Jump to content
D6 Online 3.0

Recommended Posts

There are threads like this in a couple other Star Wars RPG forums that have lead to great discussions. It's a topic that has been touched on in various threads here, so I thought I would start its own devoted thread here too...

 

George Lucas himself has been quoted stating that there is a Star Wars multiverse:

  1. George Lucas' Film Universe. The film saga. In this universe Lucas includes the dialogue and events of the film novelizations, comic book adaptations and radio drama adaptations that do not contradict the films. The more recent versions of events (currently the DVDs) overrides the older versions. Of course this includes Lucas' intended meanings of the films, and it also includes things he has stated about the universe of his films that are not directly conclusive in the films themselves (such as the timeline of films in relation to each other, Luke never got married, Palpatine was never cloned, Boba Fett and Palpatine died final deaths in ROTJ, and Anakin Skywalker destroyed the Sith forever). All three of the previous's sentences define "GU".
  2. The Expanded Universe. This is the "universe" supposedly created by the sum of the film universe ("G-canon") plus most Star Wars publishing continuity ("C-canon"). Television shows, original novels and non-story books, comic books, RPG source material, the canon events of video games, etc. The Infinities comics and some of the older publishing have intentionally been excluded from the EU, but modern EU authors can use something from the older published works thereby "canonizing" it to exist in the EU. Where an element of EU is later contradicted by a film, the newer film continuity officially takes precidence, requiring a ret-con to correct the EU. So the EU is officially supposed to conform to the first two sentences of GU above, and it is also supposed to be self-consistent, not contradicting itself. (IMO, it fails miseraly in both directives.) Beyond the films themselves, George Lucas has provided some direction to the EU, but most of it is admittedly largely unknown to him.
  3. Each fan's universe. George Lucas, the creator of (1.) the GU and owner of (2.) the EU, expects and even encourages each fan to define his own Star Wars universe. The recipe of your universe is: Take however much or little of 1 and 2 you wish, and add in any amount of your own continuity, and there is your universe!

So with # 3 alone, there are vast multiplicity (virtually millions) of Star Wars Universes in existence, and as a whole they compose the Star Wars Multiverse. In fact, some of us as individual fans have our own Star Wars multiverse, so you could say these are personal multiverses within the one composite mega-Multiverse! Being that the members of this site are mostly GMs, I'm especially interested in how you all define the reality of your Star Wars RPG settings. What is your #3?

 

So the ultimate question is: What is YOUR Star Wars Universe? (or multiverse)

Edited by Whill
spelling, punctuation, clarification, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm damn near a film purist in this respect. The Whills Universe (WU) firstly consists of my interpretation of the DVD versions of all 6 films.* My interpretation of the films mostly agrees with Lucas' regarding things I have read him stating about his films. I agree with most of Lucas' stated views of his film universe after the time of final film: Luke never got married, Palpatine was never cloned, Boba Fett and Palpatine died final deaths in ROTJ, and Anakin Skywalker fulfilled the prophecy of the Chosen One who is responsible for destroying the Sith forever. I disagree with Lucas about his official timeline and stated character ages ages. (For example, I have added 3 years total in between Ep II and IV). I also disagree that the biological portion of Anakin's body faded away after he died, so therefore Anakin's funeral pyre burned Vader's suit still filled with his cyborg components and human remains (like Qui-Gon).

 

I may not have a problem with some of the non-contradictory elements of the secondary media adapatations of the films, but at the same time I not feel bound to them like I do the films themselves. Likewise, I throw in some of the DVD deleted scenes on a case-by-case basis. I use some of the official EU-provided explanations for apparent discontinuities between films, but I also use other fan explanations and devise my own.

 

Regarding the controversial Midi-chlorians, I have no problem with them so they exist in my universe. In 1983, ROTJ had established a biological basis for potential in the using the Force being hereditary ("The Force runs strong in my family. My father has it. I have it. My sister has it"). Midi-chlorians were used as a minor plot point in TPM merely to establish that Anakin may or may not be the Chosen One. Midi-chlorians are just another level of detail that have no impact whatsoever on the grand scheme of the mystical energy field known as the Force.

 

* One definite exception to film canon in my universe is the appearance of that poor imitation Yoda muppet used in TPM. Maybe that is what Yoda's brother might look like because there is a facial resemblance, but that is not what my Yoda looks like. I expect this to be corrected to the CG model in the forthcoming blu-ray and 3D theatrical versions of the film anyway.

 

* One possible exception is regarding the infamous Greedo controversy. I've always thought that changing the scene to Greedo getting a shot off before getting blasted by Han was not only unnecessary, but also begged an explanation as to how Greedo could miss a non-moving target at point blank range. So I offered the "Greedo was drunk" explanation because I always viewed him as a minor thug and no real match for Han anyway, so I rationalized that he had to get wasted in the cantina before getting up the nerve to even confront Han in the first place. But then it was pointed out to me that Han shooting Greedo before getting shot out added a deeper level of moral ambiguity to the Solo character, which heightens the drama of Han's departure from the Rebels on the eve of battle and his triumphant return to save Luke in the nick of time. I can't argue with that from a dramatic point of view. So I am now tormented by the conflict between my desire for the current versions of the films to (virtually) completely and exactly represent my vision of continuity in my Star Wars Universe, and the original version of that one scene which does add more drama to the story of my favorite classic trilogy character in my favorite film of the entire 6-film saga. And I absolutely love all the other additions and effects improvements in the rest of the DVD version of ANH, so I can't even just pick that one original film and then go by the lastest versions of the rest of the movies. Damn you, Rerun!!! Maybe the blu-ray will include the option of which version of that scene you want to see when you watch the film. That would be so cool!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like most fans I know, I pick and choose from the EU as to what stories and story elements are included in my world (WU).

 

Story-wise, I am very selective. I categorically reject the stories of the Clone Wars TV series, anything taking place after Ep VI, and anything by Timothy Zahn regardless of era. And I also categorically reject video game canon because the power of video game characters is just on a completely different realm of existance. "Unleashed" powers? In my universe, no mortal has the power to crash a star destroyer with the Force. Not Yoda, not Palpatine, not Anakin, not any secret apprentice of Vader's. That's just plain silly.

 

I've read a lot of novels over the years, but I only consider the following prequel-era novels to be canon in my universe: Path of Destruction (Darth Bane), Shadow Hunter (Darth Maul), Cloak of Deception, Labyrinth of Evil, and Dark Lord: The Rise of Darth Vader (the last three being excellent expansions of the 1st and 3rd prequel films, by James Luceno). Shadows of the Empire is still in my canon, although it does require some retcons to conform with the changes to the Emperor's scene in TESB DVD. (In the new version Luke Skywalker is not named. Prince Xizor had already known that Vader was really Anakin Skywalker, but the original Vader-Emperor dialogue is how Xizor discovered both Luke's name and that he was Vader's son. It's stupid that the Emperor would have this conversation with Xizor present anyway.)

 

However I'm very inclusive of the non-story elements of the EU. I try to adhere to the descriptive information for planets, aliens, ships, etc. If I want to use an background film alien in my game because I think they look cool, then I wil look them up in my source material or online and try not to contradict it. If I feel changes are needed to conform with my interpretation of the films or some other aspect of my universe, I try to minimize both the number and alteration of the changes. Here is where I'll give Timothy Zahn kudos: he did come up with a lot cool aliens and such that I use. In general, I don't contradict non-story EU material unless I feel I really have to.

 

For example, I love the Verpine species but I thought they should have 4 arms (thus 6 limbs total like real-world insects), and thought it would be cool if they were better pilots and had a queen in their reproduction cycle instead of all being one gender. And I like the equine Svivreni species, but I thought they would be cooler if they were four-legged centaur-like beings. Then I decided, instead of changing the established EU aliens, I created ancestor species of the Verpine and Svivreni. But since it would be unnatural evolution from those sentient six-limbed species to have evolved into the EU species, the theory is that the Verpine and Svivreni are genetic offshoots of their respective ancestor species, the result of generic engineering with the purpose of creating warrior/slave races. And even though one of the ancestory species in mammalian and the other is insectile, I tied their backgrounds together in that they both evolved on the same planet where all animal life was six-limbed. They were enemy species that both used genetic engineering in an attempt to destroy the each other, and then finally destroyed their homeword when their conflict escalated and access to an ancient super-weapon was gained. The Svivreni and Verpine species themselves may not share this theory, but I've tied the background I created into possible explanations for the Verpine being a peaceful asteroid-hopping species that is not aware of their species origin and for the Svivreni stubborness and love of mining. And then I've just added some more creative differences with between the base EU species and my derivative species. But the end result is a universe with the two EU species intact as is and the two "new" species I wanted them to be, all existing together.

 

A lot of WEG material is canon in my universe, but where it is contradicted by the prequels or some other aspect of my universe, it may need an update. And there is some WEG stuff that I just thought was corny or could be improved, so I did. There may be a little that I just ingore. But even moreso than the EU stuff in general, I try to assimilate all WEG material I possibly can into my universe. WOTC actually has a lot of cool stuff that I use too.

Edited by Whill
(limbs)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, the last time I ran anything in the Rebellion Era I only used the original movie trilogy along with the Han Solo trilogy of novels and a few references from the Star Wars classic comics (I picked and chose those in a very limited format) and a smattering of expanded universe supplements from WEG as the basis. I have never used the prequel trilogy movies and ignore them. I can never see myself actually using them for any campaign or game. I really have a bunch of issues with them as part of the continuity of the universe.

 

I have run some games using Tales of the Jedi comics and those campaigns were both set 100 years after the end of the comics. Much fun to be had there mining a campaign. Also much freedom.

 

Now, one thing I have seen talked about a bit over at RPG.net and have thought about doing myself is running a campaign using only the original Star Wars movie as canon. What we know, Darth Vader betrayed and killed Luke Skywalker's father. The rebellion deals a strong blow against the empire but no victory is certain. Even Jedi powers would be more subdued based off what we see Luke, Vader, and Ben attempting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cool. And oh yes, I forgot! I haven't read them since the 90's, but I think The Han Solo Trilogy and The Han Solo Adventures can both be in my Star Wars universe, with a little tweaking. I also read The Lando Calrissian Adventures back then and enjoyed them, but I remember them being a little out there so I'll have to re-read them to make sure they can remain in my universe. So I'll say they are tentatively in my universe.

 

The only thing about THST that stands out in my mind right now as contradictory to my universe is the EU depiction of Boba Fett as a man with a code of honor who never lies and always keeps a promise. I don't get that from his appearances in the films. In my universe, he's just a cold, hard mercenary trying to make his way in the universe. He has no qualms with killing anyone for "dead or alive" bounties. All he cares about are the credits. After witnessing his father's decapitation (a traumatizing event for sure), he also has a personal vendetta against the Jedi for killing his father, the only being he ever loved. Boba Fett is a villain with no redeeming qualities, and in Episode VI when he died (a permanent, final death) in the Salaac, he got what he deserved. And in my universe, Boba Fett was an above average bounty hunter, but not the best in the galaxy (his death was comical). And he never lived up to his father's reputation as a total bad@ss, despite the fact of being an unaltered clone of him.

Edited by Whill
Boba Fett

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Damn you, Rerun!!!

 

I sense a disturbance in the Force. :cool:

 

Yeah, sorry, Han shot first. It totally cheapens his initial hard-boiled image for him to fire in self-defense.

 

As for my Star Wars universe... most of the Star Wars that I use is generally pre-1998. 'Round about the time that WEG lost the Star Wars license, the Special Editions came out, and the glut of EU material (comics, novels, games) started in earnest. I can't keep up with all the material being produced, so I've stopped trying.

 

I accept most of the stuff made before 1998 and basically pick and choose anything after that on a case-by-case basis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I ran a weekly campaign for a year or so with some twists...

 

I began with the initial Tales of the Jedi comic. Each week, I led a different campaign in chronological order. Yes, it involved a couple of carbonite freezes for the long counts between a few of the books, but I wove it into the story line. Got all the way to Thrawn before the group broke up (including a couple of weekend marathon games and an entire week in the summer).

 

In my mind, it all happened. I use every little piece of the canon as canonical information. Well, I don't use the infinities or some of the tongue-in-cheek stuff (Tag & Bink, etc.). When two sources conflict, I tend to look at the older one (i.e. Han shot first). I also tend to move some things around based on previous information. For the most part, I use the chronology listed in The Star Wars Chronology Universe. I also use all sourcebook information from the various RPGs (D6 and d20).

Edited by Flagwaver
Misunderstood the question and expanded on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my fan universe, Han shot first, Boba Fett died in the Sarlaac Pit, the Emperor stays dead after being killed, (peace is restored to the galaxy for at least a really long time, definitely the lifetime of all of the film characters), and the only force powers that exist are the ones seen on screen during the six films.

 

Midichlorians don't exist, or if they do Jedi have no reason to ever talk about them or use a device to confirm their presence at "X" level. Jedis just "feel that this one is strong."

 

Boba Fett's dad wasn't the prototype for a clone army, and the clone army was only used for a short while at best. (Stormtroopers aren't clones. That may be canon anyway, I'm just saying.)

 

The prequel trilogy and the clone wars themselves didn't happen as seen on screen.

 

The clone wars were about thirty years before A New Hope. So Luke and Leia were born well after that time. Anakin had already become Darth Vader by that point.

 

R2 is the only being to see the whole thing pretty much from start to finish (just because I like that.) 3PO isn't made by Anikin.

 

Mostly, I don't care about the prequels so I ignore them. I feel free to adapt and borrow from them however.

 

Tales of the Jedi mostly happened - I'm not an expert on it, and wouldn't care in the least if I conflicted with established canon.

 

None of the expanded universe stuff that takes place after episode six happens.

 

Lando and the Millenium Falcon don't make it out of the exploding Death Star II.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Prequels, prequels, what fricking prequels? It's kind of like what I did with Highlander. Sequels, sequels, what frickin sequels? Selective memory or lots of liquor helps wash the pain away. In all honesty the Clone War hints from the 80's Marvel Comic were much better than what made it on screen, and the digitally remastered with added visual cheese took so much away from the original trilogy it caused me a lot of pain. I still wish I had jumped and gotten the original set before Han Solo shot after Greedo. I know before I have children I will have to fork over the cash to get the unadulterated version so they can experience the thrill of Star Wars instead of the huge disappointment George Lucas has been intent on making it for the last 20 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Like most fans I know, I pick and choose from the EU as to what stories and story elements are included in my world (WU).

 

...I love the Verpine species but I thought they should have 4 arms (thus 6 limbs total like real-world insects)...

Insects with 4 limbs!? I say we make a minor tweak to the species description and photoshop all the illustrations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome Bren! Verpine are insectile because of other characteristics besides the total # of limbs. Maybe their biological ancestors had six limbs and they lost two to evolution. Did you know that the ancestors of whales and dolphins were 4-legged land mammals? They lost their legs and went back into the ocean. Did you know that snakes evolved from 4-legged reptiles? They are still clasified as quadriped reptiles although they have no legs now. But that's not my point.

 

My point is, I wanted to have a player-character species that was like Verpine but also more like real-world insects with 6 limbs, so I invented a new species, the Verinex (with faux etymology "true insects"). And I tied the Verinex background in with my other new six-limbed species (derived from a 4-limbed EU species), my equine and now centaur-like Kentauroi.

 

Like the Verpine, the Verinex had naturally occuring worker drone race who were basically semi-sentient slaves. The drones only had 2 arms (which lead the Verinex to look down on all species that had less than 4 arms). The Verinex used genetic engineering in an attempt to make the drones intelligent enough become a disposable drone-army in their efforts to eradicate their rivals: the 4-legged 2-armed Kenrauroi. It pretty much worked and it gave the Verinex the upper hand. The less scientifically-adept Kentauroi stole the genetic technology and attempted to apply the Verinex programming matrices to their own species. The result was an intelligent humanoid version of the Kentauroi, who they used as not only warriors but also as slave-miners to retrieve valuable resources needed for the war effort. A horrible bloodbath ensured where millions of all four species were killed. But as the conflict escalated the two warrior species turned on their master species and rebelled against them. No one is exactly sure how it all went down but it is believed that a poorly understood super-weapon technology was improperly used, completely destroying the planet.

 

Members of all 4 species survived, although the binary system is now an asteroid field obrbiting around one star and another one orbiting around a black hole, with a few scattered moons floating around here and there. All 4 species blamed each other for the disaster. Some Verinex and Kentauroi moved to nearby systems, but most of them remained in their decimated system, adapting the asteroids and moons to be habitable. The Verinex slave-species became the Verpine and their experiences made them devout pacifists with a fascination of technology. For the most part, the Verpine left the system and colonized another asteroid field in the Roche system. The Kentauroi slave-species became the Svivreni. A large population of the hardy species colonized the planet Svivren (along with a large population of Sullustans), but many Svivreni stubbornly stayed in their home system, using their talents for asteroid mining (although now they're free and paid for their services).

 

The Verinex and Kentauroi are now generally peaceful and have become fairly tolerant of each other, but their are still some feelings of mutual animosity among some members of both species. The Svivreni in the system have a generally good relationship with their former master race (who gives them a lot of work), however most modern Verpine everywhere in the galaxy tend to not even acknowledge that they have any shared history with the other three species, some arguing that the evidence is debatable and others even flat-out refuting any conection whatsoever. The Svivreni are mostly indifferent to their past. The Verinex and Kentauroi economies are largely centered around the vast mineral resources in the system, but many in both species are obsessed with digging through the rubble of their homeworld, hoping to discover valuable ancient artifacts that may have survived the cataclysm and would shed more light on their past.

 

I happen to like all that better than just changing the EU species. But if you want to just photoshop the Verpine to give them 6 arms and slightly edit their species info to make them more insectile for your world, have at it (and please share your photoshop creation with me!). If you want to leave the Verpine as-is and change their description to not include insectile terms because you feel they aren't true insects without 6 limb, then knock yourself out. Or if you like my ideas then that's great too. In your Star War universe you can do anything you want!

Edited by Whill
how many arms?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'ello. My Universe, the Zorn Universe (ZU), came about through a rather interesting combination Character Goals and Campaign events. Imagine all this came from a Player saying "I want to make a Pirate Fleet" Here are the Highlights:

Time Frame-3 Months Pre-ANH to ROJ(ish)

The Emperor is dead, his s spirit sealed and dissipating in an glowing orb like artifact

The Empire is in a state of disarray. For a time Nymphalia was in power after killing the Emperor (The First Time, he came back until the above happened). Though Thrawn is still with his fleet in the Rim He'll probably assume power.

The Zorn Empire/Emirate (PC's) has been formed in the outer-Rim. The Secret world inhabited by the Tempesto (The race/planet from the scout guide) is the Secret capital while a unnamed planet serves as it's face for the Galaxy. They have 30-50 planets over about a dozen systems and their ships are built under the Motto of Quality over Quantity. Their two Star Dreadnoughts have a Mini-Superlaser that renders the ship useless for sixty seconds.

The Hapan Consortium has a non-technological trade agreement with the Zorn Emirate.

The Second Death Star was able to be completed due to disruption of alliance and empire affairs by the Unity Dominion, Zorn Empire/Emirate and Nymphalia (another PC) of the self-proclaimed New Sith Order. Vader took command of the Operation.

The New Republic is formed as a partial Galactic Alliance under the rally of the Zorn Empire/Emirate. (The GA came early)

Tantooine is receiving aid from Zorn following an attempted Orbital Bombardment from (independent) Zorn Affiliates, parts of the surface is now sand covered glass.

A Celestial planet mover was fought over and was used to move minor planetoids and move a planet containing a dangerous person out of the known Hyperspace routes. The Planet Mover was destroyed afterward as it was deemed too power to be left in anyone's hands.

The Unity Dominion was formed by an awoken Sithlord, Emoin. It's goal was to create an efficient, safe, perpetual galactic dominion that would take out the errors of both the Old Republic and the Galactic Order. The Dominion was destroyed, it's planet made volcanic by the Death Star II and it's fleet destroyed in the battle for the Celestial Ship. Emoin is alive and currently rethinking his life.

The New Sith Order was formed by a Twi'lec called Nymphalia (Nymph), though a non-Force Sensitive she considered herself a follower of the true meaning behind the Sith. She believed that the Galaxy was being destroyed by it's inhabitants and had to be wiped clean. It's species being replaced via Genetic Manipulation and Cloning. As her forces were small she used misdirection. She spread Chaos through out the Core by launching attacks and leaving evidence of Alliance, Dominion and Zorn as the attackers.

 

I'll get into more detail if you guys want. Practically have a tech book on Zorn, along with Water Marks and ship designs, heh. The entire situation is really quite complicated. With the PC/NPC sides and motivations. Though the ending was slightly underwhelming, the journey was probably one of the best I've and the players have done.

Edited by janus methedor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Han shot first.

 

This will probably only make me even less popular among Star Wars fans, but I feel compelled to state for the record in this thread that the "Han shot first" movement is poorly named. Han did not ever, in any version, fire "first". In the original version of the scene, Greedo did not fire second. Greedo did not fire at all, so "only Han fired" or "Greedo did not fire" would be more accurate descriptions for the movement wishing Lucas would restore the original version of the scene. Just sayin'.

 

Han shot first. It totally cheapens his initial hard-boiled image for him to fire in self-defense.

 

Well, by how I take your meaning, it's not totally self-defense. Han is still clearly shown to sneak-draw his blaster (which communicates the same intention to blast) long before Greedo even annouces his intention to kill Han. The overall end result of the DVD version of the scene is the same as the original - they both planned on firing and Greedo gets fried. The only change is that Greedo got a shot off before getting blasted by Han. But yes, in the DVD version it is true that Han's shot comes a split second after Greedo's, but my point here is, based on the scene as a whole, it is arguable that Han only fired because he was fired on. I think the scene as a whole demonstrates it was not only firing in self-defense. He was planning on firing whether Greedo fired or not.

 

But then again from the pre-emptive view, even in the original version Han can be said to be firing in self-defense. As I've always stated, it is obvious to anyone old enough to read captions that even in the original version, Greedo is clearly intending to kill Han before anyone fired.

 

I sense a disturbance in the Force. :cool:

 

Yeah, sorry, Han shot first. It totally cheapens his initial hard-boiled image for him to fire in self-defense.

 

Regardless of Han and Greedo's demonstated intentions to fire on each other before anyone fired, as stated earlier, I agree that Greedo not getting a shot off at all is probably the most dramatically appropriate for the film. Han is a scoundrel with a heart of gold that does not come to the surface until he saves Luke in the Battle of Yavin.

 

What If: But I just thought of a compromise I haven't before. What if it is changed to Han truly firing first? Meaning Han fires first without being fired upon, but as Greedo gets blasted, a shot comes out (and misses). That would imply even more than Greedo's dialogue that he was going to kill Han. Greedo's finger (or is it tentacle) was starting to squeeze the trigger when Han blasted him. So Han still fires without a shot coming from Greedo first, but then Greedo's intended kill shot goes wild. And that wouldn't even need the "Greedo was drunk" explanation.

 

Conclusion: For now, I've decided that I will continue to accept the lastest version o the scene in my canon (I'm sure to your disappointment). Greedo was shown sitting at the bar earlier with a mug in front of him, so it is not stretch to imagine that Greedo was drunk. He was just a pathetic goon who had to get up the false alcohol-infused courage to even confront Han in the first place (not anywhere near the 18 attribute dice bounty hunter than WEG made him out to be). But Greedo still got the drop on Han. As demonstrated by Han's sneak-draw, the hard-boiled scoundrel was always planning on blasting Greedo whether Greedo fired first or at all. Greedo was seeing doubled and fired on the wrong Han before getting fried.

 

However, I do officially concede that the original version of the scene does best serves the dramatic value of the film. But honestly it is a minor point - How could such a minor detail ruin an entire classic film? And I do wish that the blu-ray at least changes the scene to Greedo fires second, or better yet gives the fans the option to have that scene play out any way they want - That way Lucas can have whatever default version he wants and every fan can choose how they watch the film.

Edited by Whill
the Greedo controversy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally think trying to fabricate any sort of questionable back-story to the situation (Greedo being drunk) really speaks volumes in terms of how much Lucas has done to ruin (yes...I said ruin) the original intent of the story and character. You are, of course, free to fabricate whatever you want to explain away the problems and contraditions, but to post a rather lengthy description of your opinion and then hand-wave the event as a "minor point" is rather dismissive of other people's viewpoints on the subjects.

 

Does it ruin the movie for me? No. Do all of the changes he's made to the originals ruin the movies for me? Honestly, the only one I watch with all of Lucas' changes is Return of the Jedi. The others I watch the original movies as released. So the changes can grate on me enough that if I just want to really enjoy the movies as they really were, I watch them as they really were. If I'm just putting on background noise, I can put in either version. I know you accept all the changes, or come up with "explanations" for all of the changes that don't quite fit right with the story as you feel it should be. But the neat thing is...I don't have to accept the changes and I don't have to watch Lucas' "new" vision of events if I don't want to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just rewatched the original scene. To me it looks like Han tries to talk Greedo into lettting him go. Uses his talking and left hand motion to distract Greedo while he gets his blaster out. Then, as it becomes clear that Greedo will not back down or let Han walk away (since he thinks he has the drop on Han), Han provokes Greedo by saying "over my dead body" then shoots Greedo.

 

That is very different than saying over my dead body, then waiting for the other guy to shoot first.

 

Version 1: Han is clever and ruthless when he feels threatened.

 

Version 2: Han is either not clever enough or not ruthless enough to shoot first. He either waits for Greedo to get a shot off or he just blows his estimate of the encounter and control of the situation. Fortunately we need him to fly the Falcon and he just gets lucky that Greedo's prepared, point-blank shot misses.

 

Are you saying that the original version is only "probably the most dramatically appropriate." To me it is most definitely the most dramatically appropriate. The first version is the equivalent of seeing Clint Eastwood's the Man with No Name get reformed. The second version...meh...not so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This will probably only make me even less popular among Star Wars fans, but I feel compelled to state for the record in this thread that the "Han shot first" movement is poorly named. Han did not ever, in any version, fire "first". In the original version of the scene, Greedo did not fire second. Greedo did not fire at all, so "only Han fired" or "Greedo did not fire" would be more accurate descriptions for the movement wishing Lucas would restore the original version of the scene. Just sayin'.

While "Greedo did not fire" is a more grammatically accurate description based on what we see in the original edition; it is not as catchy a phrase as "Han fired first." In addition, it ignores the hypothetical case of a zombie-cyborg Greedo returning to shoot at Han later or second and thereby justifying the phrase "Han shot first." ;^)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you saying that the original version is only "probably the most dramatically appropriate."

 

Like this issue over the course of multiple posts will show, the post you are quoting itself was a "work in progress" for me internally, meaning I did not go back and edit the beginning of what I typed when I reached the conclusion of the ending. By the end of the post, I posted:

 

I do officially concede that the original version of the scene does best serves the dramatic value of the film.

 

That means definitely, not probably. I am truly sorry for the confusion between the beginning and endings of that post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hand-wave the event as a "minor point" is rather dismissive of other people's viewpoints on the subjects.

 

Whoa, let's back up a bit here. The point of the thread is for everyone to post their Star Wars universe. Why would I be dismissive of other views? Wouldn't that be a contradiction of the stated purpose of the thread? Do you really think that I would do that?

 

The Greedo contraversy is a minor point for me. If it is a major point for you or anyone else, they will post that. How is my opinion of how minor a point is being dismissive of other views? My statement about the Greedo contraversy being a minor point is only a statement about my own view, and nothing more. I accept that other views may be different. I accept that it might be a major point for others. And I publically acknowledge that I have a minority view on many things Star Wars.

 

For the record, I was most certainly not trying to dismiss Grimace or anyone else's point of view. Please accept my heartfelt apology if anyone thought I was somehow contradicting the whole spirit of my own thread by dismissing other views. I apologize I wasn't more clear that I meant it is only a minor issue for me.

 

to post a rather lengthy description of your opinion

 

Most everyone else seems to post about their opinion of that one scene when they post about their universe, so I can too. And hey, it is my favorite movie of all time so I can post lenghty replies about minor points if I want to anyway.

 

I think you are lumping all sentences of my "lengthy" post into one big opinion. It is not. It's just a lot of little statements regarding a scene in the movie, and only two main statements. In fact, please disregard the entire middle section of that post. It was somewhat related to the topic, but it was a tangent. But for claritiy, here are my two main points:

 

1. In my universe, for the time being, Greedo fired a shot as Han blasted him. (Again, it's a minor point to me and that is not in the slightest way a hand-wave to dismiss anyone else's view.)

2. Despite that choice above, I officially concede to Rerun's point about the dramatic value the original scene adds to Han's character and the film. It may be minor dramatic value IMO, but I still publically concede to the majority opinion of my own generation now.

 

See, I'm allowed to have an opinion about the dramatic value of the original scene, and yet I'm also allowed to still choose the changed scene for my SWU. That's because we are all free to have our own criteria for what we choose to be a part of our SWUs and why. I have my own criteria. It's not the same as yours, but it seems similar in the way that you choose whole versions of the classic movies all or nothing for your universe. Grimace, you stated you choose the original SW (ANH) and TESB, but the new ROTJ.

 

I'm like that too. Except I like way too much about the ANH DVD to go back to the original version of the film. What is not a minor point for me is the final battle, the most cinematically entertaining piece of film ever made (even the original). The original version has problems with some shots of the X-Wings just moving way to slow to be exciting. The new version replaces all those and a few others with awesome shots that totally flow. They take nothing away dramatically (like I admit Greedo firing does). The changes to the final battle only enhance and improve, IMO. The next most important addition to me is the Biggs scene before the final battle. For me, it makes it much more dramatic when Biggs gets blown up by Vader. This was Luke's best friend from back home. I love the character of Jabba the Hutt, and I feel his inclusion in the film enhances the drama of the sequels since Jabba's bounty on Han is a motivation in TESB, culminating in the big rescue of Han from Jabba in ROTJ. And although not major, I love the other little additions like the extended entrance into Mos Eisley.

 

What I actually meant by the Greedo scene being a minor issue is it's not enough for me to switch back to the original version of the whole film as my canon. You all may feel differently and I am not only ok with that. I posted this thread for all opinions to be heard.

 

I don't know why I am all or nothing for film versions. I guess it helps me to enjoy the saga more if each film has a version that I just accept everything I see in the film as canon in my personal fan universe. While I liked it better when Greedo didn't fire, it is not a big deal to me that he did in a version of a film that is completely otherwise a total improvement on the original IMO.

 

You are, of course, free to fabricate whatever you want to explain away the problems and contraditions... I know you accept all the changes, or come up with "explanations" for all of the changes that don't quite fit right with the story as you feel it should be.

 

Why are you saying all this? Are you responding to other discussions when you say problems and contradictions (plural)? It reads like you are referring to recent discussions about explanations I have for the story in all versions of the classic films, and those had nothing to do with any changes. And don't you and everyone else here have opinions about the way you feel the story "should" be?

 

What does this have to do with the Greedo scene? The only single explanation I offered about the change was that Greedo was drunk, but it has nothing to do with the meat of the story as I feel it should be. It is only an explanation for how Greedo could possibly miss a point blank range. It is an explanation for how I could possibly even accept that change as being plausible in my SW Universe. I didn't even think that was anyone else's problem with Greedo firing. I thought everyone pretty much agreed with Rerun about how it changes Han's character. My first problem was how it could be possible that Greedo could miss, and I came up with a very easy one (Greedo is shown drinking in the cantina, even in the orignial version of the film). I realize that it is a moot point for anyone if Greedo firing does not exist in your chosen version of the fim and your SW Universe. Again, I do not dismiss other viewpoints by merely stating mine.

 

But the neat thing is...I don't have to accept the changes and I don't have to watch Lucas' "new" vision of events if I don't want to.

 

Some of your comments in your post come across as disgruntled that Lucas changed the movies you love. I don't quite understand why since you are ok with the original version of the film and own that. Lucas can't make you watch the new versions. Just because a new version exists doesn't mean you can't stick with the original.

 

Anyway, I whole-heartedly agree with the above quote. When have I ever stated anything contrary? See Lucas' Star Wars Multiverse component #3 in the original post of this thread. How many times do I have to state that we are all free to define our Star Wars Universe for you to believe that I truly mean that? Haven't I said so much to support this? I love the diversity of that a multiplicity of differing viewpoints provides. It has truly made me grow as a Star Wars fan.

 

Especially some posts by Grimace, Rerun and Lee Torres. Thank you, and everyone, for sharing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for the whole "Han shot first" thing, let me ask you this... How bad of a shot is Greedo that he can fire point blank at a person who is not behind cover and miss by at least a foot?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, let me start by saying that, yes, I mis-interpreted your meaning when you used the term "minor point". I apologize for jumping on you for that.

 

Second, yes, I know we all are expressing our opinions on the matter. Part of what I was responding to was the inferred idea that you were expressing your opinions and then saying -it's just a minor point anyway- like everyone else's opinions didn't matter. Yes, it seemed rather strange that you'd start a thread about people's opinions on it, then dismiss people's opinions away by calling them "minor points", but that's why I mentioned it. I've just seen too many Star Wars threads of late devolve into "my opinion is right and if your's is different you're wrong or don't know what you're talking about". I just didn't want this thread to turn that way.

 

Finally, my whole beef with things in Star Wars is multi-faceted. So I just take the things that I like, throw out the rest, and roll my eyes (but accept that other people have different opinions) when people hold tight to "canon" or George Lucas' universe or make excuses (not the best word, but it's all I can think of right now) for things that Lucas did or made changes to.

 

I think you know, Whill, that I understand YOUR Star Wars universe, even though I don't agree with everything in it. You've got some good ideas, you've got some (IMO) not-so-good ideas, and you have a very different outlook on some things compared to me. It doesn't make you wrong and I don't hold it against you. What I do hold against people is when they attempt to stifle discussion by dismissing other people's opinions. I felt, by the read of it, that's what you were heading towards. Thankfully I was mistaken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My Star Wars gaming universe is pretty close to the movie universe. The only major deviations I make from what George Lucas showed on the big screen is the omission of midichlorians and the dismissal of the notion that the Republic had NO standing military at all prior to the clones. I don’t like these concept for reasons I’m sure everyone here has already heard from other people. As far as all the various issues from the re-releases are concerned, I err in favor of the original (i.e. Han shot first).

 

I will say, however, that most things that are NOT shown in the movies are (to me) fair game. For instance, I had player characters involved in the battles of Hoth and Endor- some were even members of the Endor Strike team. Subsequent to my running this, almost all the ‘background characters’ involved have been given names in the Expanded Universe- but as a GM I have no qualms at all about ‘filling in the holes’ of what we do NOT see in the movies with my own group’s adventures.

 

As far as Expanded universe things go, I am much more piecemeal in what I adopt. There are a lot of videogames, novels and comic series out there I just plain do not like, so I do not include them. But even the worst stories can have some redeeming features and bits and pieces I can ‘salvage’ for use in other ways. For instance, I disliked much of the Dark Empire comic series, but still made use of the Galaxy Gun in one adventure. The same piecemeal adoption applies to more recent ‘official’ series such as the Clone Wars animated series (both 2D and 3D). I have been surprised to find quite a few good things in both of these and see no problem weaving it into the background of my own universe.

 

As some have mentioned, there are many fans who need/want explanations of is seen on the screen- to have explanations for all the various holes in the plot (and there are quite a few of them, big and small). To an extent, I want those as well. My own blog is often full of meandering ideas on WHY this or that is so. There are some things, however, that just make no sense (to me at least). Greedo shooting first and missing is one of them (though a minor one). Another would be “why the heck did Darth Maul just stand there and get cut in half by Obi-Wan”. Again, there are dozens of ways you can justify each of these things, but by and large they don’t really impact my gaming universe- for me, its more of ‘game’ to amuse myself and come up with possible/plausible explanations.

 

I should also point out that though my campaign WAS faithful to the movies, it has since progressed FAR beyond Endor and has become something solely of my own making- picking and choosing whatever plotlines I want from the EU. So I guess my multiverse started out as a #1, but ultimately became a #3.

 

All that having been said, if I had to do it all over again, I might try my hand at ‘re-writing’ the prequels- trying to fix all those things that annoyed me, or that I thought could be better if done another way. Again, most of these changes are rather small (in some cases, just an alteration of dialogue). The BIG change I’d want to make, though, is to have Anakin be a Teenager in Episode I- roughly the same age as Padme (15-16). Yes, I know, I’d totally lose the ‘family friendly’ demographic, but hey, I’m not making a movie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you, Grimace. I'm truly sorry for my part in the confusion. I should have been more clear.

 

As for the whole "Han shot first" thing, let me ask you this... How bad of a shot is Greedo that he can fire point blank at a person who is not behind cover and miss by at least a foot?

 

As I indicated earlier, in my universe Greedo was always only a wanna-be bounty hunter, not a real one. Greedo was a low-level goon. One of Jabba's countless thugs. A mook! So he was pretty damn "bad of a shot". I have always felt this way since before 1997. When I got the Galaxy Guide 1 (1E) in 1989 and saw the officially published WEG stats for Greedo making him out to be a PC-level 18D attribute bounty hunter, I vividly remember exclaiming out loud, "No F-ing way! Greedo is just some stupid alien punk who was so dim-whitted he didn't notice Han drawing his blaster!" Game stats are definitely not canon to me.

 

The only thing that changed for me with the Special Edition was that although I felt it was an unnecessary change, it could easily be explained by Greedo being a pitiful mook and drunk from the drink he was always shown drinking at the bar. And then I just said "whatever George" and went on my merry way not obsessing over it and just enjoying all the rest of the improvements. When they fixed the Special Edition's "Nitendo 64 graphics" Jabba scene in the 2004 DVD version, I was a little more thrilled with my all-time favorite movie.

 

Then in recent years I encountered a surprising (to me) amount of animosity on the internet for Lucas for something that was such a minor point for me. It became obvious to me this was not a minor point for many other Star wars fans from my (original) Star Wars generation. I don't remember there being a big uproar over how Greedo could have possibly missed (my first reaction). It all seemed to be that the scene was fine the way it was or it was cooler of Han blows Greedo away without being fired upon first (things I have always agreed with). The uproar seemed to be in reaction to the fact that it was changed at all from our childhood version (how dare he?), and also sometimes specifically to Lucas' stated reason for the change (something about it being a PG film and younger children being confused about morality because Han later becomes a good guy or some such). Then I noticed that in threads about each fan defining their Star Wars canon/universe, where each fan stood on the Greedo controversy was almost always specifically designated, along with the dreaded midi-chlorians controversy. So when I put my answer in this thread, I spoke to both issues, expecting to fit in just like every other modern fan that feels it is important to specifically chime-in on those points. It shouldn't matter that I have some minority views. At least I am brave enough to speak them in an internet community where I am a vast minority. However, I'm not a minority on many things so I would also think that people would recognize the similarities. Let me try to make this extremely clear and simply once and for all, for the record:

  1. I have always agreed with the majority of Star Wars fans from my generation that the changes to the Greedo scene were unnecessary.
  2. I thought so because I have always disagreed with Lucas' concern for children and morality of heroes. PG means that the viewing experience of the film is supposed to be guided by the parents. Lucas should have left it up to the parents to explain any morality concerns regarding Han's character and actions to their children. A scoudrel attainment of hero-status would be a good introduction for a more severe morality concern for children possibly caused by Vader redeeming himself in the third PG film.
  3. However, the changes to the Greedo scene was always still a minor issue for me. I acknowledge that it's a major issue for others.
  4. For defining my own canon and Star Wars universe I have a wacky concern for wanting an entire version of a movie to be all or nothing a part of it. I fully acknowledge that many others do not feel this way. Others may say, "ANH 2004 DVD version except that Greedo never fired" or TPM DVD version except the mention of midi-chlorians." Those are perfectly aceptable choices for them. That type of choice doesn't work for me and I can't fully exlain why.
  5. Because of 3 (the Greedo issue is a minor issue) and 4 (my personal canon must be all or nothing for films), I have lived with the Greedo change. For me, there are so many other more important improvements in the 2004 DVD to just not worry the minor Greedo thing. It was not a deal-breaker for me.
  6. Because I personally so much value the diversity of intelligent Star Wars fans (even with opposing views), I seriously considered Rerun's explanation for how Greedo firing at all impacts the characterization of the Han Solo character and this the dramatic value of the film as a whole. I began to fully realized the dramatic point he was making and thus I began to doubt my choice for personal canon, as indicated in the beginning of this thread.
  7. I, like the majority of fans from my generation, now completely agree that it is more dramatic for the Solo character and the movie as a whole for Greedo not to have fired at all. This is a major revelation for me (although for a minor point). I would think that a lot of you would be congratulating me that I have finally "come to my senses" on that point. Now another example of how even I don't think Lucas is perfect. I, known champion of Lucas, do hereby officially consede that Rerun, Grimace and many others were right while Lucas was wrong (in our opinions)!
  8. However, despite #7, I am still officially declaring that my previous view of ANH has not changed after all. Greedo firing is still in my canon anyway. I realize this is a big WTF?! moment for many of you who feel this is a major point of controversy. How could I say Lucas was wrong but still accept the change anyway? See 3-5 above. The fact that Greedo firing is a minor issue for me combined with my "all or nothing" film version concern combined with has won out. I take the whole 2004 DVD version as canon - it's a package deal for me. This is just my opinion about my own Star Wars continuity in my own Star Wars Universe.

Dramatic value is an out-of-universe, real-world concern. I admittedly do apply a lot of that to my Star Wars in-universe continuity. For example, a much more major concern than Greedo firing or not is how I feel ROTJ and thus the entire Film Saga as a whole is more dramatic if Anakin actually is responsible for destroying the Sith order once and for all. IMO the things like the EU bringing back Sith that are not destroyed by Anakin cheapens the accomplishments of the film characters. This is a good example of how the main purpose of the EU is to make money - Sith sell. But I don't hate on it - I just declare it non-canon in my universe and problem solved, for me).

 

At that point in his life, Han Solo is still the scoundrel he always was in my universe. The minor point (to me) of Greedo firing doesn't change my image of Han. Could it cheapen the dramatic value of his abandoment of and return to the Rebel cause at the most dramatically appropriate point in the film? Sure, I acknowledge that it could for some. But we are talking about what is canon for each of us in our own Star Wars universes. We are not talking about what Lucas has done to ruin new viewer appreciation of ANH, unless any of you are of the younger generation who did not see the movie for the first time until 1997 or later.

 

I have even brought the Greedo controversy into my game with players that don't accept Greedo firing, but only for the sake of a joke. A Force-sensitive started having strange reoccuring visions of historical events and then different people he didn't know finding a glowing crystal and travelling back in time, leading to slightly different chain of events. The adventure the PC played in did not involve time-travel, but the suggestion of his visions was that the current timeline he existed in was the result of previous time-travels that kept altering the timeline. One aspect ofthe visions the PC kept seeing was a human confrontation with a Rodian in a hazy cantina, except that each time he saw it is played out differently. Sometimes the Rodian didn't fire, and sometimes he did. Sometimes the human's head dodged out of the way of the blast, but other times it didn't and the Rodian just flat-out missed. But in all versions, the Human blasted the Rodian square in the chest and walk out of the bar with the same cool swagger. Players who knew where I stood on my canon and disagreed with me all still thought the bit was humerous anyway.

 

And ultimately, how the Greedo scene plays out as absolutely zero impact on my RPG game because no PCs were ever there when it happened in the cantina. No continuity in my games are in any other way effected by how exactly how Han's confrontation with Greedo played out. Greedo firing or not did not change Han's actions in my Star Wars universe one bit.

 

And maybe the change doesn't effect my love for the DVD because I saw the original version of the film over 100 times before 1997 and fell in love with it when Greedo never fired. To this day, Han Solo is still my favorite classic trilogy character anyway, and ANH is still my favorite Star Wars film of the entire six-film saga anyway.

 

I am utterly exhausted of discussing my views on this issue. Please continue to provide your own views on Greedo, or anything else defining your SWU. I truly enjoy the diversity of fans and I would love to read about others' views. If you have any other comments about or questions about my view on Greedo, I ask that you please PM me. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
…the dismissal of the notion that the Republic had NO standing military at all prior to the clones.
Actually, the Republic had a peace-keeping force prior to the Clones. However, it was so small as to be almost non-existent when compared to the droid armies of the C.I.S. The captain of the Radiant VII, Maoi Madakor, Lieutenant Antidar Williams and Dannl Faytonni who was posing as an officer. Then you have people like Admiral Yularen who had ranks that seem a little too high for sudden commission…

 

I will say, however, that most things that are NOT shown in the movies are (to me) fair game. For instance, I had player characters involved in the battles of Hoth and Endor- some were even members of the Endor Strike team. Subsequent to my running this, almost all the ‘background characters’ involved have been given names in the Expanded Universe- but as a GM I have no qualms at all about ‘filling in the holes’ of what we do NOT see in the movies with my own group’s adventures.
I do the same thing. In ANH, it is mentioned that a small group of fighters have broken off of the main body. I decided to let my players fly the “main body” mission to take out the refracting crystal of the superlaser. They actually did, which added to the destruction when the laser began charging and the crystal reflected the superlaser back inside the station (adding to the explosive force of the explosion that Luke caused). The joys about having a group of players who are all pilots is that they also fought at Hoth and Endor in space.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ZU has had some interesting dilemmas if anything due to the fact that the party was a combination of hardcore scoundrel and good people. One was this:

In my verse the Sivistian's are mainly xenophobic, all but isolationist. One of the Players was playing a "exiled" Sivistian and pretty much refused to directly help her race when it was threatened with extinction. A space born race was devouring their colonies since their feeding ground was held captive by the Imperials and completely destroyed by the PCs in an earlier mission.

 

Here are some other morality things that were dealt with, ether majorly or in passing:

Should you bombard a planet because you don't like the population?

Should you dominate a planet because you can?

There are more, but I'm not remembering right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
…the dismissal of the notion that the Republic had NO standing military at all prior to the clones.
Actually, the Republic had a peace-keeping force prior to the Clones. However, it was so small as to be almost non-existent

 

Yes, the movies do use the language of "creation" of a grand army of the Republic which admitted does seem to imply that a Republic military doesn't currently exist, but it doesn't actually state that there isn't a military. There just isn't a "grand army" yet. The movies do suggest that the Republic was largely defended by the Jedi guardians of peace and justice, but what about space defense? IMO it is not suggested at all by the films that before AOTC the Jedi Order runs a some sort of starfleet with thousands of non-Jedi crew members at their command. Maybe individual sectors and systems largely have to defend themselves, but I imagine that there has to be some sort of Republic navy to deal with multi-sector pirate threats, etc. And where do the cloners or the Republic get all the capital ships they need to start the Clone War anyway? For my SWU I agree with Rolo's opinion and Flagwaver's confirmation from the EU - There had to be some sort of Republic military but it was not nearly to the scale needed to fight a large-scale galactic war. And for there to be a pre-Imperial Republic naval academy tradition, there has to be a navy.

 

I will say, however, that most things that are NOT shown in the movies are (to me) fair game. For instance, I had player characters involved in the battles of Hoth and Endor- some were even members of the Endor Strike team. Subsequent to my running this, almost all the ‘background characters’ involved have been given names in the Expanded Universe- but as a GM I have no qualms at all about ‘filling in the holes’ of what we do NOT see in the movies with my own group’s adventures.
I do the same thing

 

I do too. Like I said I try not to contradict the EU when at all possible, but I have no qualms in my game about substituting a PC or GC for in place of one of those background characters seen in the films when it suits my game's purposes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...