Enough with the Canon

[Jedi_Master]

Reading through a fantastic article today from The Atlantic that explores the development of fictional "canon."

http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2016/04/enough-with-the-true-canon/477837/

Some choice quotes:

With the rise of mass-media intellectual properties and ascendant geek culture, the tendency to treat the original comics, novels, and video games like holy writ has spread out of fan communities and into the larger cultural conversation. Creators and critics alike now are expected to be well-versed in source materials. J.J Abrams’s 2009 Star Trek reboot went to great lengths to establish itself as canonical; the very existence of The Force Awakensspurred a cottage industry of writers to analyze the film’s departures from the Star Wars “expanded universe” it had replaced. A good portion of the Internet firestorm around Batman v Superman has been couched in terms of its fealty or deviation from comics. Canon, in other words, is king, and if you want to talk about anything geek-related, you’d better have your credentials at the ready.

But the canon of geek culture encompasses a strange balance of power. It has its own self-appointed priests, its own heretics, its own endless struggles and outside influences. It’s a metric created by fans, for fans, that nonetheless pays lip service to the supremacy of the creator’s vision.This is canon’s inherent friction: It’s an attempt to lock down and categorize the imaginary creations of other people.

This proved damaging for all concerned, in part because of the unique setup of fan culture at the time. Science fiction, fantasy, and comics communities were increasingly isolated and marginalized from the 1950s on. All of these genres—comics especially—were considered childish things, and within the cultural mainstream, to declare yourself an adult fan of them demonstrated a fundamental lack of maturity. Socially outcast fans reworked their textual knowledge of comics or science fiction into badges of honor, and as companies awoke to the possibilities of cultivating dedicated fan bases, the mastery of arcane canonical details acquired a certain social and economic cachet.

Which leads directly to the near pathological hatred for outside opinion in fan communities. Fans might complain bitterly about adaptations they consider flawed, but many get really angry about criticism of ones they consider canonically faithful. (Take for example the regular, near-hysterical outpourings against anybody who’s less than enthusiastic about Batman v Superman, The Avengers, The Force Awakens, or The Dark Knight.)This reaction also has historical roots: The social dynamics of science fiction, fantasy, and comics fandom have historically made them into ferociously policed boys clubs, with perceived outsiders—often women—subjected to spontaneous canonical inquisitions by the self-declared clergy.

What’s been largely lost over the past decade is the crucial point that these stories are imaginary—they were dreamed up by people, and can be changed, distilled, or subverted by anybody at the drop of a hat. There is no true canonical version of Batman, Superman, Princess Leia, James Kirk, or any other shared characters—only infinite interpretations by an array of creators. Treating them as if they’re carved in stone only reduces them to a flat series of issue numbers, paragraph citations, or official tables. It takes away the joy of personally deciding which version of a character you like, which version of a story you prefer. The truth is that nobody—not the company, not the fans, not even the creator—can dictate the nature of a story to you. Batman v Superman is not canon. Neither isBatman: The Dark Knight Returns, or the current Batman run, or the Star Wars novels, or even the films. The only true canon is personal, and it lives inside your head.

So - thoughts?

Do you agree with the author? Disagree? What are your reasons for agreement or disagreement?

 

[Greg Cox]

When I hear the word "canon," I reach for my phaser . ...

And if it's spelled "cannon," I set it on Kill.

 

[Kor]

"Canon to right of them, canon to left of them, canon in front of them..."

I believe that movie adaptations of other sources should stand on their own merit as movies (and be judged on such merits), rather than focusing on slavish faithfulness to the source material in every minute detail (which can be to the detriment of a solid film) or require encyclopedic knowledge of the source material in order to understand what's happening in the movie.

I don't think any comic book movie released in theaters has ever been an exact, 100% accurate adaptation of a particular comic book storyline. Or, for that matter, any movie adaptation of anything, being completely accurate to the source.

Nitpickers would have a field day if they tried to compare the James Bond movie franchise to the books.

When I hear the word "canon," I reach for my phaser . ...

And if it's spelled "cannon," I set it on Kill.

That's why I usually spell it like "cannnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnon."

Kor

 

[thumbtack]

these stories are imaginary—they were dreamed up by people, and can be changed, distilled, or subverted by anybody at the drop of a hat.

It's REAL, Damn You! REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAL!!!!!!!!!

 

[B.J.]

Trying to adhere to canon is fine, but so are deviations from it as long as it serves the story. All it is really is an attempt at consistency between different stories.

 

[Kemaiku]

Down with canon.

 

[hux]

Sorry but this thread isn't the official "enough with the canon" thread. As such, I simply refuse to acknowledge it has any validity.

 

[Commander Richard]

I'm fine with creative license when it comes to creating a new version of an old story or character. One thing that always annoyed me was when people would say that Smallville violated canon or that it took place in its own continuity. It didn't violate anything. There is no Superman canon or official continuity, just countless variations of a general story, and the author pointed that out above.

One thing I do expect though is that an ongoing series maintain some level of internal consistency and not contradict itself. I remember when Enterprise was on, a lot of people thought that they should have done away with the notion that no one had seen a Romulan in the 22nd century. In other words, ignore "Balance of Terror" if it meant that a good story could be told. A lot of people seemed to want another Dominion war because they liked what they saw on DS9. I say get creative and use what's been established. Write around it.

 

[Kemaiku]

But both the series and the novels were able to give a reason for not seeing a Romulan face to face with relative ease. And you can't even say "but teh vulcanz!" as the series made it clear from Day 1 that Vulcans were not in the habit of telling Humans anything they didn't want them to know, no matter how supremely important.

It was largely down to personal taste with Enterprise, which is why so many arugments were launched. It wasn't that "canon" was the ruling issue, but that individual fans didn't get it their way.

 

[Turtletrekker]

Canon-shmanon.

 

[BillJ]

Reading through a fantastic article today from The Atlantic that explores the development of fictional "canon."

We both started threads from that Facebook discussion!

 

[Ovation]

Reading through a fantastic article today from The Atlantic that explores the development of fictional "canon."

http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2016/04/enough-with-the-true-canon/477837/


So - thoughts?

Do you agree with the author? Disagree? What are your reasons for agreement or disagreement?

I generally agree with the author, particularly the last excerpt you quoted, though I would argue there are few "hysterical outpourings" among those who defend BvS (and the others listed) rooted in canonic verisimilitude. ("Hysteric outpourings" by some, sure--but most of the "hysteric outpourings" I've come across have not defended these films but rather attacked them for NOT adhering to "canon"--especially re: BvS).

In any case, the final excerpt is the important one to keep in mind--certainly excellent advice to all who wish to avoid developing a need for high blood pressure meds.

 

[kirk55555]

I love canon. To me, a connected world of stories and characters is what makes me a fan of franchises. I wouldn't be a big Star Wars fan if it wasn't for the old EU. Obviously canon is worthless if the stories are terrible, but amazing stories can be told with canon. Some people seem to think that less canon in things like comic books is going to help stories, but it really doesn't. I started reading Marvel and DC comics when they had decades of canon and continuity, and it didn't hurt my enjoyment. I liked having history with the characters that I ould discover, coming in "at the beginning" is overrated.

So, overall, I'm all for canon and continuity in stories. People that whine against it seem to be the "its all fake, so it shouldn't matter" people, and I don't agree with that at all. Its not real, but it can still matter. Good stories and characters get you invested in them, and to me canon is a part of that.

 

[JD]

I'm honestly not that concerned with whether an adaptation sticks directly to the source material, but I do think they should still have enough elements of it to be recognizable as that thing.

 

[kirk55555]

I'm honestly not that concerned with whether an adaptation sticks directly to the source material, but I do think they should still have enough elements of it to be recognizable as that thing.

Yeah, otherwise you get stuff like the 70s Captain America TV movies or the David E Kelly Wonder Woman pilot, and those aren't stories I think anyone wanted

 

[Gaith]

Wow, that was quite a lot of kvetching that, to me, missed the biggest point regarding canon: past stories are intruding upon remakes and adaptations to the new stuff's detriment, and it isn't the fans' fault, at least not directly; it's the artists'.

- Did nuKhan really have to kill Kirk or Spock? Did we need a nuKhan at all?
- Did Emma Stone's Gwen Stacy have to die? Wasn't she the best/co-best part of those movies? Did we need a new Harry Osborn, introduced out of nowhere? Why couldn't Norman Osborn be childless, or maybe have a daughter?
- Did BvS have to end the way it did just because a certain character was in it?
- Could the Hobbit trilogy not have killed a few more dwarves along the way to raise the stakes, and help us get to know the surviving ones better? Did we really need a multi-army battle? Wouldn't most of us have been quite happy to wind things up once Smaug was gone?
- Did Gotham really need Bruce Wayne to survive? Wouldn't it have been more interesting to see the Waynes lose their son, and for the audience to watch as the villains rose, knowing there'd be no future Batman to fight back?

It's easy to criticize "the fans", a vague and impossible to define group if ever there was one. But if the author wants more daring from these geek-franchise works, why not start with the storytellers in charge?

 

[Mr. Adventure]

Basically what I was going to say, there's always going to be arguments about faithfulness to the material and whether it works or not as long as they keep adapting existing works and characters. I do think if you're going to break canon that it helps to have some thought and purpose behind the changes.

 

[JoeZhang]

As long as a production is consistent with itself I'm really not interested in how faithful it is to source material.

What I often find weird about discussions about discussion is that people who get the most worked out about being faithful to the source material are often people who seem to have limited knowledge of the source material to start with.

 

[DigificWriter]

Canon, for me, is only truly relevant if you're working within the confines of an already-existing universe or "sandbox", in which case you need to adhere to what has come before unless there is an absolute storytelling need for you to either deviate or make retcons.

If you're creating an adaptation of something that originated in one medium and is being brought to life via another medium, however, I do not ascribe to the idea that there is in fact such a thing as a pre-existing Canon, and firmly believe that anything you do in the course of your adaptation work becomes the Canon relative to what you're adapting.

A good example of this would be the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings films. There was a lot of debating and complaining amongst Tolkien fans about said films deviating from the books upon which they were based, but the truth is that, although they are fans of the original material themselves, the filmmakers realized - to their credit - that they needed to tell the story of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings in a way that was best-suited for the filmic medium, even if it meant exercising a great deal of creative license, particularly when it came to adapting The Hobbit, which needed to both service the story of the novel as Tolkien had written it AND maintain consistency with the Canon that had been established by them with the Lord of the Rings films, something that I personally believe they achieved with flying colors.

 

[eyeresist]

I generally agree with the author, particularly the last excerpt you quoted, though I would argue there are few "hysterical outpourings" among those who defend BvS (and the others listed) rooted in canonic verisimilitude. ("Hysteric outpourings" by some, sure--but most of the "hysteric outpourings" I've come across have not defended these films but rather attacked them for NOT adhering to "canon"--especially re: BvS).

Yes, the writer undermined their cred somewhat by not realising that "canon" is generally used as a weapon of attack, not defence.