Since November we've had this question ("Are E. T. and Star Wars in the Same Universe?") It was answered with a clear answer that included links and images. It includes the name of the species (Brodo Asogi) and cites where this name is used in the Star Wars Extended Universe (including Holonet news, a publication of Lucas Film).

Now we have a question which has gone through several convolutions, but still is focused on whether the name Brodo Asogi is ever used in Star Wars. It points out, as a concern, that the screenshot included does not show the lower part of the species in question.

There are a couple good answers, but they present nothing new in the argument. One answer even addresses the point that this is ignoring the evidence already presented with this comment (in the answer):

When it look like a cat, meow like a cat and it's the size of a Cat, we could safely assume it's a cat without a DNA analysis.

The other answer addresses the same concern:

What your doubts seem to be is a legal equivalent of: "yes, I know that the defendant's face looks 100% like one on the VCR tabe depicting the crime, I know that his name matches the name spoken by the accomplice and overheard by witnesses, and I know that he was previously overheard to be planning a similar crime. BUT, since there is no DNA evidence, I will assume that the crime was commted by evil doppelganger and vote to acquit".

The new question is already answered on site by the answers in the older question, and in an answer that has been quite heavily upvoted and selected by the poster of the question as an answer. That shows that not only does the poster of the question consider it valid, but the community as a whole agrees this is a good answer.

The issue seems to be that the asker of the new question considers all the evidence insufficient, yet new answers are simply re-iterating the same points and even referencing the point that enough has been presented that there's no point in revisiting the issue.

So why is it, when this question has already been answered elsewhere, it's not a duplicate (and was re-opened after being closed as a duplicate)?

  • "I don't believe what I've just seen, is it really really true? Really?" Mar 9, 2012 at 18:30
  • @JackBNimble: That's exactly it!
    – Tango
    Mar 9, 2012 at 18:36
  • I started to type an answer here and include an explanation of why I voted to re-open. Then I re-read DVK's excellent answer to the first question and saw that, indeed, he had covered the whole Brodo Asogi issue, including where in the Star Wars canon it had be mentioned. Apologies for my mistake. Mar 9, 2012 at 20:41
  • May I suggest that, perhaps, the original questioner made a similar mistake to me? Can we then assume good faith? Mar 9, 2012 at 20:45
  • 2
    @Wikis: The questioner of the question in doubt (did I write that right?) had already brought this up elsewhere. While that may have prejudiced me, it felt strongly that the intent was more to force the answer the poster wanted than anything else. I can state, for sure, that the poster was aware of the original question. Whether they had read the full question and answers with it, I'm not convinced.
    – Tango
    Mar 10, 2012 at 0:52
  • @TangoOversway I'm not trying to force an answer. I am simply asking if there is in universe proof to link ET to SW. If not, then SW as fiction in ET would trump any tenuous link. You're the one who reacted with hostility towards my question which is just uncalled for. You didn't even have the decency to inform me of this question. Mar 10, 2012 at 10:58
  • 1
    The community has given you that proof. You've refused it. Read this article on Star Wars canon. It's complex. Unless it contradicts G level canon, C level canon is accepted by pretty much anyone. The community has expressed a consensus that it's a duplicate. While I didn't put up a link when I first posted, I did soon after, in one of the comments on your question. As for forcing an answer, you gave an answer to the first question with a specific viewpoint and you've been rejecting anything that contradicts that answer ever since.
    – Tango
    Mar 10, 2012 at 16:59
  • @TangoOversway I am familiar with SW canon. There is so far no proof that the term Brodo Asogi in a canon SW book relates to the aliens seen in the movie. Only assumptions. The link is made with out of universe knowledge. The term being mention in the book is nice, but nothing links it to the aliens seen on screen. If I have somehow missed this proof of an in universe link, which is not given in the book unless the book has a picture, please link me to it. Mar 12, 2012 at 11:10
  • 1
    @KirstyMcNair: There's no point -- you keep saying it's "out of universe" when it's within canon, and your comments keep indicating you don't understand why it's canon. You're repeating yourself over and over, yet you have a large number of people saying you're wrong. If you want to keep spending time on this over and over, feel free, but the point has been made and it's your choice whether you want to hear it or continue to believe you're right and everyone else is wrong.
    – Tango
    Mar 12, 2012 at 14:49
  • I don't think the question being asked has been covered. ET and Star Wars are clearly linked as DVK explains in his excellent answer. That's out of universe though where as this question seems to be asking for proof of identification of the aliens in the movies or other media, which hasn't been shown.
    – Julie B
    Mar 12, 2012 at 21:55
  • @JulieB: When you say, "Out of universe," it helps to read up on Star Wars canon. Lucas Film keeps track of levels of canon, what is canon, what isn't, and they recognize sources other than movies. And the original asker, while claiming to know about the levels of SW canon, has yet to say one level counts and another doesn't. The only terms along that line have been "in universe" or "out of universe," and the sources are "in universe," according to how Lucas Film defines SW canon.
    – Tango
    Mar 12, 2012 at 22:03
  • From what I understand there is no dispute that the book Cloak of Deception is canon and therefore "In universe", rather the dispute is that a species named in the book is linked to a species seen on screen. I don't think that has been shown "In universe". Maybe I have missed something?
    – Julie B
    Mar 12, 2012 at 22:53
  • @TangoOversway Julie made more point more eloquently than I have been able to. In no level of SW canon, is the name Brodo Asogi linked to the aliens seen on screen. I opened the question looking for evidence of that link which has not been provided, in DVK's answer or anywhere. Once again, if it has, please provide it or admit that it hasn't. Mar 13, 2012 at 11:40
  • @JulieB The answers provided to the original question fairly thoroughly detail the evidence available both in and out of universe. While you could argue that the evidence in-universe is inconclusive (as Kristy has done... extensively), what Kristy's question really boils down to is "I see the evidence presented, but I'm not convinced... is there more available?". Which is not a new question, but rather a request for clarification/expansion on the original.
    – Beofett
    Mar 13, 2012 at 12:34
  • For what its worth, I added my own out-of-universe answer to the original question.
    – Beofett
    Mar 13, 2012 at 12:51

5 Answers 5


I've decided after reading through this that I was indeed mistaken to re-open it. Sorry about this, I'll agree that they are duplicate enough to warrant closing.

  • There are 9 different people voting to close (including your deciding one), so that seems pretty clear.
    – Tony Meyer
    Mar 9, 2012 at 22:08
  • See my edit, does that make it better? Thx Mar 12, 2012 at 11:27

Tango -

I took a swing at completely re-writing the question in question to zero in on the one specific problem that the OP identified - lack of direct non-circumstancial evidence that E.T. looking aliens are indeed CALLED Brodo Asogi.

See if you like my version please.

  • 1
    I think your edits are a significant improvement, but does not change the fundamental nature of the question, which I believe is still a duplicate. Please see my answer for my reasoning.
    – Beofett
    Mar 12, 2012 at 12:46
  • @Beofett - Could you clarify why please? The point I thought you were making was that it was a dupe due to the answer ending up being the same. Whereas, the answer to the updated question is actually different - a "NO" (see the first bullet point in my answer). Mar 12, 2012 at 13:17
  • 1
    It's not that the answers given are exactly the same, but rather that they cover the exact same ground (i.e. detailing what evidence is available; and, by extension, what evidence is not available). The conclusions drawn from the questions/answers may be different, but the general ground covered by the evidence in either context will be the same. For reference, here's the blog that is somewhat out of date, but still relevant (the part about "exact same ground" in the second category).
    – Beofett
    Mar 12, 2012 at 13:25
  • 1
    @DVK: You covered almost everything in your first answer (to the original question). My concern was that your first answer, as Beofett said, covered everything. The asker of the 2nd question has moved the goalpost several times, so I haven't been watching as closely. What started as an issue of one user being unsatisfied with selected answers and a duplicate question seems to have blown up into a holy war, and I have no desire to play in that kind of ugliness.
    – Tango
    Mar 12, 2012 at 22:00

DavRob60 edited his answer to give a description of the aliens from Brodo Asogi, which are described as large eyed and puddle footed. That is exactly the type of thing I am looking for as it helps link the term Brodo Asogi with the aliens seen in the movie.

I've changed the question to simply ask if the ET like aliens are ever shown or named going only by SW works. This means not relying on out of universe knowledge. DVK has further edited the question to help clarify my point.

It's certainly not a dupe as my question has nothing to do with the movie ET or the universes being shared.

I'm asking for any SW info on those aliens such as easter eggs in video games or an appearance in clone wars etc.

So far we have a name without a visual reference and a visual reference without a name, independent of each other. Which is why I'm asking if we can link the two in universe.

The only reason it is considered a dupe is because people are relying on out of universe evidence that shows ET is linked to SW, when I am asking for identification of the aliens from within the SW universe.

It's silly that this is considered a dupe, but I won't bother trying to ask it anymore. The resistance and hostility I have met is far too strong.


To answer the question originally asked by TangoOversway: Yes, the questions are duplicate.

To address Kristy McNair's arguments: There are distinctions between your question (the first nine versions of it, at least) and the original question, but not enough to make them actual separate questions.

The original question could easily be reworded to "what is the evidence that the species of aliens that appear in E.T. are part of the Star Wars universe?", and the answers provided address that quite clearly, while presenting the conclusion that the evidence supports the species appearing in both settings. That conclusion is supported indirectly by in-universe evidence, and directly by out-of-universe evidence.

You clearly disagree with that conclusion. However, your question is (was) "what is the evidence that the species of aliens that appear in E.T. are part of the Star Wars universe?", with the additional qualification that you only care about direct in-universe evidence.

Even though you are attempting to approach the question from another direction, the answers will be exactly the same. The only difference is that you are clearly trying to make a point about the conclusion those answers draw: you believe that the evidence is insufficient to make the claim that the E.T. alien is the same as the aliens seen in TPM.

The fact that you disagree with a conclusion presented in the answer to a question is not reason to start a new question. The proper course of action is to post your own answer to the question expressing your differing view point. You have, of course, already done that, and it should have ended there.

The revised question is still, imo, a duplicate, even though it is a much better wording than the previous 10 versions. It is still saying "what is the evidence linking the E.T. aliens to Star Wars", even though it is focusing on one particular area of that link (i.e. does the evidence show a clear link between the name and the visual depiction).


I find it amusing that the OP encouraged me to ask another question, accuses me of going on a crusade and then opens this question campaigning against the question he suggested I ask. Sure seems like a crusade to me.

Reason for asking

The link between ET and Star Wars relies primarily on out of universe knowledge and assumptions held by us, the audience. I would have no problem accepting ET as a member of the species seen in Star Wars, except for one very important reason: Star Wars is firmly seen as fiction in ET.

Because of this, that breaks any tenuous connection establishing the universes, unless there is further evidence in Star Wars indicating that the aliens are the same. At the moment it seems like a homage and nothing more.

With all the EU works, Clone Wars, video games and such, it does not seem unreasonable to ask if the ET aliens have appeared in other SW works, which give further evidence that they are in fact the same species.

Not a duplicate

The reason the question is not a duplicate is simple.

The other question links the universes based on various sources and out of universe knowledge.

It is obvious that the ET like aliens in Star Wars are meant to resemble ET because we know that Lucas included them as favor to Speilberg.

I am asking if the ET like aliens in Star Wars are ever referred to as Brodo Asogi or Children of green planet. They may well be, in Clone Wars or EU works.

Asking a question specifically about the ET like aliens, asking for more details, is not a duplicate.

My question does not rely on ET at all, I am only asking for more information on the aliens in Star Wars using only Star Wars sources.

For that reason alone, it is not a duplicate.

I could ask this same question without mentioning ET, asking for further evidence from only SW sources and it would amount to the same question. Neither question would be a duplicate of asking if ET and SW share a universe.

The question is so far unanswered.

The other answer which uses out of universe knowledge and non SW sources does not answer my question.

When we are identifying species in sci-fi works it is important to have more than the upper body of individuals seen from a distance to positively identify that species.

When it look like a cat, meow like a cat and it's the size of a Cat, we could safely assume it's a cat without a DNA analysis.

A Minbari from a distance could be confused with a human, but are clearly not human. To go with the analogy, we have seen that the aliens in ET look at least partially like a cat. We have not seen if they are the same size as a cat or that they meow like a cat.

In the real world, there are species that have been mistakenly identified as cats until further investigation was done, so it's not a great analogy.

Obviously with our out of universe knowledge we know it is a homage and what is being implied. That doesn't make the link in universe though.

I don't see why it is a problem to ask for more info on the aliens seen in SW from SW only sources. As I said, with the sheer amount of works in the SW universe it is not unlikely that those aliens are featured in a way that would reveal more information about them.

What your doubts seem to be is a legal equivalent of: "yes, I know that the defendant's face looks 100% like one on the VCR tabe depicting the crime, I know that his name matches the name spoken by the accomplice and overheard by witnesses, and I know that he was previously overheard to be planning a similar crime. BUT, since there is no DNA evidence, I will assume that the crime was commted by evil doppelganger and vote to acquit".

Facial identification is not relevant to a discussion regarding species. There exist aliens that look very similar but are not the same species in many sci-fi works. Kryptonians, Minbari, Askajian. It isn't enough to say that the species seen in SW is the same species as ET, when we haven't seem them in whole, not going by in universe evidence.

Is it pedantic? Not when asking for an in universe explanation.

Why should it stay closed?

What I don't understand is the hostility towards this question. Yes, I disagree with the accepted answer on the linked question, but a lot of us here (I know I am) are geeks for details about stuff like this.

Part of the problem with the question is that the answers ignored the question, giving out of universe evidence when I requested an in universe explanation.

The question has 5 upvotes and was already reopened once. Also note my accepted answer here stating that Indiana Jones and Star Wars do not share a universe because ET and Star Wars do not share the same universe.

While it may be a contentious question, if it is not a duplicate and not against the FAQ why should it stay closed?

Asking if the ET like aliens have ever been seen in full or named is not a duplicate. The answer to that question would not even work against or contradict the answer in the other question, which is surely the measure of questions being a duplicate.

If the questions are going to result in different answers, how are they duplicates?

  • 2
    In one of the Harry Potter movies, if we saw someone dressed as a ghost for Halloween, would that "firmly establish ghosts as fictional" in the HP universe? That whole premise is flawed.
    – Beofett
    Mar 10, 2012 at 12:08
  • 1
    Hi Kirsty, I want to check an assumption I have with you first: you're looking for an in-universe explanation and that is all, right? So e.g. if Han Solo said, "Those guys are from Brodo Asogi", then quoting that would be an acceptable answer, right? (I don't mean to be flippant, just trying to understand your definition of an acceptable answer.) If that is the case, what are you missing in @DavRob60's answer which specifies the name in universe? Also, I think whatever is missing is handled by DVK's answer. If not, can you give an example of an acceptable answer? Mar 10, 2012 at 13:14
  • With regards to being re-opened once, the question has 8 unique duplicate votes and 2 unique re-open votes (one your own), and one person voting both to close and to re-open. It's pretty clear that the consensus is that it's a duplicate, and if it really isn't, then the problem is that you haven't managed to convince more than one person of that.
    – Tony Meyer
    Mar 10, 2012 at 20:34
  • The question as it currently reads isn't an exact duplicate (in its original form, it was). However, @DVK's answer to the other question answers this as well (it gives details about where in SW information about this race can be found). Sometimes even though a question isn't an exact duplicate, it's close enough that an answer would be a duplicate. There's nothing to be gained having both questions. For example, this question scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/10213/… isn't an exact dupe, but was closed for the same reason.
    – Tony Meyer
    Mar 10, 2012 at 20:42
  • @Beofett That is a flawed analogy.Harry Potter is set in a world where most people don't know that magic and wizards or ghosts exist, and still believe them to be fiction and still celebrate Halloween. Children dressed as ghosts in Harry Potter is entirely consistent with the universe. Imagine if Indiana Jones in Indy 4 was watching a DVD of Temple of Doom and that would be closer to the SW as fiction in ET situation. Mar 11, 2012 at 11:27
  • Hi @Wikis, no problem at all and I appreicate you asking for clarifictaion. I am wondering if somehow I am not being clear in what I am asking, because I don't understand the hostility. DavRob60's and DVK's answers are not acceptable to me because they rely on the starting premise that ET and SW are linked. We have the term Brodo Asogi being used in an ET book. We have the term Brodo Asogi being used in a SW book to refer to a planet. We have aliens that resemble ET on screen. Mar 11, 2012 at 11:27
  • The term Brodo Asogi is never linked to the ET-like aliens. It is assumed that they are linked because of the out of universe knowledge, but in universe there is no link. An acceptable answer to me would be anything that showed the aliens in full and/or referred to them by name. Given how much SW media there is, I don't think that is unreasonable. Mar 11, 2012 at 11:27
  • @TonyMeyer My guess is that people vote to close because they accept the answer to the other questions as true and don't see the point in questioning it further. Which doesn't make it a dupe. Re this question being a dupe, the reason it isn't is because I am asking for in-unvierse SW sources only. DVK uses ET stuff in his answer which is not appropriate for answering the question I asked. Which leaves the term brodo asogi appearing in a SW novel, without being linked to the aliens on screen. Mar 11, 2012 at 11:28
  • We have a name without a visual reference and a visual reference without a name, independent of each other. Which is why I'm asking if we can put a name to the visual reference. Mar 11, 2012 at 11:28
  • Perhaps the "hostility" is because people think you are asking a question that has already been asked and answered? I'm not sure whether you are or not, hence my dialogue with you. (Either way, I think the "hostility" is uncalled for.) In the original answer, @DVK says, "In Star Wars Universe, the same homeworld name is given to the species in Cloak of Deception book (but the species name is not specified).". continued... Mar 12, 2012 at 7:26
  • Then, in his follow up answer he writes, "No, there is no in-universe canon statement unequivocally stating that the ET-looking aliens in the movie are the same species as the aliens living on Brodo Asogi planet whose Senator is Grebleips." and then goes on to explain (due to copyright) why that is all that can be said in EU. So I think that's the only answer possible. Mar 12, 2012 at 7:27
  • @KirstyMcNair - I took a stab at completely re-writing your question by removing all the content that was indeed duplicate of the original posts, and lasering in on the main issue that you did identify. Please review and feel free to roll back if you don't like. Mar 12, 2012 at 8:56
  • @Wikis the description DavRob60 posted in his answer is much much closer to the type of answer I was looking for. I accept the copyright answer as likely but don't think we have to rule out other easter eggs or appearances/info on those aliens. Either way, I don't see how it is a dupe. Mar 12, 2012 at 11:01
  • @DVK Not rolling back as I appreciate the help, although I thought I had made sure the question was not a dupe by just asking if the aliens pictured had been named in canon, without any link to ET? Mar 12, 2012 at 11:02
  • @KirstyMcNair - there was too much other wordiage masking that point, IMHO Mar 12, 2012 at 11:27

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .