The fictional franchises I like most are the ones that have an ongoing, non-contradictory, canonical storyline — “Star Wars,” “Buffy” and “The X-Files” being my big three. These are franchises that aren’t driven by remakes, adaptations, re-inventions, re-imaginings and alternate timelines.
For example, the origin stories of Anakin Skywalker (like it or not), Buffy Summers and Fox Mulder have been told. They won’t be remade, re-interpreted, etc. On the other hand, the origin story of “Batman’s” Two-Face is told in a 1995 movie (which itself is a re-imagining of a comic book story) and then I found myself watching his origin story again in a 2008 movie. The “Batman” franchise is now just an exercise is seeing different auteurs’ takes; I have no emotional investment in any of it, even though I appreciate the artistry.
The “Batman” franchise is more akin to theater — the stories have existed for decades; it’s the staging that’s different each time. But I’m more of a fresh story guy. It’s not that I’m obsessed with seeing something new and being surprised; it’s more that I love to get lost in the rich tapestry of a fully realized fictional universe. I can tell you what adventures Buffy went on when she was 18, and in what year those stories took place; I don’t think a “Batman” fan could do the same for that character.
I don’t mean to pick on “Batman.” Another example, and a franchise where I love the early work, is “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.” What were the Turtles doing at age 16, and what year was that? Well, it depends on if you’re talking Mirage comics, movies, first cartoon, Archie comics, live-action TV series, second cartoon … you get my drift.
And “The Terminator” is another (and a decidedly weird) example, which I addressed in a previous blog post. In early 2009, a “Terminator” TV series and a “Terminator” movie were being made simultaneously — and neither group was communicating with the other! It could get away with it because it’s a time-travel-based franchise, and the stories took place on alternate timelines … but still, I found it bizarre.
One thing that links “Star Wars,” “Buffy” and “The X-Files” is that a single person invented them and told the main story threads. And when they let other storytellers play in their sandbox, they (or at least a serious fan on the internet) maintained an official timeline — a franchise bible, if you will. Although there are certainly continuity errors (I ran across many in the “Buffy” novels that came out concurrently with the show), those can be explained as mistakes, not something that came from a lack of respect for the big picture.
It’s well known by “Star Wars” buffs that Lucas Licensing employs continuity editors who are responsible for making sure every piece of fiction fits into the established timeline, a.k.a. the canon. This is why some of the 1990s novels are pretty bad (authors felt hamstrung by not getting to develop main characters) and why the 2000s novels tend to be better (learning from its misfires, Lucas Licensing plotted out portions of the timeline for writers to play in, starting with “The New Jedi Order”). (On a side note, I believe there are certain jobs where the person holding the job has no right to complain, ever, no matter how bad their day is going. “Star Wars” continuity editor is one such job.)
This process has worked pretty well toward the goal of telling good stories in a lived-in universe with a defined history. But here’s the problem: What if George Lucas — who invented “Star Wars,” who has a significant ego, and who therefore is the one guy the continuity editors can’t set straight when he’s wrong — tells a story that contradicts something that has already been told?
Lucas has done this at least three times. The most famous example is that he made Boba Fett the son of bounty hunter Jango Fett in the movie “Attack of the Clones,” contradicting Boba’s backstory as journeyman protector Jaster Mereel that was established in the book “Tales of the Bounty Hunters.” The second example was last season on “The Clone Wars,” when we see Lucas’ vision of the planet Mandalore — cubical glass architecture indicating a rich world — which contradicts previous depictions of it as a lightly populated backwater wasteland.
The third example is happening now on “The Clone Wars” (7:30 p.m. Central Fridays on Cartoon Network): Asajj Ventress is revealed to be from Dathomir (not Rattatak, as previously established) and it looks like upcoming episodes will show that Darth Maul was also from Dathomir (not Iridonia, as previously established).
Of course, this is happening because Lucas is the boss. Dave Filoni, basically the liaison between Lucas and The Fans on “The Clone Wars,” has to execute Lucas’ vision while not having it contradict with established continuity too terribly much, if he can help it. And if he can’t help it, then he gets to play diplomat and explain things in such a way that would make a slick politician proud. In a featurette on the Season 2 DVD, Filoni talks about how when Lucas said “We’re going to show Mandalore,” Filoni gave him a summary of the established materials on the planet before they moved forward. Filoni also assures fans that everything they read about Mandalore and Mandalorians really happened, and what they are seeing in Season 2 also really happened.
But he never goes into details of how it all ties together, because of course, it doesn’t. Boba Fett can’t be Jaster Mereel (established) AND a clone of Jango Fett (Lucas’ rewrite). Jango Fett can’t be a Mandalorian (established) AND a guy who merely wears the armor (Lucas’ rewrite). Asajj Ventress can’t be from Rattatak (established) AND Dathomir (Lucas’ rewrite).
Well, thanks to “retcons” — retroactive continuity — some contradictions can be, and have been, worked out. For example, we now know that Ventress is Dathomiri and she later goes to Rattatak, and that the two planets — along with Iridonia — have closely related species and linked histories. And as for Mandalore, well, maybe we just see two different sides of the same culture. (There’s some fascinating reading to be had on Wookieepedia when you look up some of these topics.)
But my question is this: Do you like that Lucas is meddling in his own universe?
On one hand, he’s meddling. Karen Traviss did a great job exploring Mandalorian culture in her “Republic Commando” novels, then Lucas shared his alternate vision. Why did he let Traviss write those books if they were inaccurate? And if he came up with his vision for Mandalore later, then why couldn’t he have adjusted it to apply to some other aspect of the grand story? After all, his movie drafts are filled with characters and planets that got rejiggered and used elsewhere — for example, the cave planet Utapau (from “Revenge of the Sith”) first surfaced way back in story meetings for “The Empire Strikes Back.”
But on the other hand, it’s his own universe. Sure, there seems to be a movement underfoot — spearheaded by Red Letter Media’s excellent prequel reviews (here’s the latest, for “Revenge of the Sith,” but be sure to check out the “Phantom Menace” and “Attack of the Clones” pieces on YouTube if you haven’t already) — to not so much take away credit from Lucas, but to at least temper the praise.
Rather than using the blanket statement that Lucas is brilliant for making the “Star Wars” films, we can instead say that “A New Hope” is great because of Richard Chew’s editing, “The Empire Strikes Back” is great because of Irvin Kershner’s direction, Han Solo is a great character because of Harrison Ford’s acting and “The Clone Wars” is great because Filoni is more in touch with the fans than Lucas is. On projects that can unequivocally, entirely be attributed to Lucas (most notably the prequel movies, but you can also point to Special Edition changes such as Greedo shooting first), his glowing track record gets murky. However, while those arguments are valid, they can all be countered by pointing out one simple fact: Lucas INVENTED “Star Wars,” one of the best things in our geeky lives.
So I’m torn between the two arguments. There’s a childlike part of me that wonders what George Lucas — not some random writer — envisions for his grand “Star Wars” story. But mostly my adult (albeit still geeky) viewpoint prevails: If something has already been established in the timeline, it should be respected as canon. Because, consciously or subconsciously, that’s why I like “Star Wars.” It’s not just about well-told stories. It’s about well-told stories that are part of a well-woven larger story — one that is necessarily free of remakes, re-imaginings, re-tellings and so forth.
What are your thoughts on continuity in franchise storytelling? Is the big picture important to you or is it good enough if the individual pieces are satisfying? Share your thoughts below.