A few weeks ago, I was chatting with Serdar about remakes, specifically, why remake a work when the result winds up being the same. This got me to thinking about the nature of a remake. Serdar’s thoughts can be seen on his blog, and are well worth reading on their own, too.
What is the purpose of the remake? Sure, at some point, it’s “make money”. Beyond that, why remake? Is there a new interpretation to explore? Is the focus changing to a different character? Or, as in Gus Van Sant’s Psycho, a shot for shot remake? Lost in Translation has looked at many adaptations and remakes. One could argue that an adaptation is just a remake in a different medium. In this case, though, the purpose is to interpret the original work in a new medium. Look at the number of books adapted as movies and television series. Just the going through the book and finding the key scenes alone means that someone is already creating a new interpretation. When remaking in the same medium, a new interpretation is needed.
Compare the two Battlestar Galactica TV series. The original was space opera, coming on the heels of Star Wars, telling the tale of a ragtag band of refugees of worlds lost to killer robots. The remake’s twist on the original was to remove the space opera. The remake took a hard look at the needs of maintaining the human race in a hostile environment while still being chased by the exterminators. The original, there was hope that humanity would survive, even if the discovery of Earth wasn’t shown.* The remake, on the other hand, kept a close track of the number of survivors, and an increase was a major point of celebration; humanity’s survival wasn’t certain. Meanwhile, the aforementioned Psycho remake was shot for shot the same. There was nothing new that an audience couldn’t get from the original. That’s a danger; if a remake gets audiences to go back to the original and not see the new version, something has gone wrong. Something to remember – novels don’t get remade, just reissued. There’s little point for an author copying an existing story word for word. At most, an author will revise a story to reflect changes in the real world.
What types of remakes are possible, then? I’ve grouped a few, and these may not be comprehensive or completely exclusive ways, but I’ve added examples to try to make things clearer.
Shot for Shot Remake: Like it says on the tin, the remake redoes the original work using the same approach. If the original work is an older movie filmed in black and white, the new version may just add colour. Once again, Psycho is the best example. Unless a great deal of time has passed between the original work and the remake, most people will prefer the original.
Remake with a Twist: This sort of remake changes something in the original, whether it is the main character, the setting, or the mood, among many other elements. This sort of remake doesn’t need to be “official”. An example of changing the setting is The Magnificent Seven, a Western take on The Seven Samurai. The seven ronin (masterless samurai) become gunslingers in the remake, thus changing expectations of the characters. Battlestar Galactica is a great example of a change in mood, plus changes in characters.
Remake Continuation: Instead of remaking the original work, the remake continues from where the original left off. Usually, the new work acknowledges what has happened before. Best example of this is Star Trek: The Next Generation, which advanced the timeline of the Star Trek universe to show how the voyages of the USS Enterprise has affected the galaxy. JJ Abrams’ Star Trek could fit here, too, except instead of continuing, it fills in details of the characters before they were first seen in the original series.
Cross-media Remake: Usually called an adaptation, this is when a work in one medium is adapted for another. Typically, the path is from long-form (novels, television series) to short-form (movies, video games**). Sometimes, though, a movie will be adapted as a TV series (Buffy the Vampire Slayer), and there are the rare novels that go beyond being just a tie-in to a TV series.
As I mentioned, these are not exclusive. JJ Abrams’ Star Trek falls under both Remake with a Twist and Remake Continuation. The animated film Gnomeo and Juliet, Shakespeare’s*** Romeo and Juliet only done with garden gnomes, covers Remake with a Twist/ (they’re garden gnomes!) and Cross-media Remake (animated garden gnomes!).
What does this mean for people hoping to remake a work? At a minimum, figure out what you want to do with the work. Few people are going to want to see a shot-for-shot remake*** when the original is still around. There needs to be a reason for the remake to exist. Otherwise, why bother?
Next week, superhero universes and adaptations, on the road to The Avengers Adaptation.
* Galactica 1980 is being ignored here, for many reasons.
** Some video games. Video gaming is turning into its own creative endeavor. See the works of Bioware and Bethesda as examples.
*** The Bard may be an exception to the problems of a shot-for-shot remake. Filming one of Shakespeare’s plays usually requires staying true to the original script. Anything else is just an adaptation.
**** No, I meant three stars. The previous footnote still applies.
The Avengers Adaptation continues!
Leading up to a review of The Avengers, I’ve taken a look at Iron Man and Thor, two of the longest serving and iconic Avengers in Marvel’s history. However, the iconic Avenger is Captain America.
Captain America first appeared in Captain America Comics, published in early 1941* by Marvel’s predecessor, Timely Comics. The character and the comic were intentionally patriotic, almost a given considering world events. Marvel brought back Cap in The Avengers #4, thawing him and bringing him to the “modern”** age. Cap started as Steve Rogers, a scrawny young man whose desire to enlist and fight the Nazis in Europe was thwarted by his own ill health. However, his persistence got him noticed and invited to the Super-Soldier project, where Steve was given the Super-Soldier Serum, transforming his body to perfect health and physique. Cap then fought through WWII with his sidekick, “Bucky” Barnes, battling the Third Reich.
Captain America: The First Avenger essentially retells Captain America’s origin. As you might have read last week, I went on for a few paragraphs about superhero origins. However, in Cap’s case, there are two elements to consider. One, Cap’s origins aren’t well known to the general audience. Comic book fans, especially those who follow the Avengers, are aware, but Cap isn’t the household name Superman is. Two, Captain America’s origins alone are an exciting story, especially in the context of modern Marvel stories (as opposed to the Timely comics). How Steve Rogers came to the modern world is well worth spending a movie on, if done well. The other key part to the origin is that Steve already had the right mindset to be a hero, even if his body wouldn’t let him. Falling on a grenade that he thought was live without a thought towards what would happen to him while everyone else dove for cover tends to show people what a hero is.
The First Avenger was done well. Once again, as in Iron Man and Thor, the right cast, the right crew, the right director were all involved. Joe Johnston, the director, had worked on pulp-like projects before, including The Rocketeer and Jumanji. The First Avenger definitely had a pulp feel, from time period to larger-than-life heroes and villains. Casting included bringing in Hugo Weaving as the Red Skull and Tommy Lee Jones as Colonel Carter.
If you go back a bit in Lost in Translation, you’ll find my review of Flash Gordon. The two movies work together to show what’s needed to make a good adaptation. Both movies had great casting for supporting roles, excellent music, and a script that acknowledged the comic book feel of the original works. The big difference is that Captain America didn’t have executive meddling. Flash‘s execs interfered with casting, to the point where de Laurentiis’ wife picked out Sam J. Jones from the lead role from a game show. Everyone involved in the making of Captain America had the goal of making the film a success.
Casting wasn’t the only item that got attention. Little details about Cap appeared. The shield he used during the PR tour was based on the original one from Captain America Comics #1, which had to be changed because of a similarity to the one carried by Archie Comics’ The Shield. The First Avenger also had links to the previous movies in the Avengers Initiative, with Yggdrasil, a Norse artifact, and possibly the fate of the Red Skill calling back to Thor and Tony Stark’s grandfather Howard a supporting character. These connections may be the first time a comic book movie acknowledges the rest of the original comic’s universe. Usually, multiple studios have rights for the different characters in a setting. In Marvel’s case, Sony had the rights to Spider-Man while Twentieth Century Fox had the X-Men. With the Avengers Initiative, though, all the movies are being created by Marvel Studios and being released through Paramount. Just as important, many elements of the Marvel Universe were introduced. Hydra, a secret society out for world domination, with the Red Skull and Arnim Zola, could easily be the antagonists of a Captain America sequel set in the modern day.
Was the adaptation accurate? Not completely. Bucky Barnes became Steve’s childhood friend and a sergeant in the US Army instead of being a kid mascot. The Howling Commandos appeared, but without Sgt. Fury. Philips became a colonel instead of a general. Small details. However, the feel of the movie, aided by the direction, by the music, hit the right note.
Next week, on the nature of remakes.
* Prior to the US officially getting involved in World War II.
** As in, the day of publication.
Superman, the superhero who started the entire genre, the Man of Steel who has been adapted many times to radio, television, and film, is returning to the silver screen in a reboot movie. Part of the movie will cover Superman’s origin. Which is great, except, well, if there’s one superhero whose origin is widely known to audiences, it’s Superman. The last son of Krypton, sent away by his parents as an infant as his homeworld exploded, landed on Earth on a farm in Kansas, raised by the Kents, then moved to Metropolis to become a mild-mannered reporter. The quick version can be, he was raised well by adoptive parents. How much time is going to be spent on Superman’s background? How do you show “raised well” when you have a limited time in the film. Spend too long, and you run into the problem Battleship did and lose a lot of energy, especially if the destruction of Krypton appears on screen. At the same time, Clark’s early years could be delved for great drama. In fact, Smallville was all about that delving. Why cover that same ground?
It may sound like I’m harping on origin stories, and I am. It feels like every reboot, remake, and adaptation of a superhero story has to spend time showing the hero getting his abilities. Lately, superhero movies have been focusing on the origin. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Some heroes, such as Iron Man and Thor have compelling beginning stories. With others, such as Batman and Spider-Man, the compelling feature isn’t getting powers (or, in Batman’s case, his wonderful toys), but why they turned to being heroes. Tony Stark created a suit of power armour to escape captors. Peter Parker failed to stop a robber who wound up killing Peter’s uncle. Bruce Wayne wanted revenge on the criminals who killed his parents in front of his young eyes. Clark Kent . . . was raised well. Something just doesn’t fit.
Don’t get me wrong. If a, say, Cloak & Dagger TV series were to be made, I’d expect the pilot to show how they got their powers.* Same with other characters like the Punisher, Zatanna, and Speedball. Not to mention, with television, there’s more time to set up longer arcs. In a movie, though, very few last longer than three hours, with most run times being under two.
Superman, though, isn’t known to just comic readers. He is arguably the best known superhero character around.** He’s been around since 1938. He’s been adapted to radio, serials, television, and movies. The most recent television adaptation, Smallville, was a ten season long origin story. Before that, Lois and Clark, the New Adventures of Superman*** managed to remind viewers of Clark’s humble beginnings by including Jonathan and Martha Kent as regular characters, even if they only appeared when Clark phoned home. The 1978 Superman movie with Christopher Reeve, the definitive Superman film for a generation, did spend time with Clark’s upbringing, but not in depth. However, remaking that movie shot for shot will leave people wondering why they just didn’t pop the 1978 film into the DVD player instead.
My hopes for the Superman reboot is that, if the director really needs to show the origin, then Clark’s background is done as a montage, quick enough to not lose energy, but long enough to show where Clark is from. The movie then should get to the heart of the plot.
Next week, despite the above, the Avengers Adaptation continues.
* In fact, how they got their powers – forcibly injected with synthetic drugs triggering their latent mutant abilities – is key to most of their comic runs, as they took the War on Drugs down to the pushers.
** Definitely in the top three, with Batman and Wonder Woman. Marvel’s Spider-Man and X-Men (as a group) fill out the top five.
*** Lois and Clark also took a different approach to Superman stories by examining the relationship between Lois Lane, Clark Kent, and Superman.
First of all, welcome to the fiftieth installment of Lost in Translation. I’ve learned a lot about the process of adapting a work over the past almost two years. I’ve watched shows and movies, both good and bad, to try to work out the common factors that work towards a good adaptation. The word “respect” kept popping up over and over.
However, older works do not stand up well to social progress. Pulp-era stories were aimed at a specific audience – men. Older science fiction and fantasy evolved out of those stories and kept the same biases. The main characters were men, and women, if they were in the story, were relegated to supporting cast. Many times, the woman in the story was the damsel to be distressed by the villain.
Times have changed. Audiences expect a more diverse cast. Women aren’t background characters anymore; neither are minorities. Marketing departments have realized this and will insist on adding the missing elements. A good example of a woman being added to a movie is The Hobbit. Galadriel was added in a scene to offset the rest of the entirely male cast. The original story featured thirteen dwarves and a hobbit, all men, going on an adventure. The novel represented JRR Tolkien’s background where men went to war and women tended the homefires.
These days, though, women can serve on the front lines. What was once chivalric is at best quaint and at worst sexist. The audience has changed. What was accepted before isn’t anymore. When it comes to adapting, though, making a change needs to be a delicate operation, especially if the original has a sizable fanbase. Composite characters can be used; audiences tend to understand the need to keep the cast manageable. But gender-switching can cause outrage. The Battlestar Galactica remake was running into this issue by changing Starbuck’s gender. However, as in Galactica‘s case, a well done final product can, if not remove, then ease the issue.
Creators now, though, can help in the adaptation process, and may already be doing so without realizing it. As mentioned above, a diverse cast goes a long way to help the production crew. If the elements already exist, there’s no need to add more. Sure, there are still other problems to deal with, such as studios not believing that a woman can carry an action movie.*
On a more celebratory note, I’ll pose a question. What do you feel were the best adaptations and remakes? What were the worst? And what ones should I take a look at in the future?
Next week, superheroes and origins.
* Conveniently forgetting both The Hunger Games and Tomb Raider.
The game Battleship is a venerable one, dating back to a pad-and-paper release by Milton Bradley in 1931, and even that game may have just been a codification of a game that existed before then. Milton Bradley released Battleship again in 1967, this time as a board game with plastic representation of ships and pegs to track hits and misses. The game was simple enough, hide your ships well enough on your board while still trying to find your opponent’s vessel. Last person to still have an un-sunk ship won. Nice, simple, not even a backstory involved. Just two evenly matched fleets, each with a battleship, aircraft carrier, destroyer, submarine, and patrol boat, trading shots.
In 1984, Hasbro bought out Milton Bradley and maintained it as its own subsidiary. This gave Hasbro access to a large number of popular games, such as Battleship. Hasbro has also been developing live-action movies of various toy lines over the past few years. Naturally, Battleship would be turned into a movie.
The movie Battleship had some problems. It had a $200 million budget, but, unlike Thor, the money wasn’t spent well. Actors were wasted in roles. The script had several eye-rolling errors, including an alien ship with materials “not found on the periodic table of elements”.* The movie plays out as a by-the-numbers action movie, with the lead character being such a screw up that his family still takes care of him in his mid-twenties, a love interest whose father is in charge of the screw up, a sacrificial family member, a rival the screw up has to work with for the greater good. The plot is telegraphed; twists are seen coming.
A judicious editor should have had a go at the script before it reached the filming stage. The first half hour sets up subplots and could have been done better and shorter. There are elements of the game poking in and out of the movie, but the titular battleship (played by the USS Missouri) is a Chekov’s gun and not the main stage. The board game’s grid appears after radar is useless to track the alien vessels; tsunami trackers allow the heroes to detect the aliens’ movements. The shots are even called the same way – “G-4”.
Obviously, an entire movie of grid-calling would get tedious. At the same time, that same grid-calling is the essence of Battleship. Games tend to abstract details; in real naval battles, ships keep moving so that they’re harder to hit, and the movie reflects that. There are several shots of five-ship groupings, and there’s an attempt at getting the game’s ships in, with the aircraft carrier, the battleship, and the destroyer.** The aliens’ shells even look like the pegs from the game.
With all that, though, the movie really can’t do much more with the Battleship title. It would be a far better movie under a different name. Stunt casting didn’t help. Liam Neeson is wasted with what little screen time he has. Rhianna didn’t bring much to her role, though she also didn’t take away from it; an experienced actor could have done more with the role of Raikes, the weapons specialist.*** With the addition of invaders from space, the movie was really Battleship in name only and another, a video game, would’ve fit the plot better.
Worse, there were elements in the plot that had so much more potential. The subplot of Mick****, a double amputee US Army colonel acting as an impromptu resistance against the aliens, could have been its own movie. The idea of using an older warship against an alien invasion because modern electronics are too easily hacked could have been done.***** There were bright spots throughout the movie. The aliens show tactical intelligence, wanting to get communications back up while disrupting infrastructure and military resources. They also don’t just attack in rushes to get killed; at the end of the movie, the aliens still had the higher number of kills.
Overall, the movie Battleship was disappointing. Although it had little to work from, it squandered what it brought together.
Next week, on adapting games to the big screen.
* All metals, even alloys, can be found on periodic table of elements. The table even leaves room for elements not found or created under lab conditions, just based on atomic structure.
** For all we know, there was a submarine, too, but we couldn’t see it under the water.
*** This is a risk whenever bringing in a singer as an actress; see also Kylie Minogue in Street Fighter.
**** Played by Colonel Gregory D. Gadson, who lost both legs above the knee in Iraq and is still on active duty. Sure, not much of a stretch in the role, but he knows the role well.
***** And has, though it was called a Battlestar instead.
Comic writers have created heroes based on myth and legend since the dawn of the superhero. Wonder Woman is an Amazon, blessed by the Greek gods. Fawcett’s (and, later, DC Comics’) Captain Marvel gained the powers of Greek and Roman gods and legends. Marvel Comics, though, tended to keep their heroes more grounded and human, with all the advantages and disadvantages of being mortal. Some, such as Doctor Strange, worked with forces far beyond the ken of ordinary men. However, even Marvel has dipped into the mythology pool. Instead of using the Greek and Roman myths, Marvel pulled a superhero out of Norse legend, the Mighty Thor.
Thor’s first appearance as a Marvel superhero came in 1962, in Journey into Mystery #83. His appearance in the comic would lead to it being renamed The Mighty Thor. A year after his first appearance, Thor was included in The Avengers as a founding member and mainstay of the team. When Marvel began its Ultimates line to try to prune fifty years of continuity without giving the original lines a hard reset, Thor carried over to the new universe.* In both lines, Thor wielded Mjolnir, a magic warhammer that grants the powers of flight, weather control, and shooting lightning bolts.
Marvel’s movie line, although with some rocky entries, has done well, with Marvel Studios having an excellent track record. The Avengers Initiative, starting with Iron Man, was done entirely within Marvel Studios, even after the Disney buy out. The idea behind the Avengers Initiative was to set up the origins of the major Avengers characters before releasing The Avengers itself. Thor was the third movie, following Iron Man and Iron Man 2, and shows how Thor came to Earth and to the attention of SHIELD. The movie shows, once again, what respecting the original material can do to help a movie succeed. In Thor‘s case, the movie paid attention not only to the comic book character but also to the original myths, pulling from both. Thor has a completely different feel to it compared to Iron Man. Part of the change comes from the director, Kenneth Branagh, best known for his adaptations of Shakespeare’s plays to the silver screen. Thor feels like an epic myth in modern times as Thor must learn what it means to be the king of the gods.
Helping elevate Thor is the quality of the cast. As seen in Iron Man, having the right actor in a role goes a long way to making a movie a success. The same idea comes to play in Thor. With such actors as Natalie Portman, Anthony Hopkins, Rene Russo, Colm Feore, Stellan Skarsgard, and Tom Hiddleston, and a script by Babylon 5 creator J. Michael Straczynski, the movie had a sturdy base to build from. With Kenneth Branagh directing, the movie came together wonderfully.
Thor had a budget of about $150 million. The movie shows that it’s not just how much is spent, it’s also on how the money is spent. Special effects in a comic book movie have to look at least as good as those drawn in the comics. The costumes must be as close as possible to what the characters normally wear**. These touches can make or break a movie, and, in Thor, these considerations were met and exceeded.
Next time, sinking an adaptation.
* But not the New Universe.
** Or at least have a shout-out, as seen in X-Men.
As seen many times here at Lost in Translation, classic works of fantasy, including myths and fairy tales, are modern fodder for the Hollywood adaptation engine. Fantasy, whether classic or urban is everywhere – television, silver screen, books, video games. The major influence for many of these is JRR Tolkien. The influence may not be direct; many fantasy video games can trace their roots back to Dungeons & Dragons; but, D&D‘s creators looked at, among other writers, Tolkien for world creating and game design.
The above-mentioned influence came mainly from Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings, but before the epic was a children’s story about a hobbit who reluctantly went on an adventure. The Hobbit, or There and Back Again followed Bilbo Baggins as he gets manipulated into joining thirteen dwarves in a quest to recover their homeland. Along the way, Bilbo discovers that he is more than what he appears to be, outwits trolls, and wins a game of riddles, and finds a magical ring. Middle Earth is presented as both being wondrous and dangerous.
After the success of his Lord of the Rings, Peter Jackson was signed on to produce an adaptation of The Hobbit. Originally to be done as one movie, the script grew to the point where two, then three movies would have to be made. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey was filmed in 3D at 48 frames per second, double the usual frame rate, though standard viewing was also released.
The new Hobbit does its best to stay close to the original story. Some characters from Lord of the Rings make cameos, particularly during the framing sequence.* CGI is evident, but not blatant. Care was taken to make sure each dwarf had an unique appearance. Magic is treated as wondrous and dangerous. The whimsy from The Hobbit, or There and Back Again is kept and is welcome at a time where most fantasies have gone dark and gritty. The story is treated as a personal one for Bilbo instead of the epic that the Lord of the Rings movies were.
However, some characters and scenes were added. A meeting between Gandalf, Saruman, and Galadriel that helps relate where The Hobbit stands relative to Lord of the Rings was never in the novel, with both Saruman and Galadriel being imports to the movie. Similarly, the framing device at the start of the film is set at the beginning of Fellowship of the Rings. The additions are understandable; tying the movie into the previous LotR trilogy enhances continuity, and having a movie without a woman in it is unthinkable to studios today.
Fans were already muttering about the novel being turned into a trilogy. Breaking the story into three parts, however, is one of the best ways to ensure that very little gets cut; the only other option is to turn the novel into a television mini-series. Television, though, doesn’t get the budget needed to do all the special effects or get the cast.
Ultimately, this is the best live-action adaptation possible with current technologies and will be enough for the casual fan and the fan drawn in by the Lord of the Rings movies, but will still leave hardcore fans of the original story cold.
Next time, continuing the Avengers Adaptation.
* It appears that Jackson is assuming that people have seen /Lord of the Rings/ but haven’t read The Hobbit.
Happy New Year!
I trust the holidays were well for everyone. I, for one, managed to get out to enjoy a bit of research for Lost in Translation* and took in the sights**. This year, 2013, is going to be filled with adaptations and remakes. Here are some of the coming adaptations.
A Good Day to Die Hard
Bruce Willis is back as John McClane, the hard-luck New York cop who somehow manages to find himself in the middle of a bad situation. A Good Day to Die Hard is the fifth of the series, with the original /Die Hard/ having been based on Nothing Lasts Forever by Roderick Thorpe. Die Hard itself changed action movies, allowing the main character to get battered, bruised, and beaten. The previous movie in the series, Live Free or Die Hard, received mixed reactions, most of the problems in it came from the studio wanting a PG-13 rating, cutting the gore and the language (including McClane’s catchphrase).
The Smurfs 2
The lovable three-apple high blue creatures with a limited vocabulary are returning to the big screen. The original adaptation did well enough, thanks to having Neil Patrick Harris and to appealing to a wide audience. This will be the middle movie of a Smurf trilogy.
Despicable Me 2
Although billed as a sequel, Despicable Me 2 is a spin-off from the original movie. The focus switches to the minions, who gained the affection of audiences.
Oz, The Great and Powerful
From Disney, Oz, The Great and Powerful is a prequel to The Wizard of Oz, telling the story of the Oz himself and how he got to be the Wizard. The trailer appears to be following the movie continuity of Oz, not Baum’s books. However, more people are more familar with the movie starring Judy Garland (or The Wiz, with Diana Ross and Michael Jackson) than the books. Disney’s recent record on adapatations is excellent, though***.
Beautiful Creatures
The first non-sequel, non-prequel on the list, Beautiful Creatures is based on the young adult novel by Kami Garcia and Margaret Stohl. If the movie does well, the rest of the Caster Chronicles should follow.
Hansel and Gretel, Witch Hunters
Fairy tales seem to be Hollywood’s go-to source lately. With TV series like Grimm and Once Upon a Time and movies such as Red Riding Hood and Snow White and the Huntsman, darker takes on the tales are popular.****
Evil Dead
With Sam Raimi producing, the remake of the B-movie classic The Evil Dead should draw attention from fans of the original. Raimi is taking what he has learned since filming The Evil Dead and applying it to the remake.
The Takeaway
Originality in Hollywood is still at a low point. However, adaptations have long been a part of the movie scene; the much beloved The Wizard of Oz was released in 1939. People wanting originality may have to look elsewhere, such as books and television, or deeper, at how an adaptation is handled and look for nuance.
Next time, what do I have in my columnses?
* I went to a movie.
** I checked out the posters for upcoming releases.
*** Thor, Captain America, Avengers. The exception is John Carter, which is more of a marketing failure than anything else.
**** Though, darker is relative here. Many popular fairy tales have been cleaned up and made more palatable for children and their parents over the centuries since their first appearance.
The 2012 television season saw a number of adaptations and remakes. One of the new crop followed the trend of adapting fairy tales, joining Grimm and Once Upon a Time. The new Beauty and the Beast is a remake of a previous adaptation of the classic fairy tale.
The original fairy tale told a story of how a young woman saw through the outer ugliness of a man to find his inner beauty. In 1987, the TV series Beauty and the Beast took the idea and brought it to the modern world. The beauty, Catherine Chandler, played by Linda Hamilton, was a District Attorney. The Beast, Vincent, played by Ron Perlman, lived as an outcast. A chance meeting between them after Catherine was attacked and left for dead introduced her to the World Below, a sanctuary for those who do not fit in the mundane world. Beauty and the Beast built on top of Gothic romances as popularized by authors such as Anne Rice and could be considered the prototypical paranormal romance. The series explored the relationship between Catherine and Vincent, revealing the inner beauty in each of them.
The new Beauty and the Beast has Kristen Kreuk in the role of Catherine and Jay Ryan as Vincent. The new series changed Catherine’s job from District Attorney to detective. The approach drops the urban fantasy of the original series. Vincent, instead of being born a beast-like being, had undergone top secret experiments while in the Army, akin to Captain America‘s super-soldier serum. An ongoing plot-line involving Catherine’s mother and the experiments was added. Vincent doesn’t have a beast-like appearance; but, because of the experiments, can experience animal-like rage.
One of the big criticisms of the new Beauty and the Beast is Vincent’s appearance. As mentioned, the fairy tale was about looking past the outside to see the person within. The new Beauty presents an attractive Vincent with an ugly, dangerous being inside waiting to explode out. Also gone, the urban fantasy and sense of wonder from Catherine discovering a hidden world. Time will tell if the writers can explore the relationship while managing the police procedural elements and the subplots involving Catherine’s mother and the experiments on Vincent.
Next time, a new year dawns.
First, please accept my apologies for not producing anything for over a month. Life got away from me and needed to be netted. Okay, there were butterfly nets involved. That’s what they told me.
As I mentioned before, I particpated in the National Novel Writing Month. To add to the challenge of writing a novel of at least 50 000 words, I decided to create a story that took in the lessons of Lost in Translation. That is, I wanted to write something that could be easily adapted without worrying too much that there would be much to be altered. Those who want to read Beaver Flight can download it from Google Drive. It is currently unfinished, unpolished, and low on my writing priority list, but will work as an example here.
My first consideration was cast size. While a novel can have a huge cast consisting of main, supporting, and incidental characters, often for adaptations they will get combined and even cut to save on the costs of hiring actors. Thus, my core cast was kept to four characters; Darcy, Renée, Victoria, and Dominique. The story had a Canadian slant to it, in part because I am Canadian and in part to make it easier for the adaptation to get grants from the Canadian government. Cynical, but funding needs to be a concern, especially with an adaptation that requires special effects.
Next, setting. The core idea is a gender-flipping of the classic B-movie trope of Mars Needs Women! However, I wanted to keep the fighting away from Earth itself and possibly the populace kept in the dark. This builds off the limited cast idea above. With an isolated base, replacement characters would take time to arrive. The pilot episode (if Beaver Flight was a TV series) could show the difficulties of getting to the lunar base with its higher budget with later episodes helping to ameliorate the cost of the setting. The moon’s low-gravity is still an issue, though, even in the unfinished manuscript.
Props are going to be an interesting element. Each of the main characters pilots powered armour; something larger than Iron Man‘s suit but far smaller than the traditional Japanese mecha as seen in the various Gundam series or Patlabor. Each suit will be distinctive; Dominique’s needs to be taller since she herself is the tallest character in the story. However, and only implied in the story, the base design of the powered armour is common to all suits, with only the paint and the markings by nation and pilot being the main visual differences.*
Key sets are minimized. The main ones on the lunar base includes the mecha hangar bay, the pilots’ briefing room, Beaver Flight’s shared bedroom, and the cafeteria. Other locations can come up, but aren’t as key. The area outside the hangar bay doors needs to be created, as will lunar landscapes. Fortunately, reuse of graphics and settings will be common.
As mentioned, I’m placing Beaver Flight low on my priority list. I feel that the story doesn’t really fit a novel format. The original concept, I feel, would work better in a more serialized manner, whether it’s a webcomic, TV series, or even a series of short stories. As I neared the 50 000th word of the story, I started adding elements that were meant to appear later, such as the breaking of the secrecy and the appearance of the alien invaders. However, with the manuscript, I can go back, turn the work into something that fits it better, and then polish it up.
In the end, getting the story to a point where it can be adapted without too many problems is extra work. Consideration has to be taken for the more expensive budget elements to try to keep costs in hand. Casts need to be limited; few movies and TV series have a core cast larger than seven. However, getting these elements worked in should make adapting the work easier, keeping the adaptation closer to the original.
Next week, urban fantasy renewal.
* Not used in the manuscript but completely acceptable by my standards – cutie marks on each suit of powered armour to add to the distinctions.
