Oh come on, please don't have such a kneejerk reaction and just fling that shit back at me. Lying isn't pretty. I don't complain being criticized. Criticism is fine. You do. (I simply don't dig dishonesty and idiocy.)Lucky wrote: You're the only one who is doing the victimization thing here.
I don't call an insult (and clearly feel hurt by) what actually is nothing more than a criticism of a method. You do.
So yes, you're playing the victimization here, and when it's not about you, you play the defender on behalf of so called victims (like you did with the racist thing at least twice in two different threads) in order to gain the upper hand through a moral superiority standpoint by reducing the opposition to nasty bullies.
That's not a correct way to deal with topical issues.
If you say so.Without clear sources I don't trust it, and in your case, you've made claims to me in the past that have turned out to be stuff you've apparently just stuff made up.
You haven't even watched the video. You clearly have made stuff up. ;)Pablo Hidalgo was a member of the Lucasfilm Story Group who's job from what I can find on Wookiepedia is to try to make a coherent story with all of the Star Wars material that is being released.
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Pablo_Hidalgo
Pablo Hidalgo's job title was "Brand Communications Manager". What is the job of the "Brand Communications Manager"?
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Lucasfilm_Story_Group
I found RSA's source that says that the Story Group wants the Story reels to be canon along with the rest of the Clone wars material.
At no point in the video they say anything about wanting the Story reels to be canon.
They don't even use that term once.
What they say is that they considered the reels' story to have happened; i.e., to be true.
To go into details, it's published by the Star Wars account. The video description is:
It's talking about the Legacy material.Published on 25 Sep 2014
Learn about the lasting effects of The Clone Wars television series on the Star Wars saga and the future stories yet to be told.
Relevant quotations are:
1:23 P.H.: "Even though those Clone Wars episodes didn't get publicly revealed, we still look at their core stories as having happened."
Which isn't a direct statement of them being anywhere canon, but could be considered so because they went with the idea that stories happened. Which kinda makes them canonical, right?
3:08 P.H.: "What you're seeing is a work in progress and some people ... quickly err get that idea and others, you know, [something] takes a little bit to get used to."
Unfinished stuff.
4:22 P.H.: "This is what's great about Starwars.com, we know we have a built-in audience that is willing to overlook the unfinishedness of it if it means this is an opportunity to understand what that story was."
He talks about the narrative element, again.
Overall, that video largely served as a way to promote more comics used to delve into details of the stories that weren't adressed in the show or the movies, or weren't published.
Your evidence is wholly inadequate. For starters, you haven't even paid attention to the video.Between the Clone Wars Legacy video and the Data Bank pages there are two peaces of evidence that say the Bad Batch story reels are canon even if the evidence is imperfect, but it is there.
What evidence is there that the BBSR are not canon?
Secondly, the Database's entries are text based, alongside a very few illustrative screencaps that look acceptable enough, all related to content from the stories.
That's about it. The screencaps used as illustrations for the databanks entries are quite the exception in that they branch off from the story content and add visual content, but it's so scarce that it's clearly best treated as an exception. All in all, we know from the video that what was kept was the narrative element.
Besides, talking about the databank on the official website; for a while, iirc, there even were some EU entries in the databank, despite Lucas' statements.
Yes, my Lord.You're opinion is of no worth to me. Back it up, or walk away.Mr. Oragahn wrote: The reels, as a whole, are a topic I already covered. Why, on their own merit, I didn't consider them canonical is explained before.
As a matter of fact, there isn't a single piece of evidence I'm aware of that presents them as canonical material as a whole.
What I recognize as part of the canon is what Hidalgo declared as being canonical.
The databank doesn't even identify the material as canonical per se, and you're yet to show the proof that a reference on the ever changing website suddenly makes canonical the entire source it's been taken from.RSA's evidence is not perfect, but it does appear to say what he claims it does, and the Data Bank backs it up.
Considering that I didn't use wookieepedia as a piece of evidence regarding this debate (just, at best, as a clarification as to what the reels were about) and considering that it is not affiliated to Lucasfilm or Disney, comparing the official website's databank to wookieepedia couldn't be more irrelevant.1) And if you read what I posted, then you would realize that my point has nothing to do with the written content on the pages.Mr. Oragahn wrote: Also, it begs to be reminded that the Databank was hardly accepted as a high level authoritative source for all the time of its existence, on any subject, not just about what is part of the canon or not, and that even by EU fans.
For one, because it kept changing and because each update erases the former page, when it's not an entire section that gets dumped. It also kept picking data at random when there were conflicting sources.
In other words, it has a poor track record of being reliable.
While the information may not be perfect, the Data Bank's purpose is to be a basic encyclopedia of Star Wars, and was always more trust worthy then sites like Wookiepedia which was over run with VS debaters and inflationist who honestly make stuff up.
I think I know fairly well the purpose of that website.2) You are equating the Data Bank to random blog entires while ignoring what it's purpose is and has always been.
Thank you for parotting me.The Data Bank in any form, only had pages on "canon" things, and only having pages on "canon" things is the point.
Yes, indeed, the databank only has material on canonical "things". The snippets you see in the databank, and not the website as a whole, are extracted from the canonical content. The text data is extirped from the *stories*. The pictures... they had to have one for each entry, so they took the less craptistic shot they could get from the unfinished CGI stuff with a horrible compression rate. It looks like it's taken from a Jedi Knight game.
If anything, the overall appearance of the stuff we can see in the picture(s), plus the text, could be safely considered canonical.
Then again, I have seldom talk to any SW fan or simple debator who even paid attention to the databank. It was often changing and there weren't ways to have a copy of the former versions. In fact, nobody really was bothered to make a copy of the whole databank, which I'm pretty sure some hie hard fans would have bothered doing if it were that important. I'm not even sure if the internet archives have saved most of the old content.
That's the problem with published material which can be forever edited or even entirely erased.
Odd? Improper?The official Star Wars web site hosting the official Star Wars encyclopedia seems odd or improper to you? Where else should the company's official public Star Wars encyclopedia be hosted if not on the official public Star Wars company web site?The Databank only exists on Starwars.com, so it's actually totally relevant. In all logic, the material (you linked to) is there precisely because of its particular canonization through an official statement.
You really aren't making sense here.
I don't think I said anything of that order.
Considering that you obviously weren't bothered watching the very video you posted a link to, and are quite confused about the content it holds, my question remains unanswered.The video RSA in directly linked to says so, and the Data Bank entires support the video.Is there any proof that the entire yet unfinished material is made part of the canon by any official statement?
It's not up to me to prove that.
I think you forgot "racist" too.Horribly rude while not even approaching the argument.You see insults where there's mere non-favourable descriptions of your writings. You're behaving like an author who would keep claiming being bullied because people would only leave an average of two stars out of five as ratings to his book on Amazon.
But don't believe me if you want, I'm evil, ok, you seriously have got a fine excuse for not bothering looking for facts.
Emphasis mine btw.
Says the one who actually is contradicted by the very video material he hasn't watched but was brave enough to provide, convinced that it would support his position!Why should I believe you over someone who provided an official press release that seems to state the Story Reels are "canon" when you do not seem to have provided any evidence to support your case?
1. You don't even seem to realize that without an official statement, the canonical status of a given source is determined by consensus by a community of would-be-scholars focused on the fictional stuff of a licence.You have several problems with this line of reasoning as a defense of you position.Funny one. I don't have to prove a negative. The evidence about what is canon or not requires quoting official statements. Otherwise, it's up to the plebe, geeks, to decide what they want to see as part of the canon of a given set of fictional material. In other words, opinion.
First, the evidence that something is "canon" is exactly the same as the evidence that something is not "canon", an official statement as you say. Your claim is as positive as someone who is stating the story reels are "canon". You aren't making a negative claim.
Secondly, you logic is horribly flawed. "You can't prove a negative" is a negative you are claiming you can be proven, and that means you are claiming you can prove a negative, but something cannot be both true and untrue at the same time.
Thirdly, any claim can be expressed as a negative or a positive. It is all just word play.
Generally, and by default, any properly completed and finished product officially published by a given entity, author or corporation, is considered canonical by the people, fans or not, concerned about this very question. Then sometimes you have "timelines", like "Legends" stuff for example in the case of Disney (and even that... is being backpedalled on as I understood) and subcanon layers.
Everytime other forms of material, production notes, unfinished stuff, rushes, artworks, whatever, were realized, debaters didn't take them for granted and generally prefered to have a form of official statement to know if anything from those sources was safe to use. And, in fact, that kind of careful methodology extended to anything seen as "expanded universe" to the original set of material, even if published as finished and wrapped up material. Precisely because fans like to sort out the canon from the apocrypha.
In other words, yes, it *is* always a matter of converging opinions.
But that I'm sure you already knew!
2. What? o_O'
Google it, genius.
Ok, next point.
3. The notion of a negative claim, regarding evidence and debates, clearly flies way above your head. You're arguing for the sake of it. You're no even funny, just boring. :)