Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 7947072" data-attributes="member: 22779">Hussar's First Law Of CanonThe degree to which canon is important is inversely proportional to the degree to which someone dislikes a change. In other words, canon is only important when someone doesn't like a change.  Otherwise, canon can go jump in the lake.  And, if you need evidence, I present for your edification, the three most recent versions of Spider Man on film - the Sam Raimi/Toby MacGuire version, the Sony/Garfield version and the most recent Tom Holland version.  The Sam Raimi version is closest to Spider Man canon - it's about as close as you can possibly get and not be hand drawn really.  And it was very popular.  The Garfield version changed a number of key elements and was pretty roundly disliked and canon was certainly invoked as a reason why the movies failed.  Then you have the Tom Holland version which takes canon out behind the woodshed and beats it to death.  This is a completely different Spider Man, based on a re-write in the comic books (Ultimate Spider Man) which also had largely abandoned Spider Man canon.Yet, the Tom Holland movies are pretty well regarded.  People really like the movies and they did very well at the box office.  If canon was actually important, should this be the biggest failure of the three?  Or, could it be that canon isn't really all that important, unless you need it as a bludgeon to beat over the head of other people?</blockquote>

Verification