Do they learn from History?

[Dean Martin]

If I was to sit down and be given charge to remake a classic movie, TV show, or film I would look at history as I am now.
Remakes and sequels have been tried.

Look at the Star Wars series. The sequels were great. The prequels, not so great.
Now let's look at some classic remakes.
Lost In Space
The Time Machine
Planet of the Apes
Psycho
Out of Towners
Miracle on 34th street
It's a Wonderful life (with a woman in the lead role this time)
These remakes will be forgotten and their originals remebered. Why?

Now some good remakes:
The Fly
The Thing
Invasion of the Body snatchers

If you are going to remake something at least look at where others have failed and while the original movies WON OVER their fan base.

Now if you really want to look deep, look at all the TV shows that have been attempted to turn into movies:
Shaft
Beverly Hillbillies
For example. Most of the TV shpws turned into movies were terrible mainly because they did not have the original cast.
Now look at Star Trek. It endured because it had the main characters, continued where the series left off (with a time gap) and RESPECTED it's fan base.
Ron Moore may just as well pissed on the fans.

[dec5]

And they never will...

Take Universal....it has a history making dumb decisons when it comes dealing to with popular shows and their former stars.



Rockford Files.......messed up with James Garner's royalty payments for reruns.


Battlestar Galactica.....totally snubs Richard Hatch even though he is basically the voice of the fans...And now nobody is happy....


Magnum PI....after years of begging by Tom Selleck to revive Magnum as a movie.....they give it to "ewwww" George"I killed the Batman franchise" Clooney to play Magnum.... Big mistake IMO......


BTW these shows are all Glen Larson creations...hee hee.

[Bijou88]

I think the big problem with remakes is that the people who make them often do not understand what made the original series great in the first place. They think that they have to update it to reach a modern audience. They turn their backs on the source material and then pay the price by alienating fans and general audiences. The list of remakes that were disappointing to fans and the studios is long. Here is a quick list:

The Wild, Wild West (Will Smith)
Planet of the Apes (Tim Burton)
Godzilla (Emmerich)
Lost In Space
The Avengers (Uma Thurmond)
The Lone Ranger TV movie
I Spy
Doctor Who TV movie
The Invaders TV movie

On the other hand, shows that were faithful to the source material did well:

Spiderman
Batman
Superman
The Lord of the Rings
Harry Potter
Dune Mini-series
James Bond movies
The Mask of Zorro
The Star Trek Films
The Star Wars prequels (they were successful and they fit into continuity if you squint)

I hope that the studios will notice this trend, stop trying to reinvent the wheel and give fans what they want.

[Trevor Angelus]

Hold on there! Spider-man was in NO way faithful to the source material.

In the comic Peter Parker was a deep complex, individual. He WAS your average depressed teenager, as he was portrayed throught the entirety of the film. But upon receiving his "Spidey" powers, he gained a little confidence in himself and instead of letting bullies like Flash Thompson just pick on him, he became a smartass! As Spider-Man he was happy go lucky on the outside and ONLY in dark situations did he have his moments of self doubt.

In the film even after he gets his powers he is depressed and his chances at being the "friendly neighborhood Spiderman" fall flat on their face.

Mary Jane did have an abusive father, but he left her as a child, she was raised by Ana Watson. She and Aunt May always conspired to get the 2 together, but Peter, not knowing her personaly, always avoided the matchmaking affair. They missed a wonderful cinematic opportunity by NOT doing what the comic did and intoduced her at the end of the film.

Mary Jane was not a kind hearted pretty girl as seen in the film, but a pretty cold hearted, self centered b**ch! She didn't change until Gwen Stacy died.

Another mistake was replacing Gwen with MJ. The character that Dunst played was in essence and certain situations, was Gwen Stacy.

Gwen had one of the most tragic stories in Marvel history and Raimi steped on it.

In fact his "reimagining " of Spidey was not unlike Ron Moore's

The ONLY redeeming quality was Wilem DaFoe's over the top performance as the Green Goblin.

There are NO similarities between this and the source material except in name.Like BSG

And trust me, I'm colonial Fleet's personal Marvel Dictionary!
Just read my rant on the Hulk, by the way I did like!

[Starbuck]

What about X-Men? I thought Bryan Singer and Tom DeSanto did a great job in trying to remain faithful to the source material. :choco:

[Trevor Angelus]

Yes they did. They stayed true to the characters and as close as they could to the story. I only had 2 complaints, Killing off Kelly, and Magneto willing to sacrifice a mutant for his cause which is something he would never do in the comics.

[David Kerin]

Magnum is going to be played by George Clooney?

When the hell did this happen?

What the hell are they thinking?

[Trevor Angelus]

What is really irritating is fans were promised by the cast and producers that the series would continue in films. They kept pushing the 1st film back and eventually ended up in development purgatory. Its a real slap in the face to the fans who grew up with the series.

Another one is Ashton Kutcher Paul Walker and Brittany Spears as the Dukes in the upcomming Dukes of Hazzard film.

OH I was ANGRY!!!! They might as well cast Judy Dench as Uncle Jesse!

[Dean Martin]

You are comparing Spiderman to the original source material. Superhero stories are quite different from something like BSG. With Spiderman there have been several evolutions to his character including his relationship with MJ. Superman was the same way with the Crystal origins.
If the Hulk followed the source he would be grey. But the BASIC elements of those characters are still there.
With BSG we have changes to the origin and look of the adversaries.
We have gender changes to two main characters.
We have changes to the dynamics of the relationship of those in the Adama Family.
Movies will always be different than they were in print and comic books are no different. At the end of Jaws, the Hooper character died in the book but in the movie it played better with 2 survivors.
In the Ron Moore remake we would have Hooper as a woman, Quint as a cyborg that looked human and the shark looked like a frog and it was orignally created by Hooper & Cheif Brody.
The Spiderman legend is still the same. Man likes girl, gets bit by radioactive spider (Or genetically enhanced right?) has the powers of a Spider and starts crimefighting directly because of his Uncle's death.

[Trevor Angelus]

No the legend is NOT ANY WHERE close to being the same. Peter didn't go to school with MJ, he didn't know who she was so the boy likes girl is out. There was no radioactive spider, but genetically enhanced FAMILY of spiders that did NOT die after being bit leaving a BIG hole in the story.

The Spiderman we know and love was a happy go lucky smart ass, not a depressed teen who gives you the impression he's about to commit suicide. Yes he had his moments and his smart ass attitude is mask, but they barely touched on the smartass in the film, and when they did it wasn't funny and fell flat. You need someone like Topher Grace or Nicholas Brendan's humor.

And you said something about the character dynamics being changed? How about Peter and Harry's friendship? Harry would NEVER have done that to Peter. He was his best friend and was NOT a spoiled brat, poor little rich boy that he was in the film.

Also Peter would never have gone off on his uncle the way he did in the film because before he got his powers, Ben was his best friend and that was repeated in the comics over and over.

And his death only taught him to use his powers with responsibility, not crimefighting. He became a crimefighter by accident. He was just using his powers to take pictures of the Vulture and that was how he was drawn into crime fighting.

There was no good character development no good storytelling as there was in the comic and the 95 Animated series, it was CGI and action, that was it. Thing was they could have done it but they didn't.

And Raimi did turn the Goblin into a cyborg looking thing.

And we are supposed to beleive that Peter could make THAT costume himself?

My biggest gripe was that not only was he not true to the story but he wasn't true to the characters at all!

Just like Moore!

[oldwardaggit]

Another remake flop.

Mod Squad

Remake TV
Fantacy Island , the love boat

OWD

[Dean Martin]

I still think you are arguing reworking details of a comic book super hero that has several evolutions over the years from a comic, to a TV show and back to a movie.
I would agree that there are some details to be concerned about but they are not at the level that BSG is at.

Let's compare Planet of the Apes. That remake at least had the courtesy to not use ANY original characters from the movie and at least did a re-imaging only leaving the original shell. This new remake of BSG TRIES to use the same character and changes gender and the geneology.
In a few years you may get another Spiderman. How many BSg's will they do?
I'm not discounting your concerns with Spiderman I just think it is worse what they are doing to BSG.

[Bijou88]

Trevor, it is clear that you are a Spider Man fan who knows the mythos of old web head inside and out. I respect that. But just imagine how horribly wrong things could have been. They could have changed the costume. (We are paying Toby McGuire all this money to star in the movie and you want him to wear a mask?!) They could have monkeyed around with Spidey's origin. ( Super powers from a spider bite isn't believable. How about if Parker shoots webs after he has sex with an alien spider queen?) They could have made the movie tongue in cheek. (Lets get that guy who shot Batman and Robin. He knows how to shoot this super hero stuff.) They could have written out Aunt May and Uncle Ben. ( Kids don't care about old people. Lets have Parker live with super models instead.)

I think on the whole, Sam Raimi got more things right than he did wrong. I think he sincerly wanted to please the fans. The costume was accurate. The powers were the same (I know about the web slingers as opposed to the wrist gland. I think Stan Lee would have gone this route had he thought of it in 1963.) The characters where all there. (Could anyone be a better J. Jonah Jameson?)

While I understand that many of the fine details may have been wrong, the big picture was right. Remember that Sam Raimi had to incorporate 40 years of Spider Man continuity into 2 hours. Would the movie have been better if Peter Parker was dating Liz Allen rather than Mary Jane Watson? I don't think so. I understand your point that there were changes made but I think they did not take away from the final product.

Ron Moore on the other hand, has gone out of his way to make changes for the sake of change. He gets a tickle when he does something to dissappoint and upset the fans of the original show. His Battlestar Galactica has nothing to do with the original series except some character names, one plot point and a few design elements. In reality, he could care less about Battlestar Galactica. This was just an opportunity to create his own science fiction universe. Imagine the horror if he got his mitts on Spider Man!

[Dean Martin]

Imagine the horror if he got his mitts on Spider Man!
Could you imagine?


I sure could,,,,
Mary Jane is a Man.
Parker works in a lab and HE creates Goblin
Parker also becomes a porno photographer.
Shooting webs costs too much so in this movie he can hurl rocks really fast.
Uncle Ben is now just a guy that Peter works with, ALSO in porn.
Aunt May is now his uncle.
The goblin's spine glows green.

[Proximo]

Would the goblin have crazy stupid sex with Doc Oc?

[Domiano]

The only reason you would remake a series to begin with is to update it with better special effects and more thought-provoking ideas. This new version does neither. Ream makes suck...all of them. Because in the end we are going to yearn for the original and forget the remake. The Fly was good and The Thing was creepy. Anyone remember the remake of Logan's Run, it was a TV series 1977-1978 with Gregory Harrison? As much as I know I am going to dislike the new mini I am going to watch it so I can appreciate the original more.....despite Moore.:eek:

[Dean Martin]

***Ream makes suck...all of them.****

Are you then saying the Fly and the Thing are good remakes because they were, especially the Thing, which was remade from the 1950's version.
There have been some good remakes, several of which are listed in this thread.

[Domiano]

I should rephrase my comment." All remakes suck". I guess there are exceptions, like the ones mentioned in this thread. When people do remakes they should remain true to the source as possible and not redo it in their own way. Moore is doing what he feels is right and we dislike him for that. I am sure there are some of us that have written BSG stories and imagined our own vision. Is Moore solely to blame for all of this? The actors? No, I do not think we can blame Katee Sackoff or Eddie James for this. Both of them are entitled to their opinions ,as we are to ours. Hate is an empty emotion but can fill volumes. I do not blame people for their mistakes but I do excpect them to pay for them. By people signing on to this Mini-Series knowing that it is totally absurd they made a mistake and are know starting to pay for it. How? Well, for one...no of us will let them forget the original BSG.

Battlestar Galactica will rise again, as someone has in their signature, I believe it.

To sum up.

Not all remakes suck. I was wrong to say ALL . I was caught up in the wave of emotion in this thread and let it sweep me away. Dean is right There have been some good remakes. .

[Trevor Angelus]

*The powers were the same (I know about the web slingers as opposed to the wrist gland. I think Stan Lee would have gone this route had he thought of it in 1963*

Actually he thought of something simaliar but decided against it because it would have been too much, so he decided to use Peter's scientific prowess to explain the webs.

*The characters where all there. (Could anyone be a better J. Jonah Jameson?)*

Yes R Lee Ermy. From Full Metal Jacket and Williard. He has the look and the balls too the wall attitude to back it up.

*While I understand that many of the fine details may have been wrong, the big picture was right. Remember that Sam Raimi had to incorporate 40 years of Spider Man continuity into 2 hours. Would the movie have been better if Peter Parker was dating Liz Allen rather than Mary Jane Watson?*

He could have at least taken away the the less important details, and not ENTIRELY change the souls of the characters. I don't care that they left out Liz Allen but they tried to make her into Gwen Stacy, totally dashing all fans hope of seeing the greatest story arc in Spidey history. There was NO attempt to salvage any of the original story. Raimi went the Moore path and *fixed* what he thought was wrong with the story, including characters. Was it as bad as BSG, no, but the same thoughts and motivations were behind it. Also Moore never claimed to be the BIGGEST fan of BSG, Raimi said he was the BIGGEST fan of Spidey. That is why I feel this betrayal is on the same level as Moore's.

My point was it was said Raimi stuck to source material, i was just pointing out the many ways he did not.

*Ron Moore on the other hand, has gone out of his way to make changes for the sake of change. He gets a tickle when he does something to dissappoint and upset the fans of the original show. His Battlestar Galactica has nothing to do with the original series except some character names, one plot point and a few design elements. In reality, he could care less about Battlestar Galactica. This was just an opportunity to create his own science fiction universe. Imagine the horror if he got his mitts on Spider Man!*

Again Moore never claimed to be a big fan of the source material as Raimi claimed. In Raimi's eyes his version is true in every way toi the original. It is obvious that HE also went out of his way to change things up.

I know this was 40 years of continuity, but he only had to take the origin and little of the flashbacks over the years to make his film.

Yes he couldnt fit in every detail, but he could have got the major points of detail correct. IMO he shouldn't have used the Goblin as his first adversary, he should have used Dr. Octopus and laid the ground work for the Osbournes for the next film saying Doc Ock was a ex employee of Osborne. But all of this is moot.

And earlier it was stated that we will see another Spidey? Do you know how long this one was in litigation? The Spidey movie was talked about BEFORE BSG was even aired! The rights were always in question.

I waited just as long for this as I did BSG, you can imagine my dissapointment.

[Bijou88]

In the forward of the magazine for the new mini series, Moore claims he is a fan. Trevor, I understand and sympathize that you were disappointed by the Spidey movie. The point I was trying to make is that a good faith attempt was made to please the fans of Spider Man. He may have failed in the eyes of some fans but at least the attempt was made. In contrast, Moore went out of his way to spit on fans of the original Battlestar Galactica. It gives him a sick thrill to cheese off the fans.

[Dean Martin]

Did Ron Moore have a hand in changing the source material of my thread?
It went from learning from history to a Spiderman thread.

Thanks.

;)

[Bijou88]

Sorry Deano! I guess we did get a bit off of the topic. The bottom line is that being faithful to the source material keeps everyone happy and reimaginings suck.

[Trevor Angelus]

Amen! At least we were keeping with the spirit of the thread.

But as Planet of the Apes goes. I agree they did not even TRY to follow in the originals footsteps, although I do like it as a seperate film, and it shouldn't be Planet of the Apes. I did like it because the other films made you feel guilty for being human and that there was no way we were ever going to improve, it had a very negative effect, and themes. The new one with its MANY faults was not as negative and had a message of hope.

They should have called it Apeworld or something else, it was NOT Planet Of The Apes.

[Proximo]

It was certainly closer to the original book than the Heston film. In the original book, the planet the astronaut lands on wasn't earth, it was just a world where apes ruled. The Heston film changed an awful lot from the source. Makes you think, doesn't it?

[Dark_Man]

The simple answer is NO!!!

I think Richard had learned from it though. At Dragon Con long long ago a good friend of mine told me a rough idea that as far as I knew had come from Richard. The idea being that they pick up were the show left off. Galactica has found earth but earth isn't ready to handle them being there. So Galactica stay there to protect it and the fleet leeks ppl onto earth so they can live get suplys etc. The warriors go back into space to try and biuld up a place to fight the Cylons from to protect earth from a distance. They biuld new fighters new Battle stars etc and go out and take the fight TO the Cylons. Things were mensioned like having Starbuck and Apollo do camio's and leaders like adama. Maybe having pegasus survive and meet up with the NEW arriors looking to kick some Cylon butt etc etc.

Being 100% honest I don't know the final ver of the plot that was made for the Secound Comeing thing. all I know is when my friend told me this idea it got my blood going. I was already ready to see it and it was just a sortof idea. not even real. I mean all new reimagined better faster vipers. A new modern bigger better Battle Star. New better Cylons. NEw young pilots to fight the Cylons. Mixed witht he histoy story and coolness of the first show. Even a few old actors showing up to link the time line back to the first show.

Good lord done right this is a 5+ yrs show wiating to happen. Screw mini series. I'm talking 22-EP's a year for yrs to come.

back then at Dragon I thought Richard Hatch had all this under control. When I saw a yr ago them say BSG was coming to Sci-Fi I thought it was what me and that friend talked about. Maybe not exactly, but something like it. Something true to the first series.

I was SHOCKED and horified to find out what it realy was. So yes some ppl have learned frm history. Problem is that its not the ppl in control...:(

[Dark_Man]

well I just read an article on the CFQ page that talks about what Richard Hatch and Desanto's ver was suposed to be about. It also explains why it never came to be etc. The ver that I haerd was in like 93 or so maybe 94 95. Obviously not what they finaly came up with. I have to say though I liked were they were takeing it. Bringing back the pegasus with Sheba in charge etc etc.

So basicaly what this new mini does it steel Hatch's hard work promoteing the idea of makeing more BSG stuff and lets Moore try out a few new ideas. Wtf ever. These ppl have lost touch with reality. Reality is simple. Fans like it. Fans watch it. Advertisers pay to advertise during it. Fans hate it. No1 watchs it. No1 pays to play it.

So I'm a fan and I hate it. I think plenty of ppl agree with me. why are they forceing this on us? The only conclution I can make is there stupid.

[MILES]

lets hope we can at least get larson to do some great movies and if they do well who knows.....

[Dean Martin]

It was certainly closer to the original book than the Heston film. In the original book, the planet the astronaut lands on wasn't earth, it was just a world where apes ruled. The Heston film changed an awful lot from the source. Makes you think, doesn't it?

As I said, I am more accepting of movies changing from written source material than of a movie remade from another movie. The original book was merely used for the concept of Planet of the Apes. At least they had the brains to change the names and title.
The point is with Apes is that you have a classic movie already ensconced in your mind and then you bring in a so-called re-imaging BUT in the re-imaging you quote 3 Separate lines from the original and make them sound ridiculous. "Take your hands off me you damned dirty human"? Please. And the whole dinner party scene was a steaming pile.

I didn't like the Apes jumping 50 feet in the air. I didn't like the silly and out dated jokes by the slave trader ape. They were corny. The original had a lot to say about the political and contemporary struggles of the time. And the ending of the new movie made absolutely no sense.

But like Galactica I alsways appreciate modern plot twists. I like that the Apes were altered at the genetic level offering a scientific reason for their advancement.

[Trevor Angelus]

How could you NOT get the ending of the new Planet of the Apes?

The 1st hint of what was going on wasthe order of events. First the ape goes into the nebula, then Marky Mark(sorry but he should have never called himself that in the first place so its stuck) then the Ape revolt. but what happened? The ship was alraedy crashed for thousands of years before he reached the planet, then at the end the Ape shows up. The events were reversed. Telling you that he was not sent forward in time as his instruments said, but into the past. That WAS Earth. they changed the course of history. That is why when he went back to the past he was sent to the present. The nebula had an effect on his instruments. That is also why when he came back he found that history had been altered.


Like I said, I liked this movie, but it was not Planet of the Apes.

[Dean Martin]

I got the first part but how in the world was Thade still in the alternate? Tme line and why was history EXACTLY the same except Thade was somehow Abraham Lincoln?
It was silly to me.
I would like to hear your explanation a little more detailed as I haven't heard it that way.
Not only didn't I get the movie but I don't get the explanation. You seem surprised but I'm not the only one that felt confused.

[Dean Martin]

This is what I read about the ending from the producer:

High off of the picture's record-breaking $68.5 million opening, Snyder laughs heartily at the question. "Actually, you're not supposed to be able to (explain it)," he reveals. "If the truth be known, it wasn't really supposed to make sense. It was just supposed to go 'whoa,' make you think. Now is he in another world, did he go back in time, did he get forward in time?"

"The reality is there's no firm answer to that," he advises. "It's whatever you want it to be."

"Everybody keeps looking for (the answer), but you've got to remember you just watched a movie about talking monkeys in outer space," he explains. "Don't look for too much logic, you know." He laughs again.

Maybe the inevitable sequel will clear things up, but Snyder says that one hasn't been given the go ahead just yet. "But I hope somebody's writing it as we speak," he offers. "This looks like a franchise," adding that Burton and the cast are "ecstatic."

[Dean Martin]

I guess it could make sense that Wahlberg traveled backward even though his instruments said forward and after he left they eventually let Thade out and he became their hero and they somehow duplicate Earth from the records on the Oberon computer and that becomes Earth's history instead of Man dominating. I can see it. It explains why Thade would be Lincoln but it is a big leap to go from them not liking him to letting him out and becoming a hero.

[Trevor Angelus]

That was basicly what I was trying to say in my post.

LOVE YOUR AVATAR DEAN!

Well I didn't mean to sound condesnding, in fact NO ONE I knew figured it out until I explained it to them and they were like "Oh Yeah that makes sense."

It is just that most people consider me clueless and yet no one got that ending except me. LOL

I believe the producers when they said the ending wasn't supposed to make sense. Because even if my theory is sound. Why would Thade be Abe Lincoln.