Yeah, I didn't articulate that very well. I meant to say 99.9% of movies adapted from books are at least somewhat unfaithful to the source.Sometimes they're 99% different than the book.
Is a modern-day big screen reboot of TNG inevitable?
- Thread starter Shalashaska
- Start date
You did fine. I was just trying to spin a joke off of it.
no worries
True, but that's not why they recast Elizabeth in the thirties.That wasn't an adaptation issue; that was a "let's use a younger, hotter actress" issue. And, as far as know, nobody has ever claimed that THE BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN suffered as a movie because they recast Elizabeth. Or that audiences in the 30s even cared or noticed that there was a new actress playing Elizabeth.
Even if Mary Shelley had still been alive, I doubt that she would've insisted that they re-hire Mae Clarke.
Mind you, she may well have had other issues . . ..
You'd be surprised how little most authors care how their work is adapted as long as they get paid.
I am sure they did. But I am NOT speaking of minor changes here. If you read the innitial story, you'll see what I mean. The list of things that have been either distorted or left out is endless.
Let me give you a few examples:
1) The creature is actually very intelligent, more so even than the doctor that created it. He learned two languages (French and German) just by observing people from a distance without them realizing that he was there, plus he also learned how the read the same way.
2) Initially, the creature has good intentions, helping people without them knowing, saving lives. It became hostile and finally vengeful after a string of terrible injustices, (eg. When he saved a little girl from drowning he got shot and nearly died from the wound as a result!)
3) The creature is not made of pieces of corpses. How do I know that? Because he's eight feet tall and perfectly proportioned and I don't think anybody he's going to pretend that you can find parts of eight foot tall people in random cemetaries.
There are more like that but I believe that these three are alraedy enough to make my point.
True, but that's not why they recast Elizabeth in the thirties.That wasn't an adaptation issue; that was a "let's use a younger, hotter actress" issue. And, as far as know, nobody has ever claimed that THE BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN suffered as a movie because they recast Elizabeth. Or that audiences in the 30s even cared or noticed that there was a new actress playing Elizabeth.
Even if Mary Shelley had still been alive, I doubt that she would've insisted that they re-hire Mae Clarke.
Mind you, she may well have had other issues . . ..
I agree.
As I said, a personal failure on my part. This "wall" is a hard one to break through.
I can accept some re-casting in some films and television programs; but when it come to TOS, those actors made those roles definitive.
When Gene Roddenberry created (with help) TNG in 1987, he chose to go forward with a new crew and new time period, and not recast; obviously because the original crew was still appearing in features.
Even if they had been available, I believe he would have still created a new set of characters; he wanted to "fix" concepts that he felt needed updated from TOS.
I'm keeping my fingers crossed for Discovery since it appears it will be a new crew, and new ship.
But the film franchise; no, I'm done until the executives at the studio's film division figure out a "niche" audience is better than no audience at all.
They don't need a "summer blockbuster/franchise/tentpole" to make some money.
Some money is better than "gobs" of money, if you water down a premise.
I can accept some re-casting in some films and television programs; but when it come to TOS, those actors made those roles definitive.
When Gene Roddenberry created (with help) TNG in 1987, he chose to go forward with a new crew and new time period, and not recast; obviously because the original crew was still appearing in features.
Even if they had been available, I believe he would have still created a new set of characters; he wanted to "fix" concepts that he felt needed updated from TOS.
I'm keeping my fingers crossed for Discovery since it appears it will be a new crew, and new ship.
But the film franchise; no, I'm done until the executives at the studio's film division figure out a "niche" audience is better than no audience at all.
They don't need a "summer blockbuster/franchise/tentpole" to make some money.
Some money is better than "gobs" of money, if you water down a premise.
By that reasoning, why was Spock Prime (ugh, hate that description; he's Ambassador Spock) played by Leonard Nimoy?
Since it "doesn't matter".
But it does.
My head canon for that scene
Spock - Who are you young man?
Kirk - I am James T Kirk
Spock - Surak help me, where am I?
Because the writers and producers wanted him to be in the movie. He made an excellent older Spock.,
Having Nimoy was a nod to the decades of Star Trek that had been made.
Might say something about what Nimoy thinks of the respective filmmakers. He did "Unification", but wanted no part of Generations unless it was done his way. He did Star Trek (2009) and had no issue coming back and doing a cameo for Into Darkness.
Might say something about what Nimoy thinks of the respective filmmakers. He did "Unification", but wanted no part of Generations unless it was done his way. He did Star Trek (2009) and had no issue coming back and doing a cameo for Into Darkness.
Translation: Only TOS purists are true Trek fans. The "spinoffs" are crap.
Not even close,
If a new show is in a new century then what difference does it make? It's all just Kirk and Spock, right?
Huh?
Please review your posts.
I know what I've written. And I know what I meant by the post you quoted.
Its inevitable if there is a big chance it will make lots of money. The Star Trek franchise is not a charity or a scifi navel gazing cub, never has been and never will be.
Instead of a big screen reboot, I wonder if a reboot on the small screen might be more feasible.
The X-Files started as a tv series, then it went to the big screen, and this year it returned to tv as a mini series. It didn't return as a reboot, though; nevertheless it did make its comeback to tv.
If there were to be a TNG reboot on tv, I would assume it would be a made-for-tv movie or a limited mini series. I don't know, but it might make more economic sense to reach a niche audience through the small screen rather than through the big screen.
The X-Files started as a tv series, then it went to the big screen, and this year it returned to tv as a mini series. It didn't return as a reboot, though; nevertheless it did make its comeback to tv.
If there were to be a TNG reboot on tv, I would assume it would be a made-for-tv movie or a limited mini series. I don't know, but it might make more economic sense to reach a niche audience through the small screen rather than through the big screen.
Similar threads
