STAR WARS General Discussion | Warning: Possible SPOILERS!Movies 

  • Thread starter CodeRedR51
  • 2,344 comments
  • 131,687 views
You'd have add some kind of bad guy at some point. And people will be expecring Sith. Perhaps one misleading the extra-galactics into believing the Jedi are the bad guys and planning to use the galaxy-hopping technology of the EGs for some sinister cause to be revealed in the final film. Perhaps to link to a galaxy full of Dark Siders.
The problem with the Sith is that they are supposedly extinct. Whatever the Expanded Universe may say - I've never really had much to do with that - the ending of EPISODE I makes it pretty clear that there is only ever one Sith master and one Sith apprentice. With Palpatine (the master) and Vader (the apprentice) dead, the Sith line is extinct.

Besides, having the Sith re-emerge is a very bad idea, because it's essentially re-doing the plot of the six films to date: namely, that the Sith are attempting to establish an emiprical rule over the known galaxy.
 
The problem I have with a new trilogy is that the six films create a single story. It is the rise, fall, and redemption of Anakin Skywalker, and how the entire galaxy is affected around his life and choices. Three new movies that don't tie into that (legacy of Anakin?) are a new direction altogether.

It will be interesting to see how it goes. They could continue 20 or so years later, using the original cast, but with the exception of Yoda and Obi Wan we have not had to follow around elderly characters.



As for non-Jedi/Force based stories; my favorite stories came from books like Tales of the Bounty Hunters and Tales from Jabba's Palace. Stories that intersected with the rebellion storyline but did not focus on them. It opened up the surrounding universe, explained the motivations behind side characters that played important roles, and even expanded on certain events from the films (Boba Fett doesn't die in the Sarlac Pit). There is more to this world than political upheaval.
 
The problem with the Sith is that they are supposedly extinct. Whatever the Expanded Universe may say - I've never really had much to do with that - the ending of EPISODE I makes it pretty clear that there is only ever one Sith master and one Sith apprentice. With Palpatine (the master) and Vader (the apprentice) dead, the Sith line is extinct.

Besides, having the Sith re-emerge is a very bad idea, because it's essentially re-doing the plot of the six films to date: namely, that the Sith are attempting to establish an emiprical rule over the known galaxy.

All evil Jedi aren't Sith.

In the books/games/etc, post-episode 6 we see "Dark Jedi" who have turned to the dark side and don't follow any moral code. They have no connection to the Sith other than being evil.

In canon terms, you can quite easily have evil Jedi again. There are plenty of ways to explain it too - Luke's Jedi Academy (padawans losing their way), the remnants of any projects the Emperor had (Dark Jedi projects) or even simply people learning the force naturally.

There is so much good material already in books and games that I would be very surprised if none of it is used. You could make whole films based on fairly small sub-plots like the Dark Trooper Project or the Sun Crusher.

Hell, make the episodes 7-9 about Kyp Durron?
 
Last edited:
All evil Jedi aren't Sith.

In the books/games/etc, post-episode 6 we see "Dark Jedi" who have turned to the dark side and don't follow any moral code. They have no connection to the Sith other than being evil.
Disney is pitching the revived STAR WARS film canon as being family entertainment. Deep philosophical discussions about the nature of the Force would be very difficult to pull off without boring audiences, particularly younger ones, or people like me who aren't well-versed in STAR WARS canon.

There is so much good material already in books and games that I would be very surprised if none of it is used. You could make whole films based on fairly small sub-plots like the Dark Trooper Project or the Sun Crusher.
Dark Troopers are too similar to the clones. The Sun Crusher is too similar to the Death Star.

EPISODE VII shouldn't revolve around some political standoff like the Rebel Alliance against the Empire. The story can have scope, but it should also be something that has the potential to affect the primary characters, which in turn will make them more interesting to audiences.

That's why I suggested the idea of some anomaly in the Force that is disrupting the Jedi and driving them mad. As soon as the Jedi Council realises what is going on, they dispatch a band of weak Jedi - maybe even Force users who would normally be too weak to become Jedi - to investigate, because they discover that the strongest Force users are affected the most, and sooner; therefore, the weaker ones will have more time to find out what is going on and hopefully stop it. This opens up a lot of potential avenues for exploration of the characters, which is something I think the series seriously needs after the poorly-written an poorly-performed prequel trilogy turned Anakin into a sook.
 
While I love the expanded universe and think they should use some of them as stories for the films. Lets not forget, Star Wars films are family films. Personally I would like a proper adult Star Wars film that was gritty and Violent and much darker.

That isn't what Star Wars films are though. They are family entertainment. I see no reason why disney would seek to change this, apart from them being a family entertainment company. Mainstream is where the main money is. The won't stray to far from the canon of the films in my opinion, just expand it out a little. They won't go into the details the books and novels have gone into.
 
Disney is pitching the revived STAR WARS film canon as being family entertainment. Deep philosophical discussions about the nature of the Force would be very difficult to pull off without boring audiences, particularly younger ones, or people like me who aren't well-versed in STAR WARS canon.


Dark Troopers are too similar to the clones. The Sun Crusher is too similar to the Death Star.

What's wrong with similar concepts? Using the same concepts or ideas again doesn't instantly equal boring failure.

The Sun Crusher is not really like the Death Star at all - its a ship rather than a space station, it doesn't blow up planets, it blows up entire star systems, it is invincible without having silly weak points.
The only sense of it being similar to the Death Star is that its a super weapon.

Whats deep and philosophical about good vs evil? You talk as if Dark Jedi/the dark side is really complicated and is beyond understanding for the average viewer.
I don't think anyone found 4-6 confusing in this respect. How is it different from that?

How on earth is anything to do with the Jedi deep and philosophical? Its the most basic and copied story ever - good guys don't look for power and hurt people on purpose, bad guys do and like power. Pretty fricking simple concepts there.

I honestly don't care what Disney want to do with it, I do care how good the film(s) will be. Disney want to pitch it for families, that only screams "compromised" to me...as were 1-3.

That's why I suggested the idea of some anomaly in the Force that is disrupting the Jedi and driving them mad. As soon as the Jedi Council realises what is going on, they dispatch a band of weak Jedi - maybe even Force users who would normally be too weak to become Jedi - to investigate, because they discover that the strongest Force users are affected the most, and sooner; therefore, the weaker ones will have more time to find out what is going on and hopefully stop it. This opens up a lot of potential avenues for exploration of the characters, which is something I think the series seriously needs after the poorly-written an poorly-performed prequel trilogy turned Anakin into a sook.

Wait and this is meant to be easier to understand than good vs evil? Duh :dunce:

4-6 basically established that the Force is basically like magic. And that people can use it for good or bad, with it being related to their emotions.
Thats a pretty simple story that copies and relates to plenty of old stories.

What you're suggesting here is getting a bit more complex than that. I don't understand how you can say a story involving good Jedi vs bad Jedi is too complex yet a story involving complications with the Force is better. People don't really understand "The Force" - to the average viewer its basically magic, or rather, everyone has a basic and simple understanding and they don't really need to know more for the purposes of the story.
Whereas your story requires people to know more about something they don't know about, that has little relation to a typical story. This to me is more complex and is the kind of thing that puts the general public off fantasy/sci-fi stories.
 
Last edited:
What's wrong with similar concepts? Using the same concepts or ideas again doesn't instantly equal boring failure.
Because it's essentially remaking the films.

The Sun Crusher is not really like the Death Star at all - its a ship rather than a space station, it doesn't blow up planets, it blows up entire star systems, it is invincible without having silly weak points.
The only sense of it being similar to the Death Star is that its a super weapon.
And it makes the previous six films - particularly the original trilogy - redundant. Who would have the budget, the means and the motive to develop a Sun Crusher? The Empire. If so, why did the Empire bother with two Death Stars, and instead just skip to making Sun Crushers?

Whats deep and philosophical about good vs evil? You talk as if Dark Jedi/the dark side is really complicated and is beyond understanding for the average viewer.
Because STAR WARS has a history of vaguely defining its concepts. It's not a question of distinguishing between good and evil, but one of distinguishing between evil and evil. How can a Jedi be evil without being a Sith?

I honestly don't care what Disney want to do with it, I do care how good the film(s) will be.
I fail to see how you can get a good story out of a retread of the original films.

What you're suggesting here is getting a bit more complex than that. I don't understand how you can say a story involving good Jedi vs bad Jedi is too complex yet a story involving complications with the Force is better.
I didn't say it was too complex. I said it was too boring.

As you say, the Force has never really been defined in anything more than vague terms. The closest we have ever come to a definition is Liam Neeson explaining that the Force comes from midichlorians, whilst Anakin laying down the rules for what defines a Jedi and what defines a Sith; namely, that the Sith are selfish and use their power for their own ends. This is a problem because the film would have to take the time to explain why evil Jedi are evil Jedi, but aren't actually Sith, all without violating the canon that has only ever defined the Sith in broad terms, but has seen a variety of Sith characters behave in narrower and different ways. The whole thing amounts of an exposition dump, which slows down the pace of the film as the characters try to explain to the audience what the hell is going on. They run the risk of doing what PROMETHEUS did with its black goo: three different characters responded to it in three different ways, and there was never anything to explain why they did so when there was no change in the goo.

So why do I think my idea about complications in the Force avoids this? Simple: because the exploration of what the Force is becomes a part of the actual story. It does bring about exposition - no film can fully avoid it - but it softens the blow because it is naturally born out of the story. The characters need to figure out why Force users are going mad, which requires them to look at what the Force is. And the beauty of it is that it doesn't need anything specific. They can just say something like "the midichlorians are infected with a virus from this planet" and then go to that planet.
 
Although I feel its good news that Disney is finally taking it off lazy Lucas' hands and we finally get something new Star Wars has just turned into a toy selling franchise and to a certain extent that's all 1-3 and everything after was designed for. Lucas has 'whored' it out way too much to the point where this isn't anything you can't by that's got Star Wars on it. It's made the whole thing extremely childish, when I think Star Wars I think made for kids.

On the plus side its probably going to be the most expensive movie ever made and I reckon its epicness could potentially make 2 billion at the box office. I really do hope Mark Hamill, Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher are in this even as a 'camo / start of the film to lead us in' type of role. As long as Disney don't then decide to make it a yearly thing and oh god please no cross overs it should be OK.

I'm not a huge Star Wars fan and much prefer Star Trek because (and I say this extremely loosely!) its got a more plausible storyline based on humans and possible technology rather than total fantasy. Oh well anything new is good.

Robin.
 
Star Wars has always been big on merchandising (as posted earlier in this thread), and part of Lucas' huge success was in capitalizing on toy and merch sales for the original trilogy. Who here hasn't had at least two or three toys from the original trilogy?

I think a lot of people view the IV-VI trilogy with overly rose-tinted glasses. Watch them nowadays, and, ignoring the dated special effects (which are still spectacular in parts due to the intricate visual effects and models used... the worst crime of the Anniversary editions was adding CGI!), the stories really aren't all that deep or difficult to understand. Hell, I think the Anakin arc and the Trade Federation / Clone Army send-up in the I-III trilogy is actually a deeper and more complex storyline. One that is only let down by the clunky dialogue, lousy acting and some poorly scripted action sequences.
 
Disney is pitching the revived STAR WARS film canon as being family entertainment. Deep philosophical discussions about the nature of the Force would be very difficult to pull off without boring audiences, particularly younger ones, or people like me who aren't well-versed in STAR WARS canon.

If they do this then they can pretty much count me out for good.
 
niky
Who here hasn't had at least two or three toys from the original trilogy?

A few, although the packaging made it's way to a landfill circa 1980. They're quite worn out and beaten...

I think a lot of people view the IV-VI trilogy with overly rose-tinted glasses.

Yes...I think we're also a bit jaded after a few hundred action movies, various plots, and many new ideas in the time between 1983-1999. That, and much of Episodes I-III were a forgone conclusion.
 
Last edited:
The problem I have with a new trilogy is that the six films create a single story. It is the rise, fall, and redemption of Anakin Skywalker, and how the entire galaxy is affected around his life and choices. Three new movies that don't tie into that (legacy of Anakin?) are a new direction altogether.

This is one of my main concerns. I think the right thing to do would be to make a spin-off film that wasn't tied to the saga. Kind of like the Clone Wars film back in '08, except live action and much better writing.

But I'm still very much excited for Episode VII, and I'm quite optimistic about it. You can bet I'll be seeing it opening day in IMAX 3D (and they better offer it), and good or bad, I'll enjoy the experience.
 
Disney is pitching the revived STAR WARS film canon as being family entertainment. Deep philosophical discussions about the nature of the Force would be very difficult to pull off without boring audiences, particularly younger ones, or people like me who aren't well-versed in STAR WARS canon.


That would be a mistake. They'd be ignoring the fact that Star Wars made a lot of fans many years ago, and they need to account for them when creating these new films, rather than alienating them. I also think that many in the younger generation are caught up on the storyline. There are tons of video games, the old movies, etc. for them to get their information from.
 
Because it's essentially remaking the films.

Not necessarily. You don't have to use the concepts in the same way. In my opinion, its not just about what is in the film, but how it is used, the way its displayed etc.
Its not so easy just to say "no this won't work".

You can make a great film but use all the same concepts. The James Bond series are very proof of this (although debatable, at least we can say its a successful series and there is a divide on which films people prefer).

And it makes the previous six films - particularly the original trilogy - redundant. Who would have the budget, the means and the motive to develop a Sun Crusher? The Empire. If so, why did the Empire bother with two Death Stars, and instead just skip to making Sun Crushers?

Now you're just not bothering. The whole point of the Sun Crusher is that it was developed in secret. There are lots of ways you could explain why they bothered with 2 Death Stars when they could have made this instead. Thats not a flaw in the idea, but a lack of ideas from you how to explain it.

You could explain it as "it took so much work and time to make it, that the Empire couldn't deploy it in time". There are loads of ways you could explain it. Eh, the point is that they could use it either as the focus of a film or as a minor plot point. The idea is there to use - I think its a quite cool weapon that played a part in the books and represents yet further how much of an impact the Empire era made on the galaxy (when they keep un-earthing weapons and projects such as this).

Because STAR WARS has a history of vaguely defining its concepts. It's not a question of distinguishing between good and evil, but one of distinguishing between evil and evil. How can a Jedi be evil without being a Sith?

Does it? It wasn't vague in 4-6 - all of the concepts and ideas used were heavily based on tried and tested stories used again and again throughout film and literature.
This is why 4-6 were so successful - because they didn't need to explain anything because the audience already understands and relates to it.

Only 1-3 are vague. But seeing as they were crap films its a moot point. Obviously nothing should copy those.

I fail to see how you can get a good story out of a retread of the original films.

Who says we have to "retread"? In fact what I've been saying for a few posts now is that I'd prefer 7-9 to be set further in the future to separate themselves from the older films.
You could still use ideas like the Dark Troopers, Sun Crusher or any number of other ideas without re-making 4-6.

I didn't say it was too complex. I said it was too boring.

Actually you didn't say it was either, you just said "it is difficult to pull off". But either way I disagree.

As you say, the Force has never really been defined in anything more than vague terms. The closest we have ever come to a definition is Liam Neeson explaining that the Force comes from midichlorians, whilst Anakin laying down the rules for what defines a Jedi and what defines a Sith; namely, that the Sith are selfish and use their power for their own ends. This is a problem because the film would have to take the time to explain why evil Jedi are evil Jedi, but aren't actually Sith, all without violating the canon that has only ever defined the Sith in broad terms, but has seen a variety of Sith characters behave in narrower and different ways. The whole thing amounts of an exposition dump, which slows down the pace of the film as the characters try to explain to the audience what the hell is going on. They run the risk of doing what PROMETHEUS did with its black goo: three different characters responded to it in three different ways, and there was never anything to explain why they did so when there was no change in the goo.

So why do I think my idea about complications in the Force avoids this? Simple: because the exploration of what the Force is becomes a part of the actual story. It does bring about exposition - no film can fully avoid it - but it softens the blow because it is naturally born out of the story. The characters need to figure out why Force users are going mad, which requires them to look at what the Force is. And the beauty of it is that it doesn't need anything specific. They can just say something like "the midichlorians are infected with a virus from this planet" and then go to that planet.

Look, lets just forget about 1-3 and all that midichlorians BS. Lets not return to that please.

In my opinion the mystery over the Force and the presentation as a kind of inherited magic power is what makes it so attractive.

Trying explain or break it down is boring to me and I suspect the wider audience too. I'm fairly sure the boring details given in 1-3 went over many people's heads. I don't see how doing that again is going be any better.


I think a lot of people view the IV-VI trilogy with overly rose-tinted glasses. Watch them nowadays, and, ignoring the dated special effects (which are still spectacular in parts due to the intricate visual effects and models used... the worst crime of the Anniversary editions was adding CGI!), the stories really aren't all that deep or difficult to understand. Hell, I think the Anakin arc and the Trade Federation / Clone Army send-up in the I-III trilogy is actually a deeper and more complex storyline. One that is only let down by the clunky dialogue, lousy acting and some poorly scripted action sequences.

I still thoroughly enjoy 4-6. I don't think anyone is forgetting or relying on nostalgia - did anyone think they had deep stories? I don't remember ever thinking "man, I loved 4-6 for the depth in those stories".

The reason I loved (and still love) 4-6 is for the imagery, the characters and the general atmosphere and universe. The stories/plots themselves are ok or average at best - its everything else that makes them.

I can still stick Empire Strikes Back on and sit riveted by the Hoth battle. The music, the special effects, the locations and designs...love it.

1-3 were more complex...but not in an intelligent way or because of any depth. In my opinion the biggest flaw of those films is the lack of depth. They're just a vague confusing mix of ideas with no explanation.

I wonder sometimes if some directors/script writers think that not explaining things is great because it allows people's imaginations to run with it without really thinking why that happens.

Or maybe they were too worried about the audience to actually explain stuff, but still running with stories that the audience can't really relate to or appreciate.

Not explaining the Force - good because it gives it a mystical and mysterious aura. Bit of a religious tang to it too. Its not the focus of the film but a re-curring theme and people understand it because they can relate it to stories of magic or even religious acts. Questions are raised but not so many that people don't understand it, they just don't know the 100%.
Not explaining black goo in Prometheus - bad because its basically the entire focus of the film and the audience can't really relate it to anything. Do we really know anything about it? It changes DNA and its clearly dangerous...but thats it. The focus is so strong on it that the audience is forced to ask why..but then no answers ever come.
 
Last edited:
Not sure if this has been posted, but Lucas plans to donate the majority of the $4B to education.

Link

My first time hearing it, I hope that "education" doesn't translate to "USC" though...


Whatever the case may be, I'm glad to hear it. :cheers:
 
4-6 basically established that the Force is basically like magic. And that people can use it for good or bad, with it being related to their emotions.

[...]

People don't really understand "The Force" - to the average viewer its basically magic, or rather, everyone has a basic and simple understanding and they don't really need to know more for the purposes of the story.
I would argue that the Force actually needs much more clearly-defined rules that govern its use. Otherwise, it runs the risk of being a deus ex machina - a plot device that the writer(s) can use to explain away any situation. These rules don't have to be specific. In fact, they don't have to be discussed at all. But they are something that the writers need to keep in mind.

Whereas your story requires people to know more about something they don't know about
The underlying premise is that something is affecting Force users. It is causing them to do something that they would not normally do, and nobody seems to know why. The mystery of what is causing this madness in Force users would be explored over the course of the story; the entire point of it is to figure out a) what is causing it, b) why it is happening, and c) how it can be stopped. If films like Outbreak and Contagion can do it, I don't see why Star Wars can't. Knowledge of the way the Force works doesn't have to be something the audience knows, primarily because the way the Force works has to be explored in order for the characters to understand why Force-users are being driven mad by it.

It doesn't have to be anything detailed, either. A simple line like this would work:

"We open ourselves up to the Force through the midichlorians. But the midichlorians, like any life form, can get sick. And when they get sick, the Force flows through them differently, and that is what is driving the Jedi mad."

The story would then focus on finding the source of the infection in the hopes that it will lead to the discovery of a cure. All the while, more and more Jedi are being driven insane and threatening the peace and stability of the galaxy.
 
I would argue that the Force actually needs much more clearly-defined rules that govern its use. Otherwise, it runs the risk of being a deus ex machina - a plot device that the writer(s) can use to explain away any situation. These rules don't have to be specific. In fact, they don't have to be discussed at all. But they are something that the writers need to keep in mind.
It does have rules. That's kind of the subplot of the entire original trilogy. The Force flows through everything, but you can't affect anything, anywhere. Mental focus is required. Even Vader needed to see his victims on a screen to Force choke them. Otherwise he and/or the Emperor could have killed all suspected Rebels at any time from deep within the safety of Coruscant

Then there are rules about how to use it in order to not become seduced by the dark side. We watched Luke learn, through teachings and experience, the rules to use and to control the Force.

Midichlorians mucked that all up.


The underlying premise is that something is affecting Force users. It is causing them to do something that they would not normally do, and nobody seems to know why. The mystery of what is causing this madness in Force users would be explored over the course of the story; the entire point of it is to figure out a) what is causing it, b) why it is happening, and c) how it can be stopped. If films like Outbreak and Contagion can do it, I don't see why Star Wars can't. Knowledge of the way the Force works doesn't have to be something the audience knows, primarily because the way the Force works has to be explored in order for the characters to understand why Force-users are being driven mad by it.

It doesn't have to be anything detailed, either. A simple line like this would work:

"We open ourselves up to the Force through the midichlorians. But the midichlorians, like any life form, can get sick. And when they get sick, the Force flows through them differently, and that is what is driving the Jedi mad."

The story would then focus on finding the source of the infection in the hopes that it will lead to the discovery of a cure. All the while, more and more Jedi are being driven insane and threatening the peace and stability of the galaxy.
Anything that needs to use Midichlorians as an explanation should be avoided. We already have microscopic organisms living in our blood attaching us to the Force (taking mystic powers from the person and giving it to a bacteria) and the concept that a disease can infect it complicates it even more. It says that Force use is purely biological. If using the Force can leave you susceptible to disease, and with a physical cure, then it would mean anyone can become a Force user through a blood transfusion. If we want to open up that idea, then why not a crisis created by synthesized Midichlorians. Now everyone is using the Force.

That said, your idea is intriguing. But I'd rather borrow some hints from Green Lantern to make it happen. Someone or thing is polluting the energy of the Force itself. Green Lantern has had similar things where different color energies affect the Green Lanterns in different ways. For the Force you could have it be a completely non-Force user responsible, or even an energy entity formed from a collection of dark force energy.

Just avoid the biological angle. It opens the door too much to anyone can be Jedi. And that would ultimately lead to a True Blood scenario, where special blood is stolen from victims and sold on the black market.
 


The issue being, if the Force is everywhere and in everyone, it's entirely possible for anyone to become a Jedi. Actually, would be interesting if someone discovered the Force entirely independently, with different abilities and powers to Jedi.

I can see an extra-galactic scenario enabling the Republic to meet Force users of an entirely different nature.
 
All evil Jedi aren't Sith.

In the books/games/etc, post-episode 6 we see "Dark Jedi" who have turned to the dark side and don't follow any moral code. They have no connection to the Sith other than being evil.

In canon terms, you can quite easily have evil Jedi again. There are plenty of ways to explain it too - Luke's Jedi Academy (padawans losing their way), the remnants of any projects the Emperor had (Dark Jedi projects) or even simply people learning the force naturally.

There is so much good material already in books and games that I would be very surprised if none of it is used. You could make whole films based on fairly small sub-plots like the Dark Trooper Project or the Sun Crusher.

Hell, make the episodes 7-9 about Kyp Durron?

I can go one step further and say that the Sith really died off during Revan's time(if that is even canonical). Remember that most of the "Sith" died off after Darth Bane killed off most of the Sith with the exception of his apprentice Darth Zannah, and the "Rule of Two" was adopted among the Dark Jedi.

Besides, Knights of the Old Republic explains that there were true Sith(I mean not what the Dark Jedi who conquered planet Korriban eventually call themselves), but they long since died off.
 
The first rumours of who might direct have started up, and it's an interesting choice: Matthew Vaughn, who directed X-MEN FIRST CLASS. The theory goes that he left the sequel, DAYS OF FUTURE PAST, to free up his schedule for EPISODE VII.
 
The first rumours of who might direct have started up, and it's an interesting choice: Matthew Vaughn, who directed X-MEN FIRST CLASS. The theory goes that he left the sequel, DAYS OF FUTURE PAST, to free up his schedule for EPISODE VII.

Left a well-tested story (don't F it up Singer) to go where no man has gone before (that's right. I went there)? Either it is a great script or he is getting a huge payday.

Assuming the rumors are true.
 
I'd much rather watch "Days of Future Past" than a new Star Wars. I'd even splurge on iMAX.

(Of course, I'd still see the next Star Wars, anyway...)
 
If they use those original stars, I hope it's just for brief performances. It's time for new characters, new stars, and a fresh new take overrall.

If it takes place 20-30 years later it would look appropriate.

But how do they explain the drug ridden, fat Leia?
 
Back