Nostalgia for the 24th Century

[fireproof78]

Believe it or not, this is not as far-fetched as it sounds. They are starting to reboot stuff--DAREDEVIL, MORTAL KOMBAT, GHOST RIDER--that I worked on before.

Can the CUTTHROAT ISLAND reboot be far behind?

(Yes, I edited the novelization of CUTTHROAT ISLAND, which I am perversely proud of.)

Yes, I can definitely see something like that happen.

 

[Ithekro]

I'm confused why this Lucasfilm under Disney felt the need to do so.

Largely because the majority of the novels, especially those that came out before TCW were based on the adventures of the Heroes of Yavin and/or their children. With the sequels in the works, they just couldn't justify all those novels between Episode VI and the new Episode VII, largely because most of the really good stuff took place only a few years after Endor, and even the major conflicts that would fit roughly with the age of the actors relied heavily on knowing who people are and a heavy amount of the emotional attachments to said character introduced in novels taking place decades or more before the present day events. Basically there would be too much to explain while tying the writers and directors hands, because larger the stories were still about the adventures of Luke Skywalker, and his extended family.

To put it in perspective, The Force Awakens takes place around 34 years after the Battle of Yavin (A New Hope), the closest story to that time period is the Dark Nest trilogy which takes place the two following years. The Yuuzhan Vong War ended five years before the time of The Force Awakens. That would have been were the authors would have to deal with a sequel to fit the actor's ages.

 

[fireproof78]

Largely because the majority of the novels, especially those that came out before TCW were based on the adventures of the Heroes of Yavin and/or their children. With the sequels in the works, they just couldn't justify all those novels between Episode VI and the new Episode VII, largely because most of the really good stuff took place only a few years after Endor, and even the major conflicts that would fit roughly with the age of the actors relied heavily on knowing who people are and a heavy amount of the emotional attachments to said character introduced in novels taking place decades or more before the present day events. Basically there would be too much to explain while tying the writers and directors hands, because larger the stories were still about the adventures of Luke Skywalker, and his extended family.

To put it in perspective, The Force Awakens takes place around 34 years after the Battle of Yavin (A New Hope), the closest story to that time period is the Dark Nest trilogy which takes place the two following years. The Yuuzhan Vong War ended five years before the time of The Force Awakens. That would have been were the authors would have to deal with a sequel to fit the actor's ages.

Largely it's freeing the writers to develop stories not based off of other writers' works, which can be extremely frustrating, especially if they miss a detail.

 

[Greg Cox]

It's not about having to worry about other writers' work. It's about the practical reality that 98% of moviegoers have not read the books and should not be expected to. And that the actual movies are always going to trump the books simply because they're being produced for a much larger audience, by several orders of magnitude.

Look at Chewbacca. I know the books killed him off years ago, but the average moviegoer doesn't know that--and would have been puzzled and disappointed if he had not appeared in THE FORCE AWAKENS. And explaining to them that "Oh, he died years ago in a novel you've never heard of" would not have been satisfying to literally millions of moviegoers. And, no, expecting them to read synopses on Wookieeipedia is not a realistic option.

It's not about artistic or creative freedom; it's about pragmatism. The vast majority of the population only watch the movies, so you can't expect the movies to be bound by years of tie-in novels. You can't have the tail wagging the dog.

 

[KelisThePoet]

The above three posts all explain why the new Star Wars movies aren't based on or bound by the Expanded Universe.

But I never asked why the new movies aren't based on or bound by the Expanded Universe. I asked why the new movies don't ignore the Expanded Universe, the way Lucas' prequels did, without taking an official position on it.

The closest to an answer to my actual question is Ithekro's post, which notes the timeframe of the Expanded Universe in relation to the timeframe of the new movies. Because most of the Expanded Universe takes place post-Return of the Jedi and so do the new movies, there are more contradictions to the Expanded Universe in the new movies than there are in Lucas' prequels, but there are plenty of contradictions in the prequels too (and many more in The Clone Wars). This strikes me as a change in degree, not in kind, so I remain puzzled by Lucasfilm's move--not their move to ignore the old books but their move to officially de-canonize them.

 

[Voth commando1]

The above three posts all explain why the new Star Wars movies aren't based on or bound by the Expanded Universe.

But I never asked why the new movies aren't based on or bound by the Expanded Universe. I asked why the new movies don't ignore the Expanded Universe, the way Lucas' prequels did, without taking an official position on it.

The closest to an answer to my actual question is Ithekro's post, which notes the timeframe of the Expanded Universe in relation to the timeframe of the new movies. Because most of the Expanded Universe takes place post-Return of the Jedi and so do the new movies, there are more contradictions to the Expanded Universe in the new movies than there are in Lucas' prequels, but there are plenty of contradictions in the prequels too (and many more in The Clone Wars). This strikes me as a change in degree, not in kind, so I remain puzzled by Lucasfilm's move--not their move to ignore the old books but their move to officially de-canonize them.

The prequel contradictions were effectively harmonized by retcons.

 

[fireproof78]

The above three posts all explain why the new Star Wars movies aren't based on or bound by the Expanded Universe.

But I never asked why the new movies aren't based on or bound by the Expanded Universe. I asked why the new movies don't ignore the Expanded Universe, the way Lucas' prequels did, without taking an official position on it.

The closest to an answer to my actual question is Ithekro's post, which notes the timeframe of the Expanded Universe in relation to the timeframe of the new movies. Because most of the Expanded Universe takes place post-Return of the Jedi and so do the new movies, there are more contradictions to the Expanded Universe in the new movies than there are in Lucas' prequels, but there are plenty of contradictions in the prequels too (and many more in The Clone Wars). This strikes me as a change in degree, not in kind, so I remain puzzled by Lucasfilm's move--not their move to ignore the old books but their move to officially de-canonize them.

Possibly because there is just so much. I mean, look at Rebels and their introduction of Thrawn. So much furor was generated because he wasn't exactly like he was portrayed Zahn's books.

I'm only guessing that Lucasfilm felt the need to draw a line in the sand to establish consumer confidence that "You don't need to focus on this stuff here-only this stuff."

It might be a distinction without a difference, but the overall feel that I always had about the EU/books is that the focus on the Skywalkers and Solos was the main point with Old Republic stuff being more ancillary. Since TFA had the Big Three back, and new books coming out, ensuring that people could follow the story.

Which, I think there would have been a large negative reaction either way, since much of the speculation that I read online before was all the different stories that Lucasfilm could adapt from the EU for the sequel, like the Vong, Thrawn, etc.

As a thought that I've had, I don't see Disney era Lucasfilm doing too much different than Lucas was doing before. I mean, during the Prequel era we had a massive merchandising ramp up, and then the announcement of TV shows and spin offs. While there wasn't an official announcement, like you said @KelisThePoet, they still flat ignored most Old Republic book information. I mean, I recall have the Star Wars dictionary which had a whole different story to Vader's origin, and Palpatine's rise to power.

So, I think that difference is simply in the amount of material out there that Lucasfilm felt had to be ignored.

 

[Greg Cox]

Arguably, the mistake was not in "officially" de-canonizing them, but in letting people think they were "canon" in the first place--which no tie-in book can ever truly be..

Plus, they understandably wanted any new books to be consistent with the new movies, so it made a certain sense to draw a line in the sand.

Ultimately, of course, the "canon" thing is meaningless. The trick is to just read the books, old or new, enjoy them, and not lose sleep over whether they "count" or not, which is the way things used to work before everyone became obsessed with "canon."

At the risk of channeling my inner curmudgeon, I grew up devouring tie-in novels based on everything from GET SMART to DARK SHADOWS to THE PARTRIDGE FAMILY to LASSIE. Never worried for a moment about whether they were "canon" or not. We just read them for fun . . . which is kinda the point, IMHO.

 

[KelisThePoet]

So, I think that difference is simply in the amount of material out there that Lucasfilm felt had to be ignored.

This makes sense.

they understandably wanted any new books to be consistent with the new movies, so it made a certain sense to draw a line in the sand.

So does this. Personally, I don't like the notion of one corporate entity controlling all the fictional spin offs in every medium, but I understand why it happens.

look at Rebels and their introduction of Thrawn. So much furor was generated because he wasn't exactly like he was portrayed Zahn's books.

I'm only guessing that Lucasfilm felt the need to draw a line in the sand to establish consumer confidence that "You don't need to focus on this stuff here-only this stuff."

Okay, here's where I become more skeptical. Are the kinds of consumers who need their confidence in the franchise established even aware of something like the furor over Thrawn in Rebels? Admittedly, I haven't watched the show or heard about the controversy, but I'm guessing it took place on the internet among devoted Star Wars fans who follow the Expanded Universe, and I'm guessing most people who watch Rebels or go to the new movies heard nothing about it. I admit, this is all just gut feeling. I haven't done any demographic research or anything. But I just don't think all that many people care or not whether the Expanded Universe is canon or even know to ask the question. I don't think the mass perception of Star Wars is of something involved and unapproachable (Star Trek, sadly, is a different story).

The prequel contradictions were effectively harmonized by retcons.

Case in point, as a semi-casual Star Wars fan, I'm aware of some of the contradictions. I'm semi-aware of attempts to "retcon" them, but I never looked into these attempts. Which leads me to . . .

Arguably, the mistake was not in "officially" de-canonizing them, but in letting people think they were "canon" in the first place--which no tie-in book can ever truly be..

I agree, but I think the mistake was made (or at least seriously compounded) by the official act of de-canonization itself. That act implies they were canon before, which they weren't. I know there were some fans who tried to work out a non-contradictory canon before that, and perhaps some Lucasfilm sources that encouraged them, but it was never the governing creative principle of Lucasfilm. On the contrary, Lucas himself regularly stated in noncommittal terms that he didn't pay much attention to the expanded universe outside his own stories. And as a fan, I read a few of the ones I liked, fully recognizing their difference from the movies and never thinking of them as either "canon" or "legend."

 

[Voth commando1]

This makes sense.So does this. Personally, I don't like the notion of one corporate entity controlling all the fictional spin offs in every medium, but I understand why it happens.Okay, here's where I become more skeptical. Are the kinds of consumers who need their confidence in the franchise established even aware of something like the furor over Thrawn in Rebels? Admittedly, I haven't watched the show or heard about the controversy, but I'm guessing it took place on the internet among devoted Star Wars fans who follow the Expanded Universe, and I'm guessing most people who watch Rebels or go to the new movies heard nothing about it. I admit, this is all just gut feeling. I haven't done any demographic research or anything. But I just don't think all that many people care or not whether the Expanded Universe is canon or even know to ask the question. I don't think the mass perception of Star Wars is of something involved and unapproachable (Star Trek, sadly, is a different story).Case in point, as a semi-casual Star Wars fan, I'm aware of some of the contradictions. I'm semi-aware of attempts to "retcon" them, but I never looked into these attempts. Which leads me to . . .
I agree, but I think the mistake was made (or at least seriously compounded) by the official act of de-canonization itself. That act implies they were canon before, which they weren't. I know there were some fans who tried to work out a non-contradictory canon before that, and perhaps some Lucasfilm sources that encouraged them, but it was never the governing creative principle of Lucasfilm. On the contrary, Lucas himself regularly stated in noncommittal terms that he didn't pay much attention to the expanded universe outside his own stories. And as a fan, I read a few of the ones I liked, fully recognizing their difference from the movies and never thinking of them as either "canon" or "legend."

They were treated as canon in official policy.

Star Wars is not Star Trek the company policies were very different.

Also to say tie ins can never be "canon" translated as well those nerd trash books don't matter is an incredibly arrogant and snobbish attitude to possess. People like me were invested in those books, took them seriously.

 

[The Old Mixer]

is an incredibly arrogant and snobbish attitude to possess

Let's dial back the getting personal. I know things can get pretty heated here in the Star Wars forum, but...wait, where are we?

 

[Ithekro]

The truth is that Star Wars had a tiered canon system that got more convoluted as Lucas started to make more films and the cartoons started coming out. For the most part the post-Endor EU novels were considered canon right up to when Disney bought Star Wars. Why was this considered canon? Because no one up to that point suspected that we would EVER get more on film adventures of the character in the OT ever again. As far as Lucasfilm was concerned, what happened in the novels was what happened to the Heroes of Yavin post-Endor. It didn't seem like Lucas himself was going to do sequels with the 30th anniversary of Star Wars and only a new Clone Wars cartoon was announced. It wasn't until after the 35th anniversary that Disney bought Star Wars and announced that Episode VII was going to be a thing, a real thing.

Then things changed. With the realization that more Star Wars was coming Post-Endor on film, suddenly the 21 or so years of EU novels from Heir to the Empire forward suddenly become a potential liability to storyteller and the majority of the audience who WILL (and did) flock to see the new movie. Before that, with the PT, there was a lot less material to contradict, so it wasn't as important to the story what the EU was doing as most of it was Post-Endor which was well after anything going on the PT anyway. A few things didn't track right, but later novels attempted to recon the oddities in one way or another, while others were simply put down as rumors that people had gotten wrong (a lot of those were about Boba Fett's past). The Clone Wars added to the issues as storytellers would not ignore exactly, (they knew the stories they were attempting to work around) but would contradict other PT and Clone Wars era novels and comics as it progressed. Some on Lucas' say so, which was still the highest tier of canon. More or less one author's entire body of works became contradicted (at least in part) via The Clone War as the cartoons gave a very different impression of the clones and the Mandalorians (It should be noted that while Star Wars: Rebels continued the story of the Mandalorians, the tales fit more with the information known about them prior to the PT than anything written between the PT and TCW).

 

[Trekkin]

People like me were invested in those books, took them seriously.

'People' at Lucasfilm and Disney invested and took them 'seriously' as well. They're the ones who put 'Legends' out of its misery, and threw a bone by embalming the corpse in a pretty coffin for continued public viewing.

What makes 'people' so special, that failing to mourn along with them makes someone a 'snob'? Coz it certainly doesn't look like the levels of 'investment.'

They were treated as canon in official policy.

LucasBooks refined their 'policy' several times over forty years. The 'levels' were a relatively late addition.

The canon has now been further refined.

Pray they don't refine it further.

 

[Voth commando1]

'People' at Lucasfilm and Disney invested and took them 'seriously' as well. They're the ones who put 'Legends' out of its misery, and threw a bone by embalming the corpse in a pretty coffin for continued public viewing.

What makes 'people' so special, that failing to mourn along with them makes someone a 'snob'? Coz it certainly doesn't look like the levels of 'investment.'



LucasBooks refined their 'policy' several times over forty years. The 'levels' were a relatively late addition.

The canon has now been further refined.

Pray they don't refine it further.

Emotional and financial investment and countless hours on Wookieepedia. Really must you be so mean?

 

[fireproof78]

The truth is that Star Wars had a tiered canon system that got more convoluted as Lucas started to make more films and the cartoons started coming out. For the most part the post-Endor EU novels were considered canon right up to when Disney bought Star Wars. Why was this considered canon? Because no one up to that point suspected that we would EVER get more on film adventures of the character in the OT ever again. As far as Lucasfilm was concerned, what happened in the novels was what happened to the Heroes of Yavin post-Endor. It didn't seem like Lucas himself was going to do sequels with the 30th anniversary of Star Wars and only a new Clone Wars cartoon was announced. It wasn't until after the 35th anniversary that Disney bought Star Wars and announced that Episode VII was going to be a thing, a real thing.

Then things changed. With the realization that more Star Wars was coming Post-Endor on film, suddenly the 21 or so years of EU novels from Heir to the Empire forward suddenly become a potential liability to storyteller and the majority of the audience who WILL (and did) flock to see the new movie. Before that, with the PT, there was a lot less material to contradict, so it wasn't as important to the story what the EU was doing as most of it was Post-Endor which was well after anything going on the PT anyway. A few things didn't track right, but later novels attempted to recon the oddities in one way or another, while others were simply put down as rumors that people had gotten wrong (a lot of those were about Boba Fett's past). The Clone Wars added to the issues as storytellers would not ignore exactly, (they knew the stories they were attempting to work around) but would contradict other PT and Clone Wars era novels and comics as it progressed. Some on Lucas' say so, which was still the highest tier of canon. More or less one author's entire body of works became contradicted (at least in part) via The Clone War as the cartoons gave a very different impression of the clones and the Mandalorians (It should be noted that while Star Wars: Rebels continued the story of the Mandalorians, the tales fit more with the information known about them prior to the PT than anything written between the PT and TCW).

Pretty much this. The EU was "canon" right up until the point that it wasn't. Lucas didn't have much interest in the books, didn't care what they did with it, and if he had written 7, 8, & 9, he wouldn't have used the books at all. That wasn't the story he wanted to tell, even if he could appreciate the fact that others enjoyed writing those stories in his sandbox.

So, when Disney took over, they just made "official" what Lucas had done in the past with the PT and the Clone Wars so they could focus on the story they wanted to tell without all the books and storylines and details to maintain.

There is not diminishing of the value of the stories or the enjoyment taken from them. I don't need a story's status to be "canon" for it to enjoyable, with any franchise, Star Trek, Star Wars, LOTR, etc. etc. The investment in to these stories isn't taken away from myself because I still have those books, sitting on my shelf, to read and enjoy-canon status be damned.

 

[Kevman7987]

LucasBooks refined their 'policy' several times over forty years. The 'levels' were a relatively late addition.

The canon has now been further refined.

Pray they don't refine it further.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Trekkin]

Emotional and financial investment and countless hours on Wookieepedia.

So 'people' brought the books, read the books, and talked about them online. I'm sure none of the 'arrogant snobs' ever did that. No siree.

As for 'time and finances,' Disney has probably invested more of both in Bloodline alone, than 'people' did in the entirety of the Legends continuity. So if 'consider people's investment!' is so important, shouldn't we automatically be more inclined towards The Mouse?

Really must you be so mean?

The investment in to these stories isn't taken away from myself because I still have those books, sitting on my shelf, to read and enjoy-canon status be damned.

Yet somehow, The Holiday Special really did lose some entertainment value after its 'official prequel to ESB' status was removed.

How strange.

 

[Greg Cox]

Also to say tie ins can never be "canon" translated as well those nerd trash books don't matter is an incredibly arrogant and snobbish attitude to possess. People like me were invested in those books, took them seriously.

Um, I write and edit those "nerd trash books" for a living, and I take great pride in my work. I was just talking about the practical realities of the situation.

That was not a value judgment. To my mind, it's not an insult to say that a book isn't "canon," since "canon" does not equal "quality." My whole point is that you can read and enjoy tie-in novels, and take them seriously, without worrying about whether they're "canon" or not.

 

[1001001]

Seriously who gives a shit what's "canon" and what's not?

We can each decide for ourselves, with absolutely no consequences whatsoever.

Enjoy what you enjoy, and forget the rest.

 

[BillJ]

Also to say tie ins can never be "canon" translated as well those nerd trash books don't matter is an incredibly arrogant and snobbish attitude to possess. People like me were invested in those books, took them seriously.

Tie-ins can't be canon, especially in an ongoing franchise. The TV/movie portion is going to take precedence.

I don't see why a story needs to be canon to be enjoyed and taken seriously? Can someone explain this to me?