The remake of BG getting a mention in the United Nations? Another reason why the U.N. is such a big joke and does not work. Look what happened before the Second War in Iraq and you will get the picture. I wouldn't go so far as to calling the original crap. Let alone a campy 70's sci-fi action show as one other poster described it. The last time I looked, the original was a serious science fiction and fantasy adventure. Glen Larson and company did an excellent job with the original Battlestar Galactica. The only bad job, as you put it, is letting themselves be ordered by ABC/Universal into creating Galactica 1980. Something that they had no choice or say in. Obviously, Moore got a huge majority of his inspirations from Galactica 1980. From what I have seen of the remake, it was, and still is, a piece of shit. And that, is what remakes are. Pieces of shit.
The Thing. The Fly. Ben-Hur. Smallville. The Dark Knight. Etc. There's actually a fun blog, THE REMAKE CHRONICLES, devoted to the premise that remakes are often as good or better than the originals. Me, I like seeing new variations on old stories. People do it in theater all the time. Why not tv and movies? (One of my favorite productions of A Midsummer Night's Dream was staged as a 1950's high school musical. Added all new meaning to the line: "Let us rock the ground on which these sleepers lie!') Getting back OT, the point, of course, is that the Syfy Channel is still producing genre programs, some of them highly regarded by most, along with experiments like the new scifi cooking show . . ..
So were Frankenstein, Dracula, The Maltese Falcon, The Ten Commandments, The Invasion of the Body Snatchers, and pretty much every classic version of The Three Musketeers. And so on. And, sure, people can argue that those were new adapations, not remakes, but that's always seemed like an arbitrary distinction to me. Logan's Run was based on a novel. Fantastic Voyage was not. Does that mean it's okay to remake Logan's Run, but a new version of Fantastic Voyage would be just another evil remake? What about Planet of the Apes? That was based on a novel. Do the remakes get a pass because of that? I'm not sure that makes a difference. Either the new version works on its own terms or it doesn't. Its provenance has nothing to do with its quality.
Exactly. There are plenty of bad movies and tv shows that aren't based on earlier shows. PLAN NINE FROM OUTER SPACE wasn't a remake. Didn't help. The raw source material has little do with whether a new movie or tv show is executed well. You just have to make sure you don't suffer by comparison to the earlier versions--and hope that old-timers aren't too blinded by nostalgia. At this point, the only thing less original than remakes is complaining about remakes!
Look, a huge majority of people don't like to see the same old story over and over again. If a story has been told, then it has been told. Why remake a classic when you don't have to. As to what someone said about Logan's Run, unfortunately it is being remade a second time. The 1977 television series(which was childish crap)was a remake of the 1976 Oscar winning film. Now, plans are unfortunately underway for another remake due for a 2012 release. Hollywood has run out of creative ideas.
Correctamundo! And I also say (as I've said before as a hypothetical Hollywood producer/film company executive) 'I'll stop doing remakes when Broadway stops doing revivals'.
Actually, as I've written elsewhere, Logan's Run is the perfect candidate for a remake. The original is fondly remembered by fans of a certain age, but it's aged badly and is hardly an untouchable "classic." Plus, of course, there's plenty of stuff in the original novel that's never been filmed. Not to mention an entire generation of moviegoers for whom the story will be new. Hell, if we insist that stories can only be told once, we would have never had THE LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy, 'cause, you know, I'm pretty sure I saw a couple cartoon versions back in the eighties . . . .
But you should be seeing opera fans say that, as well as fans of musicals, and plays as well (the first former two moreso than the latter one.) New musicals should be coming out about other issues and concerns in today's world, not revivals of old shibboleths like Oklahoma, Carousel, Camelot (although I must admit, Hugh Jackman would be great in each of them as the respective male leads!) And smaller companies should be doing the same, not doing the same old plays they do. Either that, or everybody should be honest to admit that stories are meant to be retold, and let movie remakes happen without so much rancor and nastiness as plays and musicals are allowed to.
Personally, I think Logan's Run has withstood the test of time. But, that's my opinion... Nevertheless, I just don't see the need for a remake. If you want to re-introduce a classic, you can always re-release it in the cinema, re-show it on television, or at the very least, have a special release of the film on Blu-Ray. Greg, didn't it bother you that IDW Comics retold the story of Khan's exile, instead of following what you had written in your book, To Reign In Hell? Personally, I liked your version better than I did what was printed in comic books.
Thanks, but, really, I'm fine with the IDW comic. I admit I scratched my head a bit when I first heard of it, but, you know, I didn't invent Khan or his stay on Ceti Alpha V. I don't have exclusive claim to that story. I told my version. Other people are free to tell theirs. It's all just make-believe anyway. There is no one true version . . . of any story. Besides, pretty much every single review of the new comic mentions my book, so I can't complain there! That's the other great thing about remakes, incidentally. They actually help bring the earlier versions back into the spotlight and give them a whole new lease on life. You think the Syfy Channel would have scheduled a Green Hornet marathon if there hadn't been a new version in the theaters? The best thing about that awful AVENGERS remake a few years ago was the simultaneous DVD release of the original Diana Rigg episodes--which might not have happened otherwise. Trust me, if and when they remake LOGAN'S RUN, we'll get a special deluxe DVD edition of the original 70's version, as well as lots of articles and publicity on the old film. TCM or Syfy will air the original in primetime for the first time in ages. Somebody will do a "Where are they now?" feature on Michael York and Jenny Agutter. And the original novel will get reissued with a brand-new movie cover. George Clayton Johnson will get thousands of new readers (and royalties). Regardless if the new movie works, it will be the best thing to happen to LOGAN'S RUN in years! You're not doing an old story a favor by keeping it under glass on some dusty old shelf. Or treating it like a sacred cow.
I just hope they can work some pro wrestling into the show. Don't we all just love pro wrestling on the Syfy channel?
If you noticed, the channel has cleverly changed their name so that now "SyFy" sounds like "Sci-Fi", but it is all part of a campaign to cater to changing demographics. Somehow (I blame Nu-BSG that made drama and characters matter more than techno-babble and starship pr0n), Sci-Fi's viewership began to skew female. "Being Human", the subpar REMAKE of a superior BBC show that is STILL ON THE AIR, is one of the latest moves to play to female viewers (one of the 3 main characters is a female ghost). So, in that context, this cooking show idea makes sense. In fact, they're following a mold most painfully executed in MY mind, at least, by ZDTV (aka TechTV, aka G4/TechTV, aka G4) when they took original, innovative, helpful programming that didn't talk down to tech-heads, while providing 24/7 entertainment - and DEBALLED it! Now, G4 is 2 shows of original content, and 21 hours of Cops reruns, and Unbeatable Bansuke (like either of those have f*** all to do with technology or gaming!)