Talk:Netherworld of the Force
this wiki
Back to page
Contents |
Article name
Edit
Shouldn't this really be the "netherworld of the Force"? Which is what Yoda referred to in ROTS. VT-16 10:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Sure, why not. —Silly Dan (talk) 14:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- I am wondering, is this what Yoda saw in the third season of the Clone Wars Cartoon?? I know it was Dagobah and all, but it had Qui Gon, and it was foggy, so I dunno.... --Sauron18 16:46 26 June 2006 (CDT)
Sources or Appearances?Edit
Does it really count as an appearance if it's not really an appearance, and is just mentioned? Do RotS and Heir to the Empire really count as Appearances for the Netherworld? Randy Starkiller 23:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- They should be appearances, which they are now. -- Ozzel 05:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Dark Empire IIEdit
This is also mentioned in Dark Empire II, isn't it? I'm too lazy to double check at the moment. -- Ozzel 05:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
FOGGY PLACE?Edit
That thing about it being foggy and all should be removed. It's an artistic choice to represent the spiritual world, the way it's written implies an actual foggy place where people go after they die. --Master Starkeiller 21:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
- We've gotten a grand total of one view of it, and in that view, it was foggy. So it's assumed to be foggy until shown otherwise. Thanos6 11:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
- Right. So Star Wars' afterlife is a foggy place, ladies and gentlemen. Grrrreat. Fantastic. I shouldn't have come back here... --Master Starkeiller 15:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
- I've got to agree, it was clearly the artists impression, not to actually imply its a fog covered land. Jedi Dude 15:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
- Thirded. --68.39.117.153 23:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- I've got to agree, it was clearly the artists impression, not to actually imply its a fog covered land. Jedi Dude 15:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
- Right. So Star Wars' afterlife is a foggy place, ladies and gentlemen. Grrrreat. Fantastic. I shouldn't have come back here... --Master Starkeiller 15:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
- Plus, I have to disagree about its categorization as an extragalactic location. It ain't a location, it's a plane of existence. --Master Starkeiller 11:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- "it was clearly the artists impression". How do we know that? Unless you happen to have a statement to the contrary from the artist, for now we have to assume that's an accurate representation of the Netherworld - \\Captain Kwenn// — Ahoy! 22:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- This hardcore canon point of view is what has filled this place with crap. --Master Starkeiller 17:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- Like what? Thanos6 11:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- Like foggy underworlds, crying mountains, talking trees, gnomes, elves, Santa Claus, magic etc. --Master Starkeiller 14:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- Dude, that kind of stuff is why I love this place. Thanos6 21:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- Magic, yeah, that's certainly got no place in Star Wars, right? But again, we can only go by what's presented in canon; opinion is not valid on an encyclopedia - \\Captain Kwenn// — Ahoy! 21:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well, the way I see it, this "let's make every sad little piece of shit ever published or broadcasted canon" attitude is a triumphant victory of fanboyism over common sense. That's just my opinion. --Master Starkeiller 23:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- And how would we define a "sad little piece of shit" from worthwhile additions to the canon? It's not our judgement to make, so foggy netherworlds, being represented in a canon source, are as much a part of canon as the Force itself. We're meant to be objective here - \\Captain Kwenn// — Ahoy! 18:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- We have been overly objective so far and it has cost us in terms of quality. The best example of this is that most people here see the art on this page as an actual representation of the Netherworld, fog and all, and not as artistic license used to give us an image of the otherwise unconceivable Netherworld. But it's not just us, it's the company too, and the people it has hired to regulate over continuity. Canon is too lax. Why do the Marvel Ewoks comics and the Jedi Prince series have to be canon? Why, oh, why? --Master Starkeiller 19:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see how quality is affected by adhering to what is represented in canon. As long as we detail as much as we possibly can, we're fulfilling our objective. And how do you know it's artistic license? That's exactly the sort of subjective judgement we try to avoid here - \\Captain Kwenn// — Ahoy! 19:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- The way is see it, this franchise has suffered greatly from the lack of a central creator-regulator. In other successful franchises, the person who came up with the original idea defines what's canon and what's not. Star Wars, compared to that model, is a playground for writers. George Lucas doesn't really care about the EU and that's the reason it's a mess. I'm sure that if we told Lucas his Netherworld of the Force has become a place where spirits can't see a few feet in front of them because of fog, he'd laugh. Just because that is my opinion, I can't back it up. If we are to be 100% objective, hardcore objective, let's be, it's just that to me, this lowers the quality of the encyclopedia by filling it with un- Star Wars-y crap. --Master Starkeiller 20:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well that is highly subjective, and thus has no place here. Everyone has their own idea of what "Star Wars" is, so we can but go by what is presented in canon, however much we may or may not agree with it - \\Captain Kwenn// — Ahoy! 20:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- The way is see it, this franchise has suffered greatly from the lack of a central creator-regulator. In other successful franchises, the person who came up with the original idea defines what's canon and what's not. Star Wars, compared to that model, is a playground for writers. George Lucas doesn't really care about the EU and that's the reason it's a mess. I'm sure that if we told Lucas his Netherworld of the Force has become a place where spirits can't see a few feet in front of them because of fog, he'd laugh. Just because that is my opinion, I can't back it up. If we are to be 100% objective, hardcore objective, let's be, it's just that to me, this lowers the quality of the encyclopedia by filling it with un- Star Wars-y crap. --Master Starkeiller 20:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see how quality is affected by adhering to what is represented in canon. As long as we detail as much as we possibly can, we're fulfilling our objective. And how do you know it's artistic license? That's exactly the sort of subjective judgement we try to avoid here - \\Captain Kwenn// — Ahoy! 19:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- We have been overly objective so far and it has cost us in terms of quality. The best example of this is that most people here see the art on this page as an actual representation of the Netherworld, fog and all, and not as artistic license used to give us an image of the otherwise unconceivable Netherworld. But it's not just us, it's the company too, and the people it has hired to regulate over continuity. Canon is too lax. Why do the Marvel Ewoks comics and the Jedi Prince series have to be canon? Why, oh, why? --Master Starkeiller 19:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- And how would we define a "sad little piece of shit" from worthwhile additions to the canon? It's not our judgement to make, so foggy netherworlds, being represented in a canon source, are as much a part of canon as the Force itself. We're meant to be objective here - \\Captain Kwenn// — Ahoy! 18:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well, the way I see it, this "let's make every sad little piece of shit ever published or broadcasted canon" attitude is a triumphant victory of fanboyism over common sense. That's just my opinion. --Master Starkeiller 23:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- Magic, yeah, that's certainly got no place in Star Wars, right? But again, we can only go by what's presented in canon; opinion is not valid on an encyclopedia - \\Captain Kwenn// — Ahoy! 21:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- Dude, that kind of stuff is why I love this place. Thanos6 21:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- Like foggy underworlds, crying mountains, talking trees, gnomes, elves, Santa Claus, magic etc. --Master Starkeiller 14:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- Like what? Thanos6 11:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- This hardcore canon point of view is what has filled this place with crap. --Master Starkeiller 17:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- "it was clearly the artists impression". How do we know that? Unless you happen to have a statement to the contrary from the artist, for now we have to assume that's an accurate representation of the Netherworld - \\Captain Kwenn// — Ahoy! 22:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Is that place suppose to be Heven?—Unsigned comment by JoeCoolBrig (talk • contribs).
- I'm not to sure about that but it's not hell--Darth Scott 05:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry to open up an old wound--er, topic, but how can you even tell it's foggy? Maybe it's rainy. Maybe it's windy. Maybe those are sunbeams. Unless the artist specifies THAT, just leave the fog out! -Milo Fett[Comlink] 01:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
It's obviously not fog. 142.151.150.179 18:39, November 24, 2009 (UTC)
One's identity after dyingEdit
In the article Force Ghost, one can read that only those who become Force Ghosts maintain their identity as individuals after their physical death. But you can also read that Qui-Gon Jin learnt the Force Ghost technique after dying, in the Netherworld of the Force, which would mean that people maintain their individual identities in this realm. What's true? Furthermore, I would appreciate getting some sources for the following sentence: "Anakin Skywalker and his deceased wife Padmé Amidala were reunited in the netherworld of the Force." In which book or comic can I read that? If this piece of information is true, this would mean that individual identities are maintained. I'm really looking forward to receiving an answer. -- AniWX 08:28, March 17, 2011 (UTC)
