As an Amazon Associate, I earn on qualifying purchases made through affiliate links on this site.

There’s an argument that goes around whenever there’s a bad adaptation, remake, or sequel to a beloved property, something like: “If you don’t like it, so what, the original is still there, go watch/read/play that instead.”

That’s true, of course, the original is still there, but that doesn’t mean it’s a good argument against criticizing the new variant. In fact, saying “the original is still there” isn’t really an argument at all, because it doesn’t take into account the reason why people dislike these new things to begin with.

We can all think of those movies or shows. I call them “Sherringford Howses”. Sherringford because that’s the name Arthur Conan Doyle was originally going to give his famous detective, and Howses because I like a silly pun, and it seems that Sherlock Holmes is a common victim of this problem, with things like the BBC’s Sherlock or the Robert Downey Jr. movies.

Imagine if these entries were made exactly the same, but rather than using Mr. Holmes’ name, they were titled “Sherringford Howses” instead. Would you watch them? Would anyone watch them? Would people give them the praise that Sherlock received as a smart, modern update? Or would they be discarded as half-baked rip-offs of a much greater character, written by a much greater writer?

When you take a name from somewhere famous, you automatically get the recognition, and to some extent, the reputation that name brings with it. If you want to adapt the work of, say, Tolkien, then you get the opportunity to associate your name with some of the best fantasy ever written.

No matter how good or bad your take on the IP is, you will still get people coming to see your work simply because it’s set in a familiar world or features a well-known character.

It’s the same with any franchise, whether you’re adapting, making a sequel, or just setting your story in that same world. Say you make a Star Trek show, then you get the chance to be a part of a sci-fi phenomenon that’s been building and audience and leaving a legacy since the 1960s. As a result, you have a duty to both the fans and the franchise to be, at the very least, conscious of that, and humble enough to realise that this is something far bigger than you. It’s only because of the work of people in the past that you get what you now have, a huge franchise, a loyal fanbase, and a fully-realised world for you to step into.

This is one of the reasons why they don’t just make their own thing in the first place. For one, it’s a lot harder to come up with something that’s completely original, and harder to get a studio onboard with it. They’d rather have something that’s tied to a successful brand. No matter how good your idea is, that won’t guarantee you an audience, but at least to begin with, a ready made franchise will.

So many times, though, that’s all that a franchise is used for, a chance for a writer or director to get their own ideas out there in an easy-to-sell package, regardless of how this affects the franchise itself, or clashes with the intentions of the original author.

It might substantially change the world or the established characters in it. Sometimes twisting it into a shape the creator would never have wanted, with morals, ideals, and beliefs that are in direct contradiction with everything they intended their work to stand for, and quite possibly something the audience would never have chosen to see if it wasn’t wrapped in a cloak of familiarity.

Simply saying “the original is there” doesn’t mean the property won’t be damaged by this new entry. Many people don’t read books or play video games, and they aren’t going to go back through a fifty year old catalogue. If they see a movie or show, they might assume it’s faithful to the source material, that it’s what the original author intended, or that this is what the rest of the franchise is like, harming its reputation and the legacy of the people who made it.

After all, many people associate a particular actor with Sherlock Holmes rather than the character from the book himself. How long will it be before people forget about Basil Rathbone and Jeremy Brett, and begin to think that Holmes was always a hyperactive sociopath who ran around 21st century London with a sarcastic GP as his sidekick?

This then becomes the bottom line from where everything else is judged, rather than the source material, and entire generations have these images in mind when they think of certain characters or works. You could say this is on the audience for not checking out the originals, but is it really, or is it on the creatives who’ve hijacked a property without giving it the respect it deserves?

I will admit, there are some things I like that aren’t close to the source material. Things like Steven Spielberg’s War of the Worlds or Master & Commander. Sometimes it’s because I was a fan of these films before I read the books. Sometimes it’s because they are good films in their own right. But usually it’s because they don’t do anything to seriously undermine the original works, or the author’s intent.

In all cases, I would still make the distinction between them and the source material, and say that they are guilty of the Sherringford Holmes effect to some extent. They all get a boost from being associated with these IPs, and should show them respect accordingly, not destroy their legacy.

If a film, book, or game can’t survive on its own without being tied to a much more successful brand, then it should be sure it does everything it can to honour that brand. If they won’t acknowledge their debt to what came before, then they don’t deserve the benefits of that association.

Thanks for reading! I’m looking to grow my audience for my blog, so would really appreciate any help you can give. Please consider liking this post, and sharing it on social media. You can also subscribe to receive posts by email, and follow me on Twitter and Facebook. Also, if you’d like to, you can donate through Buy Me A Coffee to help keep things running!

Thankyou!