>>106763515>Being strong with the force means nothing if you don't have the training to use it.
But that Leia had more than 20 years to train means she has got time to learn and use it. It's the defacto conclusion, and it's only if she had never trained that you would need the movie to establish that. As it does not, the defacto conclusion is that Leia was already a force user in the Force awaken> There are no implications at all that say that she's ever trained in the force.
there clearly is. He being strong with the force, plus 20 year, only a moron would thing she didn't train.>It's lazy writing and nothing more.
Not saying what is very obvious is not lazy writing.>Age has nothing to do with it
That the story start with how long they have leanred they could use the force does.
If a character learn it has a potential in a certain skill and then ehtere is 20 year timeskip, then the defacto conclusion is that this character now know how to use that skill.>You're asking someone to prove a negative.
I am not asking to prove anything, I am telling you basic story telling rule: if the setting goes against the obvious conclusion, then it need to be laid out. the obvious conclusion is that Leia is now a Force user, so it does not need to be laid out.>If legend was still canon then we wouldn't have this discussion.
False We are talking about the movies and even if the former EU was still canon, it would still need to be done so that people who don't know about that EU would still get it.
Anyone who has seen the return of the Jedi now know Leia is a force user, except for moron, but dumbing down too much a movie is also bad writing>By lazy writers
Not mentioning the obvious is not lazy writing.