Commentary on StarWarsStarTrek v. 2046

[The Dude]

Oh for crying out loud. He obviously means what gets included.

[Admiral Breetai]

the man is the owner of the series..if he says something it is final

unless he's massively full of it..or talks out of his rear to the extent that you can't make heads or tales of his word of god..this does happen in fiction especially in comics which is why you go by whats consistently shown and not databooks or statements by authors in debating that setting, Joss whedon has been full of it as have several other noted writers/producers and thus taking their views on canon and validity is suspect GL to my knowledge has never showed such wishy washy inconsistency -and I doubt SWST and his pals over on SDN would dare suggest Lucas is that inconsistent so they do have no choice but disregard Leland Chee and go by the word of the primary creator the word of god as it where

and Lucas has said it seems that the EU is an AU those who follow a fundamentalist approach to SW have..then no other choice but to follow this commandment handed down by the god of the franchise

[Who is like God arbour]

the man is the owner of the series..if he says something it is final

Since when has the ownership anything to do with canon?

Read what canon means and then explain, where there is anything about ownership.

Furthermore, intellectual property (like copyright) is granted only by legislation. Would something with then established canon change when the law does not recognize the intellectual property any more? The length and requirements for copyright duration are subject to change by legislation, and since the early 20th century there have been a number of adjustments made in various countries, which can make determining the duration of a given copyright somewhat difficult. For example, the United States used to require copyrights to be renewed after 28 years to stay in force, and formerly required a copyright notice upon first publication to gain coverage. In Italy and France, there were post-wartime extensions that could increase the term by approximately 6 years in Italy and up to about 14 in France. Many countries have extended the length of their copyright terms (sometimes retroactively). International treaties establish minimum terms for copyrights, but individual countries may enforce longer terms than those while in other countries (e.g. Afghanistan, Laos, Marshall Islands) copyright is not recognized at all.

[Admiral Breetai]

since writers have had the right to own they're junk make profits off it and have a say in whats allowed and what isn't-regardless of whether or not some countries don't recognize that

he made it it's his if he blurts out "durr hurr not canon" then unless he's like the guys I described or when what happens in the movies radically contradicts his statement or comes out and goes "whoops I spoke with out thinking" his casual spoken word overrides Chee's canon policy

[Who is like God arbour]

since writers have had the right to own they're junk make profits off it and have a say in whats allowed and what isn't-regardless of whether or not some countries don't recognize that

he made it it's his if he blurts out "durr hurr not canon" then unless he's like the guys I described or when what happens in the movies radically contradicts his statement or comes out and goes "whoops I spoke with out thinking" his casual spoken word overrides Chee's canon policy

Again: What has that to do with canon?

Since when has ownership anything to do with canon?

Since when has intellectual property anything to do with canon?

Read what canon means and then explain, where there is anything about ownership or intellectual property.

[Picard]

Lucas has created Star Wars, it is his intellectual property and he is pretty much involved in it. He created brand itself. I think that gives him enough authority to decide what is and what is not canon. Star Wars is his work, his universe, he created it. As for Lucasfilm stamping "Star Wars" label on anything even remotely connected to Lucas' work, it is their branding/marketing strategy to make money. But Lucas always had final say in what is canon, just like Rodenberry did, and their decisions in regards to canon have, or at least should have, weight today like when they made them. There are loads of Star Trek games, including Star Trek Online (who's creators tried to make it canon), yet none is canon.

I think this discussion on canon should be moved to corresponding topic.

[2046]

Since when has ownership anything to do with canon?

Since when has intellectual property anything to do with canon?

Read what canon means and then explain, where there is anything about ownership or intellectual property.

You are, rather interestingly, challenging the entire connotation of canon as used in this context based solely on the denotation of the word.

That is, I'm afraid, a rather weak argument, especially if you are intending to use it as a wedge against the current understanding of the Star Wars dual canons.

[Who is like God arbour]

Lucas has created Star Wars, it is his intellectual property and he is pretty much involved in it. He created brand itself. I think that gives him enough authority to decide what is and what is not canon. Star Wars is his work, his universe, he created it. As for Lucasfilm stamping "Star Wars" label on anything even remotely connected to Lucas' work, it is their branding/marketing strategy to make money. But Lucas always had final say in what is canon, just like Rodenberry did, and their decisions in regards to canon have, or at least should have, weight today like when they made them. There are loads of Star Trek games, including Star Trek Online (who's creators tried to make it canon), yet none is canon.

I think this discussion on canon should be moved to corresponding topic.

1. You are repeating your only argument again and again: Lucas has created / is the owner / has the intellectual property of Star Wars and thus can determine what of Star Wars is canon. I asked, since when ownership or intellectual property has anything to do with canon? I provided the definition of canon, where these have nothing to do with canon. I provided several examples, in which the creator of something was not asked if he / she agrees that his / her works were added or united in a canon. But you are only repeating your old argument, that Lucas has created / is the owner / has the intellectual property of Star Wars without showing what that has to do with canon.
2. What would happen, if Lucas sells his rights on Star Wars?
   Imagine Mike Wong wins several hundred millions in the Lottery and buys the rights on Star Wars (for the sake of this argument, we assume that several hundred millions would be enough and that Lucas is willing to sell it).
3. What would happen, if Lucas dies?
   Is his heir allowed to change canon? After all, after the dead of Lucas, he / she would have all the rights, Lucas had.
4. What would happen, if, after the death of Lucas, a third trilogy is filmed?
   With the death of Lucas, LucasArts and LucasFilm do not stop to exist suddenly. Now imagine that they decide to make a third trilogy with episode 7, 8 and 9. Would it make a difference if they claim that they have found a script of Lucas for these episodes in his inheritance?
5. As you have mentioned Star Trek, Roddenberry may have created Star Trek. But the rights for it - especially for TOS - have been always Paramounts. And most of Star Trek was created, after Roddenberry was already dead. What does this mean for Star Trek canon? And please, to answer this question, you have to do more than only explaining what is part of the accepted Star Trek canon.

[Who is like God arbour]

You are, rather interestingly, challenging the entire connotation of canon as used in this context based solely on the denotation of the word.

As you can see, I have my reasons to doubt that Lucas, only because he has the intellectual property, has the power to decide unilateral what of Star Wars is part of the one and only Star Wars canon. That's not how canon works.

We can agree that there is a Lucas canon and a Chee canon as there are different biblical canons.

That is, I'm afraid, a rather weak argument, especially if you are intending to use it as a wedge against the current understanding of the Star Wars dual canons.

1. A weak argument is still an argument. But I do not see, why it is supposed to be weak. Because you say so?
2. I'm not using it as a wedge against the current understanding of the Star Wars dual canons. Quite the contrary: That's exactly my argument: That it is possible that there are more than only one Star Wars canon, e.g. Lucas canon and Chee canon and who knows what canons will be established when Lucas is dead and Star Wars will be continued.

[Airlocke_Jedi_Knight]

Are you this uncompromising?

Yes, I am. Thank you for noticing.

Something I found laying around the internet. Edited out some rudeness.


"Robert Scott Anderson: A.k.a. Guardian 2000, a.k.a. Darkstar. One of those who thought his opinions were canon and disagreeing with his opinions were the same as ignoring canon. A great deal of his activity dealt with redefining the canon policies of the two franchises. Quickest way to summarize his arguments: He once claimed that a quote on startrek.com could be used as acceptable evidence, but the explaination of that quote, by the person who wrote it, could not be used as acceptable evidence."

So, yeah.......Good luck on that compromise thing.

[Praeothmin]

Are you this uncompromising?

Yes, I am. Thank you for noticing.

Something I found laying around the internet. Edited out some rudeness.


"Robert Scott Anderson: A.k.a. Guardian 2000, a.k.a. Darkstar. One of those who thought his opinions were canon and disagreeing with his opinions were the same as ignoring canon. A great deal of his activity dealt with redefining the canon policies of the two franchises. Quickest way to summarize his arguments: He once claimed that a quote on startrek.com could be used as acceptable evidence, but the explaination of that quote, by the person who wrote it, could not be used as acceptable evidence."

So, yeah.......Good luck on that compromise thing.

Yeah, what's the source of that "juicy information"?
I've read a lot of similar things about him, yet when I first read his articles, I found him a lot more moderate in his analysis then previously led to believe.
While I don't agree with everything he says, don't believe everything you read about him on the net... :)

[Kor_Dahar_Master]

Are you this uncompromising?

Yes, I am. Thank you for noticing.

Something I found laying around the internet. Edited out some rudeness.


"Robert Scott Anderson: A.k.a. Guardian 2000, a.k.a. Darkstar. One of those who thought his opinions were canon and disagreeing with his opinions were the same as ignoring canon. A great deal of his activity dealt with redefining the canon policies of the two franchises. Quickest way to summarize his arguments: He once claimed that a quote on startrek.com could be used as acceptable evidence, but the explaination of that quote, by the person who wrote it, could not be used as acceptable evidence."

So, yeah.......Good luck on that compromise thing.

I personally do not put much stock in quotes that originate from SDN about people who do not support their bas and while the one above may have a grain of truth or even be totally accurate it is nothing compared to some of the crap produced and supported on that site.

After comparing his site and SDN i have have considerably more respect for RSA than i have for those on SDN and while i do not agree with some of his conclusions his methodology for reaching them even on those issues i disagree with is sound and that is more than can be said about those on SDN who primarily attack him.

[Picard]

If you can't defeat him... try to shoot down his credibility. That is how warsie part of SDN works, and they seem to try that on other forums they visit too.

EDIT:

Woah...you're saying that a reference guide that's specifically about a movie made by Lucasarts is not part of the same universe?

It is not, beacouse Lucas said that. No one knows what Lucas thinks about his universe aside from him, and he keeps repeating that EU is separate universe and that Star Wars canon policy is based on that of Star Trek - EU is not canon, it is separate universe, and only on-screen evidence, novelizations, radio plays and TCW are canon (novelizations, that is, movie novels).

The movies, novelizations, etc. are used.
The EU is allowed as long as it does not contradict any of the above.

Neither Star Trek nor Star Wars EU are canon so debate can be canon only, EU only, canon+EU, but for both sides.

[StarWarsStarTrek]

I made my opening arguments in the debate. Pretty long by my standards, although the Mike Wong vs darkstar debates were frighteningly long.

[sonofccn]

I made my opening arguments in the debate. Pretty long by my standards, although the Mike Wong vs darkstar debates were frighteningly long.

If you'll allow me to be honest, and by honest I mean devestating, your opening post covers too wide a range of subjects which almost kills any chance of meaningful debate happening, and consisted almost entirely of your raw assertions with little if any supporting evidence presented. Sorry but that's my two bits.