Should TCW be lumped into Legends now that it's Canon?

Question in the title, I'd elaborate big, but I got work soon so I'll make it short.

Now before the overhaul, TCW was apart of Legends, after the overhaul it was pulled into Canon. To where now it's some weird Legends/Canon hybrid thing..

Which is where I see the problems coming in.

TCW changes certain characters around(some drastically like Grevious and Ventress) and some events I feel don't really seem to fit within Legends.

So I ask...should TCW also be used in Legends if were discussing Legends material? I see on here and CV that it's used when discussing threads involving Legends stuff...but to me, I don't see how it adds up.

Edit: Not to say to disregard entirely of TCW, just some of the things that surround it.

Yes, of course it should. Legends material treated it as such and it had some spin off comics and novels.

Originally posted by ares834
Yes, of course it should. Legends material treated it as such and it had some spin off comics and novels.

Hm...perhaps I should clarify, not disregarding TCW entirely, but not taking it completely if that makes sense.

It's so weird and inconsistent, I honestly look at them as two separate entities now.

OCW, Cestus Deception, Labyrinth of Evil, etc. are all the Legends Clone Wars.

TCW is the canon Clone Wars.

It's way too weird when you blend them at this point.

I agree, Wolf. TCW isn't really compatible with the other Clone Wars series.

Yeah, lets just keep TCW in canon now

It was a part of Legends. It has Legends only spinoffs. The fact that it is also canon doesn't change anything. So are the movies.

As inconsistent as it may seem, it's obviously apart of Legends. If not, and number of Legends stories wouldn't make a bit of sense, since they're spin-offs from of show.

Like Freshest said, it's in the same bracket as the movies. We don't ignore the movies, even though they contradict Legends stuff. Why should TCW be any different?

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Like Freshest said, it's in the same bracket as the movies. We don't ignore the movies, even though they contradict Legends stuff. Why should TCW be any different?

Characters are changed around, Grevious being a notable example. Would you really expect that Grevious to be the one from the Micro series? As I noted, not to disregard everything about TCW, but some of it is kinda weird with characterization.

Legends has to adapt to Canon, but Canon does Ignore Legends. Grievous has been butchered.

Yeah. Tartoskys (Spelling?) version of Grevious was pretty formidable and mysterious. He went to crap once he showed up in ROS and the Disney CGI Toon especially.

Originally posted by Zenwolf
Characters are changed around, Grevious being a notable example. Would you really expect that Grevious to be the one from the Micro series? As I noted, not to disregard everything about TCW, but some of it is kinda weird with characterization.

It's not weird characterization. In fact, it's completely in-line with the film. It's the EU that twisted Grevious around and made him out to be some kinda bad ass.

I understand what Zen is saying, though. TCW is part of Legends, but when people make a thread with "Legends Grievous", there's an unspoken implication there that TCW is not to be considered. In that way, it stands alone, even if it doesn't officially.

Originally posted by ares834
It's not weird characterization. In fact, it's completely in-line with the film. It's the EU that twisted Grevious around and made him out to be some kinda bad ass.

Hmph...tbh I didn't think of it like that...

Originally posted by Trocity
It's so weird and inconsistent, I honestly look at them as two separate entities now.

OCW, Cestus Deception, Labyrinth of Evil, etc. are all the Legends Clone Wars.

TCW is the canon Clone Wars.

It's way too weird when you blend them at this point.

Originally posted by NewGuy01
I understand what Zen is saying, though. TCW is part of Legends, but when people make a thread with "Legends Grievous", there's an unspoken implication there that TCW is not to be considered. In that way, it stands alone, even if it doesn't officially.

Fundamentally, I agree with these two, but Ares and Ziggy are ultimately right as distasteful as it is. It's true TCW Grievous fits ROTS Grievous's characterization better and such, but as a personal preference (which I know is meaningless) I think the "Legends" depictions of Grievous make much more sense given his backstory. I kinda forgot TCW used to be part of legends before becoming canon, so if people want to debate Legends Grievous and bring up him losing to Gungans, I guess not much can be done. But I know a majority of people when considering Legends Grievous are willing to look past his "fitting" TCW showings and focus on his more "badass" showings. As long as debaters in threads agree on which Grievous is being used in an argument before debating, I see no problem. I'm going with what Newguy has said, with the unspoken implication. If the creator of the thread or someone debating wants to bring up the TCW showings, then gg for GG.

Originally posted by ares834
It's not weird characterization. In fact, it's completely in-line with the film. It's the EU that twisted Grevious around and made him out to be some kinda bad ass.

Nah, he was insane in the RotS novel too.

Umm, Grievous was originally envisioned as a devastating Jedi killer. It's only the newer sources (RotS film - or at least, people's takel of it - and TCW) that utterly ruin that portrayal, just as they ruined the perfectly crafted characters of Maul and Dooku (up to then). And the only explanation for that is because Filoni and co. are utterly ignorant of continuity.

By who? Lucas? Considering he was the guy who created the character and he wasn't presented as such in the film, I have a hard time believing he was intended to be so.

Originally posted by cs_zoltan
Nah, he was insane in the RotS novel too.

And if you read my post you would know I was talking about the "film".

Yeah but the novel is not EU 😬