www.ditl.org

Canon is a double-edged sword.

Victory is Life wrote:...and simply because we saw no ejecta or what-have-you, it does not negate the clearly stated result that the opening volley obliterated 30% of the planetary crust.

Likewise, the fact that somebody said or expected the opening volley would or did destroy 30% of the crust doesn't negate the fact of what was observed - the lack of what would happen if that volley really did produce such a result. In an instance where what someone says conflicts with what was actually portrayed, I'd have to stick with the latter.

Split from here- Seafort

I take the "30% destroyed" as hyperbole, personaly. Maybe he just meant "30% of the surface has been levelled"? That would fit with what we see, and explain the dialogue and lack of surprise easily enough.

And I just take it as a special effects limitation.

RK_Striker_JK_5 wrote:And I just take it as a special effects limitation.

If you want to use that as part of an argument that near planet-destroying firepower was the authors' intent, fair enough.

However, we're not dicussing author's intent - we're discussing what sort of firepower was displayed by the allied fleet under suspension of disbelief, so what we see is what we get. If what we see bears no resemblance to what the Romulans claimed, then the Romulans are wrong.

I'm not arguing it at all, Seafort. That's how I took it. That's what it is to me. It was a limitation of the special effects. Nothing more or less.

Of course it was. And you can take that to mean the planet really was that seriously destroyed if you wish.

In a debate, however, using suspension of disbelief there is no such thing as SFX limitations. Ergo, the only explaination is that they're either wrong, or he meant something else (see my explaination).

Rochey wrote:Of course it was. And you can take that to mean the planet really was that seriously destroyed if you wish.

In a debate, however, using suspension of disbelief there is no such thing as SFX limitations.

Why not?

ETA : Or rather, why should a debate be based on "suspension of disbelief"?

GrahamKennedy wrote:Why not?

ETA : Or rather, why should a debate be based on "suspension of disbelief"?

It would be better said that in this debate, which seems to concern itself with IU effects of a given event, SFX limitations don't come into play. If we're discussing OOU events, then fine. IU, however, an SFX limitation can't "cover" the fact that what was seen was, in fact, seen.

Mikey wrote:

GrahamKennedy wrote:Why not?

ETA : Or rather, why should a debate be based on "suspension of disbelief"?

It would be better said that in this debate, which seems to concern itself with IU effects of a given event, SFX limitations don't come into play. If we're discussing OOU events, then fine. IU, however, an SFX limitation can't "cover" the fact that what was seen was, in fact, seen.

We aren't in the universe, because the universe doesn't exist.

If we can choose to ignore the occasions when a boom microphone wanders into shot, or the occasion in TNG when we see a cameraman reflected in a surface, how is this any different?

How is it different? We had been discussing the IU effects of an IU event; how does claiming an OOU cause have any bearing on the fact that canon = what's been shown onscreen? Do we choose to ignore canon when we can think of a plausible OOU explanation?

Mikey wrote:How is it different? We had been discussing the IU effects of an IU event; how does claiming an OOU cause have any bearing on the fact that canon = what's been shown onscreen? Do we choose to ignore canon when we can think of a plausible OOU explanation?

Canon is not just what is shown on screen, it's everything in the show - dialogue included.

We may be discussing an in universe event but we are not in universe. We are not limited to believing that everything happens exactly the way we see it, mistakes included.

I can't separate IU and OOU. I just can't.

GrahamKennedy wrote:Canon is not just what is shown on screen, it's everything in the show - dialogue included.

Agreed. However, dialogue is merely evidence that that individual made that statement. Not that they're right, or that the statement is meant in the same way as certain members of the audience interpret it.

We may be discussing an in universe event but we are not in universe. We are not limited to believing that everything happens exactly the way we see it, mistakes included.

If we're analysing TDiC as a piece of cinematography, fair enough, we can discuss whether it was the author's intent that the antagonists should be depicted as doing serious damage to a celestial body.

If we're attempting to determine the firepower of Romulan and Cardassian ships, then we have to treat what we see on screen as documentary footage, perhaps recovered from the Warbird's black box.

Captain Seafort wrote:

GrahamKennedy wrote:Canon is not just what is shown on screen, it's everything in the show - dialogue included.

Agreed. However, dialogue is merely evidence that that individual made that statement. Not that they're right, or that the statement is meant in the same way as certain members of the audience interpret it.

Yes. For whether or not they are right we need to consider the circumstances under which it was said, credibility of the person saying it, whether they had motivation to lie, a record of incompetence, etc.

If we're analysing TDiC as a piece of cinematography, fair enough, we can discuss whether it was the author's intent that the antagonists should be depicted as doing serious damage to a celestial body.

If we're attempting to determine the firepower of Romulan and Cardassian ships, then we have to treat what we see on screen as documentary footage, perhaps recovered from the Warbird's black box.

Of course we don't "have to" do that. We may choose to treat it that way, but that is an entirely arbitrary choice and no inherently better or worse than, say, the approach of "I think the dialogue is right and the FX shots are wrong."

GrahamKennedy wrote:Of course we don't "have to" do that. We may choose to treat it that way, but that is an entirely arbitrary choice and no inherently better or worse than, say, the approach of "I think the dialogue is right and the FX shots are wrong."

On the contrary - using the suspension of disbelief model, we maintain consistency, just as we would be able to were the events we observe real. By throwing out certain pieces of visual evidence because they're "FX errors" we loose all consistency - after all, where do we draw the line? The phaser beam in "Darmok"? TDiC? The phaser beam coming from the Defiant's bridge area? Everyone would have different ideas of what constituted an "FX error". By treating everything as if it were valid documentary footage we remove this subjectivity.