Spartacus01

BedeHistory731 said:

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

I did not bring up Erich von Däniken because, like I explained earlier in this thread, I do not support the Ancient Astronaut hypothesis. I do think it is possible that some strange aerial sightings in ancient times — like the “fiery shields” mentioned by the Romans — could have been spacecraft or probes from somewhere else. But I do not believe aliens made direct contact with ancient civilizations, taught them astronomy and math, or were worshipped as gods. In my opinion, alien visitation to Earth only started happening regularly around the late 1940s. Before that, it was probably very rare.

Rose Byrne

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.

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 mere hypothesis from the very beginning. I never tried to demonstrate its correctness, it is just a fascinating hypothesis I like to speculate on,

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 that gave been reported from 1947 onwards. 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. 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.

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.

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. 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 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.

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.

There is an entire thread dedicated to this:

https://originaltrilogy.com/topic/Pre-PT-era-lore-an-OT-EU-scrapbook-resource-additional-info-sources-welcome/id/113915

You even wrote a post in that thread. Can you stop opening hundreds of threads about the same topic?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Inbar Lavi

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.

TMP (The Motion Picture — Star Trek)
TPM (The Phantom Manace — Star Wars)

Coincidence?
I don’t think so…

*Illuminati song starts playing… *

Why did you open the same thread in two different sections of the forum?

derill129 said:

Where can I get a link to this version?

It’s not out yet.

Channel72 said:
But I think Padme’s death doesn’t quite work as an ironic self-fulfilling prophecy, because Padme doesn’t actually die from anything Anakin does to her directly, but rather she dies mysteriously of a broken heart later on. Maybe it would have worked better if Padme actually died from complications during childbirth brought on by injuries she sustained when Anakin force-choked her.

Well, here’s the thing: her heartbreak is due to the fact that she saw what Anakin had become, what he had done and what he intended to do. It’s not something that came out of nowhere, but is the direct product of Anakin’s actions. She died because she couldn’t handle seeing what Anakin did and what he had become. In this sense, I think you can still say that Anakin killed her, and it still works as a self-fulfilling prophecy. If Anakin didn’t turn to the Dark Side and remained loyal to the Jedi and to Padmé, he would not have done all the things that caused Padmé to get depressed, have an heartbreak, and subsequently die. This is, among other things, the explanation given by Lucas himself.

Channel72 said:

Spartacus01 said:

I’m aware of the fact that this is a very unpopular opinion on this forum, so I hope I will not get crucified.
I don’t like the idea of explaining Leia’s memories in Return of the Jedi in a literal way, that is by making Padmé survive to the events of Revenge of the Sith. Force visions are the best way to explain Leia’s memories, especially when you consider that her descriptions in Return of the Jedi are very vague. In fact, Leia herself said that she only remembered vague images, so I don’t get why they couldn’t just be the product of Force visions. After all, in The Empire Strikes Back it was Yoda himself who said that the Force allows you to see “the future, the past, old friends long gone”, so there is no contradiction really. Also, Padmé being alive at the end of Revenge of the Sith and not appearing in A New Hope is super-jarring, especially if you watch the movies in chronological order, and having her death occur between the two trilogies without actually showing it is not a good idea in my opinion.

I won’t crucify you - but… I think it’s obvious that a “Force vision” wasn’t the original intent of the person who wrote Leia’s dialogue in Return of the Jedi. Clearly, they meant to communicate to the audience that Leia/Luke’s mother was alive when Leia was a young child. The Prequels changed this for no real narrative benefit. They didn’t even use Padme’s death for some compelling narrative purpose - like for example, having Padme’s death push Anakin over the edge and fall to the Dark Side. Instead, it was only the fear of Padme potentially dying that pushed Anakin over the edge. Padme didn’t even need to actually die, yet for some reason Lucas made her die anyway, despite the cost of violating continuity with ROTJ.

Overall, it’s not such a big deal. Attempting to explain the discrepancy with a “Force vision” is fine - and certainly not the worst attempt at damage control from fans - but it’s still just fan damage control after an obvious (and pointless) retcon.

I always viewed Padmé’s death as a self-fulfilling prophecy. Anakin acted upon his fear of losing her, and this is what caused her death in the first place. In this sense, I always thought it was a compelling death. Also, I am of the opinion that Leia’s mother being alive when she was still a little child was never a good idea to begin with, so I’m more than happy that the Prequels retconned it.

I’m aware of the fact that this is a very unpopular opinion on this forum, so I hope I will not get crucified.
I don’t like the idea of explaining Leia’s memories in Return of the Jedi in a literal way, that is by making Padmé survive to the events of Revenge of the Sith. Force visions are the best way to explain Leia’s memories, especially when you consider that her descriptions in Return of the Jedi are very vague. In fact, Leia herself said that she only remembered vague images, so I don’t get why they couldn’t just be the product of Force visions. After all, in The Empire Strikes Back it was Yoda himself who said that the Force allows you to see “the future, the past, old friends long gone”, so there is no contradiction really. Also, Padmé being alive at the end of Revenge of the Sith and not appearing in A New Hope is super-jarring, especially if you watch the movies in chronological order, and having her death occur between the two trilogies without actually showing it is not a good idea in my opinion.

Here there is an excellent video that offers a convincing natural explanation for the famous “UFO Battle of Nuremberg of 1561”, which many ufologists and supporters of the Ancient Astronaut Theory claim to be evidence of the presence of extraterrestrial spaceships in Earth’s skies in ancient times:

https://youtu.be/_-7W9mZGFQo?si=1UDuFzTVmSWEHkLf

I’m not opposed to the idea of ancient battles between alien fleets. In fact, one idea I find particularly fascinating is the possibility that the giant impact crater near Chicxulub, Mexico — the one most scientists believe was caused by an asteroid impact and is linked to the extinction of the dinosaurs — might actually have an extraterrestrial origin.

According to a hypothesis I came across online several years ago, that crater could be the result of a massive orbital battle between two alien civilizations that took place around 65 million years ago. The idea is that during this ancient conflict, the flagship of one of the fleets fired a powerful weapon at the flagship of the opposing fleet, but the shot missed and ended up striking Earth instead. The impact of that weapon would have been what caused the massive destruction and led to the extinction event. Of course, this is pure speculation and there’s no real evidence to support it, but I think it’s a really interesting hypothesis and I’m willing to entertain it.

However, even though I don’t reject the idea of ancient alien battles in Earth’s skies and low orbit, I’ve always been very skeptical about the Nuremberg case. And since the explanation offered in this video makes way more sense to me, I’m more than happy to share it. Enjoy!

I’m an Expanded Universe fan as well, and I’m always in contact with the Expanded Universe community. I can tell you, from personal experience, that most EU fans don’t like the idea of EU characters being adapted into the current Canon timeline, regardless of whether they are adapted faithfully or not. The majority of EU fans love characters like Mara Jade, Thrawn and Revan precisely for the environment that surrounds them, because it’s the universe they exist within that makes them what they are. Which means that it makes no sense to adapt them to another universe, because they are actually not the same characters that EU fans use to love. The majority of EU fans don’t want Canon stories with EU characters arbitrarily inserted in them, they want the actual EU timeline to be continued through the publication of new stories, new books, comics and video games that are set specifically in the EU timeline itself. Having two separate but equally valid timelines is not confusing, and the material that belongs to the EU timeline can still have the Legends banner on it in order to avoid confusion. Disney is perfectly capable of managing two different timelines, and yet they decide to keep the EU as dead. If they really want to do something for the EU fanbase, then they should authorize the publication of new stories set during the Dawn of the Jedi era, the New Sith Wars era and the Legacy era. Furthermore, they should make a public statement announcing that TCW is not part of the EU timeline, because the show is technically part of both timelines, even though the majority of EU fans completely disregard it in the context of the EU, since it totally contradicts the Clone Wars Multimedia Project and the timeline of the Clone Wars that was already fully established before 2008, with all the books, comics and video games that used to be part of it.

I’m also a Prequel Trilogy fan, and I can tell you that not all Prequel Trilogy fans use to love TCW. Yes, the majority of Prequel fans love the show, but those who love the show don’t necessarily constitute the entirety of the Prequel fandom. Your propositions for Prequel fans are pretty valid and I don’t want to criticize them, I just want to make it clear that not all Prequel fans actually care about a Clone Wars continuation. Something that all Prequel fans (regardless of their opinions on TCW) might appreciate, though, is a Special Edition of the Prequel Trilogy that tries to improve the way the CGI looks and inserts some of the deleted scenes.

Even though I generally don’t agree with the criticisms that some of you give to the Prequels, I agree with this specific point. Anakin killing younglings is not a good idea, and it shouldn’t have been done. It is one of those things that make some people say that he was never a good person to begin with and never deserved redemption in the first place. Which is understandable. Understandable but not good, indeed, since we are supposed to believe that there is still good in him, which is not very believable after you have seen him killing Innocent children with cold blood.

SparkySywer said:

When is Leia whiny?

Throughout the entirety of A New Hope.