Yes! Battlestar for the Planet of the Apes – It writes itself.
Could be worse, at least they’re not rebooting Galactica 1980…
<shudder>
I don’t see how taking another run at it can hurt. For all the qualities of the reboot you could of had more actual fun and cheer by listening to an hour of Morissey every week.
Well, that was the one with the human style Cylons.
And as Tarzan, the Ape Man; The Legend of Zorro; every iteration of The Three Musketeers I’ve ever seen, Joel Shumaker’s Batman, not to mention The Lone Ranger, Terminator: Salvation; Godzilla (the 90s version); and Supermen 4 and 5 proved there isn’t a property so beloved that some director can’t take a massive shit on it.
I have to disagree about the Three Musketeers as the 1970s version was quite good as was its sequel The Four Musketeers. Both are well-crafted films which stand the test of time. While Charlton Heston as Cardinal Richelieu was probably miscast, the rest of group performed admirably.
Spider-Man came out in 2002. Spider-Man 2 in 2004, Spider-Man 3 in 2007.
Amazing Spider-Man came out in 2012. In no way, shape, or form, can that be considered ‘immediately after establishing’ the Raimi series.
…Spider-Man 4, directed by Raimi, was planned to come out in 2011. Raimi walked away from the franchise in 2010 when the decision was made to reboot. So I don’t think that what Amateur Barbarian said is unfair.
So, are they going to throw a big curveball to the fanbase by switching Starbuck’s gender?
10 years and 3 movies is not, in any reasonable definition, ‘immediately after the franchise was established’.
Arguing that the Raimi series still had steam in it? Go ahead.
Pretending that it was barely established - that it, in fact, hadn’t already been around longer than most franchises - is silly.
(Also, you have cause and effect backwards - the series was rebooted because Raimi left, because the fourth film wasn’t coming along.)
…I’m not arguing anything. Calm down dude. No-one said anything was “barely established.” And I haven’t got cause and effect backwards at all. And I’m not pretending anything. You know exactly what he meant and you know exactly what I meant. There was going to be a fourth movie in 2011: instead they rebooted the series in 2012.
I just don’t get the fascination for “Battlestar Galactica.” It was just never that good. The original series sucked on ice. The SciFi Channel series was MUCH better, HUGE improvement, but still, in my opinion, kinda “meh.” Now a movie based on the series. Hollywood just keeps spinning out crap from crap. Really, how about an original story?
For comparison, The Omega Man came out less than a decade after The Last Man On Earth. Both movies, of course, are adaptations of I Am Legend (the next attempt at adapting the book didn’t come around for a few more decades)
The *Star Trek *franchise was rebooted over a similar timeline (seven years between Nemesis and the 2009 Star Trek).
Personally, I’m all for it. It’s fun to see what new angles a newcomer takes to an older work, like listening to covers of songs. Not to mention that I’m always a fan of sci-fi films with space battles and robots and what not.
The fascination with Battlestar Galactica is that, in its time, it was the only option for Sci-Fi after Star Wars ignited that interest. It was crap, but if you wanted Sci-Fi, that’s what you were watching (and, it was no worse crap than all of the other crap airing in its time). So the people who only had Battlestar Galactica to tide them over after Star Wars harbor quite a bit of fond nostalgia for it.
Those people are now influential enough to get a series approved.
Furthermore, remakes and based-ons are hugely popular now because they come with a built-in audience who will see the show/movie/whatever just because it is based on something. The nostalgia audience will tune in to watch a new BSG, the comic book guys will tune in to watch a Marvel show. That guaranteed audience lessens the risks of a new show, and lowers the bar for them to get made.
De novo shows or movies are held to a much higher standard because there is no guaranteed audience built in – a movie like Inception needs good writing and star-power attached to get made. Maybe with higher risk there’s also a chance of better reward, but the safe bet is the surest.
Funny thing is, even with the baked-in audience of a rework/adaptation, the baked-in audience isn’t who they focus on – they’re the guaranteed consumers. The ones the industry is interested in are the potential new consumers. Hence, when these things are seen, often the bitterest people complaining are those sure-thing viewers. When nuBSG came out, the rancor of the old school Battlestar fans was great. I’ve no doubt that this re-remake – with two sets of true believers – will reap double the rage. Which means it’ll have an okay premere with the built-in viewers… who will then vent endlessly about their disappointment, probably tanking the show.
I never saw that version. My only references were the 1993, 1998, 2001, and 2011 films involving Musketeers (which I guess would be “reboots”). It says something to me that the “best” version of those films IMHO was the one staring Jack Bauer, Tiger Blood Warlock, Robin and Oliver Platt.
Audiences simply don’t get tired of watching the tale of Colonial boat-people.