» Wed May 11, 2016 7:25 am
I feel like if the mitachlorians were explained better than simply just "having these means you can use the force" it wouldn't have been as bad.
Say for example they explained that everyone can be taught to use the force, but the mitachlorians meant that they had a natural potential to learn it quicker than others, kinda how like some people are born with natural artistic talent, while some learn it over time and can end you being better than someone who had the skill naturally because they spent more time honing those skills.
I get why they did mitachlorians for story purposes, so they had a reason why anakin was taught the force in the first place while being too old to begin training. I mean Luke was basically only taught because they had no other choice, even Yoda didn't want to because he was too old.
And because they said in empire strikes back that luke was the last hope, and then Yoda was like "no there is another", that basically implied that there had to be some genetic link to using the force, because otherwise they could have just been like "well we can just pick up some orphans from random planets and teach them".
What I mean is that line in ESB set a precedence that the force is hereditary rather than a learned skill. So it's not like the mitachlorian explanation is right out of the blue, they sort of painted themselves into that corner with ESB and ROTJ. the prequel trilogy isn't all to blame for the mitachlorian debacle.