Wonka, Hazzard, and Remakes
I went to see Charlie and the Chocolate Factory on Saturday evening with my fiancee and a bunch of friends. I'm still sorting out how I felt about the movie, and I think part of that relates to some general trends I've either observed or participated in. More on that last bit in a separate post.
There's fan-fiction, which is derivative by definition, and then there's original fiction, which (usually) tries a little harder to hide its sources from the reader. And then there are remakes. Or reinventions, or whatever. Someone takes an existing story and updates it. Basically, what this amounts to is fan-fiction with the official seal of approval from the copyright owner.
Since any work of fan-fiction borrows some part of the original work, to evaluate a work of fan-fiction, part of the process inevitably includes evaluating how well the stuff that isn't part of the original work meshes with the stuff that is. I think this is the biggest problem with Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. The idea that Willy Wonka would be the son of a dentist has a certain ironic appeal to it. The ramifications of that idea might be interesting enough to explore in fan-fiction. Adding it wholesale to the existing story of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory in order to provide a moral to the story, though... No. Doesn't mesh. Rather blunts the edge of the story, honestly. Part of the appeal of the original story is that Willy Wonka is difficult to get a grasp on. He's a trickster. So almost by definition, any backstory provided should only describe his behavior, and never attempt to explain it. Explaining a trickster defeats him.
By comparison, I actually liked the Dukes of Hazzard remake. There's no question that the movie is stupid and crude. But y'know, the TV series was stupid and crude too. So it worked. Just about everything that wasn't part of the original work seemed to mesh well with the things that were part of the original work. (Okay, except for the new version of Rosco(e) P. Coltrane. Oy.) Admittedly, my evaluation was probably influenced by the quart and a half of beer I drank before seeing the movie.
There's fan-fiction, which is derivative by definition, and then there's original fiction, which (usually) tries a little harder to hide its sources from the reader. And then there are remakes. Or reinventions, or whatever. Someone takes an existing story and updates it. Basically, what this amounts to is fan-fiction with the official seal of approval from the copyright owner.
Since any work of fan-fiction borrows some part of the original work, to evaluate a work of fan-fiction, part of the process inevitably includes evaluating how well the stuff that isn't part of the original work meshes with the stuff that is. I think this is the biggest problem with Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. The idea that Willy Wonka would be the son of a dentist has a certain ironic appeal to it. The ramifications of that idea might be interesting enough to explore in fan-fiction. Adding it wholesale to the existing story of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory in order to provide a moral to the story, though... No. Doesn't mesh. Rather blunts the edge of the story, honestly. Part of the appeal of the original story is that Willy Wonka is difficult to get a grasp on. He's a trickster. So almost by definition, any backstory provided should only describe his behavior, and never attempt to explain it. Explaining a trickster defeats him.
By comparison, I actually liked the Dukes of Hazzard remake. There's no question that the movie is stupid and crude. But y'know, the TV series was stupid and crude too. So it worked. Just about everything that wasn't part of the original work seemed to mesh well with the things that were part of the original work. (Okay, except for the new version of Rosco(e) P. Coltrane. Oy.) Admittedly, my evaluation was probably influenced by the quart and a half of beer I drank before seeing the movie.