Intro to Star Wars: 1-2-3-4-5-6 or 4-5-6-1-2-3 ?

Cafe Society
141

You keep saying, “I believe story conventions strengthen it by playing on audience expectation,” and it has been in context of the relationship of Luke and Leia. (And sorry, I’m not making distinctions of who is saying what, but I have a couple quotes from you ready.) Like because of this “weak” triangle (and if you are seriously talking familial-brotherly love then we’re arguing two different things) that since the audience expectations through story conventions think that Luke and Leia have a lover relationship (to distinguish from brother-sister relationship) then that must be the case. Audience expectations and story conventions really don’t come into it here. They don’t make something exist that doesn’t exist. There’s also a story convention that says the guy who seems to be the most at odds with the girl usually ends up winning her over.

Ok, and they wave to each other in the hall. That make you happy? You know very well what I meant. And even that kiss, as much as a kiss can be non-interactive, is pretty detached from anything other than Han. She wasn’t so much kissing Luke as “kissing anyone BUT Han.” For all practical purposes, she doesn’t even make eye contact with Luke in that whole scene.

This is the nitpicking-est forum I’ve ever seen. Even this whole discussion started with my nitpick. Let me fix the sentence.

Quoting myself, yet again.

142

Have you met Great Debates? :smiley:

143

I don’t. Luke is obviously attracted to Leia. Leia is attracted to Han. Han is jealous of Luke. Luke and Han go from antagonists to buddies. That’s your triangle right there. Whether or not Luke ever stood a chance, or if his feelings for Leia ever went beyond a slight crush, or if Leia ever returned those feelings, have no effect on whether or not a triangle existed.

Your argument that there is no romantic triangle depends entirely on having a different definition of romantic triangle than is commonly accepted.

144

Welcome to the thread. When you’ve bothered to read the rest of it then we can talk. I’m not responding to the exact same questions for the umptheenth time.

Summary: They set up a potential Love Triangle in the first movie to be explored in the subsequent films. When they made the second film, they dropped the idea, essentially canceling any Love Triangle before it started. Han and Luke are *never *antagonists. Where the hell did you ever get that idea? What we get in the second film is Luke going off to become a Jedi and then face Vader and Leia and Han having a straightforward formula romance from “Meet Cute” to dramatic love declaration. I have addressed all of this in exhaustive detail.

Romantic Triangle implies more than a casual crush expressed by a character upon first meeting another, which is then dropped and never visited again. Luke’s destiny is to become a Jedi Knight and redeem his father. Why does everyone insist that he must have some relationship with Leia? It’s not required by the story. Luke has a perfectly fulfilling story arc, as do Han and Leia. They are all friends and love each other as such. The Commonly Accepted idea of a Love\Romantic Triangle is something like Gone With The Wind, Casablanca, Popeye, etc. Having two lovers and their mutual, but casual, friend in a story is not a Love Triangle.

145

I did read the whole thread. Believe it or not, it’s possible for people to read your argument and disagree with it. Repeating it ad infinitum doesn’t change that.

That would be canceling it after it started, actually. But has been pointed out many, many times, Han’s uncertainty about Leia’s feelings persists until the end of the third film.

From the movies. Perhaps you should watch them.

Yes, exhaustive and irrelevant detail.

It is if that mutual (but certainly not casual) friend has demonstrated a romantic attraction toward one of them.

146

You do actually. And the reason the question doesn’t go away because you keep repeating yourself, while avoiding the arguments you can’t counter.

It IS revisited, in VI. But when we mention VI you claim it was never there to be continued. Admittedly in V it is almost absent (or completely absent according to you). Like someone said earlier, it is a very weak triangle.

Oh, and in Casablanca, the man who turns into a hero does not get the girl. So that’s not the best example you could have chosen (but again, it is a love triangle).

147

So, there might actually be two conventions playing part at the same time, which makes two of the male characters love interests for the only lead female. Hmm, if only there was a word to describe this phenomenon!

And of course story conventions matter, they are like the implications of language. To say “No, you can’t” is different from “No, you can’t”. Same words, but it’s the nuance that makes the meaning of the sentence.

148

No, you skimmed it, otherwise you wouldn’t have repeated the exact same unsupported assertions as everyone else that I’ve already addressed. I don’t care if you agree with me. But don’t tell me you’ve read the whole thread.

Ok, who gets the girl in Star Wars? Who even tries? No one. They get a medal. As soon as the rescue is completed they go right into the destroy the Death Star scene. They set up a potential triangle which they didn’t follow up on. That’s been my point all along. I never denied they set up a potential Love Triangle. I’ve addressed the Han and Leia thing in the third film.

I just did. In what way are they antagonists? Where do they oppose each other?

Next time I’ll just make unsupported assertions rather than actually quoting the material in question or explaining my argument. That make you happy?

What argument have I avoided or not countered? Actually, none of my arguments have been countered. You guys keep repeating the same three arguments over and over. The Kiss, Leia’s secret and final revelation and that the audience expects it to be so, so it must be. I’ve countered all three in detail.

Please define “weak triangle”.

Why not? Who the fuck cares who gets the girl? Not getting the girl doesn’t negate a Love Triangle. Not participating in a Love Triangle negates a love triangle.

What are you talking about? This conversation is getting surreal. How does a second convention make the other character a love interest? He either is or he isn’t.

I’m not saying story conventions don’t ever matter. I’m saying you can’t force it in where it doesn’t go. There’s already a story convention going on for Luke and it doesn’t necessarily mean he has to get the girl. Jedi aren’t supposed to get the girl.

What’s so hard about this? It’s a simple story. Luke becomes a Jedi and Han gets the girl. Other than Luke thinking Leia was hot in the first movie, he really isn’t a factor in the Han and Leia relationship. Before any of you respond again, watch Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi. Skip Star Wars because is seems to be coloring your expectations.

149

Well, yeah. It’s two separate things: I think it stands on its own, and I think it gets strengthened by playing to audience expectation.

Imagine, say, a movie where someone gets killed and detective work uncovers the culprit’s identity; I’d probably call that a murder mystery. Now imagine that movie first involves maybe seven or eight interesting characters spending the weekend at a country estate: there’s the too-young fiancé of the rich old woman whose prim and disapproving personal assistant is making eyes at the seemingly unscrupulous heir-in-a-hurry, plus the estranged daughter nobody had seen for the last six years and the butler who’s worried about being let go and the family attorney who thinks likewise while drawing up a new will – oh, plus the author-turned-amateur-sleuth played by Angela Lansbury.

Now, sure, all that stuff plays on my expectations; it strengthens the conclusion I would’ve reached anyway, it gets me thinking “murder mystery” even before the sine qua non starts piling up. But that shouldn’t count against the fact that I would’ve spotted the “murder mystery” regardless; it’s icing, not cake.

The latter part merely tells us how love triangles usually play out.

The former, of course, is irrelevant.

150

You keep dancing around this. Is your only justification for insisting there is a Love Triangle (and I’m talking Capital “L” Capital “T” where you have two male protagonists competing for the female protagonist- a full on Unambiguous LOVE TRIANGLE, not some, “well, brothers and sisters are love triangles, too,” bullshit.) is that the audience expects it? Even though all remnants were excised from the film (and are conspicuous by their absence-They didn’t just remove scenes that had the *effect *of portraying Luke’s interest in Leia in Empire, they cut out the actual scene where he confessed his love and tried to kiss her) ?

I am a fan of movies. I understand context, subtext and all that. Sometimes it’s blatant, sometimes it’s not. My point has never been to deny some minuscule attraction the characters might have for each other that is not expressed verbally. It’s just that people always refer to the Star Wars Love Triangle as though there is this active competition and participation between the characters. We’ve watched these films for over 30 years and it’s ingrained in us that this is so. I’m playing the part of the person who recognized that the Emperor has no clothes. A straightforward, factual look at the films shows that there is less of a triangle than we perhaps thought. Star Wars was *never *a stand alone film. Lucas negotiated sequel rights when he made the first movie (this was back when sequels weren’t big money, like they are today). He didn’t have any plot planned out, but he knew he was going to explore these characters more in the future. When making Empire, Lucas did in fact want to make a competition between Luke and Han. As they were shaping the film, they realized Luke had his own destiny and he would be diminished as a character if it was perceived that Han bested him. This would also have the effect of diminishing Han because the audience would dislike him for moving in on the girl who should be Luke’s. They trimmed out the most obvious scenes that indicated Luke’s continuing attraction for Leia. Luke’s storyline keeps him physically separated from the other characters for the rest of the movie until the end. And then, Luke is trying to rescue his friends, not Leia specifically. The Luke-Leia romance element is factually not in Empire Strikes Back. The only subtext is if you imagine Luke is training to get strong to impress Leia, like he’s read the Charles Atlas Dynamic Tension adverts in a comic book and you think he’s going to go kick sand in Han’s face. This isn’t the case. Luke doesn’t see Han or Leia in the cave. He sees Vader. And in Vader, he sees himself and his destiny to become like Vader if he fails. He’s gone beyond Leia now onto a bigger, more important destiny.

Return of the Jedi is not as well written as Empire. Outside of Luke’s confrontation with the Emperor, it’s largely plagiarized from the first movie and the original scriptment. Rescue of Han=Rescue of Princess. Third Act destruction of another Death Star, but with the added primitive society overcoming the more tech advanced one (George’s Viet Nam statement, since Copola stole Apocalypse Now from him). I’ve already gone into an explanation of the Jedi scenes in question. With the subtext removed from Empire, there’s nothing really to hang that peg on in Jedi. Leia’s bit with Han has the effect of clearing up why there wasn’t a triangle since they didn’t establish one. This is what subverts the audience’s expectations and why they don’t come into play. Leia, from the beginning showed her preference for Han. The audience expected her to go for Luke. Han briefly represents the audience when he is surprised with the revelation. Whatever doubt crossed his mind at that moment does not rise to the level if LT, or if it does, it is so weak as to be inconsequential.

I have only pointed out facts. Is the adolescent fantasy that Luke was supposed to get the girl so important that any ragged thread, no matter how small, must be accounted for to preserve the fantasy? If Lucas had wanted this to be a story element, he would have kept it in and it would be so obvious that we wouldn’t be discussing it like this.

Also, I’d like to apologize to TWDuke. I was very harsh. It just angered me that I’d spent days responding to those exact questions and comments and that initial post does come across as someone who read little of what I’d said.

151

Yes, it is important. I think it does explain why the love triangle is percieved as such.
Star Wars: Luke Gets Leia is assumed because of storytelling clichés.

Empire Strikes Back: Luke gets a kiss from Leia, looks smug, then goes on to his adventure. Leia and Han confesses love to each other. Some viewers still assume that Leia might be game for Luke when and if he comes to save the day, especially with Han frozen solid and the final scene with Leia and Luke standing against eachother.

Return of the Jedi: Brother/sister resolution. Han has a moment of confusion to clear away any final doubt in the viewers. However, the fact that this has to be done actually justifies previous thoughts of a love triangle! Earlier in the thread you called this a mistake from Lucas’ side. I can agree with that, if his intent was to dismiss the thoughts of a love triangle, because as it is, it does only the opposite.
I also agree with you that if George Lucas had fully intended there to be a full fledged love triangle between those three, the second and third movies would probaly have been a lot less subtle. It would have had more interaction between Leia and Luke and also more twists and turns and oohs and aahs.
But, it is what it is. As it stands, I think it has enough scenes in it to be interpreted either way. Even if Leia and Luke barely interact in the Empire Strikes Back, there is still kissing (to spite Han, yes, but it’s the image that matters) and standing close to eachother. There is something there. It is explained as sibling love later, but when two thirds of the trilogy has passed, there is still hope, if diminished such, in the Luke Gets Leia camp.

152

How many times did you have to say “assume” there to make anything you said fit into your position? More dancing around admitting that the idea of a Triangle is completely made up by the audience because they are horndogs that believe Luke Must Get The Girl, when that’s not the story Lucas wants to tell. You know what they say about when you “assume” anything.

I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree since we are at an impasse. I did just find something that sheds a little more light on the kiss scene. Take it for what it is, but this is the 4th dradft Shooting script for Empire Strikes Back. Compare this scene from what made it into the movie (quoted by me earlier) and it becomes clear that a pretty substantial subplot was deliberately and systematically excised. The contrast is incredible. It changes the whole complexion of the scene with and then without the missing parts.

With this stuff all in, there is no doubt that there was a Love Triangle. It just makes it clearer when you see what was cut out that they did seek to diminish the suggestion of a Love Triangle. Look at how blatant and over-the-top this exchange was. Are you going to tell me they cut all this and decided to go with a subtlety that defies description. Look how many times you had to say all this was assumed. Here it is in black and white. With this material deleted it no longer is an assumption but an outright pretending by the audience that you seem to think hates Han so much that they STILL want Luke to get Leia despite one of the greatest film romances of all time. This whole argument has been a passive-aggressive repudiation of Han Solo.

153

I also know what they say about smoke and fire. Still, I don’t see the problem, I’ve been defending assumptions all along. Just that the assumptions are based on storytelling conventions and clichés which are understandable in this context and even supported in parts as previously discussed. I think that if 9 out of 10 movie-goers experience that there’s some form of a love triangle in Star Wars, they aren’t all ignorant or obtuse, but there might actually have been something in the over-all experience that led them to feel that way, regardless of director’s intentions. And it is the end product we are discussing, not the mind of Lucas.

Didn’t you say yourself that “nuh-uh” isn’t an argument? If you think that a closing image of Leia resting against the shoulder of Luke doesn’t mean anything at all and doesn’t lend itself to any interpretations whatsoever, then fine, not more I can say about that.

154

And this is why I brought all this up in the first place. My first line about this was that it was the biggest misconception about Star Wars. My whole point has been that people believe this but when you take an *objective *look at the material, it turns out that it’s overstated to the point of being practically non-existent. I’ve then laid out the case for my argument. You can’t say “Your argument is wrong because this is what people believe, regardless of what 's actually there.” That’s not a rebuttal, that’s just taking my premise and repeating it back as a contradiction. I think what you are saying is that in the most general, vaguest way, then there kind of IS a triangle. If you are going to call a story a Love Triangle, then that implies that it is a major part of the story, not some vague undercurrent that might exist if you look at it in a certain way and imagine that the characters might be after each other, because that’s the way these stories usually go. I’m not talking about absolutes to such a metaphysical certainty. Just that the story at face value, is not really about a love triangle, but about a boy who becomes a Jedi and saves the galaxy and a rogue who wins the heart of a princess.

It doesn’t mean that scene IN ITSELF is proof of such an interpretation. In fact, if it DID actually mean that Luke is somehow macking on Leia at that point, that is the most cynical, repugnant view of that scene I’ve ever heard of. The Love of Her Fucking Life has been captured by a bounty hunter and his frozen body is being delivered to a ruthless gangster. Yeah, Luke, this is the PERFECT time to hit on Leia now that Han is finally out of the picture. I’d be ashamed to admit that this was what comes to me when I watch Empire Strikes Back. In that case, Luke doesn’t fucking DESERVE to have Leia. Wow. Just wow. I think this argument has met its end if that is the implication.

155

I wasn’t speaking in terms of “macking on”, just to say that it’s kind of a “I’ll be there for you” moment and a memorable final image of the best Star Wars movie. But whatever. We’ve been beating this horse long enough I should say.

156

Weak triangle: it has been mentioned several times before. It is a weak triange for three reasons: 1. it is unimportant as a subplot 2. it is not very convincing, or in other words it’s unoriginal and not well-written 3. it quickly becomes clear which way things are going.

That is also why it makes rather a big difference who gets the girl.

Oh who are we kidding here, you’re just trying how long you can make a discussion by not listening.

You’ve read what it said on wikipedia. It’s about three main characters who have each not completely figured out what they want from the other two. Their relationships to the other two need to be redefined and this happens by events and choices in the story (or made by the writers of the story). In this case, with two men and one woman some sort of solution was required. Consider how it would have been if at the end of the trilogy, Luke had been left empty handed? Impossible. The writer’s needed to address this issue and that is why it is a love triangle.

If not, then why don’t you give us YOUR own personal definition of a love triangle? Again, it isn’t necessarily two fighting over a third.

You know, I think it’s also a matter of Jedi being celibate and detached from material things and pleasures. Otherwise it would have been easy to enter a love interest for Luke, some minor character added in V or VI.

157

Ok, that was pretty cool!

158

Caligula, what you are doing is technically known as a fallacy. You pretend people say there is a clear, obvious, and complete love triangle where Han and Luke are both fighting over Leia. But no-one said so.

This whole ongoing argument is based on you fighting a claim that nobody is defending. That is why you refuse to give your definition of a love triangle.

What everyone in this thread except you is saying, is that you can’t possibly rule out the low profile triangle that is used as a weak romantic subplot.

You can’t see any reason why people would analyse Star Wars as a triangle, and yet you claim to fully understand the movies you watch? Very strange.

And I bet you’re going to ignore or distort everything I just said. Unless you have a proper answer, but if you do, I will be VERY surprised.

159

Whoa, that is not what you said.

OK, at this point I think we are all on the same page but in denial about it. We’re all basically saying that the Love Triangle plot is 95% gone while I’m saying 5% is essentially nothing at all while you are saying 5% is something, even if it is weak. We’re all arguing this same fallacy you mention. I never said (or meant to say, I’m sure someone will take something I said out of context) that there is ABSOLUTELY no and has never been a Triangle. What I’ve said is they set up a potential Love Triangle in the first movie (although if you look at it closely with knowledge of romantic tropes, it is heavily weighted towards two particular characters getting together) and decided to drop it in the subsequent movies to the point that it is more or less non-existent. But you guys were arguing that there was a clear, obvious, and complete love triangle and this argument has been weakened progressively as the thread has gone on to be some vague “weak triangle” backed up by nothing more than audience expectations and one brief misunderstanding by a character in the third movie. I just believe that if you want to describe something you don’t define it by what is basically less than 5% of its makeup.

I will agree that this horse is dead and rotting.

160

Hey! Don’t go reversed fallacy on me! I’m not going to read every post again, not even to use them against you, but as far as I know there was no-one who really argued that this triangle was important or essential or perfect or anything like that.

On your last post I can more or less agree, partially, but I can’t resist correcting just a few points you seem to overlook:

Luke is not left empty handed. He is left one handed, but that’s a different thread. He and Leia are sisters -> the relationships within the 3 main characters are now reestablished, possible causes for tension between them eleminated.
And they don’t “drop” it. They do not use it in V except perhaps for that kiss and then they reprise it briefly in VI. You admit the possibility is there in IV and you can’t deny the actual dialogue in VI. So you only have V to make your point. Well in V they are seperated so there wasn’t much opportunity for any form of threesome.

And yes, two penises and one vagina usually IS cause for some form of competition. You can’t shut down expectations that are part of the way stories are normally built. The story of star wars is not exceptional or experimental but it is a classic construction. So common expectations, that the makers were aware of as well, certainly apply here. Hero needs girl. Two heroes and one girl need a solution.

You claim it doesn’t make any difference who gets the girl. But at the same time the lack of L-L interaction is your main argument. Well, that is why it is in more than 1 way a WEAK triangle. We’ve been through that before.
With your arguments you might as well claim that Casablanca isn’t a love triangle because the only real romantic (inter)action is between Rick and the girl. It’s just an anomaly that he lets her go.