What Are You Watching Now
-
In reality, Disney, and loads of fans, don't like the real Star Wars story and want a new, more exciting one. I consider it a sort of "anti-fan" base. People who kind of like the idea of Star Wars but dislike the actual thing, so forked something off of it to suit their needs. So people directly undermining the actual thing because, at the end of the day, they didn't really like Star Wars.
-
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Watching Now:
@dashrender said in What Are You Watching Now:
Now you've totally lost me. Han was alive at the end of Episode 6 (Return of the Jedi), and there have been no movies or TV shows about the time period between EP6 and EP7, and there are no movies or TV shows after EP7 currently released that would have shown Han alive, so I don't know what you're talking about.
Lucas authorized books that were canon specifically for episodes 7, 8 and 9. Anything outside of those, is not canon.
OK, now that's news to me. I'm going to assume you mean the Thrawn Triology (can't think of another triology that would qualify) and those books were never called EP7-9. In fact everything I ever read said that George Lucas specifically said that the Thrawn Triology was not EP7-9.
-
@dashrender said in What Are You Watching Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Watching Now:
@dashrender said in What Are You Watching Now:
Now you've totally lost me. Han was alive at the end of Episode 6 (Return of the Jedi), and there have been no movies or TV shows about the time period between EP6 and EP7, and there are no movies or TV shows after EP7 currently released that would have shown Han alive, so I don't know what you're talking about.
Lucas authorized books that were canon specifically for episodes 7, 8 and 9. Anything outside of those, is not canon.
OK, now that's news to me. I'm going to assume you mean the Thrawn Triology (can't think of another triology that would qualify) and those books were never called EP7-9. In fact everything I ever read said that George Lucas specifically said that the Thrawn Triology was not EP7-9.
He never said they were Ep7-9, but until 2014 they were considered canon.
-
@dashrender said in What Are You Watching Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Watching Now:
@dashrender said in What Are You Watching Now:
Now you've totally lost me. Han was alive at the end of Episode 6 (Return of the Jedi), and there have been no movies or TV shows about the time period between EP6 and EP7, and there are no movies or TV shows after EP7 currently released that would have shown Han alive, so I don't know what you're talking about.
Lucas authorized books that were canon specifically for episodes 7, 8 and 9. Anything outside of those, is not canon.
OK, now that's news to me. I'm going to assume you mean the Thrawn Triology (can't think of another triology that would qualify) and those books were never called EP7-9. In fact everything I ever read said that George Lucas specifically said that the Thrawn Triology was not EP7-9.
At the time of release, what made them important was that they were the three episodes. Lucas had declared that no movies would ever be made of episodes 7-9 and that the books were the stories from them. It was a big deal and cemented that the Disney movies could never be canon or episodes 7-9. Not of Star Wars. The Disney movies with the Star Wars brand are canon of a non-Star Wars fan fiction series.
-
@kelly said in What Are You Watching Now:
@dashrender said in What Are You Watching Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Watching Now:
@dashrender said in What Are You Watching Now:
Now you've totally lost me. Han was alive at the end of Episode 6 (Return of the Jedi), and there have been no movies or TV shows about the time period between EP6 and EP7, and there are no movies or TV shows after EP7 currently released that would have shown Han alive, so I don't know what you're talking about.
Lucas authorized books that were canon specifically for episodes 7, 8 and 9. Anything outside of those, is not canon.
OK, now that's news to me. I'm going to assume you mean the Thrawn Triology (can't think of another triology that would qualify) and those books were never called EP7-9. In fact everything I ever read said that George Lucas specifically said that the Thrawn Triology was not EP7-9.
He never said they were Ep7-9, but until 2014 they were considered canon.
Not sure I'd agree with that - they were considered EU for sure - depending on who you ask as far as canon status.
-
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Watching Now:
@dashrender said in What Are You Watching Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Watching Now:
@dashrender said in What Are You Watching Now:
Now you've totally lost me. Han was alive at the end of Episode 6 (Return of the Jedi), and there have been no movies or TV shows about the time period between EP6 and EP7, and there are no movies or TV shows after EP7 currently released that would have shown Han alive, so I don't know what you're talking about.
Lucas authorized books that were canon specifically for episodes 7, 8 and 9. Anything outside of those, is not canon.
OK, now that's news to me. I'm going to assume you mean the Thrawn Triology (can't think of another triology that would qualify) and those books were never called EP7-9. In fact everything I ever read said that George Lucas specifically said that the Thrawn Triology was not EP7-9.
At the time of release, what made them important was that they were the three episodes. Lucas had declared that no movies would ever be made of episodes 7-9 and that the books were the stories from them. It was a big deal and cemented that the Disney movies could never be canon or episodes 7-9. Not of Star Wars. The Disney movies with the Star Wars brand are canon of a non-Star Wars fan fiction series.
huh - wow... that's like saying someone can't ever change their mind.
-
@dashrender said in What Are You Watching Now:
@kelly said in What Are You Watching Now:
@dashrender said in What Are You Watching Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Watching Now:
@dashrender said in What Are You Watching Now:
Now you've totally lost me. Han was alive at the end of Episode 6 (Return of the Jedi), and there have been no movies or TV shows about the time period between EP6 and EP7, and there are no movies or TV shows after EP7 currently released that would have shown Han alive, so I don't know what you're talking about.
Lucas authorized books that were canon specifically for episodes 7, 8 and 9. Anything outside of those, is not canon.
OK, now that's news to me. I'm going to assume you mean the Thrawn Triology (can't think of another triology that would qualify) and those books were never called EP7-9. In fact everything I ever read said that George Lucas specifically said that the Thrawn Triology was not EP7-9.
He never said they were Ep7-9, but until 2014 they were considered canon.
Not sure I'd agree with that - they were considered EU for sure - depending on who you ask as far as canon status.
EU was canon.
-
@dashrender said in What Are You Watching Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Watching Now:
@dashrender said in What Are You Watching Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Watching Now:
@dashrender said in What Are You Watching Now:
Now you've totally lost me. Han was alive at the end of Episode 6 (Return of the Jedi), and there have been no movies or TV shows about the time period between EP6 and EP7, and there are no movies or TV shows after EP7 currently released that would have shown Han alive, so I don't know what you're talking about.
Lucas authorized books that were canon specifically for episodes 7, 8 and 9. Anything outside of those, is not canon.
OK, now that's news to me. I'm going to assume you mean the Thrawn Triology (can't think of another triology that would qualify) and those books were never called EP7-9. In fact everything I ever read said that George Lucas specifically said that the Thrawn Triology was not EP7-9.
At the time of release, what made them important was that they were the three episodes. Lucas had declared that no movies would ever be made of episodes 7-9 and that the books were the stories from them. It was a big deal and cemented that the Disney movies could never be canon or episodes 7-9. Not of Star Wars. The Disney movies with the Star Wars brand are canon of a non-Star Wars fan fiction series.
huh - wow... that's like saying someone can't ever change their mind.
You can't as far as story canon goes. That's the POINT of canon.
-
What do we feel canon even is, if people just change it to suit the needs of every new release? That's like saying that you can change the past. The idea of a story or universe canon is that it is what the universe IS. So if it can change, it stops being a history and starts being an opinion. Now anyone can determine their own, rather than the author.
Here, I'll try it. Harry Potter died as a baby. It's canon, I said so. Did that change the author's universe?
-
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Watching Now:
What do we feel canon even is, if people just change it to suit the needs of every new release? That's like saying that you can change the past. The idea of a story or universe canon is that it is what the universe IS. So if it can change, it stops being a history and starts being an opinion. Now anyone can determine their own, rather than the author.
Here, I'll try it. Harry Potter died as a baby. It's canon, I said so. Did that change the author's universe?
In the case of SW, I consider LFL the owners of that story now, not GL... so yes, you can do this. If GL didn't want his story to have a different 7-9, he shouldn't have sold it.
-
@dashrender said in What Are You Watching Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Watching Now:
What do we feel canon even is, if people just change it to suit the needs of every new release? That's like saying that you can change the past. The idea of a story or universe canon is that it is what the universe IS. So if it can change, it stops being a history and starts being an opinion. Now anyone can determine their own, rather than the author.
Here, I'll try it. Harry Potter died as a baby. It's canon, I said so. Did that change the author's universe?
In the case of SW, I consider LFL the owners of that story now, not GL... so yes, you can do this. If GL didn't want his story to have a different 7-9, he shouldn't have sold it.
Star Wars was a lot bigger than GL, and a lot better for his absence. There was a lot of energy poured into the EU to make it something amazing and coherent (after the first few years at least). It was a very crappy move to simply drop it.
-
@kelly said in What Are You Watching Now:
@dashrender said in What Are You Watching Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Watching Now:
What do we feel canon even is, if people just change it to suit the needs of every new release? That's like saying that you can change the past. The idea of a story or universe canon is that it is what the universe IS. So if it can change, it stops being a history and starts being an opinion. Now anyone can determine their own, rather than the author.
Here, I'll try it. Harry Potter died as a baby. It's canon, I said so. Did that change the author's universe?
In the case of SW, I consider LFL the owners of that story now, not GL... so yes, you can do this. If GL didn't want his story to have a different 7-9, he shouldn't have sold it.
Star Wars was a lot bigger than GL, and a lot better for his absence. There was a lot of energy poured into the EU to make it something amazing and coherent (after the first few years at least). It was a very crappy move to simply drop it.
I agree - LFL had a team of 2 people (I met them) who's job it was to make sure things stayed correctly coherent. For Disney to just toss that, ug.
That said, I can also understand that considering the age of the current actors, it might not have been desirable to make an existing story at the correct timeline.
-
@dashrender said in What Are You Watching Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Watching Now:
What do we feel canon even is, if people just change it to suit the needs of every new release? That's like saying that you can change the past. The idea of a story or universe canon is that it is what the universe IS. So if it can change, it stops being a history and starts being an opinion. Now anyone can determine their own, rather than the author.
Here, I'll try it. Harry Potter died as a baby. It's canon, I said so. Did that change the author's universe?
In the case of SW, I consider LFL the owners of that story now, not GL... so yes, you can do this. If GL didn't want his story to have a different 7-9, he shouldn't have sold it.
Doesn't matter, owners are not the writers. Canon is from the author. LIke it or not, that's what canon is. Anything since the acquisition, is just fan fiction by fans that bought the rights to the name.
-
@kelly said in What Are You Watching Now:
@dashrender said in What Are You Watching Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Watching Now:
What do we feel canon even is, if people just change it to suit the needs of every new release? That's like saying that you can change the past. The idea of a story or universe canon is that it is what the universe IS. So if it can change, it stops being a history and starts being an opinion. Now anyone can determine their own, rather than the author.
Here, I'll try it. Harry Potter died as a baby. It's canon, I said so. Did that change the author's universe?
In the case of SW, I consider LFL the owners of that story now, not GL... so yes, you can do this. If GL didn't want his story to have a different 7-9, he shouldn't have sold it.
Star Wars was a lot bigger than GL, and a lot better for his absence. There was a lot of energy poured into the EU to make it something amazing and coherent (after the first few years at least). It was a very crappy move to simply drop it.
I'm happy to discuss the potential that SW has improved without GL. But I can't agree that the canon can change after the fact. What we have in the current era is just a different universe based on the SW concept and character names.
-
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Watching Now:
@dashrender said in What Are You Watching Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Watching Now:
What do we feel canon even is, if people just change it to suit the needs of every new release? That's like saying that you can change the past. The idea of a story or universe canon is that it is what the universe IS. So if it can change, it stops being a history and starts being an opinion. Now anyone can determine their own, rather than the author.
Here, I'll try it. Harry Potter died as a baby. It's canon, I said so. Did that change the author's universe?
In the case of SW, I consider LFL the owners of that story now, not GL... so yes, you can do this. If GL didn't want his story to have a different 7-9, he shouldn't have sold it.
Doesn't matter, owners are not the writers. Canon is from the author. LIke it or not, that's what canon is. Anything since the acquisition, is just fan fiction by fans that bought the rights to the name.
oh brother - GL didn't write 90% of the stories outside of the movies.. not sure how much input he had with Timothy Zahn for the Thrawn Trilogy.
-
@dashrender said in What Are You Watching Now:
@kelly said in What Are You Watching Now:
@dashrender said in What Are You Watching Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Watching Now:
What do we feel canon even is, if people just change it to suit the needs of every new release? That's like saying that you can change the past. The idea of a story or universe canon is that it is what the universe IS. So if it can change, it stops being a history and starts being an opinion. Now anyone can determine their own, rather than the author.
Here, I'll try it. Harry Potter died as a baby. It's canon, I said so. Did that change the author's universe?
In the case of SW, I consider LFL the owners of that story now, not GL... so yes, you can do this. If GL didn't want his story to have a different 7-9, he shouldn't have sold it.
Star Wars was a lot bigger than GL, and a lot better for his absence. There was a lot of energy poured into the EU to make it something amazing and coherent (after the first few years at least). It was a very crappy move to simply drop it.
I agree - LFL had a team of 2 people (I met them) who's job it was to make sure things stayed correctly coherent. For Disney to just toss that, ug.
That said, I can also understand that considering the age of the current actors, it might not have been desirable to make an existing story at the correct timeline.
Lots of great reasons for it, including that GL hated his own fans and was a raving lunatic. I'm totally behind the logic of changing things. But it means leaving SW canon behind.
-
@dashrender said in What Are You Watching Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Watching Now:
@dashrender said in What Are You Watching Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Watching Now:
What do we feel canon even is, if people just change it to suit the needs of every new release? That's like saying that you can change the past. The idea of a story or universe canon is that it is what the universe IS. So if it can change, it stops being a history and starts being an opinion. Now anyone can determine their own, rather than the author.
Here, I'll try it. Harry Potter died as a baby. It's canon, I said so. Did that change the author's universe?
In the case of SW, I consider LFL the owners of that story now, not GL... so yes, you can do this. If GL didn't want his story to have a different 7-9, he shouldn't have sold it.
Doesn't matter, owners are not the writers. Canon is from the author. LIke it or not, that's what canon is. Anything since the acquisition, is just fan fiction by fans that bought the rights to the name.
oh brother - GL didn't write 90% of the stories outside of the movies.. not sure how much input he had with Timothy Zahn for the Thrawn Trilogy.
He had all the input he wanted, that much we know. He was in control and authorized the canon.
-
What I was told at the time of the books releasing, is that they were the novelizations of GL's original story.
-
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Watching Now:
What I was told at the time of the books releasing, is that they were the novelizations of GL's original story.
Interesting - I heard (rumor of course) is that GL never wrote 7-9. In fact didn't write 1-3 until much later.
-
@dashrender said in What Are You Watching Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Watching Now:
What I was told at the time of the books releasing, is that they were the novelizations of GL's original story.
Interesting - I heard (rumor of course) is that GL never wrote 7-9. In fact didn't write 1-3 until much later.
Hard to say for sure. When I was younger, I was led to believe that at some point he had written the entire story and 4-6 were broken out as the ones to make and 7-9 were saved in case they decided to make them, which they didn't and made the books instead. But that he had framed out the story was what I was always told what the case.
