The Rockford Files to be Re-made

[Captaindemotion]

According to Variety, David Shore, the man behind House wants to re-make the classic Rockford Files for NBC.

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118006650.html?categoryid=14&cs=1

Jim Rockford is looking for a comeback.

NBC, Universal Media Studios and Steve Carell's Carousel Television have tapped "House" creator-exec producer David Shore to shepherd a redo of the classic 1974-80 gumshoe drama that starred James Garner and put Stephen J. Cannell on the map as a writer-producer.
Garner's Emmy-winning portrayal of the ex-con private eye who lived in a trailer in Malibu (and usually worked as hard to get his clients to pay up as he did on solving cases) turned Jim Rockford into one of the most indelible characters of the smallscreen. Shore said as a fan of the show himself, he's well aware of how high the bar is set for the remake.
"It's one of the shows that made me want to become a writer," Shore said. "I had no interest in adapting any old stuff, but this was the one exception."
Shore's just starting to think about an approach to bring "The Rockford Files" into the present day, but he intends to stick with the basic foundation of a private eye in L.A. just trying to make a living.
"What makes 'Rockford' timeless is that he's vulnerable, he's flawed. He's used to hustling and getting hustled," Shore said. "Sometimes he's a hero and sometimes he runs away."
The idea for a "Rockford" revival came from Carousel, which inquired about the rights to the Universal TV property after Carousel cut a production pact with Universal Media Studios in January. Laura Lancaster, NBC/UMS' exec veep of drama, knew that Shore was a big "Rockford" buff, and the match was easily made.
"The minute I heard this I said, 'Let's get it on for midseason' ... but we're going to take our time and get it right," said Angela Bromstad, prexy of primetime entertainment for NBC Entertainment and UMS. "We know that David has the right sensibility as a writer to take on this kind of big character."
The original "Rockford" was co-created by Cannell and Roy Huggins, a prolific and influential TV scribe who created "Maverick," the offbeat Western that made Garner a star in the late '50s, and "The Fugitive," among other shows. "Rockford," which earned the Emmy for drama series in 1978, was a training ground for a number of future biz heavyweights, including scribes David Chase, Juanita Bartlett, Chas. Floyd Johnson and thesps Dennis Dugan and Tom Selleck. Show's strong supporting cast included Noah Beery Jr., Stuart Margolin, Joe Santos and Gretchen Corbett.

So what do you all think? Remakes can be great (BSG) or rubbish (er, most of the rest). Shore and co seem to have a healthy respect for the original and it looks to be a similar take, not a spoof or send-up. And with various quirky cops on the tv - from The Mentalist, to Lie to Me, to Life (even if that is now, er, dead), why not a laconic laid back 'tec?

I think the original was a classic, from the great theme tune, to the likeable slightly roguish and cowardly nature of Rockford himself, to the great scripts. But above all, it was blessed with the inimitable, unique effortless charm of James Garner. That's hard to recreate - even Mel Gibson couldn't quite match it in Maverick. Who could do Jim Rockford - an ageing (by the standards of today's boyish cops) ex-con, bit of a loser (spent as much time chasing clients for money as chasing bad guys), got beaten up as much as he beat people up, yet still came across like a convincing tough guy? Nathan Fillion? Jeffrey Dean Morgan? Bradley Whitford? Matthew Perry? William Fichtner?

 

[diankra]

Mixed opinions:
1) The Rockford Files largely works due to James Garner's charm, and the fact that he was 'big' enough for the network to let him play a character who wasn't a conventional hero-detective.
2) After House, Shore's a better bet to recapture that than most. Seeing as someone's ggoing to buy the remake rights eventually, I'd sooner see his version than most others.
3) On the off-chance.. what about going back to the original pilot episode concept, of Jim Rockford, the guy who's been falsely convicted but couldn't clear himself, working on old files to clear other people (rather than randomly running into corrupt local sheriffs)? Or has that already been done in Life and New Tricks?

 

[Mysterion]

Another re-make of something that just doesn't need to be re-made. Thanks for the creativity, Hollywood!

Short of using some kind of time-travel to bbring the orginal cast forward from the 70s, there is no way they can re-make Rockford and have my interest.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

The original show is so cool that it would be a shame to remake it. But I do think they picked the right guy to give it a shot.

 

[Mysterion]

The original show is so cool that it would be a shame to remake it.

Agreed. There's a local station here that shows Rockford weekday afternoons. Anytime I'm lucky enough to get off work early or have the day-off, I make a point of tuning in. Never a disappointment. Same deal for Magnum P.I. (same station, every weeknight).

Just not seeing how you can get the same sort of interaction/chemistry you had between Rockford, Angel, and Lt. Becker with different actors.

 

[paudemge]

All this really screams to me is, we can't make a new show that can stand on its own unless we tie it to an old beloved show.

If they want to make show about a PI in la, go for it, you don't have to call him Rockford, it would likely be counter-productive. Sure it may bring in viewers at first, but then they will start to compare it to the old one, and I bet it will be found to be lacking.

 

[Zulu Romeo]

Keep the theme tune!

 

[Mistral]

Another re-make of something that just doesn't need to be re-made. Thanks for the creativity, Hollywood!

Short of using some kind of time-travel to bbring the orginal cast forward from the 70s, there is no way they can re-make Rockford and have my interest.

All this really screams to me is, we can't make a new show that can stand on its own unless we tie it to an old beloved show.

If they want to make show about a PI in la, go for it, you don't have to call him Rockford, it would likely be counter-productive. Sure it may bring in viewers at first, but then they will start to compare it to the old one, and I bet it will be found to be lacking.

I couldn't have said it better!

 

[ManOnTheWave]

Eh. Whether they remake it using the title or just steal the concept and call it something else, it's going to be remade in one fashion or another.

 

[auntiehill]

I think this is a very bad idea. I don't see anything coming close to the charm of Garner in that role. Anything that comes after can't help but suffer by comparison.

 

[Orac Zen]

Wow. Just when I think Hollywood's gotten as creatively bankrupt as possible, there's this...idea.

If they want to make show about a PI in la, go for it, you don't have to call him Rockford, it would likely be counter-productive. Sure it may bring in viewers at first, but then they will start to compare it to the old one, and I bet it will be found to be lacking.

This.

It won't much matter who's behind the project if they don't get it right in front of the cameras. A huge part of why The Rockford Files worked so well was the cast, particularly the inimitable and quite fabulous James Garner. Performers of his calibre are very thin on the ground. He was Jim Rockford and anyone else is going to be found wanting in comparison.

 

[Christopher]

People have been retelling stories since the dawn of history. It's got nothing to do with creative bankruptcy. Shakespeare never told an original story in his life, and nobody would call him creatively bankrupt. Creativity is in the execution, not the source. And with David Shore behind this, it's reasonable to expect the execution to be good. After all, he's proved with House that he can handle a show where the storylines are secondary to the personal charisma of a quirky, flawed lead character.

Certainly duplicating Garner's particular charm is impossible, but the goal would presumably be to find another lead actor whose own distinctive personality and charisma could carry a show.

 

[Davros]

The original was great. I do not think a remake would work.

 

[RJDiogenes]

I'm not a big fan of recasting. There are certain roles that were made by their actors, and those actors cannot be replaced. The original Star Trek crew, Kolchak, Columbo and Indiana Jones are all examples of roles that are intrinsically tied to their actors. Jim Rockford is another one. The best any follow up can hope to be is a distant second.

 

[Christopher]

^I expect more of a reimagining than a recasting. Given how dependent the original was on its lead actor's distinct personality, the only way to go, as I said, is not to try to duplicate the same character, but embrace the same approach of finding a standout actor and building the new Jim Rockford character around that actor's own personality.

I mean, Dirk Benedict made Starbuck his own, but that didn't prevent Katee Sackhoff from succeeding as a very different Starbuck. Frank Sinatra's Danny Ocean was basically Sinatra playing himself, capitalizing on his own distinctive image and persona, but that didn't prevent George Clooney from successfully portraying (and franchising) a Danny Ocean character who was built around Clooney's own very different screen persona and personal charisma. There's no reason why two skilled actors can't create two different, successful characters who happen to have the same name.

(Oh, and the success of the new Star Trek movie has pretty conclusively disproven the notion that the characters could only be played by the original actors.)

All creativity is a dialogue with past creativity. All creations contain some element of homage to prior works. Sometimes that homage is simply more direct than others. Sometimes remakes are as good as their originals, or better. And the key is to make them their own thing -- carry forward the defining elements of the original but take a fresh approach to fleshing it out.

 

[miraclefan]

This is tough, The Rockford files is still one of my favorite shows and I'd hate to think a big network will just screw up with a remake, yet at the same time if the right people are involved this show could be good.

 

[Starbreaker]

Rockford Files Essays... yay. This might not even get picked up in 2011 or whatever. Everybody chill out.

 

[RJDiogenes]

^I expect more of a reimagining than a recasting. Given how dependent the original was on its lead actor's distinct personality, the only way to go, as I said, is not to try to duplicate the same character, but embrace the same approach of finding a standout actor and building the new Jim Rockford character around that actor's own personality.

Then why call him Jim Rockford and call the show Rockford Files? They should start something new using Rockford as inspiration.

I mean, Dirk Benedict made Starbuck his own, but that didn't prevent Katee Sackhoff from succeeding as a very different Starbuck. Frank Sinatra's Danny Ocean was basically Sinatra playing himself, capitalizing on his own distinctive image and persona, but that didn't prevent George Clooney from successfully portraying (and franchising) a Danny Ocean character who was built around Clooney's own very different screen persona and personal charisma. There's no reason why two skilled actors can't create two different, successful characters who happen to have the same name.

Then, again, why call it a remake or reimagining? The new Night Stalker bore absolutely no resemblance to the original, so why use the names?

(Oh, and the success of the new Star Trek movie has pretty conclusively disproven the notion that the characters could only be played by the original actors.)

The success of nu Trek is based on it being the anti-Trek. Again, it was just the re-use of names with little connection to the original.

All creativity is a dialogue with past creativity. All creations contain some element of homage to prior works. Sometimes that homage is simply more direct than others. Sometimes remakes are as good as their originals, or better. And the key is to make them their own thing -- carry forward the defining elements of the original but take a fresh approach to fleshing it out.

That's kind of contradictory-- if the key is to make them their own thing, why not just start with something original? Or even a sequel. Make a direct connection and expand on the original.

 

[Captaindemotion]

You know who I could see playing a Rockford in the vein of James Garner? Dominic West, aka McNulty from The Wire. However, I understand that having spent so much time in the US making that show, he now prefers to work in his native UK. Still, maybe a nice paycheque and the lure of a tv show on a network channel (and one which got loads of viewers as well as critical acclaim) might tempt him back across the pond.

 

[Christopher]

Then why call him Jim Rockford and call the show Rockford Files?

Why not? Why did Shakespeare name his villain Macbeth when he totally rewrote the true history of a king who was actually rather benevolent? Why did Chretien de Troyes and Thomas Malory name their king character Arthur when they heavily reworked the original Celtic mythology? Why did so many classical composers base their symphonies on traditional folk songs rather than making up new melodies that just sounded similar? Why did Michelangelo name his sculpture after the Biblical David instead of just calling it Bob? This is how human creativity has always worked. Creativity is a dialogue with the past. It's always entailed taking familiar ideas, themes, and tropes that people have responded to in the past and finding new approaches to them. There is nothing remotely unusual or wrong about this practice.

Indeed, for most of human history, virtually every work of fiction was a retelling of an earlier story. That was normal. The idea that a story can or should be about characters that aren't already known to the audience is historically a fairly recent innovation. That's why novels are called that -- because when they came along, the idea of a new (novel) story that hadn't been told before was so distinctive that it was worthy of calling attention to. After all, before printing presses and near-universal literacy, stories had to be retold or they'd die.

The success of nu Trek is based on it being the anti-Trek. Again, it was just the re-use of names with little connection to the original.

That's so counterfactual it would take a long time to respond to, and it's off-topic for this forum.

That's kind of contradictory-- if the key is to make them their own thing, why not just start with something original? Or even a sequel. Make a direct connection and expand on the original.

Nothing is truly original. That's not how creativity works. It's like language. If I made up entirely new words and grammatical rules and wrote "Vep neek, zelethbuf gnii'gnii'!-zort," you wouldn't get any meaning out of that. It wouldn't communicate anything to you. I create by using the language we share, the terms and patterns that have evolved in our culture over generations to convey recognizable meaning. Creativity is in how I combine those familiar elements to resonate with their existing meanings in your mind. If you weren't already familiar with them, they would have no impact.

Like language, storytelling also has its syntax and semantics that are based on familiar, recognizable elements. You're making the assumption that if a story uses different character names, that makes it "original." But even if the character names are new, the story is still going to be built from recognizable tropes and themes and character types.

Look at Eragon. The kid who wrote it made up new character and place names, used the semantics of fantasy instead of space opera, but in story terms he just retold Star Wars. That's not originality. Conversely, look at Battlestar Galactica. The same premise, the same names, but a wildly original interpretation. Whether or not you use the same character names and the same series title has nothing whatsoever to do with whether your story is original. Because every work of creativity is going to reuse existing tropes and concepts on many levels. The originality is in how they're used, not whether they're used.