worst sci-fi TV series of post 1964

[Admiral Buzzkill]

It even - perhaps most especially - fails in the attempt to maintain that the "originals" (in those few cases where the poster has correctly identified the original versions, rather than having it pointed out time and again that there were earlier examples extant) have some moral or artistic claim to special respect.

Exactly. The first version is not, by definition, the best, especially when it comes to movie adaptations of preexisting books, plays, comics, etc.

Cases in point: The Three Musketeers, The Maltese Falcon, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Tarzan, Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde, The Wizard of Oz, The Lord of the Rings, Batman, Superman, and (arguably) The Fly, The Blob, and The Thing . . . .

And that's just off the top of my head!

Yep. The anti-remake thesis is logically and factually indefensible.

 

[Expo67]

Except that the Coen's adaptation is far more true to the source material than the 1969 film was, which truly was far more of a bastardization of the novel than the 2010 "remake". .

Exactly so.

The Coen brothers were more faithful to the story as envisioned and told by its author than the makers of the first movie. Therefore, if one is going to make assertions regarding primacy of intent and respect (or lack of it) for creators then the Coens have the better claim to respect.

This apparent extreme insistence that "remakes are wrong" fails on every level.

It fails on the evidence.

It fails as a matter of logic.

It even - perhaps most especially - fails in the attempt to maintain that the "originals" (in those few cases where the poster has correctly identified the original versions, rather than having it pointed out time and again that there were earlier examples extant) have some moral or artistic claim to special respect.

There's not actually a sensible argument to be made that "all remakes are bad" - what's going on here is a single poster asserting that to be true, over and over, providing no persuasive argument to defend the claim and seeing it dismantled or dismissed by just about everyone else who's posted on the subject...all based on evidence and logic.

I didn't think logic was one of your stronger suits.

Then again, humanity hardly ever uses such a form. Even in times of not using common sense.

Look, I've given my opinion and made my point as best as I can. Let alone provided whatever evidence available to back up such arguments. It may not be to your liking, but, such is life. No matter how insane life is.

If you still can't see the point about remakes being the easy way out in the industry, or just a form of artistic stagnation and lack of artistic growth, then so be it.

You have your views, and I have mine.

And to quote Tom Horn, "Consider That My Final Word In The Matter."

 

[beamMe]

Except that the Coen's adaptation is far more true to the source material than the 1969 film was, which truly was far more of a bastardization of the novel than the 2010 "remake". .

Exactly so.

The Coen brothers were more faithful to the story as envisioned and told by its author than the makers of the first movie. Therefore, if one is going to make assertions regarding primacy of intent and respect (or lack of it) for creators then the Coens have the better claim to respect.

This apparent extreme insistence that "remakes are wrong" fails on every level.

It fails on the evidence.

It fails as a matter of logic.

It even - perhaps most especially - fails in the attempt to maintain that the "originals" (in those few cases where the poster has correctly identified the original versions, rather than having it pointed out time and again that there were earlier examples extant) have some moral or artistic claim to special respect.

There's not actually a sensible argument to be made that "all remakes are bad" - what's going on here is a single poster asserting that to be true, over and over, providing no persuasive argument to defend the claim and seeing it dismantled or dismissed by just about everyone else who's posted on the subject...all based on evidence and logic.

I didn't think logic was one of your stronger suits.

Then again, humanity hardly ever uses such a form. Even in times of common sense.

Look, I've given my opinion and made my point as best as I can. Let alone provided whatever evidence available to back up such arguments. It may not be to your liking, but, that's your problem.

If you still can't see the point about remakes being the easy way out in the industry, or just a form of artistic stagnation and lack of artistic growth, then so be it.

You have your views, and I have mine.

And to quote Tom Horn, "Consider That My Final Word In The Matter."

That is now your second Final Word...

 

[Aeolusdallas]

I can't think of an example that has been known to have a remake bring a distaste for a prior version.

Actually, there's a very recent example of a remake that has been praised as a better film than the original version - True Grit. While some folks have said that they prefer John Wayne's larger-than-life character from the original, very few reviewers or folks familiar with both consider the earlier movie to be a better film per se.

One critic remarked that whenever he saw a remake of a great film he wondered why no one ever remade mediocre flicks in order to improve them, citing True Grit as an exception.

Instructively, the Coen brothers drew their version from the source material rather than the previous film.

Nevertheless, Jeff Bridges(no offense to him and his talent)can't fill the shoes that John Wayne filled with that particular character. A character that the Duke won his only Oscar for.

I'll take the 1969 film over the Coen brothers bastardization any day of the week.

The remake of True Grit wasn't a bastardization. It was truer to the book and a better film than the first flat out.

 

[Expo67]

Correction. I should have said 'Last word in the matter.'

 

[Sindatur]

It even - perhaps most especially - fails in the attempt to maintain that the "originals" (in those few cases where the poster has correctly identified the original versions, rather than having it pointed out time and again that there were earlier examples extant) have some moral or artistic claim to special respect.

Exactly. The first version is not, by definition, the best, especially when it comes to movie adaptations of preexisting books, plays, comics, etc.

Cases in point: The Three Musketeers, The Maltese Falcon, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Tarzan, Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde, The Wizard of Oz, The Lord of the Rings, Batman, Superman, and (arguably) The Fly, The Blob, and The Thing . . . .

And that's just off the top of my head!

Wait, you're not saying Steve McQueen's The Blob is inferior to the 1988 Version, are you? Was there a version of The Blob prior to 1958?

 

[Kegg]

Did the new True Grit damage the original though? Anyone who now won't watch it again, who treasured it before?

If anything, the new version has probably sold a few DVDs of the original.

Including mine. When I heard the Coen brothers had made the film, I bought the DVD to tide me over before it got released here (which was early 2011).

I thought the John Wayne film was very solid and Wayne was very well cast in the role. There's a roughness and ambiguity to it that he suffuses with quite a bit of charm. Good film overall, which I may have never got around to seeing without the remake because I'm not one for John Wayne movies.*

All that said, I liked the Coen's film a lot better. Hardly a fair comparison because the Coen Brothers are one of my all-time favourite directors (aren't they for everybody, though?), but there you have it.**

*Was Sergei Bodrov's Mongol better than John Wayne's The Conqueror? Questions, questions...

**'One' of, you may ask? It's a lot easier for me to think of them as one person, or maybe a two-bodied hivemind.

 

[Silvercrest]

Correction. I should have said 'Last word in the matter.'

Not if you keep talking.

 

[lurok]

Are there some films/series that should NEVER EVER be remade? Or is that topic for separate thread?

 

[Greg Cox]

Cases in point: The Three Musketeers, The Maltese Falcon, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Tarzan, Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde, The Wizard of Oz, The Lord of the Rings, Batman, Superman, and (arguably) The Fly, The Blob, and The Thing . . . .

And that's just off the top of my head!

Wait, you're not saying Steve McQueen's The Blob is inferior to the 1988 Version, are you? Was there a version of The Blob prior to 1958?

Okay, that might have been pushing it. But I think the 1988 version is underrated.

 

[Sindatur]

Cases in point: The Three Musketeers, The Maltese Falcon, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Tarzan, Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde, The Wizard of Oz, The Lord of the Rings, Batman, Superman, and (arguably) The Fly, The Blob, and The Thing . . . .

And that's just off the top of my head!

Wait, you're not saying Steve McQueen's The Blob is inferior to the 1988 Version, are you? Was there a version of The Blob prior to 1958?

Okay, that might have been pushing it. But I think the 1988 version is underrated.

Hmmm...I'll have to see if I still have it and watch it again. I recall not thinking much of Kevin Dillon's The Blob

 

[Expo67]

It even - perhaps most especially - fails in the attempt to maintain that the "originals" (in those few cases where the poster has correctly identified the original versions, rather than having it pointed out time and again that there were earlier examples extant) have some moral or artistic claim to special respect.

Exactly. The first version is not, by definition, the best, especially when it comes to movie adaptations of preexisting books, plays, comics, etc.

Cases in point: The Three Musketeers, The Maltese Falcon, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Tarzan, Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde, The Wizard of Oz, The Lord of the Rings, Batman, Superman, and (arguably) The Fly, The Blob, and The Thing . . . .

And that's just off the top of my head!

Yep. The anti-remake thesis is logically and factually indefensible.

Then answer me this. Why did you remake your excellent sci-fi novel into an episode of TNG? Why didn't you come up with something different instead of re-hashing a story that was fine just the way it was?

Seriously, Tin Woodman was really a cool story.

 

[Kegg]

If sci-fi didn't rehash ideas, we'd never have Battlestar Galactica to begin with. As an oldBSG fan, surely you're grateful for that?

 

[chardman]

Then answer me this. Why did you remake your excellent sci-fi novel into an episode of TNG? Why didn't you come up with something different instead of re-hashing a story that was fine just the way it was?

Cause he wanted to? Cause he thought the idea deserved revisiting? Cause he'd later thought of a take on the story that he wanted to explore? To introduce the basic idea to a whole new audience? Because he thought the anti-remake thesis is logically and factually indefensible? I'm sure there are plenty of reason for revisiting that story. On the other hand, I can think of precisely no reasons to NOT remake the story as a TNG episode.

 

[Sindatur]

Exactly. The first version is not, by definition, the best, especially when it comes to movie adaptations of preexisting books, plays, comics, etc.

Cases in point: The Three Musketeers, The Maltese Falcon, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Tarzan, Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde, The Wizard of Oz, The Lord of the Rings, Batman, Superman, and (arguably) The Fly, The Blob, and The Thing . . . .

And that's just off the top of my head!

Yep. The anti-remake thesis is logically and factually indefensible.

Then answer me this. Why did you remake your excellent sci-fi novel into an episode of TNG? Why didn't you come up with something different instead of re-hashing a story that was fine just the way it was?

Seriously, Tin Woodman was really a cool story.

I've never read the book, and enjoyed the episode, so he reached me with his story (Which he wouldn't have simply with the book), by reusing it in another medium.

Many of your "definitive movie" versions of things are based upon books, why were those OK to adapt to Television or thetrical screen, yet, on numerous occasions you pull this gem out and attack Dennis for adapting his novel to a Television show episode

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

That's entirely personally motivated, which is why I ignore it. I'll be glad to explain it elsewhere, but this is not the place. We can have this discussion in more general and detached terms.

 

[Silvercrest]

If sci-fi didn't rehash ideas, we'd never have Battlestar Galactica to begin with. As an oldBSG fan, surely you're grateful for that?

Personally, I think the Book of Mormon would have gotten by just fine without Glen Larson remaking it.

 

[Davros]

Well, at least we can agree that Jeffrey Hunter was a better Jesus than Jim Caviezel, right? Enough Jesus movies, already!

Maybe they could finally make a movie about WW2.

 

[Distorted Humor]

If sci-fi didn't rehash ideas, we'd never have Battlestar Galactica to begin with. As an oldBSG fan, surely you're grateful for that?

Personally, I think the Book of Mormon would have gotten by just fine without Glen Larson remaking it.

Dig ding ding....as a mormon I was waiting for that comment

 

[Nomad V]

I have to go with that great Canadian import from the late 70s, in which Walter Koenig and Clare what's his name from 2001 a Space Odyssey appeared "The Starlost". The worst TV series of all time, not just worst science fiction series.