DARTHOSIRUS Posted April 24, 2015 Share Posted April 24, 2015 (edited) No, no, no. Zabrak, Rattataki and Chiss are all still EU Canon (...for what that's worth these days) races. Its just that Maul and Asasj, the first Zabrak and Rattataki characters, aren't those anymore. *rolls eyes* From my point of view... Maul is a zabrak because he looks like a zabrak. Ventress is a rattataki because she looks like a rattataki... My philosophy is if it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, then its a duck. Edited April 24, 2015 by DARTHOSIRUS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghisallo Posted April 24, 2015 Share Posted April 24, 2015 Says who? Simple. When you look at the definition of "Canon" there is essentially one level. This is why Star Trek said that only the Live Action TV shows and movies = Canon, why on the original Conan Doyle Sherlock Holmes stories are considered "Canon" by scholars, or how Battle Star Galactica considers the various media treatments their own unique Canon. Star Wars essentially has 3 different levels of Canon. When you look at the fact that Lucas whole heartedly admitted that he never read any if the books about the EU and didn't care about them... it puts the G, T and C set up in serious question. How can the books be considered part of an overall Canon IF the movies or TV shows explicitly fail to take them even into the smallest consideration? Answer you can't. Now if George had kept his big trap shut, or been diplomatic saying something simply like "hey the books are great" OR better yet what he should have done, actually plotted out his story ahead of time, written a plot book and then had perspective writers go off that Canon polt book we would have a different story. Instead we have George saying "oh the books of the EU, they don't matter to my story." If you boil down his statement he literally said that. The only reason we had the types of Canon we got was because George figured he would make more money, and with the passion I have seen over the destruction of that EU Canon and how much money Disney was willing to pay for the IP AND the fact George was already rich enough to donate all of that to charity? I would say he made a good call with what amounted to a PR snow job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghisallo Posted April 24, 2015 Share Posted April 24, 2015 From my point of view... Maul is a zabrak because he looks like a zabrak. Ventress is a rattataki because she looks like a rattataki... My philosophy is if it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, then its a duck. But if the duck never existed and it was called a Quack, then its a Quack and not a duck. Ultimately that is what the new Canon has done...the duck never existed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gblXsw Posted April 29, 2015 Share Posted April 29, 2015 I say this because Canon really can't be changed. Says who? Simple. When you look at the definition of "Canon" there is essentially one level. This is why Star Trek said that only the Live Action TV shows and movies = Canon, why on the original Conan Doyle Sherlock Holmes stories are considered "Canon" by scholars, or how Battle Star Galactica considers the various media treatments their own unique Canon. My point is, there isn't really a definition. There is no reason why you shouldn't be able to adapt the concept of canon to what you think is best for your franchise. You bring up two interesting examples and I think they show that canon isn't one specific thing. Sherlock Holmes canon is just the list of Conan Doyle's own Holmes stories. The point of calling those canon was just to distinguish it from later Holmes stories from other authors. Canon wasn't about having an official narrative yet, it just makes clear that everyone else is basically writing fan fiction. There are contradictions in Sherlock Holmes canon and the nature of it doesn't give a definitive answer which is the truth - are both statements true and there is no continuous narrative, does the newer statement overrule the contradicted one (thus changing the previously established truth!) or do we have to come up with something outside the canon? Star Trek canon is a different animal and it's actually a rather bad choice to support your statement of "Canon really can't be changed". While superficially there also is a list of publications that are considered canon, the devil's in the details: Roddenberry was known for changing his mind about things, he constantly 'decanonized' elements that he didn't like anymore and that contradicted what he wanted to tell. Therefore Star Trek canon is actually not a list of publications like Holmes canon, but a hard to define collection of elements from these publications - and it has changed considerably. Battlestar Galactica, well, the re-imagined version threw out like 98 %. It is a completetely different story and treating them as separate continuities seems the only remotely reasonable thing, so I don't see how this is comparable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghisallo Posted April 29, 2015 Share Posted April 29, 2015 My point is, there isn't really a definition. There is no reason why you shouldn't be able to adapt the concept of canon to what you think is best for your franchise. You bring up two interesting examples and I think they show that canon isn't one specific thing. See there is a definition every where BUT the SW EU. If you look at every other Fiction "franchise" they have a solid Canon... whether if be Galactica's, each series is its, own Canon, Star Trek's one the live action TV and Movies are Canon etc. Even Tolkein has a Canon. Only what was directly published during his lifetime is "Canon", the rest is "source material" or myths of the Arda. They are typically very rigid structures. However when the books took off big time Lucas saw there was money to be made...but if you didn't even know if you were going to make anymore movies...how do you have what rapid Sci-Fi fans want, a Canon, and still get what you want? Namely the money from those rabid fans for buying hundreds of different books and comics without you having to be tied to any of it or having decent authors say "thanks but no thanks, I don't want to be paging through hundreds of pages of Canon reference?" You create a system where they have the illusion of a Canon. Where a book published today can retcon something from a book published 10 years ago and what ou do can retcon anything. That isn't a Canon anywhere else but in the SW EU where marketing trumps continuity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts