I know you tagged Somny, but I'll bite on this one, seeing as this is my thread 'n' all. I don't blame Somny for not wanting to parse the article out. It takes some work and seems to be giving oxygen to clickbait material like this. However, I enjoy a hearty defence -- though, I might add, while I'm gratified to see some additional posts in my thread, debunking articles like these isn't really what my thread is about. But as a one-off, I'll indulge this piece. Here we go:
"One of the best movies in the original Star Wars trilogy"? Was that their attempt at humour? There are only three films, so that's either a coy way of saying that all three OT movies are about equal, or it's a very badly-worded attempt to reassure the reader that they're a "good friend" of the movie and not out to trash it for clicks.
"Fair share of continuity errors." Like the former statement, it's hard to know how seriously to take this one. All films have continuity errors. It can be argued that all films are also fragmented and discontinuous in a way that is reminiscent of the way our brains filter information and present a simplified version of the world to us; or that continuity logic and the overall management of narrative and presentation of events in a film is like the state of dreaming.
In other words, nothing has yet been said that in any way incriminates ROTJ as a particularly "bad" movie, nor has a particularly compelling premise been presented. The term "continuity error" isn't defined, either. So the author has free range to say anything they like, and we're just being set up to nod and accept their criticisms as valid, without much of a critical framework to cling to, forcing us to (dubiously) take everything on faith.
Oh, no! Not the lips! I can't think of much to say in regards to this; or I don't want to try and dignify such a silly criticism with much thought in the first place. I'd just like to point out that dialogue for films like these is often re-recorded in post-production, because there is often too much noise on-set (fans, camera motors, pyrotechnics, etc.) for the dialogue to meet an acceptable quality of clarity. During post-production, with the film having been assembled in the editing room since the bulk of it was shot, little "pot-holes" are often filled in, where it may be noticed that a scene needs to be punched up with snappier dialogue, or a brief command from one character to another needs to be added or revised. Luke's terse instruction to Leia was probably one of these moments.
The issue of characters mouthing different words, or not gesturing in sync with particular lines, is something that goes back to the first film. A notable example is when Vader is shown gesturing to Tarkin in a rather wild hand/pointing motion without dialogue accompaniment at the end of a scene on the Death Star. This is right before the Millennium Falcon drops out of hyperspace and arrives at Alderaan. Again, dialogue is often changed up in post-production, leading to a mixture of deletions, alterations, and re-recordings; and on Star Wars, a bevy of last-minute alterations typically occur to clarify a point, or because a name or situation has been changed.
I hadn't really noticed Harrison Ford's lines being a big offender. Although, in TESB, the actor's lips are very clearly mouthing Leia's dialogue when he's holding her in the cockpit of the Millennium Falcon as they hide inside the asteroid.
This is the first of several criticisms framed as a question. What's interesting about it is that Yoda says: "There is no why." In other words, these are koans with no one particular answer, and you can keep spinning the wheels of your mind without getting anywhere. Or you can tentatively "find" an answer and leave it there. Of course, the writer themselves already provides an answer to their question, but they discard it because it isn't satisfying or something (i.e., leaving this issue alone and moving on would give them less to complain about).
This "error" actually gives some nice continuity with ROTS. In the earlier version of Palpatine fighting against the Jedi that come to arrest him, Anakin was already by Palpatine's side, and Palpatine simply grabs Anakin's lightsaber to fight the other Jedi off (Anakin is initially just observing and not interfering). In the finished film, you can still see some remnants of this earlier version: in a few shots, Palpatine is actually fighting with Anakin's saber, not his own.
Also, the moment they're talking about in ROTJ is pretty hard to make out, since Vader is stalking Luke in the dark and it's difficult to notice he is momentarily holding two sabers. With AOTC "in the can", it also makes a nice resonance with Anakin briefly fighting Dooku off with two sabers. So this continuity artifact in ROTJ is a little "glitch" in the Force that serves as a subliminal flashback to Anakin's earlier life. This is just one solution to the quantum mechanical paradox.
What about it? I don't know -- who cares? They've also clumsily used a shot of Chewie from TROS. Continuity error of their own? The most basic answer here is: Han was the main prize of Boba Fett, and of Jabba, not Chewie. It was Han that owed the debt to Jabba, not Chewie. So Chewie could still have had a bounty on his head, but acquiring Han (in the eyes of Jabba and at least Boba) was the main objective.
This writer seems to have also forgotten that Vader requested that Leia and Chewie ("The princess and the Wookiee") be sent directly to his ship after Han was frozen; and before that, he misled Lando into thinking they'd remain under "city arrest" at Cloud City under Lando's supervision. So Chewie was presumably "hands off" for Boba and the other bounty hunters enticed to find the rebels. It's perhaps rather neat, therefore, that it's Leia and Chewie pulling a little scheme on Jabba in the next "act" of the OT at the beginning of ROTJ.
There's also a running motif in the OT that Wookiees are an inferior lifeform and aren't worth much to anyone, except maybe as slave labour; which Jabba already appears to have plenty of. And most of them are considerably less furry than Chewbacca.
"Luke's Lightsaber Isn't Really Anything Like His Fathers'". It's hard to read that heading with a straight face. At first, I was like, "Oh, I doubt that." Then I realised: "Well, Luke is a lot shorter, so maybe that's why Yoda reassures him that size doesn't matter..." Sorry. Just some bawdy humour. But when Jabba looks so phallic, well.. can you blame me?
A more serious answer here is that, yes, while Luke wielded Anakin's old saber, not Obi-Wan's, he also lost Anakin's saber the same moment he discovered his father's true identity. So it stands to reason he might want to emulate the only Jedi Master he knew in-person, and that watched over him for his formative years. Quite how Luke constructs his own lightsaber is the real mystery. But since that's not remotely explained on-screen, it really becomes a non-issue as to how the lightsaber actually looks. Perhaps Luke was guided by the Force to make a saber hilt more "in the image" of Obi-Wan's; perhaps he read a book or found some pieces of an older one, or he came into possession of some lightsaber-like device he scavenged, which he then adapted into a saber of his own design. Maybe Luke even hoped to evoke Obi-Wan from the netherworld of the Force by patterning a saber reminiscent of his own. After all, he calls out to Obi-Wan at the end of TESB, and apparently doesn't commune with him again until going back to Dagobah after the first act of ROTJ.
Taking the Emperor's dialogue literally leads to an error -- as it does for pretty much all the characters who are duped by Palpatine in the PT. The Emperor is collapsing differences between Vader and Luke with his pointed comment, trying to ensnare Luke into the "inevitability" of turning to the Dark Side like Anakin before him. Like any fanatic, we discover in the PT that Palpatine's comment is hypocritical, since he himself uses a lightsaber in ROTS. Ergo, his deeming Luke's saber a "Jedi weapon", much less stating that it is "much like your father's", is loaded with fallacy. In broader terms, all the Jedi that precede Luke are also his "father" (and/or "mother"). They are his spiritual forebears. So we have another layer to this moment: Palpatine underestimates how dangerous Luke and the legacy of the Jedi actually are to his corpulent rule (something reprised to cosmic effect in TROS).
Yoda may have taught Luke how to block the Emperor's lightning with his saber, but Luke tosses his saber aside, leaving himself vulnerable. The writer here draws a false equivalence with Rey, since Rey blocks the Emperor's lightning with two sabers and has the full might of all the former Jedi backing her up. Jedi in the PT are able to block lightning with one saber: e.g., Obi-Wan blocking Dooku's lightning, Mace blocking Palpatine's. But it's unclear if Mace is really able to block the lightning attack with a single saber, even with all his power and training; because it seems that Palpatine is going easy on him to turn Anakin. Only Yoda seems to genuinely have the ability to block the Emperor's lightning with his bare hands, and even
he isn't strong enough to completely overcome it; as when he is flung back and falls to the bottom of the Senate chamber.
The basic idea is that Luke makes a heroic "stand" against the Emperor, for Anakin's soul, and is even prepared to die in the process. He is deliberately sacrificing himself in Anakin's presence to stir Anakin back to goodness. If Luke actually made some attempt at blocking the Emperor's attack, he would have forfeited the "high ground" in Anakin's eyes. Luke chooses to cast aside his weapons/defences to prove that he truly means what he said to the Emperor about never turning to the Dark Side, and that he really is a Jedi "like my father before me". If other Jedi tend to display more of a self-preservation impulse, then Luke is being held to an inferior standard, since he is going
beyond their actions in life and helping to redeem the entire Jedi legacy in that moment. It's like asking: "Why did Socrates allow himself to be arrested and ultimately killed? He could have evaded the authorities and ran away."
While we see Obi-Wan and Yoda surrendering to the Force and disappearing, this doesn't imply the only way to become a Force Ghost is to make sure your body is fully intact seconds before your death. After all, Anakin is missing several limbs, yet he still passes into the Force. Also, becoming a Force Ghost is not becoming "one" with the Force. This happens when the ghost can no longer manifest (ignoring what Rey does at the end of TROS, where it is strongly implied she taps into the
World Between Worlds). And Qui-Gon never becomes a ghost (not in the films, anyway). Instead, he is a vague, disembodied voice, that only Yoda can (initially) hear. The main "ingredient" to preserving your consciousness is detaching from the world and developing inner peace.
From 2004 onwards, Hayden Christensen shows up at the end because he actually played Anakin in the prequels. Lucas simply wanted some consistency here (the very thing the writer is supposedly complaining is lacking). The younger version of Anakin is also meant to be an image of "the good man that was destroyed" after Anakin committed to Palpatine and became Darth Vader. In effect, Anakin's sins as Darth Vader are washed away, and he reverts back to looking the way he did when he was a loving husband still striving to be good and kind. Lucas has also said the apparition of Anakin essentially represents the "gift of youth"; which ties into the "fountain of youth" motif in the PT, especially Episodes I and II. Note that Anakin slays the younglings in ROTS, which essentially means the death of youth and renewal in the galaxy. So this alteration in ROTJ is another expression of the Force balancing itself and the galaxy allowing innocence to flourish once again.
"All right, Mr. DeMille, I'm ready for my close-up." This seems like such a silly thing to point out. In fact, checking my copy of ROTJ, it isn't even true to what happens. While Vader wanders over to the railing, first clutching the one to his left and then crossing over and clutching the one to his right, with his non-saber-wielding hand, this appears to be because Luke's attack is so ferocious that Vader has become tired. Every blow from Luke seems to weaken Vader in the Force and deplete his energy. We see this same thing in the prequels when Maul viciously attacks Qui-Gon on Tatooine. Qui-Gon is noticeably tired after he barely escapes the encounter and is then recovering in a slumped/sitting pose inside the queen's ship. Vader simply can't withstand the sudden hail of blows Luke rains down upon him and is trying to rest. So his gripping the railing isn't a mistake (even if might be a tad convenient) -- he is literally too overwhelmed and worn-out to continue.
If there's a particular shot the writer is talking about, it might be the reverse shot -- a close-up of Vader's saber hand -- right before Luke slices it off. In that shot, held for a second for clarity/emphasis, Vader does appear to be just holding his hand out, blatantly allowing Luke the perfect opportunity to cleave it away. But then, in a way, Vader is really asking to be put out of his misery. And as noted above, he is obviously tired and completely beaten down by Luke's cavalcade of saber blows. Even though Vader lured Luke from hiding with his taunt of turning Leia, it seems he didn't expect Luke's attack to be so aggressive or sustained. It's like Leia is living through Luke in that moment. "This is an unexpected move for her. It's too aggressive." And Vader cannot take it. Luke is pushing him back the whole time. If his hand looks a little magnetised to the railing at the last second, I think it's a forgivable contrivance.
I had to scan my copy again to see what they were talking about. "Bunker?" I think they made a mistake here. The rebels are captured after heading into the bunker and are brought back to the surface/outside, while Threepio then emerges from behind a
large redwood tree and starts hollering to some stormtroopers in the distance, which draws everyone's attention, including Han and Leia's. This gambit works because the Ewoks than reveal themselves and enter the fray, turning the tables on the imperials, resulting in a huge (and deliriously entertaining) forest battle. So that in itself is a neat moment in the film.
Now, technically, yes, only Threepio emerges from the tree, and an imperial commander sternly shouts, "Bring those two down here!" So it could be construed as an error. But maybe the imperials knew at this point that Threepio and Artoo were a team, or that two droids had already been sighted, and if Threepio was there, Artoo couldn't be far away. It might, however, have made for a more effective moment if the imperial commander said, "Bring that tincan down here!" Showing his contempt for Threepio and his misunderstanding of the "daring duo" of Threepio and Artoo , and enhancing the whole "Tinman In The Woods" motif. But this is a relatively small issue, really.
Perhaps it still works as a sort of double ruse. That is, the imperial commander immediately thinks, "I'm not falling for that. Bring those
two down here!" Thereby incorrectly figuring that the trick being played is that Threepio isn't really on his own, yet still underestimating the deeper reality: that a whole bunch of Ewoks are about to spring on the imperials and engulf them from all sides. So the commander thinks he's smart for building an immediate "gotcha" into his order, only to be gotcha-ed back in a much wilder and wackier way.
Actually, what Threepio says, when Han suggests he use his "divine influence" to get them out of their tricky situation is: "I beg your pardon, General Solo, but that just wouldn't be proper." Han scolds him: "Proper?" Threepio insists: "It's against my programming to impersonate a deity." This is hardly the same as Threepio telling Han it can't be done. Rather, Threepio obviously has some hang-ups about posing as something he clearly thinks he isn't. The fact he detests the idea because he doesn't think it's "proper" gives the lie to the idea he's incapable of it. Threepio's explanation that it goes "against" his programming is obviously more of a feint to stop Han from getting his way and forcing him to do something he feels reluctant about. Typical Threepio. The consequences of speaking Sith are much more grave. Threepio undergoes a dangerous hack that leads to a memory wipe, and the Emperor orders Kijimi, the site of the utterance, destroyed thereafter. This writer seems to know less about "Threepio nature" than Threepio does about human nature!
Vader was ordered to go the moon earlier by Palpatine after he reported detecting his son being among the small rebel force that penetrated the shield and landed on Endor. So he could have already made several trips or been in close orbit of the moon before the scene of him touching down in his shuttle. The more salient thing is that Luke and Vader have a connection and are aware of the other's presence. And yes, Luke could slightly be sensing the future, and maybe just simplifying to Leia. The whole thrust of his conversation with her is that he believes the rebels are endangered by his presence, and that his facing Vader alone (like Obi-Wan before him) is now inevitable. Plus, Luke is always a bit dramatic, with Leia being the cooler and snarkier one.
In a way, the small "error" the writer has identified here is also more a symbolic gesture that Luke feels his own "inner Vader" (whether he's aware of it or not), and so, when he tells Leia he's endangering the mission, it's the darkness within Luke endangering it as much as any external threat. This finds an echo in ROTS when Obi-Wan tells Padme, in a moment of lucid insight, that Anakin is't so much in danger from the Sith, but "from himself". Luke must leave and confront Vader -- meaning literally Vader and his own inner darkness -- in order for the rebels to succeed. He cannot linger and run away (as Leia suggests), or the darkness simply grows and Luke's whole life becomes deformed by his power and his inability to confront his own dragon: his own chaos, his own capacity for good and evil.
That's the spiritual dimension of the story this writer and others like them are missing when they feebly complain and try to undermine these films with simplistic nitpicks. The idea is to remain sensitive to a bigger whole, and not just blindly flail around for attention, truly missing (to use an apt ROTJ metaphor) the woods for the trees. So yes, it's fun to discuss issues from time-to-time, but there's a much bigger scope to the saga and all its interlocking components than that. As arrogant as it might sound, I'm fond of this aphorism, and I think it goes double when talking about Star Wars: "Some people feel the rain. Others just get wet."
