So let's have a chat. It's been a minute since we shared a chinwag and now theres lots to talk about. First of all, where have I been? At work...being a dad...playing "Majora's Mask" on my N64, working on a super-secret project *coughs* who said that?! *coughs*, long story short I've been around, I've just been lazy and though I've been wanting to write an article the will do so continues to elude me. But thankfully today I decided to sit down and actually write an article (obviously) and BOY HOWDY do we have a topic considering so much has happened in this particular sphere and by that I mean entertainment. I've been saying for a LONG time now that the current producers within Hollywood have NO creativity and I've been proven right time and time again. Now I'm not here to write about how I'm always right about these topics (and I am and I'd love to but that'd be self-serving and I don't do that on this blog...shut up!) and I'm not exactly going bemoan the lack (or non-existent) creativity of the Hollywood system, I am however going to discuss the topic and posit a few questions that hopefully I can answer.
However, before we get into the article proper I think it's wise to define some terms because people use certain terms interchangeably and that's not how those terms work so allow me to define my terms before we dive in;
Reboot: This is usually reserved for TV shows. Reboots are NOT Revivals! For example "Rosanne" returned to the airways now under the title of "The Conners". This is NOT a Reboot, this is a Revival. They're continuing the same story with the same cast. A Reboot would be the current "Charmed" series on The CW, different cast, new storyline. Essentially starting the series over from square one. With little to no connection to the previous series except in name only.
Revival: A Revival is also reserved for TV shows. When a show finally reaches its series finale and bows gracefully off the small screen that's usually the last time we'll see any of those characters UNLESS of course, the show gets a revival. For a revival, the main cast (or lead actor) usually returns to squeeze one more adventure out of their character. Note also the same actor and same characters. This is NOT a spin-off the features the lead character, rather the lead character is BACK and the show is back. Perfect examples of this would be: "Dexter", "24", "Prison Break" and the previously mentioned "Rosanne/ The Conners" revivals. All of the shows have had their respective series finales years ago only to return years later.
Remake: Now this is a tricky one because while remakes and reboots are often the same things there is a subtle difference between the two, a remake CAN retain the same actors, a remake is often a re-tooling of what's come before it. Since movies can be redone to death, more often than not a remake will either breathe new life into the material or update it for a modern audience. For example "The Shining" came out in 1980, Stanley Kubrick's version anyway, Stephen King hated that version and decided to have his own version in 1997 via TV mini-series. There's also "Carrie" which came out in 1976 and "Carrie" which came out in 2013. Remakes are usually about updating old material, think of it as giving an old car a new engine and a fresh coat of paint. Some are better than their originals, others are not (looking directly at you "Charlie and The Chocolate Factory"...you know what you did.) but ultimately remakes are something that is here to stay and are not in and of themselves a bad thing.
Finally, we have;
Adaptation: Adaptations and remakes are very often the same things except for a one caveat, adaptations are often a transferring of medium or language. For example, all of the Marvel movies are adaptations, the source material is the character's respective comic books and while what's in the books don't entirely reflect what's on-screen, all of the primary trappings that make that character that character are present (or at least they should be...) The same goes for "Romeo and Juliet", it was a Play before it was a movie. Basically, all movies whose origins are not movies count as Adaptations. Likewise, foreign films remade for American audiences are adaptations as well, and while Yes, you can call them remakes and be perfectly accurate, the point is that considering the film in question began life in a different culture and different language, certain things might not come across as poignant to audiences unfamiliar with said culture. Case in point the original film "Oldboy" featured a hypnotist at the end of the film with Oh-Dae-su (the main character) asking to make him forget a certain event in the film (I'm not gonna spoil "Oldboy" if you haven't seen that movie you NEED to watch it...seriously, that movie rules), the American adaptation featured no hypnotist as American culture doesn't have much mysticism to it with regards to hypnotism and things of the like. Therefore this aspect was "adapted out" of the remake, therefore disqualifying it from being a proper remake, you understand?
 |
| We shall not speak of this ever... |
And YES, before you start I do understand that "The Shining", "Charlie and The Chocolate Factory" and "Carrie" are all adaptations as well but as I've said they were made once and made again so while YES the original films are all adaptations the remakes are remakes, hope that makes sense. Anyway. Now that we've defined our terms, let's dive in!
So Hollywood has been on something of a creative drought for oh say the last decade! And that's no more clearer to me than it is now with certain shows rearing their heads in these modern times. However, I'd like to ask a question, a philosophical question as old as time itself, and it's basically the Ship of Theseus...although in this case the TV show of Theseus. Let's look at "Invincible" adapted from the comic book of the same name. If you're into entertainment media and have been keeping up on comic books or have seen the "Think *insert name here*, THINK!" memes and such you've probably heard of "Invincible". However, what you may not know is that "Invincible" has a bit of controversy surrounding the character of Amber, Invincible's girlfriend. You may think I'm talking about Amber being a complete and total manipulative, self-absorbed, b*tch to Mark during their relationship (and you'd be right) BUT I'm not, I'm actually talking about the WORLD of difference between Amber Bennet in the comics and Amber Bennet in the adaptation.
For starters, Amber in the adaptation is Black, very dedicated to social justice (whatever the hell that means), volunteers, at a soup kitchen, and is a complete and total self-absorbed b*tch, who despite knowing her boyfriend is a superhero and has nearly died on several occasions (she's seen the bruises and showed absolutely NO concern) gets angry with him because he didn't tell her (someone he's only been seeing for all of a month?) that he's a superhero and breaks up with him. Prior to this during one of Mark's absences she attempts to cheat on Mark (with someone she just met) and the ONLY thing that stops her ISN'T THE FACT THAT SHE'D BE CHEATING ON HER BOYFRIEND WHO IS LITERALLY TRYING TO SAVE THE WORLD (bear in mind that at this point she knows Mark is a superhero), its that the guy she wanted to cheat on Mark with already has a girlfriend. Ultimately they break up with all of Mark's friends defending Amber's position and claiming Mark was in the wrong for not informing her he was a superhero. Ultimately, Amber and Mark get back together after she witnesses Mark get the crap kicked out of him by someone he trusted. Her reasoning for getting back together with him is that they both have been "lied to"...
The Amber Bennet in the source material is White and while she doesn't have much characterization she does show concern for Mark and believes his constant absences are due to him being a drug dealer to support his mother. Upon finding out he's a superhero she's relieved and they have sex for the first time but they ultimately break up amicably due to Mark needing to focus on his life and her not being able to handle Mark's life. Now I ask you, Dear Reader, why was Amber's race, personality, and the ultimate conclusion to that storyline altered in such a way? Maybe to give Amber more character? Absolutely! But why make her Black? And what did you score on your Marksmanship evaluat-- Oh sorry, wrong line of questioning. Anyway, why make her Black? Could Amber not be Amber if she stayed White? was there a problem with her being White? Could she not have been dedicated to social justice and a volunteer if she were White? Or was this merely an arbitrary change made by producers because the original comic "lacked diversity" so they needed to put a "strong" Black woman in the adaptation so us Negros would watch it? Hold that thought.
Let's consider "The Wonder Years", a show from many moons ago that featured the life of Kevin Arnold, you everyday average boy growing up in 1980s Americana. The show is a cultural time capsule of that era all narrated by future Kevin looking back on the events. I liked this show a lot growing up, now granted I haven't watched it in ages and I'm not really interested in it now but at the time it was the predecessor to a lot of the current sitcoms without laugh tracks that we have today. "The Wonder Years" was treated like a primetime family drama but had many comedic moments like any sitcom (without going over the top). Kevin Arnold was relatable and shared many experiences any little boy growing up would experience. Fast forward to today and now they're rebooting "The Wonder Years" with *drum roll* AN ALL BLACK CAST!
But I ask you, if the show has nothing to do with Kevin Arnold and the main character is not a retooled version of Kevin Arnold named Kevin Arnold and the show takes place in Alabama, WHY then called this show "The Wonder Years" if NOT to capitalize on the fame and success of its White predecessor? Why not call this show "Montgomery", after its setting or "The Williams", after the central family? With a producer like Saladin K. Peterson (producer of my favorite sit-com, "Fraiser" and many others) and a star like Don Cheadle attached to the project, how could this have not survived as it's own thing? Look at "Black-ish" and show that now somehow has spin-offs (of course, we can't rule out some sort of pact with Satan) managed to stand as its own property without utilizing the namesake of another or "Everybody Hates Chris", another show that set itself in the 1980s, even though the title invokes the imagery of "Everybody Loves Raymond" the shows are nothing alike. Furthermore, they didn't bother to separate this "Wonder Years" from the previous "Wonder Years", they didn't add a suffix or anything to note that this is no longer Kevin's story, they could have called it "The Wonder Years: Montogmery" or "The Wonder Years: Next Generation" or anything else, no, they called it "The Wonder Years" as if the previous one didn't happen.
 |
| Can we not, please? |
Even "Star Trek" featured suffixes to tell the viewer that they're not following Kirk anymore but we're still in the same universe. They didn't reboot the series by calling "Next Generation" "Star Trek" and ignoring Kirk's legacy. Now "Star Trek" fans address the shows by their suffixes; "Voyage", "Next Generation", "DS9", "Enterprise", "Discovery" and so on. Each series is its own entity, BUT "The Wonder Years" reboot has to be called "The Wonder Years" even though there is enough to make it its own property, no, it's "The Wonder Years", because despite being an original property that has nothing to do with "The Wonder Years" it absolutely, has to be, beyond a shadow of a doubt a "Wonder Years" reboot because...? Now the cynic in me wants to say the reason this is called "The Wonder Years" is because the cast of the original was mostly White and this way the series can explore topics (racism, because what the hell else do Black people talk about?) the other series couldn't with a diverse perspective, the cynic in me wants to say that and more than likely I'd be right. Now I get it, I'm Strawmanning here but let's be honest, dumber things have been said in the past, and considering this show will be tackling Martin Luther King Jr.'s Assassination at some point I'm not exactly far off the mark. Truth is I wouldn't have given a toss about this show if it hadn't been called "The Wonder Years" and yet another needless Hollywood reboot.
Speaking of needless Hollywood reboots, let's talk about "The Fresh Prince Of Bel-Air" now getting a reboot simply titled "Bel-Air", it will be a more dramatic retelling of the original series. Now there is NO overestimation in explaining just how important the original series is to our culture. The series is a time capsule of 90s Americana, not Black Americana, Americana in general. Wanting to be hip and cool, staying true to who you are no matter what, and learning to not change who you are despite location and wealth, maturing and learning about life...and lots of neon colors...my goodness, the neon...The thing about "The Fresh Prince Of Bel-Air" is that sure it was about a Black family but Black wasn't the only thing they were, they were people. Sure they had the obligatory racism episode but that was the 90s and a message about race wasn't in every single episode, nor were topical events of the era (aside from a few references to O.J. and Rodney King), each episode was about a family dealing with their fish out of water nephew and the hijinx he'd get into and eventually watching him mature into an adult.
My fear for "Bel-Air" however is that it'll become the obligatory show about modern-day racism. You see The Banks lived in a majority White neighborhood, however, none of the neighbors (the ones who we saw anyway) never cared about The Banks living there, in the new series that'll probably be discussed every 5 minutes and I know I'm judging the series before it comes out but given the quality of writing we've been seeing these days am I really outta line? Take a show like "Black-ish" which I couldn't even stomach for 5 minutes, in "The Fresh Prince" Carlton was an open and outspoken Republican and while Will ribbed him for it, he never condescended and his family didn't care all that more, nor did their political views ever come to the forefront. In "Black-ish" Andre continues to berate his son about being a Republican and continues to talk down to him. Now granted, I'm a Republican myself but I'd feel the same way if it were a Republican doing it to a Democrat. The point I'm trying to make is that I have a feeling that in "Bel-Air" much like "Black-ish" their being affluent African Americans and Will being an inner-city youth will take precedence over actually story-telling.
 |
| I seriously have it out for this show... |
And this brings me to all of these revivals that seem to be popping up outta nowhere. Is it just me or does it seem as though Hollywood can't do anything original? I say that as I'm currently watching "Nine Perfect Strangers" which I've come to learn is based on a book (so it's an adaptation) and "Dexter" is returning to the airwaves, a revival. So why is Hollywood doing all of this? Well, the answer is pretty logical in that they can appeal to an already built-in audience, people who are familiar with the author or the previous series and thus in some form or fashion guarantee viewership. On the other side of that coin is that Hollywood (mostly producers) are scared to take a chance on original IPs (intellectual properties) because...well...unless you've already made millions elsewhere you're pretty much mud. But moreover, it seems as though Hollywood is taking a safe route in not only using name recognition in rebooting old shows to tell them from a Black or "diverse" perspective but it seems as though with reboots they're applying something to the previous shows that couldn't and wouldn't have been applied before. For example, does every show need a Black person? does every show need a Gay person? A trans person? etc. etc. "Frasier" as I've mentioned before is my favorite sitcom, there are NO BLACK PEOPLE ON THAT SHOW! (yes, they've had a few Black people here and there but all guest-stars and only for 1 or 2 episodes) and I never noticed that until just now...
It seems as though Hollywood is basically saying White people and Black people cannot have the same experiences and therefore Black people need their own version of whatever property in order to feel "included". The thing is, I feel excluded because I never asked for this. I would never watch anything simply because "Black" and no one else should. Simply because a character has the same pigmentation as me I'm supposed to immediately like them? This is why Amber was adapted the way she was, this is why "The Wonder Years" is getting an all-Black cast, and this is why "Bel-Air" is getting made. Hollywood is chasing after a dollar, the Negro dollar and well, I'm not falling for it, and when they can't catch the Negro dollar, they'll go to their graveyard of TV shows, dig one up, dust it off, and either Frankenstein it (reboot it) or perform illegal magic and necromance it back to life. I think somewhere I lost the point of this article but my reasoning (if there was any reasoning, forgive me, it's been a minute since I've written a solid article) still stands. Hollywood is creatively bankrupt and their only strategy is to throw Black people in it or bring something old back.
No comments:
Post a Comment