Cultural Vandalism | The Ruin of Star Wars and Doctor Who

As I pointed out in my Is It Ethical to Recontextualize Star Trek Canon?, this is a dangerous road we are going down here.

IT IS UNETHICAL, there are proper moments for retcons, but doing so in the service of a political agenda is evil and dangerous.

There's no reason whatsoever to remove William Hartnell as the First Doctor. NONE beyond doing so in a "What if..." none canon violating dream experiment ratings grab. 

I said it before, and I will say it here. This is Stalinist in its bold revisionism of the past and should be soundly rejected by all true Geeks across all fandoms wherever it comes about.

Be it in Doctor Who, Star Trek, or Star Wars, and ever other place in-between.

When I say this. I want you to keep something in mind. I write almost exclusively female protagonists. But they are protagonists in their own right do not exist to rip down the history of male figures. Oh they are also usually (very) flawed. However, we won't talk about the profusion of Mary Sues just now.

For me this is about the preservation of history, as it existed. Spock never had an adopted sister but he does have a half-brother, yes even Gene Roddenberry was wrong to try to paper over Sybok and George Lucas was wrong to stop Han from shooting first. 

Is It Ethical to Recontextualize Star Trek Canon?

Let me state upfront. I have no problems with a hard reboot, that takes elements of existing Trek Canon, and remixes them. Provided its clear, that yes, its a reboot with a new creative force driving it.

The more I've had time to digest the matter, the more uneasy I've become with what Star Trek: Discovery is doing. It is not simply a clean reboot - Rather, it wants things both ways. To be original, or at least modern, while grafting itself onto existing canon and therefor forcing those who might have issues to shut up, and like it.


Like I said. When I watched both seasons, it became clear, there are really two different TV series here.

The body of Star Trek Canon is, everything from The Cage, all the way up to Star Trek: Nemesis. Anything that comes after, and is not pushing the time line forward is, at best supplemental.

The jury, of course remains seated, and hearing the case, where it comes to Star Trek: Picard. Is that simply pushing the time line forward, or will it also be supplemented by things Star Trek: Discovery adding new context to The Next Generation?

Artistically, in regards to pop culture, this is indeed highly disturbing. Rewriting history, by skewing a body of works historical context, with modern - Agenda, is almost Stalinist in its revisionism.

Would Gene Roddenberry, be OK with Michael Burnham, a HUMAN foster  sibling being grafted onto Spock's history? I'm not so sure... He was not even keen on Sybok, and let me state, Sybok, as a character makes more sense as a contrast to Spock, than Michael Burnham does from a story telling standpoint. It literally makes sense, Sarek would have had a pre-Amanda Grayson, purely Vulcan coupling, given what we know about Vulcan history and culture.

Is it ethical, to do this?

I'm not attacking here, I'm sincerely ASKING.

Is it?