Talk:Star Wars: Legacy

Fan reaction

Just read this section over. I've kept out of any debates about this series but that section of the article is only just missing a "So there!". It's very written with a tone of a fan who has embraced this concept and wants those who haven't to shut up. Any chance of a more neutal re-write which gives fair voice to both sides on the matter?--HellCat86 00:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Good point dude. I didn't even read over it, i just formatted it after it was added without actually reading it. It is pretty biased. Here's what the guys and gals over at Wookieepedia had to say about the fan reaction... (If anyone would care to draw inspiration from it or to just add this outright)

Star Wars: Legacy has been met with both excitement and anticipation, and also disappointment. Fans of the new series like its appeal for blending previous stories and themes, and explaining what happened in the 100 years after the Yuuzhan Vong War, but the series will also question what is good and evil, turning the viewer upside down from what they normally expect.

Most disappointment has been a result of seemingly stereotypical characters (such as the revival of the Sith) and plotlines, however most of this was only from previews before the actual release of the series. Cade Skywalker has been the target of most of the criticism, because of his looks, the idea that he may not be able to save the Jedi Order, or that he is a Skywalker. Other arguments stem from the appearance that Dark Horse appears to be deliberately destroying the Del Rey continuity.

Supporters of the comic point out that most criticism is superficial in nature, based on visual appearances and by those who have not read the comics yet. It is also pointed out that Del Rey destroyed much of the Bantam-era continuity with the New Jedi Order series. The comic's creative team, John Ostrander and Jan Duursema, were responsible for the widely-acclaimed Star Wars: Republic and Jedi comics (which on a whole recieved more consistently positive reviews than did the New Jedi Order books), and Ostrander read and enjoyed the New Jedi Order series that fans claim he is trying to destroy.

?Star Wars: Legacy on Wookieepedia, a Star Wars wiki

--Skope 02:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I've made the section smaller and less biased. Those with a more active interest can build it up--HellCat86 19:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

As writer of the series, I submitted an edit which has since disappeared. The FACT is that the initial orders for the first issue of the series are up considerably from the end of STAR WARS REPUBLIC which indicatea a greater interest. The VAST majority of posts I've seen on TF:N, TOS, and the DH boards indicate fan excitement and enthusiasm for the series. It has included those who have not read SW comics before or have not done so in along time and find themselves intrigued by the concept. I do not dispute that there are those who have been extremely negative about the series but, for the most part, they have not read the actual book. The article suggests that fan reaction, at best, is evenly divided which is simply not the case. I respect everyone's right to their own opinion but I don't think it's too much to ask for an INFORMED opinion. At every step in the development of the series, from concept through execution, Legacy has had to pass the scrutiny and get the approval of Lucas Film Licensing. Jan Duursema, my artist and co-creator, and I have earned their trust from our six years of doing SW comics. The same holds true with the MAJORITY of fans whom I've seen.

i don't expect to satisfy everyone with LEGACY; that has not happened with anything I've written in my 20 years of writing. Nor am I seeking to silence critics. The initial entry on this is, however, biased in my opinion and tries to suggest a general fan disapproval that is not consistent with what I've seen.

-- John Ostrander

To be completly fair, assuming you are who you say you are that does make your view on this matter bias. I can understand this is your work and what puts food on the table but Wikipedia is intended to be as opinion free as possible and the only way to do that here is to prevent both sides. Fan reaction sections in articles are controversial enough so making the claim that there's this big amount of fan support and just a tiny number of unhappy fans to me just adds a bias which questions even having such a section. As I said above, there are others better suited then myself to give that section the attention it deserves but taking what is apparently the views of the creator as basis for that section will just make it dubious and fairly useless to the article.--HellCat86 22:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I am who i say I am. I can provide my e-mail address and/or sites where I'm known. Try http://boards.theforce.net/authors_artists/b10347/5863919/p85/?2119 for example. I can provide the facts on the numbers backing up my statement once they are realeased by the distributor, Diamond, or I'm given permission by the publisher, Dark Horse. Members of LFL (Lucas Film Licensing) appear on the message boards at Star Wars: The Official Site and links can be provided and will, I believe, back up my claims. I can also provide links to the relevant discussion areas on the sites I cited. In short I can provide a lot more evidence than those who are disputing me. OR you can simply refer people to fans sites (positive AND negative) that discuss it and leave off the evaluation. Simply say something such as " for fan reaction to this book, see xyz." Just tell what the book/project IS and leave off the editorials from all parties. I don't think that's unreasonable. I stand by my work and people can like it or dislike it or criticize it as they will. But this is supposed to be an encyclopedia and not a fan forum. There are those who have already made claims abou LEGACY which you've accepted. It makes a statement of fact which is not fact. I'm challenging that. The way to be opinion free is to not use opinions.

Of course, that's just MY opinion.

-- John Ostrander

I haven't made any statments. All I did was remove the original version of that section (which was very strongly written with a pro-Legacy tone) and using the info provided above tried to reword it so it was less biased. My rewrite even points out that error in fans making total judgement this early. I'm not the one who started the section, I just felt that it deserved to stay but needed to be cleaned up. Various notable fictional works mentioned on Wikipedia note fan reaction where relevant and I think most would say this project is notable. I don't see how I'm treating Wikipedia as a fan forum when the edit presents both sides of the argument equally. Others are free to tweak it as they see fit.--HellCat86 00:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with HellCat86. I personally like the idea for the series just from reading the #00 issue (haven't got a chance to get #1 yet), but at this point, his approach is in the right direction in MY opinion. Granted, it does need to be built up a little bit. --Skope 02:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Respectfullfully (and I mean hat sincerely) disagree. Both sides of an argument aren't always equal. If one side is presenting fact that can be backed up and the other side presents merely opinion and allegations based on incomplete information or not even READING the material (jumping to conclusions), then how are both sides equal? I freely concede the fact that there IS dissent among fans. That IS a fact. It's the DEGREE that is being suggested that I find wrong.

Let's look at the statements. i'm not just griping -- I'm trying to show specifically why i have a problem with what's being said.

1) "Reaction to the project has been mixed, with some fans accepting it and others opposing it." Reaction to the project, if you look at the sales figures and the fan reactions on the sites I've mentioned, is in fact largely favorable while SOME have expressed concerns and severe doubts. This statement suggest that the reaction is TOTALLY pro and con. The reality is that the fan reaction overall has been very favorable with some fans expressing doubt and scepticsm. I'll supply you with site locations if you want to look it up.

2)" A common criticism is that the series is too rooted in cliche character types for the series (smugglers, bounty hunters, Sith, etc)." No, in fact, it's not a COMMON criticism except among those who have expressed opposition to the series. Among the general fans, it is NOT a common critcism.

3)"Those who are more accepting point out that the concept is still in it's infancy and that it is unfair to judge it completly at this stage." The CONCEPT was in its infancy over a year ago when we began PLANNING it. The REAL reason it may be unfair to judge it now is that only in the past few weeks have people been able to actually READ it which MIGHT be useful in forming a fair and unbiased opinion. The overall impression of the statement is negative, IMO.

Perhaps I can suggest other wording? For exmple:

"Fan reaction has been largely favorable while some fans have expressed doubt and concern about the concepts behind the series. Individual readers will need to make up their own minds as the series begins publication."

Look, I've had my say and made my point. I've always stood by my work -- good, bad, or indifferent. I simply want people to judge what i've written -- not what they THINK I'm writing. I've had projects damaged before because some fans copped a negative attitude before actually READING it and then being extremely vocal and attempting to create a negative impression overall. If i haven't convinced you, then i haven't convinced you. My apologies if I've been abrasive. Just looking for what I think is a fair shake. Perhaps we must simply agree to disagree.

-- John Ostrander

If I may make a brief reply to focus on an important issue- I'm certainly not trying to cause the series itself any trouble. As I keep saying, someone else has the option to go and change what is written. My prime concern was removing bias from the article and bias is what the original wording was.--HellCat86 03:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Just because the current version states that the reaction is mixed, doesn't mean it's an even mix. A mix of flour and milk ... it doesn't mean there's equal parts (sorry for the analogy, i just made dinner). It's just stating the two opinions out there. And the "common criticism" i think is understood to be the common criticism of those who have expressed opposition to the series. I think what he means to do is give voice to both sides or whatever. Though I agree with your point on "CONCEPT" being that it isn't a concept. Maybe the series, or perhaps the idea of the series. It's obvious you're not going to get a flawless grasp of the series just from the 00 issue (and maybe the 01 issue, but i haven't read that myself as i said earlier). In fact, some opinion-toting posters found more things that turned them off of it after having read the issue (still speaking of 00). And finally, I have to say it's quite easy to get numbers of people who buy it, but it's harder to get numbers of people who don't, and the comparison to previous series sales could be misleading due to the addition of new readers pulled in.

But again, don't get me wrong, my opinion is in favor of the series. I just can't get enough of smugglers, bounty hunters, Sith, etc. XD But my boss always told me i could argue with a brick wall and the devil --Skope 03:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Uh just how did the New Jedi Order destroy the Bantam continuity please reply on my talk page. Jamhaw 00:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)jamhaw

I agree. I own many of both the Bantam and Del Rey books. I haven't spotted any continuity destruction. I own Legacy as well and again, no destruction of continuity. Anyone that is properly informed about the entirety of the Star Wars Expanded Universe would know this isn't really the case, and making a case for such an opinion is fine in a forum, but not in an encyclopedia article. Unless critic reviews are used in a reaction paragraph, I don't thinking taking a consensus of fansite forums is very accurate, even if one may appear to exist. -Hibbidyhai 05:34, 16 April 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.91.129.129 (talk)

More information on characters and plot

I'm attempting to find information related to the series for some Star Wars merchandising and its inspiration and effect on modern pop culture. This includes expanded universe titles such as this. Unfortunately, this article has very little in the way of character and plot description. Are there any articles which outline these aspects in more detail? 121.220.19.15 (talk) 03:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

time line is wrong

it is not a 125 years adter legacy of the force it's 125 yearts after return of the jedi.100 years after the new jedi order and about 90 years after legacy of the force. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.118.200.168 (talk) 00:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)