That's the idea now, but we'll see if it holds up over time. The Dell Babylon 5 novels were supposed to be canonical, but J. Michael Straczynski wasn't able to supervise them as closely as he'd hoped while the show was still in production, so only two of the nine ended up staying canonical, and one of those only "mostly" so.
Disney's "Lucas Story Group" isn't infallible. It's been pointed out down in the Star Wars forum they made some pretty glaring mistakes among the various Force Awakens tie-ins, one particular example cited a Finn centred YA novel set just before the movie completely contradicts what was established about his backstory in the movie itself. Plus, despite everything supposedly being "equal canon" as per the Story Group's party line, we're already seeing evidence of a "movie first" mentality, most notably how they're jumping through hoops to explain away the bad science of Starkiller's laser beam and destruction of the Republic's homeworld being visible in other star systems, rather than forcing the movie to be realistic about it, which they theoretically do have the authority to do. Besides, most of the work they've done with the tie-in material prior to TFA sounds like it could easily be handled by authors or editors anyway (such as determining certain Imperial characters in the OT weren't killed since they're not shown to die on screen) really leads me to wonder if these canon watchdogs really contribute anything meaningful to the franchise.
Well, no, not really. I'm just pointing out they're trying to realistically explain something that happened in the movie rather than exercise their hypothetical right of making the movie be realistic.
Not surprising. A movie in production or post-production is a moving target. And with so many tie-ins to approve and coordinate and only so many people to do it, total consistency is unlikely. Naturally the movie is always going to be first. It's got a vastly larger audience than the books or comics and brings in vastly more money, and a lot more people's jobs depend on it. If anyone is actually claiming that the tie-ins have the authority to force changes on the movies, they're way off-base. The tie-ins depend on the movies for their existence. Their role is always going to be to follow the primary work's lead. (Anyway, as I recall the film, the destruction was only seen from the surface of Maz Kanata's planet. I just figure it's in the same star system as the Republic planets but was left alone because it's neutral.) A watchdog's job would be to supervise the work of others and keep it within desired parameters, not to do it for them.
no they are not. and I might argue that even if they are written by the creator of the show they are still not canon (e.g., novelizations written by Roddenberry, or novels by Fontana) because as a rule, only what is in the show and movies is canon. that said, I call the ongoing reboot comics 'semi-canon' because Orci said that they were due to him helping the writer with them, and the comic writer generally following the plans for the movies (under the obvious limits and only to the extent where they effectively tell him what happens in the next movie and what he cannot put in the comics). Maybe we need a different definition than 'canon' so that people don't confuse things (maybe we already have it: expanded universe?) , but I don't think the idea that the comics might be more close to canon or as close to canon as you can be in comics, is a terribly hard concept. Probably since Orci moved on with trek, the ongoing series or any spin off made about it will have less of that connection with the movies' creative team than they did before.
The only time Orci said the comics were canon was in the infamous Trekmovie interview where he was goaded and manipulated into saying that. He recanted the statement within a day
There's a few other fandom terms that can apply depending on what specifically you mean. Expanded Universe works, yeah. Or "fanon" could sort of work (it usually means a theory or interpretation generated in a fandom that's accepted by a significant portion of the fandom as a whole, but it could apply sideways to something like this). Or "headcanon" for something that you personally consider part of your own perspective of a given fictional universe without any presumption of it being accepted by either the creators of a universe or the fandom as a whole.
what about authorized/official headcanons/fanon? he said that they're not canon because he cannot change the definition of what canon is, but he said that we could consider them as canon as you can get outside of the movies. also, the videogame too was supposed to like that. Bugs and all. (which was part of the reason why JJ was so disappointed about the videogame unsuccessfully being what they hoped it would be)
Oh, okay, you mean like the comics, or something like Jeri Taylor's "Mosaic" and "Pathways"? Hmm. I'm not honestly sure if there's a usual term for "tie-in works created by or with the participation of some member of production but noncanon". TV Tropes might have something for that, though. It feels like the sort of thing someone in some fandom must've come up with a slang term for in the past; it's certainly distinguished in that the ideas expressed in the work would likely have influenced the person's work in the franchise itself. (By that token, something like "A Stitch in Time" would probably fall into the same category too.) Not in the sense that it "ought to be canon" or anything silly like that, just that it feels like a significant subset of noncanon that's worth having a descriptor. It's not that it impacted canon, impact doesn't feel like the right word, but it sort of comes from a portion of the same creative source that went into some part of the original. I'll see if I can dig anything up, because I'm curious now if anyone's ever worded that. Edit: TVTropes has, as a somewhat cute derived term from "Word of God", "Word of Saint Paul". (And as an offtopic sidenote, also "Word of Dante" for any fanon that's so widely accepted by a fandom that people just assume it must be official, which I hadn't heard before but I love for being the perfect metaphor. ) There's also "deuterocanon", according to the same biblical analogy of "canon" through the deuterocanonical books of the Bible.
Canon-adjacent? (Although if they were called that, would there be canon to the left of them or canon to the right of them?)
It looks like that's already used to mean a Rosencrantz-and-Guildenstern-type book or fic, where it's something that happened near to but "offscreen" of canon in whole or in part. So, like, Errand of Fury Book 3 would be canon-adjacent.
I had forgotten about the Finn story, but I do remember hearing about that now, but there are a lot of contradictions like that in sources that are canon for this kind of stuff, that I'm not to bothered by it. I I think it would be kind of ridiculous to honestly try to to say that every thing is equal, there is no way the books, comics, games, ect. are ever going to come before movies. I think the idea of the Story Group is probably just to try to keep everybody aware of what everybody else is doing. Occasionally stuff like the Finn story will slip through, but overall I think it is a good idea to have people watching over everything to try to keep it consistent.
No doubt the purpose of the Story Group is the same as the purpose of the people who oversaw the Extended Universe before them: To keep the tie-ins consistent with the movies and with each other, but not to keep the movies consistent with the tie-ins (except to the extent that the filmmakers choose). What they're doing now isn't really anything new, it's just a second try at doing what Lucasfilm tried to do before, but as a fresh start without all the baggage and inconsistencies that had accumulated over the years. And I expect that 20 years from now, it'll be just as full of baggage and inconsistencies and canon conflicts as the "Legends" continuity is now.
They actually try to declare young readers' adaptations and the like to be canon. That seems silly to me given all the self-censorship which has to go into materials aimed at small children.
Is that counting the book where Han and Chewie buy a flying house for themselves and they throw a space-housewarming party?
I agree. I get the sense that the Manifest Destiny miniseries was meant to be Countdown to Beyond, but they went with a different title for some TBD reason. Spoiler: Manifest Destiny #2 The Enterprise is really getting torn to Hell in the second issue. I have a feeling that the events of this miniseries leads into Star Trek Beyond somehow or possibly attempts to explain away some story point from the new film, like how Countdown to Darkness gave their version of the "Mudd incident" cited in STiD.
The second issue was a bit messier in terms of its plotting but still fun. We still haven't had a comic version of into darkness yet. It would be nice to get a version to round out the comic series.
i love Kirk's line of "Today we're not explorers. Today We're soldiers" shows me that Kirk has definitely grown since into darkness and is willing to put his life on the line again for his ship.