Cobra Commander re-appears as the main antagonist in G I Joe: resolute which premiered in April 20 2009. An appearance that caused an uproar among the G I Joe fan base. Here is a video with made of clips showcasing the new attitude and personality of the new Cobra Commander
The main issues raised was how different this incarnation of Cobra Commander was from previous incarnations. In the past TV series, the character of Cobra Commander was always portrayed in a rather comedic light. He had a flair for the dramatic, frequently coming up with new, and sometimes logically absurd, plans for global domination. Plans which would always be foiled either by the anti-terrorist "G I Joe" forces or by his own clumsy undoing. Cobra Commander in the past would be caught in the most silliest of situations, and frequently retreats from battle in comedic fashion.
Due to the frequency of such comedic portrayals of the Cobra Commander character, the viewers' perception of that character has been one of a "goof up", a comic relief villain. That perception was challenged with this latest incarnation. This new, merciless, bloodthirsty tyrant of a madman received mixed reaction from viewers. Many long time fans especially, disliked this portrayal as it did not stick to their pre-conceived perception on what the "Cobra Commander" character should be like.
However, if one were to research further, this incarnation of the character is the closest in keeping with the character's original intended personality.
As referenced from the character description which came with the original Cobra Commander toy(the product which Cobra Commander in the animated series is based on)
So even though this latest animated portrayal can be considered the most "true to the original", since G I Joe was based on a line of action figures, viewers' perception over the years about the character made it difficult for most of them to accept his latest, non-comedic portrayal.
So how far can one take "being true to the original", if doing so would alienate long time viewers and fans by going against their pre-conceived perceptions that are based on past experience?
I am sure anyone would have an experience of seeing a character adapted to different media from an existing one. And I am sure many of said characters may keep more toward the general perception of who the character is and not so much the spirit of the character as intended by its creator. I say, if a remake of a character is true to the original it has to be true to the intended spirit of original character and not the prevailing perceptions of said character. It is the same case for any remake of an old movie, or an adaption of a comic book story into a tv series.
What is your take on that?
What is your say?
I guess the point is that the original series was a big success and not to follow in its footsteps would be deemed as a 'wrong move'.
ReplyDeleteI was very very disappointed with the depiction of 'Venom' in Spiderman 3. It varied greatly from my perception of 'Venom' in the original comic series.
I guess when something is recreated, they expect to be able to draw similarities to the original which made it successful in the first place.
Yes, I guess this have to our perpetual sets. Our impression of people and/or characters will always stay. Same for X-men III, where Cyclops seemed to be the next leader, just died. And the hot tempered Wolverine became 'leader' ... Very disappointing indeed.
ReplyDeleteBut yet, this creates a 'want to watch' factor in audience, to see how a different character can turn into. But often, it just turn into disappointment.
Thanks for the comments guys.
ReplyDeleteWhy i say that a character in a cross media adaptation should stick to the original spirit and not the general perception is this. The original character was created for a purpose or to convey a certain message. Like Cobra Commander for example was quite likely envisioned as a maniacal fanatical psychotic in the toyline to bring a very strong anti-terrorism and anti fanaticism message to the public. Making him a comedic character in the subsequent cartoon diminished the "severity" of terrorism that the original was meant to convey, instead relegating terrorism and fanaticism to the level of a joke.
For X-men, if you were to look at the ongoing comic storyline that was running in 2002 to 2006 prior to the release of X-men 3 respectively, Cyclops was getting an even lower profile than usual, with more Wolverine centered stories popping up. Hence the public's perception follows that Cyclops was definitely a "lower profile" character than Wolverine. Putting it that way, this is a very good example of a movie adaptation following the public's perception of a character and not the original intent and spirit of the character.
This brings into question on how different an "adaptation" is to a "remake". Now if a film is advertised as a remake or "re-interpretation" then the director and producers are free to play around with the core concepts and produce a thoroughly different film and characters since the film is now seen as a new creation only loosely based on the concepts of the original source.
If touted as a "adaptation" then a certain level of being true to the original is expected. If not in the looks of the characters, then in the spirit of the characters. Seeing as how by "adaption" it means that a story in one form of media is just transplanted into another form of media.
Also, like in the case of multi media franchises like Transformers or G I Joe, it should be clearly stated which media portrayal of the franchise the movie adaption chooses to follow more closely.
For example, the often juvenile and simplistic Transformers anime series style with simple themes like Good versus evil differs greatly from the epic and more mature audience oriented style of the Transformers comic in which philosophy of war and pre-destination are just one of many in depth themes explored. Though the comic preceded the cartoon by a whole year, the movie instead chose to adapt from the cartoon owing to the fact that it recieved more wide-spread recognition and hence resulted in a movie whose only selling point is its special effects.
Quality of the resulting adaptation or remake is the most important. With any literature work regardless of origin, a plodding narrative with shallow character development and portrayal is undesirable. If the resulting adaptation does do away with the undesirable aspects of the original source, for example, Batman Begins doing away with the campy comedic elements of the 60s Batman portrayals, then the resulting adaptation will be hailed as a great success and a great movie in its own right.
Any main character has to be interesting. He or she has to be able to capture the attention of the audience and even allow the audience to relate to said character. If any change to the original character is warranted, it can only be a change for the better. A change for the worse would be a terrible mistake.
Very True.
ReplyDeleteMany people have a general impression that remakes and adaptions and installations are synonymous. They believe that they must all be true to the original, and on what you have discussed previously.
To that I disagree, why must a remake even strive to be 'true to the original'? What is the true essence of 'remake' in the first place?
If something is remade, we must be prepared for change. The word 'remade' is there for a reason- synonymous to ‘redoing’ and 'restarting'. To restart we really have to abandon what we have currently constructed and go back to basics with the original jigsaw pieces again.
Moreover, 'remade' also has the associated concept of 'a new take on it'. If the new guy believes that in forgoing a previously conceptualized concept he can augment the current character or plot, he is justified to strike it out; since it's his independent take of it this time.
Then what defines a good remake? It would be the quality of variation (and not the quantity of variation) of the remade... thing.
If the remade character or storyline is crappy in terms of characterization and plot, then Literature herself would condemn that particular remake as a literary failure; and this is usually ascertained by the best critics. But if it is going to be objectively better (wrt to the 5 literary techniques), I believe we should stop thinking along the lines of: "hey I got here first so I set the rules, now stuff it and don't try anything funny"
Of course I do not advocate incredulous deviations ie: Lord of the Rings- Space Conquest, or Playskool Matrix, or Jason and the Astronauts (these I refer thematically, rather than titles of a movie), even if they would appeal to the general population (which I doubt so). But if they do come out, and become successes- I will be in no position to out-rightly condemn or criticize their take on the original even though the original intent and essence is no longer there. The most I can do is to just pass them by.
And say an equivalence of: He has the rights over it, but I personally disagree with him.
These of course that is just my humble opinion, that remakes should be independent of affiliations to being 'true to the original', owing to the reasons as stated above. I would be very curious on your take of my comment, so please do re-comment soon.
Well Jelemsei, the problem here is that for the case of Cobra Commander and this latest G I Joe animated series, it is neither a remake nor is it a continuation "season 5" of the original 1980s animated cartoon.
ReplyDeleteIt is going back to the roots, the toys and the comics, and creating an all new animated series from the basis of the character personalities that was portrayed in the toy description and comic stories. Problem is, due to the worldwide popularity of the 1980s cartoon series, and the limited availability of the toys and comics, many people have come to perceive the cartoon as the "original".
Consider this fictional scenario.
Its like what if you discovered that Star Wars was originally based on a novel that saw only a limited print run? Its themes are very different, and so are many characters, but it is a great piece of literature none the less.
So in the mind of the public, what will be the "original" star wars? The movie that everybody knows about? Or the book that the movie is based on? What if a new movie is made based more closely to the book, adapting it scene for scene, and it wins the same amount of awards as "original" star wars movie?
Its the same scenario here for G I Joe and its portrayal of Cobra Commander.
That reminds me of those movies that are adapted from books. They make the movie with some changes to the story or characters and then they release a "novelization" of the movie complete with all the changes. People read the novelization and think they have read the original book that the movie was at first based on. In the case of G I Joe, or with any remake of movies or TV series like the BattleStar Galactica, it would really depend on what the majority feel and how much publicity this new series gets. I personally feel that Cobra Commander is more competently written here as a villain as opposed to his previous comedic portrayals. And if this new TV series spawns as much episodes and merchandise worldwide as the original series did, I am certain people would slowly come to accept the new portrayal if only because it is better written.
ReplyDeleteYou know Daniel, there are still people who obstinately insist that the classic Battlestar Galactica TV series is superior and the remake was not being true to the original. I agree that acceptance of the change of character personalities in any remade tv show would depend on the popularity of that tv show.
ReplyDeleteAnd I am glad you like the new Cobra Commander. With any portrayal of a character on screen, it has to be to the liking of the audience. Maybe back in the 1980s, audience prefered comedic villians.
But nowadays, after all the dark and devious villians in the recent superhero movies, maybe audience tastes have changed. But the fans of the old Cobra Commander would no doubt defend what they believe in.
You must know that the comics and the cartoon were aimed at totally different target audience. The comics were aimed at older teenagers and adults that were already into collecting these action figures. The cartoon however was meant to appeal to everyone, especially children. It was meant to introduce them to G I Joe and make them buy the toys. Kids who grew up watching comedy stuff like Looney toons and Scooby Doo would have been scared off if Cobra Commander was a downright dark and devious guy. Parents would see that and maybe even complain to the producers of the show that the evil villain is scaring their kids. That would not only alienate a substantial portion of the toy buyers market but may even tarnish the brand name. I don't think the original producers wanted to make Cobra Commander as comedic as he was in his initial cartoon appearance, but it was factors such as appealing to the children and protecting their brand name that forced their hand.
ReplyDeleteThe parents are just being over-protective. Kids are not those little angels that parents keep making them out to be. As any boy and they will tell you that they'd rather see a badass cruel villain than a comedic one. Cruel, evil and dark is the quintessential definition of what a villain should be. A comedic role should be considered a "comic relief" role and not the role of a villain. But then again, it could be a sign of changing times. Back then in the 80s, children did not have access to violent scary video games or DVDs of NC16 or M18 movies that sort of "desensitized" them toward violent, evil characters.
ReplyDeleteWhen anything is acceptable by all for the longest time it becomes the norm. Perhaps newer fans are not familiar with the original character. Perhaps they are not comfortable with the dark portrayal and prefer a villain whom they can laugh at. Well, the movie-makers could have taken that into consideration but they did not. I think the ‘artistic license’ to create anything that suits the creator is fine. It is really the creator’s prerogative to decide.
ReplyDeleteCould it also depend on how strongly the creator believes in his work? I mean, if the creator is that confident that his take on a existing character would be better received, wouldn't he go all out to realize that character in film? Like Primax said, times are changing and kids are more exposed to darker characters in media. I mean, look at the old campy Adam West Batman and compare him to the Dark Knight in the recent movies and Justice league animated series. If "the DArk Knight" movie or "Batman Begins" were to have that old campy feel, it would have been a disaster.Spiderman got revamped from a "friendly neighborhood superhero" to a tortured soul, liked by some, but mistrusted by many others. If all the Superheros and their villians are going the path of "dark and dangerous", and such a path proves successful, i do not see why G I Joe and Cobra Commander cannot go down that same path. It is what the audience wants.
ReplyDelete