sf/f TV development news - 2013

[RJDiogenes]

Exactly. I don't entirely dismiss reboots, but I much prefer that an existing concept be either built upon or else that something new be created.

[Harvey]

RJDemonicus wrote:

---

Exactly. I don't entirely dismiss reboots

No? Which one have you genuinely liked?

[lennier1]

Harvey wrote:

---

No? Which one have you genuinely liked?

Probably nuBSG, which was a rare exception from the rule.

[Harvey]

Let's nip the "dark and gritty" tangent in the bud; he hates that series with a passion.

[RJDiogenes]

More like I hate what it represents; the series itself was mostly notable for its mundanity. But, since I didn't like the original either, I didn't really care much about it.

To answer your question, the most recent reboot I've liked is Scooby Doo: Mystery Incorporated. In fact, I think it's the best version of the concept ever.

But artistically successful reboots are certainly very rare.

[Christopher]

RJDiogenes wrote:

---

But artistically successful reboots are certainly very rare.

Only because artistically successful anything is rare. It's Sturgeon's Law: Ninety percent of everything is garbage. People always blame it on the category, but it's got nothing to do with the category. No matter what category you look at, you'll find plenty of failures and only a few successes.

[RJDiogenes]

But reboots have the added drawback of expectations. Same with adaptations. Most of the time "the book was better."

[Harvey]

Continuations have built-in expectations, too.

Of course, marketing ensures that most movies are being seen by audiences with expectations.

And "Most of the time, the book was better" seems to me to be a confirmation of Sturgeon's Law, not the value of remakes. (Or, if you'd prefer, reboots or re-imaginings -- me, I'm not sure those terms have much use outside of marketing designed to avoid the stigma of remakes).

[Kegg]

Harvey wrote:

---

(Or, if you'd prefer, reboots or re-imaginings -- me, I'm not sure those terms have much use outside of marketing designed to avoid the stigma of remakes).

I think reboot has a purpose when it's talking about getting a franchise to reset rather than an individual film. I mean Abrams' Star Trek and Batman Begins and Casino Royale are not remakes of previous films, but they are clearing the detrius of their preceding films and getting back to basics. The stories may be derived or partly derived from other sources but none of them are straight up remakes of an earlier picture.

While van Sant's Psycho or the Coen Brothers Ladykillers are straight remakes of previous tales, retelling the same story with the same characters.

I don't think they're mutually exclusive terms, obviously - nuBSG can be fairly called both a reboot and a remake and one could argue the same for Rise of the Planet of the Apes (a quasi-remake of Conquest of the Planet of the Apes as much as it was also cleaning the slate of the Apes franchise) and so on.

Re-imagining though remains to me the pretentious term thrown around for Tim Burton's Planet of the Apes.

[Greg Cox]

Kegg wrote:

---

I think reboot has a purpose when it's talking about getting a franchise to reset rather than an individual film. I mean Abrams' Star Trek and Batman Begins and Casino Royale are not remakes of previous films, but they are clearing the detrius of their preceding films and getting back to basics. The stories may be derived or partly derived from other sources but none of them are straight up remakes of an earlier picture.

Well, technically Casino Royale was the third time around for that particular Bond tale, but we'll agree that the first two adaptations don't really count . . . .

Just to show my age, I'd also add the early Hammer Films back in the late fifties and early sixties, which basically rebooted the old Universal Horror franchises . . . and quite successfully.

[stj]

1. Sturgeon's Law is not actually a law.

2. Not only are Sturgeon's percentages more or less arbitrary, there are only two categories, good and crud

3. If you simply add more reasonable categories, such as great art, excellent, mediocre, subpar and crud, it immediately becomes obvious that reboots/remakes/reimaginings are rather deficient in great and excellent, and rather abundant in subpar and crud.

4. This kind of modal difference in distribution of quality is also a modal difference due to the category of drama as such.

[RJDiogenes]

^^ I agree. Sturgeon's Law makes its point, but obviously doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Harvey wrote:

---

Continuations have built-in expectations, too.

Well, that's a good point. But I think, also, that continuations are generally more wanted than remakes or reboots.

Greg Cox wrote:

---

Just to show my age, I'd also add the early Hammer Films back in the late fifties and early sixties, which basically rebooted the old Universal Horror franchises . . . and quite successfully.

But those were more like re-adaptations of literary works.

[Greg Cox]

RJDiogenes wrote:

---

But those were more like re-adaptations of literary works.

I don't know. I've always found that an arbitrary distinction. By that reasoning, the remakes of PLANET OF THE APES, PSYCHO, and THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL (among others) should get a pass since the original films were all based on literary works, but those movies are commonly cited as bad or unnecessary remakes. Whether or not the original film was based on a book or not really has little to do with the quality or merit of any movie remakes or reboots. If the original movie is regarded as a classic, like THE WIZARD OF OZ or TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD, some people are going to regard it as untouchable, regardless of whether it was a literary adaptation or not.

Or to use more skiffy examples, is it okay to remake LOGAN'S RUN (which was based on a book), but not okay to remake FANTASTIC VOYAGE (which wasn't)? Again, that seems like a meaningless distinction to me.

(There's also the fact that moviegoers don't necessarily know or care if there was a book or short story first. Are people going to be more receptive to a remake of THE FLY or THE THING if they're familiar with the original short stories? I doubt it.)

As for Hammer, it was mostly the first films in the series that count as literary adaptions; otherwise they were churning out Dracula and Frankenstein sequels like Universal did. Plus, of course, their MUMMY movies were very much based on the Universal films, not any established literary work.

[danellis]

Kegg wrote:

---

Re-imagining though remains to me the pretentious term thrown around for Tim Burton's Planet of the Apes.

Not necessarily: I would think that re-imagining would be the best term for, as an example, the BBC's recent SHERLOCK series.

dJE

[Temis the Vorta]

RJDiogenes wrote:

---

A Star Wars TV series is interesting mostly because, if successful, it could inspire Paramount to do a Star Trek series-- hopefully one that ignores the film and maintains the continuity of the original franchise.

Corporations take their cue from what has been successful most recently. CBS wouldn't care that Abrams made the warp nacelles the wrong color or whatever it is that irks some fans about that movie.

If the next movie is also a big hit, and it probably will be, that's all CBS will care about. They'd turn the reins over happily to Bob Orci if he wants the job, because he has the credibility of being associated with recent success. Them it's up to him what universe the series is set in, or even if the audience can tell the difference.