CRYPTO-CONTINUITY AND DOPPELGANGBANGERS PT. 1

In CONVOCATION OF CROSSOVERS PT. 2 I introduced the notion of "crypto-continuity," using the term to describe the way the second cinematic King Kong (of KING KONG VS. GODZILLA) retains some of the stature of the original Kong from the 1933 film, despite all the "irreconcilable differences" between the two iterations. I didn't explain my term, but I simply meant that the continuity shared by the two was partially "hidden" by all the discontinuities. Yet the discontinuities in that case are relatively weak in that they don't keep casual viewers from thinking of Kong II as co-existent with Kong I, which means that Number Two still possesses essentially the same stature as Number One. Ergo, employing the terminology that I introduced in CONVOCATION PT. 4, I consider Kong II as a "weak template deviation" of the original template provided by the 1933 KONG film.

"Crypto-continuity" is certain not unique to crossovers, for the principle pertains to any adaptation in which a secondary work fails to match up with the continuity of the primary one. The 1931 adaptation of DRACULA, for example, possesses several discontinuities with the original 1897 novel. Yet the 1931 film would also qualify as a "weak template deviation" of the original work for the same reason cited above, because the average viewer can see a fairly strong continuity between original and derivation in terms of the plot-action and character-depiction. 

The opposition of the weak type, plainly, is the "strong template deviation," of which I wrote in Part 4:

...there are also "strong template deviations," which often involve authors totally overwriting not totally fictional characters, but characters from myth, legend, and history-rendered-into-fiction.

This was a misstatement on my part, for the passage suggests that my term "strong template deviation" applies only to what I later called "innominate texts." In that section I was principally discoursing on the character of Billy the Kid from the 1966 BILLY THE KID VS. DRACULA, explaining how this cinematic version of William Bonney had nearly nothing in common with the real gunfighter.

 However, the movie's version of Dracula also has nearly nothing in common with the Dracula of the original Stoker book, so he too is a "strong template deviation." (Certainly no one trying to emulate the Stoker character would have invented a Dracula who's immune to gunfire but gets knocked out when the Kid crowns the vamp with a thrown pistol.) 

That said, even a strong template deviation may display the same stature found in the original template, and this applies not only to the Dracula of the 1966 horror-western, but also to the various counts seen in OLD DRACULA, DRACULA VS. FRANKENSTEIN, and ABBOTT AND COSTELLO MEET FRANKENSTEIN. But to pursue the point I made at the end of WHAT'S  IN A NOMINATIVE TEXT?, it's certainly possible to use the name "Dracula" for some character who has absolutely no resemblance to the Stoker template, as we see with the "bad-but-not-bad-enough-to-be-good" Dell comic book entitled DRACULA, otherwise known as "Dracula, Superhero."