Sign In

Post #577532

Author
Rick2525
Parent topic
The Fall of the Jedi Trilogy (Released)
Link to post in topic
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/577532/action/topic#577532
Date created
14-May-2012, 4:05 AM
Last modified
14-May-2012, 4:16 AM
Edited by
Rick2525
Reason for edit
None provided

If it's not too late, can you try to include this possible change below, but I can see why already it probably has to stay in ...

With SW3:ROTS, it has always bugged me that at the birth (and death) scene of Padame and naming her two children (Luke and Leia, duh!), if to either keep in or take out this little tidbit of info, it can present the following problems each way over :-

- if naming the twins as Luke and Leia remains in the SW3 edit, then it eventually spoils the revelation in SW6 between said siblings whereby they really shouldn't be trying to kiss each other etc

- if naming the twins as Luke and Leia are taken out of the SW3 edit, then the "newcomers to this franchise" won't have a freakin' clue as to what relevance these babies have in SW3 and whether they could even come back to haunt us in SW4/5/6

Come to think of it, by removing the names Luke and Leia but still referring to them as "it's a boy, it's a girl", the "newcomers" could then start their own eternal debate as to whether the indirect SW3 reference may actually have some correllation to the direct SW6 reference, even though it is only implied at most.

The "no-naming of the twins" situation isn't so bad because the OT is well-ingrained to the popular culture over three decades.  But if these movies were actually made in chronological order (ie  PT in 70s/80s, then OT in 21st Century), it would literally have become a 30-year-long cliffhanger that the vague SW3 reference in 1983 would only come to fruition when the more direct SW6 reference was revealed in 2005 (as well as in the literal timeline of said movies).

Many thanks.