Therin of Andor wrote:
Admiral Rex wrote:
Do Batman fans complain that Nolan's Dark Knight movies are consistent with the Burton Batman movies?
, but when I went to see The Amazing Spider-Man
this summer, as I left the theater I heard a man in the lobby trying to explain to his girlfriend how ASM
fit with the Tobey Maguire Spider-Man
trilogy. Never mind that ASM
have entirely contradictory versions of the origin, that the power set of Maguire's Spider-Man is vastly different than Andrew Garfield's Spider-Man, etc. Yet, this guy insisted that ASM
fit with the Maguire trilogy and was trying valiantly to justify that belief.
I've always found it odd that Star Wars novels are supposed to be canon, when George Lucas is on record saying that the model of Star Trek's non-canon tie-ins were what he agreed to, and that he considers what happens in the SW novels to be a "parallel universe" to the movies.
I think it was a mistake for the Lucasfilm licensing people to use the word "canon" for the novels and comics at all. It was misleading. Although I guess it wasn't much of a problem back when it seemed that Star Wars
as a screen franchise was over. Then, there was nothing to compete with the books and comics, so it was somewhat valid to treat them as the definitive take. But once SW became an active screen franchise again, the "canon tie-ins" concept no longer made sense.
The problem with "canon" comes with how the word is used. I see nothing wrong with the was Lucasfilm calls Star Wars
tie-in works "canon," because it's true to the meaning of the word -- the books/comics/games are a part of the body of official Star Wars
work. It's an objective standard, it just means whether or not it's official. Fandom, however, believes that "canon" means authoritative and inviolate, which is a much more subjective standard.