Reboots and retcons - change is scary

[lithera]

I've been thinking about this in the back of my head for over a year now and the reaction to the new Star Trek movie (and partially Wolverine) brought it forward again. I, generally, have nothing against retcons or remakes. I, generally, would prefer something original to something being redone and if it /is/ being redone I would like it to be redone for a reaon (preferably other than to make money).

Key examples here are Superman and Star Trek - both rebooted due to the passage of time, mostly. Actors pass away when you have properties that last this long. While the attempt at a Superman reboot will likely lead to another attempt in a different direction, the Star Trek reboot is a much better platform to go forward on. In the Superman movie, the best parts (and for the most part the only parts I enjoyed) were the homages to the previous movies. It is not a good thing if you're looking to move forward, to have all of the best parts of your movie intimately tied to the past. The rest was okay or out and out creepy. The Star Trek movie managed to pay homage to everything that Trek has been so far and yet at the same point go forward from there by not getting tangled up in past continuity issues.

This is leads to a reaction I don't really understand. I'm not going to try to argue good and bad because everyone has their own criteria for that and it is too subjective for me to manage. What I don't get is the idea that something new will somehow ruin something old forever, given that both of them are of a like quality. The new Star Trek movie has been described as throwing away 40 years of established canon. The X-men movies have twisted the comic stories around on themselves somewhat in terms of who and what and when. Just because they've decided to go a different way with these things, it doesn't invalidate what you love about what you were first exposed to.

A new movie that goes out of its way to say it is in a different timeline or universe does not AT ALL lessen the awesomeness of TOS or TNG or any Star Trek you've ever loved. This is just something new to love or not love. Logan meets Rogue on a snowy road in the middle of nowhere in the movie and that doesn't lessen the awesome of her throwing herself into harm's way to save Mariko and earning his trust in the comics. These things can co-exist as awesome in different ways.

There is a truly violent backlash some times when someone comes in with a new idea and it isn't just in fandom. It is across all parts of everyday life. New ideas can be very scary, especially when they might change something established that you hold near and dear to your heart. Just try to keep in mind, folks, that just because it is new and has something to do with something established, it might not change your enjoyment of it at all. Breathe and think about it before you freak out, please. It might just open it up to someone who never would have been able to jump into it before.

Comments

[jeffrey.livejournal.com]

Nicely said, though the people who most need to read it are those who will be blind to the message therein by choice.

But I agree about Trek. I disagree on Superman Returns, though. I thought it was fantastic (and I'm a huge Superman fan) and I thought it certainly went in a lot of new directions that no mass-media version of the character had ever gone before. it was certainly the most human and most identifiable version of the character outside of the comics, I think.

[lithera.livejournal.com]

The Superman movie changes a lot for me over time. I liked it coming out of the theater but the longer I have from that first viewing, the more it just doesn't hold up for me.

[jeffrey.livejournal.com]

What doesn't hold up?

[lithera.livejournal.com]

Mostly the kid, for me. The dynamic in family that Lois has built is fantastic and I love it. It just feels jarring and painful for him to be Clark's kid and have it be this elephant in the room - never really talked about but becoming more glaringly obvious as the movie goes forward.

Also, the scene where he listens in on Lois and her family with his powers came across as creepy to me. I understand why he did it and I understand that it is a very human thing to do - it just jarred with my impression of Clark. It made him feel like a peeping Tom to me which was just weird.

[jeffrey.livejournal.com]

I love the kid aspect, personally, and I think (at least to me) that it's obvious that was going to be dealt with more in Singer's planned sequel. But I enjoyed what was there a good deal.

As for the "spying" scene, I didn't get that vibe at all. He wasn't doing it for jollies or kicks, like actual Peeping Toms do, he didn't do it repeatedly and he didn't do it for long. It was a moment of weakness and it made him very human, and he stopped almost immediately and left. I can see where some folks would have an issue with it, as it's not something Superman has ever really done before, but it was a good human flaw and I personally liked seeing him reacting to emotional issues just like anyone else would.

[lithera.livejournal.com]

I get that. The kid aspect would have been better for me if it hadn't been left so murky as to who knew what about his parentage. I might have to go rewatch it but I felt that Lois' new beau was completely getting shafted and had been introduced for no other purpose than to show Lois had moved on and now that Superman's back, he's eventually going to get sidelined. That's a frustrating situation for me.

I'm having a hard time putting my problem with the scene into words. I've typed out a paragraph like three times and I'm still not hitting why it bothered me so much. What I love about Clark is that he is fundamentally a good person, he loves deeply and even with everything that rests on his shoulders, he still manages to be, well, not Bruce. I think this goes into all of the things not said. There is a lot of not talking about it that happens here and it felt off to me.

Hrm. Obviously I'm going to have to rewatch to try to pin it down better.

[jeffrey.livejournal.com]

That's absolutely what I love about Clark, too. But no person is perfect all of the time, and perfect characters are boring. It's those moments of weakness, moments of pain and doubt and anger, and overcoming those that make him who he is. Without a moment of weakness we can't see him be stronger than that, which is why it worked for me.

but your mileage may vary. :)

[lithera.livejournal.com]

Interestingly, I completely agree with you, which is why a lot of the time in the comics, Superman is dreadfully dull for me to read as a lot of the time it is, "Of course. It is Superman. He's awesome." There is rarely doubt that he'll overcome, that he'll triumph, that he'll be strong enough.

I see why it is a moment of weakness, I think it is more the overcoming part that I have a problem with. In the terms of that moment right there, certainly he overcomes it in that he leaves. I would be curious as to what resolution to the problem as a whole had been intended to be in the next movie because I have a hard time coming up with one that works for me.

[jeffrey.livejournal.com]

It seems to me, from what I know of the characters in the movie, that Richard would likely realize Lois was still in love with Superman and step aside so that she could be with him. He was portrayed as a very stand-up, honorable guy, and so I never really saw a dilemma there, especially were he to find out Jason wasn't his.

[xnbach.livejournal.com]

I love Superman. Clark is one of my favorite charcters in comic history. I still watch Smallville for crying out loud, and that show jumped a shark, bounced off another shark to jump over a third shark before landing in teh middle of a shark feeding freenzy.

So, I can clearly put up with a lot of suck if I get some kal-el time.

Superman Returns was a big failure of a film. The scene in question is one of the symptoms. Clark spying on his exgirlfriend and then flying off so mad that he needed to find some criminal ass to kick? Not Clark.

I get that Clark is all alone in teh world, that there is nobody else like him, and this is a problem for him, but there were better ways to convey that.

The whole things was way too married to Superman/ SupermanII. Lex Luther is still trying to make money through real estate scamming and his plot is to destroy a chunk of the world to create a lifeless rock in the middle of teh Atlantic where nobody will want to live?

Besides, this is more or less Superman III. At the end of Superman II, Clark tells the Prez, "Sorry, I've been away, it won't happen again." Superman II is when he knocked up Lois. So according to this rough timeline, Superman tells the Prez that he will never abandon us again, somebody says that Krypton might still be there, so Supes takes off imeediately and does what he promised he wouldn't to spend five years in space going after a planet that he has been told was destroyed by the only other Kryptonians he has ever heard from?

That's not Superman. That's not even Ultraman or Superman Prime, and neither one of them were ever the brightest sttarchildren in the heavens.

Apparently Man of Steel is going to be a reboot the way the Incredible Hulk was, simply ignoring the previous movie. I sure hope so. I want a Superman movie that is as good in its own way as the last two Batman movies were, and Superman Returns was not it.

I don't mind if they throw in nods to previous versions, but make a Superman movie that stands on its own.

[lithera.livejournal.com]

Man of Steel is currently going no where fast. As things stand, GL is getting out first. Superman, Flash and WW are all in about the same place.

[jeffrey.livejournal.com]

Superman Returns was a big failure of a film. The scene in question is one of the symptoms. Clark spying on his exgirlfriend and then flying off so mad that he needed to find some criminal ass to kick? Not Clark.

You are very entitled to your opinion, and I'm not going to get into a big debate in someone else's journal, but I can tell you your "not Clark" argument applies to "Smallville" a thousand times more than it does to "Superman Returns". That is the worst abomination of the character (and entire mythos) I've ever seen. And this isn't me griping about changes from comic continuity (an oxymoron these days anyway) but about the fact that Clark is an utter and complete imbecile and is out of character 95% of the time.

So for you to claim "not Clark" as your reason for disliking Returns while admitting in the same breath that you still watch "Smallville" invalidates your argument, to me, and doesn't give you a leg to stand on. ;)


somebody says that Krypton might still be there, so Supes takes off imeediately and does what he promised he wouldn't to spend five years in space going after a planet that he has been told was destroyed by the only other Kryptonians he has ever heard from?

I'd counter that's exactly Superman. If there's a chance people were alive and suffering out there, you honestly think he WOULDN'T try to help them?

And this is not a direct sequel to Superman II and shouldn't be treated as such.


Apparently Man of Steel is going to be a reboot the way the Incredible Hulk was, simply ignoring the previous movie.

It's all rumor and hearsay at this point. There are plenty of rumors in the other direction too. We'll find out come Comic-Con.


I don't mind if they throw in nods to previous versions, but make a Superman movie that stands on its own.

I know people who never saw the previous Superman films and who Returns absolutely worked for. It does, as a matter of fact, stand on its own.

Clearly you didn't like it, and that's all fine and up to you and I'm not going to try to change your mind, but none of your reasons as presented here are really valid (especially given the "Smallville" watching :)

[xnbach.livejournal.com]

You misunderstand my point. I didn't say I actually liked Smallville or that this was the standard to which a Superman story should be held, I said I still watch the thing. It's the lead in to Supernatural.

Besides, I'm pretty sure Smallville takes place on a version of Earth 3 and when he finally does put on his red and blue supersuit, there will be a big "U" on his chest.

[jeffrey.livejournal.com]

Even a big U on his chest wouldn't account for the totally incompetent writing. :P

[mizkit.livejournal.com]

Word.

[quizro.livejournal.com]

That is bewildering. The 40 years of canon is STILL THERE, safe and snug in Trek Universe I. (Something I'm sure you've already pointed out to the detractors, probably to no effect.)

[lithera.livejournal.com]

Yeah. It isn't as if all of the things which came before have all vanished...

[fireballof3.livejournal.com]

Even though the movie(s) in question are different, they're still damn good IMO.

Of course, the fact that either I don't expect much from them or am not a huge fanboi of that particular genre helps. But yaknow, then again, some movies not only get the story but also the characters right (or right enough) to please 99% of the people. Iron Man and LOTR both are good examples.

I still haven't brought myself to watch Superman Returns. Just haven't cared.
The new Star Trek was really rather good, but the whole future tech thing seemed a bit of a stretch - but it won't be showing up again in the movies, so it DOESN'T MATTER. The actors and interactions were all great, and that's what makes Trek shows / movies good or bad.

Wolverine I thought was fine, even though it kinda went against what little I know of his backstory. Of course I went in expecting action movie shlock, and that's what I got, so I was all happy.

[ianmcin.livejournal.com]

Appropos of nothing, I think you might appreciate this, although you may have already seen it.

[lithera.livejournal.com]

*laughs*

Awesome. I hadn't seen that one yet. I love this series so much.

[bmessina.livejournal.com]

I agree to a point. It just depends on the remake.

Star Trek did get me excited to go back and watch old episodes of TNG and DS9... Especially the most badass Star Trek TV episode ever, when DS9 finally lets loose the dogs of war. I got tingles the first time I watched that. Hell yeah.

[lithera.livejournal.com]

The depending on the remake thing, for me, gets into the /good/ and /bad/ debate too much. It has to be of at least equal quality or it doesn't work. I mean, if what you make is just junk, then you can be mad because what was made sucks.

[lizamanynames.livejournal.com]

WORDY MCWORDERSON FROM WORDTOWN, WORDANIA! AND SO'S YOUR DAD!!!

Especially:

A new movie that goes out of its way to say it is in a different timeline or universe does not AT ALL lessen the awesomeness of TOS or TNG or any Star Trek you've ever loved. This is just something new to love or not love. Logan meets Rogue on a snowy road in the middle of nowhere in the movie and that doesn't lessen the awesome of her throwing herself into harm's way to save Mariko and earning his trust in the comics. These things can co-exist as awesome in different ways.

Just... YES. THIS. Cannot agree enough.

[samy.livejournal.com]

"A new movie that goes out of its way to say it is in a different timeline or universe does not AT ALL lessen the awesomeness of TOS or TNG or any Star Trek you've ever loved. This is just something new to love or not love."

I think you don't really understand the objection, if this is your perception of it. People don't object because they think a reboot lessens the awesomeness of the preboot. That's never been the issue. People object because a reboot means you don't get any more of the preboot.

If Star Trek is rebooted, it becomes very unlikely we'll see any more stories set in TNG/DS9/VOY.

When Dungeons and Dragons went to 4th edition, it became very unlikely we'd ever see any more 3rd edition product.

When Legion of Super-Heroes was rebooted in 1994, it became very unlikely we'd ever see any more of the 1958 characters.

Legion is a perfect example to illustrate this. The *instant* that Geoff Johns started giving us preboot Legion *in addition to* the reboot Legion(s), the reboot Legion(s) became more palatable.

Similarly, if Wizards of the Coast offered 3rd edition product *in addition to* 4th edition product, resistance to 4e would be *much* less.

And if we got a new TNG/DS9/VOY timeline TV series to go along iwth the reboot TOS movies, the resistance to reboot TOS movies would be *much* less.

It's never been about "lessening the awesomeness". It's about taking away the possibility to have any more stories in our favorite boot.

[samy.livejournal.com]

It's the difference between "add to" or "supplant".

That's why, for instance, I've never been threatened by movie adaptations of comics, like the Wolverine example you mention. I couldn't care less if they create a different continuity in the movies, it doesn't threaten me in the least, because I can still continue to have stories about the comic character just as before.

The movie continuity doesn't "cancel" the comic line's future. Just adds to.

I'll welcome the new Star Trek if it *adds to* the possibilities of Trek, without taking away. The concern is that it "cancels" the possibility of any future Trek in the original timeline.

[lithera.livejournal.com]

I don't think that's specifically true. There were tones of TOS and TNG novels and books long after there weren't going to be any more episodes of either. In the case of TOS, though, there isn't going to be anymore anyway due to the actors being too old to do much more of it anyway. And when you get further into the future, it could be any future and you might not ever know the difference.

I can see your point for 3rd Ed much more than I can the Star Trek argument. There comes a point, however, where for WotC continuing to print supliments for 3rd Ed is no longer a financially viable plan. The number of people who buy base supliments will always be greater than the numbers who buy supliments.

[samy.livejournal.com]

"There were tones of TOS and TNG novels and books long after there weren't going to be any more episodes of either."

In the case of Trek, novels and books have never been regarded as canon. TV series and movies have been regarded as canon.

In other words, even if there will continue to be novels and books set in the original Trek timeline, they won't add to its canon. The canon of the original timeline has been killed and there may never be any further product in it.

If they say, "yes, there will be further canon product in the original timeline as well", then all concern is instantly eliminated.

"In the case of TOS, though, there isn't going to be anymore anyway due to the actors being too old to do much more of it anyway."

I'm not talking specifically about having the same characters of any original timeline show. Just the original timeline in general. The history, the continuity, and so on. I'd be happy to see a TV show in the 25th century about the USS Hood with a totally new crew that builds on the aftermaths of the Dominion War, the Delta Quadrant and whatever. It doesn't need to feature any of the actors from TOS/TNG/DS9/VOY (although guest spots would be nice), as long as it continues the ongoing story of the original timeline.

So the age of old actors is a non-issue. The characters can be retired, as long as we continue to get stories in that timeline.

[lithera.livejournal.com]

This is where I run into the problem, then. If these are functionally the same characters, then why can't these stories be told? You can still tell the same stories. Or, if you want to go further into the future along the timeline, I don't see how it would make a difference which timeline it was if you go another hundred years into the future.

I think your Legion argument has a lot more merit as when the Legion got changed, allll sorts of other things got changed along with it. It wasn't fundamentally all the same characters and a lot of the things around them were changed as well.

[samy.livejournal.com]

"If these are functionally the same characters, then why can't these stories be told? You can still tell the same stories."

Okay, so what do you think are the odds that we'll see a new Trek TV series that explores the aftermath of the events in TNG/DS9/VOY?

And more importantly, do you really think that the odds for such a product materializing in the future has *not* been lessened by the new movie's approach?

[lithera.livejournal.com]

I don't think that the odds are any better or worse than they were before this movie - they were functionally zero and had been for years. There was a reason that they hadn't been made already and it was that no one was coming up with new ideas for exploring it. Or if they were, they weren't getting into the right hands.

It also depends, a lot, on how far down that future you're willing to go. I'm saying that 200 years in the future from either timeline could functionally look the same.

[samy.livejournal.com]

I don't think they were zero. I think they were about the same as odds were between TOS and TNG.

And now I think the odds are significantly lower, because if somebody comes up with a good idea for a post-Nemesis TV series, the bean counters will be all, "no, no, you can't do that, it confuses the poor viewers who have just been introduced to Pine, Quinto and the rest". Marketing has never wanted two simultaneous different timelines going, and they never will. So now that there's a new timeline, there will be much more resistance to doing things in the original timeline.

[lithera.livejournal.com]

We're to the point where it is matter of opinion but Star Trek, as a franchise had tried to get a number of things going after Enterprise but none of them got off the ground. Paramount ended up scrapping a lot of plans because of lack of support for the projects.

Also, I think it is important that all of the products being compared are of equal quality (which is why some reboots and prequels don't work) and while you can make the argument through DS9, Voyager and Enterprise (even as much as I love Bakula) were not judged the same quality of product by the majority of consumers.

I understand your point and I think that there are plenty of cases where it applies. I'm not sure I'm won over here, though.

[samy.livejournal.com]

"Star Trek, as a franchise had tried to get a number of things going after Enterprise but none of them got off the ground. Paramount ended up scrapping a lot of plans because of lack of support for the projects."

Well they didn't try for very long, now did they? ENT ended in what, 2005? 2006? And by 2007, they were already working on this film.

That's not exactly trying real hard to find a working project in the original timeline.

I'll be the first one to admit that VOY and ENT may not have been of high quality, but it does not automatically follow from that that you have to scrap the entire continuity to ever make good stories again. All they needed to do was a good Trek series rather than a mediocre one.

Audiences' tastes had changed during the TNG/DS9/VOY/ENT franchise's existence. By the end of the period, you had popular series with year-long arcs. Heroes, NewGalactica and so on -- you needed to have year-long ongoing story arcs in order to appeal to the audiences of the 21st century.

All they needed to do was a Trek series that incorporated that paradigm, and maybe some of the other quirks that 21st century watchers require from their entertainment. They did try with ENT's Season 3, but it was too little, too late.

I don't really think that 25 seasons of TV across 18 years is the mark of a failure. I think it's a massive success, and they needed to find the right product to capitalize on that success.

I'm not convinced that ignoring the 25 seasons and starting from scratch is the right kind of capitalization.

[candidgamera.livejournal.com]

Well, I have to quibble. The new Star Trek movie goes out of its way to say that the existing timeline has been changed, not that it takes place in a different one.

[lithera.livejournal.com]

It is a valid point. I think, though, that from the character's point of view the results are mostly the same of it being either one.

[candidgamera.livejournal.com]

That's true, but the characters' points of view aren't the ones at issue in an old-canon, new-canon discussion. ;)

[lithera.livejournal.com]

Of course. I see where the desire for the old universe comes from. I understand the perceived loss but I also don't think it really has to be a loss, though I can feel for that point.

*grins* I generally have a problem with the idea that a retcon or a reboot ruins everything that has come before and some how invalidated it. That's the main issue I have with the reaction and not just in fandom discussions. It isn't like I'm going to destroy all of the copies of what came before. I'm saving my Laser Disc copy of Star Trek V for the zomibe invasion.

[candidgamera.livejournal.com]

Well, you're not a canon nerd. ;) You don't understand. :)

[lithera.livejournal.com]

*laughs*

This arguement, for me, is reminiscent of many others I've had on a lot of other platforms from Watchtower to marriage equality. I rarely believe that something new, especially in the name of making something more accessable, is a bad thing. (Given that the quality of the new is at least equal to the old. Quality issues can mess the whole thing up really fast. Good and bad are so subjective.)

[candidgamera.livejournal.com]

I don't see the analogy as apt, but it should be noted, I am in favor of this new Star Trek on the whole; I just think one has to jump through a few mental hoops to preserve the original canon. Which bothers me despite my enjoyment.

[lipsavvy.livejournal.com]

I have to admit, after having an argument with the BF about how this Star Trek was not a remake, but a reboot, I had to check myself with my thoughts on Wolverine. I now believe that I have to see the movie and leave behind my years of fandom and reading of the comics. It's true, what I have will not change, this is just a new way of seeing it. I may like it or not. I'm also thinking the same about Transformers and GI Joe, if not just to go see them because stuff blows up well and it looks pretty. :) And Star Trek, DA BOMB! Made me want to go watch all of the movies all weekend long. Too bad I work on Sundays...

[lithera.livejournal.com]

Wolverine as a movie is okay. It isn't great and I liked parts of it. It sort of felt like it got sliced up for a rewrite that never happened. And interestingly enough, Star Trek mostly feels that way as well, in retrospect. I liked Wolverine and I want to see Star Trek again but neither one holds up well to later prodding.