On updating a classic (Off-Topic)

by CruelLEGACEY , Toronto, Wednesday, April 17, 2019, 13:23 (2045 days ago) @ cheapLEY
edited by CruelLEGACEY, Wednesday, April 17, 2019, 13:27

At its heart, The Last Jedi doesn’t seem to be about any of the core ideas that Star Wars has always been about.

And maybe that it’s not that thing anymore. I offer no judgment on whether that’s good or bad. But Star Wars has a lot of baggage. It’s hard to forget it all, but I think a lot of the new trilogy is dependent on leaving some of that at the door, for good or ill. The problem comes from the fact that the creators of the new trilogy aren’t fully willing to do that themselves.

This is an interesting issue, right here. Just like the Jedi order needed to change, so too do the movies need to update and shift with the times. But there is a line, or a difference, between updating a thing and changing it into something else. This comes up in nerd culture all the time. A new creative team takes over an established franchise, and decides to "do their own thing" with it. More often than not, the fans are not happy. Now, nerds (myself included) can be unreasonable about change. I've used this example before, but the case of X-Men fans freaking out when Hugh Jackman was cast as Wolverine, because Jackman is 6'2" and Logan is supposed to be 5'3". Now, I'm sure there are exceptions, but most of the fans who were complaining were not actually unable to accept a tall version of Logan. What worried them was the thought that if the filmmakers couldn't even get this kind of superficial detail right, then how could they hope to convey they underlying nuances of the X-Men universe that make it what it is. Its the same reason famous pop stars will put crazy stipulations in their rider, like "I want a bowl of Blue M&Ms in my dressing room". They don't actually care about the M&Ms, but they want a quick and easy way to confirm upon arrival at the venue that the promoters have properly read the rider, and are committed to fulfilling their end of the agreement.

So nerds can be detail-obsessed, and they often go too far. But look at what happened after the first X-Men movie was released. It was ok... decent, overall. But Jackman was fantastic. He nailed the character, as much as could be hoped for given the constraints of the movie. The same fans who had been complaining a few months earlier were now praising Jackman's casting and his performance. He got Wolverine right.

Any character or franchise that is beloved has something way down at its core that makes it what it is. Batman is fundamentally different than Superman. Both characters have gone through countless iterations and incarnations. The 60s Batman TV show and The Dark Knight are barely recognizable as the same character. But they are both, at their core, the same in a certain way. Just as they are both different from any incarnation of Superman. These differences matter. They are what make these characters, universes, and franchises what they are.

I think Batman is actually a great example of just how elastic the fan base can be when it comes to the range of interpretations of a character they will accept, as long as the core of that character is maintained. Batman is a realist. He is all too familiar with how ugly the world can be. He is, unlike Superman, physically vulnerable, and threatened by all the same problems that threaten those he protects. There are other elements of his character that he shares with most archetypal heroes, such as Superman. He takes personal responsibility for the wellbeing of the people of Gotham. To the degree that he can protect them from evil, he feels that any
act of evil that befalls the people of Gotham is his problem, his fault. The Joker is his responsibility.

If someone makes a Batman movie and gets either of these sides of his personality wrong, then it isn't a Batman movie. Not really. It might still be a good movie, but the fans will not accept it as part of "cannon" in their own minds.

So the question then becomes "well, if you're not maintaining the true core of the character or franchise, then why are you making a Batman movie? Why not make your own original thing?". Inevitably, the perceived answer to that question is "because Batman is popular" or "the costume looks cool" or something like that. The fans know when they are being exploited. I wouldn't go as far as to say that Star Wars fans are in that situation. Not yet. But there was an unmistakable feeling during The Last Jedi that Ryan Johnson was going out of his way to make a Star Wards movie that was as un-Star Wars-y as possible in certain ways (he has basically said so himself). And that ticks some fans off. Yes its only a movie. But people don't like having something that they love twisted and altered beyond recognition and then sold back to them because "we know you'll watch it anyway". And then when they complain, the creators insult them or question their character, to boot.

I was trying to think of examples of franchises that have been updated without pissing off the fans. I'm sure there are several, but the first one that came to my mind was James Bond. It's another example of a franchise that has gone through so many interpretations that it is hardly recognizable as the same character, but just like Batman or Wolverine or Star Wars, there is a core to the character that makes him who he is. The Bond franchise has been re-vamped and re-launched twice in recent memory, both times to great success and praise from the fans (and both times by the same director, I believe). Goldeneye was a great modernization of the franchise when it came out in 1995. The older Bond films were saturated in cultural trends and fashions that... have not aged well, to say the least. Humor that was perfectly acceptable in the early 70s could be flagrantly misogynistic by the standards of the 90s. But this is where the filmmakers of Goldeneye showed some insight. They realized that times have changed, but they also knew that Bond is not a man who lets himself get emotionally attached to anyone, women included. And any man who goes through life that way is bound to end up treating people, including romantic partners, as disposable. That attitude is part of what makes James Bond who he is. So rather than turning James Bond into a proud feminist and emotionally available partner, they kept his attitudes the same and framed it as a personal failing. And BAM, you have a movie where the character feels true to who he is, while the trappings around the story are updated to fit modern times. They pulled it off again with Casino Royal, once again telling a story that felt more contemporary and complex without throwing away the core elements that make Bond archetypal and timeless.

TL;DR

I think change is good, and often necessary. But sometimes the baby gets thrown out with the bathwater, so to speak :)