[idle_zealot]

I'm not sure what you mean by "fool". These aren't real events, there's no such thing as an indisputable timeline outside of the context of an individual work. If Disney wants to make Star Wars movies set in a world where the sequel trilogy didn't happen, what's wrong with that, other than it potentially being confusing to viewers?

[Supermancho]

Indeed, a story is whatever the viewer wants it to be, because it's fiction. Disney marketing and time are effective brain-o. Nobody will care in a couple decades, other than the niche watchers of the "real story behind Star Wars Disney".

[tstrimple]

I think the success of Marvel vs DC is one indicator that people do care about a more consistent world and story and are less interested in re-introducing the exact same characters over and over again in their own mini series of movies constantly retelling the same origin stories in different flavors.

[joquarky]

At least a quarter of the population applies this to non-fiction as well.

[GenerWork]

The article says that Disney wants to move the current sequels to a brand new timeline which implies that this new timeline is an official timeline in the sense that it's blessed by Disney, but it's not the timeline that most people would consider to be the official timeline, aka the timeline where the original and sequel trilogies happened. It's basically Disney going "Well, we can't ditch this, but it kinda sorta happened, but not in the timeline you think it did. Surprise!".

Meanwhile, anybody with 2 brain cells to rub together is going to look back at how Disney marketed this originally and think "Whatever you say, my guy".

[joquarky]

This is like resoving a plot with "it was all just a dream".

Which is fine, but you only get one; and people will invest less in future stories knowing they have a higher chance of resolving cheaply.