4 ms·

>This "stop doing something because I personally don't like it!" mentality is what should be done away with. Couldn't agree more. It's the same mentality that

>This "stop doing something because I personally don't like it!" mentality is what should be done away with. Couldn't agree more. It's the same mentality that makes people declare that "[arbitrary tv show] should've been cancelled long ago!"; or what a travesty it is that [arbitrary beloved IP] is getting a sequel/remake/reboot. If the Simpsons runs for fifty seasons, it doesn't undo the first ten. If they reboot Batman a dozen more times, it doesn't keep you from thinking that Adam West was the best Batman. And to categorize 3D movies as simply a fad totally disregards works for which 3D was an integral part of the creative vision, e.g. Avatar, Gravity, Love. There's simply no good reason to discourage anyone from contributing anything creative to the culture, even if you question their motives.

throwaway5752 10y ago
Just for the record, Adam West was indisputably the best Batman.
- kbenson 10y ago
  It would be a thing of beauty and wonder if someone could accurately re-dub all of Batman Begins with Adam West dialog from the original series. Instant meme-success.
- lokedhs 10y ago
  I don't know if you're joking, but regardless there is a point to be had. Batman needs some comedy, and it needs to be proud of it, and there has been very little of that in the reboots. In fact, with the exception of a few scenes in the Michael Keaton version (which is my favourite in fact), I've only really seen it in Suicide Squad, and it only had about 30 seconds which included Batman. The Adam West version is a comedy show, and it does a pretty good job at it.
  - throwaway5752 10y ago
    Not at all joking that Adam West is the best. He owns the character like Shatner owns Kirk. That said, I like the campier interpretations of the TV show and Burton/Keaton but I also like the grittier Miller/Mazzuchelli Year One and Nolan/Bale interpretations, too. There's a proud tradition of both, and they complement each other (one interpretation playing straight man to the other, if you will).
debaserab2 10y ago
> It's the same mentality that makes people declare that "[arbitrary tv show] should've been cancelled long ago!"; or what a travesty it is that [arbitrary beloved IP] is getting a sequel/remake/reboot. I don't know about that, there are very good reasons not to, in my opinion. It's the same reason we don't build on top of the gaza pyramids, or replace the mona lisa with a more modern version. We like to preserve the legacy of things, and when you pollute it with things not in the original design it's easy to end up reshaping what it means and diluting its history.
- libertymcateer 10y ago
  Each of your examples destroys the original. Making sequels in no way affects the integrity of the original. They are wholly different circumstances.
  - debaserab2 10y ago
    Building on top of the gaza pyramids doesn't destroy the original, it changes it. Sequels absolutely can affect the integrity of the original by expanding the universe of the plot in ways that it's original design never intended or the way it was originally perceived.
    - jl6 10y ago
      You're not obliged to pay attention to any of the sequels. Countless Shakespeare productions and remakes and reinterpretations don't diminish the original form.
      - debaserab2 10y ago
        > You're not obliged to pay attention to any of the sequels. That statement does nothing but detract from the conversation. Of course I'm not obliged to pay attention to any of them. I'm not making the generalization that all sequels are bad.
        10y ago
derefr 10y ago
Tangential, but the bad thing about 50 seasons of the Simpsons isn't the product, but rather all the comedy writers and voice actors it ties up making schlock, who would otherwise be off making much more interesting and coherent works in smaller teams. The Simpsons is to TV production staff what EA is to game devs or Google is to software engineers: a place where promising talent is absorbed into a black hole.
- derrickdirge 10y ago
  You make it sound as though no one has a choice in their job. Like jackbooted thugs from Fox show up on your doorstep and say "we heard you write comedy; you're coming with us." There's no shortage of talented creative people, and contracts usually don't last forever.
aaron695 10y ago
> If the Simpsons runs for fifty seasons, it doesn't undo the first ten. Yes it does, absolutely. That's like saying an awful ending to a movie can't ruin the whole movie, people can still enjoy the beginning. It's totally possible to ruin people's memories and nostalgia.
phyllostachys 10y ago
> If they reboot Batman a dozen more times, it doesn't keep you from thinking that Adam West was the best Batman. Recently, I've been watching Sherlock. After doing some reading, I learned that Sherlock Holmes is the most portrayed character ever, "with more than 70 actors playing the part in over 200 films" [1]. Talking with a work mate, he said his favorite portrayal was Jeremy Brett. I also learned that the original works are in the public domain, which is probably why it is so often used as source material. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherlock_Holmes#Adaptations_in_other_media https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherlock_Holmes#Adaptations_in...

throwaway5752 10y ago

Just for the record, Adam West was indisputably the best Batman.

kbenson 10y ago
It would be a thing of beauty and wonder if someone could accurately re-dub all of Batman Begins with Adam West dialog from the original series. Instant meme-success.
lokedhs 10y ago
I don't know if you're joking, but regardless there is a point to be had. Batman needs some comedy, and it needs to be proud of it, and there has been very little of that in the reboots. In fact, with the exception of a few scenes in the Michael Keaton version (which is my favourite in fact), I've only really seen it in Suicide Squad, and it only had about 30 seconds which included Batman. The Adam West version is a comedy show, and it does a pretty good job at it.
- throwaway5752 10y ago
  Not at all joking that Adam West is the best. He owns the character like Shatner owns Kirk. That said, I like the campier interpretations of the TV show and Burton/Keaton but I also like the grittier Miller/Mazzuchelli Year One and Nolan/Bale interpretations, too. There's a proud tradition of both, and they complement each other (one interpretation playing straight man to the other, if you will).

debaserab2 10y ago

> It's the same mentality that makes people declare that "[arbitrary tv show] should've been cancelled long ago!"; or what a travesty it is that [arbitrary beloved IP] is getting a sequel/remake/reboot. I don't know about that, there are very good reasons not to, in my opinion. It's the same reason we don't build on top of the gaza pyramids, or replace the mona lisa with a more modern version. We like to preserve the legacy of things, and when you pollute it with things not in the original design it's easy to end up reshaping what it means and diluting its history.

libertymcateer 10y ago
Each of your examples destroys the original. Making sequels in no way affects the integrity of the original. They are wholly different circumstances.
- debaserab2 10y ago
  Building on top of the gaza pyramids doesn't destroy the original, it changes it. Sequels absolutely can affect the integrity of the original by expanding the universe of the plot in ways that it's original design never intended or the way it was originally perceived.
  - jl6 10y ago
    You're not obliged to pay attention to any of the sequels. Countless Shakespeare productions and remakes and reinterpretations don't diminish the original form.
    - debaserab2 10y ago
      > You're not obliged to pay attention to any of the sequels. That statement does nothing but detract from the conversation. Of course I'm not obliged to pay attention to any of them. I'm not making the generalization that all sequels are bad.
      - 10y ago

derefr 10y ago

Tangential, but the bad thing about 50 seasons of the Simpsons isn't the product, but rather all the comedy writers and voice actors it ties up making schlock, who would otherwise be off making much more interesting and coherent works in smaller teams. The Simpsons is to TV production staff what EA is to game devs or Google is to software engineers: a place where promising talent is absorbed into a black hole.

derrickdirge 10y ago
You make it sound as though no one has a choice in their job. Like jackbooted thugs from Fox show up on your doorstep and say "we heard you write comedy; you're coming with us." There's no shortage of talented creative people, and contracts usually don't last forever.

aaron695 10y ago

> If the Simpsons runs for fifty seasons, it doesn't undo the first ten. Yes it does, absolutely. That's like saying an awful ending to a movie can't ruin the whole movie, people can still enjoy the beginning. It's totally possible to ruin people's memories and nostalgia.

phyllostachys 10y ago

> If they reboot Batman a dozen more times, it doesn't keep you from thinking that Adam West was the best Batman. Recently, I've been watching Sherlock. After doing some reading, I learned that Sherlock Holmes is the most portrayed character ever, "with more than 70 actors playing the part in over 200 films" [1]. Talking with a work mate, he said his favorite portrayal was Jeremy Brett. I also learned that the original works are in the public domain, which is probably why it is so often used as source material. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherlock_Holmes#Adaptations_in_other_media https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherlock_Holmes#Adaptations_in...