Commentary on StarWarsStarTrek v. 2046

[Praeothmin]

In the Star Wars canon, all we see of said blaster is that it makes said small hole in said armor. That is the limit of our knowledge, and while we can make guesses from that, they are only guesses and would have to be treated as such.

Actually, ANH gives us the best examples of the efficiency of Stormtrooper armor.
On the Tantive four, when they fire at the Rebels, the Blaster marks are slightly bigger on the Rebels, then when Luke and co shoot at the STs on the DS.
In the prison break scene, when Luke and Han shoot the guards using the STs guns, the blast mark is bigger then whan they shoot at STs...
So while the armor is good for nothing against direct hits, it may offer some protection against indirect Blaster hits...
Food for thought...

[Nowhereman10]

I don't suppose you could back that up with some screencaps or something? When I watch the Stormies and Alderaanian troops get shot, there are black marks on the Stormies, but nothing appears on the Alderaanian troops. Certainly if there is a difference, it's not big enough to matter, and it's not like the Alderaanian troops have huge chunks of burning meat and bone exploding all over the place when they get hit.

[Praeothmin]

I don't suppose you could back that up with some screencaps or something? When I watch the Stormies and Alderaanian troops get shot, there are black marks on the Stormies, but nothing appears on the Alderaanian troops. Certainly if there is a difference, it's not big enough to matter, and it's not like the Alderaanian troops have huge chunks of burning meat and bone exploding all over the place when they get hit.

Nope, I haveno screencaps.
I looked at the scene on my DVD player a few months back, and estimated the size of the holes on the guards tunic at around 10cm, while marks on ST armor is usually, at a glace, less than 5cm...
But no evidence to back it up, so if you want to disbelieve, no problem... :)

[2046]

.... and not relevant anyway, as we were discussing a hypothetical blaster that appeared in a hypothetical scene and a hypothetical EU work.

[Praeothmin]

.... and not relevant anyway, as we were discussing a hypothetical blaster that appeared in a hypothetical scene and a hypothetical EU work.

Well, you did say that all we had from the movies was hits on armor.
I just wanted to comment that we, infact, had hits on other materials from the same weapon type...
That's all... :)

[Picard]

Picard, at the risk of having to repat myself once again:
EU is C-Canon, but is Canon, as per Lucas Film Licensing, the managers of GL's franchise.

Per people involved in lincensing. That is, they make EU official, so they can sell EU stuff and put "Star Wars" label on it, thus increasing sale. But just having "Star Wars" label stamped on it does not make something canon. If it does, Star Trek EU should be canon too. And we know it is not.

[Jedi Master Spock]

Since I went ahead and split the other thread of this type into the "intended" debate thread plus a commentary thread, I decided to also do that for this thread. The original can be seen here.

[2046]

.... and not relevant anyway, as we were discussing a hypothetical blaster that appeared in a hypothetical scene and a hypothetical EU work.

Well, you did say that all we had from the movies was hits on armor.

. . . in the context of said hypothetical weapon that SWST postulated as an example for how to deal with contradictions.

For example, were I to discuss in hypothetical terms the concept of you givin' me sweet man-lovin' as an example of things I would never say, measurements of Tab A and Slot B in filmed examples of man-on-man lovin' would not be relevant.

That said, I appreciate the concern, ya big stud. ;-)

[Mr. Oragahn]

Picard, at the risk of having to repat myself once again:
EU is C-Canon, but is Canon, as per Lucas Film Licensing, the managers of GL's franchise.

Per people involved in lincensing. That is, they make EU official, so they can sell EU stuff and put "Star Wars" label on it, thus increasing sale. But just having "Star Wars" label stamped on it does not make something canon. If it does, Star Trek EU should be canon too. And we know it is not.

How so? If they say it's canon, it is. The problem comes from who's authority do you, as a fan, would or must recognize.

EU was largely used because it allowed for much more material on the SW side, to compensate for the only six available films. It also was an age when Wongies would massively cherry pick their facts (we've covered that quite well over four years).

Now the EU is truly massive, but on the same time, purists get a new oomph through the Clone Wars CGI stuff (the live action show has been shelved ftm - too expensive says Fat Lucas).
The irony of it is how newer upper canon material borrows more and more from the EU. Not in spades, but enough to be noticed and sometimes cringe worthy.
This would go at the advantage of the EU completists' argument.
But then, Lucas proves once again that he can screw the whole EU if he wants to - which makes writing for SW the most hurting job as a fiction author, because the official bureau tells you that your work is canon and that there's a guy who's keeping an eye on the overarching coherency, then the next day you can see Lucas peeing all over your work while ripping off names he didn't invent (Coruscant, Mandalorians, etc.).
And it gets worse if you think Lucas has lost the spark.
So I can understand EUphiles here.

In case it's not clear enough, here at SFJN, we've always used both canons, but with a greater emphasis on the one defined by the Licensed branch.

Now if one guy wants to limit the scope of material to the purist point of view, you have to respect that as well.
Here, SWST can't force 2046 to accept the EU. He'll have to deal with that, even if it means portraying a SW universe slightly different than the one in the EU.

[Picard]

So, who is greater authority on Star Wars canon? Lucas or marketing people (latter of whom are heavily involved in EU)? And I think Chee himself openly stated that EU is separate universe. There are some who say that Star Trek Online is canon, too, just beacouse they are involved in it. And EU does not add as much matherial as you think, nor ST canon has that much material. Lot of ST canon is spent on irrelevant technobabble (I mean, not relevant for discussion), love affairs, chasing sensor ghosts and taking photos of lovely nebulas. It has extremely low percentage of actual relevant material.

As for Star Wars EU, its internal confusion (HTL range from sub-kiloton to teraton, characters have more adventures in span of one year than what they should have during entire lifetime, sources flatly contradicting each other on basically every possible issue) means it is not very useful as source material. Plus, you can get almost everything needed from canon, without bothering to filter EU material.

[2046]

So, who is greater authority on Star Wars canon? Lucas or marketing people (latter of whom are heavily involved in EU)?

Lucas, as owner and creator, is and ought to be the final authority on canon. For anyone to suggest otherwise is preposterous.

If you create something and allow others to create something along with it, isn't it your call as to which of those things really count or should be used?

[Who is like God arbour]

Lucas, as owner and creator, is and ought to be the final authority on canon. For anyone to suggest otherwise is preposterous.

If you create something and allow others to create something along with it, isn't it your call as to which of those things really count or should be used?

I wouldn't use such harsh words.

The term canon is a little bit too complex to be so sure that your own opinion is the only one that is correct.

• • • • [...] the term » canon « suggests something that is a little bit more permanently established and not changed every time a new work appears and all that is already there has to be seen in a new light or someone changes its opinion about what is supposed to be canon and what is not, I do not feel the need to forbid people to argue about it.
        
        If you do not like it, do not participate in such debates. If you don't want such debates in a thread, you have opened, simply state in your OP that only movies are accepted as canon.
        
        And I'm not your opinion, that » the EU is obviously NOT part of the canon « because I think that it is possible that there are several canon policies. There could be the canon policy of George Lucas and then there could be the canon policy of Leland Chee. If you look how different the biblical canon is, you will notice that several canons for the same works are possible. The Jewish canon, the Samaritan canon and the Christian canons are all different although all three share some texts. And the Christian biiblical canons are even more divided.
        
        There is a name for those who are thinking that they know the truth about canon and that all others are wrong and that it should be forbidden to debate the question, what canon is: Fundamentalists.
        
        Be careful that you do not become such a fundamentalist. Let others have their opinion. After all, canon policy is not a matter of right and wrong as it is with most questions in natural sciences. The term » canon « comes from Theology. And that is a » Geisteswissenschaft «.

        [...] I recommend that you learn a little bit about the term » canon «. Maybe you can show me when an » authors intend « ever had something to do with canon.
        
        The authors of the texts that are part of the bible and part of Christian Biblical canons had never thought that their texts will be someday part of a canon.
        
        Hopkins has not known, that his works would someday be firmly established in the canon of English poetry.
        
        When Shakespeare wrote his works (if he really existed ...), he didn't know that there will be a Shakespeare canon someday.
        
        What is and what is not canon was in the history of mankind always decided from others but the author of a work.
        
        And the question, what is and what is not Star Wars canon will continue even when George Lucas is long dead. And then several different canons will exist and holy books are written with what is considered canon. And some canons are fixated only on the movies and some canons may include all that was licensed by Lucas Films. And different groups will form and think that they know the truth and that they have to convince the others of the truth and, if that fails, have to destroy them. And then there will be the thirty years lasting Star Wars wars between the purists and the comprehensives. ...

        [...] This argument depends on your assumption that authors will is relevant for the determination of what is canon. For this you haven't provided any evidence while I have shown several examples where texts were included into a canon without approval of their authors. [...]

[Picard]

I don't recall Lucas ever changing his definition of canon.

[The Dude]

Actually, ANH gives us the best examples of the efficiency of Stormtrooper armor.
On the Tantive four, when they fire at the Rebels, the Blaster marks are slightly bigger on the Rebels, then when Luke and co shoot at the STs on the DS.
In the prison break scene, when Luke and Han shoot the guards using the STs guns, the blast mark is bigger then whan they shoot at STs...
So while the armor is good for nothing against direct hits, it may offer some protection against indirect Blaster hits...
Food for thought...

Well the Stormies on the Tantive IV were checking their buddies after the fight moved on from the airlock.

[Who is like God arbour]

I don't recall Lucas ever changing his definition of canon.

It's not in Lucas' power to change the definition of the term canon.

• • • • canon
        Pronunciation:/ˈkanən/
        noun
        
        1. a general law, rule, principle, or criterion by which something is judged:
           • • the appointment violated the canons of fair play and equal opportunity
           • a Church decree or law.
        2. a collection or list of sacred books accepted as genuine:
           • • the biblical canon
           • the works of a particular author or artist that are recognized as genuine:
             the Shakespeare canon
           • the list of works considered to be permanently established as being of the highest quality:
             Hopkins was firmly established in the canon of English poetry
        3. (also canon of the Mass) (in the Roman Catholic Church) the part of the Mass containing the words of consecration.
        4. Music a piece in which the same melody is begun in different parts successively, so that the imitations overlap.
        
        Origin:
        Old English: from Latin, from Greek kanōn 'rule', reinforced in Middle English by Old French canon