Umm....would I sound stupid if I asked what a "Face Dancer" was?
Well if there was 2, they're both dead now.

How many Lannik Jedi Masters named Even Piell are there on Coruscant, I wonder?

So, is this an elaborate April Fool's joke? If so, is it in the Holocron as N-canon? If it's actually a real fanzine, given it's recognition on starwars.com, again is it in the Holocron as N-canon?

because it seems like the "crude facility" thing was the implied meaning to begin with.

I had to go and rewatch, and sure enough, my impression was the skewed one. Hm. "You have served me well". Is what I'm here for. The devil is in the details, as always.

It even gives dual purpose to Han's torture. Not only to lure Luke through the Force, but possibly to check vitals and inject him with stuff. Unless I'm reading too much into it, seeing as Luke was afforded no such treatment. Then again, maybe Vader counted on his Force sensitivity to protect him where Han would need boosts.

So that leaves TCW going against the EU only. I much prefer that.

I never really had any problems with it until the great "GrS converted to BBY/ABY" debate.

It has been a problem for at least as early as 2007. That was when my first conflict over S-canon that caused my eventual split with the Wook started. From the very first comment I made on the issue, before I even suggested any amendments, I was threatened with bandom just for talking about it. It was realized soon after.

That particular disclaimer was published in the Sourcebooks of the Zahn trilogy by West End Games. I've always thought it was very interesting. Though these books were published more than a decade ago, that disclaimer was approved by Lucasfilm Licensing.

Is that so? Hmm. That makes me wonder. The Holocron is a different system than the (lack of) one used during the WEG era. Granted, I cannot think of anything to actually contradict the disclaimer, but with the introduction of a new and better system after it, an increased expectation of the validity of continuity in spite of GL is if nothing else reasonable.

It stands to reason that Leland's sallary expenses weren't added to Licensings budget for no reason, and given that he is tasked with preserving Lucas' vision, I find it hard to believe the man had nothing to do with it. Of course, TCW's treatment of the EU is all evidence we need that the disclaimer is still in effect, but we are still more than justified in having disregarded it post-Holocron.

Yeah, good idea.

I never really had any problems with it until the great "GrS converted to BBY/ABY" debate. I was on the forums and a little confused about how they converted based on a throwaway line that the war had been going on for a "year" in a TCW comic even though it took place in 22 BBY and it could have been like seven months at most, based on the war starting in month 5 and 22 BBY being identical to 13 GrS. However, Nathan helpfully explained that BBY/ABY years stretch from the third month of a GrS year to the next. Since Nathan had worked on the Essential Atlas on dates, with Leland Chee confirming what he said, no less, I took it to Wookieepedia to see if they would update their policy.

I almost had the 2/3 majority needed until someone got confused about how 0 BBY and ABY would work. Nathan went in and tried to explain it, but this only led to more people getting confused and switching their votes, even though we had not one but two Star Wars VIPs, including Leland Chee, directly explaining how it was supposed to work. In the end, it didn't change.

That "attitude" has been around, in print, for many years. At least two decades. Read this disclaimer.

You mind telling me what specific product that's from? Because I have around 150 novels on my book shelf, none of them have it. Quite a few graphic novels, none of them have it. 3 reference books, and none of them have it.

The only published quotes that I've been able to find in my entire collection are from KJA's intro to the Dark Empire TPB from 1995 and one from Steve Sansweet at the end of the Star Wars Encyclopedia from 1998.

Furthermore, perhaps we should allow this whole thing to evolve into a discussion of whether or not the policy at LFL really works all that well in the first place. It's worked for quite some time while GL wasn't actively creating, but now that he's involved with a TV show or 2... what does that really mean for this policy and for the EU that's been billed in most cases as "the continuation" rather than "a continuation?"

A policy is just a policy. It doesn't matter if someone can do whatever they way to, the question is should they. Sure, GL created Star Wars but then he opened up his sandbox for others to play in and with assurances that whatever they did in the sandbox would be around for continued play by others and when/if you returned to play. Should he then come in a kick over whatever others have done in that sandbox just because he can? That seems awfully dickish to me. And I've argued, very recently, for his rights to do so as owner and that the policy has been published and made public to the fans. That doesn't mean doing so is artistically credible or being cool at all. If I make a big canvas, put part of a mural on it and then tell others they can fill in all the blank space to make one really cool mural for everyone to enjoy and then later I go in and start tweaking or painting over their stuff... that takes away from my artistic cred especially on the words "that's not how I would have done it."

And yes, MO, that petition you posted is the one I was talking about. I didn't write it, however. I do support it as an outlet for fan frustrations, in hopes that it can be at least somewhat constructive and mitigate some of the negativity and frankly, spitefulness that often crops up in continuity discussions. Now there seems to be a movement among certain fans to stifle that kind of dissent from the party line, which is a whole 'nother discussion in and of itself. Fans should have the right to express their dismay and frustration over changes done to something they are invested in financially and emotionally, and they should have the right to bring it to the attention of those whose pockets they've been lining with their investment.

Reading a story is a whole lot more intimate than watching a story on a screen. Personally I feel a whole lot more experienced and invested in Star Wars because of my extensive EU reading rather than having just watched one of the movies, as great as they are... they simply do not draw you into the characters heads like a book does.

I fully agree with the point made about the Cloud City facility being for tibanna gas.
Vader's line "This facility is crude but it should serve to freeze Skywalker for his journey to the Emperor" doesn't sound like someone who's just been brainstorming about how to get Luke to Coruscant without a struggle and just had the off-hand idea "I know! I'll bung him in the freezer for a bit!"
The important phrase is 'This facility is crude' because it suggests, to me at least, that Vader has experience of less-crude facilities where carbon-freezing people would be safer.

And something to remember is that although we've seen several stories where carbon-freezing people is an important plot point, that doesn't make it a common occurrence in-universe, so there's no reason why all the characters in ESB (or elsewhere) would even believe it's possible.

Edited by: the fragrant wookiee on Apr 2, 2011 12:39 AM

See, I still think it's not too much of a stretch to watch it assuming he's worried about how it was intended for freezing of inanimate gases, rather than humans who would need to emerge in perfect condition. (Less of a stretch than trying to rationalize why no one recognizes the droids in ANH, anyway.) Presumably carbonite weapons are supposed to damage enemies just as little as proper freezing facilities are.

I mean, humans on Earth have been drinking water for a good deal more than 4,000 years, but if you were at a gas station, you'd still ask someone about it or test it before drinking straight from the car wash sprayer, right?

That it can be retconned after the fact hardly excuses the original discrepancy, whether with ESB or the EU, respectively. I was after all replying to the argument that carbon freezing could have been developed by different people at different times, excusing the users' ignorance. The reply being that they were here used by the same person, in a setting that realistically should have spread the relevant knowledge.

Instead we have the usual plot convenient "Bail-has-never-heard-of-the-Sith"-style ignorance at play. That too can be retconned as a chance slip or shoddy historical education. Does that fact help? No. As Plinkett rightly says: "I don't care if it was explained in some f"###¤%ing book! It was supposed to be in the movie!". ESB gave an impression, which in communication or media alike is as, if not more, important as the literal meaning. TCW overrode that impression.

Actually, I feel stupid lecturing you on this, Milo, since I clearly recall that you know it already. But when you make the mistake of calling me out on a continuity complaint because a bloody retcon can fix it, you unfortunately had it coming. Sorry.

Sentient beings tend to matter somewhat more than fictitious beings to most people, hopefully including you.

I believe I covered this, in usual MRN-style backside-coverage. "Not a fair comparison from an evolutionary perspective, but it gets the point across".

BOTH- He was referred to as with one eye- then 2 eyes.