RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
That, too. I was excited about the "one canon" thing, until it started to erode. When we got Cobb Vanth in The Mandalorian and his story didn't quiiiiiiite match what was in Aftermath, and no good reason for the change (I really don't understand the criticism of the trilogy -- yeah, Chuck's abrasive and the tense threw me, but they were good stories with solid characters... they just contradicted the post-ROTJ EU we knew). Cobb's history and how he got the armor work just fine. The alterations for the show are minor, but they clash and they didn't need to. Especially not if it's "all one canon now". And so on like that.What makes it so [egregious] is the fact that they brag about having an overarching canon where every film, tv show, comic, etc is now under one cohesive canon. Yet they constantly contradict their own stories with impunity. So it's laughable to take that idea seriously.
Well, that's the thing. I noticed the things that started clashing post-Disney pretty much as they happened, because I could absorb the new content as it was coming out. Even now, the number of new-canon novels is not huge. There have only been a couple video games since 2014 (which is a whole other issue). The comics got problematic, though. One new ongoing "Star Wars" title? Like in the '70s and '80s? Excellent. Loved Dark Horse, but there were a lot of series going on simultaneously at the peak. Oh, and an ongoing Darth Vader series? Okay... And an ongoing Poe Dameron series? Um, okay. Wait, and a Darth Vader miniseries? Wait, a second one? Id there anything on the cover or in the title to indicate which "Darth Vader #1" is which? No? Um...It would be another thing altogether if they compartmentalized each division within the franchise the way Lucas did. At least that was a more honest approach. Lucas himself understood this. His films were the core of the story and the shows he produced or had a hand in, like Clone Wars, were official. The novels, the comics, the video games, all were like bonus material. They existed in their own bubble and he left them each compartmentalized to not have to deal with ideas conflicting with one another, and in this way he wouldn't have to veto a good idea if it didn't mesh.
Now everything has to mesh, and yet ironically a lot of it simply DOESN'T. Even the new films directly contradict one another. It's crazy.
I like the idea of one cohesive canon. The tiers existed under Lucas because he didn't want to have to keep up with everything that was coming out, and I don't blame him at all. I liked when a book release was an event, when a new comic miniseries was an event. Almost like a new film being released. But when there were two novels and six issues of separate ongoing and miniseries coming out a month, that's just silly. New-canon at the beginning was good. One comic series. A few four-issue miniseries (Han Solo, Princess Leia, Lando, Shattered Empire, etc.). Two or three novels a year, and they tied in with what was going on in the films at the time, roughly. But it's spiraled, like the films themselves. I can still keep track of it, but I don't want to, because they aren't.
I hope so. Various presently and past at or associated with Lucasfilm know of me, back to the mid-aughts. We've talked, among other things, about continuity and tone. Still no phone call. *lol*Maybe things will change.
Maybe they'll course-correct, eventually.
And maybe that'll be your moment to connect with them and contribute your expertise.
You never know!
Exactly. The trivia was, forgive me, trivial. It was a side-effect of universe-building, both good and bad. The data points in isolation are useful, but meaningless without the scaffold of setting and story to hang them on. But all the data points in the universe can't hide a flawed underlying structure -- or lack of.When the old EU was wiped out, I was at peace with it (since there was plenty about it I didn't like) as long as the material going forward under Disney ownership was quality, not to mention cohesive. They have not succeeded in that endeavor as far as I'm concerned.
Knowing SW trivia is one thing but to understand what works and what doesn't is something else entirely.
Ironically, I felt at the time about the Heir to the Empire trilogy as I do now about the Sequel Trilogy (ironic, as that's what a lot of people, from fans to George, hailed it as) -- a lot of potential, some good characters and beats, but ultimately missing the mark. But yes, when they reached peak saturation during the Prequels, it was nuts trying to make sense of everything that was coming out. Any given month had something Old Republic, Prequel Era, OT Era, and post-ROTJ Era. It was the whipsaw effect of the post-2005 filmic content, but constant.I absorbed everything Star Wars as a teenager. For a lot of kids after the 1980's ended Star Wars faded out of their interests but it never left me and when the EU came about I read all the novels. I wasn't so much into the games and I had a few of the comics but the novels scratched that itch for me. Eventually those lost their luster and the wealth of content became too much to absorb so I stopped.
I wished they had let content build up and rotated years, around then. A year of Prequel Era stuff, to tie into the movie coming out that year. Then a year of OT stuff. Then a year of post-OT stuff. Then a year of Old Republic stuff. Then the next Prequel movie and year. Since not every fan was invested in every era, they'd know they could relax and ignore a year two, rather than having to keep their radar on all th etime so they didn't miss something they wanted amongst all the stuff they didn't.
And that's why, out of everything pre-Disney, the ones that have stuck with me the most have been the ones where those are in full effect. Brian Daley's Han Solo books, Matt Stover's Shatterpoint and Luke Skywalker and the Shadows of Mindor, the Jedi Apprentice series, the X-Wing comics and novels, Aaron and Karen's two-thirds of the Legacy of the Force series, Tatooine Ghost, and Kenobi.I revisited a few of them in adulthood and they were definitely a mixed bag. Some were great, others were downright awful. Some were a mix of both all within the same novel. I agree with you whole heartedly though that trivia is one thing. It's a parlor trick you use to impress your friends and it can be fun. But it's another thing entirely to understand the basic rules of fiction. Character, motivation, theme. Those things are crucial and if all you know is lore without an understanding of those basic rules, the lore is useless.
See... I felt the Batman films set a weird tone right from the get-go, even though I liked the first two. I don't know that Burton would've been my directorial go-to -- not without someone riding herd on him. Casting and characterization choices were my biggest gripe. Nicholson would probably have made a good Riddler, but Keaton should've been the Joker, and Alec Baldwin Batman (I still re-watch The Shadow as a Batman movie). Danny De Vito was good, but, as much as I adore Michelle Pfeiffer, they should've invented Harley Quinn for her in that film, rather than a couple years later. To this day, I'm mad they cast Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman, because she'd make the best Catwoman we've ever had (go watch Red Notice on Netflix to see what I mean). She can pass for half-Cuban, easily.I love Batman (where is this going?!)
I certainly don't want to offend anybody here - this is just my opinion - but to me the sequels feel a little bit like Joel Schumacher's Batman movies. Entertaining, colorful, but not my cup of tea.
After Batman and Robin came out, I thought I was done with Batman. It felt like this is where things were going from now on, and I would move onto something else. I had my Beta copies of Burton's Batman movies and believed I'd be enjoying those for as long as I could.
Then Nolan came along, and I was back in a big way.
And then from Batman Forever on, it felt like trying everything to see what would stick, and kept missing. Batman Begins was very good, got things closer to back on track, but I feel they dropped the ball on Ra's. Dark Knight was okay, but I was definitely missing Katie. The third one was almost as much of a farce as Batman Forever and Batman & Robin, though. I liked Affleck in his films, but DC keeps screwing up their cinematic universe, so we probably won't get any more of him. The Batman looks promising, at least.
And that's the thing. I don't see any logic problems in TLJ. It's all tone and character for me. The chase is poorly conveyed. Leia's Force ability is poorly conveyed. Holdo is poorly conveyed. Luke's emotional state is poorly conveyed for the first third of the movie. The Canto Bight story would be good in another setting, rather than shoehorned into this one. Broom Boy doesn't work for me. And, of course, there's the whole thing about Rian ignoring what had been plotted out for the macro-story and taking some things in a very different direction than what Kennedy and Abrams had bullet-pointed.IMO most people don't understand their own motives half as well as they think they do. Fans point to this problem or that one to explain what was wrong with a movie. But the overall tone and storytelling quality is usually the deciding factor.
TLJ has some logic problems and SW fans constantly complain about them. Really? ESB has glaring logic problems. The difference is that people like ESB enough to overlook the flaws. They don't like TLJ enough to overlook anything.
Meanwhile, ESB is dripping with tone and characterization. The biggest logic problems are ones that the casual viewer never notices: How does the Falcon cross interstellar distances with no hyperdrive? And how long passes between the asteroid chase/Luke landing on Dagobah... and the showdown at Cloud City? But those can be handwaved because they're not important to the story.