Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2020 1:39:05 GMT
Well, I guess you could call that TRUE Scotsman retconning. LOL. Okay. But just to be clear I wasn’t giving you my own “load of crap/true Scotsman/personal interpretation” definition... retcon - revise (an aspect of a fictional work) retrospectively, typically by introducing a piece of new information that imposes a different interpretation on previously described events (Oxford Dictionary)retcon - Retroactive continuity, or retcon for short, is a literary device in which established facts in a fictional work are adjusted, ignored, or contradicted by a subsequently published work which breaks continuity with the former. (Wikipedia)
|
|
shinnickneth
Junior Member
@shinnickneth
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 1,797
|
Post by shinnickneth on Jan 23, 2020 2:19:06 GMT
Yeah, I guess they should have taken a page from Lucas' book in which he abandoned his 6 more films after 1983 (the "other" not being Leia) and retconning Darth Vader as space Jesus. Hey, better to abandon future movies before you start them than to just green-light an entire trilogy with no planning. George Lucas made 6 Star Wars movies with none underperforming. Disney can't say the same after 5 movies. They would be so lucky to take a page from George Lucas' book. In terms of space Jesus, he isn't though. Didn't you know that? Rey is Neo, Harry Potter, the Chosen One, etc. Anakin/Vader didn't kill Palpatine. He didn't bring balance to the force. He failed. Luke failed. The Rebellion failed. It's all the brilliance of Rey that brought things to an end. "VROOOM!" "Pew! Pew!" "AAAAAARGH!" "Something, something, icky, old, original characters!" There. I've just written dialogue for Disney's Episode 10.
|
|
|
Post by Waxer-n-boil on Jan 24, 2020 5:29:42 GMT
LOL. Okay. But just to be clear I wasn’t giving you my own “load of crap/true Scotsman/personal interpretation” definition... retcon - revise (an aspect of a fictional work) retrospectively, typically by introducing a piece of new information that imposes a different interpretation on previously described events (Oxford Dictionary)retcon - Retroactive continuity, or retcon for short, is a literary device in which established facts in a fictional work are adjusted, ignored, or contradicted by a subsequently published work which breaks continuity with the former. (Wikipedia) Maybe I’m missing something here.... I know that fans famously (or infamously) like to refer to this scene as proof that Lucas originality didn’t characterize Vader to be Luke’s father. (Nor the Chosen One for that matter). That’s all true because we know the backstory of this. He also added a few scenes here and there throughout the rest of the trilogy to support the change. But nothing in these scenes contradicts Vader/Anakin being the chosen one in the prequels. Anakin was ObiWan’s apprentice in the prequels. Anakin did betray and murder Jedi in the prequels. Nothing about Anakin/Vader being The Chosen One contradicts that dialogue. Now, for example, if Kenobi had said (in that scene) that Vader was an insignificant learner who was jealous of the Jedi (someone like General Grievous)... then that would’ve been retconning because the Chosen One was (by no means) an insignificant Force user. Retconning is not what was left out, or adding something that originally wasn’t intended to be there. Rather, it is contradicting something that already was there.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2020 10:46:05 GMT
Maybe I’m missing something here.... I know that fans famously (or infamously) like to refer to this scene as proof that Lucas originality didn’t characterize Vader to be Luke’s father. (Nor the Chosen One for that matter). That’s all true because we know the backstory of this. He also added a few scenes here and there throughout the rest of the trilogy to support the change. But nothing in these scenes contradicts Vader/Anakin being the chosen one in the prequels. Anakin was ObiWan’s apprentice in the prequels. Anakin did betray and murder Jedi in the prequels. Nothing about Anakin/Vader being The Chosen One contradicts that dialogue. Now, for example, if Kenobi had said (in that scene) that Vader was an insignificant learner who was jealous of the Jedi (someone like General Grievous)... then that would’ve been retconning because the Chosen One was (by no means) an insignificant Force user. Retconning is not what was left out, or adding something that originally wasn’t intended to be there. Rather, it is contradicting something that already was there. Ben said Vader murdered Anakin. That was retconned when the storyteller thought better of it later, so we got the whole "I am your father" in Empire, and further explained by Ben's explanation in RoTJ. It is a great retcon, I support the retcon, but it is nonetheless: retcon - revise (an aspect of a fictional work) retrospectively, typically by introducing a piece of new information that imposes a different interpretation on previously described events (Oxford Dictionary) www.esquire.com/entertainment/movies/a26063945/darth-vader-luke-skywalker-father-original-star-wars-empire-strikes-back-script/
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Jan 24, 2020 11:47:37 GMT
Instead, Disney commissioned the writing of their own horrible screenplays that not only told terrible stories, but also didn't understand the characters/mythology/canon/etc. Yeah, I guess they should have taken a page from Lucas' book in which he abandoned his 6 more films after 1983 (the "other" not being Leia) and retconning Darth Vader as space Jesus. Space Jesus incarnate I would be seriously interested how Anakin could even remotely be spun into Jesus Christ? - Did Jesus slaughter and betray his enemies and the ones he swore to protect? (quite the opposite) - Did Jesus bring balance to the Force by destroying the Sith , thus redeeming himself for his sins (Jesus was the redeemer of mankind and savior, king of jews) - Was Jesus created by the Sith/Satan conceived through manipulation of the Force (Jesus was born via virginal birth fathered by God) - was Jesus a slave, pod racer and general in a war with attachment issues, unable to let go of his mother and wife? (he was a carpenter and preacher surrounded by apostles who did not care to much about females) I think your lack of understanding of tropes, character and history is why you fail.
|
|
senan90
Junior Member
@senan90
Posts: 1,452
Likes: 546
|
Post by senan90 on Jan 24, 2020 18:28:38 GMT
Well, I guess you could call that TRUE Scotsman retconning. LOL. Okay. But just to be clear I wasn’t giving you my own “load of crap/true Scotsman/personal interpretation” definition... retcon - revise (an aspect of a fictional work) retrospectively, typically by introducing a piece of new information that imposes a different interpretation on previously described events (Oxford Dictionary)retcon - Retroactive continuity, or retcon for short, is a literary device in which established facts in a fictional work are adjusted, ignored, or contradicted by a subsequently published work which breaks continuity with the former. (Wikipedia)Yeah, not buying it anyway. I didn't even like it when David Lynch did it when he inserted the scene of Old Cooper being the one that Laura screams at in the woods with James in Twin Peaks: The Return. There's no suggestion or implication that Anakin Skywalker was a deity in the prequels. There's an extended deleted scene of Ben talking to Luke about him in ROTJ, all about how Anakin was a headstrong pilot. No mention of prophecies, how the Jedi were wrong about him, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Waxer-n-boil on Jan 24, 2020 20:24:51 GMT
In response to senan90 and @homergreg What I’m talking about is whether there is retcon of the final onscreen product. Is the writing retconned? Definitely it was. But you can find examples of writing retcon in every trilogy. I guess I’m measuring this by if a person knew nothing about SW and saw all 9 movies for the first time, would they look at that scene and say that it tells them that Vader was never Anakin (the Chosen One). If we are including deleted scenes, I don’t have anything against it. As long as a person is consistent.(Don’t include it when it helps your argument but omit it when it doesn’t). I gotta admit though, I find it amusing that some of the same people who argue that scene is clear onscreen evidence that Vader couldn’t be Anakin... also will post long-winded fanfic explanations about how some of the Force powers in the sequel trilogy are not retconning the Force. Especially the elements of training and development. Care to explain that?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2020 21:25:40 GMT
In response to senan90 and @homergreg What I’m talking about is whether there is retcon of the final onscreen product. Is the writing retconned? Definitely it was. But you can find examples of writing retcon in every trilogy. I guess I’m measuring this by if a person knew nothing about SW and saw all 9 movies for the first time, would they look at that scene and say that it tells them that Vader was never Anakin (the Chosen One). If we are including deleted scenes, I don’t have anything against it. As long as a person is consistent.(Don’t include it when it helps your argument but omit it when it doesn’t). I gotta admit though, I find it amusing that some of the same people who argue that scene is clear onscreen evidence that Vader couldn’t be Anakin... also will post long-winded fanfic explanations about how some of the Force powers in the sequel trilogy are not retconning the Force. Especially the elements of training and development. Care to explain that? All I'm saying is Vader wasn't Anakin when Star Wars came out, the idea came in developing TESB, and it was wonderful, it fit with some adjustments to the story, and it's a retcon. Most anyone watching in 1980 walked out scratching their head about the change and anxiously awaited Ben to explain it in 1983. Some fans called bs on it back then, but I was and have always been good with it. I don't reject the story as it was developed. I can accept Rey taking the quick and easy path via going directly to the dark as well, and if it's considered a retcon, I can see that perspective. I prefer to also remember Yoda's teaching at Dagobah on the subject and that we never saw someone else developing their Force powers that wasn't trying to avoid the darkness while doing so at the risk of being "consumed by the Force". And I will stand by any statements in the past years I have made that Luke's training at Dagobah was about how to make his stand against the darkness by turning off his saber, not making him some sort of fighter.
|
|
|
Post by Waxer-n-boil on Jan 25, 2020 4:26:14 GMT
In response to senan90 and @homergreg What I’m talking about is whether there is retcon of the final onscreen product. Is the writing retconned? Definitely it was. But you can find examples of writing retcon in every trilogy. I guess I’m measuring this by if a person knew nothing about SW and saw all 9 movies for the first time, would they look at that scene and say that it tells them that Vader was never Anakin (the Chosen One). If we are including deleted scenes, I don’t have anything against it. As long as a person is consistent.(Don’t include it when it helps your argument but omit it when it doesn’t). I gotta admit though, I find it amusing that some of the same people who argue that scene is clear onscreen evidence that Vader couldn’t be Anakin... also will post long-winded fanfic explanations about how some of the Force powers in the sequel trilogy are not retconning the Force. Especially the elements of training and development. Care to explain that? All I'm saying is Vader wasn't Anakin when Star Wars came out, the idea came in developing TESB, and it was wonderful, it fit with some adjustments to the story, and it's a retcon. Most anyone watching in 1980 walked out scratching their head about the change and anxiously awaited Ben to explain it in 1983. Some fans called bs on it back then, but I was and have always been good with it. I don't reject the story as it was developed. I can accept Rey taking the quick and easy path via going directly to the dark as well, and if it's considered a retcon, I can see that perspective. I prefer to also remember Yoda's teaching at Dagobah on the subject and that we never saw someone else developing their Force powers that wasn't trying to avoid the darkness while doing so at the risk of being "consumed by the Force". And I will stand by any statements in the past years I have made that Luke's training at Dagobah was about how to make his stand against the darkness by turning off his saber, not making him some sort of fighter.
|
|
|
Post by darkpast on Jan 25, 2020 21:04:18 GMT
|
|
shinnickneth
Junior Member
@shinnickneth
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 1,797
|
Post by shinnickneth on Jan 25, 2020 21:38:34 GMT
I would be willing to swap Rogue One and that TV series (never watched it anyway) for them to throw out the ST. 'Let the past die' after all.
|
|