TheBoost said:
thecolorsblend said:
Why is this even an issue? Because LFL and some of the subsidiaries thereof insist that we fans regard these (largely inferior) offerings as being the prior/ongoing adventures of the movie characters.
The idea of canon only exists to please a certain sort of fan. Lucasfilm would make just as much money off the franchise if they discounted the idea entirely, like Star Trek does.
Look at any other fictional universe that's in the hands of multiple creators, from the Marvel Universe to Zorro. It's totally natural there will be inconsistencies, changes, retcons, and widely varying quality. We're talking about a fictional universe that spreads across hundreds of hours of film, hundreds of thousands of pages of books and comics, and even wierder supplementary materials.
In the early 80s "Superman: The Man of Steel" was a comic that reworked Superman's origin (at the time I didn't know that. I was 7). It was my favorite comic. I understand that a new Superman origin series was published in the early 2000s (Birthright), and "Man of Steel" doesn't "count" anymore. All I can do is shrug my shoulders and re-read a 25 year old comicbook that I like.
With all these Star Wars writiers fighting for scraps from Lucas's table, the 'canon' idea that somehow gives equal weight to blurbs on a Star Wars CCG card, RPG supplements, and well-written epic novels is bound to have flaws, massive ones, but to the degree canon policies work, (which I don't persoanlyl care for), I respect it, because it's trying to please the fans (who of course, are never pleased). It has no other purpose.
I have to laugh that you cited Superman comics as I'm a bit of a junkie.
The "rules" are different for comics and like properties. Their realities are far more elastic, likely given their longevity.
If you say "Superman" (who is going through yet another reboot right now, which is also destined to fail, but that's another topic for another day) to a group of people today, you'll get a variety of first impressions. Christopher Reeve, George Reeves, Tom Welling, a particular comics incarnation, maybe a Superman cartoon, whatever. Superman (and comic book properties in general) are many things.
Star Wars, however, is a movie. Nothing else. When you say "Star Wars", 99% of people will think of something tied directly back to the films. The "reality" of Star Wars is much narrower. It exists in a different kind of medium with different rules. Comics adaptations (X-Men movies, The Dark Knight, et al) do not have to jibe (in terms of continuity) with the comics. The rules are different for TV/movie-based properties however.
And again, while certain EU novels do have that classic SW feel, the majority are warmed over ROTJ ripoffs with different characters substituting for Vader and the Emperor.
There's also style to consider. Novels typically dig deep into their characters. Bashing aside, that's not something SW movies of any era have ever really done. The EU tries to deepen thinly sketched characters with a lot of unnecessary baggage and weight. The Han Solo trilogy by AC Crispin (as enjoyable as it is) is a good example of this. Han's a selfish rogue who only protects his own neck. I don't really feel like I need to know how he ended up that way. But even if I did, I find some parts of that trilogy difficult to accept.
