RDM developing Wild Wild West remake

[stj]

If the Iraq war wasn't still going (despite the official story,) the new BSG would be widely condemned as awful. The further we get away from the need for a seemingly nuanced prowar stance, the less need for BS about how good BSG is. In time, liking BSG will be a favorite example of conventional thinking blinding the judgment. The process has already started with the common offhand admission that the finale really sucked. Which means the whole damned serial sucked, you know. Or should know, anyhow, even though the idee fixe that serialization is better is so widely held on this bbs.

Wild Wild West in retrospect was mildly amusing, and really only stood out for the Artemus Gordon character, which appears to be due to Ross Martin. Mr. Martin is dead, and there is very little chance that Ron Moore could conceive a similarly interesting character. Nonsensical characters like Tigh and Baltar can win a small following, but what can't? The least popular shows on broadcast television still have an audience in the millions and they all have their fandoms. To have a broad appeal, characters must at the least have a character, i.e., have some sort of consistency to them, have coherent or intelligible motives and desires.

The steampunk just isn't that interesting. The props on Warehouse 13 are steampunk tropes. They're mildly amusing but that's all. Tesla's gadget in The Prestige was a type of steampunk, but it was just a plot gimmick. The steampunk is a dead end. Is there any good steampunk even in print?

Bond on horseback is even less interesting. The Mad Men/Life on Mars reversion to pre-women's lib days is another dead horse being beaten into glue.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

I just hope Moore goes for the fun and whimsy of the original this time. Enough with the gritty, cynical reboots.

But a full-on steampunk series would be a nice thing to have on TV.

What he said. I don't think WWW needs the BSG/Cap. treatment, maybe some, but not full on.

Fun and whimsical, yes. Silly and inane, no. Not sure RDM is the right guy to achieve that delicate balance. Sounds more like a Whedon or Fuller gig.

Since the BSG finale, I don't know that I have any trust in Moore as a storyteller. His strength lies in conception. I wouldn't mind seeing his take on a western steampunk setting, but let somebody who actually knows how to tell a story do the overall arc-plotting.

I'm not sure that the concept of BSG was the strong part, since the problems with the plotting can be traced back to the ill-defined concept, starting with the genesis of the storyline: what was the Cylons' motivation for committing genocide? RDM & the gang should have done themselves a favor and spent a bit more time making sure they had a solid foundation for the story so they didn't have to tap dance later on to try to distract us from the nonsensical story they were spinning that was based on the idea of robots being even stupider than your average human.

I'm more impressed by the clever tap-dancing later on - hey, it did distract us well enough to get most of us thru the series, right? - than the lack of a really solid concept which frankly should have been the easy part. If you can't devise a good motivation for the Cylons, scrap the whole BSG idea before you write a single word, much less shoot a frame, or else revise it even more thoroughly till you get something solid enough to base a coherent story on.

So I think the reverse is true: RDM needs someone else to come up with the concept, or take a good, hard, merciless look at whatever concept he comes up with, and tell him honestly if there's a crippling problem. Then he can just write a good plotline, no tap dancing required. If he can do a passable job with an unworkable concept, he should be able to kick ass with a solid concept.

 

[Trent Roman]

I'm not sure that the concept of BSG was the strong part, since the problems with the plotting can be traced back to the ill-defined concept, starting with the genesis of the storyline: what was the Cylons' motivation for committing genocide?

Revenge. The early series was pretty clear on the concept: the Cylons were created as a kind of mechanical slave race, rebelled against such bondage, were initially defeated, and gathered their strength in secret until they had the ability to wipe out their former oppressors. Hate, like love, is one of the most straight-forward motivations going. It's only later on in the series, as they found themselves needing more 'mysteries' to drive their plot-arcs, that the Cylons' motivations became muddied and suddenly their earlier actions seemed no longer in tune with their newly-attributed goals.

It's worth remembering that nuBSG was not a particularly mysterious series at the beginning, particularly the miniseries. The big question was who and how many human-like Cylons might be within the fleet, and their purpose in the plot was to imperil the survivors, to complete the task of genocide already began. 'Finding Earth' was presented as a cynical ploy by a pragmatic commander manipulating the beliefs of a majority to make them think there was still hope. It could have gone in any number of directions, including nothing at all.

The concept was strong: it was a group of survivors dealing with their trauma, dwindling resources and implacable foe. The rest of it was things they introduced along the way, then seemingly had no idea--at least, no good one--how to resolve, and the show turned from a character drama about people in a survival situation into a theological fantasy about the inherent Fallenness of humanity. It's not the original setting that's at fault, but the ill-defined cosmogony they attempt to layer over it afterwards.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[Landed]

I have no idea what your statement is trying to prove, but the answer to your question is obviously yes.

The point it, you're pitching a hissy fit about Moore's lack of originality, yet you're a fan of a franchise that has copied itself no less than five times over. DOES NOT COMPUTE!

 

[Kelso]

It's a shame that a BBS such as this didn't exist in 1941, John Huston might've avoided blundering his way through that misbegotten Maltese Falcon remake. Unoriginal hack.

 

[RJDiogenes]

^^ All you need to do is watch it, really.

So those of us who have and think you're spouting nonsense are...what, exactly?

Um, I don't know. Being disingenuous? Depends on what you mean by my spouting nonsense. Are you saying that the D&G fad doesn't exist? That would put you at odds with about 99% of Humanity. That nuBSG wasn't intended to be D&G? That would put you at odds with about 99% of Humanity, including the show's creators. That nuBSG is an example of the D&G trend reaching a level of tiresome self parody? While there's a certain amount of subjectivity there, even a lot of the show's reliable followers have grown weary of it. Most people don't really enjoy that level of unrelenting grimness (and, in fact, there's a huge industry devoted to helping people who experience it ). Also, as I say, I've seen the show-- when I turn on the TV and see the first officer and doctor blowing cigarette smoke in a pregnant woman's face and mocking the nurse who scolds them, there's no doubt in my mind that I'm watching parody and not the serious adult entertainment that the naked emperor would have us believe.

I have no idea what your statement is trying to prove, but the answer to your question is obviously yes.

The point it, you're pitching a hissy fit about Moore's lack of originality, yet you're a fan of a franchise that has copied itself no less than five times over. DOES NOT COMPUTE!

Oh, I see. Well, I wouldn't consider expanding on a series to be copying itself. First of all, if that were the case, any series would be considered to be copying itself after the first story (does The Hound Of The Baskervilles suck because A Study In Scarlet came first?); second of all, each series was quite different (although individual episodes or movies can be considered derivative to a greater or lesser degree). As for the "re-imagining," I agree with you: It was unoriginal, banal and horribly executed.

 

[Python Trek]

It's a shame that a BBS such as this didn't exist in 1941, John Huston might've avoided blundering his way through that misbegotten Maltese Falcon remake. Unoriginal hack.

Reasonable point, but can you cite even one more example of the re-make being better than the original?

 

[doubleohfive]

Batman Begins.

 

[Harvey]

It's a shame that a BBS such as this didn't exist in 1941, John Huston might've avoided blundering his way through that misbegotten Maltese Falcon remake. Unoriginal hack.

Reasonable point, but can you cite even one more example of the re-make being better than the original?

BEN-HUR (1959) was actually the third version of the story seen in cinemas. It had been previously filmed in 1907 and 1925.

In the sf realm, it would be easy to point to THE FLY (1986) or THE THING (1982). Most people will agree that the remakes are superior (though there are some who disagree, of course).

 

[stonester1]

If the Iraq war wasn't still going (despite the official story,) the new BSG would be widely condemned as awful. The further we get away from the need for a seemingly nuanced prowar stance, the less need for BS about how good BSG is. In time, liking BSG will be a favorite example of conventional thinking blinding the judgment. The process has already started with the common offhand admission that the finale really sucked. Which means the whole damned serial sucked, you know.

How does it feel to seem to presumably speak for the masses with every utterance, yet be so out of touch?

Or should know, anyhow, even though the idee fixe that serialization is better is so widely held on this bbs.

With the success of many serialized programs, the idea probably holds sway considerably beyond this BBS.

More lala land tripe from stj.

Which makes an interesting counterbalance to the right wing loons who think BSG is directly sponsored by the DNC.

 

[RJDiogenes]

Batman Begins.

That was awful.

BEN-HUR (1959) was actually the third version of the story seen in cinemas. It had been previously filmed in 1907 and 1925.

In the sf realm, it would be easy to point to THE FLY (1986) or THE THING (1982). Most people will agree that the remakes are superior (though there are some who disagree, of course).

Not superior, but good in their own way. Obviously it's not impossible to create a remake that is as good or better than the original-- but most are not. And re-imaginings are worse. If any work of art is successful, on an artistic level, that means it has a strong core concept; a re-imagining is more likely than not to violate the artistic integrity of that concept. That's why re-imaginings such as nuTrek, Heroes Reborn and the Second Foundation Trilogy are so awful-- they violate the artistic integrity of the original.

Plus, the whole juvenile "darker and grittier" thing should have died with the 80s.

 

[Harvey]

Does anyone even have a definition for "re-imagining" here? It seems like writers use it in order to not call their work a remake. And it seems like you're using it to separate the remakes you like and don't like.

And do you really think the 1907 version of BEN-HUR is as good as the remake with Heston (or even the 1925 silent)? A fifteen minute adaptation of an epic novel substituting the New Jersey beach for the coliseum does not a great movie make. The only reason I even remembered the damned thing is because it's a significant landmark in copyright law as applied to film, not because it has any cinematic importance.

 

[AviTrek]

With the success of many serialized programs, the idea probably holds sway considerably beyond this BBS.

With the failure of new serialized programming in recent years, the idea of trying to copy Lost/24 has faded nearly everywhere except this BBS.

 

[Captaindemotion]

It's a shame that a BBS such as this didn't exist in 1941, John Huston might've avoided blundering his way through that misbegotten Maltese Falcon remake. Unoriginal hack.

Reasonable point, but can you cite even one more example of the re-make being better than the original?

Ocean's 11
The Fly
The Bourne Identity (previously a miniseries with Richard Chamberlain)
Spider-man (compared to the Nicholas Hammond telemovie)
Casino Royale
John Carpenter's The Thing
Heat (remade by Michael Mann from his tv movie LA Takedown)
Lord of the Rings
The Quiet American


Other good remakes would include The Magnificent Seven (Seven Samurai), A Fistful of Dollars (Yojimbo), The Ring; they perhaps don't better the originals but only because the originals are so good.

 

[FordSVT]

Batman Begins.

That was awful.

BEN-HUR (1959) was actually the third version of the story seen in cinemas. It had been previously filmed in 1907 and 1925.

In the sf realm, it would be easy to point to THE FLY (1986) or THE THING (1982). Most people will agree that the remakes are superior (though there are some who disagree, of course).

Not superior, but good in their own way. Obviously it's not impossible to create a remake that is as good or better than the original-- but most are not. And re-imaginings are worse. If any work of art is successful, on an artistic level, that means it has a strong core concept; a re-imagining is more likely than not to violate the artistic integrity of that concept. That's why re-imaginings such as nuTrek, Heroes Reborn and the Second Foundation Trilogy are so awful-- they violate the artistic integrity of the original.

Plus, the whole juvenile "darker and grittier" thing should have died with the 80s.

Would this go into the successful category or not?

http://rjdiogenes.deviantart.com/gallery/#/d1jnhrb

 

[Agent Richard07]

I dunno, his BSG was remarkably original for a skiffy TV series that takes place in space.

No, it was remarkably unoriginal and mainstream-- to the point of using contemporary props and settings for an alien civilization that existed a long time ago in a whatever far, far away. And that, for some reason, was part of its appeal....

BSG is far from unoriginal. In fact, I'd say it's one of a kind. I've never seen a scifi show like it. Even with its occasional over-the-top drama, it gave us characters who were real people with naturalistic dialog, and it had environments and production values that were authentic. These are things you don't see a lot of in televised science fiction. I'd say shows like Eureka and Warehouse 13 are more mainstream because they don't push boundries and have the same typical acting, dialog and production values that countless other scifi shows have.

As for BSG's use of contemporary props and clothing... As I've said before, they made things interesting. A distant alien civilization that mirrors our own not only breaks expectations, but it gets your attention. It made some of us wonder about a number of things such as what Earth would be like or what was at work that made their society look the way it did. Spandex jumpsuits or togas wouldn't have given us that kind of experience. Flashy costumes and fancy props, as nice as they are, would have been fairly mundane and more of the same.

Even if you never see BSG or its style of scifi in a positive light, I hope that you can at least see where people who do like it are coming from. We don't want scifi that's mainstream or stripped of imagination. Quite the opposite. We do want something different. Something better. Something we've never seen before. And a lot of us have seen enough colorful jumpsuits, forehead aliens and cheap cardboard sets to want something else for a change.

Are you saying that the D&G fad doesn't exist? That would put you at odds with about 99% of Humanity. That nuBSG wasn't intended to be D&G? That would put you at odds with about 99% of Humanity, including the show's creators. That nuBSG is an example of the D&G trend reaching a level of tiresome self parody? While there's a certain amount of subjectivity there, even a lot of the show's reliable followers have grown weary of it. Most people don't really enjoy that level of unrelenting grimness (and, in fact, there's a huge industry devoted to helping people who experience it ).

I don't think Moore was going for doom and gloom, I think he was going for a level of drama and overall seriousness that's rare in televised scifi, and there is an audience for that. Some people may be tired of things being overly dark, but others are equally tired of scifi that's too light, quirky and doesn't take it's subject matter seriously. That's why you have stuff like BSG.

Obviously it's not impossible to create a remake that is as good or better than the original-- but most are not. And re-imaginings are worse. If any work of art is successful, on an artistic level, that means it has a strong core concept; a re-imagining is more likely than not to violate the artistic integrity of that concept. That's why re-imaginings such as nuTrek, Heroes Reborn and the Second Foundation Trilogy are so awful-- they violate the artistic integrity of the original.

Redoing things differently is not only a perfectly valid form of art, it's what artists do. Personally, I think it's fun and intertesting to see various works updated for the times or simply changed just because someone had a new take on an old idea. It'd be a boring world if art had to remain static and unchanged.

[Edit] On a side note RJ, I was surprised to see that you like Heroes and Supernatural. Those shows seem to have all the things you say you don't like.

 

[Nerys Myk]

It's a shame that a BBS such as this didn't exist in 1941, John Huston might've avoided blundering his way through that misbegotten Maltese Falcon remake. Unoriginal hack.

Reasonable point, but can you cite even one more example of the re-make being better than the original?

Ocean's 11
The Fly
The Bourne Identity (previously a miniseries with Richard Chamberlain)
Spider-man (compared to the Nicholas Hammond telemovie)
Casino Royale
John Carpenter's The Thing
Heat (remade by Michael Mann from his tv movie LA Takedown)
Lord of the Rings
The Quiet American


Other good remakes would include The Magnificent Seven (Seven Samurai), A Fistful of Dollars (Yojimbo), The Ring; they perhaps don't better the originals but only because the originals are so good.

I think most people prefer the 1939 version of the Wizard of Oz to the 1925 version.

 

[Owain Taggart]

Not sci-fi, but here's another example.

Anne of Green Gables. Many versions done going as far back as 1919, but the one people remember the most is the 1985 TV movie with Megan Follows in the lead role, and spun off a lot of sequel movies. Even spun off a successful TV series that ran for 7 years. It's now considered to be the canon version.

 

[stj]

Phantom of the Opera with sound and Claude Rains versus Phantom of the Opera with Lon Chaney? In scene music does help a plot about singers in an opera house, a lot.

The original Gaslight or the Ingrid Bergman/Charles Boyer version?

One of the previous Maltese Falcons or the Humphrey Bogart version?

Remakes are often superior. Reimaginings, if they are what I think is meant, tend not to be so. You get stuff like the thirties Flash Gordon bersus the De Laurentis version.




The off topic personal attack talks about serialized shows being successful. Such shows usually suffer catastrophic declines, X-Files being the most infamous. But St. Elsewhere's end caused an uproar; Roseanne (unusual for being a serialized sitcom,) had it's ending equally panned; The Sopranos couldn't end at all; Lost and the new BSG dissolved in a morass of sentimental death scenes hiding ludicrous plot outcomes; Farscape had a TV movie in which the heroes simultaneously kicked everyone's ass and then stood up for peace; Deadwood and Carnivale didn't finish at all; it goes on and on and on. The only heavily serialized show that kept itself mostly intact was Babylon 5, and even it had its longeurs. (Not to mention there are people who claim it never had any success anyhow.)

Serialization is not an effort to write better television, it is a ploy to hang on to the audience by leaving hooks. As audiences decline, it has been increasingly resorted to. Reviewers will always find something to praise because negativity doesn't sell. And reviews are about selling.

(In BSG's case, God himself wipes out the Muslims, er, Cylons? Which by the way disproves right-wing criticisms of BSG politics. Which, even further by the way, were mainly about making members of the military look unheroic anyhow! Strawmen to the left of you and strawmen to the right of you means you're in a cornfield with scarecrows, not in the golden mean.)

 

[Harvey]

Once again, I have to ask, what differentiates "re-imaginings" in any meaningful sense from "remake I didn't like" or "remake we don't want to call a remake?"

And, negativity by reviewers doesn't sell? A brief search at Metacritic lists too many negative reviews for this to be true.