LogFAQs > #894970107

Skye Reynolds posted...

Donomark posted...

[150 character limit image link]

And the one on the left came up with the concept. Like I said, don't raise somebody else's kid. In a literal sense, a step parent could be everything a biological parent failed to be. In a metaphorical sense pertaining to intellectual properties, you don't put your best effort into a story that you do not own.

I can't say that Universal owns Frankenstein because they created a better monster than Mary Shelley did or that the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles should always be the marketable 1980s cartoon show rather than the divisive gritty comic. Nor would it be right to say that Donkey Kong, as in the arcade game, shouldn't be allowed an update of some sort because the original D.K. is now Cranky Kong in current continuity.

You can always return to those earlier interpretations. It might not be the best for those stories, but you really can never honestly say that the second, third, or fourth incarnation of a character is the only interpretation. (It might be to you. But that won't stop others from potentially returning to square one at some point.)

I agree with what you're saying here. The only issue I have is when people mischaracterize that earlier history to justify something divisive. I'm not saying that Batman killing is entirely without basis. In my experience on this subject, people tend to overstate the frequency and breadth that constituted that depiction.

On a side note, I wonder whether this issue was even one of interest to Burton. If I recall, Daniel Waters wrote Batman killing because he felt that it was inconvenient to write Batman tying the villains up. It wouldn't substantively change the points that we've been discussing, but I do think that it's amusing that we may be putting more thought into this than the filmmakers did.
---

"You can do it your way, or you can be effective."
http://dbznextdimension.libsyn.com/ http://cbfrevue.libsyn.com/