I will gladly take the "New Mandos" of TCW over that dross that Traviss wrote. Those books were the worst of every multi-author series. I had to force myself to read them, because I am a completionist. I don't know if it is strictly the writing itself or the predictable story telling/characterizations, but they were just not for me.

As far as canon goes, with as convoluted a past as it's had, I stick to the EU as much as I can. I don't have anything against Disney's decision about canon, and feel pretty confident that many of the things that I love about the book/comic book EU will be adapted into the new media canon. Just as things were with TCW already, I expect more from Rebels and Episode 7.

Wow. I'm sorry for you if you don't like true Mandalorians. They are like the Vikings but in the future, and not so bloodthirsty.

I'm sure if you asked Jango Fett, he'd say that new mandalorians are pretenders and he's the true mandalorian.

But that's the whole point. The opinion of a character is one thing, the opinion of the author is another. What Jango thinks is just that, what Jango thinks. What George Lucas thinks however is not just an opinion.

Maybe GL just doesn't like what happened to the Mandos, I don't know. But consider that the vast majority of what is known about the Mandos comes from the EU. Even in ESB, that armor was just something that used to be worn by a evil warriors from the clone wars. It was Marvel who created the beginnings of the Mandolrians.

George has always seemed rather dismissive of anything that doesn't line up with his vision. Which is IMO completely fair, it's his universe, we just get to play in it. But if he says that Jango isn't a Mando, then there's really no room to argue, because everything in the EU is subject to the whim of GL or now Disney.

but to see work you created just openly contradicted wouldn't be to pleasing.

No, but I think for her the biggest problem was she knew she couldn't continue with the story as she saw it, because she openly admitted that she didn't care about established canon.

I don't blame her in the least for dropping the book considering what happened. Trying to fix everything she had wrote to fit in line with the new canon wouldn't be easy, in fact I'm not sure anyone could really pull it off.

I actually wasn't referring to the Lucas thoughts about Jango, I just needed an example and Jango happened to be on hand, that wasn't intentional.

Is this really the best forum to discus your favorite version of Mandalorians, or what you consider to be canon? I thought this was a forum for discussing the X-wing miniatures game. I am sure there are a number of other forums somewhere on the interwebs that would be a more fitting place for this thread.

Also I understand that the OP titled this thread as OT, and I had the choice of ignoring it, but I find that there are too many threads lately that are off topic. I would like to see topics concerning X-wing miniatures, and not just Star Wars in general. I love Star Wars, and discussing Star Wars as much as the next person here. However, this is not the place for this discussion.

Is this really the best forum to discus your favorite version of Mandalorians, or what you consider to be canon? I thought this was a forum for discussing the X-wing miniatures game. I am sure there are a number of other forums somewhere on the interwebs that would be a more fitting place for this thread.

Also I understand that the OP titled this thread as OT, and I had the choice of ignoring it, but I find that there are too many threads lately that are off topic. I would like to see topics concerning X-wing miniatures, and not just Star Wars in general. I love Star Wars, and discussing Star Wars as much as the next person here. However, this is not the place for this discussion.

Apparently it's okay to congest the forums with anything we want, so long as we stamp discussions with the unofficial "OT" thread designator. I like corgis, so maybe I'll make an OT thread (or 10) about those next.

They are like the Vikings but in the future, and not so bloodthirsty.

IMO the idea behind them is ok, what Travis did to them is not. She turned a cool warrior culture into a race of Mary Sues. Plus her disdain and to be frank out and out hate of the Jedi tainted pretty much everything she did.

So if they can keep the core but get rid of the Mary Sueism then I'd be happy.

I actually wasn't referring to the Lucas thoughts about Jango

But it is a good example. You have what the character things, but that's quite often completely subjective, because the character may very well be wrong. Then you have what the Author thinks which most times is not subjective or wrong, because he or she is the one who decided what is wrong or right.

Regarding Disney and canon. What someone may think of it, isn't really relevant, because it's not like Star Trek and intended to be a divergent timeline. It is Canon because the owners of the IP say it's Canon. We quite simply have no say over the matter, we don't get an opinion that matters, because we don't have a say.

So someone may not like Disney Canon, but they don't get to decide what is or isn't canon, because canon by it's very nature doesn't work like that.'

If you want to disregard canon completely that's cool... But don't expect to be able to have a discussion about it.

Reading what the (idiot Star Wars destroyer, bat that's beside the point) Dave Filoni daid in post #8, he also never said Jango wasn't a Mando, merely that that is where the idea of his not being a Mando came from the fact that he s never specifically called one ever in the series. This doesn't mean that he wasn't, only that he may not be.

And as to Almec saying Jango wasn't a Mando, he is the equivalent of a PR agent, of course he doesn't want a killer to be associated with the peacefully awesomeness of the New Mandos. They even were trying to hide the existence of the Death Watch to make their planet look good.

They are like the Vikings but in the future, and not so bloodthirsty.

IMO the idea behind them is ok, what Travis did to them is not. She turned a cool warrior culture into a race of Mary Sues. Plus her disdain and to be frank out and out hate of the Jedi tainted pretty much everything she did.

So if they can keep the core but get rid of the Mary Sueism then I'd be happy.

I actually wasn't referring to the Lucas thoughts about Jango

But it is a good example. You have what the character things, but that's quite often completely subjective, because the character may very well be wrong. Then you have what the Author thinks which most times is not subjective or wrong, because he or she is the one who decided what is wrong or right.

Regarding Disney and canon. What someone may think of it, isn't really relevant, because it's not like Star Trek and intended to be a divergent timeline. It is Canon because the owners of the IP say it's Canon. We quite simply have no say over the matter, we don't get an opinion that matters, because we don't have a say.

So someone may not like Disney Canon, but they don't get to decide what is or isn't canon, because canon by it's very nature doesn't work like that.'

If you want to disregard canon completely that's cool... But don't expect to be able to have a discussion about it.

I actually haven't read to much of Traviss, so I won't coment on her writings, But Mandalorians are still one of my favorite cultures of Star Wars, the only better thing than a Mandalorian is a Mon Calamari Mandalorian. Wait nevermind, Mon Calamari Pyromaniacs would be boss too.

Or acknowledge that canon is absurd.

Well if you accept that, then there's no way to have a reasonable discussion let alone a debate. It's again like trying to discuss history with someone who refuses to accept history as being accurate.

If you have someone who says the real reason for WWII was due to the Asgard (from SG1) making Japan bomb Perl, because the US Navy was harboring Goa'uld... How do you argue with someone who takes that kind of stance?

The same goes for Canon. Canon serves two purposes, to provide some sort of guide to keep things consistent in a IP with more the one author. The second and less important purpose is to give people a framework to discuss said IP.

Without canon there's no common reference to base the discussion on, and you have something like the above WWII example. If someone won't accept established canon as being accurate then there's next to no reason to even discuss anything with them, because you aren't even talking about the same series of events.

Anyone who says that Pearl Habor REALLY happened because of something that happened in Star Gate SG-1 really needs to learn how to separate reality from fiction.

You actually made my point for me. The Bombing of Pear Harbor is a real event. It makes sense to discuss why it REALLY happened. What were it's real causes and real effects. We can discuss how things that happened in the Bombing of Pearl Harbor are related to say September 11th.

But to have he same kind of discussion about something that is fictional is just absurd.

Or acknowledge that canon is absurd.

Well if you accept that, then there's no way to have a reasonable discussion let alone a debate. It's again like trying to discuss history with someone who refuses to accept history as being accurate.

If you have someone who says the real reason for WWII was due to the Asgard (from SG1) making Japan bomb Perl, because the US Navy was harboring Goa'uld... How do you argue with someone who takes that kind of stance?

The same goes for Canon. Canon serves two purposes, to provide some sort of guide to keep things consistent in a IP with more the one author. The second and less important purpose is to give people a framework to discuss said IP.

Without canon there's no common reference to base the discussion on, and you have something like the above WWII example. If someone won't accept established canon as being accurate then there's next to no reason to even discuss anything with them, because you aren't even talking about the same series of events.

Anyone who says that Pearl Habor REALLY happened because of something that happened in Star Gate SG-1 really needs to learn how to separate reality from fiction.

You actually made my point for me. The Bombing of Pear Harbor is a real event. It makes sense to discuss why it REALLY happened. What were it's real causes and real effects. We can discuss how things that happened in the Bombing of Pearl Harbor are related to say September 11th.

But to have he same kind of discussion about something that is fictional is just absurd.

I've never heard of the Bombing of Pear Harbor.

Fortunately, most of my friends and family agree about EU being amazing and a better line of canon, but it seems to not be a shared view around the world.

I don't know the "new canon" yet, so i really have a hard time thinking which one is better.

How do you know the new cannon to compare both ? Any source ? Contact ?

You are free to have the head canon you wish, but the moment you enter into a discussion, you should acknowledge that others may rightfully disagree with you, and how unneeded is to start to argue with them because they don't share your stance.

Or acknowledge that canon is absurd.

Well if you accept that, then there's no way to have a reasonable discussion let alone a debate. It's again like trying to discuss history with someone who refuses to accept history as being accurate.

If you have someone who says the real reason for WWII was due to the Asgard (from SG1) making Japan bomb Perl, because the US Navy was harboring Goa'uld... How do you argue with someone who takes that kind of stance?

The same goes for Canon. Canon serves two purposes, to provide some sort of guide to keep things consistent in a IP with more the one author. The second and less important purpose is to give people a framework to discuss said IP.

Without canon there's no common reference to base the discussion on, and you have something like the above WWII example. If someone won't accept established canon as being accurate then there's next to no reason to even discuss anything with them, because you aren't even talking about the same series of events.

Anyone who says that Pearl Habor REALLY happened because of something that happened in Star Gate SG-1 really needs to learn how to separate reality from fiction.

You actually made my point for me. The Bombing of Pear Harbor is a real event. It makes sense to discuss why it REALLY happened. What were it's real causes and real effects. We can discuss how things that happened in the Bombing of Pearl Harbor are related to say September 11th.

But to have he same kind of discussion about something that is fictional is just absurd.

It's not absurd if you're a nerd

Fortunately, most of my friends and family agree about EU being amazing and a better line of canon, but it seems to not be a shared view around the world.

I don't know the "new canon" yet, so i really have a hard time thinking which one is better.

How do you know the new cannon to compare both ? Any source ? Contact ?

You are free to have the head canon you wish, but the moment you enter into a discussion, you should acknowledge that others may disagree with you, and how unneeded is to start to argue with them because they don't share your stance.

Basically, the only stuff in the new Canon is the movies, TCW, and Rebels. All the books/games/comics etc. don't exist in the new canon

Exactly my point. It just doesn't exist, you are comparing Expanded Universe to an Universe in expansion

But to have he same kind of discussion about something that is fictional is just absurd.

No, people do it all the time. You may not get it, but that doesn't make it absurd.

There has to be a series of events that are agreed to as having happened in order for their to be any sort of discussion. The fact that it's fiction doesn't change anything, unless you're dealing with people who have a lose grip on reality... It's not like we believe that Star Wars really happened in the same way that the bombing of Perl did.

But there's no reason to state every time something like "In the fictional universe of Star Wars..." so we simply discuss the events as if they really happened, because it's assumed we're talking about fictional events.

If you find such a discussion to be a waste of time, or resources then I suggest that you don't take part in them. But to say that other people shouldn't because it's fiction... Well frankly that's not your call to make.

Exactly my point. It just doesn't exist, you are comparing Expanded Universe to an Universe in expansion

I did say something about my opinion can change since not much has happened yet

The same goes for Canon. Canon serves two purposes, to provide some sort of guide to keep things consistent in a IP with more the one author. The second and less important purpose is to give people a framework to discuss said IP.

Which explains why TCW completely ignored it to do, weel, whatever that was, yes?

For the record, don't much like Traviss's Mandalorians either. It's like a whole race of Mary Sues.

No, my favoured Mandalorians are of a different cloth...

BTW, the whole Jango not a Mandalorian thing? Would contradict Episode 2, namely the bit where Jango talks to Boba in Mandalorian.

Actually, the new novels and comics presumably will be part of the New Canon, starting with A New Dawn.

I like the Mandalorians. But, taking a warrior culture with a very bloody past and making them the paragon of virtue that all, including Luke Skywalker, should look to takes it a bit too far. Traviss's "Fandalorians" are no more Mandalorian than the New Mandalorians.

Is History accurate.

History is written by the victors. I would never go against what our forefathers have done for us but any theologist would argue was it for the better

In episode two Boba and Jango were speaking Huttese - though to be fair, Dave Filoni in the quote was relating conversations he'd had with George.

George's opinion on things swings wildly during his creative process, which is common among artists, but in George it's even more so. What many people may not realize is that George didn't create the Mandalorians. The first mention of the name "Mandalorian" was by David Michelinie in 1982 in a star wars comic referring to Boba and other warriors in the same armor. The armor itself was never affiliated with Mandalorians prior to that.

From there, Mandalorians were further expanded upon in the West End role-playing game, which was done with Lucas' blessings and became the source material for most of the Expanded Universe (now Legends). As for Lucas' assertion that Boba wasn't a Mandalore? It makes perfect sense when put in the perspective that from George's mind "Mandalorians" were never cannon to begin with.

Apparently it's okay to congest the forums with anything we want, so long as we stamp discussions with the unofficial "OT" thread designator. I like corgis, so maybe I'll make an OT thread (or 10) about those next.

Since Cardigan Welsh Corgis are so absolutely NOT Corgis, I like to call them by derogatory nickanmes, such as: brindled poseurs, calico-wearing snots, etc.

Does anyone else do the same?

Is this really the best forum to discus your favorite version of Mandalorians, or what you consider to be canon? I thought this was a forum for discussing the X-wing miniatures game. I am sure there are a number of other forums somewhere on the interwebs that would be a more fitting place for this thread.

Also I understand that the OP titled this thread as OT, and I had the choice of ignoring it, but I find that there are too many threads lately that are off topic. I would like to see topics concerning X-wing miniatures, and not just Star Wars in general. I love Star Wars, and discussing Star Wars as much as the next person here. However, this is not the place for this discussion.

Apparently it's okay to congest the forums with anything we want, so long as we stamp discussions with the unofficial "OT" thread designator. I like corgis, so maybe I'll make an OT thread (or 10) about those next.

Wait wait wait...

...the dogs, or the toy cars?

'cause I might be in on this depending on your answer.

On-topic:

Am I the only one that hated everything KotOR and Traviss did to the word Mandalorian?

Remember when it was a lost race of bird men that Fett had discovered and stolen his armour from their temple?

That was cool...

Meh, KOTOR seemed to be a bit of a reasonable expansion of how they were presented in Tales of the Jedi.

Am I the only one that hated everything KotOR and Traviss did to the word Mandalorian?

bbbut kotor

Remember when it was a lost race of bird men that Fett had discovered and stolen his armour from their temple?

If it's ancient it'd be crap. (Unless it's fantasy. Then the technology curve is the other way up.)

That being said, based on the other thing you said...

Ladies and gentlemen, I proudly present unto you...

...THE TRUE MANDALORIANS!

Watching people defend the EU as good story telling is endlessly amusing. Please continue

Like with all things, there are good and bad. Unfortunately, "Canon" seems to be the deciding factor.