-1

This question already has an answer here:

EDIT: Subsequent to a fascinating discussion with @Wad Cheber and @Mazura, I would have actually deleted the question, not because it's a dupe but because it moves into "unsolveable" issues regarding canonicity.

As we all know, it's canon that the Star Wars movies constitute the highest level of canon in the saga.

Using only the canonical movies, I wonder how to align one example, the issue of

Spaceship controls

with their contradictory portrayal.

Taking only entering and leaving hyperspace, there must be a several methods the Millennium Falcon uses.

Harrison Ford (a RL pilot, after all) himself one stated, when asked

“I said, ‘Just make shit up!’” Ford remembered in an interview with Entertainment Weekly’s Anthony Breznican. “I mean, it’s a movie, man. It’s space. You don’t fly in space the way you do in an atmosphere.”

I can recall at least 4 shown ways of how the Falcon gets into and out of hyperspace:

  • A handful of closely spaced levels at the top of the instrument panel. Same levers also seems to control speed in atmospheric flight.
  • Get up out of your seat and throw a bunch of switches in a panel above the pilot to leave hyperspace.
  • Do nothing obvious and just wait for the computer to finish calculations
  • Have your droid undo some Imperial sabotage and get thrown into hyperspace without so much as a safety pop-up asking "are you really sure?"

If the movies are "infallible" and immovable canon, yet see a portrayal such as this, is there a canon explanation?

One would be the official declaration that "we're retelling the history of The Star Wars, but we take artistic liberties and our goal isn't to provide flight lessons for YT class feighters"?

Another would be quasi-technical canon explanation "controls have variable functions depending on flight situation and surrounds. Also there's more than one way to skin a cat."

marked as duplicate by Wad Cheber, Jason Baker, phantom42, Often Right, TGnat May 13 '16 at 1:26

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

  • 1
    Because I voted to close this as a dupe, I won't post an answer, but if I did, the answer would say "Every second of the 7 existing movies is canon". So sayeth Disney, so sayeth Lucas, so sayeth we all. – Wad Cheber May 13 '16 at 0:22
  • I understand your point about the use of controls being inconsistent, but I don't get your point about artificial gravity. If artificial gravity were possible, why couldn't it adjust to compensate for the fictitious force normally felt due to acceleration (the G-force) by generating an equal and opposite force? – Hypnosifl May 13 '16 at 0:23
  • "Lucas always made it clear that he was not beholden to the EU. He set the films he created as the canon. This includes the six Star Wars episodes, and the many hours of content he developed and produced in Star Wars: The Clone Wars. These stories are the immovable objects of Star Wars history, the characters and events to which all other tales must align" Source – Wad Cheber May 13 '16 at 0:26
  • I'm inclined to say that this shouldn't be closed, but maybe reworked a bit. – Adamant May 13 '16 at 0:30
  • 4
    Just because the canon is wrong and or inconsistent and or completely nuts, does not make it any less canon. – JK. May 13 '16 at 0:32
4

TL;DR Just because the canon conflicts with itself does not make it any less canon

The movies are canon, and that is the end of the discussion. There are many places where it is severely inconsistent and or wrong, but it is still canon none the less.

Eg We know that The Force is:

The force is an energy field created by all living things, it surrounds us, it penetrates us, it binds the galaxy together

But on the other hand we are somehow supposed to also believe that the Force is:

Midi-chlorians

What? You can see that sometimes the canon is clearly wrong. But it is still canon anyway.

  • 1
    Don't forget "Han didn't shoot first"! – Jane S May 13 '16 at 0:52
  • 1
    The first is the layman explanation of what the Force is. The second is the academic treatment. You tell a layman "colours depend on the shades and tints of light objects reflect into your eyes" while you would tell a physics student "colours depend on the frequencies of light that are not absorbed by the electron fields in an object's constituent atoms" (off-the-cuff example) – thegreatjedi May 13 '16 at 1:24
  • 1

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.