RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,208
Posts: 5,437,238
Members: 24,951
Currently online: 661
Newest member: Zaminhon

TrekToday headlines

Cumberbatch In Wax
By: T'Bonz on Oct 24

Trek Screenwriter Washington D.C. Appearance
By: T'Bonz on Oct 23

Two Official Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Oct 22

Pine In New Skit
By: T'Bonz on Oct 21

Stewart In Holiday Film
By: T'Bonz on Oct 21

The Red Shirt Diaries #8
By: T'Bonz on Oct 20

IDW Publishing January Comics
By: T'Bonz on Oct 20

Retro Review: Chrysalis
By: Michelle on Oct 18

The Next Generation Season Seven Blu-ray Details
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

CBS Launches Streaming Service
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Entertainment & Interests > TV & Media

TV & Media Non-Trek television, movies, books, music, etc.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old March 1 2012, 06:35 PM   #121
the G-man
Commodore
 
the G-man's Avatar
 
Location: to your immediate right
Re: Lucy Liu cast as Watson in CBS' Sherlock Holmes show

Guy Gardener wrote: View Post
Was it Harry's Law earlier this year in which Harry sued a middle school teacher for not casting a black kid as Abraham Lincoln in the school play because it was unrealistic casting even though said lad of colour was the better actor... "The boy you cast, the white boy you cast, how much more realistic in this part is he? Is he 6 foot 8 inches tall? Does he have a beard? Was he born 200 years ago? Had he ever been President of the United States?"

David pulled the same thing a few years ago in Boston legal with a little black girl getting prissy that she wasn't cast as Little orphan Annie despite having the chops to pull her weight.
Which is pretty ironic when you consider Kelley's shows have all (with the exception of Boston Public) starred white actors in the lead roles.
the G-man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 1 2012, 10:46 PM   #122
Hound of UIster
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Lucy Liu cast as Watson in CBS' Sherlock Holmes show

Greg Cox wrote: View Post
Captaindemotion wrote: View Post
^ That's probably true. But it doesn't mean that the show will be bad. Good art can still be born out of commercial reasons!
Exactly. I don't think anyone in the world would argue that the success of Twilight didn't make it easier to get Vampire Diaries green-lighted, but that doesn't mean that VD is automatically a rip-off and not worth watching.

Heck, let's be honest here. The only reason Star Trek is still a going concern is because the success of Star Wars got Star Trek: The Motion Picture green-lighted at last. If not for Star Wars, we'd still be watching nothing but reruns of TOS.

Going back further, it's an undeniable fact that the only reason Batman (and every other comic book superhero) exists is because Superman was selling like hotcakes and publishers demanded more of the same. And the entire Marvel Age of comics was launched because Stan Lee's boss noted that DC's new Justice League book was selling and told Stan to whip out a superhero team book fast.

Does that mean that the Fantastic Four is a worthless rip-off of no artistic merit?
Depends on who the creators are. Robert Doherty however doesn't exactly inspire much confidence.
Hound of UIster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 2 2012, 12:12 AM   #123
RJDementia13
Idealistic Cynic and Canon Champion
 
RJDementia13's Avatar
 
Location: RJDiogenes of Boston
Re: Lucy Liu cast as Watson in CBS' Sherlock Holmes show

Christopher wrote: View Post
RJDiogenes wrote: View Post
Apparently self-parody has become the norm and nobody noticed.
Well, all these "Aaaahh, it's different so it must be totally wrong and evil and its creators should be slapped in irons" complaints about a show that hasn't even been made yet certainly sound like self-parody. You hear the same closed-minded, unimaginative crap about any and every new project, and it gets very tiresome, especially since the same people who trashed a new project before they'd actually seen it often end up praising it once they have. You'd think they'd eventually catch on how silly it is to judge a thing before they've seen it, but no, they just keep on going through the same repetitive cycle.
Good thing I never said anything like that.

Greg Cox wrote: View Post
Captaindemotion wrote: View Post
^ That's probably true. But it doesn't mean that the show will be bad. Good art can still be born out of commercial reasons!
Exactly. I don't think anyone in the world would argue that the success of Twilight didn't make it easier to get Vampire Diaries green-lighted, but that doesn't mean that VD is automatically a rip-off and not worth watching.

Heck, let's be honest here. The only reason Star Trek is still a going concern is because the success of Star Wars got Star Trek: The Motion Picture green-lighted at last. If not for Star Wars, we'd still be watching nothing but reruns of TOS.

Going back further, it's an undeniable fact that the only reason Batman (and every other comic book superhero) exists is because Superman was selling like hotcakes and publishers demanded more of the same. And the entire Marvel Age of comics was launched because Stan Lee's boss noted that DC's new Justice League book was selling and told Stan to whip out a superhero team book fast.

Does that mean that the Fantastic Four is a worthless rip-off of no artistic merit?
That's all true, but has nothing to do with the point of "re-imagining" characters to the point where they're entirely new characters.
__________________
Please stop by my Gallery and YouTube Page for a visit. And read Trunkards! And check out my Heroes essays.
RJDementia13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 2 2012, 03:13 AM   #124
Greg Cox
Vice Admiral
 
Location: Oxford, PA
Re: Lucy Liu cast as Watson in CBS' Sherlock Holmes show

RJDiogenes wrote: View Post
Greg Cox wrote: View Post
Captaindemotion wrote: View Post
^ That's probably true. But it doesn't mean that the show will be bad. Good art can still be born out of commercial reasons!
Exactly. I don't think anyone in the world would argue that the success of Twilight didn't make it easier to get Vampire Diaries green-lighted, but that doesn't mean that VD is automatically a rip-off and not worth watching.

Heck, let's be honest here. The only reason Star Trek is still a going concern is because the success of Star Wars got Star Trek: The Motion Picture green-lighted at last. If not for Star Wars, we'd still be watching nothing but reruns of TOS.

Going back further, it's an undeniable fact that the only reason Batman (and every other comic book superhero) exists is because Superman was selling like hotcakes and publishers demanded more of the same. And the entire Marvel Age of comics was launched because Stan Lee's boss noted that DC's new Justice League book was selling and told Stan to whip out a superhero team book fast.

Does that mean that the Fantastic Four is a worthless rip-off of no artistic merit?
That's all true, but has nothing to do with the point of "re-imagining" characters to the point where they're entirely new characters.
I was addressing the "they're just doing this to cash on those other Holmes projects" argument--which doesn't strike me as a good enough reason to dismiss a show or movie sight unseen.

One more example: Just about every beloved sixties spy series, from The Avengers to The Man From U.N.C.L.E., was an attempt to "cash in" on the massive success of the early Bond films. But that doesn't mean that the shows' creators didn't take pride in their work and make shows worth watching.

Is CBS trying to cash in on Sherlock and the Downey movies. Probably. So what? Has nothing to do with how the show is executed . . . .

How far you can reinterpret classic characters and stories before you lose their essence is a whole other issue. I have a fairly laissez-faire attitude towards such things, but I understand that others are more protective of the original versions.

(Heck, my first professional sale--to Amazing Stories decades ago--was a tongue-in-cheek mashup of Peter Pan and The Tempest, so I'm a big believer in messing with classic characters!)
__________________
www.gregcox-author.com
Greg Cox is online now   Reply With Quote
Old March 2 2012, 10:37 AM   #125
RJDementia13
Idealistic Cynic and Canon Champion
 
RJDementia13's Avatar
 
Location: RJDiogenes of Boston
Re: Lucy Liu cast as Watson in CBS' Sherlock Holmes show

Greg Cox wrote: View Post
I was addressing the "they're just doing this to cash on those other Holmes projects" argument--which doesn't strike me as a good enough reason to dismiss a show or movie sight unseen.
Oh, okay. I completely agree with that.

How far you can reinterpret classic characters and stories before you lose their essence is a whole other issue. I have a fairly laissez-faire attitude towards such things, but I understand that others are more protective of the original versions.
Aside from the issue of artistic integrity, my point is that once you re-imagine something to be totally different from the source material, then you've got something new. Monk would not have been a better show if they called him Holmes; Buffy would have looked ridiculous if she called herself Spider-Man; Lost would not have been improved if it were named Gilligan's Island.

(Heck, my first professional sale--to Amazing Stories decades ago--was a tongue-in-cheek mashup of Peter Pan and The Tempest, so I'm a big believer in messing with classic characters!)
Well, that's an homage or a pastiche. No problem there. As I've said before, there's no problem with Forbidden Planet being inspired by The Tempest-- but if they had called it The Tempest and slavishly named the characters after Shakespeare's, it would lack the unique sparkle that it has.
__________________
Please stop by my Gallery and YouTube Page for a visit. And read Trunkards! And check out my Heroes essays.
RJDementia13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 2 2012, 06:55 PM   #126
Forbin
Admiral
 
Forbin's Avatar
 
Location: I said out, dammit!
Re: Lucy Liu cast as Watson in CBS' Sherlock Holmes show

I like when Greg called Vampire Diaries. "VD."

Fitting.
Forbin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 2 2012, 07:24 PM   #127
Captaindemotion
Vice Admiral
 
Captaindemotion's Avatar
 
Location: Ireland
Re: Lucy Liu cast as Watson in CBS' Sherlock Holmes show

^ Because it's a load of clap?
__________________
Hodor!!!!!!!
Captaindemotion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 3 2012, 01:33 AM   #128
Guy Gardener
Fleet Admiral
 
Guy Gardener's Avatar
 
Location: In the lap of squalor I assure you.
Re: Lucy Liu cast as Watson in CBS' Sherlock Holmes show

They had an advertising campaign which included such slogans as "Got VD?" or "Get Wood."

I did the immersion thing.

Put almost 3 seasons of vampire Diaries under my belt in 4 days.

Campy melodrama but it has a strict rolling continuity like nothing I've seen since Roswell.
__________________
"Glitter is the herpes of arts and craft."

Troy Yingst. My Life as Liz
Guy Gardener is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 3 2012, 10:09 PM   #129
Temis the Vorta
Fleet Admiral
 
Temis the Vorta's Avatar
 
Location: Tatoinne
Re: Lucy Liu cast as Watson in CBS' Sherlock Holmes show

Hound of UIster wrote: View Post
Christopher wrote: View Post
RJDiogenes wrote: View Post
Apparently self-parody has become the norm and nobody noticed.
Well, all these "Aaaahh, it's different so it must be totally wrong and evil and its creators should be slapped in irons" complaints about a show that hasn't even been made yet certainly sound like self-parody.
It's done by CBS. Of course it's going to be shit.
Christopher wrote: View Post
^Case in point.
No, he's right. It will be shit to those of us who don't care for the CBS style. You can be as open-minded as you like, but it's still true that CBS has a certain style, which certain people really go for, but those people don't tend to frequent sci fi BBSes like this one. People who come to places like this tend to also be the people who hate the CBS style.

The point is, CBS is making something that is very well adapted to the tastes of their customers. And why shouldn't they? They wouldn't be doing nearly as well if they set their sights on making stuff their customers don't like. This wouldn't be the first time a corporation eschewed "art" or "goodness" in favor of filthy lucre.

I don't think anyone in the world would argue that the success of Twilight didn't make it easier to get Vampire Diaries green-lighted, but that doesn't mean that VD is automatically a rip-off and not worth watching.
Excellent point. Twilight gives me hives, but I watched 2 seasons of VD and was well into the third before I finally got bored and gave up. Like CBS, the CW style is generally not to my tastes either, but sometimes a show has additional inducements that allow me to ignore that for a time.

I was addressing the "they're just doing this to cash on those other Holmes projects" argument--which doesn't strike me as a good enough reason to dismiss a show or movie sight unseen.
The Robert Downey Jr movies, maybe. I wouldn't bet any money that the average CBS viewer has ever heard of the BBC, and if they have, they think it's all shows about people in hoop skirts. But none of that is even relevant. What's relevant is that they'll see the ads for this show on CBS and recognize the CBS style that they've come to enjoy, and then they'll watch.

I think CBS didn't help the Sherlock comparisons when they hired Miller to be honst, given he's spent the last year or so alternating Frankingstein/the monster with Cumberbatch on stage.
Which will be something that approximately 0% of CBS viewers will know.

Aside from the issue of artistic integrity
We're talking CBS. They don't do art.

Last edited by Temis the Vorta; March 3 2012 at 10:20 PM.
Temis the Vorta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 3 2012, 10:25 PM   #130
Greg Cox
Vice Admiral
 
Location: Oxford, PA
Re: Lucy Liu cast as Watson in CBS' Sherlock Holmes show

Temis the Vorta wrote: View Post
No, he's right. It will be shit to those of us who don't care for the CBS style. You can be as open-minded as you like, but it's still true that CBS has a certain style, which certain people really go for, but those people don't tend to frequent sci fi BBSes like this one. People who come to places like this tend to also be the people who hate the CBS style..
I think you're over-generalizing here. I wasn't aware that this site was a bastion of CBS haters. I mean, I spend way too much time here and I watch CSI, Big Bang Theory, etc.

We get that you think CBS isn't cutting-edge enough or whatever, but don't assume that being a scifi fan and watching CBS is somehow incompatible.

Oh, I can't resist asking: what channels are us Trekkie types supposed to be watching? PBS? AMC? Syfy? TCM? Or just the pricy premium channels?
__________________
www.gregcox-author.com

Last edited by Greg Cox; March 3 2012 at 10:44 PM.
Greg Cox is online now   Reply With Quote
Old March 3 2012, 11:28 PM   #131
BizarroStormy
Fleet Captain
 
BizarroStormy's Avatar
 
Location: Foxhot
Re: Lucy Liu cast as Watson in CBS' Sherlock Holmes show

This just in: Jude Law, Robert Duvall and the portly sidekick from YOUNG SHERLOCK HOLMES have been cast as CHARLIE'S ANGELS. Bosley is now Octavia Spencer. Madonna is the voice of Charlie. Perhaps it ''looks like America'' when combined. That's such a slippery-slope concept anyhow.
BizarroStormy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 3 2012, 11:35 PM   #132
DarthPipes
Rear Admiral
 
DarthPipes's Avatar
 
Re: Lucy Liu cast as Watson in CBS' Sherlock Holmes show

God, if CBS wants a good version of Sherlock to be on the air, they should pay the BBC to do more episodes of their show. Otherwise, they should leave this classic alone.

I will not watch CBS do an intentionally generic and shitty version of a great show.
DarthPipes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 3 2012, 11:56 PM   #133
BizarroStormy
Fleet Captain
 
BizarroStormy's Avatar
 
Location: Foxhot
Re: Lucy Liu cast as Watson in CBS' Sherlock Holmes show

In similar fashion, I haven't seen Guy Ritchie's SHERLOCK films out of principle. Even though I've been a Downey fan since IRON MAN, and I've usually enjoyed Jude Law as well as Ritchie's films, there comes a point where classic characters and their situations are getting warped beyond belief just for the sake of coolness and/or popularity. I've no desire to see Holmes become Action Hero #448 with MATRIX-style action. Good film or not, I don't see much source material left. They also recently turned ALICE IN WONDERLAND's heroine into a kick-butt warrior, as the original's so 1800s. I can't wait to see what weapons Dorothy will be carrying in the future WIZARD OF OZ re-remake. If this is what it means to be relevant to today's culture, gimme irrelevance now and forever.
BizarroStormy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 4 2012, 12:17 AM   #134
Greg Cox
Vice Admiral
 
Location: Oxford, PA
Re: Lucy Liu cast as Watson in CBS' Sherlock Holmes show

But every adaptation invariably "warps" the original to some degree. The 1931 Boris Karloff version of Frankenstein bears little or no resemblance to Mary Shelley's novel, but that doesn't mean it's not a classic in its own right or lacks "artistic integrity." Ditto the classic George Pal version of War of the Worlds (which shifted the setting from Victorian England to 1950's California and changed Wells' iconic tripods into futuristic flying saucers). The Charles Laughton version of The Hunchback of the Notre Dame completely changed the ending of the novel, but is still regarded as the best movie version to date. And so on and so on . . . .

Fidelity to the original source can be a virtue, but it's not the only consideration when it comes to adapting classic works, or even the most important one.

Heh. I'm suddenly envisioning the fannish response to Frankenstein, if the internet had existed in 1931:

"WTF? Have those hacks at Universal even read the novel? A hunchbacked assistant, an abnormal brain, villagers with torches, a burning windmill? Where did that come from? And how come the creature can't even talk--and has stupid-looking bolts in his neck? None of that was in the book. Hell, they didn't even get the main character's name right? "Henry Frankenstein?" Everyone knows it's supposed to be Victor.

"Where was the whole arctic finale? How come Elizabeth didn't die? Where was the whole subplot about Justine? And the murder of Victor's little brother? If they were going to make up a whole new plot, why even bother calling it Frankenstein? The whole movie is a slap in the face to Mary Shelley and everyone who has actually read the book.

"But obviously Universal doesn't care about that. They just wanted to churn out some gruesome piece of schlock to cash in on the success of their so-called Dracula with that weird Hungarian dude. Never mind that they're warping classic characters beyond recognition.

"Boycott!"
__________________
www.gregcox-author.com

Last edited by Greg Cox; March 4 2012 at 01:09 AM.
Greg Cox is online now   Reply With Quote
Old March 4 2012, 12:32 AM   #135
Gov Karnstein
Admiral
 
Gov Karnstein's Avatar
 
Location: Gov Kodos Regretably far from Boston
Re: Lucy Liu cast as Watson in CBS' Sherlock Holmes show

Greg Cox wrote: View Post
But every adaptation invariably "warps" the original to some degree. The 1931 Boris Karloff version of Frankenstein bears little or no resemblance to Mary Shelley's novel, but that doesn't mean it's not a classic in its own right or lacks "artistic integrity." Ditto the classic George Pal version of War of the Worlds (which shifted the setting from Victorian England to 1950's California and changed Wells' iconic tripods into futuristic flying saucers). The Charles Laughton version of The Hunchback of the Notre Dame completely changed the ending of the novel, but is still regarded as the best movie version to date. And so on and so on . . . .

Fidelity to the original source can be a virtue, but it's not the only consideration when it comes to adapting classic works, or even the most important one.
Good points, and as I thought Moffatt's Sherlock would be awful, it is premature to think a re-imagining will be bad sight unseen and my predictive powers need better tarot cards. That said, re-imagining takes talent on par with those who made the original. I expect such works have a failure to success rate not unlike original works, but due to being beholden to past successful work the failure gets greater attention than the failure of a new piece of work.
__________________
We are quicksilver, a fleeting shadow, a distant sound... our home has no boundaries beyond which we cannot pass. We live in music, in a flash of color... we live on the wind and in the sparkle of a star! Endora, Bewitched
Gov Karnstein is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:34 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.