Hello, you are not signed on. |
|
![[ Blogs.starwars.com ]](/static/skin/default/img/title_banners/site_banner.jpg "[ Blogs.starwars.com ]")     
|
 | HoloNet News: The Annotated Edition |
Issue #84 of Star Wars Insider features a new HoloNet News article, appearing in the Insider after a long absence.
HoloNet News is essentially an "in universe" newsmagazine that comments on happenings in the galaxy far far away. It originally began as a website prior to the release of Episode II, written by Pablo Hidalgo with Paul Ens, before moving into the pages of the Insider after Episode II's release. Pretty much all of the accompanying artwork in all incarnations of HoloNet News was done by the talented Joe Corroney. The spiritual godfather to HoloNet News was a feature called "Galaxywide NewsNets" from the Official Star Wars Adventure Journal that was written by Paul Sudlow.
The HoloNet News article in #84 is the "Official Inaugural Edition" and covers Palpatine's rise to Emperor. It takes place only a few days after the events of Episode III.
I thought it would be fun to list out some of the more obscure references. There's no structure to these -- you need to read the article first and come back here to get the context, but this should give you a good standing to pick out the article's "Easter Eggs":
- "The Full Text of Palpatine's Glorious Speech" doesn't include his lines from the novelization. D'oh.
- Note the new dating system referenced in the sidebar! "47BrS:8:11" means 47 years before the Great ReSynchronization.
- The Paths to Power is new. Palpatine was established as a writer back in Dark Empire, where he was said to have penned volumes such as The Book of Anger and The Creation of Monsters.
- The COMPNOR article links Ishin Il-Raz (a future Grand Admiral) and Crueya Vandron, who was one of the most important COMPNOR founders according to West End Games' Imperial Sourcebook.
- Most of the politicians named in "63 Senators Arrested in Collusion with Jedi Insurgency" are newly-created, including Streamdrinker of Tynna (a personal indulgence since I like Tynnans).
- "Senator Grebleips of Brodo Asogi" is an Easter Egg referring to the E.T. senators seen in The Phantom Menace. "Grebleips" is Spielberg spelled backward (I'm just referencing it from another source; somebody else already beat me to the gag) and Brodo Asogi is one of the names of E.T.'s homeworld according to the spinoff novel E.T.: The Book of the Green Planet.
- "Meet Your Regional Governors" has profiles on Denn Wessex (an old WEG character from the gaming module Starfall) and Marcellin Wessel, who is intended to be the old man in charge of Yinchorr in the Marvel comic "The Last Gift from Alderaan." General Redd Wessel, who appears in Crimson Empire, would presumably be his son.
- The list of fugitive Jedi includes Qu Rahn and Maw the Boltrunian from the game Jedi Knight, Kai Justiss (more about this character here), Ranik Solusar (father of Kam Solusar from Dark Empire II), Ydra Kilwallen (Dev Sibrarra's mom from The Truce at Bakura before she changed her last name...c'mon, nobody caught that one), and, of course, Halagad Ventor.
Finally, check out Joe Corroney's own "annotated HoloNet News" entry focusing on the article's artwork here.
Dan
(writing projects and current releases)
|
 |
http://blogs.starwars.com/danwallace/25 |
| |
Arf Maul
We'll Blow Your Planet Up!
|
date Posted: Sep 21, 2005 4:51 PM
Nice! Great to see that this feature is back  This was always among my favourite features of the Insider. I just love all those obscure little facts. I wonder if the HoloNet website will come back to life again too someday...
|
| |
Pfluegermeister
|
date Posted: Sep 21, 2005 9:57 PM
Dan, I love the work done for this article. LOVE IT. I'm surprised you didn't just put a minus before the pre-ReSynchronization year. I'm curious, why was "r" lowercased and the other two letters capitalized? It's supreme nitpicking, just would love an insight into the process. "Because it looks cooler that way" is a valid reason, by the way.
|
| |
Pfluegermeister
|
date Posted: Sep 21, 2005 10:02 PM
By the way, how is Year 0 written out? If 34 B.B.Y. is Year 1, and 36 B.B.Y. is Year 1BrS, then is 35 B.B.Y. Year 0BrS or just Year 0? For instance:
(82 B.B.Y.) 47BrS
(52 B.B.Y.) 17BrS
(36 B.B.Y.) 1BrS
(35 B.B.Y.) 0 (?) 0BrS (?)
(34 B.B.Y.) 1
(33 B.B.Y.) 2
(32 B.B.Y.) 3
Can you help?
|
| |
Pfluegermeister
|
date Posted: Sep 21, 2005 10:05 PM
And finally, has it been decided if an Imperial version of HoloNet News is being maintained for the Insider? It's always been one of my favorite reasons to get the magazine (you can tell). Please let the powers that be know that they should consider it, if they haven't decided already.
Best regards!
|
| |
The2ndquest
Star Wars Literature
|
date Posted: Sep 21, 2005 10:38 PM
Also- what was the intended date of the article? It has the apparent-typo of 16:5:241
If thats simply a typo of 16:5:24... how can the issue have a headline about the Senate being closed for repairs when the Sidious/Yoda duel doesn't happen for, according to Pablo's colum in this issue, another day?
|
 |
Dan Wallace
Continuity, Criticisms, and Captain Panaka
|
date Posted: Sep 22, 2005 7:05 AM
Pablo was the mastermind behind the "Before ReSynchronization" label, and I'm guessing that "BrS" just looked cooler that way.
0 would be, I guess, just 0. Wait, do we use a Year 0 in A.D./B.C. timing?
|
|
Dan Wallace
Continuity, Criticisms, and Captain Panaka
|
date Posted: Sep 22, 2005 7:05 AM
The date of the article was intended to be 16:5:24. Here's Pablo's rationalization on the dating, from the articles footnotes: "If the Episode III events start on 5:16 (May 19) and, according to the Day-by-Day ROTS timeline, Palpatine gives his speech on Day 5, that would put us at 5:23. This is the next day's edition." Are you saying that the "next day's edition" isn't enough time to encompass the end of the film? If so, we may have made a mistake. We led off with Palpatine's speech and wanted the article to follow in real-time shortly after that event, but I also wanted to be able to refer to other ROTS events (e.g. "Industrial accident on Mustafar" and "Senate Rotunda still closed for repairs.")
|
 |
Korpil
A Verpine's blog
|
date Posted: Sep 22, 2005 8:36 AM
And no, we don't use a year 0 in our calendars, that's the technical reason why the millenium started on January 1st, 2001 instead of January 1st, 2000 as everyone believes. The reason is that the number 0 hadn't been "invented" at the time of the creation of the Christian calendar. But that's another story...
|
 |
Halagad
Only Sith Deal In Absolutes!
|
date Posted: Sep 22, 2005 11:57 AM
Ydra Kilwallen (Dev Sibrarra's mom from The Truce at Bakura before she changed her last name...c'mon, nobody caught that one),
D'oh!
Thanks again for the Halagad easter egg, Dan! 
|
| |
Aa-Ron Jinn
Random as a Blaster
|
date Posted: Sep 22, 2005 8:55 PM
Who is the 3rd Jedi pictured in the article. I recognize Kai Justiss, and am pretty sure the second is Halagad, but who is the one on the far right? Is it Qu Rahn?
|
| |
The2ndquest
Star Wars Literature
|
date Posted: Sep 22, 2005 10:05 PM
>>Are you saying that the "next day's edition" isn't enough time to encompass the end of the film?<<
Yeah, basicly a couple of those headlines happened the next day or so after this edition is dated in that case.
|
 |
JMMC
|
date Posted: Sep 23, 2005 7:35 AM
"BrS", huh? Shucks... would it have killed you guys to make it BGR or AGR, like I started using on my timeline site? I recently added lines like "15 AGR" underneath the existing ASW4, etc. But that's okay.
Anyway... it's great to see this return. The online version was very cool, and either one sure helps us timeliners. It's good to see LFL's own folks actually dating things. And also good to see that the SWFAers continue to take over!
|
 |
Valin Kenobi
Stars To Fill My Dream
|
date Posted: Sep 23, 2005 10:33 PM
Ydra Kilwallen (Dev Sibrarra's mom from The Truce at Bakura before she changed her last name...c'mon, nobody caught that one
You lose.  I caught that one immediately, and I was thrilled to see it. I've been waiting YEARS for someone to finally use Ydra in the neo-prequel era ... I even bookmarked that page in the TABSB.
*gives Dan a cookie*
|
| |
Pfluegermeister
|
date Posted: Sep 28, 2005 9:02 PM
Concerning the full text of Palpatine "glorious speech," yes, the novelization's lines weren't thrown in, but what WAS put in is absolutely marvelous! How does one write a speech with this much import based on fragments? Obviously, the published draft of the script tells us what lines were from the final draft, but what else did you use? Were there lines cut in previous drafts that you reincorporated? Was it mostly your - and Pablo's - own imagination? Was the fact that it had to fit on one page a consideration?
|
| |
Pfluegermeister
|
date Posted: Sep 28, 2005 9:06 PM
A small fanboy question, if you'll permit me: In the list of Palpatine's triumphs, under the date 3:4:14, you have the Federation's invasion of Naboo, Valorum's recall and Palpatine's election, all under one specific day-date. I don't have any breakdown of days and events in The Phantom Menace, like we now have with Episodes II and III, but I'm certain they did not all happen on one day. Which event does the above date apply to, and what dates, in relation to the first, do the other events fall on?
Thank you for a speedy answer.
|
|
Dan Wallace
Continuity, Criticisms, and Captain Panaka
|
date Posted: Sep 29, 2005 6:38 AM
Pfluegermeister, thanks for the comments re: the speech! It was mostly written using imagination to fill in the blanks, taking Palpatine's lines from the movie as a starting point.
Regarding the date, is the invasion of Naboo really pegged at 3:4:14? (I don't have the published article in front of me.) I'm checking the original date from the manuscript, and we'd submitted it as 3:5:19. Maybe Leland can advise as to why it changed. (But regardless, the "day" digit would likely refer to the first event, the invasion of Naboo, with the day-to-day movie breakdown unfolding from there.)
|
| |
Pfluegermeister
|
date Posted: Sep 29, 2005 9:15 PM
Dan, thanks for the answer. I'm sorry to say that your submitted date WAS changed, and for good reason, it turns out. I don't know the intentions behind the people who actually changed it, but my thoughts are as follows: See next comment.
|
| |
Pfluegermeister
|
date Posted: Sep 29, 2005 9:15 PM
Anakin was nine in Episode I and twenty in Episode II. That's an eleven year age difference, but only ten years separate the films. What gives? Well, it was decided that in Episode I, Anakin was just shy of his tenth birthday (I read it in a Star Wars Insider issue), and in the novelization to Episode II, Anakin had recently passed his twentieth (Shmi is seen celebrating it), setting it in the middle of his mission to Ansion. Since the online HoloNet News articles placed the Ansion mission in 13:4, that means Episode I took place in 3:4. By that reckoning, the new date is correct.
|
| |
Pfluegermeister
|
date Posted: Sep 29, 2005 9:22 PM
Unfortunately, another date on the list seems in error. It says that on 9:9:26, the Senate changed the Constitution to allow Palpatine to remain in office past the legal limit. The problem is, that the year 9 can't be right. The cited event didn't happen until the end of his legal two terms, and that happened in 24 B.B.Y., which would be the year 11 on the ReScynchronized calendar. 9 would be 26 B.B.Y. when Palpatine still had two legal years on the job to go. A more appropriate date would therefore be 11:9:26.
Sorry if I'm nitpicking. Maybe I'm wrong, and you had a specific reason that hasn't been revealed to us yet! Can you shed a little light on this for a history geek?
|
| |
Pfluegermeister
|
date Posted: Sep 29, 2005 9:24 PM
And last but not least, I'm wondering if you tried to give Palpatine a first name and they kiboshed it. Or not!
Best regards, Dan!
|
| |
Pfluegermeister
|
date Posted: Sep 29, 2005 9:32 PM
PS: It just occured to me to write that, should you ever want to peg a specific birthdate for Anakin, it would fall between the days of 7BrS:4:14 and 7BrS:5:2. This is because the Ansion mission ended on 13:5:2, by which time he was already twenty, according to the Episode II novel. Just FYI!
|
|
JMMC
|
date Posted: Oct 12, 2005 9:08 AM
I think I see why the date for the invasion of Naboo was changed.
According to what I used in my timeline -- to be honest I don't recall the source -- the Trade Federation began their blockade of Naboo about a month prior to Episode I. The confusion is the fact that the HNN article's text says the TF invades Naboo, which should technically be their arrival on the surface at the beginning of Episode I. But, maybe you can argue the blockade was an invasion of their airspace/orbit, etc.
In any case, used that "one month earlier" date, would still keep Episode I during 3:5. Not sure about that "14", though.
|
|
JMMC
|
date Posted: Oct 12, 2005 9:34 AM
And to edit myself, according to Leland Chee's blog, the date for Episode I is, in fact, 3:4:14. Now, only Eps. 2 and 3 were reported as taking place on an in-universe date that matches our world's dates. For whatever reason, this seems to be the official date.
By the way, doesn't this now allow for Anakin to be 9-years-old in Episode I and still turn 10-years-old in 3:5? Because, Chee's blog also says Anakin's birth date is 41.9 BBY. I do notice, though, that Chee doesn't give A New Hope a date, though the old Adventure Journal articles did date it. Maybe because that monthly dating may throw off the more recent ones?
Whew. I am such a geek.
|
| |
Pfluegermeister
|
date Posted: Oct 12, 2005 8:44 PM
Yes. You're a geek. Wear the title with pride. 
Yes, the Star Wars Adventure Journal #3 did establish a time frame for A New Hope. According to this source, the Imperial Senate was disbanded on the morning of 35:3:5, nineteen years after the events of Revenge of the Sith, which fits with the established years for the films. Not only that, but the Star Wars Adventure Journal #14 established a time frame for The Empire Strikes Back when it said that the Battle of Hoth took place on 38:6:9, some three years after A New Hope - again, everything fits. We don't have a time frame for Return of the Jedi, but my personal estimate is that it takes place in 39:1. No exact day, so sorry. 
|
| |
Pfluegermeister
|
date Posted: Oct 12, 2005 8:51 PM
And, yes, the Trade Federation blockade of Naboo - as distinct from the actual invasion of the planet - began "close to a month" before the events of The Phantom Menace, so it would have taken place in late 3:3. Since the invasion was on 3:4:14, the blockade would have to have begun sometime after 3:3:15, just to be safe - remember, it's close to a month, not exactly or more than a month. The near-month-long gap was established in the Episode I Journal: Queen Amidala (p. 6)
|
| |
Pfluegermeister
|
date Posted: Oct 12, 2005 9:01 PM
So, to sum up, here are the established dates for events in Episodes I - V:
Episode I (dates est. 2005)
Trade Federation invades Naboo (3:4:14)
Episode II (dates est. 2002)
Assassination attempt on Senator Padme' Amidala (13:5:16)
Supreme Chancellor Palpatine granted emergency powers (13:5:21)
Episode III (dates est. 2005)
Supreme Chancellor Palpatine declares himself Emperor (16:5:23)
Episode IV (dates est. 1994)
Emperor Palpatine dissolves the Imperial Senate (35:3:5)
Episode V (dates est. 1997)
The Rebel Alliance is defeated in the Battle of Hoth (38:6:9)
It seems then, that only Clones and Revenge had dates that matched with their respective release dates.
|
| |
Pfluegermeister
|
date Posted: Oct 12, 2005 9:10 PM
And could somebody get me a day-to-day calendar of events for all the films like they did with Revenge? I cannot tell you (this means you, Dan, and you too, Pablo) how big a help it would be, not just to myself, but all the other amateur or semi-professional chonologists out there. Think of poor JMMC! Think of the children!
So, whaddaya say, boys?
|
|
Dan Wallace
Continuity, Criticisms, and Captain Panaka
|
date Posted: Oct 25, 2005 11:45 AM
Pfluegermeister, I think you've hit on something interesting regarding the official date for TPM. Note that Pablo's assumption when writing HNN was to make the "in-universe" dates for the movies the same as their real-world release dates, e.g. "3.5.19" (May 19). Such a date was actually submitted for the events of TPM in the HoloNet News article, but it was editorially changed to "3.4.14." I suspect this was necessary after: (1) Anakin was said to be nine in TPM and twenty in AOTC, and (2) only ten years were said to pass between the two movies. Sliding the calendar just a bit allows both facts to be true.
|
|
Dan Wallace
Continuity, Criticisms, and Captain Panaka
|
date Posted: Oct 25, 2005 11:48 AM
Sorry, I also wanted to give props to JMM for his insight regarding Anakin's "nine year old" conflict. Didn't mean to steal your idea or to missaply the credit!
|
|
Dan Wallace
Continuity, Criticisms, and Captain Panaka
|
date Posted: Oct 25, 2005 11:52 AM
Pflugermeister, you're correct about the end of Palpatine's second term being in "year 11" and not "year 9." It was 8 years after he assumed office in TPM. I generally do OK with BBY/ABY, but these HNN dates are getting the better of me.
|
| |
Pfluegermeister
|
date Posted: Oct 29, 2005 9:47 PM
They kick me in the package sometimes, too...
Let's face it - the BBY/ABY system is much easier, if only because you don't have to deal with months and days. There's the occassional decimal, seen big-time in the Clone Wars section of the New Essential Chronology (someone want to tell me how that translates to months?), and, to a lesser extent, in the New Jedi Order section. But that's it.
That said, for accuracy, I much prefer the HNN system, but just try to remember those dates off the top of your head! Can't be done, not by me, at any rate.
|
 |
the_Whill
|
date Posted: Nov 26, 2005 2:18 PM
I found this blog while looking for a place to post about the erroneous entry for the 9:9:26 date, but instantly saw that someone already caught it. Even more importantly than that date being before Palpatine's reelection year (after all the amendment could have been made far in advance of the election) is that it occurs before Dooku re-emerges with the Separatist movement only two years before AOTC (actually just a smidge over 2 years to accomodate Anakin's given age of 17 in Jedi Quest 8: The Changing of the Guard coupled with him turning 18 before the beginning of the next book in that 3-part story arc which references the Separatists ). I'm glad to see that you meant that date to be 11:9:26!
|
|
the_Whill
|
date Posted: Nov 27, 2005 7:25 AM
So, Dan, now that it's been pointed out that 16:5:24 is too soon after Palpatine's declaration based on the article's content (in light of Pablo's reckoning of the time lapse during ROTS), and given the ambiguity of the published "16:5:241", are you going to officially move the date of the HNN Inaugural Edition back a couple of days?
|
|
Dan Wallace
Continuity, Criticisms, and Captain Panaka
|
date Posted: Dec 06, 2005 1:18 PM
the_Whill, the official date for the publication of the "Full Text of Palpatine's Glorious Speech" article was 16:5:24 (as well as all the other lead articles), and the HoloNet News staff forgot to update their header when adding later sidebar stories such as "Industrial Accident on Mustafar." (It happens with real-world websites from time to time.)
Either that or move the whole piece a couple days later in the timeline.
|
| |
Ello137
Apocalypse Later
|
date Posted: Feb 07, 2006 5:35 PM
Couple questions. Will Holonet News move back online at some point in the future? Are there any plans to produce a competitor (e.g. Tri-nebulon)? And finally, when will someone write an article with a young Aldaric Brandl, another wonderful RPG Purge Survivor?
|
- Please log in to post comments
|
|
 |
