Jedi Council Forums - There is no Canon?

Locked Topic | Read Only Topic | Previous Active Topic | Next Active Topic

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 - Previous | ~~Next~~ | Reload

Author	Topic: There is no Canon?
Agent_Rob Registered: Jan '04	Date Posted: 1/10/04 8:13am Subject: RE: There is no Canon?
	Genghis12, Nope. Because once you leave the "absolute" realm of the movies, they're all the same weight (excepting Infinities, which is a non-issue). If they're all the same weight, then whatever explanation ties them all together best is the best explanation. Thus, the rationalization on starwars.com incorporates all the sources, including the Official Site, together. A rationalization that ignores starwars.com is inconsistent in that it isn't treating all sources equally. -----signature----- Later...
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Darth_Nemesis1 Registered: Jan '04	Date Posted: 1/12/04 12:28pm Subject: RE: There is no Canon?
	I believe that what many people look for when they speak of canon is continuity and more importantly consistency in the vision of the universe or story that they are enjoying. Many here look at Star Wars as if it is a fairy tale or fantasy film which it of course is but when you add the EU and its various products and tie ins it becomes more than that, growing orgnaically from the strict frame of reference that GL has set for himself in the films. All stories must have consistency, a continuity that will satisfy the reader or fan. Even in the most fanciful take of magic and fantasty if Price Charming climbs up Repunsal's tower on a ladder the very next scene cannot have them climbing down a rope. As a reader you would be a little disconcerted by the sudden change, watching a movie you would point and giggle. Canon allows us to know that it will always be a ladder no matter what happens, unless the ladder is knocked down and the prince must then use Repunsal's hair, and that would be shown to explain the change. When people argue about what is canon or not they are essentially arguing that they want their universe to be consistent, to mean something beyond some writers taking a jaunt through Mr. Lucas' story. Canon allows organic growth in the story without forced change proclaimed from on high. So the question of Star Wars canon is not a faceitious one or unimportant. Its all about the future growth of the story we all love so much. With a clear canon policy we will have a story that is internally consistent and runs like a smooth machine where everything makes sense and logically follows instead of a creaking contraption held together by author spit and NJO bailing wire. In other words a policy decided by committe based on the prevailing winds of what's popular and whats not is NOT what we would want.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Genghis12 Title: Manager Emeritus Registered: Nov '99	Date Posted: 1/12/04 12:34pm Subject: RE: There is no Canon?
	Rob... "If they're all the same weight, then whatever explanation ties them all together best is the best explanation." "Best" being a subjective standard at best. Furthermore, we still get back to the fact that nothing the same weight as something else can override anything else at its level. "Thus, the rationalization on starwars.com incorporates all the sources, including the Official Site, together. A rationalization that ignores starwars.com is inconsistent in that it isn't treating all sources equally." No. A rationalization that ignores starwars.com would be incorrect because it's ignoring a piece of the puzzle. -----signature----- ========== Intelligently Fitting The newer EU into Established Star Wars Continuity (Or How About a No-Prize) http://boards.theforce.net/message.asp?topic=1111146 "Envy the nations that have heroes. Pity the ones that need them." -- Van Zan
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Jedi_Satimber Registered: Jul '02	Date Posted: 1/12/04 12:36pm Subject: RE: There is no Canon?
	It means a lot. It's the difference between incompetence and life experience. That Greedo missed? He's not even an important character. Maybe he was drunk? Maybe his arm was sore? But really, who cares? Yes. Actually, it changes the character of Han Solo a great deal. How? I find it difficult to believe that the only reason people liked Han Solo was because he shot Greedo first. Hell, I didn't even notice it in the film until someone else pointed it out to me. Ah well. shrugs To each his own. Greedo shot first people...to show Han that he was not going to play around...and in return, Han vaporized teh guy...to show him that he was not playing around. Han did not change at all. He is still now, and forever will be a scoundrel...secondly, father and husband first. -----signature----- Goodbye Taz, I will miss you. - RIP 5/93 - 3/17/06 Council Master and co-founder of the SSA AHBY \| Master, Ridiculous Pant Remover of Blueity EUDF Admiral \| Hero = Pat Tillman LS Council Master - sccrman95 \| WARD-Suite 309
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
darkladyhannasolo Registered: Jun '02	Date Posted: 1/12/04 6:15pm Subject: RE: There is no Canon?
	I usually stay out of the Han and Greedo thing. But I hate what GL has done. Why couldn't he leave it alone? Han shot first. It's makes sense the way it was original. To me it doesn't make sense, was Greedo that bad of a shot to miss with 4ft of him. I don't like answer that he did it to scare Han or make Han think that he meant business. Han was worth more alive than dead. Han shooting first sent a message to Jabba don't send your underling to deal with me. Come and see me yourself in my opinion. -----signature----- Han/Leia best couple in SW!! "I love you." -- Leia "I know." --Han
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Grand Admiral Wettengel Registered: Jan '00	Date Posted: 1/12/04 6:41pm Subject: RE: There is no Canon?
	Here's another example for you purists, something that Lucas totally drops the ball on with your precious movies: Do lightsabers instantly cauterize wounds or does blood flow from the gash? Darth Maul got slashed across the abdomen, we saw blood--albeit for a matter of seconds, but it was there--and Maul was cut it two. And when Maul ran Qui-Gon through--no blood splatter. Dooku took most of Anakin's arm off--no blood. Vader slashes through Obi-Wan on the DSI; no blood--hell no body, Kenobi just vanishes. In the Cantina, Obi-Wan slashes at Panda Mon (forget his name and yes, I'm too lazy to look it up), and we see his severed arm on the floor of the 'tina with a generous splattering of blood. In ESB:SE we see the expanded sequence with the Wampa--bleeding uncontrollably from having its arm chopped off. But than, at Bespin when Vader chops off Luke's hand: no blood. So is a lightsaber able to sense who is a "bad guy" and who's a "good guy?" And only the "bad guys" bleed? Please explain to be how that happens only based upon the movies. -----signature----- http://boards.theforce.net/Beyond_the_Saga/b10477/18526131 -- Seed of Darkness -- NJO AU Updated 12/22/05 http://boards.theforce.net/message.asp?topic=20836886 -- Star Wars Destinies NJO AU - NO Vong, stupid living planets and stupidity in general
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Darth_Kevin Registered: Aug '01	Date Posted: 1/12/04 8:32pm Subject: RE: There is no Canon?
	Here's another example for you purists, something that Lucas totally drops the ball on with your precious movies: Do lightsabers instantly cauterize wounds or does blood flow from the gash? Darth Maul got slashed across the abdomen, we saw blood--albeit for a matter of seconds, but it was there--and Maul was cut it two. The cut went through several major arteries and veins, and was a quick cut, maybe too fast to close all the wounds. And when Maul ran Qui-Gon through--no blood splatter. Jammed it in and held it a second, so there was time to burn the wound closed/ Dooku took most of Anakin's arm off--no blood. Consistent with Luke's hand. Vader slashes through Obi-Wan on the DSI; no blood--hell no body, Kenobi just vanishes. It's debatable whether Vader killed Obi-Wan, or if Obi-Wan cause himself to vanish before the slash. My theory is that Obi-Wan and Yoda were already supposed to be dead, but kept themselves alive with the Force long enough to train Luke, so when they let go they vanished because on shear will was keeping them alive. In the Cantina, Obi-Wan slashes at Panda Mon (forget his name and yes, I'm too lazy to look it up), and we see his severed arm on the floor of the 'tina with a generous splattering of blood. This will probably be removed in the DVD Special Special Editions. Also, there is a major artery in the shoulder area that may not have been completely cauterized. In ESB:SE we see the expanded sequence with the Wampa--bleeding uncontrollably from having its arm chopped off. But than, at Bespin when Vader chops off Luke's hand: no blood. Maybe wampas are hemophiliacs Different physiologies could account for something like this. So is a lightsaber able to sense who is a "bad guy" and who's a "good guy?" And only the "bad guys" bleed? Please explain to be how that happens only based upon the movies. Maybe it's a choice on the part of the wielder of the lightsaber and different slash techniques result in different results. Or maybe it is due to different lightsaber designs having different power output in the blade. -----signature----- The Hard-to-Find Comic Book List Thread http://boards.theforce.net/message.asp?topic=6102495 The Unofficial and Parody Comics List Thread http://boards.theforce.net/message.asp?topic=6307340
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Agent_Rob Registered: Jan '04	Date Posted: 1/15/04 7:20pm Subject: RE: There is no Canon?
	Genghis, Sorry about the delay in replying. "Best" being a subjective standard at best. Exactly how is "best" subjective in this context? Furthermore, we still get back to the fact that nothing the same weight as something else can override anything else at its level. If nothing can override anything else at the same weight, then how can the novel explanations override starwars.com's explanation? All must be incorporated into the final rationalization, if at all possible. starwars.com, in this case, is providing a rationalization. Also, one should try to avoid playing "fast and loose" with sources wherever possible. Is there any reason we should we not take it for its word in this case? No. A rationalization that ignores starwars.com would be incorrect because it's ignoring a piece of the puzzle. Could you elaborate on what you're disagreeing with? I say a rationalization that ignores starwars.com is inconsistent, and you say it's incorrect. Since an inconsistent argument is effectively an incorrect one, I can't see what you're trying to say "no" to. -----signature----- Later...
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 - Previous | ~~Next~~ | Reload