King Daniel Into Darkness wrote:
But as Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy shows, that in no way means you have to throw away quality of storytelling.
I would argue there is none to be found in the Dark Knight trilogy. Films 2 and 3 were so full of holes they make the things Trek fans complain about in XI+ seem like nothing at all.
I don't think there's a single shred of quality in any of the Nolan Batman movies. I found them to be the worst movies I've ever seen: stupid, pretentious, boring, dreary, nonsensical, visually ugly, and arrogant in the extreme. To me, that's a perfect example of a reboot done wrong, box office notwithstanding. But again, Batman
's a flexible enough property that it can withstand multiple interpretations and incarnations and not suffer as a whole for it. Some incarnations will be terrible (Nolan/Bale, Frank Miller and all who emulated him, '50s-era monster/transformation period), some will be mediocre (Burton/Schumacher), some will be terrific (Golden Age, Bronze Age, B:TAS
, Adam West seasons 1 and 2, the Silver Age "New Look" period), and all will have their place in some way or another.
So it should be with Star Trek
. I'm still not understanding the mentality that the franchise is -- or somehow should be -- too fragile to handle reinterpretation, rebooting, and reinvention. Kirk, Spock, and McCoy have become lasting pop culture icons. Doesn't it follow that the characters will be reinterpreted multiple times over, as other successful fantasy characters do? The insistence that the franchise should chicken out and rigorously backtrack to the old continuity and keep piling on with stuff the mainstream won't care about flies in the face of reality. You can't do that anymore. And I'd argue it wasn't a good idea to do it in the first place, since the franchise suffered for it.
I get what you are saying, but please stop using films like Ben Hur as an example for remakes. Especially with the case of Ben Hur, each new version was accompanied by a huge leap in film technology. The original 1907 version was a 15 minute silent film. The 1925 version was a long silent film with revolutionary two color technique. The 1959 Charlton Heston version was finally a modern film with color, sound and cinemascope. The 2010 Ben Hur was a mini TV series, so it was transferred yet another medium with different storytelling demands. That is in no way comparable to, let's say, Total Recall 1990 vs Total Recall 2012, where there was no such leap in technology between them.
Same thing goes for stage plays. The very nature of stage plays is that the are re-performed each time, and different theaters need different actors. Films and TV shows are recorded, they stay the same every time. If that is not a distinct difference, then I don't know what would be.
Guess we'd better tell people to stop making films and miniseries of Jane Eyre
, then. After all, it's the height of laziness to keep reinterpreting that story. And we can't have all those overlapping adaptations of Jane Austen stories going about. There's no revolutionary reason to redo any of those. And new versions of Dracula
? How can they be so bankrupt? And at least three concurrent versions of Sherlock Holmes (soon to be four with Ian McKellan), two of them set in modern times? What is wrong with people?
Reinterpretation and remaking has been standard operating procedure from day one. Stamping your feet and crying foul isn't going to change that.