Please read: A note on EU and the OT.

Discussion in 'Classic Trilogy' started by Commander Antilles, Sep 9, 2001.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Genghis12 Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 18, 1999
    star 6
    RogueSith...
    "Come on, give me a break. This is why it's so hard to debate on these boards. That is a ridiculous statement."

    It was actually a very sound statement made in reference to ecm's ridiculous statement that there are no EU movies. There are the Ewok Adventures "movies," the Star Tours "film," the various Droids and Ewoks cartoons - all of which have had varying levels of direct Lucas involvement. All are "movies," all are "motion pictures" and all are "films." That's not arguing semantics, that's the truth. To assume the Ewok Adventures - which were released at cinemas around the world, the same place as Episodes I, IV-VI - are not movies would simply be wrong. The EU has movies. The EU has movies which Lucas had a direct role in. The EU has movies in the OT era and movies in the PT era.

    Next - the fact that something is the official position (EU for instance) is entirely different from it being the undisputed position. LFL is the only one who can deem something the official position. Commander Antilles and the Movie Mods have control over what is considered undisputed here, but not what is official here. There's a difference, and it's not merely semantics, as some would assert. However, to post here, we're bound by whatever rules they wish to set here.

    And finally, as for the whole issue - Darth Dark Helmet and Commander Antilles have both given responsible and satisfactory answers which should appease nearly anyone. At face value, I should think everyone can find something to be satisfied with.
  2. Padme Bra Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jul 2, 1999
    star 6
    It was so much more fun to talk about Star Wars before 1991.
  3. halibut Ex-Mod and 2015 Celebrity Deadpool Winner

    Game Winner
    Member Since:
    Aug 27, 2000
    star 8
    Fair enough Ghenghis, but that does not negate my point of the spirit of the law against the letter or the law.

    It is clear what CA intended by the second rule, and has since expanded on that. It is also clear that the purpose of these rules is to stop blanket "EU is the only correct solution" statements, and not to start silly squabbles about one word.

    The people who make these statements should stop trying to find "legal loopholes" and take the rules in the spirit they are intended
  4. Genghis12 Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 18, 1999
    star 6
    Padme Bra...
    "It was so much more fun to talk about Star Wars before 1991."

    I have to agree with you there, Padme Bra.

    Part of the problem (well, no reason to be shy here - a large majority of the problem as I see it) was the Heir to the Empire book jacket description (from 1991) which someone posted earlier:
      "Now for the first time, Lucasfilm, Ltd., producer of the Star Wars movies, has authorized the continuation of this beloved story."
    :mad: I think whomever posted that earlier also asked a rhetorical question as to why they shouldn't think that was the case. The problem? It was a blatant lie - a complete and utter fabrication (or at the very least gross negligence on Bantam's part to make such a claim). Both the Star Wars Corporation and Lucasfilm, Ltd. - both producers of the Star Wars movies, had been authorizing the continuation of the beloved saga since at least 1975 and 1976, some 16 or so years before Zahn's novel. [face_plain] However, that's just my own personal rant. :D
  5. Padme Bra Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jul 2, 1999
    star 6
    I could answer all the other points but to save time I'll just say, movie purists, don't try to stop EUers from posting their EU answers to questions, EUers, don't try to stop others from posting non-EU based answers. It's that simple.
  6. Krash RSA Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 11, 2000
    star 5
    That about says it all Padme Bra, the major issue here isn't whether EU is greater or equal then the movies (I personally think equal...UNLESS it comes in conflict with the movies). The problem is a lack a respect for other "certain points of view." Here are some examples (I apologize for using names, I'm not trying to be rude...just provide examples of what I'm refering to):

    Many "Cannon-ites" (as I call them) think that the movies are the only valid source of SW. And that anyone quoting EU or forming opinions with a mix of EU and movies are wrong right from the get-go. Cannon-o-Fun is a prime example of this in a discussion about the aftermath of ANH and the battle of Yavin. He disregarded anything involving EU in the discussion, how can you theorize about something that takes place after the movie was over?

    On the other side, as a member of the "Expanded Universe Defense Force" I will say openly that there are supporters of EU who break the "rules of engagement" as well. And while Bib Fortuna is my superior officer, I feel it's my duty to point out he seems "closely" involved in a number of thread-lockable "bashing wars." And all they do is cause the Admins to lock some very good threads.

    I greatly respect everyone's insights, including those of Cannon-o-Fun and Bib Fortuna. All I'm saying is whatever your personal feelings about EU, please stop trying to validate your opinion over others because as a wise Jedi once said "you'll just have to tolerate his opinion...fighting will not change it."
  7. Jedi Merkurian ST Thread Reaper and Rumor Naysayer

    Manager
    Member Since:
    May 25, 2000
    star 6
    halibut wrote:
    "It is clear what CA intended by the second rule, and has since expanded on that. It is also clear that the purpose of these rules is to stop blanket 'EU is the only correct solution' statements, and not to start silly squabbles about one word.

    The people who make these statements should stop trying to find 'legal loopholes' and take the rules in the spirit they are intended"

    That's well & fine, so long as everyone remembers the OTHER intention of the rules, which is to stop blanket "EU is crap/EU isn't canon/EU is invalid" statements.

    Basically, don't bring none and you won't get none.
  8. Genghis12 Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 18, 1999
    star 6
    JM...
    "Basically, don't bring none and you won't get none."

    I like that way as well. Short and to the point. Actually covers a lot of things well beyond the whole "EU/canon issue" that end up becoming problems with respect to trolls, flaming, etc.
  9. Jedi Merkurian ST Thread Reaper and Rumor Naysayer

    Manager
    Member Since:
    May 25, 2000
    star 6
    Thanks G12. I've gotta credit Bratzilla for that kernel of wisdom.
  10. RogueSith Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 24, 2001
    star 3
    "There are the Ewok Adventures "movies," the Star Tours "film," the various Droids and Ewoks cartoons - all of which have had varying levels of direct Lucas involvement. All are "movies," all are "motion pictures" and all are "films." That's not arguing semantics, that's the truth."

    *sigh*
    That is the very definition of arguing semantics.
    How about "theatrical presentation"? Would that clear things up for you? The fact remains, you knew exactly what he was talking about, but decided to be overly self-righteous and prissy about it.

    I don't really care about what you want to consider canon or not. My point was that it's posts like your's that break down the debates on this forum into untenable squabbles. Your tone was condescending to say the least, and using terms like "absurdly-narrow" and "ignorant" when describing someone else's opinions is insulting and rude. Not to mention annoying, when you misuse punctuation while arrogantly nit-picking someone on, what you perceive to be, their misuse of a word. (If you wanted to put a hyphen there, it would have gone between "narrow" and "focused")
  11. Genghis12 Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 18, 1999
    star 6
    RogueSith...
    "That is the very definition of arguing semantics. How about "theatrical presentation"? Would that clear things up for you?"

    No, actually what you are doing is distilling this down to arguing semantics. "Theatrical presentations?!?" :D You obviously don't know about the EU movies. I already addressed this point earlier. The Ewok Movies, were indeed "theatrical presentations" having been released in theaters worldwide. You know, "cinemas,""theaters" - whatever you want to call it. The fact is, EU has movies. The EU has OT movies. The EU has movies that George Lucas had about as much involvement in as Episode I, II, IV-VI. So, there's no semantics there, except those who try to argue the EU doesn't have movies... or motion pictures... or theatrical presentations... or whatever else you choose to call it. [face_plain]

    "...fact remains, you knew exactly what he was talking about, but decided to be overly self-righteous and prissy about it."

    Pot. kettle. black. [face_plain]

    "Your tone was condescending to say the least, and using terms like "absurdly-narrow" and "ignorant" when describing someone else's opinions is insulting and rude."

    Kind of like "ridiculous." [face_plain] You have no room to talk. However, it does seem you are rather ignorant about the issue of EU movies... or motion pictures... or theatrical presentations... or whatever other semantics you want to come up with. One indeed has to fabricate such an absurdly narrowly-focused definition of the words "movies," "theatrical presentation," (or whatever other semantics you wish to argue) to exclude the EU ones. You can say, "I only care about the Episode I-VI movies," and that's fine, but you've got to understand you've narrowed yourself down to six Star Wars movies out of god knows how many available. However, it would not be valid to try to mean the Episode I-VI movies, yet say "I only care about the Star Wars movies" or even "I only care about the movies." There's a whole lot of Star Wars movies (or motion pictures, or theatrical presentations...) other than Episodes I-VI. You would not be using the proper terms for what you wish to describe.

    That's not semantics, that's simply poor communication.

    If people are up for it, try out this little experiment:
      1. Assume you are an older European Star Wars fan, your only real exposure being the OT and 1984's Star Wars movie, "Ewoks: Caravan of Courage," written, produced, and executive-produced by George Lucas, himself, which you saw in a theater. Because it wasn't invented yet, you know nothing about Star Wars "canon" or the "expanded universe." However, you have a feeling that maybe this movie logically "expands" on Star Wars.
      2. Assume you are a completely new JC member.
      3. You like the Star Wars movie, "Ewoks: Caravan of Courage" and wish to make a thread to discuss the movie qualities of it and perhaps kick around speculation about it.
      4. Based on forum titles and forum descriptions alone, navigate to where you think the proper forum is to post a thread discussing your pet like.

      (Note - if you think the old, European fan is too contrived, then assume you're an American fan that knows the movie is EU. It affects nothing still using the forum titles and descriptions to find the proper location.)
    Post your reasoning. For the record, I can logically arrive at either "Movies: Miscellaneous" or (pushing it a bit) "Movies: Classic Trilogy." I actually can reasonably lean closer to CT, because it has the kinds of examples similar to the thread I wish to create, whereas Misc is a monster with not really any threads similar to the one I want to create. The strong Lucas involvement (writing, producing, etc.) as well as the time period of release (right after ROTJ) would more than likely be enough to reasonably create the thread in CT. Imagine the response I'd get. Where would you send me to repost my thread?

    I will in no way, shape or form end up in the Expanded Universe forums. Even if I knew the movie was an Expanded Universe item.
  12. RogueSith Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 24, 2001
    star 3
    So are you claiming you didn't know what he meant by "The Movies"?

    If so, you might get confused if you were to go to a little known sight called starwars.com, seeing as how their data bank is divided into sections titled "The Movies" and "Expanded Universe". And if you're wondering, yes, the Ewok TV movies are in the EU section, entitled "Ewok Adventures - A Television Adventure". I suggest you rush to contact them on there "Adsurdly-narrow focused" error.

    As for "Pot. kettle. black." Well, if you want to lower the discussion to the "I know you are, but what am I" level, fine, that's your call, but my posts have been straight forward, and I have said what I mean. Unlike yourself, who turned a debate on what is or isn't canon, into a childish and insincere argument on the definition of the word "movie", with no regard to intent.

    note : I'll retract the insincere comment if you say you actually didn't know what ecmbobafetts meant by "the movies", because right, maybe he meant the Disney ride too.
  13. RogueSith Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 24, 2001
    star 3
    And GL didn't write or direct either of the Ewok "movies".

    "The Ewok Adventure"
    Executive Producer: George Lucas
    Produced by Thomas G. Smith
    Directed by John Korty
    Screenplay by Bib Carrau

    "Ewoks: Battle for Endor"
    Executive Producer: George Lucas
    Produced by Thomas G. Smith
    Written an Directed by Jim and Ken Wheat
  14. Genghis12 Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 18, 1999
    star 6
    I'm claiming he meant "movies" when he said movies. You're the one who's claiming he meant something other than movies when he said "movies." I.e. trying to argue mere semantics. You're the one simply shifting around the names and focus of words to try to find something which fit your arguement. "Movies didn't work? Well let me try 'theatrical presentation.'" :D Please. [face_plain]

    What it seems is that you don't accept the Ewok movies (or any other Star Wars movies other than Episodes I-VI) as movies, or "theatrical whatever-the-heck-semantics you wish to try to fabricate." In which case, you're not correct.
  15. Genghis12 Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 18, 1999
    star 6
    Roguesith...
    "And GL didn't write or direct either of the Ewok "movies"."

    You're wrong, he did indeed write them. He however did not write the screenplays for them. This is similar to his involvement in the OT/PT movies. He wrote the story, but wrote very few of the screenplays. He did not direct all of the Episodes I-VI. This point, is therefore pretty much irrelevent. The Ewok movies were definitely just as much Lucas' babies at Episodes I-VI - granted, they might have been the "red-headed bastard child," but "all" his nontheless, the same way the others are.

    I actually have no idea why you're making an issue of something you pretty clearly show you don't really know about.

    Fact: There are EU movies (same as OT/PT movies).
    Fact: There are EU movies which Lucas wrote (same as OT/PT movies).
    Fact: There are EU movies which Lucas produced (same as OT/PT movies).
    Fact: There are EU movies which Lucas Executive-Produced (same as OT/PT movies).
    Fact: There are EU movies which were released in theaters (same as OT/PT movies).

    The fact is, there are EU movies - in any sense of the word. However, this is not really an issue up for debate, other than to educate people who were ignorant of such items, like ecm who initially raised the question of the existence of EU movies and yourself, it seems.

    You don't have to like it, but there's no point in trying to argue the existence of such things, because you would very clearly be wrong.
  16. RogueSith Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 24, 2001
    star 3
    This why fights start.

    You were wrong and refuse to admit it. You stated as fact, that GL had written, produced, and executive produced "The Ewok Adventure" (alternately titled Caravan of Courage). He did not. Officially "based on a story idea by George Lucas" is not written by. Not by a long shot.
    Then, despite the fact that you're the one who just put out false information as fact, you come back with a condescending remark like "He did not direct all of the Episodes I-VI"(nice grammar, BTW). You assume that I, or someone else reading this doesn't know that. Now, I don't know you, but just because our opinions differ, I don't go with the assumption that you're an idiot. That is however the manner in which you address people here who happen to disagree with you.
    So, yes I agree, bad communication is the problem here.
  17. Genghis12 Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 18, 1999
    star 6
    George Lucas wrote the Ewok adventures. What he did not write is the screenplay for them. They are not based on a story by George Lucas, they are the stories written by George Lucas.

    "You assume that I, or someone else reading this doesn't know that."

    Well, considering you and others generally had no idea about the other SW movies, it's the only assumption you and someone else left me. :)
  18. RogueSith Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 24, 2001
    star 3
    And why do keep going back and editing your posts and adding multiple new paragraphs? Jeez, you are trying to be difficult. Talk about bad communication.

    Again, you assume. I've seen the Ewok TV movies, I, unlike yourself, knew who wrote and produced them, and I am fully aware that they were released theatrically in Europe. I am also aware that the official site categorizes them as EU and seperate from the movies, because the term "The Movies", according to the databank, is the standard way in which to refer Episodes I-VI.
  19. Wesmin7 Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Oct 29, 2001
    star 3
    Stated well Genghis12 I agree with you whole heartedly.

    (about your post on the bottem of page 12 that is)
  20. halibut Ex-Mod and 2015 Celebrity Deadpool Winner

    Game Winner
    Member Since:
    Aug 27, 2000
    star 8
    Jedi Merkurian: Yes, you're right. That rule applies to both sides

    And can someone please post which EU movies GL produced (not Executive Produced - that is a meaningless title with regards to this debate)
  21. Wesmin7 Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Oct 29, 2001
    star 3
    ecmbobafetts made a statement: 'That is the dumbest thing I ve heard how can you have a movie related EU topic. EU never made a movie LOL' this is WRONG, the EU is everything that isn't ANH, ESB, RotJ, TPM, Aotc, and whatever EpIII will be called. This doesn't mean it has to be a book.

    This shouldn't be still being disscussed 2 pages later in this thread, the topic is void... ecm made a misstake, maybe he doesn't know about the E-wok movies (and this is perfectly ok they arn't the most exiting movies out there I agree, and can see why he might not know about them but they are still EU), I have some of them taped myself and acully watched one of them two nights ago.

    The Anti-EU side does NOT have to defend him by trying to redefind the definition of 'movie' as some posters on this thread seam to be trying to do.

    The Pro-EU side does NOT have to say, HA HA your wrong HA HA HA.

    Both of these are just asking for more fighting between the people on both sides of this dissagreement and should not be happening.

    Edit: After re-reading my post I see maybe my point isn't getting out clearly, I'm not trying to yell at ecm, I'm just saying that he assumed something not knowing about it and this sub argument spured on by his statement should stop.
  22. Jedi Merkurian ST Thread Reaper and Rumor Naysayer

    Manager
    Member Since:
    May 25, 2000
    star 6
    halibut wrote:
    "And can someone please post which EU movies GL produced (not Executive Produced - that is a meaningless title with regards to this debate)"

    *slaps forehead*

    And you guys are jumping on Genghis12's case about semantics? :confused: [face_laugh]
  23. ecmbobafetts Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Feb 21, 2002
    star 1
    I go away for a day and get bashed because I use the word "movie"
    Give me a break EU may relate to the movies fine but they are not movies. The ewok adventures are part of the OT because GL is directly tied into it. I am not going to waste my time over what the hell a movie is we all know what it is. Thats really nit-picking
  24. Sith Magician Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 14, 1999
    star 5
    Classic. Trilogy. Forum.

    Without getting into another debate over whether the Ewok movies are canon or not, can someone please explain to me exactly how someone could misinterpret the title of this forum as not being Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi?

    And frankly, I don't care whats canon and whats not, spout all the "official" answers you wish, but, and the whole point here I believe, Don't expect others to think it's the final word as far as speculation on points in the movies go.
    I don't read all the books, I want to discuss with other fans their own personal take on events in the films.
    Is this ok with everyone? Am I allowed to think this way?

    //sarcasm.
  25. halibut Ex-Mod and 2015 Celebrity Deadpool Winner

    Game Winner
    Member Since:
    Aug 27, 2000
    star 8
    Jedi Merkurian

    I wasn't intending to be semantic. My question is one of interest, not one of trying to prove a point.

    Ghenghis said
    "Fact: There are EU movies which Lucas produced (same as OT/PT movies).
    Fact: There are EU movies which Lucas Executive-Produced (same as OT/PT movies). "


    There is a difference between producing and executive producing. Speilberg is the executive producer of ALL Amblin films. This is because he owns the company. It does not mean he is involved with the project. GL is the executive producer of the ewok films because he owns the company and created the universe. It does not mean he is directly involved inthe project.

    One person has named a different person as the producer for the ewok films.

    So I ask again, which "EU movie" has GL produced (as stated by Ghengis)
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.