It has unfortunate implications that make the Jedi look dumber by that knowledge.
Also, your political analogy-no, just no.
This is my larger point.
Star Wars: The Force Awakens Discussion (HERE THERE BE SPOILERS)
- Thread starter sttngfan1701d
- Start date
Also, your political analogy-no, just no.
Both our interpretations were equally valid as long as there was only Obi-Wan's explanation.
By introducing the scientific explanation in Episode I, my interpretation became invalid. All of a sudden there was a clear scientific explanation. Mystical things cannot be proven by science. It took away the mystical interpretation many SW fans had.
That's what we/they didn't like.
I can assure you that making something easily detectable and quantifiable makes most people think it's not mystical anymore.
That doesn't mean it has to be detectable to that great detail. That's the nature of mystical things. They escape detection.
I'm not sure why you're so desperately trying to convince people that midiclorians can be mystical, too. You got your scientific explanation, enjoy it. Most people find that an overwhelming amount of quantification and science detracts from the mystical qualities of the phenomenon in question. The less scientific explanation there is for it, the more mystical and amazing the Force sounds to us. We want the Force to be as little explainable, quantifiable and detectable as possible.
You're not going to change that. But apparently the other explanation works really well for you, so that's great. Who am I to tell you what should or should not work for you.
^I'm not desperately doing anything. It's right there for all to see.
RE: detection. The way I look at it, the force itself isn't detectable and thus not objectively quantifiable, but the effects of the force can be directly observed. It's the difference between looking out the window and knowing the wind is there by the motion of the leaves and being about to "see" the wind, leaf or no.
In that sense it's no different than any high fantasy magic. A wizard casts a spell, there's a flash of coloured light and something catches fire. The light and the fire are the effects of the magic and are detectable the same way anything is detectable with eyes (and hopefully, functioning smoke alarms.
) But the origin and nature of the magic itself still defies true understanding.It's not as if the mini-chlorians are the things directly responsible for the force, or what it does. They're just intermediaries, passing messages back and fourth like neurons. How exactly they directly communicate with the force still remains a mystery and if that's not mystical enough for you, then I'm sorry. Perhaps you'd prefer something with elves?
Actually, there is a fairly apt example in a well known fantasy IP: in the Harry Potter books, magic (despite being used on almost every page) is never explained. Not where it comes from, what it is or really how it works beyond shouting at people and waving sticks around.
However, it's made abundantly clear that there is a very clear delineation between those that can do magic and those that can't. In a word: bloodlines. There's a biological component. Something in the DNA that can be passed on to decedents. Even the so-called muggle-born witches & wizards are said to have probably had a distant magical ancestor, so it can be a latent ability, but still one tied to biology.
I'd say that the way they were used in TPM was just a fairly lazy way to demonstrate how much more powerful Anakin was. It's a storytelling shortcut and not a terribly good one which is why it falls fairly flat.
Nevertheless the underlying concept still works and is consistent.
Last edited:
Very interesting theory.
I think Anakin's strong Force ability and/or medi-chlorian count was because of having medichlorians as ancestors on the parental side of the family (as Qui-Gon theorized in TMP). Although Jedi parents seem to pass on their Force-sensitivity to their kids, it also appears possible that, just like the X Gene in X-Men, Force-sensitivity can manifest itself in someone who doesn't have Force-sensitive parents (like Rebels' Ezra Bridger).
Satine was killed before she had a chance to have kids with anyone. I know of the counter-theory that takes this into account but still wants the Satine connection, is that Kenobi got together with her sister, Bo-Katan.
I find it unlikely that Rey is a Kenobi, though; the logistics seems really hard to make that work.
Midi-chlorians were bullshit. Most of the pretrilogy was bullshit.
I'm going to have to disagree on both counts.
Why?
Like it or not the prequels are canon. While I wasn't a fan of TPM the 2nd episode was ok and the 3rd was quite good. There is some good stuff lurking in all three prequels.
My city is having a free showing of The Force Awakens on a huge outdoor screen. It starts at 6:00 pm this evening and as long as the weather isn't wet (it's not supposed to rain) I'm planning on checking it out. It's not too often that I get to see a movie I like with a crowd of people that big.
Ours is happening this coming Tuesday, I'm going to take the kids.
Who said they weren't? Being canonical doesn't mean something ain't bullshit.
Well we really only have a sample set of two when it comes to inheriting force abilities: Anakin>Luke & Leia, Leia>Ben. So the gender of the parent doesn't seem to matter. The only reason Qui Gon raised the question is because 1) Shmi obviously wasn't force sensitive and 2) There was no father in evidence.
If we were to suppose for an instance that Satine and Kenobi did have a child then the logical time for conception wouldn't be when we saw them together in TCW, but years earlier when they both spent a year together on the run with Qui Gon.
In this scenario, the conception could have taken place towards the end of that incident and Kenobi would have been totally ignorant that she was pregnant when he returned to the temple. I can see Satine having the child in secret and maybe even sent away for it's own protection given how dangerous the situation would have been at the time (they'd just come out of a civil war after all.)
As for why she would have kept the child secret from Obi Wan, it's totally consistent with her attitude towards Kenobi in the show: she respects him too much to jeopardise his position in the Order.
Now I don't really believe that Rey is a Kenobi, but if they were to introduce a decedent of Kenobi, this seems like the more logical option. Having him hook up with someone while on Tatooine doesn't seem in character and aside from being an impossibility, him having any interest in Bo-Katan is just icky.
I have actually heard it theorised that Sabine is the daughter of Kenobi, placed in a Deathwatch family by Bo-Katan after the fall of Mandalore and she is Rey's mother. Apparently this is based on the fact that "Sabine" is one letter away from "Satine" and her clan's name (Ren) is one letter away from "Rey".
It's tenuous at best and I don't really buy it, but it's an interesting idea and I wouldn't exactly call it "impossible." Sabine does have some Kenobi like traits, even though she's not force sensitive. Also I'm pretty sure the ages don't match up. Sabine's only a few years older than Ezra, which would put her birth either during or right before the Clone Wars, While Kenobi & Satine last saw each other some time prior to the events of Episode One.
Not my canon...As far as I'm concerned, the damn things were never made.
What's the gender of a parent have to do with anything? The franchise shows that you don't need to have Force-sensitive parents to have the Force yourself.
Weren't they teens or something then? Also, wouldn't it have been somewhat reflected in the series proper that their backstory included a one night stand?
Would Rey be old enough to have a parent who was born that long ago (she's only nineteen in the movie and was born about a decade after ROTJ).
Agreed on all accounts (except I'm not sure that Satine is viable).
Satine family (the Wrens) belong to the Vizsla clan. Also Sabine is designed to be "Asian," while both the Kryze sisters and Kenobi are white.
The Wren/Rey connection isn't a good one. We know from Before the Awakening that "Rey" is the name that character "calls herself," strongly suggesting that it's not her birth name. (How exactly Rey got her name is unclear, but several sources, like Rey's Survival Guide, the DK Essential Guide, etc., establish that Rey's old flight helmet, which she has in the movie, was one of her earliest salvage finds and has the name of the original owner written on the side, Dosmit Raeh. Given that "Raeh" and "Rey" are pronounced the same way, the theory is is that Rey named herself or was given that name after the helmet.
(The only hitches is that the Survival Guide establishes that "R-E-Y" is how Rey chooses to spell her name, which differs from the spelling on the helmet and that none of the source material have established that there's any connection to their names.)
There hasn't been any precedent for a Jedi having a non-Force-sensitive kid. Any connection that Sabine would have to Rey is also problematic on genetic grounds, since Rey is white and Sabine isn't. Sabine was sixteen or seventeen at the beginning of season one, to Ezra's fourteen. An alternate theory, that Sabine and Ezra Bridger are her parents (an idea that seems to be largely based on Ezra having a crush on Sabine, at least in the early Rebels episodes), would also seem to be ruled out on those grounds.
First reason, I liked those movies an awful lot; they filled in several gaps, added some good characters to the franchise, gave more context to stuff in the original movies (like Vader's repentance), and made the universe a lot bigger then it was before. I will concede that here are some weak moments and some poorly written scenes. In other words, no different from the originals. (I may have to turn in my fan card, but honestly, I think that nostalgic childhood accounts for three fourths of the reason that the originals are put so high above the prequels; for my money, TMP and ROTS, at least, are about as bad as the originals are, give or take a bit.)
The medi-chlorians are one of those things I don't really get the hate for. I thought it was cool that they were adding more to the mythology. Since the Force was described as an energy field from day one, adding more science to this brand of spiritualism is hardly a deal breaker; it's always had elements of both. Finally, they don't even change how the Force works. I can get if some people would prefer the mystery to be less explained, but they're only mentioned in a couple of movies (not counting some of the Clone Wars show) and there's still mystery as to how the medi-chlorians work themselves.
Last edited:
*Looks at his unopened copies of Insurrection and Star Trek V.Who said they weren't? Being canonical doesn't mean something ain't bullshit.
'What has been made cannot be unmade', I believe is the line.
Picture me sticking my fingers in my ears and yelling, "LA LA LA LA LA LA LA...."
I'm there.
I should have said Obama.
The point is that midichlorians are not a Muslim.
One of the (pre-Disney) novels seemed like it went there, but it's not canon now.
I should have said Obama.
The point is that midichlorians are not a Muslim.
WebLurker said:
One of the (pre-Disney) novels seemed like it went there, but it's not canon now.
Which one was that?
Your analogy still makes no sense, so please, don't continue,
On a more serious note, the only part of the midi-clorians that bothers me is that it is used to justify Anakin's awesomeness without him having to do anything. It makes him less sympathetic and far more difficult to enjoy as a character. I also feel like it doesn't add anything to the story. It feels clumsy and forced in to the narrative without any payoff.
And, it wouldn't be that hard to pay it off. Obi-Wan talks about a "symbiote circle" between the Gungans and the Naboo. Qui-Gon talks to Anakin about the midi-clorians as symbiotes as well. It would be neat to see that explored more.
