Blake's 7 reboot

All friendly discussions not directly related to Star Wars. Includes 'Introductions' section.
Forum rules
1: Personal attacks on individuals or groups, direct or indirect, are considered contrary to the SWNZ mission. SWNZ is a supportive community.
2: The posting of content or language deemed unsuitable for a general audience is considered contrary to the SWNZ mission. SWNZ is an inclusive community.
User avatar
oota goota
High Colonel
High Colonel
Posts: 1908
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2010 12:08 am
Country: New Zealand
Location: Taranaki
Contact:

Re: Blake's 7 reboot

Post by oota goota »

I think Buzz is a pureist and I think I understand the point of view: continuation and canon is better than reboots that erode the story that creates the franchise. Is that close Buzz ? :)
User avatar
Buzz Bumble
High Colonel
High Colonel
Posts: 1490
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 2:50 am
Country: New Zealand
Location: North Shore, Auckland

Re: Blake's 7 reboot

Post by Buzz Bumble »

Not a "pureist" as such .. simply that if they're making a new show / movie, then actually make a NEW show / story complete with a new name, rather than butcher and confuse the existing franchise. Names are designed to be used to distinguish things that are different from each other, so when they make a new "version", that they often go around saying is different, why keep the same name and create a confused mess? It defies ALL logic anc common sense. Nobody anywhere has ever been able to come up with a sensible reason for doing this ... the only excuse I ever get as a "reason" is the rather inane "I thought it was good", which is completely irrelevant and utterly misses the point. :(

If they're making something under the same franchise name, then it MUST fit (within some degree of common sense) with what has already been established to actually be part of that franchise, otherwise it's different and therefore obviously not part of the same thing and obviously shouldn't have that same name.

When I say "Batman" (as one example), nobody has any clue which of the billion different versions I'm talking about. Some things have been changed so many times that nobody even knows what the original real version is any more, other than the vague outline - King Arthur, Robin Hood, etc.

Otherwise, enjoy eating your new lemon-flavoured, round "banana". :rolleyes:
User avatar
Reverend Strone
High Colonel
High Colonel
Posts: 1533
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 10:30 pm
Country: New Zealand
Location: Wellington

Re: Blake's 7 reboot

Post by Reverend Strone »

Buzz Bumble wrote:Some things have been changed so many times that nobody even knows what the original real version is any more, other than the vague outline - King Arthur, Robin Hood, etc.
Those are great examples Buzz, but I think they could also argue against your point. People are storytellers and we reinvent our stories to have meaning for the people we are telling them to. King Arthur and Robin Hood are both stories we tell now, but in totally new ways to the way they were told before. Stories are fluid things that change over time along with the people who tell them and to whom they are told. Those stories have been told countless times in countless ways and will be told in new ways in the future. I think it is fair to say that the properties that television and movies have brought us over the past few generations can be said to perform the same roles that these oral and written myths and stories have in the past, and so, like them, they are going to evolve and move with the times. There are new interpretations that will offer fresh perspectives that are relevant to modern audiences.
Buzz Bumble wrote:It defies ALL logic anc common sense. Nobody anywhere has ever been able to come up with a sensible reason for doing this ... (within some degree of common sense)
See, you make some good points Buzz, but then you start throwing around this assertion that a different point of view is illogical or makes no sense. They don't help you case but suggest that perhaps you are not understanding the reasoning behind why things happen the way they do in the Hollywood model. There's plenty broken in what they do over there, I grant you, but it's also a much wider industry than just Hollywood.

As regards why older properties are reinvented, there is the very important issue of marketing. Audiences are more inclined to care enough to tune into or go see something that references someting they already know of. That's not illogical, it's simply a fact, and one which studios that are looking for a guaranteed return on their significant investment will lean towards when faced with taking a risk on something totally new or going with what might be a safer option. You can rail against that all you want, and believe me, in the film and tv industry it is a source of frustration as there are plenty of amazing original scripts that never get over that unknown risk hurdle, but that's part of the economics of the entertainment business that all of us in this industry deal with every day. Sometimes you get lucky and push a new ball across the line, but a lot of the time you have to make compromises or find creative solutions to get the money you need for a project.

So, faced with that, clever and creative writers will take an existing property and reimagine it, exactly as Ron Moore and co. did, and build upon what was established, embracing the source material, but also adding to it in their retelling by introducing topical themes and responding to modern audience interests and demands for a particular style of storytelling. The studios have a known quantity that they can market and the creatives get a rich world in which to begin shaping their new stories. I hope you'll excuse me for being a bit snippy about this issue, but it is a bit blind to brand that as 'Hollywierd', uncreative or illogical. It might be fairer to say you simply don't like the results they came up with.

The fruit analogy isn't really the best one but I'll take it and throw it back to you. We're dealing with different time scales here as television moves faster than horticulture, but if you want to talk in bananas, let's take a banana sold in a store a hundred years ago and compare it to one you might buy today. I guarantee you that ain't gonna be the same banana, because there has been a hundred years of market competition in between, yielding new banana varieties, improved growing methologies and massive changes in distribution and reach. The market is not remotely the same as it was and nor is teh delivery method for getting that banana to the customer. I'll bet you the fruit section of the supermarket looks very different to where a person got their fruit a hundred years ago. The people buying those bananas are not the same and nor is the banana itself the same. I'll bet you that alongside all these other fruit and sugary sweet stuff sold elsewhere in the same supermarket, that banana is probably a lot sweeter than its 100 year old predecessor and quite possibly larger. It has become that way in response to the market environment it must now be competitive in. It has changed with the times. It's still called a banana, but it's different. Or would you suggest that now it should have a different name?

Great debate by the way!
User avatar
Buzz Bumble
High Colonel
High Colonel
Posts: 1490
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 2:50 am
Country: New Zealand
Location: North Shore, Auckland

Re: Blake's 7 reboot

Post by Buzz Bumble »

Reverend Strone wrote:[There are new interpretations that will offer fresh perspectives that are relevant to modern audiences.
Yes, but why re-use the same name for what is obviously something different?

There are plenty of "revised" stories that sensibly do use a new name for their new version. For example, Shakespeare's Romeo & Juliet has been done numerous times in numerous versions, some with the "reimagined" version set in New York or wherever sensibly using a new name.

They don't help you case but suggest that perhaps you are not understanding the reasoning behind why things happen the way they do in the Hollywood model.
I''m "not understanding" it because it defies all logic and as above, nobody has ever been able to give and actual sensible reason for it. (It's the same with Hasbro's idiotic way of packing cases! Nobody can give a sensible reason for doing that either.)
Audiences are more inclined to care enough to tune into or go see something that references someting they already know of. That's not illogical, it's simply a fact, and one which studios that are looking for a guaranteed return on their significant investment will lean towards when faced with taking a risk on something totally new or going with what might be a safer option.
Nope, sorry, that explanation doesn't work on any level.

As above, if they're so scared about trying something new, why do they then go and create something that actually is new and different in all but the name and vague idea. If they really wanted a "guaranteed return", then they would make it in the same way as the original version, without lots of changes, and so that it fitted properly with what had come before which was successful.

Then there's the even less logical / common sense idea of re-using the old name and vague idea of something that (supposedly) wasn't succesful the first time around. "Gee, that was a turkey. Let's do it again" is an insane idea that only someone in management could come up with. :rolleyes:

Plus, there's all the baggage the name comes with. If someone didn't like the original, then all common sense should tell them not to bother watching something that has the same name ... but for some extremely peculiar reason they do watch it thinking it will be different (and thanks to Hollyweird it is different). It's a bit like saying "I don't like bananas, but I'll eat this one in case they've suddenly made it different."


It might be fairer to say you simply don't like the results they came up with.
Ahh, the old "I think it's good" excuse arrives right on schedule... but it's a "reason" that is meaningless and misses the point. What I saying has absolutely nothing to do with anyone's waffley opinion of how "good" or "bad" it is in it's own right. Everyone's opinon is different and it would be just as "good" / "bad" no matter what name they had given it name (within reason of course - calling a new fruit "squishy poo" is unlikely to sell very well).

The point is the FACT that they're re-using the original's name for what is a very different product, a product that doesn't fit with what has already come under that name before. There is no debate over this fact. Anyone with eyes and easr can see that the new version is different, and even the people making it often say it is different.


It's still called a banana, but it's different. Or would you suggest that now it should have a different name?
That's because it is still a banana ... it's still long, yellow, soft inside the skin, and tastes like a banan, etc. ... all EXACTLY like any banana was thousands of years ago. Yes, they grow a lot more of them, and they may grow quicker and more abundantly, and they no doubt do grow new varities, but they're all still a banana. The different varities are akin to well-fitting, properly made spin-off shows and sequels.

It's not now a round yellow fruit, strawberry flavoured, and with a stone in the middle. Any company that tried to sell that as a "banana" would insanely stupid. BUT if they made such a fruit and sold it as a "Berryana", or something, then they'd make piles of money (assuming it actually tasted okay) and probably win all sorts of fruit grower awards.
Last edited by Buzz Bumble on Fri Aug 23, 2013 7:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Harvey Mushman
High Colonel
High Colonel
Posts: 1097
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 12:10 am
Country: New Zealand
Location: Auckland

Re: Blake's 7 reboot

Post by Harvey Mushman »

:)
Last edited by Harvey Mushman on Wed May 25, 2022 9:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Reverend Strone
High Colonel
High Colonel
Posts: 1533
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 10:30 pm
Country: New Zealand
Location: Wellington

Re: Blake's 7 reboot

Post by Reverend Strone »

Buzz Bumble wrote: I''m "not understanding" it because it defies all logic and as above, nobody has ever been able to give and actual sensible reason for it. (It's the same with Hasbro's idiotic way of packing cases! Nobody can give a sensible reason for doing that either.)
If you want to talk Hasbro cases, lets do that in another thread.

Back on topic, there are plenty of sensible and rational reasons for these things Buzz. I get the sense from your responses that you simply don't accept them, so there's really nowhere for us to go with that conversation. If you pefer to imagine that there are a bunch of people in business who simply do stuff for random, nonsensical reasons then all power to you. No reasoning I try to explain to you is going to change that. I think we simply hold very different views of the world.

And on that note, this discussion, while fun to begin with, has hit a bit of a brick wall. I think I'm done. Thanks everyone. :)
User avatar
oota goota
High Colonel
High Colonel
Posts: 1908
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2010 12:08 am
Country: New Zealand
Location: Taranaki
Contact:

Re: Blake's 7 reboot

Post by oota goota »

Thanks Rev thanks Buzz it was an interesting debate and a great read!
User avatar
Buzz Bumble
High Colonel
High Colonel
Posts: 1490
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 2:50 am
Country: New Zealand
Location: North Shore, Auckland

Re: Blake's 7 reboot

Post by Buzz Bumble »

Reverend Strone wrote:Back on topic,
The topic is actually Blakes 7 reboot / remake. :p


there are plenty of sensible and rational reasons for these things Buzz. I get the sense from your responses that you simply don't accept them
I "won't accept them" because they are not logical, not rational, and not sensible. I gave the reasons why the supposed "we're too scared to try something new" explanation simply doesn't make any sense. You can't have it both ways - you can't say "we're making the old show because we know it works" and then go and make lots of changes to it so that in reality it's something different that you're too scared to make in the first place. :roll: That's completely nonsensical ... and a typical ill-thought-out "management" idea.


... there are a bunch of people in business who simply do stuff for random, nonsensical reasons ...
I never said they didn't have "reasons". I never even said it doesn't "work", in terms of making them piles of money - although that seems to be thanks to the majority of the human race working purely on emotion (hence the old "it's good" excuse always being trotted out) rather than common sense and logic. :(

I simply stated the fact that none of the supposed reasons make any real logical sense when you actually look at them properly.
Post Reply