Thursday, April 07, 2005

In Defense of . . . Catwoman?

Over at CHUD (Cinematic Happenings Under Development) there's an erudite and brilliant article about fanboys, literature, criticism, and adaptations. An excerpt:

"The problem comes that if a story is only it's surface -- literal level -- then changing even the tiniest part of that surface will have changed the entire story. This means that any deviation an adaptation takes from it's source material is fatal and shall lead to gigabytes of bandwidth spent bitching about what colour Mace Windu's lightsaber should be.

On the other side of this are the 'symbolists': that strange breed to whom the worth of a story lies only in it's relation to the real world. Hobbits ARE the rural communities of Pre-Victorian England. The Architect IS the creator god. The purpose of a story is to comment upon the outside world. It has no reality of its own. So it's really not important if some detail is changed, as long as the metaphor holds. After all, the story is always ultimately just a shadow-play. None of it is real."


It attempts to challenge those who crucify adaptations of anything based on some minor surface changes, but at the same time does stress continuity of narrative as being important for story context. Change too much on the surface, and the narrative and context may suffer. It's hard to believe that it all comes from an attempt to defend the movie Razzie-winning suckfest CATWOMAN (2004), well sorta.