StarDestroyer.Net BBS

It grew into the Old Republic from the PT over the course of a thousand generations? Why must the Old Republic have started out like the one we saw in the movies?

It had to be large enough to warrant being named Galactic Republic, no? And whether you think a generation is more or less than ~25 years, we're still faced with a timeframe of well over 10,000 years. Be as minimalistic as you like, but I'm just restating what's been said time and again despite anything the EU ever gave us.

Batman wrote:It grew into the Old Republic from the PT over the course of a thousand generations? Why must the Old Republic have started out like the one we saw in the movies?

Granted. It's possible that there was an older Republic, not quite as large, that was succeeding by the Galactic Republic a scant 1,000 years BBY.

Prometheus Unbound wrote:Please excuse the language but stop being so f**king autistic over a couple of trailers. Seriously.


** apologies for the use of that term, I couldn't think of any other.

Considering you guys were constantly saying I don't know how the final movie will turn out, I find that rather hypocritical. You guys wanted me to talk about the trailer because that's all we know about so far.

Galvatron wrote: And I wish they'd gone that direction.

One of things I'm not fond of in these movies is the rapid evolution of the technological aesthetics. This isn't Star Trek. Star Wars takes place in a society that has had more or less the same level of technology for 25,000 years. And who knows how long this advanced technology existed long before the entire galaxy was organized into the Old Republic.

I think Star Wars is more akin to Macross, in which the Zentradi used the same warships and mecha for half-a-million years. We should see droids, ships, blasters, etc. that have been in service for millennia and remained functional during all that time due to their advanced durability and regular maintenance.

That makes the Star Wars universe feels too artificial to me. My biggest peeve with most fantasy is they are often too entrapped in the setting itself. You don't have to show how rapidly the Galaxy changed in a matter of decades. You need to show that there are people trying to find solutions to the problems they faced.

If you aren't prepared to write a story set in a distant past or the distant future without understanding how radically different things could be, then you should not bother writing them in the first place. If you want more stories that are similar to the OT, then simply tell more stories set in the OT like what the Anthology films are doing.

The sequels can be something different.

It had to be large enough to warrant being named Galactic Republic, no? And whether you think a generation is more or less than ~25 years, we're still faced with a timeframe of well over 10,000 years. Be as minimalistic as you like, but I'm just restating what's been said time and again despite anything the EU ever gave us.

Plenty of Empire have laid claim over the entire world when they only occupied a tiny part of our planet. Just because they laid claim to something doesn't mean their claim is true. You know, propaganda reasons and etc?





I feel that the SW fanon have very limited imagination generally, and JJ seems to be someone who shares similar outlook with most of those fans.

ray245 wrote:

Prometheus Unbound wrote:Please excuse the language but stop being so f**king autistic over a couple of trailers. Seriously.


** apologies for the use of that term, I couldn't think of any other.

Considering you guys were constantly saying I don't know how the final movie will turn out,

Which you don't. And neither do we.

I find that rather hypocritical.

What is hypocritical about the fact that we do not know the storyline of the film? why did you use that word? Do you know what it means?

You guys wanted me to talk about the trailer because that's all we know about so far.

We didn't ask you to talk about anything.

Prometheus Unbound wrote:
Which you don't. And neither do we.

As what's wrong with making assumption as long I understood that it's mere assumption until the film has been released?

I find that rather hypocritical.

What is hypocritical about the fact that we do not know the storyline of the film? why did you use that word? Do you know what it means?

You guys were basically asking me to talk about the trailer since that's all we know. I agreed and talk about the reasons why I felt uneasy BASED on the trailer. Now you are complaing about me talking exclusively about the trailer?

We didn't ask you to talk about anything.

In other words, you want me to shut up because I disagreed with you. Got it. I should self-censor all my post about being unhappy with what we know so far about TFA because the only legit post we can make over here is about how excited and happy we are about TFA.

The way I look at it, it seems like some fans are more than happy with an echo-chamber.

Their is an option besides mindless criticism or mindless enthusiasm.

Its called "Waiting until the movie has come out before judging it."

I wish more people would choose it.

The Romulan Republic wrote:Their is an option besides mindless criticism or mindless enthusiasm.

Its called "Waiting until the movie has come out before judging it."

I wish more people would choose it.

Why can't we criticise the stuff that has been released? And only on the stuff that has been released?


That is what this board has ALWAYS been doing.

Galvatron wrote:It had to be large enough to warrant being named Galactic Republic, no? And whether you think a generation is more or less than ~25 years, we're still faced with a timeframe of well over 10,000 years. Be as minimalistic as you like, but I'm just restating what's been said time and again despite anything the EU ever gave us.

When is it called the Galactic Republic in the OT? Kenobi just says 'Old Republic' Again nothing to suggest that it was always Galactic in size or that they had the same level of tech through out its entire history. Even in the PT its clear that the Galactic Republic doesn't encompass the entire Galaxy even before the clone wars there was nothing remarkable about a planet like Tatooine not being in it.

Take the British example, when it started we had sailing ships. By the end (lets be generous and call it 1950s when it ended), telephones, telegrams, radio, planes etc. Would you look at the end of the BE and suggest that it must have had all that through its hundreds of years of existence?

I love how I'm apparently being awful and minimalistic and EU loving for suggesting tech could have changes over thousands of years whereas as the best source for suggesting things hadn't change that much would be the EU and its depiction of being pretty much the same from the tales of the old jedi era thousands of years pre anh to the legacy era a century past the film.

That's your tech stasis right there. Yet still 'poor EU'!

ray245 wrote:

The Romulan Republic wrote:Their is an option besides mindless criticism or mindless enthusiasm.

Its called "Waiting until the movie has come out before judging it."

I wish more people would choose it.

Why can't we criticise the stuff that has been released? And only on the stuff that has been released?


That is what this board has ALWAYS been doing.

Sure you can criticize it. But I would advise against making definite conclusions about the film's quality unless you have sufficient information to do so.

The Romulan Republic wrote:

ray245 wrote:

The Romulan Republic wrote:Their is an option besides mindless criticism or mindless enthusiasm.

Its called "Waiting until the movie has come out before judging it."

I wish more people would choose it.

Why can't we criticise the stuff that has been released? And only on the stuff that has been released?


That is what this board has ALWAYS been doing.

Sure you can criticize it. But I would advise against making definite conclusions about the film's quality unless you have sufficient information to do so.

Which is why I'm not making definite conclusion. But it seems that there are people in this thread that wants to shut me up even though I'm not making any definite conclusions.

It's just weird that no one is telling any fan who keep posting about how happy they are with TFA to shut up.

Crazedwraith wrote:When is it called the Galactic Republic in the OT? Kenobi just says 'Old Republic' Again nothing to suggest that it was always Galactic in size or that they had the same level of tech through out its entire history. Even in the PT its clear that the Galactic Republic doesn't encompass the entire Galaxy even before the clone wars there was nothing remarkable about a planet like Tatooine not being in it.

An outer rim backwater not being part of the Galactic Republic isn't really indicative of much. I don't think anyone ever suggested that they had the technology to build something on the scale of the Death Star, but surely you'll concede that hyperdrives and lightsabres existed in the distant past, no?

Obviously they're not going to show much more in commercials than the trailers, but AT-ATs in combination with new stormtrooper armor is certainly suggestive, and I believe from what we can see of the bridge structure that those are new design Star Destroyers over the house, though we only get a couple frames of them.

There are several lines of dialog from the prequels and ANH that give an indication what occured in the Old Republic. Palpatine states "I will not allow this Republic that has stood for a thousand years.*" Obi-Wan refers to the Jedi serving as guardians of peace and justice for a thousand generations. Mace Windu and Paplatine both refer to the Sith having once ruled the galaxy. Though given that Ob-Wan claimed a continuity of Jedi between this, it is likely that it was a short lived rule.
* Emphasis mine.

In order for both of those statements to be true, we must have a reason for this difference. The best explanation would be that the Old Republic had existed for 25,000 years in some form. A bit more than a millennia before the events of the film the Sith came to power and actually ruled the galaxy. Due to a combination of Sith infighting and Jedi insurrection, they were defeated. A millenia before the events of the PT a true Galactic Republic was formed. This also fits Palpatine's quote about a first Galactic Empire following on from the Galactic Republic.

As for technology there is nothing to indicate how much technology has changed over the millenia. Though there is one element that indicates that there might have been recent progress. The fact that nothing like the Death Star had ever been developed indicates that technology or industrial potential was insufficient. Or the right mix of the two. Things like lightsabers and blasters would have presumably still been around for most of the history of the Old Republic, though probably much less efficient than what was available at the time of the films.

Galvatron wrote:

Crazedwraith wrote:Take out the EU and how is any of that true?

I didn't base any of what I said on the EU. 25,000 years has long been a fanon estimate based on "over a thousand generations" in ANH.

The rest is logic. How else could the Old Republic be formed if the level of technology was significantly less advanced than it was shown to be in the OT?

Or at least a thousand years of the Republic via Palpy in AOTC.

Knife wrote:

Galvatron wrote:

Crazedwraith wrote:Take out the EU and how is any of that true?

I didn't base any of what I said on the EU. 25,000 years has long been a fanon estimate based on "over a thousand generations" in ANH.

The rest is logic. How else could the Old Republic be formed if the level of technology was significantly less advanced than it was shown to be in the OT?

Or at least a thousand years of the Republic via Palpy in AOTC.

He actually says this Republic. To me that indicates that the Sith at one point ruled the galaxy and after they were again overthrown by a Jedi insurgency supported by Sith infighting, the Republic reformed into the galactic Republic. This all occured roughly 1000 years before AOTC.

It also likely indicates that the Republic existed previously as well.

Adam Reynolds wrote:He actually says this Republic. To me that indicates that the Sith at one point ruled the galaxy and after they were again overthrown by a Jedi insurgency supported by Sith infighting, the Republic reformed into the galactic Republic. This all occured roughly 1000 years before AOTC.

It also likely indicates that the Republic existed previously as well.

in the Legendaries the Old Republic was in fact a series of Republics with each before the Ruusan reformation one falling to crisis and rebuilt after, so the Clone Wars wasn't the first time the Republic had falled or nearly so.

That said even if the Republic was reduced to a handful of systems with rest of the galaxy (or nearly so) being ruled by the Sith you'd say the "sith ruled the galaxy" even though technically speaking the Republic existed. Follow this a major reformation after the war it could be possible that the Republic that came after the end of the sith wars was not considered the same as before (hence it stood for 1000 years aka from the end of the Sith Wars, but a form of the Old Republic existed for 20 000-30 000 years (or thousand generations)

Adam Reynolds wrote:To me that indicates that the Sith at one point ruled the galaxy

He outright says it. "Once more, the Sith will rule the galaxy!"

They have definitely, at some stage, ruled either the whole thing or a large part of it.

Adam Reynolds wrote:He actually says this Republic. To me that indicates that the Sith at one point ruled the galaxy and after they were again overthrown by a Jedi insurgency supported by Sith infighting, the Republic reformed into the galactic Republic. This all occured roughly 1000 years before AOTC.

It also likely indicates that the Republic existed previously as well.

As I've said before, what we know for certain is that a major conflict happened 1,000 years BBY between the Jedi and the Sith and that it was evidently big enough to shake up the Republic so badly that they had to essentially re-establish the whole damn thing.

Palpatine gave us a big clue when he said "Once more, the Sith will rule the galaxy!"

My guess is that a group of Sith actually managed to take Coruscant and declared themselves the absolute rulers of the Republic, remaining in power for a significant amount of time through brute force before in-fighting combined with an organized Jedi insurgency toppled them. From the Jedi's point of view, the Republic was never truly conquered because they were never truly defeated. From the Senate's point of view, my guess is that this was a major event that punctuated the timeline of galactic history and the continuity of the Old Republic.

This would explain why Darth Bane instituted the Rule of Two and why totally exterminating the Jedi was necessary in order to establish an everlasting Sith Empire.

ray245 wrote:That makes the Star Wars universe feels too artificial to me. My biggest peeve with most fantasy is they are often too entrapped in the setting itself. You don't have to show how rapidly the Galaxy changed in a matter of decades. You need to show that there are people trying to find solutions to the problems they faced.

But than it would not be that setting any more. Imagine if someone was to make a story set in LOTR, only 500 years later. The elves are all gone, the dwarves are in hiding or extinct and the halflings have bread with humans to the point where you can't tell one from the other. Everyone has guns. The orks are all gone, magic has been forgotten as it has veined and technology surpassed it. And all your favorite landmarks are either ancient ruins not relevant to the story or have modern cities built over them. Oh, and the story has nothing to do with the mythology of LOTR since that's all in the ancient past.

If you bought a ticket to see LOTR in the future would you feel satisfied with a movie like that? Or would you feel completely and utterly cheated?

Purple wrote:

ray245 wrote:That makes the Star Wars universe feels too artificial to me. My biggest peeve with most fantasy is they are often too entrapped in the setting itself. You don't have to show how rapidly the Galaxy changed in a matter of decades. You need to show that there are people trying to find solutions to the problems they faced.

But than it would not be that setting any more. Imagine if someone was to make a story set in LOTR, only 500 years later. The elves are all gone, the dwarves are in hiding or extinct and the halflings have bread with humans to the point where you can't tell one from the other. Everyone has guns. The orks are all gone, magic has been forgotten as it has veined and technology surpassed it. And all your favorite landmarks are either ancient ruins not relevant to the story or have modern cities built over them. Oh, and the story has nothing to do with the mythology of LOTR since that's all in the ancient past.

If you bought a ticket to see LOTR in the future would you feel satisfied with a movie like that? Or would you feel completely and utterly cheated?

Hence you don't write such a story in the first place if you don't want things to be too different.

Even Tolkien tries to write about how different middle earth was in the first age compared to the third age.

There's no one stopping you from writing more stories set in the third age or more stories set during the OT.

Speaking of starships, I am currently watching the fourth season of Blake's 7 and the Scorpio looks a hell of a lot like the Venator class ships in the prequel.

Oh fucking please, Purple. The way you'd want it about settings, you'd think the only stories you can talk about of WWII are the one that include Americans, Nazis, and Japanese without the English, Italians, Chinese, Indians, and all those other damn countries in the war. Then you'd also bitch about how the Korean War had nothing to do with the world of WWII even though some of the same players (namely US) are involve. That's what you're basically arguing.

Jesus fucking christ on a fucking bike.

ray245 wrote:Hence you don't write such a story in the first place if you don't want things to be too different.

Except that you do want things to be different, just not. The reason to place stories outside of the main timeline is in order to allow the writer creative freedom without forcing him to constantly keep track of the cannon.

Even Tolkien tries to write about how different middle earth was in the first age compared to the third age.

And yet he does not abandon the themes that make the setting unique.

There's no one stopping you from writing more stories set in the third age or more stories set during the OT.

Of course there is. Every time you write a story that happens close to already established events you have to struggle to somehow fit it in without counteracting those events, making them cheap or in other way diminishing the existing content. For example a plot like that of KOTOR just could not possibly happen in the same rough timeline as the SW movies.

Soontir C'boath wrote:Oh fucking please, Purple. The way you'd want it about settings, you'd think the only stories you can talk about of WWII are the one that include Americans, Nazis, and Japanese without the English, Italians, Chinese, Indians, and all those other damn countries in the war. Then you'd also bitch about how the Korean War had nothing to do with the world of WWII even though some of the same players (namely US) are involve. That's what you're basically arguing.

Jesus fucking christ on a fucking bike.

You don't get it at all. What I am saying is that if you want to write a story about a war between england and France you can't have it both in the 1940's and in the same setting as WW2. So if you really want a story about a WW2 era war between the two you must relocate it either in time (thus loosing the story you wanted to have) or to a different setting (thus again loosing the story you wanted to have) or just pretend that for some reason the 1940's have been going on for 1000 years and that this war just fits into the narrative because it does. The 3rd option is what a lot of the EU writers have done.

Except, I do not think anyone is arguing in that manner about telling different colliding stories in the same period. It's like saying we can only write about the European theater of the war and we HAVE to leave out the Pacific because it doesn't jive at the same time which is clearly nonsense.

More than one important event CAN happen at the same time across the world or the universe for that matter and it's not the end of the world if the likes of Han Solo, Leia, etc aren't there when there can be other heroes.

Prometheus Unbound wrote:Please excuse the language but stop being so f**king autistic over a couple of trailers. Seriously.


** apologies for the use of that term, I couldn't think of any other.

If you cannot think of any other term to use than that one, don't fucking use it.

Speaking of prequel and OT ships, while yes there are similarities, it is clear that they are still much different ships. Even if you want to argue the TF droid fighters are similar to the TIE Interceptors or the ARCs and the X-Wings, it's clear their aesthetics are different from one another unlike the updated versions of the X-Wings and TIEs that we see in the ST which are more or less the same. Hell, the Z-95 are clearly much closer to the X-Wings than the ARC ever will (though of course it's likely out of shear EU laziness). And yes, they make the movies more relatable, but it is taking the easy way out for the sake of fandom rather than presenting something new and different which would be rather fucking refreshing given this THIRTY EIGHT year old franchise.