Spoilers MacGYVER reboot review thread

[Kai "the spy"]

Well, that sucked. As @Christopher pointed out, the casual violence, the secret agent stuff, the willingness to torture during interrogation, it just didn't feel like MacGyver to me. And, yeah, MacGyver's scientific improv aside, this was very, very generic.

Better watch the original instead, plenty of episodes I haven't seen yet.

 

[Saga]

That's not true. Despite what certain movies have shown, for most of his career, Batman has been portrayed as adamantly opposed to killing. The early 1939-40 stories had him use lethal force, but that was soon enough retconned away and Batman was given an explicit policy against lethal force. And the versions that did show him as a killer did not make use of his aversion to guns. Indeed, both Burton and Snyder gave him a heavily armed Batmobile.

If anything, Batman's refusal to kill was established long before his aversion to guns. Batman was often shown as an expert marksman and student of firearms, and the '66 TV series occasionally showed Bruce Wayne going on hunting trips. I don't recall seeing an aversion to guns established as a character trait of Batman until the '70s at the earliest, more like the late '80s. ("There Is No Hope in Crime Alley" showed Batman outraged that a criminal would dare to draw a gun on him in Crime Alley on the anniversary of his parents' murder, but that seemed more about the circumstances than about guns in general. I think later writers may have been inspired by that line when they gave him a more general aversion to guns, though.)

i'm not going to sit here and debate the entire 75 year history of Batman. his appearances in different media and what stories are or are not in continuity. i disagree with your take. thats all.

 

[Christopher]

i'm not going to sit here and debate the entire 75 year history of Batman. his appearances in different media and what stories are or are not in continuity. i disagree with your take. thats all.

You're the one who brought Batman into this. I simply asked a straightforward question: How can someone be against guns but not against killing? What other reason could there be to hate guns that isn't about the value of human life? I find that confusing and I'd genuinely like you to explain your thinking to me. But instead, you just made a wisecrack about Batman, and that didn't tell me anything. You seem to think I'm trying to argue or shoot you down. I'm not. I'm just confused. If you disagree with my take, then please explain why you disagree, so I can understand.

 

[Saga]

You're the one who brought Batman into this. I simply asked a straightforward question: How can someone be against guns but not against killing? What other reason could there be to hate guns that isn't about the value of human life? I find that confusing and I'd genuinely like you to explain your thinking to me. But instead, you just made a wisecrack about Batman, and that didn't tell me anything. You seem to think I'm trying to argue or shoot you down. I'm not. I'm just confused. If you disagree with my take, then please explain why you disagree, so I can understand.

this is what you do. you do argue to shoot people down and i have no intention of getting into some drawn out debate. i don't have to explain. i stand by my 'wisecrack'.

 

[Christopher]

I'm sorry you feel that way. I asked a simple question. You could have given a simple answer and this would've been over several posts ago. But instead you chose to be aggressive and confrontational. And now you're blaming me for that, just like you blamed me for changing the subject to Batman when you were the one who did so. And I still don't have the answer to the simple question I asked out of curiosity.


So if you won't help me, I guess all I can do is speculate for myself. What other reason would there be for hating guns other than valuing human life? I suppose it could be something like finding guns crude or inelegant, like Obi-Wan Kenobi's attitude toward blasters vs. lightsabers. Or it could be a matter of finding them unreliable -- prone to jamming, prone to going off by accident, that sort of thing. I suppose it could be a matter of pride -- this version of MacGyver seems to be cocky and smug about his inventiveness, so maybe he finds guns too easy and prefers to find more creative ways to kill people. Which... would pretty much make him a psychopath. Yeah, I still prefer the original character.

 

[Commander Richard]

Just saw the pilot.

• I thought I'd hate it but I didn't. It's not great but it's not bad either. It's good entertainment but it doesn't have the heart and soul of the original. And yes, it's unfortunate that it'll be compared to the original but on the other hand, maybe the "MacGyver" connection will help.
• Sure the characters are generic but I did warm up to them well enough both individually and as a team.
• Tristin Mays was certainly a distraction. Her character also makes a pretty good addition to the team. It's the 21st century and they could use a computer hacker. She also serves as an homage to those who got a second chance thanks to Mac. [Edit] She was in two episodes of Supergirl but I don't remember her.
• I agree that this new Mac is too cocky. He does have the right look though. He's no more or less pretty than RDA was. Old Mac and Nikki.
• So... How about Nikki?
  Spoiler

  Or should I say Murdoc? I wonder if they'll go that route.

 

[Sgt_G]

As much as I'd rather read a Batman debate than re-watch the MacGyver reboot, aren't you guys in the wrong topic???

 

[Christopher]

• So... How about Nikki?
  Spoiler

  Or should I say Murdoc? I wonder if they'll go that route.

I hope not. That part calls for a much better actor. (I was hoping that was who Vinnie Jones would turn out to be, actually.)

 

[Stephen Lee]

So far I am not too impressed with the show. Have to agree it is just another generic spy show. Nothing special about it except for the Macgyverisms.

If the guest list for the next episode is right, then I have to watch the next episode.

Spoiler

Amy Acker

 

[Christopher]

If the guest list for the next episode is right, then I have to watch the next episode.

Spoiler

Amy Acker

Oh, that's right, I read about that. And my reaction is pretty much the same as yours.

 

[Kai "the spy"]

...

Yeah, I guess I'll watch that next episode. Hope it's worth it, and she doesn't end up as underused as Vinnie Jones was in the pilot.

 

[Captain Craig]

I was hesitant about this from the promo's I saw.
Still, as a fan of MacGyver who owns the series DVD set I had to try it out.
As noted by others:

• Mac isn't a "team show". By forcing the show into this mold it becomes too much like every other CSI, NCIS show on their network.
• The camera work was horrid. Too uneven and jarring in many instances.
• The horrible cgi explosion in the climax.
• The super easy to read reveal of Nikki as a traitor/mole(I actually turned to my buddy and said,"she's not dead, she'll appear in episode 3 as a big reveal") was lazy writing.
• Overuse of name dropping in the Pilot. Save some of that. Too much fanwanking.

Now, since it's a pilot I'm going to give it a few more episodes. Most shows are more X-Files, ST DS9 and not Big Bang Theory, LOST or 24 where they don't evolve somewhat from the pilot. They take a bit to develop. Some do it too slow(Bleep my Dad Says).

 

[Romulan_spy]

The horrible cgi explosion in the climax.

I was watching the episode "Partners" from the original show. That's the ep where Murdoc kidnaps Mac and Pete on the 7 year anniversary of their first encounter. Murdoc traps Mac and Pete inside a big truck with dynamite. Mac and Pete escape of course and we see the empty truck explode. The explosion in the classic episode is far better than the explosion in the reboot. My guess is that the classic episodes had to use real controlled explosions since they did not have CGI back them whereas modern shows rely almost exclusively on CGI because it is easier. I think modern shows have gotten lazy and use CGI too much.

 

[Christopher]

My guess is that the classic episodes had to use real controlled explosions since they did not have CGI back them whereas modern shows rely almost exclusively on CGI because it is easier. I think modern shows have gotten lazy and use CGI too much.

They did have some CGI back then -- the first major CGI sequences in motion pictures were in The Wrath of Khan and TRON in the summer of 1982. But it was nowhere near the point of being able to simulate reality or depict any kind of fluid turbulence like flame or smoke. So yes, most pyro back then was done for real, either full-scale or in miniature. Although there were occasional instances where a live-action explosion or flame element would be filmed separately and matted onto a building or vehicle if they couldn't practically or safely do it for real. Those shots looked even less convincing than modern CG stuff.

Still, these days, CGI can do almost anything convincingly if it's done well enough. The problem isn't that they used CGI for the climactic explosion, the problem is that they didn't devote the necessary time or skill to it to make it look good. The tools are not to blame for the failings of their wielders.

 

[Romulan_spy]

They did have some CGI back then -- the first major CGI sequences in motion pictures were in The Wrath of Khan and TRON in the summer of 1982. But it was nowhere near the point of being able to simulate reality or depict any kind of fluid turbulence like flame or smoke. So yes, most pyro back then was done for real, either full-scale or in miniature.

Thanks for clarifying.

Still, these days, CGI can do almost anything convincingly if it's done well enough. The problem isn't that they used CGI for the climactic explosion, the problem is that they didn't devote the necessary time or skill to it to make it look good. The tools are not to blame for the failings of their wielders.

True. I still maintain that modern shows are lazy with CGI since they seem to use it for everything and often don't bother fixing it when it's bad. They should have devoted more time and resources to make the CGI explosion more convincing but if that were not doable, then they should have done real pyro instead.

 

[Christopher]

True. I still maintain that modern shows are lazy with CGI since they seem to use it for everything and often don't bother fixing it when it's bad. They should have devoted more time and resources to make the CGI explosion more convincing but if that were not doable, then they should have done real pyro instead.

Well, the key element of this shot that didn't work wasn't the explosion itself, it was the debris flying toward the camera and just missing MacGyver. There'd be no way to do that shot reliably or safely with real pyrotechnics. I bet they were trying to copy the climactic bit in Fury Road where the truck crashed and exploded and the steering wheel flew right toward the camera -- and that was a real crash and explosion with that particular piece of shrapnel digitally added, since there was no other way to control its flight that precisely. (And of course since real shrapnel is dangerous, so TV/movie explosions are designed to minimize it.) So even if the truck explosion had been real, there's no way the shrapnel flying toward the camera could've been done by any means other than CGI. The problem was in the composition and execution of the shot. With the explosion being so far away, the perspective problems made it difficult to animate the motion of the shrapnel convincingly. It was an awkward shot that was hard to pull off well, and they failed. The problem wasn't with the general practices of the industry today, the problem was with the flaws in the concept and execution of this specific shot.

 

[Romulan_spy]

The problem wasn't with the general practices of the industry today, the problem was with the flaws in the concept and execution of this specific shot.

It sounds like maybe the shot was too ambitious for them since they could not pull it off. The explosion in "Partners" was similar. We see Mac and Pete jump into a ditch just before the truck explodes. It was not as spectacular as some shots today but it worked. Maybe they should have done the same and not tried to do the spectacular shot with debris flying into the camera and instead just done a realistic explosion?

 

[Christopher]

Maybe they should have done the same and not tried to do the spectacular shot with debris flying into the camera and instead just done a realistic explosion?

Maybe. As I said, the shot composition they chose was difficult to do well. So either they could've gone for a simpler shot -- or they could've worked at it harder and done a better job. Maybe they didn't do better because they didn't have the time or money, in which case they should've gone for something simpler; but as I said to start with, since this was a pilot episode, presumably they should've had extra time and money to devote to its climactic shot. (Although it was a second pilot after the failure of the first, so maybe that cut into the time they had.) So maybe it was a matter of inadequate skill instead. Certainly the writing and acting aren't as good as they could be, and the directing had a Zack Snyder-esque preoccupation with recreating familiar images from the original. So why should we expect the VFX to be any more skillfully done than the rest?

 

[Gingerbread Demon]

The show starts here this weekend in Australia on commercial free to air TV. Thank you for the thread and now I might just watch it to see if I like it.

I do so miss the original show. I missed out on buying a full box set when it was cheap.

 

[Christopher]

Well, I watched the second episode, and aside from having Amy Acker, it wasn't an improvement on the pilot. Well, maybe a slight improvement in that they caught the bad guy instead of killing him, although there were a lot of henchmen shot down. It's still too much of a generic spy show, and MacGyver's improvisations seem to have less of a point to them when he's got all this heavily armed backup. Granted, the homemade night-vision goggles were an impressive build, though I'm not sure they'd really work as shown. His other improvs seemed kind of implausible too. And overall, MacGyver has relatively little screen time for the guy the show is named after.

I also wish Amy Acker had had a richer part to work with, but anything would be a letdown after her role -- well, roles -- on Person of Interest.