Was Vader pure evil?

[Flynn]

Ah, much obliged, Robzula. Knew there had to be something like that out there.

[Draykov]

And they are free to do that, but their personal decision to do so does not qualify it as "canon", as I understand the meaning of the word.

My point was that if you need to have "levels" of canon, clearly it's a divisive issue where many do not see eye to eye. With that in mind, the type of works one accepts does become something of an individual preference. Some fans accept one group of works (e.g. the films) in favor of another (e.g. the EU).

The definition of the term "canon" is not in question (defined by Merriam-Webster as a sanctioned or accepted group or body of related works, an accepted principle or rule). I suppose what is in question, if you go by that definition, is whether or not the term can truly apply to anything in Star Wars (or any work of fiction, for that matter) that doesn't come directly from the original creator (in this case, Lucas). Revisionist creators complicate the matter further.

[Mister Ed]

Don't really disagree with any of that. You may have a point that, in the strictest sense, it may not be possible to say that Star Wars really HAS a canon. But if it DOES, I'm inclined to think that what George Lucas says it is would be the highest authority. And either way, the point I was trying to make originally was that individual viewers can't accurately call their preferred subset of Star Wars lore "canon" in any sense of the word I am aware of, even though they are perfectly justified in HAVING any such preferences (I know I do. As I said, even if I accept some things as canon, that doesn't mean I like them. There are many aspects of Star Wars "canon" that I find stupid, and ignore if at all possible.)

[Draykov]

Don't really disagree with any of that. You may have a point that, in the strictest sense, it may not be possible to say that Star Wars really HAS a canon. But if it DOES, I'm inclined to think that what George Lucas says it is would be the highest authority. And either way, the point I was trying to make originally was that individual viewers can't accurately call their preferred subset of Star Wars lore "canon" in any sense of the word I am aware of, even though they are perfectly justified in HAVING any such preferences (I know I do. As I said, even if I accept some things as canon, that doesn't mean I like them. There are many aspects of Star Wars "canon" that I find stupid, and ignore if at all possible.)

Wherever there is a lack of consensus, one could argue there is no canon. Your proposal that the author defines the canon seems the most logical to me.

I guess when it comes to people having preferences about which events in Star Wars are "true" and how that relates to "canon," it's just semantics. It is, however, one thing to say "I hold the films to be the only true source of SW continuity" and then it's another to say "I hold the films to be true except for Jar-Jar." That mess is on film forever. That's why some people make the declaration that "George RUINED Star Wars."

I personally like to pretend the prequels never happened, which makes any debate about canon kind of irrelevant to me personally. For some reason, I can't help but chime in on them though.

[ThatGuyWithTheBricks]

That's why some people make the declaration that "George RUINED Star Wars."

Nah, George Lucas sold Star Wars out for merchandise and profit.

[CloneEmperor]

Nah, George Lucas sold Star Wars out for merchandise and profit.

And if you think that happened any later than May 1977, you are deluding yourself.

[Flynn]

And if you think that happened any later than May 1977, you are deluding yourself.

Actually, I'd place it as May 1980. His focus on advertisement was always really strong, but I don't think it overtook the movies themselves until after Empire.

[CloneEmperor]

And yet, he negotiated for all the toys rights before the first movie ever came out, which was where the majority of his profits came from.

[Flynn]

My point is, though, that it didn't start affecting the films themselves until the Ewoks showed up (Though you could argue that was because George didn't have a very big hand in making Empire).

[CloneEmperor]

And all I'm saying is that by ThatGuyWithTheBricks's comment that "George Lucas sold Star Wars out for merchandise and profit." happened long before the prequels came along, and even before Empire Strikes Back. To be completely honest, can you even say he "sold out" when he had the licensing rights secured before the first film was even made? I usually associate that term with a person who has changed his focus from one objective to another, and George has been clear from the beginning that these movies were intended for children.

[Flynn]

Well, I usually see that decision as just a really good sense of foresight, and a good financial decision. My guess is that he saw how the movie was turning out, thought "Hm, this would be good for toys, and could bring in financial backing for further movies" (Or some such similar thought), and thus decided to secure those rights so he could get the money. That's just good business sense more than anything else. I think it wasn't until later when that thought started to actively become "Hm, let's milk this cow for all it's worth".

But hey, this is all just semantics, anyhow. Point is, he did start selling out the movies early on, and the space of three years really doesn't make that much of a difference.