The Inevitable Canon Debate

[stitch626]

For any objective analysis of Star Wars, the EU cannot be used.

Wrong. For an analysis of Star Wars, you include all of Star Wars, not just Lucas Star Wars. Thats like saying you gonna analyze all cars, and then only including GMs.

[DSG2k]

For any objective analysis of Star Wars, the EU cannot be used.

Wrong. For an analysis of Star Wars, you include all of Star Wars, not just Lucas Star Wars. Thats like saying you gonna analyze all cars, and then only including GMs.

False analogy. When you're talking Trek, do you include the novels? No you don't . . . so why not? Because they aren't factual data for Star Trek, being outside its universe. Guess what? Same's true of Star Wars, as Lucas makes clear.

[DSG2k]

The question is thus: who do you think should be listened to when a third-party objective source for a canon policy is desired? You ignore the man who started and who owns it all, and instead follow the internal policy of those in charge of licensed products. I don't think that choice makes any sense. If you're going to ignore rank to such an extent, why not do as Striker suggests and just ask the LFL janitors for a canon policy and use it?

Wow, way to take my words out of context and prove them right!

What? I didn't say you were recommending it, just that it was suggested in your post. I've used the same example of a janitor a hundred times before . . . I was just giving you credit for having the right idea.

[RK_Striker_JK_5]

For any objective analysis of Star Wars, the EU cannot be used.

Wrong. For an analysis of Star Wars, you include all of Star Wars, not just Lucas Star Wars. Thats like saying you gonna analyze all cars, and then only including GMs.

False analogy. When you're talking Trek, do you include the novels? No you don't . . . so why not? Because they aren't factual data for Star Trek, being outside its universe. Guess what? Same's true of Star Wars, as Lucas makes clear.

Except canon levels for Trek and Wars are

different.

The question is thus: who do you think should be listened to when a third-party objective source for a canon policy is desired? You ignore the man who started and who owns it all, and instead follow the internal policy of those in charge of licensed products. I don't think that choice makes any sense. If you're going to ignore rank to such an extent, why not do as Striker suggests and just ask the LFL janitors for a canon policy and use it?

Wow, way to take my words out of context and prove them right!

What? I didn't say you were recommending it, just that it was suggested in your post. I've used the same example of a janitor a hundred times before . . . I was just giving you credit for having the right idea.

It. Was. A. JOKE!!! I didn't mean it!

[DSG2k]

Yes yes, blah blah... We all know that you love to cry over things.

Seems the only one crying is you. You don't even make complete sentences in your post.

That GL counts everything of his above and beyond that of everything else.

I take it you are agreeing to this notion?

And finally that the Canon Tree gets pretty messed up.

What, for the record, is the "Canon Tree"? I've never heard that expression until you.

However that does not change that SW EU is still SW.

The EU is a licensed product with the Star Wars name. If I want to analyze Star Trek, should I look to Star Trek: Online for facts, or merely possibilities? Lucas identifies three pillars . . . so if I wanted to analyze something like BSG using the same paradigm, should I use the Beyond the Red Line fan-produced game as a source of facts?

And while GL may continue to use or reuse anything in SW. That however does not change canon. Unless he states directly that it does (like that whole KT matter).

I have no idea what the above means. Would you mind rephrasing?

Until there is a release stating that the Canon Tree is void (GL's own creation) then canon still exists.

George Lucas did not create "the Canon Tree". George Lucas did not create Licensing's Holocron canon policy (the G/T/C/S/N stuff) either.

You're still a sad little person, and all the misused quotes on earth won't change that.

What misused quotes? The ones I posted? How am I misusing them? I'm still waiting on your explanation, you know.

Canon is canon until GL himself declares otherwise.

So the janitor would have to be explicitly and directly contradicted by Lucas (i.e. "That janitor bastard is a liar! His statements on canon policy are invalid!") before you will accept the Lucas canon above that of the janitor? Is that what you're telling me?

So far, I still have not seen anything from you on why your selected point of view should be considered objectively valid for all. So would you like to man up and get to it, concede, or are you simply going to keep disagreeing without any valid argument whatsoever?

[Deepcrush]

There are rape victims that bitch less then you!!!

[DSG2k]

Wrong. For an analysis of Star Wars, you include all of Star Wars, not just Lucas Star Wars. Thats like saying you gonna analyze all cars, and then only including GMs.

False analogy. When you're talking Trek, do you include the novels? No you don't . . . so why not? Because they aren't factual data for Star Trek, being outside its universe. Guess what? Same's true of Star Wars, as Lucas makes clear.

Except canon levels for Trek and Wars are

different.

[

Not in reference to the treatment of novels, which is (a) what I just told you, and (b) what I've demonstrated repeatedly in this thread with sourced quotations. You're offering no argument to the contrary except your own denial. That's not evidence.

What? I didn't say you were recommending it, just that it was suggested in your post. I've used the same example of a janitor a hundred times before . . . I was just giving you credit for having the right idea.

It. Was. A. JOKE!!! I didn't mean it!

Nor did I say you did. The whole point of the ask-the-janitor idea is the absurdity of it . . . which is why I've used it, too. I would've thought its absurdity would be quite obvious, but given that you're now pretending like I was serious, I'm becoming concerned I'll have to lower my expectations here even further.

[DSG2k]

:laughroll:

There are rape victims that bitch less then you!!!

Put up or shut up. Otherwise you're just being a troll and time vampire.

[Deepcrush]

[Aaron]

Come join me at the Timepire Mobile Command Centre Deep, I have coffee and cookies.

[Deepcrush]

DUDE!

I'm so there!

[Tyyr]

time vampire.

It only works when you're dumb enough to waste the time responding.

Which is apparently every single time.

[Deepcrush]

Damnit Tyyr you're gonna ruin it!!!

[stitch626]

For any objective analysis of Star Wars, the EU cannot be used.

Wrong. For an analysis of Star Wars, you include all of Star Wars, not just Lucas Star Wars. Thats like saying you gonna analyze all cars, and then only including GMs.

False analogy. When you're talking Trek, do you include the novels? No you don't . . . so why not? Because they aren't factual data for Star Trek, being outside its universe. Guess what? Same's true of Star Wars, as Lucas makes clear.

There is a difference. Star Wars books still are their own canon. They exist, as you say, in a universe of their own
Trek books are only canon to themselves. There is no canon from book to book. there is no licensing canon. As long as the author gets permission to write, they can say the next Enterprise is a Ferengi ship. And it won't matter to any other authors (besides them calling the guy a moron for writing a bad book).

If the books of Star Wars are a separate universe, then they should be included just as the Mirror Universe and Abramsverse are in Trek.

[DSG2k]

Wrong. For an analysis of Star Wars, you include all of Star Wars, not just Lucas Star Wars. Thats like saying you gonna analyze all cars, and then only including GMs.

False analogy. When you're talking Trek, do you include the novels? No you don't . . . so why not? Because they aren't factual data for Star Trek, being outside its universe. Guess what? Same's true of Star Wars, as Lucas makes clear.

There is a difference. Star Wars books still are their own canon. They exist, as you say, in a universe of their own
Trek books are only canon to themselves. There is no canon from book to book. there is no licensing canon. As long as the author gets permission to write, they can say the next Enterprise is a Ferengi ship. And it won't matter to any other authors (besides them calling the guy a moron for writing a bad book).

You're wrong about the Trek books. Pocket is now starting to keep continuity between books, and not just within the series books (like Captain Calhoun or Starfleet Corps of Engineers). That's why the Articles of the Federation novel was so impenetrable.

But even if it was just within a series (e.g. S.C.E.), you'd still be looking at a continuity which, like it or not, involves a canon policy, no matter how haphazard and informal.

If the books of Star Wars are a separate universe, then they should be included just as the Mirror Universe and Abramsverse are in Trek.

1. Why would you include the Abramsverse when analyzing Trek? I don't, and I don't think anyone who is analyzing Trek mixes the two willy-nilly as you suggest. If they are, then they're just inviting confusion. The only reason the Mirror Universe is allowed in some respects is because of its direct and precise resemblance on most things, which follows Scotty's line where he notes the ISS Enterprise's only tech differences were in instrumentation, or the fact that they copied the Defiant.

2. Why would you declare that a separate universe should be included anyway?