Given that the only thing the new show has in common with the old show is the overarching theme of “family adventure in space” and character names, I’d say this IS a fully original show.
Let’s also appreciate that the “original” Lost in Space is a space version of Swiss Family Robinson, both book and movie.
In many cases, like the new Lost in Space, it’s not really a reboot as much as a marketing hook, a name people will remember because it taps into something they already know, and a name that elicits interest. Maybe I’m not super hot on a generic space show, but want to see what they did with that old idea, so I’ll tune in for an episode or two.
See, this is exactly my point in the OP. I understand that ideas and concepts get reused, even Shakespeare did it. LIS may be a space version of Swiss Family Robinson, but they didn’t call it “Space Family Robinson”, they gave it its own branding.
This isn’t even the first time they rebooted Fantasy Island. In the late 90s there was a *Fantasy Island starring *Malcolm McDowell as Mr. Roark but I don’t think it even lasted a season. I’m in my mid-40s now and while I can remember watching Fantasy Island when it was still on the air and in syndication I don’t think I’ve seen an episode in more than thirty years. So I see the new reboot and I’m with you, who is this for?
But as others have said, with the television audience being so fragmented today, to the point where a lot of the audience aren’t even watching programs on television, maybe there’s some value in name recognition. At least a few people in this thread checked it out because of the name. I had mild interest in the series but made no effort to watch it. But I’ve heard of it and I doubt I’d remember hearing about a new show if it didn’t have a familiar name.
Really? Come to think of it the LIS family’s name was Robinson, so yeah, I guess it was only distinguished from “Swiss Family Robinson” only inasmuch as they legally had to.
In 1965, when Irwin Allen produced the primetime television show Lost in Space , Gold Key’s publishers noticed the similarities between the comic books and the show. They considered filing suit, but decided against it, as Gold Key was also publishing an Irwin Allen title, Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea . The two companies reached an agreement that the comic could change its cover title to Space Family Robinson: Lost in Space . The new title appeared starting with issue #15 (Jan 1966).[2]
More a sound version of the Elmo Lincoln silent one. Only one Tarzan series that I recall. I see a reboot as the beginning of a new series from scratch, like Spiderman.
None of the new takes on Tarzan like Greystoke or (ick) the Bo Derek version led to series.
Yes, even though the new Battlestar Galactica had a entirely different theme and outlook than the original, they used the same name.
Which pissed fans like me off since I enjoyed the old cheese of the original.
I am not saying the new BS wasnt well made and casted, but they could easily made it a new show. I understand why they didn’t but still…
I enjoyed it, it got decent ratings and the critics didn’t hate it. You may think it was garbage, and sure it wouldn’t be good today, but that doesn’t mean it was bad. We had iirc 6 channels here.
Same for the reboot of Lost In Space. There is no reason they couldn’t have given the show a different name and different character names, but it was easier to pretend it was a known quantity.
Because if they had, everyone would just say “Uh, this is just Lost In Space. Why didn’t they shell out for the IP and stop pretending it was something else? Brand recognition, people!!!”
It’s one thing to dredge up an old character / movie / show that was last popular several decades ago or was never popular to begin with. That I understand. What I don’t get is the way DC is doing things by rebooting every few years. Forget about Adam West*, Cesar Romero*, Christopher Reeve, and ruining my childhood. I’ve lost count of how many Batmans, Supermans, and Jokers we’ve gone through just in recent years.
I remember those two from reruns. I’m not quite that old .
Right, but see this is why I think this is actually much more about your personal experience and less about answering the question of why studios commission reboots. The original Hawaii Five-O was dimly remembered by you, but it was a smash hit back then, running 12 seasons and almost always a top-20 show (back when a top-20 show actually meant something). But just because it was dimly remembered by you, doesn’t mean it was dimly remembered by all.
Aapparently the reboot was very successful (10 seasons, top-25) despite not pulling in large 18-49 numbers, meaning the bulk of the audience was likely 50 and older, making them people who were around to watch the original show. Now I can’t guarantee it was all the same audience of course, but it seems like a reasonable assumption that a lot of people watching the reboot were pretty familiar with the original in one way or another.
Well, they kind of have to, if they want to keep making them. Christopher Nolan and Christian Bale signed up for a trilogy, Nolan had a specific vision of the story he wanted to tell, and neither was interested in continuing the franchise beyond that, and Nolan very deliberately finished Bruce Wayne’s story.
But Batman is probably DC’s second most recognizable and valuable property (and maybe the most), and certainly has been the most successful at making the transition to the big screen. So Warner definitely wanted to make more Batman movies. At that point, they pretty much had to reboot, or just leave one of DC’s two biggest assets lying fallow while Marvel Studios is making all the money with super-hero movies.
Sony has rebooted Spider-Man twice in the past decade. But that’s because we got one trilogy that was experiencing diminishing returns, and and then a reboot that underperformed, and then finally a screen version of Spider-Man that really seemed to click with audiences and critics.
Sony could have tried to wring some more out of the Raimi-Maguire Spider-Man, but reaction to Spider-Man 3 was lackluster at best, and Raimi had actually begun pre-production on Spider-Man 4 but admitted he wasn’t going to make the projected release date. So, Marvel and Sony decided to go with a reboot, so they could get Marvel’s most popular character back on screen (and Sony needs to keep making Spider-Man movies to retain the rights). The reboot movies received lukewarm reactions for audiences and critics, and severely underperformed Marvel’s other concurrent movies. So we get yet another reboot, this time in continuity with the wildly popular MCU movies.
And that’s not even getting into issues like The Joker, which isn’t even really a reboot. DC/Warner in particular seem to be experimenting with what will work in movies, and since they haven’t been able to match the MCU’s success, they’re taking more chances. The DC movies in a sense are more like their comic book source material, where you can have multiple continuities, Elseworlds, parallel universes, and so on. The Joker in some ways was like the old “graphic novels” from the 80s, which often drew on existing continuity while not actually being part of it, and experimented with different, usually more “adult”, interpretations of characters.
I think they could easily have changed things to avoid the comparison. They could have introduced different characters and cut back to make sure it wasn’t a one-to-one correspondence. Go back to the original concept of having the family learning to survive on an alien planet.
Didn’t know that. I need to find the Lincoln Tarzan - I assume it is on YouTube somewhere, being out of copyright now. Interesting.
ETA: One of my favorite scenes in the Tarzan books is where Tarzan is in LA, auditions for a Tarzan movie, and is told he doesn’t fit the role. ERB had a good sense of humor.
.