So, Padme is supposed to die shortly after giving birth to the twins. I had some trouble with this when I first heard it, because I always got the impression that she had gone into hiding with Leia on Alderaan (perhaps assuming the identity of a servant in Baal Organa's household), and died when Leia was a few years old, perhaps "of a broken heart." That's what I always thought would have happend to the twins' mother, even before I knew there was going to be a prequel trilogy telling us anything about her. This is the information we have from the OT:
LUKE: Leia... do you remember your mother? Your real mother?
LEIA: Just a little bit. She died when I was very young.
LUKE: What do you remember?
LEIA: Just...images, really. Feelings.
LUKE: Tell me.
LEIA: She was very beautiful. Kind, but...sad. Why are you asking me all this?
LUKE: I have no memory of my mother. I never knew her.
In light of this conversation, it seems a little strange to have Padme die when Leia is still a newborn.
But I can see how from the storyteller's point of view, it makes more sense to move Padme's death to an earlier time, in order to get it onscreen without having to do an awkward "flash forward" at the end of Episode III. It's more poignant that way. So, though I was upset about it at first, I made peace with the new information, and accepted the general fandom explanation for the continuity issue: Leia, one way or another, had more contact with her mother--perhaps she was born a few minutes before Luke--and it was enough that, through the Force, she was able to hold on to some impressions of her mother--"images" and "feelings" of a woman who was "beautiful, kind, but sad". Meh. It works, right?
Only now, I find that apparently a very reliable spoiler source makes it clear that Padme actually has more contact with Luke before she dies (it's not clear who is born first, but she touches his forehead for a moment, then dies before Leia can be shown to her by the medical droid).
So...now I'm kinda going, "Um...Wha?"
Pablo Hidalgo, from the Star Wars official website has said:
Leia's recollections as described in Return of the Jedi have no inherent flaws and are valid given the greater context of the saga. But I suspect those looking for contradictions always find them.
Dude, I am not looking for contradictions--except, perhaps, to go "Ha ha! Oops!" and continue enjoying the movie. I can forgive little errors, like "[Vader] was a pupil of mine until he turned to evil," which isn't exactly true, but close enough. And Yoda being identified as "the Jedi who taught me" by Obi-Wan--not the whole truth, but at least partly true. I doubt that "I haven't gone by [the name Obi-Wan] since before you were born" will be exactly right, either. But, hey. No big deal.
All I ask is that the emotional impact of all the imporant moments and relationships from the OT remain intact.
Please, George, don't ruin the emotional impact of that scene between Luke and Leia in ROTJ. Please. It's so simple. All you have to do is give us some reason to believe that...
1. Leia has some reason to have at least some sort of memories of Padme, and
2. Luke doesn't.
That's it. It shouldn't be too hard, right?
Ugh. I know it's silly, but I just have always liked that scene, and I'll be really annoyed if the new movie does anything to taint it.
And since currently the most poplular explanation I've heard from fans is "Well, Leia could be talking about the Queen of Aldraan instead"...um, yeah. I'm worried. Because that would not be a remotely good explanation for it.
*sigh* Okay, I'd better quit obsessing and get ready for my ESL class.