Virtual Birthday Party, Day 2
Oct. 2nd, 2013 11:13 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
wiseheartDear all,
Day 1 of the party has been a great success: 170 comments on 2 pages so far. As agreed, I hereby kick off the second day, so that we won't lose everything like last year, should LJ crash our party again.
Threads of interest can still be commented on, but I ask you to start any new threads here from now on
And now: on with the party!!!
Day 1 of the party has been a great success: 170 comments on 2 pages so far. As agreed, I hereby kick off the second day, so that we won't lose everything like last year, should LJ crash our party again.
Threads of interest can still be commented on, but I ask you to start any new threads here from now on
And now: on with the party!!!
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2013-10-03 08:27 pm (UTC)Now, since we had so much fun with tearing the Hobbit film to pieces (gently, only gently, of course), let's discuss some sci-fi. Or rather how a new generation of directors/showrunners likes to turn an old classic upside down and inside out.
My personal grievances are:
The films The Day the Earth Stood Still and The Andromeda Strain, as well as the series Battlestar Galactica and Kirk-era Star Trek. And no, I don't even consider "Enterprise" part of Star Trek at all, sorry.
So, what are your battle scars in this area? (If it isn't sci-fi, tell us anyway!)
(no subject)
Date: 2013-10-04 04:24 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2013-10-04 09:28 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2013-10-04 11:04 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2013-10-04 04:17 pm (UTC)I was already quite mad about what Bermaga did with Trek canon (especially Vulcans) in their dumb "Enterprise" series, but this makes me turn back to the original faster than Spock could say "fascinating".
(no subject)
Date: 2013-10-04 10:41 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2013-10-05 04:50 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2013-10-04 11:10 am (UTC)The remake of The Day the Earth Stood Still was alright, especially for a film with that cast, but the original is so iconic that you're never going to win by remaking it.
Battlestar Galactica - the new version - was superb! I loved it. Whereas the original had been derivative and cheesy in the extreme, even back then.
But why oh why did anybody think it was anything but a catastrophically idiotic idea to try to remake The Italian Job? With BMW Maxis and an American setting? And practially no plot.
(no subject)
Date: 2013-10-04 04:22 pm (UTC)As for Battlestar Galactica... I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree. I've been a devout fan of the original since the 1980s, when it first hit the small screen over here, and the "reimagined" one would never work for me. I gave it a try, and It would have worked for me if they hadn't call it BSG and hadn't twisted characters I loved beyond recognition.
It is not BSG. If they thought the original was shit, why trying to sell their completely different series under the same title? Because the old series had faithfiul followers even after decades, who hoped to get some version of their old favourite and got something else instead? It's not a honest thing. If they want something diffferent, they should call it different, too. But as a selling tool, the dumb old show was good enough for them, right?
Sorry for the rant. I feel very strongly about such things. And I don't like being cheated.
(no subject)
Date: 2013-10-04 11:07 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2013-10-04 11:18 pm (UTC)Not to mention the recent Jane Eyre film with Mia Wasikowska. I don't think any film/tv version of the novel has entirely worked for me, and it did have one or two good points, but oh god the lack of chemistry between Jane & Rochester was just sad. And the casting has meant that the formerly-bijou-but-high-quality JE fandom is being overrun with Rochester/some character from the Austen biopic. I hate hate hate it when actor pairings acquire such a following that the characters from all their films get paired willy-nilly.
Oh, and the new Sherlock Holmes films with Robert Downey, Jr. We bought the DVD of the first film & turned it off in disgust by mutual agreement after the first 20 minutes. I've never seen anything to beat the old Granada television version with Jeremy Brett.
(no subject)
Date: 2013-10-05 01:42 am (UTC)I haven't seen the most recent version of Jane Eyre yet, but you are right - the chemistry between Jane & Rochester is essential, if it's not there, than what's the point.
I can't stand the new Sherlock Holmes films either - I really wanted to like them, but it's just not right. I loved the old Granada version with Jeremy Brett.
(no subject)
Date: 2013-10-05 02:16 am (UTC)The new Jane Eyre had far more chemistry between Jane & Rivers (an excellent Jamie Bell); in fact, the whole Rivers section was foregrounded. It made for an interesting AU, but it really wasn't Jane Eyre.
And I don't understand what they were aiming for with the new Sherlock Holmes. It seemed to turn Holmes into generic action hero -- I can see there are elements of physicality in the original that it's fair to foreground, but I like the disembodied brain archetype & there are plenty of other action heroes around.
(no subject)
Date: 2013-10-05 04:52 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2013-10-05 08:24 pm (UTC)One of the things I thought when I first saw the Sherlock pilot was that they missed a trick in not making Watson female. (But then I got to like Freeman in the role very much.) It was a shame with Sherlock that they didn't present any positive women, other than as very minor characters, until they decided to develop Molly into that niche.
(no subject)
Date: 2013-10-05 08:47 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2013-10-06 12:07 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2013-10-06 08:03 am (UTC)