Lucas Sequel Trilogy Treatments: Evidence, Facts, Discussion

And stop right there. I am not going to go even further as again you are putting words into my mouth and completely mis-characterizing what I said.

I said.. that UNDER LUCAS owned LFL, TCW show was not on the same level of canon as the movies. This is a 100% fact. 100% FACT. Could you even bother to stop and look stuff up?





Now.. do you see the part where TCW fell under C-Canon and NOT G-canon! Do you see that they were NOT the same canon!

Than in 2014 came the reboot!



This reboot wiped away the canon levels, and brought TCW to teh same level as the movies, take notice this was in 2014 AFTER Disney had bought the franchise!

Here's the link, before telling me I am wrong again, please take a moment to read it:

starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Canon

Now, lets go back to what I said the other day:

Nov 14th:




See the part where I said that UNDER LUCAS OWNED LFL, TCW was not at the same level as the movies. That is a 100% fact! Meaning, it is TRUE. Meaning I am right, and your statement about my statement being "not true" is flat out wrong.

Here's the next time I brought up the canon issue:

Nov 15th:



Once again, me saying that "when Lucas owned LFL, tcw wasn't at the same level as canon as the movies. Once again, that is 100% FACTUAL!

I'm tired of being told I am wrong when you can't even do a simple google search and can't take 2 minutes to go back and make sure you are characterizing what I said in the correct way. I have supplied many quotes from people that worked on the show that say the same thing in different ways on how the show worked, yet you keep telling me I am wrong. What quotes have you supplied? I would like to see some at some point. I can continue to supply quotes from Filoni, and even writers saying the same thing. Lucas was not involved in the day to day, for the most part he gave them broad directions, and then it was up to them to fill it in.

I'm tired of the implication that when I say he wasn't involved in the day to day that I am trying to say he wasn't involved at all, he wasn't involved creatively, or he there aren't elements in TCW that are purely his and his alone. I have never said any of those things. I have been consistent in the points I am making. Unless we have an interview where it is explicitly spelled out, we do not know what elements are his, are Filoni's or the writers. Hell, I just read an interview where Filoni says that Lucas left almost all the crtical decisions up to him, and that in the latter years of Clone Wars they were making the show FOR Lucas, and not with him.

Boom is right.. that is quite the post there Cryo!

In order to try and keep my post as clean and neat as possible, I am going to refrain from quoting your stuff so that we don't have a huge amount of redundant quoting bubbles...

To start off, I wasn't purposefully trying to convey that anyone here was trying to be misleading. It was more along the lines you said, that we do tend to post stuff that confirms our bias, and we stop looking for new information that might challenge our own narratives. I think the discussion about TWC is a perfect example of that.

In response to your points of 1) and 2)

The first thing that stood out to me about the new Lucas quotes was that it did not sound evenly remotely close to a situation where Luke would be in an exiled state, where in December of 2012 they would be trying to nail down that look of Luke. The quotes put forth by Lucas from the book seem there would be a more optimistic Luke needed for the beginning of that story as Luke is just starting to rebuild the Jedi.

You have also hit on the narrative that I was getting at earlier in this thread (as you point out, thank you). That Disney has had no problem trotting Lucas out as a way to legitimize their Star Wars creations. WE always hear on how Lucas was here or there, how he had nice things to say about this director, or that show. Pictures of him with Baby Yoda. So when we DON'T hear his name during some things, it is noticeable. I made this point with when there was all the articles about trying to get Abrams on board. This all took place during December/January.. Kennedy was mentioned, Arndt, Kasdan, etc etc.. but one name was missing.. Lucas. *tumbleweed blows by*..

That's why I have a hard time believing Alexrd view on events. Lucas's name is oddly missing in so much of those articles and stories when it came to very important things that needed to be done. If Lucas still had creative control at that point (as Alexrd has suggested) than why wasn't he there? Why isn't his name mentioned as being at least a part of the decision making or as bait to work on the project. "Hey, Lucas is working on this project" Nope, nothing of the sort is ever mentioned.

So when we get to the concept art, it is again strange how the wording is. Luke's look is being described to him? By whom? There is no problem in name dropping Lucas as giving him the stamp of approval, yet, if it was Lucas doing the explaining, it would have made more sense to name drop Lucas from the start. Instead it's parsed and separated. And again, here is a perfect opportunity for Disney to trot out Lucas to legitimize an element of TFA and TLJ that has been extremely divisive.. and they don't.

Every actor, director, producer, stage hand, food truck operator, (obviously exaggerating) that has worked on a Disney production has no problem dropping Lucas's name.. yet, the way that tweet is worded is really telling.

Point 3) I cannot Thank You enough for that article. For me, that is so close to being the nail in the coffin. I do remember that article now that you brought it up. I cannot believe I forgot about it. Yes, again, there is one, important name not there, one important name that doesn't even make a cameo(that is a very interesting word to use)..

In December of 2012, there was no GEORGE LUCAS as a meeting to discuss the future of not just Star Wars in general, but, also, the new movie coming up. Also the word cameo. Now, I realize that the word cameo is the authors choice, and I doubt the author had any real insight to the politics of LFL at the time. However, the word is telling be cause everyone understood that it would just be a cameo. If Lucas showed up it wouldn't be because he was there to work, he would just be making a cameo.. Why? Because he isn't in creative control!

I cannot believe I forgot about that article.. "Look at all those people not named George Lucas" I love it Cryo! And a brilliant catch on that they were only using the 6 movies and TV Show as a basis.. Not someone's treatments? The someone that didn't make a cameo... hmmmmmmmmm


4) Yeah, again, the article about the courting of Abrams. It just continues to stand out, NO MENTION OF LUCAS.

Thank You for providing some much needed context and reminders. I have to update the time line with that article about the story group. I think that is a huge piece of information because it directly shows who was and wasn't involved in the creative process of the ST, at least at the beginning.

I've actually wrote before about that story group and I think it may have been on these boards. I know I predicted on TFN that the story group would quickly dissolve because there was no way that Abrams and Iger would allow a movie costing hundreds of millions of dollars be tied down by a group of "nerds". It turned out I was right, because the story group has been relegated to much of the same duties as when Lucas owned LFL. They put out the continuity fires after they start, and don't have any real power or push to tell the filmmakers to not do something.

So yeah, why isn't Lucas in those meetings? Because he was no longer a part of the creative process of Star Wars. Why wasn't he a part of the creative process? Because Iger said that he would not be in control of the creative process. Why did he say Lucas would not be in Control of the creative process? Because Disney would be in control of the creative process! Why was Disney in control of the creative process? Because Lucas sold Star Wars to Disney... lol.

I just can't see a scenario, where Iger telling Lucas he would not be in control of Star Wars, would let Lucas have control of Star Wars.

Clones and Stormtroopers:

I thought I used to have the commentary for Lucas talking about the clones sampled out, but, can't seem to find it. SO I pulled up my commentary track I have saved, and Lucas literally says that it's a trait that "gets cloned into all the stormtroopers".

I always felt there was a mix of clone and non-clone Stormtroopers. I think later on, maybe around the time of ROTS, Lucas kind of said the same, I know there is a quote out there, but, I can't find it. It doesn't make sense to stop using soldiers that were so dependable and instrumental in creating the Empire. But, the sheer logistics of it all, where hundreds of millions of troopers would be needed, it only makes sense that conscripts would be needed to man planetary garrisons and space stations. This was my head canon for a very long time as a way to explain why the stormtroopers on Vader's star destroyer were so good at taking out the Rebel Soldiers, while the ones on the Death Star were garbage. Vader's stromies were Jango clones, but the death star stormies were conscripts for the most part.

I'm sure Lucas has a reason for his narrative change from his AOTC days, but, since he no longer is in control of Star Wars, I have been able to move past hanging on any of his "new" quotes as meaning much of anything anymore. He has no way of inserting his new narratives into the stories, and I struggle with Disney's new continuity. Not really with the movies, but all the subsidiary stuff I think really stretches the old Lucas continuity and canon very thin.

Thanks, Mike. It was like old times. Some of my earlier contributions in this thread (the lengthier ones) were centered around offering a basic defence of Disney/LFL. Maybe I felt I had to balance that out by offering a more critical perspective in light of this new information on Lucas' sequel intentions. After all, that's really the meat of the thread.


Fair. I was actually not going to quote you as much in that earlier reply, but after I put the first edit in, I felt I ought to. Then I put in a second edit and realised your aforementioned Reply #45 from January was a critical post to acknowledge! I had unconsciously echoed you in a number of ways. You deserved to be quoted in homage!


That's right. It's all from our own point of view -- the most Star Wars thing of all! It's also what makes discussions like these interesting. Even when there are a number of facts in front of us, it's still possible to argue the details.  


Yep. I certainly read through your recent posts and saw you saying that, but it mustn't have registered properly; not until I revisited the thread the next day. Then I took another look at those new Lucas quotes and was slapping myself on the head. It's right there in black green and white: he intended for the sequels to pick up "a few years" after ROTJ. This lands a devastating blow against the idea that a runaway, haggard, and Obi-Wan-aged Luke Skywalker is stewing on some island, rethinking his whole life. It's still faintly possible something vaguely like that was intended, but it doesn't gel with the idea, as you said, that Luke was meant to be in the process of reforming the Jedi and gathering new recruits. How could a depressed, misanthropic Luke accomplish such a thing; why would he even bother? Of course, it's also possible this aspect was revised if Lucas approved a time-jump and okay-ed some kind of revision of Luke's character more in that direction -- but did he (kind of the $64,000 question)? The articles we've found all paint pretty much the same picture: Lucas wasn't really around and other people were doing things (a lot of things) in his absence.

A partial answer to that question comes from Mark Hamill in December 2017:


Perhaps Hamill was offering the world another clue when he spoke about a Jedi having tenacity and never giving up; and if they have to go away and regroup, they might take six months or a year to regather their strength, but not decades. In retrospect, this remark could actually be a strategic pop at the shift from the ST being set "a few years" after ROTJ in Lucas' outlines, to over 30 years under Disney/LFL, and (of course) the ensuing impact on his character's personality change and overall role in the trilogy:



"I said to Rian, I said, 'Jedis don't give up.' I mean, even if he had a problem, he would maybe... take a year to try and regroup. But if he made a mistake, he would try and right that wrong." @ 7:02

"I had a real, you know, sort of a back-and-forth with Rian. I said, 'Rian! A Jedi doesn't give up!' You know, a Jedi, if he does something wrong, he makes it right. You know, even if he's traumatised and goes away, he would regroup in what... I dunno... six months. But (laughing/sighing) twenty, thirty years? Come on. That's a little bit over-indulgent in my view." @ 11:10


That's right. The bolded part really sums it up. In as much as they may have been trying to distance Lucas from being mentioned, surely they would have mentioned him if he actually had strong involvement at any point? Yet, as the saying goes, he is conspicuous by his absence. Practically everyone else is mentioned who isn't George Lucas (to paraphrase myself from earlier). And then, as we have both noted in our own way, there was that switcheroo (I think you could call it that) from Skywalker Ranch to LFL locations in San Francisco. So they were both intellectually and physically distancing themselves from Lucas -- and very early on! And this despite the fact that they had extremely pleasant surroundings at Skywalker Ranch. Maybe there are other reasons for the transition. It would be good to hear about them.


Yep. It's also strange that that particular tweet was deleted from Phil Szostak's account. The Instagram account still has the image and caption, but a significant LFL employee who links to it: his tweet goes missing. 


It's easy to forget things with all this stuff in the mix! I had half-forgotten it myself. I even overlooked the fact that you had linked to the other article I presented underneath it. That's why I went back and indulged in a couple of edits. If there's any such thing, I'd jointly call these two the "smoking gun" articles, of all the ones we know about.


Indeed. The bolded bit is incredibly strange, isn't it? He'd only just sold his creation on and given them outlines and a creative team that understood his instincts, yet they are already acting like they understand Star Wars perfectly well without him. It's almost like he never existed at all. The moment he sold, apart from a few ghostly reminders, it was like he was automatically unpersoned from the very company that bears his name. He even said in the Charlie Rose interview:



"They weren't that keen to have me involved, anyway." @ 48:40


No worries. Update with as many links and extracts as you see fit. I should have entered that one into the thread a long time ago! It's been sitting on TFN in that old post of mine for almost five years. We said so much there, between us, and maybe we both got a little burned out. I might as well add: the fact we were permabanned suggests we were on the right track all along. People who infer that something shifty has occurred and give voice to their suspicions are normally the first to be excommunicated from any social structure. Bob Iger even wanted Lucas to sign a non-disparagement clause. If they can try and silence Lucas, they can try and silence anyone. But the truth eventually has its day.


Yes. If you've read certain things, you might be aware that Abrams allegedly shunned the Story Group, while Rian Johnson and Gareth Edwards were more accommodating. One reason for this is that Abrams is likely an impatient guy (look at his films) and likes to move things along quickly (according to one rumour: he was supposedly prepared to meet the December 2015 release date for TFA imposed by Bob Iger, for example, while Kennedy wanted an extension into 2016). Another reason is that Abrams is an A-list director/producer with his own film company (Bad Robot). So he was likely given a lot more room to do his own thing. In short, he had more clout (and possibly more ego) than a relative unknown like Gareth Edwards or the small-time indie-arthouse guy Rian Johnson (who has since become better known following TLJ and "Knives Out").

An interesting tidbit:

Although it might be apropos of nothing, Pablo Hidalgo -- obviously a key Story Group member (when the group existed) -- gave TFA and TROS two-star ratings under his presumed (and now deleted) Letterboxd account, downgrading TROS to one-and-a-half stars two days later, while rating "Rogue One" five stars and TLJ four (he gave "Solo" 3 stars). He also gave Rian Johnson's "Knives Out" five stars. Be aware that not all the ratings show under that link. I am taking other people at their word who have reported his ratings on forums like this poster on TFN. That post is dated to December 17th 2019. The archive link of PH's presumed account is dated December 24th 2019 (there is one other capture from 12th November this year -- five days ago! -- but the account had been deleted by then). So the TFN poster would have had access to a functional account at that time and would have been able to scan and grab all the ratings.

Hidalgo, like a lot of LFL employees, has a habit of erasing his tweets and activity online. After he deleted however many tweets, his personal Twitter account is now set to private. He apparently had his fill of Star Wars fans (not that I entirely blame him) after ranting that they are "shitty assholes and shitheads". That may have some truth to it, but maybe it's because the fanbase went up-in-arms after TLJ: a film his Letterboxd account (if it was truly his) indicates he strongly approves of. Whereas, ironically, his low scores for TFA and TROS suggest he has more in common with those "toxic manbabies" than he might care to admit (PH dislikes two-thirds of the ST -- shock!). But then, I'm not one to point a finger -- I've lost my temper a few times on here already! Then again, I'm not a paid LFL employee, either.


Exactly. Iger also doesn't seem like the sort of guy to muck around. Even with an underlying affection for Lucas. His fiduciary interests come first. Lucas said himself on Charlie Rose (in the same part quoted above) that he didn't have the same control anymore and couldn't interfere. It seems Iger/Disney took full advantage of that legal fact.


LOL! Nice rationalisation. Maybe they just do better in white surroundings. Or it's got something to do with helmets. Those rebel soldiers are wearing helmets (and Luke later complains in stormtrooper gear: "I can't see a thing in this helmet"), so perhaps it's some kind of in-joke about having a piece of plastic on one's head. Luke also complains when he has the blast shield down on the Falcon. But Obi-Wan encourages him to reach out with his feelings to parry the remote. So he already improved by the time he donned the stormtrooper armour on the Death Star, despite his complaining in the elevator. Luke, Han, and Leia all do well without any armour or headpiece on against the stormtroopers. It's fun to work through the kinks with our own fan canon. But as for the main issue: There's actually an insightful exchange in the new "Star Wars Archives" book between Lucas and the author Paul Duncan of relevance here:

 

You sound like -- if you'll forgive me -- you're a bit disappointed with the new direction of the franchise. I can't say I blame you. In my case, I haven't taken GL's quotes 100% seriously in a while. I mean, I accord the man and his words great respect, but I don't feel entirely bound to what he says; especially when it comes to after-the-fact minutiae. I think there is the danger (or limitation) in clinging too strongly to his words; when, as you have loosely implied, he does actually alternate a bit and sometimes changes his mind. Next to anything Disney have done, are doing, or will do, he can always come up smelling of roses. He protested a few years ago, for instance, that the new protagonists of the sequel trilogy "weren't teenagers", but early concept art shows the main female lead as a teenager (and then Abrams said that maybe Disney were reluctant to use teenagers). But maybe that early concept art was their own innovation when they were maybe still experimenting. 

As for canon being stretched thin:

That is probably inevitable with any property over time. Especially when there isn't one author controlling it all. Lucasfilm no longer has its lodestar. Although Disney performed a reset of the old EU, canon is probably already starting to get a bit messy again. The new films have already overwritten some aspects of the new canon, and fans complain that the new films basically overwrite one another! It's one of those "glass half-full" situations. It could be considered a sad time to be a fan of Star Wars, but also an exciting time. It was the best of times, it was the worst of times...  

It's not that Lucas is necessarily speaking in riddles. It's more that canonical definitions are relative and continuous rather than concrete and absolute. Classifying complex things with simple boundary lines is racked with difficulty. To quote Rebecca Solnit:


I like how the last words there echo Obi-Wan telling Luke, "You've taken your first step into a larger world" (echoed in TFA when Rey has an intense vision in Maz's castle and hears Obi-Wan saying almost identical words at the end of it). In essence, the pervasive presence of the Force grants one the ability to perceive a multitude of shifting-sand narratives and variant possibilities. Hidden deep within the event horizon of Star Wars is the magical singularity that makes multifarious readings possible. Thus, different events within the vast corpus of the franchise exist in a kind of electron-cloud haze, and it isn't really possible to define the canonicity of any given item to any sort of absolute precision. To return to the Solnit analogy, it's like trying to define borders between countries and communities, or coming out with an "accurate" measurement for a coastline.

A number of prior Lucasfilm definitions of canon are given on the Wookiepedia page. Although mikeximus already linked to the page earlier, and even reproduced the canon levels as I'm about to, I feel it's too valuable a reference to be ignored. And as far as canon definitions go, I like this one that was given by Christopher Cerasi (a former LucasBooks editor), and relayed by Steve Sansweet on the official website in August 2001:


Love that windows analogy. Or maybe I'm just a sucker for Obi-Wan quotes.

The Wookiepedia entry goes on to state:


The first three levels of canon (G, T, C) are relevant here:

(Mike provided the first two earlier, but I think it's helpful to look at them again).


The Wookiepedia entry continues:


The source for that quote is an archived link for the official Star Wars message boards (now discontinued). Chee's account is Tasty Taste.

On March 11, 2008, again on the official boards, Chee spoke about the next two levels below G-canon (i.e., T-canon and C-canon):


Chee's second sentence is a tacit admission that pragmatic realities defined canon levels -- i.e., in order for people to take non-saga material seriously, especially something as expensive as a spin-off television series, those items needed to be classified as distinct from other levels of canon. T-level canon seemed to be a way for George Lucas to have his cake and eat it. He never had to come out and say that TCW was on an equal footing with the movies, but he was obviously careful to tactically get the word out that it was resting within a superior category to all other levels of canon (outside of G-canon) from the beginning: resting (in effect) at the hand of the Father himself.
  
Going back to the "windows" analogy above, there's no one piece of Star Wars that can completely encapsulate the whole or give an entirely accurate picture of the "events" and/or history of the Star Wars galaxy. It's more like a mosaic. The Emperor's throne room window aboard the Second Death Star seems to communicate this abstract quality of the various Star Wars materials nicely. Indeed, the only saga movie that actually acknowledges "The Clone Wars" (and "Rebels" and "The Resistance") in any tangible way is the last one: "The Rise Of Skywalker". Other than that, they are essentially ignored and didn't even exist until after the completion of the PT.

So it's a little funny that fans are desperate for TCW to be recognised as fully canonical with the movies. It can be -- if you want it to be. But Lucas himself has always been a touch opaque on the matter. If you tune your receiver to Dave Filoni, he'll tell you one thing. Tune it to Lucas and you get a slightly different message. Star Wars began as a work of cinema, and Lucas has always considered himself a filmmaker, first and foremost. Plus, when it comes to the films, he was completely running the show (even when he surrendered a bit of control on TESB and ROTJ). And they are the prime money-earners of the franchise: the heart, the soul, and the fulcrum of Lucasfilm itself. It stands to reason he would be a little reticent to openly affirm that anything else occupies the same level of canon. 

But it's tough to discount "The Clone Wars" and cleave it away from the movies because of how much Lucas involved himself in both. And as I said earlier: canon is a tricky thing to define precisely. Arguably, as the prospect of any more saga films (before the sale) got dimmer and dimmer, with Lucas publicly resolute that the story he intended to tell ended at ROTJ, he may have softened on the notion that G-canon was the "highest" level of canon possible and all else was secondary/lesser. And, in any case, the system was more organisational than a fixed law, and was scrapped altogether in 2014 (after Lucas sold his company, but before any more films had yet been released -- though, of course, they were in development at this time).

Yet the primacy of the films and their overall importance to the way Lucas has always seen Star Wars remains. Indeed, in his lengthy interview with Charlie Rose in 2015, Lucas makes no particular mention of "The Clone Wars" or other bits of Star Wars lore. Of course, for various reasons, his focus was on the movie-side of the franchise in that interview -- but if they were that deep and essential a part of his thinking, you might have expected him to mention them once or twice. Perhaps the suspension of TCW at that time shaped some of his anger/resentment toward Disney. Lucas will always be proud of what he accomplished with the films, but I imagine there's a tinge of pride about all the other projects that have emerged, or are yet to emerge, as well. And it would be blockheaded to deny that Lucas didn't use the golden opportunity of TCW to expand on his ideas for Star Wars -- some of which he evidently planned to carry into a Lucas-authored sequel trilogy.

No offence, but I don't see anything in your reply that has overthrown the part of my post you quoted.

Added some nuance/shading, maybe. But not rebutted.


It certainly says something. None of it would exist without George Lucas. And if there was no desire on Lucas' part to separate TCW from the movies, why was there a T-canon level that TCW was put into, and what was the person specifically appointed to create and manage this continuity-tracking database doing speaking publicly about the database and its different levels of canon classification? 


Yeah, but which canon? The database, which you dismiss, was obviously concocted for a reason, and TCW was never classified as G-canon in it. Why wasn't it instantly given that classification if it was merely internal and TCW being equated with the films couldn't throw fans' noses out of joint? 


So Anakin had an apprentice? Obi-Wan had a love interest? The films never remotely imply any such thing. Which, of course, doesn't mean it can't have happened, or can't express something about their characters. TCW obviously jostles awkwardly against the saga films on some levels. 


Right. He wanted the show to adhere to his mythology and rules. But that still doesn't make it level-pegging with the movies. Or again: it can be if you want it to be. But there is no Lucas quote where he directly says it is the equal of the films. If there exists such a quote, maybe you'd like to reproduce it?

That's funny. At least, I assume you're being funny. Taken seriously, your assertion is a bit like saying George Lucas has never heard the name Howard Roffman.


"I make no distinction between The Clone Wars and my movies. They have all the same storytelling values and have equal canonicity. The situations in each completely overlap and agree with one another. It's the same universe."

Has he ever said that? That's an example of a clear statement. The ones supplied all leave wiggle room.


Same thing. Recontextualisation followed by more recontextualisation. Which makes it a riot some people here don't accept the Disney films and disparage them for "recontextualising" the saga. Because where do you truly draw the line? 

What I was actually getting at is that Lucas went on-record numerous times after he'd completed the PT saying that the story of Star Wars was the first six movies and nothing more. But then "The Clone Wars" emerges a few years later, and suddenly, the situation has now changed.

So, okay... 

The Golden Rule is: We should only listen to Lucas while the sun is still up. When it goes to bed and re-awakens the next day, all's new in the world, and Lucas has probably already changed his mind again.


Yeah? And I already posted this:


Perhaps he did get there. But if so, it seems to have taken him a while -- meaning, what he says one year isn't necessarily what he feels the next. Which is why nobody should buy into his quotes 100%. But again, I guess that's another thread...

Yes. I noticed you made several. I was trying to keep on top, but then a final one was made with additional quotes.

I thought I already made my case, and ironically, I noticed you said underneath your additional quotes, "This case is closed".


You're engaging in the same fallacy again: you improbably conceive (and then argue as "obvious" fact) that George Lucas had no idea what his President of Lucas Licensing was saying to the public. The Roffman quote, by the way, thanks to this page, was actually uttered when TCW was being advertised, in Feb 2008, on the official website. If anything, it looks like Roffman was compelled to say that by Lucas himself. Because there was clearly a publicly-facing motivation to assure people that TCW was a big and exciting new development and roughly equal to the movies (even though, internally, there was a different classification for it, which TCW fanatics want to mock and ignore).

Beyond that, there's also the individual biases of everyone involved: Lucas, Filoni, Roffman, et al. Everyone naturally sees their contribution(s) differently. Lucas, as the creator and overseer, naturally didn't want to be tied into the EU in any concrete sense, nor did he want the basic themes and values of the movies distorted or diluted. Filoni, as basically the father of TCW (Lucas as on-off spiritual godfather/mentor), has always spoken as if TCW has total parity with the saga films by default. Even rationalising the demotion of the EU into "Legends" status, per your earlier quotes, as no big thing. Because his own baby was unaffected. Then Roffman: Maybe he initially sold the EU to Lucas one way but preferred to look at it as one giant corpus or tree (which the saga films are just one part of). 

Ironically, all points of view are valid. It just depends who's talking (and when), and who you pay attention to (and when). The whole notion of canonicity works much the same way. Human bias is built into canonicity by default. Centuries ago, the early fathers and theologians of the Catholic Church decided which books to keep in The Bible, and which to chuck (leading to the so-called biblical apocrypha) -- often casting opponents as heretics in the process. Similarly, the Catholic Church maintained a list of forbidden books until 1966, which none of its flock was meant to read, lest they be driven into sin or something (or excommunicated). In prior centuries, its power was such that they could deprive non-Catholics of reading them, too. There's also the so-called pseudepigrapha. I guess Star Wars fans are like religious fanatics now. 


You're oversimplifying. There's no evidence that Lucas was duped by Roffman as you're implying (or put more mildly: that was he totally ignorant of what Roffman was saying in public). The May 2007 Lucas quote is obviously paraphrasing Roffman (BTW: the quote is from 2008). Maybe Roffman gave him an early assurance that things could be kept separate. He was with Lucasfilm way back in 1980, becoming Vice President of Licensing in 1986, and President in 1999 -- clearly a man Lucas trusted. Things simply change over time. This is what I think probably happened with TCW as Lucas got more involved with it and saw it flourish: he went from being on-the-fence about its canonical relationship with the films to more or less accepting it was their equal. But I also think, when Lucas sold to Disney and saw them go in a different direction with the films, he perhaps realised (maybe too late) how much he loved telling Star Wars in that medium.

You're not reading carefully enough and are instead pushing a snarky strawman here -- though I know you enjoy that sorta thing. It's not about "every single topic in every single venue". The quote comes from a promotional drive for the upcoming TCW series on the official website. So it's a bit more important than some random comment on a blog somewhere. It sounds like you didn't even click the link because you're missing crucial context. Here's a fuller quote:


I'd have to copy the entire thing for you to get the even fuller context, so I suggest you read it yourself, on the page, if you want those extra details. But the point is: Roffman is clearly responding about a branding issue. These aren't flippant remarks. He's saying Star Wars had been purposely made to look a certain way (i.e., homogenised/unified) for a while. His comment ties into larger marketing developments at Lucasfilm. Yet you're acting like George Lucas had no clue that any of this was happening. You keep invoking common sense. Common sense suggests that Lucas was both aware of and approved of this marketing strategy. He wasn't even busy making films anymore. He had plenty of time to keep himself apprised of (and involved in) major developments in key divisions of his own company.


What is this quote meant to prove? Roffman clearly fought for his corner, and Lucas fought for his own. I acknowledged in my last post that the whole topic of canon is dominated by human bias. People naturally see things more than one way (like us). They also have an innate tendency to want to see their view become "reality" or act like it already aligns with reality (e.g., you saying your view seems like "common sense" to you). If the conflict was so strong and bothersome, why didn't one party walk away or fire the other? Perhaps Lucas wanted a tough guy there arguing his case for the EU. 


Did you even read my earlier post with that link to a stack of canonicity quotes? It really doesn't sound like you have. Here it is again. I quite like this post by Slicer87:


Back to you and I:


When people are in love, they tell lies. Filoni is in love with his work on TCW. He's proud of it. And he likes to think it's of equal stature with the movies. In this extensive collection of quotes posted by GrimOnTheDarkSide, there are quotes that support your argument. But it depends how you read them. For instance, in this post-sale (and therefore: post-Lucas) quote, Filoni appears to indicate TCW had equal standing with the films from Day One:


Filoni protests a bit too much. Every sentence there affirms the same thing:

(1) "Everything that I’ve worked on at Lucasfilm has been considered canon."
(2) "Working on Clone Wars, it was always canon."
(3) "I never really worry about it."
(4) "I always figured that most things that are done in a cinematic form, whether it be television or movies, are the only things that George considered canon because it was the stuff that he helped produce."
(5) "So, it made sense that this would be, as well."
(6) "And I’ve always thought of it that way."

Six sentences, six utterances. He seems really keen (if you ask me) to imply TCW is basically of the same essence and standing as the films: the same canon, the same continuity.

However, Lucas giving his blessing to something, and even being involved in something, doesn't entail that thing jumping to instant G-canon status. Now, again, that classification system may have been discontinued, and it may always have been an internal system, but it existed for long enough that I still see it as valid. G-canon wasn't put at the top for no reason at all.

Moreover, especially back in 2008, when TCW debuted, there were multiple degrees of canon, with Leland Chee's Holocron continuity database growing to a whopping 61,128 entries by May 2013. So it's a little disingenuous -- and certainly imprecise -- of Filoni to pretend there was only one degree of canon all along. The interview itself was published (and presumably took place) a scant six months after the former EU was demoted to "Legends" status (in April 2014), which Filoni was perfectly sanguine about a few years later (your 2017 quote from earlier). So Filoni is free to now speak as if there were only one type of canon -- because, at that point, there was, and his precious TCW had been spared Legends status. 

And it's rarely Lucas speaking about TCW. It's pretty much always Dave Filoni. Especially when it comes to blunt assertions about canonicity. In that previous quote above, he literally uses the word "canon" more times than I've ever seen Lucas use it. This all leads me to believe it's Filoni, in particular, who wants people to see TCW as equal to the movies. He had the luxury of working directly with the franchise's creator. Other people who added to the corpus of Star Wars didn't. So they can be demoted to Legends and it's irrelevant. It's no skin off his nose. While his baby was canon by definition -- of course. Funny how human beings look at themselves and so easily shrug their shoulders at the fates of others, isn't it?

George Lucas has always had his cake and eaten it. He's both artist and exquisite businessman. Even after losing creative control of his baby, he did it deliberately, to make himself free, and got a cool $4 billion in the process.