If the (re)boot fits…

I’m pretty sure I won’t watch anything Moore does. I saw the first two disks of the new Battlestar Galactica and, while there were good elements in it, it was just too damned depressing. Hey, why doesn’t he turn “Se7en” into a weekly series?

“I realize that’s where TV is right now, but maybe it’s time for somebody to start moving in the other direction again”

Haleluiah, overarching storylines were pretty daring in the 90s when DS9, The X-Files and Babylone 5 experimented with them (but significantly none of them abandoned stand alone stories either) but 15 years down the line it’s gotten out of hand where almost every show has taken the form of a serial where you need cliff-notes if you haven’t been watching a show from the beginning.

I wouldn’t be too optimistic about Moore’s WWW project. One thing I noticed about the BSG reboot was that it recycled many of the themes and tropes he had already used in DS9. Of course they were slicker and “darker” than he could get away with in the Star Trek vehicle and the plot flowed more smoothly than the ungainly DS9 but the repetition was certainly there and tempered my admiration BSG and made me wonder if he is a one trick pony.

“On the other hand, it would also be nice to see them stay away from overarching storylines.”

I second that emotion — or, it looks like, fourth it. I love shows with overarching storylines…I really do. They make me want to tune in week after week so I don’t miss anything, and they give me something larger and more important in terms of story to be concerned about. But too many people are doing them right now. This has become the new thing in TV Screenwriting 101 — “Make sure you have this, like, HUGE-ASS plot arc, man, that can totally carry you over years.” No. No, you don’t NEED that.

I like to watch a show that is ABOUT something overall, but I also like there to be smaller seasonal and sub-seasonal arcs, and some stand-alones as well (not EVERYTHING is connected). Not every week has to be about furthering the individual stories a tiny bit. My new gold standard in this area is: If you don’t start out aiming for the balance of Veronica Mars Season 1, and don’t at least hit the balance of Buffy the Vampire Slayer Seasons 3 or 5, find yourself another way of doing business.

It’s worth mentioning that the reason shows like DS9 and The X-Files (to steal Ericb’s examples) worked so well is that the plot arcs were allowed to grow organically, based on the writers’ interests and what the audience responded to. But didn’t they too become victims of their own success? By the end of the shows, though, they were almost completely myth-driven…and though DS9 remained close to the top of its creative form, merely becoming more insular, X-Files really suffered badly in terms of quality. Maybe arcs should be the spice that brings out the flavor in the story, but I now find it hard to sign up for a show if doing so means a 6-year commitment to teasing out a story that I may not, in the end, even love.

(Probably disjointed. But I won’t edit. So there.)

The new Doctor Who, for all it’s flaws, has a nice balance of long term and short term story archs as well as having stand alone episodes. Having the long arcs only really lasting one season works to its advantage as well. You can enjoy, say, the 3rd season perfectly well without having seen any previouls seasons.

“On the other hand, it would also be nice to see them stay away from overarching storylines.”

Agreed, but I do like to see attempts at continuity within a series. Thats one of the reasons I like ‘Venture Brothers’.

On the other hand, it would also be nice to see them stay away from overarching storylines.

OH GOD YES!!
I’m so sick of every bloody series having to have story arcs. Sometimes they’re only season-long ones, but that’s still annoying… And worse still, even the British shows I watch have caught the “story arc” fever. DW with its “Bad Wolf” and the mysterious “Crack in the Universe” in the Eleventh Doctor’s first season (that’s not really a spoiler, we see it in the first episode)… The new Sherlock was only three episodes long and even IT had to have an arc. ARGGHH!

Ensor O’Brien said: “In the history of network television, no remake of a previous hit series has ever become a hit itself on network television.”

Yes, but network television (meaning broadcast tv, aka, “The Big Four”) is hardly the only game in town any more, so to limit it to that ignores a huge hunk of what people are actually watching these days. For example, to poo-poo the revamped BSG’s success because it was on SyFy instead of, say, ABC (where the original series aired) seems like a case of ignoring a counter-example to try and prove your point.

“(Before anyone brings up Dean Cain, the George Reeves Superman show did not run in prime time upon initial release in the 1950’s.)”

Well, I’d say the Reeves version, the Cain version, an the Welling version (Smallville) are all different enough for each the that none is specifically a remake of the other.

Also, I think there’s a difference between shows that are makes of previous shows known primarily as tv series (V, Hawaii 5-0), and different series all of which are based on another well-known source, like a comic (most people know Superman was a comic book character first), or some work of literature (different Sherlock Holmes series).

I watched all of BSG but found it a serious slog by season 3 and was really just watching it to see how it ended. Seasons 1 and 2 were okay but deeply flawed. Like too many shows on cable, critical success does not equal popular success. The original BSG was actually a popular success but didn’t make it due to the cost of the series and NBC’s baffling decision to constantly shift and pre-empt it.

Sadly, I doubt a scripted show will ever garner ratings approaching what was common in the 70’s, 80’s and somewhat into the 90’s. The market is too fractured and there is an unwillingness to write smartly without excessive sex and violence.

No need for an apology, I simply copied over from the New York Times article. I should have put some of my post in quotation marks, since it came verbatim from the NY Times article.

______________________________________________________

“and different series all of which are based on another well-known source, like a comic (most people know Superman was a comic book character first)”

Kind of interesting that they do, since many people would point out that tradepaperbacks or graphic novels rarely make the New York Times bestseller list.

Sidebar that I wanted to bring up: one thing that contrasts PG-13 and R properties has to do with the fact that, while J.K. Rowling has had all of her half-dozen or so Harry Potter novels adapted in to films, very few R-rated adventure film series adapted prolific properties from other medium. Death Wish, for example, adapted a then one-shot novel. Rambo died in the novel First Blood.

I had thought that Tom Clancy might prove an exception. While it remains true that his Jack Ryan novels have tended to have a steady presence on best-seller lists, and they made four Jack Ryan films, only one of them had an R-rating. (Shaft seems the closest exception, as Ernest Tidyman wrote about a half-dozen Shaft novels, and the four films all received R-ratings. Shaft also serves as a rare exception to the panoply of attempted private eye series in the last forty years.)

I find it interesting to see if Vince Flynn manages to have a few of his Mitch Rapp novels adapted, or if Lee Child has a few of his Jack Reacher novels adapted, and whether or not those film adaptations receive R-ratings. (Of course, even the Bourne films stuck to PG-13, so while in the 1970’s and 1980’s adventure films not based on comic books, comic strips, or loosely inspired by same tended to go for R-ratings, this no longer remains the case.)

————————————————————

Incidentally, in a somewhat related note, Burl Barrer notes that the Saint will return to TV. In a situation similar to Wild, Wild West, the Saint also had a reviled late 1990’s adaptation. So that provides some hope for the Green Hornet. Perhaps the anticipated Rogen flop version of the Green Hornet might not prevent somebody from doing a new TV version of the property.

zombiewhacker said: “Ugh! Green Hornet got bumped to January 2011? That’s a very, very, very, very, VERY bad sign.”

Yeah, isn’t January when studios release the films they don’t think will do well?

I live in constant fear that someday they will make a movie based on Gilligan’s Island, with a gay Professor, a sassy black Mary Ann, and an evil Mr. Howell (he was a Republican, after all).

“(Before anyone brings up Dean Cain, the George Reeves Superman show did not run in prime time upon initial release in the 1950’s.)”

Now that I think of it, this also applies to Zorro (Guy Williams, then later Duncan Regehr on the Family Channel) and Tarzan (numerous live action TV adaptations, only one of which I know of, the Ron Ely version, ran on “mainstream” network televison).

http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0007728/

“or some work of literature (different Sherlock Holmes series)”.

I actually do not recall any Sherlock Holmes TV series ever running on “mainstream” network television. Ron Howard’s version ran as a syndicated series as I recall.

Another example to support the NY Times author’s contention; remember The New Adventures of Perry Mason with Monte Markham?