stupidest remake yet...Miss Marple, the hot babe!

[Professor Zoom]

Well, if it were to be extended in a real way (Crumb would be certainly a new vision, BRING IT). But, I could see Bill Watterson doing a really wonderful continuation very much in the spirit and possibly Berke Breathed. Those two would do a loyal interpretation.

I had Bill Watterson and Jaime Hernandez on my list.

Though, getting Bill Watterson to do it would be just as likely as getting Charles Schultz....

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

Though, getting Bill Watterson to do it would be just as likely as getting Charles Schultz....

See, that's the beauty of it. For all we know, maybe Watterson spends all his time drawing Peanuts comic strips that he never shows to anybody.

 

[intrinsical]

This has already been done years ago. Its nothing new, move along.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fULNtyEcWk

 

[Professor Zoom]

Though, getting Bill Watterson to do it would be just as likely as getting Charles Schultz....

See, that's the beauty of it. For all we know, maybe Watterson spends all his time drawing Peanuts comic strips that he never shows to anybody.

It's the cartoon world's version of Salinger.

 

[RJDiogenes]

Once the stuff is in public domain, why not?

It has nothing to do with public domain. Star Trek didn't need to be in the public domain for them to screw it up.

It's not like the traditional versions go away. Some experiments are doomed to be failures, but that's the way it goes. To my mind, it's better than keeping old characters and stories frozen in amber forever in order to keep them "pure" or whatever.

Let a thousand flowers bloom, etc.

Again: Why? What's the problem with creating a new character or concept rather than twisting something that works quite well out of shape?

First, you might want to fix your quote tags, I didn't say the above. Greg did.

Sorry. I don't know how I managed that.

And second, Peanuts by Robert Crumb? Yes. HELL yes. I would love it. I'm curious what an artist like Crumb would do. Would it be for everyone? No. Would it be interesting? Yes.

Good Grief. I picked the worst possible example I could think of and people still think it's a good idea. I guess that tells us where the audience is at these days.

 

[Professor Zoom]

And second, Peanuts by Robert Crumb? Yes. HELL yes. I would love it. I'm curious what an artist like Crumb would do. Would it be for everyone? No. Would it be interesting? Yes.

Good Grief. I picked the worst possible example I could think of and people still think it's a good idea. I guess that tells us where the audience is at these days.

We may disagree, and I think we've been fairly reasonable in our disagreement, but that's just insulting.

What do you mean "where the audience is these days?" Comes off as rather condescending. But, please, explain what you mean. What's next, scream at me to get off your lawn?

Come on, Crumb is a brilliant artist and satirist. I, for one, would be really interested in what he would do.

 

[Gepard]

Once the stuff is in public domain, why not?

It has nothing to do with public domain. Star Trek didn't need to be in the public domain for them to screw it up.

It's not like the traditional versions go away. Some experiments are doomed to be failures, but that's the way it goes. To my mind, it's better than keeping old characters and stories frozen in amber forever in order to keep them "pure" or whatever.

Let a thousand flowers bloom, etc.

Again: Why? What's the problem with creating a new character or concept rather than twisting something that works quite well out of shape?

First, you might want to fix your quote tags, I didn't say the above. Greg did.

Sorry. I don't know how I managed that.

And second, Peanuts by Robert Crumb? Yes. HELL yes. I would love it. I'm curious what an artist like Crumb would do. Would it be for everyone? No. Would it be interesting? Yes.

Good Grief. I picked the worst possible example I could think of and people still think it's a good idea. I guess that tells us where the audience is at these days.

Do you enjoy it there, inside your Asgard time-dilation device?

 

[AJBryant]

Maybe Miss Marple can be tapped for Homeland Security.

Well, if Miss Marple *is* played by Ms. Garner, I imagine there'll be a lot of people wanting to tap her....

(I'm so ashamed....)

 

[UssGlenn]

saw an interesting idea on another forum. What if this Miss Marple is the granddaughter of the original? that would solve the new vs. old character problem.

 

[scotpens]

saw an interesting idea on another forum. What if this Miss Marple is the granddaughter of the original? that would solve the new vs. old character problem.

Of course, then we’d have a nomenclature problem. How did the surname “Marple” get passed from a never-married woman to her granddaughter?

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Great niece then?

 

[UssGlenn]

Of course, then we’d have a nomenclature problem. How did the surname “Marple” get passed from a never-married woman to her granddaughter?

never marries right forgot about that. yeah lets go with niece then

 

[RJDiogenes]

And second, Peanuts by Robert Crumb? Yes. HELL yes. I would love it. I'm curious what an artist like Crumb would do. Would it be for everyone? No. Would it be interesting? Yes.

Good Grief. I picked the worst possible example I could think of and people still think it's a good idea. I guess that tells us where the audience is at these days.

We may disagree, and I think we've been fairly reasonable in our disagreement, but that's just insulting.

What do you mean "where the audience is these days?" Comes off as rather condescending. But, please, explain what you mean. What's next, scream at me to get off your lawn?

Come on, Crumb is a brilliant artist and satirist. I, for one, would be really interested in what he would do.

Of course I'm referring to the whole darker and grittier fad that is increasingly overwhelming and homogenizing pop culture. Crumb may be brilliant, but he would be completely inappropriate for Peanuts. How about a contemporary noir "update" by Brian Michael Bendis and Richard Corben then? Or what if that Frank Miller-style parody were true? I mean, you must have some limit, right? Even Temis has a limit; thus this thread and the Indy comment earlier. Each character and concept has a core, and if you lose that, then it's no longer what it was.

Do you enjoy it there, inside your Asgard time-dilation device?

Hmm. I'm not sure if you're acknowledging that I'm ahead of my time or you're implying that artistic integrity and diversity are obsolete.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

Of course I'm referring to the whole darker and grittier fad that is increasingly overwhelming and homogenizing pop culture.

Then you shouldn't have picked Peanuts as an example: it's probably the darkest and most depressing comic strip of all time.

 

[Gepard]

[
Hmm. I'm not sure if you're acknowledging that I'm ahead of my time or you're implying that artistic integrity and diversity are obsolete.

I meant in in the "Carter tricked the humaniform Replicators into freezing themselves in stasis" kind of way. As the "trapped in amber" analogy had already been used.

 

[Avalon]

Each character and concept has a core, and if you lose that, then it's no longer what it was.

True. But sometimes it takes a new interpretation to shine a little more light on what's really at that core.

 

[Agent Richard07]

^ Yeah, sometimes the original never captured that core very well to begin with and could stand to be redone. And it's still nice to see an old work modernized, reinterpreted or remade with a few tweaks or new ideas anyway. A lot of remakes I've seen do that without destroying the core concept of the original. In fact, it would be a shame if we never got some of the remakes we've gotten.

 

[Professor Zoom]

Good Grief. I picked the worst possible example I could think of and people still think it's a good idea. I guess that tells us where the audience is at these days.

We may disagree, and I think we've been fairly reasonable in our disagreement, but that's just insulting.

What do you mean "where the audience is these days?" Comes off as rather condescending. But, please, explain what you mean. What's next, scream at me to get off your lawn?

Come on, Crumb is a brilliant artist and satirist. I, for one, would be really interested in what he would do.

Of course I'm referring to the whole darker and grittier fad that is increasingly overwhelming and homogenizing pop culture. Crumb may be brilliant, but he would be completely inappropriate for Peanuts.

Crumb would hardly be dark and gritty. Clearly you know nothing of Crumb. He's more perverted and weird. And again, a satirist.

How about a contemporary noir "update" by Brian Michael Bendis and Richard Corben then? Or what if that Frank Miller-style parody were true? I mean, you must have some limit, right? Even Temis has a limit; thus this thread and the Indy comment earlier. Each character and concept has a core, and if you lose that, then it's no longer what it was.

I don't have a limit, actually. It's true, at a certain point, it won't be the character. And that's when it turns to satire and parody. Both useful tools in our culture.

And guess what? Even if Michael Bendis did a noir update--which would be hilarious--it DOESN'T DESTROY THE ORIGINAL. AT ALL. Everything is still right in the world. Ford's in his flivver.

The problem with Crystal Skull wasn't Indy in the 1950s, it was the execution. Jones was almost a side character in his own movie.

But as other's have said, "it's all grist for the mill." Would a gun toting Charlie Brown be Charlie Brown, I don't know. Depends on who's drawing him. But most likely, THAT Charlie Brown would be a satire, and probably a NEEDED satire and a satire that would ONLY WORK with all the baggage of the Shultz Charlie Brown.

AND, keep in mind, I DO think there are central core characteristics about characters--we disagree that location is a characteristic of a character.

Now, I think if Miller had Charlie Brown realizing that Lucy was going to pull away the football, no, I think that wouldn't be Charlie Brown. But, him gunning Lucy down after her pulling it away from him again... that just might be Charlie.

I understand, you fear taking something new and changing it will just spoil the character for you... but it doesn't. Trust me if Shakespeare can survive directors adding whole acts (they would do that in the 18th c), then I think Charlie Brown could survive Crumb.

Do you enjoy it there, inside your Asgard time-dilation device?

Hmm. I'm not sure if you're acknowledging that I'm ahead of my time or you're implying that artistic integrity and diversity are obsolete. [/QUOTE]

Artistic integrity and diversity are just fine. You have a myopic view of pop culture if all you see if are just reboots. There's a LOT more going on. There is a LOT more original material. Some of it succeeds, some of it fails. Just like everything else.

 

[scotpens]

Of course I'm referring to the whole darker and grittier fad that is increasingly overwhelming and homogenizing pop culture. Crumb may be brilliant, but he would be completely inappropriate for Peanuts. How about a contemporary noir "update" by Brian Michael Bendis and Richard Corben then? Or what if that Frank Miller-style parody were true?

Or how about a new Peanuts holiday special written by David Mamet?

Fuck Christmas and Fuck You, Charlie Brown!

 

[RJDiogenes]

Of course I'm referring to the whole darker and grittier fad that is increasingly overwhelming and homogenizing pop culture.

Then you shouldn't have picked Peanuts as an example: it's probably the darkest and most depressing comic strip of all time.

I'd hardly say that. But, while it was not sweetness and light, I'd hardly say that bringing in Crumb to have Charlie Brown fuck Lucy up the ass while Linus has a psychotic breakdown and Snoopy slowly dies of cancer is consistent with the spirit of the strip.

I meant in in the "Carter tricked the humaniform Replicators into freezing themselves in stasis" kind of way. As the "trapped in amber" analogy had already been used.

I see. Except I'm the one trying to get the world out of stasis. I keep trying to convince everybody that the 80s are over.

True. But sometimes it takes a new interpretation to shine a little more light on what's really at that core.

I agree. New perspectives are great. But what we're talking about here is "re-imaginings" that destroy that core.

Crumb would hardly be dark and gritty. Clearly you know nothing of Crumb. He's more perverted and weird. And again, a satirist.

It's a subset.

I don't have a limit, actually. It's true, at a certain point, it won't be the character. And that's when it turns to satire and parody. Both useful tools in our culture.

I'm not talking about satire or parody, both of which are great-- I'm talking about re-imaginings that turn into self-parody. There's no limit? Okay, let's take Miss Marple. Her age isn't important to her character. The time period isn't important to her character. Solving problems with intelligence instead of violence isn't important to her character. Perhaps being a detective isn't important to her character. Certainly the name Marple isn't important to her character. So would a young college student who is recruited by the CIA and goes by the name of Ms Bristow be a cool re-imagining of Miss Marple?

And guess what? Even if Michael Bendis did a noir update--which would be hilarious--it DOESN'T DESTROY THE ORIGINAL. AT ALL. Everything is still right in the world. Ford's in his flivver.

Yeah, not really the point, though. Unless somebody really was stuck in the past.

But as other's have said, "it's all grist for the mill." Would a gun toting Charlie Brown be Charlie Brown, I don't know. Depends on who's drawing him. But most likely, THAT Charlie Brown would be a satire, and probably a NEEDED satire and a satire that would ONLY WORK with all the baggage of the Shultz Charlie Brown.

Again, parody and satire are fine.

AND, keep in mind, I DO think there are central core characteristics about characters--we disagree that location is a characteristic of a character.

I didn't say that it was-- just of some characters. The Lone Ranger doesn't belong on a cruise ship.

Now, I think if Miller had Charlie Brown realizing that Lucy was going to pull away the football, no, I think that wouldn't be Charlie Brown. But, him gunning Lucy down after her pulling it away from him again... that just might be Charlie.

I can't disagree with that.

I understand, you fear taking something new and changing it will just spoil the character for you... but it doesn't. Trust me if Shakespeare can survive directors adding whole acts (they would do that in the 18th c), then I think Charlie Brown could survive Crumb.

I'm not talking about spoiling the character so much as wondering what's wrong with creating something new. Would Watchmen have been as good if Moore had been allowed to do it as a remake of the Charlton characters? Would Star Wars have been better as the proposed Flash Gordon film? Do you think Monk would have been a better series if they had called him Holmes and Sharona Watson?

Artistic integrity and diversity are just fine. You have a myopic view of pop culture if all you see if are just reboots. There's a LOT more going on. There is a LOT more original material. Some of it succeeds, some of it fails. Just like everything else.

I never said otherwise. But there is definitely-- as there is in any era-- an overarching Zeitgeist. And in the here and now, it's an overwhelming grayness and homogeneity.