I've always been intrigued with how many people treat IPs as "real".
For my part, I'm always in the mindset of "Whatever. If something in fiction isn't conclusive, then the existence of an answer is simply not there and completely irrelevant."
Meanwhile, I see a lot of people whose wording implies they think questions about fictional details are entirely consequential (to their lives.)
Merely some musing as a result of some of the answers the question got.
Well, people love what they love. And love thinking, talking and discussing what they love. Is this any different from the sports fan who talk about old team lineups, why such and such tactic was wrong in a game, why they lost a game because of bad luck/refereeing.
Think also about common programming discussions: dynamic vs static typing, goto is the root of all evil, etc.
We love this IP. Having nothing more to explore about it, we start dissecting it to find more stuff. And finding easter egg and little details like this show us that the creator really had a lot of love for it's creation. This helps us acknowledge that our love is well deserved.
And, in the end, it's fun! Why would we do this if it weren't fun?
No, this is like a literary critic finding a baseball score, let's say 3-0, mentioned casually in dialog in a Hemmingway short story that does not have a date or mention of teams, and, then talking about what the team must have been (okay, let's say we can guess). And the season. Let's say they can guess. Okay, and then talking about the lineup, tactics, what the innings must have looked like, and whetehr there was any bad luck or refereeing or questionable ump calls involved. You know, based on the fact that score was 3-0, and, you know, it seemed important enough for the character to mention. Maybe due to some bad ump calls. Probably. I mean, it's pure rank speculation but why else would the character mention it??
You see the difference? The only true answer is because, f--, hemmingway liked baseball and he needed some dialogue. there's no play by play action behind it, absolutely nothing for us to guess about because it just didn't happen. :)
The author isn't the point. Maybe he thought more about the game than he put in the story. Maybe not. But in the universe of that story, the game existed! And that's what matters.
In fiction, especially fantasy and science fiction, the universe is as much important as the main narrative. And we like exploring the "how do they"'s and "how can it"'s of these universes.
I understand your position. I have people in my family that don't read/watch fantasy or science fiction because "it doesn't have real stuff" and some only read historical novels or "based in real events" books because "if it isn't true, it's not worth it".
I, on the other hand, can't read historical novels, because I don't know what is "real" and what is "not real". If I want a story, I get fiction. If I want to know stuff, I buy a technical book about it.
And if I'm reading for a great story, I might as well read one set in a fictional universe. Two for the price of one! I mostly read fantasy and sci-fi nowadays.
To end it all, you have to see that fantasy/sci-fi/comic book/etc fans love exploring these worlds. And in a corner of our minds, they're almost as real as our world.
There is a third route between made-up and technical: real stories without any 'novel' or fictive aspects. You are making a serious conflation when you say " Is this any different from the sports fan who talk about old team lineups, why such and such tactic was wrong in a game, why they lost a game because of bad luck/refereeing[?]"
I am saying: yes, it's very different! It's like the difference between discussing Napoleon and discussing Darth Vader. One is not a discussion about a made-up world, but the real world. Instead of speculation about the made-up world, we can examine real facts. Likewise, for real games that actually happened, we can look at real facts.
I also consider lots of made-up stories to be very interesting. On the other hand, I am also interested to an extent in real stories as well, without any creative aspects other than the author's (and scoiety's) interpretation, the order in which events are told, what events are told, etc.
Imaginative realities are certainly interesting - but don't for a minute confuse them for being similar to real events.
I wonder if it's a sort of defense mechanism people develop. The Real World is quite crazy, and is typically governed by social rules that are fluid at the best of times, and totally incomprehensible at the worst (or for those that may lack certain social skills). Meanwhile, the fictional worlds in which we create are almost always governed by clearly defined, logical rules. If something strange happens, you just have to keep reading and it will (usually) be explained to you. Retcons notwithstanding.
I presume this is also why people are always so up in arms when something happens that contradicts the previously-established rule set.
ET has a kid in a Yoda costume, and the Yoda/Force leitmotif is quoted in the ET score at that point. There's your SW:OT connection -- the extra references written into the new episodes are just overkill.
For my part, I'm always in the mindset of "Whatever. If something in fiction isn't conclusive, then the existence of an answer is simply not there and completely irrelevant."
Meanwhile, I see a lot of people whose wording implies they think questions about fictional details are entirely consequential (to their lives.)
Merely some musing as a result of some of the answers the question got.