Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login
TV
Byrne Robotics > TV << Prev Page of 3 Next >>
Topic: So there’s a MAGNUM, P.I. reboot coming.... Post ReplyPost New Topic
Author
Message
John Byrne
Avatar
Imaginary X-Man

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 116944
Posted: 22 June 2018 at 6:17am | IP Logged | 1 post reply

Filmmakers forget that their original product is different from the stage. "Hundreds of actors have played Hamlet," they will say, forgetting that Hamlet was created to be played many times by many actors.

But it's different for movies and TV. In most cases producers do not think in terms of decades and multiple iterations. Unless they're working on DOCTOR WHO, they don't go in assuming different actors will play the same characters. Consider STAR TREK. When a second pilot was ordered and Jeffrey Hunter was not available, Roddenberry did not call William Shatner's character "Christopher Pike". He created a whole new guy.

There is a dichotomy at work. Movies have a greater sense of permanence, yet we get used to multiple James Bonds, Sherlock Holmes, Tarzans. TV shows are ephemeral, yet perhaps precisely because of that the actors who "create" the roles become permanently attached to them.

Back to Top profile | search
 
Sam Houston
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 26 March 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 1625
Posted: 23 June 2018 at 9:36am | IP Logged | 2 post reply

Well, CBS did a reboot of MacGyver (originally ABC) and was picked up for a 2nd season (not that I watch it).
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Eric Jansen
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 27 October 2013
Location: United States
Posts: 1638
Posted: 25 June 2018 at 6:21am | IP Logged | 3 post reply

"There is a dichotomy at work. Movies have a greater sense of permanence, yet we get used to multiple James Bonds, Sherlock Holmes, Tarzans. TV shows are ephemeral, yet perhaps precisely because of that the actors who "create" the roles become permanently attached to them."
______________

Yes, movies seem more like (as you mention) "Hamlet"--they are events.  And, sometimes, they tell the same story over and over again.  I don't mind "King Kong" being remade every 40 years with new people.

TV shows and their characters--it has been said--are more like friends you invite into your home every week.  Can you imagine if your friend "Bob" suddenly showed up at your door with a brand new face?  "You're not Bob!"
Back to Top profile | search
 
Andrew Saxon
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 19 June 2016
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 317
Posted: 25 June 2018 at 10:37am | IP Logged | 4 post reply

Mixed feelings. I hear what people are saying about certain characters being forever linked to one specific actor, however, I can see some merit in bringing back a successful television format for a new generation to enjoy. Take The Time Tunnel, as an example, I wouldn't be too upset if someone other than James Darren played Tony Newman or someone other than Bob Colbert played Doug Phillips. Those two actors (and I'm not knocking either of them) were not quite so integral to the roles as, say, Peter Falk was to Columbo or William Shatner to J. T. Kirk. The Invaders is another one where I think another actor could step into Roy Thinnes' old role of architect David Vincent if someone wanted to take a stab at a 21st century version.

PS I also have to say, I prefer the new Hawaii Five-0 to the original, which, even when I was young, I always found rather stiff and po-faced.
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
John Byrne
Avatar
Imaginary X-Man

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 116944
Posted: 25 June 2018 at 10:50am | IP Logged | 5 post reply

But why do these reboots have to be the same characters?
Back to Top profile | search
 
Eric Jansen
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 27 October 2013
Location: United States
Posts: 1638
Posted: 26 June 2018 at 12:59am | IP Logged | 6 post reply

Yes, why the same characters?  In this day and age where there are 1,000 channels rerunning everything that was ever on TV or DVD sets collecting old shows, or properties like DR. WHO and STAR TREK that continue an established universe, it really doesn't make sense to keep them the same characters when the originals are still around.  The most successful of these recent reboots--HAWAII 5-0 and MACGYVER really look (from the first episodes at least, the only ones I watched)--looked like they were set up to be the SONS of the original characters.  Nothing was gained by keeping them the same, and something was lost by not making them a continuation.  McGarrett could still be called "McGarrett" (he could even be "Steve Jr.") and MacGyver actually would have been cooler if he had been the son trained by the original, and Richard Dean Anderson is still around to guest star (if he wanted).

Whether it's comics, shows, or movies, people have to realize that when you present CONFLICTING versions of a character, you are making people CHOOSE which one has their allegiance, whether it's a conscious choice or subconscious.  Jay Garrick and Barry Allen did not conflict, so fans could love both; Sean Connery, Roger Moore, Pierce Brosnan, etc. James Bonds did not conflict, so people could enjoy all; by emphasizing different origins and Green Goblins in the Tobey Maguire and Andrew Garfield movie versions of Spider-Man, they made us choose--and the latter suffered for it.

If they make me choose between Tom Selleck's MAGNUM P.I. and the new one, guess which one I'll pick.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Andrew Saxon
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 19 June 2016
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 317
Posted: 26 June 2018 at 4:18am | IP Logged | 7 post reply

Again, mixed feelings about the 'son of' or next generation thing. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. I groaned out loud when Steve Austin discovered a long lost son, only for Steve Austin jr. to wind up needing bionic surgery. There's also the problem for the new viewer coming to a legacy show, of wondering if they need to have watched the original to follow the continuation (although Star Trek seems to have pulled off that trick to varying degrees of success).

Sometimes the format is bigger than the characters. If The Invaders was resurrected, there's no reason why catering manager, Colin Figgis couldn't be fighting the aliens instead of architect David Vincent. Columbo, though, needs, no... IS Peter Falk. I don't think there is a one-size-fits-all answer to this.
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Brian Floyd
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 07 July 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 6509
Posted: 26 June 2018 at 10:48am | IP Logged | 8 post reply

The new version of MACGYVER really isn't that bad, but I do think it would have worked better if the main character was the original's son. Didn't even have to be the one introduced at the end of the series' last season, either.

The two biggest changes are that Macgyver has a team rather than working alone (Jack Dalton is his bodyguard, for instance) and his father is still alive. Disappointingly, when he finally showed up, it was Tate Donovan, not Richard Dean Anderson. (And his grandfather has also b been shown in flashbacks, so they can't go that route with RDA, either.)

HAWAII 5-0, though, stinks. I managed to get through the first season, then dropped it. Haven't watched an episode since. I only gave it a shot due to the cast, but McGarrett being portrayed as practically superhuman compared to the others didn't sit too well with me. 


Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Andrew Saxon
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 19 June 2016
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 317
Posted: 26 June 2018 at 4:43pm | IP Logged | 9 post reply

HAWAII 5-0, though, stinks.

Thoroughly disagree with you. It's a terrific series with a super cast. As said earlier, much prefer it to the original.
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Neil Lindholm
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 January 2005
Location: China
Posts: 4560
Posted: 26 June 2018 at 4:47pm | IP Logged | 10 post reply

I agree. I only watched the new MACGYVER once but the new HAWAII 5-0 is great fun. I never really liked Scott Caan before (reminded me of an idiot frat boy in his older films) but the interaction between the main cast is enjoyable to watch. It lost a lot when the other two leads left the show but it is still watchable.
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Brian Floyd
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 07 July 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 6509
Posted: 26 June 2018 at 8:14pm | IP Logged | 11 post reply

Eh, to each his own.

The only CBS reboot I think is better than the original is S.W.A.T.
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Didier Yvon Paul Fayolle
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 25 January 2005
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 5116
Posted: 27 June 2018 at 9:52pm | IP Logged | 12 post reply

The Time tunnel... They did a pilot in the 90's. It is
available in the bonus section on the DVDs. It was
different in the idea, but it could have been really
nice.
They could make it again... I would watch.
Back to Top profile | search | www
 

<< Prev Page of 3 Next >>
  Post ReplyPost New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login