I enjoyued several of the franchises that you mentioned, but I have another question that might deserve consideration. Why does everything need to be a franchise? Why can't studios make a good and great thing, and then move onto something else that doesn't try to milk that good and great thing until its carcass is so rotten that even the hungriest vultures and maggots won't touch it?
Doctor Who was an ideal franchise precisely because the Doctor's regeneration was part of the lore. Even then, the studio managed to inject poison into the mix and kill most of its audience, in part, probably, because they couldn't recognize glaring signs that it was time to put the TARDIS into mothballs, at least temporarily.
I recall one of the producers of Barney Miller saying that the team wanted to end that TV series on a high note rather than ride it into slow but inevitable decline. I loved the original Planet of the Apes films, but I cringed when I read that about a studio wanting to reboot it. Its time had passed. They should have allowed it to rest in peace.
At this point, the audience shares some blame. Many want the familiar. They want what they want over and over. Like I said: Movies that are like watching TV. Think Mission: Impossible.
They are indeed! When I read through Narnia, I formed a vivid picture of Aslan in my head. I don't want Meryl Streep spoiling that, even though she is a fine actress. If anything, I would have cast her as the White Witch. She could nail that and still provide the star-power, if they're looking for that.
I have a couple of observations, not necessarily related to each other.
1. I reached a conclusion years ago, that if I liked a book, not to bother seeing the movie. I've made a couple of exceptions for that, but not many. So I have not bothered with the LOTR movies, or most of the Narnia films. As a practical matter, it can be hard to deal with all the nuances and factors of a book in the limited time of a movie. But I have also concluded over the years that too many screenwriters and directors seem to think they are smarter than the original author.
2. I think there has been a serious decline in talent and creativity in modern media, both movies and television. That may be why there are so many re-makes of successful films from the past, and so many sequels/pre-quels, and spin-offs of successful original works. Expanding a "franchise" is easier for low-talent people than creating something from scratch.
I admit to being a cultural non-conformist. I prefer reading to watching television or movies--it has been over 30 years since I owned a TV. I grew up reading science fiction--Heinlein, Clarke, Asimov, Bradbury, and more. And after reading C. S. Lewis' space trilogy nearly 50 years ago, I agree with his thinking that we are quarantined by distance from most of the universe. It's easy enough for a sci-fi writer to postulate some kind of warp drive to get around the speed of light; it's a lot harder to actually do it.
Successful or not, an abominable Narnia adaptation will probably be a good thing for American evangelicals, who need to be weaned off of this series that we presently use as a kind of ur-text for synthesizing our entire theological outlook. The reason people feel so offended by Meryl Streep as Aslan is not just because it's disrespectful of a Christian-inflected text, but that Narnia has become our go-to for everything: classical school curricula, sermon illustrations. "Aslan" is sometimes just replaced for "Jesus" in public speech with a wink but no explanation. The degree to which people have gotten rabidly angry over this shows how much of a sacred text Narnia has become to them. Probably good to take the opportunity move on to something else. There are some other good Christian books out there I've heard.
Interesting. I have NOT seen that in classical schools culture. What “brand” of school? I’m a major CSL fan (our son’s middle name is Lewis), but Narnia is simply one form of writing. We love the series but do not worship it
Hm. Our experiences are very different. At this point I'd be stunned to see one without every book on the curriculum at some age. Which is all fine. I read them in elementary and they are really nice. I feel like it's just oversaturated our theological lexicon in and around church spaces. You're Eastern Orthodox, no? Probably a different vibe. For me, I'd like to go some short period of time while not hearing it used as a reference when explaining doctrines and things.
I’m not saying that, in the classical schools I know, the kids are not reading them. The key is that they are reading so many other classics as well. Oh, I grew up S. Baptist and never heard of CSL until college.
I’m needling at their place in the evangelical canon. They are not treated as optional and even act as a kind of source/synthetic text for the Faith even for adults.
I tend to think that as set up - faithful vs. expanding - is a false dichotomy. Something that became as beloved as Dr. Who or any of these franchises may not speak to everyone, but being faithful finds its audience in every generation. The reality that pops up not just in franchises but in almost all institutions is what Russel T. Davies represents - the treason of the clerics. At some point those who have been gifted these things and even served them well lose the thread and become convinced that if what they once found magical is ever going to return they have to kill it as it is and remake it. They usually just end up killing it. Sometimes this is what creates the "skinsuit" phenomenon. It's got the name and the superficial look but the soul is gone. I can't think of an instance of a successful regeneration of this sort.
They will gladly kill their vehicles. My question is always one of belief or intent. Do they actually believe they can influence others? Is their intention good? Or are they just out to kill something people love? To deny people something that they invested love into?
I can't help but think of it in church terms. Did the clerics of the 1920's - 1960's (from Machen to Vatican 2 simply as good placeholders) actually believe what they were doing was good even though much of it completely undercut their church doctrine and tradition? They probably did. But then the second generation comes along and if the institution won't reform itself in their image, they are more than happy to kill it. And I'd go so far as to say that many former mainline clerics probably hoped for that.
Technology is interesting, but much like the various "conservative" life raft denominations, they aren't the same. Or at least not yet. When you lose decades or in the churches' instance centuries of invested love, something is still lost. You can start another Space Captains Courageous, but it won't be Kirk and Spock and Picard and Starfleet. And once burned twice shy.
They want money. They want the praise of peers more. They also want to reform society. There are doctrines in clear view is something like woke Doctor Who, Star Wars, Indiana Jones …..
I enjoyued several of the franchises that you mentioned, but I have another question that might deserve consideration. Why does everything need to be a franchise? Why can't studios make a good and great thing, and then move onto something else that doesn't try to milk that good and great thing until its carcass is so rotten that even the hungriest vultures and maggots won't touch it?
Doctor Who was an ideal franchise precisely because the Doctor's regeneration was part of the lore. Even then, the studio managed to inject poison into the mix and kill most of its audience, in part, probably, because they couldn't recognize glaring signs that it was time to put the TARDIS into mothballs, at least temporarily.
I recall one of the producers of Barney Miller saying that the team wanted to end that TV series on a high note rather than ride it into slow but inevitable decline. I loved the original Planet of the Apes films, but I cringed when I read that about a studio wanting to reboot it. Its time had passed. They should have allowed it to rest in peace.
The best explanation I have heard: These long chains of MOVIES are the "books" of people raised on television
At this point, the audience shares some blame. Many want the familiar. They want what they want over and over. Like I said: Movies that are like watching TV. Think Mission: Impossible.
They are indeed! When I read through Narnia, I formed a vivid picture of Aslan in my head. I don't want Meryl Streep spoiling that, even though she is a fine actress. If anything, I would have cast her as the White Witch. She could nail that and still provide the star-power, if they're looking for that.
That’s what I’ve been saying. Cast her as the witch for genuine power and presence in that character!
I have a couple of observations, not necessarily related to each other.
1. I reached a conclusion years ago, that if I liked a book, not to bother seeing the movie. I've made a couple of exceptions for that, but not many. So I have not bothered with the LOTR movies, or most of the Narnia films. As a practical matter, it can be hard to deal with all the nuances and factors of a book in the limited time of a movie. But I have also concluded over the years that too many screenwriters and directors seem to think they are smarter than the original author.
2. I think there has been a serious decline in talent and creativity in modern media, both movies and television. That may be why there are so many re-makes of successful films from the past, and so many sequels/pre-quels, and spin-offs of successful original works. Expanding a "franchise" is easier for low-talent people than creating something from scratch.
I admit to being a cultural non-conformist. I prefer reading to watching television or movies--it has been over 30 years since I owned a TV. I grew up reading science fiction--Heinlein, Clarke, Asimov, Bradbury, and more. And after reading C. S. Lewis' space trilogy nearly 50 years ago, I agree with his thinking that we are quarantined by distance from most of the universe. It's easy enough for a sci-fi writer to postulate some kind of warp drive to get around the speed of light; it's a lot harder to actually do it.
Your second comment is SPOT ON. I also think many young executives want to reform/modernize the legacy films of their studio.
Successful or not, an abominable Narnia adaptation will probably be a good thing for American evangelicals, who need to be weaned off of this series that we presently use as a kind of ur-text for synthesizing our entire theological outlook. The reason people feel so offended by Meryl Streep as Aslan is not just because it's disrespectful of a Christian-inflected text, but that Narnia has become our go-to for everything: classical school curricula, sermon illustrations. "Aslan" is sometimes just replaced for "Jesus" in public speech with a wink but no explanation. The degree to which people have gotten rabidly angry over this shows how much of a sacred text Narnia has become to them. Probably good to take the opportunity move on to something else. There are some other good Christian books out there I've heard.
I get that. I prefer quoting Narnia to gospel according to the Marvel universe efforts. ;-)
God help me, I can’t unread that.
But, hey, I do people pastors should have noticed that half of the people in the universe vanished in Endgame and no one asked a Theodicy question.
https://www.tmatt.net/columns/2019/5/8/spotting-the-god-shaped-hole-at-the-heart-of-the-avengers-universe
Interesting. I have NOT seen that in classical schools culture. What “brand” of school? I’m a major CSL fan (our son’s middle name is Lewis), but Narnia is simply one form of writing. We love the series but do not worship it
Hm. Our experiences are very different. At this point I'd be stunned to see one without every book on the curriculum at some age. Which is all fine. I read them in elementary and they are really nice. I feel like it's just oversaturated our theological lexicon in and around church spaces. You're Eastern Orthodox, no? Probably a different vibe. For me, I'd like to go some short period of time while not hearing it used as a reference when explaining doctrines and things.
I’m not saying that, in the classical schools I know, the kids are not reading them. The key is that they are reading so many other classics as well. Oh, I grew up S. Baptist and never heard of CSL until college.
I’m needling at their place in the evangelical canon. They are not treated as optional and even act as a kind of source/synthetic text for the Faith even for adults.
I tend to think that as set up - faithful vs. expanding - is a false dichotomy. Something that became as beloved as Dr. Who or any of these franchises may not speak to everyone, but being faithful finds its audience in every generation. The reality that pops up not just in franchises but in almost all institutions is what Russel T. Davies represents - the treason of the clerics. At some point those who have been gifted these things and even served them well lose the thread and become convinced that if what they once found magical is ever going to return they have to kill it as it is and remake it. They usually just end up killing it. Sometimes this is what creates the "skinsuit" phenomenon. It's got the name and the superficial look but the soul is gone. I can't think of an instance of a successful regeneration of this sort.
Continue. Why kill their vehicles to influence others?
Or, is their problem now that technology is offering millions of consumers other choices?
Continue, please.
They will gladly kill their vehicles. My question is always one of belief or intent. Do they actually believe they can influence others? Is their intention good? Or are they just out to kill something people love? To deny people something that they invested love into?
I can't help but think of it in church terms. Did the clerics of the 1920's - 1960's (from Machen to Vatican 2 simply as good placeholders) actually believe what they were doing was good even though much of it completely undercut their church doctrine and tradition? They probably did. But then the second generation comes along and if the institution won't reform itself in their image, they are more than happy to kill it. And I'd go so far as to say that many former mainline clerics probably hoped for that.
Technology is interesting, but much like the various "conservative" life raft denominations, they aren't the same. Or at least not yet. When you lose decades or in the churches' instance centuries of invested love, something is still lost. You can start another Space Captains Courageous, but it won't be Kirk and Spock and Picard and Starfleet. And once burned twice shy.
They want money. They want the praise of peers more. They also want to reform society. There are doctrines in clear view is something like woke Doctor Who, Star Wars, Indiana Jones …..