Blake's 7 reboot

[oota goota]

Hey Buzz I think I'm missing the point too! Are you talking about continuity within the show? The only kirk is shatner that sort of thing? But the splinter shows ds9 voyager etc etc are 'true' additions?

It sounds like you are putting forth a 'canon' argument for what fits.......

[Buzz Bumble]

Canon is only part of it. A succesful franchise is a set of pieces that all fit together - the same characters, the same backstory, the same style (which doesn't necessarily exclude live-action and animated shows), etc. Fans of that franchise like it the way it is. Once Hollyweird starts making ill-fitting changes, the new "version" is obviously no longer part of the same franchise ... so since it's not part of the same franchise, and in most cases the people making it even say it's a different show, why re-use the original name??

Names are given to things for a reason - it's distinguishes them from other different things. Re-using the same name for a different version simply makes a confused mess of the franchise. If I say "Battlestar Galactica", you have no idea which version I'm talking about.

It makes absolutely no sense at all.

Re-using the original name also brings along a pile of baggage and expectations. If they simply and sensibly give their new "version" a new name, there wouldn't be any of that. For example, if someone didn't like the original "Battlestar Galactica", why on Earth would they stupidly watch something else called "Battlestar Galactica"? Why are they suddenly expecting it to be different? If it was called "Warship Gigantica" or whatever, then it has none of that expectation.

One reason they re-use the original name is simply to extend the copyright and stop (or at least make it difficult) other people making a proper version. It will probably never actually happen, but Glen Larsen, for example, is planning a proper "Battlestar Galactica" movie that does fit with his original TV series - he apparently owns the rights to movie versions, but not TV versions. (On an even sillier note, there is someone else also planning a "Battlestar Galactica" movie that they claim somehow fits with both "versions". :rolleyes:)

If you're going to re-use the same name simply because it's vaguely similar, then we may as well not bother with different names at all. Why not call all human males "Bob" - they're all male, all (usually) have two ears, two eyes, etc., so obviously they're all "the same".

Then there's the moral issue. Why does some young idiot in Hollyweird think they know better than the person who actually created the original? The only person who morally should be allowed to make changes to their franchise is the person who created it (or if they're dead, a custodian person) ... that doesn't mean new stories can't be added, just that they have to pass by the custodian and there can't be silly changes to what has been established.

If something is no longer "good enough" for Hollyweird, then let it go and actually create a new franchise, rather than butchering and splintering the old ones. There's thousdands of book series that have "gone out of fashion" but are still loved by the fans of them ... you (usually) don't see them being stupidly "rebooted" under the same name.

[Reverend Strone]

Yeah, it's astounding that anyone would make a modern show for modern audiences.

You completely missed the point ... but then 90% of people don't seem to understand it, which probably explains why we keep getting these ridiculously silly, senseless "reboots" rather than Hollyweird actually creating new shows / movies with new names.

To be fair, we get plenty of new shows as well, but I do take your point and can't disagree with you regarding your example of Star Trek. As much fun as the new films are, there's a certain key element of what made Trek speial that is strikingly absent and which left me feeling unfulfilled.

However, I also think it is important to understand that franchises evolve over time and move with the sensibilities and entertainment preferences of the time in order to stay relevant. Some manage to retain certain core elements while others eject them, either consciously or not. Some succeed, while others fall flat on their faces. I just fundamentally disagree with the notion that just because something is new or a reimagining of a classic property that it must automatically suck or be somehow a sacreligious desecration of a hallowed classic property, which is an attuitude that some fans seem to rather righteously espouse and which I perceived in your post, Buzz. It is a fan tendency to dismiss anything resembling change as dreadful before they have even the faintest whiff of what it will be. That risks being less a case of holding to principal so much as closed-mindedness and a somewhat rose-tinted nostalgia over 'the good old days'. All I suggest is giving something a go before writing it off.

Case in point, I too, was extremely leery of the Battlestar reimagining when I first heard about it and saw the initial marketing material. My impression was very much the same as your summation earlier in this thread, and I chose to avoid it. It took a couple of years of intelligent and discerning friends whose opinion I respected telling me I really needed to give it a fair go before I begrudgingly tried it again. Boy, was I missing out. While I respect that your tastes may differ, I found it to be among the most insightful, engaging and compelling sci fi space opera I had ever seen, and one of the few genre shows my wife not only tolerates, but loves to watch with me. I guess the summation of my point is 'don't judge a book by its cover'.

[Archon Revuge]

I... think it is important to understand that franchises evolve over time and move with the sensibilities and entertainment preferences of the time in order to stay relevant. Some manage to retain certain core elements while others eject them, either consciously or not. Some succeed, while others fall flat on their faces. I just fundamentally disagree with the notion that just because something is new or a reimagining of a classic property that it must automatically suck or be somehow a sacreligious desecration of a hallowed classic property, which is an attuitude that some fans seem to rather righteously espouse and which I perceived in your post, Buzz. It is a fan tendency to dismiss anything resembling change as dreadful before they have even the faintest whiff of what it will be. That risks being less a case of holding to principal so much as closed-mindedness and a somewhat rose-tinted nostalgia over 'the good old days'. All I suggest is giving something a go before writing it off.

Case in point, I too, was extremely leery of the Battlestar reimagining when I first heard about it and saw the initial marketing material. My impression was very much the same as your summation earlier in this thread, and I chose to avoid it. It took a couple of years of intelligent and discerning friends whose opinion I respected telling me I really needed to give it a fair go before I begrudgingly tried it again. Boy, was I missing out. While I respect that your tastes may differ, I found it to be among the most insightful, engaging and compelling sci fi space opera I had ever seen, and one of the few genre shows my wife not only tolerates, but loves to watch with me. I guess the summation of my point is 'don't judge a book by its cover'.

^ This

[oota goota]

nice discussion dudes! It's nice to see both sides of the reboot idea presented so well.

Overall I think it's a case by case situation. There's PLENTY in the original TVs shows we all grew up with that was a bit errr rough, and a reboot can be a chance to redress some of those things. It's also a chance to show some of the iconic peoples/ places/ things in a new and better light. For example I think the re-imagined old-school cyclons were amazing

Do I want to see a reboot of Blakes 7? Not really. Do I want to see a sequel to the original that fits the franchise but improves it and takes it to a new level? Hell yeah!

[Buzz Bumble]

However, I also think it is important to understand that franchises evolve over time

Evolve, yes, in terms of adding new material properly and fittingly to what already exists.

Changing into a totally different show (or as some people seem to think, "grow-up"), no. That's plain silly. The franchise was made to be the way it is. Making silly changes to fit someone ele's idea of what it should be is at best extremely egotistical, not to mention rude and disrespectful to the original creator who (usually) wanted it that way.

and move with the sensibilities and entertainment preferences of the time in order to stay relevant.

Nope. That makes no sense. If a franchise is no longer "good enough", then simply make a new one that is. There are millions and millions of old entertainment ideas that are long gone and forgotten about.

Case in point, I too, was extremely leery of the Battlestar reimagining when I first heard about it and saw the initial marketing material. My impression was very much the same as your summation earlier in this thread, and I chose to avoid it. It took a couple of years of intelligent and discerning friends whose opinion I respected telling me I really needed to give it a fair go before I begrudgingly tried it again. Boy, was I missing out. While I respect that your tastes may differ, I found it to be among the most insightful, engaging and compelling sci fi space opera I had ever seen, and one of the few genre shows my wife not only tolerates, but loves to watch with me. I guess the summation of my point is 'don't judge a book by its cover'.

But that misses the point. The new version is so different that it's not really "Battlestar Galactica" at all, so why use the old version's name?? The new version would have been just as "good" or "bad" as a show in it's own right if they had given it a new name of "Warship Gigantica" or whatever, and it wouldn't have had the baggage and expectations associated with Glen Larsen's real version ... someone like you would probably have watched it the first time, for example.

Nope, "reboots" / "remakes" / "reimaginings" that re-use the original name are simply plain idiocy from every conceivable angle of common sense.

[Buzz Bumble]

The supermarket thinks bananas are no longer selling "well enough", so they decide to "reboot" them. They make a new item that is round like an orange, and tastes like a lemon, and has a stone like a peach ... but it's still a fruit and yellow, so they they still call it a "banana". That would be completely ludicrous! And yet it's exactly what Hollyweird does, and most people blindly believe it's still a "banana".

In reality what the supermarket does is simply stop selling bananas and make / find the new fruit with a new name, "Lemange", to sell instead. That's what any intelligent company would do. Anything else defies all common sense, logic, and intelligence. It also makes naming things rather pointless.

It's exactly why Chocoade biscuits stopped being sold, until someone got a petition to have them brought back ... and brought back the SAME as before! Yes, Griffins might decide to add to that by making Chocoberry biscuits, basically the same but with strawberry instead of orange ... and guess what ... a new name!

It's also the exact same reason many people complained when Cadbury changed they're chocolate formula.

Unfortauntely there seems to be a near-complete lack of common sense and intelligence (as well as apparently creative ability) in Hollyweird these days.

Even the rather silly excuse of studio management being too scared to try something new and sticking to something they know doesn't make any sense ... what they make *IS* something new.

As above, the whole "reboot" / "reimagine" / "remake" fad is completely and utterly senseless from every conceivable angle of logic and intelligence.

[oota goota]

But that misses the point. The new version is so different that it's not really "Battlestar Galactica" at all, so why use the old version's name?? The new version would have been just as "good" or "bad" as a show in it's own right if they had given it a new name of "Warship Gigantica" or whatever, and it wouldn't have had the baggage and expectations associated with Glen Larsen's real version ... someone like you would probably have watched it the first time, for example.

Nope, "reboots" / "remakes" / "reimaginings" that re-use the original name are simply plain idiocy from every conceivable angle of common sense.

Well to be fair battlestar did more than just use the original name and character names. The use of the original ships and cyclons etc etc was brilliant as it accessed some superb design and aesthetic. It allowed the show to visual establish the ship as being an old out of date hunk of junk and thereby add a whole new dimension to it. A completely new show would struggle to get that much back story and start with such a huge fan base. Firefly is a good example of a great show that didn't go as far as it should for those very reasons

I think you are arguing a point of view rather than common sense or a black and white/ right and wrong situation. Buzz you're going to find that many of the' truths' we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view

[Buzz Bumble]

Ron Moore's re-use of the spaceships was largely due to being lazy and cheap. Those CGI models were actually originally created for a proper continuation version of "Battlestar Galactia" (there was even full scale models built). Unfortunately that version fell over when the guy in charge had to pull out due to other committments. It was only then that Ron Moore was brought in and the whole "reboot" silliness began.

[Andiamo]

Re-imaged Battlestar ranks in my top 10 TV series of the past 10 years. I thought it was pure genius with originality whilst keeping the core story intact. Man vs machine, quest for Earth. Added so much depth, contrast but strangely familiar.