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

[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