Sign In

Anyone else totally disregard Leia being Luke's sister? — Page 4

Author
Time
Originally posted by: Wesyeed
and i don't understand how you say you weren't discussing them in terms of the story when you typed these words "It's not only cheap - it serves absolutely no purpose in the story. "


"Dude", I was referencing how it didn't fit in either - the 1977 time frame of the original movie - or - the story that was written in the 70s. His ham-fisted attempt at creating story where there was none didn't work on any level. Not only did it not fit what we'd seen and been told, it had been done so haphazardly, that it just couldn't be made believable. Not only are none of the characters related - an alteration, backed by documented lies, doesn't work. It's crap writing. My whole point was that because the original story was comprised of non-related characters, that all the revisionist history there is, created or believed by whomever, doesn't make it true, nor does it make it believable.

Luke Darth, and Leia aren't related. No amount of revisionist history, lying, covering up or ignoring of 1977 interviews, DVD extra features, etc, etc, are ever going to change that for me.

When you're my age and someone tries to tell you how things were when you were a kid, and you know what you saw and read that proves otherwise, you aren't going to suddenly forget the truth and see someone else's memories and visions.


originaltrilogy.com Moderator

"Probably not”

Author
Time
So you're saying that because of some interview from years ago, the sequel's stories are completely unacceptable? forgive me for not agreeing, then.
He big in nothing important in good elephant.

"Miss you, I will, Original Trilogy..."

"Your midichlorians are weak, Old man." -Darth Vader 2007 super deluxe extra special dipped in chocolate sauce edition.

http://prequelsstink.ytmnd.com/
Author
Time
It more has to do with an ingrained perception of the original intent of the film, Weyseed. The films were not supposed to be connected the way they are now, and to someone who grew watching them under the perspective originally intended and presented, accepting subsequent ret-cons being forced into the original material in ways that clearly weren't intended is so distracting that it simply cannot be accepted. Like if Lucas made an Episode VII where it was revealed that all along Han was really Luke's brother and Boba Fett was real Emperor while Palpatine was the decoy. You'd be like "huh?"--but all the pieces would fit, right?

The Secret History of Star Wars -- now available on Amazon.com!

"When George went back and put new creatures into the original Star Wars, I find that disturbing. It’s a revision of history. That bothers me."

--James Cameron, Entertainment Weekly, April 2010

Author
Time
Everyone knows lucas makes it up as he goes along... why is this such a shock now? Well yes, if there is another star wars trilogy and they chewie lando's cousin or some such thing I'll accept it if it works to create meaningful drama that isn't just done for the sake of connecting two characters... I'd be fine with it. In that case the ends would justify the means for me.

And I'm getting a little upset with how it's being assumed that since I wasn't born when star wars was released, I can't ever truly understand the idea of revisionism. I wasn't around when back to the future hit threaters either but I know the sequels were never meant to exist until bttf 1 became a hit.
He big in nothing important in good elephant.

"Miss you, I will, Original Trilogy..."

"Your midichlorians are weak, Old man." -Darth Vader 2007 super deluxe extra special dipped in chocolate sauce edition.

http://prequelsstink.ytmnd.com/
Author
Time
If the internet were big back in 1980 & 1983, this would be a typical argument between 'SW' fans, and this goes to the point that the debate has been lingering since 1980. All in all we all see the SW movies as we want to see them, as SW, as the OOT, or the saga, and I believe the only difference is that Anchorhead didn't have to suffer through drastic changes to SW back in the early 80's to compliment ESB & ROTJ, so until 1997, we could all watch SW the way we wanted too.
Author
Time
It's harder to accept Luke and Leia as siblings if you spent 6 years wondering if he'll get to fuck her. I don't think anybody's disregarding a story point because it came after the fact, it's just personal taste about how it was handled. This isn't holy text, sequels are ignored all the time. When I watch Jaws, I don't think Scheider's son grows up, works at Sea World, and gets attacked by another shark. In 3-D.
Author
Time
The Leia things works a bit better in the Saga too. In the OT all of a sudden at the end of the trilogy "btw, Leia is your sister" and then it has no bearing on the rest of the plot. But in the saga its at least set up in Episode III and you are aware of it all through ANH and ESB so when it crops up in ROTJ its fulfilling something already established. It still goes nowhere but at least there isn't that "WTF??" quality attached to it.

The Secret History of Star Wars -- now available on Amazon.com!

"When George went back and put new creatures into the original Star Wars, I find that disturbing. It’s a revision of history. That bothers me."

--James Cameron, Entertainment Weekly, April 2010

Author
Time
It's funny - this whole discussion, along with Zombie's outstanding work on the book, has really changed some of my perceptions of the first few years of Star Wars and SW fandom.

I'm one of those "saw Star Wars in a theater when I was 10" fans - turning 40 tomorrow (yikes!) - and had long believed there was really just one "split" among fans: OT vs PT. While there was usually some debate among OT fans about the relative merits of each movie, with ROTJ usually seen as a lesser work (unless the fan was quite young when they saw it and/or it was the first of the trilogy that they saw in a theater), I had long assumed that everybody that liked "Star Wars" loved "Empire", without reservation.

As I've read this discussion, along with Anchorhead's "first step into a larger world" thread, I've realized it isn't that simple and, more surprisingly, that my own feelings about the movies are more complicated than I had believed. The points that really hit home for me were:

1) While it's considered a classic now, "Empire" was not universally-loved when it came out; in fact, I think David Gerrold wrote a very luke-warm review for Starlog back in 1980, primarily complaining that too much is handed to Luke in his training and that, in the end, he basically proves that Yoda was right about him being too impatient and angry.

2) Following on from the above, there has always been a group of people who felt that everything after the original film changed/perverted the original feel/story - it's only because there was no internet back then for like-minded people to find each other and realize that they weren't alone that we forget that whole body of opinion existed.

After realizing the above, it dawned on me that, while I'm not quite the "absolutist" that Anchorhead is, I definitely know where he's coming from, and I agree with him in a lot of ways.

The quality of ESB seems to be the real problem - I think it's clear that it's the movie that appeals to us the most as we get older, and it occupies the "golden era" when Lucas had enough money to really "swing for the seats", but it wasn't yet clear that Star Wars was a license to print money, regardless of the quality of the movies. As Zombie points out in his book, Lucas believed, very strongly, that Empire was better than it needed to be for his purposes - he believed that the extra headaches of the schedule/cost overruns weren't worth the incremental increase in box office receipts. I think a lot of us have held out the hope for 25+ years, that Lucas would somehow make another movie as good as "Empire", while, in his mind, he would never allow another movie like "Empire" to be made - it was too painful an experience for him.

So, we have an absolutely fantastic movie, with everybody - the cast, the director, the writer, the composer, the SPFX crew, everybody - doing their absolute best work, and it's all up there on the screen. There's just no getting around how technically and artistically rich "Empire" is, and I just love it. However, I now realize that I only love it up to a point - specifically, the point when Vader utters four of the most famous words in movie history: "I am your father."

Now, I've been complaining for years about "The Incredible Shrinking Star Wars Galaxy" - that the place depicted in the original movie felt big enough for any fan to find room for his/her own ideas to fit into the larger whole. With Vader's famous utterance, that changes, and we never get it back - in fact, the rest of the "Saga" is an exercise in taking a place that felt like it could hold almost limitless stories, and turning it into a place that can barely sustain the one story Lucas decided to tell.

So, I now consider myself a "Star Wars and 90% of Empire" fan, to cover the parts of ESB that expand the SW galaxy, rather than limiting it. After that, as Zombie makes clear, it literally becomes a different universe, one that I don't find nearly as compelling.
Author
Time
Pakka, you can still be a SW & OOT fan and not think twice. When I watch any SW movie, it is in all context of when it was made. When I watch SW/ANH, I don't think of the sibling relationship between Luke/Leia, and I don't think of the father/son relationship of Luke/Vader either, cause it isn't prevailent in the movie. When I watch ESB, I don't get icked out when Luke/Leia kiss, cause there isn't any context in the movie that says so. But when I watch ROTJ, I do see it all come full circle, and I accept the ending on Endor as Luke is burning his father by himself for closure, and Han/Leia are together, and Luke hugs his sister as he made it back from DSII.

Guys, don't let this plot hole stuff ruin the movies for you, they are too damn good to let some so-so ideas that Lucas went out on a limb hurt the reason for our enjoyment. This happened to me with the PT movies, I just can't get past all the bad shit that Lucas put in there to tie to the OT, whether it be Ani building C3PO, Padme losing the will to live, or Yoda/Chewy being boys. Part of me wishes that stuff wouldn't bother me, but the PT movies just aren't as good, and I feel that is the biggest reason why I adapted to the OT story, yet never took to the PT.
Author
Time
Well, I think the nature of prequels makes it so that it's harder to accept changes than with sequels. With sequels, you get a feel of expansion, that the things you see in the sequel are added on to the nature of the first movie. So you still have Star Wars the way it always was, but Empire was the next Lego block to be stacked onto it, and the same with Jedi. But with prequels, it's harder for both the creator and the audience to get on board. As zombie's book points out, it's much easier to simply state that this is what happened then actually showing it in detail. I mean, for a generation, fans of the trilogy were pretty much on board with the fact that Obi-Wan trained Luke's father, who became evil and became Darth Vader. Talking about it in the original trilogy made sense. So why, when the facts were established and the audience had already accepted those facts, did it become so hard to make movies expanding upon that? Because it's easier to vaguely explain than actually show. Add to that the fact that all those allusions back to the OT (which make it quite obvious to me that the intended audience for the PT is already established viewers of the OT, not the other way around) are pretty contrived and ridiculous... but are they more so contrived than what the sequels added to the first Star Wars? Or can we just accept the sequel changes easier because they are sequels and not prequels, and due to our own acceptance of storytelling, we can still view the first movie in its original context while we have a harder time doing that with stories set chronologically previously?

As for me, I'm relatively young. I was not there for any of the original screenings. My history of Star Wars begins in 1995, the first time I saw (and owned) the movies on videocassette, the infamous "One last time..." Faces set. And so my history of Star Wars comes from what Lucas said in those Leonard Maltin interviews that accompany the movies. You know, the one where he claimed that the entire trilogy was really originally one movie that he had to cut into three parts because of running time and cost. I now know that that is complete bull (a mindset totally solidified by zombie's great book), but being a nine-year-old boy at the time who hadn't been there at the beginning (or even at the end) and who had no reason to believe the creator of the movies was lying, that was my accepted history of Star Wars for many years. In short, I held the trilogy mindset. That was my fandom. A few years later, I saw the prequels and enjoyed them but never even tried to integrate them into what I considered to be the main story. I cringed at all the horrible retcons, like Anakin building 3PO. So I stayed pretty consistent with my fandom. And later I would learn more of the truth of Star Wars. And now I feel adequately knowledged in real Star Wars lore. And I can honestly say I'm not one of those who lets nostalgia get in the way. As soon as I found out that "Episode IV A New Hope" was not originally in Star Wars, I immediately dismissed that subtitle, even though it was what I had grown up with for years, completely unaware of anything different, and I didn't look back. In fact, seeing releases with that subtitle in there (anything but the GOUT, I guess), it makes me cringe just a little bit because I know it's not supposed to be there, and that's not what audiences in May of 1977 saw. But on the other end of the spectrum, I can even get myself to see the whole "Saga" perspective. Is it my preferred perspective? No. Is that how I would choose to introduce anybody to Star Wars? Certainly not. In fact, I discourage people from seeing the prequels first. But it's an interesting perspective that I can choose to see once in a while, despite its flaws. And I can see Star Wars as a trilogy, like the way I grew up, which follows Luke from a young farmboy to becoming a Jedi and redeeming his father. And, especially now that I know the truth, I can see Star Wars as a single movie, about a farmboy named Luke who saves a princess, uncovers a mysterious power, and defends the galaxy against evil, becoming a hero. Luke CO, I don't view it with all the things the sequels and prequels add to it. I view it on its own, coming at it as completely new. And then I choose to see the other two movies that came after it, to see what they add to the original story, taking it one movie at a time and realizing what was made up later, and that it's simply a new movie. I don't pretend to be Anchorhead or anyone else who was actually there. I wasn't. I don't have that experience. But I do have the knowledge of what was what and try to relive that in my own little world, as if I was there.

So to actually weigh in on the original question, no, I don't disregard it. I accept it. I think it's rather lame, but I accept it when I watch Return of the Jedi. When I view the movies as a trilogy, I apply that bit of information to prior events to see how it fits in. A lot of times, it doesn't necessarily. It doesn't blatantly contradict, like a lot of the things in the prequels, but it doesn't necessarily flow. Leia kissing Luke in the first two movies doesn't contradict the possibility that they're related, it would just be classified as a shoddy bit of storytelling, especially if you're causing people to labor under the impression you'd had all this planned out from the beginning. And then, when I watch the movies taking one at a time, I only apply Leia being Luke's sister when it's introduced to me and do my best to flow with it from there.

There is no lingerie in space…

C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.

Author
Time
The sister thing is really the only thing from the trilogy that goes clunk for me. It's pretty clear at the end of Empire she loves Han, and Luke is cool with that, he's got bigger problems. That was plenty good for resolving the triangle. Can't Leia be The Other simply by becoming the full George Washington-leader of the Rebellion?

In general, I think the trilogy is very much in line with what was set up in 77. Luke learned the ways of the force and became a jedi like his father, Han got Leia ("you think a princess and a guy like me..."), the good guys won, and everyone lived happily ever after. I mean, if the story didn't shift gears a little and the tone and the status quo never changed, that's called Star Trek, and well, sucks to that.
Author
Time
Originally posted by: Gaffer Tape
Well, I think the nature of prequels makes it so that it's harder to accept changes than with sequels. With sequels, you get a feel of expansion, that the things you see in the sequel are added on to the nature of the first movie. So you still have Star Wars the way it always was, but Empire was the next Lego block to be stacked onto it, and the same with Jedi. But with prequels, it's harder for both the creator and the audience to get on board. As zombie's book points out, it's much easier to simply state that this is what happened then actually showing it in detail. I mean, for a generation, fans of the trilogy were pretty much on board with the fact that Obi-Wan trained Luke's father, who became evil and became Darth Vader. Talking about it in the original trilogy made sense. So why, when the facts were established and the audience had already accepted those facts, did it become so hard to make movies expanding upon that? Because it's easier to vaguely explain than actually show. Add to that the fact that all those allusions back to the OT (which make it quite obvious to me that the intended audience for the PT is already established viewers of the OT, not the other way around) are pretty contrived and ridiculous... but are they more so contrived than what the sequels added to the first Star Wars? Or can we just accept the sequel changes easier because they are sequels and not prequels, and due to our own acceptance of storytelling, we can still view the first movie in its original context while we have a harder time doing that with stories set chronologically previously?

As for me, I'm relatively young. I was not there for any of the original screenings. My history of Star Wars begins in 1995, the first time I saw (and owned) the movies on videocassette, the infamous "One last time..." Faces set. And so my history of Star Wars comes from what Lucas said in those Leonard Maltin interviews that accompany the movies. You know, the one where he claimed that the entire trilogy was really originally one movie that he had to cut into three parts because of running time and cost. I now know that that is complete bull (a mindset totally solidified by zombie's great book), but being a nine-year-old boy at the time who hadn't been there at the beginning (or even at the end) and who had no reason to believe the creator of the movies was lying, that was my accepted history of Star Wars for many years. In short, I held the trilogy mindset. That was my fandom. A few years later, I saw the prequels and enjoyed them but never even tried to integrate them into what I considered to be the main story. I cringed at all the horrible retcons, like Anakin building 3PO. So I stayed pretty consistent with my fandom. And later I would learn more of the truth of Star Wars. And now I feel adequately knowledged in real Star Wars lore. And I can honestly say I'm not one of those who lets nostalgia get in the way. As soon as I found out that "Episode IV A New Hope" was not originally in Star Wars, I immediately dismissed that subtitle, even though it was what I had grown up with for years, completely unaware of anything different, and I didn't look back. In fact, seeing releases with that subtitle in there (anything but the GOUT, I guess), it makes me cringe just a little bit because I know it's not supposed to be there, and that's not what audiences in May of 1977 saw. But on the other end of the spectrum, I can even get myself to see the whole "Saga" perspective. Is it my preferred perspective? No. Is that how I would choose to introduce anybody to Star Wars? Certainly not. In fact, I discourage people from seeing the prequels first. But it's an interesting perspective that I can choose to see once in a while, despite its flaws. And I can see Star Wars as a trilogy, like the way I grew up, which follows Luke from a young farmboy to becoming a Jedi and redeeming his father. And, especially now that I know the truth, I can see Star Wars as a single movie, about a farmboy named Luke who saves a princess, uncovers a mysterious power, and defends the galaxy against evil, becoming a hero. Luke CO, I don't view it with all the things the sequels and prequels add to it. I view it on its own, coming at it as completely new. And then I choose to see the other two movies that came after it, to see what they add to the original story, taking it one movie at a time and realizing what was made up later, and that it's simply a new movie. I don't pretend to be Anchorhead or anyone else who was actually there. I wasn't. I don't have that experience. But I do have the knowledge of what was what and try to relive that in my own little world, as if I was there.

So to actually weigh in on the original question, no, I don't disregard it. I accept it. I think it's rather lame, but I accept it when I watch Return of the Jedi. When I view the movies as a trilogy, I apply that bit of information to prior events to see how it fits in. A lot of times, it doesn't necessarily. It doesn't blatantly contradict, like a lot of the things in the prequels, but it doesn't necessarily flow. Leia kissing Luke in the first two movies doesn't contradict the possibility that they're related, it would just be classified as a shoddy bit of storytelling, especially if you're causing people to labor under the impression you'd had all this planned out from the beginning. And then, when I watch the movies taking one at a time, I only apply Leia being Luke's sister when it's introduced to me and do my best to flow with it from there.


thank you. That's the key difference. It's a continuation, not a retconning of the original that completely contradicts it like several of the pt changes that have invaded the original trilogy mucking up the whole saga. People who saw star wars have the choice of just not caring for the sequels. People who see the special editions and pt and are ignorant to how star wars was originally concieved have no choice unfortunately.

For example, i think terminator 3 was an alternate universe story and I'm sticking to that.

edit: seriously. the way some are so abhorrant towards the family revelations in esb and rotj, it's as if this was done to anh (preview of next special edition) Greedo Shoots first, and second, and third and...
He big in nothing important in good elephant.

"Miss you, I will, Original Trilogy..."

"Your midichlorians are weak, Old man." -Darth Vader 2007 super deluxe extra special dipped in chocolate sauce edition.

http://prequelsstink.ytmnd.com/
Author
Time
Originally posted by: Guy Caballero
It's harder to accept Luke and Leia as siblings if you spent 6 years wondering if he'll get to fuck her. I don't think anybody's disregarding a story point because it came after the fact, it's just personal taste about how it was handled. This isn't holy text, sequels are ignored all the time. When I watch Jaws, I don't think Scheider's son grows up, works at Sea World, and gets attacked by another shark. In 3-D.


Absolutely, it's very possible to just simply ignore the next chapters... I personally don't since it's plausible, people do discover years later that they are related by blood in the real life, sucks for them if they actually have done the deed with each other.... hmmm.... though the comparison doesn't work very well since ESB and Rotj contain all the same cast so it is harder to disassociate them from each other than that piece of shit, jaws 3d and the original jaws.

That's what's keeping the PT latched to the OT's leg in the minds of many. Because it was made by lucas, uses william's talents, and contains some of the OT's actors it becomes very difficult to simply ignore it. But I can ignore the holiday special, so it's definitely not impossible.

He big in nothing important in good elephant.

"Miss you, I will, Original Trilogy..."

"Your midichlorians are weak, Old man." -Darth Vader 2007 super deluxe extra special dipped in chocolate sauce edition.

http://prequelsstink.ytmnd.com/
Author
Time
Fine for 8 year olds - not so good for motion picture trilogies that have an established fan base.


Wow. What an oxymoron. If a trilogy has an established fan base then it has an established fan base. People like the trilogy. As in, it HAS a fan base so it must be doing something right in all three parts of the trilogy.

I just love it when a random asshole calls me 8 because I love ROTJ. Most of your reasoning sounds like nothing but a sad snob who spends most of his/her time thinking about nothing but how to shoot down popular movies. I happen to like ANH the best too. What you implied with your anti-ROTJ rant , however is extremely offensive. And you can go and ban me, whoever the hell is in charge of this thing. I wouldn't want to spend a second more in this type of company anyway.
Author
Time
On the off-chance that Sue comes back to see any responses;


I just love it when a random asshole calls me 8 because I love ROTJ.

Sue, if you weren't so quick to take offense and see I wasn't insulting people who like ROTJ, you would see that I was talking about the shift in the target fanbase - not describing the established fanbase. In fact, I wasn't insulting anyone. We were discussing Lucas' change in focus, story, and methods.

Most of your reasoning sounds like nothing but a sad snob who spends most of his/her time thinking about nothing but how to shoot down popular movies


If you spent some time here, you'd see that you just about couldn't be more wrong. I only watch one Star Wars movie - how in the world can I be a snob when I'm a fringe member of the fandom? Also, I seldom, if ever, shit on other popular movies. That's just not my deal.

There's some great people here, Sue. Intelligent, clever, witty, thought-provoking, etc. You'll learn a lot from them. I certainly have. My very small Star Wars world (one film) has grown substantially after having met these people. I'm more grateful than they know. Much more.

a random asshole


How come I can't be a regular asshole? <--- that's a joke Sue.
originaltrilogy.com Moderator

"Probably not”

Author
Time
Sue, it was George Lucas' birthday yesterday, we should all be dancing in the streets to celebrate and then go inside and watch some grainy, blurry movie version of Star Wars from 1977 on DVD that our beloved creator sold to us last year.
Author
Time
When I first watched ROTJ I searched my feelings and knew it was true.

I think Leia being his sister did serve a decent plot purpose- it gave Vader in reading Luke's emotions a way to manipulate him into a rage. That has always been a very powerful scene for me, being a protective brother as well.

I think people really don't like it because it makes the nature of their relationship a little incestuous.

I always think of the kisses between them being Marty + Loraine (back to the future) type kisses.

I don't know if there is a name for it, but I think psychologically brothers and sisters can often have something similar to an oedipus or electra complex.

I like ROTJ. I think it works well with ESB. Lawrence Kasdan was still there, Marcia Lucas was still there.

With the Ewoks, I'm not like "oh man, I can't watch this anymore" like I am with Jar-Jar. Over the whole charred corpses of Owen and Beru to Ewoks- there are dramatic ewok death scenes as the tide starts to turn in the battle during one portion. Also you have the darkness of Vader's death and Luke's cremation of him.

And I for one like the Ewok song at the end.
Author
Time
When I first watched ROTJ, I searched my feelings and realized I was loosing a day's pay by calling in sick so I could go to the "big premiere".
Lucas owes me about 30 bucks - 1983 wages x 8 hours.

Well, I did rip the audio track of my Star Wars DVD and make a few copies of it (car, iPod, computer). I guess we're even after all these years.
originaltrilogy.com Moderator

"Probably not”

Author
Time

I think this twist is single-handedly the worst thing ever to come out of a saga film (even worse than the AotC romance). It’s so cringey that’s one of, if not the only major plot point I’m changing in my fan edits.

Author
Time

Ha, it even has its own subsection here.

The Disregard Sub-Category

Disregard (04/02/07)
Anyone else totally disregard Leia being Luke’s sister?
(NOTE: Not really fun or silly, but included to provide frame of reference)

Disregard 2: Electric Boogaloo (04/08/07)
Anyone else totally disregard Lumpy being Chewbacca’s son?

Disregard 3: Rise of the Machines (04/08/07)
Anyone else totally disregard Obi-Wan being Anakin’s friend?

Disregard 4: The Quest for Peace (04/10/07)
Anyone else totally disregard these “anyone else totally disregard” threads?

Disregard 5: A New Beginning (04/10/07)
Anyone else totally disregard the 'Anyone else totally disregard these “anyone else totally disregard” threads?'thread?

I knew it sounded familiar.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Since this has already been bumped. . . .

I would disregard Leia as Luke’s sister – not because of twincest*, but because it’s universe-shrinking bullshit. Alas, too much of the post-ROTJ EU I accept as canon predicably runs with the revelation, so, as it is with the Death Star II, I accept it but only with much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

*Consenting adults can do what they want.

“If you err it is not for me to punish you. We are punished by our sins not for them.”

— Elbert Hubbard

Author
Time

TV’s Frink said:

Oh hai 10-year bump.

Is there something wrong with reviving old threads? It’s not like that much happens on this site anyways, so there’sa no danger of accumulating an overwhelming amount of replies.

Author
Time

I would disregard Leia as Luke’s sister – not because of twincest*, but because it’s universe-shrinking bullshit. Alas, too much of the post-ROTJ EU I accept as canon predicably runs with the revelation, so, as it is with the Death Star II, I accept it but only with much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

My thoughts exactly. Luckily, there’s not much acknowledgement of these in the stuff I follow, so I can generally disregard it.