The situation with this movie reminds me very much of Tron and Tron:Legacy.
Well, the difference there is that TRON
wasn't an adaptation of another work, but was the original work in itself -- and was a seminal, pioneering film in a lot of ways, albeit not an entirely successful one. So it stands to reason that a revival would've built on that, because what else is there to build on? I suppose they could've done a full-on remake -- and maybe they should have, because Legacy
doesn't really hold up as a direct continuation when you watch them back to back -- but TRON
is such a unique creation in itself that it's understandable why they didn't.
the G-man wrote:
I could be wrong, but I think Disney was legally precluded from adapting the Betty character faithfully because, while she didn’t object to the comic book, the real Ms. Page would not allow Disney to use her name or likeness
Still, they could've stuck with the pinup-model aspect even if they changed the name.
They’ve tried putting, for example, Doc Savage and the Shadow in modern times (albeit in comic books) and there have been many attempts at Sherlock Holmes in different time periods. Why wouldn’t they at least consider doing it with the Rocketeer? Yeah, it might not be good, but that doesn’t mean they wouldn’t consider it.
Given how thoroughly immersed the premise is in 1930s culture and history, it's hard to see how it could be done any other way.
But I would submit that those are simply stories that happened to come out in a particular time and thus are associated with it by default (though they came out over a span of decades so there's some wiggle room built in). They're from
those times rather than being about
those times. The Rocketeer
, by contrast, is specifically a tribute to a particular era of American history, to people and events and designs and fiction from that era. Adapting it to a different era would be like doing a Happy Days
remake that wasn't about the fifties.
(As for Sherlock Holmes, I'm aware of various attempts to transpose the Victorian Holmes into the present or future through cryogenics or cloning -- a TV movie with Margaret Colin and a couple of animated attempts -- but Holmes is still a product of his era in those. The only examples I can think of where Holmes has been reinterpreted as native
to a more modern time have been the WWII-era Rathbone-Bruce movies, Moffat's Sherlock
, and the upcoming Elementary
. Are you aware of others, or were you referring to the ones I mentioned above?)
Maybe, and I think your dinstinction holds true, but correcting people over it in a thread about a movie is a bit pedantic.
A BBS thread is something that might be read by hundreds of people, many of whom might be unfamiliar with the topic in question. If I'm reading a BBS post about a subject I'm unfamiliar with, I want to be able to trust that the information I'm reading isn't misleading or inaccurate. I assume the same is true of everyone else, and I want to make sure they have access to accurate information about the topic.
It's not about being "pedantic." I'm a writer, so it's my nature to think about writing (which is what we're doing here) as something intended for an audience, and to think about how that audience will perceive what's being written. Any "corrections" I make are directed toward that audience for their benefit, not toward the poster who made the original statement.