CT Got a question? Ask it here!

@Hernalt wrote



I see some posters listing criteria for canonicity. Is there a consensus on canonicity of a film as a function of time? I.e., if a later film contradicts an earlier film. Do arguments exist to assess or defend the relative merit or weight of canonicity to be awarded to the former or the latter? (Film only, I think.)



Could you please be more specific and provide an example of what you have in mind?



I'd like to use two examples from the "secondary" George Lucas canon to illustrate some difficulties

1. In the ANH novelization Luke's skyhopper is designated as a "tropospheric" craft, yet in the ROJ novelization it's supposed to be a part of the Rebel fleet in space. Since we do not see any skyhoppers during the fleet assembly, I'd like to believe the ANH novelization carries more weight
2. In the ANH novelization (and screenplay) the landspeeder hovers above ground because of a magnetic field. Yet The Art of ESB, a primary reference book, suggested that Cloud City and its Cloud Cars hover because they are supported by the "rare, anti-gravitational Tibanna gas". Now, Uncle Owen was very energy conscious in ANH, yet Luke's landspeeder hovered above ground parked next to the homestead's "igloo". Did ESB constitute a premise change that introduced Tibanna gas as an alternative to "repulsorlifts"?

 

I don't have a calculation to back this up, so I acknowledge it remains my *opinion that a contradiction exists.

Film versus film:
Upon approach to Tatooine, TPM shows a blue star and an orange star. The blue star contradicts the light and color of surface daytime Tatooine shots established in SW77, ROTJ. The subsequent light and color of surface daytime Tatooine shots in TPM and AOTC are likewise contradicted. (Due to atmospheric extinction, the blue star does not contradict Tatooine sunset shots in SW77, ROTJ, AOTC or ROTS.)

Film versus novelization:
A blue star in TPM overrules the statement of G1 and G2 in the SW77 film novelization.

 

Now I understand. But essentially we have one VFX shot in TPM versus a majority of incompatible daytime shots (including TPM) plus the ANH novelization. So I'd say that the shot in TPM is a screwup. That would be the lesser of two weevils.

 

I may have to reread the OT novelizations to apply for citizenship here...

Your first example is the re-use of peculiarly specific terminology. With the following retcon it might have a solution:

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Database/Query-SW.php?Movie=ROTJ&Source=novelization
"In a remote and midnight vacuum beyond the edge of the galaxy, the vast Rebel fleet stretched, from its vanguard to its rear echelon, past the range of human vision. Corellian battle ships, cruisers, destroyers, carriers, bombers, Sullustan cargo freighters, Calamarian tankers, Alderaanian gunships, Kesselian blockade runners, Bestinian skyhoppers, X-wing, Y-wing, and A-wing fighters, shuttles, transport vehicles, manowars. Every Rebel in the galaxy, soldier and civilian alike, waited tensely in these ships for instructions. They were led by the largest of the Rebel Star Cruisers, the Headquarters Frigate."

http://www.theforce.net/swenc/newdescr.asp?search=2743&tab=d
"a small, galactic craft produced on Bestine, it differs from the Incom skyhopper in that it can fly in outer space, where the Incom skyhopper is a tropospheric craft."

For your second example, Earth science can reproduce electrostatic levitation, magnetic levitation, sonic levitation, wind 'levitation'. Maybe photon pressure levitation for something nanoscale. Or the principle of optical tweezers operating in the vertical direction. *Possibly there are a variety of mechanisms in GFFA, using different physical principles, that reproduce the behavior of levitation.

 

I don't think James Khan had such a distinction in mind. Had he really wanted to convey the impression that the Bestinian Skyhopper was not the T-16 Skyhopper Luke flew, then he'd probably called it "starhopper", "skyspeeder" or else.

In general the ROJ novelization fleet description is a bit problematic, to say the least. Alderaan had no weapons but it manufactured gunships?

The "Rebel Blockade Runner" is not of Corellian origin but of Kesselian one? Here the novelization contradicts the ROJ screenplay, which clearly refers to the Blockade Runner as a "small Corellian battleship" - which is the first ship listed in Khan's description.

 

Unless I am mistaken, "Bestinian" is the Only proper adjective there that is not derived from previously mentioned proper nouns and proper adjectives. I.e., crafted by the author. (I cannot imagine Bestine is derived from Bespin.) It strikes me as very Illiadic / Achaean fleet, except that he did not throw in more than the kitchen sink. The kitchen sink having a sink salad of names already known. I would agree that skyhopper is a poor choice for a star faring craft, mitigated perhaps only by Luke's last name, which certainly has a more than an exospheric ring to it due to the spontaneity with which Greek gods threw people up into the starry firmament.

I have done more looking through frames of the PT and discovered that the blue and orange color of the binary in TPM is 'sort of' recapitulated in AOTC, from inside the atmosphere of Tatooine looking up at high elevation. Which example sent me looking for examples of whether or not photographers grapple with blue lens flare during outside (surface, sunlit) photography as a matter of course, or whether blue lens flare (in space, or looking up through atmosphere) can mean solely an indicative, affirmative, non-negotiable artistic imposition. Without trotting out links, the short answer is, yes, photographers can run into blue lens flare when they definitely do not seek it, but it does not take the well-known linear form that Lucas implies / imposes. So my "trouble" now is that I can accept that Lucas gives a blue lens flare to a sun-like G1 or G2 star, but then that causes the partner orange colored star to be "less" than a G1 or G2 star. I.e. K. Which generated my question. And which contradicts the SW77 film novelization.

Now that I'm ready to post this my eyes tell me it's really purple. A cursory look says people using iPhone cameras get purple flare...

 

I have a question: were there any fan theories regarding the discrepancies between ESB and ROTJ Emperor's appearance?

If I had stepped out the theatre in 1983, I would be so critical about this and think there is definitely something more going on...

 

Or, there are a number of models of blockade runner.

 

Hernalt wrote

Unless I am mistaken, "Bestinian" is the only proper adjective there that is not derived from previously mentioned proper nouns and proper adjectives. i.e. crafted by the author (I cannot imagine Bestine is derived from Bespin).

It is derived from the deleted Anchorhead scene (and a Tatooine township, west of Mos Eisley according to the ANH novelization):

BIGGS My friend has a friend on Bestine
who might help us make contact.

LUKE You're crazy! You could wander around
forever trying to find them.

Iron_lord

Back in 1983 "Blockade Runner" was synonymous with "Rebel Blockade Runner", i.e. Princess Leia's Tantive IV.

 

Ok. Vaguely recalling that. I see the possibility for contradiction. Two unique terms, glued together for the closing act, each exposed in the first act on Tatooine. One could entertain that we may have *seen a Bestinian skyhopper in the the Lars garage, Luke may have been swooshing a model of a Bestinian skyhopper, and Luke may have been accrued the two-meter targeting skills so crucial to the franchise from the cockpit of a Bestinian skyhopper. That choice in the novelization is a prime example of how Not to convolve or graft two perfectly unique inventions (that also happen to be siblings in precedence of exposition). It causes a short in the circuit of suspended disbelief. The author should have modified one or the other term. Boustinian / Baestenian / Baostanian etc. Faustian starwalker.

Since the onset of Rogue One theories about last-ditch transmissions, I have wondered when Tantive IV became a proper noun to back fill a specialized role of a naval vessel. The Blockade Runner of SW77 has the hallmarks of a 'peaceful vessel' in that its gun turrets cannot converge to a forward firing solution, but can to the rear in the case it is being followed. The distinctively large number of engines suggest that redundancy of mobility is paramount. Photon-like, information-like. (In no way to suggest that the Empire relies solely upon baryonic, brute force methods.)

 

Even if it's specifically that model - ones owned by Alderaanians could be called "Alderaanian blockade runners" and ones owned by Kesselians could be called "Kesselian blockade runners" - and thus, no contradiction is present.

 

52 EXT SPACE - REBEL FLEET
The vast Rebel Fleet stretches as far as the eye can see. Overhead a
dozen small Corellian battleships fly in formation. Fighters and
battlecruisers surround the largest of the Rebel Star Cruisers, the
HEADQUARTERS FRIGATE.

In the actual scene we see the Headquarters Frigate, the "Nebulon" battlecruiser and "small Corellian battleships" which then must refer to the "Blockade Runners" (unless the Rebel Transport ship qualifies as "battleship").

So either these are "Blockade Runners" OR "Corellian Battleships". Of course, they could be both, but Khan presenting these as if they were two unique and different ships is a bit misleading.

 

Both seems to work. Corellia is the place the "battleship" design originates - Kessel and Alderaan are the places that have bought them and used them for blockade-running.

 

I agree that there is no promising contradiction in the case of a blockade runner. A skyhopper, of whatever port of call, which is capable of handling two-meter targets at terrestrial and atmospheric speeds, in an armada that expects to take on the Empire's superweapon, cuts a figure like a peasant with pitchfork. It could possibly serve very light duty as scout, courier, some kind of espionage. Not immediately obvious how to fit such a small bird into the menagerie.

A blockade runner, of any port of call, has been shown to exercise an ISD in maneuvers and firepower, and has taken explosive concussive damage on the hull (sensor array) without losing compression. This bigger animal can fit more easily into an armada of combat vessels, could more easily have a useful range of functions. So it's unsurprising that it might be a 'widely' used model.

Furthermore, Alderaan we already know of as a safe harbor to the Rebellion, or else Leia would not have wanted Obi Wan to get the plans to her father, a Senator. An Alderaanian blockade runner covers (symbolizes?) a representation of political freedom of movement. 'Spice mines of Kessel' (first scenes) and 'Kessel Run' (first act), juxtaposed with outrunning Imperial warships, conveys a picture of a galactic economy under thumb. A clear rhyme exists between Kessel Run and Blockade Runner and outrunning Imperial ships. It is easy to allow that Kessel had its own blockade runners, and that a Kessellian blockade runner covers (symbolizes?) a representation of economic freedom of movement.

Lastly, it seems that Lucas did not quibble over inverting the hierarchy of naval ship size. ("Corellian battle ships, cruisers, destroyers, carriers, bombers") He matches the assonance, sibilants and dentals of >D<eath >St<ar with >St<ar >D<estroyer, co-opting some iconic Platonic solids, and then leaves the other designations to be back-filled at whim. So by the time of Endor, an Imperial Destroyer outsizes an Alliance "cruiser", which outsizes and Alliance "battlecruiser", which outsizes an Alliance "battleship". Whatever outsider chose to retcon a blockade runner into a Corellian "corvette" is leaving Corellian "battleship" high and dry. A blockade *Runner is thoroughly contradictory to what a *Battleship was and stood for. It is a trouble. It's troubling to see it in the script/screenplay. Pearl Harbor was "about" losing 8 vessels of a size commensurate, in GFFA scales, with the Executor.

Relatedly, this old thread tried to work on what Han was talking about when he said 'big Corellian ships' in SW77: http://boards.theforce.net/threads/what-are-the-big-corellian-ships.22093125/


( From http://starwars-armada.wikia.com/wiki/Imperial-class_Star_Destroyer_Expansion_Pack )

Kick me off this thread, mods, or someone make a thread about ships.

 

Hernalt wrote

Relatedly, this old thread tried to work on what Han was talking about when he said 'big Corellian ships' in SW77: http://boards.theforce.net/threads/what-are-the-big-corellian-ships.22093125/

No need to speculate, it was cleared up in Cinefantastique February 1978 by one of the model makers: "Corellian Cruiser" was a synonym for "Imperial Cruiser"and apparently the official George Lucas designation.

Yet, the model makers nicknamed it "Star Destroyer" and that designation, obviously, stuck.

 

I would prefer, myself, to retcon around the sources more original in time, and more proximate to Lucas in authority than any other. So just to take this at face value: If we regard the Falcon, the blockade runner, the "battleships [sic]" of the Alliance fleet, and the ISDs through all three movies as all of Corellian make, that presents a troubling prospect. It means one manufacturer is getting fat off of both sides. And yet, by the time of ROTJ the trilogy has been littered by multiple references to other planets, and it becomes noticeable that in such a well-appointed galaxy there's only one planet of name building nearly all of the capital ships seen. Let me apocryphally insert Biggs Darklighter's deleted scene that the Empire is nationalizing industries, and... Oh..... I see. Corellian shipbuilding has been nationalized, and like Ferdinand Porche they have been tasked to build large linear, military tiger tanks instead of curvilinear, civilian Volkswagens. And so Falcon v ISD is old v new, and so is blockade runner v ISD, and so again is Alliance fleet v ISDs. *That makes sense, if *that scene was still in there. (Disincluding from my argument, but referencing as a footnote - we know the YT freighter existed at the time of the fall of the Republic.))

Where / how do you assign canonicity, if at all, to the Kuat Drive Yards? It possesses a well-designed sound, with oomph, and harkens to shipbuilders like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fore_River_Shipyard. It has value in itself for its effort to flesh out a realistic infrastructure. For me it is little trouble to hold that Corellia designed and built both the original YT freighters, the corvettes, the 'cruisers' commissioned by the Empire that later were designated or classed, 'star destroyer'. And then later the manufacture of the cruisers, at least, was shipped 'overseas' or to wherever mass production was cheaper, to some other place called Kuat. And so there is an organic diffuse spectrum of origin, where a Corellian cruiser, which is an Imperial cruiser, is no longer physically built as it had been at Corellia, but now at Kuat. This view does no injury to Lucas' originating statements and does no injury to a fan (WEG?) contribution that has gained broad support. The canonicity of Lucas' statement is conserved. And we know that Han's lexicon of idiom, metaphor, bluff, boast and other essential tools of the underbelly stretches every term that has meaning.

 

Hernalt

You've got a point and those thoughts had crossed my mind before. Now, the Rebel Blockade Runner, according to Joe Johnston in his 1977 Star Wars Sketchbook, is a much older spacecraft design while the Corellian Cruiser / Star Destroyer appeared to be rather recent, in comparison.

And I've absolutely no idea how big the Corellian shipyards were and how far they stretched. But apparently they had some kind of monopoly or competitive advantage, enabling them to produe and/or design a variety of ships over long periods of time.

 

What did Leia ever see in Han? He was an overly cocky smuggler who was in debt to a vile gangster. He was continually condescending to her and never seemed to care much about the rebellion. Additionally, his ship was a piece of garbage.

 

Han is good looking and funny. He has an amusing personality, and pretty much always keeps things light. He's courageous. I don't know how much he cares about the rebellion, but he cares enough to risk his life for it, he even volunteers to do so in ROTJ. He cares about Leia and Luke and risks his life for them. He's strong, and ultimately unselfish in the end. A good fighter, a brilliant pilot, and clever in most situations. I could keep going about his qualities.

I don't think being in debt or having a crappy car matters much, especially not to someone like Leia. Mentioning these things says more about you than it does about Han, imo.

Leia isn't the only one who sees something in Han. General Rieekan obviously saw something admirable in Han, and presumably so did Mon Mothma. I'm guessing a lot of the rebels liked Han.

 

ok that is almost sacrilegious, especially the part of the greatest ship in sci fi history referred to as a "piece of junk". that piece of junk saved everyones butt time and time again and again in episode 7. shame on you

 

If junk could be rated on a list, the Falcon is my favourite piece of junk ever. Now that's junk you don't disrespect

 

I have a question about the photography of the trench run in ANH -

I've seen various photos of the model but to me it's never seemed long enough to provide the shots in the movie , I mean that some of the shots in the movie are quite long (in terms of seconds ) and the movement along it quite fast , so were they somehow splicing more than one take together to increase the 'length' of the trench ?

is there a thread or discussion on this ?
hope my question makes sense .

 

At the core of Death Star II, why did Wedge shoot at the left thingie at the reactor when Lando look out the main thingie? Wouldn't they want to double their chances by just both shooting at the main thingie?

 

I'm guessing both were essential components to take out, or at least key areas at which to strike to cripple the reactor overall

 

maybe left thingie was a shield generator for the main thingie?