Talk: Rotta/Legends

Spoiler concerning Rotta's involvement in The Clone Wars (3D)

Various spy reports indicate that Rotta may be Jabba's young son/offspring, and that an episode of the series involves Obi-Wan and Anakin rescuing Rotta. My guess would be from Separatist kidnappers, maybe even the likes of Asajj, Durge, or Grievous. I believe his name would be pronounced "ROTE-ah". 63.64.127.15 22:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It's official...

...Stinky is now my new favourite Hutt. Trak Nar ^{Ramble on} 07:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Film still?

How is it with all the children's books we haven't seen Rotta's CGI model yet? 76.22.3.36 20:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• Rotta's shown up in a TV spot. 63.64.127.64 19:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• Action figure: http://www.rebelscum.com/SDCC08/Hasbro/presentation/image34.asp 63.64.127.64 20:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Possible Cross-Sections appearance?

The Sail Barge cross-section is showing a little Hutt-like being in the rear side of the main deck. Could it be Rotta? Darth Morrt 19:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• I don't the book to check, but that may be Ghoel. 63.64.127.64 19:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  • No, Ghoel is fixed or semifixed on the palace. That being in the Cross-section seems really like a little Hutt. Maybe this picture is the true origon of the caracter. Darth Morrt 19:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

LelalMekha 12:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• anyone got a pic? i kinda wanna see myself.rottapwns 20:23, 26 january 2009

Other parent

I think hermaphrodity means Hutt are male and female at the same time. That doesn't mean they have only one parent. They surely have 2, maybe the don't note the 'male'. In some days I'll delete the no other parent statement, if only anyone agree. Darth Morrt 05:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• Hermaphrodite does indeed mean that a Hutt contains the reproductive organs of both males and females. And, yes, they can combine their own sperm and eggs, in essence mating with themselves, and produce offspring. The offspring would essentially be an exact copy of the parent, containing only the parent's DNA. Hutts don't always need two to tango. However, the content of the article is based on canonical information available and unfortunatly cannot be voted away like some sap on an island. If sources say that Jabba wanted to one day squirt out a kid, then Jabba squirted out a kid. Trak Nar ^{Ramble on} 05:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Are you sure (sourced) that they can combine their own sperm with their own egg? In real life it doesn't always work. Darth Morrt 06:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
    • This ain't real life, though, so authors are free to take some creative liberties. According to sourced information available, Jabba was the only parent. Which source that comes from, I'm not sure as I'm not the one who researched and wrote the article. Trak Nar ^{Ramble on} 06:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• In the AC Crispen Han Solo Trilogy, Jabba's uncle decided to spawn and 'became' female to carry the Hutt-ling. So yes. There CAN be, and seemingly always is, only one parent Hutt per baby Hutt. Just another disgusting piece of their biology. (Of course, it seemed that Jabba decided against ever spawning in that trilogy, but hey, this same trilogy also had Boba Fett refer to himself in his thoughts as Jaster Mareel, since it came out before AotC, so it's already got some minor contradictions.)DGCatAniSiri 01:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "Jiliac blinked at Han sleepily. "No offense taken. My people reproduce as they will, and I decided it was time for me to do so. My child is due in a few months." - from Hutt Gambit. I'm not a native English speaker, but I think Jiliac's statement doesn't necessary means the Hutt combine their own sperm with their own egg. Maybe - I know this is my fanon - they sex with other Hutts, but after that they don't show interest to each other, they don't even note their partner. Also possible they conserv the sperm to use it later as they will. I think we can write they have only one parent, only if a source states it exactly, because there are other possibilities. Darth Morrt 15:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
    • In the Clone Wars novel by KT Jabba specifically relfects on the fact that he created Rotta by himself SEVERAL times.JustinGann 04:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
      • OK, you got the point. Darth Morrt 10:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
        • Sigh... though I respect KT, I think this is meaningless. Hermaphrodite or not, creatures need to be two to make a child. And there are occurences of Hutts having an affair. Sorry to say, but KT might be a good writer as of military things, but not about basic science. LelalMekha 12:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
          • There are few examples of improved species to make a child by her own if there are no males nearby: like Varanus komodoensis - komodo dragon (i don't now her english name). If their females can, the Hutt also can. In this case, Rotta is a clone of Jabba. Darth Morrt 17:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
          • Hm....Shmi Skywalker, anyone? ;) Whether it would work in our world or not, it's clearly stated in the canon, so that's what should be stated here. There are plenty of things in Star Wars that defy our science. InSaneWeTrust 22:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
            • Well, I know we'll have to aknowledge this. As I've sometimes told my teachers: "you're right, but I just can't agree" :p But what of Gorga and Anachro who had a baby *together*? LelalMekha 15:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
              • Also, there are many instances in the real world of species capable of Parthegenesis that demonstrate that it's completely possible for a species to self-fertilize. jSarek 15:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
                • Indeed, but then the autors should have talked about parthenegenesis, not about hermaphorditism. LelalMekha 15:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Canon conflict

I know as the Clone Wars movie was made by George Lucas it is canon, but I noticed that it conflicts sharply with the Han Solo trilogy and with the origonal six moves as well. As the sudden disappearance of Jabba's son from the scene is a little odd, and the fact that to have a "son" is in direct conflict with everything else on Jabba's nature. I guess what I'm getting at is will we have to change some things such as parts of the Han Solo trilogy or it would lose its canon status (which would make many other books and such wrong as they directly reffer to events contained within those books)? Ryan Fett ^{(For Mandalore!)} 00:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thats why retcons are made. Then again, Zorba never appeared in any of the movies or Han Solo novels, and yet he was somewhere during that time. -- Zakor1138 00:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Fan Speculation

"By 4 ABY, Rotta was either dead, presumed dead, or disowned by his father. In his last will, Jabba claimed not to have any children to run his criminal empire after his death.[4]"

Isn't this just speculation?--76.108.145.182 07:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• I don't see how. Jabba's last will is canon, so either he *did* have no children (meaning Rotta had to be dead), he *believed* he had no children (meaning he presumed Rotta to be dead) or he *claimed* he had no children (meaning he disowned Rotta). If there's some possibility I'm missing, do enlighten me. jSarek 09:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
  • • Maybe he was lying. Maybe he didn't include Rotta because he was still a minor (under 50). I dunno. I'm just saying that any explanation for the discrepancy at this point would be fanon. (As an aside though, I remember reading somewhere that The Clone Wars movie and show will be a higher level of cannon than everything but the movies.)--76.108.145.182 10:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
  • If you want to consider absolutely all the possibilities, maybe Jabba discovered that Rotta had never been really his child. Speculation: Rotta was somebody else's child (Say, a rival Hutt's son who replaced Jabba's real child -maybe a stillborn- as a part of a scheme by the other Hutt). Jabba discovered the deception on 3 ABY, Jabba then disowned Rotta, but Rotta was not disowned by his father - he was disowned by Jabba instead. --Skippy Farlstendoiro 09:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Fair enough guys, go ahead and reword it to be more vague, but I think it's still important to note that by the time of Jabba's death, he was claimed to not have any children. jSarek 01:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm unfamiliar with the source, but is it possible that Zorba could have altered/forged the will to benefit himself?InSaneWeTrust 22:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
      • And is that worth mentioning in the article? InSaneWeTrust 22:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
        • It's actually hinted at in Hutt! Hutt! Hutt! that the will was entirely Zorba's creation; this is what his fellow Hutts believed, at any rate. Though the New Essential Guide to Characters does call it his "true will and testament." -- AdmirableAckbar ^(Talk) 23:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
• Maybe Jabba thought rotta should earn his own future.Like he did.(Jabba "earned" his own future right?)Sith-venator 8:32PM 9-28-08
• Maybe the little stinkball died because he didnt have the benefit of a full hut maturation period Ralok 05:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
• Maybe Rotta had already gotten a large fortune and domain and did not need, or did not want any of Jabba's estates. Or, like Sith Venator said, Jabba wanted him to have, earn, and gain fortunes for himself and that Jabba's domain was his domain and wasn't to be passed down. Or, Rotta grew up to be a very independent Hutt and cared nothing of his fathers life anymore, and cut himself out of the will. ?? JediNTT307 03:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
• Aren't Hutts only considered to be of age after 130 years? So isn't it possible that he wasn't considered old enough to inherit property? Lord Zack 23:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Cross-sections appearence

Sorry for this huge picture. Can someone make it smaller here? I'm sure there is a Huttling. The question is wether it is Rotta or not. If it is he, this can explain why Jabba has no heir in other works. Darth Morrt 16:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Isn't this more likely to be a bad drawing of Rappertunie? Cull Tremayne 08:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • It seems to be holding a rattle though. Or a lollipop. VT-16 09:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
    • If it is Rappertunie, it is very badly drawn. Here he has no leg, no green skin, no instrument despite being a musican. I think he's holding some food on a stick. Maybe someone should ask the artist what he intent to draw. Darth Morrt 16:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
      • It probably is Rappertunie. A very bad drawing, yes, but still him. Dr.Kermit^{(The Doctor is in)} 02:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
        • It may have been Rappertunie but we can't count out that is is a random alien the artist put in. Was the picture made after the movie? If so I think we can accept it is Rotta and a fan service. --72.241.206.170 16:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
          • Incredible Cross-Sections was made almost a decade before the TCW film. -- I need a name (Complain here) 11:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
            • Rappertunie? Maybe, but I always figured it was a bad illustration of Bubo. Guardian Assassin 05:15, September 29, 2011 (UTC)

The Will

Is this the same last will that Zorba was accused of editing? If it is, then Rotta could just have been ignored by his grandfather. Dr.Kermit^{(The Doctor is in)} 05:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC) link title

Gender?

On the page it says that rotta is a hermaphrodyte, but it uses "his" and "he". Clearly this isn't right. or is there something I'm missing?Captain Cool 05:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)user:rottapwns

• Nothing's wrong. Hutts are indeed hermaphrodites, but most prefer to be referred to by a specific gender, usually male. It's common for a Hutt to be referred to by masculine pronouns. There is even at least one that prefers feminine pronouns, though I can't name her right off the top of my head. Master Jonathan^{Jedi Council Chambers} 05:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Gardulla Besadii the Elder, Borga Besadii Diori, and Jool were all feminine-identified Hutts. jSarek 06:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Name

Wouldn't Rotta's full name have to be Rotta Desilijic Tiure? — Red XIV ^(talk) 05:26, December 28, 2009 (UTC)

• We do not know how Hutt names work, and it is therefore fanon to speculate it. CC7567 ^(talk) 05:39, December 28, 2009 (UTC)

Age, Year of Birth inconsistency

The article states that Rotta was born in 31 BBY, but his kidnapping took place in 22 BBY when Rotta was 10. This is impossible, as he would be only 9 (or not quite 9) in 22 BBY.

Looking over the article's history, I noticed Rotta's age was changed from 32 BBY to 31 BBY. Later, the date of his kidnapping was changed from 22 BBY to 21 BBY and back to 22 again. We know the kidnapping took place in 22 BBY, as it says on all the other pages referencing The Clone Wars film and The Battle of Teth (I know this recently changed). Rotta's birthdate of 31 BBY would seem to be incorrect, then, but I don't have the Clone Wars Visual Guide to see exactly what it says about his birth year or age during his kidnapping (I'm guessing it just says he was 10 years old). Can anyone confirm his birth year by using the Clone Wars Visual Guide? I don't want to change it back to 32 BBY without the source material, if it specifically says 31 BBY (which I doubt). --Rpmdkc (talk) 20:15, February 20, 2013 (UTC)

• The TCW VG does say he was 10 years old. Age only, not the date. JangFett ^(Talk) 21:22, February 20, 2013 (UTC)
  • Great, thank you. I will restore his birth year to 32 BBY.--Rpmdkc (talk) 21:58, February 20, 2013 (UTC)
    • If the Essential Reader's Companion mentions the film date (22 BBY), I would also use that source too. JangFett ^(Talk) 22:33, February 20, 2013 (UTC)
      • OK. Of course, this all brings up the fact that Jabba should have been pregnant (and female) either before or after The Phantom Menace. Probably after this, since before TPM is bordered by this.--Rpmdkc (talk) 01:29, February 21, 2013 (UTC)
• Well let's not assume unless a source states otherwise. JangFett ^(Talk) 03:08, February 21, 2013 (UTC)