sf/f TV development news - 2013

Discussion in 'Science Fiction & Fantasy' started by Temis the Vorta, Oct 10, 2011.

  1. RJDiogenes

    RJDiogenes Idealistic Cynic and Canon Champion Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Location:
    RJDiogenes of Boston
    Re: sf/f TV development news - 2012

    ^^ Rockne O'Bannon is the only reason I might give it a try.

    How can you thoroughly mine a universe? There's an infinite amount of opportunities in the concept; Trek novelists have been proving that for decades. Now the audience has the flash-bang "alternate approach" of Abrams' reboot in the theater, so why not continue enriching the more adult universe of the original on TV? There's your variety of approaches.


    Okay, fine. It's a challenge to write within the context of a shared universe; obviously you know that, since you do it. A good writer can take the inconsistencies or the errors and so forth and build something from them, the way writers like Roy Thomas and Steve Englehart and Kurt Busiek did for the Marvel Universe. They didn't need no stinkin' reboots. They had the Right Stuff. :mallory:

    Yeah, fine. Like I said, sometimes it works, sometimes it's necessary for business reasons and a lot of times it's just plain bad. I'm advocating the approach I think is best.

    I'm not simplifying anything. I remember the history. There were a few malcontents all along the way, but TNG was accepted pretty quickly by most. DS9, VOY and ENT had increasingly more detractors because they strayed farther and farther from the core concept (though I happened to enjoy them all).

    So, again, if you're going to do that, why not just create something completely new, rather than just recycle names and terminology? Would RHW's Defender be improved by calling it Star Trek and naming the captain Kirk?
     
  2. Christopher

    Christopher Writer Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2001
    Re: sf/f TV development news - 2012

    "Stinkin' reboots?" Your prejudice closes your mind to the possibilities. Star Trek is supposed to be about embracing the new and different, not condemning and fearing it.
     
  3. RJDiogenes

    RJDiogenes Idealistic Cynic and Canon Champion Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Location:
    RJDiogenes of Boston
    Re: sf/f TV development news - 2012

    It also embraces humor, a concept you've always had trouble with. ;)

    [yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqomZQMZQCQ[/yt]
     
  4. Christopher

    Christopher Writer Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2001
    Re: sf/f TV development news - 2012

    Of course I get the reference, but your choice to use that reference is symptomatic of your trouble opening your mind to new takes on a fictional franchise. And because your mind is so completely closed, I see no reason to waste my time trying to have a conversation about this with you.
     
  5. stj

    stj Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2006
    Location:
    the real world
    Re: sf/f TV development news - 2012

    Something entirely new, not a reboot or remake or reimagining, is about "embracing the new and different." Most reboots and remakes and reimaginings fail because they kept something old that doesn't fit with the new, instead of "embracing the new and different."
     
  6. RJDiogenes

    RJDiogenes Idealistic Cynic and Canon Champion Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Location:
    RJDiogenes of Boston
    Re: sf/f TV development news - 2012

    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.
     
  7. Harvey

    Harvey Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2005
    Location:
    Los Angeles, California
    Re: sf/f TV development news - 2012

    No? Which one have you genuinely liked?
     
  8. lennier1

    lennier1 Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    May 3, 2004
    Location:
    Germany
    Re: sf/f TV development news - 2012

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

    Harvey Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2005
    Location:
    Los Angeles, California
    Re: sf/f TV development news - 2012

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

    RJDiogenes Idealistic Cynic and Canon Champion Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Location:
    RJDiogenes of Boston
    Re: sf/f TV development news - 2012

    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.
     
  11. Christopher

    Christopher Writer Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2001
    Re: sf/f TV development news - 2012

    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.
     
  12. RJDiogenes

    RJDiogenes Idealistic Cynic and Canon Champion Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Location:
    RJDiogenes of Boston
    Re: sf/f TV development news - 2012

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

    Harvey Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2005
    Location:
    Los Angeles, California
    Re: sf/f TV development news - 2012

    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).
     
  14. Kegg

    Kegg Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2009
    Location:
    Ireland.
    Re: sf/f TV development news - 2012

    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.
     
  15. Greg Cox

    Greg Cox Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Location:
    Oxford, PA
    Re: sf/f TV development news - 2012

    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.
     
  16. stj

    stj Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2006
    Location:
    the real world
    Re: sf/f TV development news - 2012

    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.
     
    Last edited: Nov 13, 2012
  17. RJDiogenes

    RJDiogenes Idealistic Cynic and Canon Champion Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Location:
    RJDiogenes of Boston
    Re: sf/f TV development news - 2012

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

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

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

    Greg Cox Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Location:
    Oxford, PA
    Re: sf/f TV development news - 2012

    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.
     
    Last edited: Nov 13, 2012
  19. danellis

    danellis Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2010
    Location:
    UK
    Re: sf/f TV development news - 2012


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

    dJE
     
  20. Temis the Vorta

    Temis the Vorta Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 1999
    Location:
    Tatoinne
    Re: sf/f TV development news - 2012

    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.