offworlder, on 29 March 2012 - 11:55 AM, said:
yes but when you take some new direction or develop some angle you should change the title...
No, you really shouldn't. Like I said, if you're inspired by an earlier work and want to explore a variation on it, it's only honest and right to acknowledge your inspiration. Exploring variations on a theme is a basic, natural part of creativity, so doing a variation doesn't mean you should deny the unifying theme.
Look at all the countless different variations of Batman that exist by now. That's a character who's been taken in many new directions. At first he was a dark, violent avenger; then he became a wholesome father figure and duly deputized lawman having wacky adventures. Then Denny O'Neill turned him back into a relatively serious figure, but still not completely removed from his lighter days. Then Frank Miller offered a radically darker, exaggerated vision of Batman in The Dark Knight Returns
, and subsequent comics adopted that revisionist version as the norm. Meanwhile, in screen adaptations, we've gone from the racist government agent of the '43 serial to the campy comedy hero of the '66 series to the darker but still campy and surreal Tim Burton version to the brilliant, multilayered Bruce Timm/Alan Burnett/Paul Dini version in animation to the grounded grittiness of the Christopher Nolan version to the madcap Silver-Age distillation of The Brave and the Bold
. Should all those different visions and directions for the character been given different names and treated as wholly separate superheroes? Hell, no! Because they all sprang (no pun intended
) from a common source and drew on the same fundamentals and core mythology, and because most of them cross-pollinated and influenced each other. All of them together make up the tradition that makes Batman one of the greatest figures in American popular culture. Carve it up into a bunch of rigidly segregated, unrelated pieces and that legacy couldn't exist.
This is how creativity works.
It is not a bunch of completely isolated things forever segregated behind unbreachable walls. It is a constant intermingling of ideas and influences, a conversation between different perceptions and variations of a core idea. Adding fresh takes and angles on the same core idea doesn't diminish or betray that idea, it adds to it, gives it more breadth and depth and influence. That is nothing to fear or run from.
If Batman can thrive in such widely different incarnations and still be Batman, then why can't RoboCop do the same? Why should one iconic figure be forbidden the same growth and evolution that another has been allowed?
enTranced, on 29 March 2012 - 12:52 PM, said:
It gets even better when you have a prequel to The Thing and you call it The Thing.
The 1982 film is John Carpenter's The Thing
. The prequel is simply The Thing
. (And the 1951 Howard Hawks film is The Thing from Another World
.) So it's not that hard to differentiate them.
Edited by Christopher, 29 March 2012 - 01:13 PM.