Would you rather live in the SW universe or the ST universe?

[Admiral_Young]

Yeah see money is a 21st century motivation and sensibility. One that doesn't apply in the 24th Century on Earth, which is my point. Picard tells Lilly this in "First Contact" that they work to better themselves through accomplishment and she's sort of shocked by that comment. I feel like we think too much like this century because we're from this century and can't project what it would be like in that century. Does that make sense at all? I think Christopher understands what I've been trying to get at.

 

[Set Harth]

I think that was the point Lucas intended. I just don't think he explained it to Western audiences as well as a more competent writer could have.

I don't think modern-day Western audiences would have accepted it even if it had been more painstakingly explained.

 

[Admiral_Young]

^ Agreed.

 

[RandyS]

A culture that defines people's worth purely by how much money they have is a deeply impoverished one in every way that matters.

Considering that you and I both live in one of those cultures, I hope your comment was meant to be ironic.

 

[Christopher]

A culture that defines people's worth purely by how much money they have is a deeply impoverished one in every way that matters.

Considering that you and I both live in one of those cultures, I hope your comment was meant to be ironic.

I don't live in such a culture. Read my precise words: "defines people's worth purely by... money." Yes, we need money to live in our culture, but I'd like to think that most people don't consider wealth to be the one and only thing that gives other people value. I know for a fact that many people value other qualities in their friends and loved ones, qualities like personality, talent, creativity, kindness, humor, affection, etc.

I'm actually paraphrasing something an old friend said to me once. He grew up with pretty liberal values, essentially considering himself a hippie after his time, but there was a time when he got involved with a conservative woman from a rich family and got caught up in their lives for a while as she dominated his life and tried to change him. After he realized that wasn't good for him, he broke up with her and started reasserting his own identity, and he talked to me about how shallow the people in that social circle had been -- people who, in his words, weren't worth anything beyond the amount of money they made. People who only thought of their own lives in terms of financial achievement, who didn't talk with each other about anything but money and wealth and the pursuit of acquisitions. That's not the kind of person he wanted to be, and he got away from it. And it's not the kind of person I've ever been, nor have I ever associated closely with anyone who did think that way. And I agree with my friend that it would be a pretty hollow and pathetic existence, to be incapable of appreciating anything -- or anyone -- except in terms of numbers in a ledger.

So yes, money is necessary in our society. We can't live without it. But how sadly mistaken it is to assume that it is therefore the only thing that matters in life. It's merely a tool -- a necessary tool, but ultimately just a means to an end. To define it as an end in itself, as the singular goal of one's existence rather than merely an aid in achieving more fulfilling goals, results in a life without true meaning.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

The whole point of the PT was that the Jedi Order at that time was wrong. Love is something to be embraced, not shunned.

It would be interesting if that were the point, but Lucas sure didn't get that notion across. I was definitely wondering "should I be assuming the Jedi are right and good, or questioning them?" but I never got past the point of confusion. Lucas didn't definitively deliver the message: "the Jedi are WRONG, m'kay?" At the end of ROTS, I still had the impression that the Jedi were the good guys and all that shit happened because Anakin was mentally disturbed and stupid.

I didn't even trust my own reactions to the movie, since the very fact that I was even wondering about it might be attributable to the fact that I like to question authority figures. I also make up reasons why Starfleet is arrogant, imperialistic and deluded and frequently upset the DS9 forum by waxing eloquent on the topic of Why the Federation is to Blame for the Dominion War. Just because a circumstantial case can be made to support that doesn't at all mean that the writers intended that.

The main problem with the PT is that Lucas was not in control of the material, so that to this day, we're still arguing about what the frak he actually meant the story to be. Did he mean for Anakin to be portrayed as a mentally unstable idiot, or is the TCW version of Anakin what he meant all along?

If the intent is a heroic Anakin, then one way to make the story still work is to throw more of the blame on the Jedi and the Republic.* The case against the Jedi and the Republic was not at all made convincingly in the PT. But TCW is making a case against the Republic - it's corrupt and not worth the efforts of a heroic and self-sacrificing person like Anakin to save.

And I do think the Jedi rules are inhuman and bizarre. They are contrary to the basics of human nature. They're torturing their own people with this nonsense, so it's the Jedi's fault when one of them goes squirrely. If this is the intended message, then great! Let's see TCW actually make the case for it. They've got 2 1/2 years to do it, shouldn't be all that hard.

*And is that even the plan? With the Mortis Arc, I'm getting the impression that the "solution" is to depict the Dark Side as essentially mind control. In that case, the blame doesn't have to be placed on Anakin, the Republic or the Jedi, but it does upset the notion that followers of the Dark Side are in any way evil. Instead, they become something closer to victims.

I think Lucas was approaching it more from a Hindu/Buddhist kind of angle: that attachment and need are the source of suffering, of selfishness, of cruelty, and so to stay on the path to enlightenment we must let go of attachments. Which does not mean that you can't care for others; rather, it means just the opposite, that you deny yourself, free yourself of cravings and wants and possessiveness and live an entirely selfless, ego-free existence. You can love, in the sense of valuing others' well-being above your own, just not in the sense of covetous desire and the pursuit of self-gratification. You value others, care for them, but don't try to attach them to yourself, to create bonds of possessiveness.

I've also had that thought, and I think that's a great way to take the story - I love the idea that Star Wars isn't coming from the same Western perspective as every other Hollywood popcorn movie - but once again, Lucas is not getting that message across effectively. In the PT, Anakin's emotional attachment to Padme does seem dysfunctional and possessive; in TCW, his attachments seem no more possessive than is true for anyone else in the cosmos.

His behavior and personality is entirely different and the range of attachments he has in TCW argues against them being dysfunctional. You can be obsessive and selfish about one person. But why was Anakin upset at the vision of him destroying Alderaan? Why does he care about lives lost in the Clone Wars? He can't be "possessive" about people he's never even met. He can't derive selfish emotional support from strangers, at least not in any way I can envision.

Of course, maybe the message is that the kind of utterly ego-free "attachments" that the Jedi require are a true rarity. For 99.9999% of people, all emotional attachments are possessive and "wrong" to some degree. So it's not that Anakin's at fault for having the same kinds of emotions as everyone else. The Jedi are at fault for banking on their people having some kind of Nirvana-level of consciousness, even when they're young and they have to concentrate on winning a war. If you want your people to become bodhisattvas, you need to sequester them in a monastery where they can contemplate their navels, not throw them on the front lines of a war!

I'm really hoping that TCW has a good story in mind, that it can deliver conclusively, and just clear up this whole mess. So far, they've done a good job at making conclusive, clear statements about important elements of the story: Anakin is heroic; Anakin is not mentally unbalanced or stupid, and his emotional attachments are as true and valid as anyone's; the Republic is corrupt; balancing the Force, means balance, not one side winning; and Light and Dark Sides of the force are not good and evil, but rather both necessary components of a balanced cosmos.

The thing about Anakin and Padme is (really this isn't the thread to discuss this I know but I can't help myself) they're entire relationship is kind of just forced together.

In the PT, it comes across as forced. The lack of real chemistry between the characters underscores the notion that it is dysfunctional (and inexplicable from Padme's perspective - what the frak does she see in that wretched little boy?) TCW makes it seem more right and natural, because the characters seem to have a valid emotional relationship and seem right together.

So what is the message here? That Jedi need to be bodhisattvas, while still living in society and fighting a war? Meaning, the impossible is expected of them and the Jedi really are to blame for this crap.

Then why is there never any moment in which any of the Jedi smack their heads and admit that the Empire and Darth Vader are their own fault? Why does Anakin need to redeem himself in ROTJ by sacrificing himself to save his son, when it was the Jedi's fault all along?

I never bought their relationship at all. In fact I wonder if Anakin didn't use just a little bit of Force compulsion to manipulate her feelings towards his benefit? Padme's a smart woman supposedly...after he admitted that he slaughtered the Sand People out of vengeance I can't fathom why she would fall in love with him after that.

I've just excised the notion that she knows about the Sand People thing from my memory. There's no rational reason why she wouldn't report that to the Jedi Council, even if she loves Anakin - especially if she loves him. That's a clear indication that something is seriously wrong with the boy. Maybe the Jedi Council can help him. Maybe he should be booted out of the Order for his own good. Don't just ignore something like that, jeezus! Crappy writing like that simply increases the confusion about what was meant in the PT. I've given up trying to figure it out and will allow TCW to stand as canon instead.

 

[MetalPants]

Average Joe-Trek verse for sure.
Captain or Jedi- I would like a Shelley class freighter, a competent crew to run and maintain it, and be in the SW universe.

 

[Vendikarr]

I would choose the Trek universe.

But I think I'm living in the Stargate universe. With the exception of the thousands of people world wide who know about the gate, the general population believes we are alone here.

Although we could be in the Farscape universe as well, since from the Earth's perspective, none of the outer space insanity touches us here.

 

[Christopher]

But I think I'm living in the Stargate universe.

Any anthropologist or evolutionary biologist could refute that. No way did humans descend from alien colonists, and no way was there an advanced human civilization living on Earth hundreds of thousands of years ago (or even millions -- they've never quite figured out a coherent Ancient chronology).

With the exception of the thousands of people world wide who know about the gate, the general population believes we are alone here.

Which is ridiculous by this point. Given all the military personnel, scientists, defense contractors, leaders of foreign governments, etc. involved in the Stargate program, the number is probably closer to hundreds of thousands. And there hasn't been any good story excuse to keep the Stargate secret for many years, given how many storylines revolve around the participation of politicians, industrialists, diplomats, etc., rendering the whole secrecy angle an old habit that no longer contributes anything to the stories. Not to mention that the rationale behind the secrecy -- that the general public would be too frightened by the threat of imminent global destruction posed by the Goa'uld or the Ori -- is pretty much irrelevant these days (since the Wraith are in another galaxy and I can't take the Lucian Alliance seriously as a major threat). Given that Earth is now pretty much the dominant political and military power in the Milky Way, it's just plain silly that the general public doesn't even know about it.

Although we could be in the Farscape universe as well, since from the Earth's perspective, none of the outer space insanity touches us here.

Except in "Terra Firma," where Moya's crew came to Earth and became publicly known back in 2003. Also, there's no IASA in real life, and our laws of physics differ from those of Farscape in a number of ways (for one thing, helium doesn't form compounds and couldn't be a byproduct of any metabolic process, so Rygel's helium flatulence is a chemical impossibility).

 

[Admiral2]

Right, so you learn to handle it properly, just like any other weapon. That's a common sense problem, not a flaw in the concept.

Everyone makes mistakes. It's arrogant to assume that one can achieve perfection regardless of one's level of skill.

Who said anything about perfection? You practice and you train and learn to handle the weapon to the best of your ability. Of course you can make a mistake, but if you go into a battle expecting to make a mistake you might as well let the other guy shoot or slash you.

I'd rather not have enemies.

Not wanting enemies doesn't mean you'll never have any.

Normal person, everyday life, remember? I'd rather watch other people's fictional adventures than live the painful, traumatic reality.

Normal people get killed doing just that in this reality. What makes you think Trektopia will make you immune?

But at least some of them are evidently sentient themselves. I have no desire to live in a universe that tolerates slavery.

It's only slavery if you define them as life-forms. Quote the Imperial tracking R2 and 3PO's escape pod in ANH: "No Life-forms." Walking and rolling PDAs don't count as slaves.

True, but I can settle down somewhere and sell the ship, and then I'd have the extra money, something I could never have living in the socialist utopia that is the United Federation of Planets.

A post-scarcity economy is not a socialist economy. It's impossible for a socialist economy to exist in a post-scarcity society, because socialism is an economic system in which the means of production and wealth creation are controlled by the state. Just as much as capitalism, socialism is an economic theory predicated on the assumption of material scarcity, making material possessions valuable and finite, and on the assumption that the manufacture of goods requires human labor. Neither of those is true in a replicator-based economy. Therefore, no existing economic theory would be applicable to a post-scarcity society, and new ones would have to be invented.

And just because money isn't needed to survive in the Federation, that doesn't mean it can't exist. We've seen that people in the Federation can own possessions, open their own businesses, and use currency in economic transactions. There is a Bank of Bolius, for example. It's just that material acquisition is a luxury rather than a necessity.

All true, except that you left out the part where every economic system has a political and cultural component, and while you can make the argument that the Federation economy is not socialist, its politics and society sure as hell are.

You can not get to a state where "material acquisition is a luxury rather than a necessity" unless all your material needs are provided for by some other means...or a "single provider." In this case the single provider is The Federation, whether directly or through directives issued to the people that build replicators or transporters or spacecraft. The fact that it works at all is a miracle, which is why I called it a socialist utopia. I never said "economy."

And yes, you can have money in this socialist utopia, but only if you want to be looked down upon as a brigand, a troglodyte, a scoundrel or a right bastard. Most people in old and new Trek who are depicted as having a desire for wealth are also depicted as pure evil or at least worthy of scorn:

-Cyrano Jones: Sentenced to about 17 years soft labor for daring to take a fuzzball from its home planet. (Trouble with Tribbles)

-Dilithium miners shown as sex offenders and Harry Mudd is their pimp/supplier (Mudd's Women)

-More miners (the bastards!) who showed no love and respect for giant worm eggs! (Devil In The Dark) They probably don't even recycle!

-And let us not forget the Ferengi, an entire race created for the series solely to depict pursuers of wealth as greedy, venal, miserly, dishonest, cowardly and self-serving. I'm sure I left out another pejorative, for such is the nature of the tolerance adhered to by our socialist utopia the Federation.

You can have it, Chris. I'll take my chances with my lightsaber in Dodge Galaxy.

Well, in the books, the Federation now has quantum slipstream drive that can cross the galaxy in as little as hours. So I'm all set.

Like I said...

 

[RandyS]

A culture that defines people's worth purely by how much money they have is a deeply impoverished one in every way that matters.

Considering that you and I both live in one of those cultures, I hope your comment was meant to be ironic.

I don't live in such a culture. Read my precise words: "defines people's worth purely by... money." Yes, we need money to live in our culture, but I'd like to think that most people don't consider wealth to be the one and only thing that gives other people value. I know for a fact that many people value other qualities in their friends and loved ones, qualities like personality, talent, creativity, kindness, humor, affection, etc.

I'm actually paraphrasing something an old friend said to me once. He grew up with pretty liberal values, essentially considering himself a hippie after his time, but there was a time when he got involved with a conservative woman from a rich family and got caught up in their lives for a while as she dominated his life and tried to change him. After he realized that wasn't good for him, he broke up with her and started reasserting his own identity, and he talked to me about how shallow the people in that social circle had been -- people who, in his words, weren't worth anything beyond the amount of money they made. People who only thought of their own lives in terms of financial achievement, who didn't talk with each other about anything but money and wealth and the pursuit of acquisitions. That's not the kind of person he wanted to be, and he got away from it. And it's not the kind of person I've ever been, nor have I ever associated closely with anyone who did think that way. And I agree with my friend that it would be a pretty hollow and pathetic existence, to be incapable of appreciating anything -- or anyone -- except in terms of numbers in a ledger.

So yes, money is necessary in our society. We can't live without it. But how sadly mistaken it is to assume that it is therefore the only thing that matters in life. It's merely a tool -- a necessary tool, but ultimately just a means to an end. To define it as an end in itself, as the singular goal of one's existence rather than merely an aid in achieving more fulfilling goals, results in a life without true meaning.

I completely agree with everything you've said, except that I do know people who think that others who have no money are worthless. My father and my brother are two such people. Ironically, neither is wealthy (although they have both pissed away alot of money on get rich quick schemes, you know, the stuff that NEVER works), and both have told me that I am a worthless nothing because I don't actively pursue wealth. You're right, money IS a tool, nothing more. But the fact remains that the society we live in regards it as the end all be all of existence. Maybe individuals don't. Most do. And that's sad.

 

[Stoek]

There is nothing in the Trek universe that prevents people from working to achieve things beyond bare survival, to enrich themselves and others through dedicated effort. There are far more valuable and worthwhile things to strive for than mere money. A culture that defines people's worth purely by how much money they have is a deeply impoverished one in every way that matters.

Considering that you and I both live in one of those cultures, I hope your comment was meant to be ironic.

I don't live in such a culture. Read my precise words: "defines people's worth purely by... money." Yes, we need money to live in our culture, but I'd like to think that most people don't consider wealth to be the one and only thing that gives other people value. I know for a fact that many people value other qualities in their friends and loved ones, qualities like personality, talent, creativity, kindness, humor, affection, etc.

I'm actually paraphrasing something an old friend said to me once. He grew up with pretty liberal values, essentially considering himself a hippie after his time, but there was a time when he got involved with a conservative woman from a rich family and got caught up in their lives for a while as she dominated his life and tried to change him. After he realized that wasn't good for him, he broke up with her and started reasserting his own identity, and he talked to me about how shallow the people in that social circle had been -- people who, in his words, weren't worth anything beyond the amount of money they made. People who only thought of their own lives in terms of financial achievement, who didn't talk with each other about anything but money and wealth and the pursuit of acquisitions. That's not the kind of person he wanted to be, and he got away from it. And it's not the kind of person I've ever been, nor have I ever associated closely with anyone who did think that way. And I agree with my friend that it would be a pretty hollow and pathetic existence, to be incapable of appreciating anything -- or anyone -- except in terms of numbers in a ledger.

So yes, money is necessary in our society. We can't live without it. But how sadly mistaken it is to assume that it is therefore the only thing that matters in life. It's merely a tool -- a necessary tool, but ultimately just a means to an end. To define it as an end in itself, as the singular goal of one's existence rather than merely an aid in achieving more fulfilling goals, results in a life without true meaning.

QFMFT! I used to work at store that sold toys and accessories for dogs and cats along with various organic, pet foods. One day one of the owners of the store and I were discussing a particular customer. We were both talking about what a "good" customer she was. But while on the surface our assesments dovetailed our unlying values were very different. To the owner the person was a "good" customer because of the amount of money she spent. To me she was a "good" customer, because she was always patient, respectful and civil.

To this day I actually have to fight against certain tendencies in myself because if I'm not careful I tend to automatically assume that anyone with a lot of money is a piece of shit with no soul cleverly disguised as a human being. Which while sadly is true more often than it should be, is not always true.

 

[Set Harth]

So far, they've done a good job at making conclusive, clear statements about important elements of the story: Anakin is heroic; Anakin is not mentally unbalanced or stupid, and his emotional attachments are as true and valid as anyone's; the Republic is corrupt; balancing the Force, means balance, not one side winning;

Though you continue to insist that TCW discarded the saga's definition of "balance of the Force", it did nothing of the sort. This is nothing more than a rewrite of your own invention. It was never stated by Anakin, any other TCW character, or anyone involved in the production of the show OOU, which should not be too surprising given that it contradicts both the PT and the ending of the OT ( where one side wins ). Even Ghosts of Mortis provides evidence against it, so calling it a "conclusive, clear statement" by TCW is as removed from the truth as possible. As usual the retconner insists that someone else must be responsible for their own nonsensical retconning.

 

[TiberiusMaximus]

Except in "Terra Firma," where Moya's crew came to Earth and became publicly known back in 2003. Also, there's no IASA in real life, and our laws of physics differ from those of Farscape in a number of ways (for one thing, helium doesn't form compounds and couldn't be a byproduct of any metabolic process, so Rygel's helium flatulence is a chemical impossibility).

Did you hear that? That was the sound of Christopher crushing my dreams. Mercilessly.

Curse you and your sudden but inevitable scientific correctness!

I kid, I kid.

But evaluating which fictional universe we could be in using scientific principles seems...wait, that actually seems like a lot of fun. We can't be in the Trek universe either. No Eugenics Wars. No Khan. Maybe we're in the Firefly 'verse.

 

[Christopher]

Not wanting enemies doesn't mean you'll never have any.

No, but I'm less likely to have any living on Earth under the Federation. People there are generally nice.

It's only slavery if you define them as life-forms.

No, it's slavery if they're sapient, conscious beings, which Threepio and Artoo pretty obviously are. I'm not a biological chauvinist.

And if they are sapient, then they deserve freedom regardless of how you or I define them.

All true, except that you left out the part where every economic system has a political and cultural component, and while you can make the argument that the Federation economy is not socialist, its politics and society sure as hell are.

No, it isn't. To borrow Wikipedia's summary as a convenient shorthand:

Socialism is an economic and political theory advocating public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources.[1][2][3] A socialist society is a social structure organized on the basis of relatively equal power-relations, self-management, dispersed decision-making (adhocracy) and a reduction or elimination of hierarchical and bureaucratic forms of administration and governance; the extent of which varies in different types of socialism.[4][5] This ranges from the establishment of cooperative management structures in the economy to the abolition of all hierarchical structures in favor of free association.

I don't see public ownership of the means of production in the Federation. For most people, the means of production are replicators, and these are probably owned by individuals or companies like any appliance. I think you're confusing the situation in Starfleet, where everything aboard a Starfleet vessel is naturally the property of the organization, with the situation in civilian life, which has rarely been glimpsed.

There definitely is not dispersed decision-making or an elimination of hierarchical administration in the Federation. The Federation is governed by a legislative council and an elected president, and has other known tiers of bureaucracy such as a cabinet, commissioners, and numerous canonically established bureaus, councils, and departments. Its individual worlds have their own rulers and bureaucracies.

http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/United_Federation_of_Planets#Government

If anything, it's quite clearly based on the American model of government, which should really be obvious since it was made by American TV producers for American audiences, starting in the 1960s when any show portraying a socialist government as a good thing would've never been allowed on the air.

You can not get to a state where "material acquisition is a luxury rather than a necessity" unless all your material needs are provided for by some other means...or a "single provider." In this case the single provider is The Federation, whether directly or through directives issued to the people that build replicators or transporters or spacecraft.

Again, you're making the mistake of applying scarcity-era economic theories to a post-scarcity era. If any material goods can be automatically manufactured with the press of a button, if material resources are 100% recyclable, if energy is available in unlimited quantities (as it would be for any spacegoing power, since the galaxy contains 300 billion great big nuclear fusion reactors pouring out unlimited amounts of free energy for anyone with a solar collector), then you absolutely do not need a "single provider" for anything.

The fact that it works at all is a miracle, which is why I called it a socialist utopia. I never said "economy."

The word "socialist" refers to an economic/political theory. Therefore, if you use the term "socialist," you are using an economic term, even if you incorrectly assume it's devoid of economic implications.

Most people in old and new Trek who are depicted as having a desire for wealth are also depicted as pure evil or at least worthy of scorn:

Even if that's true, that's a matter of cultural values, not a formal economic/political system. It can't correctly be called "socialist."

-Cyrano Jones: Sentenced to about 17 years soft labor for daring to take a fuzzball from its home planet. (Trouble with Tribbles)

For irresponsibly risking an ecological disaster. And even so, he was portrayed as a funny, sympathetic figure.

You're also overlooking that Uhura and Chekov clearly had money (or "credits") or they wouldn't have been able to buy tribbles. Not to mention the episode where Kirk told Scotty "You've earned your pay for the week" or the one where he talked about how much money Starfleet had invested in Spock's training. TOS had no problem with the concept of money. The idea of a moneyless future was first hinted at in The Voyage Home and then embraced in the TNG era.

-Dilithium miners shown as sex offenders and Harry Mudd is their pimp/supplier (Mudd's Women)

You're imposing our modern values on the story. At the time it was written, this wasn't seen as nearly so offensive. It was directly based on Western stories about "wiving settlers." There was a whole TV series about that subject a few years later, Here Come the Brides, and the men who arranged to supply the brides to frontiersmen were the show's heroes. As sexist as "Mudd's Women" appears today, the intent of the writers was simply that the miners were lonely and the women were looking for husbands.

You can have it, Chris. I'll take my chances with my lightsaber in Dodge Galaxy.

I hope you know a good prosthetic-limb maker, then.

I completely agree with everything you've said, except that I do know people who think that others who have no money are worthless.

Yes, but I don't believe our entire culture is that way. There are subcultures within it that are, but I don't inhabit any of them.

But the fact remains that the society we live in regards it as the end all be all of existence. Maybe individuals don't. Most do. And that's sad.

The hypothetical I posited was a society that only valued money and nothing else. While our society does place an inordinate value on money, it also treats other values as highly important, including family, freedom, patriotism, etc.

 

[David cgc]

And the disconnect between the PT Jedi Era and the NJO makes no sense. If the Jedi could function just fine with attachments, then that makes the PT Jedi look like morons for imposing onerous rules on their people for no damn good reason.

That's generally my view. I think the Jedi Order had succumbed to dry rot over the thousand generations they'd been around. I mean, come on. They failed to notice their greatest enemy was right under their noses, repeatedly talking face to face to the leaders of the Order, for ten years. And he wasn't even hiding. He was winning! They were constantly talking about how powerful the Dark Side was becoming. If that was the Jedi at the top of their game, they sucked.

 

[Christopher]

Or maybe the people who wrote the NJO books weren't perceiving the Jedi in the same way Lucas did in the PT, and it's only when you try to treat them both as parts of the same whole that the PT Jedi are diminished. Sometimes it can be unwise to try to cram everything into a single continuity, inconsistencies and all.

 

[Admiral_Young]

What? The NJO IS different than the Old Republic Jedi Order. Luke has established different fundamental beliefs due to lost knowledge. I don't understand your post at all in this regard Christopher.

 

[Hilldill]

Trek hands down, But with my luck I'd probably end up in the Whoniverse instead.

 

[David cgc]

Or maybe the people who wrote the NJO books weren't perceiving the Jedi in the same way Lucas did in the PT, and it's only when you try to treat them both as parts of the same whole that the PT Jedi are diminished. Sometimes it can be unwise to try to cram everything into a single continuity, inconsistencies and all.

I'm not sure the PT Jedi are supposed to be the be-all and end-all even just in the context of the movies. They didn't come off that well, and I don't want to chalk all of that up to production-side ineptness at depicting competent heroes.