Conversation

Thinking about why I dislike some bold interpretations of classics (Downey Sherlock, Peter Jackson Hobbit, Dirk Gently) and like others (Cumberbatch Sherlock, Foundation). Some I had to have think before I decided (Whedon Star Trek: dislike). I think I know now.
Replying to
A good reinterpretation tends to have genuine affection for the original’s intentions and aims to correct both context drift and skill deficits. It’s like art restoration. Where the equivalent of dirt, grime, and fading paint is narrative “dirt” of context drift and medium shift.
1
44
A bad one cynically uses the popularity of the original to make money or pursue unrelated intentions. Often while maintaining a higher cosmetic fidelity.
1
33
Hobbit was the worst, and I understand the studio wanted a trilogy out of one book to get back money from the expensive rights fight or whatever but seriously? Couldn’t invent better filler than a bad love story, heavy handed LOTR foreshadowing and a video game type new villain?
4
17
A solid reinterpretation for context and medium IMO works better than literalist fidelity. Chris Columbus Harry Potter 1, 2 were tediously literal-minded and showcased weaknesses of the books. Cuaron took the best book (Azkaban) and elevated it by restoring the intent for screen.
1
17
Replying to
could not bring myself to watch the Jackson hobbit. saw a few episodes of the Downey Holmes and thought it was pretty watchable, on the other hand the Cumberbatch one put me off because I felt he was playing an exaggerated caricature of Holmes.
1
1
Show additional replies, including those that may contain offensive content
Show