ICS = Canon, right?

Exonerate · Post by **Exonerate** » 2003-01-29 08:39pm

Just wanted to confirm that even George Lucas said it was canon... I'm on a board with fanatic trekkies.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2003-01-29 08:42pm

It discuses canon tech. Not sure if it actually is canon. I'd certainly say it's higher on the list than the EU.

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2003-01-29 08:43pm

I believe only Films/radio dramas/novels are canon...in that order.

ICS is somewhat high official...but not canon.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-01-29 09:06pm

Exonerate wrote:Just wanted to confirm that even George Lucas said it was canon... I'm on a board with fanatic trekkies.

Uhm...this is long but comprehensive. Personally I'd like to post this in a clean thread and have a mod sticky-it. People seem to generally except it anyway.

Here's how it works.

Taking all sources into account, including Lucas interview quotes, SW Continuity is broken up into two parts.

Movie and movie-related Sources.

EU and various Sources thereof.

Movie and movie-related Sources include the films, the film novelizations, the comic versions, and the radio dramas. Secondary film sources include movie-based sourcebooks/guides such as the Episode II Incredible Cross Sections, and Worlds of Attack of the Clones.

Of the movie-related sources, ONLY the FILMS are ABSOLUTE CANON. Nothing can contradict them. In addition to the films, George Lucas' interview comments are often additionally included in ABSOLUTE CANON, though perhaps slightly less so, as they are subject to change and have been changed throughout the years.

After ABSOLUTE movie canon, LFL's continuity fixes and statements are generally placed. Often these are devised or deemed neccessary by GL himself and exist to keep continuity in the SW universe stable. They override anything they disagree with, because they exist to override anything that would disrupt continuity.

After the films comes the comic, novel, and radio drama versions of the film. Anything in these not contradicted by the film or LFL Continuity fixes (such as Hobbie and Veers surviving in continuity whereas in the novelization of ESB they did not) is considered the highest level of the "Official" catagory of continuity, also known as Quasi-Canon or Non-Movie Canon.

Adding to those are the movie-based sourcebooks/guides. These again are high-level Official sources as long as they do not violate the canon set forth by the movies and their comic/novel/radio drama depictions.

After all of this comes the Expanded Universe. Expanded Universe sources are generally ranked by novels primarily, followed closely by comics (this is merely due to the fact that artistic license must be taken into affect when considering comics), followed by computer/console games, role-playing games, and guides.

EU novels are considered official and part of continuity where they don't violate the above continuity and don't violate science or outright violate each other. Often "interpretation" and continuity fixes repair these occasional mistakes.

EU comics follow immediately thereafter and only difference from novel continuity place is the art has to be taken w/ a grain of salt due to artistic interpretation.

EU official role-playing game, computer and console game storylines take place after this. The "official" storyline for each of these is often referenced in seperate source, and sometimes for sake of gameplay and game mechanics they slighly depart from the progress of the actual game. Generally the officially referenced story points are considered up there with EU comics and novels.

EU Role-playing Sourcebook and Essential Guides, etc. These are taken unless they violate above continuity or are outdated or inconsistent. Also, RPG Sourcebooks contain a few notable mistakes due to mis-scaling or lack of research.

Low-level EU such as certain games and certain Marvel comics. Sources which are hard to reconcile in their entirety or do not fit well into the storyline overall. These stories are considered to have happened but may have not occured exactly as the story depicted.

Absolute Canon: (also known as Pure Canon, Movie Canon)
Star Wars Movies
George Lucas' statements (some are inconsistent with his actual films and are often subject to frequent change)

Near-Canon:
LFL Continuity Fixes/Changes
Official Screenplays/Scripts
Movie Novelizations and Radio Dramas
Movie Comic Adaptions

High-level Official:
Incredible Cross Sections + Worlds of... series.
Holonetnews.net and SWInsider incarnation
Visual Dictionaries
SW.com (fits here; Official site but not made by Lucas)

General EU Official:
Novels
Comics (Dark Horse and most Marvel)
Games

EU Reference Sources Official:
Essential Guides
RPG Sourcebooks

Low-level EU:
Certain Games and Certain Marvel comics, other stories which are difficult to reconcile w/out fixes. (Definitely includes lamentable examples of EU literature, such as the Glove of Darth Vader series, which exists in continuity only as a vague version of the overall points of that storyline).

Another important tool for SW Continuity analysis is:

Movies:
Visuals > Dialogue
Books:
Omniscient Narration > Dialogue
Comics:
Dialogue > Illustrations (within reason)

I decided to count SW.com last in High-level Official because it is behind on several subjects and even has an error or two. It also subscribes to several EU fallacies, such as the 12.8 km Executor.

I counted ICS and Worlds of... because the Visual Dictionaries sometimes subscribe to EU brain-bugs (I believe that HDS said it refered to blasters using plasma) and some of its source material is EU.

I counted Holonetnews.net and Insider incarnation next because it includes some rather clever EU tie-ins and little contradiction, mostly just tying up loose ends and even some official LFL continuity fixes, such as the Ruusan Reformation.

References:

Quasi-Canon/Canon references in the SW Encyclopedia by Steve Sansweet

Sue Rostoni (Gamer #6 - Oct/Nov. 2001):

Canon refers to an authoritative list of books that the Lucas Licensing editors consider an authentic part of the official Star Wars history. Our goal is to present a continuous and unified history of the Star Wars galaxy, insofar as that history does not conflict with, or undermine the meaning of Mr. Lucas's Star Wars saga of films and screenplays. Things that Lucas Licensing does not consider official parts of the continuous Star Wars history show an Infinities logo or are contained in Star Wars Tales. Everything else is considered canon.

According to Ben Harper, of Lucasfilm, Ltd, in Star Wars Gamer #3:

Good question! We have never disavowed the existence of Marvel comics. We have, whenever feasible, included important events and characters from the Marvel comics in our other products. Some of the Marvel storylines before anyone knew what would happen in The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi. Obviously, in many places, those films contradicted what had happened in the comics. Which ones are more important? The films, of course. However, Lucasfilm recognizes the creativity and diversity within the Marvel comics, and feels that there is a place within the Star Wars universe for non-continuity events. You’ll notice that books recognized as Star Wars canon are marked with Era symbols (so you’ll know where they fall within the Star Wars timeline). The non-continuity books (at this point, the Dark Horse Star Wars Tales and Infinities: A New Hope comics) will soon be marked with a non-continuity symbol. Elements from Marvel which do not tread upon that which has been established in the films, novels, comics, et cetera, are being integrated into official Star Wars canon because we like them, they’re cool, the aliens will be fun to use in the RPG, and, well, we were just feeling a bit nostalgic. After all, it’s been over 20 years!

Chris Cerasi, of LucasBooks wrote:There's been some confusion of late regarding the 'Infinities' symbol, and Star Wars Expanded Universe continuity in general. Terms like "canon" and "continuity" tend to get thrown around casually, which doesn't help at all.

When it comes to absolute canon, the real story of Star Wars, you must turn to the films themselves - and only the films. Even novelizations are interpretations of the film, and while they are largely true to George Lucas' vision (he works quite closely with the novel authors), the method in which they are written does allow for some minor differences. The novelizations are written concurrently with the film's production, so variations in detail do creep in from time to time. Nonetheless, they should be regarded as very accurate depictions of the fictional Star Wars movies.
The further one branches away from the movies, the more interpretation and speculation come into play. LucasBooks works diligently to keep the continuing Star Wars expanded universe cohesive and uniform, but stylistically, there is always room for variation. Not all artists draw Luke Skywalker the same way. Not all writers define the character in the same fashion. The particular attributes of individual media also come into play. A comic book interpretation of an event will likely have less dialogue or different pacing than a novel version. A video game has to take an interactive approach that favors gameplay. So too must card and roleplaying games ascribe certain characteristics to characters and events in order to make them playable.

Fans of the old monthly Marvel Star Wars comic will be heartened to know that LucasBooks does indeed consider them part of continuity. Decades of retrospect haven't been kind to all the elements of the comic series, but the characters and events still hold weight and are referenced in newer material whenever possible.

In order to allow unlimited freedom of storytelling, the Infinities label has been placed on the anthology series, Star Wars Tales. This means that not only can the stories occur anywhere in the Star Wars timeline, but stories can happen outside continuity. Basically, if an event happens in Tales, it may not have necessarily happened in the rest of the expanded universe. For some stories, the distinction is largely inconsequential. For others, it's the only way they could exist (for example, there's a Darth Vader vs. Darth Maul comic coming soon).

George Lucas' "My universe, and their universe" quotes, and his support of Dark Empire, Dark Horse, the Tales of the Old Republic series, and his handpicking of Marvel to continue SW continuity in the first EU ever.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-01-29 09:09pm

Side-by-side listing in each catagory means equal standing.

One-over-another means slight differences in credibility.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-01-29 09:10pm

And one more thing (sorry about 3 x post mods): The "order" is very nebulous and hardly word-for-word dictated by LFL.

I took GL's quote, that he has his material, and then there's everyone else's, and I took that with the Cerasi quote on how there's the movies, movie adaptions, and EU, and then I took the Licensing quote from Gamer 5 that EVERYTHING is canon (except Infinities).

I took this to mean that films/GL opinion = absolute canon, near-movie source = near-canon, and EU = official continuity, and that everything is part of continuity unless declared apocryphal or truly, completely beyond fix or salvage.

I did some minor and rather negligible ordering by "distance from movies," "artistic license," and known errors/brain-bugs.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-01-29 10:07pm

Has the visuals > dialogue actually been stated by LFL, or has the community decided it for them?

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-01-29 10:32pm

Common sense and better knowledge derived esp. from vs. debates.

In-universe characters are capable of hyperbole, stupidity, delusions, and ignorance.

Observations are WHAT YOU SEE.

What characters babble about cannot override what one sees.

Ted C · Post by **Ted C** » 2003-01-30 09:50am

No, the ICS is not canon.

The canon includes (in order of importance):
- the movies themselves
- the novelizations of the movies
- the radioplays of the movies

That's it. Nothing else is canon.

Many other things are official, however, and George Lucas gives validity to official material as part of the Star Wars universe and continuity. Basically, official material is considered true and accurate as long as it doesn't contradict the canon.

Things like the ICS, novels by other authors (like Timothy Zahn), and even the Star Wars role-playing game fall under the "official" heading.

I daresay you won't find anything contradictory to canon in the ICS. Consequently, it's a perfectly valid information source for debating.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2003-01-30 11:08am

Howedar wrote:Has the visuals > dialogue actually been stated by LFL, or has the community decided it for them?

That is an arbitrary judgment by part of the community itself. Though not all dialogue is ignored. When there is a descrepncy between a dialogue that is a clear order or statement, and not a exited or exagerated claim, it is typically accepted if its conflicts with visuals.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-01-30 11:24am

Dialogue vs Visuals is an entirely separate issue from canon vs quasi-canon.

The former has to do with the way you approach things, the latter is an argument over LFL policy (except for those who think LFL policy is irrelevant, like Darkstar).

Pu-239 · Post by **Pu-239** » 2003-01-30 05:25pm

Well for the Andromedaverse, Dialogue>Visuals

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2003-01-30 06:01pm

Pu-239 wrote:Well for the Andromedaverse, Dialogue>Visuals

Because the creators of the show stated that the visuals are a representation of what happened and made for viewing pleasure. They stated the Dialogue is what is actually happening.

Post by **AdmiralKanos** » 2003-01-30 06:43pm

Which in turn means that it's basically a subjective show. There is no way of seeing what's really happening, so you must operate entirely on your interpretations of the characters' behaviour, beliefs, and expressions.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-01-30 07:03pm

Darth Wong wrote:Dialogue vs Visuals is an entirely separate issue from canon vs quasi-canon.

The former has to do with the way you approach things, the latter is an argument over LFL policy (except for those who think LFL policy is irrelevant, like Darkstar).

But both come into play when trying to grasp the entirety of SW Continuity. My point was is sometimes you have to take that into account because the characters are badly written or their dialogue is often abused by certain fans "interpretations," if that it can be called.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2003-01-30 07:09pm

AdmiralKanos wrote:Which in turn means that it's basically a subjective show. There is no way of seeing what's really happening, so you must operate entirely on your interpretations of the characters' behaviour, beliefs, and expressions.

When they state they are moving at 70 PLS or that the enemy is 5 light seconds away, I think I will believe that. There is a difference between someone stating fact/giving orders compared to excited comments and exagurations.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-01-30 07:14pm

Yeah, but when those orders/comments/etc do not make any sense w/ what is on screen, I choose to believe what is on screen.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2003-01-30 07:23pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote:Yeah, but when those orders/comments/etc do not make any sense w/ what is on screen, I choose to believe what is on screen.

In Andromeda you can not. They specifically state that the visuals are artistically altered for viewing pleasure and that the dialogue is correct. When the dialogue states 2 light seconds and the visuals show them in the same picture, the dialogue is correct. You have no choice in the matter. It is the decision of the creators of the show. They want to have advanced technology but they also realize that the viewer is going to be bored stiff with battles taking place beyond visual range all of the time.

Post by **AdmiralKanos** » 2003-01-30 07:32pm

Alyeska wrote:When they state they are moving at 70 PLS or that the enemy is 5 light seconds away, I think I will believe that. There is a difference between someone stating fact/giving orders compared to excited comments and exagurations.

Tell that to the people who scream daily that "400 gigawatts" doesn't count. You know what I'm talking about. It's always possible to find ambiguities in a character's dialogue, hence Andromeda will always be subjective if this is what the producers say.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2003-01-30 07:38pm

AdmiralKanos wrote:
Alyeska wrote:When they state they are moving at 70 PLS or that the enemy is 5 light seconds away, I think I will believe that. There is a difference between someone stating fact/giving orders compared to excited comments and exagurations.
Tell that to the people who scream daily that "400 gigawatts" doesn't count. You know what I'm talking about. It's always possible to find ambiguities in a character's dialogue, hence Andromeda will always be subjective if this is what the producers say.

Andromeda also stated the firepower figures before hand as well. They wanted their universe to be very clearly defined so that there is little debate at all.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-01-30 07:54pm

It isn't just firepower calcs, Alyeska. Tactics and abilities too. Just look at the Trekkie delusions about the Borg out there with little evidence and extremely poor analysis.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2003-01-30 08:19pm

Also, Andromeda's visuals are suspect because they make one visual and use is again and again and again...

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2003-01-30 10:57pm

Alyeska wrote: Andromeda also stated the firepower figures before hand as well. They wanted their universe to be very clearly defined so that there is little debate at all.

Tell that to the people who claim that the Magog actually hurl around planet sized masses (that are supposed to be black holes) as projectiles at .5c, yet cannot explain where the recoil such a blast creates goes.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-01-30 11:15pm

I have found that in most visual sci-fi, the writers, producers, and directors will quickly lose sight of the distinction between visuals and dialogue no matter what they're "supposed" to be, and they will eventually write the dialogue to match the visuals.

Look at Star Trek; some of the early writers obviously envisioned extreme long-range combat. But (particularly after ST2) as visuals consistently showed short-range combat, the dialogue eventually morphed to suit. Even without cases like TDiC and "Valiant" in which very short-range numbers were actually spoken onscreen, they performed numerous maneuvers and tactics which only make sense at extreme short range (look at the Equinox, or the drone-ship in "Arsenal of Freedom").

I don't watch Andromeda, but I would be VERY surprised if you couldn't watch the show and quickly see reams of dialogue and events which are simply incompatible with the numbers given.

People often argue that dialogue numbers are realistic, while visuals are just for show. I would argue the opposite: visuals may not be great, but at least they must look like something, hence there are limits to how bad they can get. Dialogue, on the other hand, is free to wander into the realm of absolute stupidity (eg- a terawatt hand weapon on Voyager) because it is unbounded by any form of sensibility whatsoever, and is guided only by techno-masturbatory fanboy wanking. Look at the sonic weapon in TOS; it is so irretrievably stupid on so many levels, and yet you STILL have people arguing that dialogue is more realistic!

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2003-01-30 11:25pm

Darth Wong wrote:I have found that in most visual sci-fi, the writers, producers, and directors will quickly lose sight of the distinction between visuals and dialogue no matter what they're "supposed" to be, and they will eventually write the dialogue to match the visuals.

Look at Star Trek; some of the early writers obviously envisioned extreme long-range combat. But (particularly after ST2) as visuals consistently showed short-range combat, the dialogue eventually morphed to suit. Even without cases like TDiC and "Valiant" in which very short-range numbers were actually spoken onscreen, they performed numerous maneuvers and tactics which only make sense at extreme short range (look at the Equinox, or the drone-ship in "Arsenal of Freedom").

I don't watch Andromeda, but I would be VERY surprised if you couldn't watch the show and quickly see reams of dialogue and events which are simply incompatible with the numbers given.

People often argue that dialogue numbers are realistic, while visuals are just for show. I would argue the opposite: visuals may not be great, but at least they must look like something, hence there are limits to how bad they can get. Dialogue, on the other hand, is free to wander into the realm of absolute stupidity (eg- a terawatt hand weapon on Voyager) because it is unbounded by any form of sensibility whatsoever, and is guided only by techno-masturbatory fanboy wanking. Look at the sonic weapon in TOS; it is so irretrievably stupid on so many levels, and yet you STILL have people arguing that dialogue is more realistic!

"

Not to mention that with dialogue, you have a greater chance for a technically inept person (like most writers, I imagine) to fuck things up royally (technobabble is perhaps just one offense.) Visuals meanwhile, have the benefit of not having to "explain" things. If we see something vaporize, it vaporizes.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

ICS = Canon, right?

ICS = Canon, right?

Re: ICS = Canon, right?