Legends General Grievous Key division proposal

[TyranoDoom30]

Pretty sure only two since it's not controversial or that big

 

[Phsccarvalho]

that big

It's big, yes, but SW is out of the list of verses that need 3 votes.

 

[XSOULOFCINDERX]

Can someone ping some staff or something to take a look at this?

 

[Eficiente]

Bump.

 

[OTG0001]

Yeah, i agree with the thread. The blog is very accurate and detailed and shows exactly why T-Canon should be separated from C-Canon. They consistenly contradict each other in ways that can't be reconcilled. Filoni also said in Insider 134 shortly before the split that EU and Clone Wars were in separate universes

Also, reminder Grievous lost to gungans

Filoni has zero authority when it comes to canonicity, Chee has continually affirmed that TCW exists on a higher canon level than the EU. Elements clearly aren't separate as well.

 

[OrangeFR]

Agree.

 

[TyranoDoom30]

Elements clearly aren't separate as well.

They are if they contain multiple contradictions to the point one of the EU authors straight up stopped her work due to it. We will have a lot of relief and less headache if we just separate T-Canon from C-Canon

 

[Eficiente]

Filoni has zero authority when it comes to canonicity,

Given his position related to TCW, his word matters to things related to TCW. I would think that's why the Star Wars wiki has his quotes on the "Canonicity" page, because his authority is higher than 0. Not that we can't reach the same conclusion by ourselves.

Chee has continually affirmed that TCW exists on a higher canon level than the EU. Elements clearly aren't separate as well.

You're saying 2 contradictory things. It is because TCW exists on a higher level that it should be separated.

But let's say you're only saying that "Elements clearly aren't separate", ok; What do we make of all the media going over how Grievous didn't choose to become a cyborg? How is that not separated from the media in which he chose to be a cyborg?

What about the media that is EU and doesn't technically touch on that topic?; Why connect to it to TCW, which is on that higher canon level?

In other words, don't just say "things are like this," explain how it works with the points raised against them.

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

The updates look fine to me. Definitely agree with separating the two portrayals. So the new stuff can be applied now, with mine and Qawsedfs agreement.

 

[Nierre]

what's been agreed on looks good to me as well

 

[HammerStrikes219]

Can someone ping some staff or something to take a look at this?

I did contact Lephy to get this approved and I forget to comment earlier, but I agree with the OP’s proposal.

 

[OTG0001]

They are if they contain multiple contradictions to the point one of the EU authors straight up stopped her work due to it. We will have a lot of relief and less headache if we just separate T-Canon from C-Canon

Don't disagree, but some EU content is contingent upon T-canon's existence in some fashion. That's why the separation, while it would create cohesion, has no canonical basis.

 

[OTG0001]

Given his position related to TCW, his word matters to things related to TCW. I would think that's why the Star Wars wiki has his quotes on the "Canonicity" page, because his authority is higher than 0. Not that we can't reach the same conclusion by ourselves.

You're saying 2 contradictory things. It is because TCW exists on a higher level that it should be separated.

But let's say you're only saying that "Elements clearly aren't separate", ok; What do we make of all the media going over how Grievous didn't choose to become a cyborg? How is that not separated from the media in which he chose to be a cyborg?

What about the media that is EU and doesn't technically touch on that topic?; Why connect to it to TCW, which is on that higher canon level?

In other words, don't just say "things are like this," explain how it works with the points raised against them.

No it doesn't; Chee, the person who has authority over what is and isn't canon, clearly does not hold the view that they are two separate universes. TCW overrides C-canon content, or we interpret it in a fashion which allows it to exist with T-canon if it's not egregious. Chee has also affirmed statements by authors are not canonical and have no canonical basis.

Not at all contradictory. C-canon elements are contingent upon T-canon. If we remove it, we risk "picking and choosing" what is canon and what is not to the EU. The issue you brought up is just overwritten by T-canon. Lucas might say the EU and the movies are separate, doesn't make them separate because Chee created a hierarchy where they all co-exist, however bad of a decision that may have been. Using this extremely flawed logic, we can simply disregard the canon hierarchy when there clearly is one and it should be upheld.

Now, whether or not you separate the keys for clarity's sake, that's up to you, but I'm just saying there's no canonical basis for the separation at all.

 

[Eficiente]

No it doesn't; Chee, the person who has authority over what is and isn't canon, clearly does not hold the view that they are two separate universes. TCW overrides C-canon content, or we interpret it in a fashion which allows it to exist with T-canon if it's not egregious. Chee has also affirmed statements by authors are not canonical and have no canonical basis.

I would like to see the source for "Chee has also affirmed statements by authors are not canonical and have no canonical basis."

I saw Chee's job as being given an authority over canon, and an important one at that. But just because he organizes canon and gives his take on it wouldn't mean others' takes are any less valid.

But if you say he's the ultimate authority in such a way that shoots down what others have to say, we need to evaluate how well that idea holds up.

Not at all contradictory. C-canon elements are contingent upon T-canon. If we remove it, we risk "picking and choosing" what is canon and what is not to the EU. The issue you brought up is just overwritten by T-canon. Lucas might say the EU and the movies are separate, doesn't make them separate because Chee created a hierarchy where they all co-exist, however bad of a decision that may have been. Using this extremely flawed logic, we can simply disregard the canon hierarchy when there clearly is one and it should be upheld.

Now, whether or not you separate the keys for clarity's sake, that's up to you, but I'm just saying there's no canonical basis for the separation at all.

Even if it wasn't contradictory, then it was unclear at the time. We can spare to be wordy, it's a messy topic so let's be as clear as possible.

Now, that is the issue with Grievous; The "elements" different from C-canon to T-canon are not just "random events here and there," but also "all-encompassing facts across his career about who he is as a character." Ergo, all of the EU should be contradictory / not the same as T-canon.

If it is "picking and choosing" or not, it doesn't matter, because it is a more logical decision to the alternative; Pretending like they're the same character with "only some specific EU moments being ignored due to being overwritten by T-canon."

As for the canonical basis, it might be true from the point of view of "the authority of what is or isn't canon in Star Wars as a whole" (If what you say about Chee is true), but even then, isn't that something done on paper, subject to contradictions to overwrite it on more specific things like events and characters? At that point, it would circle back to looking into statements beyond what Chee says for orientation, and statements do exist which give a canonical basis to the proposal here (Crazy as it is... Well I mean, Chee would do something equally crazy to Grievous unintentionally by his take alone).

 

[Eficiente]

For the record, I am intrigued by what OTG0001 says and opened to the idea of my proposal being wrong. But we will see.

 

[Phsccarvalho]

Not directly related, but would all the Legends characters have two keys? Like C and T canon? Or is it just Grievous who became so inconsistent that he's an exception?

Because if that happens, how will characters who have multiple keys deal with it? Because I think not all characters will only have "T-canon | C-canon / Expanded Universe" keys. Or will they only have those two keys?

 

[DaReaperMan]

Certain characters would get the split, others just simply wouldn't. Darth Marr doesn't have canon problems, nor does Revan. 99% of the T-Canon and C-Canon splits would be Grand Republic and Empire-Era characters.

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

Not directly related, but would all the Legends characters have two keys? Like C and T canon? Or is it just Grievous who became so inconsistent that he's an exception?

Because if that happens, how will characters who have multiple keys deal with it? Because I think not all characters will only have "T-canon | C-canon / Expanded Universe" keys. Or will they only have those two keys?

Grievous is genuinely an unique circumstance, as things evidently changed between his original appearance in the Clone Wars mini series, to him on TCW (2008). The EU just had to dance around the two, which complicated things further.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

I would like to see the source for "Chee has also affirmed statements by authors are not canonical and have no canonical basis."

I saw Chee's job as being given an authority over canon, and an important one at that. But just because he organizes canon and gives his take on it wouldn't mean others' takes are any less valid.

But if you say he's the ultimate authority in such a way that shoots down what others have to say, we need to evaluate how well that idea holds up.

Even if it wasn't contradictory, then it was unclear at the time. We can spare to be wordy, it's a messy topic so let's be as clear as possible.

Now, that is the issue with Grievous; The "elements" different from C-canon to T-canon are not just "random events here and there," but also "all-encompassing facts across his career about who he is as a character." Ergo, all of the EU should be contradictory / not the same as T-canon.

If it is "picking and choosing" or not, it doesn't matter, because it is a more logical decision to the alternative; Pretending like they're the same character with "only some specific EU moments being ignored due to being overwritten by T-canon."

As for the canonical basis, it might be true from the point of view of "the authority of what is or isn't canon in Star Wars as a whole" (If what you say about Chee is true), but even then, isn't that something done on paper, subject to contradictions to overwrite it on more specific things like events and characters? At that point, it would circle back to looking into statements beyond what Chee says for orientation, and statements do exist which give a canonical basis to the proposal here (Crazy as it is... Well I mean, Chee would do something equally crazy to Grievous unintentionally by his take alone).

I also don’t recall such statements from Chee as we also have to consider the creator of who started the Star Wars franchise originally that is George Lucas’s statements as non canonical as that is plain ridiculous to dismiss other WOG statements


Especially when he is a LucasFilm employee

Leland Chee

Leland Chee is the Lucasfilm employee who maintains the Holocron continuity database, a FileMaker database. He was a frequent presence on the former StarWars.com forums, where he went by the screennames "Tasty Taste" and "Leland Y Chee." He maintains two other FileMaker databases: the Indycron...

starwars.fandom.com

In fact, quite the opposite as stated from a different employee.

Pablo Hidalgo on Twitter

“If you want, one way to square this circle is the history textbook version of events “persons X and Y where on planet B when A occurred” is the canon; a fictional expression of it is potentially dramatized and embellished for its medium. Your space mileage may vary. https://t.co/ZBuJ0OB7v9”

web.archive.org

 

[HammerStrikes219]

Also I have an older statement from Chee prior to the Legends/Canon rebranding done in 2014 (IIRC) as well.

“George Lucas said in the Starlog magazine...
GL is certainly not bound by the EU, though he's certainly open to using things created in it (Aayla Secura and the Coruscant name, for example). On the other hand, the quote you provide makes it sound like the EU is separate from George's vision of the Star Wars universe. It is not. The EU must follow certain tenets set by George through the films and other guidelines that he provides outside of the films.

Does LucasFilm Ltd. itself actually have a Canon Policy?
No. I'm not exactly sure what the existence of such a thing would actually mean. Beyond the merchandise and online, I don't see how or where it would be applied. It's not like there's a document that exists that says "these are the things that are canon" that everyone in the company can look at.

If Greedo can shoot first and an old Anakin ghost can be replaced with a young Anakin ghost, then there's always room for things to change.”

Star Wars: Message Boards

web.archive.org

Edit: I also like to thank the Star Wars wiki and its sources on the matter too.

Canon

The Star Wars canon is the continually evolving body of authoritative works comprising the official story of Star Wars, encompassing movies, television series, novels, comics, and video games. George Lucas set the original main six Star Wars films and the content he developed and produced in...

starwars.fandom.com

 

[XSOULOFCINDERX]

Bump.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

Bump.

We got three votes already from staff. Just need to been applied and all.

Qaw, Lephy, and Nierre agrees assuming I didn’t misread Qaw’s comments earlier

 

[Eficiente]

I'm certain this will be correct in the end but I want to see what does OTG0001 says on the topic, just in case.

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

I'm certain this will be correct in the end but I want to see what does OTG0001 says on the topic, just in case.

I don't mind waiting if you're fine with it

 

[XSOULOFCINDERX]

Bump.

 

[OTG0001]

I would like to see the source for "Chee has also affirmed statements by authors are not canonical and have no canonical basis."

I saw Chee's job as being given an authority over canon, and an important one at that. But just because he organizes canon and gives his take on it wouldn't mean others' takes are any less valid.

But if you say he's the ultimate authority in such a way that shoots down what others have to say, we need to evaluate how well that idea holds up.

Even if it wasn't contradictory, then it was unclear at the time. We can spare to be wordy, it's a messy topic so let's be as clear as possible.

Now, that is the issue with Grievous; The "elements" different from C-canon to T-canon are not just "random events here and there," but also "all-encompassing facts across his career about who he is as a character." Ergo, all of the EU should be contradictory / not the same as T-canon.

If it is "picking and choosing" or not, it doesn't matter, because it is a more logical decision to the alternative; Pret
ending like they're the same character with "only some specific EU moments being ignored due to being overwritten by T-canon."

As for the canonical basis, it might be true from the point of view of "the authority of what is or isn't canon in Star Wars as a whole" (If what you say about Chee is true), but even then, isn't that something done on paper, subject to contradictions to overwrite it on more specific things like events and characters? At that point, it would circle back to looking into statements beyond what Chee says for orientation, and statements do exist which give a canonical basis to the proposal here (Crazy as it is... Well I mean, Chee would do something equally crazy to Grievous unintentionally by his take alone).

Apologies for the late response. Was doing some exams.

The statement was purportedly from Matt Martin, but I can't ascertain where it comes from so that point in particular is probably moot.

In regards to canon itself, Chee definitely contradicts Filoni's view on how canon is separated, and there was no evidence I could find at the time for Filoni having any sort of canon authority when it comes to the holocron. If we took statements from authors as literal truth the majority of the time, we would be contradicting a lot of the in-universe showings (Such as Veitch being a schizo when it comes to Force Storms) so I don't think they should hold for cohesion anyways, but that's for you to decide.

Anyways, Chee makes it pretty clear that the canons are not separate:

"GL is certainly not bound by the EU, though he's certainly open to using things created in it (Aayla Secura and the Coruscant name, for example). On the other hand, the quote you provide makes it sound like the EU is separate from George's vision of the Star Wars universe. It is not. The EU must follow certain tenets set by George through the films and other guidelines that he provides outside of the films."

"The only relevant official continuities are the current versions of the films alone, and the combined current version of the films along with whatever else we've got in the Holocron. You're never going to know what George's view of the universe beyond the films at any given time because it is constantly evolving."

"T-canon in its entirety is not supposed to be considered part of the EU pillar, but part of the Lucas pillar."

"The clarify this point just a little bit further, The Clone Wars will not be considered Expanded Universe. They'll be ranked up there with The Movies."

The last quote may seem like they are separate, and that the pillar analogy was depicting separate universes, but using Sansweet's and Rostoni's comments, it becomes clear:

"Canon -- confusing sometimes. Basically, everything except those items marked with an "Infinity" logo (i.e. the Star Wars Tales comics) is considered canon. There is a hierarchy -- the movies, novelizations, radio dramas come first. Then everything else. If something in a novelization contradicts the movies, then we defer to the movies. IE, the ROJ novelization says that Obi-Wan and Owen Lars were brothers. This wasn't in the movie, and has since been discounted. Maybe it was a cover they used at one point... who knows."

"As many fans know, when it comes to Star Wars knowledge, there are degrees of 'canon.' The only true canon are the films themselves."
"The concept of an Expanded Universe certainly isn't unique to Star Wars. Many popular genre properties, from Star Trek to Alien, release spin-off tales that shed light on events not seen in the "official" narrative. But the Star Wars EU is unique in both in its size and in the care with which its narrative is shepherded and organized. In Star Wars, the Expanded Universe is official, albeit on a slightly lower level - sometimes called C-canon (see box on page 40) - than the absolute authority of the six Star Wars films."


So, if T-Canon is part of the Lucas Pillar, then it overrides whatever C-Canon content there is. Anything that contradicts the T/G-canon depictions of the character means we defer to the G/T-Canon version. No ifs, buts, or whats. Chee manages the holocron, Filoni doesn't. If Filoni's comments were true, then he would be the holocron keeper. We know that the Holocron is the only official means of Canon ranking. If you want to have your own interpretation of what and what should not be canon, that's fine, but it's not Official:

"Anybody can have their own perception of what is and isn't canon. The Holocron comes into play for anything official being developed for books, games, websites, and merchandise. For anything beyond that, it is simply a reference tool."

Anyways, to your second point, we would just discredit any contradiction about Grievous that may arise. They can co-exist, but T-canon elements are what is canon, if C-canon element isn't contradicted, then it can remain as such.

Even if it creates somewhat of a messy narrative, that's what is official. If you want to rate a character off of non-official, non-canonical information you may do so, but that that point you should just make Infinities pages or use fake scans. If you want to neglect accuracy and make your own subjective interpretation of the series which has very clearly affirmed that elements override others, then do so. Personally, being objective is always a better route than being consistent, when powerscaling we are trying to convey truths, not lies. But if you want to be disingenuous for the sake of a character profile, then I cannot stop you since you already have the votes.


As for your third point, it's morning and I didn't get good rest so I might be a bit slow, but what exactly do you mean by this?

"but even then, isn't that something done on paper, subject to contradictions to overwrite it on more specific things like events and characters?"

As for your proposal having a canonical basis, do send the statements you have for it, and also prove that they are separate universes that don't interact with one another as opposed to one universe. You may also descredit my "overriding" argument while you're at it.

 

[Eficiente]

The statement was purportedly from Matt Martin, but I can't ascertain where it comes from so that point in particular is probably moot.

Well, that's unfortunate. It really matters for the topic.

and there was no evidence I could find at the time for Filoni having any sort of canon authority when it comes to the holocron. If we took statements from authors as literal truth the majority of the time, we would be contradicting a lot of the in-universe showings (Such as Veitch being a schizo when it comes to Force Storms) so I don't think they should hold for cohesion anyways, but that's for you to decide.

The reason for Filoni having authority is the same as before, nothing holocron-related. Statements from authors may or may not be literal depending on a number of factors; Yes, sometimes they are very wrong. In this case, Filoni explains why 2 different, contradictory stories can both be true simultaneously; And under regular circumstances, sure, this would be seen as bs. But then more and more SW media comes up over time, and both sides of Grievous are still supported, without 1 being fully retconned and ignored for good. At that point, what Filoni said not only makes sense, but makes the most amount of sense.

In regards to canon itself, Chee definitely contradicts Filoni's view on how canon is separated,

Anyways, Chee makes it pretty clear that the canons are not separate:

"GL is certainly not bound by the EU, though he's certainly open to using things created in it (Aayla Secura and the Coruscant name, for example). On the other hand, the quote you provide makes it sound like the EU is separate from George's vision of the Star Wars universe. It is not. The EU must follow certain tenets set by George through the films and other guidelines that he provides outside of the films."

To note, the proposed T-canon key uses all the EU scaling it deserves. The only EU things it doesn't use are the ones contradictory with the character of Grievous in TCW, which is pretty much all things Grievous does and is in C-canon. It's not saying "T-canon as a whole is separate from C-canon as a whole," it's saying "the contradictions are, well, contradictory, and cannot exist under a same profile."

"The only relevant official continuities are the current versions of the films alone, and the combined current version of the films along with whatever else we've got in the Holocron. You're never going to know what George's view of the universe beyond the films at any given time because it is constantly evolving."

"T-canon in its entirety is not supposed to be considered part of the EU pillar, but part of the Lucas pillar."

"The clarify this point just a little bit further, The Clone Wars will not be considered Expanded Universe. They'll be ranked up there with The Movies."

The last quote may seem like they are separate, and that the pillar analogy was depicting separate universes, but using Sansweet's and Rostoni's comments, it becomes clear:

"Canon -- confusing sometimes. Basically, everything except those items marked with an "Infinity" logo (i.e. the Star Wars Tales comics) is considered canon. There is a hierarchy -- the movies, novelizations, radio dramas come first. Then everything else. If something in a novelization contradicts the movies, then we defer to the movies. IE, the ROJ novelization says that Obi-Wan and Owen Lars were brothers. This wasn't in the movie, and has since been discounted. Maybe it was a cover they used at one point... who knows."

"As many fans know, when it comes to Star Wars knowledge, there are degrees of 'canon.' The only true canon are the films themselves."
"The concept of an Expanded Universe certainly isn't unique to Star Wars. Many popular genre properties, from Star Trek to Alien, release spin-off tales that shed light on events not seen in the "official" narrative. But the Star Wars EU is unique in both in its size and in the care with which its narrative is shepherded and organized. In Star Wars, the Expanded Universe is official, albeit on a slightly lower level - sometimes called C-canon (see box on page 40) - than the absolute authority of the six Star Wars films."


So, if T-Canon is part of the Lucas Pillar, then it overrides whatever C-Canon content there is. Anything that contradicts the T/G-canon depictions of the character means we defer to the G/T-Canon version. No ifs, buts, or whats.

But if Filoni gives an explanation that allows both versions of Grievous to exist simultaneously and separately, the contradictions no longer erase each other based on what has more authority.

It's like having different legends of X, setup as different, one legend saying X died after an adventure, another legend saying X walked into the sunset after the same adventure (very much alive); It doesn't matter which one is true bc it's up in the air. We can't say, "since this is a contradiction and the former source has more weight, it has to be that X is dead." The contradiction was an intentional part of the narrative. Which is not the same as a contradiction that is in no way intentional and just an error. You could even say the different versions are not even contradictions.

But that's all assuming Filoni has the authority to create such a setup:

Chee manages the holocron, Filoni doesn't. If Filoni's comments were true, then he would be the holocron keeper. We know that the Holocron is the only official means of Canon ranking. If you want to have your own interpretation of what and what should not be canon, that's fine, but it's not Official:

"Anybody can have their own perception of what is and isn't canon. The Holocron comes into play for anything official being developed for books, games, websites, and merchandise. For anything beyond that, it is simply a reference tool."

It makes sense, Filoni handles the 1 show he worked on, Chee a massive list of SW media. Filoni is not ranking canon, just handling a character of the show he worked on, which happens to be in a very special and unique way, but it's still limited to 1 character, and he's not messing with the canon beyond what's connected to that character.

Filoni's comments being a like "reference tool" if anything point to his authority rather than denying it. I see the quote as pointing out the large scale claims Holocron has and how their authority is true. And I see the quote as being there to clarify things if anyone who messses up (like by saying the EU isn't canon or the like), but messing up that way would be wrong in a definitive sort of way. I don't see the quote as dismissing things like author statements and explanations of things and characters, which no longer deals with the canon of all SW media as a whole.

In other words, the quote is removing authority for other people when it comes to certain claims if they got things wrong ("what is and isn't canon" in "books, games, websites, and merchandise"), but it also acknowledges their authority (as a "reference tool"). So we can't act like it's just removing their authority. And at that point, it's possible "Anybody can have their own perception of what is and isn't canon" is part of the "reference tool" as well, as long as it doesn't go against Holocron.

Anyways, to your second point, we would just discredit any contradiction about Grievous that may arise. They can co-exist, but T-canon elements are what is canon, if C-canon element isn't contradicted, then it can remain as such.

Even if it creates somewhat of a messy narrative, that's what is official.

That would be the C-canon Key. I do like the idea of only that one existing and everything else being gone, but we will see.

If you want to rate a character off of non-official, non-canonical information you may do so, but that that point you should just make Infinities pages or use fake scans. If you want to neglect accuracy and make your own subjective interpretation of the series which has very clearly affirmed that elements override others, then do so. Personally, being objective is always a better route than being consistent, when powerscaling we are trying to convey truths, not lies. But if you want to be disingenuous for the sake of a character profile, then I cannot stop you since you already have the votes.

I can put myself in your shoes and believe that you're right and I'm wrong, but even then it seems evident that I reached my conclusion based on a misunderstanding of something being "official, canonical information" that affects how the character is viewed, not that I tried to use non-official, non-canonical information or tried to neglect accuracy. Yes, the C-canon Key is much more notable, but that's a byproduct of the conclusion reached. I was willing to hear you out and made a point to highlight you in part bc I knew the thread was one-sited otherwise, in part bc I wanted the challenge to my own claims. This is and has always been all about accuracy to me. But I need to be convinced for a change, and if I'm not, that means I have my reasons for it. I don't care about the votes, I don't rush threads if it's clear that things aren't over. I have been in your position; arguing in a thread outvoted, that you think it's not gonna change anything. And it sucks. But don't let that get through you. You don't get any closer to making your case with that paragraph, some of the accusations you express are clearly feelings-based, maybe projecting past experiences? Idk. No need to reply to this bit, let's just move on.

As for your third point, it's morning and I didn't get good rest so I might be a bit slow, but what exactly do you mean by this?

"but even then, isn't that something done on paper, subject to contradictions to overwrite it on more specific things like events and characters?"

As for your proposal having a canonical basis, do send the statements you have for it, and also prove that they are separate universes that don't interact with one another as opposed to one universe. You may also descredit my "overriding" argument while you're at it.

The idea is that the rule of higher canon rankings overwriting lower ones would be opened to specific exceptions when explained.

I have the statements here, but, you know, they're all from Filoni, saying things like how EU Grievous wouldn't be discredited (which he would be otherwise), that his story and Grievois' story is TCW are different points of view, and possibilities, and explaining that when he says points of views he means, the way we should view the character in terms of what's canon to him specifically.

 

[TyranoDoom30]

Also, as previously mentioned, we separate Dr Manhattan from the mainline DC from his original Watchmen depiction despite both being the same character due to Alan Moore's interpretation and both sharing contradictions. If we accept that, then separating T-Canon from C-Canon should be no issue.

 

[Eficiente]

We don't seem to have a record of what happened in that context, so I wouldn't use it as an argument.

 

[XSOULOFCINDERX]

Bump.

 

[Qawsedf234]

The updates look fine to me. Definitely agree with separating the two portrayals. So the new stuff can be applied now, with mine and Qawsedfs agreement.

Though like I said, if we are separating them, then it's important to note that pre-TCW Grievous wouldn't get any showings from 2008 on, since we're saying that's TCW Grievous and no longer counts for older version of the character. So his scaling has to be focused/specialized if there are ratings for feats that rely on post-TCW material.

 

[Epyriel]

Strongly disagree with this. This thread entirely disregards the entire purpose of the hierarchy of canon. The whole point of differing tiers of canonicity is precisely to decide what takes priority in case of contradiction. T-Canon and C-Canon aren’t separate continuities.

Also yeah, author statements have zero authority in terms of actually having canonical relevance.

The Matt Martin quote people were asking for is this one:

 

[Epyriel]

Ok so with this edit I repurposed my prior claim into something that makes sense.

Would also not use this quote. This is likely referring to Kaan’s Brotherhood of Darkness (the current Sith Order) which is what he means by changing the Sith Order forever. Fact File 88 even specifies he was the strongest Sith in centuries (not of all time). Bane himself goes out of his way at times to point out how far the current order has fallen since the times of the ancients.

If taken to mean Bane was the strongest of all Sith Orders that came before, it would imply Bane > Darth Vitiate, Exar Kun, Darth Nihilus, Revan, etc. despite dozens of ways of scaling them the other way round.

Having Grievous relative to Malak in speed is fine, but I would just leave it at that. “Should be comparable to Darth Malak” is enough without inviting some rather dubious connotations.

 

[Eficiente]

Strongly disagree with this. This thread entirely disregards the entire purpose of the hierarchy of canon. The whole point of differing tiers of canonicity is precisely to decide what takes priority in case of contradiction. T-Canon and C-Canon aren’t separate continuities.

I'm not saying they are separe continuities though. I can change the Keys' names to "T-Canon portrayal" and "C-canon/Extended Universe portrayal" if it makes it more clear.

Also yeah, author statements have zero authority in terms of actually having canonical relevance.

You mean "here, in Star Wars" or in general, bc if it's in general, that is a disagreeable stance to take on depending on the context.

The Matt Martin quote people were asking for is this one:

I can easily interpret that this is no "random statement." Think about it, Feloni says he tried to talk about it in the Ep. feature (and failed to explain things meaningfully there), and so having a second time to go over this, he explains things better from the pov of how he views certain things, since it makes it easier for him to explain himself. He says something usable, and he recontextualizes what he said in the Ep. feature into something usable as well. Later when talking about the same topic across his career, he has similar things to say about it, showing consistency. This is not told in official storytelling, but consistency wise, Star Wars media mostly uses one version of Grievous or the other Grievous, whereas you would think all things C-Canon Grievous that go against T-Canon Grievous would be erased & no longer used due to T-Canon being a higher level of canon.

I think it makes sense that if you think all author statements are always irrelevant, you will find that Matt Martin quote to go in line with it. And it does some of that. But I take the "random statements" part to refer to unfocused statements, statements that would be regrettable in hindsight if one looks at all the canon with a lot of care. It's not the case with what Feloni said, he has no regret over the situation he created, and he is always quite ready to talk about it. It's not the whole Matt Martin quote, but it's a part of it. This is still not "told in official storytelling" in an unambiguous way, yes.

It's also worth saying that this is not some events or character that can be referenced if the plot calls for it, but the characterization and history of a character. If you bother to do so as a writer, you could get creative in some stories & explain how both versions of these are true simultaneously; But for most stories, it would make sense that they picked 1 version and rolled with it, as if there was no room or no need to explain that topic. At that point, it's a matter of how willing are we to adhere Matt Martin's specific wording in the instructions from that quote; I propose that the spirit of what he was saying was followed in considering Grievous to have 2 versions of himself.

Would also not use this quote. This is likely referring to Kaan’s Brotherhood of Darkness (the current Sith Order) which is what he means by changing the Sith Order forever. Fact File 88 even specifies he was the strongest Sith in centuries (not of all time). Bane himself goes out of his way at times to point out how far the current order has fallen since the times of the ancients.

If taken to mean Bane was the strongest of all Sith Orders that came before, it would imply Bane > Darth Vitiate, Exar Kun, Darth Nihilus, Revan, etc. despite dozens of ways of scaling them the other way round.

Having Grievous relative to Malak in speed is fine, but I would just leave it at that. “Should be comparable to Darth Malak” is enough without inviting some rather dubious connotations.

I see, okey then. Before I change it tho, I would like to replace it with some other reasoning as to why he should be comparable to Malak. Could you propose one? I don't like seeing profiles that say X is comparable to Y without saying why.

 

[Epyriel]

I'm not saying they are separe continuities though. I can change the Keys' names to "T-Canon portrayal" and "C-canon/Extended Universe portrayal" if it makes it more clear.

But you are essentially treating them as different characters despite being part of the same continuity.

I don’t agree with profiling characters differently based on their sources when they are officially the same character in the same universe from the same continuity, regardless of whether or not their portrayal by different sources causes the need for a lot of retconning. VSBW’s Canon page mentions that the site should default to the copyright holder’s say-so in these matters.

You mean "here, in Star Wars" or in general, bc if it's in general, that is a disagreeable stance to take on depending on the context.

In SW here since it is specified, although I’m generally suspicious of using WoG for anything other than determining canonicity of actual works regardless.

I can easily interpret that this is no "random statement." Think about it, Feloni says he tried to talk about it in the Ep. feature (and failed to explain things meaningfully there), and so having a second time to go over this, he explains things better from the pov of how he views certain things, since it makes it easier for him to explain himself. He says something usable, and he recontextualizes what he said in the Ep. feature into something usable as well. Later when talking about the same topic across his career, he has similar things to say about it, showing consistency. This is not told in official storytelling, but consistency wise, Star Wars media mostly uses one version of Grievous or the other Grievous, whereas you would think all things C-Canon Grievous that go against T-Canon Grievous would be erased & no longer used due to T-Canon being a higher level of canon.

I think it makes sense that if you think all author statements are always irrelevant, you will find that Matt Martin quote to go in line with it. And it does some of that. But I take the "random statements" part to refer to unfocused statements, statements that would be regrettable in hindsight if one looks at all the canon with a lot of care. It's not the case with what Feloni said, he has no regret over the situation he created, and he is always quite ready to talk about it. It's not the whole Matt Martin quote, but it's a part of it. This is still not "told in official storytelling" in an unambiguous way, yes.

It's also worth saying that this is not some events or character that can be referenced if the plot calls for it, but the characterization and history of a character. If you bother to do so as a writer, you could get creative in some stories & explain how both versions of these are true simultaneously; But for most stories, it would make sense that they picked 1 version and rolled with it, as if there was no room or no need to explain that topic. At that point, it's a matter of how willing are we to adhere Matt Martin's specific wording in the instructions from that quote; I propose that the spirit of what he was saying was followed in considering Grievous to have 2 versions of himself.

Issue is that Filoni has zero authority to dictate what he wants to dictate. Want Filoni really wants to do is treat TCW as a separate continuity (or an ambiguous continuity where readers can mix and match as they please) from a lot of prior EU works (which is why he is continually shameless about all the issues he causes by his stupid constant generation of retcons), but that is simply not how Leland Chee and Disney have set it up.

Leland Chee has already specified that T-Canon is just a higher canon within EU/Legends, not a separate continuity. And for better or worse, Filoni was given a higher mandate when he made TCW in the first place. Which means he doesn’t get to treat it as a separate continuity like he wants, it rather retcons elements of previous works when explicit contradictions arise.

The same thing is going on with Canon now, with Filoni’s new shows constantly contradicting Canon books and comics because he doesn’t care about keeping it consistent despite Story Group members constantly reinforcing the idea that they are all part of the same continuity.

I see, okey then. Before I change it tho, I would like to replace it with some other reasoning as to why he should be comparable to Malak. Could you propose one? I don't like seeing profiles that say X is comparable to Y without saying why.

I can give it a shot if you really want to, but inevitably trying to scale characters thousands of years apart is going to get convoluted very quickly.

Can’t we just use Obi-Wan’s calc who he directly scales off of and has the same result? Especially since the Darth Malak calc is based on trying to find a value for Mega Lights which is super inconsistent and has a wide range of different results using different methods.

 

[Eficiente]

But you are essentially treating them as different characters despite being part of the same continuity.

I don’t agree with profiling characters differently based on their sources when they are officially the same character in the same universe from the same continuity, regardless of whether or not their portrayal by different sources causes the need for a lot of retconning. VSBW’s Canon page mentions that the site should default to the copyright holder’s say-so in these matters.

Okey then, let me put it like this: You don't need to agree with me, but hypothetically, if Filoni's statements were correct, would you agree that at that point Grievous' profile should handled in the way I propose?

In SW here since it is specified, although I’m generally suspicious of using WoG for anything other than determining canonicity of actual works regardless.

That's good to hear.

Issue is that Filoni has zero authority to dictate what he wants to dictate. Want Filoni really wants to do is treat TCW as a separate continuity (or an ambiguous continuity where readers can mix and match as they please) from a lot of prior EU works (which is why he is continually shameless about all the issues he causes by his stupid constant generation of retcons), but that is simply not how Leland Chee and Disney have set it up.

Leland Chee has already specified that T-Canon is just a higher canon within EU/Legends, not a separate continuity. And for better or worse, Filoni was given a higher mandate when he made TCW in the first place. Which means he doesn’t get to treat it as a separate continuity like he wants, it rather retcons elements of previous works when explicit contradictions arise.

From the statements I got from Feloni, it's clear he doesn't want to treat the TCW as a separate continuity for Grievous, at least as far as Grievous goes. There is something among the lines of "an ambiguous continuity where readers can mix and match" things, but not as they please.

How about this, given the extensive contradictions between his portrayals in TCW and the EU, what would you say if we make the Legends Grievous profile be changed into the content of the T-Canon Key in the Sandbox, with no more Keys, and everything in the C-Canon Key just being ignored?

The same thing is going on with Canon now, with Filoni’s new shows constantly contradicting Canon books and comics because he doesn’t care about keeping it consistent despite Story Group members constantly reinforcing the idea that they are all part of the same continuity.

I know, it sucks hard. I only don't throw criticisms towards Filoni across the whole topic here bc it's not called for in context.

I can give it a shot if you really want to, but inevitably trying to scale characters thousands of years apart is going to get convoluted very quickly.


Can’t we just use Obi-Wan’s calc who he directly scales off of and has the same result? Especially since the Darth Malak calc is based on trying to find a value for Mega Lights which is super inconsistent and has a wide range of different results using different methods.

Well, his speed got so filled with info that I would rather not use a calc on level below the speed the profile claims. Personally.

 

[Epyriel]

Okey then, let me put it like this: You don't need to agree with me, but hypothetically, if Filoni's statements were correct, would you agree that at that point Grievous' profile should handled in the way I propose?

If his “different point of view” statements were correct? Well at that point the purpose of the Holocron is largely moot so sure, different versions of every character using different mediums could be displayed separately.

Except that is not how the system is set up. And someone as inconsistent as Filoni is the last person we should be taking advice from on how to establish continuity rules.

How about this, given the extensive contradictions between his portrayals in TCW and the EU, what would you say if we make the Legends Grievous profile be changed into the content of the T-Canon Key in the Sandbox, with no more Keys, and everything in the C-Canon Key just being ignored?

That is technically more in line with established continuity rules, so I guess that is an option, but I don’t see the need for it. Much of the two different mediums can be reconciled, as many contradictions are more implied than explicit, and much of the material doesn’t have any contradictions at all. Filoni himself hints at how some contradictions can be reconciled, for example with the backstory “If you believe Grievous was shot down in a shuttle by Dooku and put back together, I think that story is there, it’s just that Grievous has invented this new “story” of choosing his alterations.”

Well, his speed got so filled with info that I would rather not use a calc on level below the speed the profile claims. Personally.

Except the calc is a higher value than the Malak calc, so he would be upscaling from that value regardless. Also forgoes the need for a far more tenuous ten step scaling chain from someone from four thousand years ago as justification.

 

[DaReaperMan]

Except the calc is a higher value than the Malak calc, so he would be upscaling from that value regardless. Also forgoes the need for a far more tenuous ten step scaling chain from someone from four thousand years ago as justification.

Epyriel, he's going for MOVEMENT SPEED...

 

[Eficiente]

That is technically more in line with established continuity rules, so I guess that is an option, but I don’t see the need for it. Much of the two different mediums can be reconciled, as many contradictions are more implied than explicit, and much of the material doesn’t have any contradictions at all. Filoni himself hints at how some contradictions can be reconciled, for example with the backstory “If you believe Grievous was shot down in a shuttle by Dooku and put back together, I think that story is there, it’s just that Grievous has invented this new “story” of choosing his alterations.”

Tell me 1 EU source where he shows up and I will tell you all the ways in which TCW goes against it, in such a way that it shouldn't be used.

 

[XSOULOFCINDERX]

Just make two ******* profiles for Legends Grievous at this rate, Jesus Christ. They're basically two entirely different people with how the retcons have altered him so you might as well just do it.