The Expanded Universe discussion

So I would like to know what everybody thinks about how things are going to shape up for the character in the future. I have thought before that eventually, the "big three" i.e. Luke, Leia and Han will need to die. Yoda got to 900 years, but nobody else probably will. So, how would everybody feel if and when that happens?

Oh yeah, they will die, probably. I always thought the story would have have an official end where all evil is thwarted out for good and all the Jedi reappear through the force. I believe it was a script for a series following the original that I saw this. It of course would have to take place far into the future of the time ROTJ takes place, yet I believe Luke is still alive in it. I am unsure if George wrote it or not. Of course it would also have to take into account all the expanded universe that takes place after ROTJ also for it to be official. Yoda was a special case since he wasn't human. Perhaps humans can live a little longer than we do here on Earth, yet I couldn't imagine it be too much longer if at all. Yet in Luke's case he may be able to use the Force to prolong his life if he wishes. Leia would live longer than Han I think, which is easy to understand, because he takes more risks.

William wrote: "Oh yeah, they will die, probably. I always thought the story would have have an official end where all evil is thwarted out for good and all the Jedi reappear through the force. I believe it was a..."

Yes, but I don't think that it will ever have a true end, because can evil ever be totally thwarted? Besides, after the three main characters die, their kids could take up the cause of the Jedi Order. Really, I think the main thing that makes us partial to Luke, Leia and Han is that they were in the movies that we all grew up with, and so we are more familiar with them than any others. There have been more and more books about the Old Republic, the Sith era, and the Galactic Civil War, so there is still a lot of fertile ground. All the books about the Old Republic are proof, I think that it doesn't have to be a story about Luke Skywalker in order to be a good book. But I'm rambling now, so I will stop.

I had a feeling you would mention the fact evil can never be totally stamped out, yet I think that is how Lucas envisioned it in the script I read, which I don;t think was fake.

Ah, been years since I have seen this but here it is.

But it probably doesn't take into account all the expanded universe stuff making it redundant, but it says Lucas wrote it.

"The Jedi meet at Yavin 4 to celebrate the defeat of the dark side. In the distance, Luke can see countless thousands of Jedi from every era appear as Jedi spirits (including Obi-Wan Kenobi, Yoda, Mace Windu, Qui-Gon Jinn and Anakin Skywalker). The spirits of the long-dead Jedi (who have pleaded with the light side of the Force to avenge their deaths) watch the New Jedi Order celebrate final victory over the dark side. Luke’s Jedi Order and the New Republic will enter a 1,000 year period of peace and prosperity. The dark side is no more. Iris out. Start end film production credits."

http://www.supershadow.com/starwars/e...

And on a side note, the dark side is wiped out, I guess that means other evil can still be out and about.

And on yet another side note I realize it says it will enter a 1,000 year period of peace... which isn't forever.

That is a good point, but it makes me wonder about certain other things.

1. The very idea that the Jedi have destroyed the Dark Side undermines the Jedi Code. My understanding of this is that the Jedi Code is in place to keep the Jedi from falling to the Dark Side. If it ceases to exist, the Jedi Order would crumble because the Code would have no purpose. And if that goes away, there is nothing to keep the Jedi together. And when the Jedi ceases to be as a collective group, the Dark Side is stronger because one person is easier to corrupt than a group.

2. The Jedi don't take revenge. It would be contradictory for the Old Republic Jedi to be begging the Light Side to avenge them, because revenge is not of the Light Side. So, what are they really doing? In this way, maybe the Dark Side hasn't been destroyed, but has just changed.

3. Newton's Law. I forget which one. Mass and energy (and therefore force) cannot be created or destroyed, so can a certain aspect of a Force be destroyed? That's not a rhetorical question. I'm really asking. My wife is saying that the Galaxy may not be based on Newtonian physics, but I showed her!! I mentioned it anyway!

You bring up valid points. I think that this quickly becoming a really great thread.

First off,Newtons laws should have nothing to do with Star Wars, after all how are we suppose to know how the Force works really, much less in a galaxy far far away in an environment that can't be created in real life. Maybe it really can fizzle out a complete aspect of it. Perhaps though, there is still a tiny molecule of the dark side left, which accumulates and grows again over time and rears its ugly head again in 1,000 years and history repeats itself to a certain degree. Imagination is your friend when it comes to this, yes, science is needed too, but not too much.

Change it could have in any fashion, just to a point that it is no longer a nuisance in that period of peace.

The Jedi are not taking revenge when they destroy the dark side, they are doing what was meant for them to do. It is in a way what they set out to do in the first place, protect and guard the peace. Having the dark side around is a constant threat to peace and stability. Its a natural occurrence for such to happen, such being the Jedi defeating the Dark Side.

Yes it says they were pleading to be avenged..... perhaps after they died they got a whiff of the dark side themselves and were corrupted by it after life a little.

But I think its just poor word choice by Lucas assuming he wrote it.



Maybe they make a new Jedi Code that pertains to their new situation. They probably do stick together. And the Old Code would be a reminder of what could happen if they DON'T stick together. All the bad times would be a reminder. Who knows, maybe now that the Dark Side is extinguished they are even more tight knit.

It would also depend on the political situation in the New Republic. I assume the Jedi are accepted and regarded highly in this time of peace and stability otherwise it would not be a time of peace and stability. By default I think the Jedi stay together and continue on, in a different fashion maybe though.







Man, my brain hurts...... Please no more. I have to stop now.

Man, my brain hurts...... Please no more. I have to stop now.

Mine too. You bring up good points. Maybe the conflict between Light Side and Dark Side is trying to move towards a mixture of both. . .

Also, Leia could probably live longer than an average human anyway, since she is force-sensitive.

Luke is, too. Regardless, they will have to meet their end sooner or later.

Yeah, even Grandmaster Yoda died, albeit at a lofty 900.

Does anyone know whether he lived that long purely based on the force, or if his species has natural longevity?

Its his species......... but then again the only characters that have been his same species have also been jedi. And his kind do not have a name, just "Yoda's Specie". Very little is known about them.

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Yoda%2...

Thank you

Well, assuming force strength has some bearing on longevity, Han will go first based on this alone. Certainly, anyone can die in battle however.

Before I continue, as I read other posts, the supershadow sight isnt reliable. I fell for his lies concerning the 3rd trilogy and his alleged inside track on Lucas. Did the research, and found most of the claims there to be false. Now, back to topic.

For some reason, what comes to mind is "Force Visions". The early EU books had Luke having regular force visions for some time. I cant recall exactly when and why they stopped, but through this plot vehicle, no exceptional force user need ever be completely taken out of the storyline, even after death. Certainly Luke will have this ability after his death, as did Obi-wan. Additionally, Mara has continued to communicate with Luke (in special circumstances) despite her death as well. So along these lines, perhaps the future for 2 of the big 3 need not ever die. Perhaps even, their will be some discovery in the force that allows contact with past masters.

As far as the argument regarding Sith/Dark Jedi, I dont see one side of the force ever disappearing. This battle will rage indefinitely between good and evil.

Yeah, it would be kinda lame if there wasn't any Dark force users for the Jedi to beat on.

Thank you, Jim. I had not thought about that before. It's true that people like Obi-Wan were not taken out of the storyline, but continued to play a fairly significant role.

I will ask you, though that if you have anything in your comment that refers to a fairly significant plot point, please put a note or something. I knew about what happens at the end of Legacy, but some may prefer to live in oblivion. Thanks!

Tell me how to flag such things and I will do so. Sorry.

Jim wrote: "Tell me how to flag such things and I will do so. Sorry."

Yes. I sent a bulletin, but I am not sure how familiar everyone is with the site. I didn't know I could send a bulletin to everybody before that, so it is a learning process. But thank you for being willing to do it! :)

Hah, sometimes the back of the books, the little paragraph or two description gives away a little too much for me and I idiotically read it sometimes. I like to be surprised or find out everything that happens in the book by reading it, not get a preview of what major situations arise in the book by reading the back.

Very interesting debate going on here.....

Just a few clarifications for you all here. Some science has to be taken into account here to make it seem more real regardless of been in a far away galaxy. Do not confuse Newton's Force with Star Wars "The Force" two totally different things. Newtons laws have to do with motion, his second law states, "Force is equal to mass multiplied by its acceleration". What was referenced earlier about something not being able to be created or destroyed is trying to reference the Law of Conservation of Energy or Mass which states "Mass can neither be created nor destroyed, only transformed from one state to another" The same goes for energy, which can only be transferred or transformed. I guess you can sort of use that law with the Force but its a bit of a stretch.

Personally, I side with the idea that evil will never truly be stamped out. Evil will always lurk in the darkness and rear its head again. There will always hopefully be Jedi there to thwart darkness's rise.

I dont think you can equate revenge and avenging someone or something. revenge is done out of passion and personal gain where avenging someone or something usually is meant to correct an injustice of some sort. It is justice that the Jedi seek to see upheld which we see is a central theme in the FOTJ series.

Thats my take on the subject thus far. Give me your feedback.

I think that you have good points. Evil can be like energy or mass, and can never be stamped out. The only difference is that the dark side is more of an ideal. But really, I just brought up Newton's laws to be facetious.

I guess one question that I feel is becoming central to this discussion is when is vengance justified? The words revenge and avenge are actually the same word, just used in a different context. Revenge is a noun, and avenge is a verb. (I'm a language major, so I have to be picky about that.) So technically, if you take revenge or avenge somebody, the argument is true. Your motive is generally going to be personal gain or strong emotion. Maybe both.

I think that retribution may be a better word, because it can go both ways. So, a question that I have is whether or not "justice" is a socially acceptible way of getting retribution. I guess that's a new question, isn't it?

If we are limiting the debate to what can or will happen in Star Wars, then "good" jedi will always be forced to resort to the tactics of their adversaries. And this dilutes the distinction between good and evil.

In the greater debate concerning good/evil, then the very beliefs that define good mandate different tactics.

Jim wrote: "If we are limiting the debate to what can or will happen in Star Wars, then "good" jedi will always be forced to resort to the tactics of their adversaries. And this dilutes the distinction betwee..."

And in my belief, the different tactics that both sides employ will drive them towards a stalemate where the evil side will be unable to adjust its tactics, and the good side will be unwilling to change theirs.

Huh, wow. That's some deep thought there.
Ehh, I don't really know what I can add to this, so.... I'll just say that the Jensaari come out of hiding and conquer the universe.

Which would be highly ironic since their full title is "Jensaari Defenders."

I have observed that in many cases, evil will persevere, even with a tactic that is ineffectual.

Jim wrote: "I have observed that in many cases, evil will persevere, even with a tactic that is ineffectual."

I think that this has a lot to do with the morality that the author is portraying. We live in a primarily Judeo-Christian society, and have a fairly long history of literature following this pattern. In college, Becky and I (Becky is my wife, and the other moderator of this group) took an Arthurian Literature class, and from the very earliest beginnings of literature in Europe, the forces of evil use one specific tactic (usually a deceptive, divisive and underhanded one) to try to destroy the good guys, and through virtue and right the light side prevails, as long as they don't succumb to the wiles of the bad guys. I guess you can call Star Wars a modern-day morality play. That we actually want to watch more than once.

Evil, as it were, does get observed this way. But I think its shortsighted to assume that all its manifestations are going to follow the path we expect them to or be easily observable.

But the real problem comes from realizing that context often times changes what the moral imperitive is.

Defining good and evil forces one to draw a line in the sand in some way, and pronounce whats on one side to be good, and other bad. And THAT line is only going to be valid for the context of the moment its made. A situation bends moral assumptions. Exceptions get made. Comprimising occurs. And what you once were, you are not anymore. And at what point behind do you place the spot where you changed?

Good points on the language, I think the word revenge has over time been used with a negative connotation where as I associate the word avenge with making sure justice is served. However, your are correct it takes on more of a point of perspective and motive for avenging that becomes the key factor.

As for the good vs evil and morality discussion, I have a few very interesting comments but dont have the time to flesh them out (On lunch break right now) The basic of it is that if you are judging good and evil yes you need a mark in the sand but I think its more like a mark in concrete. I think there is a standard good which hence defines evil. You cant have evil without some standard good. Any way I will continue that line of thought later. Awesome perspectives and points thus far though.

The thinking that makes my point best is this:

1)Would you kill a newborn child?
2)Would you kill a newborn child to save a single other life??
3)Would you kill a newborn child to save a 100 other lives??
4)Would you kill a newborn child to save a 100 million other lives??
5)Would you kill a newborn child to save a the entire planet?
6)Would you kill a newborn child to save all the life in the entire galaxy?

Its a rather extreme, as well as dreadful way to look at something, but it illustrates the point that the situation can have great bearing on what the right thing to do seems to be, depending on both the question at hand (to kill?), and also the consequences of said action.

Its easy to see the moral road when their are no, or few consequences. But as the weight of consequence mounts, the moral road becomes blurred.

----------------------------------------------------

The revenge question is similar to "Eye for a Eye". Harm done to you justifies retaliation in equal or similar kind. If this isnt the path to the dark side, I dont know what is.

The question in all of your scenarios is can you justify killing an innocent person. It does not matter the number you put behind it, the question remains are you willing to kill an innocent person. If your answer changes any where along the line of questions then I would say you are on the path of the darkside. I agree with Derrick, that is a very shaky argument.

Pete wrote: "The question in all of your scenarios is can you justify killing an innocent person. It does not matter the number you put behind it, the question remains are you willing to kill an innocent perso..."

Good point. If you are willing to change your morals based on the situation you are in, then you are on the quick and easy path. I think that a lot of people fall into this trap, and end up changing a lot based on those decisions.

Hey everyone. Interesting debate. Strikes me that Star Wars isn't the most realistically depicted of fictional universes in terms of its good/evil dichotomy; the good are a little too good and the evil are a little too moustache-twirling, tie-you-to-the-railroad-tracks-and-throw-Force-lightning-at-you evil.

When I wrote my SW fanfic that was something I had in mind and tried to address by introducing huge swathes of grey to the GFFA. The way I prefer it, the Empire isn't "evil" per se, it's just another school of thought for how to govern - through authority, through force.

The Empire is a dictatorship basically, whereas the Old Republic (and New Republic) are sprawling democracies. I think it's important to show that both can have their plus and minus points - dictatorships succeed or fail on the strength of their central figure, they can mobilise quickly, etc. There's a big theory that Thrawn, who Zahn always refused to portray as evil (hence his popularity in my view) only wanted to stamp out the Alliance so he could unite the galaxy against the oncoming invasion of the Vong. When he failed, the New Republic simply weren't up to the task, and trillions died.

Of course, that's not to say dictatorships are better. Palpatine in particular I would admit is the one person who has always been portrayed as out-and-out evil and I think that's hugely important; Palpatine is concerned with precisely one thing, and that is power, and the acquisition and retention of that power for himself. That can lead to horrendous atrocities, as we've seen right here on this planet.

I don't think the Star Wars universe loses anything by introducing these political shades to it; to children watching, who don't appreciate the parallels between SW and our own world, will boo Palpatine and cheer Luke til the cows come home.

I suspect Lucas, if he ever did make sequels, would pander somewhat to the children watching and make them very simplistic morality affairs which would be a shame. Personally I like the path the EU has taken, in that for however many threats a galaxy faces and defeats, there's always another one coming over the horizon. More, though, I like that sometimes the line between the "good guys" and "bad guys" depends entirely on what side of the line we stand.

This is very true. As for the kids always cheering on the Republic, Rebel Alliance, New Republic or what have you, you can see it in the Clone Wars animated series. Holy crap, can you see it. But I think you bring up a good point about the different types of government, too. However, I think that the point that Lucas was trying to emphasize the idea that power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. (But it rocks absolutely, too!)

As for the idea of the Force being too cut and dry, I was reading in Dark Journey last night, and Jaina is thinking along the lines of: "Maybe there is more to the Force than light and dark. Maybe those are just two aspects of a Force too varied and complex to understand." I can't recall the exact words, but it's something like that.

As for the portrayals of the different sides being too good or too evil, I can't say that I have really thought about that very much. I do like the moustache twirling analogy, though. That made me smile.

Okay. New thing to think about.

Remember back at the beginning of this thread? How I was wondering how it would happen if any of the big main characters (Luke, Leia or Han) were to die? Well, I was talking to Becky, and she mentioned something that I hadn't thought about.

She's reading the Fate of the Jedi series now, and those three main characters are in their seventies and eighties. Old by our standards. However, she mentioned something that I hadn't thought about. She said that there could be something like what happens in Star Trek that the medicine is much better, and so because of that, the length of their life is frequently about 150 years.

Also, we are assuming that the years that they use are the same as our years. The standardized years on Coruscant could be 100 days for all we know. I don't think that this has been explored, but if it has, please let me know. That would certainly skew the numbers. If it was a combination of the two, then people could live to be as much as 400 years or so. . . possible, but unlikely.

Of course, I am sometimes about as sharp as a bowling ball, so if anybody thinks that I am way off base, let me know.

Jeff wrote: "Also, we are assuming that the years that they use are the same as our years..."

Good point. From what I have read, planetary cycles (days, years) are the same as ours unless it is stated different.

In LOTF series there are a lot of hints about the main characters are getting old, but at the same time, there are also hints that their aging does not really matter. I am not going to specify but there is a ninety-two-yerar-old character still giving orders and commanding starfleets.

I think the main characters will be around a little longer. But it is important for the writers to give them roles according to their age and exprerience.

Riquelme wrote: "But it is important for the writers to give them roles according to their age and experience."

That is a good point. If Han Solo is still trying to do the things that he was doing back in the Rebellion, it would not be very believeable. When he's getting on in years, he's probably not going to be flying through any asteroid fields.

As another example of how much can happen in the books: I was reading in New Jedi Order: Destiny's Way last night (I've been slow lately) and it was talking about how old Luke is at that point. Somebody mentions that he is in his prime, rather than being a farmboy way back when. The way I figure it, he's getting pretty close to 50. So, that kind of gives us some scope to this whole line of thinking.

Jeff wrote:
Remember back at the beginning of this thread? How I was wondering how it would happen if any of the big main characters (Luke, Leia or Han) were to die? "

About this, well, authors have shown us through the books that there is nothing in the universe that will kill Luke Skywalker. The only one that can stop Luke is Luke himself. So I think that if he is going to die it will be something like he prefering death than to fall to the dark side or maybe saving someone's life in an Obi-Wan-Kenobi way.

About Han and Leia, I think either they go at the same time or Han goes first. Leia is a stronger character so I can imagine her surviving Han. But I cannot imagine Han without Leia.

I started reading this thread, and decided that I have to re-read it when my brain is functioning more properly...

Stephen wrote: "I started reading this thread, and decided that I have to re-read it when my brain is functioning more properly..."

Good call.

Riquelme wrote: "Leia is a stronger character..."

Really? That's an interesting viewpoint, one that I hadn't thought of before. I'd be lying if I hadn't thought about which one would go first. But when it comes right down to it, I don't think I've been able to get over how I feel about either one. Leia is feisty and stubborn, but Han is stubborn and feisty. Maybe it would be Han's recklessness that gets him killed...