EU's officiality

[Ender]

LFL approves the books as official

Well, this is a discussion for another thread, but suffice it to say that Lucas recently referred to the licensed material as being of another world, and a parallel universe. Of course, these were recent comments you could not have known about.

Provide source.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

I'll be accused of bias, so instead, I'll just paste what he wrote here, and add that nobody that I know of except for DarkStar, maybe Darkling and the Baron ever thought this is a problem.

"There are two worlds here," explains Lucas. "There's my world, which is the
movies, and there's this other world that has been created, which I say is
the parallel universe-the licensing world of books, games and comic books.
They don't intrude on my world, which is a select period of time, [but] they
do intrude in between the movies. I don't get too involved in the parallel
universe."

[Ender]

And the source for this quote is?

[TheDarkling]

I dont agree with Darkstars interpretation of the quote but I do see where it comes from.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

IIRC, it came from Cinefax 2001.

[Howedar]

Someone post Ubiquitoriate's post again.

[DarkStar]

Provide source.

Here, have several:

"In truth, it is best left up to the individual's point of view (Sansweet), but for a versus debate that isn't helpful. So, we must attempt to determine a set of hard rules based on what Lucas and his authorized agents say, and make sure that the way we determine what the rules are is the same for any other franchise's canon policy.

The real story of Star Wars is the absolute Canon of the films (Cerasi, Sansweet). The remaining parts of Canon are the film scripts, film novelisations, and the 1981 radio plays (Insider #23), with a canonicity that drops off in degrees (Sansweet) based on how close they are to the movies in format and content (Cerasi). The further you get from the movies, the more interpretation and speculation come into play (Cerasi).

Lucas and LFL have allowed other writers to expand upon his films with original fiction novels(Dice's 1st Insider quote), games, and comic books (StarWars.com EU intro). LucasBooks handles the editorial Continuity for these. The Continuity is an internal consistency -- ensuring the books don't contradict each other -- that LucasBooks decided to strive to maintain (Dice's 2nd Insider quote), with the express exception of works bearing the "Infinities"(*) logo (Cerasi). This is known as the Expanded Universe, and authors who write for it must know not only the Canon, but also the EU Continuity (Handley, Denning). This catalog of published works comprises a vast history with offshoots, tangents, and variants (Insider #23), though this history doesn't necessarily represent the true history of the Star Wars universe (Cerasi). It may serve as a window into the real story of Star Wars, and may contain nuggets of truth (Cerasi), but it cannot write the real story (Cerasi) nor is it clear whether those nuggets of truth come from the original fiction or simply the fiction's use of Canon. In any event, Lucas is the source of Star Wars, and isn't held to any of the EU stories (Sansweet, Community page).

There is much confusion among Star Wars fans as to what is true of the Star Wars universe beyond the Canon (Cerasi and others). Part of this is due to conflicting statements about what is and isn't the real story of Star Wars (see starwars.com EU intro (suggesting that Canon + EU = 'entire tale'), Rostoni in Insider ('everything's canon' except Infinities), Sansweet in the Encyclopedia ('Quasi-Canon'), the Star Wars Card Game's Rulebook that says the cards are canon, et cetera). Some use only the Cerasi/Insider Canon, some think it is all canon, and some, such as Mike Wong, think there are three levels, Canon, Quasi-Canon, and Official.

Recently, Lucas cleared up the messy issue by explaining that the books, games, and comic books are part of a parallel universe, another world created separately from his own (Lucas in Cinescape). By design, the settings in time of the parallel universe do not intrude on his movie time period, since LucasBooks disallows authors from playing with events and periods of time that Lucas intends to use. LucasBooks tries to use the events in the Canon universe in the parallel universe, but the fact that it is a parallel universe explains why Lucas isn't bound by it (as stated by Sansweet). In other words, events may happen similarly in parallel universes at the same time (for instance, the events of Episode IV are referenced in the Canon and the EU Continuity), but that does not mean that how the two universes ended up there is the same (for an example of such a concept, see the Star Trek episode "Mirror, Mirror"... Kirk is captain in both universes, but the way he achieved the captaincy was far, far different).

This also explains why Lucas does not allow the parallel universe to intrude on the time periods and events he wants to work with in his universe. If someone retold his tales, these events of another world might confuse Star Wars fans and violate the integrity of his work, and his vision for his universe. That is also why he works so closely with the authors who write the novelisations of his films (Cerasi).

So, the parallel Expanded Universe has a vast history (Insider), but we now know that it is not the real story of Star Wars (Lucas, implied in Cerasi, et cetera). Perhaps the offshoots, variants, and tangents (Insider) or any failures to maintain the internal Continuity (Dice 2nd Insider) are most easily explained away as additional parallels, but such a discussion is outside the scope of this document.

This does not mean that the Expanded Universe didn't happen. It did happen, but it occurred in its own reality. If a fan prefers the parallel Expanded Universe event over a Canon event, they can do so, since it only means they are choosing one reality over another in the entire Saga of the Star Wars universes (starwars.com EU intro, Lucas in "Splinter"). However, the real story of Lucas' Star Wars universe is the Canon, and that must be kept in mind by the fan or debater."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(*) Some claim that the use of the "Infinities" logo, used to explicitly place something outside the Continuity, proves that the Continuity has some measure of Canonicity, evidently through some form of whiplash. However, just because "Infinities" is specifically stated to be outside the Continuity doesn't make the Continuity slip any closer to Canon status.

These individuals usually also claim that, since a few EU elements have made their way into Canon cameos (such as the Outrider appearance in one of the Special Editions), this Canonicity is confirmed. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Several EU works bearing the "Infinities" logo have had elements of their stories make their way into EU Continuity events, but the "Infinities" stories are still not Canon, and are not still part of the Continuity. Therefore, to assume that something being used by a higher-canon-level story makes the entire lower level have higher-canon status is not only illogical, but also a *concept* unsupported in the Star Wars Canon Policy.

It should also be noted that warsie factions like to use a completely made-up policy ("logical extrapolation by us") in case of conflict between Canon and non-canon "official" material. They have crafted a criteria of contradiction wherein something non-canon must be specifically contradicted by the canon in order to be considered false, and that the falsehood only exists "on that point". For example, a numeral in the non-canon must be contradicted by a different numeral in the canon, or else they claim there is no contradiction, even if the situation is something like "a handful" versus "1.7 billion". This concept not only has no basis in the canon, but it is a direct violation of the spirit of the canon, and the canon policy.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

References:

Cerasi, Chris. Quoted by Steve Sansweet at
(http://www.starwars.com/community/askjc ... 10817.html).

Denning, Troy. Interview with TheForce.net.
(http://theforce.net/jedicouncil/interview/denning.shtml).

Handley, Rich. Post on rec.arts.sf.starwars.misc. Text available at(http://www.h4h.com/louis/sources.html) halfway down the page.

Lucas, George. Interview in Cinescape, July 2002 edition. Text available, posted by 'watchdog' at
(http://kier.3dfrontier.com/forums/showt ... genumber=6) three-quarters of the way down the page.

Lucas, George, writing in "Splinter of the Mind's Eye" by Alan Dean Foster, 1994 republication.

Rostoni, Sue. Interview in Star Wars Insider. Text available at (http://jceu.tripod.com/faq.html#4).

Sansweet, Steve. The Star Wars Encylopedia. Foreward.

Sansweet, Steve. "Star Wars: Community | Are we going to get more details about Boba Fett's past?" (referred to as "Sansweet, Community" in the text).
(http://www.starwars.com/community/askjc ... 00424.html).

Star Wars Collectible Card Game Rulebook. Text available at (http://www.sfdebris.com/faq5.html).

"Star Wars: Expanded Universe | Beyond the Films" (referred to as StarWars.com EU intro in the text). (http://www.starwars.com/eu/).

Star Wars Insider quotes, posted by Graeme Dice. Text available at
(http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl ... ie=UTF-8&o
e=UTF8&selm=3D162313.22ECE20F%40sk.sympatico.ca).

Star Wars Insider #23, interview. Text available at
http://www.theforce.net/swtc/continuity.html

Wong, Mike. "Sources" -
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Misc/Sources.html

[LMSx]

...Hrm.....So if some events are the same in both universes, then we can still assume that the weaponry, shielding, etc. would still be constant.

[DarkStar]

...Hrm.....So if some events are the same in both universes, then we can still assume that the weaponry, shielding, etc. would still be constant.

Illogical. The similarity of some events, forces, people, et cetera in shaping EU history does not imply that the events, forces, and individuals who have shaped any other thing (weapons, shields, art, science, etc) are the same. With as many variables as an alternate universe presents, you can only extrapolate similarities as far as what is shown.

Besides, the EU Continuity is far from continuous when it comes to issues of firepower. Do turbolaser strikes against planets at maximum power start forest fires, or allow a planet to be slagged in a matter of hours? The EU gives us both. Is a BDZ a long operation that involves destroying the traces of civilization from a world, or is it the aforementioned slagging in a matter of hours? The EU gives us both. It hardly makes sense for such things to be part of the same alternate universe, and even less sense to assign chosen parameters to still another.

[Ender]

So... I ask for sources, and you provide the widely know policy of EU is official and thus counts and again the select quote lacking the context. Plus your own interpretation, but I won't get into that.

Thank you for totally dodging the question.

Lets try this again:

Does anyone have a complete and total transcript of that artical?

[Vympel]

Darkstar that's ridiculous. Are the shields, weapons etc. in the EU totally different from those of the canon films novles radio plays etc because they're in a 'parallel universe'?

Are we going to see fanatic trekkies say "ahhh, but that's an EU Star Destroyer- which is clearly not the same as a canon Star Destroyer because we cannot assume that the events, forces and individuals who have shaped any other thing in this parallel universe are the same." Ludicrous.

Wait, far better example- the Ep 2 ICS- is this describing the firepower of a parallel universe Acclamator? Oh so the canon Acclamator isn't the same?

"Do turbolaser strikes against planets at maximum power start forest fires, or allow a planet to be slagged in a matter of hours? The EU givesus both."

Source?

"Is a BDZ a long operation that involves destroying the traces of civilization from a world, or is it the aforementioned slagging in a matter of hours? The EU gives us both."

Source? Define long operation? Slagging/ traces of civilization sound like describing the same thing to me.

[SPOOFE]

:: Then we just say that in debates, we debate with the EU parallel universe rather than just the movies.

Come now, Darkstar... Lucas is clearly just clarifying WHY he doesn't hesitate to trample over the EU when he's writing the scripts for his movies. His personal policy is such that he considers the movies to take precedence.

Please provide evidence that these quotes from Lucas are OFFICIAL policy and affect the standard deviation of Canonicity.

[DarkStar]

Darkstar that's ridiculous. Are the shields, weapons etc. in the EU totally different from those of the canon films novles radio plays etc because they're in a 'parallel universe'?

Perhaps so. Perhaps not. We have no way to know... the possibilities of parallel universes are by definition endless.

Are we going to see fanatic trekkies say "ahhh, but that's an EU Star Destroyer- which is clearly not the same as a canon Star Destroyer because we cannot assume that the events, forces and individuals who have shaped any other thing in this parallel universe are the same." Ludicrous.

Calling something ludicrous does not make it so.

Wait, far better example- the Ep 2 ICS- is this describing the firepower of a parallel universe Acclamator? Oh so the canon Acclamator isn't the same?

We have no way to know... the canon Acclamators never fired.

"Do turbolaser strikes against planets at maximum power start forest fires, or allow a planet to be slagged in a matter of hours? The EU givesus both."

Source?

Daala's forest fires come from Darksabre. The planet-slagging in hours comes from the ICS, which took fragments of data about BDZing to create a new definition, contrary to old ones.

"Is a BDZ a long operation that involves destroying the traces of civilization from a world, or is it the aforementioned slagging in a matter of hours? The EU gives us both."

Source? Define long operation? Slagging/ traces of civilization sound like describing the same thing to me.

Slagging the surface involves melting the surface. Using fragments of other quotes, Wong (and later the ICS) constructed a complete fallacy in regards to what the BDZ was.

In 1989, West End Games published a work called "Scavenger Hunt". Within that work, a Rebel base on planet Dankayo is attacked by three Imperial Star Destroyers:

"... to rendezvous at Dankayo and reduce the tiny base to molten slag. Even before the last of its atmosphere drifted away,
before the dense clouds of atomized topsoil could begin to settle, Imperial transports Elusive and Timely, as well as a
complement of TIE fighters, moved in to perform "mop-up" operations and a through search of Dankayo's now evenly-cratered surface."
-- Scavenger Hunt, p.3

So, what do we have? Three Star Destroyers slag (melt) a base facility, and attack the rest of the surface, leaving it evenly-cratered and without an atmosphere. We do not know the size of Dankayo, so much of that information is useless for gauging firepower.

It is clear, though, that the planet itself was mostly unharmed, considering that a survivor in a "deep planet shelter" of the "tiny base" survived. Transports and TIE fighters moved in to perform "mop-up" operations.

Then, in 1994 and 1995, a mass of new books started to come out, and three of these had planetary attack references. The slagging of a Rebel base in "Scavenger Hunt" suddenly became:

"The Imperial Star Destroyer has enough firepower to reduce a civilized world to slag."
-- Imperial Sourcebook

Well, now, that's quite a change! Now we've gone from a tiny base on a small moon to an entire civilized world! Of course, just how this is meant is unclear . . . it may not be too different from The Star Wars Adventure Journal, which was a little more modest in its approach, but it has given us the name for a total planetary attack:

"Sir, what about bombardment? Is there a stage for that?"
"Blasting a planet from orbit is easy -- you don't need me to tell you how to do that. Limited orbital strikes would occur during the invasion stage. Just hope you are never given a Base Delta Zero order, lieutenant. Ah, yes, another question?"
"Sir, what's the Base Delta Zero order?"
"Base Delta Zero is the Imperial code order to destroy all population centres and resources, including industry, natural resources and cities. All other Imperial codes are subject to change, as you well know, but this code is always the same to prevent any confusion when the order is given. Base Delta Zero is rarely issued. ...."
-- "A World to Conquer"

This makes a little more sense. Three Star Destroyers can fire on and eventually slag a Rebel base, so simply destroying the resources, population centers, and industry (perhaps melting some buildings and such) shouldn't be too much worse, given a sufficient number of Star Destroyers. This view is supported by the Star Wars Technical Journal of 1995, which makes reference to turning a planet's surface into "smoking debris". The problem comes with what is said after that . . . "a matter of hours".

Naturally, caution was thrown to the wind by some Warsies. Suddenly, a Base Delta Zero operation (from SWAJ) became the act of melting the entire surface of a world in a matter of hours. They claimed support for this view in the new "New Jedi Order Sourcebook" of 2002, which claims that a planet was bombarded and all life wiped out in the space of a day. Naturally, the fact that a ship count involved in this fleet maneuver is not given doesn't even make the Warsies blink.

And so, the legend of the Base Delta Zero maneuver has grown and grown, until it is now codified as part of the inflated numbers and statements in the Episode II Incredible Cross Sections, where the idea of slagging an entire planet's surface in a matter of hours is stated to be the Base Delta Zero command, making it as good as canon fact to many, in spite of the horrendous inconsistencies and direct contradiction to the prior definition.

[Master of Ossus]

...Hrm.....So if some events are the same in both universes, then we can still assume that the weaponry, shielding, etc. would still be constant.

Illogical. The similarity of some events, forces, people, et cetera in shaping EU history does not imply that the events, forces, and individuals who have shaped any other thing (weapons, shields, art, science, etc) are the same. With as many variables as an alternate universe presents, you can only extrapolate similarities as far as what is shown.

Besides, the EU Continuity is far from continuous when it comes to issues of firepower. Do turbolaser strikes against planets at maximum power start forest fires, or allow a planet to be slagged in a matter of hours? The EU gives us both. Is a BDZ a long operation that involves destroying the traces of civilization from a world, or is it the aforementioned slagging in a matter of hours? The EU gives us both. It hardly makes sense for such things to be part of the same alternate universe, and even less sense to assign chosen parameters to still another.

All similarities are purely coincidental? I don't see how you get that interpretation. Are the capabilities of lightsabers in both the EU and the movies coincidental? I also disagree with your interpretation of the original quote. Read what else Lucas said. He said that the EU sometimes made its presence known between movies. That implies that the EU has a considerable amount of weight. While he said that he doesn't interfere with the EU, I think that is primarily a statement that he does not restrict the authors from taking their stories where they want to take them. He just kind of sits back and watches the stories unfold. While it means that he does not veto what they write, it also means that he is willing to allow them to craft their own part of the story. The policy we have on canon and official material should stand.

BTW, if the only way that Trekkies can win is by refuting official material while making sure that every single instance of an inconsistently high firepower or shield rating from ANY episode of ST is used, then I think that is essentially a concession. Even with just what is in the films, we can clearly see that SW is more powerful. The ICS is not a tech upgrade, it is consistent with what we see on screen. Their attempts to refute SW firepower by refuting the ICS's applicability is laughable because those firepowers are what can be seen and inferred on screen. They are well in line with Mike Wong's estimates BEFORE ICS came out. That indicates that they are consistent and merely refuting ICS does not refute SW firepower. Trekkies should take note of this before spitting out that ST has better ships.

[SPOOFE]

Darkstar, now you're just being dishonest. Find a single reference in Darksaber that describes the forest fire-starting blasts as either full-powered, or from a HTL.

As for your "claim" that DBZ grew out of something that it isn't... please provide evidence that your cited quote from "Scavenger Hunt" specifically excludes the possibility that the rest of the surface was subjected to the same punishment as the "tiny base". I see lots of hyperbole in that paragraph, but no specifics.

You're building a painfully flimsy case, here. Are you capable of real debate, or are you limited to just minor nitpicks?

[Master of Ossus]

Actually, he starts off like this. Now he will repeat his original points while failing to address our questions and rebuttals of them, and then declare victory for himself. That is the way he normally debates.

BTW, this is another common Trekkie escape clause. They feel that by eliminating the SOURCES of many of the technological abilities of SW, they can also eliminate the technological abilities. They fail to recognize that the firepower and other abilities demonstrated in the movies are almost always consistent with those claimed in the official literature, the official literature just tends to state them more directly. For instance, the ICS gives us FIGURES for the firepower of SW HTLs, whereas in the movies we have only seen smaller weapons firing. However, there are more than enough examples of the extremely high yields of those weapons in the movies themselves to disprove many Trekkie arguments on this. The EU is almost always consistent with the movies.

[LMSx]

Illogical. The similarity of some events, forces, people, et cetera in shaping EU history does not imply that the events, forces, and individuals who have shaped any other thing (weapons, shields, art, science, etc) are the same. With as many variables as an alternate universe presents, you can only extrapolate similarities as far as what is shown.

You have no basis for the idea that weaponry is different. When comparing parallel universes in Sci-Fi, we usually focus on what's different. If a person is fatally shot in universe #1, and is not fatally shot in universe #2, we assume that the gun used in U1 is the same type of gun with equal effectiveness in U2 unless a specific point is made that the gun is different in some way, which allowed the person in U2 to live.

Your saying that we should assume that everything is different in parallel universes, which destroys the whole idea; which is that everything is the SAME except for that one point.[/code]

[Jack Lain]

I agree with you guys, but you must admit, GL's statement has impact. No I am not agreeing with DS, but it must play a factor.
GL does not view the EU as part of the singular universe, then we should consider our view. If it ain't a part, it ain't a part.

Besides, there is enough in the films, novelisations and radio play to still ensure a SW victory. So what if we don't get galaxy gun? It is irreverent. We still kick their asses. There is nothing in the ST galaxy that can beat the Death Star or even an ISD. It makes no difference if we outlaw EU. None at all! We still win. bah - why quibble?

Btw: any notice that there were ET in the senate? The hole between the two galaxies exists. The ET from ET are in the senate. That is nice, establishes the connection we're looking for. ST is doomed, with or without the EU. As evidenced by the FILMS - CANON!

-Jack "huh?" Lain.

[Jack Lain]

I felt the need to add this.

It simply does not matter. Even if we limit ourselves to film only, ST still cannot win. This entire thread is just plain silly and insipid.
So fucking what?
We still kick the Feds ass, we still kick the Klings ass, we still kick the roms ass and the borg die as they always will.

WTF? You must be kidding me to approach the war on a canon authencity issue. Who fucking cares? You still lose! WTF? Why are you quibbling over this shit? It is a vain attempt to save your ass. ST cannot stand up to the might of the GE or even the NR. Why are you trying to split hairs? It is just silly.

-Jack "Again Huh?" Lain.

[Master of Ossus]

I felt the need to add this.

It simply does not matter. Even if we limit ourselves to film only, ST still cannot win. This entire thread is just plain silly and insipid.
So fucking what?
We still kick the Feds ass, we still kick the Klings ass, we still kick the roms ass and the borg die as they always will.

WTF? You must be kidding me to approach the war on a canon authencity issue. Who fucking cares? You still lose! WTF? Why are you quibbling over this shit? It is a vain attempt to save your ass. ST cannot stand up to the might of the GE or even the NR. Why are you trying to split hairs? It is just silly.

That's pretty much what I was saying when I said that many Trekkies subscribe to the theory that if they eliminate the source they eliminate the ability. This is not true. Firepower from the movies is more than enough to destroy ST ships. In fact, it is VERY similar to what we see in almost all of the EU!

BTW, the ET's do not NECESSARILY indicate that there is a hole in the two galaxies. It might simply be that the ET's have figured out a way to go past the Galaxy and into the one here. BTW, for all we know, the ET's were the ones that created the Maw and Centerpoint Station and everything else! However, your point is well taken.

[Lord Poe]

The Ubiqtorate wrote:

In general address:

According to Ben Harper, of Lucasfilm, Ltd, in Star Wars Gamer #3:

quote:

Good question! We have never disavowed the existence of Marvel comics. We have, whenever feasible, included important events and characters from the Marvel comics in our other products. Some of the Marvel storylines before anyone knew what would happen in The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi. Obviously, in many places, those films contradicted what had happened in the comics. Which ones are more important? The films, of course. However, Lucasfilm recognizes the creativity and diversity within the Marvel comics, and feels that there is a place within the Star Wars universe for non-continuity events. You’ll notice that books recognized as Star Wars canon are marked with Era symbols (so you’ll know where they fall within the Star Wars timeline). The non-continuity books (at this point, the Dark Horse Star Wars Tales and Infinities: A New Hope comics) will soon be marked with a non-continuity symbol. Elements from Marvel which do not tread upon that which has been established in the films, novels, comics, et cetera, are being integrated into official Star Wars canon because we like them, they’re cool, the aliens will be fun to use in the RPG, and, well, we were just feeling a bit nostalgic. After all, it’s been over 20 years!



Mr Harper states that those books which are officially considered to be Star Wars canon are now being labelled with “Era symbols,” and that non-continuity (which his usage suggests to be synonymous with “non-canon”) are labelled with the “Infinities” symbol. Note further that Mr Harper states that elements from the Marvel Comics Group Star Wars comic series which do not contradict the established “facts” of the Expanded Universe are being “integrated into official Star Wars canon,” thus implicitly stating that the “films, novels, comics, et cetera” constitute “official Star Wars canon.”

In summary, Mr Harper’s statement does not in any way support the contention that the Expanded Universe lacks the status of being accurate, valid, and correct; in fact, it stands in direct contradiction to this contention, as Mr Harper considers the “facts” (such as it were) established by the “novels, comics, et cetera” to be on the same level as those established by the films – and for that reason, he lists the two categories together.

According to Sue Rostoni, of Lucas Licensing, in Star Wars Gamer #6:

quote:

Canon refers to an authoritative list of books that the Lucas Licensing editors consider an authentic part of the official Star Wars history. Our goal is to present a continuous and unified history of the Star Wars galaxy, insofar as that history does not conflict with, or undermine the meaning of Mr. Lucas’s Star Wars saga of films and screenplays.



It is interesting to note that herein canon is defined to include those books which Lucas Licensing considers to be “factual” in Star Wars, insofar as it accurately reflects the films and screenplays of Mr Lucas. This is important, in that it demonstrates that it is the stated policy of Lucas Licensing that items are considered to be part of the official continuous and unified history of Star Wars as long as they are not overruled by the films themselves.

That is to say, it is the state policy of Lucas Licensing that Star Wars literature is true, valid, accurate and correct insofar as it is not contradicted – or, more properly, does not contradict – the films themselves.

According to Chris Cerasi, of LucasBooks, on starwars.com/community/askjc/steve/askjc2001817.html:

quote:

There’s been some confusion of late regarding the ‘Infinities’ symbol, and Star Wars Expanded Universe continuity in general. Terms like “canon” and “continuity” tend to get thrown around casually, which doesn’t help at all.

When it comes to absolute canon, the real story of Star Wars, you must turn to the films themselves – and only the films. Even novelizations are interpretations of the film, and while they are largely true to George Lucas’ vision (he works quite closely with the novel authors), the method in which they are written does allow for some minor differences. The novelizations are written concurrently with the film’s production, so variations in detail do creep in from time to time. Nonetheless, they should be regarded as very accurate depictions of the fictional Star Wars movies.

The further one branches away from the movies, the more interpretation and speculation come into play. LucasBooks works diligently to keep the continuing Star Wars expanded universe cohesive and uniform, but stylistically, there is always room for variation. Not all artists draw Luke Skywalker the same way. Not all writers define the character in the same fashion. The particular attributes of individual media also come into lay. A comic book interpretation of an event will likely have less dialogue or different pacing than a novel version. A video game has to take an interactive approach that favors gameplay. So too must card and roleplaying games ascribe certain characteristics to characters and events in order to make them playable.

The analogy is that every piece of published Star Wars fiction is a window into the ‘real’ Star Wars universe. Some windows are a bit foggier than others. Some are decidedly abstract. But each contains a nugget of truth to them. Like the great Jedi Knight Obi-Wan Kenobi said, ‘many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our point of view.’

Returning to the question at hand. Yes, Star Wars Gamer is part of continuity, though as game material, there is room for interpretation. Only specific articles marked with the ‘Infinities’ logo within the magazine should be considered out of continuity.

Fans of the old monthly Marvel Star Wars comic will be heartened to know that LucasBooks does indeed consider them part of continuity. Decades of retrospect haven’t been kind to all the elements of the comic series, but the characters and events still hold weight and are referenced in newer material whenever possible.

In order to allow unlimited freedom of storytelling, the Infinities label has been placed on the anthology series, Star Wars Tales. This means that not only can the stories occur anywhere in the Star Wars timeline, but stories can happen outside continuity. Basically, if an event appears in Tales, it may not have necessarily happened in the rest of the expanded universe. For some stories, the distinction is largely inconsequential. For others, it’s the only way they could exist (for example, there’s a Darth Vader vs. Darth Maul comic coming soon).



Mr Cerasi’s statement is to the effect that it is the official policy of Lucasfilm, Ltd, that the films themselves constitute absolute canon, or completely correct representations of the “facts” of the Star Wars story. In addition to the films themselves are other material (designated “expanded universe” by Mr Cerasi), which are considered to be in continuity with the films, though of lesser “correctness” with regard to “facts” than the films themselves.

Because Mr Cerasi consistently uses the term “continuity,” it is clear that this is a specific use of the word, and not a vague generality. The term “continuity” is defined by the 1984 edition of the Funk & Wagnalls Standard Desk Dictionary as “the state or quality of being continuous”; “continuous” is therein defined as “extended or prolonged without break; uninterrupted.”

In effect, Mr Cerasi has stated, then, that the expanded universe constitutes a continuous, uninterrupted part of the Star Wars saga. It is fully in union with the films themselves, and is without break from them; to relegate it to the status of inadmissible evidence due to non-canon status is to violate the stated policy of LucasBooks, and thence, of Lucasfilm Ltd, and implicitly of Mr Lucas himself.

According to George Lucas, in the introduction to the 1994 printing of Splinter of the Mind’s Eye:

quote:

After Star Wars was released, it became apparent that my story – however many films it took to tell – was only one of thousands that could be told about the characters who inhabit its galaxy. But these were not stories I was destined to tell. Instead they would spring from the imagination of other writers, inspired by the glimpse of a galaxy that Star Wars provided. Today it is an amazing, if unexpected, legacy of Star Wars that so many gifted writers are contributing new stories to the Saga.



Mr Lucas’s statement here is interesting in that it reveals that he considers the stories of the Expanded Universe to be equal parts of the Star Wars saga with his own part, the films themselves. This establishes that it is the opinion of the creator of the franchise that the Expanded Universe constitutes a valid part of the “factual” history of the saga.

These statements by persons in positions of authority with regard to the official “facts” of the Star Wars saga are consistent in upholding that the Expanded Universe is a valid part of the saga, and fail in any way to support the contention that the Expanded Universe lacks the status of being accurate, valid and correct except when in direct conflict with the films themselves. Until and unless an item within the Expanded Universe conflicts with the films, it is canonical; when a conflict occurs, the films’ evidence supersedes that of the Expanded Universe item.

The Ubiqtorate’s opinion is (or, more properly, would be) that to attempt to claim otherwise – viz., to claim that the Expanded Universe is neither canonical nor accurate, valid and correct, and therefor inadmissible as evidence – is not only contradictory of the stated policies of LucasBooks, Lucas Licensing, Lucasfilm, Ltd, and Mr Lucas, but is also wilfully misinterpretative of the various statements regarding canon and continuity.

Furthermore, the Ubiqtorate would suggest that any attempt to argue that the rules of evidence for Star Trek have any implication on the rules of evidence for Star Wars is a red herring; the rules of evidence for Star Trek are irrelevant to the rules of evidence for Star Wars.

The Ubiqtorate yields the floor.

[SPOOFE]

I agree with you guys, but you must admit, GL's statement has impact. No I am not agreeing with DS, but it must play a factor.

Indeed, and nobody is denying that. All Lucas's statement does is explain his mindset... that when he's filming the movies, and wants to do something contrary to what has been established in the EU, he'll simply regard those contradictory events as an "alternate timeline" or such to allow himself the creative freedom he wants with his product.

Essentially, nothing's changed. The films still take precedence over all, and when the films do contradict a piece of EU, all we do is either rationalize it, or disregard that one small sliver of the EU (but not, of course, the entire source that it came from... that would just be silly).

I keep finding myself having to repeat this, but it's necessary... excluding evidence - ANY evidence - should be a last resort ONLY. Given that we are dealing with fictional mediums, every tidbit of evidence gives us a clearer picture of that fictional universe. Sometimes we need to rationalize things a little, but it's all in the name of making the evidence work together.

Want an example of a ST rationalization? Check this out: When Picard & Co. first met the Borg, they were told, by Q, that the Borg have no gender. Yet, later on, in Voyager and First Contact, we see quite obviously that there ARE genders in the Borg collective. Do we conclude that Q was simply wrong, thus disregarding his words, and the evidence he provides? Or do we rationalize, interpreting his words to mean "the Borg have no gender that matters... they don't undertake intercourse for procreation"?

[DarkStar]

I also disagree with your interpretation of the original quote. Read what else Lucas said. He said that the EU sometimes made its presence known between movies. That implies that the EU has a considerable amount of weight.

The EU doesn't make its presence known, it intrudes on his chosen time period in his universe. He has a select period of time that is his, in both universes.

While he said that he doesn't interfere with the EU, I think that is primarily a statement that he does not restrict the authors from taking their stories where they want to take them.

Where they take them is irrelevant . . . he isn't bound by the EU.

The policy we have on canon and official material should stand.

Even before the recent Lucas quote, there was plenty of evidence showing that the policy used is improper. After all, the classic warsie construction of it explicitly includes chosen interpolation.

BTW, if the only way that Trekkies can win is by refuting official material while making sure that every single instance of an inconsistently high firepower or shield rating from ANY episode of ST is used, then I think that is essentially a concession.

When have I used inconsistently high anything about Trek? In estimating the speed of the TOS Enterprise recently, I expressly threw out high estimates and low estimates, aiming for the middle.

Even with just what is in the films, we can clearly see that SW is more powerful. The ICS is not a tech upgrade, it is consistent with what we see on screen.

My ass. One kiloton Jedi fighter weapons that we never saw fire, and which are 70 times more powerful than Wong's highest available estimates for X-Wing firepower? 600 gigajoule cannons on Slave I that had about the same effect as a grenade (i.e. about one and a half million times weaker than the ICS figure)? Let's not forget those eight megaton cannons on Slave I, which (using Wong's own calculator) only put out somewhere around 16 tons of effect, even if you assume that the entire ~15 meter asteroid was destroyed (which it wasn't ... only about half of it was), and that it was a nickel-iron body.

Their attempts to refute SW firepower by refuting the ICS's applicability is laughable because those firepowers are what can be seen and inferred on screen.

Riiiight. Even if you acknowledge that directed energy weapons will have problems with force coupling in reference to blast effects, it still makes no sense to claim that the weapons are as uberpowerful in the canon as they are in the non-canon ICS. I can claim that my handgun fires fusion-tipped nuclear devices, but you have no reason to believe that if every time you see me fire, it just acts like a wimpy, plain-old bullet.

[DarkStar]

Darkstar, now you're just being dishonest. Find a single reference in Darksaber that describes the forest fire-starting blasts as either full-powered, or from a HTL.

pg. 341

"Yes" Daala said, "We'll strike from orbit. All turbolasers batteries, full
strength. Fire at will, target any structures in the jungle."

(the last paragraph ) "Even from her place in the Knight Hammer, high above Yavin 4, she could already see the forests starting to burn."

"the jungle moon of Yavin 4 must be no more than a cinder" pp323
"Strips of the jungle were ripped up and incinerated where the powerful
turbolasers had sliced from orbit" pp 357
"Any sign of defences?"
"no apparent defences"
"None detected" pp 321

As for your "claim" that DBZ grew out of something that it isn't... please provide evidence that your cited quote from "Scavenger Hunt" specifically excludes the possibility that the rest of the surface was subjected to the same punishment as the "tiny base". I see lots of hyperbole in that paragraph, but no specifics.

The rest of the base's homeworld was "evenly-cratered". Slagging the surface would leave the entire thing molten, if it were to occur in the ICS-type timeframe, and that would make it rather difficult for craters to exist.

You're building a painfully flimsy case, here.

Thank you for sharing your opinion. Please argue with facts in the future.

[DarkStar]

With as many variables as an alternate universe presents, you can only extrapolate similarities as far as what is shown.

You have no basis for the idea that weaponry is different.

You have no basis for the idea that weaponry is similar.

Your saying that we should assume that everything is different in parallel universes, which destroys the whole idea; which is that everything is the SAME except for that one point.

No, I'm saying we don't know, and we can't know, unless we see examples of each and they gel well. Further, you miss the fact that there are numerous differences between the canon and non-canon . . . the origin of Anakin's non-human hand comes immediately to mind, but you can certainly choose any example you like.