Talk:Adaptations of A Christmas Carol/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Merging Carrey project

See also: Talk:A Christmas Carol (2009 film) § Crystal ball

Per notability guidelines for films, it is not appropriate for A Christmas Carol (2009 film) to exist. The criteria for an article of an upcoming film is that if the film's production is notable, but the film has only been announced and does not show any sign of being fast-tracked to production. The article clearly reflects that Jim Carrey has other potential projects to pursue, so there is no evidence that this film will be made. Thus, it may otherwise be a perpetual stub, so per WP:SS, what little content exists about the film should be merged to List of A Christmas Carol adaptations. My recommendation is a subsection under the Film section. When production is immediate, with an established cast (beyond Carrey) and a production start date in place, then the content can be spun off to the film article once more. There is relevant discussion located at the link below the section heading above. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Support - As I stated on the other page, nothing says if or when this movie will ever get made. Jim Carrey has a slew of films on his plate right now, and it has often been cited that even he has not chosen his next film. Ripley's Believe It or Not has been sitting around for years.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - unshot films should remain sections of other articles prior to production. Girolamo Savonarola 01:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm not opposed to the merge, since once the film begins shooting it'll be easy to retrieve all previously written material. However, shooting seems to be an arbitrary start point at which to create an article. Those guidelines appear to be very much in dispute at the moment, we should wait until there's a stable version before acting. -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 16:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • As the guideline stands, it still applies to merging this film, on which production has yet to begin, and the proposal on the guideline's talk page will still apply to merging this film. There's no argument being pursued to support the creation of an article right when a film is announced. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: According to Variety, Carrey will pursue Yes Man first. The article also says that he would begin A Christmas Carol in early 2008. Since this project is far off, it's more reason to avoid a stand-alone film article at this time. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Pastiche vs. Sequel

I adjusted the header of the last section for accuracy. In strict literary terms, a sequel can be written only by the original author or his/her formal designee. Other works using characters from and with plot line allusions to earlier works of note are more properly called by the term pastiche.

One of the most fertile original characters for pastiche has been Sherlock Holmes, with scores of stories and a number of novels using the characters but neither written nor authorized by Conan Doyle (Nicholas Meyer's The Seven-Per-Cent Solution being arguably the best-known and most popular). No one refers to these as "sequels" - they are always termed pastiche.

Ditto Tom Stoppard's Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead - a pastiche in both senses of the word identified in Wiki's article about the same.

I'm leaving the term "sequel" in as part of the header against my instincts and better judgment because of the probable unfamiliarity of many readers with the term pastiche. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sensei48 (talk • contribs) 05:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Quantum Leap - tv version

Not sure if it counts...

But there was an episode where Al did a ghost thing in the spirit of Scrooge to keep a developer from demolishing a shelter.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.68.140 (talk • contribs) 19 May 2009 (UTC)

other TV shows

there is also an episode of "Bewitched"(season 4, episode 16) Here is the title and summary from TV.com: "Humbug Not to Be Spoken Here Samantha gets a mean, miserly manager named Mr. Mortimer to change his thoughts about Christmas and gets him to really think about others. " and one of the Six million dollar man: "A Bionic Christmas Carol"(season 4 episode 10) here is wikipedia 's summary : "When Steve is sent to investigate problems with an OSI project contracted out to Budge Corp., he discovers the problem is that the corporation's owner, Horton Budge, is a cheap "Scrooge." Steve then uses his bionics to emulate the Charles Dickens classic and convince Budge to change his mind. " —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.171.214.51 (talk) 09:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

There was a Black Adder special that was a spoof of this where everything was actually in reverse (The Black Adder of the time period was actually a good man who got corrupted by what he saw in his visions) Anyone here remember the title? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hdofu (talk • contribs) 03:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

It's listed and described in the article as "Black Adder's Christmas Carol" under television. Sensei48 (talk) 05:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
but shouldn't be where it is...see below. Sensei48 (talk) 18:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Two other popular TV shows did parodies - "The Odd Couple" and "Sanford and Son". I would like to add them to the article, but am interested in others' opinions first. Thoughts, anyone? Elsquared (talk) 05:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think they would be fine to include, but not under adaptations. I notice that there are several entries there that are out of place because they are actually pastiches. What I'll do for now is change "Pastiche sequels" to "Pastiches, Continuations, and Parodies" - that should provide a comfortable place for the TV show you mention plus some of the misplaced entries above. Sensei48 (talk) 06:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your advice. I’ve added brief descriptions for the television shows “The Odd Couple”, “Sanford and Son”, “WKRP in Cincinnati”, “Family Ties”, “The Six Million Dollar Man”, and “Alice”. I’ve yet to add things like year of broadcast and a link to appropriate Wiki articles, but will try to do that as soon as possible.
While we’re on the subject, shouldn’t the following entries be moved to Pastiches, continuations, and other uses: “Rich Little's Christmas Carol”, “Bugs Bunny's Christmas Carol”, “Brer Rabbit's Christmas Carol”, “A Flintstones Christmas Carol”, “A Sesame Street Christmas Carol”, “Bah, Humduck! A Looney Tunes Christmas”, and “A Christmas Carol - Scrooge's Ghostly Tale”? Elsquared (talk) 19:55, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
And thanks for placing these correctly in the current scheme. Since you're interested - if you look below under "Klingons," you'll see that User:TheFeds is proposing a new scheme. I'd like to respond when I have a bit more time after Christmas. I still think we should reserve the word "adaptation" for its formal and correct literary meaning and call evefrything else something else. That would imply making the moves you suggest. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 20:48, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

One episode of "Northern exposure" no. 90 titled 'Shofar, So Good' (there are Yom Kippur's ghosts, not Christmas' or kind of this) and one of "Highway to Heaven" but i don't remember season and episode... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.7.46.7 (talk) 19:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Edits/Removals 7/23/10

I've removed a significant number of additions to categories in the article for a simple reason: they are not adaptations of Charles Dickens' novella A Christmas Carol. Changing characters, holidays, seasons, names and so on make them parodies or pastiches. Accidental or exploitative similarities in plot to the original also do not fit. Some of the remaining productions on this list stretch the definition of adaptation to its limits, but at a minimum they follow Dickens plot and employ characters with the original names. Sensei48 (talk) 18:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd add that some of the reverted entries might be properly re-introduced as pastiches or parodies, as the lede suggests. But "adaptations" in this context refers to a conversion of the text of the original into dramatic form, as in film credits. Sensei48 (talk) 20:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Doctor Who

I'm uncertain whether the Doctor Who A Christmas Carol should be listed as an adaptation. While it does incorporate elements of Dickens' tale, there is no character called Scrooge, there's also no analog for Katherine Jenkins' character, and there are no starships in the original, either. When we finally see it on Dec. 25, it might be more appropriate to move it into a pastiche category. (The special has been screened by BFI and elsewhere already, though, so if anyone who has seen it cares to chime in, feel free.) 68.146.64.9 (talk) 14:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Klingon adaptation

I notice that the Klingon version has just been moved to the "Pastiches" (etc.) section; I'm certain that's the wrong classification. This one uses the entire plot of the novel, but changes the setting—that's by definition an adaptation, not a pastiche. It's straightforwardly equivalent to any of the other adaptations set outside of Victorian England. (Check out the video tab in the original version of the cited reference for a good description of what this play entails.) By contrast, a pastiche imitates the style, but doesn't re-use the majority of the plot (in this case, it generally means using a version of the three ghosts device in a different genre), and a prequel or sequel develops the characters further (by creating new scenes or situations not described by Dickens).

There are a couple of other ones that might be misclassified, but I'll defer to anyone who's got a reference for those indicating the actual content. (For example, An American Carol is a pastiche, not a parody of A Christmas Carol—though it is a parody of Michael Moore's persona.) TheFeds 01:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Since I was the one who moved it, I'll attempt an answer. I created the section "pastiche sequels" for reasons stated in the section above. What happened was that a flood of riffs off of the central story line began to appear in sections that were originally and exclusively devoted to adaptations of Dickens. In order to maintain the integrity of the theatrical (here including radio, TV, recordings and so on) definition of "adaptation" - the rendering into drama of a story originally written in prose fiction - I retitled the section yesterday as you see it today and added the term "other uses." It is as "other uses" and not as pastiche or parody that I moved the Klingon play to this category. While you make clear that it is neither parody nor pastiche, your quoted and cited reviews make it equally clear that it is not an adaptation of the Dickens story from fiction to drama. My edit summary with the change made that very clear - ""narrative... rejiggered to match the Klingon world view" is not Dickens, nor is this from the Belkin review:
"For starters, since there is neither a messiah nor a celebration of his birth on the Klingon planet of Kronos, the action is pegged to the Klingon Feast of the Long Night. Carols and trees are replaced with drinking, fighting and mating rituals. And because Klingons are more concerned with bravery than kindness, the main character's quest is for courage."
In no way is that an adaptation of Dickens, again in the theatrical sense that every play, film, TV show and so on remaining in the main categories are (or should be). Setting the basic plot line "outside of Victorian England"removes any effort from the category of adaptation and into - something else like "other uses." I tried to remove every such reference from the main categories - not a problem for radio or film, for the most part, but there were a dozen or so U.S. television riffs including everything from female Scrooge-type characters to zombies - none of which are Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol.Sensei48 (talk) 05:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the Klingon version is not a traditional portrayal—but I contend that it's still much more traditional than (for example) the Flintstones version listed in the "Adaptations" (which uses a meta-reference to the play to parallel the main plot taking place in its Flintstones-era setting). The real issue is that I don't see consistency in the current categorization in the article; certainly by the criteria you're defining "other uses", many more could be moved out of the first section (which should be renamed from "Adaptations" to something more specific, maybe "Traditional adaptations" or "Adaptations in Dickensian settings").
Maybe a full recategorization is in order. If I were to sort the versions, I could identify:
  • Readings of the original (or abridged original) novel
  • Adaptations that are true to the original Victorian setting and generally use the same scenes (the "traditional" play, e.g. most early theatre versions, George C. Scott, Alastair Sim, Jim Carrey, some of the radio plays)
  • Adaptations with new settings that use the same general plot and themes (e.g. the Nallon one-man show, Scrooged, animals, Klingons)
  • Apocrypha that extend the original story (before/during/after, e.g. the prequels and sequels dealing with Marley and the Crachits, especially the zombie sequel)
  • Musical and operatic adaptations (though the settings run the gamut)
  • Parodies that make fun of the Dickens original (e.g. Blackadder)
  • Pastiches that incorporate some elements (like the ghost motif) into an essentially unrelated story (e.g. An American Carol, probably the upcoming Doctor Who version)
And of course, most of these can be subdivided into different media, and into translated and English-language versions.
In any event, despite these categories being convenient, to use them (or indeed, to use the category scheme you've set up) could present an original research problem. We need to present them in terms of how they've been described in reliable sources, rather than just guess at which are sufficiently Victorian to be classified among the traditional set, and which use an unacceptable degree of licence—especially among theatre productions that we haven't personally seen, and which often use sparse sets and costumes that don't give a firm impression of the intended setting. As long as we're mindful of that, improvement of the article should be feasible.
Maybe all that represents a better long-term outcome for this article, than worrying about whether the substitutions of courage for charity, and Kronos for England are insufficiently Dickensian. TheFeds 07:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
I think that your suggested categories are excellent, at least insofar as they could handle most all of the references that are currently on the list. The WP:IPCA guidelines are a bit general and as far as I can see give little help here beyond, as you note, the WP:RS/verifiability requirement. I have been less than pleased over the last couple of years to see what has been added here, especially local theatrical productions of no general notability, TV spin-offs, and freehand spin-offs like those with zombies and Klingons.
I would politely disagree with your last statement, though, because it does matter how "Victorian" and "Dickensian" a production or other creative effort is. Dickens wrote the novella, and it exists in basically one original format (minor differences among early print editions) and one public performance reading script by Dickens. Any other use of the original text other than to present Ebenezer Scrooge c. 1840 in London visited by four ghosts at Christmas time with a subsequent reformation/redemption is to create an original work, not an adaptation of Dickens. I would prefer to see the list comprised only of WP:RS verifiable notable versions of the original story; everything else should be appended to articles about the medium of presentation, not an article on A Christmas Carol. The Minneapolis production that you have presented and sourced, for example, may add to one's appreciation of Klingon and Star Trek but does not add anything of value to one's understanding of Dickens.
Having said that, though, I fully realize that I am swimming against the current here. Wikipedia will have pop culture and trivia lists; the best we can hope to do with them is to be sure that they are properly organized and sourced, and I think your suggestion is the best way to do that. That well may involve removing most of the examples currently cited there - or removing all of them, rebuilding the categories as you suggest (with pole position given to those that are actual attempts to adapt Dickens), and adding only those items that have been or can be sourced. Parenthetically, that would require the re-introduction of my term "pastiche sequels" because, as above, Dickens never wrote one and only the original author can do so. "Sequel" has a literary definition, and it is literature we are talking about here as the source, not a Hollywood franchise.
In any event, I look forward to further thoughts from you on the matter. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 08:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Regarding my last statement in the previous post, that was intended to suggest that if we change the classification scheme, it won't be necessary to spend much time trying to reach consensus on whether the Klingon play goes with the Victorian ones (because it follows the same general plot and order of scenes), or with the non-Victorian ones (because the setting is alien)—rather, it will be guaranteed a niche among the adaptations set outside of the Victorian period. That way, the list of faithful productions is maintained (and I agree, those are of particular relevance as a category), and the others are categorized in a relatively logical way.
As for sequels, there's a Wikipedia article "informal sequel", so maybe that's an appropriately-familiar term that's a bit more general than "pastiche sequel". Since we have a couple prequels too, we should also include those in the section title: "Informal prequels and sequels"?
In terms of reliable sources, we could definitely weed out the ones for which references aren't easily available—those would typically be minor productions of little importance—and maybe drop them on the talk page. (They're preserved in the archived pages, but others might appreciate having an informal list there, so that they might be prompted to find sources and add those newly-referenced entries back into the article-space list if appropriate.)
Also, while I said above that we shouldn't guess about the content of plays we haven't seen, we could theoretically run into the situation where we have usable references for a production, but they don't tell us how authentic the play was—and then, guessing might actually be the right thing to do. Maybe we'll deal with that issue if it arises, and forget about it if it doesn't.... (We could create a miscellaneous category for things like that, but it's just going to collect all sorts of inappropriately-referenced material in the long run.) TheFeds 07:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Halloween version from the 80s?

Does anyone remember a Halloween version of "A Christmas Carol" appearing in the early 80s? I remember it was about an old miser who owned the mortgages to a bunch of people's houses, and there was some kind of challenge around Halloween that if kids could find the papers to their parents' houses, they could keep it. The old man took great delight in scaring the life out of kids. But what most struck me was the ending: he 'didn't' get redeemed, he opened this door to some room inside his house, and found that it was the entry to hell, with fire and all kinds of horribly burning demons. He got slowly pulled into it, and the viewers got treated to terrifying pictures of demons with burning or melting skin, themselves moaning or screaming in pain. I'd appreciate if anyone could tell me if they know what that was. InFairness (talk) 07:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Radio Versions

In the 1970s, The CBS Radio Mystery Theater did "A Christmas Carol" with E.G. Marshall, the host of the program, also played Ebenezer Scrooge. I'm not sure of the original broadcast date or if this was only broadcast once or rebroadcast yearly during the Radio Mystery Theater's run. Jtyroler (talk) 15:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Arrow

Arrow season 2 episode 9 is A Christmas Carol adaptation. I can't write an article in english, but someone should write something about that.

The episode name's "Three Ghosts". Ghost of christmas past is Shado, Ghost Ghost of christmas present is Tommy and Ghost of christmas yet to come is Slade Wilson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.246.237.240 (talk) 20:18, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi - I think your edit is sufficient until someone who knows this version can add to it. I re-positioned your edit to the section called "Pastiches..." because it is not exactly an adaptation. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 21:35, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Gerald Charles Dickens mentioned twice

The one-act play by Gerald Charles Dickens is mentioned twice, so I'll be removing one. Someone please verify the correct date. One says he began in 1993, the other in 1996. I don't know which is correct. Elsquared (talk) 06:16, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Looney Tunes version

I seem to remember a Looney Tunes version with Yosemite Same as Scrooge and Porky Pig as Bob. Bugs Bunny pretended to be a ghost to scare Sam. Does anyone know anything further about this? 64.6.124.31 (talk) 21:28, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Most adapted story

Is this actually the most adapted story of all time?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.41.184 (talk • contribs) 13 November 2014 (UTC)

missing movie

The god-awful 2012 movie starring Vincent Fegan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.170.255 (talk) 17:53, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Another Missing Movie

What about Bill Murray's "Scrooged"? 2602:301:779A:FC0:B5FF:B39:D1C0:B994 (talk) 07:14, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

  • It is listed under "Pastiches...." because it is not an adaptation of Dickens's novella.Sensei48 (talk) 10:17, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Adaptations of A Christmas Carol. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:44, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Adaptations of A Christmas Carol. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:51, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Adaptations_of_A_Christmas_Carol/Archive_1&oldid=1048459056"