Johnboy3434

Oh, and since everybody is dying to hear my personal canon (read: nobody but me cares what my personal canon is, which is how it should be; I'm just going to tell you because I damn well feel like it), here it is:

A New Hope's novelization (only the unique elements that are not contradicted by the below)

A New Hope (2004 DVD version of the film)

Return of the Jedi (2004 DVD version of the film)

The Phantom Menace (2001 DVD version of the film)

Attack of the Clones (2002 DVD version of the film)

Prologue to Shatterpoint (only available in the paperback version)

Revenge of the Sith (there's essentially only one version of this film)

I also include the 2004 version of The Empire Strikes Back on a provisional basis, as RotJ does make direct references to its events. My reasoning behind this rather odd canon is that everything in the above list with the exception of the ANH novelization was either written solely by GL (ANH, TPM, RotS, Shatterpoint's prologue) or written by Lucas with assistance from others (RotJ, AotC). While GL was the originator of ESB's story, he did not write the actual script. Shatterpoint was written by Matthew Stover, but the prologue added in the paperback version was written by GL himself. The ANH novelization was written by Alan Dean Foster, but GL gave him permission to use his name as a pseudonym, so I threw that in there for the heck of it (also because it was the first SW product ever released). I don't claim this to be official in any way, nor would I argue its merits in a debate. This is just what I think pure, undiluted Star Wars is. It's just my opinion, and I am not so proud as to make it sound like anything more.

Vaderisnothayden said:

You're still not getting it. Canon exists independent of Lucasfilm's word. Canon is about what's the real thing, hence what's the real thing is the real canon. Anybody with a brain can take a stab at judging what's the real thing and thus what's the real canon. This is not about "personal canon", this is about the issue of what's the real Star Wars. I do not pick and choose to suit myself and then call that canon. I studied Star Wars works and the overall sitaution and then made my judgement on what I believe to be the real thing. And I believe in my view, after going through so much effort in judging and examining. I do not take some piece of EU and say "I like that, so it's canon". It's not the real thing, so it's not canon, WHETHER I LIKE IT OR NOT. What I like or don't like is irrelevant, what I want is irrelevant . What counts is what happens to be the real thing as judged by the standard of the films that made the legend. As for versions of the films, it is very obvious which versions of the films are the real thing. I don't pick to my taste there, I merely go by the original that made the legend.

As for what grinds your gears, judging from your posting now and in the past, what grinds your gears is somebody confidently expressing an opinion you don't agree with. And you react to this by getting insulting. And that grinds my gears.

BUT WHAT RIGHT DO YOU HAVE TO MAKE THAT DECISION? The idea of canon originated with the decision of which holy writings were considered inspired. That decision was made by people of authority, people who had intimate knowledge of the workings of language and history (such as it was back then). The point is, the people who made the decision had some degree of QUALIFICATION. You are a fan. I am a fan. We have no qualifications. In comparison with the people who made the decision on holy canon, we aren't the priests or the scribes. We're the farmhands tilling the soil. You speak of judging what's "real" Star Wars as though it were an objective process that any individual could go through and reach the same conclusion every time. I challenge, Hell, I DARE anyone here to detail this process in full without analyzing a single subjective quality. It can't be done, because this analysis and judgment is completely subjective on every level and can literally yield any result that includes some version of the original film. Why? Because other people view Star Wars in other ways, Vader. It is your personal canon, whether you say it is, whether you THINK it is, or not.

No, what grinds my gears is not a differing opinion. What grinds my gears is intellectual dishonesty. Those who own a franchise decide its canon. Now, always, and forever. This is inarguable.

Gaffer Tape said:

Nope.  Gotta agree with Vaderisnothayden on this one.  Nearly all of us here consider the OOT to be Star Wars canon over the '04 editions, myself included.  That's why most of us are here.

And while I've been a fan of EU and oftentimes consider some parts canonical, and it's obvious that Lucas the company considers it, it's even more obvious that Lucas the man does not.  He's made several statements saying he ignores EU works and has no idea what happens in them.  Even that wouldn't be so damning except for the fact that the prequels outright contradict elements of EU that the company considers to be canon.

Granted, we get our jollies off on holding opposing views from Lucas, but it's extremely funny that the company is pulled in two different directions.  I agree with Vaderisnothayden that the books are given such high status solely to boost sales.  I whole-heartedly believe that.  It's a little bit contradictory for Vaderisnothayden to follow Lucas's opinion on this when he doesn't in any other situation, but I certainly believe the fact that George shits on EU validates Vaderisnothayden's opinion.

Minor correction: the prequels contradicted elements from the EU. Because Lucas was the one behind the contradictions, the overall canon scrambled to accommodate his wishes. It now acknowledges and/or reconciles any contradictions he managed to spew out. Really, if it was anyone other than Lucas, this wouldn't have happened. While the PT screwed with the EU in several large ways (mainly the dating of the Clone Wars and the way the Sith Order works), the new Clone Wars series is a continuity clusterfuck of absolutely unprecedented proportions. Seriously, for your own amusement, try looking at a Clone Wars timeline for the pre-series EU and one for the series itself, noting the events that have to happen, and try to reconcile the dates for each as much as possible. GL might have actually come up with a situation that cannot be fixed. It's that bad. Things like this almost never happen when Lucas stays out of it, and never on this scale.

But yes, I understand that Lucasfilm and Lucas himself have differing views on the canon: Lucasfilm's view is structured, extensive database that will hopefully get a public release at some point, and Lucas' view is a shrug and a "whatever". It sucks, I know. Really, though, the only actual use I see in any canon policy is for fan debates and public prjects like the Star Wars Timeline Gold (check it out if you haven't already; the amount of work and dedication is unbelievable). Most people take public projects at face value, but when people start debating about things, then everybody whips out their own personal canons like so many engorged members*. Then, when someone points out the actual, public policy of Lucasfilm, people start whining that Lucas only accepts the movies and the whole discussion goes to Hell rather quickly.

The way I see it, Lucasfilm is a company, and as such is effectively immortal (and considering the franchise it has going for it, only the end of civilization itself could make the "effectively" qualifier come into play). Lucas, however, is a man. An old man. He will die. Very soon, too, if he keeps eating like I think he does. What about the EU works that come out after he dies? Would he have liked one of them so much he would have made it canon? He did that with Aayla Secura, the Outrider, and a bunch of vehicle designs, so it would be intellectually dishonest to simply discount the possibility. But we won't know. We'll never know. Lucasfilm, however, will always be there to issue such rulings. I think that, again, for debating purposes, Lucasfilm's policy is, in the long term, more sound. Just my opinion. My beef isn't with those who think that only the movies are canon instead of including the EU. My beef is with those who pick and choose certain versions of the movies and maybe certain parts of the EU as part of their personal canons and then proclaim it as indisputable truth, like Vaderhasanoverlylongusername has done on more than one occasion and will most likely continue to do. That grinds my gears, and so I post in response. While the last line of my previous post may sound like I feel otherwise, I have nothing against OOT purists. This is about one user, not the whole movement.

*Not that there's anything wrong with personal canons. I have one myself. I just don't flaunt it around as established fact.

Vaderisnothayden said:

No way. The films shouldn't have to kow tow to the EU. The EU is by very nature non-canonical, no matter what certain Lucasfilm employees think, and Lucas is thoroughly justified in ignoring it or going counter to it. The only question is whether he should be allowing his employees to officially call it canon if he's not going to treat it as that in his work. I think he shouldn't. I think it's a con to call the stuff canon when it's clearly not treated as canon. I think it's called canon just to to aid sales and wouldn't be called canon if not for that. The EU needs to be soundly put in its place. They should do the honest and appropriate thing and declare it all non-canon.

That's not your call to make. Whatever their reasons for saying it's canon, the point is that they say it, and so it is. The company that owns the right to a franchise can define its canon however it wants, so the EU is not "by very nature" non-canonical. If GL disagreed so vehemently with the presence of EU in Star Wars canon, he would fire the entire team of individuals whose sole job is to maintain a massive database on what constitutes canon, and who keep threads in the official message boards open for questions from readers. High-visibility jobs like that wouldn't last long if they were as unnecessary as you think.

I've noticed from your previous posts that you seem to think you have much more authority in these matters than you actually do. First, you insist that the OOT is the canon version simply because you think GL has lost sight of some nebulous concept of what SW "is" (which smacks of the same self-styled elitist definition as the phrase "true fan"), despite having no involvement in the production of the films of even an affiliation with the companies that made them. Now, you use the fact that Lucas Licensing is a business to off-handedly dismiss any official statements on the definition of canon. There's no logical follow-through to these statements at all. Simply put, you know less about what Star Wars "is" than Lucas and company ever will, because they DECIDE what it "is".

OOT purists, if you ever wondered why people have a tendency to look down on you, you need only look at people like Vaderisnothayden.

I think a more interesting question would be, "Would you adhere to all the EU continuity established pre-PT?" What upsets me far more than GL's less-than-stellar (though not as execrable as a lot of people here think) trilogy of films is the way he pissed left and right over the hard work of the people who kept Star Wars alive during the inter-trilogy period.

I'm not a fan of retcons, even of stories that themselves retconned other, because I believe that if you're not good enough to work around what your peers have done with a given franchise, you shouldn't be writing for that franchise at all. But if we have to redo the PT, I would wipe out any and all of it and start from scratch, not out of hatred for it, but simply for the sake of originality. However, I would treat as continuity every workable scrap of EU from September 1977 to December 1998, as the first EU story (Marvel's Star Wars #7) was published in the former month and the first PT-related story (Dark Horse's Republic #0) was published in the latter month. This fits nicely, as the last thing published before this was the final issue of my favorite EU comic series, Tales of the Jedi. Special exceptions would be made for series still in production at that point (Crimson Empire II, Star Wars Missions, etc.), but canon as far as the production team was concerned would pretty much end there.

This would also work nicely for the eventual ST, as the galaxy-shattering Yuuzhan Vong War was still several months away at said cut-off point. The death of Chewbacca and the huge ramifications of the post-war environment would be extremely difficult to simply gloss over in the films, assuming we kept with the apparent date of 30+ years ABY for the ST that Bantam was never allowed to go beyond prior to the "6-film vision".

Yes, I realize this post was a total geek-out. What of it?

Gaffer Tape said:

But putting a train into a medieval world?  How is that justifiable?  In the next game, they might as well give Link wireless internet access and a Bluetooth headset.  Could we finally agree that that would be going too far?

To be entirely honest, I was intrigued by the "Link to the Future" hoax some time back. Setting a medieval fantasy in a high-tech society is something that's never been done right, but DAMN I want it to so much, and I figured the Zelda team might have been able to pull it off.

I recently joined a private tracker, but I can't seem to upload anything! I'm running Vuze 4.1 and my upload is staying at 0 b/s despite having plenty enough to start. Has anyone else had this problem, or know how to fix it? I don't want to get kicked off just because my client won't work correctly.

Well, considering that the sole change to RotS was so earth-shatteringly minor, I don't think I'd be out of line saying that we alread have the GUPT version of RotS. TPM and AotC, on the other hand... well, we can always pray.

C3PX said:

But that is all just meaningless EU stuff, isn't it? That stuff gets over written all the time.

Just because it isn't set in stone doesn't mean it holds no weight. Yes, if GL saw fit, he could erase all of it. But he hasn't, now has he? And until he does, it is "truth" as far as we're concerned. This very site was created because the movies themselves were changed. How does the fact that the information in the books can change make them any less valid? I can understand if there was a company-wide decree that only the movies were canon, a la Star Trek (where all published material is non-canon, with only two possible exceptions), but the official company-wide policy is that everything that can reasonably fit is canon. Granted, GL's personal view is that Star Wars doesn't exist outside of the movies, which is why he can ignore all this stuff and get away with it, but ultimately, he's going to die a lot sooner than his company, so it's obvious which view will win out in the end.

Vaderisnothayden said:

.

!

Gaffer Tape said:

If they are supposed to live at the Jedi Temple but aren't monitored (even a check-in/check-out system), when are they required to be at the temple?  Do they have to be there at all?  Is every indivdual Jedi summoned when each individual Jedi has something particular to do?  How often does the council meet?  Who cleans the temple?  Do Jedi have single rooms or do they bunk with other Jedi?  Are they required to check in every so often?  And if so, with whom?  How will they know if someone just never comes back?  That's not out of the realm of possibility:  after all, Dooku and Sifo-Dias managed to elude their grasp.

I'll answer these to the best of my ability:

1.) Younglings are confined to the Temple unless they are told to do otherwise. If they are not chosen as Padawans by a Knight or Master, they are sent to be part of an agricultural aid group (a life that is just as boring as it sounds). Padawans follow their Masters unless told otherwise. Knights and upwards have quarters at the Temple, but are only required to be there if they are specifically called upon. Each has a personal communicator that the Council can contact them on (it's not too difficult to keep in contact with them all, considering that there were only 10,000 Jedi as of TPM). Alternatively, if they need a shitload of Jedi RIGHT NOW, there's the mass communication device seen in RotS.

2.) We don't know how often the Council meets, but it seems they are less inclined to wander unless a member is given a specific mission (Yoda going to Kashyyyk, Obi-Wan doing all the shit they had him do, etc.).

3.) The Temple has a non-Force-sensitive staff, we know that much. It may have a janitorial division.

4.) If I remember correctly, quarters become more private as one rises through the ranks.

5.) Jedi are almost always on a mission of some kind (Anakin probably only had a little downtime in RotS because he had returned from five months of constant fighting, and because he was then assigned to Palpatine), so checking in isn't really necessary. Some have been known to be off on missions for years at a time without contact.

6.) If there is reason to believe something has gone wrong (which depends on what the mission was and how much contact should be expected), another Jedi is usually sent to investigate. Obi-Wan and Anakin seem to spend an absurd amount of time trying to save captured Jedi in the EU. It's like the go-to device that authors use to get a plot rolling.

7.) Sifo-Dyas is a prime example of how the Jedi don't constantly monitor each other. I assume it's because there's supposed to be a sense of trust. The Council can trust a Jedi to answer when he is called upon, and a Jedi can trust the Council not to spy on his activities. Dooku's fall to the Dark Side wasn't known until AotC. His official reasoning for leaving the order was that he became disillusioned after the death of Qui-Gon. Many Jedi have left the order for philosophical reasons that aren't Dark Side-related, and the Order makes no attempt to stop them. One in particular was even shown to come visit the Temple and catch up with old friends on occasion.

Well, hope that helped.

Vaderisnothayden said:

Which to my mind totally invalidates all the Star WARs "canon" that came out from that time on, because he was breaking with the real canon, the OOT.

Bravo. You stated a strong opinion without displaying it as absolute fact. I'm genuinely proud of you.

Actually, as far as I remember from the EU, Anakin lives at the Temple like everyone else. He just spends the night at Padmé's every once in a while without telling everyone where he was going. As a Knight, he's not monitored 24/5 unless there's been observable serious lapses in judgment (for instance, if the Council knew of the Sandpeople massacre, they'd be watching his every move). Really, though, other than a smart remark every now and then (which is a lot more common among younger Jedi, anyway), the Jedi Council isn't aware of any serious offenses on his part, so they don't have people spying on him.

As for not seeing that he was involved with Padmé, the catch-all answer for the Jedi not being more aware of their surroundings in the time of the PT is that Sidious was throwing the Force completely out of whack with his Dark Side juju. A poor excuse, I know, but it does emphasize how badass Palpatine was supposed to be, so I let it slide. Oh, and I doubt that the United States media would swarm over a pregnant senator if Washington had just been attacked and the President had narrowly avoided being taken hostage.

Of course, you can still blame GL for all of this, because he has a bad habit of leaving stuff for the EU authors to fix. It's a sad state of affairs when I admire the people who write the countless tie-ins more than the guy who created the entire franchise.

Why are you surprised that the least number of people get their stuff through UseNet? Most people would choose something free over something that isn't, regardless of the speed at which it works.

skyjedi2005 said:

I had always thought that was a 2:35:1 Anamorphic image.  Obviously the negative area may be bigger than what is chosen to be actually shown as desired by the cinematographer.

Prior to 1970, it was a 2.35:1 anamorphic image. But after that, PanaVision cameras conformed to the 2.394:1 standard. The same film stock was used. Only the cameras changed. Of course, it's possible that he used 7+ year old cameras, but I wouldn't bet on it. The film for the 8-perf Vistavision camera, however, had a full negative AR of about 2.25:1 after being "unsqueezed". Exactly how much of that they matted during filming, I don't know.

I don't pretend to know everything about camera, apertures, and the like, but I'm confident in what little I do know... until someone proves me wrong, anyway.

skyjedi2005 said:

Just wondering since the Phantom Menace was shot on 35mm motion picture film at a 2:35:1 anamorphic cinemascope aspect ratio.  There should be lots of fine detail and film grain.

*sigh* I wish the film industry would drop that misnomer, already. This is nothing against you, SkyJedi, this is just a personal rant of mine:

From 1957 to 1970, the SMPTE standard for 35mm anamorphic widescreen cameras yielded an aspect ratio of ~2.347:1, or ~2.35:1, depending on how you round it. From 1970 to 1993, this was changed to a standard that yielded an aspect ratio of ~2.394:1. A slight alteration in 1993 changed it to ~2.391:1. The 1993 change is negligible (both it and the previous standard come to ~2.39:1 when rounded to the hundredths), but the two-demical-place rounding system makes the "2.35:1" title completely inaccurate. Why DVD cases use this number for new films when a movie hasn't been made in that aspect ratio for almost 40 years is beyond me. I guess it's like the "Statue of the Three Lies" at Harvard: everybody's either too lazy or too proud to fix it.

In short, the OT and TPM were shot in a 2.39:1 AR (although the former is about an eighth of a percent longer than the latter). As for AotC and RotS, I'm not sure what the aperture for HD cameras are (is it the same as for 35mm cameras or not?), and God knows what numbers they punched in to get CW's aspect ratio.

Vaderisnothayden said:

Just because something's an opinion doesn't mean it can't also be fact.

...Wow. There's honestly nothing I can add to this. It speaks volumes about not only your infantile mindset, but also your comprehension of the English language.

So it "hurts" you to see Lucas praised? Sweet Jesus, then why not go to any of the numerous threads that criticize him? They far outnumber threads like these. At least your comments would fit the general mood of the topic, there.

Are there any plans to put in code for the RotJ subtitles, or are we on our own in that regard? I'm in the process of encoding ANH. Just 96 hours to go!

Chewy72 said:

I can only answer this for myself, as he has ruined the OOT for me, simply because I can't watch the damn movies in any good quality anymore.

Now, see, if SkyJedi and VaderHayden would express themselves like that, I wouldn't have near as much of a problem with them as I do now. Problem is, they state their (undeniably strong) opinions about the changes and PT as though they were unequivocal facts. Honestly, that grinds my gears more than anything. People really need to learn the difference between fact and opinion. Whenever I make strong statements along the lines of what the two of them say, I always have the sense to preface it with an "I think" or an "In my opinion" or an "As far as I'm concerned".

And, God in Heaven, someone please tell me VaderHayden did not just say it was wrong to like a particular piece of art. That is... unbelievably ignorant. And when a conservative like me calls someone ignorant, you know there's a problem.

That article only proves that at least one other person shares your opinion. The same can be said of any given Scientologist. As far as whether Lucas "ruined" Star Wars or not (whatever that means), it doesn't prove a damn thing.

skyjedi2005 said:

Does it have how George Lucas destroyed Star Wars with the special editions and prequels, or how he ruined Indiana Jones with Kingdom of the Crystal Skull?

Does it mention how in 2006 he released the original films as non anamorphic bonus discs from a laserdisc master, the biggest joke in cinematic history.

And why, pray tell, would it mention those things? His mishandling of the franchise has not had near as much of an effect on the film industry as the things that he (or the people in his employ) did correctly. In fact, his mishaps haven't affected anyone or anything outside of the hardcore SW/Indy fanbase. That's how it is in general, really. For someone's mistake (as opposed to someone's success) to actually change the way things are done, it has to be a BIG FUCKING MISTAKE (like, I don't know, the Vietnam War).

Besides, who says he ruined Star Wars to being with? What if I like the changes, or the prequels, or Crystal Skull? Are you saying I'm wrong for liking them? On what grounds? Because they destroy the spirit of Star Wars? Can you prove that? Didn't think so. SkyJedi, you were amusing for a while (okay, I lied, you were always this annoying), but you really need to start talking with your head instead of your heart. Stick with the "Preservation" angle, because the "OT Purist" one isn't gaining you any friends or support. In fact, it's not too farfetched to say that keeping the Venometer cranked up to 11 is actually hurting the efforts of the more level-headed members of this forum. Look at them. Do they like the changes? No. But they don't deliberately go out of their way to remind the reader of that fact every single fucking time they post. And that's what you do, whether you think you do it or not. I've seen you take a completely unrelated conversation and twist it into an opportunity to take pot shots at Lucas, with absolutely no prompting whatsoever. It doesn't reflect well on your general state of mind, much less your social skills.

I doubt anyone's up to this Herculean task, but if anyone would be kind enough to upload all 6 WookieGroomer 12GB movies to torrent, I'd seed until my computer died.

Just out of curiosity, are WookieGroomer's WMVs still the best source for the 2004 OT?

Max_Rebo said:

Vaguely relevant to this discussion, basically stupid people are complaining about youtube going widescreen, this is the level of stupidity we have to contend with.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/hi/technology/newsid_7749000/7749536.stm

I wouldn't consider those complaints "stupidity". They simply don't like the black bars. It's not really "stupidity" until they say the black bars are actually covering the picture. Then I want to smother them in their sleep.

Tiptup said:

Your argument is flawed. It assumes that the lack of grain equals more detail. Grain is a detail in and of itself (that may or may not have aesthetic value). This detail, I believe, works with our brains better than some smooth, supposedly solid image does. It reflects a reality that is statistical and random. Hiding that and making an image smooth and solid is simply a different way to display reality and one that I do not believe is as compatible with the way people think. People intuitively grasp physical reality with some chaos more than they can grasp a physical reality designed to be as simple and controlled as possible (though we may understand the latter more in a simplistic, logical sense, I do not believe it resonates with the whole of our beings to the same degree and would love to see some scientists study this issue).

Essentially, film grain is not something apposed to high resolution, it is another approach to resolution entirely, and one that I believe communicates more real data. As such, digital, electronic images designed to make everything look smooth and solid can be just as identified with "low resolution" as grainy film is. Likewise, grainy film can be identified with high resolution. Film grain is simply a different technique to arrive at a low or high resolution, it is not just low or high in and of itself.

Do you have any studies or professional opinions to back up that assertion from the first paragraph? On a personal level, I find extremely fine-grained pictures to be much more involving, because it feels like there's nothing between me and what's happening on screen (like 3D, but reversed; like I could reach into the film). Higher-grain pictures I find more distracting, because I'm like "Whoa, there's this constantly fluctuating cloud of stuff over my picture!" Granted, that cloud of stuff is the picture, but it wasn't in front of the camera (like the actors), nor does it exist within the construct of the film's story (like effects done in post). In my opinion, something that doesn't meet at least one of those two requirements is something not worth keeping. That's why I don't like grain. I don't expect anyone to agree with me, but can you at least understand where I'm coming from?