OT: Plot Issues with Star Wars

[artist4perry]

It's the size of a small moon, can travel inter-stellar distances presumably at hyperspeed, but comes out the other end on the wrong side of a planet and has to wait a couple of hours... damnit! Stop trying to inject logic into movies!!!


Although I did always wonder why everyone in the known universe seemed to understand Wookie and R2 beeps.

They took it in school instead of Spanish.

[JasonD]

I think it's natural to want to interject logic into far-fetched movie plots b/c the more logical you can make the plot appear to be in your mind, the more you enjoy the movie. You're sitting there thinking, "Yeah, that could happen." It's a big downer to realize deep into watching a movie there's a big major flaw woven into the script b/c it throws you out of the fantasy that brought you there in the first place. You're kind of "bummed" for the remainder of the movie.

You find that same disappointment in television shows as well. Gilligan's Island is a good example. It's been debated time & time again, "How can the professor make 'this' or 'that' out of a coconut, but he can't fix a hole in the boat?" "Where did Ginger & Mary Ann get the rest of the ingredients for those coconut cream pies?" & "Just how many packs of batteries did they take on that 3-hr tour?----the radio just kept going & going & going..."

[verslibre]

Also, the theory of waiting for the Death Star to recharge is a bad one on two levels. In Return of the Jedi, the Death Star sends out shot after shot, blowing up ships....and even if it had to recharge to kill a planet....where's the moon going to go? If the moon didn't get destroyed by the explosion of Yavin, the Death Star could easily recharge and blast it to bits a few minutes later.

That's what I was thinking while eating bbq in the dining room last night, when suddenly the channel on the small TV had been switched to Spike, and they have to air all the Star Wars flicks at least six times a month. Between the "first" trilogy and the "second" trilogy, the entire storyline is brimming with anachronisms and inconsistencies. And you should not have to read the novelizations for additional information that should be pertinent in the shooting script itself. You have the Death Star zappin' ships away. Lower powered shots? We're supposed to know that how? Luca$ pretty much regurgitated the power-up sequence from Ep. IV (which I still call "I" sometimes). In the "second" trilogy, Jedis are deflecting laser fire with ballet moves and can sense shit that's wrong a mile away. In Return Of The Jedi, Luke senses Jabba's trap door too late. Later in the movie, he senses the Ewoks' trap too late, and they're all caught up in the net! Lame. And it only takes R2's little saw (which looks suspiciously like a compact disc) to sever one itty-bitty segment and suddenly they're freed! Of course, the biggest snafu is in Revenge Of The Shit (haha, Sith is an anagram of "shit"...intentional?) when ALL of the Jedi are offed by the execution of "Order 666" (LOL, I forgot what it was called). And not-a-one of them sensed it coming. Maybe Yoda and Mace would've caught it, but Mace got offed like a chump and Yoda was renewing his license to borrow Fozzy Bear's voice!

I'm tellin' ya, man...just forget logic with these flicks. At least Battlestar Galactica tried to be logical, even if it didn't always succeed.

It would've been a better move, probably, for Luca$ to adapt Alan Dean Foster's original novel Splinter Of The Mind's Eye. At least that way things wouldn't have gotten so stupid.

[bluejeangirl76]

Maybe blowing up the gas giant would result in the death star blowing up with it. A mini nova that would destroy half the solar sytem.
Or maybe the gun takes so long to charge between shots, the empire doesn't want to wait that long.

Yes, these are the theories I've heard.

All you need is one of those spiffy DeLoreans like the one Marty McFly had in all those Back To The Future movies. At least they were logical.

Ah but the massive plothole in BTTF2 is that after Old!Biff steals the DeLorean and changes the past, he somehow comes back to the future timeline he left from! Logically he should transport to the new parallel future and the DeLorean should be gone forever for Marty and Doc in 2015.

Oh my lord. I fought with someone for about 3 years over Back to the Future 2. Ok... Biff stole the DeLorean, yes, but Marty went back and fixed what Biff screwed up in the past, so Biff arrived in the same future that would have been created had he never stolen the DeLorean, because Marty and Doc undid his damage.

[strangegrey]

One argument that can be made with the Biff-stealing the time machine thingie...

...is that when Old biff went to 1955 to give Young biff the almanac, the time line hadn't changed until a few years later, when biff made his first horse race bet....so Old biff had time to come back to the still intact timeline...

once biff made that first bet, the timeline skewed...


But again, that's over thinking it...


I still feel strongly that the Death Star plothole is such a huge one that it fucks up the movie for me....

I know some feel I should be under thinking this....but the ability to suspend belief, from a story-telling role, has to provide for a believable universe within the movie....


Sure, I can suspend belief and accept that there's a 'force' and that we can space travel and blah blah blah....but if Lucas wants me to believe that a huge space station the size of a moon can blow up a planet, then it can't conveniently not be able to blow up a planet, when it serves Lucas's needs in the movie...it's bad writing/story telling.

[Don]

If you watched Star Wars after watching 2001, you would really be in a quandry as far as suspending disbelief.

[TRAGChick]

OK....

I skimmed over the 2 pages here; if this was already talked about....sorry.

Here's my Theory:

Yes, the Death Star could destroy planets; we saw it happen after Princess Leia told Admiral WhatsHisFace where the Rebel Base was....

....and, it was bye-bye Planet, regardless.

BUT:

Since it COULD destroy Planets....a Question:

If they destroyed the Planet, at which the Rebel Base was on the Far Moon....
Wouldn't it ALSO DESTROY THAT MOON - at least partially, by all the debris?

And if it DID....it would most likely destroy Luke.
But, Darth Vader wanted him to "Join ME ~ and together we'll rule the Universe as Father & Son!"

SO.....no Rebel Moon; no "Father & Son" Domination.

Just my .02.....Cheers! \~/

[Eric]

Ah but the massive plothole in BTTF2 is that after Old!Biff steals the DeLorean and changes the past, he somehow comes back to the future timeline he left from! Logically he should transport to the new parallel future and the DeLorean should be gone forever for Marty and Doc in 2015.

GODAMMIT...you just ruined my enjoyment of this movie!

[jrnyman28]

The topic of plot holes in movies, especially Sci-Fi movies is a toss-up for me. For example, there was a blog linked to Yahoo concerning 10 plot holes in Transformers 2 that ruined the film for the writer. Two of them were issues that bothered me as well. Many of the others were nit-picky continuity type issues. What I found interesting were the 4,000 + comments to the blog. Half of the posts DID explain up to 80% of the issues but the other half were calling the writer a dumbass or a douchebag who has no life and that 'this is just a movie'. Now I agree that Transformers was never meant to be "serious film work". And the writer admitted his ability to suspend belief most of the time, even citing other examples. But I agree that while some movies are pure "popcorn" they should still come with a coherent story. How much can you get away with? I think it is different for everyone. I, for one, can overlook a LOT during movies. I AM one of those people who simply wants to be entertained. If I am than I am okay withcertain plot holes. But, like Strangegrey, if something pushes it too far or is just too stupid it CAN ruin the movie for me. As for continuity, I enjoy looking for those errors after seeing the movie a few times.



Transformers SPOILER:



































One of my issues with Transformers 2 was the Decepticon in human female form. Within the movie world we have never been introduced to such a being, nor even heard tell of them. Apparantly in the comic books or cartoon series there were in fact "Pretenders" that were robots who take human form. But we should have been told within the movies. Movies are made for the masses, not just the hardcore fans.

[jrnyman28]

BUT:

Since it COULD destroy Planets....a Question:

If they destroyed the Planet, at which the Rebel Base was on the Far Moon....
Wouldn't it ALSO DESTROY THAT MOON - at least partially, by all the debris?

Even if the debris did not destroy the moon, wouldn't the change in orbit cause atmospheric issues or gravitational issues that would also lead to destruction.

It did in Star Trek II The Wrath Of Khan.

[Don]

The topic of plot holes in movies, especially Sci-Fi movies is a toss-up for me. For example, there was a blog linked to Yahoo concerning 10 plot holes in Transformers 2 that ruined the film for the writer. Two of them were issues that bothered me as well. Many of the others were nit-picky continuity type issues. What I found interesting were the 4,000 + comments to the blog. Half of the posts DID explain up to 80% of the issues but the other half were calling the writer a dumbass or a douchebag who has no life and that 'this is just a movie'. Now I agree that Transformers was never meant to be "serious film work". And the writer admitted his ability to suspend belief most of the time, even citing other examples. But I agree that while some movies are pure "popcorn" they should still come with a coherent story. How much can you get away with? I think it is different for everyone. I, for one, can overlook a LOT during movies. I AM one of those people who simply wants to be entertained. If I am than I am okay withcertain plot holes. But, like Strangegrey, if something pushes it too far or is just too stupid it CAN ruin the movie for me. As for continuity, I enjoy looking for those errors after seeing the movie a few times.



Transformers SPOILER:



































One of my issues with Transformers 2 was the Decepticon in human female form. Within the movie world we have never been introduced to such a being, nor even heard tell of them. Apparantly in the comic books or cartoon series there were in fact "Pretenders" that were robots who take human form. But we should have been told within the movies. Movies are made for the masses, not just the hardcore fans.

Sounds like Cylons to me.

[jrnyman28]

Not the original Cylons.

[Don]

Not the original Cylons.

No, the new ones.

[Eric]

Ah but the massive plothole in BTTF2 is that after Old!Biff steals the DeLorean and changes the past, he somehow comes back to the future timeline he left from! Logically he should transport to the new parallel future and the DeLorean should be gone forever for Marty and Doc in 2015.

GODAMMIT...you just ruined my enjoyment of this movie!

Okay:

But, he left from 1955, before any of the changes happened. And maybe
that was the parallel future because Biff dies/disappears as soon as he
comes back to 2015. Marty and Doc don't change in the parallel future -
the old Marty and Doc do - there were two of themselves there in 2015.
We never see what happened with the old Marty and Doc.

Doc and Marty could have been automatically transported to the parallel future since they were the travelers, and not affected. Old Marty and Doc would be affected. Biff could have come back to the new 2015 - but we just didn't realized it was the "new" 2015 in the movie because Doc and Marty left immediately before we could see and changes - other than Biff dying/disappearing (and not just because he stabbed himself with his cane). I bet he was disappearing.

[Pacfanweb]

That's easily explained. They didn't have authority to just cross the universe, blasting every planet that got in the way.

There's lots of other stuff that doesn't make sense that is much worse.

[Monker]

It's not a plot hole. It's a simple plot device so that they could have the count down, the suspense, and Luke destroying the Death Star at the last possible moment. I'll explain it...an abnormal tachyon particle cloud prevented the Death Star from approaching Yavin from a more convenient angle.

In "Return of the Jedi" Luke askes Leia about her mother...She says she has images and very faint memories of her from when she was very young. In "Revenge of the Sith", Padme barely even sees the babies before she dies and they are taken away. Leia should have no memory of her mother...as Luke said.

Also, in the RotJ second rerelease, I thought it was silly to have young Anikan standing beside old Obiwan at the end.

Then there was all of the "Chosen One" crap in the prequels. it was all so pointless and not needed. So, who really was the "Chosen One?" Luke? Neo? Whatever.

I was watching Star Wars: A New Hope the other day with my son, and I was shocked I never saw this earlier....but a plot issue exists in the movie, which in my opinion, destroys the entire climactical ending of the movie.....here goes:

The end is near for the rebellion, they've received word that the Millennium Falcon was indeed tracked and the Death Star has plotted a course for the Yavin system.....and here's where the plot (and the logic surrounding it) turns to utter shit.

As the Death Star arrives at the other end of the planet of Yavin, the rebels calculate how much time it will take for the Death Star, a space station with the awesome power of planetary destruction, to orbit Yavin before having a clear shot on the moon with the rebel base.

Think about that for a minute....a space station with the ability to destroy a planet, needs to circumvent around a planet, to get a clear shot on another planet...??!?!?!?


While I've seen SWIV a gazzilion times, I admit, I've only recently come to this conclusion....so Lucas must've done something right to prevent our disbelief from taking hold...but seriously...once you consider this dreaded plot hole, it ruins the movie.




Even if there were a technical reason why the Empire couldn't destroy Yavin, it should have been revealed in some way. A Friend suggests that maybe a Gas Giant cant be destroyed by the death star....even IF that were the case, it's HIGHLY unlikely the rebellion would have known that given it's short time frame....when they realize the death star is on the other side of Yavin, they don't break the fuck out of there, knowing full well the Death Star may or may not be able to blow Yavin into Kingdom Come.....instead....they calculate the time it'll take for the Death Star to orbit the planet....and mount a defense/offensive during that timeframe.



It's logically insane....it ruins the movie for me.



Discuss.....


Also.....any other plot holes within the Star Wars series that chap your ass?

[Sarah]

Then there was all of the "Chosen One" crap in the prequels. it was all so pointless and not needed. So, who really was the "Chosen One?" Luke? Neo? Whatever.

Didn't they explain that? Yoda says the prophecy could have been misread... it just said this guy would bring balance to the Force, which he basically did by killing everyone but 2 Jedi and 2 Sith.

[RedWingFan]

In "Return of the Jedi" Luke askes Leia about her mother...She says she has images and very faint memories of her from when she was very young. In "Revenge of the Sith", Padme barely even sees the babies before she dies and they are taken away. Leia should have no memory of her mother...as Luke said.

That's because who Leia was remembering was her "step"mother who she thought was her real mother, she never knew about Padme.

Then there was all of the "Chosen One" crap in the prequels. it was all so pointless and not needed. So, who really was the "Chosen One?" Luke? Neo? Whatever.

No. Anakin WAS the chosen one. He did destroy the Sith Lord by tossing Palpatine overboard at the end of ROTJ. The prophecy was true, it just didn't go the way the Jedi planned. He found salvation through the love of his son Luke. Make sense now?

[verslibre]

Also, in the RotJ second rerelease, I thought it was silly to have young Anikan standing beside old Obiwan at the end.

A contender for one of Luca$'s all-time lows, IMO. Just stupid, and one of myriad reasons I go out of my way to NOT watch any Star Wars flicks anymore, save the '77 movie (which I believe was meant to be a standalone movie...the "trilogy" bullshit came afterward).

[Eric]

Also, in the RotJ second rerelease, I thought it was silly to have young Anikan standing beside old Obiwan at the end.

A contender for one of Luca$'s all-time lows, IMO. Just stupid, and one of myriad reasons I go out of my way to NOT watch any Star Wars flicks anymore, save the '77 movie (which I believe was meant to be a standalone movie...the "trilogy" bullshit came afterward).

I like it, because it was what Anakin looked liked as a Jedi, which is what his ghost would be. I just don't understand how Qui-gon (Liam Neeson) wasn't there?
Lucas did not mean for the original in '77 to be standalone...he had the basic entire story in his mind since the 60's I believe.

Anakin was the chosen one...he did bring balance to the force 2 separate times...as pointed out above.

[verslibre]

Lucas did not mean for the original in '77 to be standalone...he had the basic entire story in his mind since the 60's I believe.

How many times did he alter his "basic entire story"? Quite a few, at least. Remember the old designs for a story/movie called The Starkiller? Basically, Luke and Han were once essentially the same character. He split 'em into two to avoid having an antihero as his chief protagonist. Imagine a blond Han with a light saber-type weapon AND a blaster holster and vest. Hahahaha!

[strangegrey]

It's not a plot hole. It's a simple plot device so that they could have the count down, the suspense, and Luke destroying the Death Star at the last possible moment. I'll explain it...an abnormal tachyon particle cloud prevented the Death Star from approaching Yavin from a more convenient angle.

Absolutely not. I can't agree with this.

You don't create a plot device out of something that logically doesn't make sense. It's bad writing. If the death star was anything other than what it was, then the plot device, as you call it, works perfectly.

But the death star can destroy planets. Why go around one to get to your enemy? Blow it the fuck up from a safe distance, watch the moon get taken out in the explosion...and if there's anything left of the moon, take it out at the next opportunity.

Not only that, but the evil nature of those on the Death Star would likely dictate this course of action anyway. So it makes it harder to believe their intent to avoid taking the most ruthless, direct, and *quickest* path in destroying the rebellion.

[Monker]

I'm tellin' ya, man...just forget logic with these flicks. At least Battlestar Galactica tried to be logical, even if it didn't always succeed.

It would've been a better move, probably, for Luca$ to adapt Alan Dean Foster's original novel Splinter Of The Mind's Eye. At least that way things wouldn't have gotten so stupid.

Except in the bit where Luke and Leia are rolling about in the mud, not much like brother and sister...and the bit where Leia picks up Luke's light sabre and gets all scarred up by Vader....not much like a daughter inheriting the force from her father.

Good book though...only SW novel I read.

[Don]

I'm tellin' ya, man...just forget logic with these flicks. At least Battlestar Galactica tried to be logical, even if it didn't always succeed.

It would've been a better move, probably, for Luca$ to adapt Alan Dean Foster's original novel Splinter Of The Mind's Eye. At least that way things wouldn't have gotten so stupid.

Except in the bit where Luke and Leia are rolling about in the mud, not much like brother and sister...and the bit where Leia picks up Luke's light sabre and gets all scarred up by Vader....not much like a daughter inheriting the force from her father.

Good book though...only SW novel I read.

They sure seemed more like lovers in that novel, from what I remember.

[Monker]

It's not a plot hole. It's a simple plot device so that they could have the count down, the suspense, and Luke destroying the Death Star at the last possible moment. I'll explain it...an abnormal tachyon particle cloud prevented the Death Star from approaching Yavin from a more convenient angle.

Absolutely not. I can't agree with this.

You don't create a plot device out of something that logically doesn't make sense. It's bad writing. If the death star was anything other than what it was, then the plot device, as you call it, works perfectly.

But the death star can destroy planets. Why go around one to get to your enemy? Blow it the fuck up from a safe distance, watch the moon get taken out in the explosion...and if there's anything left of the moon, take it out at the next opportunity.

Not only that, but the evil nature of those on the Death Star would likely dictate this course of action anyway. So it makes it harder to believe their intent to avoid taking the most ruthless, direct, and *quickest* path in destroying the rebellion.

It's the whole "High Noon" thing. Two cowboys going to shoot it out at noon. So, they go through the entire movie with a chiming of a church bell every hour...building up suspence until they finaly meet in the streets. They could do it at any time. One could ambush the other and any time, if he really wanted the other dead. That ould be more realistic, but it's not going to make a good movie.

It's the same thing with SW...They go through the space battle and every now and then flash to a scene where the moon ticks closer into range.You know Luke is going to blow up the Death Star...but it has to wait until the last possible moment...just as the Death Star is ready to fire.

The Death Star itself isn't a plot device...the reason for the long wait is. If the Death Star just popped out of hyperspace and blew up the moon, well, that would be pretty boring and not a good movie at all. It's classic story telling and that is where Lucas (and Spelberg, too) pull from when they do their writing.

[strangegrey]

It's the whole "High Noon" thing. Two cowboys going to shoot it out at noon. So, they go through the entire movie with a chiming of a church bell every hour...building up suspence until they finaly meet in the streets. They could do it at any time. One could ambush the other and any time, if he really wanted the other dead. That ould be more realistic, but it's not going to make a good movie.

It's the same thing with SW...They go through the space battle and every now and then flash to a scene where the moon ticks closer into range.You know Luke is going to blow up the Death Star...but it has to wait until the last possible moment...just as the Death Star is ready to fire.

The Death Star itself isn't a plot device...the reason for the long wait is. If the Death Star just popped out of hyperspace and blew up the moon, well, that would be pretty boring and not a good movie at all. It's classic story telling and that is where Lucas (and Spelberg, too) pull from when they do their writing.

The difference is that, while it's not entirely realistic, the character in a western (and the time period, i.e. post-civil war western frontier) make the high-noon duel more realistic or better stated, plausible to the viewer. The reasons for meeting at high noon could be things like 'impugning ones honor during a poker game', 'coming to a financial agreement on horse shoe', etc....

The gunfight 'duel' is a throw over from the so-called civilized dispute resolution of upper-class gents from back east. It's an understandable, plausable situation in a western.


Within starwars, the 'bad guy' is a ruthless dictator/empire that has likely sacked entire planets into slavery, killed entire civilizations...and in the very movie, they show this ruthlessness, by destroying a peaceful planet of humans. Once they establish the destruction of alderan for the viewers to digest...

...the 'restraint' the empire shows is WAY out of character. Irrespective of whether you want to semantically call the death star the plot device or the long wait.....the problem is the fact that the character (the empire) and the prop (the death star) both do NOT fit the storyline.

Find another way to establish the 'showdown'....I understand it's necessity. That's not what I am disputing...

...if the death star shows up, blasts Yavin to hell and back, take out the moon with it or with a successive shot, the movie ends with zero conflict resolution, zero plot resolution....the movie has zero opening for the following movies....and it likely hits the budget rack at blockbuster 10 years beforeblockbuster has a budget rack.



The necessity isn't the issue I'm questioning....but the manner with which the necessary wait was dealt out is SO utterly bad that I find the movie now hard to watch. They could have laid the ground work for the orbit around Yavin with a 4-5 word sentence buried in dialog somewhere....they didnt. They just assumed the audience was loaded with dumb fucks that wouldn't catch it.

I guess their assumption played out...because it took me 30 years to catch it....granted, I'm not a star wars geek and have only watched the movie a number of times.....but regardless, it's a truly AWFUL plot hole that should have been addressed....

....Lucas may be a good story teller, but what he's horrible at is filling in the holes....so he glosses over a story and hopes you don't catch them...and does a fantastic job at distracting you while the holes are being avoided. But they're still there....once you see them, the story falls apart.

It's like Gibbs telling William Turner about how Jack Sparrow escaped the island in POTC I.....explaining the story about roping sea turtles and using them as a raft. The story is delivered in such a cunning way, that if you don't question too much (and with ALOT of rum), it's plausible....until Turner goes 'what'd he use for rope'. Then, in an instant, the entire story is bullshit....thankfully, that wasn't a story being told within POTC, and not the story itself...regardless, I have to wonder if this was Elliot and Rossio's way of poking fun at Lucas.

[Don]

Wasn't Star Wars based around the Hidden Fortress, an Akira Kurosawa flick. I'm sure the frame swipes definitely came from that movie.

"The film begins with two luckless peasants escaping the aftermath of a battle. While trying to make their way home, they meet and begin to travel with General Rokurota Makabe. The general is trying to transport the princess of a defeated royal family and what remains of their wealth to safe territory in secret. The peasants mostly impede his mission sometimes trying to run off with the gold. They are later joined by a farmer’s daughter, whom they acquire at an inn from a slave-trader, or procurer. Together, the five make an arduous and desperate trek through enemy territory, transporting a treasure of gold that the princess and the general hope to use to rebuild the princess's military to one day retake her land and rebuild her realm."

Change it up a little with the droids in place of the peasants and the stories look a little bit more similar.

[Sarah]

I just don't understand how Qui-gon (Liam Neeson) wasn't there?

Luke didn't know Qui-Gon, that would have been confusing if he showed up randomly.

[artist4perry]

I just don't understand how Qui-gon (Liam Neeson) wasn't there?

Luke didn't know Qui-Gon, that would have been confusing if he showed up randomly.

People, people, just "Use the Force". Question not the jedi master, clear your mind, let the force flow through you........

[infinityplusone]

Star Wars is more of an escapist fantasy, not any more 'sci-fi' than really Wizard of Oz or Lord of the Rings. Spaceships and laser-swords does not make it real sci-fi. True sci-fi, I think, attempts to create a different - but consistent - universe, and then populate that universe with recognizable human-behaving characters (even if they're green or tentacled). It then uses "the future," "space," "alternate history", "AI", etc. as vehicles to examine/comment, on the human condition. Or sometimes the emotional side of it is tamped down in favor of more outright techno-fetishism (a main criticism of sci-fi fiction).

But it's a "self-consistent" reality, that (usually) takes itself somewhat seriously (even the lowest budget films can be satisfying that way)

If anything, the 'original three' are more true to sci-fi than the later crappy sequals. Living, breathing flesh-n-blood characters occupy a universe that (for the most part) doesn't violate it's own laws.

But still...

There is no logical progression (from a functional design perspective) with any of the technology. It just looks cool. And that's fine. You've got starship-sized vehicles landing and taking off from planet surfaces. How about the walkers?? C'mon, what is the purpose of a hundred foot tall, dog-shaped terrain-assault vehicle, when you can just hover over anything no matter what you're weight/mass. Why do we see 'solider for hire' stormtroopers in the original three, but feeble soldier-droids in the later sequals? Why (as brought up already) do the Jedi's powers change so much between the sequels, not to mention R2's versatility? Answer: it looks cool and/or attempts to plug gaping plot holes. But it can't be called sci-fi, or if it is, it's the most watered-down version of it.

BACK TO THE FUTURE

Pure fantasy. This is the problem with time travel: it's either impossible, or, if possible, extremely boring from a plot point of view. Either "the past is the past" and it can't be altered. (the only thing you could do is go back in time and _affect_ it, but then that's already happened; you're just fulfilling your presecribed path).

Or (in the many worlds concept), the "past" you go back to is not your past, but an earlier point in a neighboring parallel universe. Therefore, if you 'change' anything, you are only affecting the timeline in that new universe. So, your actions don't cause "you" to cease to exist, they only fuck up things in the secondary timeline. The 'you' of that universe may never exist, but your actions have no bearing on the 'original' you. If that makes any sense.

If there's no paradox, there's no drama.

I think "Lost" handles all this pretty well, because it's just vague enough to not pigeon-hole itself to either of the two methods of time-travel.