Well, no. In general, Disney Star Wars product has been well received and the fans who have butt-hurt over the loss and rebranding of the old EU as "Legends" are a decreasing minority.
What is the current philosopohy of canon?
- Thread starter ChallengerHK
- Start date
How is that different than the last 50+ years?
That are still watching what Disney puts out.
I mean, are they really going to be that upset to miss Episodes 7-9? Nah.... They'll just cover it over by claiming to hate watch it.
While I'm no fan of Disney as a corporation and its relentless acquisitiveness, I find its creative output in recent years to be excellent. I'm a bigger fan of the Star Wars movies put out in the Disney era than I ever was of the previous films.
I guess if I'd been a fan of the EU, I might've been more disappointed about its being replaced -- but I've been through that same thing more than once with Star Trek tie-ins, so I'm used to it. I've also been through multiple reboots of properties like Batman and Spider-Man in animation and feature films, a large number of Godzilla reboots, etc. This is just something that happens. No series lasts forever, and there are usually valid or at least unavoidable reasons for starting over with a new version. Fans want things to stay the same forever, but creators eventually get tired of something or get in a rut and need to change things up. And franchises need to attract new fans, not just perpetually cater to the old ones. So this is just something that happens, and getting angry or holding a grudge about it achieves nothing but personal misery. I may regret the ending of an old series, but often the new series that replaces it will be as good in its own way, if not even better in some ways.
I guess if I'd been a fan of the EU, I might've been more disappointed about its being replaced -- but I've been through that same thing more than once with Star Trek tie-ins, so I'm used to it. I've also been through multiple reboots of properties like Batman and Spider-Man in animation and feature films, a large number of Godzilla reboots, etc. This is just something that happens. No series lasts forever, and there are usually valid or at least unavoidable reasons for starting over with a new version. Fans want things to stay the same forever, but creators eventually get tired of something or get in a rut and need to change things up. And franchises need to attract new fans, not just perpetually cater to the old ones. So this is just something that happens, and getting angry or holding a grudge about it achieves nothing but personal misery. I may regret the ending of an old series, but often the new series that replaces it will be as good in its own way, if not even better in some ways.
This is what I was getting at when I asked you about your comment that canon is a terms that fans use to describe what came from producers versus what came after (my rewording; the important point is that it seemed in context that you believe that the term can be ascribed to fandom). Left to their own devices, and in a perfect world, I don't think that's a conversation that would naturally arise among most fans. It is certainly a term that they (and I) have glommed onto with a vengeance, granted.
It IS, however, a conversation that would naturally arise among producers. Realizing that you don't think canon has any legal meaning, I think that's definitely the context in which the discussion arises. (And, for the record, I don't blame them. This is their intellectual property and their revenue stream. I do, oh so much, wish that they'd get people who would respect what arose before they got to the sandbox, however.)
What I meant was that fans and critics came up with the word to refer to the original body of stories, so that they could have conversations about the difference between that body of stories and other authors' stories inspired by it. Authors don't need to concern themselves with the label most of the time, because the label merely describes their work. Their work itself defines what it is, so they don't need to put an additional label on it; the label is only needed when it's being compared against something outside itself.
That is a totally different thing from saying that fans create the canon itself. Describing something does not change its nature. Taxonomists can use the words "mammal" and "reptile" to differentiate two categories of vertebrate, but they can't just arbitrarily say "I believe an alligator is a mammal" and expect that to be true. If they claim that, they will simply be wrong, just as someone who says "I declare that my unauthorized fanfic is canon" is objectively wrong. The word only describes what something already is. Applying the label does not make the thing what it is, and the describer does not have the power to change what it is simply by applying the wrong word to it.
No, it isn't, most of the time. I've explained this over and over. What they create is the canon. They don't need to say it because the work itself is what it is. If I go for a walk, I don't need to say "I'm walking" in order to be walking. I just am walking, without needing to put an explicit label on it. I only need to say "I'm walking" in a case where I need to explain to someone that I'm not driving or riding a bicycle or whatever. And by the same token, creators and producers only need to think or talk about "canon" when they're comparing it against something that isn't canon. But what they create is the canon by definition, so as long as their focus remains on what they create (which it usually will, because creating takes up a lot of one's attention), it's not a concept they need to address, any more than I need to ask myself whether I'm walking or not while I'm in the middle of a walk.
And the writer doesn't write in a vacuum, they write for the fans. Canon is literally a fan concept. Not a legal one.
What the hell is the point of writing if the fans don't consume it or talk about the work? If the fans don't consider something canon, simply, it isn't canon in any meaningful way. Canon is largely a FAN CONCEPT. It literally exists for the fans. As I said before, if Rowling turned Harry Potter into fifty shades of grey and said the rest of Harry Potter was an amphetamine fuelled dream? Think anybody would consider it canon? No. It would not be discussed, everyone would think Rowling was full of shit and the rest of Harry Potter would be considered canon while 50 shades of potter would not be considered canon by anybody in any discussion in any meaningful way, despite what the author writes.
Find me a single Star Wars fan that considers Disney's absolutely dogshit explanation behind red lightsabers canon (Sith have to steal their lightsabers from killing Jedi then the lightsaber gets sad and turns red) over "Legends" canon behind the red lightsabers (artificial crystals). Disney's own canon is so fucked already, their red lightsaber canon, contradicts, their own canon behind Kylo Ren's lightsaber that uses old Legends canon.
How about how Disney's canon mentions things like Thrawn and Bane and events surrounding those novels, yet somehow at the same time those stories and novels are completely contradicted by Disney's new canon and retconned out of existence?
Disney does not give a shit about consistency or canon, so most actual Star Wars fans don't consider Disney canon "canon".
You are going to find this with Discovery as well, I've already started to seen much of the Star Trek fandom, even on places like /r/Startrek just conveniently ignore Discovery as prime canon and not it's own reboot thing. If the fans don't discuss it as canon, it's not going to be canon in any meaningful way. Again Canon is largely, completely a fan concept. It's the fans that define what is canon.
There's plenty down in our own Star Wars forum on Trek BBS.
There's nothing stopping them from bringing back stuff from the Legends continuity as they see fit. Although in the case of Bane, that wasn't really Disney's choice per se, he was featured in a Clone Wars episode which was enough for him to be canon in Disney's view.
Right, in the billions who are spending money on the Disney canon, seeing the movies, watching the shows, buying the novels and comics, what are they, some sort of posers? So what, the theatres are packed on opening night of posers sucking at the teat of the Corporate Man while the True Fans stay at home reading their copies of Shadows of the Empire for the tenth time in the past year because that was when Star Wars was at its purest? Cool story, bro. Changed my life.
Sweet fuck! What a horrifying thought to have let alone express.
A fan and critical concept, a shorthand for referring to the core work.
That makes no sense. If you don't consider an alligator to be a reptile, it still is a reptile; you're just wrong. The fact that you're the one who needs a word to describe and discuss its nature does not mean that your use of the word gives you power over its nature. It just means that you and other observers need a word in order to talk about its nature, because you are outside and separate from it. The alligator itself does not need to use the word, because its nature is inherent to it. If you've got it, you don't have to say it.
I think all of that is likely true, but it doesn't respond to my post, which had nothing to do with the definition of the term, but rather with the conditions which led to the rise of the term in the context of Trek.
What does one have to do with the other? I understand your point, I think, but I believe you are confusing two points of view.
Yes, a producer must produce quality or will lose business. This is true no matter what business. Stop making tasty meals and your restaurant will close.
But the fans don't make canon. The fans are the customers. Canon is what he restaurant produces. You can't go into McDonald's and order a Wendy's hamburger. McDonald's produces McDonald's food. That is McDonald's canon. Wendy's produces Wendy's food. It's not up to you, the customer, the fan, to determine what is McDonald's food and what isn't.
Likewise with your example of Harry Potter. If JK Rowling wants the next book to turn "Harry Potter into fifty shades of grey and said the rest of Harry Potter was an amphetamine fuelled dream" then that is what happens. As long as she is in charge of Harry Potter, then that is canon. You, the fan, the customer, are free to leave. You are free to ignore what she produces and write your own stories. But you legally cannot call it Harry Potter. You cannot expect all Harry Potter fans to accept your version as canon. You cannot dictate what is canon. That is not the definition of the word.
Yes such a move would kill Harry Potter. Yes, the producer needs to make what the fans want or else lose the fans. Yes, a producer will try to make what is believed to be quality product. Whatever the producer produces, though is canon. That is the definition of the word.
If McDonald's wants to launch the McRib, then that is McDonald's food. It is McDonald's canon. If you can make a better rib sandwich, that is wonderful, but that doesn't make it McDonald's food. It does not make it canon.
When did continuity become confused with canon? That is the real question.
Your analogies are making me hungry.
"For the fans" is probably one of the worst motivations a writer can have. It might even be worse than "for the money".
No, I don't think canon is a fan concept. It probably existed long before someone decided to call it "canon". It existed for the creators not the fans.
Last edited:
The facts, events and history established by the stories. Spock being a telepath is part of continuity. His service with Pike is continuity. Ponn Farr is continuity. The names of his parents are continuity.
The term has been used to discuss fiction since Sherlock Holmes fans and critics began using it as an analogy to refer to the Doyle stories as distinct from plays and pastiches. In Trek, it was largely Roddenberry's '89 memo supposedly "decanonizing" the animated series (without any actual binding or enforceable weight) that started fandom's obsession with the concept. More generally, it was the creation of TNG, which frequently told stories that contradicted earlier novels. Of course, Trek novels had never had a single unifying continuity, but in the few years preceding TNG, some novels like John M. Ford's The Final Reflection and Diane Duane's My Enemy, My Ally and The Romulan Way had presented versions of the Klingons and Romulans that the fans really connected to, and they were surprised or disappointed when TNG didn't use the novels' ideas and presented the Klingons and Romulans in a different way. Indeed, part of what got the bee in Roddenberry's bonnet about formally asserting things as non-canonical was that he once heard Duane referred to as "the creator of the Rihannsu" (the Romulans' name for themselves in her books) and Roddenberry took offense at that (even though it was actually Paul Schneider who created the Romulans, not him).
That's the thing. When there's just a single consistent series, it just needs to be thought of as the series. It's only when there's an alternative, conflicting version that questions are raised about which version is "true." So it was the revival of Trek with TNG, and the way it contradicted popular novels, that started fans' questions and debates about canon.
Basically what it sounds like -- it's when different stories refer and connect to each other or are consistent with each other, so that they form a continuous narrative rather than being separate. Sometimes it's looser than at others; a lot of fiction pretends to be continuous while not worrying too much about making every detail fit, while others take meticulous care to keep everything as consistent as possible.
A different sense of the word "continuity" is used in film/TV production. A seemingly continuous scene in a film is often made of pieces shot at different times and cut together afterward, but they create the illusion that it's continuous by making sure that the actors' clothes, hair, poses and movements, etc. match from shot to shot or from scene to consecutive scene, even if they're filmed weeks or months apart in different locations. There are people whose whole job is to ensure continuity from shot to shot.
Canon literally comes from FANS of the bible deciding what is and isn't worthy talking about. The CANON of the bible has changed over hundreds of years because people just decided parts were and were not canon. These people did not write the bible, they were just "fans" and you had different groupings of fans consider different parts of the bible canon (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant sects)
Canon is literally a fan concept. The LITERAL ORIGIN of canon is literally fans arguing over a book and deciding what parts were "real" or not.
The average person doesn't give a shit about canon, nor do most producers or rights holders. Because people go watch Star Wars movies, doesn't mean the core fanbase considers everything put out by Disney canon. What is Disney canon on lightsabers? Are red lightsabers artificial or stolen from jedi and made sad? Disney have said both in their canon because they don't give a shit about any consistency, so what is it? Oh wait, it's up for the fans to decide.
Again, and again, canon is not a legal concept. It's a fan concept.
And again, Canon is a FAN CONCEPT. If Fans do not consider it canon, nobody discusses it, it is, effectively not canon. It doesn't exist in any meaningful way.
We're arguing largely over a completely vague philosophical concept. It isn't legal, it doesn't really exist. The fact is, in the end, it's the fans that consume the product, discuss the product. Whatever the fans decide is worthy of discussion and meaningfully part of the story, is canon. That is how it has been for literally thousands of years.
This makes perfect sense as far as it goes, but I think it's worth inserting a caveat, since the example is somewhat legalistic. Specifically, the concept of canon does not depend on ownership, under current IP law or any other version. After all, the Bible and Sherlock Holmes have been mentioned here repeatedly, as ur-sources of the term... but obviously the Bible has never been under copyright, and (almost all of) Conan Doyle's Holmes stories are now in the public domain as well (indeed, the 7th Circuit confirmed this in a 2014 ruling). Nevertheless, what counts as canon for the Bible and for Holmes remains the same as it's ever been, no matter who can profit from telling and selling stories about them.
Yeah, that's undeniably the way a lot of fandom uses the term. On the one hand, it's understandable, simply because it's a convenient shorthand — "is X canon" is an understood way of asking "should I consider X to have happened as depicted in the fictional reality." On the other hand, it's not really accurate, for all the reasons that have been discussed here. (For instance, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a single fan who considers VOY's "Thresholds" to have "happened," even though it's technically canon.)
For purposes of clarity, I've generally taken to using the term "headcanon" when discussing what I think fits into the continuity. It acknowledges the inherent subjectivity of the discussion, and lets me make an argument based on the content of the stories involved regardless of where they appeared.
Well, not just any old "people." Surely you don't mean to assert that a conference of bishops called by the Catholic Church is just a group of "fans of the Bible"? They were the recognized authorities. Granted, the whole concept of intellectual property law didn't exist at the time, but they had other (very effective) ways of enforcing their decisions.
Honestly, when it comes to Star Wars, I have to admit I fall into the "don't give a shit" category. (This is in stark contrast to my attitude toward Trek.) It has literally never even occurred to me to ask why some lightsabers are different colors, much less become aware that there are different explanations floating around. I determined long ago that what's on screen in Star Wars films doesn't make a single fucking lick of sense to begin with, so I don't bother having any headcanon about it; I just do my best to take it at face value.
That said, obviously other fans have other attitudes, and are much more attached to the property. That's fine and dandy. It still doesn't mean they get to define canon — Disney does. Canon can contain contradictions, as already noted (heck, the Bible certainly does). Nevertheless, it's still canonical. What you're talking about is headcanon. It's a useful distinction to make.
Last edited:
I think those were more than "fans". It wasn't some peasant in Thessaly deciding what to include and what to toss out.
I was referring literary "canon", though.
Similar threads
