Log in to check your private messages
The Continuity Discussion
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 60, 61, 62 ... 72, 73, 74  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The EUCantina Forums Forum Index » Aush's EU Cantina View previous topic :: View next topic  
 PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 4:37 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  illogicalRogue2
Administrator
Administrator

Joined: 01 Sep 2009
Posts: 2854
Location: ....last know presence was near the Tingel Arm..

Werehunter wrote:
illogicalRogue2 wrote:
Werehunter wrote:


Though there is also willful disregard. If a TV show that runs five years, twenty episodes per year messes continuity up then it's foolish to think a universe that has been running for 30+ years in several different mediums to keep it straight.


Except in most cases (dare say ALL cases with the TV show) the messes with Continuity are all caused by GL

One flaw. One flaw needing removed from the system for it to run smoothly again Laughing

Part of why I still maintain the issues will go away when he passes on.


Yet there's been continuity issues long before GL got involved in Star Wars once again. Long before the cartoon or Prequel were in development. I just finished re-reading Dark Empire I&II for the first time in years and lost count of home many continuity issues there were in those two stories alone.

The Clone Wars cartoon might be the large offender at the moment, and the one with the biggest fan base as well. But it is far from the only problem with continuity in the long history of Star Wars.


Indeed. But that's not my point, of course continuity issues will happen, the only difference here is GL isn't even trying.

And since his way is the status-qua- that is my issue.

God's hand changing the rules along the way. Canon can not work as canon if it is always changing. Canon should be solid and unchanging.

The approach of two universes makes sense, and I like that they are mentioning it more and more. But the fact that the EU always goes out of it's way to make the canon universe work first and foremost - that to me should change for the EU. If it IS a separate universe; let it be.
_________________

-Bring on your thousands, one at a time or all in a rush. I don't give a damn. None shall pass.
-
-To become a Jedi, it is not the Force one must learn to control but oneself.
-
-Podcasts: Star Wars Beyond the Films, The Star Wars Report, & EUCast


View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger

 PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 11:06 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  Arawn_Fenn
Knight
Knight

Joined: 07 Apr 2011
Posts: 217
Location: Ekkaia

DarthMRN wrote:
I already found that God-perspective EU evidence for Palp constituting the imbalance in the Force prior to Ani visiting Mortis, though the Fact Files.


Don't forget Darth Plagueis and the ROTS novel.

DarthMRN wrote:
Though, of course, it is twarthed by Father saying Son had grown stronger lately, presumably in response to the Sith threat.


But even if this were assumed to be true it would not mean that the contrapositive would automatically be true. In fact, it would seem to reinforce the idea that the balance of the Force depends on the neutralizing of the Sith threat in the normal galaxy.

DarthMRN wrote:
Meaning that even did Ani come to rule Mortis with an iron fist, the Force could concievably have been brought back into balance through some mystical ripple-effect, rather than him personally doing the deed.


An idea which seems to be undermined by the fact that the Father's presence in Mortis had not balanced the Force in the TPM era by any such "ripple effect", nor had it prevented the Banites from creating the imbalance in the first place. Why would Anakin's "rule" be any different? If Anakin takes no direct action against Palpatine in the normal galaxy, what is to stop Palpatine from becoming gradually stronger to the point where no "ripple effect" workaround could even do any good?

DarthMRN wrote:
Father's version Ghosts is hampered by the problem that the life and death, the existence in the first place, of the Overlords is meaningless, both to the Force and to its balance.


Once again, that is only your assumption, so even if we were to take the above at face value it would only constitute a problem if it were somehow proven to be correct. However, like so much else in your interpretation of Mortis, it seems to result from a potential mischaracterization of the arc. If the Son is a potential threat, why is the death of the Son meaningless?

DarthMRN wrote:
By contrast, Father's second version of balance is had no independent empirical validation before I dug up evidence for it from the Fact File.


Forgetting Lucas again, are we? Not good. Meanwhile, this continues to ignore that the putative "first version"/"second version" dichotomy is essentially little more than illusion if the Son is recognized to be a potential threat to the galaxy in much the same way that Palpatine ultimately is.

DarthMRN wrote:
Saying it is incorrect, however, requires canonical evidence, something you have shown to be woefully incapable of providing.


Because you choose to ignore Lucas, that means Lucas isn't canonical evidence?

DarthMRN wrote:
You are wrong. My standard has always been the scientific one.


Anakin did what the Chosen One was prophesied to do, and was confirmed as the Chosen One by Lucas. But for some reason this wasn't enough. The contrast is with your handling of the Father. Anakin being able to control Son and Daughter in Overlords hardly constitutes "empirical proof" that Overlords promotes a view in contradiction with Ghosts of Mortis. Being able to do a thing is not the same as being required to do it. As far as inventions like "mystical credence" are concerned, this is not what the term proof usually means; it's just more of the same tortured interpretation ( which, as an indication of its inherent value, happens to reject the very idea of character development as some kind of contradiction ).

DarthMRN wrote:
Also, you propose to challenge problematic logic with an ad populum fallacy? Good going, there!


At this point you seem to be hallucinating. That you're resorting to inventing imaginary fallacies for me isn't a good sign.

DarthMRN wrote:
As well, it doesn't show that the EU can supercede the movies. I already showed a Leland quote proving that, so it is a foregone conclusion.


No, Leland's quote utterly failed to prove what it was alleged to prove, because it did not focus on the EU actually superseding the movies, instead choosing for some reason to discuss EU superseding other EU. Why would Leland answer a question with the answer to a question different from the one which was asked? To understand the answer to that is to understand that "EU can supersede the movies" is an essentially fictitious concept. It is contradicted on its face by the long-standing SW canon hierarchy which you have traditionally ignored and which is supported by quotes from others which both predate and postdate the creation of the supposedly all-powerful Holocron.

DarthMRN wrote:
Or in simpler terms, I repeat: Why should the commentaries be included to begin with?


I repeat: because Leland justified exclusion of things by various more or less desperate excuses, absolutely none of which apply to the commentaries.

DarthMRN wrote:
You mean you haven't read The Secret History of Star Wars?


I don't know if I should call this sad or hilarious. Equal parts of each, maybe? No, The Secret History of Star Wars does not show Lucas' definition of bringing balance changing after ROTS. ( As an aside, the book has been fact-checked and found wanting on a few of the subjects it actually does cover, but that's a separate discussion. ) Your speculative fantasies remain merely what they are and have not somehow become converted into factual reality.

DarthMRN wrote:
That being how the GL view of the GFFA being sufficiently different from that of the EU, excuses a failsafe in case of catastrophe.


As I think has been made somewhat clear, we approach the EU in fundamentally different ways. You seem to use an approach which can appear similar to a Canon Completist viewpoint; I reject such an approach as unworkable in light of the EU's internal inconsistency. In other words, certain EU is not notably different from the GL view, or to put it another way, because of internal inconsistency and the differing viewpoints of different authors it is unclear just what "that of the EU" should even mean.

DarthMRN wrote:
You must not be familiar with the rules for the burden of proof. I am not required to prove a negative. You are required to prove a positive. The negative is the default.


Tell me how it works, o enlightened one! Who has the burden of proof: the one alleging the Father's Overlords opinion to be correct, or the one alleging that it is not?
_________________
Hir yw'r dydd a hir yw'r nos, a hir yw aros Arawn.


View user's profile Send private message

 PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2012 12:44 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  illogicalRogue2
Administrator
Administrator

Joined: 01 Sep 2009
Posts: 2854
Location: ....last know presence was near the Tingel Arm..

Arawn_Fenn wrote:



DarthMRN wrote:
By contrast, Father's second version of balance is had no independent empirical validation before I dug up evidence for it from the Fact File.


Forgetting Lucas again, are we? Not good.


Except this is a discussion about Continuity, not about Canon's continuity alone. Keep that in mind too please Fenn. In this case DMRN is working with both. So only sticking to the films won't work for this particular discussion.

Canon works on its own. Remember they are two universes where only one is tied to the other.

Arawn_Fenn wrote:
Because you choose to ignore Lucas, that means Lucas isn't canonical evidence?


Lucas determines what is canon to his universe. But when determining what is continuity in the EU one must factor it all in. Not just stop at the films and the TV shows.

DarthMRN wrote:

Arawn_Fenn wrote:

How are Lucas' comments detrimental to the EU? They're only detrimental to those who are contradicted by them. You're the one turning a blind eye to them.


You are deliberately missing the point. That being how the GL view of the GFFA being sufficiently different from that of the EU, excuses a failsafe in case of catastrophe.


I agree. Fenn, are just trying to aggravate DMRN by purposely missing his point here? If so; please refrain. It borders on trollish behavior. At present it appears you are purposely sidelining the conversation in an attempt to prove you're point somehow. Stay on target.
_________________

-Bring on your thousands, one at a time or all in a rush. I don't give a damn. None shall pass.
-
-To become a Jedi, it is not the Force one must learn to control but oneself.
-
-Podcasts: Star Wars Beyond the Films, The Star Wars Report, & EUCast


View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger

 PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2012 4:01 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  Arawn_Fenn
Knight
Knight

Joined: 07 Apr 2011
Posts: 217
Location: Ekkaia

illogicalRogue2 wrote:
Except this is a discussion about Continuity, not about Canon's continuity alone. Keep that in mind too please Fenn. In this case DMRN is working with both. So only sticking to the films won't work for this particular discussion.


I am not "only sticking to the films". As my posts demonstrate I have cited EU and other sources including Lucas' own statements. I have also been discussing Mortis at length, and the Mortis episodes can hardly be considered films. The statements limiting discussion to one branch of canon are not mine. It was alleged that something had no independent empirical validation other than a Fact File. That was not accurate, because Lucas' comments had already provided independent validation. And that claim is not an example of "working with both". It's insisting that a concept must be proved in EU in order to be considered correct, regardless of whether or not it is established elsewhere. That does not equate to working with anything other than EU.

illogicalRogue2 wrote:
Lucas determines what is canon to his universe.


If so, then Lucas' input should be considered canonical evidence, just as I said. In this case Lucas' statements are consistent with the information we have coming from other sources. Thus there is really no defensible reason for simply throwing them out without explanation, also known as only sticking to the EU.
_________________
Hir yw'r dydd a hir yw'r nos, a hir yw aros Arawn.


View user's profile Send private message

 PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2012 1:53 am Reply with quote  
Message
  illogicalRogue2
Administrator
Administrator

Joined: 01 Sep 2009
Posts: 2854
Location: ....last know presence was near the Tingel Arm..

Arawn_Fenn wrote:
illogicalRogue2 wrote:
Except this is a discussion about Continuity, not about Canon's continuity alone. Keep that in mind too please Fenn. In this case DMRN is working with both. So only sticking to the films won't work for this particular discussion.


I am not "only sticking to the films". As my posts demonstrate I have cited EU and other sources including Lucas' own statements. I have also been discussing Mortis at length, and the Mortis episodes can hardly be considered films. The statements limiting discussion to one branch of canon are not mine. It was alleged that something had no independent empirical validation other than a Fact File. That was not accurate, because Lucas' comments had already provided independent validation. And that claim is not an example of "working with both". It's insisting that a concept must be proved in EU in order to be considered correct, regardless of whether or not it is established elsewhere. That does not equate to working with anything other than EU.


I'm sorry- what I meant by "sticking to the films" is that you're sticking to the film/ TV canon (what the Holocron considers G and T canon) to debunk EU sources when it comes to understanding the continuity of the the EU + the films. If we stuck with that alone continuity only goes as far as RotJ. DMRN is taking more into consideration than just the films and tv show alone. Hence his looking for other validations. Mortis has the same level of as you call empirical canon as the films. But when dealing with the EU universe one would need more than just the films- for GL's universe works with itself- if one was considering the continuity of THAT alone- yes you'd be right and we could call it a day, but the EU's universe goes farther than the films and the TV shows. So more evidence is available which can also alter the reality of the EU universe from GL's universe. This seems to be what you're denying. That there are two, and that continuity works different for both.


Arawn_Fenn wrote:
illogicalRogue2 wrote:
Lucas determines what is canon to his universe.


If so, then Lucas' input should be considered canonical evidence, just as I said. In this case Lucas' statements are consistent with the information we have coming from other sources. Thus there is really no defensible reason for simply throwing them out without explanation, also known as only sticking to the EU.


As I said above- when dealing only with GL's universe you are right- it should be considered. But when dealing with the EU's universe more happened that needs considered than what could be considered a slam dunk in GL's universe. As many point out- the EU does it's own thing from time to time. And that needs considered as well when factoring ITS continuity.
_________________

-Bring on your thousands, one at a time or all in a rush. I don't give a damn. None shall pass.
-
-To become a Jedi, it is not the Force one must learn to control but oneself.
-
-Podcasts: Star Wars Beyond the Films, The Star Wars Report, & EUCast


View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger

 PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2012 8:15 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  DarthMRN
Knight
Knight

Joined: 20 Jul 2011
Posts: 252

Arawn_Fenn wrote:
DarthMRN wrote:
Though, of course, it is twarthed by Father saying Son had grown stronger lately, presumably in response to the Sith threat.

But even if this were assumed to be true it would not mean that the contrapositive would automatically be true. In fact, it would seem to reinforce the idea that the balance of the Force depends on the neutralizing of the Sith threat in the normal galaxy.

Sure thing. One of the reasons I like your explanation. But what you said was that the alternate "Ani ruling with an iron fist might bring balance mystically" was factually incorrect, as opposed to just a less likely option. And still it has one inescapable advantage over yours, which I will get to below.

Quote:
An idea which seems to be undermined by the fact that the Father's presence in Mortis had not balanced the Force in the TPM era by any such "ripple effect", nor had it prevented the Banites from creating the imbalance in the first place. Why would Anakin's "rule" be any different?

Wasn't that the very point of bringing Ani to Mortis in Overlords? Father was growing weak, and given their apparent lifespan, he could have weakened ever since the Banites began mucking the Force up easy. So he called the young and strong Ani in to test his usefulness as a successor. And Ani passed with flying colours, bending the Kids to his will -at least inside the yin-yang circle.

Which suggests that either Father's weakening was a result of the Banites' meddling in the real galaxy, OR that the Banites' meddling was made possible at all (historically unprecedented AFAIK) because Father had grown weak. We can't really know which determines which. But we can know from Overlords that Father, unless lying, initially assumed the latter: That his own strength and life was slowly ending, and he needed a successor. And since that seems to coincide with his advanced age, and the effects of age the audience is familiar with, I gotta say that seems more likely than the Banites somehow coming across something none of their predecessors ever did, and under far less advantageous circumstances than, say the original Sith Empire.

So from that point of view, Ani could do what he was destined to do through purely mystical means. Keep the Kids in check, and somehow destiny is altered in the real galaxy, rendering the Sith impotent. And then comes the mystical validation on top: Ani, under specific circumstances being able to dominate the Kids, which he otherwise can't. Which Obi and Ahsoka can't. Which is precisely what Father says he can, and which is the purpose of the Chosen One. Giving strong mystical indication that the Chosen One is meant to bring Balance to the Force this way.

Finally, that version of the Chosen One has an advantage that version Ghosts does not have: It treats the Overlords like actual embodiments of the Force, rather than just wierd, Force-strong aliens. IMO that was a big thematic part of the Mortis trilogy, the indication that these three were gods of the Force somehow, complete with powers that waxed and waned similarly to the energy field in the normal galaxy.

However, this is proven wrong by the other episodes. The death of these gods don't make the various aspects of the normal galaxy energy field die. Seemingly, it changes nothing. All the thematic implications were wrong, along with Father's apparent reason for even bringing Ani to Mortis. And that is where the problem lies. In order for these episodes to change nothing about Balance to the Force, we have to assume that for all of their properties, all thematic allusions, the Overlords were just Force-strong aliens, and their leader was delusional, thinking that the Chosen One was supposed to stay on Mortis, when in reality he was needed to kill Palp in RotJ.
Additionally, there is the mystical precedent set by Ani being able to dominate the Kids during the test. There is no good explanation for what that thing was, if these were just regular old Force-strong aliens with a wacky connection to the Force. And that is why I contend that these episodes changes something. They point strongly towards the Overlords mattering, somehow, when the old RotJ version of Balance means they don't matter in the slightest, beyond the mundane secular threat they might pose if released on the normal galaxy.

Quote:
If Anakin takes no direct action against Palpatine in the normal galaxy, what is to stop Palpatine from becoming gradually stronger to the point where no "ripple effect" workaround could even do any good?

That is the point. The implication of version Overlords IMO is that by becoming Father, Ani could through mystical means neuter Palp in the normal galaxy.

Quote:
DarthMRN wrote:
Father's version Ghosts is hampered by the problem that the life and death, the existence in the first place, of the Overlords is meaningless, both to the Force and to its balance.


Once again, that is only your assumption, so even if we were to take the above at face value it would only constitute a problem if it were somehow proven to be correct. However, like so much else in your interpretation of Mortis, it seems to result from a potential mischaracterization of the arc. If the Son is a potential threat, why is the death of the Son meaningless?

Then we are back to the negative being the default. If there was a consequence to the Overlords dying, we haven't seen it. The Force was still unbalanced before these episodes. It remained that way after. In spite of all allusions that these creatures were directly linked to the state of the Force in the normal galaxy, the energy field did not die when they did. Seemingly, there was no change at all, not even a weakening. Nada, nothing, as befits a TV show made only of filler. Similarly, there was nothing known about the Clone Wars era that demanded this explanation, no plot holes that needed to be filled Force-wise. The Mortis episodes came completely out of the blue, introduced Force gods, then killed them off before returning to status quo as if nothing had happened.

As for Son, as I outlined above, whatever he matters, he matters only as a secular threat, being no different than a fleet of Vong, a Sith Order, or a Hutt carel. His existence or lack thereof does as far as we have seen, not affect the Force, the way version Overlords suggests it should. His power-level, probably, but not his actual existence, as stupid as that is.

And just to be clear before you misunderstand: I still agree that your explanation for how version Ghosts is the better option. What I am saying is that there are many oddities, the mystical validation where Ani dominated the Kids chief among them, that your version does not explain. And that the lingering questions most certainly changes things from how they were before Mortis aired.

Quote:
Meanwhile, this continues to ignore that the putative "first version"/"second version" dichotomy is essentially little more than illusion if the Son is recognized to be a potential threat to the galaxy in much the same way that Palpatine ultimately is.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. But whatever it is, Son escaping and wreacking havoc on the normal galaxy like an evil Superman has nothing to do with the problems I have with the Mortis episodes. Another secular threat? Big whoop. The Overlords' impact on the Force, and their insight on the Chosen One as implied divinities, is what is relevant. In that respect they raise a few questions that the old version of Balance does not explain. Maybe going so far as to undermine it.

Quote:
Because you choose to ignore Lucas, that means Lucas isn't canonical evidence?

I guess that is what I am saying, yes. If I deny your paradigm, and you still want to convince me, then you need to provide evidence that my paradigm accepts, rather than reiterating evidence from your paradigm. In the alternative, you will have to convince me your paradigm is better and how I should adopt it. Since you have failed at doing that so far, what choice to you have, if you want to convince me? Then you will have to just brush me off.

Quote:
Anakin did what the Chosen One was prophesied to do, and was confirmed as the Chosen One by Lucas. But for some reason this wasn't enough. The contrast is with your handling of the Father. Anakin being able to control Son and Daughter in Overlords hardly constitutes "empirical proof" that Overlords promotes a view in contradiction with Ghosts of Mortis. Being able to do a thing is not the same as being required to do it.

You are confusing things here. I have said several times that I agree with your version of things. But unlike you, I still acknowledge the unanswered questions that remain afterwards. I have not proven that version Overlords of Balance to the Force is right, nor can I, nor would I want to. I have, however, pointed out facets that support that version strongly, and which the alternative does not satisfactorily explain.

Just because one hypothesis is more likely than the other, it still fails if it doesn't take all evidence into account. And that is what yours don't. I prefer it so far because it is better than the alternative, but is still has a ways to go. You seem to be preaching that because it is better, we should ignore the facts it fails to account for. No deal.

Quote:
As far as inventions like "mystical credence" are concerned, this is not what the term proof usually means; it's just more of the same tortured interpretation ( which, as an indication of its inherent value, happens to reject the very idea of character development as some kind of contradiction ).

If you want to be technical, the isolated mystical event where Ani dominates the Kids is not proof of anything. But it is data. And that data needs to be accounted for by a hypothesis explaining what Balance to the Force truly means. The one you present, superior though it may be in light of the totality of data we have, still does not explain that. Just like it does not explain the strong implications that the Overlords are directly linked to the power of the Force, yet their deaths cause no noticable effect.

And I guess that is also why the Mortis episodes must be said to have changed things compared to RotJ and Lucas-comments: You will need a new and improved version of that hypothesis to explain it all. AKA, a change to the old hypothesis.

Quote:
DarthMRN wrote:
As well, it doesn't show that the EU can supercede the movies. I already showed a Leland quote proving that, so it is a foregone conclusion.


No, Leland's quote utterly failed to prove what it was alleged to prove, because it did not focus on the EU actually superseding the movies, instead choosing for some reason to discuss EU superseding other EU. Why would Leland answer a question with the answer to a question different from the one which was asked?

I have posted the quote in question. You get to read and reread it until you get it.

This is a discussion of whether things have changed on the Balance/Chosen One front in light of Mortis. Our respective understandings of Canon is besides the point, since we agree on Palp being the source of the imbalance, even if our sources were different. The only thing I need from you is a satisfactory explanation for the data that supports Father's version Overlords, reinterpreting them to fit with version Ghosts instead. If you fail at that, as you so far have, apparently suggesting they either don't exist, or should be willfully ignored, then you cannot deny that something has changed, and that the old version of Balance is no longer sufficient to explain it all.

Quote:
To understand the answer to that is to understand that "EU can supersede the movies" is an essentially fictitious concept. It is contradicted on its face by the long-standing SW canon hierarchy which you have traditionally ignored and which is supported by quotes from others which both predate and postdate the creation of the supposedly all-powerful Holocron.

Actually, I would love to hear postdate statements that contradict the Leland quote I made. As well as what sort of long-standig SW canon hierarchy supposedly precludes the failsafe I am talking about.

That is, if you have anything new to offer on the topic. For in spite of our many arguments, I have yet so see quotes from any relevant source (that means not Lucas) that demonstrates this.

Quote:
DarthMRN wrote:
Or in simpler terms, I repeat: Why should the commentaries be included to begin with?


I repeat: because Leland justified exclusion of things by various more or less desperate excuses, absolutely none of which apply to the commentaries.

You know what, I am just going to cut to the chase here, since ultimately it doesn't matter. The reason the commentaries should be included to begin with is because they are a potential source of SW knowledge. That is the horse that comes before the cart. With that established, Leland's rules of exclusion factor in, and you are right, they don't preclude the commentaries.

Now, here is the thing, and you should have gotten it the last few times I told you: Apparently those rules are not the only rules! How can I know? Because things said on those commentaries are contradicted by the EU. Which means that Leland did not see fit to include some, potentially all, facts from the commentaries in the Holocron, which would normally have meant they were inviolable by the EU. Which makes perfect sense in light of him saying his info comes primarily from notes sent by the film teams, and only rarely includes stuff GL has said to the public. Basically, my argument is that even if the quoted rules of exclusion don't apply, we have to assume they are not the only reasons to exclude GL there is. Leland is not a programmed machine, and we are not privy to every principle he works after. We cannot assume things are impossible just because he hasn't said them, not when there is evidence that they are both possible and likely.

So it again boils down to your preference for trying to prove the positive through a lack of negative alone. The commentaries are not valid simply because there isn't an explicit intent to exclude them. And when they are contradicted, there is good cause to assume they are excluded after all.

Quote:
I don't know if I should call this sad or hilarious. Equal parts of each, maybe? No, The Secret History of Star Wars does not show Lucas' definition of bringing balance changing after ROTS.

That is not what I said either. I used evidence therein to validate my position, that GL changing his mind was a well-established concept, granting precedence for assuming he might do it again, for example in regards to Mortis versus RotJ. Given the topic, I guess I can excuse you for the misunderstanding. Had I not, I would have suspected it of being a rethorical attempt at putting words in my mouth, and pretending arguments I made for one thing was in fact arguments for something else.

Quote:
( As an aside, the book has been fact-checked and found wanting on a few of the subjects it actually does cover, but that's a separate discussion.)

I suspected as much. Michael speculates a whole lot, no question. Though, as I said, short of suspecting fabrication, the evidence presented speaks for itself. I am not intellectually dishonest enough to equate lack of perfect research and presentation with invalid evidence.

Quote:
As I think has been made somewhat clear, we approach the EU in fundamentally different ways. You seem to use an approach which can appear similar to a Canon Completist viewpoint; I reject such an approach as unworkable in light of the EU's internal inconsistency. In other words, certain EU is not notably different from the GL view, or to put it another way, because of internal inconsistency and the differing viewpoints of different authors it is unclear just what "that of the EU" should even mean.

First, it must be xmas. Long have I waited for an acknowledgement of this, and some behavior based on that knowledge.

Second, even if your position is right, what is the significance? The EU being internally inconsistent doesn't exactly invalidate its attempt at conforming to the Lucasverse. Not unless you think that inconsistencies prove a wholesale lack of continuity, and that the EU does whatever it wants regardless of what either the Lucasverse or other EU does. So long as the EU even tries to conform to Lucas, not to mention if it is beholden to his work, there is always the risk that his work will destroy large portions of the established EU continuity beyond the reach of any retcon.
There is no reason a lacking internal EU consistency precludes the need for a failsafe. So I don't see the significance.

Quote:
DarthMRN wrote:
You must not be familiar with the rules for the burden of proof. I am not required to prove a negative. You are required to prove a positive. The negative is the default.


Tell me how it works, o enlightened one! Who has the burden of proof: the one alleging the Father's Overlords opinion to be correct, or the one alleging that it is not?

That would be the one alleging version Overlords is correct, of course. Fortunately, no one has alleged such a hypothetical. The one coming closest is the one claiming it is definitely incorrect, without also accounting for the data supporting it.
_________________
I discuss to learn, not to win. Then again, learning enough tends to translate to victory in the end anyway.


Last edited by DarthMRN on Tue Nov 06, 2012 2:54 am; edited 9 times in total


View user's profile Send private message

 PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2012 8:36 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  DarthMRN
Knight
Knight

Joined: 20 Jul 2011
Posts: 252

illogicalRogue2 wrote:
Except this is a discussion about Continuity, not about Canon's continuity alone. Keep that in mind too please Fenn. In this case DMRN is working with both. So only sticking to the films won't work for this particular discussion.

Actually, Arawn has an acceptable position here.

He and I are working with mutually exclusive canon paradigms here. He is not advocating Lucas-purism, just arguing from a paradigm that favours Lucas more than mine does.

His position is that EU inconsistencies prove it's loose handling of continuity, and therefore that minor details that run at odds with either mainstream EU, or Lucas-level material, should be disregarded as non-continuity. And furthermore, that Lucas, as the god-creator should be afforded any possible benefit of the doubt as far as authoritativeness goes. If he has said anything, or ever expressed any sort of intent as far as SW goes, then the lax continuity of the EU and the Holocron justifies how they should be disregarded in favour of this intent on Lucas' part, in case of a conflict.

At least, that is what I have gathered of his position. And it is admittedly not an unreasonable compromise for a Lucas purist who also wants to be a EU fan. Rather clever IMO.

My paradigm is different, and slavishly follows the sum of all knowledge we have of the Holocron, which includes treating all C-canon or above SW, down to the smallest fact, as true and valid. Which combined leaves no doubt that only part of Lucas' vision is included in and has hold over the EU. And that as an extension of this, Lucas role beyond orders he explicitly gives to Licensing, is merely as a revered figurehead and original creator, whose vision only has a limited impact on the EU.

Neither one can explicitly prove the validity of our positions. We can merely argue for them, though unfortunately, in Arawn's case that usually boils down to treating his own position as an unassailable default, too obviously true to even need justification.

Point is, he hasn't done anything wrong by disagreeing with my view of continuity as far as this discussion goes. It isn't really about continuity except tangentally anyway.
_________________
I discuss to learn, not to win. Then again, learning enough tends to translate to victory in the end anyway.


View user's profile Send private message

 PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2012 10:10 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  Mara Jade Skywalker
Administrator
Administrator

Joined: 15 Feb 2008
Posts: 5505
Location: Beyond Shadows

Goodness, you wrote a novel. I shall attempt to read this with my morning coffee. Wink
_________________

"It's not about the legacy you leave, it's about the life you live." ~Mara Jade Skywalker



View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

 PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2012 4:26 am Reply with quote  
Message
  DarthMRN
Knight
Knight

Joined: 20 Jul 2011
Posts: 252

Sorry. I have been known to get carried away sometimes. Smile
_________________
I discuss to learn, not to win. Then again, learning enough tends to translate to victory in the end anyway.


View user's profile Send private message

 PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 5:36 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  Arawn_Fenn
Knight
Knight

Joined: 07 Apr 2011
Posts: 217
Location: Ekkaia

DarthMRN wrote:
Which is precisely what Father says he can, and which is the purpose of the Chosen One. Giving strong mystical indication that the Chosen One is meant to bring Balance to the Force this way.


In general we might say that the purpose of the Chosen One is to bring balance to the Force, not control Force Wielder children. If so there is really no lasting indication that the Chosen One is absolutely meant to bring balance to the Force by controlling Force Wielder children, especially in light of ROTJ.

DarthMRN wrote:
Seemingly, it changes nothing. All the thematic implications were wrong, along with Father's apparent reason for even bringing Ani to Mortis.


When they are dead that reason no longer applies, and the related threat no longer exists.

DarthMRN wrote:
Finally, that version of the Chosen One has an advantage that version Ghosts does not have


Ultimately, I don't think it's necessarily very meaningful to treat Overlords and Ghosts of Mortis as different versions of the Chosen One or bringing balance. They are part of the same arc. We might ask: what is the position of the arc as a whole? If we allow for such things as character development and characters having the capacity to be wrong, we can see that there is no need to assume inconsistency.

DarthMRN wrote:
It treats the Overlords like actual embodiments of the Force, rather than just wierd, Force-strong aliens. IMO that was a big thematic part of the Mortis trilogy, the indication that these three were gods of the Force somehow, complete with powers that waxed and waned similarly to the energy field in the normal galaxy.


It seemed to be implied ( in the very first episode ) that they started as mortals who came to Mortis in the past, so hardly "gods". In fact, "weird Force-strong aliens" works just fine with what was presented. And of course the embodiments of the Force thing fails, as you said: However, this is proven wrong by the other episodes. The death of these gods don't make the various aspects of the normal galaxy energy field die.

DarthMRN wrote:
and their leader was delusional


I don't think we have to call him delusional just because he may have been wrong. In other words I don't think we should treat those words as though they are synonymous.

DarthMRN wrote:
As for Son, as I outlined above, whatever he matters, he matters only as a secular threat, being no different than a fleet of Vong, a Sith Order, or a Hutt carel. His existence or lack thereof does as far as we have seen, not affect the Force


A Sith Order can affect the Force ( something Hutt cartels are not generally known for ). Thus, if the Son is tantamount to a Sith Order, the Son is a potential threat to the balance of the Force in the same way.

DarthMRN wrote:
But whatever it is, Son escaping and wreacking havoc on the normal galaxy like an evil Superman has nothing to do with the problems I have with the Mortis episodes. Another secular threat? Big whoop. The Overlords' impact on the Force, and their insight on the Chosen One as implied divinities, is what is relevant.


If the Overlords' impact on the Force is relevant, and the Son is an Overlord, and the Son is tantamount to the Sith Order which unbalanced the Force in the first place, then the Son escaping is relevant. Labeling the Son a "secular threat" is a joke because then by the same token the imbalance in the Force is also nothing more than a "secular threat". Which ultimately renders everything a "secular threat" and makes the charge meaningless, a fitting destiny given the calculated misuse of the term in the first place. Also, the "implied divinities" thing is largely your own invention, and thus not especially useful as evidence of anything.

DarthMRN wrote:
I have posted the quote in question. You get to read and reread it until you get it.


As I said, it's a quote alleged to show how EU can supersede the films, but IIRC the content of the quote avoids giving actual examples demonstrating such a thing. So why would Leland answer a question with the answer to a different question, one that was not asked? What does that signify?

DarthMRN wrote:
I have yet so see quotes from any relevant source (that means not Lucas)


Why is Lucas not a relevant source?

DarthMRN wrote:
The reason the commentaries should be included to begin with is because they are a potential source of SW knowledge.


But they feature Lucas speaking, so can that knowledge really be considered "relevant"?

DarthMRN wrote:
Actually, I would love to hear postdate statements that contradict the Leland quote I made. As well as what sort of long-standig SW canon hierarchy supposedly precludes the failsafe I am talking about.


The canon statement I referred to which postdated the creation of the Holocron was already posted, probably on a forum which no longer exists, and did not come from Lucas. This was in direct response to your implication that no such statement was made after the creation of the Holocron ( an approach which seems intended to promote the concept that the canon hierarchy no longer holds ).

DarthMRN wrote:
GL changing his mind was a well-established concept


Congratulations, you've established that Lucas is part of a group called human beings and as such has the capacity to change his mind. But we don't need tomes written by the undead to come to this conclusion.

DarthMRN wrote:
granting precedence for assuming he might do it again, for example in regards to Mortis versus RotJ.


There are hundreds of people speculating that Lucas is secretly changing his mind and validating their positions. But that is worth precisely nothing. It's called speculation. Wishful thinking. Appeal to ignorance.
_________________
Hir yw'r dydd a hir yw'r nos, a hir yw aros Arawn.


View user's profile Send private message

Marve Comics continuity
 PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2012 1:16 am Reply with quote  
Message
  Dog-Poop_Walker
Master
Master

Joined: 28 Jan 2012
Posts: 943
Location: Official Med. Grove Troublemaker

In another thread it was brought up as to whether or not the Marvel Star Wars comics were in continuity. I said that they were not. To be clear I'm saying continuity, not canon. The line between these two things seems to be pretty unclear in most discussions of the issue. I'll refrain from discussing that for now and get to the point.

Quote:
According to Leland Chee, however, all of the Marvel Comics are considered S-Canon unless referenced by a C-Canon source, in which case that particular comic becomes C-Canon.


Some elements of the comics are in and some are not, so simply put, I don't think the Marvel comic series as a whole can be said to be in continuity.
_________________
They have taken the hearts and minds of our leaders. They have recruited the rich and the powerful, and they have blinded us to the truth! Our human spirit is corrupted. Why do we worship greed? Because, outside the limit of our sight, feeding off us, perched on top of us from birth to death are OUR OWNERS. They have us! They control us! They are our masters! Wake up! They’re all about you, all around you!


View user's profile Send private message

Re: Marve Comics continuity
 PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2012 8:07 am Reply with quote  
Message
  Taral-DLOS
EUC Staff
EUC Staff

Joined: 23 Nov 2010
Posts: 1626
Location: Ontario, Canada

Dog-Poop_Walker wrote:
In another thread it was brought up as to whether or not the Marvel Star Wars comics were in continuity. I said that they were not. To be clear I'm saying continuity, not canon. The line between these two things seems to be pretty unclear in most discussions of the issue. I'll refrain from discussing that for now and get to the point.

Quote:
According to Leland Chee, however, all of the Marvel Comics are considered S-Canon unless referenced by a C-Canon source, in which case that particular comic becomes C-Canon.


Some elements of the comics are in and some are not, so simply put, I don't think the Marvel comic series as a whole can be said to be in continuity.


I hear ya, but I think you might be misconstruing what S-canon was meant to be. S-canon stories are still said to "count" in the continuity until/unless one of two things happen:

1- A more recent EU source references it, in which case it gets promoted to C-canon and has all the rights and privileges thereof; or

2- A more recent EU source specifically overwrites it, in which case it gets downgraded to N-canon/Infinities and no longer "counts."

But S-canon things still "count" and fit in continuity even if they haven't been referenced elsewhere. It's just not set in stone.

Pretty much everything from Marvel Star Wars 39-107 has been referenced somewhere, and certain elements from 1-38 have been referenced in some tangential way (e.g. The Wheel space station, the droid that runs it, Baron Tagge, etc.) Many things that appear to not fit have been retconned, such as by Hidalgo/Pena articles or other such works, as to fit even if the story is blatantly wrong. I'm thinking of the Mandalorian backstory, where Boba Fett led the Mandalorians for the Empire against the Republic, and led a mission to capture Republic Senator Leia Organa, that was retconned to being Spar leading Mandalorians for the CIS to capture Padmé. And the Wedge/Hobbie story that was retconned that it was a yarn they spun for new recruits.

The same applies to the newstrip comics, that are equally old, but many were referenced later. The book "A New Hope: The Life of Luke Skywalker" brought a good portion of those into C-canon.

But I can't think of a single issue/story from the Marvel Star Wars books that has been so overwritten as to make it N-canon.

Frankly, I can't think of a single S-canon story at all that has been rendered N-canon by this system (though certain elements, like the Han/Leia wedding in the Jedi Prince series, were retconned heavily, but that's different). But I'm not too familiar with all of the obscure material.

Of course, this does not take into account the potential changes that Star Wars Vol 3 will bring in. Continuity is such a different place these days that the old canon levels don't quite mean as much. But I still think it can all be made to fit.
_________________
"I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain."
-Bene Gesserit Litany Against Fear


View user's profile Send private message

 PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2012 8:44 am Reply with quote  
Message
  DarthMRN
Knight
Knight

Joined: 20 Jul 2011
Posts: 252

Well, Arawn, we are still walking in circles here, and at this point I should take that as indication that you really have nothing new to add to this discussion. You have neglected to provide an explanation for the mystical support version Overlords got, and the implication that the Overlords are something more than mere mortals. Indeed you admit that you think we should just look at the whole and craft our ideas from what makes most sense, while disregarding the pieces that don't fit.

I can't do that. And as such, there is nothing else to discuss on that topic.

Arawn_Fenn wrote:
A Sith Order can affect the Force ( something Hutt cartels are not generally known for ). Thus, if the Son is tantamount to a Sith Order, the Son is a potential threat to the balance of the Force in the same way.

Agreed. In a galaxy where every sentient creature can affect the Force in some small way simply by being sad or angry, possibly animals too, this way of affecting the Force is trivial.

Having Force powers that wax and wane on an individual scale in response to the total energy field in the real galaxy, and seemingly exclusively from that source, is new and different. Force Sensitives experience something similar within Force nexi, but even there we have examples of the one benefitting from the nexus losing against his debuffed enemy, presumably because of individual differences that are greater than the effect of the nexus. But here we have Son who is able to break free of his yoke simply because things in the outside galaxy as a whole affects not the energy field of Mortis, but him personally. That is brand new, and really special. About on par with the Chosen One coming across three people for whom even his coveted, destiny-foretold powers are as nothing.

The implication that we are dealing with divinities here is an obvious one. Who beats the prophet? When that later is undermined, it just raises the question of how they fit into the grand scheme of things if they were not. You are trying to brush it off as trivial, but it is a point your hypothesis doesn't satisfactorily explain.

Quote:
As I said, it's a quote alleged to show how EU can supersede the films, but IIRC the content of the quote avoids giving actual examples demonstrating such a thing. So why would Leland answer a question with the answer to a different question, one that was not asked? What does that signify?

Not providing examples does not constitute answering something else. It signifies giving broad generalized rules that need to be applied in practice. Hell, he even words it like a formula: "If source A and source B contradict each other...". He says which source wins out is a matter of case-by-case determination, no matter what the sources. And this in the context of EU vs Lucasverse! That is pretty clear already, and this demand for examples of it actually happening, just smacks of unreasonable stubbornness. He might have neglected to include examples because fortunately it hasn't happened yet, or simply because he is tight-lipped about specifics, or was short on time when writing it. We don't know. But the generalized formula speaks loudly for itself. In fact, it is one of the clearest answers he has ever given.

Quote:
DarthMRN wrote:
I have yet so see quotes from any relevant source (that means not Lucas)


Why is Lucas not a relevant source?

Cause his impact on the doings of the Holocron would come through notes that would inform on those doings already. Not public statements that we are privy to. As a consequence, the only public statements that would be relevant, are those that line up with how the Holocron does things anyway.

A relevant source would pretty much be Leland, for certain issues Rostoni, and that is about it. Cause their statements can be reasonably expected to reflect the workings of the Holocron. Lucas on the other hand can think and say a lot, but only the stuff he wants shoved down the throat of the EU will with some necessity be reflected by it. There is a pretty large gap there.

Try to imagine you are running a sprawling business empire baseed on the big idea you once had, while raising kids and all that. There is a separate tie-in branch that churns out content that you are disillusioned with already, but accepts because of the money it generates. You have given up trying to make it stay in line with your thoughts and vision for the big idea long ago, now publically calling it a different universe. You still demand the tie-in branch respects some core tenets of your work, for reasons of artistic integrity and image, but for the most part you let them play in your sandbox as they please. That is how I imagine Lucas fits into the EU. And that is a poor resume for someone to be a relevant source towards Holocron continuity to have.

Come to think of it, the idea that GL can disown the EU as an alternate universe, implying he finds it incompatible with his own, while at the same time thinking his personal views and thoughts on SW would be reflected in it, is pretty ludicrous right there. If it did reflect his personal views, he wouldn't really have disowned it as different, now would he?

Quote:
The canon statement I referred to which postdated the creation of the Holocron was already posted, probably on a forum which no longer exists, and did not come from Lucas. This was in direct response to your implication that no such statement was made after the creation of the Holocron ( an approach which seems intended to promote the concept that the canon hierarchy no longer holds ).

If you are sure enough of its content to bring it up, you could at the very least paraphrase it for me. In any case, you have brought up a couple, that much I remember, and I have debunked them both. One predated the Holocron, and were thus not postdate. The other was a generality by Rostoni that Leland provided a specific exception to.

Quote:
DarthMRN wrote:
GL changing his mind was a well-established concept


Congratulations, you've established that Lucas is part of a group called human beings and as such has the capacity to change his mind. But we don't need tomes written by the undead to come to this conclusion.

Tsk tsk.
Shameless rethoric you got there. Another feature of us humans is that we tend to create words that strictly speaking apply to all of us, and thus become meaningless, but we only actually use them when someone qualifies for a certain degree of that word. Say vanity: Anyone who looks in the mirror on their way out is to some small degree vain, but we only accuse someone of being so when they spend an inordinate amount of effort and thought on their appearance.

In this case, yes, all humans change their mind. But not all franchise creators go back on their earlier words to the public, including the content of their franchise products, to such a degree as Lucas have. If this fell under mere changing of ones mind, Secret History would not be such an infuriating read. Lucas would not have had any qualms about admitting to his humanity, as opposed to saying X has "always been" so and so. The degree is extreme enough to qualify for misdirection and even lying to the people who has lined his pockets for thirty years!

I am the last person you will be able to pull word-trickery on.
_________________
I discuss to learn, not to win. Then again, learning enough tends to translate to victory in the end anyway.


Last edited by DarthMRN on Tue Oct 30, 2012 10:53 am; edited 3 times in total


View user's profile Send private message

 PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2012 9:07 am Reply with quote  
Message
  DarthMRN
Knight
Knight

Joined: 20 Jul 2011
Posts: 252

Ah, my favourite topic: S-canon.

Ultimately, there are two approaches you can take to this level of "limbo-canon". You can take the nostalgic-optimistic view, and say that so long as it hasn't definitely been demoted to non-continuity, it might still matter. Or you can take the skeptical-minimalist view, and say that something that may or may not be canon, shouldn't be treated as canon until definitely confirmed so.

I am in the latter camp for a few reasons.
One, and I brought this up in this thread already, I subject SW to the scientific method, and the negative is the default, with the positive being what has to be proven. In other words, something that may or may not be canon is still not positive verification, meaning the negative default, non-canon, is still in effect.
Two, what does canon even mean? It means that when Licenced Creator Bob sits down to write his novel next year, he is ideally obliged to adhere to what came before. But when it comes to S-canon, in this case the not yet elevated parts of the Marvel run (and that is quite a damn lot, contrary to what people allege*), he gets to choose whether he wants to adhere to it, or just make something up on his own that runs contrary to it. That, ladies and gentlemen, is not canon.

So IMO, S-canon is, in practice, equal to Infinites. Not least cause Infinites can be elevated to C-canon too.

That said, the Comics Companion has provided a pretty-clear cut divide between Marvel that is C-canon, and Marvel that is not. It elevated most of the Williamson/Manning strip collections, while leaving the early, silly bits out. Elevated entire sources and all content therein, that is. And that is the biggest purpose that book serves IMO.

*The Holocron tracks by individual topic. Meaning that if a certain Marvel comic or comic run is referenced briefly in some C-canon source, only the general events are elevated. All those thousands of individual topics contained in the actual comic are as S-canon as ever, until they too, individually, have been elevated. Which is why I say those historical references don't come close to actually elevating the entire Marvel run to C-canon. Only the referenced bits are elevated, not the whole thing. A source does not become the highest level of canon it contains. If that was the case, Marvel would be G-canon by grace of containing topics from the movies, such as Luke and Han.
_________________
I discuss to learn, not to win. Then again, learning enough tends to translate to victory in the end anyway.


View user's profile Send private message

 PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2012 5:32 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  DarthMRN
Knight
Knight

Joined: 20 Jul 2011
Posts: 252

The only definitely positive thing about this merger, is that finally, finally, the Lucas gushers who have for years said "Lucas gets to do whatever he wants, cause he owns Star Wars" will have to shut up.

Lucas is (almost) gone from the equation. Finally. I would exclaim a loud horray, were it not for the fact that his artistic need for SW to adhere to his vision is the only reason SW has the strong continuity it does today. With Disney corporate moneygrubbers at the helm, we might, worst case scenario, get all of GL's greed, and none of the artistic integrity. We might lose Holocron continuity.

I'm still waiting for Leland's thoughts on this whole thing.
_________________
I discuss to learn, not to win. Then again, learning enough tends to translate to victory in the end anyway.


View user's profile Send private message

Post new topic   Reply to topic    The EUCantina Forums Forum Index » Aush's EU Cantina

Page 61 of 74
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 60, 61, 62 ... 72, 73, 74  Next

Display posts from previous:

  

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Jedi Knights 2 by Scott Stubblefield