User talk:McEwok

McEwok, -- Riffsyphon1024 16:18, 10 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Un-Star Wars
Let me make you aware that we do not plan to make an article for Howard the Duck, even though it is a George Lucas film. And would you really want to anyway considering how much of a flop it was? Please plan to stay within the realm of Star Wars as much as possible. -- Riffsyphon1024 23:00, 10 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't take things like that too seriously - and don't worry, I'm not planning to send the Wiki into silly street. I'm here in an effort slide my rigorous and disciplined self out of the Ewok-costume (cramped in there for someone a shade off 6 feet all these years)... McEwok 00:13, 11 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * McEwok, you should really make a page about all the stupid theories youve had. I suppose you could add other peoples as well. All the stuff like 'Anakin Solo survived by soul transferring into a potplant.' Its as relevant as Supershadow at least ;).
 * Thank you, Durnar. It would be a bit arrogant, I think, and anyway, I'm currently trying to fight (half-heartedly) against the tendancy to redact everything I do down to "stupid theories".

For the record, some are just for fun - for instance, producing infinite potentially canonical ways for Anakin Solo to not be dead, or the suggestions that Ewoks are Noghri in the same way that Kint is Soze; though even those are also intended to comment on aspects of SW and fandom. And, since I'm here, I might as well note that I'm more-or-less serious in (say) suggesting that Clone Madness could involve the resurgence of the template's memory and personality, or in questioning the superficially positive depiction of the "New Order" at the end of the NJO, or trying to stem the encroachment of fanon ideas about Star Dreadnaughts into continuity...

And as for Mar^H^H^HMarakin (thanks for nothing, SparqMan), I don't want to explain that in its entirity (but see my latest post here)...

That said, if any fansite wants an interview... well, it might be fun to try to get my head on straight. Good practice. That's what I'm here for, after all... --McEwok 21:27, 13 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * I might take you up on that offer... j/k lol. But your page gave me a laugh. I haven't heard the infamous potted plant theory for a while. :) --beeurd 13:40, 7 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Links

 * Just so you know, it's completely unnecessary to put underscores in internal links, spaces will work just fine. MarcK 14:59, 17 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks. For some reason, I seemed to end up with underscores going in sometimes when I typed spaces (via the edit or preview screen?). Seemed easier for me to do more work than force other people to correct it. Or was I just doing something wrong? --McEwok 15:31, 17 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Doctor Curtis Saxton
Doctor Curtis Saxton is connected to Lucas Films. He authored and coauthored many books about Star Wars such as Revenge of The Sith Incredible Cross Sections Attack of the Clones Incredible Cross Sections Inside the Worlds of Star Wars Trilogy Inside the Worlds of Attack of the Clones. These works are canonical. I do believe delinking his site in Star Destroyer is a mistake. On the other end of that link is a description of all Imperial battleships from the movies and any from the Expanded Universe. This is not just a random fansite where people just makeup numbers. The technical commentaries are better than StarWars.Com for technical information. I shall readd the link this weekend. --— Ŭalabio‽ 04:53, 19 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Nonetheless, his website is not in any way canonical, regardless of whether he has authored official works (which are rightfully cited where appropriate). The Star Wars Technical Commentaries are no more official than the fan sites of other Lucasfilm authors like Nathan Butler or Abel G. Pena.  jSarek 05:03, 19 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Yep. Only Saxton's official work is canonical. His fan site contains many assumptions and hypotheses that are not. Obviously, the continuity elements that LFL have allowed him to incorporate in official material derive from the ideas expressed in this fan fiction, but ideas from SWTC only become canonical inasmuch as they are themselves incorporated in official material: they do not automatically become backstory for that canon material.
 * And people say fanfic authors can't get published... --McEwok 12:44, 19 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * I find this an old intellectual flaw among critics of Saxton´s work (besides presuming that he came to Lucasfilm wanting work and not the other way around, of course ;P), that his site being a fan-site somehow makes his findings 'fanon'. Most of the numerical information is simply gleaned from the films and other official works from Lucasfilm and Lucas Licensing, which are for all to see, not just Curtis Saxton. Many errors are made on both sides in these debates, but the most severe is proposing that the various ITWs and ICSs which Saxton worked on, are fan-fiction made fact, when most of the information leads directly back to the works of George Lucas, the various concept artists and ILM, who were the originators of Star Wars tech and designs, which the books detail. Then there´s the editors of each book, who have to approve the texts within. And as far as I can tell, Saxton is neither a filmmaker, SFX artist nor an editor. ;) VT-16 18:07, 20 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Okay. *deep breath* I'm not saying that ITW and ICS are fanfic. As official publications, these are canonical, and I respect them as such. And kudos to their author for the fact that LFL has contracted him to work on these things. What, I am saying is this:

1.) The canonical status of statements in these books does not endorse the real-world reasoning that (we might presume) led to them, still less does it legitimize anything at SWTC that is not in these books.

2.) There are problems, both in terms of continuity and simple logic, in some of the arguments presented that SWTC.

As to SWTC Saxton's analysis of the movie material is normally excellent, and the breadth and depth of what he's done has really raised the bar for both fan analysis and LFL. But his site is built on a debatable methodology (he assumes a visual consistency that the movies simply lack), and, like any fanboy, he often extends his work into downright speculation (for instance, his idea that because Executor is much bigger than other Star Destroyers, Star Destroyers are, in the general run of things, small ships - where the EU material makes clear that the Ex is just insanely big). This is especially unfortunate where his suggestions contradicts with what established canon shows to be the case.

IMHO, anyway. --McEwok 19:03, 20 Aug 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok, let us suppose that this is 2003, one year before the OT:ITW is released. Saxton´s site, which is a fansite (now don´t get that mixed up with what I am about to say), shows the Executor as 11 times the length of an Imperial-class SD, going by visual information from the films and quotes from the modelmakers. This is official info that contradicts most written material. Is it fan-fiction? No. It is official information used by the filmmakers while making the film and nothing less. The subsequent torrent of WEG and WEG-influenced tech manuals and novels usually ignore this knowledge and print 8 km/8 times the lenght of an Imperial-class SD as the length of the Executor. This info is wrong and contradicts the films and the intention of its makers. Now, because no OT:ITW exist, it´s considered ok by certain elements in fandom to "take a proverbial shit" on Saxton and his site for sticking by the former, even though the films (always higher on the chain than any tech manual) contradict their viewpoint. Was it ok back then to consider much of what Saxton wrote on his site to be the equivilant of fan-fiction?
 * I agree Saxton goes beyond just numbers and pure evidence and that that part is pure speculation, but what I am arguing is that the reasoning "all information on his site is fanfiction and invalid because the books say otherwise" is "intellectually dishonest" (to use a phrase by Nathan Butler, a slightly closeted anti-Saxtonist). The Executor´s length and the DS II´s width is measured from objects in the films, combined with quotes from the people who made them. What is wrong with using or publishing this information, even if it contradicts older material (which was wrong to begin with)? Why all the racket? VT-16 19:53, 20 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * I hoped you'd ask that. The problem is not with the figures Saxton derives from the movie evidence; they seem generally accurate (that's what I meant above by saying his "analysis of the movie material is normally excellent"). The problem is what he then does with these figures. The films are not visually consistent. Compare the major details on the large-scale model of the SSD command tower with those on the FX model of the ship, for instance. Or the different sizes and proportions of the FX miniature, matte painting and physical set of the Tyderium or Millennium Falcon. That's what I meant by "debatable methodology". It's perfectly possible to argue that, becuase the movies are inconsistent like this, the size the Ex is shown in the movies is unreliable - less reliable than the size she's described as being in the EU.
 * I used to accept the "eleven-mile" version (and for what it's worth, I still *like* the ~11-mile version); but it has always been possible to argue that the superior "accuracy" of g-canon doesn't imply real visual accuracy in the movies. And I've been saying that the Ex a super-large Star Destroyer since I got involved in the debate in 1998. --McEwok 20:34, 20 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * I´m not going to debate your first argument, since individual models of the ship and the tower alone will undoubtably be different with regards to detail (which is why they use them at different ranges to begin with =P), and I fail to see any relevance this has with regards to estimates.
 * I also thought he did take time to evaluate the discrepencies and go for what the majority of shots showed? Hmm, I´d better look again. I do know he has at least one section on that, for the shuttle.
 * "Super-large Star Destroyer", heheh, that´s funny. XD VT-16 20:46, 20 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, it's what they are!! As to the argument, my basic point is that the visuals are not consistent, whether or not the overall sizes of cap ships are: the large features clearly visible on the tower on the SSD ship model don't correspond with those on the stand-alone tower model. There's stuff on Tyderium at SWTC. And I can try and dig the Millennium Falcon stuff out of the Wayback Machine cache of Robert Brown's defunct fansite. Even without major inconsistencies in the depicted length of the spaceships (ILM seem to have worked hard for a good visual consistency in model FX shots), you can show that the films are not consistent or accurate overall, raising doubts about the canonical validity of the on-screen sizes: the primary aim of visual FX is visual effect, not literal accuracy. But if you do want specific scaling inconsistency in model shots, I think you may (by accident!) have given me exactly what I needed with the bridge tower sizes... --McEwok 01:03, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * No, the name "Super-large Star Destroyer" is not canon and is not used to describe anything canonically, don´t be an idiot.
 * "But if you do want specific scaling inconsistency in model shots, I think you may (by accident!) have given me exactly what I needed with the bridge tower sizes..."
 * Sure, go ahead, knock yourself out. VT-16 01:14, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * *sticks tongue out*. I'm not being an idiot, VT. Of course "Super-large Star Destroyer" is not a canon designation; but I'm not talking about a "Super-large Star Destroyer" designation. I'm saying that the phrase "super-large Star Destroyer" (note lack of caps; adjective + proper noun) is an adequate and accurate, canon-supported, description of the Ex or Eclipse. Their designation as Star Destroyers is canon, and they're super-large. --McEwok 01:41, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * I was right, you are a moron. Fine, rewrite SW canon into your own little fantasy-world. That´ll get you banned pretty quick. VT-16 01:57, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, going by the example of SWTC, it'll get you gigs with LFL so you can actually, actively mess with the real franchise continuity. And where am I "rewriting canon", exactly? Don't flame and rant - be specific. --McEwok 02:11, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Your continued obsession with SDs and SSDs and your modifications to articles to make a big issue out of little things is getting on people´s nerves, including mine. And the continuity has been messed with plenty of times by Lucas Licensing staff and WEG already, long before Saxton became involved. So your precious SSDs are getting redefined and categorized. Tough. VT-16 02:18, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * It's not myself I'm worried about. It's the maintainance of a consistent Star Wars continuity. And the fact my challenges to your assumptions are "getting on your nerves" doesn't make you right, though it doesn't make me right, either. To return to the point, I'm arguing that there's a lot of evidence that the Ex-class are very large "Star Destroyers", and only one ambiguous statement trying to make them "Star Dreadnaughts", and that this Wiki should reflect that evidence (though obviously, it should be changed if the balance shifts). If you can provide evidence otherwise, please do. --McEwok 10:58, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * "and only one ambiguous statement trying to make them "Star Dreadnaughts"
 * WHAT?! Haven´t you been paying attention for the past few years? 'Star Dreadnaught' has been around since the AOTC ICS, the term 'dreadnaught' since Marvel (and not just to denote a type of obsolete vessels). I´ll quote some info: "The use of the word dreadnaught first appeared in the old marvel comics. It was then used in a roundabout fashion to describe the massive EX-F in the Black Fleet Crisis books (no, it wasn't a Rendili one, it was explicitly said that none of the ships of the Black Fleet were smaller then a star destroyer, so it has to be bigger than 900 meters long and the NEGC implies a power output far beyond a regular Imperator). It was also used in The Final Prophecy to describe a very large Vong capital ship and shatterpoint to describe a Geonosian capital ship."
 * The DK line of books were made to give definitive info on issues from the films, that´s what made them stand out from all the RPG/Tech manuals over the years. They were meant to clear up issues that had long been points of controversy. THAT was their purpose, which they have kept consistent to this day. THAT was Saxton´purpose, that was the reason Lucas Books sought him out, to get more concrete info and STICK to it!
 * You know what? I´m going to pretend you didn´t write that last post. I´m going to pretend we´re not having this conversation and that you are not this ignorant or slow on the uptake and that your comments are just an amusing jest without substance. VT-16 12:02, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, the idea of dreadnaughts in SW has been around for a long time. But the idea that they were effective modern warships, or equivalent in size to the Ex, or that the Ex was/should be/could be one herself, are entirely Saxton's. As to EX-F: (1.) she's a propulsion testbed "built on a Dreadnaught hull" - not necessarily a new ship; and (2.) not necessarily in the Black Sword Order-of-Battle list. And the "Geonosian dreadnaught" is 600m long, same size as a Rendilli Dreadnaught. --McEwok 19:29, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * No, the Geonosian Dreadnaught´s Core Ship-section has a diameter equal to the lenght of a Rendili dreadnaught cruiser. Since core ships only make up a small part of the total lenght of their vessels, the full ship is much bigger. VT-16 20:56, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * The Geonosian dreadnaught is described as 600m. Perhaps she's a TFBB core ship; but she's called a "dreadnaught" herself. However, rereading the BFC, I concede that the EX-F is almost certainly not a 600m Rendilli Dreadnaught; what's more significant, however, is that this "Dreadnaught hull" is also described as a "Star Destroyer"!!
 * As to ItW and "clearing stuff up": do you have direct evidence? If that was their aim, all I can say is that their lack of concern for, or awareness of, Saxton's manifest biased against significant pieces of canonical evidence that don't fit his fan theories is staggering. Curtis Saxton does an awful lot of good work and deserves the success he's had. But at the same time, he is either knowingly creating continuity contradictions to "canonize" his own fan-fiction, or else he has blind-spots the size of... um, Super Star Destroyers? --McEwok 19:29, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * First of all, Saxton does not decide what goes into any of these factbooks, the editors and other correspondents in the Lucas hierarchy do. He must abide by their rules, not the other way around. They go through their files, weigh the evidence on matters of controversy, and ultimately make the call. (Through emails with Saxton I found out at least one instance of editorial wants being the deciding factor, rather than what Saxton wanted.) And if you are so worried about their professional integrity, you´re 28 years too late. Revisions and errors have cropped up in materials following the first film, not to mention the long-standing WEG books and stats going through the copy&paste procedure whenever they feel like releasing a tech manual.
 * However, Lucas Licensing´s recent efforts with the internal Holocron archives (maintained by continuity-checker Leland Chee), is commendable, and Chee has said on the official SW forum that the term 'Executor-class Star Dreadnaught' is now the official designation for this type of ship. Note, that is his decision to make, not Saxton´s. Your one-sided tirade could do with more than one scapegoat, so you might as well rag on Leland Chee while you´re at it. Hopefully, it´s clear to anyone reading these discussions that all this "controversy" over Saxton The Terrible is nothing more than a classic example of penis-envy, and not any basis for legitimate discussion. VT-16 20:56, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * For one, I'm concerned with damage limitation, the reconciliation of apparent contradictions, and the preservation of established continuity. I don't think ItW and the ICS books have done that - quite the opposite. Saying "there are contradictions" does not excuse creating more contradictions. That's my POV. If you think differently, tell me why. --McEwok 13:49, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * More importantly, I have to firmly reject your mischaracterization of my remarks on Saxton and LFL as a "one-sided tirade": I emphasised the "good work" done by Saxton, and noted the possibility that the problems with Saxton's handling of some canon evidence were unintentional and unconscious (though I should have added the possibility that they could be playfully postmodern as well - my apologies to anyone concerned). If you wish to respond to my criticism of his treatement of certain pieces of evidence, both at SWTC and in official publications, then kindly do so on the terms of the evidence. As to LFL, I remarked that if this is their idea of resolving continuity problems, then "their lack of concern... is staggering"; to clarify - my problem lies not with their employing Saxton, but the fact that, for whatever reason, they did not edit his work effectively to keep it in line with established continuity and ensure it reached its full potential. It could be that they accepted his arguments without deep examination; it could be that they simply don't care much; but I'm intrigued by your suggestions that there's an active internal LFL initiative here. Is your knowledge of this gleaned entirely from e-mail, or is there public discussion anywhere? --McEwok 13:49, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Okay - and, my apologies! For what it's worth, every signature down the page so far marks the end of one contributer's block of text, but I'll edit if that would help. Is there something on how to do this right in the style guide? --McEwok 00:47, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * I would appreciate it if people signed their paragraphs so that we may not get confused here. -- Riffsyphon1024 00:39, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Grist for Your Mill

 * In case you haven't seen it yet, I just thought you'd like to see this post (the one dated Oct 25, 2005 09:28 AM) from Tasty Taste about the resolution of G-canon and C-canon disputes. Bon apetit. :-) jSarek 22:18, 1 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * You saw that and thought of me?! I'm flattered!! *grins* Thank you. That, I think, becomes this Ewok's new TF.N .sig... --McEwok 22:29, 1 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Boo
You know, I was just gonna pop over and say hi, and then I saw the miles and miles of Saxton bitching, and now I need to go lie down. Thanks a lot. CooperTFN 03:49, 16 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Now you know how I feel. I really don't enjoy it. At all. I'm just standing up for the evidence as it is, not as people want it to be. --McEwok 14:02, 16 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Then it's too bad you've deleted canon information from the 'ship classification' page, which I've since had to re-add. When dealing with canon sources, it would be nice to the other contributors to consider more than your one favorite. VT-16 14:39, 21 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * I deleted inappropriately-placed information, and have now deleted it again. As cited on the talk page, the standard in-universe system as defined in canon sources places all ships up to the size of the Ex in the "Star Destroyer" subclass of the "cruiser" category. Alternative designations can and should be discussed elsewhere on the page, but they do not belong in a summary of the standard in-universe classification system, which contains a specific series of terms defined in specific ways, and is used correctly by most official sources. Please respect the canon evidence. --McEwok
 * You have been reported for vandalism offenses and I expect you to respect all canonical sources in the future VT-16 22:05, 21 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * See my reply on the vandalism page. As I have said already - here, at Talk:Ship_Classification, and now there as well, your additions were inappropriately-placed and did not fit into the particular system you had inserted them into on the page. And I had already told you as much repeatedly. I fail to see what your case is here. Yes, there are other terms used. That doesn't change the canon standard system, I'm afraid - in which almost everything above 400m is a cruiser, and almost everything above about 850m is a Star Destroyer. Terms not part of that system belong elsewhere on the page. --McEwok 23:38, 21 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Ship classification dispute
Hey McEwok. I'm trying to help QuentinGeorge in the despute resolution at Ship classification. I've read over your brief argument, but while it sums your polemics, it does not give me an understanding of what you would like to see the article contain. Can you please draft a quick outline of the points you think should be included (not what should not)? Please cite specific sources for each point where possible. Just e-mail it to me (my username @gmail.com) or leave it on my talk page. Thanks. --SparqMan 17:33, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)