Lit The concept of canon: good or bad?

Let me translate that for everyone: "My problem with TCW is that it operates the same way Star Trek does, which I like."

 

I think Zeta meant to say, "I like Trek, but I don't like the Trek canon system."

 

I think if film and TV projects of a live-action franchise wants to tell stories, they shouldn't be restricted by what happened in spin-off materiel. If they want to be inclusive, hey, great, good for them, but they shouldn't be beholden to it. You can get away with Darth Maul and Anakin's padawan in between "Attack of the Clones" and "Revenge of the Sith" movies really easy, it gets dicey when you try to include the spin-off materiel and so on. You can even cram in the original Clone Wars cartoons. Kinda. If you squint.

 

I wouldn't Maul as an example. Half-people seem to confuse everyone.

 

Eh, I have a fundamental problem with novels and comics being considered "spin-off material" and television being considered "the real thing" just by virtue of their medium. Just because people have short attention spans doesn't mean visual mediums should be automatically placed higher on the totem pole.

On that note, I like continuity, and I like alternate universes, but one thing I simply can't stand is the concept of "canon levels". If you're going to have a consistent universe, you can't have your own canon at war with itself.

 

I think the canon levels are mostly used for categorization.

 

Interesting article, it looks like LFL, may be preparing for a new canon system, with the new movies.
http://lightsaberrattling.blogspot.com/2013/08/binding-galaxy-together-look-at.html?m=1

 

By the same token, if it doesn't count that should be made clear.

 

It has been made clear.

 

I don't think it's the type of medium so much as which medium is the original or most important to the main story of the franchise. In Trek, it's the TV shows and films, Doctor Who is the show, Halo and Mass Effect are the video games, Marvel and DC are the comics (except for the MCU, where the movies are the primary medium and the spinoff comics are secondary). Star Wars is the movies, and I would consider the cartoons just as secondary as the novels and comics.

The only reason visual media tend to take precedence is because most media tie-in franchises are spun off from movies, TV shows, or video games. I can't think of many examples of franchises that started off as books or comics and then moved into visual media as an expansion of the original story and not just an adaptation.

 

I view the movies and books as one timeline.
TCW and TFU 1 and 2 were not needed. We already had a great Clone Wars series. They should have gone with a Dark Times series. TFU 1 and 2 just confused things leading up to ANH.
This isn't DC or Marvel comics where you can have multiple versions of the characters.
I'm probably going to have to accept that there could be multiple interpretations now. How am I going to categorize my books now? I have them all in chronological order by type. It's nice and orderly Clone War era aside. How am I going to organize my collection if we get another EU and the pre-ROTJ timeline isn't effected or if parts of the pre-ROTJ timeline is effected?
I have my issues with the post NJO books and want things done differently but to get rid of everything? No.
I can suspend my disbelief a lot but this? Nope. Not happening.

 

All indications are, that it is, from articles in screenrant to hitfix, to pronouncements by producers, and writing consultants Kasdan, and Kinberg, the new story team, the official casting call, in the latest insider.

 

As mentioned above by _Catherine_ and what I go by is go back to what is the original medium that the spin-off materiel was spun-off from. So with Star Trek it's TV (and also movies) and with Star Wars it's movies (and also George Lucas which in turn elevates TV productions like TCW). Those get the final say on the direction of steering the ship, so if they want to either take from a book or comic or video game and make it all fit, that is a nifty bonus for fans of those but those types of mediums, however they don't set the direction that the original medium that the story started, and continues on, in.

Well, for all in intents and purposes, the stories set by the Clone Wars multi-media project or the post ROTJ EU *did* count. When they were made because they were the only game in town. Then the mothership decided to take it in a new way. As is their prerogative. But it doesn't mean that the tie-in materiel "didn't count" when they were published. They had the free and clear to do what they wanted to and were accepted at the definitive story of that particular event.

 

I say the concept of canon is bad! Bad, bad, bad! It restricts the imagination, and draws judgement as to what is the truth in what is fictional and non-existent. Contradictions in canon are merely different tellings of a similar story.

 

I don't want 5+ plus stories telling me about the same event.
I'd like to see how things progressed. If we just had hundreds of stories over the years and they were not connected in any reasonable manner then what's the point of collecting them?

 

Eh, for me (and many people will dislike this) I don't enjoy being told at the end of a story 'oh, all this cool stuff which you enjoyed, all the ups and downs, they don't really count in the universe'. I don't pay to read books which don't really add to the universe, exist in the continuity. Oh, and yeah, I won't be buying into the EU 2.0 which they've teased is going to be more consistent with the new films.

 

I don't have any real problem with the Trek canon system in the context of it being the Trek canon system, its their prerogative to do as they wish. However, I do have a problem with the Trek canon system being applied to Star Wars, when the EU was specifically created under the guise of being the official continuation of the films, and by 2005, they had firmly established the canon story of what happened. Then, by 2008, the undermining of the NJO had begun with DNT and the Clone Wars were on the verge of being completely rewritten by TCW just because they could be.

 

The books and comics increased my love for Star Wars in the off years between movies. I've grown to love the characters I've met in them as much as the movie characters themselves. If we get a satisfactory end to them I can move on to the ST with a truly open mind but ever since the DNT/LOTF/FOTJ/Crucible and the 90 year gap to the Legacy comics I highly doubt this.

 

It has not been made clear, and won't be until they have no choice otherwise.

 

It comes down to this: Having taken SW marketing at its word when it said the EU was the continuation of the films and more, which has steadily been undermined for over a decade and is likely to be entirely reneged on in the next couple of years, why would you place your trust in a new canon system from the same people?

Brands arise from a sense, in part, of consumer trust and confidence in the quality of the goods and/or conditions of sale. They continue by sustaining these aspects. From the way LFL has acted for the last 14 years on the EU you have to wonder what the hell they've been inhaling! Looked at logically it is one giant clusterfrell! The only way to make it the least bit comprehensible? The Lucas factor but he really doesn't come out of it well.

There'll probably be a whole lot of talk over the next 2 years of a new jumping on point for SW, films and EU, but guess what? Every jumping-on point is also a jumping-off point!

 

I like different canon systems for different franchises. For superhero comics, I don't mind the fact that they are constantly reinventing, rebooting, resetting and retelling because that's what they've been doing for the entire span of my investment in them. Time doesn't move forwards in the same way - there's a vague idea that Batman's been around for between five and fifteen years depending on the story, but unless you're talking about "alternate futures" we will never see the main continuity of comics allow Batman to become an old man. So my relationship with these stories is very much one of myth, of alternate versions, of them all being true in a sense and of enjoying what I like, and knowing what I don't will eventually swing around again to what I do.

Mass Effect has no canonical Shepard, and I hope never does because part of what is interesting to me about the world is my capacity to influence it and the fact that the franchise's fictional material goes out of its way not to negate that and remind you that "real" Shepard is someone else, is something I appreciate. Had it been written differently from the start - and there was always "canon" Shepard (to a degree), I would likely feel differently. For instance, I dislike the some of the choices they eventually made with regards to canon Revan and the canon Exile, but I don't have a problem with them making decisions about the canon versions because they exist in the SWEU so it felt appropriate.

Star Trek can handle a split timeline continuity because alternate timelines are a familiar part of its universe, and because the reboot specifically established it as being such - and not just a reboot. Split timelines - beyond much more mystical and fuzzy visions of the future and past - have never really been a key part of Star Wars and feel much more like Trek science fiction than space fantasy.

And then, for Star Wars, obviously I love it because it's Star Wars, but I genuinely think I wouldn't have found the EU half as compelling had it just been a series of adventures with no throughline, with no incentive to find out what happened next. My investment in characters like Jaina and Ben and Zayne and Vergere keep me interesting and engaged. Obviously not everything fits perfectly, and like anyone, there are stories I consider more important and valuable than others. But unlike comics, where it feels like shifting through conflicting myths, here it always feels to me more like being a historian and choosing which sources you consider primary. I always liked the analogy that the EU provided many different windows into the Star Wars universe, and some are more reliable than others, but all are - if you want to frame it diagetically - based on someone's attempts to record the history of what happened a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away.

So it irks me when I see statements like, "you should just be interested in good stories," like that means I should be willing to shed any prior investment - as though investment in anything other than it being "good" is a sign of too much geeky obsession. I mean there are TONS of most excellent books and films out there I'm still not interested in because of my personal tastes. The same thing goes for "no one's coming to your house to take your books away," because, sure. But what if my sadness is based on the fact I'll never get any more books about these people to put on my shelf. I suppose I just figure, at this point I'm probably genuinely more invested in the Expanded Universe than I am in the core movies.

Ultimately, to be a realist, I'd prefer a unified continuity if possible, but if obviously impossible, then I'd prefer a split one - under any pretext whatsoever, followed by simply wiping the EU out wholesale and starting again, to a weird situation where they pretend it's still unified when it clearly isn't. :/

tl;dr, canon works differently in different franchises. The notion that you can ignore it entirely is ludicrous and would cease tie-in fiction from functioning on any level. But once you've established how canon does work in your franchise, it's reasonable that your fans might be annoyed or saddened if you suddenly change it wholesale, because it has the same effect as a sudden change in tone, theme or medium. It might work, it might not, so plan carefully.

 

For me, there are four reasons why I'll be willing to put my trust, and money, in a new canon system and continuity:

1) Back when Lucasfilm said that the EU was the official continuation of the movies, the people who made that statement sincerely believed it to be true. Nobody at the time had any ill intent to deceive SW fans, or any inkling that in 2012 George Lucas would decide to sell Lucasfilm to Disney and lay the groundwork for Episodes VII – IX. So I don't fault Lucasfilm's honesty in this matter.

2) With Eps VII – IX, and other movies that Disney will produce, to serve as definitive canon "anchors" in the new EU, I'm a lot more confident that the new timeline will remain the canon timeline, and that we will never again face the prospect of a post-Endor EU at least being declared an alternate universe or downright non-canon. All in all, I'm confident that the canon dilemma we now face will not be repeated.

3) If the price for getting Eps VII – IX, along with other post-Endor movies, is the EU being relegated to alternate universe or even non-canon status and a whole new canon system emerging, then it's a price I'm willing to pay. The new movies will hopefully bring new/returning SW fans, and I'd rather discuss all-new movies and novels with hundreds/thousands of new TFN members than argue over sometimes decades-old novels with a board population that had IMO been dwindling up until the Disney and Eps VII – IX announcements.

4) I despise the post-NJO timeline (if not the Legacy comics), and have grown to loathe Troy Denning's works in particular. For me, the overall mood, the themes addressed, the storyline choices, and the behavior of many characters in the post-NJO era are repulsive and go against what I see as the core themes/values of Star Wars. So seeing Denning's garbage no longer being the official continuation will make up for seeing a lot of the post-Endor stories I do like suffering the same fate.

This isn't meant as a belittling of your position, by the way. If you honestly feel that Lucasfilm's decisions mean that you can never trust them and their statements about canon and continuity ever again, no one should disparage you for that belief.

 

I doubt it. Has any multimedia franchise that's set out to maintain consistency and continuity from the get-go ever been successful? To be fair I don't really follow any such franchises besides Star Wars, but you hear horror stories. Apparently Halo has come close, but they couldn't keep it up when they decided to do a prequel to the first game.

Basically media tie-in material will never be as lucrative or high-profile as the source material; Disney's New EU might be better at being consistent with itself, but someone doing a Star Wars spinoff film in ten years won't care if they contradict a short story that came out in 2015 to promote Episode VII.

 

(And yes, I did read the rest of it. )

 

To be fair, I believe George has said from the beginning that he considers the films and EU to be separate continuities. It was Pablo, Leland, and others who clarified that the two are one (probably to confer legitimacy to the fledgling EU, knowing that the movies were infinitely more iconic and popular).

My irritation stems from the lack of consensus from both camps. And as annoyed as I am that many of George's "retcons" seem gratuitous (e.g., Quinlan Vos The Intergalactic Surfer Dude vs. his original depiction), I'm even more annoyed when the EU contradicts the films, either directly or thematically.

Either way, the canon hierarchy as defined by Leland placed George's vision at the top. George shouldn't have been so obnoxiously arbitrary in his retcons, but the EU really has no justification whatsoever for the times that it belittles the films. A subordinate doesn't willfully disobey its superior.