Discussion in 'Television' started by Jango Fett, May 14, 2012.
That quote is often taken out of context.
Taking things out of context. Ever heard of a metaphor? Just because someone says "different world" does not mean there are literally 2 different star wars universes. If you want to play the "Lets post George Lucas Quotes to Prove our Side" game, i can post quotes of him saying that the EU is important and part of the star wars universe.
In fact i feel like playing this game.
Here is a copy and pasted post from another thread where people discussed canon.
From the wookipedia article on canon.
In the introduction to the 1994 printing of Splinter of the Mind's Eye, Lucas offered his view on the evolution of the Star Wars saga:
"After Star Wars was released, it became apparent that my story—however many films it took to tell—was only one of thousands that could be told about the characters who inhabit its galaxy. But these were not stories I was destined to tell. Instead they would spring from the imagination of other writers, inspired by the glimpse of a galaxy that Star Wars provided. Today it is an amazing, if unexpected, legacy of Star Wars that so many gifted writers are contributing new stories to the Saga."
In July 2001, Lucas gave his opinion on the matter of what is canon in Star Wars during an interview with Cinescape magazine:
"There are two worlds here," explained Lucas. "There's my world, which is the movies, and there's this other world that has been created, which I say is the parallel universe—the licensing world of the books, games and comic books. They don't intrude on my world, which is a select period of time, [but] they do intrude in between the movies. I don't get too involved in the parallel universe."
By the way when Lucas as mentioned the 2 worlds, the EU and the Films, don't take him literally, its a metaphor. It's not like Lucas is doing a Marvel and there is a star wars multiverse, and the EU takes place in a separate universe from the movies.
After all, if he really considered the EU truly separate then he wouldn't care if people wrote books during the prequel era (something which he did not allow for a time) while he was writing the prequel trilogy. After all, if the EU is just an AU from star wars, why care if prequel era books contradict what is actually shown in the prequel films?
Lucas could have easily not allowed the EU to be created as well as the canon systems, but he did, for a reason. It's called the EXPANDED universe, which implies its expanding upon an already existing universe, that universe being the world shown in the 6 films.
I see star wars as one big universe...of course G-canon takes priority.
Here is another quote. Notice that Lucas did not say "star wars universes".
This quote from an interview in the August/September 1999 issue of Star Wars Insider is also notable:
"Part of the job of the director is to sort of keep everything in line, and I can do that in the movies—but I can't do it on the whole Star Wars universe."
Of course some of Lucas quotes over time seem to sort of like contradictions to each other.
On the wookipedia about canon, it goes onto say that there are 2 continuities, "Film Only" and "Film + EU". I'm sure that is true, but does that mean there is 2 separate universes? I don't think so. It would be ridiculous that there are 2 Palpatines, 2 Obi-wans, 2 Anakins/Vaders, etc. Because that is what would be true if the "Film+EU" was ACTUALLY a parallel universe to the "Film Only" world.
Star Wars is a quilt, an in-the-now kind of story.
Canon is whatever the logo is on, in your hand.
Someone can lay a new patch down an alter the quilt at any time, see Plagueis.
Or look at Shaak Ti, EP, Ventress, Boba is a clone now or how Maul isn't dead.
When Maul came back, many of those quotes lost their footing...
And if continuity/canon wasn't dead already, the "Nightbrother from Dathomir" killed it.
Um.....i think your overacting. TCW is not the first EU material to have canon errors. It seems like to you, when a retcon happens, its THE END OF THE WORLD.
Either that, or year after year of discontinuity turned the word "canon" into a joke.
Darth Maul died in TPM. George Lucas said he did. Now he's saying he didn't. Not even the movies are "official" anymore.
Yes George did say he died in TPM....and then he later changed his mind. Is there anything wrong with that?
Do you even know what the words "canon" and "continuity" mean?
Not to mention that death is not exactly something one should be able to change one's mind about.
I'm pretty flexible on what I'd call a "storytelling rule", but I would include "don't kill a character unless you're sure you want the character to die."
He certainly picked a convenient time to change his mind.
That's the worst part.
He was sure he wanted the character to die.
He just changed his mind later, either as a cynical way to maintain interest in the series, or because of all the endless clamoring by PT detractors that Maul shouldn't have died, or perhaps both.
I always saw it as a way to cash in on PM 3D.
It's not all that different then what they do in comics sometimes really
I always thought he did for marketing reasons for TPM 3D, and honestly it is a smart business move.
Revive a popular character that really doesn't affect the overarching story of the saga.
Star Wars is always so unique in how much people care about what Lucas says. About what his intent was, etc.
I'm unaware of any other franchise in which the people are so concerned about what the creator intended or wanted. Generally the work speaks for itself and what was intended or how plans change generally isn't so important.
Why judge whether or not you like something on what Lucas intended?
I'm sure the Shredder in the original Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movie was meant to be dead, he falls several stories flat onto his back into the back of a garbage truck. Then proceeds to have the trash compactor activated. Yet he crops up in the sequel alive and well after escaping from a garbage dump. In Aliens, Ripley sends the alien queen out into space, in Alien 3 it turns out the alien queen lays an egg and the subsequent facehugger ends up killing every survivor from Aliens aside from Ripley (though it does that too eventually). I hear James Cameron had a big problem with how Alien 3 followed up his movie and how he intended something else for the characters, but that doesn't matter. Ripley dies and concludes the Alien triology by sacrificing herself, but then the studio changes its mind and agrees to another Alien movie in which Ripley gets cloned. I'd imagine David Fincher and all of the alien fans took it for granted that Ripley was dead (and she was indeed dead) and that she wouldn't be coming back until they decided to make a movie with a cloned Ripley.
And I don't mean to be condescending, because I reference Lucas intent a lot too, but I'm not sure if that's exactly good. I would never care about the directors intent for just about any other movie.
I hate Alien Resurrection. They brought back Ripley after having clearly died - not only did an alien burst out of her chest but she fell into a furnace. But at the end of the day I hate it on that merit alone, not because I care about what David Fincher's intent was with Alien 3 and where Jean-Pierre Jeunet took the sequel.
I mean Star Trek is sort of that "other" great Sci-Fi franchise and I've never heard about this kind of preoccupation there either. If Roddenberry intended something, well tough luck, if it's not on the screen it doesn't matter. The fact that he entertained the idea that V'ger in Star Trek: The Motion Picture could have visited the Borg planet is really nothing more than an interesting bit of information, has no bearing on the movie itself.
I think Lucas has a unique and unwarranted influence over works through his opinions and intent.
Nice to see I'm not the minority for once. I laugh at how serious the canon debate gets from time to time, if not always. If G. Walton doesn't take it seriously, why should we? It's common to find posts that say: "that's not in my canon," or "I prefer the book", so canon is personal, its fanon.
I wonder how many people noticed that the Zabrak Jedi impaled the Sith and was cut down at the waist by Malgus?
Maul's return was everywhere...
(Actually Maw in Dark Forces Jedi Knight survived being sliced in half)
My issue is first they've been acting like he's been dead since TPM in both G and C cannon sources and now he's not. James Luceno is the only saving grace.
Guys, we really don't know WHY George changed his mind. You guys may think you know for sure why George decided to bring back Maul, but unless he comes out and states his reasoning for bringing back Maul (or tells it to someone else who in turn tells us), then all of our opinions on why George changed his mind would be just that.....opinions, not facts.
I generally don't care what Lucas has to say about anything, I make up my own mind, I just don't like this perpetuated pretense of canon and continuity in Star Wars. I like that Star Trek just came out and said that there is no continuity in the books and never pretended otherwise. Star Trek has always been into alternate realities and all kinds of silliness.
I saw TMNT 2 when I was about 5 and even then I was like "lolwut" when Shredder came back. But I was five years old so it was easy for me to overlook it and just enjoy turtles that are ninjas, cool early 90s slang and enthusiasm for pizza.
The thing is, I was never a big fan of Maul so I was just fine with him being dead. His return didn't impress me. Maybe if I was a huge Maul fan I would have enjoyed it more.
I thought Alien 3 was just terrible and the discontinuity with the end of Aliens was the least of my criticism. Alien Resurrection was alright, but again I didn't have a problem with Ripley returning, I just wasn't all that entertained.
A huge difference there is James Cameron did not invent the Aliens franchise, neither did Fincher or Ridley Scott, the director of Alien. George Lucas has this rare position of having sole authority over a huge franchise. He is the writer, director and producer.
You know what reinforces Lucas' opinion on Star Wars? Him coming out and telling everyone that only his opinion on Star Wars matters and then overwriting or otherwise shutting down all dissenting opinions.
Oh, I'm sure he has some earth-shattering, incredibly deep, sophisticated and genuinely transcendent reason for doing so. I'm sure he didn't bring back Maul for a reason as shallow as money. I'm sure he didn't just decide to bring him back on some fanciful impulse.
I'm sure he has an incredibly elaborate master plan worked out, all written down in a notebook, detailing the inspiring return of Maul. I'm sure he didn't just make up the story in one day, I'm sure it took weeks or months. I'm 1000% sure he's not making it up as he goes, he'd never do that.
okay i will sound it out for you real slowly.
george lucas says:
In the The Making of Star Wars Revenge of the Sith, George Lucas, the creator and ultimate authority regarding the Star Wars universe, responded to the question of whether Mace Windu brought a weak group of Jedi with him for the confrontation with Palpatine by replying that one would have to be either Windu or Yoda to compete with Palpatine, and that if Anakin had suffered none of his injuries, he could have beaten the Emperor.
so lucas says anakin is NEAR the emperors strength and has a chance at beating the emperor in a fight. not only did obiwan survive 4 slashes but he BEAT anakin. he held his ground and won.
this proves obiwan >>>>>>>>> fisto
fisto didnt do any better than the other 2 jedi. he had more time to prepare. while the other two jedi were being cut down kit fisto was seeing what was going on. so he had an advantage the other two jedi didnt have. a few seconds to prepare. for all we know agen kolar = fisto. if fisto was struck down 1st im sure agen could have managed 2-3 blocks.
THIS IS the last time i'm explaining the ki adi mundi/fisto thing so pay attention.
it makes sense that fisto can be stronger. in my personal opinion hes not. but anyone can believe fisto was stronger and i would have no problem with that. but the degree to which fisto apparently is made stronger from the clone wars series is unacceptable in my book. fisto and mundi should be around the same power. one slightly above the other. mundi or fisto stronger, it makes no difference
but mundi plus 6 other jedi was defeated by grevious only using 2 lightsabers.
while fisto pwned him 1 on 1 while grevious was using 4 lightsabers.
that gap is insane. theyres no way fisto is that much stronger tha shak ti and ki adi mundi in my book.
and lol yeah right obiwan PWNS fisto with ease. anakin was near the emperor and obi defeated him, and the emperor rape stomped fisto with ease. so obi would dispatch of fisto quite easily