(edit title) A discussion about TV/films What is your opinion Options

[intrepidfox]

A few days ago i saw an advert for a new Sherlock Holmes series. Watson is a girl and they are in New York. How can they destroy a classic. The same goes for Hawaii five o, Willy Wonker, etc.
If you look at the TV, it´s cooking, building, reality programmes and i´m sure that in my small collection of dvd´s i could do better.

Is the film/TV world so stagnant with their ideas?

[Yorkshireman]

A few days ago i saw an advert for a new Sherlock Holmes series. Watson is a girl and they are in New York.

WTF!!!...

[intrepidfox]

But it is not a decent version. It´s American crap ruining classic programmes and films as they have no imagination left to create something new

[Hisingen]

They are getting pretty desperate these days, finding stuff to fill in the 24/7 transmission times on satellite TV. I have seen that 'Elementary' - the Sherlock Holmes thing, and it is about as entertaining as watching paint dry.
Just on the SH theme, any attempt to bring those stories into a present day environment are doomed to failure, since SH never had access to any of today's crime-solving accessories, and the stories were based around his deductive capabilities, which eventually became part of standard police procedure, so updating him is putting the cart before the horse.
But with all these hours of transmission to fill on hundreds of different channels, I fear that we cannot expect much other than repeat upon repeat ad infinitum, and programmes that fall way below the entertainment level that we came to expect prior to satellite TV. It is so noticeable in the poor quality of many films that are the 'dime-a-dozen' production of time fillers.
It is quite amusing if you consider most of the 'disaster' type of film, volcanos, earthquakes, floods, asteroids en route for Earth etc. They all take place in America, the rest of the globe is spared these happenings, and only clever Americans are able to avert the threatened wipeout of civilization.
Although last night there was a flood film albeit once again a repeat, wherein the Thames Barrier was the central feature, and the whole of London was under threat - but of course it was saved in the nick of time. The only redeeming feature with that film was the fact that, with most of London very low-lying, were there to be another North Sea storm similar - but more intense - than that of 1948, then the storm surge could in fact swallow up London despite the Thames Barrier. But I digress.
I have Sky, with heaven knows how many channels actually available at present, and many are the evenings when you can see that all that is being transmitted is repeat upon repeat. They are even showing old series from the black and white era - such as 'Gunsmoke'. That is how desparate they are to fil the time. It is unbelievable. There is Sky 1, Sky 1+ i.e. plus one hour, and there are several channels operating the plus1 feature, where the same programme is then repeated, and over the course of 24 hours, if you miss your programme at a certain time, then you can be pretty sure there is a repeat during the day - or over the course of the next few days even. The hardest thing is that if it is a really good programme, then there willnot be a repeat. Just to get you riled up it seems.

[intrepidfox]

I also have the satellite dish and love watching the old films. I must admit on SVT1 yesterday and today there is a series called The Bible. It was really good. I think with all these new made films is that for people over 40 whom have seen the originals understand that remakes are pathetic. Maybe kids of today think the same as we did many years ago with the new versions. It is a shame that they have not seen the original films like Dracula with Christopher Lee instead of The Vampire Diaries

[Max Reaver]

Hisingen, I also watched that crappy flood movie featuring Thames Barrier. So many things were just not right. When the old man died of asphyxiation while activating the Barrier underwater, I was like "why didnt the military bring enough many air tanks?" Nobody needed to die!

I think the SH with Martin Freeman and Benedict Cumberbatch is more acceptable. Still the logic of their mysterious cases are often too far-fetched to convince.

Therefore I don't watch TV these days. My gf sometimes leaves the TV on The Fashion Channel. That's about as much as I watch.

[The Nine]

A few days ago i saw an advert for a new Sherlock Holmes series. Watson is a girl and they are in New York. How can they destroy a classic. The same goes for Hawaii five o, Wi ... (show full quote)

A few days ago i saw an advert for a new Sherlock Holmes series. Watson is a girl and they are in New York. How can they destroy a classic. The same goes for Hawaii five o, Willy Wonker, etc.
If you look at the TV, it´s cooking, building, reality programmes and i´m sure that in my small collection of dvd´s i could do better.

Is the film/TV world so stagnant with their ideas? ... (hide full quote)

I think the Sherlock series, with Benedict Cumberbatch as Sherlock, is superb. I think really good and timeless story telling can transpose really well. From a film company perspective, it's often about updating the backdrop to relate to a new and younger audience. Here is an example for you; The Terminator, starring Arnie Schwarzenegger . Whether you like Arnie or not, its a great story. A robot assassin from the future is sent back to the past to kill the woman who will one day give birth to the man who will eventually destroy the robots and their machine empire. The twist being, that the man sent back in time to protect her from the Terminator, (and the best friend of her son in the future) ends up being the father. It's a seminal sci fi movie, and despite the dated special effects, its still a great film. Any idea when the story was written?...1919. It was written by horror writer HP Lovecraft, and originally a short story called The Soldier.

The original story is very Edwardian and full of those naive references of the period it was written, but the narrative is exactly the same. James Cameron just up dated the setting to the early 80's. I think there are lots of great stories that do lend themselves to being brought into a modern setting.

However, I agree that revamping stuff like Hawaii Five O is just cynical. Starskey and Hutch, Charlie's Angels, The Italian Job; it's all about playing safe and re-hashing tried and tested successful films for a new audience. I do think that Charlie and the Chocolate Factory works. I think the difference between films like that and revamping TV shows or previous films, is that whether its the 1973 Gene Wilder version, or the 2005, Jonny Depp version, they are both films based on a great book, as opposed to just re-working a previous film.