View Single Post
Old September 25 2013, 08:30 PM   #551
Timewalker
Cat-lovin', Star Trekkin' Time Lady
 
Timewalker's Avatar
 
Location: In many different universes, simultaneously.
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back?

David.Blue wrote: View Post
I think I'd prefer a new series--if it takes place in the future--where you simply could not tell if it were the "original" timeline or the alternate.
Add in decent writing that doesn't assume the audience is stupid or scientifically illiterate, plus non-plastic actors who can actually act, and I'd give it a try.

JarodRussell wrote: View Post
Greg Cox wrote: View Post
Better, but I really do think that remakes get a bum rap. Hollywood history is littered with classic films that are remakes: BEN-HUR, THE WIZARD OF OZ, THE MALTESE FALCON, TARZAN THE APE MAN, THE MARK OF ZORRO, SOME LIKE IT HOT, THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN, THE HORROR OF DRACULA, VICTOR/VICTORIA, THE THING, THE FLY, etc. In some cases, there are several classic versions of the same story.

I'm not sure when we decided that remakes and reboots are the devil. I mean, nobody objects when the Met puts on a new production of "Carmen" or Broadway stages a revival of "Death of a Salesman." But remake an old movie or TV show . . . sacrilege!
I get what you are saying, but please stop using films like Ben Hur as an example for remakes. Especially with the case of Ben Hur, each new version was accompanied by a huge leap in film technology. The original 1907 version was a 15 minute silent film. The 1925 version was a long silent film with revolutionary two color technique. The 1959 Charlton Heston version was finally a modern film with color, sound and cinemascope. The 2010 Ben Hur was a mini TV series, so it was transferred yet another medium with different storytelling demands. That is in no way comparable to, let's say, Total Recall 1990 vs Total Recall 2012, where there was no such leap in technology between them.

Same thing goes for stage plays. The very nature of stage plays is that the are re-performed each time, and different theaters need different actors. Films and TV shows are recorded, they stay the same every time. If that is not a distinct difference, then I don't know what would be.

What you don't have in stage plays is remakes of the actual written play. At least to my knowledge. Romeo and Juliet, now without the silly rhymes, and with more sex and violence!
I also have a hard time thinking of books that are remade. Is there a Tom Clancy version of Lord of the Rings?
Or graphic novels that are redrawn because the old drawing style isn't up to date anymore?
I will disagree about stage plays. Haven't you ever seen a televised stage play? I saw lots of those on PBS. That was my first exposure to Shakespeare that was actually performed, rather than just me reading in the classroom. I got hooked, and couldn't wait to see a real live performance in person. And when that happened, I got hooked all over again.

As for remakes/reimaginings... ever see West Side Story? That's Romeo and Juliet set in New York in the '50s, and it's a musical involving street gangs. That is the ONLY adaptation of Romeo and Juliet I ever liked, other than the Zeferelli movie and the live performances I've seen (I prefer my Shakespeare as close to traditional as possible).

Greg Cox wrote: View Post
JarodRussell wrote: View Post
I get what you are saying, but please stop using films like Ben Hur as an example for remakes. Especially with the case of Ben Hur, each new version was accompanied by a huge leap in film technology. The original 1907 version was a 15 minute silent film. The 1925 version was a long silent film with revolutionary two color technique. The 1959 Charlton Heston version was finally a modern film with color, sound and cinemascope. The 2010 Ben Hur was a mini TV series, so it was transferred yet another medium with different storytelling demands. That is in no way comparable to, let's say, Total Recall 1990 vs Total Recall 2012, where there was no such leap in technology between them.
I see your point about changing technology, but part of me still suspects that back in 1959, older folks were going "Ben-Hur again? Hollywood has run out of ideas. And the 1925 version is fine as it is and didn't need to be remade. Stupid kids these days can't appreciate good movies unless they've got lots of flashy color photography and a blaring soundtrack . . . "
My grandmother saw the 1959 version of Ben-Hur in the theatre, and she was enthralled. She loved it, and tried for years to get me to watch it with her whenever it was on TV. Finally I did, and now I understand why she loved it. Naturally, part of it was that Charlton Heston was so damn handsome back then, but the fact is that the movie was simply epic. It was an incredible example of moviemaking for the chariot race alone. I'm in awe of that part of the movie, and I don't even like horses!

David.Blue wrote: View Post
There's so much Trek out there--movies, t.v. series, comic books, novels, video games, fan fiction, fan-made series and movies, audio shows, etc. None of them perfect, some of them just dreadful, the vast majority a mixed bag, and some real gems among the bunch. Plus more on their way. No need to despair.
This is one reason why it's annoyed me no end in this thread when some of you have basically said, "Your favorite kind of Trek isn't ever coming back so get used to it, neener, neener, neener!"

I don't need the Abramsverse crap. That's not real Star Trek to me. I've got tens of thousands of fanfic stories at my fingertips, both online and in my fanzine collection, far more than I could ever read. There are lots of TOS novels I've still to read. When some new movie or TV Trek comes along that doesn't assume I'm a moron with the attention span of a gnat or someone who mistakes explosions and special effects for a story, I'll watch it. I might even see it in the theatre instead of waiting a couple of years for it to come on TV.
__________________
"Let's give it to Riker. He'll eat anything!"

For some great Original Series fanfic, check out the Valjiir Continuum!
Timewalker is offline   Reply With Quote