I’m sure what you want me to say.
I’m not calling on you to confirm your point about TLJ. I want to know why you feel that way about it.
It’s not just TLJ. You felt that way about Star Trek. You said that you felt ST’09 overwrote Trek Prime a la BTTF, and argued that because the term “alternate timeline” was used in the film itself, the “multiple quantum realities” aspect of Trek did not apply.
I’m not saying I want to prove you wrong. I want to know why you feel that way about it.
You also have said if a movie is canon and its novelization is canon (or vice versa), and dialogue in one is not the same as the other, then which one ought to be canon? So I want to know which one you would consider canon and why, or whether it matters to you and why not if it doesn’t.
You seem really set on your opinion of it and I’m genuinely interested in why you feel the way you do about a specific work needing to fully explain itself, rather than accepting supplemental sources (including discussions with us) to explain an ambiguity or whatever the case. I’m not telling you that you shouldn’t; I want to know why you do or what your thought process is.
Again, I’m not calling on you to defend your views, nor am I refuting them. I want to know what it is about your thought process that draws you to the conclusions that you make, especially since you’re very adamant about those conclusions.
For example:
Supplemental explanations from unofficial sources don’t excuse a plot holes or continuity errors in movies.
Why not?
unlike Star Trek books, Star Wars books are officially considered canon. So I guess explanations in them do count.
But why does official canon matter to you? Why do you care? I don’t say you shouldn’t; I ask why you do.