Acceptable material for nitpick discussions

[BrainGlutton]

Spinoff from this thread, in particular posts #6, 8-10, and 14. We’re starting to verge on GD material here . . . Nevertheless, any opinions? Not limited to SW, but to any fictional universe/franchise where film/TV material has spun off books, etc. (or vice-versa).

[Miller]

Continued from that thread:

@BrainGlutton

Because we’re talking about nitpicks here. The film and the (principal) manifestations of a given franchise can be assessed on the same level, they’re aimed at roughly the same audience or kind of audience; then there is another level of fans who will go out and read the spinoff books. But that is no excuse for discontinuities or bad logic or other storytelling sins in the more, shall we say, vulgar (in the nondisparaging sense, e.g., the Vulgate Bible) iterations of the story; they should stand on their own and if they don’t, but the holes can only be reconciled by reference to the spinoff material, that’s not fair to the wider TV/film audience who cannot reasonably be expected to hunt down and read the novels, or play the games, or whatever.

But in the thread that spawned this one, you were not talking about a discontinuity or bad logic. You were asking for additional background information on the setting. The information had no direct bearing on the plot of the movie. It doesn’t matter why the Jedi Council only wants to accept very young children for training, only that Anakin was too old for it. The reasoning behind this decision is outside the scope of the movie, and is exactly the sort of thing that’s best answered by ancillary material.

[BrainGlutton]

@Miller

Continued from that thread:

But in the thread that spawned this one, you were not talking about a discontinuity or bad logic. You were asking for additional background information on the setting. The information had no direct bearing on the plot of the movie. It doesn’t matter why the Jedi Council only wants to accept very young children for training, only that Anakin was too old for it. The reasoning behind this decision is outside the scope of the movie, and is exactly the sort of thing that’s best answered by ancillary material.

Perhaps we should open another nitpick thread on what does or does not constitute a nitpick . . .

[Revenant_Threshold]

I’m with Miller, if it wasn’t already obvious from my contribution in the other thread. If it was something in the EU that flatly contradicted the films, that’s fair enough. But even the best filmmakers can’t condense however many weeks worth of filmable material into a couple of hours. Not referring to everything in the background is necessary.

It’s also worth noting that your questions were actually answered in terms of the films. The EU stuff that was brought in by me and smiling bandit was just general extra information.

[Raguleader]

My answer is “It Depends”, generally on that individual universe. For Star Wars, the EU novels are fair game, because they are generally consistent with eachother and with any existing movies when they are written (though they can be overridden by new movies), but for Star Trek, most of the books, while they may be very entertaining and/or well written, don’t have any real bearing on the shows (or on eachother).