BanditKeith2: As for reworking classics not many good real reasons I can think of for doing so in most cases given most classics are made it such a way they often are very much ''of the time they was made'' aswell as reworking them would be hard to do in how most people rework classics nowadays
krakataul: I guess this is where we have difference in opinions - my take is that most classics are timeless and capable of sustaining all kinds of adaptations and reimaginations. For example, "Antigone" with its countless versions set in different historical periods and contexts or numerous adaptations of Shakespeare's plays (Kurosawa's Run, just to name one).
I also believe in supporting creativity, either original works or those inspired/adapted/reinterpreted/reimagined. Of course, some are going to be bad, some good, some meh, some in poor taste... Tastes change, opinions are varied.
In the end, it doesn't matter, as long we don't put artificial restrictions on creativity, and let authors be the ones to take the risk of exposing their work to the public eye.
Fair enough
For me I just am tired of people basically ''brushing aside'' peoples concerns when something is claimd to be ''adapted/reinterpreted/reimagined'' when it seems more like someone just took the name of something or the world and retrofitted it to a idea they had and many just try to claim its just ''bigots '' complaining..
I will say some cases work but those are when clearly taking the source matieral to heart/seriously and keeping what made the source well it , atleast in spirit or concept , I can name atleast one case in gaming it worked
BanditKeith2: See thats the thing most people take issue with , that you said you don't understand when people basically take a thing and strip it of what makes it well what it is ,then sticks something vastly different onto it but using the name of it and character names for something almost completely different ..
Its also very common practice nowadays and alot of people are sick of it .. same with the deconstruction storytelling as rarely does it add something or even better reconstructs, but rather people keep deconstructing the deconstruction done last time .
PookaMustard: Like I said, depends what we're looking at. Which reminds me, yes, I've seen The Joker recently. I know, starring The Joker on his own without Batman to stop his punchlines is pretty silly. Gotham as depicted doesn't seem like this den of supervillains ruining it everyday. But I think it worked wonderfully despite stripping a fair bit of what makes Gotham City special.
Again, let's wait until the movie comes out and THEN we can judge it fairly.
Oh I forgot but Disney's animated adaptations, a.k.a. their classics, pretty much outright omit a lot of dark things from fairytales, spinning them up into positive stories. That was their bread and butter.
Not how you said the first case on this on not understanding the problem people have at all
Ands as I said most cases its done in a way that people are tired of it
As for the Joker it was more so inspired by the Batman ip rather then truly adapted besides the Joker comic wise has several versions of him running around at the same time in canon and even when it was just him he keep changing what his backstory was , so its really a none issues there
As for Disney thats just common knowledge for basically anyone at this point so really not comparable other then its the other end of the ''deconstruction '' situation as a whole
Still I was not judging what I brought up as being good or bad, I see the concept of changing and stripping things out that far bad, but it can be executed very well , its just that the example given is a good example of why people take issue with changing things up so much anymore and such
