So what is ABC going to do with "V" that NBC didn't do a few years back? I guess ABC figures people have short memories or something and don't remember NBC rolling out this series  back in the early 80's. Now I know why I watch little TV anymore nothing original.

Hey man I used to love the old "V", but my interest in it kinda "waned off" after it started turning into a melodramatic / psuedo-romantic soap opera in the second season. I was'nt sure if I were watching a sci fi flick, or just "The Young And The Restless" with humanoid reptilians and really good window dressing.

It's cheaper and quicker for the assembly line mentally of todays media moguls to re-hash the old rather than to develope the new. Used to be network and studio CEOs and yes men had some kind of exposure or background in entertainment , but nowadays - if you've kissed enough donkey, you can go from being an executive at Boeing Aircraft, GE, HONDA, or DOW CHEMICAL, to being a mover and shaker at TIME WARNER, PARAMOUNT, TRI-STAR, OR SONY PICTURES. The only qaulification that you need is knowing how to shave a budget and trim down the blue collars.

Quote - Hey man I used to love the old "V", but my interest in it kinda "waned off" after it started turning into a melodramatic / psuedo-romantic soap opera in the second season. I was'nt sure if I were watching a sci fi flick, or just "The Young And The Restless" with humanoid reptilians and really good window dressing.

I liked the series too when it first started, but it seemed too goofy when it turned out the
Visitors were actually lizard people so I quit watching after a while.  Guess most other
people did too, as it didn't last long after that.  I'll probably skip the new incarnation
unless I'm really, really bored, or the word of mouth says it's really, really good.

I didn't mind the lizard thing because first - it fit nicely into the whole "UFO Reptilian" mythos, and secondly the fact that they were harvesting humans for food gave it a slick horror angle that made it a little creepier. It just went flat, soft, and flabby after a while (Not that I'm against flat, soft, and flabby for - er - some of you nice WONDERFUL ladies out there - so don't kill me - lol).

The writers I guess got punchy and really really bored with the whole thing.

What YOUR talking about is the major flub up that happened with the "Highlander" films.
Those were really good and had a suspenseful thiller flavor to because you didn't know what the "prize" really was, and why the immortals couldn't fight on holy ground. That gave it cool creepiness - until they made them into extraterrestrials from the planet "ZEIST" in the second film - and that just ruined the ambience of the whole deal.

The first Highlander film I would call "Action Horror" - the second I would call "Schlocky Crapola".

I just read an interesting review of it.  I had no idea that it was originally based on a George Orwell story...

www.miamiherald.com/entertainment/tv/v-fullstory/story/1308421.html

what? the second Highlander had that immortal Sorcerer frozen in the mine....

(I deny highlander 2 was even made! I was having a bad nightmare...)

Quote - I just read an interesting review of it.  I had no idea that it was originally based on a George Orwell story...

www.miamiherald.com/entertainment/tv/v-fullstory/story/1308421.html

I just reread my post, and I can't figure out how I typed 'George Orwell' whilst thinking 'Sinclair Lewis'-pretty Orwellian if you ask me...

It seems we just got remake-itis for some reason.  They even revived "Eastwick" from the 1987 movie.  All in all, I like the old '83 version.  I'm just dying to find out what's new with this revamp.

Quote - what? the second Highlander had that immortal Sorcerer frozen in the mine....

(I deny highlander 2 was even made! I was having a bad nightmare...)

After being suckered into seeing #2 in the theatre, I walked out and saw someone banging his head on his car shouting "the should have been only one!"

I won't let ABC destroy my original feelings for the original "V" mini-series.

I fondly and vividly recall the original when it aired, back before cable was big; back before the internet. The advertisements for this new mini-series were sketchy, mysterious and not until near the actual start date did you even get a glimpse of the spaceships. This was big-budget for TV back then, and the special effects still look pretty outstanding on the dvd, and it blew away the huge audiences.

The only problem came when they decided to do a sequel mini-series, and then FIRED the creator, Kenneth Johnson (Incredible Hulk, Alien Nation) during production. In the second mini-series, you can see the wheels coming off the cart. By the time it became a regular series, it was nearly a joke.

Why remake films/television that do not need remaking? "Cash grab"

And in 2 weeks: the remake of The Prisoner. Argh!

And on the big screen, the remake of "A Nightmare on Elm Street."

Just turn away, people. Turn away.

-- Jeff

point!

it's not a remake of the Prisoner.... it's actually a continuation. the Original Village and Series did happen in the shows past...

Oh! I loved "V" when it was on originally!  Remakes don't usually live up to the originals though :(

Nice thing about it though is that there will be slews of new morphs and textures in the marketplaces for the characters!

I can't wait for it, but it seems I am in the minority. I LOVED the original series and have every epiosde and the miniseries on DVD. Not to mention that everyone who has seen the pilot has raved about it. Needless to say, MY tivo is set to record lol

-Sarah

Battlestar Galactica from the former Sci Fi channel was not to shabby ;)

That was a great show! :-)

Quote - Battlestar Galactica from the former Sci Fi channel was not to shabby ;)

Until the Frakin end. Then it blew chunks. It was like they had no idea how to wrap it up, so they just made some crap up. The ending more or less ruined the entire series for me.

Quote - point!

it's not a remake of the Prisoner.... it's actually a continuation. the Original Village and Series did happen in the shows past...

True. But all of the previous sequels, via novels and comic books, have failed to realize the programs' depth. I wasn't impressed with the behind the scenes and sneak-peeks over at AMC's website, even though I respect many of the actors involved.

Time will tell.

-- Jeff

just watched #1.
it started out a bit cheesy, but shows a bit of promise. It doesn't seem to have much depth, however.

OK- I just watched it, and am seriously underwhelmed.

Just another P.O.S show written by ppl that have no idea what sci-fi is.
Approved by corporate who's only idea is to dumb it down for popular sentiments into a cop show.

Hell, they skiped over the whole sci-fi first contact part.

You know, when I saw they were going to remake "V" (which I'd never watched by the way, but remembered as a series), I said to my husband, "Wasn't that show just ON a few years ago?"...

I laughed when I realized it was on, yeah, 20 years ago...lolol. My, how time DOES fly ;o)...

Crap, I'm old ;o).

Laurie

well at least you can sit in your rocker and watch it :)

Perhaps this V is marketed toward Millenial (sp) generation kids who weren't born when the original series was aired. Perhaps they're too busy twittering to care. Sheesh, why wasn't I born 20 years later?

Makes me glad I didn't skip my water exercise class to see it!

I missed it - and I could care less...UH OH - I'M - I'M GETTING A PSYCHIC VISION!!!.....Yes>>>YEEEEEESSSSSSSS..........I SEE.......I SEE IT GOING BELLY UP AND FLOPPING TOWARD THE MIDDLE OF THE SECOIND SEASON!!!!!! Yeeeeeeeeesssssss.....
lol.

You wanna know what's really eerie about this pic? look in the lower right hand corner and read what it says! LOL. This is from an ACTUAL PROMO POSTER FROM BACK IN THE DAY - UNALTERED!!!  Creeeeeppppyyyyyy!!!! Lmao :lol: :lol: :lol:

YES - you WILL return....And you'll FLOP LIKE YOU DID THE LAST TIME - BWAH HA HAAAARRRR!!!
:lol:

This looks like a VICKY 4.2 IMAGE CHALLENGE TO ME KIDS - GO FOR IT! Lol.

 I saw it.  It didn't suck completely. It missed the Scifi important questions, though that anyone would ask.

WHO are you people?
WHERE are you from?
HOW long have you had technical civilization?
WHAT are you doing, looking identical to US?  Convergent evolution might suppose bipeds, but NOT other humans from space.
WHY did you come to bother us across the sea of stars? Bored at home? Religious mission? Won the lottery?

I don't think anyone bothered to think out the Visitor's BS, much less the real reasons for them.

Oh, HOLLYWOOD! NO thinking! That explains it.:laugh:

I have to say, it was the best thing on TV last night. But considering the amount of crap on TV any given night, the bar is pretty low.

cough

what? there was NCIS... better anyday of the week......

Some times a remake of the series is actually an improvement.  Case in point is Battlestar Galactica.  You had to watch it on a weekly basis to begin to understand what the heck was going on (eg who were the good guys and who were the bad ones-once you figured it out, it changed).  Perhaps with V, it will be similiar.  ---and yes, there was a lot of the Young-and-the-Restless, etc stuff in the first version-same dramatic, non reality script.

By-the-way, very cute P8 Alyson morphs, especially the commander or what ever she is.---just hope that she doesn't eat live crawling things--don't really like lizard technology.  Jan 

Qoute: "Some times a remake of the series is actually an improvement.  Case in point is Battlestar Galactica.  You had to watch it on a weekly basis to begin to understand what the heck was going on (eg who were the good guys and who were the bad ones-once you figured it out, it changed). " Unqoute.

Actually I'm old enough to remember the first Battlestar Galactica series (the 1980s spinoff sucked - except for the motorcycles with the really cool fins and the turbo launch option).
I watched the original series as a kid every darn week like clockwork - and if I hadn't already seen every episode 27 times like I have - I'de do it again.

I lost interest in the new version after like five episodes and stopped watching it. It was WAY too all around gothic and dark, it didn't stay true to the canon of the original, and it was too hashed up, convoluted, and had story lines and twists that the audience had to work on as much as a classroom algebra exam (I caught snippets of other episodes here and there, but didn't watch them all the way through - although I did review story synopsises from time to time on various sites).
 
I think "V" will make the same errors. Too brooding, Too dark (almost to an oppressive level like in "Galactica"), and the story lines will have as many convoluted twists and turns as a bowl full of tangled yarn and spaghetti. A sure fire death nell for any Sci Fi series. People like clearly defined directions in their fiction - subplot is fine - so long as you don't turn it into a maze of confusion to the point where viewers get aggravated and switch the remote over to "Dancing With The Stars" or "BrideZilla".

You'de think that after so many decades of flops and failed pilots - Hollywood would buy a clue and have some toast and coffee and wake the Frak up, but you can't expect corporate monkey suits to have any kind of imagination aside from managing their spreadsheets or playing shuffleboard on the yacht with Chad and Sophie over Highballs.

Why should anything remain true to the original.  Of course producers want to introduce the concepts to a whole new generation but the original conceptual thinking has completely disappeared.  BSG producers and writers grappled with how to reintroduce the franchise to a new sophisticated generation of Sci-Fi watchers.  It was novel and refreshing, no longer treating the viewer as mindless imbeciles.  We need to be entertained but also be intellectually stimulated, a feature that is sorely missing in today's movies and TV shows. 

Forbidden Planet is being remade, and I ask why.  Harlan Ellerson was once approached to write a screenplay for the remake.  And his response, and I paraphrase: "It was made right the first time!  Why mess with perfection!"  And I agree.

I have no problems if a remake brings something new to the story. eg Cronenberg's remake of the Fly. great movie... I love it and the original.

All EXCELLENT points hborre. HOWEVER I don't think being depressingly over "Gothified" , and constantly launching convoluted sub plot assaults on your audience necessarily translates to "sophistication". The "new" generation is not necessarily more sophisticated than the one that proceeded it - they just have different tastes.

I actually didn't feel like I was being treated as a "mindless imbecile" watching the original, I actually had fun watching it. It was escapist, interesting, visually cool, and didn't have to resort to the absolute baser lower common denominators to entertain. True - it was at at times silly, cheezy, and even absurd - which is one of the things that made it fun. It also had wider family appeal.

It actually had the same ambience as the original AND the newer STAR WARS flicks (which is one of the reasons why George Lucas AND Twentieth Century Fox sued the bajeezus out of Universal over it). It had an operatic feel that was just hip. The original I BELIEVE had a longer running time than the new one (I'll have to check - buit I'm pretty sure about that one).

That was a moment of shear cold chills that STILL has major league effect today when you watch the original. It was simply not covered in the remake - and would've made for a fascinating dichotomy. You can remake something until your blue in the face, and you might make a halfway decent show or film of it - but you can never recapture the flavor of the original,
and more often than not - originals do outshine their remade translations.

I had to explain to someone online last week that V was not a series about V for Vendetta. I nearly died of exasperation.

 There are similarities. Some people wear masks and there is violence and there is some vengence involved. Both involve conspiracies on a global scale.  One has aliens and the other a Vendetta. :laugh: People who don't study history are doomed to watch it again in RERUN!:lol:

Remakes are nothing new. They have been around Hollywood almost as long as there has been a Hollywood. The Maltese Falcon was made at least 2 times before Bogart's. The Magnificent Seven is a remake of the seven samurai. Fistfull of Dollars (or For a Few Dollars More) is a remake of yet another Kirasawa movie.

"You'de think that after so many decades of flops and failed pilots - Hollywood would buy a clue and have some toast and coffee and wake the Frak up,"

Yup- Stories should have a beggining, a middle and an end. Thats what every one of these shows are missing. They all end up writeing an ending to fill in the last episode. Look at Babalyon5(sic?)
They had 3 seperate story plots that each had a beggining, a middle and an end. Each story ran to the end then the next one started.
Truely great writeing.
And buy an original story? heaven forbid. The networks might not get 20M viewers every week. Entertainment, quality, creativity, now thats secondary.

"...constantly launching convoluted sub plot assaults on your audience necessarily translates to "sophistication".

Not even- they do that to stretch the story line out to the breaking point. See 'Lost'.
Endless story plots that go on and on forever, bah.

Agreed Geoegress!
If I can't focus on a story all the way through - I'll hang it up - no matter how glitzy the presentation (or how depressing and dismal as with today's shows). Trying to watch and follow the shows they're trying to pass off nowadays is like trying to switch rollercoasters in the middle of the ride. FORGET THAT NOISE!!!

I never watched "Lost" - I was too sophisticated for that - lmao :lol: .

I've anyone decides to remake "Aliens" I'm completely DONE watching movies and TV...lol. I don't care if it's an all-star cast, they can't make it better than the original one.

Wait, I don't watch TV, unless it's a documentary of course ;o).

I guess you could say I've revolted against network television long ago. Nowadays, if I'm gonna rot my brains in front of the tube, I'm gonna at least learn something in the process ;o). The mindless claptrap that fills the airwaves now (reality TV comes to mind) serves nothing more than inducing nausea. In other words, useful if you've swallowed rat poison...

Laurie

Well, they're doing a prequel to Alien - I really hope it sheds some light on the giant aliens that were transporting the eggs in the first place but I know it's going to destroy the already messed up storyline.

"...if it's an all-star cast, they can't make it better than the original one."

Thats how I feel about LOTR- and they had better make The Hobbit match.

Wasn't bad, though I think they sprung the Visitor's secrets a bit too early IMO.

Still, I'll have to watch a bit more before I decide whether this is a watch it or forget it.

"SORRY - but the one on the left is WAAAAAAYYYYY cooler than the one on the right." 

I disagree. To me, the newer one is sleeker, more sinister and deadly and just more "futureistic." The old one looks like a 1960s Monogram model. It was fine for the time progess changes your perspective. There are a few timeless classics - the gull wing Mercedes, maybe the Martian war machines from the original War of the Worlds... The original Enterprise looks dinky today. It doesn't detract from the enjoyment of the original series, but it would be silly not to take advantage of the opportunity to update the designs. 

Folks, this may be a spoiler.  However, I think that this is the way V  will go.   The vistors have  a single program, that of getting the resources that they need for their homeworld to survive.  In order to achieve their goal they must cure all human diseases (through a universal health care program-single giver) and eliminate world hunger and gain the trust of everybody.  Their goal is to serve mankind.  Eventually, we will discover the details, probably slowly at first and discover that the goal is to truely serve mankind-a cookbook probably in a .pdf file. After all no decent alien reptile would even think of eating diseased food, but that is after getting the food to mine the natural resources also needed.  Jan

Well - I didn't say that I HATED the new Raider design - I just think the one on the left looks a lot more reasonable to me. It seems to make more technical sense. Besides - the engine arrangement on the original beats the crap out of the new one HANDS DOWN - you talk about sleek - two big twin turbo thrusters mounted on a low profile, low manifold manta chassis - COOLNESS!

I personally prefer the concept of a three man fighter over a limited function drone anyway because not only do you have a good multipurpose-multioperational fighter, but also a transport for a tight, deployable three troop sqaud for ground operations, not to mention the accessory cargo capacity the old one might've had. The Predator that we have now is great for reconn or launching a missle or two, but that's about it. It's like comparing a really awsome flying tank to a reconn drone. Apples and Oranges.

The old design is also much more compact, much more ergonomical and economical to stow in a hanger bay, and probably a lot more deployable with less support service commitment.

Oooops--Jan

"The old design is also much more compact, much more ergonomical and economical to stow in a hanger bay...." 

Wonderful technical considerations...which 90% of the audience cares little or nothing about. It's all about the emotional impact of the visual. Next you'll be telling me that faeries are aerodynamically unstable. :-)

Actually Faeries ARE aerodynamically unstable since they bend at the waist like humans and their wings are typically to thin to sustain lift for their mass, LMAO!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:.

Ok - your right - it all boils down to emotional impact, and emotional impact is directly proportional to believability - hence - OLD RAIDER cool and believeable - NEW RAIDER cheezy and fakey. DA DINNNNGGGGGGGG!!!!!! LMAO!