Musing on Reboots among other things..
Mar. 4th, 2019 07:56 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkat1. Enjoying the new Vamp Diaries spin-off - "Legacies" - weirdly it reminds me a lot of Buffy, more so than Vamp Diaries or anything else has. I think it's the monster of the week format admist the wackadoodle high school setting. Also Alaric reminds me more of Giles than Dumbledore or anyone else.
2. Been pondering this for a while now..
Some (not all) fans get REALLY upset if another writer reboots or adapts a story they've fallen in love with in a new or different way, with the same characters.
*Battle Star Galatica fans famously (or infamously depending on your perspective) were really upset with the reboot, where Dirk Benedict's Starbuck was now played by Katee S. as a woman. (Heaven Forbid!) And the Cylons appeared human.
* Star Trek fans were in an uproar when JJ Abrahams chose to redo the Star Trek Original Series with new actors playing the key roles and differing variations.
* Pride and Prejudice fans hated how the Kiera Knightly adaptation played out.
* Batman fans -- were upset with Chris Nolan's take preferring the Michael Keaton version. (Yes, they exist.)
* Buffy fans got in an uproar over the mere possibility that their beloved series (which ended in 2003) could be rebooted with different actors or with different writers.
* Charmed fans got in an uproar when their favorite series was rebooted with new actors, new writers, and was completely different than the original, yet the characters had the same names and the plot was similar.
* Rosewell fans got in an uproar when their favorite series was rebooted...
Sigh. I don't understand this. I'm trying. But see? I come at this from a different angle.
I've been a superhero serial comic book fan since roughly 1985 (on and off -- I've taken extended breaks, because superhero comic books give a whole new meaning to the word "retcon" and "reboot". Also they have a tendency to kill off my favorite characters -- and for no apparent reason except the current writer can't figure out what to do with them. But, no worries, they also have a tendency to bring said character back to life (often in a convoluted way that only makes sense if you don't think too hard about it) -- when a new writer takes over and they happened to like that character and wants to write about them. Such is life with comic books.). I was a fan before there were any successful or even good movies or television adaptations -- outside of maybe the first Superman movie.
When the movie adaptations FINALLY came out - were they anything remotely resembling the comics I loved? No, of course not. Shudder the thought. The X-men trilogy of films was the worst -- it didn't even come close to the comics I loved. I remember being really annoyed at first, then just sort hand-waving it and finding stuff about each that I liked. If you fast-forward, there are some really good scenes here and there. Because it's not like the Tim Burton Batman films remotely resembled Batman, they didn't. The Batman comics were actually closer to Christopher Nolan's vision than Burton's --( I had to wait until Chris Nolan's The Dark Knight, to see the comics I loved come to the big screen). Or the Watchman flick resembled the comic book "Watchmen", it didn't (maybe the television adaptation will, who knows?). So I went into the movies no longer with that expectation or any expectations for that matter -- I've learned to go into them with relatively low expectations (by the way, they've improved a great deal over time. Legion is by far the closest that television has come to doing the comics justice and Days of Future Past is the closest that the X-men trilogy has come to the original comics. As is X-men Apocalypse.)
So, I basically learned at the ripe old age of 22 or 23 that adaptations of my favorite stories are unlikely to bear a close resemblance to the original story in question. If they do, it would be a miracle. Also, when they did bear a close resemblance? They were often boring and sort of predictable, with a few exceptions here and there (I rather adore the animated version of The Hobbit, skip the live-action version and watch that one, and the first of Peter Jackson's Lord of the Ring's films -- The Fellowship of the Ring is rather brilliant). But for the most part they don't work for me. Gee, I wonder why? Oh that's right, I'd already read it. And well, when I read it -- the images in my head and the interpretation was a lot better than what was on the screen anyhow. I think the reason that Jackson's films for the most part worked for me -- is I didn't remember the books that well, having read them over twenty years prior.
Anyhow, I've realized something over time, I actually preferred it when the adaptation did NOT follow the original precisely or did something completely different. I remember reading an interview with John Le Carre once, where he stated that he expected people adapting his works to vary from it -- he didn't want it to be exact or even that close -- what he wanted was an interpretation, because that was more interesting. Beside it was a different medium and he was well aware that what he put on the page didn't always transfer to the screen well. A lot of writers tend to agree with Le Carr -- they sold the rights, it's out of their hands. Whedon is sort of in that arena, he sold the rights to Buffy ages ago. He doesn't own it at all. He's a scribe for hire, he doesn't own most of his characters.
As result of all this? Reboots don't bother me. I actually sort of enjoy them. It's fun to see someone else's take on the same characters, verse, and story in another medium or even in the same one. In fact, shocking as it may sound, I'm more likely to watch a reboot of the series Buffy the Vampire Slayer, with new actors playing the original roles, and a whole new take on those characters, with new writers, etc -- than I am likely to watch a whole new series about some random slayer I've never heard of in that same verse. Mainly because I never cared that much about the world Buffy inhabited or the slayer mythos (which I found to be a bit silly and oh so slightly offensive -- I actually worked hard to ignore the mythology. Whedon sucks at world building. What he was trying to do was subvert the teen slasher movie or horror flick. That's it. Nothing more than that.). I'm not saying I'd necessarily stick with a reboot. I didn't stick with the reboot of Charmed, while I have stuck with the reboot of Rosewell (most likely aided by the fact that I don't remember the original at all). And I definitely watched and adored the Battle Star Galatica reboot, even though I was a diehard fan of the original and remember it vividly. I also saw the Star Trek reboot in the theaters with Chris Pine as James T. Kirk. I enjoyed it. Didn't make to the second one (tried to watch it on Amazon Prime and kept going to sleep during it), not sure there's a third one?
I will admit that I've been annoyed with the adaptations of the X-men, animated and live-action, mainly because the movie and animated series writers have no understanding or appreciation for my favorite characters Cyclops, Jean Grey, Kitty Pryde, Beast, Gambit, Rogue, and Storm -- and instead have focused almost completely on Magneto, Wolverine, Mystique, and Professor Xavier -- who I'm sort of ambivalent about. The animated series ruined the character of Wolverine. But, I'm not THAT upset over it -- because it's the nature of the best. Comic book fans pretty much know going in that the MCU movies are not true adaptations of the books. (For the most part they are completely unrecognizable.) Dark Phoenix is coming soon and I'm looking forward to it -- but I know from the trailer that this not a close adaptation of the original comic book saga. It's not even close. For one thing, Magneto and Mystique weren't in the original saga. Also, it was a SAGA for a reason -- it went on over a two-three year period, and across multiple issues. And Lilliandra wasn't a villain in the original. The villain was Mastermind and the Hellfire Club. They can't adapt it exactly. It will be a completely different story -- and I'm fine with that. I got over my need for it to be exact over thirty years ago.
This takes me back to the Buffy comics, reboot etc. I'm apparently in the minority in regards to the original Buffy story being rebooted either in film, television or comics? It doesn't bother me, folks. I actually like the idea that BOOM is doing its own take on the series and sort of doing an updated reboot of it -- visualizing the characters in new ways. And I sort of wanted them to do a movie or television version. Why? Well I saw the original movie and read the novel adaptation of it in a Book store. It wasn't all that good, but then the first season of Buffy didn't exactly impress me either. (I think I gave up on it at one point. The first season is not good. Actually the series doesn't start to get good until Spike and Dru pop up, and in the Second Season, the episodes without Spike/Dru and Angel/Angelus are incredibly bad. There's those vampires took off with the fandom. It really didn't hit it's stride until the third season...but it was always uneven.)
Also, there's a book out right now...that someone wrote about watchers in the Buffyverse, and it's all new characters. With twins? I read the synopsis and then a rave review on SmartBitches, and I thought, meh, this is not for me. (It reminded me a little of Fray, and I disliked Fray.) Didn't spark any interest whatsoever. No real clue why. Any more than the new series based in the Buffyverse that Whedon is producing interests me. It doesn't. Nor for that matter did any of the slayers introduced in S7. Or any of the Buffy comics featuring any characters outside of Willow, Spike, Buffy, Anya, Xander, Giles, Cordelia, Angel, Tara, Oz, Joyce, and Dawn. I got more annoyed with the Dark Horse version of the Buffy comics and the IDW version of the Angel comics -- for more or less the same reasons, they were uneven and I felt lost the characters. Also it was a continuation -- and I wanted the writers to go in one direction and half the time they went in the opposite direction. (But, alas, this is par for the course in regards to long-running serials.) The Boom comics so far are entertaining me. More so than the Dark Horse version did -- a lot of that is due to the art, which I adore, and the dialogue, which from my perspectives sounds like the characters. (With the possible exception of Drusilla ...and maybe Cordelia...who I'm rather ambivalent about.)
Which I guess demonstrates that unlike Star Trek, I'm really only invested in various takes on the characters and interpretations. (Makes sense, 98% of my Buffy meta was character analysis.) Anything else doesn't really interest me. I'm somewhat similar about Star Wars -- and that may have been my problem with some of the Star Wars films. I'm mainly interested in Han, Leia, and Luke and their sidekicks. Anything outside of them doesn't interest me all that much.
I think Star Trek may be among the few series that I got enough into the world to be open to exploring new characters within it? Or that I preferred the world and concept to the original characters?
I know most of the DW fandom appears to be the opposite? I wish I could understand where you all are coming from...but I don't. I don't have any problem with people rebooting stuff for commercial gain or not, as the case may be. They do it all the time with Shakespeare and Jane Austen, why not other things?
I have more of a problem with Real Person Fanfic -- or the embellished bio-pic and/or memoir. Because I think if you are stating you are telling a "true story" or a story about a real person, still living or dead, you should be honest about what the facts are, and not just make them up and pretend they are true. That feels exploitative. In short, I have more problems with the film Bohemian Rhapsody than I do with a Buffy remake. Mainly because I think the former does hurt people, while the latter is harmless fun.
So, no, sorry, I don't understand why fans get upset over reboots.
You ever write something and then think..wait a minute, but what about...
I'm admittedly of two minds on the above. Similar to fanfic. Or cooking for that matter.
How to explain this?
I'm an intuitive thinker -- I don't really think in an organized fashion. And I don't like following a set pattern or guideline. I like to make up as I go. Outlines make me crazy, as do checklists. I'll do a list prior to going grocery shopping, and then forget I had it. I will put together a schedule or checklist then forget about it.
I didn't enjoy writing fanfic -- mainly because I found it too constrictive. I couldn't play a role playing game or write for one, for the same reasons -- too constrictive. I'm not sure this makes sense. I don't like to follow recipes, I prefer to cook without them. When I made chocolate chip cookies -- I used to get rave reviews. They'd ask what I did. I said I followed the Nestle Toll House recipe. "How is this possible, I follow it all the time and my cookies aren't like these at all." Well, okay, I sort of change it as I go, and then after a while just do whatever. For example it called for more flour, I put in less. It called for more white sugar -- I put in more brown sugar. It called for Crisco shortening, I used butter. Also I added about four tablespoons of vanilla.
In short I had fun with the measurements. And each time I did it? I did it differently to entertain myself.
I don't follow recipes, folks. I have a lot of recipe books. So I really don't understand people who do. Any more than I understand people who like coloring books or paint-by-numbers. Tried both, found them constricting and rather boring. Would rather draw it myself.
Same with writing -- I don't understand why you'd want to write a book in the Buffy verse or the Tolkien Verse or the Star Wars verse. Wouldn't it make more sense and be a lot more fun to create your own world and create your own characters? Wouldn't you get terribly bored? I get wanting to write about Buffy or Spike to figure out something that didn't happen on screen. Or to write a story in which Spike was in the role of Angel in a different way, or a different take on Spike -- that I get.
I've done that. I also get taking the character into a different verse. But I'd rather read it than write it -- because again, it's constricting.
I'm not judging, I'm just...realizing how differently we all think or rather how differently I think from everyone else.
Sigh. I may delete this tomorrow. Not sure it made a whit of sense. Although let's face it...I'm probably just talking to myself anyhow. ;-)
3. Whoa...Luke Perry died of a stroke at 52
2. Been pondering this for a while now..
Some (not all) fans get REALLY upset if another writer reboots or adapts a story they've fallen in love with in a new or different way, with the same characters.
*Battle Star Galatica fans famously (or infamously depending on your perspective) were really upset with the reboot, where Dirk Benedict's Starbuck was now played by Katee S. as a woman. (Heaven Forbid!) And the Cylons appeared human.
* Star Trek fans were in an uproar when JJ Abrahams chose to redo the Star Trek Original Series with new actors playing the key roles and differing variations.
* Pride and Prejudice fans hated how the Kiera Knightly adaptation played out.
* Batman fans -- were upset with Chris Nolan's take preferring the Michael Keaton version. (Yes, they exist.)
* Buffy fans got in an uproar over the mere possibility that their beloved series (which ended in 2003) could be rebooted with different actors or with different writers.
* Charmed fans got in an uproar when their favorite series was rebooted with new actors, new writers, and was completely different than the original, yet the characters had the same names and the plot was similar.
* Rosewell fans got in an uproar when their favorite series was rebooted...
Sigh. I don't understand this. I'm trying. But see? I come at this from a different angle.
I've been a superhero serial comic book fan since roughly 1985 (on and off -- I've taken extended breaks, because superhero comic books give a whole new meaning to the word "retcon" and "reboot". Also they have a tendency to kill off my favorite characters -- and for no apparent reason except the current writer can't figure out what to do with them. But, no worries, they also have a tendency to bring said character back to life (often in a convoluted way that only makes sense if you don't think too hard about it) -- when a new writer takes over and they happened to like that character and wants to write about them. Such is life with comic books.). I was a fan before there were any successful or even good movies or television adaptations -- outside of maybe the first Superman movie.
When the movie adaptations FINALLY came out - were they anything remotely resembling the comics I loved? No, of course not. Shudder the thought. The X-men trilogy of films was the worst -- it didn't even come close to the comics I loved. I remember being really annoyed at first, then just sort hand-waving it and finding stuff about each that I liked. If you fast-forward, there are some really good scenes here and there. Because it's not like the Tim Burton Batman films remotely resembled Batman, they didn't. The Batman comics were actually closer to Christopher Nolan's vision than Burton's --( I had to wait until Chris Nolan's The Dark Knight, to see the comics I loved come to the big screen). Or the Watchman flick resembled the comic book "Watchmen", it didn't (maybe the television adaptation will, who knows?). So I went into the movies no longer with that expectation or any expectations for that matter -- I've learned to go into them with relatively low expectations (by the way, they've improved a great deal over time. Legion is by far the closest that television has come to doing the comics justice and Days of Future Past is the closest that the X-men trilogy has come to the original comics. As is X-men Apocalypse.)
So, I basically learned at the ripe old age of 22 or 23 that adaptations of my favorite stories are unlikely to bear a close resemblance to the original story in question. If they do, it would be a miracle. Also, when they did bear a close resemblance? They were often boring and sort of predictable, with a few exceptions here and there (I rather adore the animated version of The Hobbit, skip the live-action version and watch that one, and the first of Peter Jackson's Lord of the Ring's films -- The Fellowship of the Ring is rather brilliant). But for the most part they don't work for me. Gee, I wonder why? Oh that's right, I'd already read it. And well, when I read it -- the images in my head and the interpretation was a lot better than what was on the screen anyhow. I think the reason that Jackson's films for the most part worked for me -- is I didn't remember the books that well, having read them over twenty years prior.
Anyhow, I've realized something over time, I actually preferred it when the adaptation did NOT follow the original precisely or did something completely different. I remember reading an interview with John Le Carre once, where he stated that he expected people adapting his works to vary from it -- he didn't want it to be exact or even that close -- what he wanted was an interpretation, because that was more interesting. Beside it was a different medium and he was well aware that what he put on the page didn't always transfer to the screen well. A lot of writers tend to agree with Le Carr -- they sold the rights, it's out of their hands. Whedon is sort of in that arena, he sold the rights to Buffy ages ago. He doesn't own it at all. He's a scribe for hire, he doesn't own most of his characters.
As result of all this? Reboots don't bother me. I actually sort of enjoy them. It's fun to see someone else's take on the same characters, verse, and story in another medium or even in the same one. In fact, shocking as it may sound, I'm more likely to watch a reboot of the series Buffy the Vampire Slayer, with new actors playing the original roles, and a whole new take on those characters, with new writers, etc -- than I am likely to watch a whole new series about some random slayer I've never heard of in that same verse. Mainly because I never cared that much about the world Buffy inhabited or the slayer mythos (which I found to be a bit silly and oh so slightly offensive -- I actually worked hard to ignore the mythology. Whedon sucks at world building. What he was trying to do was subvert the teen slasher movie or horror flick. That's it. Nothing more than that.). I'm not saying I'd necessarily stick with a reboot. I didn't stick with the reboot of Charmed, while I have stuck with the reboot of Rosewell (most likely aided by the fact that I don't remember the original at all). And I definitely watched and adored the Battle Star Galatica reboot, even though I was a diehard fan of the original and remember it vividly. I also saw the Star Trek reboot in the theaters with Chris Pine as James T. Kirk. I enjoyed it. Didn't make to the second one (tried to watch it on Amazon Prime and kept going to sleep during it), not sure there's a third one?
I will admit that I've been annoyed with the adaptations of the X-men, animated and live-action, mainly because the movie and animated series writers have no understanding or appreciation for my favorite characters Cyclops, Jean Grey, Kitty Pryde, Beast, Gambit, Rogue, and Storm -- and instead have focused almost completely on Magneto, Wolverine, Mystique, and Professor Xavier -- who I'm sort of ambivalent about. The animated series ruined the character of Wolverine. But, I'm not THAT upset over it -- because it's the nature of the best. Comic book fans pretty much know going in that the MCU movies are not true adaptations of the books. (For the most part they are completely unrecognizable.) Dark Phoenix is coming soon and I'm looking forward to it -- but I know from the trailer that this not a close adaptation of the original comic book saga. It's not even close. For one thing, Magneto and Mystique weren't in the original saga. Also, it was a SAGA for a reason -- it went on over a two-three year period, and across multiple issues. And Lilliandra wasn't a villain in the original. The villain was Mastermind and the Hellfire Club. They can't adapt it exactly. It will be a completely different story -- and I'm fine with that. I got over my need for it to be exact over thirty years ago.
This takes me back to the Buffy comics, reboot etc. I'm apparently in the minority in regards to the original Buffy story being rebooted either in film, television or comics? It doesn't bother me, folks. I actually like the idea that BOOM is doing its own take on the series and sort of doing an updated reboot of it -- visualizing the characters in new ways. And I sort of wanted them to do a movie or television version. Why? Well I saw the original movie and read the novel adaptation of it in a Book store. It wasn't all that good, but then the first season of Buffy didn't exactly impress me either. (I think I gave up on it at one point. The first season is not good. Actually the series doesn't start to get good until Spike and Dru pop up, and in the Second Season, the episodes without Spike/Dru and Angel/Angelus are incredibly bad. There's those vampires took off with the fandom. It really didn't hit it's stride until the third season...but it was always uneven.)
Also, there's a book out right now...that someone wrote about watchers in the Buffyverse, and it's all new characters. With twins? I read the synopsis and then a rave review on SmartBitches, and I thought, meh, this is not for me. (It reminded me a little of Fray, and I disliked Fray.) Didn't spark any interest whatsoever. No real clue why. Any more than the new series based in the Buffyverse that Whedon is producing interests me. It doesn't. Nor for that matter did any of the slayers introduced in S7. Or any of the Buffy comics featuring any characters outside of Willow, Spike, Buffy, Anya, Xander, Giles, Cordelia, Angel, Tara, Oz, Joyce, and Dawn. I got more annoyed with the Dark Horse version of the Buffy comics and the IDW version of the Angel comics -- for more or less the same reasons, they were uneven and I felt lost the characters. Also it was a continuation -- and I wanted the writers to go in one direction and half the time they went in the opposite direction. (But, alas, this is par for the course in regards to long-running serials.) The Boom comics so far are entertaining me. More so than the Dark Horse version did -- a lot of that is due to the art, which I adore, and the dialogue, which from my perspectives sounds like the characters. (With the possible exception of Drusilla ...and maybe Cordelia...who I'm rather ambivalent about.)
Which I guess demonstrates that unlike Star Trek, I'm really only invested in various takes on the characters and interpretations. (Makes sense, 98% of my Buffy meta was character analysis.) Anything else doesn't really interest me. I'm somewhat similar about Star Wars -- and that may have been my problem with some of the Star Wars films. I'm mainly interested in Han, Leia, and Luke and their sidekicks. Anything outside of them doesn't interest me all that much.
I think Star Trek may be among the few series that I got enough into the world to be open to exploring new characters within it? Or that I preferred the world and concept to the original characters?
I know most of the DW fandom appears to be the opposite? I wish I could understand where you all are coming from...but I don't. I don't have any problem with people rebooting stuff for commercial gain or not, as the case may be. They do it all the time with Shakespeare and Jane Austen, why not other things?
I have more of a problem with Real Person Fanfic -- or the embellished bio-pic and/or memoir. Because I think if you are stating you are telling a "true story" or a story about a real person, still living or dead, you should be honest about what the facts are, and not just make them up and pretend they are true. That feels exploitative. In short, I have more problems with the film Bohemian Rhapsody than I do with a Buffy remake. Mainly because I think the former does hurt people, while the latter is harmless fun.
So, no, sorry, I don't understand why fans get upset over reboots.
You ever write something and then think..wait a minute, but what about...
I'm admittedly of two minds on the above. Similar to fanfic. Or cooking for that matter.
How to explain this?
I'm an intuitive thinker -- I don't really think in an organized fashion. And I don't like following a set pattern or guideline. I like to make up as I go. Outlines make me crazy, as do checklists. I'll do a list prior to going grocery shopping, and then forget I had it. I will put together a schedule or checklist then forget about it.
I didn't enjoy writing fanfic -- mainly because I found it too constrictive. I couldn't play a role playing game or write for one, for the same reasons -- too constrictive. I'm not sure this makes sense. I don't like to follow recipes, I prefer to cook without them. When I made chocolate chip cookies -- I used to get rave reviews. They'd ask what I did. I said I followed the Nestle Toll House recipe. "How is this possible, I follow it all the time and my cookies aren't like these at all." Well, okay, I sort of change it as I go, and then after a while just do whatever. For example it called for more flour, I put in less. It called for more white sugar -- I put in more brown sugar. It called for Crisco shortening, I used butter. Also I added about four tablespoons of vanilla.
In short I had fun with the measurements. And each time I did it? I did it differently to entertain myself.
I don't follow recipes, folks. I have a lot of recipe books. So I really don't understand people who do. Any more than I understand people who like coloring books or paint-by-numbers. Tried both, found them constricting and rather boring. Would rather draw it myself.
Same with writing -- I don't understand why you'd want to write a book in the Buffy verse or the Tolkien Verse or the Star Wars verse. Wouldn't it make more sense and be a lot more fun to create your own world and create your own characters? Wouldn't you get terribly bored? I get wanting to write about Buffy or Spike to figure out something that didn't happen on screen. Or to write a story in which Spike was in the role of Angel in a different way, or a different take on Spike -- that I get.
I've done that. I also get taking the character into a different verse. But I'd rather read it than write it -- because again, it's constricting.
I'm not judging, I'm just...realizing how differently we all think or rather how differently I think from everyone else.
Sigh. I may delete this tomorrow. Not sure it made a whit of sense. Although let's face it...I'm probably just talking to myself anyhow. ;-)
3. Whoa...Luke Perry died of a stroke at 52
no subject
Date: 2019-03-06 08:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2019-03-07 02:08 am (UTC)