Reserection, a good idea?

[Hawriel]

I'm sitting at my computer relaxing by playing a MUD. When the local news starts playing the ghostbusters theme song. They announce that the rumors of a ghostbusters 3 is not a rumor. It will have the origional cast in it. No they are not all dead.

http://blog.wired.com/underwire/2008/09/ghostbusters-3.html

quick google search to find of this is true. I never really trust network news unless it's about the weather. This got me thinking about all the other 20 year old TV shows and movies that have been reserected in some form or another. Not all of them where good. Shaft being one that was hated by peaple who grew up with the show.

What do the playgrounders think about reserecting old TV shows or movies? Is it a cruch (ok four leg old person walker) that studios have addopted because they cant think of any thing new? Or put a new spin on old themes? Or are they taking a look at That 70s show, and family guy that do nastalgic humor and banking on that? Is this just a way for hollywood to cash in on genX nostalgie? If so is that really so bad? Keep in mind there is an up comming A-Team, and GIJoe movie coming.

[Vaynor]

First of all, it's spelled Resurrection, not reserection.

Second, and more to the point, I don't think they should revive old T.V. shows and movies, if the show is good enough to bring back then it was fine how it was, and shouldn't be tampered with. Also, if it is, again, good enough to bring back, it will most likely not have all of the elements in it that made the show appealing in the first place, distancing most of its old fans (most likely almost the entire market) from the program.

[turkishproverb]

First of all, it's spelled Resurrection, not reserection.

Second, and more to the point, I don't think they should revive old T.V. shows and movies, if the show is good enough to bring back then it was fine how it was, and shouldn't be tampered with. Also, if it is, again, good enough to bring back, it will most likely not have all of the elements in it that made the show appealing in the first place, distancing most of its old fans (most likely almost the entire market) from the program.

That is an unbearably simplistic way of looking at things. The Arthurian legend has gone through tens of thousands of permutations, many simultaneous, and a large number of those are still and were previously "fine how they were"

Batman's had enough variations to make a man get whiplash, several of them of more than equal quality (Btas, BB)

Heck, there were two VERY GOOD movies based on the Dashell Hammet book "Maltese falcon" before the one starring Bogart.

Furthermore, to suggest this is solely due to marketing to "old fans" and claiming they are going to be the entire market of any film is silly given hollywood budgets today. A nostalgia film cannot survive in the market without at least an attempt to draw others to it.


However, I am willing to admit it is also true that some studios DO use existing properties as a crutch.

[Vaynor]

That is an unbearably simplistic way of looking at things. The Arthurian legend has gone through tens of thousands of permutations, many simultaneous, and a large number of those are still and were previously "fine how they were"

Batman's had enough variations to make a man get whiplash, several of them of more than equal quality (Btas, BB)

Heck, there were two VERY GOOD movies based on the Dashell Hammet book "Maltese falcon" before the one starring Bogart.

Furthermore, to suggest this is solely due to marketing to "old fans" and claiming they are going to be the entire market of any film is silly given hollywood budgets today. A nostalgia film cannot survive in the market without at least an attempt to draw others to it.


However, I am willing to admit it is also true that some studios DO use existing properties as a crutch.

I never said they couldn't be good, or that a lot of shows have pulled it off, just that, in general, most can't.

[turkishproverb]

Well, you said this:


I don't think they should revive old T.V. shows and movies, if the show is good enough to bring back then it was fine how it was, and shouldn't be tampered with

Which is alot of what spawned my comment.

[Tirian]

It's hard to say. Ghostbusters was arguably the best movie made by former Saturday Night Live stars; it was funny and action-packed and FX-laden and I would suspect that it is one of the five most quoted movies ever made. On one hand, the sequel sucked hard and we can always watch the original at home on DVD as many times as we want for free, so why make another? On the other hand, who are we to deny them another trip to the well, since they have proven that they can tell a good story in this universe and maybe they've had more good ideas simmering in their minds over the past 25 years.

All in all, making a sequel to The Blues Brothers twenty years later without John Belushi was a much bigger risk.