<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: New &#8216;White Fang&#8217; Adaptation Confirmed by Disney	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.rotoscopers.com/2014/11/16/new-white-fang-adaptation-confirmed-by-disney-2/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.rotoscopers.com/2014/11/16/new-white-fang-adaptation-confirmed-by-disney-2/</link>
	<description>Animation News, Reviews, Interviews, Podcasts &#38; Videos!</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 17 Nov 2014 15:34:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.7.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: JK Riki		</title>
		<link>https://www.rotoscopers.com/2014/11/16/new-white-fang-adaptation-confirmed-by-disney-2/#comment-12658</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[JK Riki]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Nov 2014 15:34:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rotoscopers.com/?p=22790#comment-12658</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[So... it&#039;s not a remake, but a film loosely based on the book? Then honestly that doesn&#039;t sound to me like it&#039;s White Fang at all, really. It sounds like they&#039;re using the name to spark interest from the audience...


Generally speaking I find &quot;modern adaptations&quot; to mess up what worked so well in the non-modern originals. There&#039;s a reason the classics are classics, because they appeal to the time and place they are set and/or written. By taking them away from that, you destroy a great deal of the appeal that in inherent in the original work.


That&#039;s not to say they can&#039;t pull it off, of course. Such adaptations happen everyday. I just think it might be missing some of the reason that book existed in the first place if you bring it into a modern place. Looking at the previews for the new modern Annie, it looks like it will be a fun time, but so far it seems to be trying a bit too hard. Annie is brilliant because of what it is, not just pieces of what it is.


Look forward to seeing how it comes along!]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So&#8230; it&#8217;s not a remake, but a film loosely based on the book? Then honestly that doesn&#8217;t sound to me like it&#8217;s White Fang at all, really. It sounds like they&#8217;re using the name to spark interest from the audience&#8230;</p>
<p>Generally speaking I find &#8220;modern adaptations&#8221; to mess up what worked so well in the non-modern originals. There&#8217;s a reason the classics are classics, because they appeal to the time and place they are set and/or written. By taking them away from that, you destroy a great deal of the appeal that in inherent in the original work.</p>
<p>That&#8217;s not to say they can&#8217;t pull it off, of course. Such adaptations happen everyday. I just think it might be missing some of the reason that book existed in the first place if you bring it into a modern place. Looking at the previews for the new modern Annie, it looks like it will be a fun time, but so far it seems to be trying a bit too hard. Annie is brilliant because of what it is, not just pieces of what it is.</p>
<p>Look forward to seeing how it comes along!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
