worst sci-fi TV series of post 1964

[Greg Cox]

I guess I don't see a remake as attacking or insulting the original. There's nothing to be gained by treating an old story like a sacred cow and letting it gather dust.

And, on a practical level, the world is full of remakes that made money--like the new I AM LEGEND, the new BSG, the new STAR TREK, the new MUMMY, the new CLASH OF THE TITANS, the new FATHER OF THE BRIDE, THE FUGITIVE, THE ADDAMS FAMILY, the new NIKITA, the new HAWAII 5-0, the new CASINO ROYALE, THE MASK OF ZORRO, etc.

Sure, some remakes flop, but not because they're remakes. Just because some movies flop.

Besides, why should one generation monopolize a good story? I enjoyed the old LOGAN'S RUN when I was a teen. Let today's teens enjoy their own version.

Insisting that nobody can make a modern version, just because we enjoyed the old version back in the seventies, seems kind of selfish to me . . .

 

[Kegg]

Ah, Gary Sinese. I'll always remember him as the actor people wanted to draft to play Doctor McCoy since forever.

Or worse a recreation of Michelangelo's wonderful masterpiece in the Sistine Chapel.

You mean (an)other painting(s) of the various subjects depicted in the Sistine Chapel?

Those are all Biblical. As in means many of them had been painted thousands of times before Michelangelo, and many were painted thousands of times after. And, indeed, there are many elaborate decorative jobs done for churches and chapels involving biblical subjects.

I guess I don't see a remake as attacking or insulting the original. There's nothing to be gained by treating an old story like a sacred cow and letting it gather dust.

Indeed. Werner Herzog's Nosferatu is partly a homage to the silent film, for example, but either are solid films in their own right and as a fan of the silent film I really appreciate the remake.

When it comes down to it, a remake is a proposition to give you more of the same of something you already like. Sure, it might be terrible. I love The Day The Earth Stood Still dearly, and I recall a remake was released a few years back that got pretty dire reviews... so I didn't watch it. I still got the original film on my DVD shelf; Michael Rennie's Klaatu isn't going anywhere... I really don't care about the remake beyond the fact I would have liked for it not to suck.

 

[chardman]

I would rather see the original than someone else's own interpretation on the source material.

Well, in this particular case, the "original source material" is a novel by William Nolan, and the film is someone else's (particularly unfaithful) interpretation of it. It'd be nice to finally have a screen adaptation that actually follows the plot of the novel (advise that should be applied to most all movie adaptations of literary works).

 

[Gepard]

So clearly the best way to "see the original" would be to point a camera at someone turning the pages of the novel and project that on screen for two-and-a-half hours.

 

[chardman]

Not at all, but then again, you'll have to ask Expo. He's the one deriding the very notion of remakes and new interpretations, while I'm one of the guys who thinks Logan's Run should be remade.

 

[Gepard]

Clearly my deadpan snarkery doesn't come across through text.

 

[Expo67]

So clearly the best way to "see the original" would be to point a camera at someone turning the pages of the novel and project that on screen for two-and-a-half hours.

Actually, the running time on the original Logan's Run is 1 hour and 59 minutes.

What you suggested is no different than what Sam Peckinpah recommended to Ray Bradbury, concerning how to film the sci-fi author's classic The Martian Chronicles.

"Rip the pages out and stuff them in the Panavision movie camera."

 

[Gepard]

So clearly the best way to "see the original" would be to point a camera at someone turning the pages of the novel and project that on screen for two-and-a-half hours.

Actually, the running time on the original Logan's Run is 1 hour and 59 minutes.

 

[chardman]

Clearly my deadpan snarkery doesn't come across through text.

Actually, it did. I simply couldn't resist the urge to make a snarky remark in return.

 

[Gepard]

Ah. Cluelessness FTW!

 

[Expo67]

I guess I don't see a remake as attacking or insulting the original. There's nothing to be gained by treating an old story like a sacred cow and letting it gather dust.

And, on a practical level, the world is full of remakes that made money--like the new I AM LEGEND, the new BSG, the new STAR TREK, the new MUMMY, the new CLASH OF THE TITANS, the new FATHER OF THE BRIDE, THE FUGITIVE, THE ADDAMS FAMILY, the new NIKITA, the new HAWAII 5-0, the new CASINO ROYALE, THE MASK OF ZORRO, etc.

Sure, some remakes flop, but not because they're remakes. Just because some movies flop.

Besides, why should one generation monopolize a good story? I enjoyed the old LOGAN'S RUN when I was a teen. Let today's teens enjoy their own version.

Insisting that nobody can make a modern version, just because we enjoyed the old version back in the seventies, seems kind of selfish to me . . .

All I'm just saying is that if a story has been told, then it has been told. Why remake a classic when there is other fresh new material waiting to be mined for its worth?

Realisticaly speaking, nobody wants to see the same old shit over and over again. They would rather see something brand new and original. Like actress Kyra Schon(who was in the 1968 original version of Night Of The Living Dead)once said about remakes, they are just a cheap way to make a buck. There is no originality in a remake.

I totally concur with her opinion.

Honestly, how can you top the 1981 MGM version of Clash Of The Titans? A film that had an excellent cast, solid plot, and remarkable special effects by Ray Harryhausen, himself?

Personally, you really can't. The Warner Brothers remake was just that. An unnecessary remake.

Greg, while you are technically correct about the 2009 prequel/reboot of Star Trek, allow me to point out(or present if you will)a counterargument concerning the film.

If J.J. Abrams and his staff of writers had not thrown in the subplot of the altered timeline(i.e. where the original timeline was instantly altered, erased, reshaped - however you want to describe it - by the immediate arrival of both Nero and - to some extent - Spock), then the film would have been a typical Hollywood remake that would have most likely flopped at the box office.

By throwing in that subplot, the film was spared of such a disaster.

 

[MANT!]

I remember when I heard about the "Forbidden Planet" remake in the 90s..I was excited to see an updated version, (and hoped it didn't end up suckin' major ass). Then it went into limbo when the LIS movie was released (ohh the pain..the pain)and fell short of expectations.


Such is the price of modern Hollywood..

If it makes financial sense, they will remake it..come Hell or high water...

One can only hope that it won't be a huge stinking pile of crap like so many other Hollywood movies of today...

 

[Spocktapus]

When it comes to television, I guess I've managed to steer clear of most of the bad stuff. I think the worst show I've seen is The Event, but I know there's much worse out there.

As for movies, Highlander 2, anyone?

 

[Greg Cox]

I guess I don't see a remake as attacking or insulting the original. There's nothing to be gained by treating an old story like a sacred cow and letting it gather dust.

And, on a practical level, the world is full of remakes that made money--like the new I AM LEGEND, the new BSG, the new STAR TREK, the new MUMMY, the new CLASH OF THE TITANS, the new FATHER OF THE BRIDE, THE FUGITIVE, THE ADDAMS FAMILY, the new NIKITA, the new HAWAII 5-0, the new CASINO ROYALE, THE MASK OF ZORRO, etc.

Sure, some remakes flop, but not because they're remakes. Just because some movies flop.

Besides, why should one generation monopolize a good story? I enjoyed the old LOGAN'S RUN when I was a teen. Let today's teens enjoy their own version.

Insisting that nobody can make a modern version, just because we enjoyed the old version back in the seventies, seems kind of selfish to me . . .

All I'm just saying is that if a story has been told, then it has been told. Why remake a classic when there is other fresh new material waiting to be mined for its worth?

Realisticaly speaking, nobody wants to see the same old shit over and over again. They would rather see something brand new and original. Like actress Kyra Schon(who was in the 1968 original version of Night Of The Living Dead)once said about remakes, they are just a cheap way to make a buck. There is no originality in a remake.

I totally concur with her opinion.

Greg, while you are technically correct about the 2009 prequel/reboot of Star Trek, allow me to point out(or present if you will)a counterargument concerning the film.

If J.J. Abrams and his staff of writers had not thrown in the subplot of the altered timeline(i.e. where the original timeline was instantly altered, erased, reshaped - however you want to describe it - by the immediate arrival of both Nero and - to some extent - Spock), then the film would have been a typical Hollywood remake that would have most likely flopped at the box office.

But you're assuming again that being a remake makes a movie more likely to flop. I don't think remakes have a higher flop rate than any other type of movie. If a new LOGAN'S RUN is entertaining, people will see it. If it sucks, it will flop. But most people are not going to say, "I don't care if it's any good. I hear they filmed the same book thirty-plus years ago, so I'm not going to see it!"

Plus, you're making the false assumption that the primary audience for a remake is the people who watched the original. LOGAN'S RUN was made back in 1976! The world is full of people who have never seen the original or barely remember it. So the story won't be the same old thing to them. It will be new to them.

Besides, look at it this way. Suppose somebody back in 1978 had said, "Superman again? The old serials and tv show are fine as is. Leave them be!"

And a whole generation doesn't get SUPERMAN: THE MOTION PICTURE with Christopher Reeve . . . .

 

[Kegg]

If J.J. Abrams and his staff of writers had not thrown in the subplot of the altered timeline(i.e. where the original timeline was instantly altered, erased, reshaped - however you want to describe it - by the immediate arrival of both Nero and - to some extent - Spock), then the film would have been a typical Hollywood remake that would have most likely flopped at the box office.

This is precisely why if Batman Begins had featured a time travel plot involving George Clooney, it would not have been a disaster at the box office.

In all seriousness, the time travel device worked mostly as a way to have Leonard Nimoy show up and pass the torch. Beyond that it's only relevant to us geeks, about as relevant to the film's success as whether or not we get to hear Uhura's first name onscreen.

 

[Greg Cox]

If J.J. Abrams and his staff of writers had not thrown in the subplot of the altered timeline(i.e. where the original timeline was instantly altered, erased, reshaped - however you want to describe it - by the immediate arrival of both Nero and - to some extent - Spock), then the film would have been a typical Hollywood remake that would have most likely flopped at the box office.

This is precisely why if Batman Begins had featured a time travel plot involving George Clooney, it would not have been a disaster at the box office.

.

You're right. That would have been so much better!

Besides, it's not like most remakes tell the same story verbatim. They adapt things, change things, put their own spin on it--which is the whole point.

Maybe the new LOGAN'S RUN will stick closer to the original book. Maybe it will head off in its own direction. Either way, it's not going to be identical to the 1976 version, any more than THE HORROR OF DRACULA is the same movie as the 1931 Universal version.

 

[Thestral]

If J.J. Abrams and his staff of writers had not thrown in the subplot of the altered timeline(i.e. where the original timeline was instantly altered, erased, reshaped - however you want to describe it - by the immediate arrival of both Nero and - to some extent - Spock), then the film would have been a typical Hollywood remake that would have most likely flopped at the box office.

By throwing in that subplot, the film was spared of such a disaster.

 

[Aeolusdallas]

So clearly the best way to "see the original" would be to point a camera at someone turning the pages of the novel and project that on screen for two-and-a-half hours.

Actually, the running time on the original Logan's Run is 1 hour and 59 minutes.

It's like he doesn't even read the posts in the thread. He just hits reply and says something random.

 

[The Lensman]

I guess I don't see a remake as attacking or insulting the original. There's nothing to be gained by treating an old story like a sacred cow and letting it gather dust.

And, on a practical level, the world is full of remakes that made money--like the new I AM LEGEND, the new BSG, the new STAR TREK, the new MUMMY, the new CLASH OF THE TITANS, the new FATHER OF THE BRIDE, THE FUGITIVE, THE ADDAMS FAMILY, the new NIKITA, the new HAWAII 5-0, the new CASINO ROYALE, THE MASK OF ZORRO, etc.

Sure, some remakes flop, but not because they're remakes. Just because some movies flop.

Besides, why should one generation monopolize a good story? I enjoyed the old LOGAN'S RUN when I was a teen. Let today's teens enjoy their own version.

Insisting that nobody can make a modern version, just because we enjoyed the old version back in the seventies, seems kind of selfish to me . . .

All I'm just saying is that if a story has been told, then it has been told. Why remake a classic when there is other fresh new material waiting to be mined for its worth?

Realisticaly speaking, nobody wants to see the same old shit over and over again. They would rather see something brand new and original. Like actress Kyra Schon(who was in the 1968 original version of Night Of The Living Dead)once said about remakes, they are just a cheap way to make a buck. There is no originality in a remake.

I totally concur with her opinion.

Honestly, how can you top the 1981 MGM version of Clash Of The Titans? A film that had an excellent cast, solid plot, and remarkable special effects by Ray Harryhausen, himself?

Personally, you really can't. The Warner Brothers remake was just that. An unnecessary remake.

Using your logic, we'd never have had the classic Bogart version of The Maltese Falcon...the THIRD version of the movie. And while the second was a bomb, the first version of the film was a hit in it's day. And all three versions were made exactly six years apart from each other.

Remakes have been going on since the earliest days of silent cinema and they are nothing new. The only thing bad about remakes are BAD remakes.

As for "how can you top the 1981 MGM version of Clash Of The Titans"? The question is really "how can you NOT top the 1981 version of Clash Of The Titans".

Seriously, I saw the movie as a kid when it came out.....and thought it was lame. It was boring, predictable and Harryhausen's work was just ok. The new movie was as mediocre as the original.

In my experience, people rail against remakes not because Hollywood isn't "original".....it's because they love a specific version of something and are afraid that a new version will supplant the original in the public's eye.

 

[Distorted Humor]

This thread is getting to this point...


I am the one person who LIKES Highlander 2, but I saw Highlander 2 before Highlander 1 .....


I don't mind remakes, as long as it is not the same shot for shot like what was done in the remake of Psycho.

Lets say I am telling the story of ...We will use Logan's Run since that has been the theme...

Think of it as a bit of Jazz Music, Summertime has been done a billion times, but yet everyone has a there own take on the concept. Movies/plays are the same way. Heck, sometimes you have the same PERSON do the same movie. (Mel Brooks made the Producers, then made a musical out of it, then someone filmed the musical, and I happen to prefer the movie version that is a musical based off the stage musical, based off the first movie). Heck, for the most part, Shakespeare did remakes. If someone wanted to do a remake of Logan's Run, it would be fun to see.