Today I came across two opposing views on the "re-imagining" of pop culture properties. First, my friend Javi says live with it — recasting is an inevitable part of an industry that recycles everything:
In a culture where everything is re-made and re-hashed over and over
again, i can understand why people would get so mad about daniel craig becoming the new james bond, or brandon routh the new superman or david tennant the new doctor who (any hartnell loyalists out there? c’mon – express yourselves!). People crave stability in their heroes and the values they embody – and re-hashing and re-casting takes that way. I get it. I can even understand the good-natured argument between friends about how the only man ever to really capture the spirit of superman was kirk alyn, and the occasional shocking revelation that someone who’s opinion
you respect actually thinks that george lazenby’s work in “on her majesty’s secret service” has been shockingly under-appreciated……what i don’t understand is the all-pervasive vitriol – why put up web pages full of heated invective about craig’s perceived shortcomings? why the long angry treatises about how “the character is named ‘starbuck’ – not ‘stardoe!’” why all the keening wails over how some callous money grubbing producer “ruined my childhood?” why the nasty public outcry over michael keaton putting on the mask and cowl? why all the death threats about how michael shanks was no james spader? oh wait – there weren’t any, moving on.
…but the fact is we live in a society where everything is re-made, re-hashed and re-packaged endlessly – which means your idols can be frozen in time indefinitely. no need to put up a protest site, i
can just curl up in a sofa and watch my dvd of “octopussy…”
John Kenneth Muir doesn’t agree. Despite all the accolades that the new BATTLESTAR GALACTICA has been getting (including a Peabody Award), he thinks they should call it something else.
To reiterate my stance on Galactica: It’s well-written and I can enjoy an episode any time in much the same way I enjoy the tense 24. However, my problem begins and ends with the fact that it’s called Battlestar Galactica. The original series has been used as a "brand name" by Ron Moore to do something totally new, something unfaithful, something he wanted to do. That’s fine, and some people obviously like what he’s done very much. But it shouldn’t be called Battlestar Galactica
By the way, LIVE AND LET DIE was my first 007 movie, too, and I loved it (hey, I think I was 10 at the time). But then I saw GOLDFINGER and it was a revelation. James Bond became my hero (and still is). That said, I still eagerly awaited each new 007 movie — and enjoyed them –even as I was rediscovering the early ones (this was before home video…I had to wait for the Connery Bonds to show up in revival theatres or on TV). I was able to see them as two distinctly different experiences — the Roger Moore Bonds and the Sean Connery Bonds — and enjoy them for what they were (not any more. I cringe watching the Moore Bonds).
I can’t wait to see Daniel Craig in CASINO ROYALE. But the truth is, I’d be dying to see it no matter who was starring as 007 (Clive Owen, Julian McMahon, etc.). Because I’m a James Bond geek. Even at my ripe old age, I’m still a little kid when it comes to Bond…
UPDATE 4-18-07: John comments at length on the reaction to his original post. Here are some excerpts:
I wasn’t advocating that Battlestar Galactica (or
James Bond, for that matter) shouldn’t be re-cast. Unfortunately, we’re
all mortal and no actor lives forever (Lorne Greene and John Colicos
R.I.P.). Re-casting is a necessity if we want our pop-culture legends
to survive…However, in terms of Battlestar Galactica,
the changes are much more dramatic in the new series than simple
re-casting. Characters, races and themes have been altered, and that’s
why I recommended Battlestar Galactica should have been named something different.[…]So while there is much to love in Battlestar Galactica
the re-imagination and I encourage everybody to enjoy it, it’s clear
that there was a whole lot more changed in the franchise than simply
"re-casting." The characters are totally different, though they bear
the same names. The Cylons are different too (and I’m not saying they
aren’t better…), and the focus has shifted from the family unit to a
blatantly reminiscent political context. Again — good for the show for
making a statement about the times we live in. But if you change the
theme, the universe, the look and the characters of a production, why
name it after that production? Isn’t the comparison a hindrance? Thus
my original thesis: this show shouldn’t have been called Battlestar Galactica.
The vehicle is the same, but the tires have been changed, the engine
has been replaced, and the interior design is totally different.
The metaphor doesn’t quite work. Have you seen the Mustang, Thunderbird, Impala, or Mercedes SL lately? The cars have changed, for better or worse, with the times…but the car companies haven’t changed their names (okay, to be fair, for one brief period in the 70s they called the Mustang the Mustang II).
I like John and I really enjoy his books, but I believe his argument in this case is typical of so much fan-thinking, which unfortunately is not based in the real world or on the realities of the movie & television business (note how the "Colonial Fan Force" is still rallying for a revival of the original BG with the original stars). There was no way BATTLESTAR GALACTICA was going to be called anything but BATTLESTAR GALACTICA for obvious reasons even if the characters were turned into singing, animated chipmunks…and to argue that it should have been different is, well, kind of pointless.
UPDATE 5/15/06: Here’s a link to actor Dirk Benedict’s tirade against the new Battlestar Galactica.
The way people in fandom, any fandom, obsess over those things really befuddles me, too. RL friends have parted ways over the question if Harry Potter is meant for Ginny or for Hermione – and I just don’t get it. I mean, I love some books, movies, shows and I like to read the fanfic and occasioal meta-discussion, but if somethings shows up I don’t like or enjoy, I just turn away and read/see something else. Okay, I might express my dislike and write a critique, but death threats? Investing the time and money to build a hate website? This kind of investment/obsession is totally beyond me.
I was disappointed with the LOTR movies – or perhaps that isn’t right, I wasn’t disappointed because I didn’t really expect to see JRR Tolkien’s book on the screen – but I was discontent that all this time and money had been spent on building a world that was very convincing and then the characters put into that world just weren’t the people I knew from the book, and let’s not even talk about the changes in the story line! They were still great movies, but I don’t think they had anything to do with LOTR. And this is Peter Jackson fault. He’s a director of cheap cheesy horror movies and it shows. But that doesn’t mean I wish him something bad. It just means I’m still waiting for someone to give me the “real” LOTR. And meanwhile I watch KingKong and think that such a subject is far more “his thing”.
Regarding James Bond, it’s funny how antiquated those movies seem today. I remember that he whole family sat in front of the TV mesmerised, when I was a kid. Today you really had to pay me good money to make me see one of those flicks. But my attitude towards Sean Connery (his screen persona, not the real gentleman) has never changed – whenever I see him onscreen I just want to kick this macho’s shin.
kete
kete
For the most part, I agree with Lee: I see Ron Moore’s taking over BG as similar to Frank Miller’s run of DAREDEVIL comics. His stories of Daredevil’s origins were different from Stan Lee’s before him, but many fans prefer Miller’s telling.
Though no version of GALACTICA has really interested me, I applaud Moore for adding depth. I only regret the show’s name because it brings to mind 70s cheese. I suppose the title draws as many viewers as it repels. In my opinion, calling it something else–perhaps as simple as GALACTICA–would more accurately represent Moore’s attempt to be fresh.
I too eagerly wait for the release of the new 007 movie. However when I read a James Bond novel, even the non Flemming ones, my minds eye still visualizes Sean Connery, the ultimate Bond.
In this day and age of DVD, it’s kind of hard for me to buy the “ruining my childhood” nonsense. I’ll confess I howled when I heard about Will Smith as Alexander Mundy….then remembered my treasured video collection (thank you, Nostalgia Channel circa 1993-1994). No one is “ruining” anything. Let them re-image, re-imagine all they want. The originals are still around, and can be treasured for what they are. James M. Cain was once interviewed about his novels becoming movies, and the interviewer said that Hollywood had destroyed Cain’s books. Cain shrugged, pointed to his bookcase, and replied “No, they haven’t. They’re still right there.”
Another thing I’ve leared is one’s favorite Bond is the one you grew up with. For me, Sean Connery IS James Bond, period. Roger Moore IS Simon Templar, period. For all the dissing Roger gets, keep in mind he kept the series going when the consensus was it was dead and should be gone. Like Lee, I went to see them all, and will continue to do so. Personally, I’m very curious about CASINO ROYALE as a “background” Bond story. How DID Bond become 007? Once upon a time, I tried a spec script addressing that very question, up to and including the fact that James *knows* “shaken not stirred” is wrong, but there’s a very personal reason he prefers his martinis that way. For whatever reason, I couldn’t make the whole thing work and it went into the scrap pile. BUT…I’m wildly curious what they will do.
BATMAN BEGINS was a pleasant surprise (come on…Michael Caine as Alfred? How perfect can you get?), and I’m keeping an open mind about SUPERMAN RETURNS. I’d dearly love to see THE SAINT done as a period piece in the 1930’s-1940’s, but after the Kilmer movie, it probably won’t happen.
Relax, everyone. Strip everything else away, and we’re discussing movies and TV shows. Honest, there’s more important stuff to get upset about. If you want to expend energy making things right, look into what happened to a little girl named Jaime Rose Bolin of Purcell, OK. Read about what Kevin Ray Underwood did to her, what he had planned to do to her, and how he was going to do it. Read about that, then come back and tell me how making Starbuck into a female is the end of the world. Or Daniel Craig is all wrong as James Bond. Or……
“(I don’t know how anyone could look at the new BG and pine for the old one, but that’s another subject).”
I’m at a loss as to how anyone could pine for the old Battlestar Galactica under any circumstances, and I used to watch it when I was a kid.
I do sometimes think that the TV and movie industry is too willing to eat itself rather than take a risk on something new. Was anybody really served with Brady Bunch movies and Beverly Hillbillies movies? But the bottom line is probably, well, the bottom line, not creativity.
I’m the only one in the family who doesn’t like–really doesn’t like–the film version of “The Grinch that Stole Christmas.” (And don’t get me started on Mike Myers and “The Cat in the Hat.”) My brother asked me what I had against it and I said, “Because there wasn’t a single good reason to make it except for money.”
That can be a good enough reason, I suppose. Makes the world go round. Keeps some writers, directors, best boys, gaffers, etc., in Kraft Macaroni & Cheese and Tequila.
And sometimes… sometimes a re-work really comes out with something terrific. Right off hand, I think “The Fugitive.” I’m a big fan of the remake of “The Thomas Crown Affair.” I enjoyed all the versions of James Bond, including Roger Moore’s and Timothy Dalton’s.
But I wonder, in 50 years, will somebody try to do a remake of “Indiana Jones?” Or “Star Wars?”
Nobody’s wanted a shot at “Casablanca” have they? Or maybe they have. For a moment I was thinking, okay, Harrison Ford as Rick, and Kathleen Turner…
But that might work. But what about, say, Adam Sandler as Rick, and Britney Spears…
Makes ya think, don’t it?
Best,
Mark Terry
http://www.mark-terry.com
Somewhere in the last 30 years the audience has acquired a sense of entitlement, and I think we’re all the poorer for it because instead of responding to what we get, we simply measure it against our personal opinion of what it ought to be… and then whine and whine when it doesn’t match at every single fricking point of reference.
(I say ‘we’, but you know what I mean).
To hear some people carry on, you’d think they had some unique ownership rights over the imaginative territory of Galactica, Bond, LOTR or whatever. Do something that doesn’t suit them and every toy comes flying out of the pram.
What do they honestly think they’d get if audiences were to micromanage writers and performers to the degree they seem to demand? Big screen fan fiction, is what… a hybrid mixture of received images and wet dreams.
I loved the Connery Bonds. Craig as Bond isn’t going to take one damned thing out of my life and may just add something new to it.
I loved the first BRADY BUNCH movie. It was a brilliant remake. I liked the MAVERICK movie, too. But they were both, in their own way, slavishly loyal to the original series.
I’d like to see a new HAWAII FIVE-0 series…maybe with someone like Neal McDonough as McGarrett.
I wouldn’t mind seeing someone “re-imagine” GUNSMOKE as something more akin to DEADWOOD. Then again…maybe that’s what DEADWOOD is. They’ve got Doc, the Marshal, and their own take on Miss Kitty…
God, am I a TV geek or what?
I also agree with what someone said here about the audience feeling this ridiculous sense of ownership over the shows and movies they see (which stretches into the whole fanfic thing). I don’t know where it came from. Perhaps the fan movement that saved STAR TREK…which, in itself, is something of a myth, since Roddenberry engineered the whole thing.
Enduring pop cultural characters — be they Sherlock Holmes, Superman, James Bond, or Zatoichi — will be reincarnated over and over again by different actors, for the same reasons that Hamlet and Carmen weren’t performed just once and then put on a shelf: (1) a new interpretation may bring something new and delightful to the character; and (2) reincarnations will always make a buck. I certainly think that the interpretations of Tarzan shouldn’t have ended with Elmo Lincoln, or that the James Bond series should have been retired after that fifties’ TV incarnation of Casino Royale. The issue isn’t remakes per se; it’s good remakes.
Since the Harry Potter novels have become powerhouses of British literature, I imagine they will be readapted, like other British fantasy works such as Peter Pan, LOTR, and the Narnia books. Imagine a BBC miniseries of the HP books that adapted each book in detail, starring someone yet unborn as Harry.
While I, too, prefer the new BSG to the old, I can also understand how fans of the original might feel… cheated, used, misled, shortchanged… by the decision to use, not only the original series’ name, but also the names of the original characters, while not remaining true to it/them. (Yes, I know some of them are call-signs now, not names, per se.)
Perhaps the brouhaha could’ve been avoided if they’d gone the Smallville route–i.e. Battlestar Atlantia–or maybe even used something completely different–i.e. Conviction, as opposed to L&O:ADA.
Then again, all publicity is good publicity, right? – Mark
P.S. Imagine if the next Bond were female (a la James “Jamie” King)?
P.P.S. Lee, thanks for the answer in your other post re: Firebrand.
I think in general people don’t like change. I count myself amongst them. *g* I’ll definitely miss Pierce, but I’m curious to see how Craig will do in the role. He’s a fine actor and should be able to make the character his own. That said, Sean Connery will always be Bond in my mind.
I’m going to give it a chance, but I just don’t see how anyone could top Lynda Carter as Wonder Woman. (Please don’t comment. Let me have my stupid loves in peace.)
Of course, I’m trying to keep an open mind. They might cast someone who could surprise me.
As to the GRINCH. The costumes were amazing, the sets were awesome. The story, however, left much to be desired. Expect for the half hour that was the original TV special, which is already a huge expansion of the book.
Maestro wrote: “Perhaps the brouhaha could’ve been avoided if they’d gone the Smallville route–i.e. Battlestar Atlantia–or maybe even used something completely different–i.e. Conviction, as opposed to L&O:ADA.”
What brouhaha? There isn’t one — well, at least not a measureable one in TV terms. We’re talking maybe 100 insanely devoted original BATTLESTAR fans who are pissed off out of MILLIONS of viewers who aren’t. Why would the studio and network throw away a pre-sold name to appease a handful of fans who pine to see Herb Jefferson again? That would be insanity. Calling the show BATTLESTAR ATLANTIA might please the “Colonial Fan Force” but nobody cares about them. Nobody. The kind of people who use the term “feldergarb” in their casual conversation represent an itsy bitsy, barely measureable fraction of the viewers of the new BATTLESTAR GALACTICA. The new series is more successful, in every way, shape and form, creatively, financially, and dramatically, than the show it was based on.
Should they have called it something else? What would have been the point. That’s like casting Tom Cruise in MISSION IMPOSSIBLE and calling the movie IMPOSSIBLE MISSION FORCE because some diehard Peter Graves’ fans might be upset with the recasting.
SMALLVILLE is called SMALLVILLE because they wanted to tell the world this was an entirely new take on SUPERMAN that wasn’t SUPERBOY…after, what, four TV series, four movies, hundreds of cartoons and thousands of comic books? Calling it SMALLVILLE also makes it stand out from the umpteen versions of SUPERMAN that already exist. SUPERMAN is a well-established, hugely successful franchise that has been reimagined and milked to death… BATTLESTAR is not. It’s a series that lasted one disasterous season. Why would they call a new version of BATTLESTAR GALACTICA anything but BATTLESTAR GALACTICA?
You can’t really compare GALACTICA to the L&O/CONVICTION situation. They have nothing at all in common…except smart business sense. The only reason CONVICTION isn’t called LAW AND ORDER: CONVICTION is because they over-saturated the market with L&O and L&O:TRIAL BY JURY died. If they thought calling it L&O:CONVICTION would make money and enhance the show’s chances for success, then that’s what the show would be called (Everyone knows it’s the fourth L&O anyway, since the star is a character from L&O:SVU and Fred Dalton Thompson is the D.A. in all four series).
*Somewhere in the last 30 years the audience has acquired a sense of entitlement, and I think we’re all the poorer for it because instead of responding to what we get, we simply measure it against our personal opinion of what it ought to be… and then whine and whine when it doesn’t match at every single fricking point of reference.
To hear some people carry on, you’d think they had some unique ownership rights over the imaginative territory of Galactica, Bond, LOTR or whatever. Do something that doesn’t suit them and every toy comes flying out of the pram.
What do they honestly think they’d get if audiences were to micromanage writers and performers to the degree they seem to demand? Big screen fan fiction, is what… a hybrid mixture of received images and wet dreams.*
I think it’s called customer awareness, Stephen. After all, it’s MY money producers of books, movies and shows are after – so why shouldn’t I have a say in what I’m willing to spend it for? You want me to buy something? OK, then give me what *I* want, not what *you* think I should buy.
OTOH, if you’re creating art simply for the joy of creating art, you have no customers to keep in mind and can do whatever you like – it just doesn’t pay the bills, does it?
kete
Speaking of CONVICTION, does anyone but me find it odd that Alexandra Cabot, whom we last saw in the Witness Protection Program on the run from Colombian drug dealers who had taken out a contract on her, is back 1) using her own name, 2) doing the same job, and 3) no one has ever said a word about her abscence, why she came back, how she came back, etc?
You wrote, “That’s like casting Tom Cruise in MISSION IMPOSSIBLE and calling the movie IMPOSSIBLE MISSION FORCE because some diehard Peter Graves’ fans might be upset with the recasting.”
Speaking of the Peter Graves chatacter, ‘James Phelps’, I don’t think anyone was upset with the casting, but after all these years since the original, the making of Phelps out to be the villian was the issue, not only with fans but with critics as well.
As you stated, even though the series and the movies are called MISSION IMPOSSIBLE, they were members of the Impossible Mission force.
I’ve been trying to figure out what it is that bothers me about some remakes more than others, and I’ve decided that it must be the ratio of quality/memorablenss of the original to creativity/money-grubbingness of the remake. Which is to say, remaking the Dukes of Hazard and Starsky and Hutch didn’t bother me one bit, since the source material was hardly classic, and I like Smallville for taking an old idea in a new direction, but Matt Damon and Ben Affleck’s notion to remake Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid has me tearing my hair out (please let it be a rumor).
I’m witholding judgement on the Wonder Woman movie- unless Lindsey Lohan manages to get herself cast in the lead role. Then the claws are coming out.