PDA

View Full Version : Vader tortured Han on Bespin for a reason!!!



JediTricks
06-12-2005, 08:49 PM
I've watched ESB for 25 years and every time, it never seemed odd to me that Vader was torturing Han, it never occurred to me that Vader had any reason, Vader was the bad guy and that's what bad guys do - maybe it was just sadism or he was testing the human body for carbon freezing, I dunno, it never really entered my mind at all as I was on the protagonist's side so much that when Han and Leia have that brief discussion about why this was all happening and Han says they never asked him questions, that's as far as I looked. And might I add, that's worked perfectly all this time for me, it never struck even a little chord that there might have been a reason because it's not really important, our heroes ask that of themselves and never know why AND it helps that there's no plot points actually hinging on it.

However, watching the ESB DVD commentary track today, Lucas casually explains why, now maybe he's pulling this out of thin air or using hindsight to rewrite, but as soon as he said it, that was like finding another small piece to a puzzle that already looked quite solved. So, the reason that Vader tortures Han yet never asks him any questions is...


Vader is making Han suffer as a beacon through the Force to bait Luke into the Cloud City trap. Vader creates Han's pain so that Luke will feel it and come running.


And of course, it works, but since we already saw that Luke felt their pain not once but twice and had already left Dagobah to deal with that situation, it wasn't a "cause and event" type of plotpoint since we already had seen some motivation and action from Luke prior to the torture scene. Maybe I'm a fool in this case and just missed something you all knew, I definitely wouldn't be surprised to hear that, but if you're like me you'll probably be shocked to learn this as well so I present this discussion.

Ji'dai
06-13-2005, 12:40 AM
I always thought Vader tortured Han as punishment: partially for his role in the destruction of the Death Star, but most significantly for eluding Vader's grasp time and again since then. Han's torture is Vader carrying out personal revenge against Solo for having the audacity to act contrary to his will. Since Han tells Leia, "they never asked me any questions" I figured Vader was tormenting him purely out of anger and personal hatred; Han has been a constant annoyance so Vader is taking his pound of flesh.

Vader is quick to anger and when someone contradicts his authority or fails him in any way, he perceives this as a personal threat and "makes them pay" for their actions. Ozzel and Needa were probably killed in part due to their failure during their respective missions, but their failure was also perceived by Vader as an affront to him personally.

JimJamBonds
06-13-2005, 01:20 AM
I thought that Vader wasn't torturing Han for information like Leia was in ANH rather he was doing it to get back at Han for being a rebel. I never thought of the word 'becon' but I did have that sort of idea in mind, it was all part of the trap to get Luke to Bespin.

Jim Jam

2-1B
06-13-2005, 01:41 AM
I always knew it was a trap and that was the reason for the torture.

Luke sees "a city in the clouds" and Yoda tells him it is the Future he sees.

The very same thing Yoda warned Anakin about, Luke falls into the same hole. lol
Great job of reinforcing in ROTS what we already saw in ESB. :)

Kidhuman
06-13-2005, 02:13 AM
I always thought the torture was to prep him for the carbon freezing chamber when I was young. Only maybe 10 years ago, did I relaize it was for the trap he had set for Luke.

JediTricks
06-13-2005, 02:15 AM
Well Caesar, Lucas does indeed like recycling his riffs - he says as much on the ESB commentary - but I dunno how creative or effective it was in ROTS, on the ESB commentary Lucas talks about recycling those riffs to show how other characters deal with the situations, yet Anakin ends up doing precisely the same thing as Luke did.

But the prequels are not what we're talking about here, so I have digressed enough.

2-1B
06-13-2005, 03:31 AM
No, it's not precisely the same thing.

Anakin runs off in desperation and eventually pledges himself to a Sith Lord. When Luke finds himself in that situation he chooses to fall to his "death" rather than make that embrace. :)

jjreason
06-13-2005, 03:59 AM
That's interesting, JT. I guess I never really gave much thought to why he'd torture Han either. If someone had asked, I might have guessed it would have been because of the smart-alecky comments I'm quite sure he would have made during dinner.... :D

Does GLu mention anything analagous in the AOTC commentary about Ani being "beaconed" back to his suffering Mom? That's the only similar "trap" that Anakin falls into from what I can recall - and we don't have any onscreen or in-print proof that Palpatine had anything to do with Shmi's kidnapping and demise, do we?

Slicker
06-13-2005, 06:42 AM
This is a totally different view on things. I've never watched any of the commentary on any of the DVD's but this is a great nugget of SW knowledge. As most here I had always thought that Vader was just taking out his anger on Han for not being able to find Luke and also because Han is a high ranking Rebel with connections. The force beacon is definitely a better explination.

darthvyn
06-13-2005, 08:14 AM
wow... it was pretty obvious to me :confused:

i mean, not when i was a kid, but by the time the special editions were released in theaters, i had already realized that the torture was to send "waves" throught he force...

X13VADER
06-13-2005, 09:03 AM
Not To Sound Smart Or Anything But Did You Not See The Next Scene? When Lando Goes Into The Room. And Han Says Vader Wants Han Dead And Lando Says That Vader Is After Skywalker. And Han Says Yeah And We Are The Bait. So I Took It As Thats The Way Vader Wanted To Get Lukes Attention.

stillakid
06-13-2005, 09:47 AM
I always knew it was a trap and that was the reason for the torture.

Luke sees "a city in the clouds" and Yoda tells him it is the Future he sees.



Uh, yeah. At the risk of sounding arrogant :rolleyes: , this is another head slapping moment for me. I thought it was painfully clear that Han was being tortured so that Luke would feel the pain of his friends which would then bring him to Cloud City to "rescue" them. Ergo, "they never asked me any questions." Heck, Leia even says it: "He's using us as bait!"

But hey, every opinion is a valid one when it comes to art and film so if Vader just did this for kicks and Luke just happened to drop by, who am I to argue. :ermm: It's a good thing for George and Larry that all these little coincidences worked out in the end. :)

2-1B
06-13-2005, 02:16 PM
So stillakid, you're saying that JT's opinion was not a valid one ? :)


Does GLu mention anything analagous in the AOTC commentary about Ani being "beaconed" back to his suffering Mom? That's the only similar "trap" that Anakin falls into from what I can recall - and we don't have any onscreen or in-print proof that Palpatine had anything to do with Shmi's kidnapping and demise, do we?

The "trap" I was referring to was Anakin's dreams about Padme. :)

megaprime33
06-13-2005, 02:34 PM
You know, I never really thought about it until a couple of years ago. It occurred to me, why was he being tortured and not asked any questions. Then I just figured he needed to torture one of them in order to have Luke sense his friends were in danger. How else would Luke even get to Cloud City? He didn't know they were there. Like Lando said, Vader doesn't care about them at all, he's after someone called Skywalker. It makes sense to me.

El Chuxter
06-13-2005, 02:34 PM
Okay, no one's said this incredibly obvious bad joke yet, so I have to:

Vader tortured Han because he'd been making out with his daughter.

stillakid
06-13-2005, 05:28 PM
Okay, no one's said this incredibly obvious bad joke yet, so I have to:

Vader tortured Han because he'd been making out with his daughter.

LOL! That's awesome. :)

scruffziller
06-13-2005, 07:34 PM
Uh, yeah. At the risk of sounding arrogant :rolleyes: , this is another head slapping moment for me. I thought it was painfully clear that Han was being tortured so that Luke would feel the pain of his friends which would then bring him to Cloud City to "rescue" them. Ergo, "they never asked me any questions." Heck, Leia even says it: "He's using us as bait!"


Yes, I figured this out years ago. In fact on these forums somehwere I have mentioned it.

stillakid
06-13-2005, 07:52 PM
So stillakid, you're saying that JT's opinion was not a valid one ? :)

No. My post specifically states that every opinion is a valid one. Why would you question what's stated so clearly? :ermm:

Ji'dai
06-13-2005, 08:07 PM
I dunno, I still don't care for the "force beacon" idea. Vader is assuming Luke will sense Han's pain, although both the Emperor and Vader know he has not yet become a Jedi. It's just a gamble then, Vader is hoping Luke's abilities have progressed to the point where he can sense these tremors in the Force. I always thought Luke was sensing their peril at being captured on Cloud City; the "pain" he felt a future event, maybe of Chewie & Leia being tortured or Han being killed by Jabba.

I was thinking the other day about whether Lando, Chewie, and Leia would've escaped whether or not Luke shows up to effect a rescue. Luke keeps Vader busy I suppose, and R2, arriving with Luke, is instrumental in reactivating the Falcon's hyperdrive. Luke actually endangers their escape attempt by recalling Leia back to the City. Maybe had he not been there at all the Falcon could've escaped the system at sublight speeds. Lando probably knows that part of space well enough to hide until the hyperdrive could be fixed.

darko666
06-13-2005, 08:15 PM
when they went to Bespin, the only thing that ever confused me or had me thinking was, who was the voice that spoke before shooting C-3PO. i could never figure it out when i was younger. it didn't sound like a stormtrooper or anyone else for that matter. i don't even remember what the voice sounded like.

but as for the Han being tortured, it's now easy to see he was bait to lure luke there. i never gave it much thought, but the answers were all there. i assumed it was a trick to get luke there, when luke said he felt his friends pain. then they cut to the torture scene. makes perfect sense.

sith_killer_99
06-13-2005, 08:26 PM
I'm, with stillakid here. I always thought it was to lure Luke.

Luke: I saw a city in the clouds.

Luke: They're in pain.

Luke: Will they die?

Han: He didn't even ask me any questions.

Lando: He dosen't want you at all. He's after someone called...Skywalker.

Leia: And we're the bait.

Leia: Luke, don't it's a trap.

It always seemed kinda obvious to me. Though I suppose it works on different levels. Vader was a bad guy, he hated Han, etc.

As for the "You are not a Jedi yet." Remember the whole line was "The force is strong with you, but you are not a Jedi yet. " The way he says it, is as if he was just able to verify for certain that Luke had not completed his training. That's how it seemed to me anyway.

Also, the conversation between Vader and the Emperor makes it pretty clear that Luke was growing powerful in the Force. "We have a new enemy, Luke Skywalker...he could destroy us."

Blue2th
06-13-2005, 08:32 PM
That's interesting, JT. I guess I never really gave much thought to why he'd torture Han either. If someone had asked, I might have guessed it would have been because of the smart-alecky comments I'm quite sure he would have made during dinner.... :D

Does GLu mention anything analagous in the AOTC commentary about Ani being "beaconed" back to his suffering Mom? That's the only similar "trap" that Anakin falls into from what I can recall - and we don't have any onscreen or in-print proof that Palpatine had anything to do with Shmi's kidnapping and demise, do we?
I figured early on (actually when I saw the movie) that the reason Vader tortured Han was so Luke would feel his pain and come to Bespin. But now that you mention it, what's up with the dinner? Did they actually eat something? If Vader ate how did he do that? A special straw? What was the conversation at the dinner table that night? Hmmm :confused:

Slicker
06-13-2005, 08:34 PM
I figured early on (actually when I saw the movie) that the reason Vader tortured Han was so Luke would feel his pain and come to Bespin. But now that you mention it, what's up with the dinner? Did they actually eat something? If Vader ate how did he do that? A special straw? What was the conversation at the dinner table that night? Hmmm :confused:They had to go to the dining hall to make it seem believable that they were going to have refreshements. If Lando had simply led them to the detention level I think they might have figured it out.

stillakid
06-13-2005, 08:35 PM
If Vader ate how did he do that? A special straw? What was the conversation at the dinner table that night? Hmmm :confused:

I've always wondered that too. Talk about an uncomfortable dinner. What's worse, first dinner with the girlfriend's parents or dinner with Vader?

Ji'dai
06-13-2005, 09:35 PM
Also, the conversation between Vader and the Emperor makes it pretty clear that Luke was growing powerful in the Force. "We have a new enemy, Luke Skywalker...he could destroy us."

Sure, but the Emperor also says "The son of Skywalker must not become a Jedi." So he knows Luke hasn't been fully trained; it implies that he hasn't reached his full potential or attained knighthood yet.

About the dinner, I wonder if Fett would eat? Would he take off his helmet and reveal his identity? His old man didn't have a problem removing his helmet on occasion. Though maybe he stashed a drumstick and some tater tots in one his cargo pants pockets to snack on later.

darthvyn
06-13-2005, 10:54 PM
I've always wondered that too. Talk about an uncomfortable dinner. What's worse, first dinner with the girlfriend's parents or dinner with Vader?

well, if you're han, it's both! :eek: :cry: :crazed:



About the dinner, I wonder if Fett would eat? Would he take off his helmet and reveal his identity? His old man didn't have a problem removing his helmet on occasion. Though maybe he stashed a drumstick and some tater tots in one his cargo pants pockets to snack on later.

yo, boba, gimme some tots!

no! get your own tots!

2-1B
06-14-2005, 01:11 AM
Darn you Vyncent, you beat me to that joke about Han-Vader ! :crazed:

Also, Obi-Wan tells Luke that "is is you and your abilities the Emperor wants. That is why your friends are made to suffer." :)


No. My post specifically states that every opinion is a valid one. Why would you question what's stated so clearly?

Nice try. :D

DarthAngel
06-14-2005, 01:29 AM
While I agree with what you guys have been saying, here is the one problem I have.

Luke senses Han and Leia's pain, way before Han is even tortured. So if Luke is becoming powerful in the ways of the force, and was able to sense what was about to happen to Han, was the scene of Han being tortured even needed in the movie? I mean don't get me wrong, I think it is a well acted scene, and it also just shows how evil to the core Vader can be, when he wants to be, but it was always evident that Luke was going to try and save Han and Leia, even before Han is tortured.

And now that you guys mention it, what would Fett and Vader do during dinner? Hmm...thats a tough one to answer.

stillakid
06-14-2005, 01:46 AM
Nice try. :D

"Defenders" have declared that absolutes are not possible within a screenplay, meaning that no writers ever mean anything specific at all when sitting down to write a story. Therefore by that logic, every single interpretation must be a valid one. Even the most outlandish of concepts is equally as valid as the more plausible ones. No? Isn't that what was said to me?

2-1B
06-14-2005, 01:53 AM
I never said that to you, but whatever . . . :)

DarthAngel, I think the torture scene should still be there because it confirms that Luke actually WAS seeing the future. :)

darthvyn
06-14-2005, 10:12 AM
yeah, because if he "sees" the future, but that's all that is necessary, then that future doesn't really happen, so he doesn't need to go there!

2-1B
06-14-2005, 12:12 PM
That's what I was thinking Vyncent, but the more I thought about it the more I needed Doc Emmet Brown to come and explain these things to me. :crazed:

DarthAngel
06-14-2005, 01:08 PM
I never said that to you, but whatever . . . :)

DarthAngel, I think the torture scene should still be there because it confirms that Luke actually WAS seeing the future. :)

Forgive me for being so lame with my response, but Caesar...I see your point sir.

JediTricks
06-14-2005, 05:45 PM
No, it's not precisely the same thing.

Anakin runs off in desperation and eventually pledges himself to a Sith Lord. When Luke finds himself in that situation he chooses to fall to his "death" rather than make that embrace. :)You're not talking about the same situations there, all I said was that when Luke and Anakin are both confronted with a Force vision showing their loved ones in pain and dying, they each run off and do something incredibly rash rather than think it through or accept that they may die. The consequences are something else altogether and unrelated to what we're talking about there.



Does GLu mention anything analagous in the AOTC commentary about Ani being "beaconed" back to his suffering Mom? That's the only similar "trap" that Anakin falls into from what I can recall - and we don't have any onscreen or in-print proof that Palpatine had anything to do with Shmi's kidnapping and demise, do we? We have no proof that Palpatine had anything to do with it that I know of. As for the commentary track, he doesn't say anything about Shmi's torture being used as a beacon in this way, but I do remember him saying that it had similar results.



this is a great nugget of SW knowledge. As most here I had always thought that Vader was just taking out his anger on Han for not being able to find Luke and also because Han is a high ranking Rebel with connections. Yeah, that's how I felt, which is why I had to come here and share.



Not To Sound Smart Or Anything But Did You Not See The Next Scene? When Lando Goes Into The Room. And Han Says Vader Wants Han Dead And Lando Says That Vader Is After Skywalker. And Han Says Yeah And We Are The Bait. So I Took It As Thats The Way Vader Wanted To Get Lukes Attention. I saw the scene obviously, but I took it more as referring to the overall reason why Vader and the troops were there and had captured them, not why Han was being tortured. Also, it's not Han who says "Vader wants us all dead" OR "and we're the bait", it's Leia, which disconnected those comments from Han's torture in my mind.



Then I just figured he needed to torture one of them in order to have Luke sense his friends were in danger. How else would Luke even get to Cloud City? He didn't know they were there. The reason it didn't resonate that way with me (and probably a lot of others) is that Luke had already seen Cloud City and his friends suffering there before Han had been tortured in the movie, and in fact Luke was already in his X-wing heading to Bespin at that point and had almost arrived. It takes place well out of linear events this way so it's not as obvious IMO.



Vader tortured Han because he'd been making out with his daughter. Makes sense to me! :D



i assumed it was a trick to get luke there, when luke said he felt his friends pain. then they cut to the torture scene. makes perfect sense. Just to clarify, that's not how it plays out, we see Luke feeling his friends pain twice on Dagobah, and the second time it's so bad he leaves for Bespin, the scene after he leaves for Bespin is where Han and Leia are in their guest quarters talking about something being odd, nobody's seen 3PO, Lando isn't trustworthy, and then we cut to Chewie in the junk room finding 3PO. This is what I meant by out of linear events, we know they're in trouble but by the time Luke leaves Dagobah we still haven't seen Vader or Imperial troops on Cloud City.



So if Luke is becoming powerful in the ways of the force, and was able to sense what was about to happen to Han, was the scene of Han being tortured even needed in the movie? That's a good question, in my opening post I hinted at it not really being required to suggest this - Han and Leia and Chewie are indeed in trouble later on, torture or not, Han is grimmacing in pain in the carbon block - so I still stand by what you're saying, it was totally unnecessary to sell that premonition (though cinematically it's awesome because it's the bad guy being totally evil for evil's sake :D).


DarthAngel, I think the torture scene should still be there because it confirms that Luke actually WAS seeing the future. Disagree, Leia and Chewie are suffering and without Luke they might be in Vader's shuttle at the end of the scene, Han is flash-frozen in agony, to me those have ALWAYS sold the premonition, the Han torture scene was more gravy there to me until this recent revelation.

stillakid
06-14-2005, 11:41 PM
The reason it didn't resonate that way with me (and probably a lot of others) is that Luke had already seen Cloud City and his friends suffering there before Han had been tortured in the movie, and in fact Luke was already in his X-wing heading to Bespin at that point and had almost arrived. It takes place well out of linear events this way so it's not as obvious IMO.

I fully appreciate the logic of what you're saying, but the element that you're leaving out in this query is that this is a movie. And as such, it is necessary to make choices as to what to show onscreen and what to not show. Those kinds of decisions generally are driven by answering the question of what is the most dramatic point of view for the audience to see at this point in the linear story. There's a "filmic language" that is used both in production and in the editing process.

So in our situation that you are asking about, Luke's training and his friend's visit on Cloud City are happening simultaneously. Sometimes we watch what Luke is doing, sometimes we watch what the gang is up to. We don't see the scene when Leia gets her new clothes and changes after a shower. Nor do we watch Luke ever take a dump in the woods.

Point being, the most dramatic moment to reveal the "torture" taking place on Cloud City was after Luke's "premonitions" compelled him to take action. Had we first seen Leia getting tortured for instance (which, by the way, we never see, but assume it happened), then gone back to Luke who doesn't decide to leave yet, then back to Han, then back to Chewy, the dramatic appeal of the "reveal" of what this danger is would be lessened...purely because this is a movie designed to draw emotions out of the audience. A "documentary" about this galaxy far far away might illustrate the events in a more formal "linear" context, but at the risk of lessening the dramatic flair. But this isn't such a genre and as such, the moment that Vader appears as well as when we actually see one of the gang getting tortured is carefully chosen so as to maximize the impact.

So it should have been obvious to everyone that Vader was torturing the gang for the sole purpose luring Luke there to save them...except that it's a trap. And Luke knows it going in. All the dialogue supports that idea as well as the editing choices. Truly, I never would have guessed in a million years that this intention by Kasdan, of all of them, would ever have been questioned by anyone. It seemed crystal clear to me anyway. :ermm:

VaderhitsJarjar
06-15-2005, 12:12 AM
Come-to think-of it...
I don't think we saw any of the good guys take a dump in cloud City -
This was the real pain Luke felt through the force -

Basically Vader had no real reason to torture Han - except for some offscreen stealing all the TP.

Masterfully written by GL

2-1B
06-15-2005, 02:18 AM
You're not talking about the same situations there, all I said was that when Luke and Anakin are both confronted with a Force vision showing their loved ones in pain and dying, they each run off and do something incredibly rash rather than think it through or accept that they may die. The consequences are something else altogether and unrelated to what we're talking about there.

Ahhhh, I see. Sorry 'bout that. In that case, I agree with the post I just quoted above. :)


We don't see the scene when Leia gets her new clothes and changes after a shower.

Hey we can always hope for the inclusion of those OT deleted scenes. :)


Nor do we watch Luke ever take a dump in the woods.

Ummm, on second thought I'll pass on the OT deleted scenes. lol

El Chuxter
06-15-2005, 11:35 AM
Come-to think-of it...
I don't think we saw any of the good guys take a dump in cloud City -
This was the real pain Luke felt through the force -

So you're saying they were trying to collect all 31 Burger King toys? :)

Kidhuman
06-15-2005, 11:49 AM
Come-to think-of it...
I don't think we saw any of the good guys take a dump in cloud City -
This was the real pain Luke felt through the force -



Deleted scene they were running to the bathroom afte the dinner Vader prepared.

VaderhitsJarjar
06-15-2005, 02:31 PM
Good thing I only bought Coffee and four toys at a time -
No way I'd buy all that food - besides I just watched "Supersize me.":dead:

JediTricks
06-15-2005, 08:44 PM
I fully appreciate the logic of what you're saying, but the element that you're leaving out in this query is that this is a movie. And as such, it is necessary to make choices as to what to show onscreen and what to not show. Those kinds of decisions generally are driven by answering the question of what is the most dramatic point of view for the audience to see at this point in the linear story. There's a "filmic language" that is used both in production and in the editing process.Yes, I get it, you're talking down to me because I didn't go to film school, thank you, I'm dumb, gotcha.

- Movie shows Luke seeing a possible future where his friends are in pain.
- Movie at some point has to either show them suffering or discard the vision as false.


So in our situation that you are asking about, Luke's training and his friend's visit on Cloud City are happening simultaneously. Sometimes we watch what Luke is doing, sometimes we watch what the gang is up to. We don't see the scene when Leia gets her new clothes and changes after a shower. Nor do we watch Luke ever take a dump in the woods. I'm not *asking* about anything. But riddle me this, in "filmic language" if we are told SOMETHING may happen and then see the set-up for it happening, is it a foregone conclusion that everything which happens AFTER the set-up must be directly in the service of the aforementioned something? No, things in service of that something can be implied while other things shown may be only tertiarily related, if any relation at all, they MAY be in service or they MAY not, especially when the movie both before and after implies and even outright shows that something.


the moment that Vader appears as well as when we actually see one of the gang getting tortured is carefully chosen so as to maximize the impact. So if Vader tortured Lando instead, Luke should have felt that because Lando would later become his friend? No, Lando could have been tortured to test the carbon freezing process's viability or requirements before just chucking him in there, or just sending a message to Lando about crossing him, and this would have been only secondarily attached to why Vader is doing these things to Leia & co. And soon after, we get a scene of Leia & co suffering and even in pain, both emotional and physical.

stillakid
06-16-2005, 01:09 AM
Yes, I get it, you're talking down to me because I didn't go to film school, thank you, I'm dumb, gotcha.
That's pretty out of hand and you know it. I wasn't "talking down to you." I'm sorry you feel that way. However, you seemed to be missing the point of the sequence because of an assumption that you yourself pointed out. That being the sequential illustration of events not seeming to match up precisely with a true linear timeline. I assumed you were serious in your confusion over that point so I made the mistake of offering my own education on the matter to help clear any confusion up. I apologize profusely for attempting to help someone else understand something. I'll take any future questions as being merely rhetorical from this point forward and just nod in absent agreement. :speech:




I'm not *asking* about anything. But riddle me this, in "filmic language" if we are told SOMETHING may happen and then see the set-up for it happening, is it a foregone conclusion that everything which happens AFTER the set-up must be directly in the service of the aforementioned something? No, things in service of that something can be implied while other things shown may be only tertiarily related, if any relation at all, they MAY be in service or they MAY not, especially when the movie both before and after implies and even outright shows that something.

So if Vader tortured Lando instead, Luke should have felt that because Lando would later become his friend? No, Lando could have been tortured to test the carbon freezing process's viability or requirements before just chucking him in there, or just sending a message to Lando about crossing him, and this would have been only secondarily attached to why Vader is doing these things to Leia & co. And soon after, we get a scene of Leia & co suffering and even in pain, both emotional and physical.
Honestly, I got lost in the example. I sincerely wish to understand your "riddle," so I humbly ask for a clarification. Thank you. :)

JediTricks
06-17-2005, 02:43 AM
However, you seemed to be missing the point of the sequence because of an assumption that you yourself pointed out. That being the sequential illustration of events not seeming to match up precisely with a true linear timeline. I assumed you were serious in your confusion over that point so I made the mistake of offering my own education on the matter to help clear any confusion up. I apologize profusely for attempting to help someone else understand something. I'll take any future questions as being merely rhetorical from this point forward and just nod in absent agreement. :speech: Once again Stilla, in my previous posts I never asked any questions in this thread, the only question marks you'll find in those posts are either in quotes of someone else's comments or the one in my sig-line. Where did I ask for help with what you believe is my "confusion"? Never, and I don't recall ever stating it *was* due to confusion.


Honestly, I got lost in the example. I sincerely wish to understand your "riddle," so I humbly ask for a clarification. Thank you. :)In a movie, we are told Z will happen in the future. Then later we see X, a plot point that serves to herald the oncoming of Z. But not everything that comes after X must serve to further Z, in the movie it is not an absolute that if we see Y that it has to be in service of Z. Just because Vader is looking for Han & co does not mean that the Bespin Cloud Cars shooting at the Millennium Falcon must be a part of Vader's hunt.

stillakid
06-17-2005, 08:45 AM
Once again Stilla, in my previous posts I never asked any questions in this thread, the only question marks you'll find in those posts are either in quotes of someone else's comments or the one in my sig-line. Where did I ask for help with what you believe is my "confusion"? Never, and I don't recall ever stating it *was* due to confusion.
Yes, I see. :)


In a movie, we are told Z will happen in the future. Then later we see X, a plot point that serves to herald the oncoming of Z. But not everything that comes after X must serve to further Z, in the movie it is not an absolute that if we see Y that it has to be in service of Z. Just because Vader is looking for Han & co does not mean that the Bespin Cloud Cars shooting at the Millennium Falcon must be a part of Vader's hunt.
Right, I agree. If the Cloud Car incident is what you were specifically referring to before, I apologize for not understanding. It is my belief that the Cloud Cars were ordered to give Han a hard time so as to not make his arrival seem to easy. In other words, getting shot at by an "old buddy" increases the plausiblity for Han that this whole coming situation is being influenced by Lando and Lando alone. Vader needed that ship on the ground and sending TIEs after it would have compromised that plan.

But Luke does apparently "see the future," however the only one that we see "sufferering" so soon is C3PO. Even though we don't ever see any torture prior to Han being electrocuted, we are meant to believe that it was happening before that anyway. We never find out how they raped tortured Leia. In any case, all of the "suffering" we see and that is implied is Vader's direct plan to get Luke's attention and lure him into the trap. But as you state, not EVERYTHING that occurs is necessarily a part of it.

Kidhuman
06-17-2005, 11:41 AM
The torture for Leia was watching the man she loved get frozen and taken away, not knowing how she could save him at this point because she was a prisoner. She had no clue Luke was coming for her and Han(although he got their late in his case). She had no clue that Lando was playing both sides against each other either.(which is another thread in its own) That to me would be her torture

stillakid
06-17-2005, 12:43 PM
The torture for Leia was watching the man she loved get frozen and taken away, not knowing how she could save him at this point because she was a prisoner. She had no clue Luke was coming for her and Han(although he got their late in his case). She had no clue that Lando was playing both sides against each other either.(which is another thread in its own) That to me would be her torture
Nah, I think there's more to it than something so subtle. Vader needs to make this "phone call" across the galaxy and he's going to be sure it makes it there. And Leia does say, "Why are they doing this to us?" indicating that she too has been "tortured" in some way. Where was she afterall while Han was getting zapped and Chewy was holding his ears?

Kidhuman
06-17-2005, 05:20 PM
It is possible, guess we will have to wait for the next release of the movie to find out... :beard:

JediTricks
06-17-2005, 09:25 PM
If the Cloud Car incident is what you were specifically referring to before, I apologize for not understanding.Nope, it was just a tool to get my point across that I implimented when you didn't understand me the first time around. The Cloud Cars shooting at the Falcon weren't automatic requirements of Vader's search even though they came after its heralding.


Even though we don't ever see any torture prior to Han being electrocuted, we are meant to believe that it was happening before that anyway.I don't believe the movie is suggesting that, not that it's impossible, but I think we're supposed to take that Han's torture is unique, nobody seems mussed up the way Han does afterwards, I just don't think there's enough evidence to suggest this is the story's intention.



The torture for Leia was watching the man she loved get frozen and taken away, not knowing how she could save him at this point because she was a prisoner. Same goes for Chewie, double in some ways since Han and Chewie are basically family.


Nah, I think there's more to it than something so subtle. Vader needs to make this "phone call" across the galaxy and he's going to be sure it makes it there. I think you have the "subtle" lines crossed, we SEE the anguish in Leia's eyes and Chewie's reactions to the goings on during their scenes after the Vader Lunch scene, it's this Force-beacon "phone call" that is only alluded to which is the subtle part.


And Leia does say, "Why are they doing this to us?" indicating that she too has been "tortured" in some way. Where was she afterall while Han was getting zapped and Chewy was holding his ears? Maybe it's indicating that, or maybe it's just indicating that she's asking why Vader has captured them as a group and is holding them in this cell instead of taking them to a Star Destroyer or killing them right there or interrogating them. The story doesn't lead us to believe she's been tortured in a manner similar to Han. As for where she was, maybe Vader had her in an isolated cell watching what he was doing to her Rebel friend, that'd be torture without ever doing a single thing to her. We don't know and there's nothing in the movie which tells us, but also nothing that suggests she was being physically tortured either.