Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
OT: Blake's 7 Remake
15 views
Skip to first unread message
Charles E. Hardwidge
Apr 9, 2013, 8:39:45 AM4/9/13
to
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/9980810/Blakes-7-returns-to-TV-screens.html
<<Cult BBC sci-fi series Blake's 7, dubbed 'The Dirty Dozen in space', is
being re-made by Syfy Channel.>>
Typical UK snobbery is evident in the comments. I like the way some people
poo-poo US television adaptations as if the UK is better. Since first
commenting on this there's been a slew of articles, including comment from
RTD, that admit UK television was leapfrogged by the US and is now a decade
behind. What I don't like about this snobbery is it doesn't just hold
content production back but perpetuates a sneery classism which does a
disservice to everyone.
--
Charles E. Hardwidge
<<Cult BBC sci-fi series Blake's 7, dubbed 'The Dirty Dozen in space', is
being re-made by Syfy Channel.>>
Typical UK snobbery is evident in the comments. I like the way some people
poo-poo US television adaptations as if the UK is better. Since first
commenting on this there's been a slew of articles, including comment from
RTD, that admit UK television was leapfrogged by the US and is now a decade
behind. What I don't like about this snobbery is it doesn't just hold
content production back but perpetuates a sneery classism which does a
disservice to everyone.
--
Charles E. Hardwidge
The Laughing Dalek
Apr 10, 2013, 7:25:25 AM4/10/13
to
accusing people of anti-US snobbery, you want too see top quality TV
you can see it in the UK, watch Luther.
Generally any kind of remake is usually poor whichever direction it
goes, the Edge of Darkness film was pitiful, Red Dwarf abysmal,just as
Brighton Bells was going the other way.
The fact is that remakes generally do not work, for every remake of a
film of TV series that does work I'm sure there are 100 that don't.
I reality I can't see this working, can you *really* see a US based TV
series based on a group of terrorists being the good guys?
The entire series 2 the heroes work towards destroying a computer
complex that runs 100s of worlds, they even acknowledge that hundreds
of thousands or even millions of innocent people will die because of
their action and yet they still do it, can you see that being done in
a US show?
Your Name
Apr 10, 2013, 5:08:32 PM4/10/13
to
In article <lfbam8dgb2rvn9l66...@4ax.com>, The Laughing
"foreign" movies are also barely recognisable. Even the Americans doing
remakes / "reboots" of their own old products which results in barely
recognisable products. (I don't recall anyone else actually making silly
"reboots" of their own old shows / movies ... yet. Doctor Who is not a
"reboot" or "remake", it's a continuation / revival / resurrection.)
This issue is caused by the new person being so massively over-egoed that
they fully believe the original person got it wrong, despite the fact that
it was the original person who had the idea and was created it how that
creator meant it to be done. :-(
> the Edge of Darkness film was pitiful, Red Dwarf abysmal,just as
> Brighton Bells was going the other way.
>
> The fact is that remakes generally do not work, for every remake of a
> film of TV series that does work I'm sure there are 100 that don't.
Make that 100,000+ that don't. :-)
> I reality I can't see this working, can you *really* see a US based TV
> series based on a group of terrorists being the good guys?
>
> The entire series 2 the heroes work towards destroying a computer
> complex that runs 100s of worlds, they even acknowledge that hundreds
> of thousands or even millions of innocent people will die because of
> their action and yet they still do it, can you see that being done in
> a US show?
As with all remakes / "reboots" ... it won't be recognisable as being
anything to do with the original. They won't be "terrorists", they'll be
white collar criminals who stole money from their workplaces or something
equally inept. :-(
Dalek <fuc...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Apr 2013 13:39:45 +0100, "Charles E. Hardwidge"
> <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/9980810/Blakes-7-returns-to-TV-screens.html
> >
> ><<Cult BBC sci-fi series Blake's 7, dubbed 'The Dirty Dozen in space', is
> >being re-made by Syfy Channel.>>
> >
> >Typical UK snobbery is evident in the comments. I like the way some people
> >poo-poo US television adaptations as if the UK is better. Since first
> >commenting on this there's been a slew of articles, including comment from
> >RTD, that admit UK television was leapfrogged by the US and is now a decade
> >behind. What I don't like about this snobbery is it doesn't just hold
> >content production back but perpetuates a sneery classism which does a
> >disservice to everyone.
>
> You are showing just the same amount of pro-US snobbery as you are
> accusing people of anti-US snobbery, you want too see top quality TV
> you can see it in the UK, watch Luther.
>
> Generally any kind of remake is usually poor whichever direction it
> goes,
It's not only British <-> US versions either. American remakes of
> On Tue, 9 Apr 2013 13:39:45 +0100, "Charles E. Hardwidge"
> <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/9980810/Blakes-7-returns-to-TV-screens.html
> >
> ><<Cult BBC sci-fi series Blake's 7, dubbed 'The Dirty Dozen in space', is
> >being re-made by Syfy Channel.>>
> >
> >Typical UK snobbery is evident in the comments. I like the way some people
> >poo-poo US television adaptations as if the UK is better. Since first
> >commenting on this there's been a slew of articles, including comment from
> >RTD, that admit UK television was leapfrogged by the US and is now a decade
> >behind. What I don't like about this snobbery is it doesn't just hold
> >content production back but perpetuates a sneery classism which does a
> >disservice to everyone.
>
> You are showing just the same amount of pro-US snobbery as you are
> accusing people of anti-US snobbery, you want too see top quality TV
> you can see it in the UK, watch Luther.
>
> Generally any kind of remake is usually poor whichever direction it
> goes,
"foreign" movies are also barely recognisable. Even the Americans doing
remakes / "reboots" of their own old products which results in barely
recognisable products. (I don't recall anyone else actually making silly
"reboots" of their own old shows / movies ... yet. Doctor Who is not a
"reboot" or "remake", it's a continuation / revival / resurrection.)
This issue is caused by the new person being so massively over-egoed that
they fully believe the original person got it wrong, despite the fact that
it was the original person who had the idea and was created it how that
creator meant it to be done. :-(
> the Edge of Darkness film was pitiful, Red Dwarf abysmal,just as
> Brighton Bells was going the other way.
>
> The fact is that remakes generally do not work, for every remake of a
> film of TV series that does work I'm sure there are 100 that don't.
> I reality I can't see this working, can you *really* see a US based TV
> series based on a group of terrorists being the good guys?
>
> The entire series 2 the heroes work towards destroying a computer
> complex that runs 100s of worlds, they even acknowledge that hundreds
> of thousands or even millions of innocent people will die because of
> their action and yet they still do it, can you see that being done in
> a US show?
anything to do with the original. They won't be "terrorists", they'll be
white collar criminals who stole money from their workplaces or something
equally inept. :-(
Siri Cruise
Apr 10, 2013, 5:40:00 PM4/10/13
to
In article <YourName-110...@203-118-187-159.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>,
Time?
--
Mommy says the people who most need to see a shrink are the ones most
viennaly denying they need one.
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.
Your...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote:
> It's not only British <-> US versions either. American remakes of
> "foreign" movies are also barely recognisable. Even the Americans doing
> remakes / "reboots" of their own old products which results in barely
> recognisable products. (I don't recall anyone else actually making silly
> "reboots" of their own old shows / movies ... yet. Doctor Who is not a
> "reboot" or "remake", it's a continuation / revival / resurrection.)
Were the Peter Cushing movies regarded as reboots of Doctor Who? Or a Hitch in
> It's not only British <-> US versions either. American remakes of
> "foreign" movies are also barely recognisable. Even the Americans doing
> remakes / "reboots" of their own old products which results in barely
> recognisable products. (I don't recall anyone else actually making silly
> "reboots" of their own old shows / movies ... yet. Doctor Who is not a
> "reboot" or "remake", it's a continuation / revival / resurrection.)
Time?
--
Mommy says the people who most need to see a shrink are the ones most
viennaly denying they need one.
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.
Ross
Apr 11, 2013, 7:59:09 AM4/11/13
to
On Apr 10, 5:08 pm, YourN...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote:
> In article <lfbam8dgb2rvn9l66ut3kd8q6pn0tlv...@4ax.com>, The Laughing
is no worse sin than being seen as derivative. So there's an inherent
tension when doing a remake, where they feel they have to try extra
hard to be original, because if they were just going to give you the
same thing the original person already did, then why bother? The
people invovled don't think that the original person got it *wrong*,
or that they can do "better", they just think that if they did it the
same way, that would be *disrespectful* to the original creators, like
they were trying to *replace* their work. When they make it very
different while keeping the same basic premise, they consider that to
be a respectful way to take inspiration from someone else's work
> > the Edge of Darkness film was pitiful, Red Dwarf abysmal,just as
> > Brighton Bells was going the other way.
>
> > The fact is that remakes generally do not work, for every remake of a
> > film of TV series that does work I'm sure there are 100 that don't.
>
> Make that 100,000+ that don't. :-)
>
> > I reality I can't see this working, can you *really* see a US based TV
> > series based on a group of terrorists being the good guys?
>
> > The entire series 2 the heroes work towards destroying a computer
> > complex that runs 100s of worlds, they even acknowledge that hundreds
> > of thousands or even millions of innocent people will die because of
> > their action and yet they still do it, can you see that being done in
> > a US show?
>
> As with all remakes / "reboots" ... it won't be recognisable as being
> anything to do with the original. They won't be "terrorists", they'll be
> white collar criminals who stole money from their workplaces or something
> equally inept. :-(
I doubt that. I imagine they'll really play up the "heroes" being
sociopaths to make it all dark and gritty. One of the biggest
difficulties with the original is that the style was so at odds with
the premise: it's a show about a bunch of criminals, most of them
violent criminals, trying to overthrow the Evil Space Empire, but the
*style* of the show isn't GrimDark at all; it's standard 70s space
opera, with shiny shiny space ships and space suits with flares and
spangles and wide collars (and holy crap, Servelan wearing a dress
that appears to be made in its entirety of one whole sloth and a yard
of gauze). They'll undoubtedly make it dark and dirty and gritty.
Unfortunately, that dissonance between style and content is also what
makes Blake's 7 distinctive, and something special and different from
the decades of Dark-n-Gritty antiheroes-in-space series that came
after it.
> In article <lfbam8dgb2rvn9l66ut3kd8q6pn0tlv...@4ax.com>, The Laughing
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Dalek <fuck...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 9 Apr 2013 13:39:45 +0100, "Charles E. Hardwidge"
> > <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
> >http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/9980810/Blakes-7-return...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Dalek <fuck...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 9 Apr 2013 13:39:45 +0100, "Charles E. Hardwidge"
> > <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> > ><<Cult BBC sci-fi series Blake's 7, dubbed 'The Dirty Dozen in space', is
> > >being re-made by Syfy Channel.>>
>
> > >Typical UK snobbery is evident in the comments. I like the way some people
> > >poo-poo US television adaptations as if the UK is better. Since first
> > >commenting on this there's been a slew of articles, including comment from
> > >RTD, that admit UK television was leapfrogged by the US and is now a decade
> > >behind. What I don't like about this snobbery is it doesn't just hold
> > >content production back but perpetuates a sneery classism which does a
> > >disservice to everyone.
>
> > You are showing just the same amount of pro-US snobbery as you are
> > accusing people of anti-US snobbery, you want too see top quality TV
> > you can see it in the UK, watch Luther.
>
> > Generally any kind of remake is usually poor whichever direction it
> > goes,
>
> It's not only British <-> US versions either. American remakes of
> "foreign" movies are also barely recognisable. Even the Americans doing
> remakes / "reboots" of their own old products which results in barely
> recognisable products. (I don't recall anyone else actually making silly
> "reboots" of their own old shows / movies ... yet. Doctor Who is not a
> "reboot" or "remake", it's a continuation / revival / resurrection.)
>
> This issue is caused by the new person being so massively over-egoed that
> they fully believe the original person got it wrong, despite the fact that
> it was the original person who had the idea and was created it how that
> creator meant it to be done. :-(
>
That's not really why. You have to understand that in hollywood, there
> > ><<Cult BBC sci-fi series Blake's 7, dubbed 'The Dirty Dozen in space', is
> > >being re-made by Syfy Channel.>>
>
> > >Typical UK snobbery is evident in the comments. I like the way some people
> > >poo-poo US television adaptations as if the UK is better. Since first
> > >commenting on this there's been a slew of articles, including comment from
> > >RTD, that admit UK television was leapfrogged by the US and is now a decade
> > >behind. What I don't like about this snobbery is it doesn't just hold
> > >content production back but perpetuates a sneery classism which does a
> > >disservice to everyone.
>
> > You are showing just the same amount of pro-US snobbery as you are
> > accusing people of anti-US snobbery, you want too see top quality TV
> > you can see it in the UK, watch Luther.
>
> > Generally any kind of remake is usually poor whichever direction it
> > goes,
>
> It's not only British <-> US versions either. American remakes of
> "foreign" movies are also barely recognisable. Even the Americans doing
> remakes / "reboots" of their own old products which results in barely
> recognisable products. (I don't recall anyone else actually making silly
> "reboots" of their own old shows / movies ... yet. Doctor Who is not a
> "reboot" or "remake", it's a continuation / revival / resurrection.)
>
> This issue is caused by the new person being so massively over-egoed that
> they fully believe the original person got it wrong, despite the fact that
> it was the original person who had the idea and was created it how that
> creator meant it to be done. :-(
>
is no worse sin than being seen as derivative. So there's an inherent
tension when doing a remake, where they feel they have to try extra
hard to be original, because if they were just going to give you the
same thing the original person already did, then why bother? The
people invovled don't think that the original person got it *wrong*,
or that they can do "better", they just think that if they did it the
same way, that would be *disrespectful* to the original creators, like
they were trying to *replace* their work. When they make it very
different while keeping the same basic premise, they consider that to
be a respectful way to take inspiration from someone else's work
> > the Edge of Darkness film was pitiful, Red Dwarf abysmal,just as
> > Brighton Bells was going the other way.
>
> > The fact is that remakes generally do not work, for every remake of a
> > film of TV series that does work I'm sure there are 100 that don't.
>
> Make that 100,000+ that don't. :-)
>
> > I reality I can't see this working, can you *really* see a US based TV
> > series based on a group of terrorists being the good guys?
>
> > The entire series 2 the heroes work towards destroying a computer
> > complex that runs 100s of worlds, they even acknowledge that hundreds
> > of thousands or even millions of innocent people will die because of
> > their action and yet they still do it, can you see that being done in
> > a US show?
>
> As with all remakes / "reboots" ... it won't be recognisable as being
> anything to do with the original. They won't be "terrorists", they'll be
> white collar criminals who stole money from their workplaces or something
> equally inept. :-(
sociopaths to make it all dark and gritty. One of the biggest
difficulties with the original is that the style was so at odds with
the premise: it's a show about a bunch of criminals, most of them
violent criminals, trying to overthrow the Evil Space Empire, but the
*style* of the show isn't GrimDark at all; it's standard 70s space
opera, with shiny shiny space ships and space suits with flares and
spangles and wide collars (and holy crap, Servelan wearing a dress
that appears to be made in its entirety of one whole sloth and a yard
of gauze). They'll undoubtedly make it dark and dirty and gritty.
Unfortunately, that dissonance between style and content is also what
makes Blake's 7 distinctive, and something special and different from
the decades of Dark-n-Gritty antiheroes-in-space series that came
after it.
Your Name
Apr 11, 2013, 5:25:52 PM4/11/13
to
In article
<70163c01-cb75-4294...@t5g2000yql.googlegroups.com>, Ross
<rras...@trenchcoatsoft.com> wrote:
> from
> > > >RTD, that admit UK television was leapfrogged by the US and is now a d=
even recognisable??
The current fad for "remakes" / "reboots" / "reimaginings" that re-use the
original name is very simply completely idiotic and senseless from every
conceivable angle.
> The people invovled don't think that the original person got it *wrong*,
> or that they can do "better",
Some of them actualy do.
> they just think that if they did it the same way, that would be
> *disrespectful* to the original creators, like they were trying to
> *replace* their work.
And yet the morons do "replace" the original, with their own butchered
version by moronically re-using the same name for a very different
product.
> When they make it very different while keeping the same basic premise,
> they consider that to be a respectful way to take inspiration from
> someone else's work
That pretty much sums up the incredible brainless stupidity of the people
doing these "remakes" / "reboots" / "reimaginings". "Hey, let's butcher
the original beyond recognition ... that's 'respectful'." :-\
The reality is that the idiotic "reamkes" / "reboots" and the equally
stupid "reality" TV are nothing more than sheer senseless idiocy due to
laziness and talentless, encouraged by the fools in management who are
immensely scared of losing their over-bloated pay packets. :-(
<70163c01-cb75-4294...@t5g2000yql.googlegroups.com>, Ross
<rras...@trenchcoatsoft.com> wrote:
> On Apr 10, 5:08=A0pm, YourN...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote:
> > In article <lfbam8dgb2rvn9l66ut3kd8q6pn0tlv...@4ax.com>, The Laughing
> > Dalek <fuck...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> > > On Tue, 9 Apr 2013 13:39:45 +0100, "Charles E. Hardwidge"
> > > <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > >http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/9980810/Blakes-7-return...
> >
> > > ><<Cult BBC sci-fi series Blake's 7, dubbed 'The Dirty Dozen in space',=
> > In article <lfbam8dgb2rvn9l66ut3kd8q6pn0tlv...@4ax.com>, The Laughing
> > Dalek <fuck...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> > > On Tue, 9 Apr 2013 13:39:45 +0100, "Charles E. Hardwidge"
> > > <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > >http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/9980810/Blakes-7-return...
> >
> is
> > > >being re-made by Syfy Channel.>>
> >
> > > >Typical UK snobbery is evident in the comments. I like the way some pe=
> > > >being re-made by Syfy Channel.>>
> >
> ople
> > > >poo-poo US television adaptations as if the UK is better. Since first
> > > >commenting on this there's been a slew of articles, including comment =
> > > >poo-poo US television adaptations as if the UK is better. Since first
> from
> > > >RTD, that admit UK television was leapfrogged by the US and is now a d=
> ecade
> > > >behind. What I don't like about this snobbery is it doesn't just hold
> > > >content production back but perpetuates a sneery classism which does a
> > > >disservice to everyone.
> >
> > > You are showing just the same amount of pro-US snobbery as you are
> > > accusing people of anti-US snobbery, you want too see top quality TV
> > > you can see it in the UK, watch Luther.
> >
> > > Generally any kind of remake is usually poor whichever direction it
> > > goes,
> >
> > It's not only British <-> US versions either. American remakes of
> > "foreign" movies are also barely recognisable. Even the Americans doing
> > remakes / "reboots" of their own old products which results in barely
> > recognisable products. (I don't recall anyone else actually making silly
> > "reboots" of their own old shows / movies ... yet. Doctor Who is not a
> > "reboot" or "remake", it's a continuation / revival / resurrection.)
> >
> > This issue is caused by the new person being so massively over-egoed that
> > they fully believe the original person got it wrong, despite the fact
> > that it was the original person who had the idea and was created it how
> > that creator meant it to be done. :-(
>
> That's not really why. You have to understand that in hollywood, there
> is no worse sin than being seen as derivative. So there's an inherent
> tension when doing a remake, where they feel they have to try extra
> hard to be original, because if they were just going to give you the
> same thing the original person already did, then why bother?
And why bother using the old name for something that is usually barely
> > > >behind. What I don't like about this snobbery is it doesn't just hold
> > > >content production back but perpetuates a sneery classism which does a
> > > >disservice to everyone.
> >
> > > You are showing just the same amount of pro-US snobbery as you are
> > > accusing people of anti-US snobbery, you want too see top quality TV
> > > you can see it in the UK, watch Luther.
> >
> > > Generally any kind of remake is usually poor whichever direction it
> > > goes,
> >
> > It's not only British <-> US versions either. American remakes of
> > "foreign" movies are also barely recognisable. Even the Americans doing
> > remakes / "reboots" of their own old products which results in barely
> > recognisable products. (I don't recall anyone else actually making silly
> > "reboots" of their own old shows / movies ... yet. Doctor Who is not a
> > "reboot" or "remake", it's a continuation / revival / resurrection.)
> >
> > This issue is caused by the new person being so massively over-egoed that
> > they fully believe the original person got it wrong, despite the fact
> > that it was the original person who had the idea and was created it how
> > that creator meant it to be done. :-(
>
> That's not really why. You have to understand that in hollywood, there
> is no worse sin than being seen as derivative. So there's an inherent
> tension when doing a remake, where they feel they have to try extra
> hard to be original, because if they were just going to give you the
> same thing the original person already did, then why bother?
even recognisable??
The current fad for "remakes" / "reboots" / "reimaginings" that re-use the
original name is very simply completely idiotic and senseless from every
conceivable angle.
> The people invovled don't think that the original person got it *wrong*,
> or that they can do "better",
> they just think that if they did it the same way, that would be
> *disrespectful* to the original creators, like they were trying to
> *replace* their work.
version by moronically re-using the same name for a very different
product.
> When they make it very different while keeping the same basic premise,
> they consider that to be a respectful way to take inspiration from
> someone else's work
doing these "remakes" / "reboots" / "reimaginings". "Hey, let's butcher
the original beyond recognition ... that's 'respectful'." :-\
The reality is that the idiotic "reamkes" / "reboots" and the equally
stupid "reality" TV are nothing more than sheer senseless idiocy due to
laziness and talentless, encouraged by the fools in management who are
immensely scared of losing their over-bloated pay packets. :-(
Charles E. Hardwidge
Apr 11, 2013, 5:58:27 PM4/11/13
to
"Your Name" <Your...@YourISP.com> wrote in message
news:YourName-120...@203-118-187-31.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz...
> The current fad for "remakes" / "reboots" / "reimaginings" that re-use the
> original name is very simply completely idiotic and senseless from every
> conceivable angle.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_WUNtZQ6AE
The destruction of the Sol Bianca in an overwhelming nuclear strike. Feb's
tears as she cries out to April. The end...
Zero Time Restart.
Oops.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSalXkUdRig&t=4m25s
Didn't Moffat try to pull a similar stunt with the Tardis? I can't remember
that working out as well nor did the scene have anything like the dramatic
impact of some key scenes in the Star Trek movie franchise.
After discussing the loose idea of a Space: 1999 sequel around some geeks
and Canadian writers Stargate Universe was greenlit not long afterwards.
Whether they lifted the idea or not the series was quite good.
--
Charles E. Hardwidge
Your Name
Apr 12, 2013, 2:33:59 AM4/12/13
to
In article <kk7bgt$pft$1...@dont-email.me>, "Charles E. Hardwidge"
If you lok at it at the basic core level (which is all these silly
"remakes" / "reboots" ever have in common), then:
Stargate Universe was a rip-off of Star Trek Voyager ...
Star Trek Voyager was a rip-off Space: 1999 ...
Space: 1999 was a rip-off of Lost in Space ...
BUT, at least they did have the common sense to use different names! :-)
(Although it probably wasn't anything to do with common sense, but simply
due to not wanting to be sued for using a name they had no rights to.)
"remakes" / "reboots" ever have in common), then:
Stargate Universe was a rip-off of Star Trek Voyager ...
Star Trek Voyager was a rip-off Space: 1999 ...
Space: 1999 was a rip-off of Lost in Space ...
BUT, at least they did have the common sense to use different names! :-)
(Although it probably wasn't anything to do with common sense, but simply
due to not wanting to be sued for using a name they had no rights to.)
Keith W
Apr 12, 2013, 1:00:26 PM4/12/13
to
which was published in 1812 !
Keith
The Laughing Dalek
Apr 12, 2013, 1:28:11 PM4/12/13
to
On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 14:40:00 -0700, Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>In article <YourName-110...@203-118-187-159.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>,
> Your...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote:
>
>> It's not only British <-> US versions either. American remakes of
>> "foreign" movies are also barely recognisable. Even the Americans doing
>> remakes / "reboots" of their own old products which results in barely
>> recognisable products. (I don't recall anyone else actually making silly
>> "reboots" of their own old shows / movies ... yet. Doctor Who is not a
>> "reboot" or "remake", it's a continuation / revival / resurrection.)
>
>Were the Peter Cushing movies regarded as reboots of Doctor Who? Or a Hitch in
>Time?
Just a chance to see Dr Who and the Daleks in colour, nothing more - I
don't think there was any plan for it to replace or comete with the TV
version
wrote:
>In article <YourName-110...@203-118-187-159.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>,
> Your...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote:
>
>> It's not only British <-> US versions either. American remakes of
>> "foreign" movies are also barely recognisable. Even the Americans doing
>> remakes / "reboots" of their own old products which results in barely
>> recognisable products. (I don't recall anyone else actually making silly
>> "reboots" of their own old shows / movies ... yet. Doctor Who is not a
>> "reboot" or "remake", it's a continuation / revival / resurrection.)
>
>Were the Peter Cushing movies regarded as reboots of Doctor Who? Or a Hitch in
>Time?
don't think there was any plan for it to replace or comete with the TV
version
Your Name
Apr 12, 2013, 5:55:50 PM4/12/13
to
In article <K4X9t.2641$Nr2....@fx22.fr7>, "Keith W"
Yep, which was, going WAY-WAY-WAY back, just a "reboot" of "Caveman Ugh
gets lost while hunting" as painted on some cave wall somewhere. ;-)
BUT "Stargate Universe" wasn't called "Caveman Ugh gets lost while
hunting" and didn't pretend to be the same thing even though is clearly
isn't in any sensible way.
gets lost while hunting" as painted on some cave wall somewhere. ;-)
BUT "Stargate Universe" wasn't called "Caveman Ugh gets lost while
hunting" and didn't pretend to be the same thing even though is clearly
isn't in any sensible way.
0 new messages