How did they think this was a good idea/LF's management/ST, EU plotlines?
Posted: Wed Aug 26, 2020 1:22 am
Hey, guys, I'm back with another topic.
Going off what I said in the TROS thread, let's just assume I'm right. How did LF feel what they took from the EU with grafting into the ST was going to work out well?
Really, the criticisms we're getting now, now a much larger scale, were first made by a small handful of millions of people back in the 1990s and early aughts, those who bought the comics and novels and played the games. Dark Empire? The original complaints were that it had cheapened Anakin's sacrifice exactly the same as today, but going off of what Mr. Lucas did with the PT I don't see it that way. And besides, the original plan was to bring in a Vader imposter, but Mr. Lucas nixed that and said if they can bring in the Emperor somehow, they had his full blessing.
Jedi Prince? The relative of Palpatine thing? I mean, Trioculus's buildup as the big bad and then being tossed aside for Triclops mirrors the Snoke/Palpatine thing way too closely to be a mere coincidence. And those books were notoriously torn to shreds by older fans back in the day, because they'd had the same excuse now, you know - "for kids!" Before the era of YJK and JA, mind you, which were massive game-changers for the genre.
The Crystal Star? Look, for all the complaints people make of TLJ, I respect it breaking the mold to justify the reboot. But TSC is a notoriously awful EU book and some even call it THE worst one ever, without hyperbole. And what strikes me is a moment Luke had there, where he suspected Han might be cheating on Leia, and so his hand drifted down towards his lightsaber, almost the exact mirror of what led to Kylo Ren's fall in the ST. Criticisms regarding the mischaracterization of Luke played out long before TLJ, but this was at least one small cog in the overall timeline, that didn't led to defeat, failure, and running and hiding.
There is too much similarities here to just brush it off. I could go even further, but at the end of the day, I'll maintain the "recanonization" and adaptation fusion job they did with RO proves that you can do it, and reach a large audience. I love the DF books, and I love Kyle Katarn. And DS was wonderfully written by Mr. Luceno. The reception to RO kinda validates that, IMO. Sure, it's annoying they shoved away Kyle Katarn to make it Jan Ors' story, but at the same time, most casuals love it. And kinda puts a nail in the head to indifferent DC fans or casuals who think they're taking the "best" EU elements to "recanonize." They really aren't, if they are choosing JP, DE, and TSC. For every RO you got, you got the ST.
How did they think that was going to work? We were played. They didn't want "creative freedom." So decanonizing the EU meant nothing. For those who say they are engaged in historical revision? While you may have a valid point, there is also a degree of failing to learn from history here. But that's just how I see it.
But I wanna hear what YOU guys think. Do you agree with my assessment here, they were hardly trying to "recanonize" the best of the EU? Did they make a mistake putting too much emphasis on "recanonization" or could that have worked, but it was the source material they chose that was all wrong? Do you have some other viewpoints? Something I haven't brought up? Leave your thoughts, smash out a reply below, and I'll talk to you guys again soon.
Going off what I said in the TROS thread, let's just assume I'm right. How did LF feel what they took from the EU with grafting into the ST was going to work out well?
Really, the criticisms we're getting now, now a much larger scale, were first made by a small handful of millions of people back in the 1990s and early aughts, those who bought the comics and novels and played the games. Dark Empire? The original complaints were that it had cheapened Anakin's sacrifice exactly the same as today, but going off of what Mr. Lucas did with the PT I don't see it that way. And besides, the original plan was to bring in a Vader imposter, but Mr. Lucas nixed that and said if they can bring in the Emperor somehow, they had his full blessing.
Jedi Prince? The relative of Palpatine thing? I mean, Trioculus's buildup as the big bad and then being tossed aside for Triclops mirrors the Snoke/Palpatine thing way too closely to be a mere coincidence. And those books were notoriously torn to shreds by older fans back in the day, because they'd had the same excuse now, you know - "for kids!" Before the era of YJK and JA, mind you, which were massive game-changers for the genre.
The Crystal Star? Look, for all the complaints people make of TLJ, I respect it breaking the mold to justify the reboot. But TSC is a notoriously awful EU book and some even call it THE worst one ever, without hyperbole. And what strikes me is a moment Luke had there, where he suspected Han might be cheating on Leia, and so his hand drifted down towards his lightsaber, almost the exact mirror of what led to Kylo Ren's fall in the ST. Criticisms regarding the mischaracterization of Luke played out long before TLJ, but this was at least one small cog in the overall timeline, that didn't led to defeat, failure, and running and hiding.
There is too much similarities here to just brush it off. I could go even further, but at the end of the day, I'll maintain the "recanonization" and adaptation fusion job they did with RO proves that you can do it, and reach a large audience. I love the DF books, and I love Kyle Katarn. And DS was wonderfully written by Mr. Luceno. The reception to RO kinda validates that, IMO. Sure, it's annoying they shoved away Kyle Katarn to make it Jan Ors' story, but at the same time, most casuals love it. And kinda puts a nail in the head to indifferent DC fans or casuals who think they're taking the "best" EU elements to "recanonize." They really aren't, if they are choosing JP, DE, and TSC. For every RO you got, you got the ST.
How did they think that was going to work? We were played. They didn't want "creative freedom." So decanonizing the EU meant nothing. For those who say they are engaged in historical revision? While you may have a valid point, there is also a degree of failing to learn from history here. But that's just how I see it.
But I wanna hear what YOU guys think. Do you agree with my assessment here, they were hardly trying to "recanonize" the best of the EU? Did they make a mistake putting too much emphasis on "recanonization" or could that have worked, but it was the source material they chose that was all wrong? Do you have some other viewpoints? Something I haven't brought up? Leave your thoughts, smash out a reply below, and I'll talk to you guys again soon.