StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Consider works such as From STAR WARS to Indiana Jones: The Best of the Lucasfilm Archives, The Return of the Jedi Sketchbook, and the numerous "Art of..." works.

As suggested by Mike, the films are taken as literal documentary video of the events in-universe, while written sources are taken as in-universe history books.

Under this, what are the novelisations? Authoritive memoirs of what happened by the documentary maker?

Comic depictions? Drawings of what the documentary maker saw/heard about?

ICS? Technical notes on the events and situations of the documentary by the director/filmmaker?

Scripts? Shooting scripts and documentary notes taken-on-site by the documentary maker?

And what of the sources at the top? Just out-of-universe (and thus unauthoritive?) speculation and historical notes on the findings of the in-universe documentary data?

What about official game cutscenes? In-universe dramatic re-depictions? Similar to what one sees on history documentaries on the History Channel and whatnot?

so long as the sources are accepted as official, i would imagine they are considered canon. so long as they do not contradict the movies of course.

Mike's "documentary" analogy was used only to explain the methods he uses to examine the material. I think you're trying to overextend the analogy, Mr. Primus.

SPOOFE wrote:Mike's "documentary" analogy was used only to explain the methods he uses to examine the material. I think you're trying to overextend the analogy, Mr. Primus.

Do you care to explain why?

Suspension of Disbelief means just that, as he's explained, you act as if this is non-fiction in the real world and try to rationally explain that.

How are these sources, unaddressed by official statements, fit into that view?

SPOOFE wrote:Mike's "documentary" analogy was used only to explain the methods he uses to examine the material. I think you're trying to overextend the analogy, Mr. Primus.

Going by his page on the matter, Mike wasn't making an analogy at all, what with the imaginary cameramen editting things (to explain why ships like the Defiant see to change scale seemingly at random some times) and claiming that some things stated are wrong do to the author's bias (like the TIE Fighters solar panels being it's power source due to the idea that it's silly). It sounds to me like he was saying that as far as analysis goes, they are literal documentaries.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:

SPOOFE wrote:Mike's "documentary" analogy was used only to explain the methods he uses to examine the material. I think you're trying to overextend the analogy, Mr. Primus.

Do you care to explain why?

Suspension of Disbelief means just that, as he's explained, you act as if this is non-fiction in the real world and try to rationally explain that.

How are these sources, unaddressed by official statements, fit into that view?

suspension of disbelief just means that you can accept that jedi can have magical powers and that explosions make noise in space and that a long time ago in a galaxy far far away all of this happened...

The "sources" are not viewed as historical records of a long-lost civilization, they are seen as what they are--books and films. The films are held up on a higher pedestal because they are the original sources of inspiration for the series of 'expanded universe' sci fi.

Star Wars fans arent that emersed into the world. This isnt like Tolkien here...

zombie84 wrote:suspension of disbelief just means that you can accept that jedi can have magical powers and that explosions make noise in space and that a long time ago in a galaxy far far away all of this happened...

The "sources" are not viewed as historical records of a long-lost civilization, they are seen as what they are--books and films. The films are held up on a higher pedestal because they are the original sources of inspiration for the series of 'expanded universe' sci fi.

Star Wars fans arent that emersed into the world. This isnt like Tolkien here...

I don't mean I actually think this. I am talking about how do we consider them where it pertains to RL evidence when we're doing ANALYSIS.

Do you care to explain why?

Why you're overextending the analogy? Sure. Because it's unimportant, irrelevent, and unnecessary. Why bother, say, describing the comic depictions as "drawings of what the documentary maker saw"? Just call them "comic books" and say "they're subordinate to the films".

I guess what I'm wondering, Mr. Primus, is why bother going through all the trouble that you're attempting to do in the OP? What does it accomplish, and how does it change anything in the canon/official hierarchy as is? What does it do other than assign a different term to given evidence sources that, ultimately, mean the same thing?

Aren't people just critiquing a work for the plausibility of its continuity and plot elements, just as a more literary minded person might critique characterization, execution of theme, etc.? I know one is more geeky than the other but do we have to go out of our way to draw attention to that fact?

Rev Prez

Wong's analysis isn't "critique". If you want critique, read the various threads about the quality of the EU or the prequels. Instead, Wong ignores the quality of the story and instead just works from the assumption that, if things in the SW galaxy are as depicted in the movies (and, to a slightly lesser extent, the EU), what sort of capabilities and energies would be needed to accomplish what is seen?

Think of it this way: It doesn't matter what one thinks of WWII from a storytelling standpoint... that doesn't change the fact that the Hiroshima bomb was 15 kilotons (or so).

revprez wrote:Aren't people just critiquing a work for the plausibility of its continuity and plot elements, just as a more literary minded person might critique characterization, execution of theme, etc.?

No, they aren't. Read the friggin website.

As SPOOFE said, its not that complicated. LFL policy on materials still applies, with two additions:

1.) When it comes to written materials or dialogue versus observed/visual evidence, visuals usually rule out, since they are almost always more objective than dialogue/written material is.

2.) Revisiona are treated just like that - revisions. For example, the Special Editions of Star Wars are considered a "revisionist" version compared to the OT - certain things may be "changed" for one reason or another (such as Greedo shooting first.) This is not uncommon in historical texts (Such as the changing of BC/AD to BCE/CE)

It is also important to note that while Mike uses these as guidelines, Mike typically tends to be very open ended in his interpretations - typically looking at an issue or problem from more than one angle and attempting to generate more than one answer, unless the conclusion is blindingly obvious (eitehr from knowledge or experiencec, particularily those pertaining to his background. Calculations for example, are going to be fairly precise.)

SPOOFE wrote:Wong's analysis isn't "critique".

Why not?

If you want critique, read the various threads about the quality of the EU or the prequels.

Of the storytelling. Why can't you critique a story's plausibility?

Instead, Wong ignores the quality of the story and instead just works from the assumption that, if things in the SW galaxy are as depicted in the movies (and, to a slightly lesser extent, the EU), what sort of capabilities and energies would be needed to accomplish what is seen?

Yes, but how is this not a critique?

Think of it this way: It doesn't matter what one thinks of WWII from a storytelling standpoint... that doesn't change the fact that the Hiroshima bomb was 15 kilotons (or so).

True, but that's because WWII is an historical event.

Rev Prez

Howedar wrote:

revprez wrote:Aren't people just critiquing a work for the plausibility of its continuity and plot elements, just as a more literary minded person might critique characterization, execution of theme, etc.?

No, they aren't. Read the friggin website.

I like to think I have. What I see is a comparative analysis of how SW and ST depict their respective universes.

Rev Prez

Connor MacLeod wrote:1.) When it comes to written materials or dialogue versus observed/visual evidence, visuals usually rule out, since they are almost always more objective than dialogue/written material is.

Yeah, Connor, I understand. The point of this is how do we treat things and what do we work with when you have objective materials like some comic illustrations (their quality vs. the movie depiction) and game cutscenes, which are much lower than say...the ICS and novelisations?

That, and I was wondering is SOD was what Saxton invoked to use the Art of... type books in his website and studies, but to my knowledge their non-canon (with respect to Miss Rostini, that is, they're not part of the official story of SW), and SOD would lead one to treat them as useless because they can't possibly be in-universe (or can they?).

I'm not sure what would be most logical for dealing with those situations.

revprez wrote:

Howedar wrote:

revprez wrote:Aren't people just critiquing a work for the plausibility of its continuity and plot elements, just as a more literary minded person might critique characterization, execution of theme, etc.?

No, they aren't. Read the friggin website.

I like to think I have. What I see is a comparative analysis of how SW and ST depict their respective universes.

Rev Prez

Yes, which has nothing to do with plausibility of plot elements and continuity.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:Consider works such as From STAR WARS to Indiana Jones: The Best of the Lucasfilm Archives, The Return of the Jedi Sketchbook, and the numerous "Art of..." works.

As suggested by Mike, the films are taken as literal documentary video of the events in-universe, while written sources are taken as in-universe history books.

Under this, what are the novelisations? Authoritive memoirs of what happened by the documentary maker?

They would be like history books as well, but presumably from more trusted sources. That's why they can still be contradicted by the films.

Comic depictions? Drawings of what the documentary maker saw/heard about?

A comic depiction is obviously a hand illustration, and the images therein could not possibly have been seen in real life in many cases. They would presumably be an "artist's rendition" based on some kind of historical research (we see those in documentaries all the time).

ICS? Technical notes on the events and situations of the documentary by the director/filmmaker?

Or a book similar to Jane's, but made by somebody in the SW universe who actually knows these things.

Scripts? Shooting scripts and documentary notes taken-on-site by the documentary maker?

I would tend to treat them like transcripts of real-life events.

And what of the sources at the top? Just out-of-universe (and thus unauthoritive?) speculation and historical notes on the findings of the in-universe documentary data?

Sources at the top? I take it you mean the "11 times the length of the ISD" comment and "500 mile" comment relating to the SSD and DS2 dimensions from the Lucasfilm Archives books? There's no real-life analogy to such a person unless you are religious, in which case these would be statements from God, ie- the Creator (remember that in SW, we really do have a Creator, complete with representatives).

What about official game cutscenes? In-universe dramatic re-depictions? Similar to what one sees on history documentaries on the History Channel and whatnot?

Why not? Dramatic re-enactment, I'd say.

Howedar wrote:Yes, which has nothing to do with plausibility of plot elements and continuity.

Sure it does. Wong specifically goes into this when discussing Trekkie attacks that attempt to paint SW 1) as fundamentally science fantasy and 2) therefore incomparable to their "hard sf" view of ST. He also goes into great detail crafting plausible explanations for what we see in both continuities. We do the same thing on Robotech message boards. It's a very interesting approach to critiquing the franchises, but it's a critique nonetheless.

Rev Prez

It is also a tiny fraction of the website, perhaps a single page. Fucking idiot, read more than a single page before you presume to comment.

Howedar wrote:It is also a tiny fraction of the website, perhaps a single page. Fucking idiot, read more than a single page before you presume to comment.

Still angry, homeboy? Come off it now. Wong has enumerated a number of technologies key to the "vs" debate and explained them to the reader. That is a critique, albeit focused entirely on the props and setting. Are we seriously going to debate this?

Rev Prez

We're talking about plot elements and continuity, "homeboy". We're not talking about technology, and we're not talking about props and settings. Quit trying to change the terms.

Howedar wrote:We're talking about plot elements and continuity, "homeboy".

That's correct.

We're not talking about technology, and we're not talking about props and settings. Quit trying to change the terms.

Forgive my imprecise usage of "plot element;" It's been awhile since I've taken an English course.

Getting back to the discussion at hand, is it out of the realm of criticism for somone to address the setting and props of a story?

Rev Prez