MovieChat Forums > Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi (1983) Discussion > Why Was Master Yoda So Knackered In This...

Why Was Master Yoda So Knackered In This? Stroke? Plot Hole?


It doesn't really make much sense that Yoda was so completely knackered in this.

We see him in Revenge Of The Sith bouncing off walls, tossing about senate seating booths like they were nothing, etc yet here he is like a senile old man and then he just carks it...

Yet he's been training Jedi for over eight hundred years, so the twenty years or so between ROTS and ROTJ should really be almost nothing in terms of Yoda's lifespan.

So what gives? How come he was so knackered? Did he have a major stroke at some point not long after landing in Degobah or do we have to accept the possibility that we may be looking at a major plot hole here?

reply

The pollution on Coruscant may have kept him young. Breathing in all the Spice was probably good for his biology. Once he got to Dagobah, high moisture content in the air, maybe a lot of bacteria or virii, no medical facilities, just not good for general physical wellbeing. On an unrelated note, I don't know.

reply

This movie is $h!t flung together in a haphazard way because George didn't want to (at that time) make any more Star Wars movies. So, he ended all of the plot lines from the previous movie anyway that he could. So, not only did we (the viewing audience) get incest as a main part of the storyline, but also Yoda being old and decrepit out of (seemingly) nowhere...

$h!t writing, $h!t directing, $h!t film!

reply

"We see him in Revenge Of The Sith bouncing off walls, tossing about senate seating booths like they were nothing, etc yet here he is like a senile old man and then he just carks it..."

Yoda bouncing around like Sonic the Hedgehog was a dumb creative choice. Yoda should have fought in a slower, more controlled, dignified way, sorry prequel kiddies.

reply

I've come to think he shouldn't have been fighting at all. He should have always been above and beyond the concept of war, and he should have been fighting with other methods. If he had to engage in direct combat, it should have been with the Force alone. Ditch the baby lightsabre.

reply

Agreed.

reply

I love his baby light saber. Its still my favorite Christmas gift ever

reply

Even when he was bouncing off walls, we saw that it took a toll on his body. He always looked exhausted afterwards. I agree that they could've done it better in ROTJ, but he was showing his age in the prequels and the OT, so his poor health and death aren't completely out of left-field, at least not with the added context of the prequels.

reply

It's not a plot hole. That term is overused, and this isn't a place for it.

As for the why, we see him hobble around - albeit with a spritely attitude - in The Empire Strikes Back, so we know he's not in peak physical condition. But if Yoda's species lives between 900 and 1,000 years, or between 900 and 950 or whatever, he's on borrowed time. It'd be like asking, "How come a human was fine at 72 and then sick and dying at 73?" A lot can happen in one year - which I think is about the time between Empire and Return of the Jedi (I'm not sure about that). But the bottom line is that, yeah, Yoda might have just run out of time or been sick or something.

Personally, I think it was Luke's ascension. Yoda was running on fumes, holding out on Dagobah with meditation and hope that one day he would live to see the Empire fall. Once he trained Luke and knew of his moral victory at Cloud City (Luke would rather die than turn to the Dark Side) he knew that he had accomplished all he could. He stopped holding on and finally let go.

reply

That's okay talking between Empire and ROTJ, when we already see him knackered in Empire. But I was talking about his sprightliness in ROTS in stark contrast to his death about twenty years later.

Sure, he's closer to that in Empire but you're not going to have a human bouncing off walls, etc at age 72 then suddenly dead a year later.

I agree that the term plot hole does seem to get overused but I think it does really apply here. There's a clear gap or hole if you will, between the physical prowess of Yoda of the prequels and the chap dying so soon afterwards. It's unexplained within the context of the story.

reply

I feel like 20 years is a long time, even in a long-lived species. I'm thinking about trees here, but rot can set in and decay/death of a tree can go from healthy to tumbling much faster than two decades. So, I think we can see that something that lives for centuries can absolutely deteriorate within a few years.

Yoda going from flip-kicking to dead in 20 years is far from impossible, especially if we consider the psychological weight put on him. I've heard stories of people being hale and healthy for decades, then retiring, and kicking it far earlier than expected, medically-speaking, or spouses dying within months or weeks of one another. If a person (even an alien person) gets ground down (as living in exile while the galaxy goes to pot could do) for a couple decades, we could expect their physical health to deteriorate.

But there's more! When I first watched Empire, I assumed Yoda was from Dagobah, but is he native the planet? If not, it seems unlikely that living in that noxious swamp for all that time could be awesome for his health. It's certainly plausible that his condition was worsened by living in a hostile environment.

As to a plot hole, it's a failing within a narrative's established "rules", but since we don't have biological information about Yoda's species, nor what he's been breathing in, etc., etc., I don't think there's a contradiction here. Nothing states this is unlikely. As I said, long-lived organisms can die off in twenty years for sure, especially if we assume that Yoda's species' lifespan is not greater than 900 years (ish), we can also imagine that a deterioration could set in to take him from healthy to unhealthy fairly quickly.

It's less of a plot hole for me because we don't see him as particularly spry in Empire. He's cheeky and mischievous (at least, as a ruse) but he doesn't keep that up forever and he doesn't seem physically impressive. He does hobble around on his cane moreso than in the Prequels. So, for establishing his age, I think it works. For me, that eliminates any potential plot hole.

Finally, and this is a minor point, if there is a plot hole, it isn't with Empire, which came out more than a decade prior to Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith. If there is a plot hole, it lies with Episodes II and III, not V.

reply

Same with Obi-Wan. They both look to have aged 50 years in the interim. I assume Luke to be approaching his 18th birthday when Star Wars begins, though he may be a bit older, but to see youthful-looking Ewan McGregor become the shriveled-with-age Alec Guinness, and Yoda go from spry to feeble suggests something bad happened to them both. Maybe as The Force grew weaker, so to did they.

reply

That was one of the weak points of Return of the Jedi. Yoda had to return from The Empire Strikes Back, but they gave him nothing to do except for dying. But I'm glad they didn't bring him along to fight Vader and Palpatine. I have always liked that Vader and The Emperor didn't have a clue that Yoda was still around and thought Kenobi teached Luke. If Return of the Jedi was made during prequel period, I'm certain Lucas would have chosen differently, but at the time working with puppets maybe would have been too complicated and difficult.

Return of the Jedi was a dissapointment to me already in 1983. The only strong points are the Luke-Vader-Emperor confrontation and the space battle stuff. They created miracles with the tech they had at the time.

reply

Just finished rewatching the OT and I still love ROTJ.

The confrontation scene you mentioned, with the dark musical score is one of the overall highlights. Plus when C3PO is recounting the story thus far to the Ewoks, with sound effects. Untouchable magic. I remember thrill of first seeing the speeder bike chase at the time and it still stands up today. Ironically, given what was to follow, a highlight of pre CGI effects...

Although, I stop it every single time as soon as that Ewoks sounds his horn and watch the unaltered original ending with proper Anakin Skywalker. Some special edition changes are just annoying but the revised ending breaks it for me.

Maybe if prequel Yoda had still been around he could have taught Luke light saber fighting techniques. Watching the fight at the end did have me thinking, what's the canon explanation of how he is a capable swordsman?

Also, I guess he could have had a scene explaining to Obi-Wan that there had been another Skywalker he'd hidden off elsewhere, since Obi-Wan doesn't know about Leia in Empire...

reply

You realize revenge of the sith was made 20 years after Jedi right; and is basically a giant retcon? You can’t call something a plot hole based on a prequel that came out decades after that contradicts what happened before.

reply

Yep. A bit like when people say "Why is Leia kissing her brother on the lips in Empire?".

No that shouldn't be the question. The question should be "Why did George Lucas retcon Luke and Leia's relationship in Jedi?". The plot hole is in this film, not Empire.

reply

This movie is $h!t flung together in a haphazard way because George didn't want to (at that time) make any more Star Wars movies. So, he ended all of the plot lines from the previous movie anyway that he could. So, not only did we (the viewing audience) get incest as a main part of the storyline, but also Yoda being old and decrepit out of (seemingly) nowhere...

$h!t writing, $h!t directing, $h!t film!

reply

Revenge Of The Sith is in no way a retcon of ROTJ.

It is Episode 3 and ROTJ is considered episode 6. So within the film continuity itself, 3 creates the plot hole which shows up in 6. Although I do appreciate your real life understanding of why that happened...

reply

Revenge of the shit is absolutely a retcon. Apparently Chewie knew Yoda the whole time? Why don’t chewie say in episode IV “Hey I know Yoda”

So within the film continuity itself, 3 creates the plot hole which shows up in 6.

Isn’t that what I just said? The plot hole is in 3. Not 6.

The answer to your question is that the prequels were terribly written and make no sense. Remove them from the equation and there is no “plot hole”, or inconsistency.

reply

I agree with what you are saying on one level but like I said, within the film series continuity, the plot hole manifests in 6. Not 3.

reply

The prequels are shit but the bad writing started in Jedi. If Leia's Luke's brother, why didn't Vader say to Leia in Star Wars, "You're my daughter, join me?".

reply