Yes, probably.
DC Comics is doing new versions of The Flintstones, Johnny Quest, Scooby Doo, Wacky Races
- Thread starter JD
- Start date
How it looks to me;
The Flintstones version has gone for the now old and tired method of making stuff "Dark and Gritty" when it was never meant to be.
Wacky Raceland; I like the art and the story looks good, especially as I like dystopian adventures, but it just seems they are using characters with the names and approximate looks of the Wacky Racers for a story which has little to do with the originals; getting readers in by using familiar characters in little more than name?
Future Quest; Looks a good story but I'm not the greatest fan of cross-overs and I think I've made it clear what I think of that version of the Impossibles! If they had remained unchanged apart from looking more realistic for this, O.K. Also prefer minimal interaction with the other characters as their story style is different and should stay that way, and I'd prefer, in their case, that their background stayed a mystery. Seems to be a PC agenda in this comic which has gone too far.
Scooby Apocalypse; Actually seems not too bad, not changed as extremely as I initially though; someone I was chatting to in the comic shop said the characters were pretty faithful to the originals and it was "Worth picking up".
The Flintstones version has gone for the now old and tired method of making stuff "Dark and Gritty" when it was never meant to be.
Wacky Raceland; I like the art and the story looks good, especially as I like dystopian adventures, but it just seems they are using characters with the names and approximate looks of the Wacky Racers for a story which has little to do with the originals; getting readers in by using familiar characters in little more than name?
Future Quest; Looks a good story but I'm not the greatest fan of cross-overs and I think I've made it clear what I think of that version of the Impossibles! If they had remained unchanged apart from looking more realistic for this, O.K. Also prefer minimal interaction with the other characters as their story style is different and should stay that way, and I'd prefer, in their case, that their background stayed a mystery. Seems to be a PC agenda in this comic which has gone too far.
Scooby Apocalypse; Actually seems not too bad, not changed as extremely as I initially though; someone I was chatting to in the comic shop said the characters were pretty faithful to the originals and it was "Worth picking up".
Having read the first issue of Flintstones, I'd say calling it darker or grittier is, while not untrue, a bit misleading. I saw someone online describe it as if someone did an Adult Swim parody of the Flintstones, then somehow managed to convince the rights holders to let them do it as the real thing. That might or might not be your cup of tea, but I'd say that's accurate (though quality-wise, I'd say it's superior to what I've seen on Adult Swim.) In any case, it's very well done.
So it is darker, yes, but the darkness is in service of humor itself -- gallows humor and black comedy. Or to put in another way, it's dark in the way the suicide booths in Futurama are dark.
So it is darker, yes, but the darkness is in service of humor itself -- gallows humor and black comedy. Or to put in another way, it's dark in the way the suicide booths in Futurama are dark.
Yes, that's what I meant. I will let this be a reminder to proofread before clicking 'post'.
I would have thought it would be Uglor--but the plutonians from Aqua Teen Hunger Force seem to have his ship
http://villains.wikia.com/wiki/Uglor
http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net...onflict.png/revision/latest?cb=20101230222222
http://villains.wikia.com/wiki/Uglor
http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net...onflict.png/revision/latest?cb=20101230222222
Nope...space blob...
Rather like the creature, what I've seen of it - reminds me of something H.P. Lovecraft would dream up......
I find quite bizarre defending The Impossibles and other HB productions as if they were some kind of ultimate untouchable artistic endeavor. They are, at best, commercial products of their time and you can't just tell new stories like it is still the 1966. I saw a few episodes of The Impossibile in the early '80s and even at the time I found them dated and a bit boring. People change. Taste changes. You evolve or you die.
I don't think there is any piece of entertainment made in the '60s that could survive totally intact if it was remade for today. You can occaisionally get tie-ins and stuff, like Original Trek novels and comics, and the Batman '66 comic, but even they still tend to approach things with a modern perspective and style.
Have to agree to disagree - I personally always found the Impossibles totally enchanting but it obviously isn't your cup of tea.
Yep. You can do an homage/pastiche like 1963 of Alan Moore. But If you want to create something lasting, well, you have to adapt.
I'm sorry if I sounded rude. But you can't expect new Impossibles adventures in the exactly same style after 50 years. I mean, in all these years of superhero genre we had the Marvel Age, the British Invasion, deconstruction, Watchmen, the Image Age and so on. Really, I admit that the original show might have its charm but it is simply not suitable for modern readers without a lot a lot of reworking.
And really. I don't believe that you will see The Impossibles in a orgy with some groupies or that they have to shake a scandal regarding drugs and hookers.
In the third issue of Future Quest you can see how they treated Birdman and The Herculoids with respect. So, don't worry
No, I realise the stuff with groupies, drug scandals, etc. won't happen, (yes, it does often with real life rock stars and there is room for it in fiction - but from what I can see the creative team realise the Impossibles isn't it)!!!!!! But I don't agree that it needs a lot of reworking - just that there is a general feeling with Marvel and DC that just about everything does, (hence the endless reboots of their own properties, which is further perpetrated by these so often failing). The new female member, I really think, is there to please the Social Justice Warrior department at DC, (as is the change in Buzz Conroy's ethnicity), rather than the readers! And, no, I don't think you were being rude - just stating your personal opinion.
... Yes, because adding a female member to the cast of a 50-year-old cartoon that was all but forgotten is surely part of a sinister conspiracy...
Nope, just needless, too much of a change, and I feel for the wrong reasons.
Says the guy with the TAS avatar.
Horseshit. The whole point of comics like Batman '66, Wonder Woman '77, The Bionic Man and The Bionic Woman is to tell new stories the way they were told on TV. The same for the Buffy and Angel comics and the Smallville comic. (Not to mention the various Trek comics through the years.) Comics are exactly the best place to tell stories the classic way.
So because you didn't like the original it means that no one should value the original? No. It just means you didn't like it. Fine. Don't watch it again.
Please! That would make sense if we were trying to live through the next meteor strike. Evolution is about survival. This conversation isn't about evolution. It's about aesthetics. It's about taking pleasure in a work of creation and wanting to see derivative works maintain what you liked about the first one. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Frankly, I'm getting tired of people getting on this board and telling me what changes I have to accept to things I love in the name of whatever they define as progress. "Adaptation means there has to be changes!" is the mantra, but one that ignores the fact that there are degrees of adaptation, from "loosely based" to "totally faithful," and fans of the original creation have a right to champion whatever level of adaptation they choose, and the right not to give the creators their money if they don't get it. I'm buying FQ regularly because it's giving me the adaptations I want, and not buying the other series because they flat out aren't. Also, I don't fault S.Gallagher for wanting a totally faithful adaptation of the original Impossibles. That's S.'s right.
Your way, if somebody replaced the Mona Lisa in the Louvre with a 3D digital painting of the same woman wearing a midi blouse and Ray-Bans with beats headphones on Venice Beach and somebody complained, they would just have to accept that the old painting represented sixteenth century commercial production and had to be changed to fit today. Adapt or die.
Thanks so much for seeing where I am coming from!Says the guy with the TAS avatar.
Horseshit. The whole point of comics like Batman '66, Wonder Woman '77, The Bionic Man and The Bionic Woman is to tell new stories the way they were told on TV. The same for the Buffy and Angel comics and the Smallville comic. (Not to mention the various Trek comics through the years.) Comics are exactly the best place to tell stories the classic way.
So because you didn't like the original it means that no one should value the original? No. It just means you didn't like it. Fine. Don't watch it again.
Please! That would make sense if we were trying to live through the next meteor strike. Evolution is about survival. This conversation isn't about evolution. It's about aesthetics. It's about taking pleasure in a work of creation and wanting to see derivative works maintain what you liked about the first one. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Frankly, I'm getting tired of people getting on this board and telling me what changes I have to accept to things I love in the name of whatever they define as progress. "Adaptation means there has to be changes!" is the mantra, but one that ignores the fact that there are degrees of adaptation, from "loosely based" to "totally faithful," and fans of the original creation have a right to champion whatever level of adaptation they choose, and the right not to give the creators their money if they don't get it. I'm buying FQ regularly because it's giving me the adaptations I want, and not buying the other series because they flat out aren't. Also, I don't fault S.Gallagher for wanting a totally faithful adaptation of the original Impossibles. That's S.'s right.
Your way, if somebody replaced the Mona Lisa in the Louvre with a 3D digital painting of the same woman wearing a midi blouse and Ray-Bans with beats headphones on Venice Beach and somebody complained, they would just have to accept that the old painting represented sixteenth century commercial production and had to be changed to fit today. Adapt or die.
Not a problem. I've been where you are often enough...
One important thing to keep in mind with these series, is that they were purposefully going into these as modern day updated reboots, not with the intention of recreating the original series. So this these would be more like Kevin Smith's The Bionic Man comic series, rather than The Six Million Dollar Man Season Six comics, or Batman '66 which were both approached as continuations or recreations of their respective TV series. There's a huge difference between the two concepts, and it was always made perfectly clear what they were doing, so it's kind of ridiculous to be mad they changed things, when they never said they wouldn't.
Frankly, I'm getting tired of people getting on this board and telling me what changes I have to accept to things I love in the name of whatever they define as progress. "Adaptation means there has to be changes!" is the mantra, but one that ignores the fact that there are degrees of adaptation, from "loosely based" to "totally faithful," and fans of the original creation have a right to champion whatever level of adaptation they choose, and the right not to give the creators their money if they don't get it. I'm buying FQ regularly because it's giving me the adaptations I want, and not buying the other series because they flat out aren't. Also, I don't fault S.Gallagher for wanting a totally faithful adaptation of the original Impossibles. That's S.'s right.
Your way, if somebody replaced the Mona Lisa in the Louvre with a 3D digital painting of the same woman wearing a midi blouse and Ray-Bans with beats headphones on Venice Beach and somebody complained, they would just have to accept that the old painting represented sixteenth century commercial production and had to be changed to fit today. Adapt or die.
Thank you, Admiral! I think post covers a lot of threads, not just this one.Similar threads
