Shopping Maul said:
Good perspective. Just to clarify, I’m also talking about the idea of certain pieces of the canon not respecting other pieces even though they are supposed to be 9 parts of one story, which is slightly different from recasting etc.
On the topic of Trek, it’s funny that you mention scale, since now that I know that the saucer set in First Contact was not full size it bugs me, even though you can’t tell in the film that it is only 70 percent of the full size.
But Star Wars has been disrespecting its own canon from day one. In the first film Luke, who had an obvious crush on Princess Leia, was the son of a war hero who’d been killed by Darth Vader. In the next film Lucas suddenly decided Vader was actually Luke’s father. Then he decided that Leia was Luke’s sister, the Emperor was a different bloke to the one we’d seen in Empire, and Luke had supposedly been ‘hidden’ at the family homestead and with Dad’s old surname intact no less! I haven’t even started on the prequels yet!
“Do you remember your mother? Your real mother?”
“Uh, well, ‘remember’ is such a strong word…”
I’m really not being clear, apparently.
That’s not the kind of disrespect I’m talking about. Lucas retconning his work doesn’t mean that he disagrees with those works, it just means he thought up a new story element.
For example, George does not feel about ANH the way JJ feels about the PT, I’m sure.
What I’m getting out of this thread is that you don’t like Abrams/Johnson/the ST and want an echo chamber to complain about them under the guise of a discussion about coherent canon in a franchise that spans decades, and you jump down anyone’s throat who says even a slightly nice thing about the ST or a slightly critical thing about the OT/PT/Lucas.
Shame, because the topic of cohesiveness in a long-spanning canon is an interesting one. Wish I could actually discuss it here.