logo Sign In

Spartacus01

User Group
Members
Join date
22-Nov-2022
Last activity
6-Nov-2024
Posts
298

Post History

Post
#1608740
Topic
Unpopular Opinion Thread
Time

The titles of the Sequel Trilogy films could actually work well as alternative titles for the Original Trilogy films.

Starting with The Force Awakens, this title could apply to A New Hope since it marks the moment when the Force truly resurges in the galaxy through Luke. The Force, long dormant, becomes active again, and Luke begins his journey to become a Jedi, embodying the awakening of hope and the Force. The Last Jedi fits The Empire Strikes Back, where Luke is not only trained by Yoda but also faces the growing responsibility of potentially being the last Jedi left. The burden of carrying on the Jedi legacy is central to this film, especially with Yoda’s death seeming imminent. Lastly, The Rise of Skywalker could be a fitting title for Return of the Jedi, as it marks Luke’s ultimate rise as a Jedi Knight. It also signifies the redemption of Anakin, the original Skywalker, who returns from the Dark Side. The title encapsulates the final triumph of the Skywalker family line.

In this sense, the Sequel Trilogy titles could capture the key themes of the Original Trilogy just as well.

Post
#1608292
Topic
Revenge of the Sith - Vader Edition (WIP) (New Clips Avaiable)
Time

I definitely feel like I can edit down the duels, tone down the color grade, remove overly cartoonish stuff and the overly busy nature of so many shots (we don’t need random shit constantly thrown on the screen). Perhaps I can find the resources on the internet to make OT style mattes too. However, some ideas are beyond my capabilities.
A lot of this stuff will also not hold back release of this edit. Because even without it, I feel I’ll make something pretty good. But it’s a dream.

At this point, I think it would be much more simple to just rewrite the entire trilogy.

Post
#1607211
Topic
What Do YOU Think Star Wars Should Do Next?
Time

Connor MacLeod said:

I think Star Wars needs to take a break. A very long break. I don’t think the universe needs to get bigger but smaller. For me, less is more when it comes to Star Wars. For me, Star Wars was at its best in the pre-prequel era because projects were coming out minimally, and when they did, it was special. I feel like there was a more quality over quantity approach. We need to get back to that. Rather than having 10 shows running at the same time, I would rather have one show with all those resources put into it. That would be an Emmy award-winning masterpiece like breaking bad, or the Sopranos or Game of Thrones. Instead of releasing 100 books a year release three, but make the contents, super impactful to the universe and significant.

I agree with everything you said here.

Superweapon VII said:

Fan_edit_fan said:

I think the old Tales of the Jedi comics did the thing we’re talking about. It felt like older tech and clothing…a.more interesting visual style than Jedi robes and Tie Fighter looking ships from the KOTOR style era.

Indeed. It’s like creators post-1998 got together and said “We don’t have to be creative anymore; we got the prequels now.” SW has been a coprophagic ouroboros ever since.

You know, I think that even if the prequelization of the Jedi and Sith orders was introduced in-universe only after the Battle of Russan, you would still say that the EU authors were not creative enough. Why? Because the vast majority of the stories within the EU take place between 1,000 BBY and 4 ABY, so you would still have the majority of EU stories portraying the Sith and the Jedi in a prequelized way.

Post
#1607057
Topic
What do you think of The Prequel Trilogy? A general discussion.
Time

G&G-Fan said:

Of course the good guys and bad guys should never be as one-dimensional as you describe. Taking the OT as an example, Luke, Han and Leia are protagonist heroes who are undeniably flawed (though I’m sure you weren’t referring to them). At the points in the narrative where Darth Vader is pure evil and Obi-Wan is pure good, there’s still dimension and nuances to their characterizations. Vader and Obi-Wan aren’t just evil and good respectively, they’re a particular flavor of evil and good. They still have traits, goals, views, and rudimentary backstories. This is understandable, they’re not the protagonists. As the movies go on, they’re given more depth as we learn more. Vader actually has deeply repressed vulnerability underneath his cold hardened personality. Obi-Wan lied to Luke and either actually failed Anakin or is too hard on himself. Yoda and the Emperor are the embodiment of good and evil, but even still, have character traits.

I don’t have a problem with the characterization for Obi-Wan and Yoda in the Prequels either, I take issue with the idea that the Jedi’s beliefs are corrupt and incorrect and putting so much blame on the Jedi for their tragic fate. Protagonist Jedi characters should be good people with flaws, but the religion is the enlightened path, and the flaws of the characters (understandable and human) strays from Jedi philosophy (like Luke’s). The one PT Jedi flaw Lucas agrees with, the participation in the war, is a departure from their philosophy (though his intent is that they’re involuntarily drafted). There’s also still a place for characters like Yoda, who should be all good, because his purpose in the narrative is to be the wise mentor. You don’t see people begging for Gandalf to be given a massive amount of depth.

If a character is intended to be portrayed as a good person with flaws, then those flaws need to be properly shown, not overlooked. However, whenever you criticize Lucas’ portrayal of the Jedi in the Prequel Trilogy, it almost seems as though you expect every Jedi to be perfect. The problem is, if every Jedi is perfect, we are no longer talking about well-meaning individuals with flaws; we are talking about flawless people, which is an entirely different thing. For instance, hypocrisy can be considered a flaw, and if someone wanted to depict the Jedi as well-meaning but flawed individuals, it would be reasonable to portray some of the Jedi as hypocritical, at least when it comes to the Jedi Council. Yet, whenever someone suggests that the Council may have acted hypocritically, you tend to dismiss the idea outright, saying that you don’t like it. So, I believe you need to make a choice: either the Jedi are perfect, or they are not. If they are not, then their flaws must be recognized, and they need to have real consequences.

I understand that you don’t like the idea of portraying Anakin as a victim. However, the fact that he made his own choice does not mean that the Jedi didn’t play any role in his downfall. They were responsible for raising him and teaching him to control his emotions. And if they failed, it wasn’t solely because Anakin refused to listen, because there are many examples of individuals who come from challenging backgrounds and refused to listen at first, but who still managed to learn discipline and internalize good values. Yes, Anakin made his choice, and that cannot be denied, but portraying the Jedi Order as entirely blameless isn’t a realistic perspective either. Moreover, criticizing the Jedi Order is not an attack on their philosophy, but rather on the institution itself. The religion and its core principles are sound — no one is disputing that, not even many of those who criticize the Jedi. However, the institution, its rules, and its practices deserve to be examined and critiqued. This, again, has nothing to do with the core tenets of Jedi philosophy, such as controlling your emotions, living at peace with yourself, following the will of the Force and trying not to cause harm to anyone.

To give an example, the Expanded Universe often portrayed the Jedi as the good guys, while also highlighting their flaws. The EU authors were clear in their intent: while the fundamental beliefs of the Jedi religion were portrayed as correct, the institutionalized Jedi Order and some of the Jedi rules in place during the Prequel era were open to critique, like the ban on romantic relationships. In the old EU the authors were more inclined to make a distinction between healthy and unhealthy romantic relationships, suggesting that healthy romantic relationships were not impossible for a Jedi to maintain, while unhealthy ones — like Anakin and Padmé’s relationship — were wrong. This is an approach to the Jedi, their philosophy, and their rules that I agree with, as opposed to Lucas’ own interpretation.

Post
#1606904
Topic
What do you think of The Prequel Trilogy? A general discussion.
Time

G&G-Fan said:

It’s not a matter of it being “hard to believe”. I don’t like it. You can’t take a character ppl love, take away from some of what they loved about him and expect ppl to be cool with it.

I completely understand where you are coming from, and I respect your love for the way Darth Vader is portrayed in the Original Trilogy. However, I think it is unrealistic to expect him to be as agile as he was before he got the suit, especially after everything that happened to him in Revenge of the Sith. As I have already said, the guy had both of his legs and one of his arms cut off, and then he was left to burn alive for hours before Palpatine arrived on Mustafar to save what little was left of him. After going through all that, it wouldn’t make sense for him to move with the same speed or agility. However, his physical limitations are part of what makes him so intimidating, at least in my opinion. The fact that he can still fight with such ferocity despite those injuries shows how powerful he really is. Even though his mobility has been reduced compared to his younger self, he has learned to adapt. He is no longer the fast, acrobatic duelist he was as Anakin, but now he is this unstoppable force who fights with pure power and precision. His strikes are heavy and deliberate, and that makes him terrifying in a different way. So, I think that his reduced mobility actually makes him even more intimidating. And let’s be honest, just looking at the suit, it is clear that it is heavy and uncomfortable. It is not the kind of thing anyone would want to live inside, much less fight in. You can tell right away that it would restrict his movements. But that only adds to the character in my opinion, because despite the fact that the suit looks cumbersome, Vader still manages to dominate his enemies. It is part of what makes him so menacing — he is pushing through immense physical pain and limitations, yet he is still one of the most dangerous beings in the galaxy. That’s what makes him powerful, even if he is not as agile as he once was.

Making the Jedi corrupt means there’s no good role model. That’s the role Obi-Wan and Yoda have in the OT; they’re the good mentors leading Luke to the enlightened path. You need that in a story that, while for everyone, children should be able to follow, unlike The Godfather, clearly for adults.

I understand your perspective, but I don’t think the Jedi need to be perfect to be role models. In fact, showing their flaws makes the story more relatable. The idea that “everything was perfect until Anakin and Palpatine destroyed it all” is way too simplistic, because life is not that black and white. People and institutions, even well-meaning ones like the Jedi, can make mistakes, and those mistakes can have serious consequences. A Republic that has lasted for thousands of years does not collapse simply because a guy with a bad childhood and an evil sorcerer decide to team up. Things are not that simple, and it is wrong to portray them so simplistically. There is a reason why people these days don’t appreciate simple fairy tales as much as they used to, and that’s because real life doesn’t work like fairy tales, and people don’t like simplistic stories anymore. There is a difference between trying to be positive and spread a good message and writing unrealistic stories where the good guys are perfect and the bad guys are basically demons with no soul. Furthermore, what makes Obi-Wan and Yoda compelling mentors is not that they are flawless, but that they learn from their failures. They are still guiding Luke toward a better path despite the mistakes the Jedi Order made in the past.

Post
#1606867
Topic
What do you think of The Prequel Trilogy? A general discussion.
Time

While the films don’t explicitly state that Vader’s suit made him weaker compared to his younger self, the idea isn’t hard to believe.

After his battle on Mustafar, Vader suffered catastrophic injuries — losing his arms, legs, and being severely burned. In Revenge of the Sith, we see that the process of placing him into the suit involved a highly invasive and complex surgical procedure. Furthermore, when Vader first stands up, we can clearly see that he struggles with basic movement and has difficulty walking. This strongly suggests that the suit restricts his mobility, preventing him from being as agile or physically capable as he was before the suit. Vader’s menacing appearance in the suit may give the impression that he is all-powerful, but this doesn’t necessarily mean he’s the most dominant force in the galaxy. Often, things that appear imposing or invincible aren’t as indestructible as they seem, and Vader’s intimidating presence doesn’t automatically equate to unparalleled strength.

I’ve never had an issue with the fact that the duel between Vader and Obi-Wan in A New Hope feels completely different from their fight on Mustafar. I’ve always chalked it up to external factors, mainly the limitations of special effects at the time, rather than trying to find an in-universe explanation for the contrast between the two duels. The difference never bothered me because I understood it was more about the practical constraints of filmmaking, rather than something that needed to be justified within the story itself.

Post
#1606385
Topic
Unpopular Opinion Thread
Time

I will always be grateful to Lucas for creating such an incredible universe and for all the amazing things he contributed to it. Without him, none of this would exist, and for that, I will forever owe him my thanks. However, after Revenge of the Sith, I don’t really care about anything that he largely contributed to. I prefer the Clone Wars Multimedia Project over George’s Clone Wars show; I prefer what we got of the history of the galaxy in the EU over anything Lucas has said concerning how he views the history of the Star Wars universe; I don’t like George’s ideas for the Sequel Trilogy, as opposed to stories like the Thrawn Trilogy and the New Jedi Order series. In general, I find myself more drawn to what other creators have contributed to the Star Wars universe, rather than the later works that Lucas himself had a hand in.

Post
#1605346
Topic
What Do YOU Think Star Wars Should Do Next?
Time

Vladius said:

Spartacus01 said:

Vladius said:

I will say that the Darth Plagueis book does a magnificent job of turning the prequels into a coherent setting where almost everything does actually make sense in context, but that’s just the issue, it takes an entire extra book’s worth of context. People that have read that book are going to retroactively imagine details in the movies that were never there and were not explained at all.

I said it before, I will say it again. The Prequels are a really good story if you take the time to explain everything in detail. But three movies are not enough to explain everything that needs to be explained in detail, and the Prequels should have never been movies in the first place. The Prequels should have been either a long, live action TV series (4+ seasons), or an Expanded Universe multimedia project of books, comics and video games that are interconnected to each other, something along the lines of the Clone Wars Multimedia Project that existed in real life, but including the main story of the movies too. The problem is not the story that Lucas was trying to convey to the audience, but rather the fact that the story is not suitable to be portrayed in three movies. The story is way too complex and contains a lot of information. Three movies are not enough.

I think the problem was the story he was trying to convey, or at least the details of the story. The extra details that fleshed it out and made it make sense came later from other people doing their own interpretations, and those extra details didn’t exist at the time. There essentially was an EU multimedia project, just not all at once. But there shouldn’t have to be. It’s a movie series that exists to be watched as movies, and it’s unreasonable (especially in 1999-2005) to expect everyone to invest time, money, and energy into puzzling together your story for you like homework. You have almost 7 full hours of screentime, plus the direct exposition from opening crawls. So much of that is wasted, or in the case of the “taxation of trade routes” thing we’re talking about, actively makes it less clear.

I think that you missed the point of what I was trying to say, though. I didn’t say that you are required to spend money and time reading and experiencing EU stories to fill in the gaps, I said that the Prequels should have been conceived as an integral part of the EU from the very beginning. We shouldn’t have Prequel movies, we should only have Prequel books, comics and video games, and possibly a TV show. This is the only way to preserve the core elements of the story that Lucas was trying to convey, while simultaneously expanding them, exploring the overall setting, locations and characters in detail, and making everything feel more believable. The Original Trilogy is able to stand on its own, because it is a simple adventure, a classical hero’s journey that doesn’t require a very complex world-building. But Anakin’s story from his childhood to his transformation into Darth Vader? The Clone Wars? Palpatine’s rise to power? Nah, these are all things that necessarily require a complex story, a lot of world-building and a lot of explanations, all of which are not feasible for three movies, unless you end up making movies of 6 hours each.

Post
#1605313
Topic
What Do YOU Think Star Wars Should Do Next?
Time

Vladius said:

I will say that the Darth Plagueis book does a magnificent job of turning the prequels into a coherent setting where almost everything does actually make sense in context, but that’s just the issue, it takes an entire extra book’s worth of context. People that have read that book are going to retroactively imagine details in the movies that were never there and were not explained at all.

I said it before, I will say it again. The Prequels are a really good story if you take the time to explain everything in detail. But three movies are not enough to explain everything that needs to be explained in detail, and the Prequels should have never been movies in the first place. The Prequels should have been either a long, live action TV series (4+ seasons), or an Expanded Universe multimedia project of books, comics and video games that are interconnected to each other, something along the lines of the Clone Wars Multimedia Project that existed in real life, but including the main story of the movies too. The problem is not the story that Lucas was trying to convey to the audience, but rather the fact that the story is not suitable to be portrayed in three movies. The story is way too complex and contains a lot of information. Three movies are not enough.

Post
#1604936
Topic
UFO's & other anomalies ... do you believe?
Time

BedeHistory731 said:

I’m just happy you’re not citing Erich Von Däniken’s legitimately racist garbage.

I did not reference Erich von Däniken because, as I have explained in detail in a previous post within this thread, where I meticulously outline my views on the UFO phenomenon and related topics, I do not support the Ancient Astronaut theory. Yes, I am convinced that some UFOs are extraterrestrial spacecraft, but I do not endorse the notion that aliens landed on Earth in ancient times, made contact with early civilizations, and were mistaken for gods. Nor do I believe that they constructed the ancient monuments we see around the world. In my opinion, the Ancient Astronaut theory, while intriguing, is based on historical errors and strained interpretations of ancient sacred texts. It is certainly possible that some celestial anomalies observed in antiquity might have been extraterrestrial probes or ships, but this does not imply that aliens openly landed on Earth and were mistaken for deities by our ancestors. I stand by the former, but not the latter.

Post
#1604399
Topic
<strong>Pre-PT era lore</strong> | an OT &amp; EU scrapbook resource | additional info &amp; sources welcome
Time

Channel72 said:

^ Well, I mean, if I were Obi Wan or Yoda at the end of Revenge of the Sith thinking about what to do going forward, I would have A LOT of problems with hiding Luke on Tatooine. Kenobi’s plan is actually even worse than simply hiding Luke on Tatooine. He’s not only hiding Luke on Tatooine, but hiding him with a person that has a direct family connection to Anakin. Kenobi didn’t just throw Luke at some random orphanage in Mos Espa. He placed him with Anakin’s step-brother Owen. I mean… talk about a witness protection disaster. There are so many risks involved here. It’s possible somebody from Owen’s or Anakin’s past might one day blab about this boy appearing out of nowhere, or any number of things or past associates of Anakin or Owen could accidentally leak information that could ultimately alert Vader to investigate. Even if there’s only like a 0.001% chance of it happening, why take the risk? Tatooine is one of the few places in the Galaxy with people who used to know Anakin.

I mean ultimately all of this is a big writing kludge, because A New Hope was never written with the idea that Luke is supposed to be hiding. It makes no sense his last name is still Skywalker. People try to justify this with various excuses, like “maybe Skywalker is a common name!” or whatever. Again, I don’t care, because why risk it? If your last name is Smith and you go into witness protection, they will still change your name. They certainly changed Leia’s last name.

As things stand, the explanations you provide are probably the best we can do given the material we must work with, but it’s still kind of a kludge and an unfortunate side effect of the retcon that Vader is Luke’s father. Don’t get me wrong, I absolutely love the idea that Vader is Luke’s father. It’s one of the best retcons in movie history. But it does come with certain unfortunate side effects like making Luke’s living situation and the fact his name is still “Skywalker” seem absurd in retrospect.

You know, I think it’s not that difficult to explain why they decided to keep Luke’s original last name. If you think about it, Shmi’s last name was also Skywalker, which means there’s probably a whole side of the Skywalker family that we know nothing about. After all, for Shmi to be called Skywalker, her father had to have that last name too, and so did her grandfather, her great-grandfather, and so on. So, it’s entirely possible that there could be other members of the Skywalker family on Tatooine or perhaps other planets, and they probably decided that Luke could keep his last name for this reason. Just because someone is called Skywalker doesn’t mean they’re directly related to Anakin and Padmé, so Obi-Wan and Yoda probably thought Luke might have been confused with another distant member of the Skywalker family who had nothing to do with Anakin. And it’s not like Vader was actively going around the galaxy looking for his distant cousins ​​or other family members, he wanted to forget everything about his past and his family.

Post
#1604396
Topic
UFO's &amp; other anomalies ... do you believe?
Time

Channel72 said:

I didn’t mean to come off as antagonistic. Just saying the asteroid theory is the scientific consensus at the moment. True, no paleontologist was alive 65 million years ago, but all paleontology requires using the scientific method to extrapolate from archaeological evidence and arrive at the most likely conclusion. Currently, the consensus among paleontologists (who study this for a living) is that an asteroid killed the dinosaurs. Of course this consensus could be wrong, but at the moment it’s the best explanation given the available evidence.

The reason I say the alien war thing is ridiculous is because we already have a perfectly reasonable explanation backed up by geological evidence and radio-carbon dating. There’s a huge crater in Mexico that dates to the correct time. Plus, any extraordinary claim should require extraordinary evidence. Asteroid impacts are not really extraordinary. They happen quite often over geological time scales, so there’s nothing particularly weird or extraordinary about it, unlike an alien space war. So the Chicxulub impact is simply the best explanation. Again, obviously it’s possible that something else happened and paleontologists are wrong, but currently there’s just no compelling reason to believe so.

The asteroid impact theory is probably the right explanation, but it doesn’t mean it is the only explanation. I am aware of the fact that my hypothesis is pure speculation and has no concrete evidence, but I presented it as speculation and as a pure hypothesis from the very beginning. I never tried to demonstrate its correctness, it is just a fascinating hypothesis I like to speculate on, so I don’t have to necessarily try to prove that it is correct. Theories need to be proven correct or incorrect, but hypotheses can remain floating in the air, despite being considered realistic by the person who proposes them. If you don’t want to transform your hypothesis into a theory, you don’t necessarily need to prove that your hypothesis is correct.

Anyway, what do you think is the most convincing evidence that somebody observed an alien spacecraft back then?

I appreciate your curiosity, but I have to admit, I’m not really an expert in this area. My interests and knowledge are more focused on modern UFO sightings, especially those reported from 1947 onward. I haven’t really dived deep into the study of Clipeology, so my insights here are pretty limited. That said, while my focus has been on more recent sightings, I do know of some interesting references from ancient history that might point to sightings of extraterrestrial spacecraft. For example, the Romans documented the appearance of what they called “fiery shields” or “clypei ardentes”. Historians like Livy and Pliny the Elder wrote about these events, and they seemed extraordinary and hard to explain with the knowledge of their time. Livy’s Ab Urbe Condita talks about glowing orbs or shields moving across the sky in ways that didn’t make much sense to people back then. Similarly, Pliny the Elder, in his Natural History, also describes cases where unusual lights and objects appeared in the heavens, often causing a lot of fear among those who saw them.

Post
#1604174
Topic
<strong>Pre-PT era lore</strong> | an OT &amp; EU scrapbook resource | additional info &amp; sources welcome
Time

Channel72 said:

Eh… I think the dialogue in A New Hope is just barely vague enough that we could weasel our way out of making this dialogue require Anakin to be from Tatooine. The relevant line in the script is “That’s what your uncle told you. He didn’t hold with your father’s ideals. Thought he should have stayed here and not gotten involved.

So that’s it… that’s the only line that implies Anakin is from Tatooine. It’s implied indirectly, because Obi Wan says “stayed here”, and the current “here” in that scene is the planet Tatooine. But this is inexact enough that we could interpret it as a slight grammatical blunder on Obi Wan’s part. He could have used “here” somewhat incorrectly to mean whatever location Kenobi/Anakin departed from before fighting in the Clone Wars. (Or you could always just do a fan edit that removes the words “stayed here and” so the sentence reads “Thought he should have not gotten involved.” Mostly kidding.)

Anyway, I know that’s really clumsy, but the thing is, as things stand now with the Prequels, Obi Wan’s line here is already like 95% a lie. Anakin and Owen barely had any relationship - they met for a few hours in Episode 2 - and certainly Owen never expressed any opinions about Anakin’s “ideals” or thought he should have stayed “here” at any point. Owen didn’t even know Anakin until after Anakin already left Tatooine and became a Jedi. So the line is already hopelessly broken.

Regardless, I do agree that the original line of dialogue does, as you say, imply that Anakin is from Tatooine. But due to various later retcons, Anakin being from Tatooine was no longer tenable, in my opinion, and keeping Tatooine as his home planet resulted in a worse outcome than simply ignoring the implications of that one word “here” in Obi Wan’s line in A New Hope.

Well, I don’t think that the Prequels necessarily broke Obi-Wan’s dialogue from A New Hope. It is true that Anakin and Owen didn’t have any meaningful relationship in the Prequels, but that does not mean that Owen could not have his own opinions about Anakin and the fact that he decided to join the Jedi. You don’t have to forget that Owen lived with Shmi for a considerable amount of time, and since he was her stepson, she likely told him everything about Anakin and the events of The Phantom Menace. So, it is entirely possible that Owen formed his opinions about Anakin’s decision to join the Jedi exclusively on the basis of what Shmi told him. Not to mention, the fact that we don’t see Owen openly expressing his thoughts in Attack of the Clones does not mean that he didn’t express them at all. It is entirely possible to conceive that Owen and Obi-Wan might have had an off-screen conversation between Revenge of the Sith and A New Hope, in which Owen openly expressed to Obi-Wan his thoughts about Anakin’s decision to join the Jedi Order, which is why Obi-Wan is aware of his opinions despite the fact that the two didn’t meet in Attack of the Clones. So again, I don’t think that the Prequels break the dialogue. Yes, you have to concede that some things happened off-screen, but it’s not like the Prequels outright contradict Obi-Wan’s dialogue. And if I have to be completely honest, I find my explanation much more consistent, sensible and less far-fetched than the one you hypothesized for Anakin’s alternative background, so I guess we have to agree to disagree here.

Now, hiding Luke on Tatooine might seem risky at first — after all, it’s the same planet where Anakin was born — but that’s what makes it so clever. Anakin had such a rough time on Tatooine — being a slave, leaving his mother behind, and eventually losing her — that he’d have no desire to go back. The trauma he experienced there creates a psychological barrier, which makes Tatooine the last place he’d want to revisit. In that sense, it’s actually the perfect place to hide Luke because it plays on Anakin’s deepest pain and memories, keeping him away. So, even though the decision of hiding Luke on Tatooine might seem nonsensical at first, it works perfectly if you introduce a trauma that caused Anakin to not want to return to the planet, which is exactly what Attack of the Clones does. Also, you don’t have to forget that, sometimes, the best place to hide something is in plain sight.

I mean, I’ve heard this before. Vader wouldn’t want to go back to Tatooine because childhood trauma or whatever. I mean… that’s really just pure speculation. You don’t know that. You could guess this would be the case, but it’s also possible Vader doesn’t give a shit. He didn’t seem to care when the Tantive IV showed up on Tatooine at any rate.

Regardless, even if this is true, why would anyone risk it? There’s probably at least a million other remote locations similar to Tatooine. Granted, Kenobi knew some people on Tatooine, so that factored in I guess. But relying on Vader’s continuing trauma to keep him away from Tatooine is a huge risk. I sure hope Vader doesn’t have a therapist.

I get what you’re saying about Vader’s trauma and how it’s speculative to assume he would avoid Tatooine because of it. But let’s consider the context here. Anakin’s experience on Tatooine wasn’t just some minor inconvenience, it was a defining part of his fall to the Dark Side. The death of his mother and his subsequent massacre of the Tusken Raiders were pivotal moments that deeply scarred him. These events weren’t just painful; they were shameful. Anakin’s whole transformation into Darth Vader involved burying the parts of himself that were weak, that felt pain, or that were tied to his past as Anakin Skywalker. Tatooine is loaded with all those memories — it’s where he was a slave, where he lost his mother, and where he tasted the Dark Side for the first time. Now, you’re right that we can’t know for certain how Vader feels about Tatooine, but the story strongly suggests that he’s driven by his desire to suppress and forget his past. His entire existence as Vader is about rejecting the man he once was, and Tatooine represents everything he wants to forget. Sure, it’s possible that he might not care or that he could rationally decide to go back if needed, but the point is, it’s extremely unlikely he would ever have a reason to. Tatooine is a backwater planet with no strategic importance, and from Vader’s perspective, there’s nothing there worth his attention. And when it comes to the Tantive IV showing up on Tatooine in A New Hope, Vader was pursuing Leia and the Death Star plans — his focus was on the mission, not on the planet itself. Tatooine was incidental, not a destination of personal interest to him.

As for why they would risk hiding Luke there, I think it’s less about relying solely on Vader’s trauma and more about Tatooine being a perfect combination of factors. It’s remote, insignificant, and happens to be where Obi-Wan can keep an eye on Luke while blending in. Plus, hiding in plain sight is often the best strategy, as I have already said. You’re right that there are probably a million other remote locations, but Tatooine is unique because it’s the one place that has this psychological barrier for Vader, along with the practical benefit of Obi-Wan’s familiarity with the planet, and a great distance from the center of the galaxy. Sure, there’s a risk, but every decision in war involves some level of risk. The key is that this risk is mitigated by the fact that Tatooine is the last place anyone would expect Luke to be hidden, including Vader. And let’s be honest, even if Vader did have a therapist, it’s not like he’s going to be working through his trauma in a way that would lead him back to his childhood home — his whole character arc is about running from that pain, not confronting it. If Vader did have a therapist, he would have not been a Sith Lord in the first place. So while we can’t say for sure that Vader would never go back to Tatooine, the odds were clearly in favor of him avoiding it, making it a clever and effective choice for hiding Luke.

Post
#1604103
Topic
UFO's &amp; other anomalies ... do you believe?
Time

Channel72 said:

The dinosaurs were likely wiped out by the asteroid that hit the Yucatan peninsula. I mean, while not all paleontologists agree, there’s something of a consensus about this, and the Chicxulub crater is large enough and dates to the correct time period to explain the extinction of all (non-avian) dinosaurs. Speculating about some alien laser battle in the skies seems ridiculous.

Why are you being so antagonistic? I never tried to present my hypothesis about the accidental hit of an alien weapon in the context of an orbital war between two different alien species as an historical fact. It’s just a fascinating hypothesis that I think is realistic and that I like to speculate on. And I personally think that it is not ridiculous at all. None of the proponents of the asteroid impact theory were in Chicxulub 65 million years ago, nor was I. All we know is that something hit the Earth, caused a huge crater, and led to the extinction of the dinosaurs. Why are so many people against speculation, even when it is openly presented as speculation and not as objective fact?

Also, while aliens probably exist somewhere, evidence of alien visitations to Earth from ancient sources is likely all 100% bullshit. The ancients had all kinds of interesting ideas and mythologies surrounding gods, demi-gods, angels and other supernatural beings, and ancient artists and writers depicting weird shit happening in the sky were probably inspired by that kind of stuff rather than actual alien visitations. Consider the bat-shit crazy description of a divine or angelic being in the Biblical book of Ezekiel. The description includes things like spinning crystal wheels, wings, fire, lightning, a crystal dome and multiple “eyes”. It’s easy to read something like a spaceship or whatever into that description, but in reality Ezekiel was probably just high on opium one day, and drew from various imagery inspired by things he was familiar with, like chariot wheels and other ancient equipment.

If you had read what I wrote in my previous post, where I extensively expressed all my opinions regarding the UFO phenomenon and related topics, you would know that I spoke unfavorably about the Ancient Astronaut Theory. I consider this theory to be heavily flawed, and based on scant or entirely non-existent evidence. However, I think it is important to make a distinction between the Ancient Astronaut Theory and Clipeology, because they are not the same thing.

The Ancient Astronaut Theory attempts to reinterpret sacred texts from various cultures, suggesting that the gods worshipped by these ancient civilizations were actually extraterrestrial beings who descended from the sky. According to this theory, these aliens supposedly taught ancient civilizations about astronomy, medicine and agriculture, built the megalithic structures we still see today, and performed other acts that the ancient civilizations attributed to divine intervention. Clipeology, on the other hand, is simply the study of unidentified flying objects in ancient history. Typically, clipeologists don’t rely on sacred texts or myths to identify UFO sightings from the distant past. Instead, they focus on historical texts, such as the works of historians like Josephus Flavius and others, as well as the writings and diaries of emperors, kings, soldiers and sailors. They look for references to strange flying objects in the sky within these sources. In this sense, Clipeology doesn’t take mythology as fact, and has no direct connection to the Ancient Astronaut Theory. Clipeology is more about examining historical records for possible evidence of UFO sightings in ancient times, rather than reinterpreting religious or mythological texts. In this sense, Clipeology doesn’t take mythology as fact, and has no direct connection to the Ancient Astronaut Theory. Clipeology is more about examining historical records for possible evidence of UFO sightings in ancient times, rather than reinterpreting religious or mythological texts. Therefore, what you said about the Ezekiel account from the Bible is applicable to the ancient astronaut theorists, but not to clipeologists. Clipeologists are perfectly aware of the difference between mythological accounts and historical records, and they look for evidence only in historical records.

I am quite convinced that extraterrestrial spacecraft were sighted in ancient times, the Middle Ages, and the Renaissance. However, I have never supported the idea that aliens made direct contact with ancient civilizations, provided them with knowledge they didn’t possess, or built the ancient megalithic monuments we see today. Furthermore, I have also never claimed that descriptions of flying chariots in some ancient texts were references to extraterrestrial spacecraft. Like clipeologists, I recognize the difference between mythology and history, and I never take mythology as factual. In fact, I argue that most biblical accounts are historically inaccurate.

Post
#1604098
Topic
<strong>Pre-PT era lore</strong> | an OT &amp; EU scrapbook resource | additional info &amp; sources welcome
Time

Channel72 said:

You’re right, A New Hope pretty clearly implies Anakin was originally from Tatooine. The problem is that A New Hope was written under the assumption that Anakin and Vader were separate characters. When George Lucas wrote that dialogue, he was not thinking that Luke was actually hiding from anything. Luke was just an average farmboy who happened to live where he lived. But by the time Return of the Jedi was written, Luke was now Vader’s son, and was sent to Tatooine as an infant because it was a remote location far from the reach of the Empire. But this change to the backstory implies that Vader/Anakin shouldn’t be from Tatooine, because otherwise sending Luke to hide there comes off as a really bad decision. I mean, there’s a reason that modern “witness protection” programs choose locations completely detached from any former associates of the protected witness, and require a complete identity change.

In my opinion, once Vader and Anakin were merged into a single character, Anakin should no longer be from Tatooine. I’d rather just ignore or reinterpret Obi Wan’s line in A New Hope, rather than have to squirm around coming up with excuses for why anyone would hide Luke on the same planet his father grew up on.

I see where you’re coming from, but I think Anakin being born on Tatooine actually works really well for the story. First off, Obi-Wan’s dialogue with Luke in A New Hope is already filled with half-truths, but not everything he says is a lie. He’s protecting Luke from the harsh reality of his father’s fall, but there’s still truth in his words. If we change where Anakin was born, it could make Obi-Wan seem even more deceptive, which I think would undermine his role as a mentor. Keeping Tatooine as Anakin’s birthplace helps maintain a level of trust in what Obi-Wan is telling Luke. Plus, there’s something poetic about both Anakin and Luke starting their journeys on the same desert planet. It creates a strong narrative symmetry that ties their stories together. Anakin’s life starts on Tatooine, and so does Luke’s. This makes Luke’s journey more poignant because he’s unknowingly retracing his father’s steps, only to find his own path in the end.

Now, hiding Luke on Tatooine might seem risky at first — after all, it’s the same planet where Anakin was born — but that’s what makes it so clever. Anakin had such a rough time on Tatooine — being a slave, leaving his mother behind, and eventually losing her — that he’d have no desire to go back. The trauma he experienced there creates a psychological barrier, which makes Tatooine the last place he’d want to revisit. In that sense, it’s actually the perfect place to hide Luke because it plays on Anakin’s deepest pain and memories, keeping him away. So, even though the decision of hiding Luke on Tatooine might seem nonsensical at first, it works perfectly if you introduce a trauma that caused Anakin to not want to return to the planet, which is exactly what Attack of the Clones does. Also, you don’t have to forget that, sometimes, the best place to hide something is in plain sight.

Post
#1603760
Topic
Before The Prequels were made, what the Jedi were supposed to be like?
Time

Superweapon VII said:

I personally don’t mind the Jedi of the prequel era being more centralized, hierarchical, and legalistic than the ancient Jedi. As someone who has a deep interest in early Christianity and its evolution, I enjoy the parallels. I also believe this makes Luke’s restoration of the Jedi all the more poignant, as he’s not merely bringing back the Jedi Order, but restoring it to a purer form absent the ossified traditions which contributed to its downfall. But I do mind the dogmatic Jedi being the rule rather than the exception throughout time, like what we see now in the Disney canon.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Post
#1603723
Topic
Before The Prequels were made, what the Jedi were supposed to be like?
Time

Vladius said:

I’m not saying you CAN’T reduce it to just one time period of history, I’m saying you SHOULDN’T because it’s very limiting in terms of stories you can tell. I know you know this already, but it’s an out of universe change which is why we emphasize pre-1999 (real life) not pre-4000 BBY or pre-1000 BBY or something.

In my opinion, the prequelization of the Jedi and Sith orders should have happened only after the Russan Reformation in 1000 BBY. Darth Bane should have been the first Sith to use the Darth title, and he should have been the one who introduced the “only red lightsabers for the Sith” rule, as well as the Sith aesthetics from the Prequels in general. The same goes for the Jedi. They should have become a centralized and bureaucratized order that forbids romantic relationships and takes infants only after the Russan Reformation. Every Old Republic story that takes place prior to 1000 BBY should have seen a Jedi Order more similar to the one from the Tales of the Jedi comics, and a Sith Order without Darths and red lightsabers.

Post
#1603711
Topic
<strong>Pre-PT era lore</strong> | an OT &amp; EU scrapbook resource | additional info &amp; sources welcome
Time

Vladius said:

timdiggerm said:

Channel72 said:

And I agree about Alderaan. I’ll never understand why Lucas created Naboo instead of just using Alderaan as one of the principal settings.

As much as I agree, I can’t help but feel that if he had done this, we’d be calling it the prime example of “universe shrinkage”

If Anakin wasn’t from Tatooine, Anakin didn’t build C3PO, and Jabba the Hutt, Boba Fett, and Chewbacca didn’t appear, it would be completely fine and no one would have said anything or been any the wiser.

Personally, I am of the opinion that having Anakin being born on Tatooine was actually a good idea. A New Hope heavily implies that he was born and grew up on Tatooine, especially when Obi-Wan tells Luke that Owen thought that Anakin should have remained on Tatooine and not get involved with the Jedi. Why should have Anakin remained on Tatooine if he didn’t grew up there? I think it’s clear that Obi-Wan’s sentence about Owen’s wishes implied that Anakin was born on Tatooine.

Post
#1603542
Topic
What is your personal canon?
Time

StarkillerAG said:

Spartacus01 said:

StarkillerAG said:

The Sequels (my hypothetical fanedit where Palpatine never comes back)

Ah, that sounds interesting. Can you elaborate, please? What are your ideas to fix the Sequel Trilogy?

I was hoping to do this in a separate thread in the fanedit section, but whatever. Basically, I’m cycling through a few hypothetical concepts for a radical sequel edit, all focused on removing Palpatine entirely (and thus returning the sequel trilogy to how it felt in the TFA/TLJ era):

  1. TFA and TLJ are mostly the same, but TROS has been edited to have the Sith fleet be created by Kylo, and the duel on the Death Star is the final duel of the film. This is by far the simplest option (and it’s even been done by a couple other editors), but I’m worried it would leave the trilogy without a proper climax.

  2. TFA is mostly the same, but Rey meeting Snoke has been cut out of TLJ entirely (meaning Snoke’s still alive by the end of the movie), and TROS has been edited to replace Palpatine with Snoke (using both AI voices and clips from 21CPeasant’s Legend of the Solo Twins edit). This is also pretty simple (especially since most of the work has been done already), but I’m worried Snoke isn’t an interesting enough villain to carry the main conflict of an entire trilogy.

  3. TFA is mostly the same, but TLJ and TROS have been cut into one movie featuring the best elements of both (again, heavily inspired by 21CPeasant’s edit), with the upcoming Rey movie being the final installment of the trilogy. This is the one I’m the most passionate about (especially since it sort of mirrors Episode I being a prologue by having Episode IX be an epilogue), but it depends almost entirely on the Rey movie being good enough to fanedit in the first place (unless I’m fine with the sequels being a duology).

I’m not sure I like the entirety of these ideas, but I think they are still better than what we got.

Post
#1603310
Topic
What Do YOU Think Star Wars Should Do Next?
Time

Star Wars should have three main timelines that exist simultaneously and expand in parallel to each other: the old Expanded Universe timeline, the New Canon timeline, and the Original Trilogy timeline. The Original Trilogy timeline should consist of the Original Trilogy films and the pre-1999 EU, and the authors who write their works in this timeline should be free to completely rewrite the Prequels, the New Jedi Order and the Old Republic by using the pre-1999 lore, as well as the ideas and theories that circulated among the fans in the 90s .This way, every major section of the fanbase would be happy: the fans of the old EU would see their favorite stories continue; the fans who like the newest TV shows, books, comics and video games would continue to enjoy them; the Original Trilogy fans who were disappointed by the Prequels and did not like the prequelisms that were introduced in the old EU after the trilogy came out could have an alternative version of the Prequel era (explored through written media and video games) that could potentially satisfy them.

Post
#1603148
Topic
Before The Prequels were made, what the Jedi were supposed to be like?
Time

Vladius said:

In short they were the opposite of the prequel Jedi in almost every way, and it was much better. More creative, interesting, and varied stories were more possible.

I absolutely agree. As much as I like the Prequels, I think that the lore surrounding the Force and the Jedi was much better before they existed. The individual Jedi were free to have romantic relationships, the Order as a whole was more competent, and weird and ambiguous concepts like the balance of the Force and the Chosen One prophecy did not exist. It was much more creative and interesting, as you say.

Hell, the only reason Lucas introduced the “no marriage rule” for the Jedi is because he wanted Anakin and Padmé’s love story in Attack of the Clones to be a reminiscence of Romeo and Juliet’s Love story: a forbidden love story between two people that shouldn’t be in love. In The Phantom Menace itself there is no indication whatsoever that the Jedi are not supposed to have romantic relationships. If Lucas hadn’t become obsessed with the idea of having a forbidden love, we might have had a more tolerable Jedi Order even in the Prequel Trilogy we actually got in real life, and Anakin’s motivations for turning to the Dark Side might have even remained the same, without any need for the “no marriage rule” to be introduced. Because let’s be real, it’s not necessary to have a version of the Jedi Order that completely forbids marriage to try to convey the message that selfish and possessive love is not good. Even a lot of married people will tell you that selfish and possessive love is not a good thing.

Also, Lucas always said that the Jedi did basically nothing wrong during the Prequel era, and has always openly advocated for the idea that the fall of the Jedi Order was caused exclusively by Palpatine’s manipulations and Anakin’s selfishness, which led him to fall to the Dark Side and betray the Jedi. Therefore, we don’t need the Jedi Order to be less relatable to explain its fall, because even Lucas himself doesn’t see things that way. If anything, portraying the Jedi of the Prequel era more similarly to the Jedi of the Tales of the Jedi comics and the New Jedi Order series would have helped to better convey the message that Lucas was trying to convey, that the Jedi have no responsibility for Anakin’s fall. The Jedi Order of the Prequel era has a lot of questionable rules, which makes it very difficult for the viewers not to partially blame them for what happened with Anakin (which makes sense if you consider how they were written in the Prequel Trilogy we got). But without these rules, it would have been even more clear that the fall of the Jedi and the fall of the Republic were all Palpatine and Anakin’s fault as Lucas intended.