OT: Another remake, another trashing

LucianG · January 26th, 2003, 08:34 PM

One of my favorite TV shows when I was a kid, long before the time of Battlestar Galactica, was already a rerun. Clayton Moore (and sometimes John Hart) and Jay Silverheels were one of the first buddy couples, the Long Ranger and Tonto. The Lone Ranger was my hero before Starbuck, the man of steel morals like those of another of my heroes, the Man of Steel. He would do nothing that would compromise himself or his duty, even walking away from a lady who would have been his, time after time.

Years ago, there was a remake. I never even wanted to see it, since Mr. Moore was still alive and since he was legally forced by the remake studio to remove his "trademark" mask, since they said it was actually theirs, not his. True enough, but in the process, they made enough enemies in the public that the movie bombed. I watched it a few months ago, and thought that it wasn't as bad as I'd expected; however, it played fast and loose with the legend, cheapening it in ways I won't describe. My reaction on finally seeing it was how glad I was that I didn't actually pay to see it and enrich those studio bums who tried to ruin a good man and cheapen a great literary, radio, and screen hero.

Now, in the present day, just a couple years after Mr. Moore's passing, the folks at the WB are going to "reimagine" the Lone Ranger and may make Clayton Moore turn over in his grave. Current talk is that it is a sexed-up version, with a hunky Ranger, a buff Tonto, and scantily clad females. In something seemingly out of a Ronald D. Moore script, the Lone Ranger even makes out in a hottub with Tonto's sister. The show is set to air in late February (won't bother you with the date since I'm not supporting this debacle), but the good news, if there is any, is that the network brass now realizes that it will be too expensive to make an ongoing series due to the need to build western town sets, etc. It sounds like a one-shot production.

Hopefully, this will go away quietly, and NBC, which is also reportedly interested in a Lone Ranger production, or someone else, will someday do it right.

January 26th, 2003, 09:33 PM

I am sure that the Fonz would put his thumbs down to that if he is still alive.

January 26th, 2003, 09:44 PM

Yeah that movie sucked.

The Blue Mule · January 27th, 2003, 02:39 AM

Hey LucianG,

I saw a photo of the new "actors",the two looked like they fell off a GQ cover, all I can say is TV is a sad, sad place.

Rich

dah66 · January 27th, 2003, 05:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Blue Mule
Hey LucianG,

I saw a photo of the new "actors",the two looked like they fell off a GQ cover, all I can say is TV is a sad, sad place.

Rich

I saw that photo. The Lone Ranger had long blonde hair and at first glance, I thought I was looking at a girl. Guess they are going for "The Lone Androgynous Ranger" look. I'll pass.

Thomas P · January 27th, 2003, 07:58 AM

I thought the main redeeming aspect of the movie was Christopher Lloyd as the psychotically detached villain. Very cool performance.

repcisg · January 27th, 2003, 09:45 AM

What is TV?

Thomas P · January 27th, 2003, 09:51 AM

A medium, neither rare or well-done.

Hito · January 27th, 2003, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Blue Mule
Hey LucianG,

I saw a photo of the new "actors",the two looked like they fell off a GQ cover, all I can say is TV is a sad, sad place.

Rich

Just because they look pretty they dont have skills?
Outside of a sitcom you wont find an actor or actress on television today who DOSENT look like they fell off the cover of GQ or VanityFare.

I am not too sure about Chad Murray But Nathaniel Arcand is a competant actor and should make a pretty good Tonto.

Lone ranger is one of those shows that is in desperate need of an overhaul.
If nothing more than to introduce a more accurate portrial of the cultural landscape of the american old west.

I cant wait to see if Tonto is going to speak in broken english.

Thomas P · January 27th, 2003, 10:08 AM

Well, we went through our period in American commercial cinema back in the 70s when traditional "movie star looks" were passe...but only for a while.

Hito · January 27th, 2003, 10:25 AM

Is that how Charles Bronson got so famous?

Hito · January 27th, 2003, 10:43 AM

We prefer "washed too many times with cheep soap red" thanks :P

Thomas P · January 27th, 2003, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hito
Is that how Charles Bronson got so famous?

Yep. Gave Michael J. Pollard his brief moment in the sun, too.

Hito · January 27th, 2003, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dennis

Yep. Gave Michael J. Pollard his brief moment in the sun, too.

:o

LucianG · February 27th, 2003, 05:49 AM

I forced myself to watch this show, partly out of a sense of nostalgia, and partly out of a sense of wanting to be able to report back to our group since I raised the issue recently. As I said earlier, I was a big fan of the original TV series and still watch it from time to time, but as Hito noted, this show could be reworked for a modern audience. Unfortunately, I don’t think this was it. The story was similar to the original “legend,” but it had its differences too, which was understandable.

The acting ability of the stars was like much of what one sees on the WB, neither particularly good nor extraordinarily bad. Again, like many of the WB’s shows, the cast members were mostly in their younger 20’s with a few exceptions including a couple of the bad guys who were still not much over 40. The only gray hair seen in the entire show was on members of the Apache tribe. Because they were in Texas, these Apaches lived in tepees, which would probably have been historically correct, rather than the traditional Apache wickiup, but the hot tub in the largest tepee the world has ever seen (or maybe it was a medicine lodge?) was completely over the top! Even if one grants that an in-ground tub could have existed, the hot water with JETTED bubbles was just a little too much! Well, maybe a lot too much. There was a pretty sexy scene in the hot tub with Luke and Tonto’s sister Alope that seemed really out of place. It forced me to change the channel for a few moments to protect younger eyes passing by the TV, but it turned out to be just a dream. Still, these are small quibbles.

There were some good points:

The scenery was very pretty. I don’t think it was within two days ride of Dallas as stated, but then again, I haven’t ever visited the area just outside Dallas—Fort Worth, so I could be wrong.

Wes Studi was quite good as the medicine man, Kulakinah. It was refreshing seeing him in a role that was the antithesis of his character Magua from the last of the Mohicans.

Nathaniel Arcand did a decent job as Tonto, though in this incarnation he is also martial arts/mystic-guy taken almost straight out of “Brotherhood of the Wolf.” His ability with English was presented as good, and his speech to his tribe was pretty good, though it obviously came from a Hollywood writer.

Anita Brown was fair on the male eyes, but as another reviewer pointed out, the makeup folks overdid their craft almost to the point of distraction. Then again, it may have been that I was looking for that.

The real issues:

Instead of John Reid, former easterner and now Texas Ranger, we have Luke “Skywalker-looking” Hartman, law student and visitor from the east who just happens to be a dead-on shot. Instead of Butch Cavendish and his gang, we have “Kansas City” Haas and the Regulators. That Luke is at first driven by vengeance over the murder of his brother is understandable, but being first forced to see that revenge was not the answer by his great horse Silver was pretty silly, and could have equally been credited to the stupidity of the horse walking into the line of fire. After beginning to see that revenge was wrong, the Lone Ranger was forced to shoot to kill late in the show. This actually corrected one of the sillier aspects of the original show, never having to use the ultimate force, which was forced on it by the times. Still, the Lone Ranger always valued human life, knowing that it was precious. The silver bullets he used in the books, radio shows, early movies, and TV show, which came from his own silver mine, represented that link to life. Silver bullets, like life, are valuable, and are not to be used lightly. Neither the bullets nor the mine were anywhere to be seen in this movie, and the revelation about the preciousness of life was only discovered at the end. Perhaps, if the WB goes forward with this as a series, which it has reportedly decided against, this will be introduced later.

Finally, this TV movie began without the William Tell Overture, which was a bad sign, and ended with a quick-time rock version that sounded as if it was thrown in for as short a time as possible just because everyone was expecting it. In this scene, the galloping horses appeared to have been speeded up as they often did in the original series, though in this case it looked more like they actors and the horses were just trying to get to the end of the movie as fast as they could rather than trying to catch some bad guys.

In summary, as a movie about the Lone Ranger, it was not as bad as I had feared. It had the basic flavor of the Lone Ranger, but it was not the movie that it could have been, and in the end, it left a flat taste on the palate.

My rating: 5/10.

Hito · February 27th, 2003, 09:15 AM

NO!!
i totaly forgot to watch this.
All i remembered was angel wasnt going to be on tonight so i didnt bother turning the tube on.

I hope they replay it this weekend

michaelfaries · February 27th, 2003, 02:11 PM

On the flipside...

Since learning of the "Lone Ranger" remake travesty yesterday via AICN, I thought this was a VERY welcome breath of fresh air. The British sci-fi series "Red Dwarf" may be finally returning -- and appearing on the big screen. IMHO, the production team "gets it" where the original series is involved.

Now, if only "Battlestar Galactica" were so lucky...

Michael

=======

FROM:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/h...lm/2801499.stm

Big screen hope for Red Dwarf

By Darren Waters
BBC News Online entertainment staff

A planned film version of BBC sitcom Red Dwarf is hoping to avoid pitfalls suffered by other adaptations of TV comedy and science fiction.

Producer Charles Armitage told BBC News Online that he was optimistic Red Dwarf would get made, despite the fact it has been in the development stage
for several years.

Movies based on the Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy and Doctor Who have been in the pipeline for at least 10 years but have yet to reach the big screen.

The comedy series has a loyal, cult following with DVD and video sales of the programme topping 400,000 copies.

"We are in that twilight world of pre, pre-production," said Mr Armitage, of Noel Gay films.

Fan base

"We are looking at co-production possibilities and the director will be going out soon to look at locations."

The stars of the original TV series, including Craig Charles and Robert Llewelyn, are expected to return in the film version.

Mr Armitage said there was a big enough fan base for Red Dwarf to support a film version.

"If you put Red Dwarf into Google search engine you will find about 50,000 fan sites.

"Fifty percent of those are in the States, where the PBS channel has done a very good job of promoting the programme."

But he is not put off by problems that hit Doctor Who or Hitch-hikers. Reports of film versions of the two cult classics have been in circulation for many
years.

Doctor Who is still a project under consideration for development by BBC Films but the classic series is no closer to being turned into a movie.

Mr Armitage said: "There is quite a big difference between Dr Who and Red Dwarf.

'Getting older'

"Dr Who has a loyal fan base which has been around for a long time.

"The fans of Dr Who, and I might be wrong here, seem to me to be getting older.

"We are bringing a new generation of fans to Red Dwarf."

The film will be written and directed by Doug Naylor, one of the co-creators of the original series.

Mr Armitage said: "Doug Naylor has written it in a way that it is totally accessible to everyone.

"People who have never seen a Red Dwarf episode before will be able to follow it.

"But there will be enough in there to please die-hard fans also."

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/h...lm/2801499.stm

Published: 2003/02/26 16:42:54

AlternityOrange · February 27th, 2003, 02:41 PM

The Red Dwarf movie has been in 'pre-production' for so long it's a source of amusement for the show's hard core fans, a group of which I am definitely a member. I'd guess Doug Naylor has been saying "it'll shoot early next year" for at least five years. The official site has been displaying pre-production art work for a couple of years. I have no doubt it'll get made eventually but I won't believe it until I'm actually sitting in a theater watching it.

The sad part is, BBC was more than willing to partially finance more TV episodes of Red Dwarf, but Naylor's been holding off to do this movie... eventually.

The other ironic thing considering the title of the thread is that the Red Dwarf movie, if it's still the same script, will be a remake. It will have the original actors but it will tell the story over again from the beginning. However, since the Red Dwarf series has often relied on parallel universe stories featuring multiple versions of the characters it isn't that bad. Red Dwarf might be one of the few TV shows that could be a remake without invalidating the existing canon.

LucianG · February 28th, 2003, 08:28 PM

It's great to see that some companies "get it" when it comes to what the fans want. Though I'm not familiar with Red Dwarf, I hope it's well done for the fans. If only the folks in charge at SciFi/StudiosUSA/Universal/whatever would learn from the experiences of others and from their own mistakes. When I say I want a continuation, that means of the original series, not a remake that destroys all that came before. In the case of this Lone Ranger, starting over is understandable, but I hope someone will start all over again in a few years, learn from the mistakes of this show and the 1981 movie, and finally do it right!

LucianG · February 28th, 2003, 08:37 PM

I forgot to add one more thing.

So far, the user comments at imdb.com have been primarily fair to very negative, with one or two really positive exceptions. The complaints about the youth of the primary actors is really dogging the show. I'm thinking about sending the links to SciFi so they can consider that in their casting of the BG mini-series. When the characters are too young to be believable, there is a problem. Of course, SciFi could get around this by HIRING DIRK, RICHARD, AND ANNE TO PROTRAY THEIR ORIGINAL ROLES IN A CONTINUATION!