BTS New info regarding Midiclorian debate: GL initially felt that anyone could learn the Force

Maybe this sounds weird, but before the prequels I think I had the impression Yoda just always lived on Dagobah. The Emperor and Vader didn't go after him because they didn't ever meet him and didn't know where he was (Vader only says "Obi-Wan has taught you well" and while Yoda does mention things about Anakin's personality he could have just been watching through the Force like he did with Luke).

It seemed like there could be two kinds of Jedi, maybe. Some might be gurus who sat at the top of mountains contemplating the universe, while others were more active, like samurai or ronin. Yoda was a guru, while Ben was a general (in the Alderaan navy during the Clone Wars, it seemed).

Not that this is particularly relevant to how things were actually portrayed in the actual prequels.

 

To be fair-the ROTJ novel makes it pretty explicit that Palpatine knows who Yoda is. Don't think that would be the case if Yoda was just some obscure hermit.

 

Which brings up the question of just how much license the authors of the novelisations were allowed - to my knowledge, nothing in any draft screenplays, or anything GL said around the time (including these new quotes), indicates that Vader or Palpatine had any knowledge of Yoda at all.

 

That's interesting...I'd always assumed the novels were pretty much copied verbatim from a slightly older script draft than the shooting one.

Then again, the ROTJ novel actually seems to be trying to be a book of its own pretty regularly throughout the narrative. It's more akin to the prequel novels than the ANH and TESB novels, IMO.

 

That's true to a certain extent, hence why deleted scenes and the like end up in them, or why Red Squadron is called Blue Squadron in the novelisation of SW/ANH.

However, from all the ones I've read, the authors do develop things a bit further than what's in the script as far as the inner workings of the characters are concerned, as a lot of that isn't in the script. Along with that, they shuffle things around a bit to suit the medium better.
As a result, you end up with these little conceits/creations of the authors that have been approved or overlooked by GL & LFL over the years.

And yes, the ROTJ novel took things considerably further than the previous two. TPM was actually better than the film in some ways, it really gave a new dimension to the characters of Obi-Wan, Anakin and even Jar-Jar.

 

I actually rather dislike the TPM novel-it feels very, mmm, unenergetic to me; not entirely sure why, but I've never been too huge a fan of it, especially the duel at the end; Brooks seems compelled to explain the duel like he's a commentator at Wimbledon or something. AOTC and ROTS were good extrapolations that put extra stuff in places where it doesn't really affect pacing too much-Obi-Wan's wonderings about Jango in hyperspace, for example.

 

I never actually got around to the AOTC & ROTS novelisations, although I did read a quote online (? flicking through in a bookstore?) from ROTS where Anakin reflects upon how "this is what it feels like to be Anakin Skywalker" after he's in the suit. Seemed pretty intense, but my reading list backlog has been stupidly long for years, and right now my missus is on my case to get through all the Game of Thrones novels so we can actually talk about what happens after the events of Season 3 of the TV series. I'm never going to finish that Robert Altman bio or Hemingway's For Whom the Bell Tolls at this rate.

First World problems...

 

The ROTS novel is insanely intense and very, very good. And yeah, Anakin's final scene in the suit is just incredible. Nearly made my mom cry when I read it to her

 

To be honest, I dislike the ROTS novel. Author Matthew Stover unnecessarily dragged some of the storylines. It was like reading a sci-fi version of a Dan Brown novel. And his attempts to overcome his idealization of Obi-Wan never really worked for me.

 

I love these "GL said" flaps that pop up periodically. Clearly, by the time GL had finalized the "Jedi" script, Force powers were hereditary:

Luke: The Force is strong in my family. I have it. May father has it. My sister has it...

 

It's not that "clear." We've been discussing it for months (years? decades?)

 

I guess it's a matter of interpretation. I always read it to mean that Force ability was hereditary; I wasn't at all surprised by TPM, it made sense in context. And apart from a few deviations, most of the Marvel & Dark Horse comics, and the Bantam Era pre-prequel books, made the same assumptions. There's really no telling whether GL was utterly convinced that anyone could use the Force for a week or two before thinking, "Nah, I need to come up with something less nebulous." The story conference transcript only tells us what happened in that particular story conference.

 

It's also that there aren't necessarily just two possibilities. A third one that it seems several people here are fond of revolves around modeling Force attunedness as like a talent or inborn predilection. If you're born with the genes and epigenetics to grow to 8 feet tall, it'd be easier for you to become a pro basketball player than someone who's 4 feet tall. However, that doesn't mean they couldn't become one, and it also doesn't mean that you are guaranteed to become one. Force ability could be like that.

 

Is there any other family, aside from the Skywalkers, in which the Force passes from parent to offspring?

 

In the EU, there are lots, because in the Bantam era it was just assumed that that was normal. The Horns/Halcyons, etc.

 

The Sunriders in TOTJ. There's a whole slew, I can't even remember them all offhand.

 

What's TOTJ?

 

Tales of the Jedi - set 4-5 thousand years BBY.

 

How does that line in JEDI exclude other people? If it did, they'd just encourage all the jedi to be banging each other all the time, otherwise how else are they going to get any new ones? It'd be CALIGULA in that temple.

 

I'm happy that George turned his back on that story element. Otherwise, it wouldn't make the Jedi special.

 

So...having the capacity for working at something, being committed to something is not 'special', only being genetically pre-destined to some action or role should be regarded as 'special'?

 

When I say "special" I mean in a sense that it sets the Jedi apart from others.

IMO it's a much better explanation than what Obi-Wan told Luke how "It's an energy field created by all living things". If it really surrounds "all living things", how come Han Solo can't use it? If, in Yoda's words, "reaches from the land, to the rock, to the ship", how come R2-D2 can't use it?

It's not just a simple matter of "believing" in the Force. While it's true The Force is worshiped by some (Dodona and Ackbar), not everyone does. It's in the same way that just because people believe in a God, that doesn't mean they have to live their life in accordance to Christianity. So while some believe in the Force, that doesn't automatically mean they can become a Force user and start moving crap with their mind.

 

You are confusing issues here and being a little inconsistent in doing so. Believing in God (ie Christianity etc) involves no belief that one will gain great powers (except through the power of prayer, to Saints etc. - ie through the 'grace' or contrivance of another, 'special' one). The Force is, according to Yoda in the OT, a field that surrounds us all (among other things) and individuals can access and use this field. It is that one must have faith, and also that one must work at and be committed to this course that enables Force use. I don't see what is complicated about that. Is R2-D2 shown as being committed to learning it? Is Han Solo? What about Leia? We're told she is 'strong in the Force' and yet, she does not use it - in the same way Han Solo does not. Nor, for that matter, does Luke until he is taught how to; until he commits to and has faith in it.

But, you have not really addressed the question. I am aware that you meant "sets the Jedi apart from others" when you said 'special'; what I asked was, why is it more 'special' to be genetically pre-destined to a role or action than to be committed to/have faith in/work at a role or action? In what way does genetic pre-destiny set someone (individual or group) apart from others more than someone's effort/faith/commitment ?

 

I think it'd likewise be pretty weak if the soccer energy field only chooses one family to bless with the best balling talents on the eve of the biggest game of the season. I'd rather see a whole team selected from all walks of life than the coaches deciding a brother/sister combo are the only remaining soccer talent capable of lifting a cup.