On 1/15/2020 at 7:56 PM, DarthDude said:

Disney can have what canon they like. My Star Wars canon is what I decide and yours is what you decide.

That's not how canon works, though...

Disney does decide what is and is not canon.

You can of course ignore that and play however you like.

But it doesn't change the fact that they decide what's canon.

56 minutes ago, OddballE8 said:

That's not how canon works, though...

Disney does decide what is and is not canon.

You can of course ignore that and play however you like.

But it doesn't change the fact that they decide what's canon.

The dissonance being that the term "canon" has always been crassly misused in lieu of "official" in Star Wars land. Disney isn't an authoritative religious synod or a vaunted convocation of academic literary or cinema scholars who have any sort of authority when speaking about culture and the arts. They are corporate executives and marketing hacks in the business of selling stuff. All they can decide is what is and is not "officially licensed" and bears their logo. So what?

That is not, when all is said and done, a "canon" in any meaningful sense of the word. Its a listing of marketable copyrights and trademarks they refer to internally when producing new content (if we're lucky). Star Wars is not merely a franchise. Its a cultural phenomenon. Fans should never let boardrooms tell them what is culturally significant or artistically essential. That is counter-intellectual and debases the body of work being produced.

What might get us closer to a meaningful notion "canon" would be if Lucas, the major writers and directors, and academics who have studied Star Wars and its cultural impact (they exist) were to sit down and have a lively round-table discussing the best, worst, most influential, and least faithful works of the past four decades. Cultural product is art. Intellectual property and art are not synonymous.

So, your right. That's not how canon works. But, what you are describing is not a canon.

Well, it can basically mean "these works are the genuine and/or authentic Star Wars content" which is basically what they're referring to in these contexts.

Same way we have a Tolkien canon, an MCU canon, and a Shakespearean canon, ect. - and Disney/LFL are the arbiters of that now, the same way Lucas was prior to the buyout, especially since Disney/LFL gets to decide the definition of an authentic or genuine Star Wars product now.

Canon basically means official, even in religion.

10 hours ago, Vondy said:

The dissonance being that the term "canon" has always been crassly misused in lieu of "official" in Star Wars land. Disney isn't an authoritative religious synod or a vaunted convocation of academic literary or cinema scholars who have any sort of authority when speaking about culture and the arts. They are corporate executives and marketing hacks in the business of selling stuff. All they can decide is what is and is not "officially licensed" and bears their logo. So what?

That is not, when all is said and done, a "canon" in any meaningful sense of the word. Its a listing of marketable copyrights and trademarks they refer to internally when producing new content (if we're lucky). Star Wars is not merely a franchise. Its a cultural phenomenon. Fans should never let boardrooms tell them what is culturally significant or artistically essential. That is counter-intellectual and debases the body of work being produced.

What might get us closer to a meaningful notion "canon" would be if Lucas, the major writers and directors, and academics who have studied Star Wars and its cultural impact (they exist) were to sit down and have a lively round-table discussing the best, worst, most influential, and least faithful works of the past four decades. Cultural product is art. Intellectual property and art are not synonymous.

So, your right. That's not how canon works. But, what you are describing is not a canon.

Thanks, this is a perfect summary of what I wanted to convey all the time, but way better expressed. 😊

22 hours ago, Vondy said:

Empires End = The first decade after the galactic civil war? Not super well developed....

I'd buy this book

11 hours ago, Vondy said:

The dissonance being that the term "canon" has always been crassly misused in lieu of "official" in Star Wars land. Disney isn't an authoritative religious synod or a vaunted convocation of academic literary or cinema scholars who have any sort of authority when speaking about culture and the arts. They are corporate executives and marketing hacks in the business of selling stuff. All they can decide is what is and is not "officially licensed" and bears their logo. So what?

That is not, when all is said and done, a "canon" in any meaningful sense of the word. Its a listing of marketable copyrights and trademarks they refer to internally when producing new content (if we're lucky). Star Wars is not merely a franchise. Its a cultural phenomenon. Fans should never let boardrooms tell them what is culturally significant or artistically essential. That is counter-intellectual and debases the body of work being produced.

What might get us closer to a meaningful notion "canon" would be if Lucas, the major writers and directors, and academics who have studied Star Wars and its cultural impact (they exist) were to sit down and have a lively round-table discussing the best, worst, most influential, and least faithful works of the past four decades. Cultural product is art. Intellectual property and art are not synonymous.

So, your right. That's not how canon works. But, what you are describing is not a canon.

Wow... This must be the most woolly and high brow post possible to basically say: I don’t care what the meaning of words are and I will use every semantic trick and fallacious argumentive strategy in the book to try and be right no matter what.

2 hours ago, DarthDude said:

Thanks, this is a perfect summary of what I wanted to convey all the time, but way better expressed. 😊

Actually it is the opposite of the point you were making.

14 hours ago, Vondy said:

The dissonance being that the term "canon" has always been crassly misused in lieu of "official" in Star Wars land. Disney isn't an authoritative religious synod or a vaunted convocation of academic literary or cinema scholars who have any sort of authority when speaking about culture and the arts. They are corporate executives and marketing hacks in the business of selling stuff. All they can decide is what is and is not "officially licensed" and bears their logo. So what?

They literally still tell you which works belong to the canon of recognized works for the Star Wars lore and what is considered just legends. Legends is still official, but is considered a different canon. Sounds pretty valid to speak of canon in a sense of collection of works.

4 hours ago, Eoen said:

Canon basically means official, even in religion.

Exactly. And if you want to change the canon, you start a new church with the changes to the canon you made.
Hey. Disney actually is maintaining two sets even on their own just for star wars.

14 hours ago, StarkJunior said:

Well, it can basically mean "these works are the genuine and/or authentic Star Wars content" which is basically what they're referring to in these contexts. w.

No. It can't basically mean that. It can basically mean "these works are the genuine and/or authentic Disney Star Wars content." That one missing word really does matter. Legends materials have not ceased to be "authentic" or "genuine" parts of the historical corpus of the Star Wars franchise's work product because they aren't officially licensed by Disney. What is more, I don't believe Disney intends to suggest that older materials aren't authentic or genuine parts of Star Wars' historical canon when defining their corporate "canon." They just mean "this is what we officially license and reference and refer to when producing new product." Nor is Disney knocking on fans' doors saying "you can include this product but not that product" or "here is what is allowed in your game."

So, if I understand all that, what's my beef? Why do I object to sundry folk casually conflating "canon" with "official"?

Here it is: there are a goodly number of belligerent, obnoxious, jack-booted fans in our community who misuse the term "canon" as a club to beat other fans with. When someone references Legends materials when talking about games (etc) there is always a hectoring loudmouth who comes out swinging with the "canon" stick as a means of saying "your doing it wrong" or winning some perverse "I'm the bigger alpha-nerd" **** swinging contest. That needs to stop and that's why I keep harping on the fact that canon means nothing more than "officially licensed by Disney."

I've been a fan since 1977. When I sit down to discuss my favorite Star Wars comics, characters, novels, games, and films there is no corporate approved list I am beholden to limit myself (or the games I run) to. There is just the entire historical corpus of Star War's cultural work product. I don't really care if Disney licenses it or not.

6 minutes ago, SEApocalypse said:

Exactly. And if you want to change the canon, you start a new church with the changes to the canon you made.
Hey. Disney actually is maintaining two sets even on their own just for star wars.

What changes have I made to anything? Do tell?

See above. That all kind of misses the point.

1 minute ago, Vondy said:

What changes have I made? Do tell?

I meant that literally. I would not assume that you are running your own church. But if you do, enjoy. I do have a soft spot for heretics.

22 minutes ago, SEApocalypse said:

I meant that literally. I would not assume that you are running your own church. But if you do, enjoy. I do have a soft spot for heretics.

Is he a Predisneyalite, a strict Lucasferian, or is he Dutch? 😈

4 minutes ago, Eoen said:

Is he a predisneyialite, a strict Lucasferian, or is he Dutch? 😈

Don’t mind him. He’s from Barcelona.

1 minute ago, Nytwyng said:

Don’t mind him. He’s from Barcelona.

At least he is not Basque 😜

The Reverend Jar Jar would like you to have this flower on behalf of our church

38 minutes ago, Vondy said:

Why do I object to sundry folk casually conflating "canon" with "official"?

No, you seem to be unable to understand that literary canon is something quite different than canon concerning fictional settings.

In the latter case canon literally means official.

23 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

At least he is not Basque 😜

But they make sweet almond cakes...

Not that anyone cares but I've always viewed Legends as alternate universe and Disney as alternate universe and our games as alternate universes. They all count and matter but they don't have to interact with each other and probably shouldn't. When you are talking timelines and in-universe events though, it does help to reference which canon universe we are talking but never okay to beat someone over the head with. What's "Official" seems to be what is currently being made since those stories are being built on and are not abandoned by the current Star Wars creators. They are the most relevant of our moment and pop culture, for better or worse. The only consistency seems to be the original trilogy and even that could be argued oddly enough.

15 minutes ago, Eoen said:

But they make sweet almond cakes...

I like my cakes female...

25 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

I like my cakes female...

As the official stance from Lucasfilm is: The Cake is female 😜

20 minutes ago, DarthDude said:

As the official stance from Lucasfilm is: The Cake is female 😜

That's a urinal cake. It's meant to be pissed upon.

1 minute ago, HappyDaze said:

That's a urinal cake. It's meant to be pissed upon.

6 minutes ago, HappyDaze said:

That's a urinal cake. It's meant to be pissed upon.

Seems it's exactly what the contradicting directors of EP 7 - 9 did on each other. 😂

Just now, DarthDude said:

Seems it's exactly what the contradicting directors of EP 7 - 9 did on each other. 😂

But it only matters if it happened in Russia and there were recordings kept...

A new conspiracy theory for why the sequel trilogy sucked, and it starts here!