidence is solid, which in this case it is. Once again, you find yourself the only person of that particular opinion.

wolverine
18 February 2006, 08:04 PM
My head hurts from trying to read this all..:rolleyes:

FVBonura
18 February 2006, 08:57 PM
Originally posted by Aldaron

Glad we can agree on something! :D
...And where is it I disagreed with you?
Is asking questions disagreement?

Originally posted by Aldaron

Possibly. Probably. We'll probably never know. Nothing on screen ever suggests Leia is less strong in the Force than Luke. She just hasn't had any training.
Why did Yoda send Luke to confront Vader, and kept Leia in reserve?
Why did Yoda keep Leia a secret from even luke?
Was Leia to bear the next generation of Jedi?
If Leia was truly stronger, why was she not trained instead of Luke?

Originally posted by Aldaron

When Obi-Wan met Anakin was Anakin not stronger in the Force, yet untrained?
Did not Obi-Wan defeat a fully trained Anakin, and take his lightsaber?
Why is Obi-Wan amongst the survivors of the Jedi and guardian of Luke on Tatooine?

Originally posted by Aldaron

*shrug* Really, we're arguing the finer shades of the colour of the Invisible Pink Unicorn, here. We simply have no idea who was stronger in a type of magic in a made up world.

Why do I feel like I'm tilting at windmills?
We could go back to our boring lives Aldaron, but I suspect the origins of Priness Leia, and the fate of Amidala are much more fun. I’ll take the hot pink thank you.

As for windmills, I’ll gladly join you for a joust or two my good Don Aldaron.

Originally posted by Aldaron

Is it such a stretch that Leia may be capable of things Luke is not?
No more a stretch than an oversite, or error, not a stretch at all.

Originally posted by Aldaron

Of course he is. Just look at Jar-Jar. My point is that Lucas specifically addressed this issue in at leaset one interview I read back before Ep III's release. He was making a point of making these things reconcile.
Well this is great news indeed. Please tell me you can produce a link so I can go and read it. Thank you in advance for the link.
If what you say is true, you have read this lengthly thread, and have read other threads of similar topic all over the net, would you say George Lucas HAS DONE a good job of addressing the issue of Luke and Leia’s talk on Endor?

Originally posted by Aldaron

I thought Padme must have died when Leia was two or three years old. That was the simplest explanation. I was wrong. The "next simplest" (within the context of the SW universe) is that Leia formed a Force-driven connection with her mother in utero.
This has been a very common response to this question. Thank you for your cander. I can’t help but wonder, are all these fans wrong, or is George Lucas wrong? That is the real question that perplexes me.

Originally posted by Aldaron

If GL comes out tomorrow and says: "Yeah, I screwed up the whole Leia/Padme thing", then please remind me and I'll be the first to apologise and admit I was wrong again.

It won't be the first time, nor will it be the last!
I wont remind you dear Aldaron, I would rather be at peace for an answer, and take time to console you and the others who have endured this puzzlement.
:thrawn: :noghri:

Thinithil
18 February 2006, 09:28 PM
I believe this is, in my opinion, one of the most interesting threads on the Holonet. I still haven't decided why I'm such a glutton for punishment but something keeps bringing me back.

Aldaron
19 February 2006, 08:16 AM
FV, I was mistaken. The interview was with Rick McCallum, not George Lucas (though he did have something to say in the annotated screenplay of RotJ)

Here is the link to one source I could find (http://www.answers.com/topic/alleged-inconsistencies-in-star-wars)

There are other sources I found using Google - enough so that I'm fairly convinced they are both legitimate quotes (plus, I remember seeing it originally on either Starwars.com or TFN some time last year, just prior to Ep III)

The quote from McCallum is:


Leia's recollection as described in Return of the Jedi have no inherent flaws and are valid given the greater context of the saga. But I suspect those looking for contradictions always find them.

George Lucas said:


The part that I had never really developed is the death of Luke and Leia's mother. I had a back story for her in earlier drafts, but it basically didn't survive. When I got to JEDI, I wanted one of the kids to have some kind of memory of her because she will be a key figure in the new episodes I'm writing

They basically support what I was saying - that Padme's death / Leia's memories were not just "a slip up". THey were in the mind of both the script-writer and the executive producer, so it's hardly just an oversight.

Okay...more accurately, I think it's unlikely that it was just an oversight.

Tramp
19 February 2006, 11:47 AM
Originally posted by Tao
However, this particular game mechanic has already been modified once to allow it to be used untrained under certain circumstances. There is nothing saying that it could not be further modified to include other circumstances... and if you consider Dark Empire canon, it should certainly be modified to include that a mother can establish a bond with her unborn child.

What happened in Dark Empire was not a Force Bond. In the Dark Empire Sourcebook It is called Force Harmony, and allowed several Force users to unite in the Light to disrupt a Dark Sider’s use of the Force temproarily.


Not entirely correct. The RPG stats give an accurate gauge as to what the characters have and have not done. For example, in the case of Adi Gallia, she is shown by the RPG stats to have no real talent in flying. It was later written that she was a great pilot that was partially responsible for test flying the newly minted Jedi starfighter. Is this an error? No. According to the previously revealed story, she was not shown to have any talent in flying. Story revealed later proved this to be incorrect. Stat blocks have to be constantly revised as new sources are unveiled. At this point, there has been no need to revise Leia's stats, especially considering the current state of the RPG.

My point is thast the RPG stats are an accurate guage of what we know currently. Based upon the evidence we have now, A Force Bond is not an option. anything more than that is unfounded speculation with no evidence to back it up.



You are, however, consciously ignoring the fact that Star Wars canon is not a concrete thing. What may be accepted as canon today may not hold true once the next book is released.

No, I am not. I am siply going by the evidence already present in canon.


See my above post for quite a bit of evidence that supports the possibility of a Force bond, including definate evidence that Leia shared an untrained Force bond with several people.

A person can only share a Force Bond with one other person, and terminates upon the death of one or the other member of the bond. This is clearly stated in the original source I mentioned earlier.


I haven't seen any evidence to eliminate the possibility. The only evidence in your favor is a rule in the RPG which has been proven to have several exceptions already, with the possibility for others.

No, it doesn’”t have several exceptions.


[quoite]Leia shows an untrained ability in ESB and RotJ to sense the presence and well being of others through the Force. She found Luke through the Force at Bespin and sensed his well being through the Force at Endor. These are the only two "G-Level" mentions of anything approaching our concept of a "Force Bond" and both involve Leia. Far from conclusive evidence, but evidence nontheless.[/quote]

Luke called to her through the Force, He projected his thoughts to her. This is Telepathy in action, a skill that Luke had learned. Any Jedi with Telepathy can send messages to others, Force sensitive or not. In RotJ, Leia demonstrated an affinity for Luke, not a true Force Bond. Force Bonds are much stronger. Luke and Mara share a true Force Bond. A Force Bond allows you to feel everything that your partner feels, know everything that they know, know everything about them. The two basically become one on the most intimate level possible. Luke and Leia don’t share that. Leia certainly did not share that with Padmé.


Again... according to you and your preconcieved notions. According to Lucas Film it is not conclusive.

No, but when you look outside the films, it is conclusive.


Dark Empire proves that some sort of connection can exist naturally between a mother and child. Also, there is not yet any conclusive evidence that Padme wasn't Force Sensative. She may not have been Jedi material, but everyone has some connection to the Force... even the rocks.

Connection, yes, a temporary one that boost a Jedi’s strength. It isn’t a Force Bond. That is permanant, and was totally different thasn what happened in DE.


Recent research has shown that newborn babies are far more aware than previously thought. The conditions surrounding the birth of a newborn can greatly influence the future development of a child. While they cannot consiously remember their births, there is a definate subconcious imprint. This is true for ordinary people under ordinary circumstances. It is not entirely improbably that people with extraordinary abilities, born under extreme stress and trauma might be effected more than others.

Awareness isn’t the issue. Memory and the phyiscal ability to visually focus is. Science has already established through testing that infants can’t focus correctly until about two months of age. Their retinas andf visual cortexes are not yet fully developed until then. A child‘s ability to form Long-term memory, isn’t developed until about the age of three or four. This too has been scientifically proven.


Science has also shown that faster than light travel is theoretically impossible. Yet you don't seem to question that...
As I have stated above, the scientific community is currently divided on many issues, including the point at which a fetus is considered alive. Trusting that kind of science may not be the smartest idea.

There is a difference between theory and proven fact.


Her ability to sense her brother through the Force, however, was neither trained nor natural.

Her ability to sense Luke was just beginning to manifest at the end of the trilogy. And that had more to do with Luke, than with Leia. He sent feelings of where he was and his condition. That was Luke’s doing. It was made easier because Leia is family. It wasn’t Leai’s doing, but rather, it was Luke’s.


Actually, the RPG shows many many instances of "rules being bent" to accomodate for story elements. Many of these are included in the Galactic Campaign guide and the Power of the Jedi sourcebook. There are even very specific templates for several members of the Skywalker bloodline. Just because Leia doesn't have one listed, doesn't preclude the possibility.

Leia is listed with the same special bloodline qualities as Luke. These are: the ability to take any of the three main Force Feats without having Force User Levels (though, she has none of them during the movies), The ability to roll Force Dice as if three levels higher, and get the Force Sensitive[i/] feat for free. That is all. This is consistant in every Skywalker.


But it doesn't. Because the Star Wars universe has been shown to be in a state of constant change. Rules are constantly being rewritten to accomodate for newly revealed story evidence. Multiple stat blocks are available for all of the primary characters, each showing different abilities and skills. None are considered more canon than the other. As a former editor for Lucas Books has said "Each story is like looking through a window into the Star Wars universe. Some may be clearer than other, but they are all true. From a certain point of view."

Yes, multiple stat blocks exist for some characters, but certain things remain constant throughout all of them. One of these constants is what the “Skywalker” SQ grants and does not grant.


According to LucasFilm, the established EU doesn't support anyone's position. There is not enough conclusive evidence to make a solid decision.

Not in specific words, no, but with the evidence in existance, it does. Leia’s visual memories of Padmé differ from how she was dressed and appeared in RotS. This proves that her memories are not first hand from birth. Padmé was not Force Sensitive, and died in childbirth. A Force Bond terminates upon death and can only be created between two Force Sensitives. This eliminates the Force Bond as a possibility. Farseeing requires Sense ability and specified training in that skill as evidenced in the movies, books, and game. It cannot be used Untrained. This eliminates the Force Vision theory. Add it all up, and all that is left as a possibility is a mundane source for Leia’s memories; that being that Bail Organa showed her some pictures of her mother, and told her a little about her.


See my above post for more evidence that supports my theory than yours.

No, it doesn’t. All you do is speculate. You say “what if”, or it“could be“. I say, “here is what the books say specifically” about this ability, “Here is what canon says about these memories”, and “here is what is required by canon to use these abilities”. These point to the Force not being the source of Leia’s memories, and a Force Bond not being an option. The canon evidence, as well as real-world scientific evidence, does not support you theory. It completely eliminates those possibilities.


Once again, you find yourself the only person of that particular opinion.

Gallelaeo (sp?) was the only person of his day to believe that the Earth revolved around the Sun as well, and he was correct in the end. Remember that.

Tramp
19 February 2006, 12:05 PM
Originally posted by Aldaron
FV, I was mistaken. The interview was with Rick McCallum, not George Lucas (though he did have something to say in the annotated screenplay of RotJ)

Here is the link to one source I could find (http://www.answers.com/topic/alleged-inconsistencies-in-star-wars)

There are other sources I found using Google - enough so that I'm fairly convinced they are both legitimate quotes (plus, I remember seeing it originally on either Starwars.com or TFN some time last year, just prior to Ep III)

The quote from McCallum is:



George Lucas said:



They basically support what I was saying - that Padme's death / Leia's memories were not just "a slip up". THey were in the mind of both the script-writer and the executive producer, so it's hardly just an oversight.

Okay...more accurately, I think it's unlikely that it was just an oversight.

The problem with your link, ios that it is Wikipedia, not an official source. Even authors like Karen Traviss have said that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Anything you read there should be cross-referenced with an official source because, anyone can post onto Wikipedia and add to, or change, information on there. It isn’t reliable.

Secondly, Whether or not this was an oversight or not is not the issue. what the source of Leia’s memories is.

Tao
19 February 2006, 01:16 PM
Originally posted by Tramp
Luke called to her through the Force, He projected his thoughts to her. This is Telepathy in action, a skill that Luke had learned. Any Jedi with Telepathy can send messages to others, Force sensitive or not. In RotJ, Leia demonstrated an affinity for Luke, not a true Force Bond. Force Bonds are much stronger. Luke and Mara share a true Force Bond. A Force Bond allows you to feel everything that your partner feels, know everything that they know, know everything about them. The two basically become one on the most intimate level possible. Luke and Leia don’t share that. Leia certainly did not share that with Padmé.

You might want to reread the way telepathy works.
Revised Core Rulebook page 100TelepathyYou can use the Force to establish a mental link with a specific target. Through the link you can exchange emotions and a single thought, such as "Go!", "Help!", or "Danger!". Luke only said "Leia", which would have been accompanied by his current emotional state. Leia is the one that pinpointed his location. There was more going on there than Telepathy.

What I am talking about is NOT a Force Bond as it is currently established. I have already shown that many variations already exist within established canon, and certain things within the movies themselves do not fall into the framework of the current RPG stats and abilities. One more variety to an already varied ability wouldn't be breaking anything.

My point is... up until now, the type of ability that Leia would have possessed is, as of yet, unprecedented. HOWEVER, new abilities and powers are constantly being canonized. Boba Fett was officially considered dead for quite a while. Now he's alive and well. Powers that were completely unimagined a few decades ago are now commonplace. Star Wars canon is a growing resource.

Your reference to Galileo was quite appropriate. While the rest of the world was bogged down by "proven facts" Galileo was open to other possibilities and willing to think OUTSIDE THE BOX. This led to one of the greatest discoveries in the history of the world. Stop bogging your mind down in what IS and start thinking about WHAT COULD BE. A truly intelligent and innovative person is one that doesn't consider anything truly impossible. Nothing truly groundbreaking has ever been done by someone that was afraid to challenge what is currently considered "fact". Be open. Be creative. Get outside of your comfort zone. Nothing in this world is set in stone. Every new discovery overturns a currently accepted "fact" or "limitation".

And if the real world is that fluid and changeable, who is to say that a world of fiction is static. The fine people at LucasFilm have gone as far as to say that as of now there is no definitive answer on the situation. Accept it. Right now, nothing is out of the question. Nothing is impossible. Lucas himself has said that she "remembers" her mother. This implies that it is an actual "memory" not a "story she heard" or a "picture she saw". Maybe its impossible... but it wouldn't be the first impossible thing to be considered mundane within the confines of the Star Wars universe.

FVBonura
19 February 2006, 03:47 PM
Originally posted by Aldaron

FV, I was mistaken. The interview was with Rick McCallum, not George Lucas (though he did have something to say in the annotated screenplay of RotJ)

Here is the link to one source I could find (http://www.answers.com/topic/alleged-inconsistencies-in-star-wars)
Aldaron, if this is all you could find, I am a bit disappointed. This site can be altered by anyone who subscribes to it ,and is not much more than someone’s opinion, and its far from official.

Originally posted by Aldaron

There are other sources I found using Google - enough so that I'm fairly convinced they are both legitimate quotes (plus, I remember seeing it originally on either Starwars.com or TFN some time last year, just prior to Ep III)
At this point Aldaron, could you furnish these sources? I am not interested in hearsay please.

Originally posted by Aldaron

The quote from McCallum is:
Leia's recollection as described in Return of the Jedi have no inherent flaws and are valid given the greater context of the saga. But I suspect those looking for contradictions always find them.

George Lucas said:
The part that I had never really developed is the death of Luke and Leia's mother. I had a back story for her in earlier drafts, but it basically didn't survive. When I got to JEDI, I wanted one of the kids to have some kind of memory of her because she will be a key figure in the new episodes I'm writing.
I hate to be a doubting Thomas, but where did you get these quotes from as well Aldaron?

Originally posted by Aldaron

They basically support what I was saying - that Padme's death / Leia's memories were not just "a slip up". THey were in the mind of both the script-writer and the executive producer, so it's hardly just an oversight.

Okay...more accurately, I think it's unlikely that it was just an oversight.
Considering you have produced no official links or sources, can we take any of this post as official?
What gives Aldaron?
:thrawn: :noghri:

Aldaron
19 February 2006, 06:34 PM
Aldaron, if this is all you could find, I am a bit disappointed. This site can be altered by anyone who subscribes to it ,and is not much more than someone’s opinion, and its far from official.

I believe I mentioned that...



At this point Aldaron, could you furnish these sources? I am not interested in hearsay please.

You want a list of Googled sites? I told you that's what I found. *shrug*

I tried to include it as a link - it won't work because several of the characters keep reformatting as emoticons on this forum software.

Go to Google, copy and paste the entire quote, then go to the last page and include omitted results. There's about 50 hits. Some are from forums, others are from websites.

*shrug* Make of it what you will. I never claimed they were official sources. I merely pointed out that it is unikely I have made this up, considering the number of sources quoting it.


I hate to be a doubting Thomas, but where did you get these quotes from as well Aldaron?

Err...I provided te link to it in my post that you replied to. Here it is again...

Here is the link to one source I could find (http://www.answers.com/topic/alleged-inconsistencies-in-star-wars)

You will notice that one of the quotes (the McCallum one) could conceivably be construed as hearsay. I specifically mentioned that in my post. I also pointed out that it is replicated on numerous sites, and I'm yet to see it denied or revoked.

Does this prove, beyond all doubt, that it came from McCallum? Of course not. But it's hardly an extraordinary thing for him to say, and as I said, I am still looking for an official source for it.

Secondly, and more importantly, the other quote is from George Lucas, from the Annotated Screenplays of RotJ. This is a hard-copy document available to anyone.

Do I have it? No.
I also don't have Einstein's original doodlings that gave him the insights into relativity, but it is possible to verify the source.

When someone (not me, but the Wiki article) quotes a verifiable source, I do not assume the article is lying unless I have reason to. I don't have reason to, and anyone with the annotated screenplay can verify the quote.

No, I don't think Wiki articles are the be all and end all of accuracy. In fact, if this were a scholarly discussion of something important, I would never even mention a Wiki article.

However, I mentioned it for two reasons:

1) I mentioned reading something Lucas had said about Leia's memories. On checking, it was McCallum, not Lucas, and I found it referred to in a Wiki article.

2) I included it simply to point out that I wasn't making it up when I mentioned it in my post. Unless you think I added it to the Wiki article myself - in which case you'd be wrong.

FVBonura
19 February 2006, 06:58 PM
I was a bit excited there for a minute. Oh well, back to square one.

Tramp
19 February 2006, 08:37 PM
Originally posted by Tao


You might want to reread the way telepathy works. Luke only said "Leia", which would have been accompanied by his current emotional state. Leia is the one that pinpointed his location. There was more going on there than Telepathy.

Telepathy is a little more than that. The poiunt is that Luke []b]projected his thoughts, and an image of where he was. If you read the books, this is quite possible with that skill. The old D6 versions of Telepathy certainly allowed this.


What I am talking about is NOT a Force Bond as it is currently established. I have already shown that many variations already exist within established canon, and certain things within the movies themselves do not fall into the framework of the current RPG stats and abilities. One more variety to an already varied ability wouldn't be breaking anything.

There are no variations of the Force Bond. And until such time as Canon creates some, you cannot say that this is what is going on. What you have thought are variations on Force Bond are completely different powers, not Force Bonds.


My point is... up until now, the type of ability that Leia would have possessed is, as of yet, unprecedented. HOWEVER, new abilities and powers are constantly being canonized. Boba Fett was officially considered dead for quite a while. Now he's alive and well. Powers that were completely unimagined a few decades ago are now commonplace. Star Wars canon is a growing resource.

You are speculating without any evidence. Thee is no difinitive canon proof that Leia has any special gift outside of the current Skywalker Bloodline SQ. none. Until LFL decides to add something new to Leia, if ever, such speculation is meaningless. Canon does not grant her any such ability. Therefore, it is not an option. Period.


Your reference to Galileo was quite appropriate. While the rest of the world was bogged down by "proven facts" Galileo was open to other possibilities and willing to think OUTSIDE THE BOX. This led to one of the greatest discoveries in the history of the world. Stop bogging your mind down in what IS and start thinking about WHAT COULD BE. A truly intelligent and innovative person is one that doesn't consider anything truly impossible. Nothing truly groundbreaking has ever been done by someone that was afraid to challenge what is currently considered "fact". Be open. Be creative. Get outside of your comfort zone. Nothing in this world is set in stone. Every new discovery overturns a currently accepted "fact" or "limitation".
Gallelaeo had solid evidence supporting his theory. his detractors simply treid to ignore that evidence. He wasn’t speculating. He had facts to back him up. You don’t.


And if the real world is that fluid and changeable, who is to say that a world of fiction is static. The fine people at LucasFilm have gone as far as to say that as of now there is no definitive answer on the situation. Accept it. Right now, nothing is out of the question. Nothing is impossible. Lucas himself has said that she "remembers" her mother. This implies that it is an actual "memory" not a "story she heard" or a "picture she saw". Maybe its impossible... but it wouldn't be the first impossible thing to be considered mundane within the confines of the Star Wars universe. [/B]No, It doesn’t imply that, given the evidence. It implies that she has some form of memory, but not a source for it. It has already been established and documented that pictures and stories can create “False memories” of a particular event. One of the most common being people rememberisn actually seeing the scene at Tosche Station where Luke and Biggs are where their friends. This scen has never been shown except as stills and in the novelization, yet many people distinctly remember seeing it. This is called a False memory. This is not a question of “what could be”. it is a question of what does the evidence say is possible. The evidence says that the onbly possible source for Leia’s memories is pictures and stories told when she was small. Force powers are not an option because the abilities that would allow for it she did not have the ability to tap into yet. In game terms, she didn’t meet the prerequisites and she didn’t have the training. The Force is not, and cannot be, the source, given the evidence we have.

Tramp
19 February 2006, 08:40 PM
delete

Tramp
19 February 2006, 08:46 PM
Originally posted by Aldaron


I believe I mentioned that...



You want a list of Googled sites? I told you that's what I found. *shrug*

I tried to include it as a link - it won't work because several of the characters keep reformatting as emoticons on this forum software.

Go to Google, copy and paste the entire quote, then go to the last page and include omitted results. There's about 50 hits. Some are from forums, others are from websites.

*shrug* Make of it what you will. I never claimed they were official sources. I merely pointed out that it is unikely I have made this up, considering the number of sources quoting it.



Err...I provided te link to it in my post that you replied to. Here it is again...

Here is the link to one source I could find (http://www.answers.com/topic/alleged-inconsistencies-in-star-wars)

You will notice that one of the quotes (the McCallum one) could conceivably be construed as hearsay. I specifically mentioned that in my post. I also pointed out that it is replicated on numerous sites, and I'm yet to see it denied or revoked.

Does this prove, beyond all doubt, that it came from McCallum? Of course not. But it's hardly an extraordinary thing for him to say, and as I said, I am still looking for an official source for it.

Secondly, and more importantly, the other quote is from George Lucas, from the Annotated Screenplays of RotJ. This is a hard-copy document available to anyone.

Do I have it? No.
I also don't have Einstein's original doodlings that gave him the insights into relativity, but it is possible to verify the source.

When someone (not me, but the Wiki article) quotes a verifiable source, I do not assume the article is lying unless I have reason to. I don't have reason to, and anyone with the annotated screenplay can verify the quote.

No, I don't think Wiki articles are the be all and end all of accuracy. In fact, if this were a scholarly discussion of something important, I would never even mention a Wiki article.

However, I mentioned it for two reasons:

1) I mentioned reading something Lucas had said about Leia's memories. On checking, it was McCallum, not Lucas, and I found it referred to in a Wiki article.

2) I included it simply to point out that I wasn't making it up when I mentioned it in my post. Unless you think I added it to the Wiki article myself - in which case you'd be wrong.

Unless you can varify that they are from GL or McCullum through an reputable source, it is purem heresay, not valid evidence to support your position.

Aldaron
20 February 2006, 01:45 AM
Okay, I'll say it again - slowly, this time.

At no time did I claim the quotes were the sole support for my position.

All I claimed was that there was some bit of dialog (what I thought was from GL) that demonstrated that GL hadn't "forgotten about" the scene in RotJ. The only reason I found the Wiki quote was to point out that I wasn't making it up.

Not once, ever, anywhere, did I claim that the Wiki article was in any way anything but hearsay (albeit pretty commonly accepted hearsay), nor did I claim it was solid, irrefutable or in any way, shape or form conclusive.

Does everyone have that now?

It was one minor aside in my argument. Stop trying to make the whole argument about the veracity of a quote which I openly said, right from the word go, could not be verified from an official source.

I find it rather hilarious that I'm getting lectured on what GL can and can't do in his movies by people who are using some obscure rule in a role-playing sourcebook, who then turn around and castigate me for having the audacity to mention, in passing, a quote by Rick McCallum.

And these same people keep forgetting that the George Lucas quote is in the Annotated Screenplay of RotJ

Are we with it now? The Annotated Screenplay of RotJ. You know - the screenplay written by GL? The one that is every bit as official and canonical as some made-up rule in an RPG that is:

1) Now defunct and not supported anymore.
2) Liable to change anyway - how many iterations have Force powers gone thru since Ep II and III came out?

Please remember this next time you attempt to claim I am merely repeating hearsay. It's not "hearsay" when it comes from the annotated screenplays.

And just to keep you happy, I"ve just ordered a copy of the Annotated Screenplays from Amazon.com, so give me a few weeks for the thing to be delivered down here in Australia and I'll give you a page reference...

Tramp
20 February 2006, 08:39 AM
Regardless of the fact that it is a D6 source, until that source is overrriddin, It is still a valid source for information. There is currently no other source of information on this power except The Truce at Bakura, Visions of the Future, the New Jedi Order, and KotOR, and they support that source. Luke and Mara, and Bastilla and Revan, are the only characters known for certain to have a Force Bond. How those bonds work has been defined exactly in the D6 source. Secondly, the Annotated screenplays don’t have any evidence regarding the source of Leia’s memories either. I have read them. They have nothing more than what you would find in the movies or the novelizations.

Reverend Strone
20 February 2006, 09:56 AM
This discussion has descended into a rather testy debate over canon- something we have had many, many times on these boards. I'm not seeing any new points here, so, for the sake of keeping the peace and my sanity, Iet's call it done eh folks?

Feel free to take it up in e-mails or PMs.

Thread closed.