Reinterpretations of Characters/Stories

[Ninja4peace]

Is this a thread for putting in good ideas for elseworlds/what ifs? or are we just gonna talk about warlock of oz?

EDIT: Sorry if that sounded too curt, just I haven't seen it and it sounds cool

 

[Ultimate Houde]

The threads premise is why do people feel the need to constantly revamp something instead of being true to it's roots.

 

[ourchair]

There was suppose to be a follow up to American McGee's Alice called, aptly enough, American McGee's Oz. It looked pretty good, but it was canned.

McGee has said on record that Oz got canned because game publishers weren't interested in the property, and furthermore states that game publishers are generally disinterested in properties without an established name. Last I checked, he's been shopping Oz around as a movie in order to get a movie spin-off game made.

Personally, I think he's full of it, especially considering how many original intellectual properties have been developed between when American McGee's Alice was released and now. In fact, I pretty much damn annoyed every time he raises his head to talk about all the things that are happening with him and his Hollywood ambitions.

At least Chris Roberts was graceful enough to sell out quietly.

 

[Willverine]

The threads premise is why do people feel the need to constantly revamp something instead of being true to it's roots.

Probably because times change. Stories are only "timeless" in an emotional sense. Historical/period pieces are an exception, but only if they are nonfictional.

As far as comic books go, you have to revamp things. With advances in science and technology and an ever-changing social and political landscape, what may have held water as close as last year might not hold water today. Doesn't mean you have to change what makes a character "tick", but the situations that character finds him/herself in will change.

When it comes to revamping the story from the bottom up, who knows? I guess some people think that a classic tale gets stale over time. I can see some value in that, depending on the story. Cinderella, for example, is very backwards if you look at it from a modern perspective. Most women today probably don't want to wait around for Prince Charming to put the glass slipper on their foot and release them from a life of misery and servitude. Same goes for a lot of the old fairy tales with similar premises... the damsel in distress waiting around for the valiant knight to save them. On the other hand, a story like The Boy Who Cried Wolf doesn't need to be revamped. The moral of the story holds true as much today as it did when that story was first told.

 

[Jaggyd]

Probably because times change. Stories are only "timeless" in an emotional sense. Historical/period pieces are an exception, but only if they are nonfictional.

As far as comic books go, you have to revamp things. With advances in science and technology and an ever-changing social and political landscape, what may have held water as close as last year might not hold water today. Doesn't mean you have to change what makes a character "tick", but the situations that character finds him/herself in will change.

When it comes to revamping the story from the bottom up, who knows? I guess some people think that a classic tale gets stale over time. I can see some value in that, depending on the story. Cinderella, for example, is very backwards if you look at it from a modern perspective. Most women today probably don't want to wait around for Prince Charming to put the glass slipper on their foot and release them from a life of misery and servitude. Same goes for a lot of the old fairy tales with similar premises... the damsel in distress waiting around for the valiant knight to save them. On the other hand, a story like The Boy Who Cried Wolf doesn't need to be revamped. The moral of the story holds true as much today as it did when that story was first told.

Totally agree with you.

 

[jeremiahvedder]

The threads premise is why do people feel the need to constantly revamp something instead of being true to it's roots.

You can stay true to something's roots and still revamp it.

ULTIMATE SPIDER-MAN proves as much.

ULTIMATE X-MEN was starting to, but it fell off the apple cart.

 

[Ninja4peace]

The threads premise is why do people feel the need to constantly revamp something instead of being true to it's roots.

Oh ok, this makes more sense to me. (and makes sense why it's in general comics not baseless spec). Yeah well sometimes it works sometimes not. I hate that there're rumours of remaking the godfather (like they're gonna make it better)..I would rather they remade a film which was rubbish the first time round. You know if they remade spiceworld and gave it a gothic feel and made it really good, then I would be convinced hollywood is better now than it has been and allow them to remake better films, but not ones like the godfather, which is just top notch and unimproveable.

I also think sometimes people make ok films (like the new italian job) but just call it the italian job, so people automatically compare it to the original, which was miles better so think it's rubbish. If they'd given it a different title and just said it was a bit inspired by the italian job people would probably like it more than they do.

Sometimes it really works though like the new battlestar gallactica. So don't label stuff crap just because its a revamp even if there's a lot of correlation.

 

[Ultimate Houde]

But what if the identity of the character or story is lost through the revamping?

 

[Ninja4peace]

But what if the identity of the character or story is lost through the revamping?

What do you think of the Thomas Crown Affair, where they changed the whole film to be more a thriller than a romance. To do that they had to change the character's identity. I thought it still worked, and I prefer remake's to take a new direction than to go over the same ground as the original.

 

[Random]

If they'd given it a different title and just said it was a bit inspired by the italian job people would probably like it more than they do.

I completely agree, they should not be trading in on a name.

 

[Willverine]

But what if the identity of the character or story is lost through the revamping?

For an example of this, look at Ocean's 11. The original Rat Pack story is okay for the pure nostalgia. The revamp/remake is much more entertaining and managed to spawn successful sequels, a feat in and of itself.

Not the case with a lot of stories and characters. Death's Head, in Marvel Comics, for example. I liked the original better than what we have now. The original Death's Head was kind of a Lobo in robot form. Trash talking, *** kickin' robot. The new Death's Head is an automaton, your basic "killing machine" robot archetype. Bo-ring.

However, most classic characters don't lose their identity because in doing so, the interest would be lost. Spider-Man should almost always be insecure and neurotic and dedicated to his friends and family. Captain America should almost always stand for the people of the country and not the government. Iron Man/Tony Stark should always be a pragmatist, one step ahead of everyone else even if nobody agrees with him. Hulk should always be the manifestation of everything Bruce Banner isn't. And so forth.

For fairy tales and fantasy stories, many times the identity of the character and often the story itself is a bit more ambiguous. Modernizations of these tales leave a lot open for debate, discussion and change. You can find the Frog Prince in any average, everyday Joe or even a chubby, Seth Rogen-style slob. You can find King Arthur in any insecure boy who aspires to be something greater. Ultimately, how well a character and a story is received is up to the reader/viewer/listener, even if they've been changed radically from their original form.