Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
This post’s title is a bit vague. Someone familiar with my interests might suppose it has something to do with the Well World series by Jack L. Chalker — I’ve posted about it before. I won’t draw out whatever suspense you might have — the well in question is humanity’s wellspring of stories.
The revisiting is our love of nostalgia in all the sequels, serials, remakes, reboots, adaptations, borrowings, homages, parodies, and pastiches. To name but some. And make no mistake, all stories have elements of other stories. Boil stories down enough and the reductions begin to look similar (the infamous seven plots).
But I find myself bemused by how obsessed we get about drinking from the same well over and over when there are so many other interesting wells.
Some time ago, I published a series of posts about live-action adaptations of well-established graphic media (from comic books to animation). [The ten posts starting with this one and ending with this one.] I think these adaptations are usually a Bad Idea, which is why so many fail.
The focus here is on stories that explicitly (or clearly implicitly) claim to be a retelling of an existing story, typically a well-known one. And hence, a key aspect of the story is the retelling. If the original story is largely unknown, I’d call that more of a borrowing, using, or stealing, depending on your perspective. So an adaptation, because of this claim, is necessarily judged against its source.
§
As always, it’s good to start by defining our terminology:
Remake: a faithful retelling; an homage. All the terms below are remakes in some sense. Even a sequel is a kind of remake.
Reboot: a more revisionist retelling.
Adaptation: a remake in a different medium. Often also a reboot, but some stories have moved seamlessly from one medium to another. The first Star Trek movies are something of an example, although they’re better seen as reboots than sequels. Depends on strength of the link to the original.
Sequel: same reality, same characters. In some cases, a continuation of a previous “chapter”. That said, there are examples of works that call themselves sequels but have little or no connection to the original. A prequel is a sequel that takes place before the events of original.
Spinoff: same reality but with minor characters center stage. The Tom Stoppard play, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead (1966), is an early example of a spinoff. Star Wars has had a ton of spin-offs.
Also: homage (a loving retelling), imitation (a lazy retelling), “cheap copy” (an even lazier retelling), “cash grab” (a laziest possible retelling), pastiche (a thinly veiled homage), parody (a mocking retelling), satire (a humorous parody), deconstruction (an analytical retelling), and revision (an anti-retelling). Retellings all.
Some examples:
The classic cultural milestone Star Trek: The Original Series is, as its retrofitted title says, an original. (Except that Roddenberry framed it as Wagon Train to the stars, so it has borrowings, even homages.) ST: The Animated Series was a reboot. So was ST: The Next Generation. Both were, in fact, pretty good. ST:TNG was often very good. ST: Enterprise was a reboot prequel (I liked it, many didn’t). ST: Deep Space Nine and ST: Voyager were spinoffs. The first ten movies were adaptations as well as reboot sequels. The later movies (new Kirk and crew) were reboots (and not sequels). ST: Discovery and ST: Picard are cynical (and awful) sad imitations that never should have been made. There is also some recent fluff of little account. (I decided, at the 50-year anniversary of the original series that I’d had enough Star Trek for one lifetime.)
The Peter Jackson Lord of the Rings trilogy is an adaptation. A really damned good one. His The Hobbit trilogy is a cash-grab. (Or, just maybe, a labor of love corrupted by studio stupidity and greed. It was definitely a bloated mess.)
§
In all cases listed above, the new is an intended copy of the old. Which necessarily raises the question: “Why?” What is the reason for returning to the well rather than drilling a new hole? Often the answer is “Cash!” but sometimes it’s “Love!” It’s not uncommon for the former to fail and the latter to succeed. Audiences can often detect cynicism.
There is something of a dilemma here. Revisiting a well, especially a popular one, brings with it all those who loved that water. The hope is that fans crave another sip from their beloved well. (The other edge of that sword is disappointing their expectations or even angering them.) Conversely, being original — a heartfelt drive of any artist — risks being ignored or disliked.
Arthur Conan Doyle came to dislike his famous character, Sherlock Holmes, and wanted to write more serious fiction. But readers clamored for Holmes and largely ignored Doyle’s more literary efforts. He killed Holmes but was forced to bring him back “due to popular demand.” An especially popular character or story setting can be a trap.
Sometimes, though, it’s a wonderful marriage. I don’t think Terry Pratchett ever tired of writing his Discworld books. We readers certainly never tired of reading them. I think a big part of that was his large cast of characters and the way each book had its own underlying theme.
§
There is an important distinction between remakes and sequels. The former tells the same story whereas the latter tells a new story. Some sequels are part of a continuing story (the John Wick movies are a good example) and some are distinct stories (the Jack Reacher series, in fact most detective series, are good examples).
There is also the notion of following the artist (be it Mozart, Picasso, Stephen King, Fleetwood Mac, or Quentin Tarantino). When we’ve come to like someone’s work, we want to see (or read or listen to) it all. Of course we do!
In a similar vein, people might love and follow a character. Superman is a good example. Hundreds (if not thousands) of artists have produced Superman stories over the decades. One can also follow a genre, murder mysteries, for example. Or jazz.
These are all cases of revisiting the well, and many of them involve retellings to some degree, but none are obvious remakes or adaptations. (Except for Tarantino’s Jackie Brown (1997), which is a very good adaptation of Elmore Leonard’s Rum Punch.)
The point being that all stories borrow to some degree, but overt remakes and adaptations are more extreme — and thus more questionable — in that borrowing. They are far more likely to be cynical cash grabs. Some sequels are just as bad (Star Wars and Marvel, looking squarely at you — Disney, once a fount of creativity, has become downright egregious and moribund).
§ §
A rough draft of this post — more a set of notes and notions — has squatted in my Drafts folder since the ten-post series mentioned above. Some of the notes go back even further. The topic of adaptations and remakes is such a big one I can’t hope to cover it all in one post. (So, I will probably revisit this well!)
There is so much to say that it’s hard to organize it coherently. One could spend a year writing a book on the topic. Which I have no desire to do. To get this out the door, the rest of this post is observations on some specific revisits to wells.
§
A Christmas Carol (1843), Charles Dickens. One of my favorite stories and my only real Christmas tradition. Wikipedia has an entire page devoted to adaptations of this great story. They run the gamut from serious to comic, but most of them are homages. One of my favorites is the Mr. Magoo animation from 1962. I also have a soft spot for the modernized Scrooged (1988) with Bill Murray. That said, I have the highest regard for the faithful adaptations [see these posts].
Sherlock Holmes (1887-1927), A.C. Doyle. A set of (mostly disconnected) sequels. An often-imitated trope and wellspring of adaptations, homages, and pastiches. Wikipedia has one page for adaptations and another for pastiches. Another personal favorite [see these posts].
Harry Potter (1997-2007), J.K. Rowling. Seven books, each with their own story but with an overall arc. Worthy movie adaptations. Should have ended when it ended, though. Fantastic Beasts is pretty awful, especially in comparison. Perhaps we can add Rowling to George Lucas and Peter Jackson on the list of creators with a forever milestone followed by an effort many saw as forever crap. Icarus in action, perhaps.
Star Wars (1977-????), originally George Lucas, now a committee and a community. A New Hope (episode IV) blew me away. It forever changed the SF movie landscape. The two that followed were worthy sequels. The less said about the prequel trilogy the better. I refuse to recognize any others exist. (Talk about cynical badly done cash grabs.)
Cowboy Bebop (2021), Christopher Yost. A remake of the 1998 classic Cowboy Bebop. More critically, a live-action adaptation of a classic animation. Despite its attempt to be faithful, it was a quickly cancelled disaster because it didn’t truly understand the original. It never should have been made in the first place and absolutely not like it was [see this post].
Blade Runner 2049 (2017), Denis Villeneuve. A sequel to the 1982 Ridley Scott classic Blade Runner (which is an adaptation of the 1968 novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? by the great Philip K. Dick). It wasn’t horrible so much as unnecessary and quickly forgotten in the deluge of modern garbage. As with the Cowboy Bebop adaptation, it tarnishes the memory of a great classic [see this post].
Westworld (2016-2022), Jonathan Nolan and Lisa Joy. A reboot and TV series adaptation of the movies Westworld (1973) and Futureworld (1976). [It takes its name from the former but is loosely based on the latter.] The first season was excellent, the second went downhill, the third and fourth were increasingly bad, and HBO rightfully cancelled it before the fifth [see these posts].
Ghostbusters (2016), Paul Feig. A gender-swapping reboot of the classic 1984 Ghostbusters by Ivan Reitman, Dan Aykroyd, and Harold Ramis. The original has a 1989 sequel and a 2021 sequel (which I haven’t seen but have heard is okay). Another sequel comes out in December. There are also animations and TV shows based on the original. The reboot attracted a lot of misogynistic criticism, but the true crime is that it was poorly written and executed. That said, I’m one of the few that didn’t hate it (perhaps because I was never a big fan of the original).
Lost in Space (2018-2021) and Lost in Space (1998). Both reboots of the same-named TV series that ran from 1965-1968 (which was based on the 1812 novel, The Swiss Family Robinson). The old TV series was okay for its time (I had a major crush on Judy Robinson) but the show got increasingly cheesy. Started dramatic but devolved into comedy. The movie adaptation was forgettable, the TV reboot even more so (I bailed after the first season).
Bewitched (2005), Nora Ephron. A movie adaptation and reboot of the same-named TV series that ran from 1964 to 1972. It starred Nicole Kidman and Will Ferrell and wasn’t horrible. Kinda cute, actually. Mentioned here mostly because Samantha Stevens (Elizabeth Montgomery) was my other big childhood crush.
Murphy Brown (2018) and Will & Grace (2017-2020). Both revivals (sequels) of their same-named originals (which ran 1988-1997 and 1998-2006, respectively). The revivals brought back the original stars, and it was nice to see them again. But the Murphy Brown revival was awful, unwatchable, and quickly cancelled. The Will & Grace revival was better. Both suffered from being no longer relevant.
§
Rarely, revisiting the well with an adaptation is successful:
Watchmen (2009), Zack Snyder. A live-action film adaptation of the 1987 Alan Moore/David Gibbons classic graphic novel, Watchmen. The original was groundbreaking and a major influence on comics. The film adaptation was extremely faithful visually and structurally. In places, the cinematography clearly uses the comic as a storyboard. The story is very faithful as well, and I would argue the change to the ending improves the story. Thumbs up!
Sin City (2005), Robert Rodriguez and Frank Miller. A live-action adaptation of Miller’s 1992 graphic novel, Sin City. Both the film and the gnovel are visually noteworthy, and the adaptation is faithful visually and in terms of story and tone. Another rare successful live-action adaption.
What stand out in both cases, in the gnovels and their adaptations, is how adult the writing is in comparison with most modern fare. It is possible to create good adaptations, it’s just not common anymore.
§ §
These have all just scratched the surface of the many remakes, reboots, sequels, and adaptations. The ones touched on here are near and dear, and even so, I’ve left many out.
The bottom line is that there’s quite a spectrum from fair to foul, but it’s hard to create a worthy revisit. Most are forgettable, some are travesties, and some are rare gems. Personally, I think our love of more of the same speaks poorly of us.
Stay original, my friends! Go forth and spread beauty and light.
∇