Enough with the Canon

[RJDiogenes]

I'm a firm believer in artistic integrity and faithfulness to source material. Re-boots and re-imaginings are generally just laziness. If a writer really understands and cares about a particular concept, they are able to use what came before as inspiration to create new stories that expand and evolve the canon, while still remaining true to the original concept (in the field of comics, guys like Thomas, Englehart, and Busiek were masters of this). Personally, I'd rather build on something than replace it. It may be more of a challenge, but it's also more gratifying and results in a deeper and richer tapestry.

 

[Ovation]

I'm a firm believer in artistic integrity and faithfulness to source material. Re-boots and re-imaginings are generally just laziness. If a writer really understands and cares about a particular concept, they are able to use what came before as inspiration to create new stories that expand and evolve the canon, while still remaining true to the original concept (in the field of comics, guys like Thomas, Englehart, and Busiek were masters of this). Personally, I'd rather build on something than replace it. It may be more of a challenge, but it's also more gratifying and results in a deeper and richer tapestry.

There's room for both. Preference is fine but should not put alternative options out of bounds. I have enjoyed material that hews closely to "canon" but also material that is radically different from its source. "Canon" in and of itself is no guarantee of excellence.

 

[Jedi_Master]

I'm a firm believer in artistic integrity and faithfulness to source material. Re-boots and re-imaginings are generally just laziness. If a writer really understands and cares about a particular concept, they are able to use what came before as inspiration to create new stories that expand and evolve the canon, while still remaining true to the original concept (in the field of comics, guys like Thomas, Englehart, and Busiek were masters of this). Personally, I'd rather build on something than replace it. It may be more of a challenge, but it's also more gratifying and results in a deeper and richer tapestry.

I recognize your point, but in my opinion it is just find to build on the work of those who come before you, but there is no reason to adhere to every detail.
For example, you may be inspired to copy the design of an office building from the early 1900's - but you don't have to include the asbestos.

 

[USS Triumphant]

To me, the truth in the matter of canon, as with most things, lies somewhere in the middle.

As a reader/viewer - don't get your shorts in a wad if someone telling a new story that is otherwise good messes up some minor detail ("okay, so now these Klingons have Pepto-Bismol for blood for some reason") or chooses to disregard some story element that came before that is widely regarded as dumb, anyway ("What do you mean they can't move his brain into a new body? They had no problem putting Spock's brain back in his head, and that was 100 years before this!")

As a writer/director - I understand that you are trying to produce a new work that will have broad appeal to a current audience, but that doesn't necessarily have to be incompatible with showing respect for the investment in time (and often, in large sums of money) that the established fandom has in the material you're working with. Take the time to find out that Romulans, not Klingons, have ships called "warbirds" - the old fans will appreciate it, and the new viewers probably won't care either way. If you DO feel the need to contradict established material to tell the story you want to tell, first ask yourself if there's a way to modify what you're doing to avoid that without ruining what you're after. And if not, at least try to do so "eyes open" - know ahead of time that you've CHOSEN to put the capital of the Federation on Centauri instead of in Paris, and why. Most fans - even "hardcore" fans - won't mind if you play with the elements if you know what you're doing - but if THEY catch you having screwed something up because you "didn't know it mattered" or didn't care even insofar as to care that THEY care, they will eat you alive.

 

[Kemaiku]

I'm a firm believer in artistic integrity and faithfulness to source material.

Whereas most people aren't, as that sounds awfully like keeping things the same for the sake of doing so, stiffling anyone elses ability to create.

 

[Greg Cox]

There's room for both. Preference is fine but should not put alternative options out of bounds. I have enjoyed material that hews closely to "canon" but also material that is radically different from its source. "Canon" in and of itself is no guarantee of excellence.

Bingo.

 

[Set Harth]

("okay, so now these Klingons have Pepto-Bismol for blood for some reason")

If I had to eat gagh, I'd probably end up with Pepto-Bismol for blood too!

 

[RJDiogenes]

There's room for both. Preference is fine but should not put alternative options out of bounds. I have enjoyed material that hews closely to "canon" but also material that is radically different from its source. "Canon" in and of itself is no guarantee of excellence.

If it's radically different, then it's something new. A few years ago, Sciffy did a radically different version of Flash Gordon that sucked. On the other hand, George Lucas started with Flash Gordon and ended up with something radically different called Star Wars.

I recognize your point, but in my opinion it is just find to build on the work of those who come before you, but there is no reason to adhere to every detail.
For example, you may be inspired to copy the design of an office building from the early 1900's - but you don't have to include the asbestos.

There's a difference between an architectural homage and restoring Monticello.

Whereas most people aren't, as that sounds awfully like keeping things the same for the sake of doing so, stiffling anyone elses ability to create.

How is encouraging people to create something new stifling their creativity?