Why is the SyFy channel getting a cooking show?

[Owain Taggart]

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 agree, Greg. I think it's ripe for a remake. Although I must say, the version I have on DVD is fantastic. I think it's a great transfer, and that's just DVD. Not sure how much better it would look on Blueray, though compared to the theatrical version or VHS version, I think it looks miles better. I just hope that with a remake, they don't do a Tron Legacy with it.

On the subject of SyFy, I think they're honestly stretching things with a cooking show. I understand and respect what they're trying to do in terms of diversifying their audience, but maybe they would have better luck with something that's closer to the channel's mandate? I got to thinking a few days ago about how cool it would be to have a documentary style show profiling different races and species and locations of sci-fi and fantasy, using in-universe ways to tell their story, a bit like what we see on National Geographic or Animal Planet. Well, maybe not in-universe as this would be harder to do for each show, but a production that takes an approach as if all these things are real. Can't be much more expensive than what they're already doing, but I think it would be a win-win. They'd have something original and fresh that hasn't been done before yet isn't expensive to produce within the confines of the subject material.

 

[Greg Cox]

Thanks. Although I'm embarrassed to see that I forgot to credit William F. Nolan for coauthoring the original novel. (Serves me writing for posting after midnight.)

 

[the G-man]

You know, if SyFy is going to air a cooking show, they could have at least called it "To Serve Man."

 

[Greg Cox]

You know, if SyFy is going to air a cooking show, they could have at least called it "To Serve Man."

Or maybe "Soylent Green."

 

[CorporalCaptain]

"The Stuff".

 

[Sephiroth]

101 ways to cook hobbit?

 

[scotpens]

Or The Food of the Gods, followed by a Bert I. Gordon marathon.

 

[Dusty Ayres]

Thanks. Although I'm embarrassed to see that I forgot to credit William F. Nolan for coauthoring the original novel. (Serves me writing for posting after midnight.)

BTW, speaking of Logan's Run, has anybody been reading this comic book?

 

[Expo67]

I've seen a few issues of it, but haven't looked at them.

Look, I'm a firm believer in the old saying 'if the story has been told, it's been told.' There is no need for a different spin to be taken on it by someone else.

Look at the Planet Of The Apes remake. That should never have been done, period. The original 1968 version was much better and certainly had a serious commentary behind it.

When it comes to remakes, I can sum it up best by quoting British filmmaker Sir Alan Parker(director of the 1978 Oscar winner Midnight Express), on the remake of his 1980 film Fame.

And he was appalled by the "dreadful" project.


"It's a bit like being mugged. Such are the realities of Hollywood manners and American copyright law," Sir Alan said. "I have never had a single phone call from anyone - the studio, the producers - about this remake. No-one spoke to me about it. To say so is absolute nonsense. I feel very much that Fame is mine. I spent months with the kids at the school then spent a year making the movie. You do the work and make it as good as it can be, and you try to protect it. Then, because the copyright is owned by the studio, as with almost all American feature films, they can do a remake like this. It's extremely galling. There is no other area of the arts where you can do that."


Sir Alan has considered legal action over MGM's use of the Fame logo in the new film, as the studio still does not own the rights to that.

I can't say that I blame him.

 

[Gepard]

Look, I'm a firm believer in the old saying 'if the story has been told, it's been told.'

Since when is that an old saying?

 

[Dusty Ayres]

I've seen a few issues of it, but haven't looked at them.

Look, I'm a firm believer in the old saying 'if the story has been told, it's been told.' There is no need for a different spin to be taken on it by someone else.

Look at the Planet Of The Apes remake. That should never have been done, period. The original 1968 version was much better and certainly had a serious commentary behind it.

When it comes to remakes, I can sum it up best by quoting British filmmaker Sir Alan Parker(director of the 1978 Oscar winner Midnight Express), on the remake of his 1980 film Fame.

And he was appalled by the "dreadful" project.


"It's a bit like being mugged. Such are the realities of Hollywood manners and American copyright law," Sir Alan said. "I have never had a single phone call from anyone - the studio, the producers - about this remake. No-one spoke to me about it. To say so is absolute nonsense. I feel very much that Fame is mine. I spent months with the kids at the school then spent a year making the movie. You do the work and make it as good as it can be, and you try to protect it. Then, because the copyright is owned by the studio, as with almost all American feature films, they can do a remake like this. It's extremely galling. There is no other area of the arts where you can do that."


Sir Alan has considered legal action over MGM's use of the Fame logo in the new film, as the studio still does not own the rights to that.

I can't say that I blame him.

Sorry, he may own THE LOGO, but he doesn't own the rights to the movie or can prevent it from being remade. Besides, if he was so concerned about the 'purity' of the original movie, then he should have also sued MGM for producing a TV show, a stage show, and a stage musical out of it. But he didn't, so he shouldn't be flapping his gums now.

BTW, the original response was to GregCox, not you.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Look, I'm a firm believer in the old saying 'if the story has been told, it's been told.'

Since when is that an old saying?

Never heard of it myself.

Good thing MGM never heard of it or we wouldn't have gotten their version of "Wizard of Oz". Ditto for Warner Bros. and "the Maltese Falcon". Good stories have been told and retold for thousands of years. Each retelling often adds a new wrinkle or wist. Look at the way the legend of King Arthur has evolved. The earliest versions don't have Merlin, Lancelot or Guinevere. Should Mary Stewart not written her take because T H White had written one? Should Steinbeck passed as well? Since Howard Pyle had written the story should White have passed?

 

[Mr. Adventure]

Look, a huge majority of people don't like to see the same old story over and over again.

Then why do they keep watching them?

 

[Greg Cox]

Look, I'm a firm believer in the old saying 'if the story has been told, it's been told.'

Since when is that an old saying?

Never heard of it myself.

Good thing MGM never heard of it or we wouldn't have gotten their version of "Wizard of Oz". Ditto for Warner Bros. and "the Maltese Falcon". Good stories have been told and retold for thousands of years. Each retelling often adds a new wrinkle or wist. Look at the way the legend of King Arthur has evolved. The earliest versions don't have Merlin, Lancelot or Guinevere. Should Mary Stewart not written her take because T H White had written one? Should Steinbeck passed as well? Since Howard Pyle had written the story should White have passed?

Don't forget THE MISTS OF AVALON, EXCALIBUR, CAMELOT, etc.

So much for Hammer Films as well. After all, Universal had already done Dracula, Frankenstein, the Mummy, etc. (Many of which had been previously done as silents anyway.)

By that reasoning, Dracula films should have stopped with Nosferatu back in 1922. So much for Bela Lugosi, Christopher Lee, Frank Langella, Gary Oldman . . . .

After all, the story had already been told.

 

[Vendikarr]

You know, if SyFy is going to air a cooking show, they could have at least called it "To Serve Man."

Not a good idea. The next time a cannibal/serial killer is caught and has "To Serve Man" on his TiVo, the network will be buried in a shitstorm.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I think by "told" someone means the version they saw first.

 

[Vendikarr]

After all, the story had already been told.

I can see if the definitive version of a story has been told, why tell it again. But even that is subjective.

There is nothing wrong with a different spin on a story. I believe there was no need to retell "The Day the Earth Stood Still." I may not agree with the studio's remaking the film, but I expressed my view by not seeing it, depriving the studio of my hard earned cash.

I will continue to watch the original, and ignore the existance of Keanu Reeves' version.

 

[Owain Taggart]

Look, I'm a firm believer in the old saying 'if the story has been told, it's been told.'

Since when is that an old saying?

Never heard of it myself.

Good thing MGM never heard of it or we wouldn't have gotten their version of "Wizard of Oz". Ditto for Warner Bros. and "the Maltese Falcon". Good stories have been told and retold for thousands of years. Each retelling often adds a new wrinkle or wist. Look at the way the legend of King Arthur has evolved. The earliest versions don't have Merlin, Lancelot or Guinevere. Should Mary Stewart not written her take because T H White had written one? Should Steinbeck passed as well? Since Howard Pyle had written the story should White have passed?

Not to mention, the recent remake of True Grit, which blows the original movie out of the water. With all due respect to John Wayne, I saw the original recently and it didn't seem to hold up very well. It mostly seemed like a John Wayne vehicle with a passable musician as sidekick, which happened to star a young actress. The characters in the remake are more clearly defined, with the whole cast used to better effect, and feeling more like a cast ensemble, which are also more entertaining, and Hailey Steinfeld plays a more believable Mattie Ross. There are many differences between the two movies, so they're both entertaining in their own right, but there seemed to be a lot that could have been improved on in the original movie, and the remake improves on that considerably.

 

[Harvey]

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.

Special Editions on home video sell better when there's a new version of the film in theatres creating awareness about the title. Theatrical re-issues, for the most part, aren't big money makers. They play in art house theatres and make a small profit, but don't come anywhere near the potential of new releases. When they've been happening lately, they have been special engagements that played for a single evening (and, sadly, via cheaper digital projection rather than new film prints). Finally, old movies are streamed on Netflix or shown on television all the time (the easiest way to fill broadcast time, after all, is with cheap content from the back catalogue). The profit potential for such broadcasts is small compared to the theatrical box office, and the restoration attention such titles see is little to nothing.

Often, studios lack the creativity to do more than simply cash in on the title of an older movie when producing a remake. But that isn't always the case. Some remakes (i.e. The Fly, The Thing, or The Maltese Falcon) can surpass their originals and become classics in their own right. And, regardless if the remake is good, if it means that the original is getting a new and improved release on home video, it's good news to my ears.

 

[Greg Cox]

Yeah, just saying "reissue the old one" isn't realistic. Nobody is going to book, say, LOGAN'S RUN back into multiplexes again. If you're lucky, it will play for one night at a Sci-Fi Film Festival at some college revival house . . . .

Plus, and this is the part remake haters never seem to get, the remakes are not intended for you. The primary audience for a remake or reboot is NOT the diehard fans of the original; it's a whole new generation for whom that old "classic" is either brand-new or, at best, a fuzzy nostalgic memory.

Of course the diehard fans don't see any need for a new version. They had their fun the last time around (or the time before that). But I'm not sure why they want to deny new generations their own versions of the story?

In the meantime, they can always watch heir old DVDs, while the rest of us check out the new LOGAN'S RUN . . . .