Why the "canon" argument needs to go away.....forever

I'm sick of hearing about canon when it comes to comic book movies, TV shows and anything to do with a reboot of a franchise. It's a dead horse now and it needs to die a natural death. 

Sadly, the argument is not going to go away any time soon because it's one of the strongest arguments that haters and detractors are now using to say that something they don't like is in fact bad and no one should like it because of that badness. 

We'll need an example of this silliness, and fortunately or unfortunately depending on how you look at it, there are many to choose from. 

There's the argument about Henry Cavill's Superman in the DC Extended Universe not being canon because he's not full-fledged Mr. Truth, Justice and the American Way yet, despite the fact that he has through two movies now saved the planet twice from threats that originated from his own homeworld, the latter of which "killed" him. 

Of course if you bring that up, then you've got to talk about how Ben Affleck's "murderous" Batman isn't canon, despite several instances in the comics where Batman killed criminals, not to mention each of the previous movie incarnations killing criminals as well. Even Adam West's Batman was directly responsible for the dehydrated deaths of a group of Penguin's thugs and a dolphin that gave its life to save him and Robin, if we're really counting here. 

There are the "race-bending" changes, like black versions of Iris West and allegedly Mary Jane Watson, James "Jimmy" Olsen in the Supergirl TV show, and of course the changes in the Marvel Cinematic Universe that nobody seems to complain about much, like the fact that Ultron has now been created by Tony Stark and Bruce Banner instead of Hank Pym, or the entire notion of Hydra building itself within SHIELD that leads to the destruction of the organization, or the entire overhaul given to the Marvel Civil War storyline for Captain America: Civil War. 

The Ghostbusters controversy speaks for itself. I don't even need to explain it, do I? 

These are all things that annoy fanboy purists to no end and they use it as ammo to take apart these new versions of their beloved characters. That needs to stop. Seriously. 

Look, you can have an opinion that says "I like the comic book canon better than the movie canon," but you can't use that comic book canon as an objective reason to say that a comic book movie fails. For starters, which canon are you going to use? Every major comic book character known to mankind has been written, drawn, inked and colored differently by several different writers and artists. Their stories have been told, retold, retold again and are constantly being retold now. So what canon are you using as defense? And if there are multiple forms of canon within the comics, how can you just pick the one that you like and say that it's the "right" one? Someone disagrees with you on that, without question. What makes you right and them wrong? 

On top of that, why is "canon" such an important factor in adaptations? Movies and comic books are not the same, nor should they be. Both are visual mediums yes, but one is for the printed page and the other is a moving picture with sound. Just because one can be used to storyboard another doesn't mean they are exactly the same. In fact, it's anything but the same. Not only that, but if you want an exact panel for panel, shot for shot, line for line retelling of The Death of Superman or The Dark Knight Returns then you're fooling yourself. Movies are made for more than just the geeks that love the source material, they have to attract the general public. You know, people that don't read comic books but will watch the movies because they love Chris Evans or Robert Downey Jr.? There's nothing wrong with those people and if you don't plan to get them to see your movie then it's not going to get made. Whether you like that or not, it's not going to change. Movies are a business, after all. 

This isn't just about comic book movies either, this goes for any and all geeky franchises. When I see petitions for Paramount to stop making new Star Trek movies because they are "inaccurate abominations that would make Gene Roddenberry roll over in his grave," that's the sign of a butthurt fanboy to me, a person that feels so entitled to whatever they think is the "true" version of Star Trek that they actually think they should petition to have the new ones discontinued. As someone who has been an avid Trekkie since age 8, those people offend me because if 42 years worth of five TV series, a cartoon and 10 feature films aren't enough for you to just ignore the last three that you don't like, you need to grow the hell up. Seriously. I have younger sisters and friends who still won't touch the Prime Universe Trek material, but they are front and center for the Kelvin Timeline movies. There's nothing wrong with that. In fact, how is it any different than someone deciding to only watch the Prime Universe Trek material? It isn't. 

The bottom line is that movies and TV shows adapted from comics and other franchises are exactly that: adaptations. They are not meant to be exactly like the original source material and shouldn't have to be, as that would be boring and predictable to simply do the same exact thing from the comics or previously released source material. As much as a diehard fan might love it, plenty of non-diehards would not like it or at worst, hate it. Adapting the source material into a different story not only avoids repetitive retelling of the same story, but also allows the creators to have more freedom to display their interpretation of the characters and the world......which is what different comic book writers and artists do all the time. If it's good enough for them to do it, then it's good enough for producers and directors to do it too. 

You don't have to like movies and shows that don't follow canon, but you don't get to use that canon as a reason to discredit the new versions. That is an immature, close-minded and outright lazy approach to take.