[spoiler]

> The defense of “you shouldn’t change anything about my beloved series” is pretty flimsy.

Nobody said that. You're building a straw man and putting words into people's mouths (or comments, rather).

Of course there's always going to be changes when adapting for different media. People dislike when important things change.

> If you don’t change anything, then what’s the point of watching/reading/playing the same thing over and over? Doesn’t any series just get incredibly boring without variation?

I've re-read lots of books, and there's many reasons I do it. Sometimes it's as stupid as missing the characters. Sometimes I'm co-reading with a friend who just recently started the series and I recommended it; so it's like a little book club. Sometimes it's nostalgia, etc.

Similarly regarding TV shows. Sometimes I just wanna share the moment with another person, see their reaction etc.

Games are a whole different situation though. Not sure why you even put that in there. Do you play games often? I feel like you either don't, or just play a genre of games I don't. It kinda baffles me why you'd even ask what the point of replaying games is...

> Great literature, TV, and films say things. Sometimes you might not agree. But at least it makes you think. Ideally, each entry in a series should say different or evolving things.

I both agree and disagree... I like the way something like BSG or Arcane (TV show, great btw) or even Buffy "says things" where they're not, ... literally spelled out in a patronising way?

> But I do think even beloved series have to have room for adaptation and experimentation. Because otherwise, they stagnate and can get to a point where they’re no longer worth watching

I kinda agree with this, though. There's some great successful examples of this (JoJo's Bizarre Adventures or Supernatural come to mind)

[brokencode]

You’re truly all over the place here, but as to your “straw man” point, I was responding to these comments:

> Many times the "rightwing media" driven review bombing is about beloved series being damaged/unfaithful.

> The Watchmen TV show is a horrible example as it's literally fan-fiction with little to no real connection to the graphic novel. So that fact alone pissed a lot of people off.

Both are implying that new entries in a series should stick closely to previous entries. I don’t think being “unfaithful” or changing certain details is wrong if it’s necessary to tell a different story or provide a new experience.

And for games, are you really going to defend how developers make essentially the same Call of Duty and Halo over and over again and sell it for $60?

I never said that games have no replay value, and now you are the one attacking a straw man. I’m criticizing when new entries in a series bring nothing new to the table.

I can see how my wording there could lead to misunderstanding, but still, I thought it was clear based on context what I meant.

[spoiler]

> Both are implying that new entries in a series should stick closely to previous entries. I don’t think being “unfaithful” or changing certain details is wrong if it’s necessary to tell a different story or provide a new experience.

Telling a different story that's consistent with the established lore is fine. Dedicated fans get annoyed when established lore breaks; especially when it's something important.

And about writing original stories: I'm all for it! That's not what's happening though, is it? They use the original work as a platform to tell their lame/modified stories or spread some political message (bait&switch the audience basically).

A more honest thing to do would be to put into credits something like "Original stories (loosely) based on {series title}". Then at least people would go in with the correct expectations, and maybe even be pleasantly surprised by the semi-original story.

> are you really going to defend how developers make essentially the same Call of Duty and Halo over and over again and sell it for $60?

Isn't this happening with TV shows and films recently, though? They're all the same cookie cutter TV shows with nearly identical ensemble of characters and the plots look like someone just filled out the same rigid story template.

> I never said that games have no replay value, and now you are the one attacking a straw man. I’m criticizing when new entries in a series bring nothing new to the table. > > I can see how my wording there could lead to misunderstanding, but still, I thought it was clear based on context what I meant.

Right. Sorry then; it wasn't clear to me what you meant. We agree, then, I think. But the point you tried to make is even muddier now. I know you're not saying JK Rowling wrote seven Philosopher Stones, but I'm not sure what you mean. I sure everyone understands it's normal for stories to evolve over the course of a series?

[brokencode]

Yes, the same thing is happening for movies and TV shows. Practically every major movie is either a boring superhero movie or a remake. It’s because movie studios don’t want to take a risk on something new and creative that could flop. They want dependable profits.

I just pointed out Watchmen as a rare example where the producers took a big risk by making it about racism and violent extremism. Even though it was a superhero show, it felt fresh due to the new take and ideas.

It rankled a lot of feathers in the process, likely reinforcing Hollywood’s desire to continue making cookie cutter shows instead.

And about Harry Potter - it did a great job of evolving throughout the series to stay fresh. The kids grew up, learned new types of magic, and had constantly changing relationships for one thing.

Also, the series constantly introduced new and interesting characters or killed off extremely popular characters as well.

There was even an installment that heavily made use of time travel, which I thought was depicted in a really cool and satisfying way.