Sign In

Should the prequels and TFA be considered canon? — Page 2

Author
Time

imperialscum said:

If one is to have a healthy head, he/she should not consider PT and TFA as head-canon.

Man you really are trying to push this “health is relative” thing pretty hard.

Author
Time

Lord Haseo said:

yotsuya said:

I like to think of things in different levels. If you adhere to the original movie being it, that really doesn’t fit in with the idea of canon so here is how I look at it.

OT - Platinum Canon
OT & PT - Gold Canon
OT, PT, & ST - Silver Canon

This makes sense in theory but not as much in practice. The PT is well…the PT and the ST isn’t even close to being over. Pretty premature ranking in my opinion.

Well, it basically is a chronology of when they were released. Plus the episodes over the other movies and series (with a Clone Wars character appearing in Rogue One, that sort of places them in the same category in my mind). If the rest of the ST sucks, well, it isn’t as important as what GL did. But so fare I like it better than the old EU.

Author
Time

I myself think everyone should decide for themselves what is canon.
Personally I consider each Star Wars trilogy as a distinct canon (after all, each one of them is the product of its time, both in style and inspiration). My favorite Star Wars canon, though, was left unfinished: after ANH and TESB, I’m still waiting for Lucas’ and Gary Kurtz’s alternative ROTJ 😄

The Original Trilogy’s Timeline Reconstruction: http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Implied-starting-date-of-the-Empire-from-OT-dialogue/post/786201/#TopicPost786201

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Fang Zei said:

I never understood why people thought something like a Thrawn Trilogy adaptation was a possibility for the ST. The mere fact that the story would be spoiled already was reason enough for it to stay off the table as an option.

The possibility of a live-action Thrawn Trilogy adaptation went out the window after the '90s, anyway.

By 1997, Carrie Fisher was already visibly aging, but she was still young enough to play a pregnant woman and do all the action that the story would’ve required of her. By 2014, though? No. It would’ve been impossible. They would’ve had to cast a younger actress to play Leia, and who would’ve wanted that?

Eat the multi-billion dollar corporate slop and pretend it’s social justice, you weirdos.

Author
Time

DuracellEnergizer said:

Fang Zei said:

I never understood why people thought something like a Thrawn Trilogy adaptation was a possibility for the ST. The mere fact that the story would be spoiled already was reason enough for it to stay off the table as an option.

The possibility of a live-action Thrawn Trilogy adaptation went out the window after the '90s, anyway.

By 1997, Carrie Fisher was already visibly aging, but she was still young enough to play a pregnant woman and do all the action that the story would’ve required of her. By 2014, though? No. It would’ve been impossible. They would’ve had to cast a younger actress to play Leia, and who would’ve wanted that?

A lot of people, I’m guessing. I would have been fine with it. Lots of people were fine with a Ghostbusters remake, because it was well done. I’d watch the hell out a Star Wars remake if it was done well…and they did, and I did, and it was called The Force Awakens.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

DuracellEnergizer said:

Fang Zei said:

I never understood why people thought something like a Thrawn Trilogy adaptation was a possibility for the ST. The mere fact that the story would be spoiled already was reason enough for it to stay off the table as an option.

The possibility of a live-action Thrawn Trilogy adaptation went out the window after the '90s, anyway.

By 1997, Carrie Fisher was already visibly aging, but she was still young enough to play a pregnant woman and do all the action that the story would’ve required of her. By 2014, though? No. It would’ve been impossible. They would’ve had to cast a younger actress to play Leia, and who would’ve wanted that?

It could still be doable as animated series/movies, as a guerrestellari.net user suggested some time ago. This way, it wouldn’t be necessary to have the main actors still in their 40s to work.

The Original Trilogy’s Timeline Reconstruction: http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Implied-starting-date-of-the-Empire-from-OT-dialogue/post/786201/#TopicPost786201

Author
Time

Yep, now we know how Frink’s humor works.

“I have to say that I felt George’s group of six films had more innovative visual imagination, and this film was more of a retrenchment to things you had seen before and characters you had seen before, and it took a few baby steps forward with new characters.” - James Cameron about Episode VII.

Author
Time

MalàStrana said:

Yep, now we know how Frink’s humor works.

I’m not surprised that the person who said “anyone who likes Rey as a character is just thinking with their dick” would have a problem with Ghostbusters 2016. I wouldn’t even be surprised if you came to your conclusion without having actually seen it.

Author
Time

MathUser said:

TV’s Frink said:

Lots of people were fine with a Ghostbusters remake, because it was well done.

LOL.

Basically what I’ve thought about every post you’ve made and especially every thread you’ve made, so I’m glad to give a little fun back to you for a change.

Author
Time

For me canon is roughly 1977 to just before the New Jedi Order. Despite some ups and downs I think that practically sums up everything pretty well, though I do intend to finally retry NJO onwards.

I hate the “legends” banner so much. But at least they keep the books in print I guess.

VADER!? WHERE THE HELL IS MY MOCHA LATTE? -Palpy on a very bad day.

“George didn’t think there was any future in dead Han toys.”-Harrison Ford

My review blog: thehificelluloidmonster.wordpress.com