Poll Would you watch a Voyager reboot?

As I recall, the 1980s THE THING visually homages a scene from the 1950s version at least once: when the men fan out around the buried spaceship only to discover that, holy cow, it's a flying saucer!

There's also an odd double standard when it comes to classical versus genre fiction. A new version of a literary classic such as PRIDE AND PREJUDICE or LITTLE WOMEN is not really seen as remake, but a new version of PLANET OF THE APES or LOGAN'S RUN will invariably be perceived as remakes of the original movies, even though those films were also based on novels, just like LITTLE WOMEN or THE THREE MUSKETEERS or whatever.

 

^^^ I wonder if that may have something to do with how the work in question is primarily known, as a book or as a film. Most people would think of Little Women and Pride and Prejudice as books, first and foremost. But a lot of people (like me until I read your post, @Greg Cox !) wouldn't even be able to tell you that Logan's Run was based on a book. And while more people might know that Planet of the Apes was based on a book (I read that one way-back-when, during the first film series's run), it's still a relatively obscure work.

Sadly, I can't say -- I didn't watch any of the Stargate series (serieses?).

 

3 series'. If you like TOS or Voyager, I'm pretty sure you'd like it. Stargate SG1 even did a near-identical version of Voyager's "Workforce".

SG1 and Atlantis are very much the TOS/Voyager mould. Universe is much more like Discovery in it's first season.

 

a very cool scene in both films... and on the classic vs genre disparity: it may be another example of the genre films being kind of denigrated by the mainstream. This may be on the wane with the fantasy revival and more genre films winning major awards, etc.

 

What exactly is a super moderator?

 

You moderate the moderators?

 

Good point. It may have less to do with genre than with, as noted, the degree to which the movie is better known than the original print version. Literary classics will be remembered as books, but the novels and short stories that inspired classic sci-fi films may be less well known in their own right.

I'm guessing way more people have seen the original THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL than have ever heard of "Farewell to the Master" by Harry Bates, the story the movie was based on. See also the original short story that inspired THE FLY.

 

It's a lame rank title. I was a Super Moderator on the old Interplay/Black Isle Studios forums. You're "middle management" above a mod, below an admin.

I always asked the admins to change the title to "Senior Moderator" which sounded better to me. They never did.

 

Considering that Voyager is pretty much the show with the most wasted potential in Trek and suffered the most from the episodic, we gotta cater to all demographics philosophy of 90s television, I think it could definitely benefit from a do-over.

As long as said do-over doesn't fall into the same traps and cliches as a lot of other modern shows aimed at adults...

Though if modern Star Trek does insist on subverting the idealistic universe of the older shows then a ship stranded in an unknown region of space and half of its crew consisting of rebel fighters from frontier worlds would be the best place to do so rather than shoving it into the heart of the Federation.

 

Wasn't that nuBSG?

 

I tend to think it depends which work your movie is closer to. For example, if somebody made a movie called Minority Report where the victim is a military leader trying to get control of the system, and he chooses to carry out the murder in the end, it’d be an adaptation. If the victim of the murder was some stranger and the story came out against determinism, it’d be a remake.

 

I was just marching in to say that but you beat me to it. Great minds think alike.

 

If Seven acts like she does in Picard, I wouldn't like to watch a Voyager reboot.

 

This is all basically what they're doing with DSC season 3.

 

A couple of thoughts on this.

You say 'Hollywood has been making excellent reboots since practically Day one" "Excellent" is the key word here . I don't think people hate remakes so much as they hate bad remakes. For me many of the remakes released over the last 20 years feel like lazy cash-ins banking on the reputation of older films. Very few of them seem to have something new to say or substantially improve on their sources.

You mention some examples of good remakes, but I think they may be a bit misleading. The first two adaptations of The Maltese Falcon were B movies. The second one played as sort of a comedy (and was actually pretty good.) A big budget remake with big name stars that is also closer to the source material is different than having four different reboots of the Terminator franchise, imo.

There is such a difference between sound and silent films that it's almost another medium. It almost feels like comparing a radio drama to a tv show. I can't really fault studios for remaking silent pictures because of that.

Random comments:

Both versions of Gaslight are good. Check out the original if you haven't. MGM tried to have it suppressed.

The third version of the Maltese Falcon is a classic, but the second one is a fun little pre-code B movie.

Both the 1920 and 1932 versions of Dr Jekyll are classics. I didn't care for the 1940 version. The forties were kind of a weak decade for horror, imo. Maybe the war had something to do with that.

I didn't dig either of the versions of The Unholy Three. Chaney was a genius though. Loved The Unknown and West of Zanzibar.

 

I think the Hays Office had something to do with it, too. The 1940 Jekyll & Hyde feels watered-down and sanitized compared to the 1932 version, which was Pre-Code and therefore has a much harder edge to it.

And, yeah, I love The Unknown, too. That is such a bizarre, kinky movie!