Corporate bastards ruin another childhood character

[Toast]

Well, from one not taken in by the nostalgia here (I know who he is, but never really got in to Rupert stuff)...

The old version looks like a dodgy skinny bastard with a gimp mask on (check the shot of him on the magic carpet, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4393038.stm).

The new one is much cuter to be honest.

Having said that, if someone messes with Curious George or Pooh Bear, I'm gonna be pissed...

But really, they have to sell stuff, and the old ones look a bit crap without the fond memories of our childhoods to cloud our sights.

[James Deuce]

Well, from one not taken in by the nostalgia here (I know who he is, but never really got in to Rupert stuff)...

The old version looks like a dodgy skinny bastard with a gimp mask on (check the shot of him on the magic carpet, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4393038.stm).

The new one is much cuter to be honest.

Having said that, if someone messes with Curious George or Pooh Bear, I'm gonna be pissed...

But really, they have to sell stuff, and the old ones look a bit crap without the fond memories of our childhoods to cloud our sights.

It's nothing to do with nostalgia. Children's books that breach the generation barrier are rare as hen's teeth, and are regarded as literature and social commentary. The so-called un-PC nature of these stories documents attitudes that were historically correct, and nothing to do with modern concepts of racial or socio-economic "harmony". In fact leaving them intact shows how generalised uninformed propaganda can shape adult attitudes, while still enjoying stories that have an appeal outside their milieu

This type of corporate whoredom is the same as Adidas painting shoes on the feet of figures depicted on the roof of the Sistine Chapel, because the original isn't modern enough. Yo get wit da shizz. Not.

[jrandom]

It's nothing to do with nostalgia. Children's books that breach the generation barrier are rare as hen's teeth, and are regarded as literature and social commentary.

do you see piles of the old Rupert books burning in the street?

[wanders to window, gazes out]

not today.

perhaps I could infer that Rupert's social commentary will stand, but that would be unscientific; I can't watch all the streets all day long, so They might sneak in and burn all the old books sometime when I'm not watching.

same as Adidas painting shoes on the feet of figures depicted on the roof of the Sistine Chapel, because the original isn't modern enough.

no tain't.

it's the same as Adidas making another painting with people wearing shoes and hanging it in their Portland HQ.

if you're looking at it, that means you already walked into the bloody Adidas HQ dunnit.

in this case, if you're looking at it, that means you already walked into the 'new children's books' section of your local whitcoulls, or summat.

and what, precisely, did you *expect* when you did that?

old Rupert books are not hens' teeth. go grab a few, and celebrate your imperialist history.

[James Deuce]

I never said the books themselves were rare, I said that those that have cross-generational influence and appeal were rare.

It isn't in any way the same as the scenario you described re. Adidas. The new stories will be characterless, trite, and corny, nothing bad will happen to anyone, and they will sink without trace, taking their historical legacy with them.

There was a run on making movies out of Roald Dahl stories in the 70s and those represented his initial intention for the stories quite well. The darkness inherent in Dahl's books were maintained, as were the holes left for children's imagination to road freely within. The latest iteration of Charlie and The Chocolate Factory is a saccharine piece of crap that tries to explain everything, and as a consequence has no intrinsic worth, except as a stand-alone piece modern children's entertainment. Over budget and uninspiring in other words.

[inlinefour]

must be that wakt disney bastard again

[Kickaha]

. I throughly enjoyed that tale. .

Me to, I can remember reading it many years ago

[Ixion]

I think Mr Jim2 is correct. The problem is that when Hollywood bastardises the classics, the deluge of publicity so overwhelms the original that everyone forgets that it existed. The "disney" version becomes the only one known. Since the "disney" verison (I know it's not always Disney) is basically crap people soon consign it to the figurative dustbin, and the original gets cast out along with the fake.

It is like the Riley car (and other makes) Most people only remember Rileys as badge engineeered BMCs. And rightly dismiss them as crap cars. Few bother to remember the original Riley, which was quite a different thing.

[jrandom]

I never said the books themselves were rare, I said that those that have cross-generational influence and appeal were rare.

this generation is not a generation that will influence bugger all. is that a bad thing? I t'ink not.

these are not the old days, the bad days, the all or nothing days.

these are, in fact, the insipid days, the mildly-clouded days, the blankly polite days.

we are not even God's unwanted children; we are his unwanted children's second cousins once removed, squirming restlessly on a Sunday afternoon visit in his rattan armchair.

The latest iteration of Charlie and The Chocolate Factory is a saccharine piece of crap that tries to explain everything...

beats the previous one, though...

[James Deuce]

this generation is not a generation that will influence bugger all. is that a bad thing? I t'ink not.

these are not the old days, the bad days, the all or nothing days.

these are, in fact, the insipid days, the mildly-clouded days, the blankly polite days.

we are not even God's unwanted children; we are his unwanted children's second cousins once removed, squirming restlessly on a Sunday afternoon visit in his rattan armchair

Niiiiice! Guess who created that world for these kids though? Shouldn't we "fix" it if we can?

beats the previous one, though...

Not, but your previous points were so good I forgive you.

[SPman]

my first books were MAD magazine.. kind of explains alot actually
Oh.. and Car Craft/ Hot Rod

Oh Shit! - me too - along with "the Water Babies" and all the Biggles books.
And Arthur Mees Encyclopedia.........
No wonder my mind's a strange thing to wander in........

[parsley]

all the Biggles books.

Screwing with your childhood isn't a recent thing. Remember the Biggles film they made in the 1980's? Fucking travesty.

[Ghost Lemur]

Damn am I the only one who grew up on National Geographic magazines?


Lets see Disney fuck with that.

[Krayy]

Screwing with your childhood isn't a recent thing. Remember the Biggles film they made in the 1980's? Fucking travesty.

I really liked that film and even bought the soundtrack (but that was mainly cos I was a huge Jon Anderson fan - still am). I didn't mind the whole time-travel take on it and the flying scenes were quite cool. Mind you, I also enjoyed the film version of Howard the Duck as well

But of course, it wasn't a touch on Monty Python's Biggles sketch. Brought them right out of the closet like the "gay" flyers they were