last day (14 days later) » 

12:54 AM
Q: Star Wars: Flying a spaceship, or, when is a movie scene NOT canon?

MarakaiAs we all know, it's canon that the Star Wars movies constitute the highest level of canon in the saga. The result being that, when things shown in the movies simply make not one iota of sense, SEers will sometimes add whimsical comments to the extent of "err, the Force did it?" or "blame Lucas/...

Because I voted to close this as a dupe, I won't post an answer, but if I did, the answer would say "Every second of the 7 existing movies is canon". So sayeth Disney, so sayeth Lucas, so sayeth we all.
"Lucas always made it clear that he was not beholden to the EU. He set the films he created as the canon. This includes the six Star Wars episodes, and the many hours of content he developed and produced in Star Wars: The Clone Wars. These stories are the immovable objects of Star Wars history, the characters and events to which all other tales must align" Source
@WadCheber Note: I specifically ONLY speak of the movies. No derivative works!
@Hypnosifl Yeah, my question was getting way too unwieldy (as if it isn't already borderline), so I'll leave it for now. It has to do with on one hand, crew having something like artificial gravity, yet BB-8 rolling around like a pinball, including nearly bouncing against the ceiling.
@Marakai - Doesn't matter. The question you asked here is answered in that post, so this is a dupe.
@WadCheber I'm familiar with both the answer and the topic in general. It does not answer my question! Maybe I'm not expressing it right?
@Marakai - Possible, but unlikely. The answer to the question I linked describes exactly how canonicity is determined, and it clearly says that every part of every SW movie is canon. That means that any question about what is or isn't canon in SW is probably a duplicate of that one.
12:54 AM
Sorry @WadCheber but then you haven't actually read my question. I'm not interested in some form of quasi-religious dogma. It sounds like belief in literal infallibility of the bible. But let's take it like that: Star Wars exegesis: how are we to interpret the Truth of the movies, if they contradict "Reality" (the reality of the galaxy long time ago and far far away)
I have read it. Is the canon sometimes contradictory? Yep. Does that affect it's canonicity? Nope.
My advice: Trim this question down, and make it easier to understand and less of a rant. It's very unwieldy at the moment, and the signal to noise ratio is decidedly skewed towards "noise".
Will delete this question, methinks. I'm clearly not getting through and am starting to feel distinctly uncomfortable with some of the infallibility belief. I don't want to end up burnt at the stake for heresy. Eppur se muove!
You're confusing facts with our opinions. We're not saying we like this, or agree with it - we're saying "that's the way it is". Contradictions don't change the fact that Lucasfilm and Disney sets the canon, and they have made it clear that everything from the movies is canon, whether or not it contradicts itself.
If you're asking "How does Disney/Lucasfilms handle the problem of contradictions within the movie canon", you can do that without much risk of dupe closure and with a lot less ranting and unnecessary text in your question.
don't make me come over there, @WadCheber!
'If the movies are "infallible" and immovable canon, then we have a problem when things like spaceship controls are used in a random fashion and even the actors state they were just making sh*t up.

"Is there Word From Above that deals with this: Has there ever been an official Lucas/Disney "yeah, well, we're retelling the history of The Star Wars, but we take artistic liberties and our goal isn't to provide flight lessons for YT class freighters"?"
That's your question.
The rest isn't necessary.
12:58 AM
yeah I trimmed it down
still wanted to leave examples in
I loathe those short 5-liner questions where you can't tell whether the questioner has even done the simplest of research
Example with no ranting:
"OBI-WAN: I haven't gone by the name Obi-Wan since oh, before you were born."
That is absolutely not true.
"OBI-WAN: Your father wanted you to have this when you were old enough, but your uncle wouldn't allow it."
objection! as outlined in this very stack, we've established that (as someone put it) Obi-wan is a lying liar!
Real story: "I chopped off both your dad's legs and one of his arms, then stole his lightsaber as he burned on the side of a volcano. You weren't born yet, and he hadn't said anything about giving his lightsaber to you"
but you raise valid points: here is Lucas/Disney giving us a canon with outright falsehoods. has anybody ever addressed those?
I see the kernel of a good question here, but I think it's still likely to be lost in the signal/noise ratio, so to speak.
1:03 AM
is it just a matter of "no, shut up, stop asking, it's still canon, meaning we have a Jedi Master who is a pathological liar. we won't come out and say that, but that's how it is"
@Marakai OBI-WAN: What I told you was true... from a certain point of view.
have a re-read, I've stripped it down to what I think is the bare minimum
That's the answer.
@Marakai I did. It's still a bit too dupey.
obi-wan would have made a good senator :P
The focus on canonicity will be all that people need to VTC.
1:04 AM
wait! you can edit it!
Because the answer - like it or loathe it - is "The movies are canon, without reference to any internal contradictions"
So all four ways of going into hyperspace are canon.
ugh, but then we end up with , as I said in one comment, religion
the bible is true, every other statement is death-worthy heresy
Artoo knowing Yoda and then not recognizing him and fighting him over the worst flashlight ever? Both are canon.
@Marakai But we don't get to determine canon - we don't own it.
If Disney decided Jar Jar was Luke's father, that would be canon.
We would be upset, but that wouldn't change anything.
and I'd become a martyr to the cause because I would hunt them down and kill them, then go to the chair proudly
We have to abide by Disney canon because we can't answer questions properly based on each user's individual headcanon.
1:08 AM
in all seriousness, lets stick with the exegesis:
In my headcanon, the Prequels never happened.
But I can't answer question based on that fact.
Many of us - myself included - see Lucas himself as the arch-heretic of SW.
the canonical bible is full of contradictions. HOWEVER! that leads many sub-groups to declare it as "allegorical" and only a few simply ignore the contradictions and claim even pointing it out is heresy
the parallels are a bit frightening in fact
you an me both
@Marakai I don't think so.
Because no one is fighting wars over Anakin's intentions re: his lightsaber and Luke, and most SW fans despise a lot of the canon.
But we can't just ignore the parts we don't like, because if everyone got to erase the shit they hate, there wouldn't be anything left.
You need to spend more time in the general channel of SWTOR
point taken
wait, wasn't that what lucas tried? :P
We can criticize it in a way that believers rarely criticize their scriptures, but we have to take the good with the bad in order to do that.
1:12 AM
I swear his main goal was to eradicate what his ex-wife had gotten him to do, which was what made SW the success it was. without here, even the first movie would have been like TPM and we wouldn't even be discussing it
He wanted to put Ewoks everywhere, basically.
I'm not convinced of that: there is such a thing as biblical archaeology, which sets out to find out the true bits and week out the falsehoods - and says so
He saw the worst parts of the OT and said "THAT'S THE BEST STUFF IN THE SERIES! WE NEED MOAR!"
From my profile on another SE:

I am an atheist who is studying Early Christology, Patristic theology, historical and textual criticism of the bible, Biblical hermeneutics, the history of the early church, and the history of the bible, auditing courses at Princeton Theological Seminary. I previously audited courses at Union Theological Seminary.
I didn't need reminding of that. the pain is forever there
You're describing what more or less impartial scholars do, not what believers and devotional apologists do.
1:15 AM
very impressive and I mean that earnestly. I also study religion though I consider myself a hard agnotic/soft atheisst
The scholar ideally lets the facts determine his belief, but the believer thinks his beliefs override the facts.
yes, so the meta-question is: why may I not play the role of impartial scholar and question the truth behind a canon?
We don't believe in SW, we just love a lot of it, and not the shit with Ewoks and Gungans.
@Marakai You can, but the canon is still the canon.
Even when the canon is wrong, it is canon.
the canon is that there are 4 ways of getting the falcon in and out of hyperspace and it seems to be flown by mind control. the canon also says that Obi-Wan was a truthful Jedi Master who adjusted his sayings based on the situation
Luke (the gospelier, not the Jedi) describes a census that never happened, but it is textual canon. That doesn't make it a fact, though.
1:18 AM
the scholar looks at this and says "wait, this is BS! there has to be a proper way to fly a spaceship in and out of hyperspace, and Obi-Wan was a liar with an agenda"
Matthew describes a massacre of infants that never happened. Canon, but not fact.
@Marakai That's true, but not canon.
yes, and has the Herods all wrong and isn't even talking about the right Caesar Augustus (which after all became a title, not a name)
Jesus was just a man. True, but not canon.
See what I mean?
my point exactly!
Q: How many times was Obi-Wan less than honest with Luke?

Wad CheberDespite his attempts to persuade Luke otherwise1, Obi-Wan is often less than entirely honest with Luke. Sometimes he stretches the truth, sometimes he omits important details in such a way that Luke is misled, and it could be argued that on occasion, he tells flat-out lies. Some of these less...

1:19 AM
I point it out and question it.
the bible describes a global flood. it's canon. there is no physical way it could have happened, nor geological evidence
Even better:

Mark 2:26, Jesus is talking to some Pharisees who have criticized him for allowing the disciples to gather wheat on Sabbath, which is prohibited by Jewish law. Jesus responds to this criticism by citing a story from the Old Testament, in which David ordered his hungry troops to retrieve the sacramental "show bread" from the Tabernacle; according to Jewish tradition, only the high priests were allowed to enter the Tabernacle and eat the show bread. Jesus says that this incident occurred "when Abiathar was the high priest". The problem is that, if you look up the passage of
however there is evidence of a blockage and violent break of the bosporus, leading to possible violent floods brought about by the Black Sea escaping from its "captivity". A real background to a canonical story
So the bible says in one place that David did X while Abiathar was high priest, and in another place, it says David did X when Abiathar's father, Ahimelech, was high priest. Both are canon.
At least one of those versions is not true, but both are canon.
It all comes down to what you respect as canon.
Or in this case, our community's consensus.
On what day, respective to Passover, was Jesus killed? Mark says that Jesus was crucified on the day after the Passover meal was eaten (Mark 14:12; 15:25), whereas John says that Jesus was crucified on the day before the Passover meal was eaten (John 19:14).
1:23 AM
yet, questioned. also, as you know, the canon itself was determined in a fashion that is ... questionable?
Jesus was crucified on two separate days. Both canon.
What did Paul do after his conversion experience on the road to Damascus? Paul says that after his conversion experience on the road to Damascus, he did not go to Jerusalem to meet the disciples (Galatians 1:16-17), whereas Acts of the Apostles says that he did immediately go to Jerusalem to meet the disciples (Acts 9:26).
After his conversion on the road to Damascus, Paul simultaneously went to Jerusalem and did not go to Jerusalem.
When the women went to Jesus' tomb, the door was simultaneously open (Luke, John, Mark) and closed (Matthew).
you're pointing out things I'm fairly aware of. yet, my gist is that - as with biblical exegesis - there are attempts to seek a foundation of truth. and in the extreme case, even discard obvious falsehoods
@Marakai We discard them from our understanding of historical fact, but we don't discard them from canon.
"What is possible?"/"What is true?" has NOTHING to do with "What is canon?"
ah, but as I pointed out, canon itself has changed over time
That's called "retconning" if I'm not mistaken.
1:27 AM
the canon of the bible varies
@Marakai From the bible? Not much. From the establishment of a biblical canon, little has changed.
@Mazura in a way, but even among Judaeo-Christian groups there are variations in the biblical canon. as in, the books belonging to the canon
In SW, canon has changed dramatically, but we have to accept Disney's decisions or the word "canon" ceases to have any meaning.
We can't just say "canon = the stuff that makes sense and doesn't make me angry"
the torah/mishna has variations from the catholic OT which has variations from the Protestant OT (all 2500+ splinterings of them)
@Marakai Because it depends on which bible. This might have been easier to explain back when SW had a bunch of different levels of canon.
1:30 AM
@Mazura good point. in some ways, what is now Legends made it easier: because it was long ago, legends become warped and start diverging to where the truth can no longer be unequivocally determined. See also: Wheel of Time
@Marakai Those variations are pretty slight, considering the 2500 year history involved. SW canon has been almost wiped out over the 35 years it has existed.
you say that with nearly frightening sanguinity
@Marakai It's a bunch of stories about lasers and beeping garbage cans.
don't say that! <sobs>
These are not the issues that tear society asunder.
1:32 AM
trying very hard not to summarise religions in the same way... and what that says about us that that does "tear society asunder"
It's real easy for me. There's 3 movies, 2 ewok specials, and a handful of books published before 1995.
and of course Star Wars itself heavily borrows from Judaeo-Christian concepts, such as redemption
you can be a mass murderer, but as long as you come back to the Light in the last 20 minutes of your life, no worries, you'll still become a handsome Force ghost
But it is the stuff of entertainment, not deeply held beliefs.
Speak for yourself ;)
wait a minute.... the ewok special are canon?!
1:35 AM
In my world they are. Why shouldn't they be?
We're not talking about the [redacted] ffs.
there's only one canon for me when it comes to ewoks: when the second death star exploded it rained down dino-killers on Endor and that was the end of the bloody moon
I still think Im going to delete the question
it's fun in the form of the discussion we had but not really suitable for a stack
It's already closed.
But I'll remove my DV.
Is there a What has been retconned out question?
1:38 AM
yeah, but close vs delete: what's the preference?
my exposure to SE has been exclusively SO until recently
If you're not going to edit it, delete it, as it has no answers.
@Mazura It has one.
If it had answers, that becomes a tough question.
With 3 upvotes.
Like that....
Now it would be against the rules (?).
1:40 AM
A: Star Wars: Flying a spaceship, or, when is a movie scene NOT canon?

JK.TL;DR Just because the canon conflicts with itself does not make it any less canon The movies are canon, and that is the end of the discussion. There are many places where it is severely inconsistent and or wrong, but it is still canon none the less. Eg We know that The Force is: The force...

@Mazura He could try it. If it is against the rules, it won't let him do it.
ah, rule is "if answers, then no longer delete"? interesting that the delete option is still there
I'm not sure if the answer has to be accepted or not.
@Marakai Try to delete it and tell us what happens.
Oh it's been duped. You're done here. No action necessary.
Users can delete their own questions if the question:

has zero answers
only one answer, but that answer has no upvotes
I havent, because the answer itself is a terse syopsis of what we just discussed here with less details by far
1:42 AM
So you are actually unable to delete it.
fair enough. going to just edit it and blame you two ;)
The code is law.
It could use a trimming.
Nah, I just put a header on there, mentioning this discussion. I don't like retconning. I stuck my neck out and now need to feel the DVs

last day (14 days later) »