[Gov Kodos]

Greg Cox wrote:

---

But every adaptation invariably "warps" the original to some degree. The 1931 Boris Karloff version of Frankenstein bears little or no resemblance to Mary Shelley's novel, but that doesn't mean it's not a classic in its own right or lacks "artistic integrity." Ditto the classic George Pal version of War of the Worlds (which shifted the setting from Victorian England to 1950's California and changed Wells' iconic tripods into futuristic flying saucers). The Charles Laughton version of The Hunchback of the Notre Dame completely changed the ending of the novel, but is still regarded as the best movie version to date. And so on and so on . . . .

Fidelity to the original source can be a virtue, but it's not the only consideration when it comes to adapting classic works, or even the most important one.

Good points, and as I thought Moffatt's Sherlock would be awful, it is premature to think a re-imagining will be bad sight unseen and my predictive powers need better tarot cards. That said, re-imagining takes talent on par with those who made the original. I expect such works have a failure to success rate not unlike original works, but due to being beholden to past successful work the failure gets greater attention than the failure of a new piece of work.