worst sci-fi TV series of post 1964

[Deckerd]

Cleopatra 2525
Team Knight Rider
Viper
M.A.N.T.I.S.
Manimal
Automan
Far Out Space Nuts
Baywatch Nights
V: The Series (remake's pretty terrible too)
Future Cop
Family Matters (when it became the Urkel show and started featuring cloning, robots, and time travel)
Small Wonder
Homeboys from Outer Space
Robocop the Series
Mortal Kombat: Conquest
The Powers of Matthew Star
Galactica 1980

I don't know whether to feel smug or peeved that the only one of these I've seen is V (the original) which started well and then became something filmed in someone's back garden with the scriptwriter handing out lines between takes.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

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".

This is true - the '81 version is a pretty bad movie, essentially an unimpressive rerun of work Harryhausen did better on Jason And The Argonauts.

 

[chardman]

And I had such high hopes for "Clash of the Titans". I figured that with the advent of motion control and other effects breakthroughs, that the father of stop motion was really gonna wow us. But the film was just the same old Harryhausen.

 

[Kegg]

And actually... from Wikipedia's article on Perseus:

In film, the myth of Perseus was loosely adapted three times. The first being the 1963 Italian film Perseus The Invincible (which was dubbed and released to the U.S as Medusa Against The Son of Hercules 1964). The second was the 1981 fantasy/adventure film Clash of the Titans, and the third was that film's 2010 remake Clash of the Titans.

That's right. The 1981 Clash of the Titans was just another bloody remake that we didn't need because we already had the Italian film. If only Harryhausen had done something original.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

It didn't benefit from a relatively well-known mainstream cast, either. Olivier may have the credentials but he brought little that mattered to the film.

That's right. The 1981 Clash of the Titans was just another bloody remake that we didn't need because we already had the Italian film. If only Harryhausen had done something original.

Well, the argument that remakes are bad per se is completely unsustainable in the face of extensive evidence to the contrary - as has been presented by many people, citing specific examples, here in this topic.

I'm still hoping that they'll get a remake of Forbidden Planet together sometime in the near future. The original is probably my favorite science fiction movie of all time.

 

[Kegg]

Well, the argument that remakes are bad per se is completely unsustainable in the face of extensive evidence to the contrary - as has been presented by many people, citing specific examples, here in this topic.

I was being sarcastic. I've actually cited some of those examples, like Herzog's Nosferatu. My point was Expo67's logic for what constitutes an original film and what doesn't - which views remakes of existing films as unoriginal but the first film based on a non-filmic source like a book or legend as original - can be very easily turned on its head.

By his own logic, Harryhausen's Clash of the Titans is not an original film because the story has been made into a movie before.

 

[Distorted Humor]

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".

This is true - the '81 version is a pretty bad movie, essentially an unimpressive rerun of work Harryhausen did better on Jason And The Argonauts.

Skeleton fight

Greatest swordfight EVER (ok, princess bride might have a hope to unseat it...

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Yep, that's amazing - my favorite sequence, though, is the Talos statue.

 

[Distorted Humor]

I think I Might need to Netflix Jason...been over a decade since I seen that film....

 

[Sindatur]

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.

A movie based upon a book is a retelling of the story. How is another movie based upon the same book, but, different from the first movie something that shouldn't be done, but, the first movie based upon the Book was OK?

What about a TV Series, based upon a movie, which was based upon a book (Or a TV Series based upon a book, which also produced a Theatrical Movie based upon the book)? Since it's a different Medium (TV, rather than Big Screen) why is that taboo, but, the first movie based upon the book is being original?

 

[Pingfah]

I did not know Baywatch Nights was a sci-fi show either. Now I'm going to have to watch it out of morbid curiosity.

I am thinking the same thing.....

Gentlemen, there can be no amount or severity of sin you've committed that would justify this kind of extreme self-flagellation.

Too late.

 

[Greg Cox]

I never thought the original Clash of the Titans was one of Harryhausen's best. It always struck me as inferior to Jason and the Argonauts, which is my favorite of his flicks by far.

(Although The Seventh Voyage of Sinbad has the very best music. I'm actually listening to the soundtrack now.)

 

[Silvercrest]

I am thinking the same thing.....

Gentlemen, there can be no amount or severity of sin you've committed that would justify this kind of extreme self-flagellation.

Too late.

In that case the world owes you one. Just this once, you can commit a murder or rob a bank without fear of retribution.

 

[David cgc]

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.

Wow. Okay. Whew. You win. That's just... let's leave it there. One subplot, a scene of technobabble about alternate timelines, can save a film from box-office disaster because it allows for a legalistic argument that it is not, technically, a remake, but a continuation (why aren't sequels regarded as shameless cash-ins, too, since it's as easy to make a novel sequel as it is to do a novel remake? Hell if I know!)

 

[Expo67]

I'm still hoping that they'll get a remake of Forbidden Planet together sometime in the near future. The original is probably my favorite science fiction movie of all time.

If it's you favorite science fiction movie of all time, then why would you want to see a remake of it?

If it were me, I would be just as happy with the original and leave it at that.

 

[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.

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 . . . .

Actually it's SUPERMAN - THE MOVIE, but that's neither here or there.

Nevertheless, you do present and make a valid point. Especially when it comes to the Bronze Age(the Christopher Reeve era)of Superman.

 

[Greg Cox]

I'm still hoping that they'll get a remake of Forbidden Planet together sometime in the near future. The original is probably my favorite science fiction movie of all time.

If it's you favorite science fiction movie of all time, then why would you want to see a remake of it?

.

Because you get a new version of your favorite movie?

Again, a new version doesn't do any harm to the old one. And it might be just as good.

Why not have both?

I like the Gene Kelly/Vincent Price version of The Three Musketeers and I like the Richard Lester version from the early seventies. Would we better off if Lester had decided to skip his version because it had been done before?

(But I'm glad you see my point where Superman is concerned!)

 

[Aeolusdallas]

I'm still hoping that they'll get a remake of Forbidden Planet together sometime in the near future. The original is probably my favorite science fiction movie of all time.

If it's you favorite science fiction movie of all time, then why would you want to see a remake of it?

If it were me, I would be just as happy with the original and leave it at that.

Why remake Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet, Robin Hood? To introduce it to new people and create interesting takes on the story.
For that matter Forbidden Planet is it's self a remake of the Tempest. A better question is why wouldn't you want remakes?

 

[Lieut. Arex]

Submitted for your consideration as worst science fiction film produced since 1964:

1988's Nightfall.

 

[Distorted Humor]

Submitted for your consideration as worst science fiction film produced since 1964:

1988's Nightfall.

worse then Zardoz?