Deja Q
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jun-30-04 06:53 PM
Original message |
This is bad for two reasons: |
|
"Little House on the Prairie" is coming back to TV.
Yup, the 1974 show about a family living in 1874 in a revisionist scenario where Whites and Blacks and Indians and everybody got along really smurfy and such is a'comin' back. (it had to be revisionist, many shows of the 70s started avoiding the mix of real issues and at the behest of the people turned into pure escapist schlock.)
Well, as the media continues to prove that originality is bollocks unless they know in advance it can make money, they're choosing to re-live old glories in a vain attempt to make a buck. This is bad. If TV shows usually go down the drain when they start re-living former episodes or doing nothing with the characters, how can this theory be applied to a society that no longer wants to be original but would rather make people feel cozy with the familiar by re-making (re-living) it?
I'd rather watch the DVD of the original and screw the remake. I have never understood the point of remakes and there has never been one good remake if the original was worthy of the claim "classic". EVER. Except "The Brady Bunch" movie, but that one bothered to take the myopic premise to a new level and mix it with real life, and as such was a laugh riot. "Battlestar Galactica" is obvious because the original is a load of sci-fi plot cliches with a less-than-sure presentation. (the new one does some dumb things too, but it is overall better than the original and actually conveys the idea that humanity is toast and they have to flee a very powerful enemy.)
Of course, Cameron Bancroft is in it. Dunno who he is, but I'd date him in a minute (who wouldn't if he said 'yes') so therefore it doesn't matter. Actors are hot, that's all that matters.
|
Don_G
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jun-30-04 06:59 PM
Response to Original message |
1. Corporate Hacks Trying To Find A Profit |
|
By rehashing the past.
I suppose there isn't too many people left in the media with both imagination and principles.
Which is probably why people paid money hand-over-fist to watch F911.
|
Deja Q
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jun-30-04 08:02 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
2. That suggests Moore was being imaginative with the facts... |
|
Edited on Wed Jun-30-04 08:05 PM by HypnoToad
Isn't F911 supposed to be factual? (Moore has infinitely more principles than *, though to say the masses want to see the works of a principled person seems moot when spider-man is going to rake in big bux...)
Actually, that's all conjecture. I do need to see the movie and I suspect I'm going to love it. :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya:
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 03:54 PM
Response to Original message |