I gave up reading those book posts like... okay, I never even bothered tried reading any of them since they have next to nothing to do with Rebels.

But you tell others what they like or think of something in a matter like is is wrong with any level of authority.

I'd agree to a point.

There's movies I like that I know other people can't stand. They can and have told me all the reasons why I should dislike the movie, how it breaks with proper story writing, or character development or a host of other things. But that doesn't change my opinion on the matter.

Same goes with music. Want to start a instant flamewar? Go to any board devoted to mussicians and say "I think Nickleback is a great band." then just watch. They can and will tell you how from a technical standpoint Nickleback is not a good bad, and while their arguments are based on proper music theory... It doesn't change how much money that band has made.

But there is a point where when you're dealing with something like Star Wars, or Star Trek, or Warhammer 40k, ect... That when you have someone breaking established canon, they are in fact wrong in doing so, and that is simply not just a matter of opinion.

Again take what KT did in Legacy and I can say that no one should be happy with her writing, because she broke with canon on such a massive scale, that it tainted everything else she did.

I think that all still comes down to your opinion on canon. It's one of the reasons Disney's move with the EU was so controversial. Canon doesn't have intrinsic virtue, it's only as valuable as it is to you individually.

KOTOR broke a lot of Canon, and I had issue with it at the time. The prequels broke a lot of "canon". The old Tales books broke canon all the time, as did many of the comics. Now you can rightfully argue that in all those cases, the creators had the right to break the canon, and you would be correct. Lucas did, LucasArts did, etc. Well, so did Traviss. Star Wars canon has evolved and changed a TON over the years, as any large, complex mythology will. Look at Arthurian legends. Lancelot was a French legend that was retconned into Artherian legends as Arthur's #1 knight, displacing the previously most popular and righteous knight, Sir Gawain.

While I don't like the changes Traviss made, and I'm glad they are gone, breaking canon is not a crime in and of itself. It can be indicative of poor writing, lack of respect for the source material, or laziness, all of which may be wrong, but the breaking of canon is only a problem to the reader, and only if they dislike it.

It's one of the big reasons I have little issue these days with Disney declaring the EU is no longer "canon", at least officially. Canon changes, or Universal resetting Star Trek. If a product is alive, the Canon will change. It has to. Sometimes drastically. If Star Wars is still around and popular in 2050 it is not going to be the same as it was when I was 10, or the same as it is today. The major elements will still be there, but they will be adapted and used to explore new stories. And that isn't necessarily a bad thing.

The STORIES themselves may be bad. Or they may be bad in context with the canon around which they were written (which I firmly believe Traviss did). But the story itself isn't bad JUST because it breaks canon. It may even be great in SPITE of breaking canon. Heck, I can even accept it may be great partially BECAUSE it breaks canon.

The quality of fiction is not as black and white as you are making them out to be.

I gave up reading those book posts like... okay, I never even bothered tried reading any of them since they have next to nothing to do with Rebels.

So...do you always post when you don't read something? Seems like that would take a lot of time to do.

I gave up reading those book posts like... okay, I never even bothered tried reading any of them since they have next to nothing to do with Rebels.

Once you filter out the kneejerk defenses and occasional bits of trolling, there's actually some interesting discussion in there. Granted, not a lot of it is related to Rebels...

Again take what KT did in Legacy and I can say that no one should be happy with her writing, because she broke with canon on such a massive scale, that it tainted everything else she did.

One last thing, I don't think ANYONE is this thread has defended her writing in Legacy. Though I do think it's silly to say that her handling one story extremely badly "tainted" everything else she did. Let stories stand alone and appreciate them for their own merits. I can like the Matrix while disliking Speed Racer.

You letting Legacy "taint" your opinion of everything else she does is really no different than the other poster who liked RC so much they continue to refute facts about how poorly she handled the retcons. Liking or disliking a story has no bearing on the quality or truth of anything beyond that story.

I do post about things I don't read, when it was a thread that was about an upcoming television show called Star Wars: Rebels...

I don't care about all the books. I gave them up a long time ago, because so many were just so, so bad. So very bad.

And I should have been more clear. I wasn't reading any of the posts on this thread about the books.

I do post about things I don't read, when it was a thread that was about an upcoming television show called Star Wars: Rebels...

I don't care about all the books. I gave them up a long time ago, because so many were just so, so bad. So very bad.

I have to say, even if you were to just post on threads that go off rails, you would still find yourself posting in about 90% of threads on any given board.

Conversations evolve and change, it's not a bad thing. And I think most of what people had to say on Rebels was said. That's no reason for a discussion to die when it finds other avenues of life.

If, instead, there is something directly related to the original post you want to discuss, just bring it up and discuss it, and I'm sure people will happily discuss it with you. But there is little point to disliking a conversation because it went in a direction that doesn't directly relate to your interests.

I'm excited for Rebels. I had already pretty much stopped caring too much about continuity by the time the Legends announcement came out. Ig-88 in the Death Star, nope never happened. Black Fleet Crisis, what's that? The Force Unleashed, never heard of it.

The Force Unleashed never got the love it deserved anyways. All the mediocre reviews really opened my eyes to the bias in the gaming industry, especially toward AAA titles.

Canon doesn't have intrinsic virtue, it's only as valuable as it is to you individually.

You can have a different opinion on how important canon is. But that doesn't mean it doesn't have an intrinsic value. Without canon, then there's nothing that can really hold a universe together. That doesn't mean everything has to line up perfectly, but without some sort of framework then the IP as a whole pretty much falls apart.

If someone where to write a story about how the force was actually black magic fueled by the death of children, do you honestly think this should be simply accepted as part of the Star Wars universe? I don't mean saying that as a point of view, but rather establishing it as a simple irrefutable fact.

Though I do think it's silly to say that her handling one story extremely badly "tainted" everything else she did.

I was referring to everything else she did with that story, not every work she's done. But at the same time what she did in that book, did in fact taint peoples opinion of her and put a different color on what else she had done.

Human nature is such that if we find out someone who created something we enjoy is a huge d-bag, it effects our opinion of that work.

The Force Unleashed never got the love it deserved anyways. All the mediocre reviews really opened my eyes to the bias in the gaming industry, especially toward AAA titles.

The story was fine, the game had some technical issues that were a problem.

I LIKED Force Unleashed, and FU2. They were total mary-sue powertrips, but they were fun and interesting. And I got to be Guybrush Threepwood with lightsabers! Also, the Infinities style DLCs were great fun. There's nothing quite like punting ewoks before murdering your childhood heroes.

Human nature is such that if we find out someone who created something we enjoy is a huge d-bag, it effects our opinion of that work.

Which is why I choose to believe that Lucas was abducted and replaced by aliens sometime between Episode 6 and 1.

The story was fine, the game had some technical issues that were a problem.

The story was fine, the gameplay was entertaining, and it had polish in abundance. What technical issues did you have?

You can have a different opinion on how important canon is. But that doesn't mean it doesn't have an intrinsic value. Without canon, then there's nothing that can really hold a universe together. That doesn't mean everything has to line up perfectly, but without some sort of framework then the IP as a whole pretty much falls apart.

Hmm, that is true. Canon does have intrinsic value. I really can't argue that I would enjoy Star Wars or 40k as much if they had NO canon system. Canon can have value in that it provides a framework for telling stories that can add to the story itself. Certainly many of the Star Wars books I've read I know I would not have enjoyed nearly as much as stand alone books. The canon, the framework, added greatly to my enjoyment. And I couldn't have discussions about the virtue of the Empire or the effectiveness of Stormtroopers if there was no canon. Nor could I have the X-Wing game. And certainly my dislike for The Force Unleashed is greatly impacted by how it ignored canon. So canon can clearly improve or harm a product, and thus must have SOME level of intrinsic virtue. Ok, you've convinced me. People may differ on how important canon is to them, but that doesn't mean it has an intrinsic value.

I would argue though that canon is just ONE thing that can add to or detract from a work, and that its adherence to canon isn't necessarily an overriding factor. It's just one of many. Traviss could have written a book that broke canon but was so amazing that the book was still good, and the reviews would probably say something like, "was an excellent book. Though it broke canon in places, it was still an excellent, fun, etc." Unfortunately, she wrote a bad book. It broke canon horrible, and that was one of its faults. But it had many others as well.

If someone where to write a story about how the force was actually black magic fueled by the death of children, do you honestly think this should be simply accepted as part of the Star Wars universe?

Do I honestly this this should simply be accepted? Well, no because it's a horrible and offensive story idea, doesn't match up with what people expect of the subject matter, and sounds like a childish, edgy story. You've purposefully provided an example that sounds horrible even if you remove Star Wars from the picture. The problem isn't that it breaks canon (though that would be A problem), it's that you purposefully made something to sound dumb. If instead you had tried to come up with a great story idea that would have to break canon, I might have had a different answer.

But lets switch it around. Let's pretend somehow that was a great idea, and it was a great story. It had great characterization, really took the characters in interesting places, and explored new and interesting facets of the Star Wars universe we had never considered. It wasn't just a great story, but a great STAR WARS story. It did interesting things with the force, with the New Republic, with the Empire, with Luke, Han, and the other characters. True it was a more drastic change than most (because most books retcon or change the setting at least a bit), but it really captured our imagination again. Also, it broke canon. People accepted it because they loved it.

Yeah. I think we should accept it. I think we would accept it. It's strengths clearly overpowered its weaknesses (one of which was breaking canon). And new authors and fan would justify and retcon to get it to fit in, just like we always do.

Star Wars value isn't static and intrinsic, it has value in its ability to catch our imagination and entertain us, to make us thing, and provide a universe we enjoy playing in, talking about, and imagining.

And if this story somehow changed everything about Star Wars, but we enjoyed the new product more than the old one, that's fine. Highly unlikely, but fine.

Or if the story broke canon and DIDN'T change Star Wars as a hole, but was still an enjoyable one off, that would also be fine.

Canon is just one of many things that add value, and I certainly believe it can be superseded by other factors.

Though I do think it's silly to say that her handling one story extremely badly "tainted" everything else she did.

I was referring to everything else she did with that story, not every work she's done. But at the same time what she did in that book, did in fact taint peoples opinion of her and put a different color on what else she had done.

Human nature is such that if we find out someone who created something we enjoy is a huge d-bag, it effects our opinion of that work.

Ah, ok. Yeah, one part of a work being particularly bad can taint the rest of it, I agree there. And I recognize that it is human nature to allow our perceptions of someone bleed over into our perceptions of what they do. I just don't think it's healthy, or even very honest, especially with fiction. Because we don't do it to everything we read or right, we tend to apply it hypocritically. People latch on to a popular opinion and then use it to justify hypocritical behavior. Certainly the producer of a movie we love may be as evil or misguided as Orson Scott Card, or the head actor of one movie is as anti-semetic as Mel Gibson, or the author of one of our favorite books was racist and a wife beater. But we don't apply those prejudices anywhere close to universally, or even pay attention until someone in the media tells us to.

Stories and art can be good and appreciated regardless of whether everyone involved in their production was likable, and should be appreciated based on their own merits. Likewise, someone producing something wonderful doesn't mean they aren't a horrible person.

I know I'm not arguing against you at this point. It's just a sore point of mine lately, especially after the Ender's Game fiasco. Seems like we're always getting a new story "Oh no, someone involved in this massive enterprise is a ******, we must boycott!!!"

The Force Unleashed never got the love it deserved anyways. All the mediocre reviews really opened my eyes to the bias in the gaming industry, especially toward AAA titles.

The story was fine, the game had some technical issues that were a problem.

Yeah...I hated the story. Didn't mind the technical issues or the gameplay. I wouldn't have minded if they said it was loose canon, and more focused on being fun than "factual" (for a given definition of the word).

But then they tried to go and say, "Oh, this is the new canon and it supersedes everything. And there was this super-uber-powerful jedi that could totally beat up Vader and the Emperor, and pull a Star Destroyer out of the sky, and he force lightninged people by the thousands, but he was totally a good guy, and started the rebellion, and heroically...let Vader and the Emperor live...for some reason, because Luke had to defeat them for it to count...for some reason...yeah! THIS IS THE NEW CANON GUYS!!!"

Ugh, I hated that. It undermined huge portions of the themes and stories of Star Wars, but Lucas thought it would be a cool gimmick and increase sales to say, "THIS IS TOTALLY CANON, LUCAS APPROVED!"

I get that some may like it, but I hated the story, and am glad the story was largely ignored in the EU afterwards. Fun game though.

The Force Unleashed never got the love it deserved anyways. All the mediocre reviews really opened my eyes to the bias in the gaming industry, especially toward AAA titles.

The story was fine, the game had some technical issues that were a problem.

Yeah...I hated the story. Didn't mind the technical issues or the gameplay. I wouldn't have minded if they said it was loose canon, and more focused on being fun than "factual" (for a given definition of the word).

But then they tried to go and say, "Oh, this is the new canon and it supersedes everything. And there was this super-uber-powerful jedi that could totally beat up Vader and the Emperor, and pull a Star Destroyer out of the sky, and he force lightninged people by the thousands, but he was totally a good guy, and started the rebellion, and heroically...let Vader and the Emperor live...for some reason, because Luke had to defeat them for it to count...for some reason...yeah! THIS IS THE NEW CANON GUYS!!!"

Ugh, I hated that. It undermined huge portions of the themes and stories of Star Wars, but Lucas thought it would be a cool gimmick and increase sales to say, "THIS IS TOTALLY CANON, LUCAS APPROVED!"

I get that some may like it, but I hated the story, and am glad the story was largely ignored in the EU afterwards. Fun game though.

Considering his upbringing, I find Starkiller's body count neither surprising nor off putting. Both Luke's and Wedge's are higher, when you add in Death Stars. As for 'letting the emperor live'; it didn't look to me like he was going to. He just took a moment to calm himself and make certain he was doing the right thing for the right reasons. That hesitation was his undoing. He paid for it with his life. Luke almost suffered the same fate, but Starkiller didn't get a last minute save from Vader. He got a last minute ambush by stormtroopers.

Yeah, I don't remember any of that pomp about TFU being canon. I had to suspend a bit of disbelief - especially about the Star Destroyer - but other than that it was a fun game, and a good story. All of the epicness described above really enhanced the experience for me, not take away from it.

Yeah, I don't remember any of that pomp about TFU being canon. I had to suspend a bit of disbelief - especially about the Star Destroyer - but other than that it was a fun game, and a good story. All of the epicness described above really enhanced the experience for me, not take away from it.

I don't remember it being canon either. The prerelease stuff I saw was "what if the Jedi were even more powerful?" And played with that idea.

Which was fun.

As far as moving a star destroyer... Size matters not

Oh yeah, the general epic feel and going nuts with the force was super fun, don't get me wrong.

But the whole "canon" thing was a big deal when it first came out. Time had an article on it that had this line:

When LucasArts releases Star Wars: The Force Unleashed on Sept. 16, the video game will serve as George Lucas' official median between 2005's Star Wars: Episode III — Revenge of the Sith and 1977's Star Wars: Episode IV — A New Hope...It goes way beyond filling in gaps. We try to make a bridge on every level. The story has a real implications on Episode IV. In some ways, without the apprentice, Episode IV couldn't happen.

CNet had an interview with Lucas and noted:

The new game...is the first Star Wars game to be considered by Lucas an actual chapter in the overall story line that begins with the three prequel films

For quite awhile many sources were saying it was the first G-Canon media outside the movies, along with The Clone Wars.

Then it came out and they dropped that like a hot potato, because while it was pretty awesome as a game, it was ridiculous and damaging from a canon perspective. Which, as I mentioned before, I don't consider a bad thing in and of itself. It stands alone by itself very well. It's fun.

But trying to shoe horn it as G-Canon would have been damaging to the overall franchise, and they seemed to quickly realize that.

I never heard that, nor does it really make a bit of a difference for me. The overarching issue in this topic, that I can see, is that people want to draw threads between every single last aspect of the SWU as if it's some massive interconnected web. Which, from a practical perspective, it never can be. If people enjoy books and authors that everyone else considers to be absolute garbage, who am I to take them down a peg? There's no reason why we can't all enjoy our individual pet favorites for what they are, independent of everyone else's.

Yeah, I don't remember any of that pomp about TFU being canon. I had to suspend a bit of disbelief - especially about the Star Destroyer - but other than that it was a fun game, and a good story. All of the epicness described above really enhanced the experience for me, not take away from it.

Having grown up with stories that had Sith mind-controling entire fleets, creating fleet-swallowing Force storms and blowing up suns, I never quite grasped why everyone was freaking out over TFU's Star Destroyer bit.

Lucas himself said it was 100% canon, which was awesome until that... Awful sequel...

My only issue with TFU was Starkiller himself, and his demeanor. You're the apprentice of the galaxy's most feared force user, grow some stones and stop moaning about the sarlaac you deep fried earlier.

Is it bad that after reading that essay from Traviss I actually appreciate her writing more . . . ? I agree quite a bit with what she says. I liked her portrayal of the Jedi from the RepCom series: it showed that it was easy to live up to the Jedi standards when there was peace, so easy that many Jedi had without them realizing it put up a false front. Then when the war broke out, you had many Jedi who began to "cut-loose" so to speak. Their true colors were exposed as heartless unfeeling jerks (I mean you even had that in TCW with the Umbarra arc). If this had been 1000 years earlier these tendencies would have been caught beforehand. But the Jedi grew too complacent and overlooked these flaws until by the time the war came they couldn't afford to pull any Jedi off the front lines for these reasons. IMO, the RepCom series showed how easy it was to BE a Jedi, but how hard it was to LIVE & ACT as one. Too many people think the Jedi are white knights; it's time to expose the dirt on the armor.

So, how about them Gozantis???