The New Bionic Woman

[Felon]

No sorry. I don't think I was being thoughtless. I thought much of the hate and trashing Ron Moore recieved from the BSG purists was tired, mean spirited, and just plain stupid. Had the purists come up with decent arguments as to why Moore's show should not exist I'd have more respect for them. But bitching about small things (STARBUCK IS A MAN! :\ ) and other inconsequential details does nothing to endear these people to me.

Starbuck is a man. Re-envisioning him as a bad-tempered chick was exquisitely lame, pointless, and contrary to the original nature of the character (who was a devil-may-care womanizer), all of a which is a good, non-trivial, highly-consequential example of why they shouldn't bother recycling the original.

I wasn't a huge fan of the original (I was the one in the family with the least say in what the TV dial was turned to), but what I did like about the show was turned into some bleak and grimey.

 

[Felon]

Like Forbidden Planet, West Side Story, Yojimbo, The Magnificent Seven, and The Maltese Falcon, and that's just film, off the top of my head.

Talk about skewed examples. Throw Catwoman in there while you're at it. I mean, throw in instances where disregarding the original source material made for an utterly pointless end result.

Make that an overwhelming argument... The original BSG was something I could enjoy at the age of nine. The remake is something my wife and I enjoy pushing forty.

That's not an arguement, much less an overwhelming one. That's just you (and your wife) liking the show.

It's similar enough that if the producers hadn't purchased the rights to the original and just changed some names they would have been sued from here to the Twelve Colonies.

Really? Did anyone get sued over re-envisioning The Magnificent Seven or The Maltese Falcon? The plot is sufficiently generic that a lawsuit would have been laughable.

 

[Felon]

On the gripping hand... there's a long, long history for reworking well-known tales. A history that predates TV. Arthurian mythology, Robin Hood, most other myths and legends, and every single thing Shakespeare wrote for the stage has been put through such a wringer. And some great works have come out of it. This is something humans do.

Sure, and the other thing humans do is protest when they perceive that something they value is mistreated. I mean, it ain't like nobody's ever complained about a bad Hollywood retelling of the Robin Hood or King Arthur myths.

In the case of BSG, there were some really questionable decisions made that ran 180 degrees contrary to the original. Why should anyone be surprised when fans are expressing disappointment?

 

[Mallus]

That's not an arguement, much less an overwhelming one.

I never said it was. Just pointing out the general consensuson the original show, as far as I'm aware of it... If you'd like to discuss how the original, is, well, any good, I'd be interested in reading what you have to say.

Did anyone get sued over re-envisioning The Magnificent Seven or The Maltese Falcon?

What does that have to do with my point that it was a good thing those (heavily revisionist) films were made?

 

[Mallus]

Starbuck is a man...

Starbuck is a fictional character, therefore almost infinitely mutable.

 

[Felon]

I never said it was.

You didn say there was "an overwhelming arguement" that original concept was poorly exectured. It's right there in the text I quoted. No such overwhelming arguement is extant.

Just pointing out the general consensuson the original show, as far as I'm aware of it... If you'd like to discuss how the original, is, well, any good, I'd be interested in reading what you have to say.

It's more like I thought the new series was just awful

What does that have to do with my point that it was a good thing those (heavily revisionist) films were made?

It has to do with your comment that the creators of BSG would have been sued "to the Twelve Colonies" if they hadn't called the new show BSG. The original and the new are so dissimilar once you get past the basic premise that a lawsuit would be absurd. Those "heavily revisionist" films share the basic premise of the originals.

Starbuck is a fictional character, therefore almost infinitely mutable.

I really shouldn't have to explain this, but if you alter a fictional character sufficiently, drop the defining traits, then you wind up with a completely different character.

 

[Mallus]

No such overwhelming arguments is extant.

I said an overwhelming argument exists, not that I was going to present it. Clearer? Yes? Perhaps more late afternoon coffee for you? I'm enjoying a cup right now...

The original and the new are so dissimilar once you get past the basic premise that a lawsuit would be absurd. Those "heavily revisionist" films share the basic premise of the originals.

I'm not seeing the point you're making here. We agree that oBSG and nBSG share the same basic premise, right? Just like those classic films I cited? So leaving aside the issue of how successful nBSG is in its own right, can we agree that there's nothing wrong, in principle, with remakes/revisionist works that only share the same basic premise as their source material?

I really shouldn't have to explain this, but if you alter a fictional character sufficiently, drop the defining traits, then you wind up with a completely different character.

Neither should I... you realize, right, that inverting and/or otherwise subverting established characters/types (or events, story structures, whatever) is the reason why revisionist works are made in the first place? This version of Starbuck is Starbuck by virtue of existing inside BSG's narrative. It's, again, how revisionist stories work, you leave some elements similar and make others (very) dissimilar.

Examples:

Similar: rag-tag fugitive fleet on a lonely quest for a shining planet known as... Earth, killer robots called 'Cylons', space battles.

Dissimilar: Starbuck is a chick who belts superior officers who might be the Savior, 'Cylons' now come in sexy God-obsessed humanoid models, no longer a children's show.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Starbuck is a man.

Exactly. He's first mate on the Pequod, a whaling ship, whose captain, Ahab, is obsessed with killing the whale that took his leg.

 

[Particle_Man]

Starbuck is a man. Re-envisioning him as a bad-tempered chick was exquisitely lame, pointless, and contrary to the original nature of the character (who was a devil-may-care womanizer)

I have not seen either BSG, but why not take the best of both worlds, and make Starbuck a chick that is also a devil-may-care womanizer?

 

[Particle_Man]

The 9 min preview looks good. The lead is a bit young (23), but hopefully I can adjust to that. I'd prefer a bionic woman 10 years older than that.

Maybe they are *very* optimistic, and are thinking of a 10 year series, followed by 7 movies, spaced out at 2 years a piece. Thus they would a young actress now so that she would still look like she could kick ass at age 47.