Star Wars rumors: Peelee (2 e's) to buy Star Wars

[Batcathat]

That kind of is Buffy season 5 - yeah sure there's an in universe justification for spontaneous sister - but having a sister allows for a lot of new storylines.

Right, there's an in-universe justification (argubly a pretty silly one, but that's a matter of taste) which I think is very different. Authors handwaving various changes can be painful, but them just ignoring that there's a change at all is usually worse, in my opinion. (Granted, there are some exceptions to that. If you have to recast a role, it's usually better to pretend the character always looked like that than trying to justify it).

I'd say continuity is only of value when it improves the story, it is entirely a means to that end, and treating it as an end even of itself is a mistake. Most of the time continuity improves a story, but it's not exactly rare for it to not. There's an early episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer where the monster of the week is a hot new lady teacher who lures virgin boys to her house, turns into a giant preying mantis, and eats them. It's very bad, but ends with a stinger where her eggs are still out there, ready to hatch. Thankfully there's no follow up. Total continuity problem, and absolutely we're better off for it.

Well, yeah, this seems like a good example of finding balance (especially since Buffy was generally a pretty continuity-heavy show, at least for its time).

[pendell]

I'd put a big "that depends" on the issue of continuity. The classics of the Fantasy/SF genre -- Dune by Frank Herbert, LOTR by Tolkien, Foundation by Asimov -- all have extremely detailed worldbuilding. Herbert invented a full planetary ecology complete with global maps, weather patterns , and an entirely new language (Galach) for his Empire of Man.

If you're going to play in that space , heavy continuity and world building is expected. It's what separates really great works from ... well, from Harry Potter. Which is a good enough set of novels but it doesn't grip people in their adulthoods they way it did when they were children.

Ironically, I don't see a great deal of canon/fanon arguments about Dune , simply because the author did such a thorough job of explaining his world up front. And while there is a bit of that discussion in LOTR around "why didn't they take the eagles to Mordor" or "did the Balrog have wings", nowhere near the level of debate in SW.

Not to mention, Star Wars isn't just a lighthearted serial for kids. It was that in the films. But the novelizations had names like Alan Dean Foster, Timothy Zahn, RA Salvatore. These people made their names writing serious SF or fantasy for adults, and in the EU they set the standard. You can't treat the EU on the same level as the films, because the EU isn't just pulp adventure fiction; these authors took their guidance from Lucas and applied their own genius to perform worldbuilding within that framework to flesh out the Star Wars EU into a thought-out universe. That kind of writing attracts rivet-counting nerds, and we've been around ever since

-- actually, I personally have been a star wars fan since I first saw Episode IV in theaters in its initial run, but it wasn't until Heir to the Empire that I became a serious star wars fan as an adult. Absent that, it would have just been a happy childhood memory, like Willow.


ETA: Of course, too much worldbuilding can grind the story to a halt. Look at how long GRRM has been sitting on Winds of Winter. Although I suspect that also has to do with the poor reception of season 8, which while not well executed probably followed the basic outline of where GRRM intended the story to go. The poor fan reception seems to have permanently put him off following up on the books in the main line.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Keltest]

Its hard to say that Tolkien has continuity, given that of the two major works he published in his lifetime, one of them had to be fairly significantly re-written to allow for the second one, famously so.

[pendell]

Its hard to say that Tolkien has continuity, given that of the two major works he published in his lifetime, one of them had to be fairly significantly re-written to allow for the second one, famously so.

The Hobbit was originally a standalone story, when he made the sequel he brought it into his larger mythology described in the Silmarrillion. You remember, the setting for which he wrote no less than four separate languages, including multiple Elvish languages -- one for those oversea, another for those that stayed behind (Sindarin). Family trees. Ten thousand years of chronology. The Appendices are the heaviest bit of worldbuilding in modern fiction, on par with Dune. I would say they're equally detail-rich but focus on different things. Tolkien was a linguist, so his worldbuilding focuses heavily on those elements while ignoring stuff like where mountains should be in a way that give geologists fits . Herbert's planet Arrakis is more coherent in those terms but they don't have nearly Tolkien's mythmaking when it comes to the pantheon of the Valar.

Mind; I don't really care that Tolkien's geology is highly dubious, but I appreciate that it gives me a line to learn about the real science through articles such as those I linked; it makes learning more fun.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Keltest]

The Hobbit was originally a standalone story, when he made the sequel he brought it into his larger mythology described in the Silmarrillion. You remember, the setting for which he wrote no less than four separate languages, including multiple Elvish languages -- one for those oversea, another for those that stayed behind (Sindarin). Family trees. Ten thousand years of chronology. The Appendices are the heaviest bit of worldbuilding in modern fiction, on par with Dune. I would say they're equally detail-rich but focus on different things. Tolkien was a linguist, so his worldbuilding focuses heavily on those elements while ignoring stuff like where mountains should be in a way that give geologists fits . Herbert's planet Arrakis is more coherent in those terms but they don't have nearly Tolkien's mythmaking when it comes to the pantheon of the Valar.

Mind; I don't really care that Tolkien's geology is highly dubious, but I appreciate that it gives me a line to learn about the real science through articles such as those I linked; it makes learning more fun.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Yeah, but Tolkien was changing those constantly over his life. The versions we ended up with were just the latest rendition he had when he literally became incapable of changing them anymore, pieced together (such as they could be) by his heirs.

[warty goblin]

I'd put a big "that depends" on the issue of continuity. The classics of the Fantasy/SF genre -- Dune by Frank Herbert, LOTR by Tolkien, Foundation by Asimov -- all have extremely detailed worldbuilding. Herbert invented a full planetary ecology complete with global maps, weather patterns , and an entirely new language (Galach) for his Empire of Man.

If you're going to play in that space , heavy continuity and world building is expected. It's what separates really great works from ... well, from Harry Potter. Which is a good enough set of novels but it doesn't grip people in their adulthoods they way it did when they were children.

You are confusing what you value in fiction as an adult with a universal set of agreed upon universal values for Good Serious Fiction For Adults. Because I assure you plenty of adults were and are still very much into Harry Potter.

Ironically, I don't see a great deal of canon/fanon arguments about Dune , simply because the author did such a thorough job of explaining his world up front. And while there is a bit of that discussion in LOTR around "why didn't they take the eagles to Mordor" or "did the Balrog have wings", nowhere near the level of debate in SW.

Dune is about as niche as you can get while still being a name most people recognize, even if they haven't read it. Tolkien is substantially less niche, but still kinda small fry compared to Star Wars. And while you can get very into Tolkien it's hard in a way a SW technixal manual or novel isn't; by modern standards LoTR isn't an easy read, the Silmarillion is substantially harder, and going any deeper than that generally requires caring about how Tolkien rewrote a text over time. If you're that committed, you aren't very likely to get into rivet counting arguments because you're considering the Middle Earth corpus as an evolving body of work so the number of rivets - or balrogs - changes.

I think there's also a substantial argument to be made that Tolkien often hits people very personally and deeply, so while they love the books it is both harder to talk about why and how, and the stakes for doing do are much higher emotionally than SW canon arguments. I like SW OK, I read the end of LoTR aloud to myself for the express purpose of crying my eyes out. My interest in arguing about that is zero. By extension by interest in arguments about flying the eagles to Mordor is zero because it's a dumb meme that nearly willfully misses the point.

Not to mention, Star Wars isn't just a lighthearted serial for kids. It was that in the films. But the novelizations had names like Alan Dean Foster, Timothy Zahn, RA Salvatore. These people made their names writing serious SF or fantasy for adults, and in the EU they set the standard. You can't treat the EU on the same level as the films, because the EU isn't just pulp adventure fiction; these authors took their guidance from Lucas and applied their own genius to perform worldbuilding within that framework to flesh out the Star Wars EU into a thought-out universe. That kind of writing attracts rivet-counting nerds, and we've been around ever since

You have actually read Salvatore, right? I loved his stuff when I was a teen, read some of his non-Drizzt stuff, and whichever SW movie novelization he did, and I'll give him enormous credit for his action scenes and some solid world building in the Dark Elf Trilogy, but he writes pulp. That's not an insult, I like pulp, and writing good pulp is extremely hard, but it's pulp adventure. He's a hop, step and somersault off a camel away from Conan.

[pendell]

You have actually read Salvatore, right? I loved his stuff when I was a teen, read some of his non-Drizzt stuff, and whichever SW movie novelization he did, and I'll give him enormous credit for his action scenes and some solid world building in the Dark Elf Trilogy, but he writes pulp. That's not an insult, I like pulp, and writing good pulp is extremely hard, but it's pulp adventure. He's a hop, step and somersault off a camel away from Conan.

Given I finished Lolth's Warrior a month ago -- in fact, I offered to make it a collaborative readthrough in this group but could find no takers-- I would say so. The FR world he's writing about and creating is considerably different than the stories we read back in the 90s. Still pulp, yes, but there's a fair amount of indepth work put in to , for example, create both a dark elf colony on the surface AND make Jarlaxle the ruler of Luskan. It's not in the same class as the other authors, but it's definitely a step up from 1930s-era serials.

And of course FR occurs in the D&D setting, so Salvatore can leverage that world building as well. For example, when

Spoiler

Show

Lolth tricks one of the characters into drawing from a Deck Of Many Things, resulting in the character drawing Donjon

That's already built into the setting, he didn't have to invent it. He's writing in a heavily built and detailed world, even if he didn't have to create the setting himself.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Mechalich]

The issue with Lucas changing things in Star Wars and being nebulous about the lore and so forth compared to other franchises is that he let other people create in his franchise. Herbert, Tolkien, and various other authors being mentioned here did not do that.

If you're going to allow other people to take thing ABC that you made and produce new thing XYZ, you can't keep constantly changing the contents of ABC. Otherwise the result will be a contradictory mess. Collaborative settings need agreed upon lore, setting bibles, and other methods to control what is and is not allowed within those settings. George Lucas never produced anything like that and was really bad about respecting other people who tried. He liked to pretend publicly the entire EU just didn't exist, but that didn't stop him from snagging bits of it he thought were cool. This was a real problem and it's notable that Star Wars Legends was best managed when Lucas was not directly involved. Of course, Disney has somehow managed to be significantly worse than this at running the franchise which boggles the mind.

[Sapphire Guard]

I don't think you really understand what the Jedi Order is meant to be. Them choosing to remain neutral in a war and yet having the power to bring leaders of either side to justice for overt crimes is totally understandable and to be expected of an independent and neutral organisation that actively tries to prevent wars. They're peacekeepers. Their whole thing is meant to be de-escalation and brokering peace. As far as they should be concerned it shouldn't have become a war at all and they should have put all their effort into stopping it becoming one.

Peacekeepers require agreement from the warring parties before they can operate. If they don't have that, then they just become sitting ducks.

While this would be a fix that would have to be done back in the Ruusan era, what I'm essentially arguing for is Separation of Jedi And State. Think doctors; there are medical people in every country in the world, and they all have a common enemy : Disease and death. Medical people exist in all armed forces, but they still have a loyalty, of sorts, that transcends nationality. Which is why doctors for an army are expected to treat enemy soldiers. At a lower priority than their own side, obviously, but it's still there. It's also why medics are supposed to not be deliberately targeted on the battle field.

Same problem. Requires permissions. Let's say there's a small Jedi enclave in Hutt space, do they tolerate the Hutts giant slave empire? If not, he just kills them and no Jedi can operate in Hutt space.

This gets to the bottom of what I consider a flaw in the PT Jedi Order -- there simply aren't enough different points of view. The temple on Coruscant has succumbed to a coruscant-centric groupthink. Yoda is powerful, wise, and ancient, but I think he would be the first to acknowledge that he is not infallible. The OTL Jedi have strong reasons for holding to their point of view, but it is still only one. The example is Qui-Gon: In a more perfect world he would be on the council himself, as opposed to being practically a renegade member of the Order who defies the council all too often.

The same groupthink that repeatedly outvotes Yoda and does things he doesn't like? This is a common viewpoint, but it's not supported at all by the Jedi Council we see. Qui Gonn was offered a seat, he was the one who turned it down, so him not being on the council is his own choice.

Way back during the High Republic era the Jedi Order wasn't centralised. Jedi often did live among communities all across the galaxy, which fostered relationships between those communities and the Jedi Order and also allowed the Jedi to act more quickly when the need arose.

And those outlying temples were repeatedly destroyed by attacks from locals because they were weak and vulnerable.

His intent and vision has quite famously changed as time passed, as he has not infrequently given interviews and gone on record saying one thing and then, when it came time to actually make the next piece, went in the exact opposite direction (eg Jedi Masters being able to teach but don't actually fight anyone like knights do because they aren't real Jedi, or even simply changing a work after it has been completed makes one a barbarian).

George Lucas interviews make a fantastic case for "if it's not in the movie, it didn't happen". So you'll forgive me if I do not consider his statements as valuable at all for contextualizing his work. I love what he created and I'm sad he sold to Disney as he was far better at making good stories than they were, even if he dropped the ball on the prequels), but the man is an unreliable narrator as far as his "intent and vision" goes.

People love quoting that Congress speech, but it only works as an argument if it is misleadingly taken out of context and ignores the rest of it. The reason he is saying that is to protest that corporations are altering the works of artists without their permission. His argument is that corporations can't alter works once it is out of the hands of the creator, not that the creator can't alter their own work.

From the same speech

The destruction of our film heritage, which is the focus of concern today, is only the tip of the iceberg. American law does not protect our painters, sculptors, recording artists, authors, or filmmakers from having their lifework distorted, and their reputation ruined.

If something is not done now to clearly state the moral rights of artists, current and future technologies will alter, mutilate, and destroy for future generations the subtle human truths and highest human feeling that talented individuals within our society have created.

Even your link admits this:

Still, while George Lucas does seem to be warning people of the future about George Lucas, it must be noted that his speech was primarily about the artist’s rights to preserve his own work—which also includes the right to make any alterations he desires.

That speech is not and never was an argument against an artist altering their own work, just corporations editing it at the expense of the artist.

As for the other one, all stories change and develop as they are made, this franchise is over forty years old. Presenting ' some of his ideas changed' as some sort of big reveal is very strange, it is true of every creator and every story ever made. (Some of them did stay consistent, like Anakin becoming Vader after injuries sustained near a volcano), so I don't think that is a reason to ignore his ideas completely.

It's been forty years, he's given thousands of interviews, of course everything he says isn't entirely consistent.

In the EU, George's perspective wins conflicts, so his perspective on the Sith Empires wins out. Newcanon doesn't, but I'm not sure where it went into any detail on the early history of the galaxy, it's mostly producing content in the eras we know. The Wookieepedia articles do mention how the Sith weere thought destroyed when they all turned on each other, though.

I'll always go back to the interview where he's asked about Obiwan's home planet and tries to make up one on the spot. Something that would have to be either delt with or retconned later because he doesn't think ahead, or when he dies, it's never concrete.

The problem there is taking a joke answer entirely seriously.

The issue with Lucas changing things in Star Wars and being nebulous about the lore and so forth compared to other franchises is that he let other people create in his franchise. Herbert, Tolkien, and various other authors being mentioned here did not do that.

He was clear that in cases of conflict, what he said would win out. There was a whole 'canon levels' system in aid of that, and he didn't let the prequel eras get too fleshed out because he wanted to go there himself.

Any franchise that gets so big inevitably has contradictions. Maybe the only comparably vast franchises are Marvel and DC, which are considerably more contradictory than even SW.

[Peelee]

People love quoting that Congress speech, but it only works as an argument if it is misleadingly taken out of context and ignores the rest of it. The reason he is saying that is to protest that corporations are altering the works of artists without their permission. His argument is that corporations can't alter works once it is out of the hands of the creator, not that the creator can't alter their own work.

From the same speech



Even your link admits this:



That speech is not and never was an argument against an artist altering their own work, just corporations editing it at the expense of the artist.

Yeah, i figured this would come up, as that's the most common rebuttal for the congress speech with this. And this rebuttal by necessity ignores another part of the speech:

In the future it will become even easier for old negatives to become lost and be ‘replaced’ by new altered negatives. This would be a great loss to our society. Our cultural history must not be allowed to be rewritten…. Attention should be paid to the interest of those who are yet unborn, who should be able to see this generation as it saw itself, and the past generation as it saw itself.”

The artist changing their work after releasing it to the world is still rewriting the cultural history. Especially twenty years after the fact. And then continuing and continuing to do so even further as time goes on. So no, i don't buy your argument at all, because "but it's out of context" ignores that Lucas himself contextualized it in that very speech exactly the way "people love quoting", as you put it.

People can change their minds, of course, and Lucas clearly did here. People can also criticize him for this, which I clearly do.

[Sapphire Guard]

Given that the reason those speeches were being made in the first place was because of people recolouring black and white films against the wishes of the creator, I think your interpretation is a reach. Even if it was true, someone changing their mind over decades is a weird thing to be annoyed about.

Star Wars is at no risk of being lost to cultural history. It is one of the most well documented films to ever exist. If there is a zombie apocalypse tomorrow, the survivors will still have Star Wars DVDs. Anyone who actually does want it for cultural history can just get the 2006 DVD. SW Fandom is very fervent about preserving the cultural history of SW which isn't at risk at all, but isn't nearly as concerned with any other film, almost all of which are more at risk of being lost than SW.

[Peelee]

Given that the reason those speeches were being made in the first place was because of people recolouring black and white films against the wishes of the creator, I think your interpretation is a reach.

My "interpretation" of showing Lucas's plain words? George "if i had the time i would hunt down every copy and smash them with a hammer" Lucas?

You have yet to write an apologia that has come anywhere near convincing me. I highly doubt you ever will, but it's possible. This one in particular is probably the farthest you have ever been.

[Errorname]

My "interpretation" of showing Lucas's plain words? George "if i had the time i would hunt down every copy and smash them with a hammer" Lucas?

I find the Star Wars Holiday Special a useful example of how canonicity is a lie, because even though it was immediately rejected by both fan and creator alike and widely considered 'non-canonical', people could not help but to reference it and remember it. It will always be part of the canon, it cannot be unmade, no matter how much Lucas or Disney or the fans at large might want it to be.

[Trafalgar]

Star Wars is at no risk of being lost to cultural history. It is one of the most well documented films to ever exist. If there is a zombie apocalypse tomorrow, the survivors will still have Star Wars DVDs. Anyone who actually does want it for cultural history can just get the 2006 DVD. SW Fandom is very fervent about preserving the cultural history of SW which isn't at risk at all, but isn't nearly as concerned with any other film, almost all of which are more at risk of being lost than SW.

The 2006 DVD version of the originals is based on the old laserdisc, not a remastering of the original prints. It is in 4:3 ratio and not in the original wide screen format. Lucas's claimed reason for not remastering at the time is because it would cost too much money. Right now, it is next to impossible to see the original trilogy as it was released. VHS is inferior. You probably could buy a used widescreen Laserdisc version, of course you would need a laser disc player.

Many inferior, less important films have been fully remastered. The only reason the original trilogy hasn't is because of George Lucas.

[Mechalich]

I find the Star Wars Holiday Special a useful example of how canonicity is a lie, because even though it was immediately rejected by both fan and creator alike and widely considered 'non-canonical', people could not help but to reference it and remember it. It will always be part of the canon, it cannot be unmade, no matter how much Lucas or Disney or the fans at large might want it to be.

The Star Wars Holiday Special will always be part of the franchise, that's not the same as being part of the canon. Canon, in franchise management, refers to an accepted series of events, objects, and features of the franchise that are excepted as comprising a continuity. The Holiday Special is non-canon in the same way that Visions is non-canon.

And canon does matter, because it represents a series of things that both audience and creators assume to be true about a property and need to be held constant across various works. This is most obvious with regard to technical and visual properties. For example: Mandalorian armor has a certain style. If someone created armor in a different style and called it Mandalorian, that would be a problem, because it would devalue the term's utility in-universe.

Star Wars, as a franchise, is usually pretty good about this sort of thing. There are some snarls, to be sure - the fate of the Death Star Plans in Legends was a giant mess - but most creators have managed to make the ships and weapons and armor and so forth all operate within the same overall framework. The big exception, of course, is the Force, which is all over the place.

[Errorname]

And canon does matter, because it represents a series of things that both audience and creators assume to be true about a property and need to be held constant across various works. This is most obvious with regard to technical and visual properties. For example: Mandalorian armor has a certain style. If someone created armor in a different style and called it Mandalorian, that would be a problem, because it would devalue the term's utility in-universe.

If a game or comic introduced a new armour design and called it Mandalorian armour, even if later creatives decided they didn't like that design and did not acknowledge it, that game has introduced a new iteration on the concept of Mandalorian armour that will influence future instalments, and exiling that entry from continuity will not unmake that.

[Rockphed]

Honestly, at this point all I want is a DVD or Blu-ray version of the original release of Star Wars. I would even settle for the 1990s remaster VHS in wide-screen at DVD resolution. I think the worst thing is that Lucas replaced the lounge singer in Return of the Jedi with some weird (not very convincing) CGI monstrosity singing not very good rock-and-roll.

[Infernally Clay]

Honestly, at this point all I want is a DVD or Blu-ray version of the original release of Star Wars. I would even settle for the 1990s remaster VHS in wide-screen at DVD resolution. I think the worst thing is that Lucas replaced the lounge singer in Return of the Jedi with some weird (not very convincing) CGI monstrosity singing not very good rock-and-roll.

Don't worry, I'm sure Disney is just waiting for the 50th anniversaries in 2027, 2030 and 2033. Have a big theatrical run for the original versions of the movies then sell them restored onto 4K disc for, like, £100 for all three.

[Peelee]

Don't worry, I'm sure Disney is just waiting for the 50th anniversaries in 2027, 2030 and 2033. Have a big theatrical run for the original versions of the movies then sell them restored onto 4K disc for, like, £100 for all three.

I'd be cool with that, especially since at the rate we're going £100 will actually be a standard price for a 3-disc set at that point.

GiantITP: Come for the Star Wars discussions, stay for the economic jokes!

[Sapphire Guard]

Video quality has got nothing to do with rewriting the cultural history, though. The movies themselves are available to anyone that wants them.

There were three original cuts in 1977 (limited release, mono and stereo) depending on what kind of cinema you saw them at, featuring differences like Aunt Beru having an entirely different voice actor, and thereafter, the 'original' version was actually a mix of the mono and stereo cuts. Which one is the original?

[Peelee]

Video quality has got nothing to do with rewriting the cultural history, though. The movies themselves are available to anyone that wants them.

Weren't you just claiming that Lucas was arguing specifically and only against colorizing black-and-white movies, which is purely a video quality issue?

Also, it is difficult-to-nearly-impossible to legally obtain a copy of the original film at this point. He changed it as far back as the 80's with retitling it "A New Hope". And even with some people still owning VHS tapes of the original, or being able to visit the Library of Congress and make an appointment to reserve one of the viewing rooms (a cumbersome onus to say the least), this would all also exist with any changed media that Lucas was arguing against in the speech that started this while sidetrack to start with. So which position would you like to take here: that Lucas' speech was both needless and wrong because the colorizing movies has nothing to do with rewriting the cultural history and in any event they are available to anyone that wants them, or that Lucas said one thing and then went and did the exact opposite when it came to his own dime? Because one of them has to be the case, based on what you're trying to argue here.

[Sapphire Guard]

I'm sure there are more technical people here that know more, but my understanding of recolouring is that it involves creative decisions, they're not finding the colour in the original negatives, they're coming up with a colour they think is appropriate and adding it in.

It's not a complicated distinction, the artist can alter their own work as much as they want as one of the moral rights of the artist, corporations ideally should not, espcecially against the will of the artist or after they are deceased. There's no contradiction in that.

[pendell]

It's not a complicated distinction, the artist can alter their own work as much as they want as one of the moral rights of the artist, corporations ideally should not, espcecially against the will of the artist or after they are deceased. There's no contradiction in that.

Corporations -- in this case Disney -- paid Lucas an astronomical fortune for the right to make whatever changes they wanted to the Star Wars IP. So anything they do can hardly be described as "against the will of the artist". Not when the artist gave his express permission in exchange for enough money to swim in, if it was all converted to coins. If Disney decides tomorrow that stormtroopers trade in their white armor for parasols and top hats, Lucas has absolutely nothing to say about it, legally.

Come to think of it, Disney STILL holds the copyright to Steamboat Willie, despite the fact it's been close to a century and the original artists are all dead. They keep extending the copyright laws well past the point of reasonability solely for the sake of holding onto that copyright. Which is a pet peeve of mine.


Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Mechalich]

Corporations -- in this case Disney -- paid Lucas an astronomical fortune for the right to make whatever changes they wanted to the Star Wars IP. So anything they do can hardly be described as "against the will of the artist". Not when the artist gave his express permission in exchange for enough money to swim in, if it was all converted to coins. If Disney decides tomorrow that stormtroopers trade in their white armor for parasols and top hats, Lucas has absolutely nothing to say about it, legally.

Not entirely true. The contract Lucas signed with Disney did not give them carte blanche to do anything they wanted with Star Wars. There are certain provisions in the contract forbidding actions by Disney (and presumably anyone else they might sell the franchise to in the future), most notably one that forbids them from remaking the original trilogy.

[MCerberus]

So rumor thread, has anyone heard if they're doing anything with Lop and Ocho yet?

[Errorname]

So rumor thread, has anyone heard if they're doing anything with Lop and Ocho yet?

To my knowledge the only visions thing that's gotten a follow-up was the Duel

[Sapphire Guard]

Mecha, have you actually somehow seen that contract, or is that just speculation?

Moral rights of the artist are distinct from ownership alone, the creator can still have rights around their creation being altered without their permission.