 | | Re: SW set list for 2000
|
|
<snip> (...) Just in case you did not know Boba Fett was brought back in the Star Wars Books. Boba Fett survived the Sarlac pit and was able to escape shortly after our Rebel friends made their escape. He was quite beat up and was found by Dengar (...) (25 years ago, 18-Oct-99, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| |
| | Re: SW set list for 2000
|
|
Eric Kingsley wrote in message ... (...) after (...) back to (...) And THAT is why I try not to stray from the movies. If there was one story about his survival, I might have bought it. Since writers want their own manifestation of Boba Fett alive (...) (25 years ago, 21-Oct-99, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| |
| | Re: SW set list for 2000
|
|
<snip> (...) How about info from the official Star Wars web site? Does it count? Check out the last paragraph on (URL) It at least opens the door for speculation. I have also found that for the most part the books try to stay consistant with what (...) (25 years ago, 21-Oct-99, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| |
| | Re: SW set list for 2000
|
|
(...) I completely agree. I do not think that the power of Star Wars can be conveyed in print in any way that does justice to the feel, to the texture of the saga. The books try to capture the epic quality of the movies, but in this they fail. SW (...) (25 years ago, 21-Oct-99, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| |
| | Re: SW set list for 2000
|
|
(...) "You just watch yourself. We're wanted men. I have the death sentence on twelve servers." --Todd (25 years ago, 21-Oct-99, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| |
| | Re: SW set list for 2000
|
|
(...) George Luscas has a team of people that do nothing but insure that all the movies, books, comics, and even the plots of the computer games fit into a complete non-contradictory and interlaced story. For example, SW ep.4 special edition had the (...) (25 years ago, 22-Oct-99, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| |
| | Re: SW set list for 2000
|
|
(...) movies are considered canon. Refer to the following article: (URL) that "novelisations" refers to novelisations of the movies, not the extended-galaxy novels put out by pulp authors. Even shadows of the Empire, which did seem to take great (...) (25 years ago, 22-Oct-99, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| |
| | Re: SW set list for 2000
|
|
(...) contradiction. If a movie doesn't contradict it then it happened. That is the basic definition of cannon. The order of precedence being: Movies, radio-drama/novelisations, continuation books, and comics. (...) Then why would be paying a team (...) (25 years ago, 22-Oct-99, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| |
| | Re: SW set list for 2000
|
|
(...) Point well-taken and partially conceded. I realize that Lucas licenses all SW products and literature, which makes me call into question the better judgment of allowing so much thrown-together nonsense to become part of the "official" SW (...) (25 years ago, 22-Oct-99, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| |
| | Re: SW set list for 2000
|
|
(...) I understand your point of view and to some degree sympathize with it. My only consolation is that Lucas trys to make sure it is all consistent with everything else. Paramount on the other hand totally destroyed Star Trek with all that crap (...) (25 years ago, 22-Oct-99, to lugnet.starwars)
|
