People like to be precious and possessive about stories they have a connection to, and movies make these things permanent in a way theatre can’t. It’s totally understandable why people would be skeptical about a new interpretation of a beloved novel like Gatsby or an adored character like Superman. Many don’t even like seeing their favorite stories get adapted for the screen at all, like we saw in the early criticisms of The Hunger Games. It’s hard not to have a strong personal connection to a story you love, and as with many loving relationships people have with other people or objects, it’s easy to become incredibly possessive of these things. For many people, when you love a movie an exceptional amount, you literally go out and buy and own it.
Legal implications of intellectual property rights aside, no one really owns a movie, or any story. Particularly in the case of movies, there are so many people contributing in small or large portions along the way that assigning one person ownership is a reduction we’ve all come to accept as imperfect but necessary. But when it comes to stories being retold, remade, or expanded upon, there shouldn’t necessarily be anything offensive about someone wanting to contributing to the universe(s) that exist in the cultural consciousness. A story can’t be ruined by its retelling and modification as long as we have the original or otherwise preferred version of the story. Now, if remaking Scarface meant that the Pacino version were to somehow disappear from the face of the earth, that I’d have a problem with. Until that day comes, go crazy, Universal.
Continue reading on the next page…
