G2k here ... pardon me for largely being in a state of hiatus this month. If you'll pardon my French, things have been just batshit banana-f***ing crazy.
In this mini-hiatus-break, though, I chanced upon some entertaining links related to recent entries. The Talifan are gettin' famous:
http://www.youaredumb.net/node/608
http://www.youaredumb.net/node/609
2006-05-31
2006-05-09
"Saxtonite" at Wookieepedia
I just received an entertaining link from a site visitor, who prefaced it with the comment that it was "a little gem for you from the greater SW community (i.e. those that dont zerg sites a la Wong)..."
(Note: if you're uncool like me and didn't know what zerging was, it refers to attacks without tactics in which sheer numbers are used to overwhelm the enemy. In other words, a perfect term to describe SD.Net board invasion tactics against enemy boards. But I digress . . . )
The link is to the Star Wars wiki entitled Wookieepedia, and mentions in broad strokes what it is to be a Saxtonite (or one who opposes them).
However, there is a grave error.
On the one hand, the entry reads "the difference is also a function of the gap between a group of fans who viewed the films as they first came out, and thus hold special reverence for them, and a group of fans who do not differentiate as strongly between the movies and other material."
And yet, later it is said that "Supporters of Saxton and his work point out that the films are the definitive work on the Star Wars universe, and that other sources in contradiction are incorrect. They point out that the movies are considered the most exact record of what occured, and therefore such analysis is justified."
In other words, the entry suggests that Saxtonites are focused on the canon and hold it in reverence, whereas anti-Saxtonites do not.
Those familiar with my opinions will realize that I was quite confused by the entry. After all, the problem I have with Saxton is not his method of pixel-counting and overanalysis of film frame captures . . . you can analyze something via any methodology you wish, and the one he uses is no worse than any other. (The fact that it is the standard of the Versus stuff online does bias me in favor of it, but still.)
The issue, of course, is that Saxton and friends will happily ignore the films if the need arises. This is how he exagerrates his canon-based Death Star II scaling of 270km to 900km (based solely on an incomplete matte painting that doesn't appear in the film) . . . this is where he gets the idea of a red moon around Hoth (based on an image from some EU source with extraordinarily bad color balance) . . . this is how he ends up getting his yield requirements for Star Wars weapons (where ISD firepower is based off the non-canon BDZ, a comic book image, and the necessity of blasting through non-canon neutronium hulls ... and Slave I firepower is based, not on Episode II, but on comic book renditions of the ship's guns in action).
So really, if the Wookieepedia entry were more correct, then perhaps it might say that those two camps are really just different as to whether they pixel-count at all, since the extra-canonical cherry-picking habits are the same.
(Note: if you're uncool like me and didn't know what zerging was, it refers to attacks without tactics in which sheer numbers are used to overwhelm the enemy. In other words, a perfect term to describe SD.Net board invasion tactics against enemy boards. But I digress . . . )
The link is to the Star Wars wiki entitled Wookieepedia, and mentions in broad strokes what it is to be a Saxtonite (or one who opposes them).
However, there is a grave error.
On the one hand, the entry reads "the difference is also a function of the gap between a group of fans who viewed the films as they first came out, and thus hold special reverence for them, and a group of fans who do not differentiate as strongly between the movies and other material."
And yet, later it is said that "Supporters of Saxton and his work point out that the films are the definitive work on the Star Wars universe, and that other sources in contradiction are incorrect. They point out that the movies are considered the most exact record of what occured, and therefore such analysis is justified."
In other words, the entry suggests that Saxtonites are focused on the canon and hold it in reverence, whereas anti-Saxtonites do not.
Those familiar with my opinions will realize that I was quite confused by the entry. After all, the problem I have with Saxton is not his method of pixel-counting and overanalysis of film frame captures . . . you can analyze something via any methodology you wish, and the one he uses is no worse than any other. (The fact that it is the standard of the Versus stuff online does bias me in favor of it, but still.)
The issue, of course, is that Saxton and friends will happily ignore the films if the need arises. This is how he exagerrates his canon-based Death Star II scaling of 270km to 900km (based solely on an incomplete matte painting that doesn't appear in the film) . . . this is where he gets the idea of a red moon around Hoth (based on an image from some EU source with extraordinarily bad color balance) . . . this is how he ends up getting his yield requirements for Star Wars weapons (where ISD firepower is based off the non-canon BDZ, a comic book image, and the necessity of blasting through non-canon neutronium hulls ... and Slave I firepower is based, not on Episode II, but on comic book renditions of the ship's guns in action).
So really, if the Wookieepedia entry were more correct, then perhaps it might say that those two camps are really just different as to whether they pixel-count at all, since the extra-canonical cherry-picking habits are the same.
2006-05-03
Star Wars TV Show: Bounty Hunter
Call me out of the loop . . .
The guys at IESB.Net posted a video of a quickie interview with Rick McCallum. TheForce.Net has the link.
The part I found most interesting was the mention that the TV show would be dealing with bounty hunters. Past information has mentioned that it would involve events which occur between Ep3 and Ep4 in the timeline.
I don't know about you, but I smell a young Boba Fett. That would be pretty sweet. But you can just imagine events carrying him to Tatooine where, upon seeing the Sarlacc, he shudders with some deep, mysterious sense of dread. ;)
The guys at IESB.Net posted a video of a quickie interview with Rick McCallum. TheForce.Net has the link.
The part I found most interesting was the mention that the TV show would be dealing with bounty hunters. Past information has mentioned that it would involve events which occur between Ep3 and Ep4 in the timeline.
I don't know about you, but I smell a young Boba Fett. That would be pretty sweet. But you can just imagine events carrying him to Tatooine where, upon seeing the Sarlacc, he shudders with some deep, mysterious sense of dread. ;)
An Open Letter to Karen
Dear Karen Traviss,
You may wish to thank the "Talifan" who have been pestering you lately. It is through their attentions that your books have come to my attention. As a long-time fan of hard speculative fiction who also enjoys the occasional romp through franchised novels (including, but not limited to, Star Wars and Star Trek novels), I thought your books might be a worthwhile purchase.
Ordinarily I would cautiously buy a single novel from a new and unfamiliar author, but you come so highly recommended by the so-named Talifan of the Stardestroyer.net community that I failed to resist the impulse to buy all five paperbacks on Amazon today. Seeing as they have become the focus of so much controversy, I feel it fitting to acquire, read, and publicly review the novels as soon as possible.
I apologize in advance for my posting scathing reviews of your own most original work should you not prove to live up to the grand literary tradition of Murray Leinster, Arthur C. Clarke, etc; I also apologize in advance for saying you completely depart from the vision of Lucas in your Star Wars books. I might not find it in me to say such things, but in case I do - don't take it personally. I certainly don't mean it personally.
If you don't feel up to thanking the Talifan for giving you that little extra bit of internet press that brings you that little bit of extra business, I understand. After all, they were so rude and abusive about it that I would be hesitant to thank them were I in your shoes. Still, no press is bad press for a new author on the market.
You may wish to thank the "Talifan" who have been pestering you lately. It is through their attentions that your books have come to my attention. As a long-time fan of hard speculative fiction who also enjoys the occasional romp through franchised novels (including, but not limited to, Star Wars and Star Trek novels), I thought your books might be a worthwhile purchase.
Ordinarily I would cautiously buy a single novel from a new and unfamiliar author, but you come so highly recommended by the so-named Talifan of the Stardestroyer.net community that I failed to resist the impulse to buy all five paperbacks on Amazon today. Seeing as they have become the focus of so much controversy, I feel it fitting to acquire, read, and publicly review the novels as soon as possible.
I apologize in advance for my posting scathing reviews of your own most original work should you not prove to live up to the grand literary tradition of Murray Leinster, Arthur C. Clarke, etc; I also apologize in advance for saying you completely depart from the vision of Lucas in your Star Wars books. I might not find it in me to say such things, but in case I do - don't take it personally. I certainly don't mean it personally.
If you don't feel up to thanking the Talifan for giving you that little extra bit of internet press that brings you that little bit of extra business, I understand. After all, they were so rude and abusive about it that I would be hesitant to thank them were I in your shoes. Still, no press is bad press for a new author on the market.
Sincerely,
The big hairy mountain man.
The big hairy mountain man.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)