Focus Group Update: Negotiating Peace in the Canon Wars (Updated 12/6)

Focus Group Update: Negotiating Peace in the Canon Wars

Welcome to the first update of the classic trilogy focus group on canon wars! We're posting this summary of what we've discussed so far so we can get feedback from the rest of the membership and keep you current on what changes we're considering.

The group members are:

Moderators
Dark Lady Mara
Errant_Venture

Purists
crystalrain
vw_jedi
DarthTerrious
Obi-Ewan
Scott3eyez
Lord_Hydronium

Completists
Leto II
The2ndQuest
Jedi Merkurian
jedi_master_ousley
JediHobbit
AdamBertocci

Swings both ways
MeBeJedi

We started by discussing the human aspect of the way posters treat one another in movie forums. crystalrain said:

IMO, "completists", should:
-Be respectful
-Be polite
-Not bring up the EU when it is inappropriate to do so (i.e. clear from the thread title/purpose that movie information only is wanted).
-Not shove the EU down peoples throats, but leave people to think what they want to, rather than challenge their feelings at every turn.
-In a situation where there is one EU answer, but room for movie-only specualtion state the EU answer for those who want it, then let movie-only fans speculate, rather than repeat the EU answer over... and over... and over...
-Allow people to speculate using only the movies.
-Avoid derailing threads with "canon wars".

IMO, movie-only fans ("purists") should:
-Be respectful
-Be polite
-Not jump down an EU'ers throat if he/she offeres an EU explaination.
-Not bash the EU. (Bashing anything is pretty much never constructive, IMO)
-Allow people to speculate using EU information.
-Not constantly ask for people to justify why they accept the EU as canon.
-Avoid derailing threads with "canon wars".

vw_jedi added:

one major drawback, not just here but in any public forum and the Internet in general, is people forgetting that behind every post is a living breathing human being. Not just a funny log on name, but a flesh and bones human with real opinions and real feelings.

We concluded that one of the best things any member can do to increase civility in the forums is to lead by example. This can refer to anything from the way members debate EU and canon to how much they think of each other as flesh-and-blood people... from here on forward everyone started referring to everyone else in the group by their first name, and all was fuzzy and happy.

AdamBertocci added his thoughts on people giving EU answers to questions that aren't addressed in the movies:

Saying "no EU answers please" is like saying "no answers from people wearing green hats please". Some people don't speculate; they believe the EU, so that's their answer.

To discount someone's answer because it's EU is baiting in my book.

We compared the canon policy in CT to the canon policy in 3SA and considered how something as basic as the way a canon policy is worded can alter the balance of the forum.

Next we discussed those "dead-end" type of threads like "Did Boba Fett die?" and "Stormtroopers are Clones" which inevitably are reduced to EUers and purists going back and forth saying "Yes!" "No!" "Yes!" "No!" because both sides are too deeply entrenched in their views to make concessions. It was remarked that consolidating these discussions into official threads, as they are now, makes them more manageable, but doesn't make the arguments more likely to resolve themselves. One suggestion made was for authors to lay out certain restrictions at the beginning of the thread that would make it impossible for an argument like that to start. Normally, we don't like members to tell one another what to say, but in this case it may be okay to make an exception. Another possibility would be to start parallel threads for EU and non-EU, but we think this would be too redundant.

One member objected to the fact that our thread is titled "Caa

 

We compared the canon policy in CT to the canon policy in 3SA and considered how something as basic as the way a canon policy is worded can alter the balance of the forum.


Can you expound on this please? Because to me they are 2 totally diffferent definitions. The 3sa is a "purist" forum while the CT is an "eu" accepted forum.

Also I would be interested to know if anyone has raised the following points?

-Is the "definition" of canon helping or hurting that particular forum. Would it become more popular if there was a change either way?


-Do you feel that the overall users opinion of what is "canon" is fairly represented in canon policy in terms of number of boards.


-Why not just have the purist definition of canon only on the movie boards and the entire rest of the site except community areas be the completist canon definition.


-Do the poll answers i.e. Boba fett is dead support or discredit either side? If so why?


Other than that alot of good points were made. Keep it up.

 

Thank you for the detailed update. I appreciate the hard work it takes to keep us updated.

Welcome to the first update of the classic trilogy focus group on canon wars!

Will this apply only to the CT forum or all of the forums?

 

The group was started by CT mods and consists mainly of CT posters because that's the forum that usually has the most problems with this. But, if we can come up with some ideas that will help other movie forums, that'll be great too. It's up to the mods and members of those forums if they want to adopt any of our policies.

Can you expound on this please? Because to me they are 2 totally diffferent definitions. The 3sa is a "purist" forum while the CT is an "eu" accepted forum.

Someone who spends more time in SA than I do can probably answer this better, but some of what we're wondering is why that difference exists, and which system works better overall.

 

I spend alot of time in SA. I'm wondering how "wording" is going to help. Because in essence the wording is different between the 2 because they are 2 different policies.

but some of what we're wondering is why that difference exists, and which system works better overall.

WHY
There is a difference because the Eu cannot be discussed since we don't really know what is going to happen fully. Also there are a majority of completists who bash , or doubt the validity of any spoiler because it contradicts the eu. The release of the movie and all of its details will undouobtedly change the EU just as AOTC did. How can something that will be subject to change or potentially contradictory be of much help?


works better overall

For me I wish the 3SA policy was adopted in all of the movie forums. Eu is a fringe thing. Mentioned sometimes, but is not the answer or even an answer. There doesn't seem to be much of a canon war, just as when this policy was adopted in the 2sa it stopped the canon war.

 

Can you expound on this please? Because to me they are 2 totally diffferent definitions. The 3sa is a "purist" forum while the CT is an "eu" accepted forum.

I myself, had no idea that there were different policies in those two forums. Then again, I have only visited 3SA twice and never posted.

Is the "definition" of canon helping or hurting that particular forum. Would it become more popular if there was a change either way?

I raised this question earlier today, after taking a 14 hour nap . I've been meaning to for a while and never got around to it.

Will this apply only to the CT forum or all of the forums?

As far as I know, only CT. I don't believe there is a policy that says the FG must have updates, but Mara and I wanted to keep you guys informed of the situation.

 

-Not bash the EU. (Bashing anything is pretty much never constructive, IMO)

Sure it isn't...but why are people allowed to bash the daylights out of the PT (and even call Lucas himself very ugly names) but are not allowed to bash the EU? Why is the EU sacred?

Saying "no EU answers please" is like saying "no answers from people wearing green hats please". Some people don't speculate; they believe the EU, so that's their answer.

To discount someone's answer because it's EU is baiting in my book.

I disagree. A purist who does not believe in the EU is not going to accept an EU answer as valid, period, therefore the argument is not going to be taken as seriously. A similar example in the Senate Floor would be someone using news from The National Enquirer as an argument against someone who doesn't accept tabloids as the truth, or someone using the Bible or the Quran to argue against someone who doesn't believe in either book. It's not flame-baiting to not accept someone's source. If that were the case, I should have reported the person who didn't accept my National Organization for Women source, which I used once in an abortion argument (and it was a biased source), as flame-baiting.

 

I'm starting to like this idea. Hopefully i'll be in the next focus group.

 

Can you expound on this please? Because to me they are 2 totally diffferent definitions. The 3sa is a "purist" forum while the CT is an "eu" accepted forum.

I agree. 3SA is basically a purist-forum, and leads people to believe that the EU is not canon. Now, I don't think this thread needs to generate into a debate over what is and is not canon, but going by Lucasfilm standards, yes, it is canon. See, the thing is that not everyone knows that the EU is canon. Heck, I had never even heard the word canon before until I got to the boards. Now, if I were to read something like the 3SA EU policy:

Those who wish to discuss spoiler related topics involving the Expanded Universe may do so here in the 3SA. Speculate freely and discuss the Expanded Universe (books, games, comics and RPG) in relation with III of the Star Wars Saga. This forum is not the place to discuss whether or not EU is canon. No trolling or flaming will be tolerated. Have fun and speculate away.

Here's what we moderate towards in the 3SA regarding canon:

TPM DVD without deleted scenes
AotC DVD without deleted scenes
Episode 3 DVD without deleted scenes (upon release)
SE:ANH
SE:ESB
SE:RotJ

Some of us like the EU and some don't. Whatever people enjoy is up to them. And if they feel the EU is part of their SW universe - fantastic. But we go by Lucas' stance in that he is not beholden to them in terms of storyline and contradictions.

But we also invite EU discussion in the 3SA. That wasn't always the case. Any EU used to be shot down on sight long ago. EU discussion and points made periodically within a thread is fine. For the most part, we keep EU discussion in the official thread. But there are plenty of exceptions. And though I hate that Greedo shoots first, it's technically canon and trumps Han shooting first.

We don't allow bashing and gushing, be it EU, characters, films, etc... None. And we nip it in the bud. We have no sanctuaries, defense threads, or anything remotely resembling an extreme love or hate view of anything. It breeds problems. We allow the EU in the 3SA, it's just not a predominate topic.

We also have an entire forum dedicated to the Expanded Universe. The link is provided below. There is a forum dedicated to Star Wars on the Small Screen where discussion of the Clone Wars cartoon reigns supreme. There are a number of Clone Wars cartoon related threads in the 3SA. We understand, respect, and fully expect threads to pop up in the 3SA wondering how what they saw on the cartoon may or may not tie in with spoilers they've learned up to that point for Episode 3. The key to all of this is we allow EU. It's just not the dominant theme in the forum. The films are.

Now, reading that before ever hearing the term "canon" or knowing that people discredited the EU (I didn't know people didn't like it until I got here) I would think that the EU is not, by official definition, canon. It leads people to believe that the EU is not canon, and therefore that is how their posting will go. Most new members are easily impressionable and influenced by these things.

Now, look at the CT forum EU policy:

Alright, this is the new thread for this. These are the two rules that I'm laying down for this forum as far this whole damned EU/Canon debate goes.


EUers. No stating that EU is canon or the ONLY correct solution to a question. You may present an EU answer as an answer, but not the "right" answer. You may know everything about what goes on in the EU, but some people have never heard of it. They may be looking for a number of different theories on an answer, and to present yours as the absolute, is the wrong way to do things.


Purists. No rejecting theories purely because they are EU. If you see an EU idea presented as an answer, and you don't agree with it, politely state your disagreement. Say, "Well, that answer is from the EU, I think it happens this way instead..." Don't go off on tangents about how the EU sux, and

 

Well, here's the problem: the EU can contradict what we see in the movies. For example, there is one book in which Luke goes back to his mother's homeworld--but the homeworld isn't Naboo. We purists also see a lot of EU characterizations as off-base--for example, Han Solo being a wussy alcoholic. And some things just don't make sense--for example, how many times can the damn Solo kids get kidnapped? You would think that with a mother in high political office, a father who is a former smuggler and has a Wookie for a best friend, and an uncle who is a Jedi Master, those kids would be better protected and not be snatched five or six times. You would also think that by being kidnapped that many times, they would be severely emotionally damaged.

Here's where we purists see the difference: Lucas created Star Wars, the movies. Lucas did not create the EU. If you like the EU, fine--that's your business. But for people like me who just see it as professional fan fiction, we don't understand why we should have to accept it as more valid than any fan fiction created by an author who is not getting paid.

If a purist is going to discredit something as EU then I would certainly hope that he, she, or it would at least have enough creativity to point out why they think something wouldn't happen. Just going around saying "That EU, it didn't happen" is a waste of time, just like saying "The EU is the only answer" is.

Your bias shows in calling us purists "it".

And I believe I have just pointed out why I don't think a lot of the EU would happen.

Do I think people should say "the EU sux" or "Timothy Zahn must die"? No. But people are allowed to say "George Lucas has ugly children", "Natalie Portman can't act", or "Hayden Christensen is a dork". What's the difference? Let's have some consistency please.

 

For example, there is one book in which Luke goes back to his mother's homeworld--but the homeworld isn't Naboo.

And at the end we find out that Luke was being led on a wild goose chase; it wasn't his mother's homeworld, we know that much from the book. He was being tricked the whole time.

We purists also see a lot of EU characterizations as off-base--for example, Han Solo being a wussy alcoholic.

Consider the fact that his best friend just died and a bunch of other crap was going on too.

And some things just don't make sense--for example, how many times can the damn Solo kids get kidnapped?

You know, I've thought the same thing. There are a lot of things I don't like in the EU, but that doesn't mean I'm going to just say "Hey, that's not canon!"

You would also think that by being kidnapped that many times, they would be severely emotionally damaged.

Some of us do think they are emotionally damaged.

Here's where we purists see the difference: Lucas created Star Wars, the movies. Lucas did not create the EU.

This arguement has always annoyed me. Lucas did not create every little detail of the movies himself either ... he even had dialogue help in ANH. He has costume designers and concept artists that come up with stuff for him, etc. The movies are not 100% Lucas.

people like me who just see it as professional fan fiction, we don't understand why we should have to accept it as more valid than any fan fiction created by an author who is not getting paid.

You're right, it basically is professional fan fiction. But the difference is that the authors chosen to write EU books are already certified authors that are selected by LFL. You can't just turn in an aplication to write an EU book.

Your bias shows in calling us purists "it".

It was just a joke.

Do I think people should say "the EU sux" or "Timothy Zahn must die"? No. But people are allowed to say "George Lucas has ugly children", "Natalie Portman can't act", or "Hayden Christensen is a dork". What's the difference? Let's have some consistency please.

I've already pointed out my opinion on this ... I don't think any pointless bashing should be allowed on a Star Wars fan site. If someone wants to point out that they didn't like something, that's a lot different than saying "Oh that sucks" without explaining any reasoning.

 

Actually a_g, that first example regarding Luke is one of those things picked up on the fly without knowing how said story-thread was resolved (just to be sure, I'm not picking on you for that, a lot of EU people miss it too).


Do I think people should say "the EU sux" or "Timothy Zahn must die"? No. But people are allowed to say "George Lucas has ugly children", "Natalie Portman can't act", or "Hayden Christensen is a dork". What's the difference? Let's have some consistency please.

In total agreement that there needs to be consistency, and that is that the material is what should be at the issue, not the person behind it. I'd say that people should be able to say "Natalie Portman can't act" if it's actually backed up by some sort of reasoning, not presented as a cold, hard fact (which for those that do think this way, grab Leon/The Professional and then we'll talk). But none of the rest have any place on a discussion board.

 

ousley: The movies may not be 100 percent Lucas, but at least they are Lucas. The EU is not. Lucas did create the story behind the movies--he did not create the story behind the EU. In fact, in one interview, he didn't know who the hell Mara Jade was. He also said, when asked about the EU, "You know, I try not to think about it."

Consider the fact that his best friend just died and a bunch of other crap was going on too.

My point is that that's not a Han Solo reaction. Han wouldn't become a wuss no matter what happened to him. And don't even get me started on Bria Tharen, the Mary Sue who started the Rebellion and stole all Han and Leia's lines. I don't think Han was a monk before he met Leia, but that story doesn't make any sense.

You're right, it basically is professional fan fiction. But the difference is that the authors chosen to write EU books are already certified authors that are selected by LFL.

That doesn't make them better writers and it doesn't make their opinion of what happens any more valid that anyone else's.

 

In other words, you're a Lucas Worshiper.

Just because the EU was not written by GL himself, you consider it unworthy of people's attention. Just because he doesn't sit and ponder its many stories when writing a script does not mean it cannot be part of the Star Wars story.

I'll agree with you that the movies are the original story. They were where things started and always will be seen that way. I'm not saying that you have to accept it as what really happened, but I don't think you should reject it just because it is EU either.

And this thread's purpose is not to debate whether you like certain characterizations or not, so I'll leave those alone.

 

Ousley, honey? Could we not turn this of all threads into a canon debate?

Although I do wish people would stop using that stupid Nashira wild goose chase as justification for the EU contradicting things. The fact is... it was a pointless wild goose chase, and frankly, an EU low point.

Personally, if we could get rid of bashing in all forms, I'd be a happy Ewok... actually, could we do something about Ewok bashing?

Seriously, no matter what I may think of some aspects of the PT, bashing it is just useless.

YubYub and TG- Protecting fangirls from hormonally gifted fanboys since 2002

 

I have always thought that the EU should be taken as canon in the movie forums. It would ease a lot of the debates, instead of leaving a gray area.


How can you say that. This focus group is about problems in the CT boards where EU is considered canon. Notice in boards where there is a more purist policy there is no debating or problems like this.




The debates would still be the same, but the forum would have their canon stance match that of LFL instead of trying to be different just because some people don't like the stance.


And for every quote like that purists can come up just as many from Lucas himself dictating that the EU is simply not canon, that it falls outside his world


Personally I can't wait for the release of the OT on DVD. When Lucas tells you that BOBA died in the commentary, what will you do then?

if Lucas's dying words were "THE EU IS DEFINETLY NOT CANON" Noone in the EU would still accept it. They woould say well....he wasn't in his right mind, he was probably drugged up etc., they would launch into tremondous diatribes about how people are insane right before they die etc. They wouldn't believe it if GOD himself came down and told them. Why, because it invalidates their fandom.



Simply put I don't think we need the EU or completist stance in the movie board, just as we don't need the Purist movie only in the literature and other EU forums. Why can't the purist just have a few boards on this forum. I mean just a few.

 

I'd just like to weigh in at this point that I'm a geek, but I find it amazing that anyone can really feel so strongly about Star Wars. It's just entertainment.

In other words, I will never understand the 'canon warriors'. People just need to lighten up, methinks.

 

Swings both ways
MeBeJedi

*sniggers*

 

But, if we can come up with some ideas that will help other movie forums, that'll be great too.

I only post in 3SA, so I'm not sure if this is off topic. I don't know anything about the EU, and I'm not going to. Those of us in 3SA are trying to follow the latest spoilers. We get brand new information all the time. It's confusing when someone posts EU information without identifying the source. So I'd add one more rule to the list for "completists": If you are going to use an EU source, please identify it as such. Some of us don't have the slightest idea of what you are talking about.

 

Well, as a completist, I always try to be polite and say, "Well, if you follow the EU, then blah blah blah fishcakes." Or something. Meaning, "For those of us who are into the EU."

I also have always pointed out that to me, it's just about what one enjoys, so whether or not something is canon should be left up to the individual.

However, Lucas has NEVER said the EU is NOT canon, just that it's not his area. He leaves it to the authors. I think he's neutral to it. Although, didn't he say something about, when someone asked him about something not in the movies, he said, "Well, then you can always read teh books!"

Also, Lucas has borrowed from the EU. Proof-Aayla Secura. And even though he says Boba Fett died, he still liked DE enough to give it to his employees at Christmas. Go figure.

In the end, I think what's important is what people enjoy.

 

However, Lucas has NEVER said the EU is NOT canon,

Lucas has been quoted calling the EU a parallel universe.

There is a whole series of forums here all for the EU, then there is a whole series of forums for the films. The two mix too much.

I can't believe we are going through this again. It's probably why I don't even go to the CT forum anymore.

 

The full quote makes it clear that it isn't meaning to say it's meaningless, just that he doesn't worry over every little detail.

*sigh*

Whatever happened to "It counts until a movie contradicts it"?

YubYub and TG- Protecting fangirls from hormonally gifted fanboys since 2002

 

That works as long as the EU and the fans aren't willing to make long convoluted trains of improbables to make it fit.

"well you see the X-wing and tie fighter in AotC were really prototypes flying in a race on coruscant to decide which would recieve funding from the Government. [frink noise]"

 

-Why not just have the purist definition of canon only on the movie boards and the entire rest of the site except community areas be the completist canon definition.


Why not just have the entire JC run under the LFL definition then?

This is one of the key "sticky widgets" that the FG discusses -- as there is ample misinterpretation of what that definition is. I think they're doing good work in there...

 

Ideally, the EU should not be protected in the movie forums. I understood a good portion of Star Wars fans like to speculate on the intricate details of the saga, but establishing a supremacy clause for the EU in movie forums takes this idea a bit too easily.

LFL basically hired authors to write their Star Wars-inspired stories. It happens in a lot of other franchises, but I've never seen a Star Trek fan claim those books as important as the movies or TV shows created by Paramount.

Why does it have to be this way in Star Wars fandom?

If you prefer the EU, that's fine, but please don't think they hold the right answers when you waltz into a movie forum. In that sort of discussion forum, all speculation is equal.

And I've seen a lot more posters try to push EU answers into what is obviously movie discussion, then vice versa.

What happened to using your imagination? Why just stop thinking just because someone else came up with an idea first?

The creator of Star Wars doesn't even escape critics and non-fans.


EU fans shouldn't invoke a "NO TAG-BACKS" rule when it comes to open discussion in a movie forum.

I don't accept it, and I shouldn't be forced to just because TFN does.