Poll Would you watch a Voyager reboot?

[Greg Cox]

Very true. Popular perception certainly means something... this, at times, can be at odds with the director/artist's intent. Occasionally the popular mindset eclipse's the original intent as well. Interesting to think about. I always considered The Thing a remake until I read that it was an adaptation, but I am not sure if those were Carpenter's words or not. Maybe it's both and I'm overthinking this.

As I recall, the 1980s THE THING visually homages a scene from the 1950s version at least once: when the men fan out around the buried spaceship only to discover that, holy cow, it's a flying saucer!

There's also an odd double standard when it comes to classical versus genre fiction. A new version of a literary classic such as PRIDE AND PREJUDICE or LITTLE WOMEN is not really seen as remake, but a new version of PLANET OF THE APES or LOGAN'S RUN will invariably be perceived as remakes of the original movies, even though those films were also based on novels, just like LITTLE WOMEN or THE THREE MUSKETEERS or whatever.

 

[Brennyren]

^^^ I wonder if that may have something to do with how the work in question is primarily known, as a book or as a film. Most people would think of Little Women and Pride and Prejudice as books, first and foremost. But a lot of people (like me until I read your post, @Greg Cox !) wouldn't even be able to tell you that Logan's Run was based on a book. And while more people might know that Planet of the Apes was based on a book (I read that one way-back-when, during the first film series's run), it's still a relatively obscure work.

So, Stargate Universe, then? (Which I hated at the time but looking back and rewatching I thought way ahead of it's time)

Sadly, I can't say -- I didn't watch any of the Stargate series (serieses?).

 

[F. King Daniel]

Sadly, I can't say -- I didn't watch any of the Stargate series (serieses?).

3 series'. If you like TOS or Voyager, I'm pretty sure you'd like it. Stargate SG1 even did a near-identical version of Voyager's "Workforce".

SG1 and Atlantis are very much the TOS/Voyager mould. Universe is much more like Discovery in it's first season.

 

[Akiraprise]

If it's got Star Trek in the title I'm going to watch it. Then come here and bitch about it if it sucks!

 

[cosmic mouse]

As I recall, the 1980s THE THING visually homages a scene from the 1950s version at least once: when the men fan out around the buried spaceship only to discover that, holy cow, it's a flying saucer! .

a very cool scene in both films... and on the classic vs genre disparity: it may be another example of the genre films being kind of denigrated by the mainstream. This may be on the wane with the fantasy revival and more genre films winning major awards, etc.

 

[Orac Zen]

I doubt I'd watch a Voyager reboot. With one notable exception, that cast just rocked. I doubt I could take anyone else seriously in any of those roles (casting someone as Chuckles who can actually act and has a work ethic / some charisma would be the only possible improvement). Moreover, I just don't see the need for it. Each to their own, though.

 

[thribs]

What exactly is a super moderator?

 

[Orac Zen]

Nowhere near as interesting as it may sound.

 

[thribs]

Nowhere near as interesting as it may sound.

You moderate the moderators?

 

[Orac Zen]

No, although that would be...fun.

It's just weird terminology that the current board software uses. Moderators (green banners) mod specific fora. So-called "super" moderators can (in theory, rarely in practice) moderate any forum on the board. Admins (those with yellow-hued banners) run the place. If anyone mod the mods, it's them.

 

[Greg Cox]

^^^ I wonder if that may have something to do with how the work in question is primarily known, as a book or as a film. Most people would think of Little Women and Pride and Prejudice as books, first and foremost. But a lot of people (like me until I read your post, @Greg Cox !) wouldn't even be able to tell you that Logan's Run was based on a book. And while more people might know that Planet of the Apes was based on a book (I read that one way-back-when, during the first film series's run), it's still a relatively obscure work.

Good point. It may have less to do with genre than with, as noted, the degree to which the movie is better known than the original print version. Literary classics will be remembered as books, but the novels and short stories that inspired classic sci-fi films may be less well known in their own right.

I'm guessing way more people have seen the original THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL than have ever heard of "Farewell to the Master" by Harry Bates, the story the movie was based on. See also the original short story that inspired THE FLY.

 

[Winterwind]

What exactly is a super moderator?

It's a lame rank title. I was a Super Moderator on the old Interplay/Black Isle Studios forums. You're "middle management" above a mod, below an admin.

I always asked the admins to change the title to "Senior Moderator" which sounded better to me. They never did.

 

[Orphalesion]

Considering that Voyager is pretty much the show with the most wasted potential in Trek and suffered the most from the episodic, we gotta cater to all demographics philosophy of 90s television, I think it could definitely benefit from a do-over.

As long as said do-over doesn't fall into the same traps and cliches as a lot of other modern shows aimed at adults...

Though if modern Star Trek does insist on subverting the idealistic universe of the older shows then a ship stranded in an unknown region of space and half of its crew consisting of rebel fighters from frontier worlds would be the best place to do so rather than shoving it into the heart of the Federation.

 

[lurok]

Wasn't that nuBSG?

 

[JirinPanthosa]

As I recall, the 1980s THE THING visually homages a scene from the 1950s version at least once: when the men fan out around the buried spaceship only to discover that, holy cow, it's a flying saucer!

There's also an odd double standard when it comes to classical versus genre fiction. A new version of a literary classic such as PRIDE AND PREJUDICE or LITTLE WOMEN is not really seen as remake, but a new version of PLANET OF THE APES or LOGAN'S RUN will invariably be perceived as remakes of the original movies, even though those films were also based on novels, just like LITTLE WOMEN or THE THREE MUSKETEERS or whatever.

I tend to think it depends which work your movie is closer to. For example, if somebody made a movie called Minority Report where the victim is a military leader trying to get control of the system, and he chooses to carry out the murder in the end, it’d be an adaptation. If the victim of the murder was some stranger and the story came out against determinism, it’d be a remake.

 

[Seven of Five]

Wasn't that nuBSG?

I was just marching in to say that but you beat me to it. Great minds think alike.

 

[Kilana2]

If Seven acts like she does in Picard, I wouldn't like to watch a Voyager reboot.

 

[Dukhat]

- It will be a show going back to Trek roots. Exploration and dealing with the unknown.
- It can exist outside of all current Trek. It could even be sold as Kelvinverse Voyager.
- It would be a great way to bring in new viewers to Trek as the show could be made in a way where it didn't need much prior knowledge of the Trek universe.
- It doesn't need to be faithful to the original and they can pick and choose to reuse the best story arcs, characters, aliens as well as adding completely new ones. It would feel fresh for new and old viewers alike.
(eg instead of the Borg as a big baddie it could be an evolved form of Control)
- It's perfect for modern serialization and streaming.

This is all basically what they're doing with DSC season 3.

 

[marlboro]

The Maltese Falcon (1941), starring Humphrey Bogart, which was the second remake of the original 1931 movie, which it quickly eclipsed.

Gaslight (1944) with Ingrid Bergman, filmed a mere four years after the original 1940 version. Still an enduring classic.

Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde (1932) which was the umpteenth movie version of Stevenson's novel, coming only about 12 years after the classic 1920 version with John Barrymore. The 1932 movie won an Academy Award for Best Actor and remains the best film version of the story.

The Unholy Three (1930) with Lon Chaney Sr., a talkie remake made only five years after the original silent version, also starring Chaney.

And don't get me started on the umpteen reboots of Sherlock Holmes, which go all the way back to the silent days.

Point being, Hollywood has been making excellent reboots since practically Day One, sometimes less than a decade after the previous version.

A couple of thoughts on this.

You say 'Hollywood has been making excellent reboots since practically Day one" "Excellent" is the key word here . I don't think people hate remakes so much as they hate bad remakes. For me many of the remakes released over the last 20 years feel like lazy cash-ins banking on the reputation of older films. Very few of them seem to have something new to say or substantially improve on their sources.

You mention some examples of good remakes, but I think they may be a bit misleading. The first two adaptations of The Maltese Falcon were B movies. The second one played as sort of a comedy (and was actually pretty good.) A big budget remake with big name stars that is also closer to the source material is different than having four different reboots of the Terminator franchise, imo.

There is such a difference between sound and silent films that it's almost another medium. It almost feels like comparing a radio drama to a tv show. I can't really fault studios for remaking silent pictures because of that.

Random comments:

Both versions of Gaslight are good. Check out the original if you haven't. MGM tried to have it suppressed.

The third version of the Maltese Falcon is a classic, but the second one is a fun little pre-code B movie.

Both the 1920 and 1932 versions of Dr Jekyll are classics. I didn't care for the 1940 version. The forties were kind of a weak decade for horror, imo. Maybe the war had something to do with that.

I didn't dig either of the versions of The Unholy Three. Chaney was a genius though. Loved The Unknown and West of Zanzibar.

 

[Greg Cox]

Both the 1920 and 1932 versions of Dr Jekyll are classics. I didn't care for the 1940 version. The forties were kind of a weak decade for horror, imo. Maybe the war had something to do with that.

I didn't dig either of the versions of The Unholy Three. Chaney was a genius though. Loved The Unknown and West of Zanzibar.

I think the Hays Office had something to do with it, too. The 1940 Jekyll & Hyde feels watered-down and sanitized compared to the 1932 version, which was Pre-Code and therefore has a much harder edge to it.

And, yeah, I love The Unknown, too. That is such a bizarre, kinky movie!