(no subject)

[shadowkat]

Posting during lunch break - too cold to walk, and foot's been bugging me off and on, so giving it a rest - since I need to walk about 20 minutes to get to the ferry tomorrow. Going to the Poconos again for Thanksgiving, or rather slightly south east of the Poconos. Visiting the Aunts. So will be thankfully offline and away from the internet for the duration - should you miss me, that is. Considering I've been in a right funky posting mood of late, I somehow doubt it. Work, life, the universe and everything...won't bore with details.

Read all about the reboots/sequels/remakes of movies and tv shows in the paper and online this week. To date:

Tron 2 - The Legacy. Can't imagine many people will see this sequel to the 1980s cult hit. At least I think it was 1980s. Interestingly enough - I saw it and enjoyed it at the time. (Sci-fi geek - I've pretty much seen all the sci-fi movies that weren't gross and gory and monster flicks. ie. the cult ones.)

The Tourist - a remake of the critically acclaimed but poorly received French film Arthur Zimmerman (I think - can't remember the title exactly.)

Let Me In (it's still out there somewhere) - a remake of the Swedish film, Let the Right One In.

The Buffy Reboot by Whit Anderson - which everyone who is still a big fan of Buffy and follows these things and is on my flist or associated with it, has commented on. Including every entertainment news feed out there, and everyone peripherially involved who could possibly have an opinon on it. Whedon's was hilarious - although 85% of the people who read it took it seriously. Proof that self-deprecating snark really does go over people's heads. Particularly when it has a grain of truth inside it. (Which if you aren't careful makes you sound more whiny than snarky. Whedon, in my opinion, was treading a very fine line between the two. That's the problem with off-the-cuff remarks - which I'm guessing his was, it can get misinterpreted. And unlike me, he can't just delete or retract it. Fame? Not all it's cracked up to be.)

I don't get the whole urge to remake, reboot crap. Sequels? Sure. But why re-do it? Is it this urge to make your own mark on it? To show people how you view the thing? Lots of things have been rebooted and remade of late: La Femme Nikita has been remade and rebooted at least four times (Alias, Nikita, Dollhouse, Covert Affairs.) X-Files? Seen lots and lots of versions of this one. They used to remake Hithcock films - I know, Why???? Do you really want to be compared to Hitchock? Shakespeare - I get, he's been dead over 200 years, and well was theater, people redo plays all the bloody time. But film is harder - because we get to look at the original for comparison.

Back to work.

Comments

[frenchani.livejournal.com]

I guess that remake/reboot can be either a sign of laziness and lack of original ideas or a true challenge. But it's rarely the latter in my opinion.

And there's also the business angle. For some reason people behind reboots think they can surf on a previous success and make a lot of money without effort.

Yet I'd say that remaking a masterpiece or even a very good work is the worst idea ever. Remaking something that wasn't very good but had potential on the other hand...

BSG is a wonderful remake but it's based on a poor tv show. I enjoyed it as a kid, but it was anything but deep and smart, and it was so kitsch! In that case the reboot was alchemy. They turned lead into gold. It takes great sorcerers to do that.

Perhaps they should try to remake Space 1999 !

[embers-log.livejournal.com]

I'm pretty sure the reboot has to do with the people who bought the original script Joss wrote at age 19, which they made the inferior movie from, would find that their copyright will end if they don't do something new with it... so they sold it to Warner Bros.

I think WB thinks they can churn out a fast cheap film to cash in on the vampire (Twilight, True Blood, etc) craze... but of course we all know that 20th Century Fox will be crawling over the screen play to insure that nothing THEY own the copyright to (all the characters who are not Buffy who were in the TV show) are not used or referred to in any way shape or form. I'm pretty sure that WB doesn't want to have to end up paying any part of their movie grosses (assuming this turkey actually gets made) to Fox.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

So Fox owns the TV series rights, and the Kuzie/Dolly Parton group owns the original movie rights or the script Whedon wrote at 19 while he was on Roseanne? I think he was older than 19, actually. Because he was 32 when Buffy the TV series got made. And there wasn't ten years between the two. More like five, if that.
(I swear I saw the Buffy movie in the mid-1990s (in Lawrence, KS), and I was in my late 20s, and Whedon is three - five years older than me. )

I'm guessing it's not a remake but a reboot. That means - they are just using the idea of Buffy as a vampire slayer and a watcher, and just making it happen later. Dumping everything else.

would find that their copyright will end if they don't do something new with it... so they sold it to Warner Bros.

I think you are confusing trademark law with copyright law. Copyright doesn't end if you don't do anything with it. It will continue past death. You own it - you own it until you sell it.
Unless there's a clause in the contract stating otherwise...but we have no way of knowing that. (That stuff is kept confidential). Trademarks on the other hand - you have to keep using as your brand name or it will end. Same with domain names (internet urls are domain names).

So, no, they didn't have to do it for that reason. No, I think they did it to make money.

I think WB thinks they can churn out a fast cheap film to cash in on the vampire (Twilight, True Blood, etc) craze...

Yep. I completely agree. I swear the vampire genre has been done to death now. There's nothing new that can be said about it. It's rapidly moving towards cliche.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I agree. Although from what I read I think this is supposed to be a reboot. Which is slightly different. They appear to be doing a much older and darker Buffy - I'm guessing more sex? Or more violence? And without the Scoobies or the Vampires (darla, dru, Angel, and Spike) who actually made the story interesting and were the only characters I'm interested in seeing more about. We'll probably get Giles...in some form or other (but I'm going to have troubles with anyone but Head in that role, having already seen Sutherland camp it up...I know whereof I speak - also the only reason I tried the series was Head (I was into Head at that time and the Buffy movie truly sucked, although not nearly as bad the novelization.). A remake - would be in high school and have the Scoobies. So definitely a "reboot".

From what I read, which isn't much, it sounds as if they are trying to attract the people who didn't like the original or thought it was for teenagers. Which may mean the whole watcher bit will be quite different - she could be romantically involved.

They are wise to keep the details under wraps.

And there's also the business angle. For some reason people behind reboots think they can surf on a previous success and make a lot of money without effort.

I agree. It feels lazy to me. And uncreative. I can't come up with my own idea, so I'll steal option someone else's.

BSG which is actually a reboot not a remake - in that they didn't use the same script and changed it completely - is a good example of it done well. (Although the original fans hate it. Fans and by fans - I mean hard-core, passionate, obsessed fans - tend to hate reboots). An example of a remake is Gus Van Sant's Psycho and Let Me In (remade from the original Let the Right One In - which I skipped for much the same reasons I skipped the remake of The Vanishing, when the original is amazing why wast money on a remake?)

Yet I'd say that remaking a masterpiece or even a very good work is the worst idea ever. Remaking something that wasn't very good but had potential on the other hand...

Agreed. Even Star Trek reboot worked, because let's face it the original was pretty campy. Also there was about 40 years in between...and they honored the original. So...if the Buffy reboot honored the original that might work. But, you are right - this is hard to do with something done well, with a fanbase that loved it and owns the DVD's. There's a chance you can get
new viewers....

Perhaps they should try to remake Space 1999 !

Now that's a much better idea. Why don't they do that? Maybe I'll write a script and send it to WB.

Sigh. My problem with the Buffy reboot is they are obviously riding the Twilight bit. I don't know about you? But I'm tired of vampires. It's been done to death now. We passed the market saturation point two years ago. It's no longer a trend, it's a cliche. Bring on zombies or werewolves or something else. As much as I enjoy Trueblood and Vampire Diaries...I'm starting to feel like I've seen it all before.

Maybe the George RR Martin series on HBO will bring something fresh to the mix?