> I'm not sure I get this at all. You remake a bad show/movie exactly because > the original was bad (or unknown) and you hope you can do it better. Why > remake a good or great film or TV show, if you don't think you can improve > on it?
Exactly. > If I want to make a TV show about a crack, > secrete espionage unit that relies more on guile and manipulation than > shooting, I might as well call it Mission:Impossible than think up a new > name and market it as "kind of like M:I in the 21st century" (assuming I > already own the rights to the show). The problem is that people too young to have seen the original series have no investment in the name, while those of us old enough to remember the original will bring expectations to a new series that the producers may be unwilling or unable to meet. (In the particular case of Mission:Impossible, I'm ignoring the movies, which add further levels of confusion.) I gave up on the current Five-O after a few episodes. On top of the writing being pedestrian, I kept having a "that's not McGarrett" reaction two or three times an episode. I also agree with Kevin's general point that building the backstory of how this team came together added very little. If it were Honolulu Cops (or some cleverer title) with characters named Wilson and Manumaleuna, I'd probably have lasted a bit longer. Even if I didn't like it as much as the original Five-O, I'd be more willing to judge it on its own merits. A note about the original Five-O: Che Fong was a great one-man CSI lab decades before anyone knew those initials. -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
