Pointless(?) substitutions of characters

[Lumpy]

(I’m sure we’ve addressed this before, but I haven’t a clue what to search for.)

Why is it so common that when adapting fictional works to another medium (comic to cartoon, cartoon to movie, animated to live-action, etc.), well known characters from the original medium are arbitrarily replaced with seemingly pointless substitutes. For example, the movie version of He-Man & the Masters of the Universe inexplicably replaced Orko with some hobbitlike character whose name I don’t even care to look up. Or the animated Fantastic Four dumps an iconic member of the group, The Human Torch, and replaces him with HERBIE the robot???. I think the Simpsons even parodied this once, having a “Simpson’s Special” episode where an unknown older character substituted for Lisa. Is there any rational reason why they do this, or are the directors and producers of the adaptation simply determined to obtrusively “make their mark” on the franchise?

[Rachael_Rage]

@Lumpy

I think the Simpsons even parodied this once, having a “Simpson’s Special” episode where an unknown older character substituted for Lisa.

I can’t speak to the topic, but this incident in The Simpsons was more of a parody of “reunion” shows in which one of the actors - due to a contractual dispute, addiction, success or other conflict - refuses to participate, and so is replaced by an unrecognizable substitute, while everyone else pretends not to notice the difference.

[tanstaafl]

@Lumpy

Or the animated Fantastic Four dumps an iconic member of the group, The Human Torch, and replaces him with HERBIE the robot???.

That was during the period when the network watchdogs or whoever were afraid that children would try to imitate anything they saw on TV. They were afraid that with a “burning” character children would attempt to set themselves on fire to imitate him. So, rather than argue with them the producers just removed the Human Torch and added the robot.

[cmkeller]

I can’t speak to the Masters of the Univers situation, but it’s pretty obvious that if for whatever reason (I heard it was people were afraid kids would set themselves on fire) the Human Torch needed o be removed from a Fantastic Four cartoon, they needed to replace him with something, otherwise, there would only be Fantastic Three - which is neither alliterative nor promotable as a Marvel comic book property.

[Governor_Quinn]

@tanstaafl

That was during the period when the network watchdogs or whoever were afraid that children would try to imitate anything they saw on TV. They were afraid that with a “burning” character children would attempt to set themselves on fire to imitate him. So, rather than argue with them the producers just removed the Human Torch and added the robot.

Mark Evanier, whom has had a long career in both comics and in television animation, says that it was due to rights complications, not fear of fire

[Lumpy]

@Governor Quinn

Mark Evanier, whom has had a long career in both comics and in television animation, says that it was due to rights complications, not fear of fire

Why the @#! would they license the Human Torch as an stand-alone character??

Rachael Rage, you’re right, I remembered the episode but not the context. Thanks.

[Freudian_Slit]

@Rachael Rage

I can’t speak to the topic, but this incident in The Simpsons was more of a parody of “reunion” shows in which one of the actors - due to a contractual dispute, addiction, success or other conflict - refuses to participate, and so is replaced by an unrecognizable substitute, while everyone else pretends not to notice the difference.

Specifically, the Brady Bunch reunion–Eve Plumb (Jan) refused to come back.

[jayjay]

@Freudian Slit

Specifically, the Brady Bunch reunion–Eve Plumb (Jan) refused to come back.

She refused to do the Brady Bunch Variety Hour (and really, doesn’t that prove she was the smartest one in the original cast?), but she appeared in every subsequent Brady reunion.