So Star Wars pops into my head...

[DarkeSword]

That implies that it's not a nightmare to follow now.

It isn't a nightmare to follow now. Yeah, a lot of stuff happened, but there's very little in the way of contradiction. That whole post-RotJ mop-up era was a lot of the same thing over and over again (left-over Imperials trying to strike back). That's not complicated, it's just a lot, and even back then, you could still keep track of where everything was by looking at the number of years after RotJ the events occurred. Thrawn Trilogy, 5 years. Dark Empire, 6 years. Jedi Academy, 7 years. Hand of Thrawn Duology, 15 years. Bantam made it very easy to follow in the early years, and that tradition continues today.

[Native Jovian]

Yeah, a lot of stuff happened, but there's very little in the way of contradiction.

That's sort of funny, because if you read much of the pre-Episode I (speaking in real-life terms, not in-universe terms) EU, you get the impression that the Clone Wars was the Republic fighting against the clone armies.

And that it was a lot longer ago than 30 years or so.

[DarkeSword]

True, but then again, authors weren't really supposed to talk too much about the Clone Wars anyway. It was one of those off-limits areas of Star Wars that people only tangentally referenced. Most of what we assumed about the Clone Wars before 2002 (when Attack of the Clones came out) was all fanwank.

[Native Jovian]

I guess the point that I'm trying to make is that the EU is pretty internally consistent regarding itself, but doesn't do too great when you compare it with the movies. Even ignoring the Clone Wars thing, Revenge of the Sith more or less shows the Jedi being wiped out entirely but for Yoda and Obi Wan, while the EU has ten thousand and one Jedi that all mysteriously survived. (I understand why, and I'm not complaining -- Jedi are pretty awesome, after all -- but it doesn't exactly jive with the movies.)

The EU has become its own thing, based-on-but-separate-from the films themselves.

...

...I guess that's why it has its own level of canon.

[Darth Lime]

This completely blew my mind.

After having the Star Wars "Rule of Two" for the Sith explained to me (As I was never a fan and know the series only in passing- but strangely enough because they are awesome games I know the KotOR universe far better than I do the movies) The thought that Anakin Skywalker, that is, Darth Vader, would bring "Balance" to the force strikes me thus:

1. Assume there are 2 Sith at any one time.

2. Assume there are >2 Jedi at any one time.

Through episode 3, Anakin Skywalker goes nuts and kills every other Jedi except for Obi Wan and Yoda and turns to the Dark side, that is, turns Sith, so:

2 Sith = 2 Jedi by the end of the 3rd movie.

Where the next 3 go,

2 Jedi vs. 2 Sith

1 Jedi vs. 2 Sith after Obi Wan Dies, but because of Vader's actions, Luke becomes a Jedi, so

2 Jedi vs. 2 Sith

And then in Return of the Jedi Yoda dies, so

1 Jedi vs. 2 Sith

Vader kills Palpatine, so

1 Jedi vs. 1 Sith

And then Vader dies, and can't affect the number of Jedi vs. Sith any more.

Anakin Skywalker has, indeed, brought Balance to the Force! Every time he's acted, he has balanced the equation!

You would think when the Jedi outnumbered the Sith by several thousand they'd not want Anakin around, but clearly they don't teach enough Jedi discrete Mathematics or Logic systems and instead teach them kumbaya and that "balance" is always good.

I figured it out after leaving the theater after watching Episode III.

[DarkeSword]

...

...I guess that's why it has its own level of canon.

You see, my young padawan? I knew you would arrive at the answer yourself, given time.

The Force is strong with you, young Jovian.

But you are not a Jedi yet.

[Sinewav]

Has anyone else ever noticed that there's only two black men in the Star Wars universe at any given time?

In the beginning there was Mace Windu and that one black security guy for the queen. Then security guard suddenly disappears and is replaced by the dude with the eye patch. Captain Eye-Patch disappears, probably about when Lando is being conceived. Then, almost immediately after Mace Windu dies, Anakin mysteriously becomes James Earl Jones.

There's always two.

[Ferret]

What about the one pilot in Bravo Squadron?

And that one guy in the Battle of Endor? And another one in a fighter...oh wait, he got blown up.

[Bleck]

han shot first

[DarkeSword]

No.

Han shot.

Period.

[The Acolyte]

No.

Han shot.

Period.

Here here!

[DarkeSword]

Here here!

Where where?

The expression is "Hear, hear!"

[Wacky]

Also,

"Han shot GREEDO."

I think "shot" requires an object. I suppose you could say "Han fired," in which case the inference would be that Han had a gun, but "shot" takes the object as the victim, not the method with which he was shot, which "fired" does.

Note that "Han fired at Greedo" is the correct use of the word "fired" which requires the preposition "at" which, in Latin, would put Greedo in the Ablative, not Accusative (object) case. Writing "Han fired Greedo" would mean that Han gave Greedo a redundancy payment, OR that Greedo was some kind of firearm.

Edit: Also before you flame me for being a Grammar Nazi I am trained as a lawyer so words and what they mean are VERY important. I'm actually very kind- I do think, however, that interesting language issues should be debated.

[DarkeSword]

The verb "to shoot" doesn't require an object after it. Sure, it's nice to have, but you don't need it.

I can say, "Han will shoot," or, "Han shoots." "Han shot" is perfectly valid grammar.

[Wacky]

The phrase feels unfinished, though, although yes, it's perfectly able to be parsed like that.

"Han shot..." I am mulling it over my head. I still get the feeling that you still need the "victim" or the phrase is very vague, whereas with "Han fired" you don't, because the object is a firearm, not the person he's aiming at.

[Rambo]

because the object is a firearm,

Firearm? I thought we were talking hockey.

[The Acolyte]

Where where?

The expression is "Hear, hear!"

Yeah, I know... It was late... lol

[DarkeSword]

The phrase feels unfinished, though, although yes, it's perfectly able to be parsed like that.

"Han shot..." I am mulling it over my head. I still get the feeling that you still need the "victim" or the phrase is very vague, whereas with "Han fired" you don't, because the object is a firearm, not the person he's aiming at.

The difference here is that we're not talking about whom he shot. We're talking about the sequence of events.

In the original version of the Original Trilogy, Han shot Greedo.

In the Special Edition, Greedo shot at Han first but missed, and Han quickly shot him in retaliation. This was done because Lucas wasn't sure about Han killing Greedo in cold-blood like that. It was a "retaliation shot."

The DVD re-release of the Special Edition, Greedo and Han shoot at each other at nearly the same time; Han dodges and Greedo is killed.

"Han shot first" is a common turn of phrase used by Star Wars fans to express their distaste with some of the revisionist changes made to the Original Trilogy. The problem with "Han shot first" is that it implies that Han shot Greedo before Greedo shot Han. That never happened. Greedo never got a shot off.

Han didn't shoot first. Han just shot. Period.

[yangfeili]

This thread has reminded me that I've been waiting forever for Star Wars: Best of PC to get a price drop... and it still hasn't happenend, so I'm just going to go pick it up right now and get some Jedi Knight II going on.

[Chuckles]

The phrase feels unfinished, though, although yes, it's perfectly able to be parsed like that.

"Han shot..." I am mulling it over my head. I still get the feeling that you still need the "victim" or the phrase is very vague, whereas with "Han fired" you don't, because the object is a firearm, not the person he's aiming at.

I'm not sure what grammatical rule you're thinking of. Direct objects are always optional. They clarify, and are often necessary to communicate a specific idea, but the subject + predicate is absolutely fine as a sentence -- especially when one wants to emphasize the intrinsic action of the verb used.

Sincerely,

Noah Webster

[Rambo]

The difference here is that we're not talking about whom he shot. We're talking about the sequence of events.

In the original version of the Original Trilogy, Han shot Greedo.

In the Special Edition, Greedo shot at Han first but missed, and Han quickly shot him in retaliation. This was done because Lucas wasn't sure about Han killing Greedo in cold-blood like that. It was a "retaliation shot."

The DVD re-release of the Special Edition, Greedo and Han shoot at each other at nearly the same time; Han dodges and Greedo is killed.

"Han shot first" is a common turn of phrase used by Star Wars fans to express their distaste with some of the revisionist changes made to the Original Trilogy. The problem with "Han shot first" is that it implies that Han shot Greedo before Greedo shot Han. That never happened. Greedo never got a shot off.

Han didn't shoot first. Han just shot. Period.

I didn't know any of that ^

Uh... yeah everything is gramatically correct.

But "Han shot" is more ambiguous and less appropriate "Only Han shot". Simply saying "Han shot" doesn't eliminate the possibility that he shot first. The implication derived from "Han shot first" is wrong. But "Han shot" is no more helpful in affirming the situation than simply saying "Han".

Also.. this is ridiculous.

[Sinewav]

This thread has reminded me that I've been waiting forever for Star Wars: Best of PC to get a price drop... and it still hasn't happenend, so I'm just going to go pick it up right now and get some Jedi Knight II going on.

That game was the shit. Let me know if you wanna fight sometime, I'll try to find my old copy.

[HalcyonSpirit]

Yeah, I just finished playing through Outcast on Jedi Master difficulty today. Those beginning levels are a lot harder than the later levels. Oh, and the Nar Shaddaa Streets level reached the ranks of Nintendo Hard. Ugh. I'm always tempted to just skip that level every time I play through the game.

[Sinewav]

Yeah, I loved the bar fight at the beginning of the level, but the snipers get annoying fast. Kinda funny, because the Disruptor is just about the only sniper rifle in the history of video games that I actually enjoy being a part of the game. Something about the snipers in that level get real old fast... though if you've bought up your Force Speed, it will occasionally auto dodge in bullet time, which is hella cool.

Nar Shaddaa in multiplayer, on the other hand, is a great map. Just watch out for Force Push/Force Grip. A perfect mix of gunfights and epic lightsaber battles on high-up catwalks with no railing.

[HalcyonSpirit]

Nar Shaddaa Streets wouldn't be nearly as annoyingly frustrating if two things were implemented:

1. Those damn snipers (and really all of the AI) needed to be programmed so that they couldn't see through walls. Seriously, they know exactly where you are at all times. The moment you put even a hand out into their line of fire, "Mission Failed Kyle Katarn has died" (You've been vaped by a shot to the hand!).

2. Using the leaning feature (as if you're peeking around a corner) allowed you to fire your weapon. (Side note: I'm not sure why they didn't allow that, but it would've made the game a lot less "run and slash" than it ended up being. The other guns would've gotten a lot more usage even after you got the lightsaber. As it was, there were only a handful of times I used a weapon other than the lightsaber, and it was usually either the E-11 Blaster Rifle or the Disruptor. I never touched any of the more advanced weapons.)