Lit SOS: Save Our Skywalker, Luke Skywalker (v3)

And that's the point I'm trying to make man, you are getting upset by a 3rd hand rumor you heard off one dude on the EP 7 thread. I have not heard that rumor outside of these forums and I been looking. Unless you hear it again I would not worry about it. 30 years seems like a good period of time to rebuild, both with family and organizations.

So Luke and Leia will be 52-53 in Ep 7. I like it

 

i am not so much upset as worried. I think i got my info from new dawn. He says he has a good source. But if the new movie is called " A New Dawn" that makes sense

 

No offense to newdawn but he wasn't right about the age thing if you remember

 

I apologize, mark will be at SWW http://disneyparks.disney.go.com/bl...toric-first-appearance-at-star-wars-weekends/

 

The BBY calendar counts down backwards, so the year 19 BBY is (19 years + x days), so it doesn't matter how late in 19 BBY Luke was born, he is 19 years old in the Battle of Yavin.

And Star Wars by necessity occurs at the end of 0 BBY, since the film ends with the Battle of Yavin, and the next day is 0 ABY, i.e. 0 ABY + 1 day, just like the day before the battle is 0 BBY + 1 day.

 

Until we're way past the Internet version of....."According to a guy I met down the pub...."

There's no point getting really irritated.

 

I would like some more defintion to force powers because they do need to define llimits and such. I mean their is the Super High EU Feats, then there is the Starkiller/Micro Series level, then on down to OT feats which were not all the grand in the large scale effects prespective but still cool.

 

This post discussed the issue:

 

Then the BBY/ABY calendar is useless, because it doesn't match those dates. Not surprised. It's literally 2+2=5. 16:5:20 is NOT nineteen years before 35:3:3, and their attempt to handwave it with their explanation of the calendar doesn't make it work anymore than 2+2=5. The explanation doesn't even make sense, because per the explanation ROTS should be 18 years, eleven months, and a few weeks before the Battle of Yavin. ROTS can't be "nineteen years before the battle of Yavin" because it literally isn't.

And for that matter, TPM should be 31 BBY, AOTC should be 21 BBY, and only TESB and ROTJ are correct in their placement of 3 ABY and 4 ABY.

Also, those dates don't match the recently published short story Hammer's claim to be in the fourth year of the Clone War, because the Clone War didn't last four years per those dates. What a surprise.

 

Maybe by this version it's "about 19 years BBY"

It should be noted that the gap between TESB and RoTJ is not 12 months - it's more like 8.

 

Yes, but that's because The Empire Strikes Back is 3 years and three months after Star Wars, and Return of the Jedi is precisely 4 years after Star Wars. So the Empire Strikes Back is indeed three years (and three months) after the Battle of Yavin, and Return of the Jedi is indeed precisely four years afterward (you could quibble if the Battle of Yavin takes place more than 24 hours after the start of the film that ROTJ technically starts three years and ~367 days after).

But you can't say 2+2=5 because it's not a legitimate calendar. It's still operating identical to the Gregorian calendar in its premise, with the Battle of Yavin being the date the calendar changes, just like midnight on new year's day in the year 1 AD being that same crux of the Gregorian calendar. BBY is counting down to the event, and if something is said to be 19 BBY, it's "nineteen years before the battle of yavin," but Revenge of the Sith per those dates is not nineteen years before the battle of Yavin, it's eighteen years and several months before it.

I just think it's immensely silly to say 2 + 2 = about 5.

Edit: I mean, if you want me to spell out the silliness, I can:

Star Wars starts in 0 BBY (because it's BEFORE the battle of Yavin), not 1 BBY, so going back in time by the anniversary of the Battle of Yavin
35:3:3 - 00 BBY
34:3:3 - 01 BBY
33:3:3 - 02 BBY
32:3:3 - 03 BBY
31:3:3 - 04 BBY
30:3:3 - 05 BBY
29:3:3 - 06 BBY
28:3:3 - 07 BBY
27:3:3 - 08 BBY
26:3:3 - 09 BBY
25:3:3 - 10 BBY
24:3:3 - 11 BBY
23:3:3 - 12 BBY
22:3:3 - 13 BBY
21:3:3 - 14 BBY
20:3:3 - 15 BBY
19:3:3 - 16 BBY
18:3:3 - 17 BBY
17:3:3 - 18 BBY
16:5:20 - 18 BBY - REVENGE OF THE SITH
16:3:3 - 19 BBY

It's not 19 BBY.

 

How much time lapses during ANH?

If Luke and Leia are still 18 at the start of the movie, and 19 at the end of the movie, most of the old references can still work.

Though it's impossible even with that, for him to be 21 rather than 22 when Vader reveals to him that he is Luke's father.

That said - just because they think they are 18 - doesn't mean they are - since birth was induced early, Bail could have skewed Leia's birth date a little late when documenting her adoption - in order to avoid associating it with Padme's death date.

 

Unless Star Wars takes place over the course of two months (and likely longer depending on the period of time ROTS takes place over), there's literally no way their ages can change during the course of the film.

Frankly, I'm not expecting there to be any sort of consistency in the ages and dating of the EU.

 

Leia being 18 at the time Alderaan was destroyed, gets repeated multiple times - and I think it's even referenced in post-PT works.

 

FWIW, Wookieepedia gives Luke's birth date as 16:5:24 which seems to indicate that Revenge of the Sith occurs over the course of four days, but it sources Revenge of the Sith for the date which AFAIK means it's unsourced.

I've always taken the BBY/ABY calendar at face value and operated under the belief that Luke was 19 years old in Star Wars as a consequence, because from what I've read there's a lot of inconsistent calendars in the EU when different authors try to get more specific, such as the aforementioned situation with Traviss' dates. Maybe that's my mistake for taking the SW calendar system too literally.

 

ok so what does that date mean? what does each number stand for??

 

What age do you need to be to get your Speeder's license ?

 

Wookieepedia doesn't have a "speeder's license" page. Fail.

As I recall from the Jedi Prince series, it was something like "18, unless you're a Bith" because reasons.

 

That sounds about right

 

Mark Hamill/Luke Skywalker Announced to Make First Appearance at Walt Disney Worlds Star Wars Weekends.

June 6-June 8 2014, i've been meaning to attend one of those anyways.

 

Cushing's Admirer:

I agree, CA. I'm hoping we'll find that Luke did indeed start to train Jedi knights, even if his new Order is rather small at this point. I don't want him to suddenly decide to start training new Jedi in Episode VII, which means that he spent 30 years training no one.







MasterSkywalker86:

I'm glad they're setting this 30 years after RotJ. That's what I was expecting when I first heard about the new films. I don't think it would have been a good idea to send it right after RotJ. I like the idea of the older characters starring alongside the new characters. That's what I was hoping for too. I TRULY hope that one of those new characters will be Luke's son. I think that would go well with the prior SW theme of father and son, but this time, a good father with his son. It would also be good for the future of SW to continue to have a Skywalker with the Skywalker surname, in my opinion.

Luke and Leia would be about 53, I think.

Han would be in his 60's. Kids could probably be late teens/early twenties.







JediMatteus

I agree with you, JM. I too am hoping that Luke has started his Order by now. I definitely agree that he should have trained some Jedi during a thirty year span.






DigitalMessiah

That's true, DM, but I really have a hard time believing that the movie makers would want the galaxy to be in the terrible shape that it would have been right after the Vong war. I also think it adds too much "baggage" to the continuity. It would limit the film-makers too much, in my opinion.



More another time...

 

As I pointed out in the Disney thread, if Episode VII gave no indication that the NJO happened, would that really be any different than LOTF?

 

Unfortunately, this is true.

 

The ST would have somewhat more of an excuse than LOTF! Also LOTF didn't just act as if NJO hadn't happened, it actively reversed much of it, after DN had twisted it into a bust pretzel shape! In comparison just not mentioning NJO would be positively benign!

 

Very true.