"V" getting movie remake from original's creator

[David]

http://deadline.com/2018/02/v-the-movie-coming-from-original-creator-kenneth-johnson-and-desilu-1202284944/

‘V The Movie’ Coming From Original Creator Kenneth Johnson And Desilu
Studios
by Bruce Haring

Sci-fi classic vehicle V is being revived as a film by Desilu Studios,
with the new version of the former TV series written and directed by
the original ’80s series creator, Kenneth Johnson.

Called V The Movie, the film’s casting and a release date are not yet
determined. It will be produced by John Hermansen and Barry Opper.

Johnson has not been involved in the series since V: The Final Battle,
departing then because of alleged creative differences with NBC. He
then wrote a novel, V: The Second Generation, and came up with the
Alien Nation TV series (and its subsequent TV movies).

[Obveeus]

On 2/11/2018 8:18 AM, David wrote:
> http://deadline.com/2018/02/v-the-movie-coming-from-original-creator-kenneth-johnson-and-desilu-1202284944/
>
> ‘V The Movie’ Coming From Original Creator Kenneth Johnson And Desilu

Not to be confused with V FOR VENDETTA:
Nearly 900,000 IMDB ratings and an 8.2 average? Clearly someone is
tampering with this film's score.
https://youtu.be/k_13fFIrhPk?t=167

also,

Not to be confused with VENOM, out later this year and starring tom Hardy:
https://youtu.be/dzxFdtWmjto?t=92

[BTR1701]

In article <kig08dh8h70jumfcg...@4ax.com>,
David <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> http://deadline.com/2018/02/v-the-movie-coming-from-original-creator-kenneth-j
> ohnson-and-desilu-1202284944/
>
> V: THE MOVIE Coming From Original Creator Kenneth Johnson And Desilu

> Studios

> by Bruce Haring
>
> Sci-fi classic vehicle V is being revived as a film by Desilu Studios,
> with the new version of the former TV series written and directed by
> the original '80s series creator, Kenneth Johnson.

Won't be the same without Jane Badler. My teenage self was so in love
with her reptilian hotness.

[anim8rfsk]

In article <p5pjoi$dim$1...@dont-email.me>, Obveeus <Obv...@aol.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On 2/11/2018 8:18 AM, David wrote:
> > http://deadline.com/2018/02/v-the-movie-coming-from-original-creator-kenneth
> > -johnson-and-desilu-1202284944/
> >
> > ‘V The Movie’ Coming From Original Creator Kenneth Johnson And Desilu

Wake me if there's nekkid Laura Vandervoort

>
> Not to be confused with V FOR VENDETTA:
> Nearly 900,000 IMDB ratings and an 8.2 average? Clearly someone is
> tampering with this film's score.
> https://youtu.be/k_13fFIrhPk?t=167

The movie that caused Natalie Portman to accuse NYC cops of being
racist. Well, that, and because she's a fracking moron.

--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/

[anim8rfsk]

In article <atropos-2B0A85...@news.giganews.com>,

By which he means "Jaw Unhinging"

[Ian J. Ball]

I thot all women could do that!?! [rimshot]


--
"Three light sabers? Is that overkill? Or just the right amount
of "kill"?" - M-OC, "A Perilous Rescue" (ep. #2.9), LSW:TFA (08-10-2017)

[EGK]

How old is this thread? I thought they already remade V with Morena
Baccarin? It wasn't very good that time either. Now they're trying for
the shitshow trifecta?

[Dimensional Traveler]

On 2/11/2018 7:24 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
> In article <p5pjoi$dim$1...@dont-email.me>, Obveeus <Obv...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 2/11/2018 8:18 AM, David wrote:
>>> http://deadline.com/2018/02/v-the-movie-coming-from-original-creator-kenneth
>>> -johnson-and-desilu-1202284944/
>>>

>>> ‘V The Movie’ Coming From Original Creator Kenneth Johnson And Desilu

>
> Wake me if there's nekkid Laura Vandervoort
>>
>> Not to be confused with V FOR VENDETTA:
>> Nearly 900,000 IMDB ratings and an 8.2 average? Clearly someone is
>> tampering with this film's score.
>> https://youtu.be/k_13fFIrhPk?t=167
>
> The movie that caused Natalie Portman to accuse NYC cops of being
> racist. Well, that, and because she's a fracking moron.
>

I don't think I've heard that story, tell please?

--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.

[Neill Massello]

EGK <m...@privacy.net> wrote:

> I thought they already remade V with Morena Baccarin?

The time between remakes keeps getting shorter. Soon they will be
announcing the remake while the current version is in production. We
live in a time of unparalleled creativity.

[Ian J. Ball]

The difference is that the 2009 TV series didn't invole the original
creator, Johnson - now Johnson wants to do his own "reboot"...

[Ninapenda Jibini]

Ian J. Ball <IJB...@mac.invalid> wrote in
news:p5qb4j$eqi$1...@dont-email.me:

Which could mean that the studio is now more willing to let him do
what he wants - which may or may not be a tired rehash of the
original, but probably will be, but more likely means he's hungry
enough for paying work he'll sell his name to anything that pays
the rent.

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[EGK]

On Sun, 11 Feb 2018 13:04:21 -0800, Ian J. Ball <IJB...@mac.invalid> wrote:

>On 2018-02-11 18:06:02 +0000, EGK said:
>
>> On Sun, 11 Feb 2018 10:36:04 -0700, anim8rfsk <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <atropos-2B0A85...@news.giganews.com>,
>>> BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <kig08dh8h70jumfcg...@4ax.com>,
>>>> David <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> http://deadline.com/2018/02/v-the-movie-coming-from-original-creator-kenneth-johnson-and-desilu-1202284944/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> V: THE MOVIE Coming From Original Creator Kenneth Johnson And Desilu
>>>>> Studios
>>>>
>>>>> by Bruce Haring
>>>>>
>>>>> Sci-fi classic vehicle V is being revived as a film by Desilu Studios,
>>>>> with the new version of the former TV series written and directed by
>>>>> the original '80s series creator, Kenneth Johnson.
>>>>
>>>> Won't be the same without Jane Badler. My teenage self was so in love
>>>> with her reptilian hotness.
>>>
>>> By which he means "Jaw Unhinging"
>>
>> How old is this thread? I thought they already remade V with Morena
>> Baccarin? It wasn't very good that time either. Now they're trying for
>> the shitshow trifecta?
>
>The difference is that the 2009 TV series didn't invole the original
>creator, Johnson - now Johnson wants to do his own "reboot"...

I never thought the original was anything great either. It would just be
nice of they came up with something new for a change.

[Your Name]

They've basically already done that with Spider-man, Superman, and
Batman movies.

[Steve Dodds]

I am sick and tired of reboots. Isn't there anyone in Hollywood who has
enough imagination to think of something new.

[Your Name]

When will the morons in Hollyweird learn that we don't need nor want
lazy-ass reboots. :-(

[Your Name]

Nope. All the talented and creative people died, sold out, or simply
left many years ago. Now we're only left with lazy-ass scum with
massively over-bloated egos (and equally over-bloated pay packets) who
think they know better than the project original creator who had actual
talent. :-(

In this case it's supposedly the original creator doing a "revival" (it
doesn't confirm whether it's a reboot or a sequel), which may or may
not mean it's a step above the usual revival drivel ... but I wouldn't
hold my breath.

[rachel]

Hello? Johnson IS the original creator.

[Dimensional Traveler]

When people stop watching them.

[Madlove]

On 02/11/2018 02:06 PM, EGK wrote:
> How old is this thread? I thought they already remade V with Morena
> Baccarin? It wasn't very good that time either. Now they're trying for
> the shitshow trifecta?

This is a movie, not a TV serial. It will stink just like the others... :-(

[Madlove]

On 02/11/2018 05:40 PM, Steve Dodds wrote:
> I am sick and tired of reboots. Isn't there anyone in Hollywood who has
> enough imagination to think of something new.

Yes, but they had him shot before his radical behavior could spread to
other writers.

[Your Name]

Hello! You snipped off where I said ...

In this case it's supposedly the original creator
doing a "revival" (it doesn't confirm whether it's
a reboot or a sequel), which may or may not mean
it's a step above the usual revival drivel ... but
I wouldn't hold my breath.

You might want to try actually reading the entire message before
spouting off pointless replies. :-\


There's already been at least one recent-ish case (I can't remember
which without wasting time looking it up) where the original creator
did the revival, and still made lots of moronically silly changes,
making it a mess nothing like the original.

[Your Name]

But people watch them because there's almost nothing else being made.
It's a nasty vicious circle. :-\

People can't even stop watching them and read books instead, the new
Firefly books further prove that industry has also jumped on the
revival bandwagon, not to mention the 95th re-re-re-release of the
Harry Potter books.

[EGK]

On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 13:56:39 +1300, Your Name <Your...@YourISP.com> wrote:

>On 2018-02-11 22:13:20 +0000, Dimensional Traveler said:
>> On 2/11/2018 1:43 PM, Your Name wrote:
>>> On 2018-02-11 13:18:55 +0000, David said:
>>>>
>>>> http://deadline.com/2018/02/v-the-movie-coming-from-original-creator-kenneth-johnson-and-desilu-1202284944/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 'V The Movie' Coming From Original Creator Kenneth Johnson And Desilu
>>>> Studios
>>>> by Bruce Haring
>>>>
>>>> Sci-fi classic vehicle V is being revived as a film by Desilu Studios,
>>>> with the new version of the former TV series written and directed by
>>>> the original '80s series creator, Kenneth Johnson.
>>>>
>>>> Called V The Movie, the film's casting and a release date are not yet
>>>> determined. It will be produced by John Hermansen and Barry Opper.
>>>>
>>>> Johnson has not been involved in the series since V: The Final Battle,
>>>> departing then because of alleged creative differences with NBC. He
>>>> then wrote a novel, V: The Second Generation, and came up with the
>>>> Alien Nation TV series (and its subsequent TV movies).
>>>
>>> When will the morons in Hollyweird learn that we don't need nor want
>>> lazy-ass reboots.  :-(
>>
>> When people stop watching them.
>
>But people watch them because there's almost nothing else being made.
>It's a nasty vicious circle. :-\

I agree but it's obviously a money thing. It's a lot easier to sell
something with a known reputation than to sell something new. Even if the
original wasn't all that great to begin with.

This isn't exactly a new issue anyway and I don't mind reboots once in a
while. I think the TV remake of Lethal Weapon is a fun show for instance.

[Your Name]

<snip>

The problem is that "excuse" doesn't even make sense because they make
so many silly changes that it's nothing like the original with the
"known reputation" (or existing fanbase) anyway to even bother calling
it by the same name, let alone trying to con anyone (management or
fans) into believeing it is the same thing. They certainly are NOT
making these things for the fans of the original, despite claims by
some of the fools making them that they themselves are fans (hint:
JarJar Abrams with Star Wars being one example, but there are others).

Plus, they're rebooting stuff where the original (supposedly) had such
low ratings that it was cancelled!

Nope. The only real reasons are simple laziness and lack of creative
talent, added to massively over-bloated egos.

[EGK]

Hey, I'm agreeing with you. I'm just saying it's about money and name
recognition sells better than something that's new. Telling Paramount you
have a script for a remake of Star Trek is a lot easier than saying you have
a great script for a new series about space exploration.

[Your Name]

Yes, but as I said above, it makes no real sense with even a cursory
glance, so only a completely braindead imbecile (*not* *you*, I mean
the morons in management) would actually believe such nonsense.

[Ninapenda Jibini]

Your Name <Your...@YourISP.com> wrote in
news:p5qu5d$ihh$1...@gioia.aioe.org:

> Plus, they're rebooting stuff where the original (supposedly)
> had such low ratings that it was cancelled!
>

Actually, it does make sense. Something that has a very noisy, but
small fan base is perfect. They're noisy enough that everyone has
heard of it, but it wasn't good enouhg that very many peole actually
*saw* it. So you get a lot of brand recognition that's bought and
paid for long ago, but no real expectations that will not be met.

If you believe for one second that the people in Hollywood that make
decisions have _ever_ given a flying fuck at a rolling donut about
creativity, you're a fool.

[TeeJay1952]

On 2/11/2018 10:19 PM, Your Name wrote:
> I'm just saying it's about money and name
> recognition sells better than something that's new.   Telling Paramount you
> have a script for a remake of Star Trek is a lot easier than saying you
> have
> a great script for a new series about space exploration.

Which would suck but what is worse is saying you have a great script for
a new series about space exploration and they tell you to rewrite as
Star Trek and it must go to Paramount.

Tee (everything old becomes new again) Jay

[Ubiquitous]

m...@privacy.net wrote:

> I never thought the original was anything great either.
> It would just be nice of they came up with something new
> for a change.

++

--
Dems & the media want Trump to be more like Obama, but then he'd
have to audit liberals & wire tap reporters' phones.

[Your Name]

I didn't write that.

And yet "The Orville" managed to get made. Although technically a Star
Trek semi-parody, it is still an actual *new* show and not an idiotic
"reboot" / revival nor (very loosely) "based on" any books or comic
books.

[Jerry Brown]

On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 09:01:09 +1300, Your Name <Your...@YourISP.com>
wrote:

I'd thought that McFarlane did try pitching a post-TNG era show to
Paramount and got turned down, so filed off the serial numbers (not
particularly vigorously) and did his own thing.

--
Jerry Brown

A cat may look at a king
(but probably won't bother)

[Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha]

Your Name <Your...@YourISP.com> wrote in

news:p5srq3$1kv3$1...@gioia.aioe.org:

No, it'e really not. It's mostly Seth McFarland's usual jokes with sf
props instead of fart jokes. But originility? Not a trace.

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

[Your Name]

I don't know.

It is (now?) being marketed, broadcast, and was made as a new show, not
a silly "reboot" / revival.

Even if it was originally meant to be another proper Star Trek series,
that still somewhat disproves the theory that "Telling Paramount you

[Ninapenda Jibini]

Your Name <Your...@YourISP.com> wrote in

news:p5tc81$e12$1...@gioia.aioe.org:

It was, at times, marketed as a parody of ST.

>
> Even if it was originally meant to be another proper Star Trek
> series, that still somewhat disproves the theory that "Telling
> Paramount you have a script for a remake of Star Trek is a lot
> easier than saying you have a great script for a new series
> about space exploration."
>

You have no idea how easy it was for McFarland to sell the show, or
what other approaches he tried first. Or, for that matter, *how* he
actually sold the show. After all, the legend that Roddenberry sold
ST as "Wagon Train to the Stars" isn't entirely fiction.

If you expect network television (or anything in Hollywood) to make
sense, you're a fool.

--
Terry Austin

[Madlove]

On 02/12/2018 02:37 AM, Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
> Your Name <Your...@YourISP.com> wrote in
> news:p5qu5d$ihh$1...@gioia.aioe.org:
>> Plus, they're rebooting stuff where the original (supposedly)
>> had such low ratings that it was cancelled!

> Actually, it does make sense. Something that has a very noisy, but
> small fan base is perfect. They're noisy enough that everyone has

> heard of it, but it wasn't good enough that very many people actually

> *saw* it. So you get a lot of brand recognition that's bought and
> paid for long ago, but no real expectations that will not be met.
>
> If you believe for one second that the people in Hollywood that make
> decisions have _ever_ given a flying fuck at a rolling donut about
> creativity, you're a fool.

Hollywood is all about making cash *safely* and with little risk. Better
to sell to a known fan base than to an unknown crowd. Hence all the
reboots and sequels that we get over and over and over ad nauseum.

[Ninapenda Jibini]

Madlove <mad...@arkham.dc> wrote in
news:p5toac$rdg$1...@gioia.aioe.org:

> On 02/12/2018 02:37 AM, Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
>> Your Name <Your...@YourISP.com> wrote in
>> news:p5qu5d$ihh$1...@gioia.aioe.org:
>>> Plus, they're rebooting stuff where the original (supposedly)
>>> had such low ratings that it was cancelled!
>
>> Actually, it does make sense. Something that has a very noisy,
>> but small fan base is perfect. They're noisy enough that
>> everyone has heard of it, but it wasn't good enough that very
>> many people actually *saw* it. So you get a lot of brand
>> recognition that's bought and paid for long ago, but no real
>> expectations that will not be met.
>>
>> If you believe for one second that the people in Hollywood that
>> make decisions have _ever_ given a flying fuck at a rolling
>> donut about creativity, you're a fool.
>
> Hollywood is all about making cash *safely* and with little
> risk.

And?

> Better to sell to a known fan base than to an unknown
> crowd.

Not when the known fan base is tiny, and the unknown crowd has
demographics that the marketing people have successfully read
before. Brand recognition is worth a lot more than actual fans.

> Hence all the reboots and sequels that we get over and
> over and over ad nauseum.
>

Most of stuff that a lot of people have heard of, but very, very
few actually remember.

As I said.

[Your Name]

Exept the problem is that the reboots are barely recognisable as having
anything to do with the original, so that "known fan-base" simply gets
smacked in the face *every* time.

You also have the issue that people who didn't like the original won't
bother to watch something with the same name ... or at least it would
be a problem if people weren't so apparently moronically stupid enough
to watch watch reboots of originals they didn't like. It's like going
into the supermarket when you don't like oranges and buying oranges to
try because they might have suddenly changed. :-\

There's absolutely no sensible or logical reasons why "reboots" should
even remotely 'work'. The fact that many do is simply down to the
general stupidity of the human race.

[Your Name]

On 2018-02-13 02:02:38 +0000, Ninapenda Jibini said:
>
<snip>

>
> If you expect network television (or anything in Hollywood) to make
> sense, you're a fool.

Network TV and Hollyweird is simply the tip of the iceberg. I long ago
worked out that the human race is incredibly stupid and doesn't make
sense. :-\ The only "benefit" (other than the sad-comedic value) of
having Trump the Chump in charge of the US is that he might well push
the big red button during one of his temper tantrums.

[Dimensional Traveler]

Yeeeeaaaaa. What's your point?

[kensi]

Misanthrope.

--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here." ~Checkmate

[Madlove]

On 02/13/2018 02:00 AM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> On 2/12/2018 9:53 PM, Your Name wrote:
>> On 2018-02-13 04:07:40 +0000, Madlove said:
>>> On 02/12/2018 02:37 AM, Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
>>>> Your Name <Your...@YourISP.com> wrote in
>>>> news:p5qu5d$ihh$1...@gioia.aioe.org:
>>>>>
>>>>> Plus, they're rebooting stuff where the original (supposedly)
>>>>> had such low ratings that it was cancelled!
>>>>
>>>> Actually, it does make sense. Something that has a very noisy, but
>>>> small fan base is perfect. They're noisy enough that everyone has
>>>> heard of it, but it wasn't good enough that very many people actually
>>>> *saw* it. So you get a lot of brand recognition that's bought and
>>>> paid for long ago, but no real expectations that will not be met.
>>>>
>>>> If you believe for one second that the people in Hollywood that make
>>>> decisions have _ever_ given a flying fuck at a rolling donut about
>>>> creativity, you're a fool.
>>>
>>> Hollywood is all about making cash *safely* and with little risk.
>>> Better to sell to a known fan base than to an unknown crowd. Hence
>>> all the reboots and sequels that we get over and over and over ad
>>> nauseum.
>>

>> Except the problem is that the reboots are barely recognizable as

>> having anything to do with the original, so that "known fan-base"
>> simply gets smacked in the face *every* time.
>>
>> You also have the issue that people who didn't like the original won't
>> bother to watch something with the same name ... or at least it would
>> be a problem if people weren't so apparently moronically stupid enough
>> to watch watch reboots of originals they didn't like. It's like going
>> into the supermarket when you don't like oranges and buying oranges to
>> try because they might have suddenly changed. :-\
>>
>> There's absolutely no sensible or logical reasons why "reboots" should
>> even remotely 'work'. The fact that many do is simply down to the
>> general stupidity of the human race.

> Yeeeeaaaaa. What's your point?

There's a point on usenet???

[Madlove]

On 02/13/2018 12:47 AM, Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
> Madlove <mad...@arkham.dc> wrote in
> news:p5toac$rdg$1...@gioia.aioe.org:
>
>> On 02/12/2018 02:37 AM, Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
>>> Your Name <Your...@YourISP.com> wrote in
>>> news:p5qu5d$ihh$1...@gioia.aioe.org:
>>>> Plus, they're rebooting stuff where the original (supposedly)
>>>> had such low ratings that it was cancelled!
>>
>>> Actually, it does make sense. Something that has a very noisy,
>>> but small fan base is perfect. They're noisy enough that
>>> everyone has heard of it, but it wasn't good enough that very
>>> many people actually *saw* it. So you get a lot of brand
>>> recognition that's bought and paid for long ago, but no real
>>> expectations that will not be met.
>>>
>>> If you believe for one second that the people in Hollywood that
>>> make decisions have _ever_ given a flying fuck at a rolling
>>> donut about creativity, you're a fool.
>>
>> Hollywood is all about making cash *safely* and with little risk.

> And?

... if a show/movie was popular then a reboot/remake/sequel should do at
least as well with today's crowd. Doesn't always work, in fact many
times it doesn't:

Knight Rider, Charlie's Angels, MacGyver...

>> Better to sell to a known fan base than to an unknown crowd.

> Not when the known fan base is tiny, and the unknown crowd has
> demographics that the marketing people have successfully read
> before. Brand recognition is worth a lot more than actual fans.

"Better to sell [something familiar] to a known fan base than [to sell
something new and untested] to an unknown crowd" is a common way of
thinking in Tinseltown.

If you have something popular, even if it's only mildly popular, make
more of it and hope the new additions are well accepted and make money.

>> Hence all the reboots and sequels that we get over and over and over ad nauseum.

> Most of stuff that a lot of people have heard of, but very, very few actually remember.
>
> As I said.

A great many people can quote shows/movies line for line and remember
them in detail. Trekkies are a good example.

[Your Name]

On 2018-02-13 19:18:38 +0000, Madlove said:
> On 02/13/2018 12:47 AM, Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
>> Madlove <mad...@arkham.dc> wrote in
>> news:p5toac$rdg$1...@gioia.aioe.org:
>>
>>> On 02/12/2018 02:37 AM, Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
>>>> Your Name <Your...@YourISP.com> wrote in
>>>> news:p5qu5d$ihh$1...@gioia.aioe.org:
>>>>> Plus, they're rebooting stuff where the original (supposedly)
>>>>> had such low ratings that it was cancelled!
>>>
>>>> Actually, it does make sense. Something that has a very noisy,
>>>> but small fan base is perfect. They're noisy enough that
>>>> everyone has heard of it, but it wasn't good enough that very
>>>> many people actually *saw* it. So you get a lot of brand
>>>> recognition that's bought and paid for long ago, but no real
>>>> expectations that will not be met.
>>>>
>>>> If you believe for one second that the people in Hollywood that
>>>> make decisions have _ever_ given a flying fuck at a rolling
>>>> donut about creativity, you're a fool.
>>>
>>> Hollywood is all about making cash *safely* and with little risk.
>
>> And?
>
> ... if a show/movie was popular then a reboot/remake/sequel should do
> at least as well with today's crowd. Doesn't always work, in fact many
> times it doesn't:
>
> Knight Rider, Charlie's Angels, MacGyver...

That is because ...

A. Times have changed. The shows were popular because of the time they
were made. Trying to transplant them into the modern world simply
doesn't work. Without changes they can look out-of-date, but with
changes they're no longer the same thing.

B. Most so-called "fans" are fly-by-nighters who weren't actually fans
of the original at all. They simply watched it because it was the
latest new toy on the block and they quickly moved on to the next
new toy.

C. Some people, including some actual fans, remember the original
through rose-tinted glasses and the mists of time hiding the flaws.
Take those away and they find they no longer actually like the show.
This can even happen by simply re-watching the original itself.

C. In terms of silly reboots and remakes, the morons make so many silly
changes that it's barely recognisable as having anything to do with
the original ... they're "in-name-only remakes".

>>> Better to sell to a known fan base than to an unknown crowd.
>>
>> Not when the known fan base is tiny, and the unknown crowd has
>> demographics that the marketing people have successfully read
>> before. Brand recognition is worth a lot more than actual fans.
>
> "Better to sell [something familiar] to a known fan base than [to sell
> something new and untested] to an unknown crowd" is a common way of
> thinking in Tinseltown.

Except that it doesn't make any sense ... except to the morons in Hollyweird.

> If you have something popular, even if it's only mildly popular, make
> more of it and hope the new additions are well accepted and make money.

Only when they do not make ridiculous changes.

The first seasons of the original Battlestar Galactica and Buck Rogers
were good. The second seasons weren't as good thanks to some silly
changes (in the case of Battlestar Galactica, it was awful and they
even changed the show's name!).

[Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha]

Your Name <Your...@YourISP.com> wrote in

news:p5tunk$12ev$1...@gioia.aioe.org:

You really should drink less while posting to usenet. A *lot* less.

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

[Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha]

kensi <kkensi...@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote in
news:p5usvs$kk6$1...@gioia.aioe.org:

> On 2/13/2018 12:57 AM, Your Name wrote:
>> On 2018-02-13 02:02:38 +0000, Ninapenda Jibini said:
>>>
>> <snip>
>>>
>>> If you expect network television (or anything in Hollywood) to
>>> make sense, you're a fool.
>>
>> Network TV and Hollyweird is simply the tip of the iceberg. I
>> long ago worked out that the human race is incredibly stupid
>> and doesn't make sense.  :-\   The only "benefit" (other
>> than the sad-comedic value) of having Trump the Chump in charge
>> of the US is that he might well push the big red button during
>> one of his temper tantrums.
>
> Misanthrope.
>

Your Name, Trump, Hollywood or me?

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

[Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha]

Madlove <mad...@arkham.dc> wrote in
news:p5vdmc$1jpq$1...@gioia.aioe.org:

> On 02/13/2018 12:47 AM, Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
>> Madlove <mad...@arkham.dc> wrote in
>> news:p5toac$rdg$1...@gioia.aioe.org:
>>
>>> On 02/12/2018 02:37 AM, Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
>>>> Your Name <Your...@YourISP.com> wrote in
>>>> news:p5qu5d$ihh$1...@gioia.aioe.org:
>>>>> Plus, they're rebooting stuff where the original
>>>>> (supposedly) had such low ratings that it was cancelled!
>>>
>>>> Actually, it does make sense. Something that has a very
>>>> noisy, but small fan base is perfect. They're noisy enough
>>>> that everyone has heard of it, but it wasn't good enough that
>>>> very many people actually *saw* it. So you get a lot of brand
>>>> recognition that's bought and paid for long ago, but no real
>>>> expectations that will not be met.
>>>>
>>>> If you believe for one second that the people in Hollywood
>>>> that make decisions have _ever_ given a flying fuck at a
>>>> rolling donut about creativity, you're a fool.
>>>
>>> Hollywood is all about making cash *safely* and with little
>>> risk.
>
>> And?
>
> ... if a show/movie was popular then a reboot/remake/sequel
> should do at least as well with today's crowd.

Because, as we all know, where tastes in entertainment are
concerned, nothing *ever* changes or *ever* could. That's why our
only source of entertainment today is shadow puppets around a
campfire deep in the cave.

Moron.

> Doesn't always
> work, in fact many times it doesn't:

Doesn't work quite often. The Hollywood marketing types aren't
especially bright, but they're clearly brighter than you.

>
> Knight Rider, Charlie's Angels, MacGyver...
>
>>> Better to sell to a known fan base than to an unknown crowd.
>
>> Not when the known fan base is tiny, and the unknown crowd has
>> demographics that the marketing people have successfully read
>> before. Brand recognition is worth a lot more than actual fans.
>
> "Better to sell [something familiar] to a known fan base than
> [to sell something new and untested] to an unknown crowd" is a
> common way of thinking in Tinseltown.

Not really, but that's basically what I said. Something people have
heard of from die hard fans, but don't actually *remember*.

>
> If you have something popular, even if it's only mildly popular,
> make more of it and hope the new additions are well accepted and
> make money.

Works best if it wasn't popular enough to have contracts renewed
with terms mroe favorable to the creator, or, worse, that the
creator bought the rights to.

>
>>> Hence all the reboots and sequels that we get over and over
>>> and over ad nauseum.
>
>> Most of stuff that a lot of people have heard of, but very,
>> very few actually remember.
>>
>> As I said.
>
> A great many people can quote shows/movies line for line and
> remember them in detail.

A great many people can quote the best known line or two from shows
and movies, even if they've never actually seen it. More than that,
no, very few people can.

> Trekkies are a good example.
>

Trekkies are freaks. And hardly representative of the mass
audience. And most of *them* can't quote more than a line or two
from a few episodes.

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

[Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha]

Your Name <Your...@YourISP.com> wrote in

news:p5vh6d$1qb0$1...@gioia.aioe.org:

> C. In terms of silly reboots and remakes, the morons make so
> many silly
> changes that it's barely recognisable as having anything to
> do with the original ... they're "in-name-only remakes".

"Based on the title of a popular novel that we haven't read."

[Madlove]

On 02/11/2018 11:07 PM, EGK wrote:
> Hey, I'm agreeing with you. I'm just saying it's about money and name
> recognition sells better than something that's new. Telling Paramount you
> have a script for a remake of Star Trek is a lot easier than saying you have
> a great script for a new series about space exploration.

How many "Dr. Moreau" and "King Kong" movies have we had since 1980?

And did the studios really think "The Shadow" and "The Spirit" would
work today?
They should've kept the main idea but updated the characters and gave
them new names.