Saga Does anyone here see the Saga 1-9?

Well it does. Because its one thing to say "for me its the SW I accept because its not made by the guy who created it" and "its fanfiction, it doesnt count as actual and legit SW".

Fanfiction is the term that triggers here. Because fanfiction is on a different level then officially produced and licenced products not made my Lucas. Fan Fiction authors are not under contract with the IP owner and dont release anything for actual money under the IP. The term fanfiction is misleading and undermines the factual legimicy of the ST. Thats why @jaimestarr had such issues with it.

The ST isnt fanfiction, its legit legal factual SW. Its so because Lucas sold the company and rights for it. He did so under the full understanding of what he was doing and what it meant for SW. Its not like Disney and Lucas had the right and both made an Ep VII to IX and now its an issue on which trilogy is the legit one.

BTW: I appreciate @Alexrd contributions to the fandom and how he celebrates and cherrishes Lucas and his work. Iam on the same page with him concidering the PT and OT. Just when its about the ST its where we are not on the same page.

It has been said too very often that elements like Rey, the Jedi Killer, Luke in Exile are straight out of the Lucas Treatments. Of course its delevoped further into a different direction but also we don't know where the ST from Lucas would have gone. You know as good as myself how is story treatments developed from page to screen.

Calling it fanfiction gives the impression.

 

What has one thing to do with another? Yes, Lucas sold the company. So what? What does that got to do with anything or with the point I'm making? Is anyone saying that Disney's ST is illegal? That they didn't have permission to make it?

Licensed works have existed before Disney bought the company. I call them fan fiction as well. Doesn't mean they are unauthorized works. Unlicensed fan fiction is unauthorized.

Rey didn't come from Lucas' treatments. He did have a younger female protagonist, that's the known commonality. In Lucas's treatments, Talon corrupted the son of Han and Leia.

We do know where it would have gone. We don't know how they would look like as a finished work, but in the absence of that, we have more than enough information that it was a completely different story from what was made by Disney. They consciously took a different path altogether, and with further production development that divergence would only increase.

After time and time again I made the distinction on this very thread between licensed and unlicensed fan fiction, you got the impression that licensed is unauthorized? Licensed is to have the authorization to use the license.

You see fan fiction as a derogatory. And in part it is because it's meant to contrast with non-fan works, and the only person that is unable by definition to be a fan is the creator. If I make fan fiction and for some reason I'm able to get it published under the license, does it cease to be fan fiction? No. At the end of the day, it's fan fiction, because it came from me, a fan. If tomorrow Disney asks me to tell a Star Wars story as an official licensed product, all I (and anyone else) can provide is fan fiction. "Legitimate/licensed/authorized/insert adjective of choice" or not, it is what it is.

 

And THAT is the issue I have with your misuse of the term fan fiction.

Which, of course, is kinda BS and inaccurate because creators are often the biggest fan of their own work. What? George Lucas cannot be a fan and creator of Episode 1? Surely he is both.

 

You'd have to wonder what is planned Flash Gordon movie would have been would he have gotten the rights for it. Fan Fiction?

 

George' Lucas makes fan fiction confirmed!

 

It's not misuse. But there's no point in arguing this again after I've explained in detail, and many times, why.

No. Of course he likes his own work, but he's the creator. Not a fan.

Yes. That's exactly what I would call it.

 

The real question is...Does it matter.

I've honestly read fanfiction that is WAY BETTER than the original creators work.

So if it's fanfiction ...I'm like...YEAH...I'm here for it.

 

There is no point in arguing because, as has been pointed out, you are simply using the no true scotsman fallacy to try to serve your argument mixed in with a persistent use of your own, personal, definition of fan fiction*.

*I mean, you can call (for example) James Cameron's Aliens "fan fiction" all you want. Yet, it's not regarded as such. Why? Because the definition of fan fiction you keep pushing isn't the actual definition that people use when saying "fan fiction."

As I said, this is equivalent calling a female friend your "girlfriend", even if you aren't romantic with her. You know it's not the same.

You are obfuscating semantics intentionally for the sake of your argument.

 

I actually really like this as it reflects how mythology is often handled/told in our world.

I was watching a documentary about Mad Max and George Miller stated that he didn't care about discrepancies between the films because, to him, Mad Max is like a future myth with different characters telling different versions of the deeds of Max.

 

But the question I asked was; does it spoil your OWN enjoyment of the ST simply because someone else regards it as 'fan fiction'?
I myself wouldn't care. I'd just be like 'eh his/her loss' then.

It's like when people tell me that Road House and Ghostbusters II (two of my all-time fave movies) are awful. I don't care, I don't suddenly think 'ya know what, they're right, gonna throw these in the trash'
And if someone told me X-Men: The last stand is awful fan fiction that shouldn't even stand (no pun intended) next to the other two, it still wouldn't affect my own personal view of it because someone on the internet said so.

Point is, Nobody is telling you that you or anyone else is stupid for liking all the movies.

All I'm seeing here is an endless, circular debate on one person's definition of fan fiction over another's to the point of pedanticism.

 

I agree that it's stupid to care what someone thinks, but at the same time, you're totally trolling people and trying to provoke a reaction by calling all of the non-Lucas stuff 'fan fiction.'

 

well, as for myself, I've never called any movie in my life fan fiction

not even some Halloween Sequels. And some of those are, well, to put it lightly, 'yikes'.

 

Sorry, I thought it was clear I was referring to @Alexrd

 

No, I'm not. It's genuinely my take on the matter, as I've explained at great length in a logical and rational manner. The exact opposite of trolling and baiting.

 

Remember, your focus determines your reality.
Many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.

I wish we could remember those two quotes more often.

 

Mate, come on, you repeat in essentially every thread involving the ST how you regard it as ‘fan fiction.’ I don’t know why you go around telling everyone this when you know full well that many here feel that you’re belittling what they enjoy. We get it. It’s old hack.

 

I repeat in every ST thread? That's news to me. And which ST? I don't even go to the ST forum.

Perhaps reading not only what's being asked in this thread but where the discussion started would avoid making strawman (and false) accusations.

 

I’m talking about this specific section of the forum - the Saga section. Calling the non-Lucas content ‘fan fiction’ is clearly intend to belittle and demean, and therefore it’s trolling. It fits no definition of ‘fan fiction’ as that term is typically known (content not officially published by the licence holder of the IP). The basic point about seperate continuities is sound. There is no need to exaggerate, and therefore agitate, others.

 

It depends on whether you treat the the term fanfiction as a pejorative really. I don't by the way. For instance, the vast majority of all Doctor Who content, especially this century, is definitionally fanfic, and it's great. There's a difference between quality content and content that stems directly from the original creator, but if someone want to stick to just that then that seems legitimate to me. Does me no harm.

I maintain that everyone's specific 'canon' (meaning all the bits they consider as 'real' within the fiction) is subjective anyway, and there's no point treating something you don't like or haven't experienced as such, unless you want to of course.

 

For me, it's not about how this spoils my own enjoyment of the ST. I'm always going to like what I like. (Shout out for GB 2 as I find myself watching that film more than the first Ghostbusters.)

The reason I take issue with someone's blatant misuse of the term fan fiction is this:

At worst, it's a thinly veiled form of trolling.
At least, it's simply poor communication. Misidentifying/misusing terminology erodes chances of having discussions of differing viewpoints in good faith. The deliberate muddling and of well established definitions makes it difficult to have honest back and forth when someone is claiming that the blue is actually red due to their own personal definition/use of the term, etc.

 

My opinion is it really doesn't matter how fanfiction is regarded, the fact is that fan-made material is, technically, fanfiction (or "pro-fic" if you can't stand the dreaded ''fanfic" label...)

Yeah, people can use that term as a negative. Oh well?...

 

I get that.

Yet (as I stated with an earlier earlier) to call/label/categorize the James Bond films "fan fiction" is to misuse the term fan fiction. Despite the fact that films are not Flemings novels Bond films are not fan fiction. That's simply a huge misnomer. Bottom line: to repeatedly claim this this either amounts to ill communication, or trolling.

 

whenever i see new Disney merch that says Star Wars I-IX i roll my eyes. or 'the skywalker saga'. i'll never buy anything that says that.