135
Seems like double standards to me ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
(thelemmy.club)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 05 Mar 2026
135 points (97.2% liked)
History Memes
2181 readers
1120 users here now
A place to share history memes!
Rules:
-
No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, assorted bigotry, etc.
-
No fascism (including tankies/red fash), atrocity denial or apologia, etc.
-
Tag NSFW pics as NSFW.
-
Follow all Piefed.social rules.
-
History referenced must be 20+ years old.
Banner courtesy of @setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world
OTHER COMMS IN THE HISTORYVERSE:
- !historymusic@quokk.au
- !historygallery@quokk.au
- !historyruins@piefed.social
- !historyart@piefed.social
- !historyartifacts@piefed.social
- !historyphotos@piefed.social
founded 10 months ago
MODERATORS
Not sure if something new is coming out covering the legends, but presumably people aren't taking issue with things building off known IP, just that most sequels today are cheap cash grabs of objectively lower quality than the original. Most works coming out about Arthurian legends now tend to be a new analysis applied to the existing story, thus introducing new themes and adding layers, not just doing simple mimicry. But maybe I'm not aware of the specific media you're referring to.
I'm not referring to any specific medium, nor is the bottom panel necessarily referring to modern times either.
It's just a shower thought where I recognized that some of the most revered legends and mythologies are basically just another clusterfuck of retellings and adaptations to new influences that we nowadays would probably just call prequels, sequels, reboots, deconstructions etc. But tbh, it's not that deep, just a shower thought.
And I agree with you in principle, but in implementation I differ.
There's a huge difference between taking something that has been extant for seven hundred years and remaking it in a new way, and something that came out four years ago, and redoing it, because you think you can do it better now or you can squeeze more money out of it.
I mean, look at the difference between every movie version of King Arthur and Monty Python's quest for the Holy Grail. It draws from the same well, and yet produces vastly different results.
Remaking a movie but doing it with CGI instead of animation, ala Disney, does not carry the same artistic merit.
Taking the humor and childish glee out of an animated series, ala Disney, and redoing it as a serious, epic martial arts powered battle for ancient China does not have the same artistic merit.
And while it is very likely that a new king Arthur movie would retread the same safe, well-worn ground, there's always the chance they could put a new spin on it, or take it to an interesting place, and make it worth the watch.