What's accepted SW canon?

[Praeothmin]

It only offers room for dishonest debaters, using broken logic and unsupported assertions.
Take the Geonosis battle, for example:
KT missiles making small explosions, like grandes, when hitting support ships. Then why use those powerful missiles at all, if those low-powered shots are all it takes to take down the enemy ships, or why not dial them up when fighting Droids tightly grouped together?
This would have saved many clone lives, and saved many Clone vehicules from getting destroyed by the Droids...

This is like taking a hummer, and placing the biggest cannon found on a Battleship on its back, but using it to fire starburst rounds at the enemy Hummer...

[Picard]

It only offers room for dishonest debaters, using broken logic and unsupported assertions.

And I have a feeling that it is exactly what 90% of debaters at SDN want.

[Praeothmin]

I wouldn't say 90%.
I've perused SDN a few times in the last few years, and while at least 50% will perform back-bending feats to ensure SW supremacy over ST at every turn, a lot of them doubt the "gospel" truth, and do not necessarily agree with what's been called "the party line".
And then, even those 50%, when looking at other SDN forums, on other subjects, all of a sudden show different beliefs, and will argue amongst themselves about other subjects.
It is only when dealing with SW vs ST that the "party line" comes back...

Take Kane Starkiller, for example.
He's as ardent a defender of SW as anyone can be, but I've found myself agreeing with him on certain aspects of the SW vs ST debate on a few occasions, because, franckly, I felt the position defended by the Pro-Trek side was absurd...

Same thing with InvaderSkooj (and even Enigma) over at ASVS.
We don't disagree on every single aspect of the vs debate, and yet we are both staunch defenders of our positions and have argued solidly on opposite positions on the vs aspect...

They are hard to budge from their positions (and so am I), but they are not unreasonable...

It's always very important not to lump everyone in the same boat, because that is as far from the truth as saying SW would kick ST's ass in a fight... :)

[Picard]

True.

[KirkSkyWalker]

Then you have to PROVE it doesn't contradict the movies; and the only way to do that, is if it's IN the movies.
So it's a moot point.

You don't seem to understand what a contradiction actually is.

A contradiction, is like when you imply that LFL is making sure that the movie-universe is consistent with the EU, when in reality nobody at LFL is doing this: i.e. the facts contradict your implied statement.

Therefore there's no guaranteed continuity for the movie-universe with the EU; the movie-makers might pick something here and there from the EU to put in the movie-universe; but that simply makes those little bits part of the movie-universe-- not the whole EU.

They might also make sure that they don't use any planet-names that the EU already did; but again, that doesn't movie-canonize everything planet in the EU that they didn't use.

So they're only consistent where they agree-- not the other way around, i.e. everywhere except where they disagree. It's stictly a one-way deal, i.e. the movies are accurate in the EU, the EU is not guaranteed accurate in the movies.

Therefore, the burden is on the proponent of EU material, to prove that it doesn't contradict the movies-- not on the adversary to claim that it does.

Wong is wrong: they're separate fictitious universes.

[Lucky]

A contradiction, is like when you imply that LFL is making sure that the movie-universe is consistent with the EU, when in reality nobody at LFL is doing this: i.e. the facts contradict your implied statement.

Therefore there's no guaranteed continuity for the movie-universe with the EU; the movie-makers might pick something here and there from the EU to put in the movie-universe; but that simply makes those little bits part of the movie-universe-- not the whole EU.

They might also make sure that they don't use any planet-names that the EU already did; but again, that doesn't movie-canonize everything planet in the EU that they didn't use.

So they're only consistent where they agree-- not the other way around, i.e. everywhere except where they disagree. It's stictly a one-way deal, i.e. the movies are accurate in the EU, the EU is not guaranteed accurate in the movies.

Therefore, the burden is on the proponent of EU material, to prove that it doesn't contradict the movies-- not on the adversary to claim that it does.

Wong is wrong: they're separate fictitious universes.

I think you have it backwards?

[KirkSkyWalker]

Whatever that means, it's wrong.

[Lucky]

Whatever that means, it's wrong.

Maybe I'm just misunderstanding what you are trying to say, but no one is saying the G and T canon levels try to conform to the EU/C-canon. G-and T- canon in fact contradict the lower ranked C-canon often, but the is an attempt is flawed because the editors are only human.

If there is a contradiction then the higher canon wins. G>T>C>S

[KirkSkyWalker]

You completely ignored my argument, so I'm ignoring yours.

[Who is like God arbour]

I think you have it backwards?

The thing is that I think that he accurately described how Lucas is seeing his Star Wars. That's exactly how Lucas works. He may take a few bits out of the EU but he does not feel constrained by the EU.
Maybe it makes sense to speak of two separate canons: Lucas' canon and EU canon, where only the movies (a few of their novelizations) and Clone Wars are part of Lucas' canon and all this plus the EU is EU canon. I mean, it is obviously from the different statements in their interviews that Lucas and Lee have different opinions what Star Wars canon is. If Lucas would think of the EU as canon, he wouldn't be willing to ignore it. For him, it is only good as an inspiration.

[KirkSkyWalker]

Maybe it makes sense to speak of two separate canons.

Particularly since they have two different canon policies.

Again, the movies only avoid repeating names used elsewhere in the EU-- that's the only relationship it has with the EU, other than drawing from it freely at will.

Therefore to claim that the movies are otherwise consistent with the EU "except where they specifically contradict," is utterly preposterous and without merit-- since there's nothing making them consistent, other than avoiing re-use of names. It's pure wishful warsie-thinking, and has ZERO official backing.

One Warsie even tried to claim that since a character from the EU (i.e. the bounty-hunter who was also a droid) was shown briefly onscreen in TESB, that the character should also be able to do everything it can do in the EU; of course this is nonsense. The movie-universe isn't bound by anything it doesn't specifically want.

Seriously-- the Empire's going to waste ginormous resources building gigantic Death Stars as their most powerful weapon ever, when they can build the equivalent of Star Trek Trilithium-warheads via the tiny "Sun Crusher," simply because it's "not specifically contradicted by the movies?" And we're to believe that "Thrawn" can bring down a working Star Destroyer using the Force in the movie-universe, just because it's "not specifically contradicted by the movies-- " when the movies do show that Yoda can barely move a stalled X-wing a few feet?"
Pah! They're contradicted by common sense... though that surely runs short-ration on SDN.

it is obviously from the different statements in their interviews that Lucas and Lee have different opinions what Star Wars canon is.

Let's see these "statements," please. If they're the ones I've seen, you're misinterpreting them-- as they surely do on SDN, simply so that they can use EU material in vs-discussions. The EU exaggerates even more than SDN, so it's understandable they'd wish it that way; however wishful thinking is all that it is.

[Picard]

though that surely runs short-ration on SDN.

Depends on what part of community you take. There are lot of people who are not interested in ST-v-SW debate at all, and one of them said me that Warsies are mostly reasonable in SW-v-(anything not ST) discussions (or at least in SW-vs-W40k). But lot of SDN-ers interested in ST-vs-SW debate have seemingly decided to send their brain/reason/nameitwhatyouwant on extended shore leave whenever they try to debate anything connected to Star Trek.

[KirkSkyWalker]

though that surely runs short-ration on SDN.

Depends on what part of community you take. There are lot of people who are not interested in ST-v-SW debate at all, and one of them said me that Warsies are mostly reasonable in SW-v-(anything not ST) discussions (or at least in SW-vs-W40k).

Well since they don't have a section for SW-v-(anything but ST) then that's a moot claim.

But lot of SDN-ers interested in ST-vs-SW debate have seemingly decided to send their brain/reason/nameitwhatyouwant on extended shore leave whenever they try to debate anything connected to Star Trek.

Try permanent vacation. Just look at their canon-claims, and it's clear that they don't have a clue--or want one:

…In short, nothing is canon in Star Trek but the TV shows and movies, and even some of the material in the TV shows and movies might not be considered canon. …

As for Star Wars, the same individual asked similar questions of Leland Chee (maintainer of the Star Wars Holocron, which is an internal continuity database which is kept secret from the public and which informs Star Wars authors what they must stay consistent to), and he responded with this:

The database does indeed have a canon field. Anything in the films and from George Lucas (including unpublished internal notes that we might receive from him or from the film production department) is considered "G" canon. Next we have what we call continuity "C" canon which is pretty much everything else. There is secondary "S" continuity canon which we use for some older published materials and things that may or may not fit just right. But, if it is referenced in something else it becomes "C". Similarly, any "C" canon item that makes it into the films can become "G" canon. Lastly, there is non-continuity "N" which we rarely use except in the case of a blatant contradiction or for things that have been cut.

I will not go into specifics as to what is considered "S" canon or what items that are seemingly "C" canon are actually "G" canon.
When challenged by certain agenda-driven individuals who claimed that they studied George Lucas' public interviews and therefore knew his intentions better than people who worked with him professionally, Mr. Chee further clarified with this:

...The quote you provide makes it sound like the EU is separate from George's vision of the Star Wars universe. It is not.

So in summary, the policy of Lucasfilm is that the books count, although not as highly as the movies.

So Wong interprets this:

“the EU is not separate from George's vision of the Star Wars universe”

to mean this:

“the actual Star Wars EU's physical fictitious universe, is the same fictitious universe as the Star Wars movie-universe."

Meanwhile, the Chee's words actually mean that the moral is the same between the two separate fictitious universes: i.e. that "absolute power, corrupts absolutely," "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance," "you can't trade liberty for security" and all that noise; so fricking what?

That's the moral of Lord of the Rings, too... and about a million other fairy-tales that Star Wars is basically lifted from, and simply set out in space.

So by Wong's logic, we should we look for Frodo on some planet in the SW movie-universe too; and you can throw in Harry Potter and a couple thousand other political novels while you're at it... anything that had the same basic "vision" as Lucas had for Star Wars.

Thus as we see, Wong-- with full agreement by his muppet-show of nodding minions-- takes the words out of other people's mouths, scrambles them at whim, and then pulls his desired conclusions out of his hat, like Penn&Teller… and you know what their catch-phrase is:



And thus we see that Obi-wan was right: the Force does, indeed, have a strong influence over weak minds!
And so do hallucinogenic drugs.

[Lucky]

I think you have it backwards?

The thing is that I think that he accurately described how Lucas is seeing his Star Wars. That's exactly how Lucas works. He may take a few bits out of the EU but he does not feel constrained by the EU.
Maybe it makes sense to speak of two separate canons: Lucas' canon and EU canon, where only the movies (a few of their novelizations) and Clone Wars are part of Lucas' canon and all this plus the EU is EU canon. I mean, it is obviously from the different statements in their interviews that Lucas and Lee have different opinions what Star Wars canon is. If Lucas would think of the EU as canon, he wouldn't be willing to ignore it. For him, it is only good as an inspiration.

That's what everyone is saying, and how star wars canon is treated here isn't it?

[KirkSkyWalker]

That's what everyone is saying, and how star wars canon is treated here isn't it?

I'm not, and neither is Lucas.

There is no "Lucas-canon" which includes the movies and TCW in one fictitious universe, while everything else is in another.

I wouldn't even include TCW in the EU, since it's just too silly; though for canon-purposes, the tech might be higher than C-canon.

However under no circumstances could anything but the movies-- and possibly the novelizations-- be valid for the film-universe.