StarDestroyer.Net BBS

LMAO

Jesus, take it easy, IP.

COME ON!!!

How can anyone honestly believe that one year = one generation?!

And even if this was a completely unlikely senario of totally brain-bending, illogical way of thinking on the Jedi's part....why would a practical minded-man tempered by having to survive for decades express such bizarre and irrelevent ways of thinking to a backward farmboy? And wouldn't Luke jump up and say "what the fuck are you on?" to him?

That, and I'm sick and having a bad day. Sorry Kurgan.

Hehe, I agree with you, it's just that that was pretty harsh.

That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. A generation of Jedi would be no different then a generation of other humans, and why would he use such references to a backward farmboy like Luke?

You ought to be ashamed to be so stupid as to suggest a generation is not around 25 years. You know it, and I know it. Do not post such excrement on here again and be so audacious to call it a "theory."

The arrogant propogandistic Jedi opinion theory works best, not to be overly self-congratulating, but what you're suggesting is simply assinine.

We know that Obi-Wan (like Palpatine) is a notorious liar, but that's besides the point.

The theory (which, is not my own I'm afraid) is that a generation refers to a generation of Jedi students, not to a generation as you and I would commonly refer. Normally we'd mean my parent's generation, my generation when I have kids etc (20-25 years).

But what this theory suggests is a generation in terms of Jedi students. Obi-Wan is a Jedi Knight and he comes from a self-important Jedi-centered universe as we all know.

In a school or academy it is that case that every year, new students are entering (freshmen) and at the same time, others are graduating (senior graduates). Year in, year out, the same thing. So this cycle of students could be called a "generation."

So marking "over 1,000" of these generations extends across the period of the old Republic. From the time a student enters to the time a senior graduates is one scholastic year, in the Jedi academy. This allows for Palpatine's quote of 1,000 years and Obi-Wan's quote of over 1,000 generations to be correct, while still allowing leway as to how long Jedi are in training.

I will be the first to admit that there are problems with this theory, though I would point out that the theory of galactic peace is not perfect either.. both are examples of expanded universe/fanboy retconing over George Lucas's mistake/revision/whatever you want to call it. If the EU writes a book that spells that I'm wrong, fine... then you have an official explanation, but this is it:

The problem is, the EU has a "Jedi Academy,"and it was commonly believed this was a continuation of how it was done in the Old Republic. With TPM we learned that in fact, the Padawan Apprentice-Master Knight relationship was the actual way Jedi were trained.

However, despite this, we see that Yoda (which helps explain what many were confused about as to why Obi-Wan said that Yoda was his master, when we see Qui Gon Jinn as his master in TPM) actually trains the Jedi "younglings" from an early age (shortly after birth?). Perhaps this early training (we don't know what age Jedi begin as Padawan learners with a single Master do we?) is their "academy."

Graduates would then go on to the Padawan-Master relationship we have all seen. AOTC proves that Yoda does train the Jedi early on, and so he is in a sense a "master" of them all.

Since we know that the Jedi are a celibate order (and have been for at least 1,000 years, at least...) it would make less sense for them to measure generations of families within their ranks. Instead they might measure it based on academic achievement through their mystical studies programs... their force training.

Go ahead and shoot holes in the theory, that's the whole point of this discussion.

Forgiven. ; )

Or you could say Luke is an ignoramus, who never studied history/there was a big Imperial cover-up, and Luke has no idea that that Republic is only 1,000 years old, rather than 25,000+ years old, so it's all the same to him what the crazy old man tells him. ; )

It's true that Palpatine was in less of a position to get away with a lie than Obi-Wan was. Obi-Wan did tell Luke a lot of crazy stuff...

It doesn't give us a good reason for Obi-Wan to have lied to him about this particular thing however (unlike his other lies, which were explained and his reasoning made sense).

Oh, and one other thing, you mentioned a it would be no different than any other "generation of humans" but I would point out to you that not all Jedi are human, in fact, they may even be a minority, in a galaxy-wide organization like the Jedi Knights (though only 10,000 knights, according to the AOTC novelisation... they may not be counting younglings or padawans).


These non-human aliens may have generations that are different than ours (longer, shorter, etc) so why should it be human-centered? Instead they may have had some other more universal standard (as I suggested).

Your (or whoever's) theory is based on EU (Academy graduates) and yet contradicts it by insisting on a 1,000 year only interpretation without trying to fit everything in.

Thus, it is bullshit.

1.) Obi-Wan might be a liar, but that's not going to fly here.

2.) It is bullshit it was going to speak from the Jedi perspective alone.

3.) It doesn't take into account events which happened pre-1,000 BBY

My theory doesn't have those problems. They only points of contention are:

Perhaps the Empire's education system teaches that the Republics are a single entity lasting 25,000 years?

Or

Obi-Wan simply spoke from one of two historical perspectives, the one that sounds best for the Jedi. Just because we see that politicians speak from one prefered historical perspectives doesn't mean either one is wrong or unused or unheard of.

Your (or whoever's) theory is based on EU (Academy graduates) and yet contradicts it by insisting on a 1,000 year only interpretation without trying to fit everything in.

Thus, it is bullshit.

How so? It fits in the canon events, so I don't see a problem here. As we both know, the prequels created a slew of contradictions in the EU (which the EU authors are attempting to patch up as we speak). However, if a theory fits both canon trilogies (so far) I think its worthwhile not to dismiss it out of hand. I have not said my theory is the only possible one, either.

1.) Obi-Wan might be a liar, but that's not going to fly here.

No, but some have tried to explain the Palpatine quote by claiming that Palpatine was lying, I don't see how this is any different. I only mentioned it as another possibility, not as something we have concerete proof of. It is possible. We have all seen him use the "from a certain point of view" excuse when he lied to Luke, and we know he withheld information from Luke in the past.

2.) It is bullshit it was going to speak from the Jedi perspective alone.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Saying something is bullshit without proof doesn't make it so. Explain your point in more detail so I can understand it.

3.) It doesn't take into account events which happened pre-1,000 BBY

Events that happened pre-1,000 years before the Battle of Yavin are all defined in the quasi-canon and "official" categories, and so are subject to the higher canons of the films. Whenever something is claimed in the lower canon and appears to contradict the pure canon, we must speculate on some other interpretation to smooth over the errors, or else propose a different interpretation.

My theory doesn't have those problems. They only points of contention are:

Perhaps the Empire's education system teaches that the Republics are a single entity lasting 25,000 years?

If so, why would Obi-Wan, a former Republican living in the Empire adopt the new system? He seems to be a rebel in every other way philosophically, opposed to the Empire. The Empire might have revised history, but why would they do it in this way? I see no reason for them to do so.

Or

Obi-Wan simply spoke from one of two historical perspectives, the one that sounds best for the Jedi. Just because we see that politicians speak from one prefered historical perspectives doesn't mean either one is wrong or unused or unheard of.

So what you're saying is that it was in Obi-Wan's interest to make it appear that the Jedi had been around for a looong, looong time (ie: he was exaggerating.. and if Palpatine was correct in his statements, then he was exaggerating by a factor of 25, unless his words are interpreted differently than you proposed) and it would likewise by in Palpatine's interest to give the impression that the Republic was "only" 1,000 years old.

I guess without a point of reference before Palpatine (ie: some other canon quote that indicates the Republics age at say 10,000 years, or 1000 years, etc.), we can't know for sure who is exaggerating (or under estimating) the age of the Republic.

Perhaps either argument for the quotes is an appeal to authority or hearsay.

On the one hand, we have the last remaining Jedi Knight (other than Yoda, his master), who was alive at the time of the Republic (Obi-Wan), and on the other, we have the Supreme Chancellor of the Republic (Palpatine) who is now the leader of the Empire.

All other "proof" resides in the contradictory and convuluted domain of the Expanded Universe and quasi-canon (and doesn't necessarily take into account the new revelations of the canon Prequel films). That does make it difficult.

No, but some have tried to explain the Palpatine quote by claiming that Palpatine was lying, I don't see how this is any different. I only mentioned it as another possibility, not as something we have concerete proof of. It is possible. We have all seen him use the "from a certain point of view" excuse when he lied to Luke, and we know he withheld information from Luke in the past.

Hope that quote wasn't confusing.. I was meaning to draw a parallel between the reputation for truthfulness of Obi-Wan verses that of Palpatine. They both have given us reasons to suspect their reliability on various matters.

My theory works out best because it doesn't directly contradict ANY source at all while maintaining the veneer of interpretation.

Your theory makes the assumption of an academy graduation system which is almost certainly wrong, and assumes Obi-Wan, despite having learned from the Jedi's failings in his thinking over decades, would still be so brainwashed he'd use a bizarre Jedi-only interpretation of history involving a completely wrong definition of generation.

Should I explain why that's wrong?

My theory assumes one of two things, both of which are more plasauble than yours.

1.) Imperial historians decided that they prefered the 25,000 year historical intepretation (new regimes do change history), and forces that education on everyone, hence why Luke was familiar with that system, and why Obi-Wan used it while talking to Luke. There's a precedent for my assumption.

2.) Obi-Wan told Luke the interpretation of history that makes the Jedi look best, that is, a 25,000 year stewardship over the Republic. Both historical interpretations are known, and Luke has heard of this one so he doesn't object.

Groups often put their spin on the story that makes them look better.

Either one isn't based on the whole collection of baseless and odd interpretations yours is, as well as a "creative" definiton of generation.

Occam's Razor.

You do the math.

My theory works out best because it doesn't directly contradict ANY source at all while maintaining the veneer of interpretation.

So essentially, you have a problem with throwing out any part of the EU if it contradicts the canon? Okay, fair enough, you want to keep the EU, that's fine. Let me go back and re-read your posts to see your theory again...

Your theory makes the assumption of an academy graduation system which is almost certainly wrong

"Almost certainly wrong"? Yoda is seen mass training "younglings" (pre-Padawan) in the Jedi temple. Obi-Wan lists Yoda as his "master" even though we clearly see that his master is Qui Gon Jinn. Also, we see that Dooku is Yoda's "Old Apprentice." Then again, in the last case, it may be that Yoda trained Dooku as an actual Padawan learner.

According to the Jedi rules, each master has only one Padawan at a time, but Younglings may not even count.

I don't see why we can't speculate that Yoda's "youngling academy" is in fact what we're seeing. His role seems to be something unique...

Yoda trains the younglings from whatever early age they get them (younger than Anakin apparently) and then trains them until they're old enough to be Padawans (ten years old? teens?) for the single Master apprenticship. So then they go off to be with a specific master, then eventually they become a Knight and then may go on to Master an apprentice of their own, etc.

, and assumes Obi-Wan, despite having learned from the Jedi's failings in his thinking over decades, would still be so brainwashed he'd use a bizarre Jedi-only interpretation of history involving a completely wrong definition of generation.

Of course, the reverse is to say that Palpatine, the elected Supreme Chancellor of the Republic, an intelligent and respected man in the government, would be totally ignorant of the age of the government he heads and none of the intelligent people around him (the Jedi Masters) thinks to correct him on an obvious error. He isn't recalling the "glory days" in retrospect 20 years after the fact whilst trying to impress a naive farmboy either.. he's in his official capacity, during the reign of said government!

Obi-Wan may be somewhat jaded with his life in the Republic, but he surely still has clung to certain of his ideals. Otherwise, why bother to train Luke, or to go on an "idealistic crusade" with him? Why bother with all the Jedi business if the Jedi were a failure?

My theory assumes one of two things, both of which are more plasauble than yours.

We'll see...

1.) Imperial historians decided that they prefered the 25,000 year historical intepretation (new regimes do change history), and forces that education on everyone, hence why Luke was familiar with that system, and why Obi-Wan used it while talking to Luke. There's a precedent for my assumption.

But Palpatine = Emperor. And why exaggerate the importance of the Republic, when the Empire's own goal (and its in their best interest to do so politically) is to wipe out "the last traces of the Old Republic" (as Tarkin puts it in ANH)? It would seem that to say the Republic is 25x older than it is implies its been more stable and successful, and the Empire has a tall order to follow. If you say that it "only" lasted a thousand years, you make the Empire look better. Also, it's rather difficult to forget 25,000 years of history that would be so ingrained.

Okay, so let's say the Republic is 1,000 years old, but the Empire decides to interpret it as 25,000 years and push that agenda on people. Why would Obi-Wan, a critic of the Empire, who was part of the old regime (the Jedi Knights of the Old Republic) wish to follow the Empire's tradition?

Sure, maybe he was just stating the "facts" spit out by the Empire to make his argument to Luke better.. (because Luke would know only the Empire's version of the story, not having grown up in the Republic)?

2.) Obi-Wan told Luke the interpretation of history that makes the Jedi look best, that is, a 25,000 year stewardship over the Republic.

So does saying the Republic is 25,000+ years old make the Empire look good, or the Jedi? Remember the Jedi had no part in the Empire's new order (they were wiped out). Either option seems to present a problem in that respect.

Both historical interpretations are known, and Luke has heard of this one so he doesn't object.

It's possible there's a controversy over how old the Republic is, and Palpy just has an opinion, and Obi-Wan another. Maybe records were lost. That's another theory, which actually makes sense. Perhaps the history is merely "lost" in time. Though with the records they keep, it must have been a major set of incidents to lose that much knowledge in such short a time.

Groups often put their spin on the story that makes them look better.

Yes. But why would the Empire want to make the Jedi or the Old Republic look good? Maybe they were trying to portray themselves as bringing back the "glory days" of the Republic? Maybe not.. the Republic is so different, especially with the Jedi's role and the Senate, democracy, etc which the Empire does away with.

Either one isn't based on the whole collection of baseless and odd interpretations yours is, as well as a "creative" definiton of generation.

Calling my ideas "baseless" and "odd" doesn't make them so. I don't see your ideas leaping out as more believable and automatically true. So I think its perfectly valid to question them (as you have mine).

As I pointed out, there's reason to doubt that "generation" has to have the same meaning. Did you miss the part where I pointed out that non-human aliens may have different generations than we do? How about the part where I said that a celibate order like the Jedi doesn't have biological "generations" per se? Those points alone should throw the whole notion of "generation" in the Jedi sense into question.

Occam's Razor.

I don't even need to go into this. Obi-Wan's use of "generation" isn't the same as our common 21st century usage. Thus both quotes are correct. Republic is 1,000+ years old, not 25,000+. I don't see that being complicated.

You do the math.

What math? How many assumptions did I have to make to make my theory make sense? Only one, essentially, the meaning of a word.

It seems the only problem with my theory is that the EU may contradict it, in its depiction of events that happen more than 1,000 years before ANH, that claim to occur during the reign of the Republic.

I think what you're trying to do (and I compliment you for trying) is save the EU, and so invent an alternative explanation for Palpy's quote.

I'm inventing an alternate explanation for Obi-Wan's quote, to save Palpy's quote, and the EU be damned (since it has to bow to pure canon anyway, so who cares).

Is that accurate? I'm not saying that's wrong, but I think its more important to preserve the continuity between the film canon, than it is to fit the EU back in at the expense of the pure canon.

I can see what you're trying to say in part:

Obi-Wan wants to make the Republic look good, so he says its 25,000 years old (and this may be in character, since we've seen him lie before)

Palpatine wants to make the Republic look bad, so he says its only 1,000 years old (even though his line is stated in a dramatic way, as if he's trying to defend the Republic, but we know he's NOT looking out for the Republic, but trying to take it over.. so hmmm)

And the EU just assumes Obi-Wan was right, since he's a good guy and AOTC wasn't out so they didn't have the benefit of being able to refer to it.

I don't even need to go into this. Obi-Wan's use of "generation" isn't the same as our common 21st century usage. Thus both quotes are correct. Republic is 1,000+ years old, not 25,000+. I don't see that being complicated.

To add still another thing to this.. definitions of words do change/differ from our definitions. Note the whole use of the word "laser." TurboLASERS, SuperLASER, LASERsword (yet none of those appear to be "lasers" as we know them to be).

It is all based on the assumption that Yoda graduates or fails the Younglings at a certain time, creating yearly "graduations" to benefit your theory. Which has no basis, Yoda has always worked on apprentices by how ready they were and merit.

I don't see why we can't speculate that Yoda's "youngling academy" is in fact what we're seeing. His role seems to be something unique...

Something unneccessary you added, inspired from the EU, I might add.

You want to tear away 25,000 years of EU and toss it away. I'm sorry, but you don't create contradictions where there doesn't HAVE TO be one. Especially when your theory creates unneccessary assumptions.

Obi-Wan may be somewhat jaded with his life in the Republic, but he surely still has clung to certain of his ideals. Otherwise, why bother to train Luke, or to go on an "idealistic crusade" with him? Why bother with all the Jedi business if the Jedi were a failure?

You're missing the fucking point. He knows the Jedi as of the Prequel era were corrupt (read Wong's AOTC essay if you couldn't pick it up all by your lonesome watching the movie).

My theory assumes one of two things, both of which are more plasauble than yours.

We'll see...

1.) Imperial historians decided that they prefered the 25,000 year historical intepretation (new regimes do change history), and forces that education on everyone, hence why Luke was familiar with that system, and why Obi-Wan used it while talking to Luke. There's a precedent for my assumption.

But Palpatine = Emperor. And why exaggerate the importance of the Republic, when the Empire's own goal (and its in their best interest to do so politically) is to wipe out "the last traces of the Old Republic" (as Tarkin puts it in ANH)? It would seem that to say the Republic is 25x older than it is implies its been more stable and successful, and the Empire has a tall order to follow. If you say that it "only" lasted a thousand years, you make the Empire look better. Also, it's rather difficult to forget 25,000 years of history that would be so ingrained.

It just allows that there were multiple takes on history. Perhaps some people aren't even sure what happened 1,000 years ago. I didn't say I knew why, I just said it could have been. You can't ignore the fact my theory makes fewer assumptions and doesn't throw away 25,000 years of Official history.

Maybe Palpatine wanted to stress the history of the Sith to young of the galaxy, afterall, there were officially no Sith after 1,000 BBY.

Okay, so let's say the Republic is 1,000 years old, but the Empire decides to interpret it as 25,000 years and push that agenda on people. Why would Obi-Wan, a critic of the Empire, who was part of the old regime (the Jedi Knights of the Old Republic) wish to follow the Empire's tradition?

Sure, maybe he was just stating the "facts" spit out by the Empire to make his argument to Luke better.. (because Luke would know only the Empire's version of the story, not having grown up in the Republic)?

Very good. And he could have an alterior motive. See below.

Both historical interpretations are known, and Luke has heard of this one so he doesn't object.

It's possible there's a controversy over how old the Republic is, and Palpy just has an opinion, and Obi-Wan another. Maybe records were lost. That's another theory, which actually makes sense. Perhaps the history is merely "lost" in time. Though with the records they keep, it must have been a major set of incidents to lose that much knowledge in such short a time.

Yes. But why would the Empire want to make the Jedi or the Old Republic look good? Maybe they were trying to portray themselves as bringing back the "glory days" of the Republic? Maybe not.. the Republic is so different, especially with the Jedi's role and the Senate, democracy, etc which the Empire does away with.

But have you considered that while they privately want to destroy the Republic, they pander to the Core World's populations preconcieved notions of grandeur? Think Augustus Caesar's Empire, under the veneer of reneweing Republican greatness.

What's more, Palpatine would like to teach kids about the glorious wars of the Sith against the oppressive Jedi controlling the Republic as the Sith attempt to liberate it.

As I pointed out, there's reason to doubt that "generation" has to have the same meaning. Did you miss the part where I pointed out that non-human aliens may have different generations than we do? How about the part where I said that a celibate order like the Jedi doesn't have biological "generations" per se? Those points alone should throw the whole notion of "generation" in the Jedi sense into question.

You rejected my hypothesis of the Jedi viewing history to suit their purposes, but that they would reinvent what generation means is more realistic? That's bullshit.

I don't even need to go into this. Obi-Wan's use of "generation" isn't the same as our common 21st century usage. Thus both quotes are correct. Republic is 1,000+ years old, not 25,000+. I don't see that being complicated.

Prove it.

I'm inventing an alternate explanation for Obi-Wan's quote, to save Palpy's quote, and the EU be damned (since it has to bow to pure canon anyway, so who cares).

Fuck off. Obi-Wan's quote is equally canon as Palpatine's. You're reinventing Obi-Wan's quote to suit your purposes. Your creative fan definition of a well-defined word is NOT canon, dipshit.

The "two historical interpretations" or "muddled history" intepretations

Is that accurate? I'm not saying that's wrong, but I think its more important to preserve the continuity between the film canon, than it is to fit the EU back in at the expense of the pure canon.

How is it "at the expense?"

Lucas fucked it up either way.

I think the best way to preserve the film canon is to assume both are right and the words they say are actually what they mean.

The contradiction exists between film sources.

LFL policy is everything is part of continuity. Everything without an Infinities label of contained in SW Tales.

The rules for interpretation ironed out by Cerasi speak only to do with EU/movie contradictions. What you're doing has nothing to do with any of the continuity policies and I'm not going to play these little games. You want to be a purist, fine, leave the forum and don't come back, because we consider the EU part of all continuity here, otherwise, accept GL's and LFL's continuity policies, accept that they don't have any procedure for ironing out movie/movie contradictions (like inventing new definitions for words). The policies say that the movies are canon. Period. Therefore, the Republic was guarded by the Jedi for 1,000 Generations, and it has stood for 1,000 years. All fixes must allow that statement to remain true. And words maintain their definitions to remain true.

You don't create contradictions so you can throw away official accounts for no reason which have no imput in the debate (I'm still wanting to know why you made me post all that shit so you could make no comment on it and drags this on for no reason to suit your little purist bullshit).

So we except that history isn't so crystal clear in the GFFA, OR we reinvent the definition of a well-defined word because we're a purist asshole.

I think we've both made our decisions. Robert agrees with me, as does Lucasfilm continuity guys, who created the fix. It's official, and your creative definitions don't even have the luxury of making sense. So it really doesn't matter, because it isn't going to float.

Kurgan wrote:

I don't even need to go into this. Obi-Wan's use of "generation" isn't the same as our common 21st century usage. Thus both quotes are correct. Republic is 1,000+ years old, not 25,000+. I don't see that being complicated.

To add still another thing to this.. definitions of words do change/differ from our definitions. Note the whole use of the word "laser." TurboLASERS, SuperLASER, LASERsword (yet none of those appear to be "lasers" as we know them to be).

You're an idiot.

I suppose one year doesn't have to equal what it does on Earth hm?

I suppose it can last 25 x what it is here.

I suppose in Earth years that means the Republic stood for 25,000 years.

You're picking and choosing and violating policy and deciding to carve up continuity like you think it should be. Fuck that. I've offered every possible senario and they're all more likely and simple than your elaborate assumptions, which you derived from the EU which you are trying to carve up, which rely on creative definitions of specific words.

Since you don't follow LFL/GL continuity policy and refuse to listen to anything resembling compromise or even the logical law of parismony, I refuse to debate this shit with a purist as inane as you who came with a personal wish to bend continuity to his will.

It is all based on the assumption that Yoda graduates or fails the Younglings at a certain time, creating yearly "graduations" to benefit your theory. Which has no basis, Yoda has always worked on apprentices by how ready they were and merit.

Well, why not? Are you saying that Yoda can't decide who is to be trained or not? Are all Jedi automatically guarenteed knighthood? Or are you doubting that Yoda "trains" anyone?

We know from TPM that only one padawan to a master, yet here is Yoda, training a room full of young jedi. What are we to make of it? I think it fits perfectly.

Quote:
I don't see why we can't speculate that Yoda's "youngling academy" is in fact what we're seeing. His role seems to be something unique...


Something unneccessary you added, inspired from the EU, I might add.

Yoda is seen training the Younglings in AOTC. Obi-Wan calls Yoda "the Jedi Master who instructed me" (despite his having Qui Gon Jinn as his Master in TPM). Yoda calls Dooku his "old apprentice." That isn't from the EU.. that's from the movies themselves.

You want to tear away 25,000 years of EU and toss it away.

I don't "want" to, I just think its logical, given Lucas's canon policy, to consider the films higher canon than anything from the EU. Thus, rather than change the films to fit the EU, you change the EU to fit the films canon. Nothing in the EU can override what's in the films.

I'm sorry, but you don't create contradictions where there doesn't HAVE TO be one.

With all of your arguing I thought you were saying your explanation was simpler, more obvious and easy to see, and my ideas were "odd" and a stretch. Now you're saying I'm creating contradictions were there are none. Well, I didn't say my theory was the only possible answer, I just think it is a legitimate one, while you seem to disagree.

Especially when your theory creates unneccessary assumptions.

The only necessary assumption to my theory is that a Obi-Wan's use of "generation" isn't necessarily what you and I think of, in the 21st century, when we use the word "generation."

One word's definition, that's all. The other stuff is just evidence in support of that theory. The fact that Yoda trains the younglings isn't desputable, it's right there in the movie for anyone to see.

You're missing the fucking point. He knows the Jedi as of the Prequel era were corrupt (read Wong's AOTC essay if you couldn't pick it up all by your lonesome watching the movie).

But you just got through saying that Obi-Wan was trying to impress Luke or make the Republic look good, by putting his "spin" on his group (ie: the Jedi.. what other group could Obi-Wan possibly want to put into a good light?). So he says the Jedi were guardians for a really long long time of peace and stability. Now you're saying that Obi-Wan had nothing but contempt for the Jedi, so he was going to mimic the party-line of the Imperial propaganda machine?

If Obi-Wan's goal was to make the Jedi look bad, by painting them as corrupt, he did a pretty crappy job!

It just allows that there were multiple takes on history.

Possible, certainly. I admitted that this is another possibility, thus neither person is necessarily "wrong." But somehow, the presence of other plausible theories means my theory is definately "wrong..." what's what you're telling me. That's nonesense.

Perhaps some people aren't even sure what happened 1,000 years ago. I didn't say I knew why, I just said it could have been. You can't ignore the fact my theory makes fewer assumptions and doesn't throw away 25,000 years of Official history.

Sure. Again, official or not, the canon films are higher. If the official EU history contradicts the pure canon, the pure canon is correct, not the EU. So if there is a contradiction you go with the highest canon (which is what I'm discussing... I haven't once tried to use the EU to prove that my theory is correct).

Maybe Palpatine wanted to stress the history of the Sith to young of the galaxy, afterall, there were officially no Sith after 1,000 BBY.

So there were no Sith... and Palpy counts the period of the Republic as the time when there were no Sith. Interesting theory, but what does that have to do with your contention that the Republic has stood for 25,000+ years?

I will give you that Palpy probably feels that time without the Sith in power is a bad thing, but I don't see what you're trying to prove with this, since you just said the Empire would be the ones who would support the "25,000+ theory."

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the TPM novel say that the Sith were only around for 1,000 years, before they "disapeared" (ie: went into hiding, with the only two rule, etc)? And this was 1,000 years before TPM?

The TPM novel (which is canon, above the EU, but below the movies) says more than the movie.. the movie just says they've been thought extinct for a millennium.

Quote:
Okay, so let's say the Republic is 1,000 years old, but the Empire decides to interpret it as 25,000 years and push that agenda on people. Why would Obi-Wan, a critic of the Empire, who was part of the old regime (the Jedi Knights of the Old Republic) wish to follow the Empire's tradition?

Quote:
Sure, maybe he was just stating the "facts" spit out by the Empire to make his argument to Luke better.. (because Luke would know only the Empire's version of the story, not having grown up in the Republic)?

Very good. And he could have an alterior motive. See below.

Thanks. However, isn't assuming the character is lying a questionable assumption? You seemed to have a problem with that in previous posts. Or are you saying it's okay?

The only problem is that both characters are not exactly trusthworthy, so how do we know Obi-Wan is telling the truth, and Palpy is not, or both or vice versa? They both could be interpreting history and nobody really knows the answer, yes. That's theory number 2 for me.

But have you considered that while they privately want to destroy the Republic, they pander to the Core World's populations preconcieved notions of grandeur? Think Augustus Caesar's Empire, under the veneer of reneweing Republican greatness.

Sure. So the Empire plays up and exaggerates the greatness of the Republic to fool everyone into thinking they're going to revive the Republic, then they turn around and erase everything that made the Republic a Republic in the first place and anything that bore any resemblance to the previous government. Clever!

But then why would Obi-Wan follow their line of thinking and spout off their propaganda as if it were truth? He didn't have a problem shattering Luke's other preconcieved notions about the world (ie: that his father was a Jedi Knight, that something needs to be done about the Empire, that teh Force exists, that Stormtroopers killed the Jawas and not Sandpeople, etc).

What's more, Palpatine would like to teach kids about the glorious wars of the Sith against the oppressive Jedi controlling the Republic as the Sith attempt to liberate it.

I can see Palpy playing up the weaknesses of the Republic.. portraying it as corrupt etc. Dooku does this and so does Palpy (see especially Palpy's lines in TPM to Queen Amidala before he becomes Chancellor).

The problem here is that Palpy would be cancelling out the actions of his government.

On the one hand you'd have Palpy saying "the Republic is not what it once was.. full of greedy, squabbling delegates" "enter the burecrats, the true rulers of the Republic" etc etc and the you'd have the Empire teaching everyone that the Republic is this great great thing that's stood for a quarter of a million years in peace and stability. Sounds counter intuitive to me...

You rejected my hypothesis of the Jedi viewing history to suit their purposes, but that they would reinvent what generation means is more realistic? That's bullshit.

On the contrary, I argued that the Jedi view history FROM THEIR OWN POINT OF VIEW: ie: in terms of generations of Jedi students, not in terms of the number of years the Republican government has been in power!

As I said before, there are certainly reasons to believe that a word can have a different meaning in the SW universe than we would give it. I gave reasons why generation might not refer to our parents and our parents parents, ourselves and our children, etc. and on and on through biological generations of nuclear families. The Jedi don't observe that structure.

Of course in the EU, they had no idea the Jedi were a celibate order. We had married Jedi, and the Force being passed on through offspring. The Prequels changed that. So the EU had to adapt and say "well in the old days they didn't have celibacy as a rule, but they changed it during the prequel era."

And again, a generation might be 25 years for humans, but what is it for Yoda's race (which seems to live many centuries beyond any human would dream of)? 50? 100? 200? For all we know, Yoda's can have kids when they're 5. Or maybe they don't have kids until they're 500? Who knows!

Yarel Poof? When does his species have kids? How about Ki Adi Mundi? Plo Koon? We don't even know if humans are a majority species in the SW galaxy (or galaxies as the case may be).. why should everything revolve around them.. .especially in the supposed egalitarian atmosphere of the Old Republic?

Prove it.

1) Alien generations not the same as human generation necessarily.
2) Jedi a celibate order, so no "generations" exist for them. They recruite, they don't have children.

Therefore, it casts doubt on the assumption that they'd use a human-centered concept based on a style of reproduction that they have forbidden as a method for chronicling their history.

Fuck off. Obi-Wan's quote is equally canon as Palpatine's.

No kidding. Nowhere have I claimed that they were not.

You're reinventing Obi-Wan's quote to suit your purposes. Your creative fan definition of a well-defined word is NOT canon, dipshit.

And you're reinventing Palpatine's quote to suit your purposes. I don't see why these rules only apply to me and not you. Nowhere did I say that my theory was canon, anymore than you stated your theory was canon. Ad hominem attack.

The "two historical interpretations" or "muddled history" intepretations

Quote:
Is that accurate? I'm not saying that's wrong, but I think its more important to preserve the continuity between the film canon, than it is to fit the EU back in at the expense of the pure canon.


How is it "at the expense?"

You claim I'm (wrongly) reinterpreting Obi-Wan's words. Then you go ahead and re-interpret Palpatine's words, and its suddenly okay. You're saying that I can't reinterpret Obi-Wan's words.

I say its okay to interpret either one's words, but you have to resolve both statements, because they're both canon. We simply disagree over how to interpret one of them.

Lucas fucked it up either way.

Agreed, which is why we're having this discussion in the first place. We're not trying to resolve whether Greedo or Han shot first (thankfully) we're just trying to see if there's a way to explain the discrepency that makes any sense in context of the rest of the movies. You are attempting to fit the rest of the EU in as well, that's fine. But that doesn't automatically mean we can't discuss it. If it does, by all means, stop... you can stop anytime. Agree to disagree. I'm sure an official explanation will come along eventually, to anyone's satisfaction or not...

I think the best way to preserve the film canon is to assume both are right and the words they say are actually what they mean.

I'm not trying to sound like Bill Clinton here, but why can't my interpretation be correct? Because you want the EU to be true, so you can't admit that a generation can be anything less than 25 years. Therefore, your claim hedges on interpreting Palpatine's quote differently than "the words they say are actually what they mean."

Unless of course we adopt the nebulous theory that Republic history is simply "lost" and characters disagree over what it is. Which is always an option of course.

The contradiction exists between film sources.

Yes. But as you pointed out, attempts can be made to "resolve" those contradictions by interpretation. Otherwise this discussion is entirely pointless. Just make up your own idea of what you like best and that's how it is. ; )

LFL policy is everything is part of continuity. Everything without an Infinities label of contained in SW Tales.

And its also their policy that the films are higher canon than anything else, because these are visual evidence (not interpretations in some novel) and are Lucas's own stories out of his own head. The rest of the continuity spin off or "out of" his original stories. That much we can agree on.

The rules for interpretation ironed out by Cerasi speak only to do with EU/movie contradictions.

Right. And if we assume Palpatine is right, and the words he's actually saying are what he means, as you say, then we have a contradiction between what he says and the EU.

You seem to be saying that because the EU agrees with a certain interpreation of Obi-Wan's line, that means that it is correct. But can you really use the EU to prove a point of contradiction between films? I don't think you can.

What you're doing has nothing to do with any of the continuity policies and I'm not going to play these little games.

See above.

So you're just going to give up and claim I'm not making any sense, and on purpose at that? Well I tried to make them understandable. I guess I failed to do that. You failed to convince me as well. Too bad.

You want to be a purist, fine, leave the forum and don't come back, because we consider the EU part of all continuity here, otherwise, accept GL's and LFL's continuity policies, accept that they don't have any procedure for ironing out movie/movie contradictions (like inventing new definitions for words). The policies say that the movies are canon. Period. Therefore, the Republic was guarded by the Jedi for 1,000 Generations, and it has stood for 1,000 years. All fixes must allow that statement to remain true. And words maintain their definitions to remain true.

The films are canon. The EU is quasi-canon after the films. Nowhere have I said that the EU isn't part of the official continuity. Obviously it is. But I'm saying that if the EU contradicts the films, the EU is wrong, not the films. And if you take Palpy's quote as truth (and not a lie) then the EU is wrong, because it disagrees with him. That's what I've been saying all along! You're saying that since the EU agrees with one interpretation of Obi-Wan's quote, then Obi-Wan is right and we interpret Palpy's quote as something else not what he said.

The last part of your statement I 100% agree with:

The policies say that the movies are canon. Period. Therefore, the Republic was guarded by the Jedi for 1,000 Generations, and it has stood for 1,000 years. All fixes must allow that statement to remain true. And words maintain their definitions to remain true.

Thus, to say one generation of Jedi is equal to roughly one year fits.

1,000 generations of Jedi = 1,000 years of Republic

fits canon.

doesn't fit all of EU. too bad, EU is lower than film canon in continuity. films are right, always.

You don't create contradictions so you can throw away official accounts for no reason which have no imput in the debate (I'm still wanting to know why you made me post all that shit so you could make no comment on it and drags this on for no reason to suit your little purist bullshit).

I felt I already addressed those issues. The EU is lower canon than the films so the films are right if there's a disagreement, blah blah blah blah.

Maybe the stuff in the EU that claims to have taken place 25,000 years ago "in the Old Republic" really happened, just not in the Old Republic, since we know the Old Republic wasn't around 25,000 years ago (ago: before the movies).

So we except that history isn't so crystal clear in the GFFA, OR we reinvent the definition of a well-defined word because we're a purist asshole.

Why is admitting that the films take precedance over any other official Star Wars movies being an "asshole"? I guess LucasFilm and Lucas himself are a bunch of assholes then. Well, kinda strange, but okay...

I think we've both made our decisions. Robert agrees with me, as does Lucasfilm continuity guys, who created the fix.

Just what are they agreeing with? That the Republic is 25,000+ years old (but also 1,000 years old?), or that nobody knows how old the Republic really is and so people just have their own opinions (ie: Palpy has his, Obi-Wan has his, nobody's necessarily wrong, etc).

It wouldn't be such a big deal if it was something like 1,000 years verses 900 years, or 1,100 years. But we're talking the difference between 1,000 and 25,000+ years. That's a heck of a wide spectrum.

Another theory would be that Palpy is using "a thousand" in the Biblical sense (ie: a "really really big number, not an exact figure), but this is interpreting the words other than what they are actually saying, so you probably wouldn't like that.

It's official, and your creative definitions don't even have the luxury of making sense. So it really doesn't matter, because it isn't going to float.

You haven't explained why they don't make sense. All you've said is that a generation has to equal 25 years (because it does in on our planet?) and I can't possibly throw out any of the EU (why can't it be wrong? you seem to have admitted the fact that Lucas screwed up continuity by putting those words in Palpy's mouth in AOTC) and that Lucasfilm agrees with you (so you're automatically right)... but claiming that doesn't mean you're right.

It seems to me that continuity simply has to be adjusted in light of a new canon revelation, in AOTC. If that invalidates a big chunk of the EU, so be it. That's been happening over and over again ever since the prequels came out. Fans may not like it, but Lucas has the right, regardless of how many EU books have been written that say the films are wrong.

You're an idiot.

Ad hominem attack.

I suppose one year doesn't have to equal what it does on Earth hm?

True, it doesn't. I'm not going to argue EU here, but in the EU a year is close to, but not exactly what our years are. Doesn't change a thing.

I suppose it can last 25 x what it is here.

I suppose in Earth years that means the Republic stood for 25,000 years.

Could be. But you're a guy who likes the EU, so you should know that their years are almost the same as our's. Basic also sounds a lot like English (even though technically it could be anything, its just translated for our convenience).

You're picking and choosing and violating policy and deciding to carve up continuity like you think it should be.

No I'm not. Strawman.

Where have I said the movies are lower canon than the EU? Where have I said the movies are wrong (and the EU is right)? Where have I said the EU isn't part of the official continuity (after the films) when they don't contradict the films?

Fuck that. I've offered every possible senario and they're all more likely and simple than your elaborate assumptions, which you derived from the EU which you are trying to carve up, which rely on creative definitions of specific words.

First you say I'm throwing out the EU, then you say I'm only using the EU (and ignoring the films?). Which is it? Or can't you decide what part of my argument you agree with?

Here's my argument in case you missed it, in one sentence:

The generations that Obi-Wan referred to were each 1 year long, since the Republic is only 1,000 years old.

The rest is just supporting evidence and answering or questioning your claims against it.

Since you don't follow LFL/GL continuity policy and refuse to listen to anything resembling compromise or even the logical law of parismony,

Strawman fallacy.

I refuse to debate this shit with a purist as inane as you who came with a personal wish to bend continuity to his will.

Ad hominem attack. Appeal to motive. Concession accepted.

To recap your argument:

You say that the "Old Republic" (the one that the Jedi Knights were guardians of peace, etc in for over a thousand generations) refers to TERRITORY, while Palpatine's quote about "this Republic" refers only to the current government OF that Republic (over the territory).

As I pointed out, I you are doing the same thing I have done, which is to interpret their words differently than what they actually say. Why would territory be referred to as a "republic"? A republic is a form of government. And we've already established that the Old Republic and the Republic referenced in the prequel films is in fact the same thing (even according to the official website.. including EU backstory).

I consider the Republic to be referring to the government (a Republic is a form of government), not the territory. That is our point of disagreement.

Not really, considering the Republic is the name of the nation and it is the name of the government which we have a precedent for on Earth, it isn't that far-fetched.

Also, it is convienent to pick open one of the three possibilities I offered.

Where as you delivered a Obi-Wan spouting Jedi non-sense about their own definition of "generation."

Of course, my fix is sanctioned by LFL so you can say Concession Accepted until you come in your hands but it won't make any difference for continuity.

And you're right, I do want the EU to be correct, but when the LFL continuity guys, have divised a fix, and they're hired to do so, I believe that's the interpretation most likely.

Rather, we took two movie quotes, and changed one around so the other one would be completely right.

Rather then figure out a set of circumstances where both are correct. Don't you see? You're making contradictions and then using them to discard the 25,000 years. If you do that, then the EU itself becomes completely useless because things in the post-ROTJ EU tie back to the Ancient Era EU. Everything dissolves. Why? Because you wanted the two to contradict and redefined a word to suit yourself. Everything in the SW galaxy is "translated" into English for us. Surely you know why the ship nomenclature is deemed to be the same in the SW universe as ours? Therefore, by the same logic, the words must be as close as possible in definition. Generations does not possess the definition you give it. The word that would be used for what you're saying is "class," but that's not what's used and doesn't make sense. Generations are generations. Not only that, but both lines must be correct in their meaning. Therefore you have to come up with a way for 25,000 years of stewardship to hold over something deemed to have "stood" "1,000" years.

Perhaps Coruscant fell in the War, perhaps the government was dissolved or feeling it couldn't protect them, most of the sectors sceded from the Republic and it "fell." And it could be a combination of all the reasons given above, but because the SW saga is considered "translated" into its almost perfect English equivalent, generations are generations.

Not really, considering the Republic is the name of the nation and it is the name of the government which we have a precedent for on Earth, it isn't that far-fetched.

(Theories proposed so far)

1)

A nation verses a government. That sounds like a plausible argument, but you're either saying its one Republic, then another Republic, then another Republic, or you're saying the same Republic, with new administrations.

The government didn't change.. it didn't become "The Monarchy" "the Confederacy" or "the Dictatorship" even "the Democracy" for awhile, then the Republic again. It was a Republic for 1,000 years, according to Palpatine.

Sure, they might just call a one-government system (what is a "nation" anyway, if not a people or territory under one system of government?), but then why are they not able to call it anything but "the Republic" or "the Old Republic" or "this Republic"? That implies its the same style of government, regardless of how many senates, chancellors, etc they've had.

2)
The other theories proposed say that the Republic is much older than 1,000 years (to allow Obi-Wan's quote to be literally true, and the EU relating to pre-Prequel stuff to still be true), but that "modern" people in AOTC's time simply think of the Republic as being 1,000 years old because of relative peace and stability.


3)
Another theory was that nobody really knew how old the Republic was... just really old and so people have different schools of thought. Palpy is of the school who thinks 1,000 years sounds right, whereas Obi-Wan is of the larger school. I said I found this plausible, you seemed to as well.

4)
My theory was in fact that 1,000+ years = 1,000+ Jedi generations.

In that scenario, Yoda's "graduating" people from his youngling academy (or whatever it is, since it's never stated point blank in the movie) goes on cycles of at LEAST one year, or else it won't fit the 1,000 years set by Palpatine.

I haven't heard Lucasfilm's proposed fix (except to interpret what's posted on the various official websites as indicating support for the second theory, while not addressing either quote directly).

Other theories I've heard:

A) Old Republic and Republic are in fact different things (governments) and there was some radical re-organization that made people re-set their clocks. This sounded plausible at first to fix both the EU and the prequels, but then the official websites all seem to disagree on close inspection. The Old and vanilla Republics are one and the same, as far as the film characters are concerned, and there's no reason to suspect its anything more than talking about the past ("Old").

B) Palpy was lying somehow, either to show how far he'd come in decieving everyong (he can announce historical errors as fact, and nobody contradicts him, even people who should know better). Or, he was numbering the amount of time gone by in relation to the Sith (somehow). Or to make the Republic look bad, by under-stating the Republic's lifetime.

C) Obi-Wan was lying in order to make the Jedi "Look good."

D) The Empire was lying to everyone in order to make the Republic look good, somehow. (And Obi-Wan bought it? was being sarcastic to Luke?).


I think we've both come to the assumption that George goofed up, or deliberatly changed his mind between 1977 and 2002 and therefore screwed over the rest of the continuity. It remains to be seen if anything more will be addressed by Episode III, or the scripts/screenplays of Episode III, or any rumored further changes made to the original films before they make it to DVD in 2005-6. Somehow I kinda doubt it though... but then again, anything's possible.

I figure that the EU will choose one of the above explanations and just stick with it as to the discrepency and go on as if nothing happened, as they have in the face of any other apparent inconsistency between their material and the prequels.

Also, it is convienent to pick open one of the three possibilities I offered.

I believe I specifically attacked each argument of your's I disagreed with. The ones I thought were plausible (to me) I stated so. I was trying to put up your original argument, because I felt perhaps I hadn't really given it its due, with all the subsequent arguments that came out of the whole thing.

Where as you delivered a Obi-Wan spouting Jedi non-sense about their own definition of "generation."

Why is this not possible? We both know Jedi are looking out for their own "point of view" and we know that the Republic is 1,000 years old.

To resolve the quotes, we have to take one, or both of them (Palpy and Obi-Wan) as "not at his word" interpreting it metaphorically, or changing words around.

I pointed out how a generation could have a different meaning, relating to the Jedi. If it's not about the Jedi and instead about human populations of Coruscant or something, then sure, its much more difficult to shoe-horn a different definition in there.

Of course, my fix is sanctioned by LFL so you can say Concession Accepted until you come in your hands but it won't make any difference for continuity.

No, you can't get off that easily. WHICH one of your proposed fixes is sanctioned by LucasFilm? Was it the one that I agreed with you on? (In which case we agree on a proposed fix and we're just accepting what LucasFilm has come up with?)

You can't simply state Lucasfilm's fix as whatever the EU says, because we both know the EU had a problem once AOTC came out. Meaning, anything in the EU made before AOTC can't really be reliable to resolve this.


Sure, they can state the fix after the fact, and that will be the official explanation, unless contradicted by the films. That's the key.. if its contradicted by the films (given their own canon policy, they shouldn't propose something that contradicts the higher canon, unless they're stupid) then the films win, period.

And you're right, I do want the EU to be correct, but when the LFL continuity guys, have divised a fix, and they're hired to do so, I believe that's the interpretation most likely.

Certainly. You wish to state that your fix is in fact the right one, BECAUSE its the same one LucasFilm has proposed and sanctioned. I must have missed it.. which one is it? The one on starwars.com? It's murky at best, but sounds plausible (that the Republic is just really old, and nobody really knows... and there were periods of peace and stability... almost a combination of two of the above). Unless the last Star Wars movie and any special special editions change that, our official explanations will be from the EU, after AOTC, and if nothing else comes out, then that's good enough I guess, as long as it jibes with the movies.

Rather, we took two movie quotes, and changed one around so the other one would be completely right.

Well, technically, we interpreted one of them literally, and the other figuratively/metaphorically as if we were biblical scholars trying to harmonize two apparently contradictory passages. That's fine. In the final analysis, both quotes ended up being right.

The question we have both had with each other, is how much of a stretch is each interpretation? How closely does the interpretation fit the other "facts"?

If the volume of data from the EU behind a quote is proof of its factuality in continuity, then the debate is over before it has begun.. Obi-Wan's quote wins, hands down. The EU interpreted Obi-Wan's quote as meaning the Republic lasted aproximately 25,000+ years, along with the Jedi Knights (the Jedi may be older than the Republic, but they're at least AS OLD).

But that's not exactly fair, because Lucas didn't tell anybody and then sprung the AOTC quote on them, making Palpatine (or Obi-Wan) sound like an idiot, and in the process, make a chunk of the EU sound like idiots.

Hence.. our debate.

Rather then figure out a set of circumstances where both are correct.

I see what you're trying to say... you're saying your argument (which is tempting to find convincing) is that in fact BOTH QUOTES ARE LITERALLY TRUE!

Republic is 1,000 years old. TRUE
Republic is 25,000+ years old (1,000+ generations). TRUE

because the Republic = Nation and the Republic = government

I argued that in fact you're still interpreting the quotes. You're interpreting Obi-Wan's quote to say "For over 1,000 generations, the Jedi Knights were guardians of peace and justice in the nation of the Old Republic."

Since you insist that a generation as used by Obi-Wan has to equal 25 years, the Republic has to be 25,000 years old, minimum. The goverment couldn't be older than the "nation" so then he was referring to the nation.. and also setting the minimum age of the Jedi in the process.

Palpatine was referring to the current government, as being 1,000 years old.

However, you're still changing the definition of the word "Republic." Two men use the same word to mean different things. In my approach, a word changes meaning (generation) but both men don't speak of generations.

Let's say one of them said:

"The Republic is 1,000 years old."

And the other said

"The Republic has been supported by Banking for over 50,000 Lucas Cycles."

Now if you didn't know what a Lucas Cycle was, you'd be tempted to interpret it based on the first quote (a point of reference that you couldn't really dispute), right?

That's my rationale.

Don't you see? You're making contradictions and then using them to discard the 25,000 years.

Lucas made the contradictions (which were then blown out of proportion by the EU, but that's George's fault not their's.. although he could have just forbidden them from talking about the Old Republic, period).

We're just trying to interpret data in order to resolve them to our own satisfaction.

Personally, I don't care that much. I mean the EU said that Jorus C'Baoth was a prominent member of the Jedi Council, yet he appears nowhere in the prequels and is never mentioned. We know from the EU that the Clone Wars entailed use of spaarti cylinders to clone people, rapidly grown them in a short time (a handfull of years, far less than the ten proposed in AOTC) and then given a "flash" memory brain implant, but that they usually went crazy (unless you used Ysalamari to "hide" them from the Force). Yet the Kaminoeans process is completely different.

We learn that Boba Fett is either a member of the Mandalorian Supercommandos, who fought the Jedi during the Clone Wars, or a Journeyman Protector (?) who stole some of the armor and went rogue, or a Stormtrooper who killed his CO and became a Bounty Hunter.

We know that the Stormtroopers are not clones, but regular humans, recruited and brainwashed for service in the Empire's shock troops.

"Tales from Jabba's Palace" makes no mention of the new characters added in the ROTJ special edition. "Tales from the Mos Eisley Cantina" makes no mention of the fact that Greedo shot first (and missed at point blank range) as we know from the Special Edition.

I've even read about how "Heater" this big fat Irishman in fur often poses as Jabba to fool his henchman (like Han Solo, his favorite, of course). Whoops.. nevermind, that's really Jabba after all (who just lost some weight and gained a sense of humor) in the Special Edition.

We all know that Bevel Limesk (sp?) and Qwi Xux designed the Death Star. Nevermind those Geonosians.. doh.

Yoda has outgrown the need for lightsabers because he's such a powerful Jedi he doesn't have one... wait, nevermind.

Where's Naboo in the EU? It's a danged important planet, where Vader's wife/Luke and Leia's mother came from, and Palpy's home planet when he was a senator. Where's Qui Gon Jinn, Obi-Wan's master? Where's Mace Windu?

The prequels changed a lot of things we "thought" we knew from the EU. This is no exception. Just because it appears to throw out a lot of material doesn't mean anything, since we know that Lucas's policy is movies first, by any analysis.

So what gets thrown out (without any interpretation)?

The Tales of the Jedi Comics... any of the "Tales" books or parts of Dark Empire that refer to Boba Fett's past history (mostly comics). Anything that talks in detail about the Clone Wars.

Then comes the interpretations... we just say the cloning methods varied or that the new cloning methods are modifications of the ones used in the Clone Wars. We say history was lost/changed... we say Boba Fett lied about his past or fostered rumors to make his legend grow.

If you do that, then the EU itself becomes completely useless because things in the post-ROTJ EU tie back to the Ancient Era EU.

They do. And you're right. So we either assume history has been changed/lost, or the EU authors come up with some other excuse, which then becomes the "official" continuity. But they won't go back and re-edit any of the old books to fix it (except the RPG sourcebooks and tech manuals).

Everything dissolves. Why?

Everything doesn't have to dissolve. Just like real history, you can take the elements that clearly don't gibe with other clearer cut evidence (archeological, geological, etc) and assume it was either invention by the author, creative exaggeration (metaphor, hyperbole, etc), or history was changed/lost after the fact.

But you can still pick out facts within those histories and say "yes, from what we know, this part is correct."

There really may have been a Sun Crusher.. or a Galaxy Gun, or a Prince Xizor (he just kept a really low profile). Boba Fett may have lied about his past to scare his enemies, or they spread rumors about him. Cloning techniques may have changed, or maybe the Emperor left behind false data to fool would-be cloners after he blew up (?) Kaminoea. ; )

Because you wanted the two to contradict and redefined a word to suit yourself.

And so you'll attack my motive eh? Well, you just wanted the EU to still be true, so you wanted the two to both be true but mean totally different things than what was stated. Redefine the concept of the Republic in order to make it fit two contradictory quotes. Fine. ; )

Everything in the SW galaxy is "translated" into English for us.

I know that, and Basic was something invented in the EU (I believe it was called "Standard" or something in early EU novels, but then became Basic).. but it may actually be canonical now, if it was mentioned in the TPM or AOTC novelisations (I can't remember if it is or not). I wasn't trying to imply anything by my mention of basic earlier, I know it's not necessarily English. Much like Star Trek's universal translator (which appears to holographically change people's lips on the viewscreen or in person as well, hehe)... who cares, it's just easier than having the entire movie in subtitles while they speak gibberish.

Surely you know why the ship nomenclature is deemed to be the same in the SW universe as ours?

Death Star... Star Destroyer... X-Wing, TIE Fighter, TIE Bomber...

Proton Torpedoes? Torpedoes, when they were first invented, were what we'd now probably call "mines" that sat in the water and blew up on impact with a ship. Later they came to refer to propelled missiles under water.. like those used by U-Boats (submarines).

In Star Wars, they're these energy-based explosives (that may or may not have a matter component, I don't remember) that travel in space from Starfighters.

In Star Wars they have numerous "laser" weapons, but none of them exhibit the characteristics of lasers in our galaxy, despite the name.

Sure, a TIE Bomber "bombs" and a starfighter is a "fighter" craft that flies in space instead of in the air (although some can do both). What's your point? That everything as stated in the Star Wars universe uses the exact same terminology we use in our's? Not always, as we both know.

Therefore, by the same logic, the words must be as close as possible in definition.

That's either the leap in logic or the false dilemma fallacy. Either you have to take this illogical concluion or you have to take this other extreme conclusion as the only right answer. And, since it means this, it has to mean this other thing, which is far removed and doesn't necessarily have to follow.

TurboLasers and Superlasers are nothing like real lasers, except maybe in the name. How different is that? There are clearly exceptions to that, if it is a rule.

Generations does not possess the definition you give it.

Fallacy of declaration. So what if you say it doesn't?

A generation is not defined as "25 years" I checked a dictionary. It's not a defined period of time, though that period of time can be estimated based on when people usually have kids.

So in common usage (being that we're all humans on this planet) it's 20-25 years.

But for a NON HUMAN ALIEN SPECIES who may have totally different anatomy and physiology and reproduction habits and fertility and life expectancy will have something totally unlike our's.

We have seen (just look at the Senate, or the Jedi Council, for crying out loud!) that humans are not the dominant species in the Republic, despite we may have thought before, or what the Empire projects in its image. Why should the terminology be human-centered?

And if the Jedi are a celibate order, with no "generations" in the biological reproductive sense we know of, why would they count "generations" of Jedi Knights?

The word that would be used for what you're saying is "class," but that's not what's used and doesn't make sense. Generations are generations.

And a human generation is not an alien generation. And you can't have a generation of something that doesn't even reproduce in the same way.

Not only that, but both lines must be correct in their meaning.

You're saying a generation has to be 25 years. I disagree. It can't be, because that contradicts what Palpatine said. Unless you invent some other interpretation of "Republic" (which is what you're doing) to mean something other than the government, or "this" Republic.. .rather than "that" one that came before, etc.

Therefore you have to come up with a way for 25,000 years of stewardship to hold over something deemed to have "stood" "1,000" years.

He doesn't say stewardship.. he just says they were guardians of peace and justice IN the old republic. He doesn't say 25,000 years. He says "over a thousand generations."And if the generation is 1 year each, then no problem.. the same as a thousand years.

Perhaps Coruscant fell in the War, perhaps the government was dissolved or feeling it couldn't protect them, most of the sectors sceded from the Republic and it "fell."

So, the Republic, which stood for 24,000 years, fell, and then a New Republic replaced it for a thousand years. Obi-Wan was referring to the same Republic that Palpy was though... if you believe the official website.

Otherwise, interesting theory.

And it could be a combination of all the reasons given above, but because the SW saga is considered "translated" into its almost perfect English equivalent, generations are generations.

And lasers aren't lasers, and lightspeed isn't necessarily c, and etc etc.

Mixed alien/human celibate generations of force users in another galaxy are not earth human nuclear family generations in our's.

Simple solution to this problem. Say that the 1000 years figure was the length of time that the Repubic has existed IN THAT FORM. As Luke mentions in the Zahn trilogy when researching Joruus, the Empire re-organised the dating system when they came to power. The NR probobly did the same. We can assume that there have been civil wars in the Republics past, several are mentioned in the EU. So therefore both can be right. The Republic may have existed in that form for 1000 years as Palpy says and for 25,000 in one form or another as Obi Wan says. It all comes down to the certain point of view thing.