How Was Princess Leia Able to Remember Her Mother in Return of the Jedi?

Joined
Nov 25, 2018
Messages
65
Reaction score
3
Even though this forum deals with the original trilogy, I posted this question because I am confused about something I noticed in Revenge of the Sith, BUT this same issue re-occurs in Return of the Jedi!

Here’s the issue:

In Return of the Jedi, on the forest moon of Endor, Luke approaches Princess Leia and asks her if she remembers her mother...

...the EXACT words from Luke’s mouth were: “Leia, do you remember your mother? I mean, your REAL mother?”

Then Leia says: “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: “She was very beautiful. Kind...but sad.”

Ok...so my question is:

In Revenge of the Sith, if Padme died giving birth to Luke and Leia, how can Leia remember things from when she was a newborn baby?

I can see if Padme stayed alive and took care of Leia until she was like 3 or 4 years old. But as a newborn? Come on! Is George Lucas aware that he screwed up this detail?

If not, could Leia’s “ultra sharp” memory be one of her Jedi abilities? Perhaps it’s not a mistake but because she didn’t understand the power she had like Luke did, she probably had the power all along and was simply unaware of it. Is that the explanation? Anyone have an answer to this?

I apologize in advance if this thread offends anyone. Three individuals in particular have taken it upon themselves to ruin my reputation and my last 2 threads. I kindly ask if you hate my question, please don’t answer it. Constructive criticism is ok though. Thank you.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Nov 25, 2018
Messages
65
Reaction score
3
I'm offended that your worried others will be offended :)
For some reason, my 1st 2 posts yielded a lot of nasty results from 3 individuals who tore into me like a pack of wolves. You weren’t one of them. :) Sorry I made the comment. When you have a bully making life miserable for you, you tend to get a little paranoid.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 11, 2008
Messages
3,523
Reaction score
8
One question I have is that Vader only learned of Leia in ROTJ... so when did he learn of Luke? He doesn't seem surprised when the Emperor says "the son of Skywalker..." in Empire.
 
Joined
May 10, 2018
Messages
1,681
Reaction score
515
/\

There's 3 years between 'Star Wars' and 'The Empire Strikes Back'...

...so, somewhere in that time.

In any case, Vader went to his death not knowing about Leia. He just knew that Luke had a "sister". Who she actually was remained a mystery to him.
 
Joined
Nov 25, 2018
Messages
65
Reaction score
3
/\

There's 3 years between 'Star Wars' and 'The Empire Strikes Back'...

...so, somewhere in that time.

In any case, Vader went to his death not knowing about Leia. He just knew that Luke had a "sister". Who she actually was remained a mystery to him.

Really? I didn’t know that! When Vader said to Luke on Death Star II, while Luke was hiding:

Vader: ”Especially for sister...so you have a twin sister? Your feelings now betray her too. Obi Wan was wise to hide her from me. Now his failure is complete! If you will not turn to the dark side, then perhaps she will!”

Luke: (jumps out with light saber) ”Nooooooo!”

Anyway, you know the scene...you mean to tell me Vader DOESN’T know it’s Leia? Wow! I never thought of that! Later when Luke takes Vader’s mask off right before he died, Anakin mentions his sister again to him. I just assumed Vader knew it was Leia!

Wait a minute though, he threatened Luke by saying he would turn her over to the dark side if he couldn’t turn Luke...

...Vader: “if you will not turn to the dark side, then perhaps she will!”

If that’s the case, Vader has to know who his sister is right? How can he threaten that if he doesn’t know who she is and just assumes she is still in “hiding?” Otherwise, how would Vader find her?

Wow! I have seen Return of the Jedi at least 100 times in my life. Today is the first day I learned that. Thank you, CellBlock1138! Honestly, I took it as...Vader now knew BOTH Leia and Luke were his kids!

Anyway, my original question was still though: how does Princess Leia remember her mother? If Padme died giving birth to the twins, how is it possible for Leia to remember that?
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 31, 2011
Messages
1,048
Reaction score
18
The Prequel says a lot of things that contradict with what was established in the OT. George couldn’t even be bother with taking a bit of time— or making the effort, to crosscheck what he had established in the OT when writing his Prequel. This really shows just how sloppy. careless, thoughtless George was with the Prequel. And this just shows how he was only ever surrounded by a*slickers, who only bowed to his every sloppy whim.

I know I’ve b*tched about this endlessly, but had George only developed the treatment for the Prequel, and handed it over to a competent team, things would have turned out so differently— and for the better, for this Prequel. Such a monumentally wasted potential. George is the epitome of squandered potential in filmmaking.

(BTW, in the ROTJ novelization— which ironically, is by far the best adaption of the 3 OT novelizations although ROTJ is by far the weakest of the OT, Leia’s memory of her mother goes even further: She remembers hiding in a chest with her mother. And Obi-Wan reveals that Anakin never knew Amidala was pregnant when he “left”. In just one short paragraph, the author made the Skywalkers’ tale so much more intriguing. And as with George’s usual blundering, he ruined that with his version LOL)
 
Joined
Nov 25, 2018
Messages
65
Reaction score
3
The Prequel says a lot of things that contradict with what was established in the OT. George couldn’t even be bother with taking a bit of time— or making the effort, to crosscheck what he had established in the OT when writing his Prequel. This really shows just how sloppy. careless, thoughtless George was with the Prequel. And this just shows how he was only ever surrounded by a*slickers, who only bowed to his every sloppy whim.

I know I’ve b*tched about this endlessly, but had George only developed the treatment for the Prequel, and handed it over to a competent team, things would have turned out so differently— and for the better, for this Prequel. Such a monumentally wasted potential. George is the epitome of squandered potential in filmmaking.

(BTW, in the ROTJ novelization— which ironically, is by far the best adaption of the 3 OT novelizations although ROTJ is by far the weakest of the OT, Leia’s memory of her mother goes even further: She remembers hiding in a chest with her mother. And Obi-Wan reveals that Anakin never knew Amidala was pregnant when he “left”. In just one short paragraph, the author made the Skywalkers’ tale so much more intriguing. And as with George’s usual blundering, he ruined that with his version LOL)
Wow! So it was George Lucas’ mistake? I should have known! All the ones that Lucas directs are a disappointment, although I am not sure I can say the same about episode 4, (ANH), the first one to ever come out in 1977. That one was his and it was good!

You are so right, farmer! He should have had a competent team that paid attention to detail rather than a bunch of “yes” men!

I have never read any of the novelizations! That story about Padme and Leia hiding in a chest sounds far more interesting and is more believable than her dying giving birth to Leia!

I always thought excellent memory was one of Leia’s Jedi powers and since she is unaware of how to use the force like Luke, it’s a power she just assumes is something she naturally has. That explanation wouldn’t make much sense though...and really...what sort of Jedi power is excellent memory going to achieve really?

I just wish there was a better explanation than George Lucas’ carelessness!

My friend suggested that Leia didn’t know she was adopted at all...and thought that her adoptive mother, who also died when she was young, was her real mother! My friend said he read somewhere that the reason Leia was a princess is because her adoptive mother was a queen, and because this queen died when she was a little girl, she was therefore mostly raised by her adoptive father Bail Organa. And Senator Organa was never dubbed a king despite being married to a queen.

That’s what my friend said.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 31, 2011
Messages
1,048
Reaction score
18
^^^ Mistakes… or revisions… ??? Hard to tell with George— and I’m always under the impression he can’t tell the difference LOL

I’ve dismissed AOTC and ROTS as tacky EU ramblings— and not relevant to the saga.

And as much as TPM is an absolutely colossal bore of a movie, I adore it still for other reasons, and it’s a worthy addition to the saga: It’s not a mess like the other 2 prequels. And TPM is far removed enough from the events of the OT that it doesn’t contradict, harm or drag down the established canon. It actually enhances AGFFA in scope and lore.

Leia knew she was adopted as long as she could remember (this is expended upon in the novelization). That’s why Luke asked if she had memories of her “real” mother— and not just her mother. People will defend the incompetence of the Prequel to their death it seems, just check out the Attack Of The Clones is a great Star Wars Movie! thread…

(BTW, George didn’t exactly had complete control with ANH; it was a careful collaboration with extremely talented individuals. Cobalt, and others would know a lot more about that history than I could ever be interested in, have posted invaluable insights to the development of that film. But there’s no hiding the fact that ANH was a strong collaborative effort.)
 
Last edited:
Joined
Nov 25, 2018
Messages
65
Reaction score
3
I’ve dismissed AOTC and ROTS as tacky EU ramblings— and not relevant to the saga.

Too true! So do I! That’s why I stand by the OT the most.

(BTW, George didn’t exactly had complete control with ANH; it was a careful collaboration with extremely talented individuals. Cobalt, and others would know a lot more about that history than I could ever be interested in, have posted invaluable insights to the development of that film. But there’s no hiding the fact that ANH was a strong collaborative effort.)
Ah, yes. It was the first one. I imagine it was better because he had help.
 
Joined
Dec 27, 2016
Messages
147
Reaction score
5
Wow! So it was George Lucas’ mistake? I should have known! All the ones that Lucas directs are a disappointment, although I am not sure I can say the same about episode 4, (ANH), the first one to ever come out in 1977. That one was his and it was good!

You are so right, farmer! He should have had a competent team that paid attention to detail rather than a bunch of “yes” men!

I have never read any of the novelizations! That story about Padme and Leia hiding in a chest sounds far more interesting and is more believable than her dying giving birth to Leia!

I always thought excellent memory was one of Leia’s Jedi powers and since she is unaware of how to use the force like Luke, it’s a power she just assumes is something she naturally has. That explanation wouldn’t make much sense though...and really...what sort of Jedi power is excellent memory going to achieve really?

I just wish there was a better explanation than George Lucas’ carelessness!

My friend suggested that Leia didn’t know she was adopted at all...and thought that her adoptive mother, who also died when she was young, was her real mother! My friend said he read somewhere that the reason Leia was a princess is because her adoptive mother was a queen, and because this queen died when she was a little girl, she was therefore mostly raised by her adoptive father Bail Organa. And Senator Organa was never dubbed a king despite being married to a queen.

That’s what my friend said.
That's really my interpretation as well. Leia was remembering her adopted mother in Alderan.
 
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
32,202
Reaction score
927
Location
Oregon
One question I have is that Vader only learned of Leia in ROTJ... so when did he learn of Luke? He doesn't seem surprised when the Emperor says "the son of Skywalker..." in Empire.
I believe that it was "alluded" to after ANH, with the destruction of the DS. Likely a lot of off-screen stuff, or EU happened resulting in Vader's behavior/knowledge of Luke.
 
Joined
Nov 25, 2018
Messages
65
Reaction score
3
I believe that it was "alluded" to after ANH, with the destruction of the DS. Likely a lot of off-screen stuff, or EU happened resulting in Vader's behavior/knowledge of Luke.
I agree with masterfett. Vader knew about Luke relatively early!
 
Joined
Aug 18, 2006
Messages
5,864
Reaction score
247
it's in the text scroll at the beginning of the movie. in Giant Yellow Letters:
"the Evil Lord Darth Vader is obsessed with finding Young Skywalker".

also: he tells General Veers (re: Hoth):
"....THAT is the system -- the Rebels are THERE -- and I'm sure Skywalker is with them."

(so: it's ALSO in the actual dialog of the film itself -- Vader knows about Skywalker -- BEFORE the events of ESB.)




later, in 1997, GL tried to shoe-horn a 'special edition' moment, when Holo-Palps tells vader:
"I have no doubt this Boy is the offspring of Anakin Skywalker"


and Vader goes "WHUT..!? HoW CaN ThiS BE..!?", like he's hearing this info for the Very First Time.
^^ (apparently, GL didn't watch the first half of Kirshner's Movie, before he started making 'changes' to it) :( (oops!)

^^^ Mistakes… or revisions… ??? Hard to tell with George— and I’m always under the impression he can’t tell the difference LOL
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 18, 2006
Messages
5,864
Reaction score
247
^^ this brings up an interesting question:
the special editions came out in the late 90's when everyone-and-their-uncle was releasing "Director's Cut" versions of their films.
the "Director's Cut" was a staple of late-90's home video sales.

but, at the time, GL didn't actually "direct" 2/3 of his trilogy. he was NOT the "Director" of ESB and ROTJ.
so he couldn't LEGALLY call his offerings a "Director's Cut".

he has ALWAYS claimed "they're MY moo-vies" -- (therefore he could change them, any way HE pleased) -- simply because he "owns" them.

((like Ted Turner owns the entire MGM catalog ; like Micheal Jackson owned the old Beatles Songs;....
...but does Ted Turner REALLY have the right, to CHANGE those old movies?
...did Micheal Jackson have the right, to CHANGE those old Beatles Songs?))

((the Government of France "OWNS" the Mona Lisa. does this give them the right to CHANGE the Mona Lisa?
simply because they OWN it?))





hmmmm...

this begs a question (or two):

(a) last I checked, ESB was still "directed by Irvin Kershner".
did GL really have the right to CHANGE another Director's Work? simply because he OWNS that director's work?

is it "Ethical" in Hollywood, for GL to make his OWN "director's cut", when he did NOT direct this film in the first place?
(like Ted Turner owns "Gone With The Wind"? like the Government of France owns the Mona Lisa?
does this mean he can now CHANGE "Gone With The Wind"?? does this mean they can CHANGE the Mona Lisa??)

--> would this be "Ethical"??

and

(b) can you guys think of ANY other example, in ANY other artform, where this shit actually happens? :p LOL
where the "owner" of a work of Art, makes CHANGES to a work of Art, simply because he "owns" it?

(be it "music" copyright; movie copyright; or ANY form of "ownership", to a painting/sculpture/statue, or ANY other work of art)?
does this actually HAPPEN in Real Life?? -- (outside of GL's Personal Sandbox?) -- where the "owner" of a respected piece, has made changes to that respected piece, simply BECAUSE he "owns" it?

--> are there ANY other examples??





-discuss-
 
Last edited:
Joined
Nov 25, 2018
Messages
65
Reaction score
3
^^ this brings up an interesting question:
the special editions came out in the late 90's when everyone-and-their-uncle was releasing "Director's Cut" versions of their films.
the "Director's Cut" was a staple of late-90's home video sales.

but, at the time, GL didn't actually "direct" 2/3 of his trilogy. he was NOT the "Director" of ESB and ROTJ.
so he couldn't LEGALLY call his offerings a "Director's Cut".

he has ALWAYS claimed "they're MY moo-vies" -- (therefore he could change them, any way HE pleased) -- simply because he "owns" them.

((like Ted Turner owns the entire MGM catalog ; like Micheal Jackson owned the old Beatles Songs;....
...but does Ted Turner REALLY have the right, to CHANGE those old movies?
...did Micheal Jackson have the right, to CHANGE those old Beatles Songs?))

((the Government of France "OWNS" the Mona Lisa. does this give them the right to CHANGE the Mona Lisa?
simply because they OWN it?))





hmmmm...

this begs a question (or two):

(a) last I checked, ESB was still "directed by Irvin Kershner".
did GL really have the right to CHANGE another Director's Work? simply because he OWNS that director's work?

is it "Ethical" in Hollywood, for GL to make his OWN "director's cut", when he did NOT direct this film in the first place?
(like Ted Turner owns "Gone With The Wind"? like the Government of France owns the Mona Lisa?
does this mean he can now CHANGE "Gone With The Wind"?? does this mean they can CHANGE the Mona Lisa??)

--> would this be "Ethical"??

and

(b) can you guys think of ANY other example, in ANY other artform, where this shit actually happens? :p LOL
where the "owner" of a work of Art, makes CHANGES to a work of Art, simply because he "owns" it?

(be it "music" copyright; movie copyright; or ANY form of "ownership", to a painting/sculpture/statue, or ANY other work of art)?
does this actually HAPPEN in Real Life?? -- (outside of GL's Personal Sandbox?) -- where the "owner" of a respected piece, has made changes to that respected piece, simply BECAUSE he "owns" it?

--> are there ANY other examples??





-discuss-
WELL SAID Cobalt60! WELL SAID! The Special Edition Films were a travesty! Under no circumstances did his "revisions" do any sort of homage to the films!
 
Joined
Jan 31, 2011
Messages
1,048
Reaction score
18
he has ALWAYS claimed "they're MY moo-vies" -- (therefore he could change them, any way HE pleased) -- simply because he "owns" them.
George has every “right” to alter his property as he wishes. SW was all his— and he owes his collaborators nothing, since they were all hired employees; As talented as his collaborators were, no one did the job out of the kindness of their heart… But just like George has every right to do as he wishes with his property— I have every “right” to reject/criticize/protest/mock his changes to these films as a costumer. This has nothing to do with ethics, and everything to do with standards.

(Frankly, I don’t mind the environment-enhancements of the SE, where the scope of the vistas are improved upon— both visually and technically, and doesn’t change the narrative and tone of its original story. I wished he had enhanced the Hoth and Dagobah environments; just an extra 10-15 seconds would have been enough and enriched these worlds by so much.)

About Leia ’s memories of her (real) mother: It makes absolutely zero sense for Leia to have confused memories of her foster mother with her biological mother. The fact that Luke asked her memories of her “real” mother, already implies that Leia has always known she was adopted; and by that implication, she would have known that Amidala died when she was born (if we’re to go with the ROTS version of Amidala’s demise). So if one is to accept ROTS and George messing up/not caring to align basic logic connecting The Prequel to the OT, how can Leia be referring to memories of her foster mother when Luke was so specific about memories of her “real” mother…??? George f*cked up and people are scrambling to do mental gymnastics to justify such sloppy storytelling. (I do love the excuse that Leia remembers Amidala through the Force: The Force is the answer to everything— like Obama to some Americans LOL)

This is one of the many many many reasons why the much-maligned TPM works so well for me as a strong addition to the saga, and why AOTC and ROTS are EU-afterthoughts: George cared and was passionate when creating TPM— and it shows. He simply couldn’t care less by the time of AOTC. And by the time of ROTS, it’s literally nothing more than "faster and more intense”, and doesn’t even connect to the OT in a logical sense. He seemed to just wanted to get it over with. And I don’t blame him one bit.
 
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
32,202
Reaction score
927
Location
Oregon
But we're not talking about about a new paint job on and old car you've had for 20 years. Sure you own it and have the right to do that, but it's not affecting anyone else because they've never seen it.

Changing an iconic movie to suit your whims is a very different thing. This is where a judgment call comes in, and knowing that you shouldn't do such a thing.
 
Joined
Nov 25, 2018
Messages
65
Reaction score
3
But just like George has every right to do as he wishes with his property— I have every “right” to reject/criticize/protest/mock his changes to these films as a costumer. This has nothing to do with ethics, and everything to do with standards.


I agree. When you’re in the film industry, sometimes it isn’t always easy to please everyone, but GL made Star Wars for the people. If he messes with it to make it “his vision,” ok, but then he should expect a river of criticism. My personal thought is: don’t fix it if it ain’t broken!

About Leia’s memories of her (real) mother: It makes absolutely zero sense for Leia to have confused memories of her foster mother with her biological mother. The fact that Luke asked her memories of her “real” mother, already implies that Leia has always known she was adopted; and by that implication, she would have known that Amidala died when she was born (if we’re to go with the ROTS version of Amidala’s demise). So if one is to accept ROTS and George messing up/not caring to align basic logic connecting The Prequel to the OT, how can Leia be referring to memories of her foster mother when Luke was so specific about memories of her “real” mother…??? George f*cked up and people are scrambling to do mental gymnastics to justify such sloppy storytelling. (I do love the excuse that Leia remembers Amidala through the Force: The Force is the answer to everything— like Obama to some Americans LOL)
Hahahaha on the “mental gymnastics” comment! I definitely think the Leia remembering her mother through the force idea seems more logical. When my friend suggested it was her adoptive mother, I thought that might be an idea, but when Luke says: “real mother,” you’re right...it’s implied that Leia knew she was adopted.

I am going to chalk it up to George Lucas making a blunder!
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 18, 2006
Messages
5,864
Reaction score
247
well obviously he has the legal right, but I was asking specifically (a) is it "Ethical?" and (b) what other examples can we think of?

(as the copyright holder, Ted Turner has the legal "right" to edit Gone with the Wind and release the "Ted Turner Special Edition" c/w fresh new footage of a young Clark-Gable-look-a-like, shot against a green screen BY Turner Himself -- but Ted Turner did NOT direct this movie, he simply "owns" it -- so I'm asking, does he have an Ethical "right"? to edit another director's work? to change(&replace) an important historical work of Art? simply because HE "owns" it? and WE don't?)
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 18, 2006
Messages
5,864
Reaction score
247
food for thought:

https://www.slashfilm.com/george-lucas-speaks-altering-films-1988/



My name is George Lucas. I am a writer, director, and producer of motion pictures and Chairman of the Board of Lucasfilm Ltd., a multi-faceted entertainment corporation.

I am not here today as a writer-director, or as a producer, or as the chairman of a corporation. I’ve come as a citizen of what I believe to be a great society that is in need of a moral anchor to help define and protect its intellectual and cultural heritage. It is not being protected.

The destruction of our film heritage, which is the focus of concern today, is only the tip of the iceberg. American law does not protect our painters, sculptors, recording artists, authors, or filmmakers from having their lifework distorted, and their reputation ruined. If something is not done now to clearly state the moral rights of artists, current and future technologies will alter, mutilate, and destroy for future generations the subtle human truths and highest human feeling that talented individuals within our society have created.

A copyright is held in trust by its owner until it ultimately reverts to public domain. American works of art belong to the American public; they are part of our cultural history.

People who alter or destroy works of art and our cultural heritage for profit or as an exercise of power are barbarians, and if the laws of the United States continue to condone this behavior, history will surely classify us as a barbaric society. The preservation of our cultural heritage may not seem to be as politically sensitive an issue as “when life begins” or “when it should be appropriately terminated,” but it is important because it goes to the heart of what sets mankind apart. Creative expression is at the core of our humanness. Art is a distinctly human endeavor. We must have respect for it if we are to have any respect for the human race.

These current defacements are just the beginning. Today, engineers with their computers can add color to black-and-white movies, change the soundtrack, speed up the pace, and add or subtract material to the philosophical tastes of the copyright holder. Tomorrow, more advanced technology will be able to replace actors with “fresher faces,” or alter dialogue and change the movement of the actor’s lips to match. It will soon be possible to create a new “original” negative with whatever changes or alterations the copyright holder of the moment desires. The copyright holders, so far, have not been completely diligent in preserving the original negatives of films they control. In order to reconstruct old negatives, many archivists have had to go to Eastern bloc countries where American films have been better preserved.

In the future it will become even easier for old negatives to become lost and be “replaced” by new altered negatives. This would be a great loss to our society. Our cultural history must not be allowed to be rewritten.

There is nothing to stop American films, records, books, and paintings from being sold to a foreign entity or egotistical gangsters and having them change our cultural heritage to suit their personal taste.

I accuse the companies and groups, who say that American law is sufficient, of misleading the Congress and the People for their own economic self-interest.

I accuse the corporations, who oppose the moral rights of the artist, of being dishonest and insensitive to American cultural heritage and of being interested only in their quarterly bottom line, and not in the long-term interest of the Nation.

The public’s interest is ultimately dominant over all other interests. And the proof of that is that even a copyright law only permits the creators and their estate a limited amount of time to enjoy the economic fruits of that work

There are those who say American law is sufficient. That’s an outrage! It’s not sufficient! If it were sufficient, why would I be here? Why would John Houston have been so studiously ignored when he protested the colorization of “The Maltese Falcon?” Why are films cut up and butchered?

Attention should be paid to this question of our soul, and not simply to accounting procedures. Attention should be paid to the interest of those who are yet unborn, who should be able to see this generation as it saw itself, and the past generation as it saw itself.

I hope you have the courage to lead America in acknowledging the importance of American art to the human race, and accord the proper protection for the creators of that art–as it is accorded them in much of the rest of the world communities.





so: yes -- it is "Legal" -- he has a "Legal Right".

but even GL himself says, it should never happen. it is a crime against Art.

it's a "question of our soul", in the words of The Man HIMSELF.

(I am merely asking that same question).


In the 1980s, a controversy swirled in Hollywood when there was a notion to colorize black and white films. The issue made it all the way in front of Congress due in large part to the passionate backing of several important filmmakers. Eventually, their efforts helped to establish the National Film Registry which, to this day, takes historically significant films and preserves them in their natural state forever.

On March 3, 1988, George Lucas was one of those filmmakers who spoke in front of Congress. The same George Lucas who, in the two decades since, has continually tinkered with his signature Star Wars films from the Special Editions through the prequels and right up to the Blu-rays, which caused massive mainstream controversy this week due to new changes including a digital Yoda and Darth Vader’s new dialogue. But on that day, 23 years ago, Lucas delivered a rousing speech that condemned exactly what he’d end up doing himself.
https://www.slashfilm.com/george-lucas-speaks-altering-films-1988/
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 18, 2006
Messages
5,864
Reaction score
247
short version:

Lucas says a copyright is held in TRUST by the copyright holder, until it reverts back to the public domain.

--> by "changing" the movie, is this a "violation" of that TRUST? (if not a 'legal' violation, then an ethical violation?)

--> and can we think of ANY other examples? where a "copyright holder" has REPLACED an old movie, with a "new" one? (and gotten away with it?)
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 31, 2011
Messages
1,048
Reaction score
18
^^^ People change, Cobalt. For the better and for the worse: Which of the two is entirely dependent on an individual's perspective. It’s human nature to change one's mind— especially when great wealth (and fame) is such an encompassing factor. I don’t hold his earlier stance against him.

And as long as the OG-cut is preserved, and is readily available to anyone who wants it for purchase, I have no issues with films being altered/revised/rebooted by the current owner (Just look at the mess that is this Sequel—w which is nothing more than sloppy, reductive OT-remake. Reboot way. This Sequel will be forgotten once it’s over): Film is a medium that is not exclusive to only one copy existing— like a painting. Special-edition away… Freedom of choice is vital— whether that be in the politics of modern society, or the consumption of mainstream entertainment in that modern society.
 
Joined
Nov 25, 2018
Messages
65
Reaction score
3
Cobalt, in response to your take on "ethical" vs "legal," I almost feel like there is a certain degree or a certain level a film or a franchise has to get where it is owned by the people. GL may own the copyright to the film, and the public has no say as far as what he does to his film. I appreciate and respect the original author and creator making changes.

There is nothing illegal about him changing it. Ethically, that is a wider scope. George Lucas has to ask himself what he is gaining by changing the film? What is he losing? Will he make more money? Will he make less? Is he doing this for the people or for himself?

In a larger scope, one could argue that the consequences of GL's actions could make his changing of the Star Wars films be perceived as unethical. I respect it, but he gained plenty of wealth, a whole franchise, and a whole population of SW fans without his changing of the films.

I am taking an ethics course in college now, and so you almost have to present the situation of: legal vs ethical. Are his actions legal? Yes. Are they ethical? No
 
Joined
Aug 18, 2006
Messages
5,864
Reaction score
247
Fair enough.



but unfortunately, the OG_versions are not preserved; nor readily available.

besides just VHS copies.. the original theatrical versions were only offered on Laserdisc in 1993 & 1995.
(with the same transfer re-released as "bonus material" on the DVD set in 2004 -- but these are only @640x480 resolution
with black bars on the top and bottom of the screen, further reducing the film to about 640x320).
this is the only version available, if you happen to find a copy on the collector's market -- it was discontinued in 2010, and is no longer sold at retail.

as for "preservation" .. that's a really long story.
the Library of Congress started accepting films in 1989, with a mandate to preserve and restore American Films for future generations.
they accept 25 films per year, with a mandate (and BUDGET) for full restoration and permanent storage of the original master prints (aka:"negatives").
SW was among the first 25 films accepted into the Library in 1989 (Empire was accepted in 2010; ROTJ? not so much).

when a film is accepted, the copyright holder is required to provide the master print (used for making screenable copies) for permanent storage in the Library.
it seems, the LoC had a master print of SW, for about 4 years. but GL 'borrowed' it back from them, in 1993, when he began work on the special editions.
they hounded him to return it -- he kept stalling them, telling them it needed "restoration" first -- finally he gave them a copy of the 1997 special edition instead...
...and they flatly refused it. they wanted the negative from the original film. but GL said it didn't exist anymore. literally.

(he explained: he cut the original negative up to pieces with a razor blade and physically "spliced" the special edition scenes into the master negative -- so the original print does not exist anymore.
the master negative for SW'77 was LITERALLY "replaced" by SW'97: it was "sacrificed", to create the master negative for the special edition).
(and when it came to Empire -- the LoC didn't even bother to request a copy -- so they don't have THAT one on file either).

at this time, SW'77 & ESB are the only 2 movies ever accepted into the LoC, where the LoC does NOT have a "master negative" in the Library.
the only copy they have of SW'77, is a leftover print from a past theatrical run (with closed captions for deaf people at the bottom of the screen) -- they do NOT have a master print. why?

because they made the mistake of allowing GL access to the one-and-only copy in existence -- So He Could Destroy It.

:(


read more here: http://savestarwars.com/editorials.html
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 31, 2011
Messages
1,048
Reaction score
18
^^^ You are a wealth of SW info LOL

George is such an odd man to hold such apparent disdain for the OOT…

Or is there more to the story…??? Was it you that brought up that it was his refusal to share in the profits with some, and that’s the reason he didn't release the OOT?

The SE never bothered me to any extend that it offended many. I’m just not that big of a SW fan LOL The Rug Rats-levity of Jedi Rocks is the most insulting addition since it was jarring-- and so long, from its inception. And 20some years later, it’s aged so poorly and more so resembles (ironically) an obnoxious Disney musical number. (And whomever composed that song needs to be publicly flogged.)

TLJ is basically Jedi Rocks as a movie.
 
Last edited:
Joined
May 10, 2018
Messages
1,681
Reaction score
515
but unfortunately, the OG_versions are not preserved; nor readily available.
This is the one thing I was hoping would come out of the Disney Star Wars coup. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem the case. I would have expected that 2017 would have seen at least a blu ray of the original 'Star Wars' make an appearance for the 40th. But no.

I have to make do with Harmy's despecialized versions which, in fairness, suits me fine.

I watched the altered cut of 'The Empire Strikes Back' the other day and while Lucas' interferences never bugged me that much, I noticed something that I hadn't seen before that made me roll my eyes. When Solo, Leia and Lando are walking through Cloud City, the background has been changed slightly, to show the outside.






But when we see the same scene after Vader asks Han, Chewie and Leia to "join him" for dinner, we see that the outside is gone again...













 
Joined
Jun 13, 2013
Messages
1,388
Reaction score
175
I believe that change came from wanting to hide the obvious, they had to reuse set pieces. It was an unneeded change, especially since that city in the window just doesn't look structurally correct.

Back on topic:
There was a deleted scene in the prequels that had several holographic images of Padme & her family, I believe this was originally intended to explain why Leia remembered her mother. However since it did not make the final cut, it just becomes another loose end that the prequels set up but never resolve.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 10, 2004
Messages
9,946
Reaction score
605
Location
Hartselle,AL
I am going out on a limb here but Leia might be remembering her foster mother Organa’s wife. Remember she got a lot of her political skills from Bail.
 
Last edited:
Joined
May 10, 2018
Messages
1,681
Reaction score
515
Unfortunately, that doesn't work. Luke asks her specifically,

"Leia, do you remember your mother, your real mother?"

To which Leia replies, "Just a little bit. She died when I was very young."

So it's not Breha Organa she's "remembering", as she died on Alderaan when it got blown up.

Sadly, it's just another example of a screw up caused by Lucas' prequels. The thing is Padme never had to die. She could have been secreted away by Bail Organa, but in a state of ill health, which would have made for a smoother transition to the OT. The audience would know that she dies later, when Leia was a kid.
 
Joined
Jul 15, 2000
Messages
1,648
Reaction score
72
Unfortunately, that doesn't work. Luke asks her specifically,

"Leia, do you remember your mother, your real mother?"

To which Leia replies, "Just a little bit. She died when I was very young."

So it's not Breha Organa she's "remembering", as she died on Alderaan when it got blown up.

Sadly, it's just another example of a screw up caused by Lucas' prequels. The thing is Padme never had to die. She could have been secreted away by Bail Organa, but in a state of ill health, which would have made for a smoother transition to the OT. The audience would know that she dies later, when Leia was a kid.
I love and defend the PT. TPM and ROTS are almost as good as ANH for me.
But I have to admit this is the ONLY thing I can't defend. One bloody line in ROTJ and people get their panties in a bunch and condemn the whole PT and I can't say nothing about it. UGH.
 
Joined
May 10, 2018
Messages
1,681
Reaction score
515
I love and defend the PT. TPM and ROTS are almost as good as ANH for me.
But I have to admit this is the ONLY thing I can't defend. One bloody line in ROTJ and people get their panties in a bunch and condemn the whole PT and I can't say nothing about it. UGH.
I just don't think Lucas gave a crap by that stage. He was probably like "whatever, someone will make an excuse for it."

He'd been tinkering with the throughput of the story for so long, I don't think anything mattered to him any more.

As for the prequels, they probably should never have been made really. The scupper the OT badly, nullify one of the greatest twists in cinema and make characters out to be either liars or people with incredibly bad memories.

I don't even consider them canon any more, not even in their heavily fan edited form.

But, yeh, Padme dying and Leia remembering her is one of their most egregious sins.
 
Joined
Jul 29, 2015
Messages
1,527
Reaction score
62
Location
Central NJ
it's in the text scroll at the beginning of the movie. in Giant Yellow Letters:
"the Evil Lord Darth Vader is obsessed with finding Young Skywalker".

also: he tells General Veers (re: Hoth):
"....THAT is the system -- the Rebels are THERE -- and I'm sure Skywalker is with them."

(so: it's ALSO in the actual dialog of the film itself -- Vader knows about Skywalker -- BEFORE the events of ESB.)




later, in 1997, GL tried to shoe-horn a 'special edition' moment, when Holo-Palps tells vader:
"I have no doubt this Boy is the offspring of Anakin Skywalker"


and Vader goes "WHUT..!? HoW CaN ThiS BE..!?", like he's hearing this info for the Very First Time.
^^ (apparently, GL didn't watch the first half of Kirshner's Movie, before he started making 'changes' to it) :( (oops!)
Actually, I always got the impression here that Vader was playing the Emperor by pretending to be surprised. The reason Vader was so obsessed with finding Luke was first, to make the revelation that he was his father (case in point - once that was done, it was like that weight was off his shoulders, hence why Piett doesn't get choked when the Falcon escapes - vader had made the connection and knew Luke would return to him. Before that, failure was not an option until he got what he wanted.) Second, to use Luke to help him defeat the Emperor and take over the galaxy. Powerful as Vader was, he knew it would take both of them to defeat Palpatine, and he was smart enough not to overplay his hand.
 
Joined
Nov 25, 2018
Messages
65
Reaction score
3
Second, to use Luke to help him defeat the Emperor and take over the galaxy. Powerful as Vader was, he knew it would take both of them to defeat Palpatine, and he was smart enough not to overplay his hand.
You’re right! When he does reveal to Luke that he is his father: he specifically says: “Join me and together we can rule the galaxy as father and son!” Nowhere in that statement does he imply that Palpatine will join them. In fact, usually when a Sith Master dies, doesn’t that typically make the apprentice the Master? Assuming he could have succeeded in turning Luke to the dark side, Darth Vader would have been the Sith Master and Luke would have been his apprentice and would have had a Darth name even! I wonder what Luke’s Darth name would have been?
 
Joined
Aug 18, 2006
Messages
5,864
Reaction score
247
I wonder what Luke’s Darth name would have been?
Darth Zoon. why?


because "Vader" is the dutch word for "Father" -- Darth Vader translates, directly, as "Darth Father".

--> Luke would be "Darth Son" :p (or "Darth Zoon" in Dutch). :p cheers.
 
Joined
May 10, 2018
Messages
1,681
Reaction score
515
Darth Zoon. why?


because "Vader" is the dutch word for "Father" -- Darth Vader translates, directly, as "Darth Father".

--> Luke would be "Darth Son" :p (or "Darth Zoon" in Dutch). :p cheers.
It wouldn't be any more ridiculous than some of the Sith names floating around.
 
Joined
Dec 15, 2017
Messages
1,869
Reaction score
433
Because Leia is Force-sensitive. She had thoughts, impressions...feelings. I don’t know if anyone noticed, but the Skywalkers aren’t normal.
 
Top