Date: 29/1/06 11:51 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] vilenspotens.livejournal.com
At least it's not TJ Hooker: The Movie...

Date: 30/1/06 12:00 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] karohemd.livejournal.com
But but ... TJ Hooker had Heather Locklear in it...

Yes, and damn she was good

Date: 30/1/06 12:01 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] vilenspotens.livejournal.com
But what are the chance of her re-prising the role?

Date: 30/1/06 12:03 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] toxicpixie.livejournal.com
Becuase it's cheap?

Nathan, the Toxic Pixie

Date: 30/1/06 11:22 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] raggedyman.livejournal.com
'cheap'? these things cost a fortune! if nothing else they have to shell out on buying the rights from the makers of the origional.

my guess - because these are classics which were often made with low budget and low skills from those involved, yet somehow they were still fantastic. So people get to thinking 'what would it have been like if they had had the budget, if they had had the skills, and if they had had the support to make them 'right''.

Whilst I am not the worlds biggest fan of remakes some of them are good and its always nice to see someone do a reworking of a classic. Its like hearing a cover of one of your favourite songs.

On a slight side note: do we have this sort of reaction when someone does a new version of shakespear? its the same sort of process yet as its cinema we somehow mark that up as wrong. any guesses as to why that is?

Date: 30/1/06 11:26 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] toxicpixie.livejournal.com
It's cheap as you don't have to invest in writing a new story or developing a concept.

It advertises itself and already has brand conciousness :)

And as you say, many 'classics' were dirt cheap, so the IP is correspondingly cheap. Like getting an old knacker at auction and spending a bit of time polishing it up to flog on. Sometimes it works a treat, others it's a bandaid over a sucking chest wound!

Nathan, the Toxic Pixie

Date: 30/1/06 06:09 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] raggedyman.livejournal.com
It's cheap as you don't have to invest in writing a new story or developing a concept.

depends: the reworkings often go through a lot of writing and development, although not in all cases. Whilst the basic idea might be there it still needs to be reworked, something that isn't done by itself.

It advertises itself and already has brand conciousness :)

totally agreed

And as you say, many 'classics' were dirt cheap, so the IP is correspondingly cheap.

depends on the IP, if its a long selling classic thats going to make the studio a ton of cash then the owners are likely to want a decent share of the returns.

Basically it can be cheap or expensive to make, depending on a number of factors. Also the returns can be variable, if they murder the origional and disappoint the existing fans then they will lose sales to the core-audience that they were counting on and seriously deter new folks from watching it.

Date: 30/1/06 12:45 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] becky-spence.livejournal.com
i thought it looked like it could be quite good :(

June 2025

M T W T F S S
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30      

Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated 23 Jan 2026 10:29 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios