CT Logic Flaws in the Original Trilogy

Discussion in 'Classic Trilogy' started by DRush76, Dec 14, 2012.

  1. fett 4 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jan 2, 2000
    star 4
    I agree with you and Lucas on this. You cannot have a main charachter (and actress too for that matter) who you will never see again simply walk off camera and only be mentioned with a throw away line it doesn't work.

    There are many things to criticise with the PT, this was not one of them
  2. MrFantastic74 Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 4, 2010
    star 4
    Agreed, and besides, Leia only remembers "images" of her mother, and a sense that she was "sad" and "beautiful". Who is to say that a Force sensitve newborn can't retain these first images they receive of their mother.

    I never saw this as a plot hole.
  3. MrFantastic74 Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 4, 2010
    star 4
    We saw her reaction when Tarkin told her they were going to destroy the world if she didn't give up the location of the rebels. She freaked out: "Alderaan is peaceful! We have no weapons! You can't...!". Then we saw her shock when Tarkin went ahead and made the order, despite having given up the location "Dantooine". Sure, we didn't see actual tears on her face at that very moment, but she was obviously in shock.

    Of course she grieved for Alderaan and for Bail and her family and friends. She probably cried herself to sleep every night in her cell in the detention center. They just didn't show it in the film.
  4. darth.ender Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Dec 28, 2012
    star 1
    That's both clever and mature to try and shoot down my argument because I misspelled "the" as "teh," a very common misspelling from a generally good speller, probably better than most on this site. I am completely discredited by it ;)

    In all seriousness, I didn't say it was bad writing, but rather that it was an inconsistency. I know it was a deliberate retcon. That doesn't make it work as well as GL would like. Apart from the general logic of it all, and considering that she "remembered" her mother rather than that she had Force visions of her, she would know when her mother died, assuming her adoptive parents didn't lie to her. She would know that her mother dying when Leia was "very young" was really "minutes after birth." She would recognize that any visions or memories that she had were not the product of normal memory. She might be more believing of Luke when he said she had the same innate powers that he did. She would likely remember the presence of another baby.

    Really there are only two ways for it to work: either she had memories of her mother's actions that left her with little more than feelings and images; or she had visions which were clearly from times other than her birth. Neither really fits both the dialogue in ROTJ and the events witnessed in ROTS. You have to swallow a bit of a horse pill. Not an entire boat, but a large pill. It's an inconsistency that GL either disregarded or figured he could retcon, but didn't quite work.
  5. Arawn_Fenn Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jul 2, 2004
    star 7
    Now why would I think you said it was bad writing?

    What, pray tell, is good writing in Star Wars? I hope it's not the reuse of jokes like discussions in committees, Jar Jar, fart jokes, falling in love over discussions about sand, Obi-Wan becoming a Jedi Master in spite of specifically being called a Jedi Knight in ANH, Padme dying before Leia could possibly remember anything about her, or anything like that.

    As long as we're making assumptions, why not assume that she was told only what she said in ROTJ: that Padme died "when [she] was very young"? If the assumption that she was told "minutes after birth" is dropped, the supposed problems originating from this assumption disappear.

    "There is another."
    Andy Wylde likes this.
  6. darth.ender Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Dec 28, 2012
    star 1
    Well look at that. I guess I did imply that it was bad writing. Perhaps I should clarify: I find it inconsistent. If GL did it on purpose, I don't approve. If he did it on accident, then it was bad writing. It makes little sense to me, and nearly everyone immediately did a double take when they saw Padme die. It obviously required an apologist explanation to make sense, and one that, while plausible, is not particularly acceptable to me.
    KilroyMcFadden likes this.
  7. Valairy Scot Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Sep 16, 2005
    star 5
    I don't find Obi-Wan being a Master and yet called a Knight in ANH an inconsistency. "Master" is a higher rank than "Knight" but in a manner of speaking knights and masters are all Jedi Knights. It's the difference between a formal rank and a general grouping.
    Andy Wylde and MrFantastic74 like this.
  8. King Terak Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 22, 2012
    star 1
    well, it might have been a cut scene in ROTJ, but we never did see that legion of Sidious' best troops. :p
  9. Arawn_Fenn Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jul 2, 2004
    star 7
    I don't even know what this is supposed to mean. Do you really claim to speak for "nearly everyone"? Or did you somehow get the opportunity to observe the reactions of everyone in the theater?
    Andy Wylde likes this.
  10. King Terak Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 22, 2012
    star 1
    Mabye it was Deja Vu?, she did die a long, long time ago.
    Last edited by King Terak, Jan 9, 2013
  11. fett 4 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jan 2, 2000
    star 4
    Hmm Luke was not even Leia's sister when that was written. Luke was ment to find her in E7,8,9 though I guess he isn't now. It was just Lucas trying to wrap things up because in 1983 he was not yet aware he was going to sell to Disney.

    People should be more angry with these issues with the OT or why the techonology is so superior when it's in the past cough Grevious cough.

  12. KilroyMcFadden Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 31, 2012
    star 3
    People are not angry with the OT because in universe:
    1. Luke and Leia didn't know they were brother and sister. They weren't knowingly violating any kind of taboo. George Lucas on the other hand may need a little counselling if it is true that he intended for them to be brother and sister the whole time...
    2. The technology remains consistent throughout the OT and there is no reason to be angry. The fact that the PT has more advanced technology in spite of the fact that it takes place before the OT is one of the PT's many glaring failures as movies and has served to cheapen the entire franchise.
    Last edited by KilroyMcFadden, Jan 10, 2013
  13. King Terak Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 22, 2012
    star 1
    I wouldn't call that a flaw. Sidious didn't see a reason to make high tech fighters, because he felt quantity was more important than quality and the safety of his troops. The Rebels on the other hand, made sure Astromechs were included because their troops were important to them. Also the Rebels didn't have alot of funds to deal with, so their ships were not in the greatest shape.
    Last edited by King Terak, Jan 10, 2013
    Andy Wylde likes this.
  14. darth.ender Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Dec 28, 2012
    star 1
    I have already declared my intent to not post anymore, but I will make this and one or two others in reply before following through on that. In response to the snarky comments about my seeing a flaw that I was not alone in, what is the deal? Look, while I may have been opinionated, I don't feel I've been disrespectful. Those who prefer the PT are fully justified in doing so. I really like it myself. I could watch it any time. But it is, to me, inferior to the OT. For that reason, it seems that because I am an OT "fanboy" or PT "hateboy," some folks are quick to jump down my throat. I will say this: no I did not interview everyone who watched Episode III. I did not even perform a scientific statistical study. But from my experience, watching the movie with friends, reading on the Internet at the time, and even hearing on the radio, people of all sorts were commenting on what they perceived as an inconsistency. The first time I heard or read any kind of explanation was on Wookieepedia, which simply offered potential explanations (it might be different now in light of some comment or interview or something). In the article, I remember it even mentioned the junior novelization of the film where it said something like, "Leia looked around, taking everything in." But they were all theories. It was clearly a problem to many people, a problem which others since have justified. I myself (reminding you that I am a PT fan) came up with the same basic theory that everyone has advocated even before reading that article, but that article was the first time I'd actually heard any other source even mention it. Since then I've come to acknowledge that it was a strange choice by Lucas. It can be explained, but it may have been better without the need to be explained. If you don't like my opinion, that's just fine. I have no problem with yours. I just feel that it was not the best move ont he part of Lucas, and I believe it to be an inconsistency.

    And there are inconsistencies in the PT. People here say, "Oh, why didn't we see Leia grieve more for Alderaan?" Well, while there are many potential explanations, such as the fact that immediately when the planet is destroyed, we cut to the Falcon, and likely hours have passed in-universe until we see her again. She also was very rude, which may have been her form of grieving at the time, and after coping with the present danger of the Rebel base's potential destruction, she probably took more time to grieve. But did this issue even stand out to most people? Not too much. I recently came up with a list of problems with the OT (after joining this site, but I promise it was before I actually read anything). I thought I was the first to mention that exact thing. I'd never heard it before.

    Meanwhile, I also spoke with a number of people, folks who are bigger fans of the PT than I, who agree with me that Anakin's fall was truly "unexpected." Not that they didn't expect him to fall because they knew he'd be Vader one day, but rather that he made such rash decisions and drastic changes, initially trying to ensure Palpatine's arrest, but in trying to preserve Palpatine's life chops off Windu's arm. Next thing we know, he suddenly surrenders to Palpatine and is willing to kill children in order to preserve his and Palpatine's (and ultimately Padme's) lives. Next thing we know, he's choking the woman he was trying to save. This was very sudden, hard to swallow, and not well foreshadowed in the film, at least in the opinions of many people whom I respect and who enjoy the PT. It doesn't even really sound like Vader was "seduced by the Dark Side," as Obi-Wan tells (and in this case was obviously not supposed to be lying, because he's not keeping any vital information from Luke). It sounds like he was tricked. Instead of being tempted to employ it's powers because of his own personal gain, he basically "fell for it." And his motives were so selfless at first that it's hard to believe he would utilize the Dark Side, which is by nature the selfish aspect of the Force. But once he's turned, he loses track of his reasons for even doing so within a few days at most. All the while, PT defenders happily come up with reasons why this isn't a problem, while simultaneously jumping on the minutiae of the OT.

    If you see a problem with the OT's internal logic, that's fine. If you don't see it with the PT, that's fine. If you like Anakin better than Luke, that's fine. But if you start talking to me like an idiot for not buying into someone else's logic, straining at gnats while swallowing camels, then I think thats unnecessary. I came here hoping to improve my relationship with people who enjoy the PT more, and I think I've done that with some. But sadly I think too many are so defensive that it's hard to even present legitimate criticism without getting some people too ruffled up.

    I apologize if this sounded rude. It's meant to be passionate, but not insulting to anyone. Also, know that I am not ceasing posting because of this slight misunderstanding. Rather I am behind in work and I find these discussions too distracting, and this is the only way I can gather my self-control at the present. I hope to chat with people in the future, but I've committed to take a month off. But as a final point to ensure that folks know I am not just a blind OT "fanboy," I here provide a link to my lists from originaltrilogy.com critiquing ANH and ESB. I'm not blind to the OT's problems. I just think they're more enjoyable movies, and that the problems don't stick out as much as they do in the PT.

    http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/The-Armchair-Critic-thread/topic/14475/
    MrFantastic74 likes this.
  15. fett 4 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jan 2, 2000
    star 4
    It's not just fighters, though to use that anology its comparing planes from WW1 and WW2 but somehow the WW1 planes are better.
  16. Valairy Scot Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Sep 16, 2005
    star 5
    Actually, while this does happen, so does the opposite. Maybe the issue is the "linking" of the "flaws/inconsistancies" to each other, but honestly, the PT nit-picking is so prevalent that one finds it in the PT forum, the Saga forum, the TV forum... that some have decided to stop biting their tongue and try to point out the inconsistancy of some of those nit-picks. In that sense, it is not a "tit for tat" relationship.

    Have a great break and we'll welcome you back in a month or so.
  17. Arawn_Fenn Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jul 2, 2004
    star 7
    But he was tempted to employ its powers for his own personal gain. His need to save Padme was not a selfless thing.
    Andy Wylde likes this.
  18. Valairy Scot Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Sep 16, 2005
    star 5
    Yes, he wanted to save Padme so he wouldn't have to live without her. So he "fell for" Palps story into the "dark" willingly.
  19. HanSolo29 Manager Emeritus + Official Star Wars Artist

    Member Since:
    Apr 13, 2001
    star 6
    You also need to keep in mind that Obi-Wan himself describes the Old Republic era and the time of the PT as a "more civilized age." What we see in the OT is a result of nearly two decades of civil war - I highly doubt things will continue to look clean and in pristine condition. Not to mention most of the action in the OT takes place in the Outer Rim, a far cry from the Core and all their classy ships and technology.

    It's hardly a flaw - it's all about how you perceive things and the natural wear and tear of war.
    Valairy Scot likes this.
  20. Jerran Tankarri Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 9, 2013
    OMG this always annoyed me I remember when I watched ESB for the first time I was thinking (Oh no Han's gunna be dead and Lando will replace him, hes even wearing his clothes!!)
    Darth Chiznuk likes this.
  21. Saintheart Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Dec 16, 2000
    star 6
    Thing is, talking about this stuff we're getting into examining psychological motives of characters -- which is always going to be entrails-reading -- against a, to be kind, somewhat inferior director who is much, much better at big-picture vision than small-picture direction of actors.

    For my part, here's my take on it: Anakin's relationship with Padme is not a healthy, loving relationship between two equals. It's a relationship built principally on obsession and possession. It's, dare I say it, an abusive relationship.

    Anakin is dependent on Padme for his happiness and fulfilment -- and by dependent, I mean emotionally dependent to an unhealthy degree. He's (rightly or wrongly) never learned Jedi detachment from his emotions, so he's ruled by them and most if not all of the positive ones he has come from Padme. He has no mother figure and hasn't dealt with the issue, so he's placed that unconscious burden on Padme; he's been told by the only father figure in his early life to "feel, don't think" - a suggestion that's capitalised on by Palpatine over the twenty-odd years of their acquaintance while Anakin's growing up. Indeed Palpatine by the end is Anakin's father figure. We've seen how Anakin tends to go to extremes throughout the series, albeit most of the time he's still staying within Jedi conventions and hasn't gone full psychopath.

    Padme, to me, is a very difficult character to read (partially because Portman's acting is flat as a board, but anyway...) but the impression I get is that she is more in love with the ideal of what Anakin could be - so much so that she's prepared to blind herself to his faults. Fair enough that in a healthy romantic relationship you overlook the other person picking their nose or nighttime flatulence, but what Padme's doing is acting in a state of denial about the man she's fallen for. This might explain her lack of reaction to Anakin revealing he's become a mass murderer of Tuskens, I don't know, there's a lot of unfortunate implications around that scene, but in any event it's clear that what makes Padme "wake up" is when she's told Anakin has murdered children at the Temple. This, at least, is understandable: she's heavily pregnant, due to be a mother, so from that point she's wrestling her feelings for Anakin against the lives of her unborn children.

    I grant you there's a strong "flipflop to the Dark Side" element in his conversion scene, but I think it arises out of poor direction and/or poor buildup by George Lucas -- not that it's completely novel or implausible by narrative standards. Hell, look at Macbeth -- Macbeth himself considers incorruptible at the start of the play, and it only takes a scene or so of encouragement by Lady Macbeth for Macbeth to pull out the daggers and whack King Duncan in his sleep while under the highland rule of hospitality, no less.

    Eric Lustbader wrote one good line on the whole 'convert to the Dark Side' thing: "It seems impossible, until the moment it is irresistible", which one of the characters describes as sounding like an extramarital affair. It's a very, very potent insight when you think about it -- but it's also damn hard to represent on film, and George Lucas's direction simply isn't up to the challenge. But I don't think it's an error in logic as such.

    After Anakin turns, I think the whole "slaughter children" thing can be misinterpreted. I think a lot of people interpret his actions as him rolling around in the Dark Side having the time of his life. Quite the contrary: Anakin's not enjoying himself while angry and he does this horrible act. He's doing what he thinks is necessary. And he's using all the lessons the Jedi taught him to repress his conscience so he can do horrible things. He's doing this because he believes, irrationally since he's been driven more or less to the psychological edge, there is no other choice. The only father figure in his life has alienated his only friend and has convinced him the only way to save the love of his life is to follow the father figure's directions. This explains why he's crying on Mustafar: he knows full well that what he's doing is wrong, but he can't let himself do anything else, for the sake of Padme's life.

    As to why he murders Padme: like I said, it's an abusive relationship, and Anakin is acting on extremes. He doesn't actually love Padme as such; he desires her, yes, craves her, yes, but it's only because he can't bear the thought of life without her - whether she lives or dies. Not to mention that Padme rejecting him makes all of the horrors he's done meaningless, not to mention it's a hit to the scared little kid that's still inside him somewhere. Not to mention his self-esteem seems to depend heavily on his regard for her, so all that repressed anger, guilt, and rage come bursting out when she says she doesn't know who he is anymore. (And on top of that, the subtle suggestion that she's been sleeping with Obi-Wan, an undercurrent that plays out through that scene.)
    Last edited by Saintheart, Jan 10, 2013
  22. Saintheart Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Dec 16, 2000
    star 6
    *Deep breath*

    The Dagobah cave scene is (to me personally) one of the best moments in the whole OT trilogy, largely because it has so many possible meanings, each of which are valid and each of which have something to say about the plot.

    Let's leave aside why the dark side cave is there, or whether Yoda himself is generating the entire effect (including the sense of the Dark Side). The cave is there because Yoda has to teach Luke an important lesson: that if he does not adhere to the Jedi training, follow through, he runs the risk of becoming exactly like his father. If he succumbs to the Dark Side, he will become like Darth Vader. That's the simplest explanation of the illusion.

    It's when you add the dialogue ahead of the encounter that it gets so much more poetic and metaphorical--

    Yoda: Yes, yes, a Jed's strength flows from the Force - but beware of the Dark Side. Anger, fear, aggression, the Dark Side of the Force are they - quick to join in a fight. Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny - consume you it will, as it did Obi-Wan's apprentice...
    Luke: ...Vader. Is the Dark Side stronger?
    Yoda: No! No. No. Quicker, easier, more seductive.
    Luke: But how am I to know the good side from the bad?
    Yoda: You will know when you are calm; at peace; passive. A Jedi uses the Force for knowledge and defence -- never for attack.
    Luke: But tell me why I can't--
    Yoda: No, no, there is no why! Nothing more will I teach you today. Clear your mind of questions.
    (Yoda dismounts. Luke is getting dressed, when...)
    Luke: There's something not right here. I feel cold ... death ...
    Yoda: That place (points at the cave) is strong with the Dark Side of the Force. A domain of evil it is. In you must go.
    Luke: What's in there?
    Yoda: Only what you take with you. (As Luke straps on his gear) Your weapons -- you will not need them.
    (Luke shakes his head, continues to strap on his gear, proceeds into the cave, where he encounters Vader. He raises his weapon first; attacks first. Beheads Vader; the head rolls away, and the mask explodes to reveal Luke's face.)

    So, some alternate meanings of the cave:

    (1) It's foreshadowing. It's predicting that Luke and Vader will come to blows in the film, or at least in the future. The duel between Luke and Vader to some extent plays out like the duel in the cave, too: in both duels, Luke ignites and goes on guard first, Vader second. It's also technically foreshadowing the result: the Luke behind Vader's mask is defeated, and Luke is defeated in his duel, too. It's also giving away, indirectly, the biggest secret of the film: Luke is behind Vader's mask because Darth Vader is Luke's father. There's a Skywalker inside Vader. (It might even be a reason for Luke to come to his conviction, in RoTJ, that there is still good in Darth Vader.)

    (2) The duel means exactly what Yoda said: there is nothing in the cave except what Luke takes with him - emotionally, psychologically, and spiritually. Luke is preoccupied with Darth Vader; the cave therefore reflects that preoccupation back at Luke. It's Luke who is driving his fears of Vader, nothing more. That's why Luke's face appears behind the mask. If Luke hadn't gone in armed, quite possibly the duel would not have happened since Luke brought his weapons - symbols of aggression - into the cave with him.

    (3) In slightly more airy-fairy terms, the duel links back into the powerful and unresolved relationship men have with their fathers. The masculine relationship is invariably competitive in nature -- fathers and sons often wrestle playfully, the son trying to show the father that he's good enough, that he's a man. Some versions of the Holy Grail myth allude to this, in that Perceval, the true knight who alone out of King Arthur's knights sees the Grail, has to confront the Fisher King -- a wounded, desolate man ruling over a wasteland. In some versions of the myth, the Fisher King is Perceval's own father.

    (4) Just going into the cave might sound like a stupid idea until you remember that most heroic cycle stories of the Campbellian kind involve the protagonist exploring the darkness as well as being a champion of light. We cannot stay away from the evils and character flaws in ourselves forever; we have to confront them, sooner or later.

    (5) It's also possible that the cave was trying to convey a pacifistic message: because Luke struck first and killed Darth Vader, he ended up just like his father. He ended up inside the same trap his father could not escape. This, too, links with Luke's decision not to kill his own father in RoTJ - knowing that hate and anger only breed more and more of the same, that it is no solution, that you only end up just like the person you hate.

    (6) There's probably a Freudian significance to going into a dark, moist cave with your lightsaber in hand, but let's leave that aside.
  23. Fives_Says_No_To_Sixes Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 6, 2013
    star 3
    I think this was primarily because Luke didn't know about Force Lightning. He had never encountered it before and all Yoda had said was not to underestimate the powers of the Emperor. How was he supposed to know that by powers he had meant the ability to shoot lightning out of his fingertips? Even if he had held onto his lightsaber, he didn't even know that he could block lighting with the blade - this wasn't established until the Thrawn trilogy and later by Lucas in the Prequels.

    I always saw it as him doing exactly what Yoda had told him not to do - underestimating the powers of the Emperor. In Luke's mind, he probably figured there wasn't any way for Palpatine to attack him (other than maybe a force choke). Palpatine's line about a lightsaber being a "Jedi Weapon" most likely led Luke to believe Palpatine didn't have one of his own up his sleeve. (heh heh...) To me, ultimately he was thinking, "You failed, I won't turn to the dark side. I won't use my lightsaber out of hatred. I'm a Jedi - Even if you try some other trick to kill me, I'm willing to die as a JEDI...not a Sith --Holy **** lightningt!!!!"
  24. Valairy Scot Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Sep 16, 2005
    star 5
    Whether it totally goes to "unhealthy" or not, I have to agree with you. Or at least agree that is how it was executed, because we are supposed to believe he really does love Padme. I just think he also loves the idea of loving her and her loving him. She is "his life" and his "reason for being." Sounds lovely, but taken too far -

    Not sure if I agree or not. She wasn't exactly thrilled to hear of the Tuskens massacre, but all she knew about them was what she had heard and observed from Anakin and the Lars, a very onesided portrait of savage monsters, not of civilized beings. With her focus on Anakin and his emotional pain, I don't see that scene as unrealistic.

    Yet even then she can't, won't believe it until any and all hope of it being wrong is ended.

    Maybe that's why I don't quite buy the scene. I understand how it happens but it doesn't feel right to me. Rather than reluctantly and emotionally empathising with Anakin, my mind is shouting "You fool, think!"


    I love that!

    Ah ha - finally an excellent explanation of just why Luke might have this faith that Anakin still exists. It makes sense.[/quote]
    Last edited by Valairy Scot, Jan 11, 2013
  25. fett 4 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jan 2, 2000
    star 4
    I agree with you on how their relationship was portrayed though I am not sure was the actual intention, Which I think was more ment to be Padme being the older wiser.mature one of the two with Anakin as the younger less mature, but she still in love with him. Then you have Palpatine as a Iago type feeding his insecurities both about her, Obiwan and himself. Ironically some of there best scenes in Clones were in the deleted scenes when they visit Padme's parents and start to learn about each other. Instead we get Sand lines and Anakin telling her he is in to facist dictatorships! As well as some bad dialogue, I don't think the casting helped either. Really Portman was to young and to bland for the role, who had no chemistry while having a different actor for TPM was also a no no. Imagine having a 9ry old for Luke in ANH then having Hamil only show up for ESB!

    Killing children was a bit of a problem since he shed's the tear after killing the Seperatist leaders, which after children is not something he should be crying about! It also takes a lot of sympathy away from whats ment to be a tragic hero. The whhole Temple scene was a wasted oppertunity in jmo. While Anakin comes across as really dumb when Palps tells him that maybe, possibly they can discover the secret. That very second he should have realised he had been tricked. In the novelisation it's much better portrayed with him on the edge and thinking more about the Jedi trying to take over which Mace stupidly helps with his actions.

    It's hard to explain the ustafar scene since you have Anakin saying he should have known the Jed were plotting to take over, 5 mins after saying he could overthrow the Chancellor and rule with Padme and telling Obi-wan he has made his new Empire. Obi-wan of course not to be outdone declares that only Sith deal in absolutes before stating that Palpatine is evil.
    Last edited by fett 4, Jan 11, 2013