Just read that cast/character list... fine for a new post-apocalypse series, but hardly the same characters we know and love from Survivors, eh? (I won't mention the rather cringe-worthy PC-ness).
Seriously, as a fan of the genre, I would love to see a new post-apocalypse drama from the BBC. Making a 're-imagining' of Survivors, however, is lazy and pathetic. It will not be the same show, so why even pretend (to rope in a few old fans, that's why... though we're not talking of a fandom like Doctor Who here, so why bother?). I just don't understand the need to basically rip off an older show and try to remake it in a world and media climate it simply does not fit into.
By all means, be INSPIRED by Survivors. Make a new series about the shell-shocked survivors of a plague based on the same idea. Don't try to ride the coat-tails of a cult show with a small but loyal older fanbase... you'll only either annoy hardcore fans, confuse new viewers, or tie your own hands.
The Last Train struck me as a somewhat-'re-imagining' of Survivors in many ways, but although it had its moments, certainly wasn't the same show. It was its own entity and for better or worse, stood as such.
Heck, Blake's 7 was 'Robin Hood in space', and while the more recent Farscape was certainly inspired by Blake's 7, etc. they're NOT the same shows attempting to be 'remakes'... they are just new shows inspired by older concepts.
The remade Galactica annoys me for this very reason... when you can write and produce something decent, why REMAKE it and then make silly changes (cough*Starbuck*cough)? Why not either be a sequel, or just come up with your OWN spin on the same concept/idea? If you want to ape the original... why? The original IS the original! If you want to change everything... why not make your own show instead?!
Do we really need TWO Greg Preston characters? What's so hard about writing a surly, grim engineer of your own?
reply
share
Stevie_Pearson
16 years ago
Thing is the older fans viewership is a given though, much like Doctor Who's is, "We" the old fans will watch anyway even if we hate it, just for the sake of saying "The older ones were better anyway" mentality, so baring that in mind we might as just roll with it, its not like the original deletes itself from reality so we can always just enjoy that instead.
My Doctor Who video's, Enjoy...now in Divx
http://beta.vreel.net/index.php?q=my
reply
share
mark6785
16 years ago
Banjo , i can solve all your problems.
When it comes on simply pretend its called "Plague!"
presto! its not a remake anymore.
reply
share
Banjo_oz
16 years ago
Mark, that's how I dealt with 'Dawn of the Dead' being remade (?!) (a really cool zombie movie IMO if you ignore that it's trying to live up to the far better original).
Without the need to leech off the title of something else, the new Survivors could - perhaps - be quite enjoyable as a post-apocalyptic show. The problem is still having a "new" Greg Preston and Tom Price in there, though... :(
Sadly, right now, the two things that bother me still is that I get a strange feeling from reading the cast notes (why is it so stupidly PC-diverse?!) that this will be more like 'The Last Train' than 'Survivors' (i.e. cliched idiots who deserve to die in a story I am trying very hard to like yet getting annoyed with).
In terms of "old fans are a given to watch it"... well, as a massive Who fan in my childhood, and still a fan of the old series, I did indeed watch the first few new Who series, but finally it just got to me and I couldn't watch any more (I quit after the start of S4). Sure, I'll watch 'Plague!', but because I like post-apocalypse stuff, not because it's a Survivors remake. I'd have watched it if it WAS 'Plague!' and would certainly be more forgiving of it if it was.
Frankly, I'd still prefer a couple of Big Finish Survivors audios with the surviving cast myself. :)
The one good thing about remakes IMO, though, is that it often gets more attention for the original movie/show. For example, the great 'Poseidon Adventure' DVD re-release I got last year wouldn't have been made if not to try and cash in on the (IMO) awful remake 'Poseidon'.
reply
share
mark6785
16 years ago
I dont seem to have the same problem with remakes, although i conceed the originals are generally better. I guess i can kind of keep them separate (like my plague" idea). Both Dawn of the deads are great films, the original seems more depressing / maudlin, which it should do seeing that the world has ended, but on the other hand the effects are a little dated now. At the time the whole scale / idea of the film was revolutionary and never done before , thats what made it great , and that can never be recaptured.
The degrees to which a remake follows the original is important too, be it a lot or a little , depending. Some dont even keep the name - so you might not know.
"Heat" for instance , a pretty good action movie, is a -word for word- 95% identical remake of "LA Takedown".
not sure where i'm going with this now.. just rambling.....
Rollerball - worst remake ever , if not outright worst movie ever!
The assasin , good remake but not as good as Nikita
----
btw where you getting all these notes about the survivors remake?
I'm not sure reading them is a good idea as it might colour your impression, but a quick skim/synopsis cant hurt i guess
reply
share