Trash Compactor

A Tale of Two Greedos

Abel Pena: First, "greedy Greedo" appears in the Episode I Anakin Skywalker flap book, so he's definitely there. The weirder thing is that in Anakin's Journal, *Wald* is the Rodian Anakin gets in a fight with. Worse, in the script after Greedo gets his ass kicked by Anakin, he goes to talk to Wald. Weird. Anyone got ideas?

Dan Wallace: The phrase "greedy Greedo" triggered my recollection of this classic piece that originally ran in the Harvard Lampoon. I first saw it posted online back in 1994 and saved it; it makes me laugh every time I see it. I haven't seen it posted since then, so it's possible people on this list have never read it. In that case, enjoy.

Gary Tucker: I believe in the Wizard TPM #1/2 comic, Anakin fights with Wald over the cheating accusation.

Pablo Hidalgo: Firstly, the inclusion of a 'greedy Greedo' in one flap of one kid's book hardly makes it definitive that Greedo is in the film.

Abel: Er ... it does for me. :-)

Pablo: It has more to do with Lucas using the term 'Greedo' because he's unfamiliar with the term Rodian (like Yobanas for Twi'leks too).

Abel: You're right, but that's like saying "I think 'desk' really means ‘hairball'," proceeding to use it in a sentence, and expecting people to interpret it the way you do:

"Look! The cat coughed up a desk!"

What George meant is one thing; what he communicated is another. Lucas doesn't know about "Rodian," but that doesn't stop it from being a problem. But that's beside the point anyway. I agree that this Greedo isn't the same as the Veitch one, and I think he works well to reconcile the alternate Greedo entry in the Movie Tril SB.

GhentZ: Yeah, I'd go along with that, but I don't understand the analogy Greedo: Rodian, Yobana: Twi'lek. That just doesn't make sense to me, especially given the fact that Watto says that very word (Yobana) in Huttese when he tells Anakin to tell his friend to stop betting or he'll own him too. I haven't bothered to actually go about figuring out which word translates to Yobana, but I defaulted to friend for some odd reason. Probably way off.

Abel: I hadn't noticed Watto saying anything like that till you mentioned it. Unfortunately, the phrase is "o wanna," not Yobana. Too bad, would've been a good fix.

Pablo: Secondly, even if the Rodian punk that teases Anakin is named Greedo, I refuse to believe that he's the Greedo that will later accost Han.

GhentZ: Hehehe, okay.

Pablo: I prefer Greedo being a hot-headed 19 year old. Not a totally inept 40+ year old.

GhentZ: I'd definitely go along with that. Especially because of the short story in the Mos Eisley anthology.

Pablo: If I have to, I'll just adopt a 'common name' defense, and say it's another guy named Greedo. And before anyone asks, 'what are the odds of two Rodians named Greedo?', I ask what are the odds of Mr. bounty hunter Greedo fighting with lil Darth Vader when they were kids?

Dan Wallace: About as good as lil Darth Vader creating future odds-quoting Threepio from a home-built erector set. "Never tell me the odds!" On the one hand, I don't doubt that Lucas has no knowledge of the term Rodian and is using "Greedo" as a species placeholder. On the other hand, I think he's ALSO intending THIS Greedo to be THE Greedo, as evidenced by the yuk-yuk line, "If you keep this up, you're going to come to a bad end, Greedo."

On the OTHER other hand, I agree with Pablo that we should do everything in our power to disassociate the ANH Greedo from the TPM cut-scene Greedo. The universe is small enough as it is.

James McFadden: Y'know, I remember hearing that scene was cut and wondering why they took it out! It's be a great way to show Anakin's got a temper. Still, hearing the Greedo aspect of it, I'm glad they removed. It makes me wonder if the Greedo thing made George think it was stupid and decide to cut it.

This should be a lesson about cut scenes. Directors and movie-makers tend to have reasons for cutting scenes. Who knows? Maybe other cut scenes just didn't work. Still, I wouldn't have minded a FEW Jar Jar scenes cut. The gaseous Eopie comes to mind...

Drew Cambell: How about Greedo as a family name? Ah, screw it... how many Antilles are there? Two seperate Rodians... I'd rather the name be different, but oh well. Dan: Okay, Abel was looking for ammunition to support the fact that Greedo was the guy in the cut scene and had the Anakin Flap Book as evidence. Abel, the Yoda's Challenge game also features the following little story, as told by Anthony Daniels:

"Anakin and Greedo had a fight. Qui-Gon asked Anakin to tell him about the fight. Anakin said that Greedo called him a cheater. Qui-Gon replied that fighting does not change people's minds."

Back to the top of the page

Midi-chlorians and the Force

Mark Hudson: I'm one of those who hate the Midi Chlorians, but there was an interesting article about them in Today's Boston Globe.

Adrian Ringin: Put my name on that list under yours, Mark. Star Wars is not the real world. One of its great strengths is - or rather, was - that it contained two distinct elements, the 'real-world' aspects of technology and politics existing alongside the mystical elements of the Force. Irrespective of real-world biology, bringing midi-chlorians into the SW universe does mess with the mysticism, and seems to make the characters in some sense pawns of the midi-chlorians.

Previously the appeal of the Force was that it was value free, it was not a judge or commander, simply a resource. Choice and responsibility lay with the Force-user. Now, with the Force apparently possessing a 'will', and its servants the midi-chlorians seemingly able to physically intervene in the universe (by concieving Anakin, for example) the mystical aspect of the SW universe has been altered, and, I would argue, damaged.

Midichlorians would be fine in a series such as Star Trek, (which I like, btw) but they do not belong in Star Wars. They seem to reduce the mysticism that was so important just to technobabble.

Helen Keier: Adrian, I couldn't agree with you more. One of the things that appealed to me about Star Wars as I grew older was the mysticism, especially as I began to question my own religious beliefs and practices. I grew up in a mixed tradition household, but firmly within the Judeo-Christian ethic. However, with adulthood, I questioned and I began to feel that the Judeo-Christian tradition is far too value laden, not to mention the entrenched prejudices that one system was better than the other, women were subservient, etc. The Force however, presented an alternative, another way of thinking about things. It simply "was", without needing man to determine what it was. The light side of the Force honored a respect for life in all it's forms that was not tied to man made (or in this case, organism made) concepts. All beings were equal, and the Force (or one's belief in it) represented a connection to the Universe was largely based how one chose to be a part of it, even if as an individual one could not "feel" it.

Now that has all been degraded in some way. The midi-cholarians had the opposite effect on the Star Wars mythos than what Lucas intended it to be - a morality tale for the modern age. Where is the morality, the essential goodness in beings, if the connection one is supposed to strive for is the result of organisms present in one's body, in a parasitic relationship. I know it's symbiotic, but I don't see the difference - symbiotic implies a mutually beneficial arrangement, and that's not the impression I get about the presence of midi-chorians. How do sentients benefit if they are essential controlled - born even - because of the presence of these organisms?

Jeff: I still don't think they take away the mysticism of SW. They are symbionts who are open to the Force, and they also open their host to the force making them Force-sensitive. But the Force is still a mystical force. The only difference is instead of an individual being directly in in contact with it, some parasites in his blood are. I think it's an even better way of explaining the Force. I don't think it was common knowledge to the average Zev. Only Jedi knew about MCs. That's why everyone forgot about them in the SW4-6 era.

Dan: I realize that arguing about midichlorians is like punching the tar baby, but one thing that is surprising to me is that folks who hate the midis generally also hate the Virgin Birth. That surprises me, since the two things seem to be coming from opposite ends of the spectrum. If the midis are demystifying the Force, then all this talk of prophecies and Chosen Ones and Virgin Births seem to be MYSTIFYING (new word?) the Force far more than it ever was in the original trilogy.

Adrian: I think when you look at both these changes to the Force, it seems to have moved more into a modern, western, Christian, entity than it ever was before. The scientific quantifiability of Force-strength and the Christian overtones - divinely concieved chosen one, etc, seem to make the Force more culturally and historically specific. Before, it had great strength in its generality. Mike (Beidler) once described GL as acting as a "jack of all faiths", and I think this was correct.

It was wise of GL, as it allowed people to project what they wished unto the force - when you walked into the cinema, you would see what you took in with you.

Now, I don't think this is the case anymore. The Force has a 'will' which seems to imply a consciousness or personality on its part. Previously, there was no suggestion of this. And re: Anakin's birth, yes, there were many ancient stories of the gods fathering children mysteriously that bear similarities with the New Testament account of Jesus' birth. But as Anakin is apparently supposed to be a messiah of some kind, it seems clear GL is using Christianity more heavily now. Besides, when Shmi says 'there was no father', the vast majority of people will not think of Greco-Roman myths.

Even leaving aside concerns some Christians have had with GL's use of this, I think it weakens the concept of the Force as universal.

Abel: Really, if you think about it, for all basic purposes midi-chlorians don't even exist, because they themselves are mysterious. So they tell you the "will" of the Force ... and? It's like talking to your conscience. There have to be "good" and "bad" midi-chlorians, or at least good and evil intents of the Force being communicated, it still balances out.

Adrian: I'm not sure it balances out. It seems to become a horrible mess. Did Palp's purge came from his bad midichlorians whispering dark things in his ear? The fact the Force has a will (and the power and inclination to make things happen) alters the SW universe in a bad way. It needlessly complicates things and forces us to interpret characters actions (and in some cases existence) in a whole new way.

Abel: I don't think the implication was that MCs control your mind or actions -- the Force-user him or herself has gotta decide on what advice to take from the midi's. Besides, we don't even know how the communication works between Jedi and MCs, could be the Jedi are just interpreting this really symbolic sort of language the midis use to communicate.

Adrian: The midichlorians certainly control people - if mysteriously making someone pregnant isn't some sort of control, I don't know what it. The old view "yes, but it also obeys your commands" seems to have changed. Then, the Forces control over your actions only served the interest of the Force-user - like helping aim a torpedo, or guide a saber. Whatever the Force-user wanted help in, the Force could provide. Now, the Force has a will, and plans, and the ability to interfere in the universe. Obi-Wans comment in ANH that it partially controls actions has to be reinterpreted, I think.

Jason Presley: Hmm...now midichlorians are sounding suspiciously like the Infinity Gems in Marvel Comics. At first they were just tools of power, but later they were revealed to be sentient life forms in their own right. Now we just need to see Adam Warlock and Thanos in a future issue of Star Wars or Star Wars Tales...

Joe: I wholeheartedly (and respectfully) disagree with most of your [Adrian’s] points. While not overtly stated, the Classic trilogy has always implied that the Force has a 'will' so to speak of, in that both Ben and Yoda, the "good guys", become at one with the Force. Obi Wan is even able to both communicate with and direct Luke on his course (and if you want to talk about intervening in someone's actions, recall Obi Wan's behaviour in Splinter of the Mind's Eye where he literally takes over Luke's body to aid him in defeating Vader!). The bad guys either go off into oblivion or disintegrate into miserable spectral figures trapped within tombs (as witnessed in DE II). In order for these events to occur (good guys-becoming powerful spirits, bad guys- simply dying or suffering further), strongly implies Intelligence behind the Force.

And I do agree that the Force now seems less universal and more thematically Judeo/Christian. In no other tradition are the precepts of good and evil so clearly defined as in Biblical Christianity. But unlike you, I don't view that as a bad thing. Yes, I'm admittedly biased. I am a Christian, and I've always viewed the Force as a sort of parable for many of the Judeo/Christian concepts...

With TPM is Lucas more strongly implying that the Force utilizes "judgment" on some level? It certainly appears so. But why is that so bad? And how is that new? The Force has never been "value free". Anger, fear, aggression = Dark Side. Message - Those who engage in such behaviour are bad, evil, corrupt!! It doesn't get any clearer than that. That the Force acts in the role of a wise judge, similar to the role of the Judeo/Christian Creator, has also been in evidence since the first film. One sterling example is Anakin's redemption, where Anakin is seemingly "forgiven" by the Force, for his past crimes. It was some of the fans, in fact, who said that Vader was too evil to be "saved just like that". Their viewpoint, while valid, can be interpreted as somewhat judgmental and condemnatory, in marked contrast to the way in which the Force is portrayed as merciful in its decision to accept Vader as having atoned. Regardless of who you agree with, some kind of determination is being made as to the merits of an individual's character and behaviour within the framework of a society. Judgment is necessarily involved.

That doesn't mean that the Force controls the individual, rendering choice and responsibility invalid. Anakin again is the perfect example of this. If indeed he was created by the Force, then he is a clear demonstration that Free Will still reigns in each individual. No one has to follow the Will of the Force. For whatever reason, Anakin later chose not to follow its Will (unless of course, my suspicions are correct that the Will of the Force is to do away with the Pharasaical Jedi Council that has grown to big for its britches, but for that we'll have to wait and see).

Does this new understanding of the Force "damage", "de-mystify" or "weaken" the concept of it? I don't think so. I believe it strengthens and empowers the Force by giving it personality and conciousness and a drive to undo the evils perpetrated by Greed, Lust and Selfishness. It doesn't prevent the evils from occurring, but rather strives to aid those who attempt to stamp it out. The message of the Force, of the film, and of Lucas is simple and clear: Engage in Virtuous pursuits, though the path may be difficult, and you will be rewarded by Virtues' fruits. Pursue a selfish course, the easy road taken by many, and you and everyone around you will suffer. This in fact, is the very message, albeit pared down, offered by Biblical Judeo/Christian thought.... I understand that that may not be appealing to some. Many nowadays like to feel that they are accountable to no one but themselves.

The Force, therefore, aught to represent nothing more than a symbol of a tool available for people to use when they discipline their minds. It should not represent God, or any kind of moral order since that inhibits the so called freedom that many imagine they enjoy.

Ok, let's take this a little bit deeper...

I personally think that this is how the Sith look at the Force. The Jedi are weak in their eyes because they submit and humble themselves to the Force, obeying principles that govern their use of it, and thereby, allow the Force to direct them.

The Sith on the other hand, view the Force as nothing more than an existing power to be utilized at will for their own purposes, as they see fit. No boundaries are place on their usage of it.

Both groups claim they know the true nature of the Force.

The portrayal in the four films (and comics and books, etc.) so far indicates that the Jedi concept is the correct one. Therefore, what is the filmmaker trying to say? From the interviews I've seen, Lucas consider himself somewhat old-fashioned, a Christian, who likewise pays attention to the wise sayings found in Eastern philosophy (such as Buddhism). Since it's obvious that these films are something more than the average vacuous form of entertainment, is Lucas trying to teach kids (as well as adults) that a) there is a God, and b) it benefits us to govern our lives in accordance with the moral laws that accompany belief in God? It seems to me that he is, and that this is one of the reasons why some deride his films. For all their faults, the good guys, Obi Wan, Qui Gon, Amidala/ Padme, young Anakin, Shmi, Yoda, even Luke, Han and Leia, are noble, virtuous characters who's positive traits far outweigh their bad ones. These are not characters (particular those in TPM) that most people can easily relate to these days. The heroes of the majority of today's films are for whatever reason dark, brooding, scarred, with a hidden past and ambiguous ambitions. Often they are seen as lustful, possessing disturbing appetites and a troubling code of ethics that includes violence as a regular and casual routine of life.

Of course, there may be some value in certain ones of these types of films, but I personally prefer Star Wars because it's so free of that. It is clean, and though I hate to use this word, wholesome. The darkness is certainly there, but it is eventually shown for what it is and finally defeated. Good triumphs and wins the day. Perhaps that's not realistic enough for some. But in this bleak and cold world, SW emerges as a beacon to remind us that hope exists, along with the ability to triumph in the face of adversity. And isn't that how life aught to be in the first place?

Back to the top of the page

Han Solo and the Treasure of Yavin 4

Joe Bongiorno I've been desperately trying again to see if I could reconcile these SW kids mags that some of you seem so bent on including on your timelines. Well, I've come to the following conclusions:

SW kids #6-10: 'X-wing marks the spot' is perfectly fine for inclusion and I've proceeded to put it back on my timeline.

I really, really tried to make issues 1-5 work. But there's just so much working against them.

Problem #1: Han says he gave his reward money back to the Rebels. In Marvel, issue 7, he's got crates of credits he's loading onto the Falcon to bring to Jabba which is all stolen later on by Crimson Jack. Likewise, in Classic SW, while being kidnapped by Raskar, Luke asks Han what happened to the reward money given him by Leia. Han says he lost it. Which he did... to Crimson Jack. But it indicates that Luke knows nothing about Han giving any kind of reward money back to the Alliance, which in SW Kids #1, Luke is witness to. He even discusses with Leia what a nice gesture it was for Han to give his reward money back!!!!

Abel: Maybe he just took some more of that loot he and Chewie had seemingly left behind.

Joe: Hmm... alright, but it still doesn't explain why Luke would ask Han what he did with his reward money when in Rebel Thief he knows Han gave it back. Let's think... Unless Luke knew that Han sold some of the treasure, got money back from it, which Han says he's keeping in lieu of the reward money he gave back. Therefore, the remaining credits is practically Han's reward (although to himself). Leia says to Han, "I guess you deserve it after helping us fund our new X-wings. Consider it our reward to you," to which Han caustically replies, "Thanks alot, sweetheart!"

Problem #2: Han finds this enormous treasure, sells it for quite a bit, and then entrusts half of it to some shady trader to give to Jabba!!!!! There is no way on Kobol's moon that Han would trust ANYONE with that much money (let alone some trader that Han barely knows), especially when he could just as easily deliver it to Jabba himself. It's totally out of character and defies logic.

Abel: But that's not a reason to throw out the comic. Look at Bounty Hunter Wars and Leia's many love-affairs while Han's on ice.

Joe: Bounty Hunter Wars is a bad example. That's like marginal continuity. I think Dengar told the story, drunk out of his mind! Leia on the other hand is totally in character. Pent-up, lonely, repressed, depressed, doing things for 'the cause' - Leia was busting at the seems, desperate for an outlet to her emotional side which she kept buried. But I get your point. It's not enough reason to throw it out. I have to assume that there are factors which are not evident to us.

Problem #3: Essentially Jabba gets paid. End of story. Rider has Jabba take the money and then, for no apparant reason, continue the bounty on Han's head. Not for nothing, but I just don't buy it.

Abel: Silly yeah, but again, seems more like a personal objection than a continuity problem.

Joe: Well, it raises the question, why if Han believes he paid Jabba, is he leaving the Alliance in issue 7, to go and pay Jabba??????

It was really a poorly thought out story thread. NEVER does Han, in the numerous times he deals with bounty hunters and even Jabba himself, indicate that he's been wronged because he's already paid Jabba. And he certainly would have said something if he did. As a matter of a fact, Han says to Jabba in ROTJ that he was just on his way to pay him and that he now has the money. He doesn't say, "I paid you 500,000! Sprool gave it to you, you just refuse to acknowledge it."

Abel: He probably already had this whole Sprool conversation with Jabba after he made that deal with him in ish #28. :-) Jabba probably denied that Sprool ever even came to him.

Joe: Now that could work. But again why does Han (in issue 7) leave to pay Jabba when he knows he already paid him??

Problem #4: Another logistics problem. There was over 500,000 credits worth of treasure in the one crate he sold to Sprool, and likely the same in the other. Ryder seems to have forgotten that Han had instructed Chewie to fill up as much as he could which amounted to only those two crates worth of treasure. There was still a ton of it that they could not fit sitting in the vault untouched and unguarded!!! Han would never have to worry about money again! Nor the Alliance. Even if Jabba wanted another 500,000 credits, Han could easily have tapped into some of the remaining treasure and payed him back. Yet the treasure is never mentioned again! Think about it, right there on Yavin, all that time, sits hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars in credits that neither Han nor Chewie nor any of the Rebels ever think to go back and use. Again, it's just another example of sloppy writing on Windham's part to leave a giant dangling plot thread like that. No offense to the guy, he seems like a pleasant sort of cap. But all of this reinforces my stance that at least issues 1-5 of SW kids cannot be made to fit into established continuity.

Abel: The number of containers the treasure was stored in is never shown in an unbroken shot, meaning that though we only see two crates at most (though I think it's actually three), the rest can easily be "off-screen" and when I look at the panels, I think that's clearly the implication. Furthermore, Leia asks Han what he did with "the treasure," and Han says he sold it. That, IMO, can be interpreted as the whole treasure, and I don't think that's a stretch at all, and is in fact Ryder's intent. Maybe Han & Chewie pocketed some on the side (which wouldn't be out of character), and that's what Crimson Jack later picked up. If the problem then becomes why did they get paid so little for seemingly so much treasure, then we can institute the diminishing value clause, best exemplified by the value of Xim's treasure vaults (no wonder Han & Chewie hate treasure hunts).

Joe: You make some valid points. So Jack stole the credits that Han received from selling the treasure on Yavin 4... Hmmm... not bad. Again we're forced to say that Han is calling this treasure his "reward" because that's the terminology he and everyone else uses to refer to it (in issue 7 and in Classic SW).

Admittedly this is all a stretch, but it's not sounding too convoluted, I don't think.... What do the rest of you think? Maybe I will put it back in... Well, regardless, Imperial Spy and Death Star Pirates are still out. Thila or no Thila, there's no way on Kobol's Moon those can be rectified with CSW's Escape to Hoth... (not without a thick manual anyway.)

Don't get me started on "Imperial Spy" and "Death Star Pirates"! :)

Jeff Boivin: Very good points. Unfortunately, in X-Wing marks the spot they mention the previous adventure and the treasure. So if you leave out the other three, leave this one out as well.

Who??? Yeah, but so does the Missions book #16 I think... I don't mind the fact that there was a treasure on Yavin 4, or that Q7N was guarding it, but the story that details it is simply too contradictory to accept as having happened in the way it's been told. I don't want to lose the Missions books either, so fans will just have to accept take for granted that a treasure was found on Yavin.

Chaz LiBretto: Well, my outline was this:

Han gets the award money for rescuing Leia from the DS...then a month later, he loses part of it on Ord Mantell in a Sabacc game. He still has a little left and gives it to the Alliance, since it was a meager amount that he couldnt have used to pay Jabba off with. He discovers the treasure gives it to Sprool. He gives it to Sprool because he has to get back to Yavin immediately for his next mission. When the bounty isn't called off, Han decides that Sprool never payed Jabba off and tries to get more money (the Alliance uses the rest of the treasure to re-build their fleet (buying all sorts of capital ships that we see later on...after all, how could the Alliance go from not being able to afford a few starfighters, to having thousands of capital ships on Endor? After aquiring the new starfighters and temporarily leaving Yavin, he goes on a mission for the ALliance (Marvel # 50) and for his troubles is rewarded handsomely. Unfortunately this treasure is stolen from him by Crimson Jack!

Joe: Hmmm... I see your point. So basically, it's not pretty, but it's workable. Not crazy about the Ord Mantell part (is that from Scoundrel's Luck?), but the rest of it seems fine. I like the idea that Han had to get back to Yavin immediately to go on his next mission, which would likely be the one in SWKids 6-10. So he's forced to trust Sprool. Ok maybe Sprool had proved himself in the past. Whatever, the main point here is that Han gets rewarded for the mission in issue 50, which implies of course that he isn't officially a part of the Alliance yet, just sort of an independent contracter. I guess then that he doesn't really "join" until after issue 7. Interesting. That explains why Luke would ask Han what he did with his reward money. Luke meant the money from Han's mission in issue 50, not from the Battle of Yavin, which he saw Han give back. Ok, so as far as the treasure goes, the Alliance takes the remaining portion of it (which would explain how they could afford to pay Han for the mission in issue 50) and buys all sorts of neat ships and things, and feeds and clothes their volunteer Rebels. I wish Ryder had been a little more explicit about this, but ok, I'm convinced enough to put SW Kids 1-5 back. Again, it's messy, but not as terribly convoluted as I thought it might be. Thanks guys.

Back to the top of the page