Brian Young and the Star Wars Expanded Universe

[Nowhereman10]

Mr. Young is at it again with the explanations, this time on the Expanded Universe. I have no problem what he says in his video. It is quite true that George Lucas for the past 10 years has said that the EU is a parallel universe. But what I take acception to is his blatent use of the noncanon Star Trek Next Generation and Deep Space NineTechnical Manuals and Star Wars ICS books. Seems a little bit off to use books that make Trek look bad, while at the same time use books that make Wars look powerful, and two of the ICS books he had a hand in making.

[359]

With the ICS he attempts to justify its use by saying stuff like the power generation figures are supported in the movies by the power needed for 10 seconds from ground to outside gravity-well. Ignoring the issues with that claim (such as it not being true), it really would make the power figures in the ICS correct. The issue is that it are not correct because the ICS is based off of the movies, it would be correct because it is in the movies. If it is in the movies, why even bring up the ICS? Just say 'hey! look at this in the movies!' and don't get into an ICS argument.

The main problem is that Brian uses that one item being "correct" to then go and assume the rest of the book is correct as well. This seems to be the only reason he mentions the book, in order to make it appear valid because one piece "is." Then, of course, he goes on to use the rest of it as well, the parts that have no basis in the movies at all.


As for the use of the tech manuals, he uses them as a "fall-back position" to solve conflicts of evidence. Of course this is every single thing as there are so many conflicts in the series. I have pointed out to him several times that the tech manuals, being non-canon, cannot solve disputes; such a solution would be like if during a sporting event if there was question as to if there was a foul or something rather than asking a referee or checking a replay, one decided based on which player had tied their shoelaces better. It has no relevance to the game and can not change what the facts would say were one to look at them, it just arbitrarily picks one side (and you can see which side it favors ahead of time).

Another analogy of using the tech manuals would be if one were to try and catch one's self on an imaginary object when you trip and fall, obviously it doesn't work as the object isn't actually there to stop your fall, you just hit the ground. And as the info in the tech manuals does not actually exist in-universe they can not be used to catch one's self when you have an issue.


Anyway, that's my two cents (or two paragraphs) on each issue. To me it's not really a problem that both favor one side, that is what the debate is about after all, it's just that they are invalid materials and he is trying to justify their use as solutions. One by "proving" one part, saying it's true, and then using everything else. And the other by saying he doesn't use it as a primary and that it is of inferior status next to the show, but then using it to solve and override "conflicts" thereby placing it over show information.

359's quote of the post:
"An imaginary block of lead cannot tip a real balance."

[Lucky]

Mr. Young is at it again with the explanations, this time on the Expanded Universe. I have no problem what he says in his video. It is quite true that George Lucas for the past 10 years has said that the EU is a parallel universe. But what I take acception to is his blatent use of the noncanon Star Trek Next Generation and Deep Space NineTechnical Manuals and Star Wars ICS books. Seems a little bit off to use books that make Trek look bad, while at the same time use books that make Wars look powerful, and two of the ICS books he had a hand in making.

In that video you linked to, Brian stated he does not consider the ICS to be canon.

It isn't that the "Star Trek Next Generation Technical Manual" makes Star Trek look "bad" or "good", but that the information in the "STTNGTM" is not consistent with the information found in the "STTNGTM" let alone the show. It is really bad when information on the same page is conflicting.

You should except a setting for what it is.

[Lucky]

With the ICS he attempts to justify its use by saying stuff like the power generation figures are supported in the movies by the power needed for 10 seconds from ground to outside gravity-well. Ignoring the issues with that claim (such as it not being true), it really would make the power figures in the ICS correct. The issue is that it are not correct because the ICS is based off of the movies, it would be correct because it is in the movies. If it is in the movies, why even bring up the ICS? Just say 'hey! look at this in the movies!' and don't get into an ICS argument.

The main problem is that Brian uses that one item being "correct" to then go and assume the rest of the book is correct as well. This seems to be the only reason he mentions the book, in order to make it appear valid because one piece "is." Then, of course, he goes on to use the rest of it as well, the parts that have no basis in the movies at all.


As for the use of the tech manuals, he uses them as a "fall-back position" to solve conflicts of evidence. Of course this is every single thing as there are so many conflicts in the series. I have pointed out to him several times that the tech manuals, being non-canon, cannot solve disputes; such a solution would be like if during a sporting event if there was question as to if there was a foul or something rather than asking a referee or checking a replay, one decided based on which player had tied their shoelaces better. It has no relevance to the game and can not change what the facts would say were one to look at them, it just arbitrarily picks one side (and you can see which side it favors ahead of time).

Another analogy of using the tech manuals would be if one were to try and catch one's self on an imaginary object when you trip and fall, obviously it doesn't work as the object isn't actually there to stop your fall, you just hit the ground. And as the info in the tech manuals does not actually exist in-universe they can not be used to catch one's self when you have an issue.


Anyway, that's my two cents (or two paragraphs) on each issue. To me it's not really a problem that both favor one side, that is what the debate is about after all, it's just that they are invalid materials and he is trying to justify their use as solutions. One by "proving" one part, saying it's true, and then using everything else. And the other by saying he doesn't use it as a primary and that it is of inferior status next to the show, but then using it to solve and override "conflicts" thereby placing it over show information.

359's quote of the post:
"An imaginary block of lead cannot tip a real balance."

Page: 129
Maximum Photon Torpedo Yield (assuming E=MC^2 and 100% efficiency) = about 64 Megatons

Page: 141
Maximum Photon Torpedo Yield = about 2.39 Gigatons

Page: 141
Maximum Photon Torpedo Yield = about 5 kilotons

While the maximum payload of anti-matter in a standard torpedo is only about 1.5 kilograms, the released energy per unit of time is actual greater then that calculated for a Galaxy class anti-matterpod rupture.

Maximum Photon Torpedo Yield = 64.44 Megatons

Matter from the primary deuterium tankage and the total supply of anti-matter from the storage pods on Deck 42 are expelled simultaneously, producing an energy release on the order of 10^15 megajoules, roughly 1000 photon torpedos.

1 Megajoule = 1000000 Joules

10^15 = 1000000000000000

10^15 Megajoules = 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 J

10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 J = 10 zettajoules

10 zettajoules = 2390057.36138 Megatons

2390057.36138 Megatons / 1000 = 2390.05736138 Megatons

2390.05736138 Megatons = 2.390057361 Gigatons

Maximum Photon Torpedo Yield = 2.39 Gigatons

The release yield of the secondary system is calculated to be 10^9 megajoules, roughly equivalent to 500 photon torpedos. The secondary destruct system becomes the primary system for the Saucer Module in Separated Flight Node.

10^9 Megajoules = 1000000000 Megajoules

1000000000 Megajoules = 10000000000000000 Joules

10,000,000,000,000,000 Joules = 10 Petajoules

10 Petajoules = 2390.05736138 kilotons

2390.05736138 kilotons / 500 = 4.78011472276 kilotons

Maximum Photon Torpedo Yield = 5 kilotons

[359]

In that video you linked to, Brian stated he does not consider the ICS to be canon

But in many of his videos he continues to use it anyway. He justifies this by saying that it is based on canon because he could reproduce the number for power generation in the book from the movies using the 10 seconds to leave gravity well thing. The issue is that if one can prove all the info in the book from the canon, why not just prove your point from the canon? Probably one can not actually prove all those numbers he is using from the book using the movies, Hense the reason to try and justify the book as entirely true. The use of the material in that manor falls under a fallacy of composition.

[Mr. Oragahn]

In that video you linked to, Brian stated he does not consider the ICS to be canon

But in many of his videos he continues to use it anyway. He justifies this by saying that it is based on canon because he could reproduce the number for power generation in the book from the movies using the 10 seconds to leave gravity well thing. The issue is that if one can prove all the info in the book from the canon, why not just prove your point from the canon? Probably one can not actually prove all those numbers he is using from the book using the movies, Hense the reason to try and justify the book as entirely true. The use of the material in that manor falls under a fallacy of composition.

Indeed, that's really twisted. The positive attributes of one element benefits the whole group, that way. Not to say that the element in question is an estimation of accelerations based on the stupidest way I've ever heard of to understand a movie.
The whole concept of camera cut literally eludes him; he's taking the material in such a super naïve way that he looks like those aliens from Galaxy Quest. Like if a character is seen entering a building and in the next shot he's seen entering an elevator, then said character obviously has flash-rushed over that distance which gives him a speed of a bazillion meters per blink of an eye. Ok ok.
As you said, his methodoloy is equally silly since, aside from his fallacy of comp, if he had and were to verify each single claim of the ICS by analyzing the movie (like we all did, thanks for catching up!), why the hell bother with the ICS anymore? His position is now to prove that the most preposterous claims of the books penned by Saxton actually fit with the movie? Therefore being a clear admission that the ICS cannot be taken at face value without verification. A typical trait of a non-canon source... as he also now recognizes, it seems... isn't that just absurd?

[Mr. Oragahn]

That's the totally broken logic that's been the foundation of the ICS-like doxa.
Frankly, considering how a prime contributor BY was to the Star Wank side, isn't that a *little* embarrassing to the SDN plebe now that the crucial and yet idiotic methodology is plain as day?

[Mike DiCenso]

That's a large part of the problem here. I think that Brian has become so desperate to prove the AOTC and ROTS ICS are right because he has invested so much of himself into it. Just like his problem with asteroids being vaporized by turbolasers in TESB; he won't admit there are no asteroids being vaporized in the Falcon-Avenger chase scene, just empty flak bursts. He even has the gall to say that Slave-I's blasters bolts are hitting little tiny asteroids every time they miss Obi-Wan's fighter when they're just exploding into flak bursts, like the Avenger's TL bolts do.

Even when Brian tries to show evidence of asteroid vaporization in those scenes in his videos, he makes himself look laughable since anyone paying attention can clearly see there is nothing being hit. It's just pathetic. Only two times did Slave-I hit any asteroids, each about 9-12 meters long, and only blew off a few meters at the tips of them, with little vaporization, and a lot of glowing, slow moving debris to show for it. Is it too much for Brian to admit that his original turbolaser analysis is largely wrong after all these years because he relied too much on Wayne Poe to provide screencaps and bad information to him? I don't think Brian can. When I listen to Brian's voice in his videos, I hear not a smarmy used car salesman, like Lucky does, I hear arrogance. A talking down to the audience, like they were children, and with a smug superiority that he is right and all others are wrong. The only time Brian praises anyone who critique his work are those who generally seem to agree with him. Look at how upset he was in his "Sheep Dog" video, look at how he misrepresented 359's minor critique of his Isoton video and got upset that anyone even dared to do so after he "threw them a bone".

Threw a bone? Really?

The Great Brian Young decided to descend from on high and be nice to us peons. Just lovey. I got news for you Brian, just because you said something pro-Trek, doesn't mean it gets an automatic free pass and blind praise. People can and should go over your work and see if you did it right, and used good assumptions. And I am surprised that Brian deleted those critic hate videos. But then again, it was kind of hard to argue against Nowhereman's points about that. Brian is a hypocrite for putting them out and for misrepresenting a critic's statements.

I also got a kick from the Sci-Fights video Brian linked to in his Expanded Universe video where he slams someone for pointing out (correctly) that the Borg did indeed lift the entire New Providence colony up from the surface. Brian tried to argue that only a large building had been lifted off and showed briefly the scene of the way team standing near the rim of the large crater. However, the dialog states that New Providence colony only consisted of some 900 people:

"Captain's log, Stardate 43992.6. Admiral Hanson and Lieutenant Commander Shelby of Starfleet Tactical have arrived to review the disappearance of New Providence colony. No sign remains of the nine hundred inhabitants. "

That's about a modest-sized village, and the scene shows a crater big enough to encompass such a community:




Also, without having seen the original comment directing Brian to that scene, its kinda hard to say anything concerning that since Brian has a history of not accurately portraying what someone said. But to hear him round off on someone for not giving accurate information is a hoot, since Brian does cherrypick his own evidence.

In short, to admit the ICS or any other conclusion of his is wrong is for Brian to admit that he himself is wrong. Except for very trivial items, I don't think he can do that.
-Mike

[Lucky]

Even when Brian tries to show evidence of asteroid vaporization in those scenes in his videos, he makes himself look laughable since anyone paying attention can clearly see there is nothing being hit. It's just pathetic. Only two times did Slave-I hit any asteroids, each about 9-12 meters long, and only blew off a few meters at the tips of them, with little vaporization, and a lot of glowing, slow moving debris to show for it. Is it too much for Brian to admit that his original turbolaser analysis is largely wrong after all these years because he relied too much on Wayne Poe to provide screencaps and bad information to him? I don't think Brian can. When I listen to Brian's voice in his videos, I hear not a smarmy used car salesman, like Lucky does, I hear arrogance. A talking down to the audience, like they were children, and with a smug superiority that he is right and all others are wrong. The only time Brian praises anyone who critique his work are those who generally seem to agree with him. Look at how upset he was in his "Sheep Dog" video, look at how he misrepresented 359's minor critique of his Isoton video and got upset that anyone even dared to do so after he "threw them a bone".

You mean like this?

 
To suggest they discussed the firepower of the Death Star...without discussing the firepower of the Death Star...is ridiculous.

[Lucky]

But in many of his videos he continues to use it anyway. He justifies this by saying that it is based on canon because he could reproduce the number for power generation in the book from the movies using the 10 seconds to leave gravity well thing. The issue is that if one can prove all the info in the book from the canon, why not just prove your point from the canon? Probably one can not actually prove all those numbers he is using from the book using the movies, Hense the reason to try and justify the book as entirely true. The use of the material in that manor falls under a fallacy of composition.

But it is only Hypocrisy/Fallacy of Composition if it is done after he made the video in question.

If what you say is true about Brian's use of the ICS as a source do to one thing (barely) matching with the movies then Brian is obligated to use all of the EU do to all of it matching G and T canon at least as well if not better.

[Mr. Oragahn]

Sorry to ask but is Brian even intelligent?

One would note that if his conclusions were based on false information (from Poe), it would be easier these days to throw it back and claim being misguided because of corrupt material.
A hissy fit? No, not needed. Would there be a risk of some feud? Like Poe blowing up the lid in retaliation? Possible.

However, isn't it obvious at this point that admitting being wrong would both do him good AND put to rest the silly ICS debate that was so detrimental to the debates?
They always loved to praise Alyeska as the new Trekkie convert who saw the light and joined the SDN side. But the opposite about Young would be equally laudable and, in fact, much more valuable to the entire community. Every single person who got involved in a debate featuring Star Wars has had to endure the jerkiness of ICS curators.

Now, people in general are capable of forgiving. But not capable of ignoring the same old shit being peddled by someone who just can't even be arsed to pay proper attention to all that has been said. It's always the same reboot with these guys.

[Khas]

It can't be fear of retaliation from Poe. Poe left the Versus Debate, and in fact, SOLD all of his SW stuff.

[Mr. Oragahn]

It can't be fear of retaliation from Poe. Poe left the Versus Debate, and in fact, SOLD all of his SW stuff.

He actually looks much wiser.

[Mike DiCenso]

It can't be fear of retaliation from Poe. Poe left the Versus Debate, and in fact, SOLD all of his SW stuff.

I don't know how you came to that conclusion, but I can't think of how Brian would ever feel threatened by Wayne, unless there really was something more of the truth to Wayne's madness behind those little "talifan" videos of his. But I digress. My opinion based on the facts at hand are that it is an ego issue, not an external threat one.

To clarify, while some people might be willing to admit that they'd been duped by someone who gave them corrupted information, I think that Brian's personal investment in everything he did for the Turbolaser Commentaries is so great, that he cannot and will not want to admit to being duped, or having jumped to a conclusion from incomplete information, and thus invalidating everything that has given him adulation and fame in one fell swoop.

And so we will continue to see him claim that asteroids are being vaporized by Slave-I and the ISD Avenger when there are only empty flak bursts and he'll keep insisting, that despite obvious jump cuts, that ships are literally leaving planets in under 10 seconds, but yet won't grant the same to Star Trek or any other franchise when similar narrative editing is made use of.
-Mike

[Khas]

Um, it was Mr. Oragahn who first mentioned that Brian might fear retaliation from Wayne, not me. I was just pointing out that Brian wouldn't have anything to fear from him.