animation, comics, exhibits, events, etc!

On alternating Fridays, Michael Carlisle examines the world “outside” sequential art to find… more sequential art. Expect mathematics, a bit of madness, and a dash of pessimistic optimism.

“I think that adaptation is largely a waste of time in almost any circumstances.” – Alan Moore⁶⁶⁶

Non-exhaustive list of forms of the mythos known as The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy:

• radio series (1978, 2003)
• book series (1979-1992)
• BBC TV miniseries (1981)
• text-based video game (1984)
• comics (1993-1996)
• movie (2005)

Remember the first time you said something to the effect of, “No, they can’t remake [adapt] THAT! I love that!”

If you’re reading this, you probably don’t, since it’s happened so many times you’ve either been worn down, grown accustomed to it, or, possibly, screamed in righteous Fan rage every time.

Part of the notion of “sequential art”, art in sequence, is the idea of a sequence of art. If we consider a piece of art (not necessarily “sequential”) as an individual entity, then a remake or adaptation of that particular work creates (or adds to) a particular sequence of works sharing characters and/or certain other plot elements. This sequence, if it becomes large and/or popular enough, gains its own name: canon^19.95.

These two notions²,

• REMAKE: an art work which heavily shares recognizable plot sequence and elements of a previous work in its medium.
• ADAPTATION: an art work which heavily shares recognizable plot elements of a previous work in its or another medium, usually with significant stylistic or other changes.

have covered a large share of popular culture over the last 100 years. My
esteemed smurfologist colleague waxed frustrated on this topic recently, in regards to a specific plague of adaptations called the “comic book movie”.

(Throughout this essay I will refer to both remakes and adaptations under the term “adaptation”, as remakes are a subset of adaptations.)

calm,
fitter,
healthier and more productive
a pig
in a cage
on antibiotics.¹⁸⁷

The term “adaptation” comes to art from biology; “natural” selection determines newer, “stronger” forms that overtake the existence of their antecedents to become the present and try to make their ancestors’ forms the past. Curiously enough, the term shows up in analysis of random functions: an “adapted process” is a stochastic process that “cannot see into the future”. The Arts & Entertainment Industries considers adaptation one of their cash cows, as the rich history of film, literature, and religious works⁷ contains so much public-tested material that it’s often more profitable to, say, adapt a book or comic into a film than come up with something completely new. (This is not to disparage the entire idea of adapting something. On the contrary, I’ve enjoyed many adaptations, even against the proposal below.)

The problem at hand (as far as Fans are concerned) is the “integrity” of the “source” material. When Fans discover that their beloved story and characters are getting a re-production (be it an update with current popular culture and political references, retcon as an attempt to remove certain underappreciated writing or acting choices, or a full-blown reboot), the first reaction is often outrage. Fans fear somehow that the new artists will taint the memories of their experiences meeting characters, experiencing their trials, shuddering at their events’ climax, and, if it’s good, collapsing into the release and afterglow of dénouement.

It won’t be the same. The signal-to-noise ratio will be too low. THEY JUST WANT MORE MONEY AND DON’T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT ARTHUR DENT.

I propose a partial solution. (I do not believe there is a complete solution, for reasons that will soon be obvious.)

I’m reminded of the remark by, I think it was Raymond Chandler, where he was asked about what he felt about having his books “ruined” by Hollywood. And he led the questioner into his study and showed him all the books there on the bookshelf, and said, Look—there they all are. They’re all fine. They’re fine. They’re not ruined. They’re still there.⁶⁶⁶

The “original” version of a work and its adaptations is a sequence of art works, including Biblical, Shakespearean, folktale, and other source materials — how far back do you want to go? The sequence of your personal experience of these works influences your overall acceptance and appreciation of these works. I posit:

• that, if you like the “original” work, experiencing the works of its adaptation sequence in chronological production order causes pain, anger, frustration at the “changes” made;
• that experiencing works in such a sequence in reverse chronological production order allows reflection, a more level and objective comparison, and better appreciation of the process of adaptation;
• that, not knowing if something is going to be remade in the future, it is difficult to accept this view, since it can potentially introduce a certain pre-experience paralysis. “What if I like it, and they screw it up later?”⁰

Knowing the previous work of an actor, writer, director, illustrator, or best boy can be, and often is, an issue in this sequence of experience. Even a review of a work is part of this web of sequences containing the work itself, as it can influence your experience. Critics, of course, know this, or else they wouldn’t critique publicly. The whole idea of public critique brings us to the crux of the issue I have at hand: the plight of the Fan.

Comics Fans appear, anecdotally, to be the most susceptible medium to succumb to the Fan stereotype because the characters are in a constant state of “remake” as a result of So. Many. writers and artists over So. Many. years that certain characters and plot lines have existed, and there’s just so much backlogged material to track.

(I would suggest that soap operas do not suffer from this as much because, even though certain soaps’ tenure outstretch many beloved comics characters, TV studios keep a closer hold on their story lines than comics writers and editors have over the years, and characters age and cycle in and out with the actors that portray them. This is idle speculation; please correct me if I’m wildly wrong here. This is what the comments section is for.)

Fear of the unknown, just like in religion, is what obviously causes the apprehension. The problem really comes after the experience; love of canon often cannot override appreciation of new modifications. When members of a religion disagree enough on canon, you get a schism; when Fans (and creators) disagree a little on a storyline, you get Internet forum flamewars.

The paradox of all this is that an adaptation so rarely lives up to its predecessor. While in biology an adaptation is considered a (random) change made for survival’s sake, in art an adaptation is often considered an unnecessary (calculated) move that reduces the overall population’s enjoyment of an art work. As consumer cash and critical praise are the only real fitness functions for art, Fans counterintuitively ask, what’s the point in adapting?

Ask the person who watched and liked the movie before reading the book.

It seems that the conflict is Enjoyment vs. Fan Cred, and it’s mostly in your head. Unfortunately, only those who have not yet “read it” or “seen it” the “first time” can try my prescription. Here’s an experiment: find a sequence you want to see/read/listen to/chew on, and do it in reverse. (I don’t mean watch the last episode of the Patrick Warburton live-action TV show of The Tick and go backwards; I just mean watch the Warburton series, then the cartoon, and then read the comics. You might not get all the inside jokes in the “right” order, but you won’t see Nestor Carbonell’s Batmanuel and mutter, “What was wrong with Die Fledermaus?? Why’d they change him?!” This, of course, is a purely illustrative example. Die Fledermaus is an annoying tool; Batmanuel is HILARIOUS.)

Use this to your advantage. You’re a Fan; you’re going to look things up anyway. This way, you can still have the righteous indignation that goes with knowing what’s been changed where, but you probably won’t be as angry about it. Plus, you won’t annoy others by saying things like, “I read Watchmen YEARS before the movie! Why the hell did they pay such attention to detail in most places, but then make the watch Jon’s instead of Janey’s?! It totally changes the emotion of his origin story!”⁴

Is it really worth it? That’s for you to decide.³⁰¹

Work It Harder Make It Better
Do It Faster Makes Us Stronger
More Than Ever Hour After
Our Work Is Never Over¹⁰

 

 

[666] Alan Moore, Wired 17-03, 2009.

[19.95] There are two other words that often apply: franchise and brand.

[2] These are my definitions. For others, please consult the Guide.

[187] Radiohead, “Fitter, Happier.” OK Computer, 1997.

[7] Some would place “religious texts” into the sphere of “literature”. I say there is certainly overlap, but there are religious texts that do not qualify.

[0] That could just be me. Ignore the neuroses and continue.

[4] … but it DID. It really DID! … okay, maybe you’ll do it anyway.

[301] Oh, I know, you liked Jesus back when he was Mithras. Homo habilis is so much more awesome than Homo sapiens. So much more authentic.

[10] Daft Punk, “Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger.” Discovery, 2001.

 

 

Michael Carlisle is a mathematics Ph.D. candidate at the City University of New York’s Graduate School and University Center (”Graduate Center”), where he earned a certificate in Interactive Technology and Pedagogy. When not teaching or researching probability or rambling about dystopian films and surrealist animation, he volunteers with the Sequential Art Collective and New York Center for Independent Publishing. He has more data than you.