stupidest remake yet...Miss Marple, the hot babe!

[Professor Zoom]

I'm not talking about satire or parody, both of which are great-- I'm talking about re-imaginings that turn into self-parody. There's no limit? Okay, let's take Miss Marple. Her age isn't important to her character. The time period isn't important to her character. Solving problems with intelligence instead of violence isn't important to her character. Perhaps being a detective isn't important to her character. Certainly the name Marple isn't important to her character. So would a young college student who is recruited by the CIA and goes by the name of Ms Bristow be a cool re-imagining of Miss Marple?

Why don't you scroll back through the thread, where I agreed making Marple a young woman wouldn't make any sense? You know that part? Where I don't mind pulling characters out of their time period, but keeping their essence, where some people think that is just such a HORRIBLE idea, that location and time period are SOOOO important? Remember that?

So, in some ways, yeah, I do have a limit.

But, would I like to see a Mamet Miss Marple, yes. Because I think he would keep what is important, and create something new and exciting.

I didn't say that it was-- just of some characters. The Lone Ranger doesn't belong on a cruise ship.

Actually, that could be an interesting story. A cruise ship of the 1880s? A River Boat? Or maybe a boat out of San Fransisco.... Or hell, if there is a modern day Lone Ranger....

I understand, you fear taking something new and changing it will just spoil the character for you... but it doesn't. Trust me if Shakespeare can survive directors adding whole acts (they would do that in the 18th c), then I think Charlie Brown could survive Crumb.

I'm not talking about spoiling the character so much as wondering what's wrong with creating something new.

Christ almighty, there is a LOT OF NEW THINGS. A LOT. For example, detectives on TV: the Mentalist, Castle, Rizzoli and Isles, Memphis Beat, The Killing, they are working on a version of Longmire. Why do you think there AREN'T new things?

And it's NOT a new thing to take something old and make it new again. Artists have always been doing that.

Would Watchmen have been as good if Moore had been allowed to do it as a remake of the Charlton characters?

The reason he wasn't allowed to use the Charlton Characters was because of how many get killed. And yes, once he gave them new names and slight character alterations it opened up the story.

But, only a fool wouldn't be able see that they are basically the same characters, just pushed a little father. Reinvisioned for modern day.

And what about Moore's League of Extraordinary Gentleman?

Would Star Wars have been better as the proposed Flash Gordon film? Do you think Monk would have been a better series if they had called him Holmes and Sharona Watson?

No. I don't. However, we got Monk. See, PEOPLE CREATE NEW THINGS.

And besides, Sherlock is FANTASTIC tv.

Artistic integrity and diversity are just fine. You have a myopic view of pop culture if all you see if are just reboots. There's a LOT more going on. There is a LOT more original material. Some of it succeeds, some of it fails. Just like everything else.

I never said otherwise. But there is definitely-- as there is in any era-- an overarching Zeitgeist. And in the here and now, it's an overwhelming grayness and homogeneity.

This era is no different than any other. You need to step into a comic book store, pass by the big two and SEE the amount of creativity.

You need to look at all the great shows on cable and network: Breaking Bad, Mad Men, The Walking Dead, Modern Family, Spartacus, Burn Notice (alright, season 1 and 2), to name a few.

There is an enormous amount of creativity, if you would take a moment and look around.

In fact, on TV, there are a LOT LESS reboots and reimgainings than there is original content. The sky is not falling.

Edited to add: You talk about creativity and originality. It takes a lot more creativity and originality to find a way to make Holmes work in modern day than to just do yet another Victorian Age Holmes.

 

[Greg Cox]

Yeah, it's not an either/or thing. At any given time, you have new characters and stories being created, as well as new versions of old stories.

That's just the way it's always been. But there's no rule that says that an old story or character can't be tinkered with, just for the fun of it.

In general, "anything goes" offers a lot more creative possibilities than "thou shalt not tamper with the classics."

Great stories were never meant to be treated like museum pieces.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

I'd hardly say that bringing in Crumb to have Charlie Brown fuck Lucy up the ass while Linus has a psychotic breakdown and Snoopy slowly dies of cancer is consistent with the spirit of the strip.

Have you ever read anything by Robert Crumb?

 

[RJDiogenes]

Why don't you scroll back through the thread, where I agreed making Marple a young woman wouldn't make any sense? You know that part? Where I don't mind pulling characters out of their time period, but keeping their essence, where some people think that is just such a HORRIBLE idea, that location and time period are SOOOO important? Remember that?

So, in some ways, yeah, I do have a limit.

I was getting back to Miss Marple as the subject of the Thread. You could say the same thing about any character. And, as I've said, location and time are more important to some characters than others. Holmes belongs in Victorian England, the Lone Ranger belongs in the Old West,the Scarlet Pimpernel belongs in the French Revolution, the Hunchback belongs in Notre Dame.

Actually, that could be an interesting story. A cruise ship of the 1880s? A River Boat? Or maybe a boat out of San Fransisco.... Or hell, if there is a modern day Lone Ranger....

Yes, an interesting story about the Lone Ranger. But that's not what we're talking about in this Thread. The Lone Ranger as a vigilante gunman on the Love Boat week after week would be kind of silly.

Christ almighty, there is a LOT OF NEW THINGS. A LOT. For example, detectives on TV: the Mentalist, Castle, Rizzoli and Isles, Memphis Beat, The Killing, they are working on a version of Longmire. Why do you think there AREN'T new things?

I don't. I never said anything like that.

And it's NOT a new thing to take something old and make it new again. Artists have always been doing that.

Sure. But it's always better when they create new things.

The reason he wasn't allowed to use the Charlton Characters was because of how many get killed. And yes, once he gave them new names and slight character alterations it opened up the story.

I know the reasons. The point is that it's much better that he had to create his own characters.

But, only a fool wouldn't be able see that they are basically the same characters, just pushed a little father. Reinvisioned for modern day.

Exactly. It was, fortunately, done right.

And what about Moore's League of Extraordinary Gentleman?

Very good. He was pretty faithful to the original characters; this is what comes under the heading of "fresh perspective" discussed above.

No. I don't. However, we got Monk. See, PEOPLE CREATE NEW THINGS.

Which kind of proves my point.

And besides, Sherlock is FANTASTIC tv.

It was pretty good. But I wonder if anybody would have thought it was so great if they hadn't called it Sherlock.

This era is no different than any other. You need to step into a comic book store, pass by the big two and SEE the amount of creativity.

Modern comics? I can barely make it through the capsule descriptions in Previews without dozing off. Marvel is the poster child for homogenization. This is not a great time for comics.

You need to look at all the great shows on cable and network: Breaking Bad, Mad Men, The Walking Dead, Modern Family, Spartacus, Burn Notice (alright, season 1 and 2), to name a few.

The Walking Dead is a great show. I'm not familiar with the others. The ones I recognize looked pretty stupid to me.

Edited to add: You talk about creativity and originality. It takes a lot more creativity and originality to find a way to make Holmes work in modern day than to just do yet another Victorian Age Holmes.

That may or may not be so, but this show is not an example of that; they completely ignore any ramifications of transplanting Holmes.

Yeah, it's not an either/or thing. At any given time, you have new characters and stories being created, as well as new versions of old stories.

That's just the way it's always been. But there's no rule that says that an old story or character can't be tinkered with, just for the fun of it.

In general, "anything goes" offers a lot more creative possibilities than "thou shalt not tamper with the classics."

Great stories were never meant to be treated like museum pieces.

None of that has anything to do with what I'm saying.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

It was pretty good. But I wonder if anybody would have thought it was so great if they hadn't called it Sherlock.

Heck, I probably wouldn't have even seen it at all, if it hadn't been called "Sherlock" [or been about an updated Sherlock Holmes].

 

[Professor Zoom]

Yes, an interesting story about the Lone Ranger. But that's not what we're talking about in this Thread. The Lone Ranger as a vigilante gunman on the Love Boat week after week would be kind of silly.

I agree it would be silly. But, you didn't SAY that. You just said a cruise ship, thinking "well, that's such a stupid idea, no one could make anything of THAT." And yet, I did. So, not ALL ideas are bad unto themselves, are they? Keep moving the goal post though.

It was pretty good. But I wonder if anybody would have thought it was so great if they hadn't called it Sherlock.

Impossible to say. Of course someone might've gone, "pfft, another Sherlock clone. Lame, why don't they create NEW characters."

Modern comics? I can barely make it through the capsule descriptions in Previews without dozing off. Marvel is the poster child for homogenization. This is not a great time for comics.

You by passed where I said "pass by the big two" which means, ignore DC and Marvel. But, keep moving the goal post.

The Walking Dead is a great show. I'm not familiar with the others. The ones I recognize looked pretty stupid to me.

That's fine. Because there are a TON more shows. But, I'm done helping you read the TV Guide.

Edited to add: You talk about creativity and originality. It takes a lot more creativity and originality to find a way to make Holmes work in modern day than to just do yet another Victorian Age Holmes.

That may or may not be so, but this show is not an example of that; they completely ignore any ramifications of transplanting Holmes.

Like what? What ramifications? And they didn't transplant him. It's not like IN THE SHOW, Holmes was pulled through some temporary wormhole. "And oh my god, it's an Alternate Universe!!!!"

Seriously, you're over thinking it.

 

[Nerys Myk]

It was pretty good. But I wonder if anybody would have thought it was so great if they hadn't called it Sherlock.

Heck, I probably wouldn't have even seen it at all, if it hadn't been called "Sherlock" [or been about an updated Sherlock Holmes].

That was pretty much the hook. Taking the Holmes character and placing him in the modern world. And not as a silly "man out of time".

 

[Temis the Vorta]

I'm amazed this thread is still kickin'.

Of course I'm referring to the whole darker and grittier fad that is increasingly overwhelming and homogenizing pop culture.

Then you shouldn't have picked Peanuts as an example: it's probably the darkest and most depressing comic strip of all time.

Yeah, there are some combos that seem odd at first blush but might actually work. I would never have thought about R Crumb and Peanuts, but given Peanuts' dark sensibilities, why not? Doesn't Peanuts also have a backwards kind of counterculture sensibility, because of (not in spite of) its aggressive squareness?

Here's another: Star Wars and Quentin Tarantino - both come from a pulp genre sensibility and are associated with the 70s.

I'd hardly say that bringing in Crumb to have Charlie Brown fuck Lucy up the ass while Linus has a psychotic breakdown and Snoopy slowly dies of cancer is consistent with the spirit of the strip.

Have you ever read anything by Robert Crumb?

I keep envisioning Lucy seven feet tall with evil, squinting eyes, a huge ass, and massive, tree-like legs wearing thigh-high boots. And horns.

 

[RJDiogenes]

^^ I guess we now know what "Lucy" is short for.

It was pretty good. But I wonder if anybody would have thought it was so great if they hadn't called it Sherlock.

Heck, I probably wouldn't have even seen it at all, if it hadn't been called "Sherlock" [or been about an updated Sherlock Holmes].

That's pretty much what I was thinking.

I agree it would be silly. But, you didn't SAY that. You just said a cruise ship, thinking "well, that's such a stupid idea, no one could make anything of THAT." And yet, I did. So, not ALL ideas are bad unto themselves, are they? Keep moving the goal post though.

I'm not moving anything. We're discussing changing times and settings, so I thought my meaning would be obvious.

Impossible to say. Of course someone might've gone, "pfft, another Sherlock clone. Lame, why don't they create NEW characters."

You by passed where I said "pass by the big two" which means, ignore DC and Marvel. But, keep moving the goal post.

I'm not moving anything. I thought you meant "walk past, " not "bypass." You're right that there is some good stuff among the independent publishers.

Like what? What ramifications? And they didn't transplant him. It's not like IN THE SHOW, Holmes was pulled through some temporary wormhole. "And oh my god, it's an Alternate Universe!!!!"

That's exactly my point. That would be more interesting (and has been done). The ramifications are the differences of a world where Holmes did not exist in his normal time, either as a real man or in fiction. The ramifications of what Holmes would be like if he were really born a hundred and ten years later. The ramifications of what would make Holmes special in a world where he is not the innovator that he was in his original incarnation (or is an innovator in other ways). Basically, by plucking Holmes out of his environment and plopping him into the 21st Century without comment or consequence, they make him less special than his progeny, such as Monk or the Psych guy. At least they have their own schticks.

Seriously, you're over thinking it.

I'm a writer. That's what I do. Also, it's fun.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

Yeah, there are some combos that seem odd at first blush but might actually work. I would never have thought about R Crumb and Peanuts, but given Peanuts' dark sensibilities, why not? Doesn't Peanuts also have a backwards kind of counterculture sensibility, because of (not in spite of) its aggressive squareness?

Here's another: Star Wars and Quentin Tarantino - both come from a pulp genre sensibility and are associated with the 70s.

Yes, and I'm sure there are other interesting combinations, things that have more in common than we think and that would go well together.

I'd hardly say that bringing in Crumb to have Charlie Brown fuck Lucy up the ass while Linus has a psychotic breakdown and Snoopy slowly dies of cancer is consistent with the spirit of the strip.

Have you ever read anything by Robert Crumb?

I keep envisioning Lucy seven feet tall with evil, squinting eyes, a huge ass, and massive, tree-like legs wearing thigh-high boots. And horns.

Haha! That's it exactly!

 

[Professor Zoom]

Seriously, you're over thinking it.

I'm a writer. That's what I do. Also, it's fun.

Big whoop. So am I. I'll answer, writer to writer, then write that story.

Moffat isn't interested in telling a story about a world without Holmes. He's interested in telling a story about Holmes in the modern world. And quite frankly, it's compelling drama, and a refreshing take on Holmes.

 

[RJDiogenes]

^^ Actually, it's merely decent and adequately produced; if it wasn't for the Sherlock name, it probably would barely have been noticed.

But to each his own. I guess we just have incompatible ideas about art and creativity.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

^^ Actually, it's merely decent and adequately produced; if it wasn't for the Sherlock name, it probably would barely have been noticed.

That's very unlikely. Peter Moffat and Mark Gatiss are highly sought-after writers and producers, Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman are popular actors, the BBC felt confident enough to have the first pilot reshot with a bigger budget, and the series opened to critical acclaim. Everything points to the fact that it would have been noticed - and probably would have been very successful - even if it weren't named "Sherlock".

 

[RJDiogenes]

^^ Well, maybe so. I didn't know there were so many big names attached.

 

[Greg Cox]

^^ Well, maybe so. I didn't know there were so many big names attached.

It's Sherlock Holmes from the makers of DOCTOR WHO, basically, which is a kind of a big deal.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

^^ Well, maybe so. I didn't know there were so many big names attached.

It's Sherlock Holmes from the makers of DOCTOR WHO, basically, which is a kind of a big deal.

It would be a big deal in itself, but with Mark Gatiss you're adding The League of Gentlemen, Steven Moffat adds Coupling to the whole deal, Martin Freeman was in The Office and Benedict Cumberbatch was in Hawking and The Last Enemy. And then there's David Arnold, who's the James Bond composer. Really, Sherlock is like a who's who of British film and television.

 

[RJDiogenes]

^^ Well, maybe so. I didn't know there were so many big names attached.

It's Sherlock Holmes from the makers of DOCTOR WHO, basically, which is a kind of a big deal.

I guess so. It could also explain the whole thing.

 

[Greg Cox]

And, of course, Martin Freeman is now playing the title role in Peter Jackson's THE HOBBIT.

Yep, Watson is Bilbo!

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Ugh, I got another one, the worst yet! A TV murder mystery show about Edgar Allan Poe - which sounded cool when I first heard about it, on the silly assumption that the character of Poe would be anything like the actual Poe. Alcoholic, consumptive, hypersensitive, a perceptive, creative genius, wandering alone amidst the bleak devastation of 19th C Baltimore, encountering horrors beyond the grasp of mortal minds...yknow, that sort of thing.

No such luck. Here's what they're going for:

Its 1840 and Boston is in the grips of a series of mysterious murders. When dark forces threaten, the only man who can protect the city is one who has spent his life chasing shadows – the legendary writer Edgar Allan Poe (Chris Egan) [hunky young blond guy who looks about as much like the historical Poe as I do]

The authorities don't like Poe's cocky, devil-may-care attitude, but they need him. His brilliant and unorthodox methods offer the only hope of solving the eerie crimes sweeping the city. While many people fear for their lives – and souls – Poe and his unlikely partner in crime, Celeste Chevalier (Natalie Dormer), are ready to meet evil head on. Celeste is a beautiful and intelligent reporter who's way ahead of her time. Where Poe looks for possible Supernatural forces at work, Celeste will stop at nothing to uncover more logical explanations. There's combustible chemistry between Poe and Celeste, but the dangers of their work and tragedies from their past keep them apart. Each week, sparks fly as Poe and Celeste combat the rising darkness with humor and intellect.

KILL IT! KILL IT WITH FIRE!!!!

This is different from the other examples, since they're taking the persona of a real live person who had a real live personality and shoehorning him into a fatuous Hollywood mold - young, handsome, and of course cocky. I never would have thought Poe was interchangeable with James T. Kirk.

With any luck, this trainwreck in the making won't get close to a series order.

 

[Avalon]

^^^ That rots. I'd hoped they'd cast Jeffrey Combs as Poe. Bah.