Imprinting and canon - Input Junkie
Imprinting and canon|
I tend to think of the print version of a story as the real one, but that may be because I've generally read the book first. Have you ever thought that the real version of a story wasn't
the first you saw?
This entry was posted at http://nancylebov.dreamwidth.org/508244.html
. Comments are welcome here or there.
comments so far on that entry.
There have been a very few films that improved upon the original printed subject... those I regard as the 'real' ones. IOW, whichever is better, is real, usually with respect to film remakes.
I tend to lend credence to the version that appealed to me most.
Yes. I saw a remake of It's a Wonderful Life before the original. That's the only example I can remember.
If the movie was made from the book, I think of the book as "real" regardless of which I encountered first. Novelizations are a different matter.
Movies which are extremely familiar may be an exception; while I formally think of Baum's book as the "real" version, the movie Wizard of Oz is the one which always comes to mind first.
Weirdly, to me the real Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea is Theodore Sturgeon's novelization of the original film.
|Date:||October 25th, 2011 05:20 pm (UTC)|| |
I don't think of any Disney fairy tale stories as real versions, even though I saw them before I read the older fairy tale later.
|Date:||October 25th, 2011 05:27 pm (UTC)|| |
As a youngster I tended to stick by whatever version I encountered first. Nowadays I often ask, what's the original version? (This is not a hard and fast rule; many 1960s and 1970s James Bond films come to mind. Then again, IMO the books and the flicks were aimed at very different target demographics.)
Some stories are more prone to variations and embellishment of course -- I'm perfectly happy with multiple takes on "Beauty and the Beast" to pick on one well-known example. In those cases it's the common plot that I consider canon.
If a dramatic version started out as a novel or short story, in most cases I've read the book first, just like you.
Oh, hell yes. One jumps right out at me immediately. Bruce Tim and Paul Dini's take on The Batman is probably the 5th or 6th reimagining of the Batman I'd seen by that point, and at least two more since then, but Tim's DCAU version is THE definitive Batman, to me.
Of course it depends on what you mean by 'real'.
Some people push for an early novelization of Star Wars as the real or canon (because it has more detail, more backstory, etc). Someone's FANTASTIC VOYAGE
... Someone's FANTASTIC VOYAGE novel fixed the flaws in the movie.
|Date:||October 25th, 2011 11:13 pm (UTC)|| |
Isaac Asimov wrote the Fantastic Voyage novelization. Tossing out some handwaves for the basic scientific problems with miniaturizing objects was an incidental fix -- more substantively, Asimov improved on the story in a couple other ways:
1) Noting that the sub has to be brought out along with the (surviving) crew, and thereby making the ending even more tense than the original movie (the crew had to get out and keep the white cell that had eaten the sub right on their tail).
2) Treating the identity of the saboteur as a mystery that could legitimately be figured out from clues (of the "if unfortunate incident X was actually sabotage, then person Y would have been able to do a much more effective and less obvious job of it, therefore person Y is almost certainly eliminated" type).
Edited at 2011-10-25 11:14 pm (UTC)
Not sure quite how this fits your question, but for me the 'real' version of Hitchhiker's is the one I experienced first -- the radio version.