Discussion in 'Star Wars TV' started by RevantheJediMaster, Jul 15, 2005.
Filoni would make sure they would beat Grievous
Since he forced Dooku to be captured by pirates I doubt that he would do it again but then again he might do it.
I doubt anything he does for Rebels would surprise me.
Not even if he had Tarkin attack a Rebel strongold by bringing the Death Star down onto the planet's surface and rolling it around on top of them?
I will remember this quote once the series begins....
After the Bariss is the Bomber thing at the end of TCW I'm expecting the worst.
Go ahead remember since I'm sure he will come up with some insane way to wreck another character and I will be surprised and disgusted that he did that even though I figured he probably would.
Vader is top of the list.
I go back and forth between saying that I won't be surprised at anything he does and that I will be, and unpleasantly so.
To be fair though, I think someone posted a source indicating that Barriss the Bomber wasn't Filoni's idea.
Unless they completely wussify Vader or one of the other OT or PT people I think we should be fine. I probably will be appalled at one point one way or another.
I just remember the teaser where he almost stated it outright who it was.
Yeah, don't get me started on that commentary, it always makes me go nuts with the asterix key.
That's correct, I noted that Brent Friedman revealed in his interview that George Lucas ultimately came up with the idea for Barriss being the bomber.
Also, I wouldn't worry about Filoni doing something to intentionally bulldoze canon, especially OT-era canon, which I've heard that he respects greatly (and he sure loves his OT-quotes). The biggest issue I have with him is his penchant for shoving pet characters into starring roles in as many storylines as he can. I'll let Mia's post explain it, as she puts it more eloquently and concisely than I could:
*Yes, this has since been found to be Lucas' fault.
With Lucas gone and Filoni working closely with Weisman, Kinberg, and the Story Group consisting of Leland Chee and Pablo Hidalgo, I'm confident that they'll hold a deeper respect for continuity in Rebels than TCW did. Also,
@Force Smuggler, I think these folks have the deepest respect for the OT and Vader's place in that trilogy, and I really don't think they would in any way "wussify" Vader. Just my opinion, though.
@Circular Logic Good to know but I will be wary after what they did with Grievous.
My issue with Barriss the Bomber was the poor planning as well as the "**** you if you don't like it" attitude, not the retcon itself, which I could have accepted if it were presented in an interesting and entertaining matter. And I felt like that entire arc was another pet character showcase arc, only this time the Jedi Council paid the price for it.
As far as wussifying Vader, my concern about that is less with Filoni specifically than with the fact that at least one EU author has wussified Vader in order to make his pet characters look good. I hope this doesn't happen in Rebels.
When I read some of the posts on this forum I am sometimes confused about people's use of the word "continuity". I know most of us have our own definition of what is "continuity", but some people tend to take it a little far. Some (like myself) only consider what is in the visual media (films, TV). Others consider the books, comics, and video games as well as the visual media. Then there are some who take what is said in video commentary or written interviews and consider anything that is inconsistent with what is shown in the films or TV shows to be a "continuity" issue. If you look strictly at the films and TV shows and disregard any other source there don't seem to be many (if any) "continuity" issues at all. I know this will get under the skin of those who relish poking holes in what DF and especially GL has said and or done, but this is simply the way I see it. I just like to enjoy the works for what they are. There aren't many franchises (especially those based on comics or novels) that can claim to have zero "continuity" issues, especially if you look hard enough. I'm just glad I never got into "The Walking Dead" graphic novels. I absolutely love that show, and apparently it's just one big "continuity" issue.
^ The two situations aren't remotely comparable. TWD comic isn't beholden to what the show does at all. They're both treated like their own thing. Conversely, any idiotic retcon that Lucas and/or Filoni force upon TCW HAS to be incorporated into the rest of the EU. Otherwise, no one would have any issue with TCW Mandos since the books wouldn't have to acknowledge them.
It's a continuity ladder with the films at the top, the TV show one rung down, and the comics, novels, and games below that.
Yes, there are those out there that only treat the films as canon, as can be seen in the PT or CT forums on these boards. Some don't care about the TV shows, comics, games, etc. and they generally aren't going to run into any continuity issues to speak of. Then there are those that hold to the TV shows and films, but not the comics, games, or novels.
When one of the upper rungs drops the ball (retcons something) it's going to fall downward and affect the rungs below it, but not necessarily those above it. Those that love the comics, novels and games are going to get the short end of things since it's pretty much the bottom rung affected by changes to continuity made both in future TV shows and films.
It's hard to skip a rung. You can hold only the films as your personal canon, you can hold the films+TV shows, or you can hold to it all. But you can't really hold to the films+novels while ignoring the TV shows, since the TV shows affect the novels.
TCW is still fairly young, and it's entirely possible that with future spinoff films or TV shows, that they will ignore or retcon elements of TCW. For instance they could always make a Live Action Clone Wars spinoff film that ignores Ahsoka's existence, or make a Boba Fett spinoff film that firmly shows him to be involved with a Mandalorian warrior clan from a young age and ignore TCW's take on the Mandalorians. I'm not saying that will ever happen, but it could since the TV shows do have a rung above it, but can also be retconned laterally (for example the films retconned elements of themselves when it came to the special editions, and perhaps future TV shows will retcon previous TV shows).
With other franchises, there usually aren't that many flat out retcons that spring to mind. They might exist, but they are not as prevalent or contradictory as they are in Star Wars. For instance, in Star Trek, nothing in the comics or novels is billed as canon. The writers of the shows or films can ignore them if they wish. With Star Wars, there is an insistence that it is all canon, yet Lucas, Filoni (and probably Abrams) can all just ignore whatever they want.
With other franchises that exist in multiple forms of media, usually each form is its own continuity. The Marvel animated universe has no bearing on the cinematic universe which has no bearing on the comics. And even within the comics there are different continuities like the main 616 universe and the UItimate comics universe. There isn't continuity between the different forms, but there isn't supposed to be/nobody said there was.
With Star Wars it's different, people like Pablo or Leland have at times insisted that policy is that it's all canon, but then Lucas says it's an alternate universe, and Filoni had similar sentiments to Lucas as far as seeing the TV show as the same "universe" as the films while the comics and novels are separate. Or Leland will treat TCW as occupying "T-canon" while according to Filoni, Lucas himself doesn't really distinguish between the films and TV show because it's all "his vision."
I think Star Wars is more unnecessarily convoluted than other franchises because people within the same company can't even maintain the same story. Star Trek has a simply "if it's not on screen, it's not canon" policy, Star Wars has a ridiculous "well, there's this hierarchy, and everything's canon until someone at a higher level says it's not" with people at higher levels like Filoni and Lucas seemingly just not caring about the works of the novels' authors.
Thus far most of that disrespect seems to be deflected at Lucas. We'll have to wait and see if Filoni is any better about it, I figure he will be.
Pablo Hidalgo ?
@Infinata 21 Nov
@A_Targaryen and keep in mind, some story threads were started with no intent to end them in TCW, but instead somewhere else.
Pablo Hidalgo ?
@Infinata 6 Nov
@clubjade I like the canon Fett from films and Clone Wars. But the EU Fett is kind of ridiculous.
Pablo Hidalgo ?
@starsymbiotes in the future... We're working on it.
View conversation Reply Retweeted Favorited More
Pablo Hidalgo ?
@starsymbiotes and then everything else was EU. Stuff that might be true. Might also not be.
View conversation Reply Retweeted Favorited More
Pablo Hidalgo ?
@starsymbiotes I can say that in the past, if it was intended for the screen and developed by George Lucas, it was canon.
There you have it my friends. G-CANON IS NOW NON-CANON.
dun dun dunnnnnnnnnnnnnn
Who is calling EU Fett ridiculous here?
Hidalgo or the person he's talking to?
If it's Hidalgo... well, in the words of Han Solo "I've got a bad feeling about this". I don't want them retconning away Fett's survival of the sarlacc. But if Pablo thinks the EU representation of BF is "ridiculous" and if the rest of the story group agree with him, they might just do that.
Well only time will tell what will still be considered "canon" in the wake of the future projects. I will however point out that as of now the entries in the "official" encyclopedia on SW.com contain only elements from TCW and the films. In fact there are more entries from TCW than from the films. Granted, there was much more material introduced in TCW. There was a rumor posted somewhere about a revamped digital database being released sometime next year, however. Whether this is true or not remains to be seen.
Well if nothing else, thank goodness SW doesn't appear to be one of those franchises where someone like Filoni or Lucas can retcon something word of god saying exactly where happened whether it was on screen or not.
I don't think that's likely. SW canon from my observation seems to be atleast that much fan defined and the fans aren't sheep. Filoni gave a few word of god explanations on things in TCW. They were largely dismissed.
It's interesting, because up until now, creator commentary hasn't been canon unless it was repeated in an official source, used to clear up an existing ambiguous situation, or personally verified by Leeland Chee. Yet, now we have Greg Weisman coming in, whose "Ask Greg" site has been a primary source of canon for background and expository information for Gargoyles, Young Justice, and other series he's worked on. Things that never made it to the screen or comics. I wonder if they'll continue to offer Weisman that same latitude when it comes to Rebels, or if they'll even allow him to answer Rebels-related questions on Ask Greg.