Head canon: Star Wars edition

Polish Star Wars poster?

I like the idea of head canon, especially as I get older, and the franchises I loved get longer and longer in the tooth. 

It's inevitable that franchises will have ups and downs, golden eras and dark ages, fabulous creative teams and capricious greedy studio hacks who care nothing for the material, have nothing to say, and just want to milk it for every penny they can get their grubby cheeto stained fingers on. 

Or is it me with the cheetos? Whatever.

So I thought I'd put together a list of my own head canon. 

There's different international flavours of Star Wars, so why not my own? Copyright, that's why! 

First up is Star Wars, because, honestly, that one is pretty easy.

My official (and completely irrelevant outside of my head) list: 

• Star Wars (just Star Wars, not the Very Special Edition with Blossom)

• The Empire Strikes Back (original cut)

• The Return of the Jedi (original cut, but only half of it)

• The Mandalorian season 1 (some of it) and season 2 (a little of it)

• Andor (all of it)

I'm not really a fan of the prequels, but George Lucas deserves his due: he didn't blatantly rehash the first trilogy, lazily reordering elements. He added to the whole, and he didn't blow up another d*mn Death Star (okay, that Trade Federation control ship came close). Still, it wasn't the creatively bankrupt hack job the sequel trilogy was.

Just as The Force Awakens regurgitates A New Hope, The Last Jedi recycles The Empire Strikes Back. It's so obvious, yet no one sees it (or they don't care). I still don't get why people swoon over this lacklustre film. It doesn't 'democratize' jedi or force powers: the jedi were shown to not have kids in the prequel trilogy already. Lucas set that up, so why this film gets the credit I have no idea. 

Star Wars unlike you've ever seen it before!

And as bad as I find Last Jedi, the Rise of Skywalker is an irredeemable, unwatchable abomination about which nothing further should be said.

Sadly, younger fans HATE Andor, they find it slow paced, boring, and insufficiently superficial with lots of bling bling. Not enough Death Stars blow up, and there isn't enough ostentatious back flipping. They'd probably prefer Swan Lake with lightsabers. 

Me? I think it's fascinating, smart, historically informed, and well constructed. It has slow builds that yield big payoffs. It's brilliant, far better than anything else put out since Empire Strikes Back. 

That said, Andor's NOT a kids show. Lucas famously declared himself a toymaker who also made movies (mostly to advertise the toys) and that the films were made for specifically for children. I think he's mistaken, in that the first two films are actually all-ages (despite muppet Yoda), and it's only with lame Ewoks and subsequent prequels that it smashed right into children's faces, rather than a general audience's. 

My head cannon reflects this. 

From Samurai rip-off to Samurai-in-Spaaace!

How the h*ll Andor ever got greenlit given the franchise focus on kiddies I can't explain, but it makes up for a lot Disney has put out. Not enough, mind, I'm still a disgruntled old fan who regularly yells at the younglings on his lawn (at least I don't dice them with a lightsaber, unlike Ani 'Are you an Angel' Skywalker), but a lot.

The Disney era for Star Wars has a few other highlights: they've put out some cool games (Rebellion, X-Wing, Armada) and... uh, okay that's about it. 

I've aged out as an audience member. As the feral kid says, it just lives now in my memories.

Oh, Feral Kid... what wonderful memories you have!

What qualifies as a fan these days?

Star Wars fever sweeps the nation in '77

When I was a little kid, I got caught up in all the hype and fanfare over Star Wars. It was a cultural moment. I got toys, comics, books, the works. Later on I even played the RPG and bought miniatures to go with it. 

I read a ton of sci-fi as a teenager, and watched all (most) of the Star Trek shows. I watched Doctor Who as a kid, too, from around age 6 or 7.

And then... it all kind of faded away. I stopped reading sci-fi, stopped playing RPGs and boardgames, stopped watching the TV shows. 

Over COVID, I picked up some RPGs and boardgames again, and watched the Trek I'd missed decades ago. 

Do I still qualify as a fan? 

I had (have?) this card

I think I did as a teenager, and while I still love the original era of Star Wars and Star Trek and Doctor Who (some of which is better not rewatched lest the nostalgia goggles fail), I've never really jibed with the newer installments. I liked the new Doctor, but it was never quite as good as the old stuff. Or perhaps more to the point, I was no longer as impressionable and open to it. 

The media we consume between say, 8 and 18, can have a greater impact than anything subsequent. Our minds are sponges. We soak up everything we can and then seek out more. 

For some people, this never ends. They remain hard core fans their whole lives. 

If I think, hey, I'm a fan of X franchise, I can look over (on the Internets, it's figurative, just roll with me) at uber fans who live and breathe it. I still have some books and merchandise. They have the pajamas, compendiums, encyclopedias, costumes, games, books, films, fan films, their own podcast, tattoos, etcetera. 

Now THAT'S a fan

My enthusiasm pales by comparison to insignificance. Can I still call myself a fan? 

Given that 'fan' is derived from 'fanatic', maybe not. 

The awesome Hildebrandt poster, painted at the last minute on next to no reference, was on my door for years.

Franchises are story machine loops, constantly cycling, the same but different, running decade after decade. Eventually, we start to cotton on to how they work. How many times did they blow up the Death Star? How many times did the transporter get blocked by a magnetic storm or barrier or what have you? How many times did a paradox blow up a computer? How many times were they separated from the TARDIS? How many times did the ally turn out to be the enemy? How many times did Kirk get his shirt off?

You get the idea.

The most impactful material is what you first ingest, because that's the freshest, even if it isn't. Fresh is relative. A ten year old watching a tired old show will think the new stuff is the bomb because they haven't soaked up the previous 40 years of material yet. 

So... I like certain franchises, and within them, I like certain eras, largely because that's what I first saw. Of course, they're also better than any other era, I mean obviously, but it's a waste of energy trying to convince others of that. 

Ewoks are cute rubbish, but still rubbish

D'aw, a space puppy equivalent!

Ewoks are fuzzy little divisive furballs. The entire Star Wars fandom is basically split into two camps: those who hate them, and those who LUUUV the cute lil' bipedal Tribbles. One side will never convince the other. 

It is a state of Civil War. And sometimes not so civil.

When anyone says the ewoks defeating the Empire is implausible, the standard response now seems to be: ever heard of Vietnam?

Yes, 100%, George Lucas was consciously drawing inspiration from the conflict in Vietnam when he created Star Wars: he saw the Evil Empire as the US of A and Richard Nixon as The Emperor. Originally, he intended the wookies to be in the ewok insurgency role, but since he didn't think he'd get to film the entire story, he threw Chewbacca into the first film, and for Return of the Jedi, cut the wookies in half and made them ewoks (roughly half the letters, too. Cute).

This, however, is irrelevant: as presented in the film, it still isn't plausible, and the Vietnam comparison is only valid on the most abstract level.

First, the ewoks are stone age hunter gatherers (and cannibals, willing to eat any humanoids they capture for extra calories, which suggests they don't have the best diet) who live in small villages. Cannibalism is usually only done when alternative food sources are scarce. 

They aren't nomadic, as their village is large and built off the ground, presumably to avoid predators, which suggests they are not at the apex of the food chain (or they war with nearby ewok tribes, in which case they are fractured). 

Vietnam left the stone age thousands of years ago. It was a nation aspiring to be a state, with a vibrant and flourishing civilization, occupied by France (and Japan) when the liberation war started. It was agrarian, with a population of roughly 60 million (in the 1960s), with large cities and developed infrastructure. While the Viet Cong may have been willing to fight with bamboo spears, they were far, far more likely to be armed with Kalishnikov automatic rifles, which were roughly equivalent to the M16s used by the American GIs (and in some ways superior, Kalishnikov's being more rugged and easier to maintain in the jungle).

Second, Vietnam was funneled billions worth of weapons, ammunition, artillery, tanks, anti-aircraft batteries, and jets (complete with Russian pilots) by the USSR and China. 

There is no question the US enjoyed a military edge, but it was hardly rifleman vs. spearman. 

Third, the ewoks are short with stubby limbs. They move slowly and awkwardly. In Return of the Jedi, they can barely manage a trot, much less run. They are not capable of throwing spears, or swinging weapons, with the force or range that a human sized equivalent could. They're cute and cuddly, sure, but not particularly capable. The latter feeds into the former: they read as children, or puppies. Space puppies!!! Their obvious helplessness is part of their endearing appeal and cuteness. 

Fourth, there is no compelling reason for nearby tribes to join this one village in its fight against The Empire. The tribe is likely at war with them to begin with (hence their tree fort). Otherwise, what threat does The Empire even pose? They are only there to protect the shield generator. 

A fierce human 6 year old with equally fierce looking ewok warriors

Fifth, the Emperor claims an entire legion of his 'best troops' are on the surface of Endor. This suggests at least divisional in size, so between 5,000 (Roman legion) and 15,000 troops (US division). How is a hunter gatherer village of 150-300 ewoks (300 being the typical cap on hunter-gatherer community size) taking on such a force? How are they even gathering up enough villages to match it in size, and transporting all those troops into one area to fight? Where is all the food coming from? Are they just planning to eat the Imperials? 

 

Sixth, the Vietnamese never won a full on assault against a large, well supplied American division-sized force. Yes, they laid siege to isolated outposts very successfully, employing copious amounts of artillery, but that's not the same thing as attacking a tank armed with a stick, while toddling about like a four year old. And while the Tet Offensive was a tremendous political success while simultaneously being a costly military failure, the only option open to the ewoks was purely military in scope. 

If I absolutely had to pick a military comparison, I'd pick The Battle of Isandlwhana over any comparison to Vietnam. The Zulu defeated a modern British army (equipped with rifles, rockets, cannon, and even a couple gatling guns, if memory serves), using only asegis and guts. It was one of the worst military defeats in British military history. 

But the Zulu were not hunter-gatherers: they were farmers, hence they were able to assemble a large fighting force (thanks to surplus food production provided by agriculture). They were tall and capable of running all day, whereas ewoks weeble wobble and fall down. As originally conceived, with wookies, yes, it'd feel much, much more plausible (though it doesn't solve the population density issue). Throw in scary rancor-like trained monsters, the wookies (or even the ewoks) kept as 'pets', and it's at least believable in the moment.

Battle of Isandlwana: now imagine the Zulu were waddling, 3 feet tall chubby toddlers covered in thick fur yelling their battle cry, "Yub yub"!

Are the ewoks a stand in for those oppressed by Colonialism? Did George Lucas intend for the wookiee/ewoks to represent the Vietnamese? Yes and yes. Do they, as presented in the actual film, match the capabilities and effectiveness of the Vietnamese? Not in the least.

It should also be noted that the narrative of Evil Imperialist USA and Good Noble Freedom Fighter Viet Cong is an oversimplification of what happened in South East Asia, just as the counter narrative is. Yes, the US body count obsession contributed to a lethal mind set, there were massacres like Mai Lai, and the carpet bombing of the Ho Chi Min trail, and factories in North Vietnam (in operations like Linebacker, which killed large numbers of civilians... perhaps inspiring the Death Star? Or is that more sperm and egg?). At the same time, the communists were arguably even more oppressive and brutal than their corrupt South Vietnam counterparts, and racked up quite a body count of villagers who opposed their policies. We know far more of American failings, thanks to a free press (particularly Seymour Hersch), than we do of what went on behind the scenes in North Vietnam. 

Lucas did what he could to make the ewoks look formidable with traps, and the scenes depicting walkers being taken down by rolling logs and such were a lot of fun, so entertaining I didn't care about feasibility. But that didn't work for the ewoks themselves. It felt like Lil Leia running from bounty-hunters: an indulgent parent play fighting with their kid. 

Which ties in nicely to George Lucas' emphatic view that Star Wars is for children. For him, this sort of staging is a feature, not a flaw. 

I would argue that the first two films were all-ages, general audience, and that it was with Return of the Jedi he swerved heavily towards children (okay, also The Christmas Special. And the ewok films. And, and, and...). Phantom Menace also felt like a kids flick. With the conflict built around trade negotiations. Go figure. 

So...Star Wars is for children. I get it. Arguing it still makes sense as cogent political commentary, plausibly presented, however, doesn't fly (unless we are talking about Andor, which is fabulous and quite definitely not focused on toddlers). On an abstract level, sure, I can take away the underlying point.

So yes: I have heard of the Vietnam War. The ewok victory is STILL not plausible, on a practical level, as presented in the film.  It works as kids' logic (I wish it so it's true) but not on an adult level. If you classify it specifically as a children's film, the criticism goes away, as it's not relevant. We don't expect adult logic to constrain kids films. 

That said, I thought the ewok victory was implausible as a kid, too. 

I guess it depends on the kid, and what age range you're looking at (6-8 vs. 9-10 vs 11-12... they can all be very different in terms of what they'll accept narratively).