Discussions Expanded Universe contradictions

I opened this thread to discuss the contradictions present in the various stories of the Expanded Universe and to offer explanations to solve them. Every time someone realizes the existence of contradictions present in the Expanded Universe, we will report them here and each of us will offer a possible explanation to solve the contradiction that has been reported. Obviously TCW doesn’t count, because if we were to report all the contradictions that exist because of TCW then we would never end.

 

So is this trying to make legends and cannon work together?

if so

 

No. It's impossible for the Expanded Universe and the current Canon to coexist, and for this there is already a thread. Since there are some contradictions in the different Expanded Universe media, my goal is to talk about these contradictions and offer explanations to solve them in a simple and reasonable way. For example, in the Thrawn Trilogy it's said that the Clone Wars were a conflict where the Republic fought against a Clone Army, which obviously contradicts the Prequels. But this apparent contradiction can easily be explained with the Republic comics, in wich the Republic actually fights against an Army of Clones created by the Separatists on Seleucami.

 

Right

 

That's unfortunate that we can't talk about TCW. That's my favorite part of the EU.

 

We can’t talk about TCW because the series contradicts 80% of the Expanded Universe, and if we had to talk about all the contradictions created by TCW we would never end. Besides, the contradictions created by the series are well known to everyone, so it is not necessary to talk about this either.

 

Should we talk about Denning!Jacen the living retcon ?

 

Yep.

 

How would you resolve the contradictions between Labyrinth of Evil and the Tartakovsky's series?

 

What's tartakovsky series?

 

The OG Clone Wars series of 2003.

 

I think the contradictions between LoE and The last few CW episodes can be explained as different parts of the battle, that all happened just in a certain order.

 

KOTOR 2 and SWTOR

 

All explainable with the "certain point of view" reasoning, the tellings of Revan's fall and motivations are from people who don't have all the information same with what SWTOR material shows us, we never get inside Revan's head while he's a Sith, we never learn if he's really "controlled" by Vitiate or just making the Galaxy stronger to face him in spite of Vitiate's corruption of his soul, and we don't even know how much of that corruption was already there when Vitiate got a hold of him, from the accounts on KOTOR I and II, he was already quite dark due to his actions during the war, and Vitiate merely pushed him further to the dark, enough for him to become a Sith.

 

If the founding members of the Rebel Alliance were on the First Death Star in TFU, how is it that in Episode IV no member of the Rebellion knew of the existence of the Death Star? I know many of you like to ignore the existence of TFU, but I don’t, and I’m actually one of those few people who always defend the validity of the video game's plot (although I prefer the novelization). So I’d like to know how to resolve this contradiction XD.

 

We know the Rebellion do know of the Death Star in Episode IV, because it begins with them having stolen its plans in the hope of finding a weakness.

 

The greatest contradiction in that game is that Bail Organa is arrested as a rebel, and even openly admits to being one in front of Palpatine. And yet he still gets to lead Aldreaan for another year and his daughter is able to be a Senator without any issue. If he had at least tried to feign innocence and claimed he had nothing to do with Mon Mothma or Bel Iblis, or even better if Starkiller had prevented his capture as the meeting blew up, it would be a tad more believable but like that? Its just dumb.

It just requires an insane leap of logic, in that even if we assume Palpatine somehow decided to pradon Organa, it would be baffeling that he would still send Leia to the Senate, instead of instantly hiding this child of Anakin Skywalker, now that Palpatine surely knows that he is not to be trusted.

Though to be fair that massive plot hole already existited with RotS when Bail is part of the Delegation of 2000. That means he openly stood against Palpatine from day 1. When the entire lore surrounding him was actually that in contrast all the other later rebel Senators he always played the loyalist to Palpatine until the end. Which is also why the destruction of Alderaan caused this extreme outcry, because to the outside galaxy it had always been considered an imperial loyalist world.

Like its really a contradiction surrounding Bail how much of an opponent to Palpatine he was.

 

You could claim that, for Palpatine's purposes, there was no point in disposing of Bail if he couldn't get the rest of the Rebellion as well, so he played the long game and waited until the Death Star was completed to have it be the end of the Rebellion, we know from Canon at least that the superweapon could have an effect of making some Rebels give up their fight and lose hope, on top of it already being impenetrable and overpowering, he could hold Alderaan by gunpoint and just be done with it, basically, the Death Star was something that, to his eyes, the Rebels couldn't do anything against, he would have already won the war if he finished it, thus, he allowed for Bail to oppose him publicly until it was time.

It's still stupid how they let that slip, though, and this certainly doesn't explain the rest of the Imperials being ok with it, but then again, Bail's involvement with the Rebels wasn't public in the end of TFU, most Imperials don't know about the leaders of the Alliance, as the events on the Death Star were mostly a secret.

 

The Bail Organa plot hole in The Force Unleashed honestly completely destroys the plot of the game for me. As much as I love it, The Force Unleashed just doesn't work in the same continuity as the rest of the Expanded Universe or even the films for me. It does bug me that the plot hole isn't talked about more, despite how it makes absolutely no sense why Bail would then be on Alderaan during the events of A New Hope if Palpatine knew he was a traitor and was going to have him publicly executed. I feel like there are no explanations that doesn't make Palpatine look incredibly incompetent.

 

Neither really makes sense though because...

a. It wasn't Palpatine who decided to destroy Alderaan with the Death Star. It was Tarkin, who did it without telling the Emperor first or getting his approval. So there isn't any evidence suggesting that Palpatine always planned to use the Death Star on Alderaan.
b. If Palpatine 'didn't see the need to stir up sympathy' then he wouldn't have planned on publicly executing him and the other rebel leaders at the end of The Force Unleashed, which would have risked stirring up sympathy then by turning Bail into a martyr.

Even then, if Bail knew that Palpatine knew that he was a traitor why would be be on Alderaan during A New Hope? That would put his homeworld and his family in more danger. If The Force Unleashed really happened, then Bail would have been in hiding. Not hosting dinner for Imperials on Alderaan shortly before the events of A New Hope.

 

How about the Rogue One answer - he travelled to Alderaan purely to tell the populace that the Civil War had started and that any hopes of peace had gone out the window?


Despite what the others say, war is inevitable.
Yes, I agree. I must return to Alderaan to inform my people that there will be no peace. We will need every advantage.
Your friend, the Jedi.
He served me well during the Clone Wars and has lived in hiding since the Emperor's purge. Yes, I will send for him.


The way it happened in Legends was different (attack was elsewhere) but the same principle may apply - tell the Alderaanians what they need to know.

 

There's still that story taking place shortly before the events of A New Hope where he's hosting a dinner on Alderaan for Commodore Tion.

 

Well, the fact that Tarkin decided to destroy the planet doesn’t automatically mean the Emperor didn’t want to destroy it too. Like it or not, in Star Wars there is not only the Force, from time to time there are also coincidences. It is perfectly possible that Palpatine would have ordered the destruction of Alderaan in any case, but that by chance the actions of Tarkin and the plans of the Emperor came to coincide, and therefore Tarkin ordered the destruction of the planet (which was in Palpatine's plans) even without consulting Palpatine directly. Also, Palpatine believed that the Death Star would end the Galactic Civil War and the Rebellion, so the fact that he left Bail Organa free makes perfect sense. He believed that the Rebellion would be defeated and exterminated through the use of the Death Star, so he probably thought it was useless to carry out a murderous action against the senator, simply because he thought he would die anyway at a later time, through the use of the Death Star and the extermination of the Rebellion. It may seem a ridiculous explanation that makes Palpatine look incompetent, but it must also be taken into account that, as the imperial officers will later recognize after the Civil War, the power had gone to his head and the use of the Dark Side was turning him into an incompetent and a blind man, who could not recognize the real dangers to the Empire.

 

Except that is contradicted by the game itself. Palpatine was going to have Bail Organa publicly executed before the rebel leaders were rescued by Starkiller. So no, it doesn't make sense that he left Bail Organa free or thought it would be useless to carry out any murderous action against the senator. Because if he intended to use the Death Star all along, he wouldn't have intended to execute the rebel leaders. He was fully willing to go through with killing them, despite any potential backlash or the possibility of turning them into martyrs. So I don't buy it.