Funny Events of the "Woke" world

[Hawki]

Oh and apparently the new Robyn Hood show came out.

meaningless Internet points up for grabs for who can hit the most obvious "we're modernising Robyn Hood" changes before opening the spoiler section to find out where they took it.

Spoiler: Robyn Hood trailer within

...what the fuck?

Christ, it's not like you can't do Robin Hood in an urban setting (see Robert Muchmore's Robin Hood series, or heck, even Arrow), but this?

Also Iran has little to nothing to do with the current attacks.

Iran is one of Hamas's weapons providers.

 

[Thaluikhain]

...what the fuck?

Christ, it's not like you can't do Robin Hood in an urban setting (see Robert Muchmore's Robin Hood series, or heck, even Arrow), but this?

Was hoping it'd be based on the Robyn Hood by Zenescape (they got Van Helsing to be a tv series, though nothing to do with the comic it is based on), ah well.

OTOH, why not? I mean, I'm not going to watch that, but maybe it appeals to someone?

 

[Hawki]

Was hoping it'd be based on the Robyn Hood by Zenescape (they got Van Helsing to be a tv series, though nothing to do with the comic it is based on), ah well.

OTOH, why not? I mean, I'm not going to watch that, but maybe it appeals to someone?

Well, anything might appeal to someone, but this looks less like Robin Hood adapted to the modern day, and more its own thing with the Robin Hood name (and associated terminology) added to it. There's no sign of a bow, there's no element of romanticism, I have a hard time making the jump from "Merry Men" to "da hood," and plus, the gender flipping.* One of these issues wouldn't be an issue, add them all together? Yeah.

It reminds me of what Neil Gaiman said about a Discworld adaptation in the context of Batman. Basically (paraphrased), "if you adapt Batman, but have him not Bruce Wayne, and not a guy who dresses up as a bat, but rather a high school cleaner going about his day job, are you really adapting Batman?" That's far from the exact quote, but there comes a point in an adaptation where it's no longer an adaptation, but a case of "in name only."

*There's also the question as to whether it would even be necessary to gender flip Robin Hood as opposed to focusing on Maid Marian, but meh.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Well, anything might appeal to someone, but this looks less like Robin Hood adapted to the modern day, and more its own thing with the Robin Hood name (and associated terminology) added to it. There's no sign of a bow, there's no element of romanticism, I have a hard time making the jump from "Merry Men" to "da hood," and plus, the gender flipping.* One of these issues wouldn't be an issue, add them all together? Yeah.

It reminds me of what Neil Gaiman said about a Discworld adaptation in the context of Batman. Basically (paraphrased), "if you adapt Batman, but have him not Bruce Wayne, and not a guy who dresses up as a bat, but rather a high school cleaner going about his day job, are you really adapting Batman?" That's far from the exact quote, but there comes a point in an adaptation where it's no longer an adaptation, but a case of "in name only."

*There's also the question as to whether it would even be necessary to gender flip Robin Hood as opposed to focusing on Maid Marian, but meh.

True, though lots of adaptations seem to be going that way. And in regards to Batman, they do like doing Elseworlds stories, and some of them aren't bad. Though, maybe because this seems like such a small and forgettable series, being...shall we say experimental?...doesn't seem out of place.

 

[Satinavian]

Iran is one of Hamas's weapons providers.

I said little, not nothing. Hamas is not Hezbollah. The former gets only get a fraction of the support of the latter and Iran has only a fraction of the influence in return.

 

[Hawki]

True, though lots of adaptations seem to be going that way. And in regards to Batman, they do like doing Elseworlds stories, and some of them aren't bad. Though, maybe because this seems like such a small and forgettable series, being...shall we say experimental?...doesn't seem out of place.

I'm not referring to Batman specifically, just using Gaiman's quote as an example. There comes a point when it's fair to question when an adaptation is really an adaptation anymore.

 

[Ag3ma]

I'm not referring to Batman specifically, just using Gaiman's quote as an example. There comes a point when it's fair to question when an adaptation is really an adaptation anymore.

Honestly, having read your analysis, I think it tells us very little except the paucity of your ability to tolerate difference.

 

[Absent]

There's no sign of a bow

Yeah absolutely no sign whatsoever.

Slow day in the conservative outrage industry ?

 

[Hawki]

Honestly, having read your analysis, I think it tells us very little except the paucity of your ability to tolerate difference.

What does tolerating (or not tolerating) difference have to do with faithfulness of a work? There's no shortage of stellar works that are terrible adaptations. Starship Troopers is a great film that's a terrible adaptation. Blade Runner is an excellent film that only partially qualifies as an adaptation. The Hobbit Trilogy are good, if not great films that are solid prequels to the Jackson films, but fail to capture the spirit of the original novel. Sonic SatAM is the best Sonic cartoon out there, but it's one of the least faithful adaptations of the IP in the entire franchise. And so on, and so on.

From a production standpoint, it looks lacklustre, from an adaptation standpoint, it looks a case of "in name only." "Tolerating difference" is par for the course in adaptations, it's beside the point as to whether it's faithful and/or good. Or is Gaiman in the wrong?

Yeah absolutely no sign whatsoever.

Slow day in the conservative outrage industry ?

So I rewatched it, and yes, you see a bow a few times, even if it's never used. That mistake's on me.

Also, I'm not outraged, and I wouldn't describe myself as conservative, so I'm not sure why you're claiming I am.

 

[Hawki]

BBC's The Watch 'shares no DNA with Terry Pratchett's work', says daughter

Rhianna Pratchett joins fans unhappy with the forthcoming TV adaptation of her father’s Discworld stories about Ankh-Morpork’s City Watch

www.theguardian.com

(As reference, found the Gaiman quote I mentioned and its context.)

 

[Absent]

What does tolerating (or not tolerating) difference have to do with faithfulness of a work? There's no shortage of stellar works that are terrible adaptations. Starship Troopers is a great film that's a terrible adaptation. Blade Runner is an excellent film that only partially qualifies as an adaptation. The Hobbit Trilogy are good, if not great films that are solid prequels to the Jackson films, but fail to capture the spirit of the original novel. Sonic SatAM is the best Sonic cartoon out there, but it's one of the least faithful adaptations of the IP in the entire franchise. And so on, and so on.

From a production standpoint, it looks lacklustre, from an adaptation standpoint, it looks a case of "in name only." "Tolerating difference" is par for the course in adaptations, it's beside the point as to whether it's faithful and/or good. Or is Gaiman in the wrong?



So I rewatched it, and yes, you see a bow a few times, even if it's never used. That mistake's on me.

Also, I'm not outraged, and I wouldn't describe myself as conservative, so I'm not sure why you're claiming I am.

Because this complain, as with most of your complains in this thread, only make sense I'm a certain ideological context : the conservative quest to present itself as wrongly besieged in mass media and cultural fields. It's most often reposts of semi-viral omygogomygods that have zero objective reasons to be, apart as ritualistic outrage fuel within a given ecosystem.

And this is a good example. Robin Hood (in culture and even language) is an elusive resistant "stealing from the rich to give to the poor" within an illegitimate regime. You can transpose this structure everywhere, in modern suburbs, in space, in wall street, without losing anything. Even the bow is actually pointless. At least less than the reasons to censor Robin Hood in the 50s, or the major reasons to metaphorically designate this or that as "a real Robin Hood".

But keywords, woke woke, oh noes, hashtag.

 

[Hawki]

Because this complain, as with most of your complains in this thread, only make sense I'm a certain ideological context : the conservative quest to present itself as wrongly besieged in mass media and cultural fields. It's most often reposts of semi-viral omygogomygods that have zero objective reasons to be, apart as ritualistic outrage fuel within a given ecosystem.

And this is a good example. Robin Hood (in culture and even language) is an elusive resistant "stealing from the rich to give to the poor" within an illegitimate regime. You can transpose this structure everywhere, in modern suburbs, in space, in wall street, without losing anything. Even the bow is actually pointless. At least less than the reasons to censor Robin Hood in the 50s, or the major reasons to metaphorically designate this or that as "a real Robin Hood".

But keywords, woke woke, oh noes, hashtag.

I never thought I'd see the concept of faithfulness in adaptations be turned into a political pissing contest, but here we are.

But as to your actual points:

-Where did I portray anyone as being besieged? I'm not besieged. I write and post stuff on the 'net, that's true, I'm not "besieged" by anyone except the odd irate reviewer.

-If the discussion so far has met your litmus test for "outrage," then good for you. Most people wouldn't put the bar so low.

-I know you can transpose Robin Hood to an urban setting. In fact, if you bothered to read anything I wrote rather than needlessly pontificating, you'd have seen I mentioned Muchmore's books as an example of this.

-Calling the bow pointless is dubious. Yes, you can have Robin without a bow and the story wouldn't change, but it's iconographic for a reason.

-If you want to talk about keywords, you might want to do a word search for my posts on the subject and search for "woke." You won't find it.

Now, it certainly says a lot about your outlook that concepts such as faithfulness and versimilitude are political positions, but in the real world, it's actually quite normal to discuss how faithful an adaptation of a pre-existing work is. It's not "outrage" or whatever you want to call it to raise an eyebrow over this. The people who lament such things aren't frothing at the mouth fascists, even if you believe them to be.

 

[Ag3ma]

-Calling the bow pointless is dubious. Yes, you can have Robin without a bow and the story wouldn't change, but it's iconographic for a reason.

It's profoundly ridiculous for a modern-day version of Robin Hood to need to have a bow. It's like claiming a modern day or futuristic version of Odysseus / Ulysses needs him to travel by a rowed ship. Likewise a modern "Merry Men" would be a collection of lower-middle class individuals relevant to the place and time of the reimagined setting with skills relevant to that setting, not running round in a medieval forest with swords and quarterstaffs.

 

[Absent]

I never thought I'd see the concept of faithfulness in adaptations be turned into a political pissing contest, but here we are.

But as to your actual points:

-Where did I portray anyone as being besieged? I'm not besieged. I write and post stuff on the 'net, that's true, I'm not "besieged" by anyone except the odd irate reviewer.

-If the discussion so far has met your litmus test for "outrage," then good for you. Most people wouldn't put the bar so low.

-I know you can transpose Robin Hood to an urban setting. In fact, if you bothered to read anything I wrote rather than needlessly pontificating, you'd have seen I mentioned Muchmore's books as an example of this.

-Calling the bow pointless is dubious. Yes, you can have Robin without a bow and the story wouldn't change, but it's iconographic for a reason.

-If you want to talk about keywords, you might want to do a word search for my posts on the subject and search for "woke." You won't find it.

Now, it certainly says a lot about your outlook that concepts such as faithfulness and versimilitude are political positions, but in the real world, it's actually quite normal to discuss how faithful an adaptation of a pre-existing work is. It's not "outrage" or whatever you want to call it to raise an eyebrow over this. The people who lament such things aren't frothing at the mouth fascists, even if you believe them to be.

Yeah, accidentaly posted in the wrong thread, huh ?

 

[Hawki]

It's profoundly ridiculous for a modern-day version of Robin Hood to need to have a bow.

And yet, the bow is repeatedly featured in modern adaptions/inspirations.

It's like claiming a modern day or futuristic version of Odysseus / Ulysses needs him to travel by a rowed ship.

No, but if you're transplanting Ulysses to a setting, it would be expected he be on a ship.

Likewise a modern "Merry Men" would be a collection of lower-middle class individuals relevant to the place and time of the reimagined setting with skills relevant to that setting, not running round in a medieval forest with swords and quarterstaffs.

...and?

Yeah, accidentaly posted in the wrong thread, huh ?

I noticed you didn't actually say anything. Good for you.

 

[Absent]

I noticed you didn't actually say anything. Good for you.

So, gotta spell it out, coloring-book-like.

You post your "adaptation complains" in the thread dedicated to "oh noes the woke they are ruining everythiiing" and then go "no no I didn't mean it politically, just mentioning adaptation discrepancies".

All that you post here is directly, implicitely, part of the "look progressive values are imposed everywhere and break all that is good" narrative, because it's what whining about "wokeism" is all about. The thread itself is a political framing. The thread itself defines all posts here as "wokeism"-related. If you just wanted to discuss the elasticity of adaptations, you'd have put that in the general tv/movie news. It's here only because you see it as a politically-motivated distorsion to denounce.

And this thing would not have grown in your echo chambers if the changes were deemed apolitical - like the BBC jekyll, or disney's treasure planet.

if you're transplanting Ulysses to a setting, it would be expected he be on a ship.

No.

(But also, if they did an urban Ulysses, it wouldn't be such a thing and you wouldn't be complaining about it in this thread here - unless they omg omg swapped his skin color or gender, making it an internet outrage and making the ship a mere pretext.)

 

[Satinavian]

-Calling the bow pointless is dubious. Yes, you can have Robin without a bow and the story wouldn't change, but it's iconographic for a reason.

Robin Hood has no definitive source material. He is just a legendary outlaw from folklore who might or might not actually have existed. Which various tales ballads and stories that still are existing usually having been written down centuries later.
Yes, he was supposed to be a good archer. But also a good swordsman, which most new adaptations ignore. And the bow is in many stories not a central or iconic element.
Honestly, Robin Hood is worse than King Arthur and his knights when it comes to canon lore and judging faithfulness.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Honestly, Robin Hood is worse than King Arthur and his knights when it comes to canon lore and judging faithfulness.

I'd disagree slightly, the time period (when King Richard was away on Crusade) and the location (Nottingham) are generally agreed upon, putting him somewhat above King Arthur.

But otherwise the comparison holds up, yeah.

 

[Hawki]

So, gotta spell it out, coloring-book-like.

You post your "adaptation complains" in the thread dedicated to "oh noes the woke they are ruining everythiiing" and then go "no no I didn't mean it politically, just mentioning adaptation discrepancies".

Yes, God forbid I don't mention the title of the thread in my posts.

Also, you're the one inserting politics, not me.

All that you post here is directly, implicitely, part of the "look progressive values are imposed everywhere and break all that is good" narrative, because it's what whining about "wokeism" is all about.

Projection, thy name is Absent.

The thread itself is a political framing. The thread itself defines all posts here as "wokeism"-related. If you just wanted to discuss the elasticity of adaptations, you'd have put that in the general tv/movie news.

But it wasn't posted in the TV thread was it, genius?

It's here only because you see it as a politically-motivated distorsion to denounce.

Dwarf posted it numb nuts, not me.

And this thing would not have grown in your echo chambers if the changes were deemed apolitical - like the BBC jekyll, or disney's treasure planet.

My echo chambers? Look at yourself. You're in an echo chamber so narrow that you can't conceptualize anything outside your political projections.

Now as to your other points:

-I never said any of the changes were political. Again, quote where I mentioned they were.

-I can't comment on BBC's Jekyll, but Treasure Planet was, by any reasonable measure, a faithful adaptation, and far more subjectively, a good movie. The only real difference to Treasure Planet is the space setting, everything else, from character, to plot, to themes, is rendered intact.

Robin Hood has no definitive source material. He is just a legendary outlaw from folklore who might or might not actually have existed. Which various tales ballads and stories that still are existing usually having been written down centuries later.
Yes, he was supposed to be a good archer. But also a good swordsman, which most new adaptations ignore. And the bow is in many stories not a central or iconic element.
Honestly, Robin Hood is worse than King Arthur and his knights when it comes to canon lore and judging faithfulness.

I've never seen any version of Robin Hood without a bow. As I've already stated, you could have RH without the bow and the overall story would remain the same. The faithfulness of an RH adaptation is not dependent on the bow, it's weird to have it without it. Even when bows are an anachronism in RH-inspired works (again, Green Arrow and Muchmore), the bow is usually retained and justified within the text.

As for King Arthur, yes, you're absolutely right, but there's generally a few constants in King Arthur, and if we're talking about weapons, one of them would be Excalibur. Can you have an adaptation of King Arthur without that element? Yes. Would it be strange? Also yes. Regardless of your version, there's generally a few constants in King Arthur, and if those constants are gone, it's quite legitimate to ask why, and whether it qualifies as an adaptation. It doesn't even necessarily make the work bad. If I write "King Arthur" and it's a story of Artie who travels to Mars and establishes humanity's first colony, it might be a terrific sci-fi story, but you'd be left asking how I'd actually "adapted" KA as well.

Problem with the video in question is that it looks lacklustre on its own, and more a case of slapping the RH name on it than actually adapting RH.

 

[umatbro]

Yeah absolutely no sign whatsoever.

Slow day in the conservative outrage industry ?

The right has indeed covered this flop
Also Robin Hood in the hood would have made a great hood movie in 1993, but this is 2023, where Hollywood cares more about making trash than making sense, so we have this.