> It's the same mentality that makes people declare that "[arbitrary tv show] should've been cancelled long ago!"; or what a travesty it is that [arbitrary beloved IP] is getting a sequel/remake/reboot.

I don't know about that, there are very good reasons not to, in my opinion. It's the same reason we don't build on top of the gaza pyramids, or replace the mona lisa with a more modern version.

We like to preserve the legacy of things, and when you pollute it with things not in the original design it's easy to end up reshaping what it means and diluting its history.

I don't know that making a new season of a tv show is anything like building on top of the Great Pyramids of Giza. It's like building another pyramid.

I certainly don't think that the Luxor hotel and casino in Las Vegas diminishes the legacy of the Great Pyramids in any way. In fact, I think it's really interesting that they were able to use an ancient form to achieve something architecturally unique from a modern standpoint. It allowed them to create an uncommonly large open lobby area, which is really cool to see, and wouldn't have happened if someone had said 'no pyramids, pyramids have been done.'

A remake/reboot is certainly nothing like replacing the Mona Lisa. It's more like a Banksy type person painting their own take on the Mona Lisa on a concrete wall or something.

Do you think that no artist after da Vinci should ever reference the Mona Lisa in any way? Because derivative works were being made by prominent artists before da Vinci even considered his finished. In fact, the famous Mona Lisa arguably wasn't even the only version of the Mona Lisa that da Vinci himself contributed to.

'Meaning' is extremely personal and dependent entirely on the context within which a work is received. No work will ever hold the exact same meaning for two individuals. Furthermore, a work's meaning to a particular individual is likely to evolve continuously throughout their life.

To discourage derivative works is like saying that you don't want to have to consider that alternate meanings are even possible.

Agreed, not all sequels or reboots are bad.

Derivative work is a little different than building a sequel though. A sequel may stand alone on it's own, but it also can take away from the original intention of it's prequel because it usually further builds out the universe or plot that took place in the original.

Movie producers often reach for sequels because they are guaranteed cash grabs and prop them up with nothing more than a shallow plot and a few A-list celebrities. To many, this takes away from the intent and meaning of the original.

I like a well-done sequel. As much fun as it is to step into a movie world for the first time and find out what's going on, there's a certain sameyness to the requisite beats to establish origins, establish personalities, establish locations, just a whole lot o' establishing going on. Again, that's great and all, but it limits the amount of time for the story itself, and limits the range of stories that can be told.

Look at all the superhero origin stories that have come out lately, and summarize to yourself the story in the movie, without including any of the establishing. Even in the best ones... in fact, to some extent, especially in the best ones... the story itself is quite simple.

The sequel will have a chance to spread its wings much more. The fact that so many fail to do so is... well... an interesting discussion on its own. But the really great sequels are often movies that had to be sequels, because they told a story too big to also have 45-75 minutes of establishing in there with them.

Each of your examples destroys the original.

Making sequels in no way affects the integrity of the original.

They are wholly different circumstances.

Building on top of the gaza pyramids doesn't destroy the original, it changes it.

Sequels absolutely can affect the integrity of the original by expanding the universe of the plot in ways that it's original design never intended or the way it was originally perceived.

Yes, but it's a fictional universe, so you're free to disregard any elements of it that fall outside of your favorite entries into the canon.

If you think that some new works expand the universe in a stupid direction, there's no reason you can't pretend they don't exist and still derive the same meaning from your favorite works.

Disney does this as a matter of policy.

You're not obliged to pay attention to any of the sequels.

Countless Shakespeare productions and remakes and reinterpretations don't diminish the original form.

> You're not obliged to pay attention to any of the sequels.

That statement does nothing but detract from the conversation. Of course I'm not obliged to pay attention to any of them. I'm not making the generalization that all sequels are bad.

No but you are saying that a bad sequel can make the original worse. I don't think so. The original is still there, untouched, and you can hone your skill at putting yourself in the context in which it was originally released.

Just for the record, Adam West was indisputably the best Batman.

I don't know if you're joking, but regardless there is a point to be had.

Batman needs some comedy, and it needs to be proud of it, and there has been very little of that in the reboots. In fact, with the exception of a few scenes in the Michael Keaton version (which is my favourite in fact), I've only really seen it in Suicide Squad, and it only had about 30 seconds which included Batman.

The Adam West version is a comedy show, and it does a pretty good job at it.

Not at all joking that Adam West is the best. He owns the character like Shatner owns Kirk.

That said, I like the campier interpretations of the TV show and Burton/Keaton but I also like the grittier Miller/Mazzuchelli Year One and Nolan/Bale interpretations, too. There's a proud tradition of both, and they complement each other (one interpretation playing straight man to the other, if you will).

It would be a thing of beauty and wonder if someone could accurately re-dub all of Batman Begins with Adam West dialog from the original series. Instant meme-success.

> If they reboot Batman a dozen more times, it doesn't keep you from thinking that Adam West was the best Batman.

Recently, I've been watching Sherlock. After doing some reading, I learned that Sherlock Holmes is the most portrayed character ever, "with more than 70 actors playing the part in over 200 films" [1]. Talking with a work mate, he said his favorite portrayal was Jeremy Brett. I also learned that the original works are in the public domain, which is probably why it is so often used as source material.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherlock_Holmes#Adaptations_in...

> If the Simpsons runs for fifty seasons, it doesn't undo the first ten.

Yes it does, absolutely.

That's like saying an awful ending to a movie can't ruin the whole movie, people can still enjoy the beginning.

It's totally possible to ruin people's memories and nostalgia.

Tangential, but the bad thing about 50 seasons of the Simpsons isn't the product, but rather all the comedy writers and voice actors it ties up making schlock, who would otherwise be off making much more interesting and coherent works in smaller teams. The Simpsons is to TV production staff what EA is to game devs or Google is to software engineers: a place where promising talent is absorbed into a black hole.

You make it sound as though no one has a choice in their job.

Like jackbooted thugs from Fox show up on your doorstep and say "we heard you write comedy; you're coming with us."

There's no shortage of talented creative people, and contracts usually don't last forever.