It seems to take place about three years before Rebels starts and five years after Jedi: Fallen Order.
News Obi-Wan Kenobi series premiering on May 27
- Thread starter Mach5
- Start date
Inquisitors have been around for as long as Star Wars books and such have been around. Even if they were not called as such there was the "Dark Jedi" from multiple games and books.
I agree, it's an excuse to have Force users running around and use powers and the Force but that's part of the appeal of Star Wars for many. More interesting is Obi-Wan's use of a blaster in the trailer.
Also, this series looks to be slightly before Rebels (ish)? No doubt someone with better knowledge of the timeline with correct me.
I just checked Wookiepedia's timeline and here's how Obi-Wan relates to other stuff.
10 years after Revenge of the Sith
4 years after Jedi: Fallen Order
The same year as Solo, and the 15th and 20th issues of Marvel's Star Wars comic series, which were flashback issues focused on Obi-Wan on Tatooine.
5 years before Rebels.
10 years before A New Hope.
10 years after Revenge of the Sith
4 years after Jedi: Fallen Order
The same year as Solo, and the 15th and 20th issues of Marvel's Star Wars comic series, which were flashback issues focused on Obi-Wan on Tatooine.
5 years before Rebels.
10 years before A New Hope.
Personally I think the Star Wars timeline would be a lot easier if Revenge of the Sith/the birth of Luke & Leia were Year 0, instead of "The Battle of Yavin/A New Hope"
It gets annoying when everything in the prequels, Clone Wars and "the Dark Times" is all in minuses.
Then it would be
Phantom Menace: -13
Attack of the Clones: -3
Clone Wars: -3-0
Revenge of the Sith: 0
Bad Batch: 0/1
Fallen Order: 5
Solo: 6-9
Obi Wan: 10
Rebels: 14-18
Rogue One/A New Hope: 19
Empire Strikes Back: 22
Return of the Jedi: 23
Mando/Book of Boba: 28
Resistance/Force Awakens/Last Jedi: 53
Rise of Skywalker: 54
I think those dates are mostly right anyway. With so much Star Wars been "pre-New Hope" now it just seems easier. But hey ho.
It gets annoying when everything in the prequels, Clone Wars and "the Dark Times" is all in minuses.
Then it would be
Phantom Menace: -13
Attack of the Clones: -3
Clone Wars: -3-0
Revenge of the Sith: 0
Bad Batch: 0/1
Fallen Order: 5
Solo: 6-9
Obi Wan: 10
Rebels: 14-18
Rogue One/A New Hope: 19
Empire Strikes Back: 22
Return of the Jedi: 23
Mando/Book of Boba: 28
Resistance/Force Awakens/Last Jedi: 53
Rise of Skywalker: 54
I think those dates are mostly right anyway. With so much Star Wars been "pre-New Hope" now it just seems easier. But hey ho.
Eh, did you mean to say ROTS instead of TPM? Because it looks like you're saying Phantom Menace is only 19 years prior to A New Hope, which is definitely too short a time span.
So, if ANH is 1977, then ROTS would be 1958, then AOTC 1955 and TPM 1945.
They were not around when SW spin-off books were first published with Splinter of the Mind's Eye (1978), the Daley Han Solo novel trilogy ('79-'80), the three Smith Lando Calrissian novels (1983), or Marvel's Star Wars: World of Fire! (1980).
But its tiresome and the crutch of a weakened franchise trying to relive certain beats over and over again. If someone uses a lightsaber--especially in the post Jedi Order / early Empire period, it should mean something and not just milk that one concept.
Well, that's not been my experience with the franchise. Repeating beats is how Star Wars works.
That's weird, TESB came out in 1980.
That explains the use of the term "wizard."
yeah sorry.
I like the Inquisitors, and their existence makes perfect sense, the best people to hunt Jedi are going to be other Force users. Vader is not going to be able to go after them all by himself, so the best alternative would be to find some other Jedi to corrupt.
And from a real world perspective, if you're going to be doing a story set after Revenge of the Sith about a Jedi, you're going to want to be able to do lightsaber duels, and unless you want them to be constantly fighting Vader and getting away, you're going to need to have evil Jedi for them to fight.
You jest, but honestly I think that was the general idea for the prequels. There's a reason why a lot of the ships, sets, and blasters looked like they came straight out of a really high budget remake of 'Flash Gordon Conquers the Universe'.
Last edited:
I don't jest. I was reading a WW2 novel about pilots and that was the slang they used was calling things wizard.
Sure, but it always seemed to me that the only reason Order 66 worked was because they caught the Jedi off guard and hit them with overwhelming numbers.
But still, no matter what, the best person to deal with a Force user is going to be another Force user. No matter how trained a non-Force user is, they still aren't going to be able to match the abilities of the Force user.
And from real world perspective, if we're getting a story about a Jedi, then people are going to want to get some lightsaber duels, and the best way to do that is give them some Dark Side users to fight.
And as we saw in Rebels and Fallen Order, Inquisitors very rarely went alone. They usually hunted in packs and with a contingent of Stormtroopers and the more specially trained Purge troopers to help coral the target. Almost every time we saw one go up against a target(s) with equal or greater numbers, said Inquisitors tended to be cut down. Mostly because they were recruited from broken Jedi. Unbalanced and corrupted by the Dark Side, but not trained as Sith either, leaving them very much the lesser for it. Which of course was the whole idea. They were meant to be bloodhounds, not assassins.
All that said, let's try and keep it in perspective: even fully trained Jedi Masters are not invulnerable or infallible. Indeed Qui-Gon made that very clear when Anakin claimed otherwise. Jedi can be caught unawares, be distracted, trapped, forced into a vulnerable position (typically while attempting to protect another), or overwhelmed without the need of another force user in the mix, it's just really difficult and usually involves a stacked deck (see: the Grievous method.)
Though of course when one is actively hunting a Jedi that knows they're being hunted and making every effort to hide, evade, and/or flee; that's a whole other thing and another force user while not necessary, would be a LOT of help.
Short version: it's not an either/or proposition.
All that said, let's try and keep it in perspective: even fully trained Jedi Masters are not invulnerable or infallible. Indeed Qui-Gon made that very clear when Anakin claimed otherwise. Jedi can be caught unawares, be distracted, trapped, forced into a vulnerable position (typically while attempting to protect another), or overwhelmed without the need of another force user in the mix, it's just really difficult and usually involves a stacked deck (see: the Grievous method.)
Though of course when one is actively hunting a Jedi that knows they're being hunted and making every effort to hide, evade, and/or flee; that's a whole other thing and another force user while not necessary, would be a LOT of help.
Short version: it's not an either/or proposition.
Oh yeah, I didn't mean to say a non-Force user could never kill a Jedi, I just meant that another Force would have a better chance against them.
EW.com has posted a brief interview with Deborah Chow about the series, there aren't any big new reveals, but it's still worth a read.
EW.com has posted a brief interview with Deborah Chow about the series, there aren't any big new reveals, but it's still worth a read.
Obi-wan is also one of the best defenive Jedi. He is not infallible, but it usually takes a full on Sith to ragdoll him (Dooku). At least with his lightsaber. Without he has to get more creative, like when he went undercover as a bounty hunter.
The Inquisitors should have issue with taking him. But they aren't there to take him. They are there to keep him occupied until Darth Vader can arrive.
The Inquisitors should have issue with taking him. But they aren't there to take him. They are there to keep him occupied until Darth Vader can arrive.