Star Wars Rebels Season One (spoilers)

[Reverend]

My view of canon has always been that it must be a two way street. What I mean by that is that for derivative material to be canon, not only must it be consistent and respectful of the source material, said source material must in subsequent instalments (sequels, prequels, new TV seasons etc. etc.) must be consider the aforementioned derivative works to exist within the same continuity.

A good example of this is the canon Babylon 5 novels (so called because most of the initial run of licensed tie-in novels aren't considered canon.) Not only to they fit perfectly within the continuity of the show, but the show itself was beholden to the version of events depicted in those books and in the case of 'City of Sorrows', the events of the book (Sakai's off screen disappearance) is directly referenced, if only in passing.

An even better example is the Mass Effect & Dragon Age books. Not only are the novels considered canon, but events from the books are recounted in subsequent games and they even have characters originally created for the novels, later appearing in-game.

The bulk of the Star Wars EU was frankly the continuity equivalent of the Tower of Babel. There's no way anyone should expect any new movie or TV show to be beholden to all of that noise. Half of which was only "consistent" to the other half thank to an awful lot of retcons, rationalisations and frantic hand waving by wiki editors.

 

[Masiral]

The bulk of the Star Wars EU was frankly the continuity equivalent of the Tower of Babel. There's no way anyone should expect any new movie or TV show to be beholden to all of that noise. Half of which was only "consistent" to the other half thank to an awful lot of retcons, rationalisations and frantic hand waving by wiki editors.

Yeah, eliminating the old EU from continuity is absolutely reasonable.

I wouldn't put all the retconning on wiki editors. Leland Chee at Lucasfilm is the Keeper of the Holocron - his job is to come up with retcons and make everything fit. That I think really distinguishes SW canon from other franchises - that someone is paid specifically to maintain continuity.

 

[Christopher]

Now guess which stories are more likely to get revised, or just flat out ignored? Those filmed, or those printed?

Well, obviously the core work is going to have priority over derivative works; it always surprises me that anyone would find that strange or objectionable. Canon is the dog, tie-ins are the tail. If you're telling stories in a universe of your own creation, and you allow other people to borrow its concepts, then obviously they should follow your lead, not the other way around. You're free to draw on their ideas if you like them and feel that they fit with your creation, but it's still your creation that takes the lead.

But the core work is still a story, and telling a story is a process of refinement and rethinking. Fans see stories as fixed, immutable things, but creators go through a whole process of trial and error and reinvention in the course of creating them, so of course they're willing to keep changing them after the fact, given the opportunity. Telling a story is a dynamic process, and thus a story can change in the telling.

 

[Mach5]

Now guess which stories are more likely to get revised, or just flat out ignored? Those filmed, or those printed?

Well, obviously the core work is going to have priority over derivative works; it always surprises me that anyone would find that strange or objectionable. Canon is the dog, tie-ins are the tail. If you're telling stories in a universe of your own creation, and you allow other people to borrow its concepts, then obviously they should follow your lead, not the other way around. You're free to draw on their ideas if you like them and feel that they fit with your creation, but it's still your creation that takes the lead.

This is pretty much what I meant when I said "officially canon, but not really".

But the core work is still a story, and telling a story is a process of refinement and rethinking. Fans see stories as fixed, immutable things, but creators go through a whole process of trial and error and reinvention in the course of creating them, so of course they're willing to keep changing them after the fact, given the opportunity. Telling a story is a dynamic process, and thus a story can change in the telling.

Yeah, and Star Wars is probably one of the best examples of this. Padme's death, for one, is basically a retcon of the "do you remember your mother" scene in ROTJ... And so on.

 

[Set Harth]

Padme's death, for one, is basically a retcon of the "do you remember your mother" scene in ROTJ...

That's because ROTJ is "officially canon, but not really canon", right?

Now guess which stories are more likely to get revised, or just flat out ignored? Those filmed, or those printed?

I don't know... was ROTJ filmed or was it "printed"? What about ANH, the original "not really canon" production?

What are you trying to set up here - a probabilistic definition of canon, based on guessing games about the future? Of what relevance does this sort of thing have to the question of what is canon in the here and now?

It never worked that way.

Sorry, but I'll take the word of the franchise operators over that of random people on the internet. What you're implying is simply false. You imagine that the canon system in Star Wars was identical to that of Star Trek. But it wasn't. The EU was considered canon. Ever hear of terms like "C-canon"?

It doesn't work that way.

That's not what the people in charge of the franchise are saying, and presumably they're the ones who are in a position to define what is canon and what is not. But you know better, right?

 

[Mach5]

The EU was considered canon.

Right before it was thrown out in its entirety, yeah.

See, this is what I mean by "not really". Hundreds of books, comics and video games can be branded "legends" with just one simple studio decision, but the same cannot exactly be done to movies, can it? Bits and pieces can be reconnected arbitrarily, sure, but it's a pretty safe bet that, say, AOTC, for all its notoriety, will never be declared null and void like the Thrawn trilogy (which has de facto been erased out of existence the day Episode VII was announced, despite being considered canon up to that point).

Do you FINALLY see what I mean?

 

[Masiral]

The EU was considered canon.

Right before it was thrown out in its entirety, yeah.

See, this is what I mean by "not really". Hundreds of books, comics and video games can be branded "legends" with just one simple studio decision, but the same cannot exactly be done to movies, can it? Bits and pieces can be reconnected arbitrarily, sure, but it's a pretty safe bet that, say, AOTC, for all its notoriety, will never be declared null and void like the Thrawn trilogy (which has de facto been erased out of existence the day Episode VII was announced, despite being considered canon up to that point).

Do you FINALLY see what I mean?

But that "one simple studio decision" wasn't made until 23 years after the release of Heir to the Empire. Yes, there was a massive shift in canon, but to argue that things should be ignored because they might not be canon in 2038 is ridiculous.

And movies can absolutely be branded as "Legends" - X-Men: Days of Future Past did that to at least 1 of the previous X-Men films. It is extremely unlikely in the case of Star Wars, but it can happen.

 

[Christopher]

The EU was considered canon.

Right before it was thrown out in its entirety, yeah.

The EU was never really said to be canon on the same level as the movies. Lucasfilm Licensing had this stuff about "levels of canon" with the tie-ins being on a lower tier than the films (which is basically a misleading way of saying they aren't canon at all); whereas Lucas himself made it clear that he never considered any of the tie-ins authoritative, that he saw them as a separate entity from his own creations. And the recent "decanonization" of the entire EU is hardly unprecedented. The prequel films and The Clone Wars contradicted plenty of things from earlier books and comics, even while incorporating other elements from them. Not to mention how the special editions changed things about the original movies themselves.

See, this is what I mean by "not really". Hundreds of books, comics and video games can be branded "legends" with just one simple studio decision, but the same cannot exactly be done to movies, can it?

Yes, it can. See the Highlander movie series, for instance, where each sequel has pretty much ignored the previous sequels. Or the Godzilla series. The films from 1954-74 had a single, very rough continuity, but then in 1984 they made a movie that disregarded everything except the original film, and ended up making 7 films in that continuity. Then in 1999 they disregarded that second continuity and made a series of six films set in five different realities, all sequels to the original film but disregarding most or all of the other films.

The creators of canon are not restricted in what they're allowed to do, because whatever they create becomes the canon by definition. And creators can and do reinvent their own universes. After all, who's going to stop them? It's their own creation. If they want to say some past movie never happened, there's no reason they can't. Because, after all, it didn't happen. It was just a story they made up. So it's simplicity itself to decide to tell a different story instead, to say "What if we pretend it happened this way instead of that way, because that way didn't work out so well?"

Granted, it's unlikely anyone will ever say that The Empire Strikes Back or Return of the Jedi never happened. Not because anyone's required to accept the "reality" of a made-up story, but because they're well-loved films that audiences are satisfied with. But I could see some future Star Wars filmmaker deciding to disregard the prequels, or certainly The Phantom Menace.

 

[Mach5]

Yes, it can. See the Highlander movie series, for instance...

I meant Star Wars movies, not movies in general.

Granted, it's unlikely anyone will ever say that The Empire Strikes Back or Return of the Jedi never happened. Not because anyone's required to accept the "reality" of a made-up story, but because they're well-loved films that audiences are satisfied with. But I could see some future Star Wars filmmaker deciding to disregard the prequels, or certainly The Phantom Menace.

Unlikely. TPM is still a money-maker, despite the bad rep. Some parts of it could, and IMO should be ignored (midi-fucking-chlorians for one), but I seriously doubt that this future filmmaker would ever be allowed to, say, retell the story of how Luke and Leia's parents first met or how Palpatine became chancellor.

On the other hand, if this same filmmaker ever came up with the idea for the Tarkin origin story and pitched it, I sincerely doubt that they'd dismiss it solely because James Luceno already did that in a book.

 

[Christopher]

Unlikely. TPM is still a money-maker, despite the bad rep. Some parts of it could, and IMO should be ignored (midi-fucking-chlorians for one), but I seriously doubt that this future filmmaker would ever be allowed to, say, retell the story of how Luke and Leia's parents first met or how Palpatine became chancellor.

See, that's the key word here: "allowed." Allowed by whom? How does that word even apply? Whoever is in charge of making new movies is free to do whatever they want with the continuity. Some fans have this mistaken notion that canon is some set of restrictive rules imposed on creators by some nebulous higher authority, when it's really just a word for "whatever the creators do." It isn't canon that shapes the creators' choices, it's the creators' choices that shape the canon. Nobody told George Lucas he wasn't "allowed" to make Greedo shoot first or have Leia's mother die in childbirth or make any other change, because he owned the franchise and could do whatever he damn well pleased with it. And the people who own the franchise now have just as much freedom to change it, if that's what they choose to do.

On the other hand, if this same filmmaker ever came up with the idea for the Tarkin origin story and pitched it, I sincerely doubt that they'd dismiss it solely because James Luceno already did that in a book.

That goes without saying. It's a given that tie-ins are less binding than the canon. But that doesn't mean that canon, any canon, is immutable.

Try to look at it from the perspective of the creator. If you created and owned your own fictional universe, you might agree to let other people tell stories set in your universe, but you'd naturally want them to follow your lead and want the freedom to ignore their ideas if they didn't work for you. After all, they're just borrowing your toys. But at the same time, since the whole universe is yours, you'd also expect the freedom to change your own mind -- which is a basic part of the creative process, since our first ideas are rarely our best -- and even to reinvent whole swaths of your universe if you decided you'd had a better idea, or come to feel that something you'd done in the past had been a mistake. Most people who look back on their past decisions will see plenty of mistakes and bad choices that they wish they could change, and writers are no different. And sometimes writers get the chance to make those changes.

 

[Mach5]

See, that's the key word here: "allowed." Allowed by whom?

By, IDK, Disney perhaps? The Phantom Menace is their property, it holds value, and they're going to be making money off of it for years to come.

Whoever is in charge of making new movies is free to do whatever they want with the continuity.

What do you mean by "in charge". Disney/LFL are in charge, not JJ Abrams, Rian Johnson or Gareth Edwards (the "filmmakers").

Also, there's this thing called "LucasFilm story group" (Pablo Hidalgo, Leeland Chee, Carrie Beck, Diana Williams) that's in charge with keeping the continuity in check, although I doubt they have any "jurisdiction" over the movies (even though Kathy Kennedy herself founded the group).

On the other hand, if this same filmmaker ever came up with the idea for the Tarkin origin story and pitched it, I sincerely doubt that they'd dismiss it solely because James Luceno already did that in a book.

That goes without saying. It's a given that tie-ins are less binding than the canon.

Seth Harth doesn't seem to think so.

 

[Christopher]

See, that's the key word here: "allowed." Allowed by whom?

By, IDK, Disney perhaps? The Phantom Menace is their property, it holds value, and they're going to be making money off of it for years to come.

And if someone 20 years from now comes along with a story that could make Disney tons of money by disregarding TPM, then nobody could prevent them from deciding to disregard it.

It's a mistake to assume that either filmmakers or the general public are as fixated on continuity and consistency as dedicated fans are. There are tons of movie series out there that freely ignore past continuity. Superman Returns ignored Superman III & IV and retconned aspects of II. Psycho IV ignored Psycho II & III. Halloween H20 ignored the previous three sequels. Both Predators and Prometheus ignored the Aliens vs. Predator movies. It happens all the time. General audiences can't be expected to remember the continuity details of movies from decades earlier. And studios couldn't give a fig about continuity between movies, since they just want audiences to buy tickets and put money in their coffers.

What do you mean by "in charge". Disney/LFL are in charge, not JJ Abrams, Rian Johnson or Gareth Edwards (the "filmmakers").

I never suggested otherwise. I explicitly referred to the owners of the franchise, so I don't know why you'd even bring up the individual directors. And I'm speaking long-term, of the evolution of a franchise over decades. 15 years ago, nobody would've imagined that a Star Wars movie would be produced by Disney and directed by the guy who created Felicity. By the same token, there's no telling where things will be 15 or 20 years from now.

Also, there's this thing called "LucasFilm story group" (Pablo Hidalgo, Leeland Chee, Carrie Beck, Diana Williams) that's in charge with keeping the continuity in check, although I doubt they have any "jurisdiction" over the movies (even though Kathy Kennedy herself founded the group).

Then that's a different subject altogether. If they're in charge of continuity for the tie-ins, then their job is to ensure that the tie-ins follow the lead of the film canon. It would be getting it backward to assume that the film canon had to follow their lead.

Again, "canon policy" is irrelevant when it comes to the core work itself, because the core work simply is the canon, automatically, by the very definition of the word. The only things that need to have their canon status declared or designated by anyone are secondary materials -- tie-ins that might potentially be treated as integral with the canon, but are still subordinate to it. The films lead, everything else follows.

 

[Mach5]

OK, I think we can put this to bed now. We keep misunderstanding one another, while in fact I agree with pretty much every point you made.

The only point I was trying to make was that the books, even though they're officially on the same hierarchical level as the movies, aren't DE FACTO on that level and it's silly to believe they ever will be.

 

[Christopher]

^Yes, and that should be a given. I wasn't disputing that, just adding the further point that even canon can be mutable.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

Give him the last word, for God's sakes people, please.

 

[Turtletrekker]

It amazes me how people can waste so much time, energy and thought on a concept as thoroughly meaningless and irrevelvant as which stories are to be considered "real" in a fictional universe.

 

[Doctorwhovian]

Regarding Tarkin's backstory, he did appear in the last few seasons of Clone Wars (Notably the Citadel storyline and the final Ashoka storyline), as a captain and laterAdmiral. Apart from Evan Piell's death (Which originally happened in the post-ROTS Coruscant Nights novels), the Citadel episode I think contradicted some of the other novels in which Tarkin appears such as Rogue Planet. So Tarkin's backstory has already been established pretty much, at least going back to the Clone Wars.
I haven't read the novel yet though...

 

[Mach5]

It amazes me how people can waste so much time, energy and thought on a concept as thoroughly meaningless and irrelevant as which stories are to be considered "real" in a fictional universe.

We were just clearing things up, meaningless or not, who cares. We're all more or less fanboys in here, so there's really no need for these condescending "get a life" types of comments.

Regarding Tarkin's backstory, he did appear in the last few seasons of Clone Wars (Notably the Citadel storyline and the final Ashoka storyline), as a captain and laterAdmiral. Apart from Evan Piell's death (Which originally happened in the post-ROTS Coruscant Nights novels), the Citadel episode I think contradicted some of the other novels in which Tarkin appears such as Rogue Planet. So Tarkin's backstory has already been established pretty much, at least going back to the Clone Wars.
I haven't read the novel yet though...

The novel mostly takes place in the post-ROTS era, but we learn a lot about Tarkin's early youth too.

 

[Turtletrekker]

^Fair enough, No offense intended. It just seems like a silly arguement to me. But, that's what fan-boys do, right?

 

[Christopher]

It amazes me how people can waste so much time, energy and thought on a concept as thoroughly meaningless and irrevelvant as which stories are to be considered "real" in a fictional universe.

It can be very entertaining to devote time to delineating the boundaries of a fictional world. I've spent decades refining my Star Trek chronology, adding and removing various books and comics (and occasional episodes and films) as my understanding of canon has evolved.

The only thing I don't get is when people treat it as a value judgment, or when they assume that stories outside of canon aren't worth experiencing, or when they see canon as telling them what to do or what to like rather than merely a way of classifying stories by their origin and relationship. It's not a tragedy when a fictional universe has more than one variant; in fact, it can be quite fun to explore the different versions and contemplate their contrasts.