If they're intending to do a big reveal later, that's possible. Do we have any precedent for this sort of chicanery?

Jon Snow's mother.....

No, wait, I meant Luke Skywalker's father.

keyser Sosea (sp?)

keyser Sosea (sp?)

Yes!.. Except that wasn't a reveal in a sequel though... But yes.

Yes, Ilum is Starkiller Base...

From a certain point of view.

The description of Star Killer base says it was built out of an ice world because of it's natural crystals that made the base possible.

Ice world full of crystals. So... Ilum?

Ilum does fit the description. But it doesn't say it's Ilum which isn't definitive but to me it would be an odd omission if it were Ilum. And if you trust the starwars.com article and map then they marked as not the same planet.

They wouldn't tell us if it was supposed to be a big reveal in the next movie (or a payoff for us speculating fans...)

Sure, but this is the sort of minutia geeks like us pay attention to. I doubt the film makers are. And this seems like the sort of thing that is not going to be brought up or have any significance to the films. "Hey, we just found out that Star Killer base was built out of some ancient Jedi planet..." And....

To me it seems highly unlikely this is some clever plot point.

Ilum does fit the description. But it doesn't say it's Ilum which isn't definitive but to me it would be an odd omission if it were Ilum. And if you trust the starwars.com article and map then they marked as not the same planet.

When talking canon, aren't we obligated to consider starwars.com articles as canon?

I don't know - is it?

I know that "is this canon?" questions drive Pablo Hidalgo nuts.

Do these articles get vetted by The Story Team which is supposedly the gold standard for canonization (or at least signing off that it's not contradictory and generally consistent as is the case with RPG stuff)?

The author isn't on the story team but he does write for Star Wars Insider (and obviously for starwars.com) so his published material for these outlets must get some scrutiny.

And I doubt the author created that map. So, who did create the map? What's it's source?

I would agree that the information appearing on starwars.com gives it some authority and agree that Ilum is not Star Killer base. I'd say the starwars.com article is the best and authoritative source of information currently available and was what convinced me that Ilum is not Star Killer base.

But I wouldn't say it's canon. Even the TFA novelization isn't "canon" according to Pablo Hidalgo (meaning other authors and film makers could contradict something it introduced that wasn't in the movie).

The description of Star Killer base says it was built out of an ice world because of it's natural crystals that made the base possible.

Ice world full of crystals. So... Ilum?

Ilum does fit the description. But it doesn't say it's Ilum which isn't definitive but to me it would be an odd omission if it were Ilum. And if you trust the starwars.com article and map then they marked as not the same planet.

They wouldn't tell us if it was supposed to be a big reveal in the next movie (or a payoff for us speculating fans...)

Sure, but this is the sort of minutia geeks like us pay attention to. I doubt the film makers are. And this seems like the sort of thing that is not going to be brought up or have any significance to the films. "Hey, we just found out that Star Killer base was built out of some ancient Jedi planet..." And....

To me it seems highly unlikely this is some clever plot point.

Sure ... But then again, why stress that it is an Ice planet full of magical jedi crystals and place it on the exact same spot on the map as Ilum, an ice planet full of magical jedi crystals....

And I doubt the author created that map. So, who did create the map? What's it's source?

I would agree that the information appearing on starwars.com gives it some authority and agree that Ilum is not Star Killer base. I'd say the starwars.com article is the best and authoritative source of information currently available and was what convinced me that Ilum is not Star Killer base.

But I wouldn't say it's canon. Even the TFA novelization isn't "canon" according to Pablo Hidalgo (meaning other authors and film makers could contradict something it introduced that wasn't in the movie).

The identity of the graphic artist who created the map isn't relevant. The text stated "near but not Ilum."

I'm going to take the official website at it's word. But starwars.com could change its mind depending on what a future film says and I'd not care a lick.

The identity of the graphic artist who created the map isn't relevant. The text stated "near but not Ilum."

Where was the word not ?

The identity of the graphic artist who created the map isn't relevant. The text stated "near but not Ilum."

Where was the word not ?

Linguistically speaking, one does not generally refer to a location as being near itself.

I don't, for example, say, "My FLGS is near my FLGS." If I am providing a landmark for reference, I will use a different location, such as, "My FLGS is in the same shopping center with the Walmart Neighborhood Store and Wendy's."

Here's my theory... So it's obvious that TFA was a reincarnation of ANH but with a different spin on things. When they got to the part of the Death Star they wanted to do something similar but with a twist, so instead of an artificial moon megaweapon they went for a natural planet megaweapon.

It's established that energy weapons (blasters, lightsabers) use crystals. The Death Star, being a giant energy weapon, used large and/or many such crystals. Starkiller Base, being even bigger, used even more/larger crystals. So the writers figured, why not make the planet itself be the source of the crystals? That makes sense.

So in figuring out what kinds of planets have natural crystals, they went to the most well-known source, Ilum. And they based the new planet on Ilum. They might have even planned for it to be Ilum. But probably someone at Lucasfilm/Disney put the brakes on that because they want to use Ilum some other way. So the writers backpedal a bit, and so they took the easy route of saying "It's not Ilum, it's just a planet near Ilum that's similar to it."

To me this feels like a plausible scenario.

The identity of the graphic artist who created the map isn't relevant. The text stated "near but not Ilum."

Where was the word not ?

Linguistically speaking, one does not generally refer to a location as being near itself.

I don't, for example, say, "My FLGS is near my FLGS." If I am providing a landmark for reference, I will use a different location, such as, "My FLGS is in the same shopping center with the Walmart Neighborhood Store and Wendy's."

You really think that is a good comparison in context? I think they might, in context , both hint and confuse the fans by writing like that. Of course we don`t, linguistically speaking, talk like that in our mundane everyday life!

But this is a website and a franchise that might want to keept a secret and be mysterious, while at the same time hinting and setting us up for a big reveal and a payoff!

Exighting, isn`t it?

You know, some theories make so much sense, and it all just snaps together so well, and it's just too perfect.

But, at the end of the day, they come out with more information, and indoctrination theory is disproved.

If it's too good to be true, it probably is.

Though, as a counterpoint to what I just said. Occam's Razor. What seems to be the easiest and most likely solution? Is it Ilum and they don't want to say because... reasons?

Or it's not Ilum and they just didn't think this one out completely?

Actually, if arguing Occam's you want to find the least number of qualifying statements in a given problem, and your '...and didn't think it through' is a qualifying statement.

"Is Starkiller's origin Ilum?" or "Is Starkiller's origin not Ilum?" when viewed through Occam's is most satisfyingly answered via Shroedinger's Cat.

Disney/Lucasfilm have not decided if it is Ilum yet, and thus both statements are true.

The identity of the graphic artist who created the map isn't relevant. The text stated "near but not Ilum."

Where was the word not ?

Linguistically speaking, one does not generally refer to a location as being near itself.

I don't, for example, say, "My FLGS is near my FLGS." If I am providing a landmark for reference, I will use a different location, such as, "My FLGS is in the same shopping center with the Walmart Neighborhood Store and Wendy's."

You really think that is a good comparison in context? I think they might, in context , both hint and confuse the fans by writing like that. Of course we don`t, linguistically speaking, talk like that in our mundane everyday life!

But this is a website and a franchise that might want to keept a secret and be mysterious, while at the same time hinting and setting us up for a big reveal and a payoff!

Exighting, isn`t it?

There are other, less clumsy ways to accomplish the same thing, such as saying it is, "near the location of Ilum." This wording allows more flexibility to go either way. It's stated as being near the location of Ilum, so maybe it was co-opted into Ilum, or maybe it's just in relatively close proximity to Ilum. Saying specifically that it's near Ilum carries a clear implication that they are two distinctly separate locations.

(Note that I'm not opposed to the notion that Starkiller is/was Ilum, it's just that the information available straight from the horse's mouth appears to directly disprove that notion.)

(Note that I'm not opposed to the notion that Starkiller is/was Ilum, it's just that the information available straight from the horse's mouth appears to directly disprove that notion.)

I think they strongly indicate and hint that it was Ilum or had something to do with it!

As for the horse...

Maybe the meta-fictional personas, the fringers and scholars of the Galaxy who in-universe wrote/logged the entry didn't know it was Ilum

(Note that I'm not opposed to the notion that Starkiller is/was Ilum, it's just that the information available straight from the horse's mouth appears to directly disprove that notion.)

I think they strongly indicate and hint that it was Ilum or had something to do with it!

Well, those are two distinctly different things.

I think the wording leads away from the former, but the latter?

Saying it was near Ilum doesn't lead away from that one. Who knows what any other planets in the Ilum system are like?

Simple fix: In your Star Wars universe, it's Ilum.

It seems like worlds with lightsaber crystals tend to cluster together, see the Adega System for an example.

It would be consistent for a planet near Ilum to have similar crystal growths.

Saying it was near Ilum doesn't lead away from that one. Who knows what any other planets in the Ilum system are like?

I like this. Starkiller Base was made from another planet within the same star system as Ilum. So it's still very "nearby" Ilum. Perhaps it's the star itself that directly causes force imbued crystals to be formed on the planets formed from/around them? Thus, if there is one planet in a star system with crystals there is an increased chance for one of the other planets to also have crystals?

I like this. Starkiller Base was made from another planet within the same star system as Ilum. So it's still very "nearby" Ilum. Perhaps it's the star itself that directly causes force imbued crystals to be formed on the planets formed from/around them? Thus, if there is one planet in a star system with crystals there is an increased chance for one of the other planets to also have crystals?

Is it the star or the content of the planetary accretion disc containing large quantities of the necessary raw materials? Only the midichlorians and Celestials know for sure.

I um...okay. Fair enough. I can imagine a world in which one person calls the sky green when everyone else calls it blue, too. Shine on you crazy diamond.

I am told that the Japanese don’t have a word for green. For them, the colors green and blue are the same and have the same name.

Not that I’m claiming Daeglan is Japanese or anything, but he might be green-blue color-blind.

I um...okay. Fair enough. I can imagine a world in which one person calls the sky green when everyone else calls it blue, too. Shine on you crazy diamond.

I am told that the Japanese don’t have a word for green. For them, the colors green and blue are the same and have the same name.Not that I’m claiming Daeglan is Japanese or anything, but he might be green-blue color-blind.

Not color blind. I just saying no one is obligated to think or accept anything from star wars.com. but star wars .com does put out canon.

Do the people at starwars.com even know everything the writers have planed yet?

Would they know if it was a big reveal the writers only hinted at and maybe gave them a rough location when they asked about it?...

I um...okay. Fair enough. I can imagine a world in which one person calls the sky green when everyone else calls it blue, too. Shine on you crazy diamond.

I am told that the Japanese don’t have a word for green. For them, the colors green and blue are the same and have the same name.

Not that I’m claiming Daeglan is Japanese or anything, but he might be green-blue color-blind.

The word for green is "midori".

But it's a relatively recent word, in the past the word "ao" meant both blue and green. Midori as a concept didn't enter Japanese culture until the Heian period (about 1,000 years ago) and while that seems like a long time ago, consider that Japan has been inhabited by a single, evolving culture for around 15,000 years. And Midori was still considered just a shade of Ao. Imagine that teal was a primary color, and green was just a shade of teal. Green wasn't fully considered a separate color until after World War II (during the US occupation). Even now, what we in the western world would consider to be green doesn't quite match up to the Japanese concept of it.

And I'm not Japanese either, I just studied the language for a few years and learned of its culture and history as a hobby.

Anyways sorry for the tangent. Back to important things, like fictional planets and space wizards.

The keeper's of canon have no obligation to be truthful either, especially if it serves some future purpose; even if that purpose is "well lets go here to get your first ligh-oh. **** it why is there a sun parked on this planet?!"

If they're intending to do a big reveal later, that's possible. Do we have any precedent for this sort of chicanery?

The only constant in star wars I find is that it isn't; it's portrayal of the setting is highly dependant on the medium. The original trilogy was mysticism, the Pre-Trig was mostly about politics dressed as a love story, and episode 7 was a really big love letter/repeat of the OT. Some books even portray certain Sith as Dragon Ball Z type characters that can deflect star ship vaults and slay entire armies of rebel's single highhandedly.

The main thing about the new triology is that it wants to reuse none of the settings that was in the earlier movies and would rather stab itself in the foot then make any reasonable associations with the PT, which I imagine includes any planets used in that era. Which is kinda sad really.