The hate of them, when you boil it down, stems from change.

For twenty years, fans could decide what The Force was and what it meant and how it worked. We could debate it, ponder to our heart's content, and at the end of the day still not know who was "right".

When tPM came out, that changed. The Force was further defined, and done in a way very different from what a lot of fans wanted it to be. Quality issues aside, many of the issues we older fans have with midichlorians, the Jedi purge, the Clone Wars, all of it stems from decades of imagining being swept away.

You have a similar issue now with the Cannon/Legends divergence. Suddenly many characters, plots, or ideas that just WERE Star Wars to many fans have become, to an extent, wrong. It's the same let down: something you devoted emotional and intellectual energy to is just rendered obsolete. Gone, like suddenly being dumped.

Midicholorians are the pea under fandom's stack of mattresses. Having them doesn't change anything, but they bother people nonetheless.

For me, it feels like a suppression of the imagination. There is something engaging about mysterious elements of a story. It allows me to explore how I think it would work. I remember times, after binging on the OT, I would lie awake in bed asking questions. What is the Force? Is it faith based, or is there something tangible that drives it? How does a person become attuned to the Force? Can someone become attuned to it if they weren't born with that connection?

There is something special about exploring those questions for yourself, and then realizing that you can never fully understand it. Midichlorians felt cheap to me, like I was force-fed a solution that made the Force seem less grand. It is now something that can be understood, which makes it feel less magnificent.

Plus, going by strictly what we see on screen in E4-6 and not any books or comics or anything - one's Force potential is very clearly hereditary. Long before any of the E1 stuff dropped, I always entertained the notion of a Jedi breeding program, where you would pair off two powerful Force users, make some woo-hoo and spit out a "the force is strong with this one" baby.

You mean, like Starkiller/Galen Marek? Yeah, I’m not convinced that turned out so well.

This reminds me the typical: Gods? Science? Both?

Add Star Wars to one of the questions XD

I'm curious if you saw the last three episodes of TCW season 6? I think for those worried about midichlorians and the loss of mystery they managed to both explain more and add more mystery.

I did see the last three episodes. I liked many aspects of them. But I found them less compelling that I might have done with the giant flowers seeding midichlorians to be dispersed across the universe on cosmic winds.

Midichlorians took the hitherto vague intimations of destiny or family ties and made it a biological component of the host. You could meditate and be spiritual all you wanted, or you could be a whiny brat (Anakin) but what really mattered most of all, was whether you had won the genetic lottery and scored high on your midichlorian count.

Except that genetic lottery thing is already in RotJ...Luke says to Leia, "the Force is strong in my family". Foundations of this were already there.

And as you will see in the parts of my post you didn't quote, I discussed this. We went from vague intimations of family lineage with little context and no explicit mechanism, to something that had both. Saying that a powerful Sith Lord's children were also strong in the Force is just one of those vague legendary destiny things and not especially exclusatory and not necessarily with a biological basis underlying it. Saying, effectively, "I inherited a really high midichlorian count from my father so I'm going to be a Jedi", is. But I'm repeating myself - all of this was said in my first post which you have read.

You should also appreciate that many things are a matter of degree. I might overlook a little ginger in a meal someone cooks for me and still like the meal. If they put huge quantities in it, I might dislike it greatly. Your pointing out that bits of what I object to in the PT were also present in the OT, would only be valid as a counter-argument if you knew or had established that I liked them in the OT. If someone said they hated the Gungans in the PT, would it be an acceptable counter-argument to say "Well, the OT had Ewoks and they were cute comedy creatures too". Well no, it wouldn't because maybe the person you're talking to disliked that element of the OT too. Your argument to me is based on an assumption about what I and others like.

The hate of them, when you boil it down, stems from change.

For twenty years, fans could decide what The Force was and what it meant and how it worked. We could debate it, ponder to our heart's content, and at the end of the day still not know who was "right".

When tPM came out, that changed. The Force was further defined, and done in a way very different from what a lot of fans wanted it to be. Quality issues aside, many of the issues we older fans have with midichlorians, the Jedi purge, the Clone Wars, all of it stems from decades of imagining being swept away.

You have a similar issue now with the Cannon/Legends divergence. Suddenly many characters, plots, or ideas that just WERE Star Wars to many fans have become, to an extent, wrong. It's the same let down: something you devoted emotional and intellectual energy to is just rendered obsolete. Gone, like suddenly being dumped.

That's kind of a dismissive argument of a lot of what people are saying. Basically, you're just telling us that we don't like it because "change". That may be so for some, but there are plenty of solid reasons why people dislike them that have nothing to do with that. TCW introduced many things that were changes from the OT and I think TCW was great and improved very much on the setting.

I was 9 in 1977, and I'm an old-school fan. I'm grateful for Lucas' contributions, but for the prequels he really should have had someone on board who could say, "No, George, that's a stupid/unnecessary idea."

This what made the first two films so great: they were the result of his great imagination and interpretation of classic myth and archetypes, tempered by the wisdom and discipline of professional screenwriters and producers, and by financial constraints acting as a filter against all the weak and/or extraneous ideas. Like midichlorians, Jar-Jar, cardboard world settings, etc.

My problem with midichlorians isn't couched in some fan-boy rage. It's that it perfectly encapsulates the sloppy story-telling of the prequels. Obi-wan explained The Force to Luke perfectly in the first act of ANH. "It's an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us and penetrates us. It binds the galaxy together." Boom. Done. Watching Star Wars as a young kid, I understood perfectly what The Force was. Midichlorians added nothing to the story, narratively. They could just as easily have had Qui-Gonn say "The Force is strong with this one." A line that's evocative of the first movie without diminishing it. Adding an element to the story that just has to later be clarified or rationalized (as in the final season of TCW) is just bad, bad storytelling.

The hate of them, when you boil it down, stems from change.

For twenty years, fans could decide what The Force was and what it meant and how it worked. We could debate it, ponder to our heart's content, and at the end of the day still not know who was "right".

When tPM came out, that changed. The Force was further defined, and done in a way very different from what a lot of fans wanted it to be. Quality issues aside, many of the issues we older fans have with midichlorians, the Jedi purge, the Clone Wars, all of it stems from decades of imagining being swept away.

You have a similar issue now with the Cannon/Legends divergence. Suddenly many characters, plots, or ideas that just WERE Star Wars to many fans have become, to an extent, wrong. It's the same let down: something you devoted emotional and intellectual energy to is just rendered obsolete. Gone, like suddenly being dumped.

That's kind of a dismissive argument of a lot of what people are saying. Basically, you're just telling us that we don't like it because "change". That may be so for some, but there are plenty of solid reasons why people dislike them that have nothing to do with that. TCW introduced many things that were changes from the OT and I think TCW was great and improved very much on the setting.

Agreed. When I was young I thought "older" folks didn't like changes because of nostalgia as well but now that I am one of those "older" folks I know that it's not change that bothers us, it's change done poorly.

My problem with midichlorians isn't couched in some fan-boy rage. It's that it perfectly encapsulates the sloppy story-telling of the prequels. Obi-wan explained The Force to Luke perfectly in the first act of ANH. "It's an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us and penetrates us. It binds the galaxy together." Boom. Done. Watching Star Wars as a young kid, I understood perfectly what The Force was. Midichlorians added nothing to the story, narratively. They could just as easily have had Qui-Gonn say "The Force is strong with this one." A line that's evocative of the first movie without diminishing it. Adding an element to the story that just has to later be clarified or rationalized (as in the final season of TCW) is just bad, bad storytelling.

I came in here to voice exactly this. Explaining how life communicates with the Force on a cellular level serves no function to explain the Force or provide exposition to this fantasy story.

Obi-Wan's simple mystical explanation of the Force gave 1977's audiences everything they needed to know about the Force to turn it from an unknown concept to a modern cultural icon. Everybody already knew what the Force was in 1999 and Episode I managed to bungle that up with narratively-useless dialog. Hell, the whole movie can be skipped if you've already seen Episode 4 and 5.

The prequels are so busy making backwards attempt to draw references and parallels to the original trilogy it more often fails to develop its own story and characters within itself, let along as a trilogy meant to be watched before the trilogy it calls back upon.

Yeah, agreed with much of the above. For me, midichlorians was the sound of George Lucas losing faith in his own creation. He never really seemed to understand just what made it great.

Hence all the tinkering nonsense, why he just couldn't leave it alone, and had to give us such wonderful additions like Han Shot Last.

As Asimovian says above, by this time, there wasn't anyone with enough power or influence to reign him in.

I'm one of the older fans myself, sorry if that read as dismissive. I was trying to address the original question about why there was so much hate for this particular thing, and I do feel that part of it was the definition of something a lot of people enjoyed when it was more vague.

A lot of the various opinions on this topic, pro and con, are really interesting. Some of them agree for wildly, sometimes almost opposite reasons. There are theories I love, others I disagree with. It reminds of arguments had over the "validity" of what some of the Dark Horse comics added in the 90s.

The DARTH PLAGUEIS book, as was mentioned earlier, had a fantastic take in that the Jedi were over-reliant on the technology, that one's initial midichlorian count was not the end-all, and was subject to change. Part of me wishes it was an issue that didn't have to be addressed. Part of me loves the direction that takes the story, what it adds.

But that wasn't the point I was trying to make. What I was trying to say was that people were disappointed. For me, it didn't live up to my expectation. I felt let down, and the issues with The Force was one big reason. Maybe you're right, and change wasn't the right way to express that. Would saying "disappointment about the choices in the movie, and what it added to Star Wars" cover it better?

Eh kind of kind of not. Who's to say that the Midicholorians (no clue how to spell it myself) don't have the ability to duplicate as all living organisms do? It could be tied to personal training and growth, ie the brain chemistry and a symbiotic like relationship where as the user improves his/her harmony with the other life form he/she gains the ability to produce more. I mean it's really no different if you remove the Midicholorians either as no matter how hard some people might want to use the force in the original trilogy it is still only a few who have the ability to do so. The only difference with the addition of them is, is that now we know "why" only certain people have access. It doesn't say anything about potential to grow, ultimate limitations, etc. Instead it just insinuates that some people are born with a natural advantage, no different than before except now instead of just being more naturally tied to a mystic power they're simply born with more of them.

Do we ever get any suggestion that some people can't be Force-sensitive in the OT? I think that was a concept cooked up in the EU, but I could be wrong.

And the idea that some people are born with more of a potential advantage to use the Force is exactly what I like least about midichlorians. If the explanation in the films had been that the more you train, the more midichlorians you get, I wouldn't have so much of a problem with the concept. But the PT introduces Anakin as some sort of off-the-charts midichlorian monster, which flies in the face of the mystical aspects of Luke's training in the OT.

In short, I want space wizards, not genetic rationalizations. I want planet-hopping monks, not Übermensch who are better than everyone else because of their biology. I realize others have no problem with the midichlorian idea, but I stand by my dislike for the concept.

This reminds me of the movie "Gattaca", which I really liked despite it starring Ethan Hawke, who has the acting ability of a paper clip. I liked it specifically because it showed that the human heart more than makes up for genetic superiority. At the end, it even listed a bunch of people who made amazing contributions to society, but who would have been considered "inferior" by eugenicists.

The Force, as portrayed in the original movies, was more akin to having faith, believing in the Force, rather than being genetically predisposed to "Force bugs" that make you all-powerful. The original concept is much more elegant and fanciful and fits in perfectly with the space opera theme of the Star Wars universe.

I've always been a fan of hard science fiction and grew up reading the greats, like Asimov, Heinlein, Clarke, Ben Bova, Larry Niven, and a bunch of others. I'm also an incredibly analytical and rational person. However, that's not what Star Wars is all about, and if you try reducing it to hard science, not only does it become ridiculous, but it also loses its soul.

Except it never had anything to do with faith in the original. Vader said it pretty bluntly when he said the force was stronger in a specific individual, it's said that his family line is more predisposed to be better with the force and this is all in the original trilogy. So even then we see that it had nothing to do with "how much someone believed" but simply that some people where just more predisposed to have more ability to access the powers of the force.

The only difference was before the audience was ignorant as to why. I mean faith would suggest that they had to believe in it with absolutely no evidence to do so, yet we see people using the force in the trilogy, so right there you have observational evidence eliminating the need for faith. The only faith one could have is to what causes it, ie saying it's just destiny. To me though that just sounds like lazy righting, that character x is strong with the force because they need to be for the plot and so we'll call it destiny. It takes away from characters actions I think when you have a greater power deciding who will triumph and all the actors are just ignorant of what this grander plan is. Again I think this is just more me being a more skeptical person that likes to discover how things work and why and I'm not saying anyone's wrong here, I just don't like the grand sweeping statements that all older fans dislike the midichlorians explanation as I'm one of the (if not few) living proofs against that not "all" do.

But Star Wars is not science fiction. It's science fantasy, or "space opera". The "mind" aspect of it definitely takes a back seat to the "heart". The science in Star Wars generally makes no sense whatsoever, and is there only to enhance the storyline or to show really cool giant space ships. Even our beloved game here works from a narrative, or cinematic, approach, where the story is king and good plots win out over quibbles about science any day of the week. Star Wars is definitely about the "heart", not the "mind".

So... which explanation of the Force works better for Star Wars? A dry, boring, rational (if not pseudo-scientific) concept of tiny parasites living in your blood? Or a vast, powerful mystic energy field, flowing through us all, binding the universe together, where death is merely a another beginning? I know which one I'll pick

Or to put it another way... try picturing playing D&D without magic and monsters

I get that I do, but I still don't see any appeal in "it works because **** it magic". It's not dry or boring to me to have a good explanation for "why" things occur. Ie I Max Brooks version of zombies that are run by a virus that assaults the brain where he describes exactly how it occurs is far more interesting to me than the kind that are just used as "um well, because we don't know it's mysterious". Similarly with comic heroes I like when they have rational (again even if pseudo scientific) reasons they got their powers, ie I don't find the x-men bland simply because their powers come from mutations instead of some cosmic unfathomable force (well most of them at least). To me it feels almost lazy writing to just write it off on some mystical source. To each their own of course, I get that my view is the less popular one in this situation but none the less I just don't find giving a rational reason for something to be dry or boring, the fact is regardless of if it's a field of unknown power or an organic source of sorts the end result is the same, you get a group of people with the ability to do amazing things and I think in the end that's what matters the most.

there's a difference though. superheroes and zombies happen in our world. we know the laws of nature and science in our world, and we know where they break. we don't in star wars galaxy. we accept that ships can go.faster than light. we accept blasters. we accept the pews and roaring engines in space combat. we accept laser swords, true a.i.,cities floating in the skies, worlds with water cores and waterfalls, and death stars.

But Star Wars is not science fiction. It's science fantasy, or "space opera". The "mind" aspect of it definitely takes a back seat to the "heart". The science in Star Wars generally makes no sense whatsoever, and is there only to enhance the storyline or to show really cool giant space ships. Even our beloved game here works from a narrative, or cinematic, approach, where the story is king and good plots win out over quibbles about science any day of the week. Star Wars is definitely about the "heart", not the "mind".

So... which explanation of the Force works better for Star Wars? A dry, boring, rational (if not pseudo-scientific) concept of tiny parasites living in your blood? Or a vast, powerful mystic energy field, flowing through us all, binding the universe together, where death is merely a another beginning? I know which one I'll pick

Or to put it another way... try picturing playing D&D without magic and monsters

I get that I do, but I still don't see any appeal in "it works because **** it magic". It's not dry or boring to me to have a good explanation for "why" things occur. Ie I Max Brooks version of zombies that are run by a virus that assaults the brain where he describes exactly how it occurs is far more interesting to me than the kind that are just used as "um well, because we don't know it's mysterious". Similarly with comic heroes I like when they have rational (again even if pseudo scientific) reasons they got their powers, ie I don't find the x-men bland simply because their powers come from mutations instead of some cosmic unfathomable force (well most of them at least). To me it feels almost lazy writing to just write it off on some mystical source. To each their own of course, I get that my view is the less popular one in this situation but none the less I just don't find giving a rational reason for something to be dry or boring, the fact is regardless of if it's a field of unknown power or an organic source of sorts the end result is the same, you get a group of people with the ability to do amazing things and I think in the end that's what matters the most.

there's a difference though. superheroes and zombies happen in our world. we know the laws of nature and science in our world, and we know where they break. we don't in star wars galaxy. we accept that ships can go.faster than light. we accept blasters. we accept the pews and roaring engines in space combat. we accept laser swords, true a.i.,cities floating in the skies, worlds with water cores and waterfalls, and death stars.

Sure most may occur in the present or even on earth but that doesn't really change much in terms of why there should be a logical explanation. In starwars the only thing we had different in the prequels was ignorance as to what allowed acess to the force, it was just "some people do because the plot requires it", the force itself didn't change at all with the addition of the prequels, it is still a vast force that connects everyone that, as far as the audience knows, no one fully understands. The only change was the gained knowledge of why certain people had acess to manipulate it while others didn't which mind you we already knew this was the case we just didn't know why.

And as you will see in the parts of my post you didn't quote, I discussed this. We went from vague intimations of family lineage with little context and no explicit mechanism, to something that had both.

No, I caught that, but since family lineage is a genetic thing, saying that not mentioning it specifically in the OT makes it more mystical seems like an arbitrary dividing line. I was assuming it was genetic when I saw the movies as a kid.

It's amazing what sort of nonsense you acculinalte on a hard drive over 15 years. According to the time/date stamp, I came up with this just after TPM dropped:

Midichlorians are the indicator of Jedi potential - a detectable, quantifiable and scientific measurement . So what if some a less than stable individual deduces that by drinking Jedi blood he can get the powers? Of course this idea is technically flawed due to the nature of genetics and cell make up - it would be like trying to get blue eyes and blonde hair by drinking the blood of a supermodel. However, a Jedi character could have several wrinkles in his life because of this

So what if some a less than stable individual deduces that by drinking Jedi blood he can get the powers? By himself, it could fairly harmless - a lone serial killer jumping Padawans. Dangerous to be sure, and a problem that must be dealt with, but not quite a crisis.

However, it would be interesting if there was some sort of cult that believed in using the blood of high midi-count Jedi's to enhance their powers. It doesn't REALLY work, but that doesn't keep their leader from faking it and slaughtering Jedi. A much more serious problem, and a more serious threat to the Jedi and the PC's

What if this person has gotten a hold of some sort of Dark Side artifact that requires the wearer to consume the blood of a Jedi before it gives him any power. He is unaware of this but then gets it into his head the by drinking Jedi blood it will transfer the MC to him and let him use the Force. He tries it and the amulet gets him power, thus feeding his psychosis.

Of course the one wanting the Jedi blood might be a Sith spawned creature (similar to a hellhound or something) - an offshoot of the vornskyr, perhaps. It might be as simple as these creatures need a concentration of Midichlorians to live - Force vampires, if you will, or an actual genetically engineered being.

See! Midichlorians can be useful to the creative GM!

And as you will see in the parts of my post you didn't quote, I discussed this. We went from vague intimations of family lineage with little context and no explicit mechanism, to something that had both.

No, I caught that, but since family lineage is a genetic thing, saying that not mentioning it specifically in the OT makes it more mystical seems like an arbitrary dividing line. I was assuming it was genetic when I saw the movies as a kid.

Family-lineage-linked power doesn't have to be genetic. There are plenty of examples of religious systems where family lineage grants access to certain forms of spiritual power because the spirits know you better and are closer to you due to the actions of your forebears. This is how Haitian Vodou works, as well as many of the West African spiritual systems that inspired it. Granted, GL probably intended the family thing to be genetic, but I like the idea of the Force moving in mysterious ways and adopting certain family lines to serve its purposes.

My problem with midichlorians isn't couched in some fan-boy rage. It's that it perfectly encapsulates the sloppy story-telling of the prequels. Obi-wan explained The Force to Luke perfectly in the first act of ANH. "It's an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us and penetrates us. It binds the galaxy together." Boom. Done. Watching Star Wars as a young kid, I understood perfectly what The Force was. Midichlorians added nothing to the story, narratively. They could just as easily have had Qui-Gonn say "The Force is strong with this one." A line that's evocative of the first movie without diminishing it. Adding an element to the story that just has to later be clarified or rationalized (as in the final season of TCW) is just bad, bad storytelling.

In addition to what I wrote about my reasons, I agree with this too! Why were midichlorians inserted? Bascially, GL wanted to have a way to convey to the viewer that this child had a tremendously powerful connection to the Force / unprecedented potential. So he looked around for a way to quantify this to the viewer and settled on Qui Gon Jinn saying "It's over 9000!". (I forget the precise line, that was it wasn't it?).

Functionally it serves its purpose. "Master Yoda is level 22 and this kid has a level cap of 37!" But I believe you could have much more effectively done it with showing Anakin's raw power and Obi Wan's and Qui Gon's astonishment at it. I imagining a scene where the Jedi Council are discussing him and Yoda states that he is too old to train and his power should not be awakened by them, and Qui Gon saying to Yoda's unsettlement "he has already awakened his power by himself."

So I understand why it was done and what it was intended to achieve, and I appreciate that it does do that. But I find the method clumsy and it has consequences I do not like.

I'm one of the older fans myself, sorry if that read as dismissive. I was trying to address the original question about why there was so much hate for this particular thing, and I do feel that part of it was the definition of something a lot of people enjoyed when it was more vague.

I may have over-reacted slightly to what you wrote. I think what you wrote earlier about people getting angry about change is true to the extent that people's dislike is magnified by the fact that they really love the original stuff. And that's natural enough. I am not a huge SW fan, I don't even own the films - I just think that the EotE RPG is great and has a fun setting so I'm into it through that. But for others they really love SW so what for me is merely something I don't like, for them is an affront to what they cherish. Where I primarily disagree with you is that whether or not they like it is just because of change. That I do not think is the case. I think all the reasons given so far why it is a bit rubbish are valid. I think what you're talking about is just a determinant of how worked up people getting about it being a bit rubbish.

And as you will see in the parts of my post you didn't quote, I discussed this. We went from vague intimations of family lineage with little context and no explicit mechanism, to something that had both.

No, I caught that, but since family lineage is a genetic thing, saying that not mentioning it specifically in the OT makes it more mystical seems like an arbitrary dividing line. I was assuming it was genetic when I saw the movies as a kid.

Again, I have already commented on this in advance so you already have my answer to it at the time you read my post. In fact it was in BOTH of my posts but left out of your quotes both times. Specifically I have written:

There were elements of being strong in the force because one's family is strong in the force, but it was always covered in a vaguely respectable veneer of DESTINY and MYSTICISM. [...] Midichlorians took the hitherto vague intimations of destiny or family ties and made it a biological component of the host.

We went from vague intimations of family lineage with little context and no explicit mechanism, to something that had both. Saying that a powerful Sith Lord's children were also strong in the Force is just one of those vague legendary destiny things and not especially exclusatory and not necessarily with a biological basis underlying it. Saying, effectively, "I inherited a really high midichlorian count from my father so I'm going to be a Jedi", is.

In short, as SavageBob has pointed out better than I did, it's not required that Force ability be transmitted genetically. A child of a legendary figure going on to do legendary things themself is a long standing staple of epics. It's not something I like, but what TPM did was strip away all the wiggle room and tell you if you want to be special you better have been born with the right genes. I think that is at the root of what a lot of people dislike about Midichlorians. Though I have to say after pages of discussion on this, what I'm really starting to dislike about them is that GL didn't give them a shorter name that was less of a bother to type repeatedly.

Could be worse Knasseril, it could have been flibbitygibbets.

Could be worse Knasseril, it could have been flibbitygibbets.

Or Slartibartfast, I suppose.

True story for those who don't know. The novels (and later film) The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy were originally BBC radio plays. The author, Douglas Adams, had a falling out with the typist at the BBC and so named one of his characters Slartibartfast purely because it was horrendous to have to type repeatedly. Note that for page after page, the character's name is never mentioned in-dialogue by another character, it's just there as part of the script so it has to be typed. Eventually, near the very end of that character's arc in the story, he is asked his name by another character and gives it to which the other character expresses incredulity. Slartibartfast replies that his name is "not important."

It was a direct jab at the BBC typist to reveal that after pages and pages of having to type this blasted name, the character explicitly stated that their name was unimportant. Douglas Adams could be mean .