D&D 5E Do you care about setting "canon"?

[Imaro]

What I believe @pemerton was implying was that the various changes to the lore do not seem to keep Disney (the successful owner of the Spiderman* and other Marvel characters** IP) from making quite a bit of money from them; both from hardcore lore fans as well as the casual, I wanna see a movie, market.

In short, when someone writes "how many {X} origin stories do we need," then the obvious answer would be- as many as you can make money from! While Disney (to use a very successful example) jealously guards their IP, they are also open to rebooting it, recasting it, subverting it (so long as they do that themselves) and re-purposing it in different ways.

If you look back at the question, it becomes pretty clear. I think the use of "Disney" is more appropriate since many people view the MCU, TV, etc. (not to mention the planned Theme Parks once the whole Universal issue is fully dealt with) as more integral to the overall "Marvel" brand than the original source comics. Which, you know, is something that WoTC would love to do.

Instead, we see that Hasbro is concentrating on the Hasbro Cinematic Universe (G.I. Joe, Micronauts, M.A.S.K. etc). Because, tbh, D&D just isn't a strong enough IP to worry about lore when it comes to the mass market.



*The movie rights to Spiderman are famously owned by Sony, with a new, creative interest that has been brought back in part to Disney.
**Some rights, such as to the X-Men and the FF are owned by Fox.

Then I'd argue this is a bad example. Disney makes money from the cinematic universe (which they have taken great pains to keep consistent and separate from the multiple stories across the various comic books going so far as to end comic books for characters they don't possess the cinematic rights to)... The cinematic universe has one origin story not multiple stories for various characters... so if anything it seems to go against the idea that numerous stories, with different lore, are a good idea. Again, a better example for more origin stories would be if the comics themselves were the money makers... but they aren't. So even with your explanation I'm having a hard time seeing how that applies.

EDIT: Starting with Iron Man 1 in 2008 Marvel studios has had consistent canon and lore for 8 years in their cinematic universe and it has done nothing but lead to success for them, I'm just not seeing how that's an argument for having numerous reboots and changing of canon... if anything it shows what staying consistent and getting your audience to buy in slowly and over time with one set of lore can accomplish.

 

[Maxperson]

Then I'd argue this is a bad example. Disney makes money from the cinematic universe (which they have taken great pains to keep consistent and separate from the multiple stories across the various comic books going so far as to end comic books for characters they don't possess the cinematic rights to)... The cinematic universe has one origin story not multiple stories for various characters... so if anything it seems to go against the idea that numerous stories, with different lore, are a good idea. Again, a better example for more origin stories would be if the comics themselves were the money makers... but they aren't. So even with your explanation I'm having a hard time seeing how that applies.

I agree with [MENTION=6799753]lowkey13[/MENTION] that the origin stories are different. Slightly different, but different none the less. I'm personally sick of them. I don't want to see Peter bitten by radioactive spider #33 on the way to fight the Green Goblin for the 33rd time. I completely skipped the last Spiderman reboot over it. They seem to be obsessed with starting from scratch every time they get a new actor to play a part. Just change the actor and give me a new movie with a villain they haven't used yet.

 

[Imaro]

I agree with @lowkey13 that the origin stories are different. Slightly different, but different none the less. I'm personally sick of them. I don't want to see Peter bitten by radioactive spider #33 on the way to fight the Green Goblin for the 33rd time. I completely skipped the last Spiderman reboot over it. They seem to be obsessed with starting from scratch every time they get a new actor to play a part. Just change the actor and give me a new movie with a villain they haven't used yet.

Well the rights to Spiderman aren't owned by Disney... but my point is Marvel under Disney has not rebooted or changed anything from their original cinematic releases (Iron Man, Captain America, Avengers, Ant Man, Guardians of the Galaxy, etc.) they are continuing forward...new Avengers (Black Panther, Ant Man, Vision, Scarlet Witch, etc.) are introduced as the older ones (Iron Man, Captain America, etc.) leave or are phased out thus a continuation but not a change in the lore... I think you are confusing them with Sony (who owns Spiderman) and FOX (who owns X-Men and Fantastic Four) neither of which have been as successful as Disney/Marvel studios, many would argue exactly because of what you are stating, and what many in this thread are arguing is a good thing (mainly numerous reboots of the heroes and changes in the lore).

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[billd91]

Then I'd argue this is a bad example. Disney makes money from the cinematic universe (which they have taken great pains to keep consistent and separate from the multiple stories across the various comic books going so far as to end comic books for characters they don't possess the cinematic rights to)... The cinematic universe has one origin story not multiple stories for various characters... so if anything it seems to go against the idea that numerous stories, with different lore, are a good idea. Again, a better example for more origin stories would be if the comics themselves were the money makers... but they aren't. So even with your explanation I'm having a hard time seeing how that applies.

EDIT: Starting with Iron Man 1 in 2008 Marvel studios has had consistent canon and lore for 8 years in their cinematic universe and it has done nothing but lead to success for them, I'm just not seeing how that's an argument for having numerous reboots and changing of canon... if anything it shows what staying consistent and getting your audience to buy in slowly and over time with one set of lore can accomplish.

I'd also say that Disney's involvement has been comparatively minimal. Though they acquired Marvel in 2009, that's after the initial MCU was under way. Moreover, the MCU has only been integrated with Disney Studios and management since 2015, long after their strategy was already in place. A more important element in the MCU's success in translating the comic book lore to the screen has been the creative committee whose job it is to maintain the narrative integrity of the MCU, something Fox and Sony obviously don't have. These are guys well-versed in the history of the Marvel universe like Joe Quesada and Brian Michael Bendis. And while the MCU necessarily diverges from the comic book canon (How can it not? Most of the characters date back to the 1960s), they're the ones making the best fit with the character and themes of the original while making fresh stories.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[billd91]

So, the original question had to do with the continuity of lore. The MCU began in 2008 (Iron Man). That's eight years ago. I think anyone who has read the comics knows that Disney (and Feige) have made decisions about what parts of "canon" to keep, change, remove, and alter, for the MCU. Not to mention the "expanded" Marvel universe (TV, other media, comics, etc.). The continuity in the lore that came before doesn't matter. All that matters is making money now.

That's not really true. The lore from the comics does matter - it just necessarily needs to be changed because the movies are introducing characters at a substantially different time from their originals. Tony Stark can't be wounded in Vietnam. Captain American can't be 20 years out of time, he has to be 70. Black Widow can't be a Stalingrad orphan. Yet Tony still gets wounded and needs his invented gear for his heart, Captain America is still the liberal guy he is thanks to being written by New York artists through the 1960s and 70s, Black Widow is still a Russian spy made to be ruthless as necessary. Hell, even the Hulk is still a result of military weaponry research - it's just super-soldier rather than gamma bomb.

 

[Imaro]

So, the original question had to do with the continuity of lore. The MCU began in 2008 (Iron Man). That's eight years ago. I think anyone who has read the comics knows that Disney (and Feige) have made decisions about what parts of "canon" to keep, change, remove, and alter, for the MCU. Not to mention the "expanded" Marvel universe (TV, other media, comics, etc.). The continuity in the lore that came before doesn't matter. All that matters is making money now.

But this happened exactly because there was conflicting lore throughout the comics, a state created because Marvel chose to create various lore and canon withouth keeping it consistent. My point is Disney has consolidated what they wanted from the comic books and in 8 years have not re-booted or changed a thing (it's a different model;, one that keeps lore and canon consistent) and it's happening for the foreseeable future... they have movies (using the same lore) planned out through 2019. You're claiming they picked and chose but they were forced to do that by an ultimately unsuccessful model where lore and canon were changed constantly.

Look at longer-running properties. Doctor Who. Star Trek. Star Wars. James Bond. You name it! The IP is kept alive not by being slaves to the lore, not by being slaves to the canon, but by understanding that, in the end, there is value to adding, changing, and removing parts of the canon (and even subverting it). Yes, lore and canon have a place (comfort and familiarity, "fan service"), but in the end, the only thing that matters is whether or not it's a good story (or, for the corporations, whether or not it makes money).

Really?? Star Trek has kept the same lore for a timespan of roughly 30 years with only a recent reboot... I don't think 3 movies compared to what came before is enough to compare whether it's been successful vs. the original and consistent lore. Star Wars was in the same situation as Marvel... the expanded universe had so much and often times conflicting canon that Disney had no choice but to cull it and establish a consistent and continuing lore off the original movies, again this is the model you are arguing against. I believe Disney saw how well it worked for Marvel and this will be the model for it's properties moving forward.

Doctor Who...Yeah I'll give you that one, but I wouldn't claim it's IP is anywhere as popular or successful as Marvel's or Star Wars or even Star Trek... and again I think this is one of the reasons for it.

I'm not a diehard James Bond fan but I have to ask what are the inconsistencies in lore and canon throughout the books? Movies? I wasn't aware there were any, I know they cast new actors (a necessity in the movie business with a long running franchise that uses the same character) but does the lore and canon actually change? The movies always gave the feel of self contained stories and I never really noticed lore changes or canon changes in them.

To go back to the point I made eons ago, if people like the story, they'll like and accept the change to canon and justify it. If people don't like the story, they won't. What often happens, however, is that "canon," and "lore" are just meaningless clubs used to beat people on the head with. As signifiers to an in-group to keep certain nostalgic elements in. There is a difference between proper respect to (1) those aspects of an IP that caused it to be popular in the first place as well as (2) proper respect for the fan base as opposed to (3) bowing down to the cries of those who shout CANON from the rooftop demanding that the IP forever remain static.

The problem here is that if the canon and lore are inconsistent, ever changing and sometimes contradictory it creates a barrier for casual entry, it causes less investment by it's fans (or fractures said investment) and

Because a static IP eventually dies. Which is humorous, of course, because arguably those who claim to love something the most smother it to death.

There's a difference between a static IP and one that continues forward from the lore and canon already established (like Marvel is doing with it's MCU).

 

[Imaro]

Also, this isn't exactly correct.

Most sources say that they Feige and Disney have been unclear as to whether or not they plan on putting new people into the roles after the conclusion of the current arc (Infinity Wars), or James Bonding it.

In other words, they will either have a new person, for example, take the Iron Man suit.

Or they will have a new actor play Tony Stark (you may not have noticed that War Machine and the Hulk were simply recast during the MCU without explanation).

AFAIK, they have made comments indicating either might happen. But it won't be "Iron Man disappears, now watch other characters." The IP is too valuable.

But is this a change in lore or canon? An actor can play multiple roles... if they cast someone else as Tony Stark... that doesn't change lore or canon unless they suddenly act like Iron Man 1 never happened and decide to retell his origin story differently.