Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

As all the big spoilers are comming are way now(like novel-excerpts), I thought it would be a good idea to post all the confirmed things we've thread-ed about here!

Let's give an example or two;

-Saessee Tiin's horns are grown back very quick through accelerated (bacta)healing as the novel explains.
>So the CloneWars-missing-horn-growing-back-issue is confirmed now<

-Palpatines face deformed by Mace Windu reflecting the lightning back at the SithLord.>confirmed now<

-As the novel says> The Old Jedi Order never changed with the rules of the living force in the galaxy.
The Order restricted itself to too many rules and boundries(by ancient foundations)...eventually Yoda sees this when it's too late.
The New Jedi Order under Luke will become much more powerfull through a new meaning of Jedi-Philosophy.
(It also gives a hint at the EU-novels and NJO especially).

etc, etc, etc....

It'll stop people from starting many useless threads.
(perhaps even this is a useless thread, but then again there will always be ignorants among us).

Well people, please come with your explained/confirmed subjects or stories(no bumping please!)...

Except that last one is up to intense debate. I don't really believe it; I believe GL makes no such point. So this kind of thing is fraught with difficulty.

I read the chapter that deals with the Palps/ Mace confrontation... I got the impression that Palpatines face got deformed from doing too much force lightning...not Mace reflecting it. I could be wrong though...

Sifo Dyas was explained in Labrynth of Evil and will probably (or maybe not) be mentioned in ROTS for the genereal public's benefit.

Yes...I know...its a novel...but it is supposed to give us insight into ROTS and be full of info Lucas is already planning to use that the author was instructed to put into the book.

Well, we have the whole novel out now on audio here so that contains all spoilers.

Originally posted by LandoSpeeder2
Well, we have the whole novel out now on audio here so that contains all spoilers.

Thanks Lando, that's what I meant...but people still want to discuss the stuff already GL-stamped or consider their own theories on GL's vision.
So that's the fun in this, I think.

Thanks mate!

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Except that last one is up to intense debate. I don't really believe it; I believe GL makes no such point. So this kind of thing is fraught with difficulty.

Perhaps...but why not change? It just happens you know, like humans evolved, cultures evolved, laws evolved, ancient religions died where new ones were born.

The old Jedi became too restricted, they kept hardheaded stuck to old rules.
The newer generation Jedi(in which I also include Qui Gonn), became more resistant and independent...
As Yoda (dualisticly) mentioned with the "too sure of themselves.." line.
You must place these things in a greater context.
It's like raising your children and you raise them as best you can with your do's and don'ts(and you will do it different than your grantparents)....but a kid seeks out his own path when he's old enough.
That's exactly what happened to the Old Jedi...
You can forbid your children to smoke, but it makes a perfect thing to explore then.
In my (minor) experience I've seen or heard; the more parents tighten their grip to their kids, the more they try to run away or explore the Dark Sides of life.
Widen their choices and support them as best as you can with as much reason and meaning as possible...and you'll see it has it's effect.
Had the Jedi loosen up a bit, but within a certain context...many Jedi would've lived life to the max without exploring too many Dark Paths.

In the end Yoda saw the old Jedi's flaw and began to understand the direction it had taken(when it was too late).
Qui Qonn always followed his heart(the living Force)...rules are meant to be broken in some ways!

Love and care is the key!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The New Jedi Order!!!!!!!!!!!!

While i agree with you on most of this, its still debatable. The whole "humans evolved" line. Now im not gonna try to get into a religion vs. science debate here, but there is no proof that humans evolved and that really has no bearing on this type of change. If Luke changed the Jedi's way of life or even thinking, its because he WANTED to. Evolution, as silly as the concept is, is not something that someone wanted to happen, it just does. As far as humans progressing, its through someones will to learn and desire to seek and maintain a better life. So in essence, there was some caveman that got tired of grunting and seeing his boys die in the winter that they couldnt protect themselves from. So the changing of the Jedi Order's ways, was due in part to them(Yoda and Luke) seeking there own refuge and survival. But i do agree that they were too restricted, but i dont know if that automatically makes the New Jedi Order more powerful as a whole.

Agreed for the most part DS.
While thinking about the Evolution-thingy(regarding to the Jedi), you're absolutely right...I know evolution is a thing that happens wether you want it or not.
(And on the humans evolved-issue, I meant actually the same thing as cultures evolved).
But from a scientific point of view, yeah, humans evolved over the millions of years.

The point just is that the Old Jedi Order were too hardheaded to be open for change, open for a change of rules, a change of vision.
Their vision became clouded and still they kept hardheaded.
The Galaxy evolved/changed, but the Jedi Order(their rules, their code) did not, they kept stuck to old rules and code.
Everything went through the Council and no other way(it's coming close to not letting Jedi move on, but keep them small).
Some Jedi became resistant to that or became more independent(and even some broke with the Jedi-Order>the lost 20).
And the most familiar mistake/failure of the OJO comes when Skywalker turns to the Dark Side.
I'm not saying the OJO was bad, but their flaw became more visible with each generation of Jedi in the OJO.
They kept too hardheaded to change in their own vision/code as the Galaxy Evolved(>the dangers in the Galaxy evolved).

The NJO might not be more powerfull perhaps, but I do think the NJO was more accessable and free.
The Jedi were given far more independence through a new philosophy(1.the living Force=follow your heart, 2.Care and love=thus not be a coldhearted son of a *****).

OJO=Old Jedi Order NJO=New Jedi Order

That's all...for now.

I'd say Luke's Jedi will become more powerful, because they have an entirely new understanding of the force and how it works. That, and Luke would be an excellent teacher and he would be much better at keeping the darkside away from his students.

Unless there ever is a 7,8 & 9 made (which GL emphatically states will not happen) ALL of this is EU. Part of it may be confirmed in ROTS (jedi too set in their wasy & all) but the bulk of it is EU so it's kinda a moot point for those of us who are striclty canon.

I totally agree with you DS! And that's been discussed by Lucas in a round about way: the irony in that the Jedi are forbidden to love more or less, and yet its a son's love for his father that is Anakin's salvation. Which, as Luke has seen first hand in doing this, his reasons for allowing marriage and they're having children in the Jedi Order. That's why I (and I know a lot of other people have discussed this since TPM) feel that had Qui-gon not died, Anakin would not have turned as he did. He felt confined under Obi-wan's teaching, which were not flawed, they were simply not right for Anakin. Had Qui-gon's looser, more freeing teachings been what Anakin had to work with, he wouldn't have felt as belittled. As you pointed out earlier DS, the more choices you allow kids, the more they may respect you because you're more of a trusted guide than a domineering authority figure. So, since Anakin would have felt a bit more free to stretch his wings, he wouldn't have needed to seek out another guide in Palpatine as he did under Obi-wan's teachings. He may still have spoken with him on occasion, but I think Qui-gon would have been able to put Palpatine's shady side in better context than Obi-wan saying he's a politician, I don't like him, neither should you. Now Obi-wan was a fine teacher, but again, that's not the best approach for someone with Anakin's personality.

That's why the NJO will probably last, until eventually they get old and set in there ways, new Jedi feel confined by them, and then the whole process will probably happen again, much like the predator/prey population relations seen in nature. Such is the way of things.

Nonsense- GL has made it very clear that the 'no marriage, no love' rule is VITAL. Absolutely and totally vital. It is not a mistake- it is perhaps the most important rule of all. Without it the Jedi Order will fail. They must not have attachments! That is the whole point of the storyline! In GL's world, if the NJO allowed love and marriage, it would fall apart.

So no- I do not believe any change has been labelled as endemically necessary to the Order. Ok, so they have become a bit complacent. So what? Are you going to introduce the rule "Do not become complacent"? Time brought that complacently- we have no evidence at all that mistaken rules did it.

So my whole point is that this is meant to be a thread about established facts. But it is no such thing- the points are becoming debatable, at which point this thread becomes pointless.

I'm with Ush on this one.

"Evolution, as silly as the concept is, is not something that someone wanted to happen, it just does. As far as humans progressing, its through someones will to learn and desire to seek and maintain a better life."

I dont want to get into a huge debate, but what do u mean "as silly as the concept is" I personally think religion is a silly concept, but i would not use that in any sort of argument....sorry just people saying stuff like this pisses me off.

if attachment was forbidden then why did they have luke and leah grow up with families? why didnt they just all (kenobi, yoda, twins) go to dagobah? i think that presents a complexity that cant be just shrugged off. oh well, i've already argued this one to death at TFN a long time ago and have had my fill.

That's actually pretty simple, PVS- desperate measures. Luke and Leia had to be with families to stay alive, but it is a VERY risky situation to train them from.

Luckily, of course, both of them lost their family attachments.

If someone could answer this brief aside it would be appreciated: was palps actually scared when he was fighting Mace? And if it wasn't him, who's fear was mace reading?

Ush, I remember either reading or seeing Lucas in an interview discussing how Luke's love for his father brings him back. So yes, that rule in the order was put there for a reason, and I'm sure it has his place, but the OT clearly shows evidence that love and attachment can also save somebody from the Sith. Its a direct contradiction IN THE FILMS. So I'm sorry, but the films content offers both sides of that coin as possibly being good. There is no judgement on that point in the films, you hear various characters make their cases throughout the films, but no omnipotent narrator reveals one true way, as such, that aspect of the story is open ended. The murdering of Tuskens shows a negative side of attachment, and the salvation of Darth Vader, his return to Anakin Skywalker, shows the good side. Since the films clearly show the good and bad of both sides of this arguement, we are left with nothing but debate for the simple fact that it comes down to which ever arguement you agree with. In the end of ROTJ, I saw a son's love and effort bring a Sith Lord back to the Jedi. That's pretty clear cut for me, love isn't always a bad thing. Its on film Ush, its not EU, its not opinion, its right there in the end of ROTJ. There is no definitive answer here, and to declare one is to miss the point of the whole story telling process.

there's a difference between love as attatchment and love as motivation.

Absolutely. As Anakin says, Jedi are encouraged to love in that sense.

It is the focussed, attached love of falling for a person, as Anakin does with Padme, that is forbidden.

So no contradiction, mephisto. The most direct sourcing we have says- attachment is forbidden. Sorry, that's how it is. It isn't what you agree with. GL has made it clear.

that is the most nit picky BS I've ever heard. "Attachement is forbidden", that's the line in AOTC. No marriage, no family, no kids. That's the rule SO BAM!!!! Contradiction by definition.

Owned.

owned?
isnt that like what geeks say?

PWNED j/k

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Absolutely. As Anakin says, Jedi are encouraged to love in that sense.

It is the focussed, attached love of falling for a person, as Anakin does with Padme, that is forbidden.

So no contradiction, mephisto. The most direct sourcing we have says- attachment is forbidden. Sorry, that's how it is. It isn't what you agree with. GL has made it clear.

You're the one arguing what you agree with, the most direct sourceing is, as you said, "Attachment is forbidden." End of line. So where do you get all this other info you're spouting? There's a reason they're not allowed to HAVE FAMILY or be married. It's all deep personal attachment, this is evidenced in the films by statements and actions in the films showing that Jedi are taken from their families, and none are shown with spouses and the line "Attachment is forbidden". That's what Lucas has provided us, that's what the Jedi of the Old Republic believed in. Luke then saves his father by STRENGTHENING his attachment to Luke by believing in him ("I feel the good in you, the Emperor hasn't driven it from you fully". He feeds and builds on that attatchment and saves him. So Lucas has clearly shown to sides to one view point. he isn't contradicting anything, he's showed, on film, that Luke's love for Anakin saved him. Pure and simple. Its right there on film, I don't see how you can argue with it. Anakin saves his son by killiing the Empreor, tells Luke he was right all along, and urges him to get to safety. That's deep familial love. Lucas isn't really taking sides, all he's done is show both sides. One side say "Attachment is forbidden" the other shows through action that attachment saves Anakin. Its dramatic irony, something that is clearly lost on you. Sorry to be rude Ush, but you seem to believe one thing, claiming its on film, when your interpretation requires to much exposition when my explanation sights where what I can see happening is on film. You've interpreted "Attachment is forbiden' to only mean certain things when the films clearly show otherwise.

Originally posted by Uber_God
owned?
isnt that like what geeks say?

PWNED j/k

you really like being you don't you?
and yes, nerds like me do like saying that....

Did you not noticed because of his 'forbidden attachment' he became an evil sith lord and killed billions of people?

yes I did. But then another forbidden attachment brought him back. Funny how life is, huh?

its not funny that billions of people died

its called irony, its funny in that weird how things turn out sort of way. Not literally HAHAHAHAHA! funny.

not all irony is funny

USH--something else to consider, I'd like to know your thoughts on this. Yoda and Obi-wan also separate Luke and Leia. Now, is that for their protection? or because they don't want Luke gettin' attached to her in a familial way. Because Vader did try to use that against Luke, and it almost pushed Luke over the edge. Yoda was also not happy Luke had learned his father's identity. It appeared from Yoda's conversation with Luke and Obi-wan's conversation with Luke following Yoda's death, that the plan had always been for Luke to kill Vader without ever knowing who he was. And yet, dispite the Yoda and Ben not wanting him to find out about Vader before killing him, because of the obvious instant attachment that would, and eventually did, ensue. But, ironically, it was this attachment that Luke has, his love for his father, which saves Anakin. Just wondering what your interpretation of the subtext of all this would be.

Uber-God:

irony: humorous or sardonic literary style; incongruity between the actual results of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result.

Those are from Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary. They are the context in which I use "irony" for anybody else who wants to bust out the semantics in relation to my posts.

In the case of that Star Wars saga: incongruity between the actual results of a sequence of events (Anakin returning to the lightside because of his son's love) and the normal or expected result (Attachment being forbidden because it can lead to the dark side in the case of Anakin's love for his mother). That "incongruity" is ironic, and therefore, according to the first definition, humorous.

I've never, outside of English or Debate class, had to so throughly defend my position or evidence in a discussion. Its fun though... god I need to get out more...

I keep with the things I said and Darth Subject said.
Sorry Ush, I can't support your thing.
Lucas many times contradicts himself(okay, we must see Ep3, before this subject is truelly in for discussion), but why does Yoda say he's failed the Jedi Order in according to the Novel-excerpts>there's a great explanation as to why he thinks that and then Qui Gonn steps in.
I mean, this comes from the BIG GL himself...
(Thanks MephistoDesigns to support my theorie for the most part!).

Uhhhhm....to get back on topic>This thread I designed for facts and explained Episode3 stuff.....and now I see again (sorry to say) USELESS threads arrive on the forum like AGAIN>Sidious face...or Palp's age.
Can't people use the searchbutton or something.
No offense...let's get back on TOPIC>Thread-TOPIC!!!

These topics are fun indeed Mephisto!...as long as people don't start killing eachother!
Everybody is entitled to his own oppinion, but I like the contest in it.
I make a thread(see topic) and suddenly everybody jumps on one subject which they find interesting to discuss about.
Not too long ofcourse or there will be closures because of an off-topic bumping-party or peeps feel the need to say it is a USELESS thread(like I myself commit myself to once in while).
Stay on topic, discuss a while on a subject and get back on topic again.

Later dudes.....

Ok, regardless of my views on this, this thread has lost its purpose, so closing.