Duplicate Trope: Fable Remake

Fable Remake is "A widely-known story is retold using the characters of the series in place of the characters of the original story. The original story can be from any number of sources: fable, play, short story, classic movie, historical events, etc."

We already have;

• Whole-Plot Reference: A plot closely mirrors that of a familiar story.
• Twice-Told Tale: "A retelling that requires the audience to know the original story."
• Fractured Fairy Tale: A parodic retelling of a fairy tale
• Universal-Adaptor Cast: A bunch of characters who are frequently inserted into well-known stories

I'd argue that this particular trope should be merged into Whole-Plot Reference (the two pages both even contain lists of tropes referring to specific reference plots, with significant overlap). But is there a wider issue of too many duplicate tropes sharing one concept?

I would suggest that rather than merging, this needs to be a subtrope of Whole-Plot Reference, along the lines of It's a Wonderful Plot, Yet Another Christmas Carol, etc.

Fractured Fairy Tale could probably be merged into this, though, since the only difference seems to be that the latter trope is Played for Laughs.

edited 20th Apr '12 11:58:32 AM by Dor

Clocking as inactive.

I don't see on what basis it's a subtrope. It specifically says ithe source story doesn't have to be a fable, but can be "any story".

Seems highly redundant to me. The name suggests Fractured Fairy Tale, but the description largely recreates that of Whole-Plot Reference.

I made a crowner, https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/crowner.php/PageAction/FableRemake

Thanks.

Shall we talk about the other tropes in that list? I'm not sure we need so many, so similar. Or should we sort this out first and then deal with them individually on their own threads?

What does the fact that it's not limited to fables have to do with whether or not it's a subtrope of Whole-Plot Reference, which is also not limited to fables?

Actually, though, I'm not sure it is a subtrope, because it doesn't necessarily need to be a whole plot reference. But it's closely related, for sure. The important thing about this trope is that it involves mixing an older story with characters from an existing series.

I suspect the name is a potential cause of great confusion, and probably massive underuse. (Many examples that belong here are probably ending up in Whole-Plot Reference.) It may not be about fables, but it sure sounds like it's about fables! Our Characters In Another Story would be much more clear, though it might be nice to try for something more concise and/or witty. (Assuming a rename is justified, which I don't have time to investigate right now.)

ETA: Oh, I'm going to give a solid no on the original question of whether this is a duplicate trope. But as long as we have it in the shop....

ETA 2: Aaaah! I just looked at the crowner. Both choices are wrong, because both choices falsely assert that this trope is about fables!

edited 22nd May '12 6:25:54 AM by Xtifr

the difference it makes is that thats the only distinction between the two that anyone's made. What do you think the difference is? Can you give an example of something that's a Fable Remake but isn't a Whole-Plot Reference?

If FR were really about fables, it'd just be The Same But More Specific. If it isn't, then it's not even that, it's just The Same.

If Fable Remake is not about fables, then why on earth is it called Fable Remake?

A Whole-Plot Reference doesn't have to involve characters from an ongoing series. Contrariwise, a Fable Remake may leave out big chunks of the story, and not actually be a "full-blown recreation". So each trope has unique required elements that prevent them from overlapping perfectly, even in a super-/subtrope relationship.

Unfortunately, that means that there may be examples which fit under neither....

Because it has a poorly chosen name, why else?

I just think you're trying to find a distinction to justify having two tropes, when the fact is the tropes themselves basically describe the same thing, and the examples lists reflect that. This is backwards. If we merge the two tropes as they are, you can propose any subtropes you think would be useful on YKTTW.

Bumping for votes.

You're quite wrong: I'm not advocating anything. Simply clarifying what we currently have. I actually think we either need a supertrope (for the examples that don't fit either trope) or a merge, but I don't have a preference, because I'm outside the whole lumper-vs-splitter debate.

Fair enough. I don't think the distinctions you pointed out are worthy of having two (or three, if we made a supertrope) separate tropes, which is why I thought you were splitting hairs.

I think having just Whole-Plot Reference, with the definition "a work openly copies the plot of a well-known original, whether in Broad Strokes or in its entirety" seems like the simplest and best option.

The only possible objection I can think of is that makes the "whole" in Whole-Plot Reference slightly misleading/overly narrow. But since it's Fable Remake we have in TRS right now, not WPR, that may be a question for another day.

I don't think that's misleading. It's referencing the whole plot, as opposed to a single line or scene. On the other hand, that doesn't mean it has to remake every scene - it's not a Whole Script Reference.

But it doesn't necessarily have to reference the whole plot. You can have the prince hunting for the woman who fled the ball, leaving behind her glass slipper, without having the evil stepsisters or the fairy godmother involved. In fact, I'm pretty sure I could find two or three examples of just that on my bookshelf, if I searched.

I don't think the name is wrong enough to be a serious problem, but it might be slightly misleading, if people think their large-chunks-of-the-plot references don't fit.

edited 10th Jul '12 1:18:06 PM by Xtifr

Agreed with #2. This is a subtrope.

The difference from the examples mentioned in that post is that It's a Wonderful Plot and Yet Another Christmas Carol are plot references to specific works, whereas fables are... what, a genre? A medium? It's a pretty vague word, which is another problem.

Plus, it says in the first line of the description: "The original story can be from any number of sources: fable, play, short story, classic movie, historical events, etc."

edited 10th Jul '12 7:17:46 PM by johnnye

That should be changed to just fables. Specific fables that are sufficiently popular could be given their own trope as with Wizard of Oz.

Why should it be just fables? How is that a different trope from using other sources?

Because fables are commonly retold anyway due to their origins in oral tradition. It means something different to make another variation of a tale that's been told thousands of ways over hundreds of years than it is to make a version of something that has a clear, canonical original.

The Epic of Gilgamesh. The Odyssey. Beowulf. The Bhagavid-Gita. The Canterbury Tales. Shakespeare's plays. Wuthering Heights. Oliver Twist. Around the World in Eighty Days. Star Wars.

None of those are fables. All of them have been adapted and retold many times by many different people. Some of the older ones have thousands of variations. Where do you draw the line? And why?

Because they all have a definitive, original version with all the specificity that implies. Sure, people have done all kinds of variations of Romeo And Juliet, but we know the correct version is set in Italy around Shakespeare's time and the characters are Romeo, Juliet, Mercutio, etc. Granted, the plot wasn't original to him, so you could maybe think of it as a fable in a broad sense, btu modern version are treating him as the original. Fables by their natures have non-specific settings that aren't closely tied to particular real-world events or settings and tend toward archetypes rather than highly specific characters. They pretty much exist only in the retelling, so they are particularly suited to being reworked to fit with existing characters, settings, etc.

edited 10th Jul '12 11:19:59 PM by AceOfSevens