How is Star Wars EU Continuity different from Star Trek Novel continuity??

Thanx for the response, Valiento!

Where exactly does Marvel's "Alliance of Free Planets" fit in the grand scheme? It is very interesting that the Alliance takes up base on Endor following RotJ. Is this mentioned in the EC?

Hmmm . . . . I guess I have finally been convinced that all the novels and comics ever written fit in continuity . . . much to my chagrin. Now, I have to find a way to get the GoDV series which seems next to impossible to find.

Valiento, are you a fan of Star Trek novels?

Also, has anyone else read the robotech series of novels? A similar continuity argument has been raging in those circles for years. There are fans of the cartoon that disclaim the series of novels. then some of th novel fans will not acknoledge the comics and so on and so forth. Instead of the Flanneled one, Robotech fans have Carl Macek as the robotech creator and final say so. It seems that many franchises in the genre have these similar arguments.

LOL . . . just not Trek fans . . whose novels have sparse continuity. *joking*

 

I only follow DS9, although I used to read a lot of TNG. All of the DS9 novels except for maybe 2 or 3 actually do fit in the continuity. That's probably because DS9 by nature is very different from the other Treks.

 

"Where exactly does Marvel's "Alliance of Free Planets"

The Alliance of Free Planets was mentioned 9in the Truce at Bakura sourcebook.The name first appeared in the marvel SWs comic series.

The Rebel alliance was known as the Alliance of Free Planets for an entire month after Endor.The Alliance then started calling itself the New Republic.

 

Uhm..Merkurian..Janeway mentions the Eugenic wars in that episode.She talks about how the world is recovering.

 

Good point, Jedi Merkurian! Isn't that the 2 parter where the Doctor gets the emitter device that allows him to go where ever he wishes?

I have the first edition of the Star Trek Chronology. the authors point out that every "time travel" episode in theory would have created an entirely new timeline. Judging from the the sheer amount of time travel in ST universe (on film), they are about as far away from the original series timeline as possible. It boggles the mind.

The Chronology editors also note that roddenberry himself considered the events of STar Trek 5: the final frontier as apocryphal. Also, the script of star trek IV alludes to the possibility that Lt. Saavik was pregnant with Spock's baby as a result of pon faar in Star Trek III.

the longer this thread goes, the more I am convinced that the EU is even more coherent that the Star Trek Film and TV continuity.

 

Actually, I've found that they've done a brilliant job keeping the Chronology up-to-date, and reasoning out little contradictions. I've always been kind of dissapointed that the animated series isn't included in the Chrono, though, because it was official and televised and on TOS. Still, I think I'll get the next edition after Enterprise ends in a few years

 

As regards the later issues of Marvel contradicting GODV series, they don't. Marvel, despite a certain vocal minority of naysayers, has always been in harmony with the the films and the later EU. There is at least one issue that's irreconcilable to the EU (the infamous #78), and the skinny Jabba (which is just a visual issue -- not a story one as he could easily be redrawn into the sluglike Hutt), but aside from that any minor "contradiction" can or has been easily cleared up. Of course, those who didn't like the series (for one reason or another) will complain and whine, but that's their problem. I can't wait for Dark Horse to reprint these, which I'm hoping will be in full color, so that the majority can enjoy these stories. Of all the EU, these come to closest in spirit to the films and the characters.

 

What happens in #78? I only have about two or three issues, and that's not one of them.

 

My biggest problem with Star Trek and the reason I kind of gave up on it was that it the shows themselves could not keep up with continuity. The example I always cite is Seven of Nine.

Appologies if I get dates mixed up but the general thread will be there. Assumption 1 : A season of Trek = one year (they change the star date to reflect the year and season as if it was the current season of TNG). Assumption 2 : A Trek year = an Earth year.

Ok. The girl who would become Seven was less than ten when she was taken from a ship studying the Borg. This was therefore after they had been met in series two of TNG. There have been less than 10 years from this date to the date Voyager picked Seven up. the girl should therefore be under the age of twenty. I place Seven by appearance as somewhere near 29.

Anyone want to explain this as so far I have found no-one who can (please).

As to the novels, I have not read any ST novels ans so am not that qualified to comment. However my brother certainly has and he says the continuity stinks. Characters who die turn up later, there must be about four different versions of the fate of the Romulan Captain from one of the OS episodes. So I'm afraid that while not perfect at least there is a will to have some control in the SW universe. However I also agree that Babylon 5 level of contol it ain't

 

Jedilaw...
"don't the later issues of SW Marvel contradict the Glove of Darth Vader stories?"

Frist, one should first ask if you've read the later issues of SW Marvel and GoDV. The answer is no, of course.

(Second, the Marvel series could never contradict the GoDV series. However, the GoDV series could contradict Marvel. Marvel was first, and was therefore the established continuity)

Third. The Essential Chronology was a reference tool only. It is not meant to contain the sum total of every story in existence. It is there as a summary to point you in the direction of those stories should you wish to know more. Simple as that. Star Wars EU has over 24 years worth of stories. I don't know what you expected the EC to be. Perhaps a reprinting of all of the books and print media ever produced?

 

The stories not only contradict like some Trek, they're also written like Trek. I always thought Star Wars and Trek were different (but both are good), but it seems to me that the only Star Wars is the movies and the novelizations and radio dramas, and Trek, is the series, movies, Trek books, Wars books.

 

"Valiento, are you a fan of Star Trek novels?"

Haven't read any actually. But I am a fan of the various Tv series.

Oh, interesting to note, that startrek.com, has the animated series listed as just as valid as the rest of the series.

 

Genghis12:

In fact I do own the final 25 or so Marvel comics and have read them. No, I have not read GoDV series because I cannot find them.

Also, I thought that these boards were for civil discourse. It seems that every time I post any type of commment or question on any thread, someone flames me, bashes me, and utterly atempts to belittle me just because I haven't read every single word of printed material. If I have a question, its not because I want to anger those who have the time and inclination to collect and read every SW product. I have a legitimate thirst for SW knowledge.

There is something to be said for manners, and so often . . the "ultra hard core fans" of a genre sneer at anyone who doesn't possess total knowledge lack this basic courtesy.

 

Because the Del Rey and Bantam keep a timeline. It's that simple.

 

Let's go back to the original question (How is How is Star Wars EU Continuity different from Star Trek Novel continuity??)

Star Trek has gone to great lengths to explain the physics behind the technology. Ask any hard-core Trekker why Dilithim Crystals are so important and he'll tell you that they resonate with subspace signals like the old "cat-whisker" quartz crystals did with normal radio signals. What does this have to do with ST EU? Read "Strangers from the Sky" to learn about this stuff.

My Point? A lot of ST EU is heavy on the SCI rather than the FI. SW EU is heavier on the fantasy than the hardcore sci-fi that Trek has. Thoughts?

 

I totally agree. In fact, I think that is one of the major differences between ST and SW. With some exceptions, SW does not try to explain how starships function. I guess there have been some description on constructing sabers in the SW EU, but for the most part, fans are just to accept that technological advancements are common in the GFFA.

 

Exactly... and,

In my mind, this is what has always differentiated ST from SW. If I'm in the mood for SCI-fi, I turn to the Trek mileau. If I'm looking for a damned good fantasy space opera, I turn to SW. It all depends on your point of view.

 

I have always felt that ST and SW appealed to different parts of my brain . . . ST to the more analytical and SW to the more creative side.

One thing that I really like about ST is the character growth and interaction. This is something that is missing from the SW movies simply due to the time constraints. I guess that is why i have become such a fan of EU. Except when a SW character's growth is stunted by an author's "take" on the character.

 

My thoughts exactly. The thing that everyone needs to remember is that the ST EU draws from 70+ hours of material and the SW EU has drawn from 6 hours (at least the post-ROTJ stuff). As a result, the STEU has more devoloped characters to draw upon, where the SWEU authors are working in more "uncharted territory", which is bound to draw more contreversial situations.

 

I've always thought that "The Crystal Star" was the most Trekish of the SW novels. It involved a anti/parallel universe villin and involved more of a sci-fi theme.

I was surprised in TPM when Lucas explained the link between the force and Midichlorians. That seemed a little trekish also.

 

In my opinion, the Brian Daley Han Solo Trilogy gets just a bit Trekkish (word?) also. There's a few passages where our heros are out on the surface of the Millenium Falcon making repairs when it's in hyperspace and he gets a little technical about the whole hyperspace thing. However, these novels are the BEST SWEU publications IN MY OPINION (flame if you will), particularly because of the way he fleshes out TGFFA.

 

what about Daley's "fleshing out of the GFFA" do you like?

I read those novels when I was a kid . . . several years ago. I remember not really understanding what the Corporate Authority was. I really should read those books again . . .

 

In my mind, Daley's novels have the perfect balance of "techno-babble" and adventure. I believe that they introduced the idea of the Z-95 Headhunters into the EU, as well as a few other subtle technologies. And I really mean subtle. You can read the Han Solo Trilogy without having 10 page expositions on the physics of TGFFA, but still come out of it understanding a little more about the mileau. In "Han Solo at Star's End", there's a great dogfight sequence on pages 46-60 that gives a little insight to Han's experience in snub fighters. If you haven't (re)read these novels lately, I'd highly recommend them. I may be biased because I originally read them when I was a kid in the time between TESB and ROTJ and that was the only EU I knew of at the time, but I still pull them out once every few years. I think that they hold up against anything that has come out Post-(and including) Zahn.

 

Hmmm . . . I seem to remember reading Star's End for a fourth grade book report! long time ago.

I was always more of a luke fan. But I have yet really to find an author who can really capture the flavor of the film version. To be quite honest, I think that the closest came with some of the excellent Marvel comics stories. The post Zahn novels often protray Luke as some sort of ultimate boy scout/goody-goody. Except for Dark Empire . . . hmmmm. . . .