I want people to be consistent in what they say and do, and i believe there’s a consistent logic that underlies each person’s approach to the world. I also believe in capital T Truth. These two obviously tie together and help explain why i don’t want people messing with “canon.” A story exists, say a novel. When you make it into a movie, certain aspects of it get changed by necessity since movies are different forms than books, and also often by choice because the director has various interpretations. This means the endproduct seems like a “false” story to me, that the original is True in a sense, and the adaptation is a falsification of that story.
Obviously not everyone shares my view, but i like having my view articulated.
More recently, i articulated why i’m okay with reworkings but not adaptations.
In adaptations, the reworkings are unfortunate byproducts. The point of an adaptation is to present a story, only you’re changing the medium (book, movie, play, whatever) so certain changes have to be made by virtue of the differences inherent in the media. But the ostensible purpose of the adaptation is merely to present the original narrative, only adapted to a new form.
If your purpose is to play around with the story, though, to say “What if it happened this way instead,” then that’s fine.
Is this all clear enough, or are there aspects i still need to articulate?