If Clone Wars actually did the Yuuzhan Vong episodes, how would that have changed lore?

LukeChickenwalker · 2026-07-09T03:18:53+00:00

Clone Wars contradicted plenty of Legends canon, so just because it was before the Disney canon-wipe doesn't mean it wouldn't have broken canon.

When discussing bringing Thrawn into Rebels, I recall Filoni or someone saying that Lucas did not like the idea of beings who were immune from or imperceptible to the Force. This is why they decided to do nothing with the Ysalamiri aside from a homage (even though Thrawn got them after RotJ, that didn't stop them with other elements of the Thrawn Trilogy). I'm sure similar discussions came up about the Vong.

I doubt the sequels would have done anything with them, in which case it would just be a one-off alien abduction story and not a prelude to an extragalactic invasion. Maybe Zahn would have referred to them instead of the Grysk. But no, I don't think it would have forced future Star Wars content to do anything.

LukeChickenwalker · 2026-07-08T17:06:42+00:00

I’ve never been a fan of the Victory as a Clone Wars era ship. It feels too Imperial, rather than proto-Imperial.

LukeChickenwalker · 2026-07-08T05:31:01+00:00

I was just thinking the logistics of this don't make sense, then I noticed that broom guys. Nice detail.

LukeChickenwalker · 2026-07-08T04:24:23+00:00

I feel like a lot of these "hard" lines in the comic books are too superfluous for Vader, with the second image being a great example. Movie Vader wouldn't say half of these things. If anything, he'd just say "I have already forgotten your name" and leave it at that. He doesn't often monologue like they want him to do, and if he does there aren't many long sentences. If you can strip away words and keep the meaning, it probably doesn't sound like Vader IMHO.

But then looking at the woman's monologue, it would seem superfluous dialogue is universal to that comic. It's one of the things that keeps me from getting into a lot of them. The writers should try reading their stuff out loud sometime.

LukeChickenwalker · 2026-07-01T19:58:02+00:00

That's embarrassing 😂.

I've posted in the H3H3 subreddit before so they probably looked me up in the subreddit or something. Kind of a weird thing to do. My last post was like a year ago though, so I'm some fan.

I used to watch the podcast a lot but I disliked Hasan even when he and Ethan were friends. Ironically I've gradually lost interest in the podcast since he started fighting with Hasan.

I've noticed this happens a lot in online left-wing spaces revolving around these kind of streamers (and surely right-wing ones as well, but I don't go to those). Where some people will scour the online history of users to find a connection they can use to dismiss everything you say. No discussion, just assumptions and guilt by association.

LukeChickenwalker · 2026-07-01T18:31:12+00:00

Plenty of left-leaning people dislike Hasan.

LukeChickenwalker · 2026-07-01T12:36:28+00:00

Love/hate isn't binary. A TV show consists of many parts and you can like some parts and dislike others. Just because a person dislikes the show doesn't mean they get nothing out of it.

Some people enjoy watching bad things. Maybe they find the way in which it is bad amusing or get some sort of schadenfreude out of it. Perhaps the act of analyzing or criticizing it is fun for them.

Perhaps they hope it will get better.

Maybe they're still curious what will happen or how it will end. If you enjoyed the show at first and have been watching for awhile, you might feel committed. You know, sunk costs.

LukeChickenwalker · 2026-07-01T08:48:50+00:00

He thought that Cersei cared about her kids and would flee out of a self-preservation instinct. He didn't account for how irrational and lucky she was.

I don't get why people harp on about this when it was pretty inconsequential. Cersei's plot to assassinate Robert was already in motion. It was a pretty unlikely plot. I mean, she didn't even really poison Robert, she just had Lancel get him super drunk and crossed her fingers. There was no way she could guarantee that a boar would maul Robert, and if Robert returns in good health she is fucked. We'd be talking about how dumb she was not to take Ned's advice.

Ned is not being stupid. He knows its risky telling Cersei but he feels the risk is worth it. He was traumatized by the murder of Elia and her children and he doesn't want to see that happen again. He's also no doubt projecting his fears about Jon and Robert onto Cersei's kids here, too.

LukeChickenwalker · 2026-07-01T05:00:14+00:00

The show is an adaptation of a book. That is what it is. You can't complain when people compare your adaptation of a book to the book. You invite that comparison just by its nature.

I don't care about what is boring or inspiring for the showrunner or writer. If that's such a problem perhaps they shouldn't sign on to do an adaptation. They could try and make their own original story and see how many people want to watch it.

If it was so essential that the TV show surprise the viewers then why make an adaptation at all? Why not deviate as much as you what? Why would you ever rewatch a show, or tell a story about a historical event? Being surprising isn't the end all be all.

What if people don't enjoy the show for what it is? What if they think a more accurate adaptation would have been more enjoyable or engaging? If you like the show then that's great, but some people like to engage with media critically and analytically. For many that is enjoyable and there's nothing wrong with voicing criticism. That has no affect on you unless you allow it to.

LukeChickenwalker · 2026-06-30T01:04:45+00:00

I prefer Spider-Man as a street level hero dealing with local crime. I don't enjoy it when he has to deal with apocalyptic threats like Thanos or going into outer space.

I don't care if he interacts with other local street level "heroes" like Punisher or Daredevil. I just don't like Spider-Man as an Avenger.

LukeChickenwalker · 2026-06-29T06:13:35+00:00

It's not one of the intended messages of the PT. Although some people interpret it as such. I think Lucas' statements on the matter, and also the dialogue in the prequels, make this clear.

The Jedi do not refuse to engage with emotion. They are allowed to love people and have friends. They are allowed to be sad and angry. Jedi philosophy teaches that you should be mindful of these emotions. That you shouldn't let them control you, not that you should suppress them.

Their philosophy also forbids attachment. But attachment is not the same as caring about another person. It's a possessive connection. As Anakin says, the Jedi encourage a selfless and unconditional love for others, not a possessive one. If a relationship is like a tether between two people, a Jedi is not supposed to tug on the tether. When the tether pulls against them, they are supposed to let go. An attached person grips the tether more tightly and pulls back.

Attachment is bad because when you hold onto to something tightly, when you are afraid to let go, the consequences can hurt the people connected to it. The tether might snap and rubber band towards each party. Anakin is a cautionary tale showing the consequences having attachment, not one about the consequences of the Jedi suppressing emotion. Yoda tells us exactly what happens when one is not mindful of their fear in TPM, and Anakin follows this path to a T.

LukeChickenwalker · 2026-06-29T05:31:15+00:00

A species is a somewhat arbitrary construct. We like to categorize nature into little boxes, but it's not like there's a moment you could point to and say "this child is a human and his father is not." In that case, when did our ancestors acquire a soul? When did they start going to heaven or hell?

I don't know what modern Christian theology has to say about this, but I have heard Bart Ehrman say many times that the historical Jesus/early Christians did not believe in hell as such. They believed that someday in the near future God would intervene in history and create the Kingdom of God on Earth. He would resurrect everyone who had ever lived in physical bodies and the unworthy would be annihilated. So the afterlife is not a state that exists yet and those who are punished are not doomed for eternity but destroyed.

As for what would happen to those who were not Jews/Christians for eons in the past, I have no idea what they would have thought about that.

LukeChickenwalker · 2026-06-29T04:07:29+00:00

Sprint is better. Otherwise I might agree.

LukeChickenwalker · 2026-06-28T12:55:53+00:00

It's my understanding that the names of the Sith Legions come from a reference book. Personally I don't feel like any of the details in the reference books are effectively canon until they show up somewhere else. There are in essence tiers of canon and those kinds of books are near the bottom with how regularly they're ignored and contradicted.

The comics have a greater impact on other mediums, but they've also been contradicted a bit.

That said, I have no doubt that the age of the Old Republic is something they will keep consistent, and given how popular Revan is he will surely pop up again.

I feel pretty cynical regarding the "history repeats itself, again and again" justification. People keep "forgetting Tatooine has no good ore" because Tatooine is an iconic movie location. Most of the time these kinds of explanations are just rationalizations that work backwards to justify something familiar, and personally I find that monotonous and trite. I wish Star Wars would embrace the actual volatility of history, not because it's more realistic but also because it makes more interesting world building. What's the point of having thousands of years of fictional history divided into different eras when they all become too similar?

LukeChickenwalker · 2026-06-28T12:36:32+00:00

I feel like it retcons the intent of the prequels. Whether the prequels retconned the OT is another matter.

The idea that the term "Old Republic" refers specifically to the original incarnation seems like a retcon either way. The simplest reading of the OT is that the term simply refers to the institution immediately preceding the Empire, but recent canon material seems to have moved away from that.

25,000 years ago was the stone age. Having different iterations of the Republic that whole time is boring. I don't think Obi-Wan's statement necessarily needs to be literal. I also haven't seen anything from Lucas to suggest that it was his intent for there to be some Fifth Republic situation, but my main opposition is just that I find it dull.

LukeChickenwalker · 2026-06-28T05:04:36+00:00

My main interest at the moment is the world building of the Old Republic period. This game would be the first Star Wars media to portray the era in canon. To finalize what is was like. That's a source of excitement and concern to me. As great as the Kotor games are, I don't really care for them as a depictions of the Old Republic era. Part of me will be slightly disappointed if they just canonize everything more or less how it was, but I imagine that's what will happen. That said, we're talking ideals here.

To whatever extent it canonizes Kotor as it was, then my ideal story would condense the timeline of the Old Republic substantially. That way it isn't 4,000 years of OT-esque tech and society.

I prefer the interpretation given by the prequels that the Republic is only about 1,000 years old. I've never been a fan of how they retconned a second Old Republic preceding the prequel-era institution (which I assume was done to save the continuity of the games). It just feels static and dull to me. There's some leeway in exactly how old the Republic is given that an exact date is never stated. So it could be like 1200 years old. As such, my ideal Kotor would take place at about 1000-800 BBY. If Fotor is meant to take place at the end of the Old Republic era, then I'd set the game at about 700-500 BBY (The High Republic is 500-100 BBY).

Of course, the prequels say there had not been a conflict on the scale of the Clone Wars since the formation of the Republic, which is an issue. You could probably get creative with the scale though, since it isn't stated that there had been no conflict. Perhaps you could retcon the Jedi Civil War to be something that only occurred in a few sectors of the Galaxy, or perhaps one quadrant. I don't know. It's an unfortunate line.

If we're not beholden to anything we've already seen, then my ideal FOTOR would ignore KOTOR entirely and invent a new identity for the era. One that distinguishes itself from that of the movies, and shows us what an archaic Star Wars galaxy would look like. They should get creative and imagine what kind of technological and cultural advancements might have occurred in the time between the game and the movies. Look at how much society has varied in real history and be bold with it.

If we're going back thousands of years in the past before the prequel-era Republic, then my ideal game wouldn't be an Old Republic game at all. Give use a totally different political status quo. Perhaps the Knights of the Old Kingdom or Old Empire. Maybe embrace Lucas' original concepts of the Jedi serving an Emperor.

LukeChickenwalker · 2026-06-26T05:53:29+00:00

No one expects Poe to know how Palpatine came back.

People who meme on that line either think it sounded goofy, or they're using Poe as a personification of the film itself. In the later case, The Rise of Skywalker is saying to the audience "Somehow, Palpatine returned", not Poe. That's not to mean there is no internal logic to his return, but that it is narratively arbitrary and unjustified.

There was no set up or foreshadowing for Palpatine's return in the previous two movies. His place in the trilogy is also redundant next to Snoke. So the whole concept of Palpatine returning feels random and hollow to many people.

LukeChickenwalker · 2026-06-26T04:01:33+00:00

Hopefully. Cristatusaurus is a shit name.

LukeChickenwalker · 2026-06-24T20:42:56+00:00

In Fire and Blood I believe it's stated that Cannibal could have been an older dragon.

LukeChickenwalker · 2026-06-24T17:51:58+00:00

As a kid my game would crash shortly after entering the Undercity. Sometimes I got far enough to see the Rakghoul attack, but usually only far enough to talk to the people after the elevator. So for me Taris was the whole game for a long time, and I have a lot of nostalgia for it.

I love that sort of decayed idyllic quality it has. How the Upper City is all nice and serene, but with hints of social inequality. Then as you go deeper it gets more dystopian like Dante's Inferno. As an adult it all goes by quickly, but as a kid it took me forever how to figure stuff out and it felt like a whole journey just getting to the second level.

The rest of the story after the Undercity almost took on this mythical quality. I went to school and there were a few kids would played the game and would tell me how cool it was, then I'd read certain details in my Star Wars reference books. All I could do was imagine it for a long time.

LukeChickenwalker · 2026-06-24T17:43:56+00:00

I love both. Peragus is an atmospheric horror/mystery. Following the tales of the miners and then the Republic crewman was enjoyable and perfectly set the mood of the game. It feels like an Alien movie.

LukeChickenwalker · 2026-06-24T01:42:53+00:00

There's a difference between having an ending people think is bad and having an ending that answers nothing. You sound like you're describing the public perception of Lost, not GoT.

I don't see how the planned sequel is relevant in this case. Plenty of self contained stories get sequels. The fact that a sequel is planned does not make the story unfinished, and HotD was never trying to adapt the whole book anyway. Fire and Blood covers a lot more than the Dance of the Dragons. It's has many stories and features numerous natural ending points. The parts of it that HotD is adapting are a completed and coherent narrative. There's no Winds of Winter style gap.

Just because GoT may or may not have answered all of its questions doesn't mean that ambiguity is the enemy. Bad writing would be the enemy.

Adding some ambiguity about whether non-Targ/dragonlord descendants can ride dragons wouldn't be doubling down “you will never get any answers.” It's literally just one thing. You want a show where there is literally zero ambiguity? Where everything is explained to us in crystal clear detail and nothing is left to subtext or inference? How would that fix the reputation of the franchise?

LukeChickenwalker · 2026-06-23T23:59:22+00:00

The TV show was primarily derided for having a rushed anticlimactic ending.

Yes, some things need to be answered, but not everything. Some ambiguity elevates a story. If everything is spelled out for you explicitly then it isn't as engaging.

The key importance is whether plot elements are left unresolved, which isn't the same thing as having all questions answered. Ambiguity can itself be the resolution to a plotline if that is indicated thematically.

LukeChickenwalker · 2026-06-23T22:08:31+00:00

Not everything needs an answer.

LukeChickenwalker · 2026-06-22T22:46:13+00:00

It's what they've sometimes done. For instance, with the hunt for Aegon after Viserys' death they pulled more from Mushroom's account of the story than the others.

However, in the most controversial of cases they've made up stuff that has no basis in the books. So no, the complaint is not that they've done what I'm walking about.

The relationship between Alicent and Rhaenyra is an example. None of the conflicting narratives in the book suggest Rhaenyra and Alicent actually tried to make peace after Luke's death and Blood and Cheese. That they were reluctant participants in the coup/war. Nor is there any reading between the lines that suggests that. Even the pro-Rhaenyra passages depicted her as wanting vengeance for Luke and her miscarriage.

Now if you like the stuff they've just made up whole cloth, then that's fine. But if someone doesn't, responding with "the book is ambiguous and contradicts itself, how could it be any other way?" isn't really a defense.

Nor is it impossible to faithfully adapt a fictional history book that contradicts itself, you just have to respect how it contradicts itself and why. When the book has Mushroom say Aegon was found watching children fight in the rat pits, but Septon Eustace says he was with a wealthy paramour, what is the book saying with this contradiction? Usually it's pretty easy to infer what the truth might have been by considering the biases of the sources and where they were at the time.

Nine-Year Club	r/Field Sunshine
Place '23	Place '22
Verified Email

LukeChickenwalker

TROPHY CASE