Canon quotes

[XaLEv]

I'm looking for the various quotes giving the canon policies of Lucas and Paramount (Cerasi, Sansweet, etc.). I would appreciate it if any of you could help out.

[Alyeska]

I'm looking for the various quotes giving the canon policies of Lucas and Paramount (Cerasi, Sansweet, etc.). I would appreciate it if any of you could help out.

The "offical" statement from Paramount (copy right holder) is that only the TV series and movies are canon except for 2 episodes from the animated series and a handful of books. Lucas says that anything from the EU is good so long as it doesn't contradict what he says. However there have been some not so clear things from Paramount recently that put the newer TMs into a quasi offical status.

[Darth Wong]

I'm looking for the various quotes giving the canon policies of Lucas and Paramount (Cerasi, Sansweet, etc.). I would appreciate it if any of you could help out.

The "offical" statement from Paramount (copy right holder) is that only the TV series and movies are canon except for 2 episodes from the animated series and a handful of books. Lucas says that anything from the EU is good so long as it doesn't contradict what he says. However there have been some not so clear things from Paramount recently that put the newer TMs into a quasi offical status.

I don't suppose you could elaborate on those "not so clear things"? Not all of us follow ASVS or any of the other places where those kinds of quotes spread like wildfire.

[Illuminatus Primus]

If you cross Sansweet's quote, Rostini's quote, and Lucas's stuff, you basically get the idea that the movies are NEVER wrong and the absolute true deal; everything revolves aroud the validity of the movies. Everything is canon, but movies trump all otber canon if there's any confusion.

Typically, the movies are expanded apon by the other versions, novelizations, official screenplays, radio dramas, etc. and the EU is canon as well. Recent EU sources the contradict earlier EU overrides the earlier EU in whatever aspect there was a contradiction in. All oddities, confusion, percieved contradictions, etc. are handled by official continuity fixes made in future publications and generally it isn't too hard for fans to come up with the rest.

Generally here we follow that policy, but we kind of ignore the non-movie canon where it appears inconsistent, with unresearched inaccurate technical sources, and where it is empirically wrong. Which is perfectly understandable. Logic should be one of the ultimate arbiters. One of the contested points in this catagory is the official non-movie canon declaration of a Kuat Drive Yards Executor-class Commandship being a previously 8 kilometer long and presently 14.8 kilometer long "Super-class Star Destroyer." We ignore this because obvious movie scaling and behind the scenes commentary established the Executor as being concieved as 11 x the length of an ISD. Here we see an element of the movie + common sense trumping non-movie canon. Others argue that it is "our preception" that is 17.6 kilometers, and therefore non-canon and overriden by official declaration. Here we basically see that as horseshit.

[Alyeska]

I'm looking for the various quotes giving the canon policies of Lucas and Paramount (Cerasi, Sansweet, etc.). I would appreciate it if any of you could help out.

The "offical" statement from Paramount (copy right holder) is that only the TV series and movies are canon except for 2 episodes from the animated series and a handful of books. Lucas says that anything from the EU is good so long as it doesn't contradict what he says. However there have been some not so clear things from Paramount recently that put the newer TMs into a quasi offical status.

I don't suppose you could elaborate on those "not so clear things"? Not all of us follow ASVS or any of the other places where those kinds of quotes spread like wildfire.

IIRC there was an issue of the Star Trek Magazine which stated the TMs were either offical or canon. Also Paramount had made a statement that the older TMs were not canon or offical, but this statement leaves open the possibility of meaning the newer TMs are possibly canon or offical.

My personal line of reasoning is that I use the TMs to back up my canon information or make theories based on their information, but I never rely on them solely for anything.

[Darth Wong]

IIRC there was an issue of the Star Trek Magazine which stated the TMs were either offical or canon.

Hmmm, it would be good to have that quote.

Also Paramount had made a statement that the older TMs were not canon or offical, but this statement leaves open the possibility of meaning the newer TMs are possibly canon or offical.

In other words, "buy our new books please".

Another motive may be to eliminate the use of quantifiable data. The old TM had so many clearly quantifiable SI unit limitations that I was honestly a little sad to see it go. The DS9 TM was much more vague, with a lot more focus on appearance and meaningless but impressive-sounding technobabble (sadly, that also sums up the differences between TNG and DS9 as TV shows).

My personal line of reasoning is that I use the TMs to back up my canon information or make theories based on their information, but I never rely on them solely for anything.

I still need to find the time to update all of my old pages. They're all years out of date, and they still employ the TM as evidence.

[Alyeska]

Hmmm, it would be good to have that quote.

Indeed, Vertigo from SB saw it and had a copy of that issue, but not anymore. At some point someone will find it again as it would be extremely useful.

In other words, "buy our new books please".

Well DUH, money strategy

Another motive may be to eliminate the use of quantifiable data. The old TM had so many clearly quantifiable SI unit limitations that I was honestly a little sad to see it go. The DS9 TM was much more vague, with a lot more focus on appearance and meaningless but impressive-sounding technobabble (sadly, that also sums up the differences between TNG and DS9 as TV shows).

I think that more or less fits the bill. It gives people something to read, we can see some information and speculate as to what it means. I just wish they bothered to examine their information before writing certain things. They say the Akira has 6 phaser arrays when there are only 3 on it. They completely delist most of its torpedo launchers. The Nebula is given 8 phaser arrays when it only has 5. The Defiant is stated at having 2 torpedo launchers, yet the deck cross section lists THREE, it compeltely misses the three beam phasers, etc... Though the DS9 TM does seem to indicate that saucer seperation is no longer part of the GCS because it delists the third torpedo launcher and the Battle section phaser array.

I like some of what the DS9 TM has, and I dislike some of it. As I said, I will use information from it for theories or speculation and I will use it to back up canon information, but I never use its information on its own.

I still need to find the time to update all of my old pages. They're all years out of date, and they still employ the TM as evidence.

Well, its not all bad. The TMs can be used to backstop canon information, and some of it can be used for speculation and theory just as long as it is regarded as such, not canon information.

[XaLEv]

I'm aware of what the canon policies are. What I need are the quotes giving those policies.

Does anyone here actually have these quotes?

[XaLEv]

There must be someone here who has them!?

[RedWizard]

http://www.starwars.com/community/askjc ... 10817.html

[greenmm]

IIRC there was an issue of the Star Trek Magazine which stated the TMs were either offical or canon.

Hmmm, it would be good to have that quote.

Also Paramount had made a statement that the older TMs were not canon or offical, but this statement leaves open the possibility of meaning the newer TMs are possibly canon or offical.

In other words, "buy our new books please".

Another motive may be to eliminate the use of quantifiable data. The old TM had so many clearly quantifiable SI unit limitations that I was honestly a little sad to see it go. The DS9 TM was much more vague, with a lot more focus on appearance and meaningless but impressive-sounding technobabble (sadly, that also sums up the differences between TNG and DS9 as TV shows).

Which is too bad, really. One of the nicer parts of the older TOS manual, Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise was how they had an explanation as to how the shields on the rebuilt E-nil and E-A (from the movies) had been upgraded. Instead of funky technobabble ("subspace shielding", "graviton flux", etc.), they said that the E-nil had discovered a planet where a long-dead race had had the technology to duplicate the characteristics of solid matter in an energy field, and how Spock had adapted it after some trial-and-error so that the newer deflector shields generated a field that duplicated the armor used in the outer hull, effectively making the ship have 2 hulls for the mass of one. Would have made it a lot simpler to calculate shield strength for the E-nil class, huh?