A couple of months ago my frenemy John Oberon had a post debating someone on some Bible stuff. I didn't have a dog in the fight, so I didn't really care. I did note that the way he was trying to explain this stuff was like how sci-fi fans twist themselves into pretzels to explain plot holes in their franchises. Like how Star Trek fans spent years trying to explain why Klingons in the original series didn't have ridges and ones in the movies/later TV shows did. Eventually they tried to make up some bullshit answer on Enterprise to explain it when really it was because the original show had almost no budget for fancy makeup effects.
And then there was another of those lame ScreenRant clickbait posts that seemed to fit right into that. It was a post talking about how season 7 of The Clone Wars series retcons some stuff in Episode III.
The headline they used on Facebook though complained about her not being referenced in Episode III. The obvious explanation (one me and others pointed out) is she didn't exist at the time of Episode III's production. It came out in 2005 and the Clone Wars series didn't begin until the movie in 2007. So barring a Special Edition-type edit--like the one that inserted Hayden Christiansen into the end of Return of the Jedi--there was no possible way she could be referenced.
But some fans of course need to create some explanation the way people like Oberon need to invent some explanation for the inconsistencies in the Bible. So like Star Trek with the Klingons, Star Wars with season 7 of Clone Wars had to invent reasons why she wasn't around for Episode III. This was something I talked about in a recent post about how with all these prequels Star Wars keeps opening up new holes in its continuity even as they try to close others.
Like the clickbait article, a lot of this is to make money, but also because too many fans take this shit way too seriously, as if it actually is a religion. Because they take it way too seriously, they consider it to be all-knowing and infallible, so when people point out inconsistencies, it threatens their beliefs. They can't stand the idea their favorite property isn't perfect. So there has to be some way to explain any problems so they don't feel threatened.
Is it a bad thing? As we've seen with religion, it can be a bad thing when people take it too seriously, like people in a cult who kill themselves--or kill other people. I'm not sure how many times a Star Wars or Star Trek fan has murdered someone who disagreed with them, but the number is probably low. Still, there's a lot of vitriol on the Internet from people who take this shit way too seriously. The world would be a better place if we didn't take our addictions quite so seriously.
2 comments:
It's human nature to want to be right, so of course they get defensive. People always want to be right. To not have their world turned upside down. Some people overcome this need and take other opinions into consideration. As for the Bible, it had to be translated and no doubt that has added to even more inconsistencies. One thing that is so confusing is all the Marys in the new testament. There are about four of them, and people try to figure out who is who. If only they had last names. But yes, it's not good to take things too seriously. Especially fiction because it's not even real life.
You know, I told Oberon the same thing about the Bible being translated and he slapped me down hard. Apparently he knows ancient Hebrew, lol.
Post a Comment