PSW Policy
Moderator: Vympel
PSW Policy
It should be noted that I have no desire to clog up the forum with stickys or announcements, but I feel this is necessary.
I really should have put this up earlier. Anyways it should be noted that any threads related to upcomming books or movies that might spoil reading or viewing it for others should have Spoilers in the title. In other words any Episode 3 speculation threads that might have credible information should have this warning. This would probably apply to the thread up to three weeks after the book or movie's release so everyone will have a chance to read or view it and form their own opinions of it.
Thank you,
David ~ Supreme Lord of Monkeys
Last edited by David on 2002-08-30 12:57am, edited 1 time in total.
This was originally posted by Darth Wong when the PSWF first went up. Please read these words of SW wisdom, and kindly live by them while here. ~ David
Welcome to my BBS! Before you venture into any debate, keep in mind that there are three schools of thought on Star Wars:
The movies are the only true Star Wars. Nothing else counts.
The movies are true Star Wars, but the books still count as a secondary source, whenever they are not directly contradicted by the movies (and contradictions can be harder to prove than you think; what seems like an irreconcilable contradiction to you might be solved in an eyeblink by somebody else, so don't get cocky). Note that this is Lucasfilms Licensing's official position, and I have personally adopted it for that reason.
The movies are actually inaccurate, and the books depict the "real" Star Wars universe (almost no one will admit to this unpopular position, but some people consistently make arguments which imply it).
The proper method of analyzing movies is also a source of debate, with two opposing camps:
Science fiction is literature, and literature is based on words. Therefore, whenever we see something in a movie that contradicts our interpretations of dialogue, we should chalk it up to "special effects gaffes", even if it was clearly deliberate SFX rather than a true "gaffe" (a real gaffe would be something like seeing a boom mike in the shot).
What you see is what you get. Star Wars is a movie, made by a visual filmmaker. He cares infinitely more about appearance than dialogue, and if you see something onscreen which seems to contradict dialogue, go with your eyes. Moreover, direct visual evidence is subject to independently verifiable measurement and is therefore objective (unlike interpretations of character dialogue), hence any application of the scientific method (or use of scientific terminology, which is meaningless in the absence of scientific methods) requires this approach.
If you start up a debate with somebody and the two of you don't agree on the basic approach, you're going to spend a lot of time arguing in circles, like people playing a card game without agreeing on the rules first. You might save yourself a lot of time if you keep this in mind.
The preferred method is to follow Lucasfilm's rules about movies vs books, and to employ objective methods when analyzing movies (visuals can be objectively measured; dialogue cannot). However, if people don't care what Lucasfilm says, they can ignore their rules on books vs movies. And if people are willing to discuss a topic without using any scientific terms, they can throw scientific methods out the window, treat it as a book with an inaccurate movie adaptation, and use dialogue over visuals if they like.
PS. Some people like to change their approach in mid-stream, depending on which approach is most useful to promote a certain viewpoint (this is a notorious tactic in the "vs" debates). Don't do this yourself, and don't let anybody else do it. It's dishonest. ~ Darth Wong
Welcome to my BBS! Before you venture into any debate, keep in mind that there are three schools of thought on Star Wars:
The movies are the only true Star Wars. Nothing else counts.
The movies are true Star Wars, but the books still count as a secondary source, whenever they are not directly contradicted by the movies (and contradictions can be harder to prove than you think; what seems like an irreconcilable contradiction to you might be solved in an eyeblink by somebody else, so don't get cocky). Note that this is Lucasfilms Licensing's official position, and I have personally adopted it for that reason.
The movies are actually inaccurate, and the books depict the "real" Star Wars universe (almost no one will admit to this unpopular position, but some people consistently make arguments which imply it).
The proper method of analyzing movies is also a source of debate, with two opposing camps:
Science fiction is literature, and literature is based on words. Therefore, whenever we see something in a movie that contradicts our interpretations of dialogue, we should chalk it up to "special effects gaffes", even if it was clearly deliberate SFX rather than a true "gaffe" (a real gaffe would be something like seeing a boom mike in the shot).
What you see is what you get. Star Wars is a movie, made by a visual filmmaker. He cares infinitely more about appearance than dialogue, and if you see something onscreen which seems to contradict dialogue, go with your eyes. Moreover, direct visual evidence is subject to independently verifiable measurement and is therefore objective (unlike interpretations of character dialogue), hence any application of the scientific method (or use of scientific terminology, which is meaningless in the absence of scientific methods) requires this approach.
If you start up a debate with somebody and the two of you don't agree on the basic approach, you're going to spend a lot of time arguing in circles, like people playing a card game without agreeing on the rules first. You might save yourself a lot of time if you keep this in mind.
The preferred method is to follow Lucasfilm's rules about movies vs books, and to employ objective methods when analyzing movies (visuals can be objectively measured; dialogue cannot). However, if people don't care what Lucasfilm says, they can ignore their rules on books vs movies. And if people are willing to discuss a topic without using any scientific terms, they can throw scientific methods out the window, treat it as a book with an inaccurate movie adaptation, and use dialogue over visuals if they like.
PS. Some people like to change their approach in mid-stream, depending on which approach is most useful to promote a certain viewpoint (this is a notorious tactic in the "vs" debates). Don't do this yourself, and don't let anybody else do it. It's dishonest. ~ Darth Wong
