Battlewho Gawhattica?
So Universal Pictures announced a while ago that their own movie reboot of twice-cult-TV-show Battlestar Galactica will be produced and directed by none other than Bryan Singer. You’d think this was very odd, being that Ronald Moore’s more recent space opera has only just committed itself to the void, with a related prequel series, Caprica, on the way. Internet opinion is currently divided - as it often is (as a matter of consideration, when has there ever been anything close to a majority opinion on the internet in matters of pop culture, let alone the treacherous passionate depths of sci-fi fandom?), with many believing it to be a pointless move given the concept’s latest and generally well-received incarnation.
Caprica, the upcoming spin-off show from BSG.
A further (and, I believe, much more pedantic) train of thought holds that the existence of such a reboot will only serve to cause confusion among the canons and separate mythologies of the franchise, forcing people to specify exactly which ‘BSG’ they are referring to when discussing one (or more) of them. To these fans - and to everyone else, but with less outrage - it’s no longer a case of ‘old ‘BSG’ and ‘new BSG’ now that there are three separate and distinct models to choose between. However, while many consider this a bad or unnecessary choice, I can only see the new film as a good thing.
Battlestar fans should understand more than any others, you would think, giving that the first reboot was one forged from the basic concepts of the 1980s TV show, which is hardly regarded as quality television by either critics or the public. So from the bones of a lesser show, Ron Moore wipes away all the putrid flesh and unnecessary organs in order to mold a better, brighter show - a respectable goal by all accounts. Why, then, should other creators be prohibited from using those same bones to assist their own versions? Bryan Singer is an accomplished director, especially in the realm of science-fiction, and will likely strive to create as unique a Battlestar as possible while still retaining a high level of quality. Sounds like a couple hours I’d quite enjoy, really - I have yet to see all of the seasons of Moore’s BSG, but from what I have seen, I’d say the only major trick they missed was putting big screen antics on the small screen. This is always an issue with the long form, but I think most will agree it was an acceptable sacrifice in the name of telling the story they wanted to tell.
All this got me thinking about reboots, remakes, reimaginings and downright theft of ideas in general, and much of the fan hate directed towards all of that just doesn’t make much sense (then again, when has fan sense ever made much sense?). Consider: you have a show/film/book/comic/animation/fanfic that you love, but nobody’s making it anymore. Then someone, either related or unrelated to the original product comes along and decides to make their own version, either to add to the original story or shift its tone in order to make it more relevant. There are two sane avenues open to you: Get excited that your favourite story is being told in a new way or is being expanded upon; or disregard this news, feeling that the original story was fine on its own and doesn’t need to be developed any further. You don’t have to go see the new film, or read the new book, because you have the choice not to, just as the creators have the freedom to develop their own versions or sequels.
The less sane option is to whine on internet forums about how the ‘mythology’ of the story is being sullied by these horrible trespassers who don’t understand the true meaning of the story like you do - even though in all likelihood it means much more to them - and boycotting the new film that has sullied the original text purely by its existence.
Buffy the Vampire Slayer, continued in comic form as Season 8.
The fact is, re-somethings have been occurring for centuries, from Shakespeare’s plays to Frankenstein to Dracula to comic books to H.G. Wells, and there’s been no uproar each time a new production of Hamlet is put on, or rewritten to fit in a more modern context. It seems that, recently, science-fiction film and television creates such a passion and loyalty in its fans that any notion of another interpretation is considered blasphemy: take the above and the recently announced Buffy The Vampire Slayer film reboot, of which the franchise’s creator - a certain Joss Whedon - has nothing to do with (aside from the aforementioned creating). As a passionate Whedonite myself, this did seem to come out of left field, and at first the very idea left me with a feeling that the reboot was utterly devoid of a point, seeing as the series is still actually going, quite popularly - the Season 8 comic from Dark Horse is ‘executive produced’ and largely written by Whedon himself, which is about as canon as you can get (and is really really freakin’ good).
But then I thought of the original film (the director and producer of which are working on the new film), and how that in itself was the basis for the TV show, making one of the cornerstones of turn-of-the-century television drama reimagining (even if Whedon wrote the original film too).
However, all this really proves is that an originally campy concept or show/film can be adapted and changed to become a superior form: ’80s BSG to ’00s BSG; Buffy film to Buffy show; The Thing From Another World to John Carpenter’s The Thing as another example, which is (as another timely example) getting a prequel film made in the coming months. All of these were highly praised and didn’t receive much flak for themselves being reworkings of other stories (except Battlestar, but it overcame such criticism) because the original texts were poor in comparison, but these are somewhat a minority. I was going to include JJ Abrams’ Star Trek reboot because of its critical and public reception, but fan reception is the barometer I’m using right now, and they don’t seem too happy that the universe they love so dearly is being remolded into something altogether ‘Un-Trek’.
And this is (one of) the (many) thing(s) I don’t get about fandom, or humans in general: There are characters and worlds and times we love to read about, or watch, or hear, or experience in any way we can, and more of the things we love can’t be wrong, right? The Star Wars expanded universe has proved this again and again, with novels, games, comics, etc., etc., many of which George Lucas probably hasn’t even heard of, but the fans are okay with this, and appreciate the stories they’re given because they can see Luke as an older man, Han and Leia’s kids and know more about the universe that awed them as children watching the films.
The printed page seems to be the safest place to fiddle with characters and previously established stories, which is odd, being that the readership of SF novels and comics is almost entirely populated by fans (as opposed to casual cinemagoers or TV-watchers). In fact, more reworking and reimagining probably takes places within the pages of X-Men comics - and all related spin-offs and canonical works, by hundreds of creators with contradictory ideas of what the stories should be and how they are told - since they started to be published, than in the entire history of science fiction in television and film, most likely because of the ease of production - it’s just words and pictures, to paraphrase Harvey Pekar - but also because of a strange tolerance the readers seem to have with the form that they don’t have with audio/visual media.
The philosophy I try to put into action when faced with the kinds of reworkings I’ve been discussing is that we are given these products, and have almost no right to question what should and shouldn’t be made when not only is it being given to us, but that we are being given the choice either to experience it or not experience it, when most of us haven’t done a single thing to warrant the creators making these things to entertain or enlighten us. I know this won’t prevent pointless arguments,1but I hope it’ll make us think a little differently about what ‘rights’ people have to mess with mythology.
And also maybe spark a debate! I’d love to hear your thoughts.
Mark
- What else is the internet for other than downloading porn and debating ‘Kirk or Picard’ in forums? [↩]
January 18th, 2010 at 12:33 am
“Horrible trespassers who don’t understand the true meaning of the story like you do - even though in all likelihood it means much more to them” - I speculate that for every film-maker re-doing a franchise through the goodness of his heart, there’s tenfold more doing it to exploit a lucrative established market.
I think people are upset by re-dos as they threaten to taint nostalgic feelings towards original stuff.
Quality over quantity.
Most of the Star Wars Expanded stuff I’ve experienced (books, comics, TV shows, and I’m sure some people would say, the prequels), have been gash. Which means you can’t say, “Star Wars - three cool films”, you have to say “Star Wars - three cool films and a load of ropey baggage”.
But yeah, you can just choose to ignore the whole venture.
January 18th, 2010 at 2:10 am
Oh, I agree on that first point, but I was mainly referring to those involved in the creative process of the film, rather than studio execs et al. Although those striving to stay true to the concept may be led astray by those execs…
I can see why people might be upset, but if anything the presence of another version may serve to strengthen whatever bond you might have with the earlier version, and introduce a new generation to its existence - even if the new one’s terrible, they might seek out the old version.
Regarding SW, I’d agree that it’s a mixed bag, but quality is often only reduced by quantity when most of the work is done by very few people in a short time. Even then, if you infrequently make something in a series it doesn’t guarantee quality. Lucas basically only worked on the films (barring some story ideas for games and whatnot) and the prequels were about as divisive as they come.
And in a world where almost every piece of popular art is marketable, everything has baggage. I just think that it’s easy enough to separate in your mind.
January 18th, 2010 at 3:02 am
Frankly mark, this is your best post to date.
Another question arising from the article is when in the hell are people going get bored of remakes, revisits, re-imaginings and re-tellings? Never? Okay. I remember reading that there were a finite number of musical arrangements in the world, are there are a finite number of notes and so it makes sense that outside Aristotle’s six elements there are a finite number of stories we can tell however more and more I feel drawn to start writing adaptations and re-hashes because Hollywood seems intent on repeating itself over and over.
I know we all get our kicks from nostalgia but lets have some more originality, sometimes I hate that its an industry; and one that recycles its products too. Where’s freaking Lawproof 3d?
I am however, looking forward to A-Team, and Iron Man 2.
January 18th, 2010 at 11:41 am
I know that I’ve expressed my views on remakes before so I don’t need to go there. However I think that whatever you think about hollywood re-making (or ruining) your favourite franchise is this. If the film-maker is good then it will be a good film. I think it has little to do with whether the context can transfer easily from print to screen. If you want to make a good movie you need good personnel, regardless of the story history and fan-base.
I may have said this before but I’ve heard that Hollywood production companies are only accepting remakes because they are guaranteed to turn a profit. We need Hollywood to have more balls, either that or we need independent film-makers to step forward with something that can trump Hollywood. Stick it to the man, or…..meh I dunno
January 19th, 2010 at 9:41 am
I was thinking the other day, what if I were a director in twenty years time, asked to make a movie based on a TV show from my youth (like The A Team, Lost in Space, Land of the Lost, Starsky and Hutch). A Lost movie wouldn’t work without drastically cutting out loads of stuff (unless you made a trilogy maybe) and characters (there are at least 10 main characters I can think of off the top of my head).
How I Met Your Mother is episodic by its nature and again wouldn’t really translate to feature length.
House would work as a spoof I think but otherwise probably wouldn’t be any different from the feature length episode at the start of series 6.
They’re just my three favourite shows. Anyone think of any TV shows that would make a cool film?
January 19th, 2010 at 3:51 pm
I always stand by the notion that you have the option to distance yourself from any part of a franchise you don’t want a part of, but, being a hypocrite, sometimes I will still get angry at someone interpreting something (a character, for example) different than I did. Also, people call ‘The Thing’ a remake of ‘The Thing from Another World’ but it’s not. ‘The Thing from Another World’ is a film based off of the book ‘Who Goes There?’ and ‘The Thing’ is a film based more closely off of said book.
January 19th, 2010 at 4:02 pm
In regard to remakes in general, I’m not advocating one way or another. Personally I’m going to strive to make original (or at least original enough) works as best I can, and I don’t really think there’s a lack of original media at the moment anyway, it’s just that the more established franchises get more attention, which is only natural.
I don’t really agree that a good director solely makes a good film, it’s an incredibly collaborative process that the director just happens to get most of the credit for. There are many other people on productions who have equally important roles, i.e. the writer, and if the story they’re adapting from is difficult, or sensitive, or hell, even crap - and we know you can’t polish a turd - then that can obviously affect the outcome.
A lot of studios do rely on guaranteed earners - this has been the way since not long after the industry was born - but most of the recent popular ‘indie’ films have been made by Hollywood studios. It’s much too broad a term to pigeon-hole as one soulless moneygrabbing entity. There are artists there too! Independents kind of already are trumping Hollywood…by making better films. You’ve gotta search out proper indie cinema, if you’re just waiting for it to turn up at the multiplex you’ll be sorely disappointed!
Hey, how about making The Clone Wars into a movie? Then into another TV show? Then–what? Oh. Right.
I’d gorram love another Firefly movie, but 20 years from now? With a different cast and creative team, I don’t know if you could recapture the feel. Off the top of my head, I can’t really think of much that would work that hasn’t already had an incarnation in film.
January 19th, 2010 at 4:05 pm
Luke - Damn it, I knew I should have changed that, I did know it was a book before. The point still remains as they’re both stemming from the same source, just as a remake would stem from the original film.
Like I said, a lot of it does come down to fanboy rage. Which is a silly emotion, all told.
January 21st, 2010 at 2:35 am
I know that Ben hates fight club but I know that Chuck Palaniuk (the author of the book) said that the film better portrayed his image than the book. I challenge anyone to find another example of that. (the fact that Fincher directed it helps things dramatically and here comes a tirade of better examples)