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.
Conversation
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
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
Downey was good but it wasn’t really Holmes at all. More some sort of steampunk derivative fantasy
3
Replying to
The British Dirk Gently was pretty good, I thought. But tame. The American one was completely insane and awful, but terrifically watchable. I was totally hooked on it and highly entertained despite being outraged more or less the whole time.
1
7
Show additional replies, including those that may contain offensive content
Show



