Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

F-U, Reboot-Mania: Express Your Hate Here

Kromm

By Kromm
in Everything Else TV

  • Reply
  • Start Topic

Recommended Posts

CoderLady

CoderLady

Well, fuck me gently with a chainsaw:

 

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/heathers-comedic-anthology-works-at-876093

 

Seriously, why are they pulling my dick? 

 

(For the record, I'm a woman. I have no dick. :P) 

 

I had to check today's date after I read that and no, it isn't April Fools Day. Sheesh. Did somebody compile a long list of currently trending personality traits and generate three characters randomly using all of them, or what?

  • Love 1
  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Ohiopirate02
Ohiopirate02

Reading the description above, the fresh take is the story is not going to be all black trauma all of the time. We need to see black joy as well as the pain.  Middle class and above black families hav

FormerMod-a1
FormerMod-a1

I was going to say Hot In Cleveland.

Posted Images

Kromm

Kromm

  • Author
7 hours ago, nosleepforme said:

You know, something that tickles about reboots?

 

I can understand that the networks bet on brands and name recognition, but at the same time 14-49 is their target group and do they really expect a big segment out of that group to show up for something like a MacGyver reboot based on its name alone?  It's ridiculous.

Well we're an aging population. I think the 18-49 bracket as a demo is a remnant of times gone by that probably will go away eventually.

Also, I wonder if with this specific reboot if they're thinking the awareness of it was chronologically pushed forward a bit by the MacGruber parody (which ran around 2007-2010... so a full 25 years after MacGuyver ended). Which they did a lame failed movie version of in 2010, but I'm just saying maybe it being in the back of people's minds is all they expect.

And sometimes that time gap honestly doesn't matter. Battlestar Galactica, in 2004, relied on a show from 26 years in it's own past. Sometimes all they really expect is that tiny spark of familiarity vs. a real fan migration. 

Kromm

Kromm

  • Author
(edited)

This is my not pleased face.  I'm making it due to the following story and you just can't see it!

http://www.theverge.com/tldr/2016/6/16/11957268/lonelygirl15-sequel-youtube-vlog-web-series

I was a big fan of Lonelygirl15 the first time around. 

Nobody needed it to be brought back. The only reason it really worked in the first place was because it was such an unknown. 

Edited by Kromm
JBC344

JBC344

21 hours ago, Rick Kitchen said:

^^ That's just stupid.

My rant today is that the Mary Poppins reboot is drawing Lin-Manuel Miranda away from "Hamilton".

In all fairness, he was probably on his way out anyway with his contract expiring.  He doesn't make a career out of playing his originating roles.  He seems to originate them, get the production on its feet and move on to one of the other 100 projects he is working on. 

  • Love 2
atomationage

atomationage

(edited)

I don't think Lost In Space will ever be out of my consciousness.   Danger Will Robinson!  I remember watching the show in reruns over and over again.  Reading these posts made me go look for videos about Lost In Space.  For me, it's an iconic show, like Dark Shadows from that same era.  They did a pilot episode for a series reboot in 2004, directed by John Woo?!  There's a David instead of Penny, who is still a baby, and no Dr. Smith so far.  I think it's interesting. This is part one of 5 parts:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAT4tjjzOCk

It's very BSG.

Edited by atomationage
merylinkid

merylinkid

I got to admit I did not like the idea of an all female ghostbusters.   I was like "WHY?"   Really.   Who cares if the ghostbusters are men or women.   It's a freaking movie about dealing with ghosts.

Then, I saw the pictures of little girls meeting the stars at the premier.   Those little girls' faces changed my mind.   They were all "look, there's a female, just like me running around on the screen doing these things.   Maybe I can do it too."   Yeah, I finally got it.   If you don't see it, you don't believe it's possible.   

  • Love 4
merylinkid

merylinkid

2 hours ago, ganesh said:

That makes sense to me, but it still doesn't address why not just make an original funny action movie with these actors instead of just copying an old movie? You achieve the same result. 

That's what I was trying to say.   Why not have a bunch of smart, funny women doing smart funny things in a movie.   Instead of remaking a movei that had men in the lead with women in the lead?

Kromm

Kromm

  • Author

I will admit--I actually like what I'm seeing of The Rocky Horror redo.

I think it may fall into the very rare group of remakes that I have few hesitations about.

First, it's just a one-off (then again so was the original). Second, I can see the idea of it being a rare production that might benefit from seeing contemporary faces in it. Laverne Cox in that role makes a very different, and yet currently relevant, point to contemporary viewers. In fact the whole cast is integrated--Victoria Justice is half-Puerto Rican. Christina Milian is Cuban. Adam Lambert is openly gay. Ben Vereen is of course African-American. It makes sense to produce a version of this that looks and sounds like people around the viewers.

I'll consider this more akin to doing a new production of a play rather than a TV reboot/remake/re-whatever.  I mean that in fact actually IS what Rocky Horror was before it became a movie--a West End play (and it was even briefly on Broadway--both of those already starring in fact Tim Curry, Meat Loaf, and Richard O'Brien--before the movie came out). 

BW Manilowe

BW Manilowe

Steven Bochco is in talks to make an L.A. Law reboot with Fox, the studio which owns the original version of the series.

http://variety.com/2016/tv/news/steven-bochco-l-a-law-reboot-1201827966/

Also, on the heels of the death of Garry Marshall, the multi-hyphenate who brought it to the big screen, starring Bette Midler & Barbara Hershey, there comes word that Lifetime is producing a new version of Beaches.

Tony-winning actress/singer Idina Menzel (Wicked; she's also known for singing Let It Go, the song  from Disney's Frozen, & as the ex-wife of Murder in the First star Taye Diggs) will star in the part played by Bette Midler in the Garry Marshall film version. No word yet on who'll play the Barbara Hershey role. But this link says production starts in 2 weeks.

http://deadline.com/2016/07/beaches-remake-idina-menzel-star-lifetime-1201793989/

Guest

Guest

So I find myself needing to have a broader discussion of reboots because I think reboot mania is even more insidious than I realized.

Rob Thomas (VM, iZombie) is developing a new vampire show for the CW.  Its an anthology series that would start in 1967 San Francisco Summer of love and be planned out for 7 seasons with each season equaling  decade to explore the what immortality really means.

So how is it that they've got Rob Thomas and an original concept and vampires and it has to be a The Lost Boys remake.  Why is that necessary?

I liked that movie.  I have fond but vague memories of it that mostly include that killing the sire reverts everyone he turned to normal, the Corey's were in it, and Kiefer Sutherland and Jason Patric were in it a few years before the whole Julia Roberts calling off the wedding thing happened (Roberts went overseas with Patric the day the wedding was supposed to happen after calling it off with Sutherland days earlier).

I really have no interest in knowing that particular group of vampires origin story, but I like the idea of the show.  I presume they'll change it up enough so the whole cast doesn't die in season 3.  But why couldn't they scrap the Lost Boys part when Thomas came up with a better idea that wasn't reliant on a Lost Boys tie -in.

Must everything on TV be a remake or an adaptation?  Do they need the built in name recognition / nostalgia to survive?  Is there a simple economic reason like the studio makes more money with a remake of their properties than with an original idea?

I thought maybe it was because this started as a remake before Thomas came in with a better idea and it was too hard to cut out the people with the original remake pitch.   But then I was thinking about when the last time I saw a drama that wasn't an adaptation or remake of a comic, book, movie or other TV show and I'm grasping.

merylinkid

merylinkid

Going to back to the vampires - they got Rob Thomas, what more do they need?    A 90s movie tie-in that the target audience is too young to remember?   Honestly just the height of "everything must be a remake."   I hope it's the pitch was for a remake and they got too far in to change it is the reason rather than forcing Rob Thomas to call his idea a "remake/reboot."  

Anela

Anela

On 8/24/2016 at 9:12 PM, ParadoxLost said:

 

I thought maybe it was because this started as a remake before Thomas came in with a better idea and it was too hard to cut out the people with the original remake pitch.   But then I was thinking about when the last time I saw a drama that wasn't an adaptation or remake of a comic, book, movie or other TV show and I'm grasping.

I prefer the idea of seeing them move through the different decades, than a reboot of The Lost Boys (which I loved). 

Kromm

Kromm

  • Author
On 8/24/2016 at 9:12 PM, ParadoxLost said:

Rob Thomas (VM, iZombie) is developing a new vampire show for the CW.  Its an anthology series that would start in 1967 San Francisco Summer of love and be planned out for 7 seasons with each season equaling  decade to explore the what immortality really means.

Okay, I only JUST read the last part of this. Lets do the math...

S1: 60s S2: 70s S3: 80s S4: 90s S5: 00s S6: 10s S7: 20s

Damnit if that doesn't work out. I kept thinking knee-jerk "are they going to wind up doing the future" and... nope they won't.

As for The Lost Boys aspect?  I have no real attachment to it, so no investment in it to be betrayed. But Film-to-TV sometimes seems to work out better than some reboots, because they can wind up being expansions/better developed (for example, The Sarah Connor Chronicles is one of those I clearly think worked, at least creatively if not ratingswise). 

Minneapple

Minneapple

(edited)

Aha, so this is how you go about pitching a show in Hollywood these days! Just take an old great work, set it in modern times and add "as a police procedural" to it. Also move it to the US so you don't have to deal with pesky foreigners. Bam, you have Joel Silver and Lionsgate producing and giving you money.

Edited by Minneapple
  • Love 2
Kromm

Kromm

  • Author
(edited)

So I saw the BBC one-off reboots.  Well two of the four at least.  I won't clog this with spoiler tags, but be warned it's at least reasonably spoilery, even if I am doing very basic sketches of both shows and not going into TOO much detail.

"Are You Being Served" was both horrible and great all at once. But really that was the way the original was. Horribly cheesy. Horribly lowbrow. But at the same time so un-self-conscious about those aspects, that it somehow entertained more often than not. Not just a guilty pleasure but a VERY guilty pleasure, because it's mega embarrassing to admit you laughed at "My Pussy" jokes and about how super-effeminate Mr. Humphries was . 

The one-off was literally a reboot in the strictest sense. Same characters, new actors. The one exception being an outright replacement of Mr. Lucas with a new character, Mr. Conway, who's the same KIND of  character (the one young "hip" hire in the Men's department), but black instead of white. Also the timeframe is different. The original show seemed to be set concurrent with the airing (in other words, roughly from 1972 to 1985). The reboot is set in 1982, but is clearly meant to represent the same starting point as the 1972 early shows of the original.

The reboot doesn't reinvent much. The one big thing is that Mr. Conway can't help but gasp and laugh at Mrs. Slocumbe's "My Pussy" statements, while none of the others seem to get why it's worthy of those reactions. He also seems to be the only character who sees how ridiculous the "Are You Free?" statements are when someone is clearly not doing anything.  That seems to be one of Conway's roles. To be the 4th wall challenge, but not overtly. 

In summary? If you liked the old one, you'll likely like the new one. Unless you are so bound to the exact voices and faces of the original actors. If so, you'll hate it. You'll also hate it if the original was TOO lowbrow, TOO cheesy for you.

"Goodnight Sweetheart" was an odd show to begin with. A time travel show that was a.) low budget b.) not overly concerned with HOW it worked c.) very much committed to allowing it's main character to be kind of an ass. Actually in a way those are all hallmarks of British shows overall, it was just this concept being a sitcom--and a fairly long running one--that was a bit different.  The premise was basically this: a man in early 90s London (when the show actually aired) stumbles on a time portal to the 1940s war time London. And he starts living a parallel life there (and lying about his long absences since apparently time moves at the same rate in both periods, so if he's "away", time is still passing in the other period). What the show doesn't gloss over (but just accepts) is this man, Gary's essentially selfish nature. He's married in modern England. He quickly becomes attracted to and eventually marries a girl backtime, becoming a bigamist (except of course that the 1940s wife is long dead apparently by the time he's married in the 90s).  At the end of the run of the show after 59 episodes and 6 years on the air, the time portal closes and he remains trapped in the past.

Anyway, the original made a lot of the man out of time/fish out of water thing. The "reboot" in this case is actually a continuation 17 years later. 17 years have passed in the real world (ours), 17 years have passed for Gary in the past (taking him to 1962), and 17 have passed in the show's present time from (also taking it from 1999 to 2016). And a triggering event happens. Gary, a bit maudlin (and yes selfish) about the things he missed from decades later, on a lark decides to go see himself born. He meets his own young father. Later, admiring his newborn self, a nurse hands Baby Gary to Older Gary. And bam. Whatever closed the time portal originally is reversed and opens it back up. 

Again, none of this is particularly detailed or worried about how much sense it makes. Gary goes back to the present, but 17 years have passed, and this is where a not that clever original premise gets surprisingly interesting. Because again Gary is a man out of time, but now the jokes are REVERSED from the original show. Things that were mere hints in 1999 when Gary left are full blown and the show goes out if it's way to illustrate how strange it would be. Gary looks for a telephone box, and finds them easily enough (those fancy red "London" telephone boxes). But they're all retrofitted. One has an ATM inside of it. The next he checks has an emergency defibrillator in it. The third he checks has been re-purposed into a coffee cart/barista station. This is typical of the things he encounters and the jokes made, and they actually pretty much work. He goes into a cell phone store for example and there's a whole bunch of comedy over what cell phones are like now.  He sees everyone walking by plugged in and inwardly focused, riding on hoverboard scooters, etc. and the likes. Some of it is overplayed (like a girl he sees later on in fashionably ripped jeans, like that wasn't already a thing by 1999--and really was since the EARLY 90s). 

Anyway, there's a lot more, but I won't spoil the actual plot details of what happens to him in the present (other than the broad strokes of what kinds of jokes occurred, as I have above). The part in the past is really all setup and I don't think it's spoiling too much to reveal he winds up in the present, because it's obvious from moment 1 of the show.  

It was interesting enough that apparently there's already a twitter campaign to try and bring this form of the show back as a real new series and not just as this one-off. 

The two other "reboots" are "Young Hyacinth" a one-off prequel of the notorious "Keeping Up Appearances" and "Porridge", which is a show I never saw the previous incarnation of. I may watch Young Hyacinth at some future point, although I was never a big fan of Keeping Up Appearances. 

Edited by Kromm
  • Love 2
Minneapple

Minneapple

12 hours ago, nosleepforme said:

Should we wait for the sexy new police procedural take on Anne Frank to have an intervention for Hollywood and heal them from their cocaine addiction or should we start helping out now?

Anne Frank runs a boarding house with her family. No check that. She runs the Frank Hotel. And maybe some weird things happen at the hotel and she investigates them. And she's sexy. Where's my money, Joel Silver?

  • Love 2
merylinkid

merylinkid

Oliver Twist could work as a police procedural.   But why does it have to have a female lead?  There was ONE female in the book and she was murdered.  Why not make it from the point of a view of a Scotland Yard detective trying to bust Fagin's network of labor trafficked children?   See how easy it is to be modern and faithful to the story?

  • Love 2
atomationage

atomationage

2 minutes ago, merylinkid said:

Not to jinx it, but Joan is still with us.   She could be part of it ala Larry Hagman and the Dallas continuing drama.

That really does sound like jinxing her.  This is 2016.  They're dropping like flies.  I can't imagine a Dynasty reboot, but I did enjoy the first season of the new Dallas.  

  • Love 1
ennui

ennui

On 9/30/2016 at 3:41 PM, legaleagle53 said:

And now there's a Dynasty reboot being planned:  http://tvline.com/2016/09/30/dynasty-reboot-the-cw-hispanic-crystal/

Just a word of warning, producers:  Joan Collins is irreplaceable.

A while back, I heard there was a reboot of The Big Valley being made. I thought "Barbara Stanwyck is irreplaceable," and I guess she was, because nothing ever came of it.

  • Love 2

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...