Lit Do you like the new canon?

Oh, pick me!

 

bump

 

Personally, I'm actually really enjoying the new canon. I never got into Legends, though I sorely wish I had, so I can't exactly compare the two and have it be a fair comparison. So far, Claudia Gray has been my favorite author. I don't know what it is about her books but they always seem to be enjoyable. I just finished Leia Princess of Alderaan, and I loved it. However, if I have one complaint about the new canon it's the over-saturation of Dark Times. I mean most of the books so far have taken place during that time period, and they aren't really expanding the other eras yet.

 

Just to preserve my sanity in this thread - let me throw some more substantial thoughts out here.

Now it's been said quite a few times over that you can't judge the new canon yet - too new, in its infancy etc. So how about avoiding comparisons and taking it on its own merits?
A lot of the new canon seems to want to push us into this way of thinking. Alright, we've got some recycled ideas, but the characters are new, the environments fresh, and while there is some derivation, it's all in the spirit of Star Wars.

Legends/EU could have been the best thing ever to grace the franchise (it wasn't) but that wouldn't subtract for me the highlights of what new stuff we've got. I won't let it. Nevertheless, this sort of problem happens all the time across many movie franchises - usually where there is a hiatus in the film production - Indiana Jones isn't a bad example. Take the reception by fans of Crystal Skull - strongly disliked by certain communities in the fandom, but with an important difference. People were criticizing Crystal Skull because of its own weaknesses - some considered the plot weak, and that the ultimate conclusion (Aliens!) required a suspension of disbelief which couldn't be justified in what many thought was a historical context. What they didn't do is repeatedly lambast the franchise for failing to encapsulate specific successes of the first trilogy of films. This is what happens too often with Star Wars - this is by no means novel. This has been pointed out many times.

I'm going to take an optimistic spin on things here - this idea of constantly looking back, comparing to what went before etc. also explains why you get films which are strongly reviewed by critics and make a load of cash at the box office, but which strongly divide the fanbase. Critics are mandated to look at a film like TFA and ask, 'right, how does this stand up against the other blockbusters of the year?' and 'does it tick the check boxes of a entertaining movie?' They don't muddle their view with unwavering commitment to the franchise.

This said, what merits does the new canon have as the start of a new Star Wars franchise?

• Their focus on the visual medium and its dominance over the canon - I think it's great to keep the new canon paired down in a way that doesn't become mind-boggling to new fans. They've expanded outwards from the ST and built around it, rather than having too many dislocated stories which are only supported by novels/comics etc. The pathway material for TFA and TLJ respectively is a great example of this.
• When they do decide to tell spin off stories, it's in the spirit of what came before, so that we already have investment in the issues/ideas involved. Think Lost Stars as a good example. This was all framed under the OT. Again building around existing ideas, not just bolting on plot at the end.
• Compelling characters - of course not every character has been the pinnacle of script-writing, but I appreciate the efforts in particular made with Kylo Ren - which I've always considered a somewhat wry imitation of some of the behaviors which have established themselves among teen culture and in social media. The fall to the dark side as the result of neglect of parents is intriguing, and I'm interested to learn more - here's hoping they develop this well. Even better if they can pull it off in a way that works a little more 'subjectivity' into what dark side is, and how it affects people.
• As mentioned above, some lush environments on screen - Star Wars is going to be a franchise that really benefits from high-technological film making. I'm guilty myself of getting caught up in plot/themes and not reminding myself that Star Wars achieved some of its highest praise in 1977 because of the sheer scope of the technological achievement as a motion picture.

But on the flip side:

• Easter eggs and winks to the audience - Rogue One was guilty of this the most. Why cordon off a part of your audience who won't get these references?
• Origin stories as a whole - mostly for the reasons above, but also because I feel this sort of background detail is pulled off better in a novel format - because that's where I feel serious fan material should belong, if it should belong at all - any further views on this?
• I've always thought Star Wars was something a little more than "bad guys must be destroyed. heroes fight bad guys. heroes win. bad guys lose. the end" - but in keeping with my own advice above, I still think you can argue that stories are more interesting when they are character driven, not plot driven. Maybe this is just a case of poor storytelling but I am anxious to see what character development awaits in TLJ and elsewhere. TFA was crammed full of action, it didn't allow the characters to really open up and interact in a way that made me truly invested in them. Po Dameron is a good example - witty character, but his key appearances are all action scenes - must we assume therefore that he will always be a secondary character, someone just there as a tool for the story?

I must put my hands up that I haven't yet had time to get up to speed with all the book material for the new canon - this is my next task, and I'm pushing it up my priority list.

 

But then again that was more or less my thoughts about the old EU at the time they destroyed it and some time before.

You know, I have never understood the "aliens don't make any sense/don't fit", especially since the highly priced Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis game used aliens and people did not seem to have no problem with that.

I agree, but regarding RO I have to ask, beside bumping into those two wanted guys from ANH what more easter eggs and winks was there? I remember TFA being much worse, but that's psssibly just me

 

The only thing about this kind of thread that I find interesting is that the perspective of the poster is nearly always "I don't like that Star Wars, it's not like this Star Wars that I do like", and yet their preferred Star Wars is almost always the opposite of someone else's preference. It's a demonstration of one person's trash being another person's treasure. There have always been good Star Wars stories and bad Star Wars stories, across every medium, and people's opinions fit into that spectrum in an almost infinite number of ways.

RO is virtually an easter egg writ large - just go to the thead in the RO subforum for the list. But that's not necessarily a bad thing. Easter eggs and winks have been a dominant part of SW since 1977. I swore off the old EU because of the Darksaber novel, which had a one-armed wampa turning up when the story happened to go to Hoth. There probably isn't a novel out there that doesn't have a Corellian character saying something about odds.

 

It is an objective truth that the NuCanon stories revolve around the films. Like it or don't like it. I personally found the EU best when it did it's own thing.

 

I think a lot of it is people forgetting that TFA is just the first movie within a trilogy. They are trying to compare a story that is only 1/3 done to stories that are a 100% complete. ANH was a pretty thin movie as well from a story standpoint. Only reason it is slightly more of a complete story than TFA was because it had to be because there was no guaranteed sequel at the time.

I have a feeling after TLJ is released many of those being real critical now will change their tune quite a bit because they will have more of the ST story available to them.

 

I think we should judge these films on their own merits. AotC and RotS could never retroactively make Jar Jar a charming character within TPM.

 

I see your point, but by that metric, Vader is incredibly one dimensional in ANH.

 

You can do that. But when we do that each of the OT movies are incredibly thin as well. When you get down to it ESB had a plot about a couple Star Destroyers chasing the Falcon around the galaxy (the fact that it added a lot of character depth is probably why it is considered so good). And ROTJ amounted to them saving Han and then going straight to destroy the Death Star (which was the same exact plot device they used for the first movie).

None of the Star Wars movies are really that detailed at all when you view them just one piece at a time.

 

I really don't like TFA at all, but to be fair the valid criticisms of rehash against it can easily be applied to the Thrawn Trilogy, the first work in the modern EU in 1991. That trilogy rehashed the Rebels vs Empire war! And it dragged on until the Hand of Thrawn came out in 1998. (7 years of dragged on Rebels vs Empire).

So, if new canon is still rehashing Resistance (rebels) vs First Order (Empire) in 2022, we can resume the rehash complaints.

Heir didn't quite go beat for beat rehash with desert planet, droid with plans, Vader clone etc though.

 

Exactly. A lot of the EU fans are either forgetting things like that or are just conveniently overlooking it when they get into these debates. Much of the EU was just a retelling of the story of the OT as well. Even in those Old Republic stories that were supposed to take place thousands of years before the OT they still had Emperors and Empires that the good guys were fighting. About the only original thing the EU did was the NJO and that was just bringing the popularity of alien invasion stories at the time into the Star Wars universe. So even that wasn't truly original.

 

I think what made the Vong special wasn't the alien invasion - or the biotech - or the religious fanaticism - it was the combo of all these elements at once - plus a few other minor details.

 

EU = expanded universe.
The key word is expanded. If it doesn't expand from / mirror the ideas introduced in the films then it sort of contradicts itself.

The material basis of the Star Wars canon can only be stretched so far, then it just falls apart. The NJO wasn't impressive for the tech/aliens - it was impressive because the strength of the writing meant it could stand effectively on its own as an independent story - it didn't need to rehash. As said above - it's pretty unique.

On a slightly different note - the direction they've taken the franchise for the ST attempts to emulate the atmosphere of the OT. I.e. minimal politics, clearly marked lines of good/evil (at least on the surface, a whole argument can be made about all the mythological/philosophical significance under the surface of the OT). The PT by contrast is full of politics, complex aims and blurred lines. This is an interesting point. I always worked under the belief that the troubled politics of the PT are ultimately overcome by the youthfulness and hope of the original trilogy. There was a deliberate creative contrast between the two. So with TFA and soon to be TLJ, that sort of thematic significance may be impaired.

If we're going to criticize the new canon - I think it is also important to make the distinction between canon which stays true to the 'spirit' of Star Wars, and canon that is just an extension of the Star Wars story/plot. So is the new canon truly in the spirit of "Star Wars" as envisioned by Lucas, that's a point worth asking, I think. Of course it already follows the established plot as per the ST/OT - that's already been discussed at length.

 

No, the new canon (the ST at least) does not meet with Lucas' approval.
White slavers.

 

Its pretty funny that you bring up a comment in support of Lucas's vision that Lucas himself probably wants buried.

 

Evidence that he wants it buried?

 

The EU didn't, either.

 

He almost immediately retracted it.

 

That's like Gary Oldman retracting his comment about Hollywood Jews.

 

It means they want you to forget they said the previous thing. They might still believe it, but they know they ****** up in saying it.

 

The question I was trying to ask was whether you think the new canon has the spirit of Star Wars.

Forget George Lucas if it makes it easier for you. His political views are irrelevant.

 

Just because the ST doesn't align completely with George's vision doesn't mean that it doesn't fit the 'spirit' of the previous films, nor does it mean the ST doesn't build thematically upon the previous films. That should be perfectly obvious.

 

Point of View - Please don't speak for George Lucas as if you know the man's mind, it's extremely arrogant.

Spending any time on this forum makes it crystal clear that the spirit of Star Wars varies for practically every Star Wars fan that posts here, and so this question is a very loaded question to ask. None of us have any kind of authority to make the distinction between "canon which stays true to the 'spirit' of Star Wars, and canon that is just an extension of the Star Wars story/plot." Even bringing in the maker as some sort of arbitrator is ludicrous, as his own stories shows a change in attitudes about what he felt was the spirit.