# Good and Bad TV remakes.



## lwilli201 (Dec 22, 2006)

The demise of Mockingbird Lane before it even got started got me to wondering what makes or breaks a remake of old TV series. Most just do not make it. 

A notable exception is Hawaii Five-0. All I have to hear is the theme music and I am there. I loved the original. I am old enough to remember it :lol: and I love this remake. Some how it did not miss a beat from the original series.

"Chicago Fire" is basically a remake or "Emergency' which was a very good series. It has a little more personal drama than I believe is necessary but that seems to be the norm these days.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

My vote for the worse remakes are Dragnet and The Fugitive.


----------



## djlong (Jul 8, 2002)

To be honest, I rather liked the "Ed O'Neill" Dragnet. But, of course, taste is subjective.

To me, though, the worst ever remake, and I'm taking a small liberty with the definition, was the Sci Fi Channel's remake of Flash Gordon. It's the very dictionary definition of dreadful.


----------



## HinterXGames (Dec 20, 2012)

I have found almost all the remakes of 80's cartoons are absolutely terrible.  It seems the only one's that ever survived remakes is TMNT. The original was good, the 1st remake series was good, and even the new one on Nick now isn't bad.
--
The GI Joe remakes, Transformer remakes, He-Man remakes were all terrible in my opinion though.
--
I haven't watched all of the Thundercats remakes, but the first couple episodes seemed okay. I'd have to watch further to give it a proper eval.


----------



## fluffybear (Jun 19, 2004)

lwilli201 said:


> "Chicago Fire" is basically a remake or "Emergency' which was a very good series. It has a little more personal drama than I believe is necessary but that seems to be the norm these days.


I don't know if I would call Chicago Fire a remake of Emergency. There has been a number of shows which highlighted fire fighters since then.

As for remakes, I personally have not found a single remake worth watching..


----------



## Henry (Nov 15, 2007)

"V"


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

What about Battlestar Galactica? That was good and successful.


----------



## The Merg (Jun 24, 2007)

"Henry" said:


> "V"


I liked where "V" was going, however, the winter hiatus just killed it.

- Merg


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

MysteryMan said:


> My vote for the worse remakes are Dragnet and The Fugitive.


Really? You didn't like Harry Morgan in Dragnet?

I'll agree with you on the Tim Daly version of The Fugitive, although it did last a full season.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

spartanstew said:


> Really? You didn't like Harry Morgan in Dragnet?
> 
> I'll agree with you on the Tim Daly version of The Fugitive, although it did last a full season.


I was refering to the 2003-2004 series staring Ed O'Neill.


----------



## navy8ball (Mar 23, 2002)

its about time for tv remake of mission impossible


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

navy8ball said:


> its about time for tv remake of mission impossible


There was a TV remake of Mission Impossible. It ran from 1988-1990.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

There are so few fresh storyline ideas, that most shows can generally be traced to a previous program, if you look hard enough.


----------



## Henry (Nov 15, 2007)

The Merg said:


> I liked where "V" was going, however, the winter hiatus just killed it.
> 
> - Merg


Yeah, but what killed it for me was the horror aspect well into the season. When Anna turned into a jagged-toothed monster, I tuned out. It seemed a gratuitous use of CG that cheapened an otherwise promising series.

Other, I'm sure, liked it ... not my cup o' tea though.


----------



## Henry (Nov 15, 2007)

dpeters11 said:


> What about Battlestar Galactica? That was good and successful.


Yes it was. It had a huge following and was considered by some to be better than the original.

Not sure I can say the same for _Caprica,_ although I don't think it was given time to develop. I put it in the same category as _Stargate Universe_ - promising, but no banana.


----------



## Henry (Nov 15, 2007)

Steve said:


> Would you consider _Star Trek: Next Generation_ a remake or a sequel?


Don't really matter, but I'm a Trekkie.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Henry said:


> Don't really matter, but I'm a Trekkie.


Ya. I too think it was the best of all the STs, but I pulled my post after thinking about a "remake" in the pure sense, where the original characters are portrayed by new actors.


----------



## Henry (Nov 15, 2007)

Steve said:


> Ya. I too think it was the best of all the STs, but I pulled my post after thinking about a "remake" in the pure sense, where the original characters are portrayed by new actors.


Unfortunately, I am hopelessly compromised. If you were to put a _Star Trek_ title on _Gilligan's Island_, I'd be honor-bound to watch it. 

I think I agree with you. The original cast characters were mentioned at times, but for the most part, it was more of a "continuation" than a remake - probably could say the same for _Deep Space Nine_ and _Voyager, _with the prequel _Enterprise_ bringing up the rear (front?).


----------



## fluffybear (Jun 19, 2004)

MysteryMan said:


> I was refering to the 2003-2004 series staring Ed O'Neill.


Where would you place the 1989 version?


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

fluffybear said:


> Where would you place the 1989 version?


That version had different characters than the original making it a spinoff rather than a remake.


----------



## fluffybear (Jun 19, 2004)

MysteryMan said:


> That version had different characters than the original making it a spinoff rather than a remake.


You're right! I was thinking of the movie version which came about the same time...


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

"Steve" said:


> Ya. I too think it was the best of all the STs, but I pulled my post after thinking about a "remake" in the pure sense, where the original characters are portrayed by new actors.


Right. I think the new Dallas is in the same vein, it's a continuation, not a remake.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

dpeters11 said:


> Right. I think the new Dallas is in the same vein, it's a continuation, not a remake.


Same difference, IMO.


----------



## heathramos (Dec 19, 2005)

The Bionic Woman was kind of a remake but the plot was nothing like the original


----------



## The Merg (Jun 24, 2007)

heathramos said:


> The Bionic Woman was kind of a remake but the plot was nothing like the original


I actually like the remake. I thought it had potential, but of course, it got nixed.

- Merg


----------



## Church AV Guy (Jul 9, 2007)

One of the absolute worst remakes was The Avengers movie--no not the recent one, the one with Fiennes and Thurman.  The series with Macnee as Steed was terrific, but this was unwatchable.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

HinterXGames said:


> I have found almost all the remakes of 80's cartoons are absolutely terrible.


They don't even count as cartoons. Animated maybe, but not cartoons.

I've seen some re-treatments of the classics with characters like the Pink Panther talking.

Sidebar -- Animaniacs is returning on The Hub this month.



MysteryMan said:


> I was refering to the 2003-2004 series staring Ed O'Neill.


Never heard of it.


fluffybear said:


> You're right! I was thinking of the movie version which came about the same time...


The movie sucked. Akroyd should have been run out of Hollywood for that mess.

I don't generally do remakes so Five-0 and BSG were non-starters and have never been on my set.

As far as other re-treaments, "Lois and Clark" outpaced the earlier Superman versions ... until it got soapy that is.


----------



## HinterXGames (Dec 20, 2012)

Side note, TV remakes recently turned movie: 21 Jump Street and Dark Shadows. What a travesty those were and an insult to the original TV shows (which I thouroughly enjoyed).


----------



## SamC (Jan 20, 2003)

IMHO,

Star Trek. The "re-boot" movie remake of the original TV series is unwatchable. Among the worst remakes ever.

Dragnet. The Ed O'Neil remake was awful. The late 60s series was hardly a remake. It was more like the show just took a few years off and returned.

V. Original series was thoughtful, but lost its way. Remake never was as interesting.

Worst remake ever was a movie. The deeply thoughtful and complex Manchurian Candidate, remade as a simplistic and preachy action movie with a totally different plot.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

SamC said:


> Worst remake ever was a movie. The deeply thoughtful and complex Manchurian Candidate, remade as a simplistic and preachy action movie with a totally different plot.


This made me think about a so-so movie remake and couple of good ones, IMHO:

*Not so good:*

Sean Penn's _All The King's Men_ vs. Broderick Crawford's original.

*Pretty good:*

_Body Heat_ (based on _Double Indemnity_)

_A Perfect Murder_ (based on _Dial M for Murder_)


----------



## HinterXGames (Dec 20, 2012)

"Star Trek. The "re-boot" movie remake of the original TV series is unwatchable. Among the worst remakes ever."
--
See, I totally disagree on that one. It got me actually rejuvinated and looking forward to future Star Trek movies. The Friday the 13th reboot has done the same for me. Also enjoyed Rob Zombie's Halloweens. On the other hand, what they did to Nightmare on Elm Street was unforgivable. Freddy wasn't a child molester in the original.


----------



## trh (Nov 3, 2007)

Charlie's Angels.


----------



## coldsteel (Mar 29, 2007)

Now, Hinter, I thought he was, that's why the town attacked him. Or was he just a murderer?

SayWhat, you're denying yourself entertainment not watching those two remakes. 5-0 is excellent and BSG was frakking awesome (pun intended).


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

There's a small screen to big screen thread somewhere.

I thought this one was old small to new small.


----------



## trh (Nov 3, 2007)

trh said:


> Charlie's Angels.


To clarify, I am talking about the original TV show vs. the 13 episode 2011 ABC series that got cancelled after a few shows aired.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

"Steve" said:


> This made me think about a so-so movie remake and couple of good ones, IMHO:
> 
> Not so good:
> 
> ...


I may be tarred and feathered for this one, but I greatly prefer the Oceans 11 remake.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

"HinterXGames" said:


> "Star Trek. The "re-boot" movie remake of the original TV series is unwatchable. Among the worst remakes ever."
> --
> See, I totally disagree on that one. It got me actually rejuvinated and looking forward to future Star Trek movies. The Friday the 13th reboot has done the same for me. Also enjoyed Rob Zombie's Halloweens. On the other hand, what they did to Nightmare on Elm Street was unforgivable. Freddy wasn't a child molester in the original.


Overall, I did like Star Trek, but he really needs to lay off the lens flares. I saw the first 9 minutes of the new one, doesn't look like he did for this one.

Still prefer TNG and DS9.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

dpeters11 said:


> Still prefer TNG and DS9.


So did I. They made the original look more like "The Thunderbirds".

But I consider them more like sequels or continuations than remakes.


----------



## HinterXGames (Dec 20, 2012)

coldsteel said:


> Now, Hinter, I thought he was, that's why the town attacked him. Or was he just a murderer?
> 
> SayWhat, you're denying yourself entertainment not watching those two remakes. 5-0 is excellent and BSG was frakking awesome (pun intended).


He was just a child murderer, not a child molestor. I also found the the comedic side of Freddy from the original nightmares a bit lacking/missing.


----------



## HinterXGames (Dec 20, 2012)

Speaking of small to small, i've also found the new 90210 'okay', but still seems to be missing something from the original. Perhaps it's my age also, but the original 90210 seemed a bit more ground breaking edge to it, as it relates to teen/high school targeted shows. Prior to it, you had things like Saved by the Bell (which I loved) and dealt with 'real' teen issue at times, but more in the candy store way then a reality based way if that makes any sense.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

Wasn't "NYPD Blue" more or less a remake of "Hill Street Blues"?

And aren't most of the high school series like "90210" more or less remakes/adaptations of "Room 222"?


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

No.


----------



## RasputinAXP (Jan 23, 2008)

SayWhat? said:


> I don't generally do remakes so Five-0 and BSG were non-starters and have never been on my set.


I gotta echo previous posters here. You're really missing out on the new BSG. There's a lot of great stuff in there.

last half of the last season may be a little 'what?!' though


----------



## lwilli201 (Dec 22, 2006)

Then we have "Elementary". No sure what category it is in. Sherlock Holmes has been around on film since the silent movie days. The Arthur Conan Doyle stories have been remade many times and we are now into new stories to fit the times. The producers of "Elementary" have had to agree not to infringe on any rights held by the makers of the BBC show "Sherlock". The Sherlock Holmes character has endured for over a hundred years and there seems to be no end in sight.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

^^ I would call that a treatment, same as the multiple variations of Superman and the OK Corral story.


----------



## Henry (Nov 15, 2007)

An _adaptation_ perhaps?


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

lwilli201 said:


> The Sherlock Holmes character has endured for over a hundred years and there seems to be no end in sight.


According to archive.org, the very first Holmes on film was _Sherlock Holmes Baffled_, from 1903!

I grew up loving Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce, but my favorite Holmes up until now as the Granada series, with Jeremy Brett and Edmunde Hardwicke playing Holmes and Watson. They haven't done it for as long, but kudos to Cumberbatch, Freeman and the BBC, though. What a great job they've done bringing Holmes into the 21st Century. _Elementary _is OK, but pales by comparison, IMHO.


----------



## Cyber36 (Mar 20, 2008)

The new Three Stooges movie sucked I thought. Some(most) things you just can'r duplicate.........


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

To me, the appeal of the "Sherlock Holmes" method of crime investigation is three-fold: attention to (otherwise insignificant) detail; deductive reasoning, explained (thus, the need for a "Watson"); iron-clad, _virtually_ irrefutable conclusions.

Holmes was the original 'forensic' investigator, and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was a genius.


----------



## BubblePuppy (Nov 3, 2006)

Nick;3190109 said:


> To me, the appeal of the "Sherlock Holmes" method of crime investigation is three-fold: attention to (otherwise insignificant) detail; deductive reasoning, explained (thus, the need for a "Watson"); iron-clad, virtually irrefutable conclusions.
> 
> Holmes was the original 'forensic' investigator, and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was a genius.


Holmes wasn't the first, maybe the most popular though. 


> True detective fiction in the English-speaking world is considered to have begun in 1841 with the publication of Poe's "The Murders in the Rue Morgue" itself,[8] featuring "the first fictional detective, the eccentric and brilliant C. Auguste Dupin". Poe devised a "plot formula that's been successful ever since, give or take a few shifting variables."[12] Poe followed with further Auguste Dupin tales: "The Mystery of Marie Rogêt" in 1843 and "The Purloined Letter" in 1845.


 http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detective_fiction


----------

