Slashdot Mirror


What SciFi Should Get the Reboot Treatment Next?

Not long ago Wired ran their own list of which SciFi (not SyFy!) shows were in need of another go 'round in this era of the reboot. Well, it looks like many fans had their own opinions resulting in another list of reboots including everything from Firefly (please?) to The Outer Limits. Which SciFi stories could use the breath of life, and which ones might actually succeed it getting it?

922 comments

  1. Blakes 7 by WED+Fan · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Blake's 7. I was in the USAF for the final 2 series. Incredible characters and stories. Horrible sets.

    --
    Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
    1. Re:Blakes 7 by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      That's a good one. Imagine Blake's 7 with a *actual budget*.

    2. Re:Blakes 7 by Botched · · Score: 5, Funny

      Vila: "Where are all the good guys?" Blake: "You may be looking at them." Avon: "What a depressing thought." And the best ending a show could ask for!

    3. Re:Blakes 7 by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      My thought too. A great premise, good script writing, terrible acting and terrible sets. Blake's 7 with some decent actors and a budget would be great. As long as they don't try to make them into 'good guys'. The great thing about Blake's 7 was that, from a certain perspective, it was about a bunch of terrorists and thieves. From another, it was about a bunch of heroic rebels. Most of the time, the truth was somewhere between the two.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    4. Re:Blakes 7 by ByOhTek · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I read recently that BBC is actually considering a reboot of that one, but at the moment I can't find a reference - so it was probably word of mouth. If not, I agree, that definitely needs a reboot. I remember watching that one after Dr. Who on PBS and loved it.

      It certainly fits better than too many shows on that list that are too recent to be in reboot country IMO. Babylon 5 is definitely the most recent I would put in the reboot category. Firefly was nice, but if they can get the money to complete the movies, it doesn't need a reboot.

      Others are just way too recent IMO (Roswell, Lexx).

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    5. Re:Blakes 7 by s0litaire · · Score: 1

      Think it was SKY TV in the UK had bought the TV rights and was doing a script! But that was a good +5 years ago!

      I hope it does eventually come out of Development Hell and get on screen!

      --
      Laters Sol "Have you found the secrets of the universe? Asked Zebade "I'm sure I left them here somewhere"
    6. Re:Blakes 7 by DrGradus · · Score: 0

      I like the idea of taking old BBC sci-fi and rebooting with a budget. It worked for Dr. Who and (to an arguable extent with the film) Hitchhiker's Guide. What about The Tomorrow People? I know it got a reboot already in the 90's (which showed for a second or two on Nickelodeon), but I think that it would play well in the modern era with privacy concerns, heightened technology and terrorist threats. Or they could ruin it, which wouldn't bother the vast majority of those who never saw either incarnation.

    7. Re:Blakes 7 by fermion · · Score: 1
      I would be happy to see Blake's 7 on DVD, even if it were $100 for the series. I think the producer think the US is not financially viable.

      I think that characterization is something that many Sci Fi shows do not concentrate on, perhaps because it is not something the masses want, as well as one needs really good actors to pull off. Paul Darrow did an excelent job. But then again sometimes you just need to add another pretty woman, in the form of Jacqueline Pearce.

      Blake's 7, like Firefly, are wonderful ideas, but it was just hard to make them a series, and keep the actors interested. We see this on other shows like Moonlighting, where a really esoteric rythm was very difficult to maintain. Such a rhythm is much more sustainable at 6-12 episodes per seasons/series rather than 18-24. In fact, I would be quite happy with Dollhouse staying of the air with 12 episode plus an epitaph.

      What we had when I was kid, which was great, was the comedies in space. The wrong people on the wrong ship. Star Trek made the western in space in the norm.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    8. Re:Blakes 7 by jameskojiro · · Score: 1

      (Avon activates the star drive incinerating Dr. Langstrom in the Process)

      Dayna: What about Dr. Langstrom?
      Avon: Who?

      Orac: We need to lose 63 Kilos in order to achieve orbit.
      Avon: Who do we have left to jettison that weighs 63 Kilos?
      Orac: Vila weights 70 Kilos.....
      Avon: Vila, where are you?

      --
      Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
    9. Re:Blakes 7 by Botched · · Score: 3, Informative

      umm, it is on DVD (I'm seeing non-US format, but that's easy to get around)

    10. Re:Blakes 7 by jameskojiro · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The actors who played Avon, Vila and Blake were great actors, the rest were mediocre. Orac and Zen were also acted superbly for being machines. Oh and you cannot forget Servelan. She played hot sexy strong in a way I haven't seen yet the only person come close was the visitor leader in V the new series.

      The thing is most of the crew needs to be made up with criminals both political prisoners and otherwise. They need not be acted like they are feral animals, the original show did a good job at that, they need the "Violent Offender with Neurochip suppression" otherwise known as Gan. The team needs to be made up of a group of amoral people led by a complete Idealist (Blake). Of course in the original series when Blake left, he took their morals with it and it become a power play between all of the amoralistic bastards left in the crew, save Cally and Dayna. Though season 3 and 4 were fun as well!

      --
      Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
    11. Re:Blakes 7 by jameskojiro · · Score: 1

      I think Blake's 7 would be best done in the U.K. and marketed to sy-fi/NBC or BBC America.

      I would think all Blakes 7 would need is 1/2 the budget of the new doctor who to look somewhat decent, the tough part is picking someone who can play Avon the way Paul Darrow could...

      --
      Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
    12. Re:Blakes 7 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Paul Darrow (Avon) was involved in this but left due to creative differences and nothing has been done with it since.

    13. Re:Blakes 7 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BBC isn't currently involved in any efforts to bring back Blakes 7.
      Sky TV (which is the same company as FOX) has commissioned some scripts for a pilot for a re-imagined Blakes 7 from the current copyright holders. Unfortunately, that was more than a year ago and there hasn't been any public announcements since then.

      I'm a little bit skeptical due to the lack of public progress, and I really didn't like how FOX brought back Doctor Who back in the 90s. Even if it does come back, it would be sad if it resembled the Doctor Who "movie."

    14. Re:Blakes 7 by kandela · · Score: 1

      Blake's 7 would be interesting, another British show from that era that might be worth another go around is U.F.O.

      --
      Conservation of angular momentum makes the world go round.
    15. Re:Blakes 7 by itsdapead · · Score: 2, Funny

      Oh and you cannot forget Servelan. She played hot sexy strong in a way I haven't seen yet the only person come close was the visitor leader in V the new series.

      Hot damn. Morena Baccarin as Servilan.

      Yes.

      I'll be in my bunk!

      --
      In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
    16. Re:Blakes 7 by FreudianNightmare · · Score: 2, Funny

      It *did* have an actual budget. Approximately 2 pence and as much cardboard as they could steal from the local dump per episode, true, but it was still a budget.

      --
      'Speak softly and carry a beagle'
    17. Re:Blakes 7 by kandela · · Score: 1

      If you can watch a show without cringing then it doesn't need a reboot. The only thing I come close to cringing at in B5 is the appallingly small crowds in the crowd scenes, and I did that at the time as well. I'd put B5 in the same category as the X-files, as in 'stands the test of time.' (Note: I do cringe at Scully's suits and the fact that the only time you see her wearing sensible shoes is in glimpses during scenes when she is running or about to run.)

      --
      Conservation of angular momentum makes the world go round.
    18. Re:Blakes 7 by ettlz · · Score: 1

      another British show from that era that might be worth another go around is U.F.O.

      1980

    19. Re:Blakes 7 by Tyr_7BE · · Score: 1

      So...SciFi Robin Hood?

    20. Re:Blakes 7 by Starayo · · Score: 1

      It worked for Dr. Who and (to an arguable extent with the film) Hitchhiker's Guide.

      That was not a reboot. That was a butchering.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    21. Re:Blakes 7 by kandela · · Score: 1

      I think you'll find they both first aired in the '70s. Admittedly at opposite ends but that just means U.F.O. is in more need of a reboot. Besides I needed a segway from Blake's 7 otherwise I would have had to post way down the thread where I probably wouldn't have gotten any responses.

      --
      Conservation of angular momentum makes the world go round.
    22. Re:Blakes 7 by Palshife · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I can't wait to see two dimensional character development and terrible continuity with great special effects. Maybe they can use some digital effects to insert Blake into the rest of the series.

      --
      Attention deficit disorder is a complicated issue, spanning several major... HEY LET'S GO RIDE BIKES!
    23. Re:Blakes 7 by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Not really. Robin Hood stole from the rich and gave to the poor. Blake's 7 stole from the rich and gave to themselves, but if they could hurt the (totalitarian) Federation in the process then that was good. Sometimes that would even be their main motivation, but not always.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    24. Re:Blakes 7 by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Originally, robin Hood stole, but did it with style. The whole protect the poor thing is probably a disney thing.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    25. Re:Blakes 7 by dwye · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > Originally, robin Hood stole, but did it with style.
      > The whole protect the poor thing is probably a disney thing.

      I have read several Robin Hood books from the early 19th Century and the "robs from the rich and gives to the poor" trope was firmly established then. Disney is not responsible for EVERY non-cynical idea in the world.

      Personally, I just assumed that it was obvious, tactically, just as it was later obvious to Mao in the Little Red Book. If you pay back some of your take to help the "poor" or disenfranchised (aka peasantry, in Mao), they cover for you against those who only take (landlords or their agents)(even if you only pay a few pennies of the pounds that you take). This idea also occurred to the Medellin and Cali Cartels in Columbia.

    26. Re:Blakes 7 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You mean Farscape?

    27. Re:Blakes 7 by qazwart · · Score: 1

      So, except for the horrible sets, the terrible writing, the stupid premise, and the awful plot lines, it was a good concept. :-)

      So, we'll keep the bit about a bunch of people in space and change everything else.

      Sounds like a reboot to me!

    28. Re:Blakes 7 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I love(d) Blake's 7, isn't the modern version just Andromeda?
      Storyline parallels aside, they're both hugely cheesy.

    29. Re:Blakes 7 by mcvos · · Score: 1

      Can't believe that one's missing from Wired's original list. The only entry on that list that even makes sense is Buck Rogers. All the others are recent, current, already restarted or animations. Not really the same thing.

      In any case, the fan list has far better suggestions, including Blake's 7.

    30. Re:Blakes 7 by mcvos · · Score: 1

      Firefly was nice, but if they can get the money to complete the movies, it doesn't need a reboot.

      The movie already wrapped everything up (though not terribly well). Firefly needs to be a series, not a movie. I'd rather forget that the movie happened and continue where the series left off.

      (Not that the movie is so terrible. It's not. It was very good considering the circumstances, but it's really not nearly as good as the TV series was.)

    31. Re:Blakes 7 by elronxenu · · Score: 1

      Please leave Blakes 7 alone. The original is as good as it gets; remakes will suck.

      No more reboots KTHX. I don't need to see a remake of Citizen Kane or Dr Strangelove because the originals still exist and are still watchable. Reboots and remakes are just Hollywood reducing its risk dollar by going with something they already know was popular. Get some new ideas for a change.

    32. Re:Blakes 7 by jeremyp · · Score: 1

      It worked for Dr. Who and (to an arguable extent with the film) Hitchhiker's Guide.

      It did not work with H2G2.

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
    33. Re:Blakes 7 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      It's been done. The reboot was called "Firefly".

    34. Re:Blakes 7 by schon · · Score: 1

      If you can watch a show without cringing then it doesn't need a reboot.

      Then Babylon 5 most certainly *does* need it.

      The only thing I come close to cringing at in B5 is the appallingly small crowds in the crowd scenes

      What?!?!

      You were happy with the cast displaying the emotional range of unfinished mahogany and the "badly-rendered plastic" special effects?

      Babylon5 was unwatchable because (with the exception of the guy who played Garibaldi) the acting was completely wooden. The special effects were completely crappy - comparable shows did much better with the same software (DS9 and Space: Above and Beyond to name two.)

      Yeah, I know, I know.. you think the magic incantation of "STORY ARC! STORY ARC! STORY ARC!" makes up for the shortcomings, but honestly it doesn't.

      Maybe if they remade B5 with decent actors and SFX, I might be able to watch it, but not only does the original *not* stand the test of time, it didn't stand the test of first-viewing.

    35. Re:Blakes 7 by WCLPeter · · Score: 1

      Get some new ideas for a change.

      They can't. They worked so hard to extend the copyright term to such a ridiculous time frame that no one is allowed to have an original idea anymore. They're stuck doing remakes and re-imaginings of previous properties, hoping that people won't remember its been done already.

    36. Re:Blakes 7 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They can't. They worked so hard to extend the copyright term to such a ridiculous time frame that no one is allowed to have an original idea anymore. They're stuck doing remakes and re-imaginings of previous properties, hoping that people won't remember its been done already.

      I... what? They can't have original ideas because [of a law that prevents people from stealing unoriginal ideas], so they have to stick with making unoriginal ideas? What the hell?

      As much as I'd like to think that Hollywood was suffering because of it's own short-sightedness, I'm more inclined to believe that it's simply because original ideas are risky and the same tired old crap is a much safer bet. If you don't like it, boycott* remakes/reboots/reimaginings/re-whatever-the-next-bullshit-hollywood-word-is and all the other forms of lazy derivative movies - hell, you'll be doing yourself a favour, you're only boycotting movies that aren't worth seeing.

      * NB: Boycotting != pirating. If you pirate it, they'll be able to legitimately claim that piracy undermines their business and introduce more draconian laws. If there were a large boycott, large enough that everyone is or knows someone who's boycotting, then they'll yell "bullshit" when those crooks cry "piracy". Of course, this relies on democracy still being remotely intact, which is debatable.

    37. Re:Blakes 7 by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the movie was not so good, largely because they had to cram too many loose end tie-ups into 2 hours. Also, because that ass Whedon thought it'd be "edgy" or something to unnecessarily, unceremoniously, and inelegantly kill Wash. What the hell, man? The heroes are supposed to be essentially immortal, unless their death is a Sacrifice for the Greater Good. Just killing Wash like that was a complete failure to adhere to the principles of Good Storytelling.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    38. Re:Blakes 7 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I read recently that BBC is actually considering a reboot of that one, but at the moment I can't find a reference[...]

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7364663.stm

    39. Re:Blakes 7 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yea but its less like fiction now.

    40. Re:Blakes 7 by NulDevice · · Score: 1

      Hee hee hee.

      Prepare for the flames!

      Katsulas was a pretty decent actor.

      What I could never suss out was whether the actors were really that flat, or whether the appallingly comic-book-ish expository dialogue made them seem that way.

      Many sci-fi shows have since proven that you can have subtext without a riddle-talking alien.

      --

      ----
      "I used to listen to Null Device before they sold out."

    41. Re:Blakes 7 by electrons_are_brave · · Score: 1
      You're right - it was the moral ambiguity that made the show. It would be interesting to see how they handle the issue of terrorism in these sorry times.

      Mind you, it was very uneven - the best episodes were great, but it often had the Lost-in-Space style "alien of the week" approach to Sci-Fi (Remember the mushrooms that could read minds? The planet made of spit? The space rats?).

      Overall, I've always thought it would make a great movie if you dicked all of the silly episodes and just dealt with the central terrorist (or rebel depending on your POV) plot.

    42. Re:Blakes 7 by electrons_are_brave · · Score: 1

      The team needs to be made up of a group of amoral people led by a complete Idealist (Blake).

      Blake wasn't absolutely a completed idealist - he was at least in part motivated by revenge and ego. And the crew wasn't totally immoral - Cally, Dayna and Gan were sometimes more ethical than Blake. And Avon was loyal (he had no real reason not to steal the ship and could have done it). That's what I loved about it - it wasn't all "good" versus "evil" like Star Trek (which I also loved). The characters were more complex.

    43. Re:Blakes 7 by Excelcior · · Score: 1

      The Doctor... and Marvin? methinks someone needs a lesson in British SciFi...

      That having been said, I'd love to see them make an HG2G II.

      --
      A small comparison of interest:
      Windows: Public School. Mac: Private School. Linux: Homeschool. Assembly: Unschool.
    44. Re:Blakes 7 by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      And in modern times, this is the model for Hezbollah, Sadr's militia in Iraq, and Hamas.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    45. Re:Blakes 7 by gullevek · · Score: 1

      I just recently started to watch it again (16:9 how it was shot originally) and yeah, the acting is kind of Soap opera style. Partly very very unrealistic. But after watching several episodes I got over it. The story is really good.

      --
      "Freiheit ist immer auch die Freiheit des Andersdenkenden" - Rosa Luxemburg, 1871 - 1919
    46. Re:Blakes 7 by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      I think you'll find they both first aired in the '70s.

      He was referring to the big flashing "1980" that introduced the show and the year it was set.

    47. Re:Blakes 7 by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      The premise was good. You had a political prisoner and a few non-politicals being sent to a penal colony on the same ship. They were used as expendable explorers when the prison ship encountered an alien derelict, and were able to take control of it. You had a totalitarian state that, due to good propaganda, was largely supported by its inhabitants and an idealist trying to reform it. Unfortunately for him, his crew is made up of his fellow prisoners, who aren't nearly as idealistic...

      The writing wasn't bad either, at least in most episodes. I love Vila's line 'I plan to live forever, or die trying' and you can find a lot of other good examples throughout the series. Some of the plots (for example, Rumours of Death) were superb, others were a bit dull.

      The sets, however, were incredibly low budget (bits of the ship wobbled when anyone touched them) and the acting was largely second rate, with a few gems.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    48. Re:Blakes 7 by ByOhTek · · Score: 1

      It needs a reboot so they can finish the storyline - the original actors have aged and the discontinuity wouldn't be very nice.

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    49. Re:Blakes 7 by minginqunt · · Score: 1

      Have you been watching the same Who as the rest of us?

      The production design has been unfailingly excellent since it was resurrected, and we've had some top notch writing from the likes of Stephen Moffat, Paul Cornell, Gareth Roberts and (if he's in a good mood - whisper it!) even Russell T. Davies.

      And the implication that the actors on classic Who were bad is a travesty for the most part. Troughton through Davison were amazing actors, including the beloved Tom Baker.

    50. Re:Blakes 7 by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      Tom Baker? He has exactly one emotion, and it's "bored detachment." I always assumed he was just the dialog coach waiting for the actual actor to show up.

      I think your using some rose-colored glasses here. Rewatch some of the Baker Doctor Who episodes (a bunch are up on Netflix streaming if you have that) and then come back and tell me he's a great actor. Or even an actor, as opposed to a script reader.

  2. against a dark background by mjwalshe · · Score: 2, Interesting

    do a BSG style multi season show based on against a dark background by Banks

    1. Re:against a dark background by tylersoze · · Score: 1

      Naw, I'd prefer they do a show set in his Culture universe.

    2. Re:against a dark background by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      Against a Dark Background would lend itself to TV more than Culture, I think. Limited scope, it'd make a good fusion of Firefly and BSG.

      Who to play Sharrow though?

    3. Re:against a dark background by Botched · · Score: 1

      Alastair Reynolds would get better ratings for far-future stuff. I'm not sure the TV community is ready for 'humans are pretty useless, but we keep them around for fun'.

    4. Re:against a dark background by mjwalshe · · Score: 1

      yes and it is similar in tone to BSG which would make it an esier sell. I think Jacqueline Samuda (Nirti in Stargate) has the dark hair and the smoldering exotic looks that would work.

    5. Re:against a dark background by symes · · Score: 1

      Then you will probably like to see a reboot of Dark Star easily the greatest sci-fi film of all time.

    6. Re:against a dark background by An+ominous+Cow+art · · Score: 1

      "Against a Dark Background" could be good. Of the Culture books, probably "Consider Phlebas" would lend itself best o being made a movie - enough explosions and action to keep people interested.

    7. Re:against a dark background by arethuza · · Score: 1

      I've always wondered what a movie of "Use of Weapons" would be like :-)

  3. Reboot should get a Reboot! by SirDrinksAlot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Reboot should get a Reboot!

    That was a great cartoon.

    Maybe C.O.P.S too! Fighting crime in a future time!

    1. Re:Reboot should get a Reboot! by dgatwood · · Score: 2, Funny

      Futurama. Think about Futurama reimagined in a younger, edgier style.

      Fry: Chill, Hube. I'm like translating as fast as I can.
      Leela: I'm so sick of being treated like some kind of object to be worshipped. I'm a real person with real feelings.
      Young Zoidberg: You know, I don't think Mitchell likes me any more.
      Leela: I'm pregnant.

      [Everyone]: No.

      With apologies to Stargate.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    2. Re:Reboot should get a Reboot! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reboot did reboot. It was the original series finale. Great show.

    3. Re:Reboot should get a Reboot! by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      D'oh. Forgot to change one of the names and fix errors in the original quote. Make that

      You know, I don't think Bender likes me anymore.

      *sigh*

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    4. Re:Reboot should get a Reboot! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The real irony of this is Stargate Universe.

    5. Re:Reboot should get a Reboot! by sootman · · Score: 1

      Not sci-fi, but that reminds me: Charlie's Angels was on the air from 1976-1981 and was remade as a movie in 2000 -- nineteen years later. The Simpsons has been on the air for 21 years--I think it's due. :-)

      --
      Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    6. Re:Reboot should get a Reboot! by sajuuk · · Score: 1

      Dangnabbit, you beat me to it! WARNING. INCOMING GAME.

    7. Re:Reboot should get a Reboot! by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      Man that cyborg guy in C.O.P.S.... every time the criminals shot at him, the bullets hit his metal body and deflected away. Even as a 12-year-old, I was screaming, "AIM FOR HIS HEAD YOU IDIOTS!" every episode.

    8. Re:Reboot should get a Reboot! by Ragzouken · · Score: 1

      Oh my god, YES to C.O.P.S.

      Do it now; crime's a wastin'!

    9. Re:Reboot should get a Reboot! by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Yeah. It's an okay show, but it's nowhere near what the previous shows were. It just doesn't have the right character dynamics. What characterized the previous Stargate shows (and I'll admit that this is formulaic, but it worked) was a smart aleck military guy, a geek (or several), and a strong female character. This show just has the geeks. And a strong military character. It's more BSG than Stargate.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    10. Re:Reboot should get a Reboot! by OK+PC · · Score: 1

      Reboot IS getting a reboot:
      http://reboot.com/

      --
      Did you get that thing I sent ya?
    11. Re:Reboot should get a Reboot! by Harin_Teb · · Score: 1

      Interestingly enough (from the wiki article on reboot) "On June 1, 2008, it was announced that there will be a trilogy of ReBoot films coming to theaters. Jon Cooksey was assigned to write the script for the first film, but as of August 2008, he was dropped due to Rainmaker deciding to take a different direction with the story. At this time, it is unknown who will replace him.[10] The films are expected to follow a different story from the comic, but the overall plan is to continue the methodology in terms of engaging the fans.[11] The movie is currently listed as in development on the IMDB website. It is currently listed for release in 2010. A teaser trailer for the film was released on October 5, on Rainmaker's official site." The current production company that owns the rights to "ReBoot" bought out Mainframe Inc. (creator of ReBoot) explicitly to get the rights to the show. Although the current crop of movies may be closer to duke nukem forever than is desirable.

    12. Re:Reboot should get a Reboot! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even though I can't find any reference to the incident, I noticed the series had been pulled off of Saturday mornings immediately after an episode that referenced "gimme the BFG" when bringing out a guitar.

    13. Re:Reboot should get a Reboot! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The real problem with SGU is that, unlike the previous series, they can never go back to a planet. It's all just hit-and-runs: the ship drops out of FTL, dials a gate, the countdown starts. When the timer reaches 0, the ship heads off.

      See, there's no continuity. Just another planet-o-the-week, with everything wrapped up before the ship jumps back to FTL. It reminds me of the book Ringworld, where the protagonists are using flying machines to travel across the Ringworld at high speed. After one incident with the natives, one says "We're lucky, though. We can leave our mistakes behind. All we have to do, any time, is get airborne. Nothing can catch us."

      Same with 'Destiny'. There's nothing out there (that we know of) that can affect them for more than one episode. With the added info that each season of SGU will be a new galaxy, that means they only stop about 20-25 times per galaxy. Hell, they'd be lucky to meet the Federation of Planets, were they to travel thru the Milky Way in the Star Trek 'verse.

      Now, it's possible that they could change this. So far the Stargates have been singular affairs, the ship drops out, and allows then to dial the ones within reach. We haven't seen any evidence that there's a widespread network of gates. (Other wise they would not be limited to just the nearby gates, they could get to any gate in the network: ie: any gate in the galaxy.) It's possible that they will come across a galaxy where the gates have been networked together (like the Milky Way or Pegasus galaxies), and then they could use the gates to travel 'ahead' of the ship, and have actual meaningful interactions with any aliens before they need to gate back to the ship.

      but I have a feeling they won't do that. They'll keep it to a 'one episode, one planet' format, concentrating more on the crew interactions. So, 90210 in space.

    14. Re:Reboot should get a Reboot! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No! Not a Reboot for Reboot! We need a season 5. I think it would also be cool to have a movie or mini-season that fleshes out Mainframe before the accident. Most of it was explained, but not enough to really give a feeling of what life was like before Bob and Megabyte showed up and Mr. Matrix got nullified.

    15. Re:Reboot should get a Reboot! by Lord+Jester · · Score: 1

      This is why it is referred to as Battle Stargate in the SyFy forums. I prefer Stargate Galactica.

    16. Re:Reboot should get a Reboot! by crossmr · · Score: 1

      don't apologize to stargate. They haven't done anything to deserve it. They've basically said they're going to make the show they want and the fans be damned!

    17. Re:Reboot should get a Reboot! by WoRLoKKeD · · Score: 1

      I was going to say this. I can't agree more. REBOOT REBOOT, DAMNIT!

      --
      Immolation is the sincerest form of flattery.
    18. Re:Reboot should get a Reboot! by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      That is quickly becoming a series that I am doing my desk to forget ever existed.

      I am afraid if I keep watching it, I will end up hating the whole SG universe. (Sort of like what the series finale of BSG did for me.)

    19. Re:Reboot should get a Reboot! by SuperRenaissanceMan · · Score: 1

      sounds painful

      --
      Any comment mentioning moderation is automatically Offtopic.
  4. Why Firefly? by jandrese · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What part of Firefly do you think needed a reboot? The whole point of these reboots is to drop the decades of cruft that have dogged down a series and made it impossible to create anything new thanks to all of the baggage. Firefly has a (too) short lived TV run and a movie. There's not really any baggage to drop.

    The only thing I'd change is the dumbass execs that cancelled it before its time.

    --

    I read the internet for the articles.
    1. Re:Why Firefly? by Drummergeek0 · · Score: 1

      Seconded, I think Firefly needs a new show, based on the original with a bigger budget. Think ST:TNG to ST.

      --
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
    2. Re:Why Firefly? by spamking · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What part of Firefly do you think needed a reboot? The whole point of these reboots is to drop the decades of cruft that have dogged down a series and made it impossible to create anything new thanks to all of the baggage. Firefly has a (too) short lived TV run and a movie. There's not really any baggage to drop. The only thing I'd change is the dumbass execs that cancelled it before its time.

      I'll second this . . . Firefly was canceled it way to soon. If Stargate can live on like it is why can't Firefly?

    3. Re:Why Firefly? by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

      I assumed it meant "restart/continue" Firefly, not redo it from scratch. It would have been nice if the "government experiments on its own people" story crammed into "Serenity" had been a season's story arc, like it was probably designed to be.

    4. Re:Why Firefly? by LoyalOpposition · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The part that needs to be eliminated in the reboot is the movie. I want to see a series that includes Wash and Sheppard Book.

      -Loyal

      --
      I aim to misbehave.
    5. Re:Why Firefly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reboot? I'd take any excuse to see new Firefly. Or if reboot means that not all the same actors are available, then that'd be okay too. Or even if it's a spin off on another part of the universe, perhaps involving an obscure character like Badger - pretty much every bit of that show was pure win.

    6. Re:Why Firefly? by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      Firefly has a (too) short lived TV run and a movie. There's not really any baggage to drop.

      The only thing I'd change is the dumbass execs that cancelled it before its time.

      See, that's what would be rebooted. The short lifespan and the execs would be booted. With a bladed boot. Into a volcano.

      Even if we don't restart the show, I'd like to see them get kicked into a volcano.

    7. Re:Why Firefly? by Lisandro · · Score: 1

      Not reboot. I'd just LOVE to see the series continued. The movie kinda sealed the story shut, but still, that show was killed way before it was due.

      Bring back Firefly. Please. Pretty please!

    8. Re:Why Firefly? by FlyingBishop · · Score: 1

      If they're going to do to Firefly what they did to Stargate, I'll pass.

    9. Re:Why Firefly? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      FireFly probably couldn't be brought back as a direct continuation. The River story arc was basically finished by the film and I doubt that you'd get the same cast back. You could, however, set another show in the same universe (and tidy up the 'I don't know the difference between a galaxy and a star system' bug in the original), with a similar setting. Another small crew of people doing mostly legal things on the edge. There were a lot of hints that Book had an unexplored backstory. Setting it around a character with the same background as him (whatever it was) would be a nice way of tying it to the original.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    10. Re:Why Firefly? by ByOhTek · · Score: 1

      I'd prefer a vat of nitric acid. It'd be slower and more painful.

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    11. Re:Why Firefly? by jakobX · · Score: 1

      Perhaps because stargate has a properly defined universe while firefly's universe was a mess. Cowboys in space, all the planets orbiting the same star etc etc.

    12. Re:Why Firefly? by ByOhTek · · Score: 1

      So, "The Monster", post movie then?

      It was very strongly insinuated (if not flat out stated) that Book was a predecessor to "The Monster".

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    13. Re:Why Firefly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      with or without nuclear weapons? oh wait, wrong story

    14. Re:Why Firefly? by spamking · · Score: 1

      Good point. Stargate on Showtime was much better.

    15. Re:Why Firefly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am all for a Firefly reboot....as long as it still has Gina Torres!

    16. Re:Why Firefly? by elrous0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That movie was embarrassing. They should have just let it rest in peace.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    17. Re:Why Firefly? by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 3, Funny

      It's Slashdot, you're required by law to mention Firefly every time anything sci-fi comes up. Firefly, Firefly, Firefly.

      Personally, I'm a huge sci-fi fan, and I don't like Firefly at all. But I can't say that due to Slashdot Law. Oh crap, it's the Slashdot Police...

    18. Re:Why Firefly? by Johnny+Mnemonic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      90% of the planets have an environment remarkably like Vancouver, WA, and a sum total of 500 human inhabitants makes sense to you? At least it's consistent, I guess. But if you're saying FireFly's mythos is sub-standard to SG1, I think you have to do a lot better than that.

      And btw: it is not really ever very clear that all of FF's planets orbit the same star. I think Joss left it purposely vague, 'cause he didn't want FTL but wanted more room to explore than a single solar system would allow. I have much less gripe with that than every environment in FF resembling So Cal a little too much.

      --

      --
      $tar -xvf .sig.tar
    19. Re:Why Firefly? by jgtg32a · · Score: 1

      I didn't really like Firefly, but I LOVED the characters in Firefly.

    20. Re:Why Firefly? by mcrbids · · Score: 1

      Firefly needs a "reboot" in that it needs to be FINISHED. It's a series that I discovered through the movie and watched online (thanks Hulu!) and fell in love with it by episode three. The characters are awesome, the acting was excellent, the plot was entertaining and managed to be simultaneously "wild west" and "high tech".

      I would love love LOVE to see this series restarted!

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    21. Re:Why Firefly? by Grishnakh · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The only thing that was a bit iffy about Firefly was the large number of habitable planets and moons orbiting one star. The backstory is that humans found this star system and was able to terraform all these planets and moons, which conveniently had approx. 1g gravity.

      This setting was necessary to avoid the plot device of "warp drive". The show's creator wanted a show where people were in space, but not with technology too far more advanced that our own (though they do have some odd things like floating islands, etc.). The problem is that warp drive is theoretically impossible, and if it ever does happen, it'll require a complete change in our understanding of physics. But warp drive is a necessary plot device to have humans traveling between star systems in any reasonable time, a la Star Trek. So putting lots of livable worlds around one star is about the only way to avoid it.

      The "cowboys in space" thing is completely reasonable given these constraints. Remember, with propulsion technology like our own, even traveling between planets/moons in the same system can take days, weeks, or even months (it would currently take us months to travel to Jupiter with current technology). So Firefly's creator envisioned a system where the inner worlds were controlled by the oppressive authoritarian government, and had lots of tech, while the outer worlds were not very well controlled by this Alliance (and not as well terraformed either), and thus it was much like the "Wild West", with less tech, fewer luxuries, not many police around to protect you, etc. This was actually a genius idea IMO.

    22. Re:Why Firefly? by FlyingBishop · · Score: 1

      Actually, I was mostly referring to SGU. SG-1 and even Atlantis, while not quite as good as Showtime, had their good points and were even superior at times. SGU is highly reminiscent of the abortive Flash Gordon remake, and almost completely unwatchable.

    23. Re:Why Firefly? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      There's a slight problem with this: it's been a while since Firefly was on. If they tried to continue it, that would require getting back all the original actors (except Wash and Book since they're dead), which might not be possible. They could do what some of these fan-made Star Trek shows have done and just have completely different actors take the roles, but while that might work with die-hard fans who download free episodes on the internet, that probably won't work with a TV-watching audience.

    24. Re:Why Firefly? by steveha · · Score: 1

      tidy up the 'I don't know the difference between a galaxy and a star system' bug in the original

      It was explicitly said that the Firefly ships (like the Serenity) and the other ships we saw did not have FTL ability, and spent all their time in one star system. It was also said that that one system had dozens of planets and hundreds of moons. It was never said how people managed to travel to this one star system (I'm guessing sub-light travel with the passengers in suspended animation), and the only reason ever given for why people traveled here was "Earth got all used up".

      I don't think the solar system in Firefly is very plausible. And I have issues with some other science (a box of concentrated food was shown as very valuable, valuable enough to be worth flying the Serenity out to a remote moon for a trade; surgery to re-attach a severed ear required highly special medical equipment; getting victim ships to fly through a giant hoop that killed everyone on board was extremely silly; it's hard to believe that Reavers could even fly ships, let alone keep their ships in good working order; etc.). But I felt it was not so bad that it jarred me out of suspension of disbelief.

      steveha

      --
      lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
    25. Re:Why Firefly? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Sulphuric acid would be better I think. I only remember nitric acid turning my skin and fingernails yellow in Chemistry lab. It was the sulphuric acid I had to avoid touching at all costs.

    26. Re:Why Firefly? by RealErmine · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The part that needs to be eliminated in the reboot is the movie. I want to see a series that includes Wash and Sheppard Book.

      Maybe some things in the movie didn't fit the way they should have, but I don't think that the death of Wash and Book are among these. Were they likable characters? Yes. Are you supposed to be sad that they died? Yes.

      Firefly is primarily a story about Mal and his journey. At the beginning of the series he is battle-hardened and stoic while being burdened with Brown Coats' loss to the Core Planets. He is very much a closed-off person and the only glimpses we see of his humanity are his feelings for the ship and a strange sense of loyalty to his crew. He never gives any further explanation to why he protects them other than that they are his crew. There is a common theme throughout the series dealing with the stalled relationship between Mal and Inara due mainly to Mal's inability to open himself emotionally.

      The events of the movie bring Mal's humanity back. The uncovering of the atrocities performed by the Core Planets government gives Mal a sense of purpose outside what we saw in the series which was to simply stay alive and flying. The deaths of Wash and Book uncover the real reason that Mal was so protective of his crew and this is alluded to in the last lines of the movie. Mal explains to River that the secret to captaining a ship is love. He protected his crew because he loved them and he is finally able to admit it, but it cost the lives of two good friends for him to realize it. Just previous to this scene Mal expresses to Inara that he would like it if she stayed on the ship, a tacit admission of his feelings for her.

      If you don't like the movie because two good characters died, then you are selling the writing short. They died for a reason so that the main protagonist can undergo a change in character. If you felt sad that they died then the writers did their job of good writing.

      --
      Dewey, you fool! Your decimal system has played right into my hands!
    27. Re:Why Firefly? by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 4, Informative

      That's Vancouver, BC, thank you very much.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    28. Re:Why Firefly? by ByOhTek · · Score: 1

      I spilled concentrated sulfuric acid on myself in chem lab many times. Didn't hurt. It did, however, destroy clothing.

      Even highly dilute Nitric acid hurt like a bitch, and turned my skin yellow.

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    29. Re:Why Firefly? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      You don't put Summer Glau in the remake, I'm not watching....

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    30. Re:Why Firefly? by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      No it didn't. Hell you could probably mold a whole season around Book, or stories from the war...

    31. Re:Why Firefly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I was mostly referring to SGU. SG-1 and even Atlantis, while not quite as good as Showtime, had their good points and were even superior at times. SGU is highly reminiscent of the abortive Flash Gordon remake, and almost completely unwatchable.

      This. And I blame BSG (or rather the BSG wannabe fetish in SGU).

    32. Re:Why Firefly? by Grishnakh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't think the solar system in Firefly is very plausible.

      It's not, but neither is FTL travel. To have people traveling between star systems in any reasonable time (i.e., not generation ships or suspended animation taking decades or centuries), you MUST have FTL. But FTL is theoretically impossible with our current understanding of physics, so the idea of a convenient star system with dozens of planets and hundreds of moons able to be terraformed to some extent, and conveniently having nearly earth-normal gravity, is a workable plot device to avoid the overused plot device that is FTL.

      As a counterexample, look at the new Battlestar. They had FTL in the form of "jump drive", but it was really out of place, because all the rest of their technology was really not that much advanced from our own: nuclear-propelled Viper ships, machine guns just like our own, nuclear missiles for shooting at planets or enemy ships, seriously low-tech computers, etc. However, because of the nature of Battlestar's story, FTL was an absolute requirement.

      The other thing which both shows seem to have which is out-of-place is artificial gravity. But it's nearly impossible to make a TV series that doesn't have artificial gravity (Avatar had a brief scene at the beginning with zero-g, but that was a half-billion dollar movie).

      Any imagining of the future is always going to have things which require a suspension of disbelief, because there are going to be things which are necessary plot devices because of reality constraints or budget constraints, and also because we have little idea what technologies will be possible in the future (or else we'd have already invented them).

    33. Re:Why Firefly? by Grishnakh · · Score: 0, Redundant

      No, it's because it's the probably the best sci-fi TV show to come around in the last 10-15 years or so (along with the new Battlestar). Seriously, most of that time the only thing we've had was crappy Star Trek follow-ons (DS9, Enterprise, Voyager).

    34. Re:Why Firefly? by Lurchicus · · Score: 1

      Agreed that Firefly didn't last long enough to build up a log of baggage. On the other hand, a partial reboot to get them out of a single star system might allow for a broader range of story lines.

      --
      Lurchicus - For Sig, see other side.
    35. Re:Why Firefly? by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

      Wash and Book are only dead in the movie, which wasn't real :-) if they picked up the show where it left off.

      But yes, it's probably impractical at best. Perhaps I'll throw in with what others have said: better to go on and keep trying new things. There may also be some benefit to the one-season or miniseries approach; have a good idea, present it, enjoy it, move along, more like the way authors come out with books. A series isn't necessarily exact sequels and continuations; there could be gaps of time and action in between, and even different people/places in the "universe" (I'm thinking of Vorkosigan, Dresden, Known Space, the Hegen Hub...)

    36. Re:Why Firefly? by dark_requiem · · Score: 1

      I used to feel the same way, but I'm leaning more and more to thanking those very dumbass execs who canceled it before its time. Everything else I have seen done by Whedon is utter shite. Buffy? About as engrossing as Twilight. Angel? As good as one would expect from a spinoff of a crappy teenage angsty vampire show. And don't get me started on Dollhouse. Four or Five good episodes surrounded by garbage, with an overall plot that seems more schizophrenic than the characters on the show.

      Firefly may have been canceled somewhat before it's time, but it went out on a high note. Never a bad episode, no crappy acting or shoddy stories, and it finished up with what I consider to be one of the greats of SciFi cinema. I can't help but think that if Whedon had been allowed to continue for a few more seasons, it would have gone downhill like everything else he's done.

      One of my biggest complaints with most shows (American in particular) is that they're never produced to be complete in themselves. Yes, they usually have a main story arc, but the producers tend to drag that arc out as many seasons as they can continue getting the show renewed, rather than planning the show out ahead of time, deciding how long they need to tell the story they came to tell, and creating the show with that in mind. With Firefly, they never had the chance to drag it out ad-nauseum. They had 13 amazing episodes, then instead of being forced to think of a way to drag it out until the ratings fell off, they were forced to think of a way to end it in a way that was just as gripping as the rest of the series.

    37. Re:Why Firefly? by steveha · · Score: 1

      the idea of a convenient star system with dozens of planets and hundreds of moons able to be terraformed to some extent, and conveniently having nearly earth-normal gravity, is a workable plot device

      I hope it was clear that I agree with you here; in fact that was my point. I have issues with the science, but the issues were not bad enough to jar me out of suspension of disbelief; and that is all you can really ask of any show.

      As a counterexample, look at the new Battlestar. They had FTL in the form of "jump drive", but it was really out of place, because all the rest of their technology was really not that much advanced from our own: nuclear-propelled Viper ships, machine guns just like our own, nuclear missiles for shooting at planets or enemy ships, seriously low-tech computers, etc. However, because of the nature of Battlestar's story, FTL was an absolute requirement.

      Well, to nitpick, they had low-tech computers because they didn't want to be hacked by the Cylons. The Cylons were shown to have magical hacking abilities; all you had to do was connect multiple computers in a "network" and then a dramatic Hollywood computer hacking scene would follow instantly.

      My big problem with the science in Battlestar Galactica is that they didn't have any kind of "shields" technology, yet they were shown taking hits and not losing the whole ship. If you have the ability to make those kinds of ships, you would have the ability to make missiles that could impact with a serious amount of kinetic energy. And you would lose lots of fighters to tiny bits of debris hitting at high relative speeds.

      I also found it rather silly that, while there were only 12 models of human-appearing Cylon, there were at least three "sleepers" on board the Galactica. That might have made sense in the original, where the Galactica was the best ship in the fleet (and Adama was a revered figure). But one of the things I liked best about the new show was that the Galactica was an old ship, the last of the old Battlestars; and Adama was just some stubborn old guy who would be retiring soon. The reason the Galactica escaped the Cylon Trojan Horse was that Adama had successfully resisted all new computer upgrades; and he got away with that because it was an old ship that nobody really cared about. (Hmmm... how did the Pegasus escape the Trojan Horse? I don't remember.) Anyway, if the Galactica somehow had three, the whole fleet must have been shot through with sleepers. It makes less sense the more I think about it.

      The other thing which both shows seem to have which is out-of-place is artificial gravity. But it's nearly impossible to make a TV series that doesn't have artificial gravity (Avatar had a brief scene at the beginning with zero-g, but that was a half-billion dollar movie).

      I'm always willing to believe in artificial gravity and FTL for an SF show, and as you said, it's nearly impossible to not have it. Avatar not only had a lot of money going into it, it was computer-generated. To make actual actors appear to float, you need wires, and digital wire removal, and it's going to be a pain and cost a lot.

      steveha

      --
      lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
    38. Re:Why Firefly? by camperdave · · Score: 1

      The only thing that was a bit iffy about Firefly was the large number of habitable planets and moons orbiting one star. The backstory is that humans found this star system and was able to terraform all these planets and moons...

      I've seen the whole series, and I didn't get that impression at all. I just assumed that Serenity used the large outrigger engines for sublight travel, atmospheric propulsion, landing, etc; and the firefly light-up tail thing as some sort of FTL.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    39. Re:Why Firefly? by wed128 · · Score: 1

      I like that idea...same universe, different characters doing a different thing. Maybe re-do the whole series from the point of view of the federation.

      The hard part would be coming up with 10 or so more characters that are as easy to get attached to as the crew of the serenity...

    40. Re:Why Firefly? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      There were definitely a fair number of technical problems with Battlestar. As for the shields, my guess is that their "shields" were basically massive outer hulls for the ships. But yes, the idea of a civilization with artificial gravity and FTL drive, but no energy weapons or shields even though interstellar war has been a problem for them really doesn't make sense I think.

    41. Re:Why Firefly? by hvm2hvm · · Score: 1

      True, I'm tired of idiots saying a movie is bad because important characters die in it. I know this is fantasy and it's not necessary to follow reality, but the ultra happy endings get boring and repetitive after a while. I want some authenticity and realism too and if possible some plot development.

      In most shows, the plot stays the same for seasons or doesn't actually move at all. No-one (important) ever dies and just when someone is about to change the main story (even for the better), something happens in the last 5minutes of the episode to revert all the things to the state they were at the start.

      --
      ics
    42. Re:Why Firefly? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Nope, it's been explicitly stated by the show's maker that they don't have FTL. The light-up tail thing is just their main engine for traveling around the solar system faster than with the atmospheric engines. Even so, it takes them a while to get anywhere, just as right now if we built a ship to transport humans to Jupiter, it would probably take 6 months to get there. With Firefly, they seem to have sped that up to perhaps 1 or 2 weeks, but still nowhere near lightspeed.

      Remember, FTL is theoretically impossible, and all "hard" sci-fi doesn't use it.

    43. Re:Why Firefly? by camperdave · · Score: 1

      No, it's because it's the probably the best sci-fi TV show to come around in the last 10-15 years or so

      Especially if you ignore stuff like Farscape and Babylon 5.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    44. Re:Why Firefly? by cmdr_klarg · · Score: 1

      See, that's what would be rebooted. The short lifespan and the execs would be booted. With a bladed boot. Into a volcano.

      Even if we don't restart the show, I'd like to see them get kicked into a volcano.

      No, nothing so elaborate. Simply toss them into Serenity's intake manifold. *shred*

      --
      THE SOFTWARE, IT NO WORKY!!!
    45. Re:Why Firefly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not sure how you got modded informative, there just happens to be a Vancouver, Washington, right on the Oregon border. I used to work there, doing imports and customs work.

    46. Re:Why Firefly? by Kiaser+Zohsay · · Score: 1

      If they tried to continue it, that would require getting back all the original actors (except Wash and Book since they're dead), which might not be possible.

      And Nathan Fillion already has that other show.

      --
      I am not your blowing wind, I am the lightning.
    47. Re:Why Firefly? by VGPowerlord · · Score: 1

      Unlike Summer Glau and Alan Tudyk, who have both taken into guest starring on Dollhouse.

      Of course, with Dollhouse being canceled, Joss Whedon is going to have some free time coming up... it'd be nice if he'd push for a new Firefly series.

      --
      GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
    48. Re:Why Firefly? by VGPowerlord · · Score: 1

      Speaking of Vorkosigan, Bujold has finished a new book (CryoBurn) set when Miles is 39 (so, there's a jump of 7-8 years since Diplomatic Immunity), to be published by Baen late this year.

      --
      GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
    49. Re:Why Firefly? by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

      Oops. that was supposed to be just "The Hub", as in James H. Schmitz, not the Hegen Hub from Lois McMaster Bujold, since I already mentioned Vorkosigan. Add Amber, and the Gaean Reach, the Dying Earth, the Corps Diplomatique Terrestrienne . . .

    50. Re:Why Firefly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, call me an idiot. If you want reality, go outside and get some! When I watch a movie, I want to escape reality. I don't want all the Whedon fanboys yelling that Wash and Book "needed" to die for the story. That's just apologist crap.

    51. Re:Why Firefly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or maybe he really meant Vancouver, WA. It's just over the border from Portland.

    52. Re:Why Firefly? by d0rp · · Score: 1

      and just when someone is about to change the main story (even for the better), something happens in the last 5minutes of the episode to revert all the things to the state they were at the start.

      Someone's been watching Smallville!

    53. Re:Why Firefly? by Emperor+Zombie · · Score: 1

      The show was filmed in Vancouver, BC.

      --
      I'm so excited I just made water in my pantaloons!
    54. Re:Why Firefly? by Keeper+Of+Keys · · Score: 1

      If you think that ending sealed the story you shut then you're *really* not familiar with Joss Whedon's work.

    55. Re:Why Firefly? by spazdor · · Score: 1

      I think Firefly needs a new show, based on the original with a bigger budget and the same cast. Think Degrassi High to Degrassi Junior High.

      (or for the Americans in the audience, Saved By The Bell: The College Years to Saved By The Bell.)

      --
      DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
    56. Re:Why Firefly? by CompressedAir · · Score: 5, Funny

      Man, you are way off. Firefly was primarily a story about a really cool guy who wore Hawaiian shirts, played with plastic dinosaurs, married a total badass wife, made funny (ding!) informative (ding!) and insightful comments (ding!), and occasionally flew the ship.

      It is no wonder that a show without the main character would lose some appeal.

    57. Re:Why Firefly? by Rary · · Score: 1

      Personally, I have no problem with those deaths, for reasons similar to what you stated.

      However, if Firefly were ever given the chance to continue, I would want those characters to return. Serenity was a conclusion to the story. The deaths of Wash and Book were part of that conclusion. But I'd like to see the movie replaced with a continuing story — not because I didn't like the movie (in fact, I loved it), but simply because I want to see more Firefly. When it finally comes time to bring the story to a conclusion, they can go ahead and kill off whoever they want. But until then, I would love to see the story continue where the series left off.

      Of course, in reality, it isn't likely going to happen. The end of Firefly is just one of those tragedies that we will just have to live with (insofar as losing a TV show can be a tragedy).

      --

      "You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein

    58. Re:Why Firefly? by fredklein · · Score: 1

      I also found it rather silly that, while there were only 12 models of human-appearing Cylon, there were at least three "sleepers" on board the Galactica. That might have made sense in the original, where the Galactica was the best ship in the fleet (and Adama was a revered figure). But one of the things I liked best about the new show was that the Galactica was an old ship, the last of the old Battlestars; and Adama was just some stubborn old guy who would be retiring soon. The reason the Galactica escaped the Cylon Trojan Horse was that Adama had successfully resisted all new computer upgrades; and he got away with that because it was an old ship that nobody really cared about.

      Hence the need for 'sleepers'. The Cylons could take over the other ships computer networks with little to no problems, but the Galactica didn't have networked computers, so the Cylons needed agents in place.

    59. Re:Why Firefly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is actually a Vancouver in Washington state. It's grown together with Portland.

    60. Re:Why Firefly? by Etrias · · Score: 1

      Maybe it's because Joss Whedon hates you. Although I do find it absolutely hilarious that I find Whedon fans defend the offing of both Book and Wash in the movie when one would have served but both seem ridiculous.

      I'm not selling the writing short. I find it sloppy writing when you have to kill off more than one "major" character to get a visceral reaction from your audience. Just because it's Mal's story doesn't mean as a storyteller that you should have carte blanche to shit on the other characters. Give them a heroic send off if you're going to off them. My theory on this? Whedon knew this was the end of Firefly and thought fuck it, I'm going to kill my baby.

      And, minor point here, why the hell did Mr. Universe get buried at the same place as Book and Wash? The guy wasn't in the TV series, has a few minutes of screen time in the movie and gets the nice plot at the end with two of the show mainstays? Who'd he blow to get that to work for him?

    61. Re:Why Firefly? by Labcoat+Samurai · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Except Book died off camera and without ever fulfilling the potential of his storyline (who WAS he?) and Wash died in a stroke of abrupt and extreme bad luck that had to be summarily forgotten because of the imminent threat. I felt like the only purpose Wash's death served was to make the audience feel like anyone was fair game at that point. It was effective in that regard, but if that's all there was, I don't think it was worth the trade-off.

      However, you bring up an interesting point, that I had not considered. I'd have to watch it again to see for sure if that comes across for me too, but I certainly didn't pick that up on a first run. The fact that he cared about the members of his crew was something I had taken for granted for a long time, and I didn't notice that he had changed appreciably at the end. I suppose he does allow the Operative to live, despite all he has done, and that could be indicative of a change, though I'm not sure that the death of Wash (or Book) was a critical part of that. Ultimately, I felt Wash deserved better than he got. My reaction was less sadness about the death of Wash than irritation with the writers for killing him so off-handedly.

    62. Re:Why Firefly? by Hardtrance · · Score: 1

      Thank You! As much as liked the character, when Book died I was almost relived that we could get on with the story. Then Wash died. The end of the film was pretty grim and by that point I thought it was possible that they were ALL going to die. If it had been a TV episode I'd have been checking my watch wondering how not if they were going to survive. To me it's just one more example of Whedon's amazing talent

      --
      This post is LAW where prohibited by VOID. Prosecutors will be violated.
    63. Re:Why Firefly? by Anci3nt+of+Days · · Score: 1

      Why are we all thinking the new series should take place after the movie? The movie did end the story, as it was meant to.

      Firefly as a series is something you can continue with further events before those of the movie. Further explore the link between book and the alliance. Keep unpacking River. Include the odd clash between Jane and the others.

      The real joy of Firefly is you have a universe combining sci-fi with a western and opening up options for just about any survival mission type plot (think Train). You can always chuck in more bad guys (who aren't really bad) and allies (who don't really help) to keep the gritty, everyone out for themselves feel that made the series so enjoyable.

    64. Re:Why Firefly? by fraudrogic · · Score: 1

      Super post. I was agreeing with parent for purely emotional reasons, but you have pointed out that it couldn't have happened any other way. I'm glad their dead...for the sake of the story.

      --
      I only mod up parents of "mod parent up" posts...
    65. Re:Why Firefly? by JetTredmont · · Score: 4, Funny

      (or for the Americans in the audience, Saved By The Bell: The College Years to Saved By The Bell.)

      I do not think you are making your point as compellingly as you believe you are.

    66. Re:Why Firefly? by psych0munky · · Score: 1

      I remember hearing from somewhere (may have been an extra on the special edition DVD) that the Serenity movie was made to try and tie up loose ends and give the series some closure, as Whedon felt that the fans did not deserve the cancellation. I agree with the parent that the deaths were justified if you keep this point in mind. I have little doubt that if Firefly was to run the course of "normal" series, we would have seen the same character development that we saw in the movie, and probably more. It is just in two hours that there is a limit to what you can do...if the series were allowed to progress and the cast stuck around, I doubt that Wash and Book would have been killed off so quickly, if at all. One thing that I have always found disappointing (yet not really...because it was part of the mystique and allure of the character/show), was being able to figure out more about Book. From his odd credentials (how he was able to get immediate attention in an Alliance Hospital in "Safe" and helped get the crew out a few jams in some unexpected ways ["War Stories"]) and knowledge that most "pious" figures would not have or at least not be willing to exercise.

    67. Re:Why Firefly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I say give Joss Whedon another shot at his universe if that's what he wants. If he can get another Movie and 15-20 episodes and I'd buy it all again.

      Other than that yeah, slashdot caters to a unique demographic.

    68. Re:Why Firefly? by XDirtypunkX · · Score: 3, Funny

      Alan Tudyk, is that you?

    69. Re:Why Firefly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only thing I'd change is the dumbass execs that cancelled it before its time.

      Sometimes I wake in the middle of the night and ask myself, "do I really live in a world where Firefly was cancelled before the end of the first season, while Wife Swap is in its seventh?"

      And then I cry myself back to sleep.

    70. Re:Why Firefly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I feel the death of Shepard Book was entirely premature. The death of Wash I objected to on the sole basis of him being my favorite character, but Book was hyped up the entire series as the iconic "Man with the dark past" character of the show, and then they killed him without giving one inkling. Mystery is fine: necessary, even. But to kill off the character without any arc or sense of closure felt more like burning a bridge in the event of a sequel(I know, wishful thinking, but I'd still watch it).

      In fact, the movie seemed to be an effort to destroy any possibility of a sequel: River's mystery is revealed, two very integral characters have been killed without having much in the way of development, and River is no longer crazy. She is also super competent at everything: she is capable of taking up any character's role, simply lacking the flavor they would bring to it. She's pilot enough to replace Wash, psychic enough to replace Mal's intuitive leadership, capable enough with hand-to-hand combat and weaponry to take over either of the two enforcer characters. The only people she would really need are Simon and Kaylee, whose roles are purely maintenance.

      If there were any hope of a sequel, I'd have had a lot more of a problem with Serenity. As it stands, I still liked it plenty.

    71. Re:Why Firefly? by Rary · · Score: 1

      Except Book died off camera and without ever fulfilling the potential of his storyline (who WAS he?)

      The movie had the impossible task of wrapping up six never-made seasons' worth of story in under two hours. Consequently, there were a whole lot of back-stories that never got told. There really wasn't room to tell Book's story, which is incredibly unfortunate, but that's the way it is.

      Once again, the jackasses who cancelled the show are to blame.

      --

      "You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein

    72. Re:Why Firefly? by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

      One of my biggest complaints with most shows (American in particular) is that they're never produced to be complete in themselves.

      This is something that I really liked about the two BBC shows "The Office" and "Extras". Both ran for two seasons of six episodes each, followed by an extended series finale. Both are completely self-contained, and were intended to run for exactly as long as they did even though they were quite popular and the creators likely would have benefited financially from a longer run.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    73. Re:Why Firefly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think he was saying the movie was bad, just that the movie was easily 2-3 seasons worth of material (either skipped or condensed), and largely wrapped up the story. While it would be possible to continue the series from after the movie, it wouldn't be at all the same series as continuing from season 1.

    74. Re:Why Firefly? by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      +1 for Wash. Sheppard Book was ok and I can think of another character I would have killed before him, but he is not much of a loss (even though I would have loved to haved found out more of his back story.)

    75. Re:Why Firefly? by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      Problem is I don't know if Fillon or Bladwin would leave Castle and Chuck.

      Obviously anything Glau touches dies (including her in dollhouse...)

    76. Re:Why Firefly? by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      Perhaps because stargate has a properly defined universe while firefly's universe was a mess. Cowboys in space, all the planets orbiting the same star etc etc.

      Both are fairly unlikely, but "the 'verse" was conceived as a planetary system where lots of small planets and moons had been terraformed. And one big plus: no magical FTL, transporters, gates, or such needed to get from planet to planet.

      As for SG, I liked the movie, and watched a few episodes of series 1. I can't say if it was consistent, but it was pretty magical, and tedious. Obviously YMMV.

    77. Re:Why Firefly? by mjwx · · Score: 1

      The uncovering of the atrocities performed by the Core Planets government gives Mal a sense of purpose outside what we saw in the series which was to simply stay alive and flying.

      You were right up until this point.

      The point of firefly the series was that Mal was running, constantly moving from place to place, never settling down or making roots. Several episodes showed that Mal was mainly running from his past, things he wanted to forget. The movie showed how Mal had to stop running from his past and face it.

      If you don't like the movie because two good characters died, then you are selling the writing short.

      Yeah, I don't like that two of the best characters died but really, was it all that bad? Most movies/series do not ever give a sense of closure. When Serenity ended, you knew it was over and I can applause Whedon for actually finishing something in hollywood rather then a tired old "insert sequel here" ending.

      Worst ending in hollywood, Lord of the rings. Closure should take no longer then 10 minutes, not half an hour fart arsing about. It feels like an anti-climax after the 5th closing scene.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    78. Re:Why Firefly? by Lisandro · · Score: 1

      Nice point. Book's character was very unexplored. Probably my favourite character on the series next to Mal Reynolds.

    79. Re:Why Firefly? by hvm2hvm · · Score: 1

      > Someone's been watching Smallville!

      I tried to watch it, but it started to piss me off after an episode or two.

      --
      ics
    80. Re:Why Firefly? by sznupi · · Score: 1

      At the beginning of Serenity there's a map though with one huge planetary system (and no explanation why the outer planets appear to be the hottest ones usually, even with the least amount of terraforming, oh well...)

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    81. Re:Why Firefly? by Salgak1 · · Score: 1
      . . .which, in turn, has ALREADY saluted "Firefly" in the "Vampire Weekend" episode this season: for about the first 5 minutes, Castle is dressed as Captain Tightpants. Plus large dollops of Buffyverse references as well.

      And, of course, Nathan Fillion will likely also be involved in the next "Doctor Horrible" project. .

    82. Re:Why Firefly? by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      That has ALWAYS been a problem and like ALWAYS will be a problem until our technology has advanced.

      Star Trek solved it by inventing techo-babble and magic.

      You can spot the same problem with Firefly, why the heck to they have 6 guns and FTL? Because it is fun and a TV show, so STFU.

      The same problem was with Starship Troopers... I mean your going through the all the hassle of flying halfway across the universe using FTL, then you land on a planet and shit things with rifles and shotguns.... not exactly high tech.

      On the other side of things, one thing that these shows always drop the ball on and ignore is relativistic time likely for a simplified plot. However when reading books like the "Forever War" or "Old Mans War", I aways liked the part where these people are leaving behind everyone they know or care about to travel the stars, as they would be dead and gone in relative time. Maybe too depressing for some...

    83. Re:Why Firefly? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      You can spot the same problem with Firefly, why the heck to they have 6 guns and FTL? Because it is fun and a TV show, so STFU.

      Firefly does NOT have FTL. This has been explicitly stated by the show's makers many times, and is the reason they had to have a star system with so many inhabitable planets in it (a rather implausible thing, partially explained away by "terraforming"). Whedon did not want to use that typical sci-fi plot device that is FTL travel.

      So Firefly is actually much more realistic that way than Starship Troopers. Also, Firefly DOES have energy weapons (they had a whole episode about the "Lassiter"), but the poor on-the-edge types like Mal and his crew can't afford them (and they're illegal for anyone but the alliance). The brief scene of the Battle of Serenity Valley did show energy weapons in use. So most people use regular projectile weapons, which are cheap, simple, and reliable. And apparently, they've upgraded them a bit by switching to caseless ammunition.

      If you're going to quibble about realism, the ONLY thing that I can really find unrealistic about Firefly is the use of artificial gravity (which is basically impossible to get around without an Avatar-sized budget). Personally, I'm no physicist, but if artificial gravity is possible, I believe the discovery in fundamental physics that enables it will also enable FTL travel.

    84. Re:Why Firefly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can spot the same problem with Firefly, why the heck to they have 6 guns and FTL? Because it is fun and a TV show, so STFU.

      They didn't have sixguns (revolvers), they had self-loading (a/k/a semi-automatic) pistols and other guns. They had carbines that looked like lever-operated Western rifles, but they never seemed to need to work the lever; it was just aesthetics. And they didn't have FTL. And the whole point of this discussion thread is that the errors that exist in Firefly are not bad enough to jar us out of the willing suspension of disbelief.

      The same problem was with Starship Troopers... I mean your going through the all the hassle of flying halfway across the universe using FTL, then you land on a planet and [shoot] things with rifles and shotguns.... not exactly high tech.

      The book was way better. Read it sometime. In the movie, the bugs didn't even really have ships, which makes no sense. In the book, the bugs had ships, and the troopers had really cool powered armor that made them incredibly mobile and lethal.

      one thing that these shows always drop the ball on and ignore is relativistic time likely for a simplified plot.

      Well, relativistic time would have a profound impact on the story. You would have to explain it because few in the audience would get it, you would have to keep switching out actors, and it's hard for Hollywood writers to even write a coherent plot, let alone get time dilation right.

      All that said, the Gunbuster anime has time dilation in its storyline.

    85. Re:Why Firefly? by steveha · · Score: 1

      the Galactica didn't have networked computers, so the Cylons needed agents in place.

      I salute you, sir! You have managed to come up with an explanation that holds together pretty well. I wish I had thought of that.

      Sadly, I'll bet that the actual writers just never thought about it. "Hey, it would be cool if <X> was also a Cylon and didn't even know it! We still have 5 models of Cylon we haven't shown yet!"

      steveha

      --
      lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
    86. Re:Why Firefly? by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 1

      Well they should drop Serenity from the continuity. It copped out of treating River Tam's madness as a serious mental illness, explained away the Reavers, ended in some Glorious Revolution crap, and killed two members of the core ensemble cast. Bring back Firefly the series, and if the writing team wants to make those plots happen again let them play out over multiple episodes or whole seasons instead of mere minutes.

    87. Re:Why Firefly? by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      OK I guess I assumed FTL in Firefly.

      So your saying this is all supposed to be happening in a single solar system? That is pretty stupid, though it does make having to travel through reaver space more reasonable, as I never understood that in the movie.

      Yeah I remember the Lassiter episode, and I am not buying that particular BS. They said the same thing for Starship Troopers, that it was cheaper, and more efficient so that is what they used.

      What I am saying, is if you have Frickin' FTL tech you sure as shit know how to make cheap laser pistols or whatever you want to make up.

      Personally I like the DUNE rational better for going low tech. Make up another technology (Personal Shields, or Holtzman Shields) which don't play nice with lasers, and you obsolete (and ban) the new tech and have to resort to old tech. I can buy that excuse.

    88. Re:Why Firefly? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      So your saying this is all supposed to be happening in a single solar system? That is pretty stupid,

      More stupid than FTL? Or particle-of-the-week?

      Face it, there's no way to have a decent TV show about space travel without resorting to some "stupid" plot device, whether it's FTL or a solar system chock full of planets and moons with breathable air and reasonable gravity. If you wanted to make a truly realistic TV show about space travel, it would show a ship full of a bunch of humans, all in hibernation (I think it's reasonable to assume we'll achieve that eventually), on a trip to Alpha Centauri. Each week, it would just show the ship slowly traveling on its course at 0.1c at the very best, with some interior shots of the people sleeping and some automated monitoring systems. Perhaps a few brief scenes of people on Earth making a reference to this ship in conversation. The same boring thing, every week. That's a realistic show, but I don't think anyone wants to watch a show like that.

      Yeah I remember the Lassiter episode, and I am not buying that particular BS. They said the same thing for Starship Troopers, that it was cheaper, and more efficient so that is what they used.

      If you're on the fringes of a space-traveling (non-FTL) culture, you're going to stick with older technologies that are easy to repair or even manufacture yourself, especially when the newer weapons are strictly illegal. Remember, anyone with a machine shop and some basic chemicals can manufacture a firearm and ammunition. Laser pistols? Not likely. It makes perfect sense that people on the "frontier", many of whom are outlaws, would use simple chemical-propelled projectile weapons.

      What I am saying, is if you have Frickin' FTL tech you sure as shit know how to make cheap laser pistols or whatever you want to make up.

      Again, in Firefly there is no FTL tech (they probably rode generation ships to get to that star system), and the space ships they do have are old junk; the people featured in this series are not rich people with access to the latest technology or factories, and certainly aren't the people who designed or built these ships, they're poor people using cast-off junk and jury-rigging it to keep it working. It's basically the opposite of Star Trek that way (which is about a bunch of people working for the government riding on the newest ships with access to all the latest technologies). Even if they did know how to make laser pistols or whatever, they wouldn't have access to the factories and other new and expensive technologies needed just to manufacture them.

    89. Re:Why Firefly? by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 1

      conveniently having nearly earth-normal gravity

      Actually, given the way they had levitation and earth-normal gravity in-ship, it doesn't seem at all unbelievable that they installed gravity manipulation planet-wide on the planets and moons they terraformed.

    90. Re:Why Firefly? by LoyalOpposition · · Score: 1

      Firefly is primarily a story about Mal and his journey.

      I might suggest that you've missed eight-ninths of the story. Let me suggest an alternative: Firefly is primarily a story about how a rag-tag group on the edge of society can make a life for themselves.

      But let's suppose for a moment that you're right and the story is Mal and his journey. Let me propose this question: Why should I watch a series about the events that happen after the main story is resolved?

      -Loyal

      --
      I aim to misbehave.
    91. Re:Why Firefly? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Levitation on Firefly? I must have missed that.

      If you want to manipulate the gravity of a moon or planet, it seems like it'd be easier to just grab some dense (iron) asteroids and crash them into it.

    92. Re:Why Firefly? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      To be fair, both of those were in the 90s. Firefly was 2002, so it's a bit newer.

    93. Re:Why Firefly? by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 1

      Floating islands? The Mule?

    94. Re:Why Firefly? by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      The real problem with Firefly fans is two-fold:

      1) They spam the hell out of forums. You know, without even clicking through to the comments, that there's going to be 50 comments on this post saying "Firefly! Firefly! Firefly!" even though that's not even on-topic. (They're asking about *reboots*, Firefly is too current to be rebooted.) It's not enough for one person to post "Firefly!" and the other Firefly fans to just nod and agree, they all have to post... it's fucking annoying, and reduces the thread to uselessness as actual on-topic shows (best example: Blake's 7) get buried deep down.

      2) They don't accept that other people might not like Firefly. If a Star Trek fan starts talking to you about Star Trek, and you say "oh, I'm not a fan of that show," guess what they do? They talk about something else. If a Firefly fan starts talking about Firefly, and you say you're not a fan-- well, that doesn't even slow them down. They don't care that you haven't seen the show, or don't know the characters, or don't care if it comes back. They just talk and talk and talk and talk about fucking Firefly until your ears bleed.

    95. Re:Why Firefly? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      1) They spam the hell out of forums. You know, without even clicking through to the comments, that there's going to be 50 comments on this post saying "Firefly! Firefly! Firefly!" even though that's not even on-topic. (They're asking about *reboots*, Firefly is too current to be rebooted.) It's not enough for one person to post "Firefly!" and the other Firefly fans to just nod and agree, they all have to post... it's fucking annoying, and reduces the thread to uselessness as actual on-topic shows (best example: Blake's 7) get buried deep down.

      That's odd, I've never heard about that. Then again, the only time I talk about Firefly is the rare occasion it comes up here on Slashdot. I don't follow any other SF forums.

      As for "too new to be rebooted", there's no such thing. Look at The Hulk. Eric Bana's Hulk by Ang Lee came out not that long ago, and then it seemed like it was just another year or so when they released yet another Hulk movie, this time with Edward Norton. WTF? If they can "reboot" the Hulk that quickly, I suppose they can reboot anything, anytime. (I never saw either movie, it just seems weird that they released two reboots so soon together.)

      2) They don't accept that other people might not like Firefly. If a Star Trek fan starts talking to you about Star Trek, and you say "oh, I'm not a fan of that show," guess what they do? They talk about something else. If a Firefly fan starts talking about Firefly, and you say you're not a fan-- well, that doesn't even slow them down. They don't care that you haven't seen the show, or don't know the characters, or don't care if it comes back. They just talk and talk and talk and talk about fucking Firefly until your ears bleed.

      Again, I've never seen that, but I guess I don't hang around in those circles. That's really weird. FF is not a show for everyone; it's a very different take on the future, and sci-fi, then others. It's pretty much the polar opposite of Star Trek (which I also like, at least TOS and TNG). ST is basically about future with a socialist utopia, and FF is completely dystopian portraying people at the fringes of a totalitarian society. The first has new aliens and planets on every episode, with the Enterprise warping around the galaxy willy-nilly, the second is about a society of humans composed entirely of Americans and Chinese (though mostly showing only the Americans) that have abandoned a worn-out Earth and moved to a new star system where they've set up a giant fascist totalitarian government and crushed all the independence-minded people who opposed them, but a bunch of people on the "frontier" live mostly without laws. FF isn't all warm-and-fuzzy like Star Trek with the never-corrupt United Federation of Planets and characters that only have serious issues when they get infected by alien viruses or whatever. I can see why not everyone would like FF, just like not everyone liked Blade Runner.

    96. Re:Why Firefly? by camperdave · · Score: 1

      They are both younger than the stated 15 years though.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  5. How about something new? by Gothmolly · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'd rather see the nice old b&w Twilight Zones, grainy old BSG, the 1 or 2 seasons of Firefly, than ALL NEW DISNEY PIXAR TWILIGHT ZONE 3D ON ICE !!eleventy!!!

    Lets get some NEW stuff - the enjoyment from the show should come from the plot/characters/message rather than the latest special effects or rehashes of To Serve Man.

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
    1. Re:How about something new? by houstonbofh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem isn't the new shows, or the old shows. It is production companies that aren't really SciFi fans... There have been lots of good things dropped after one season because the producers did not understand the product or the market.

    2. Re:How about something new? by pete-classic · · Score: 1

      Did you see Moon? First real Sci-Fi movie I've seen in years. Can anyone else recommend some reasonably novel, recent Sci-Fi movies?

      Also, it seems REALLY soon to be talking about rebooting Firefly.

      -Peter

    3. Re:How about something new? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Lets get some NEW stuff - the enjoyment from the show should come from the plot/characters/message rather than the latest special effects or rehashes of To Serve Man.

      There's no new stuff. Everything new is the well forgotten old.

    4. Re:How about something new? by PapayaSF · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Rather than remake something, or have some ignorant Hollywood producer create some new but clichéd and/or stupid story, why not go look to the great science fiction writers and put them on the screen (suitably updated)? Now that special effects are no longer any sort of obstacle, how about something based on Cordwainer Smith's stories of the Underpeople? E.E. Smith's classic Lensman series? Why not a TV series based on Pohl's Heechee stories? Maybe an Iain Banks novel, as someone mentioned above. How about Heinlein? Asimov? Charles Stross? Larry Niven? Keith Laumer's Retief (sort of a tongue-in-cheek James Bond-ish diplomat dealing with various troublesome alien species) could be huge, and there are enough stories for a dozen films. Any sf fan could list more.

      It's annoying when all Hollywood seems to consider is remakes, "original" stories that aren't often good science fiction, and maybe things by Philip Dick. There are literally hundreds of great sf stories that could make fine films and TV series.

      --
      Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
    5. Re:How about something new? by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      Ironically many of the shows fawned over in that article would never have been made in the kind of risk-averse environment that loves remakes.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    6. Re:How about something new? by R2.0 · · Score: 1

      "Keith Laumer's Retief (sort of a tongue-in-cheek James Bond-ish diplomat dealing with various troublesome alien species) could be huge, and there are enough stories for a dozen films."

      The problem with the Retief series is that there were a couple of good ones and then a bunch that he basically crapped out - oh, wait, it would be perfect for Hollywood.

      I'd rather see the "Bolo" series.

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    7. Re:How about something new? by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

      Rather than remake something, or have some ignorant Hollywood producer create some new but clichéd and/or stupid story, why not go look to the great science fiction writers and put them on the screen (suitably updated)? Now that special effects are no longer any sort of obstacle, how about something based on Cordwainer Smith's stories of the Underpeople? E.E. Smith's classic Lensman series? Why not a TV series based on Pohl's Heechee stories? Maybe an Iain Banks novel, as someone mentioned above. How about Heinlein? Asimov? Charles Stross? Larry Niven? Keith Laumer's Retief (sort of a tongue-in-cheek James Bond-ish diplomat dealing with various troublesome alien species) could be huge, and there are enough stories for a dozen films. Any sf fan could list more.

      We actually have the budget and technology to pull off some of the better scifi stories now. A bare minimum of a full season per novel, I should think. Don't mention Lensmen. That was unmitigated shit and was shit when it came out, not just in retrospect. Horrible, nutty shit.

      But take a classic like the Fountains of Paradise. You could stretch and adapt that into a fascinating show. There's an anime out called Planetes that's about garbage collectors in space who clear orbital debris. Aside from the bit about collecting the junk physically requiring too much energy and in all likelihood we'd use lasers to ablate the surface of the junk and slow it down to the point where it deorbits and burns up, the rest of the series has very hard science. Reaction-based thrusters, no artificial gravity but spinning, lots of weightless scenes. Made for a hell of a geek show. You could take something like Fountains and really go to town on it. It's a short enough novel that you can expand it for the season run.

      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    8. Re:How about something new? by itsdapead · · Score: 1

      Can anyone else recommend some reasonably novel, recent Sci-Fi movies?

      Try: The Man From Earth - but CGI and pyrotechnic fans should be warned that its basically about a bunch of people sitting around and talking. But in a good way.

      Then there's "A Scanner Darkly" - totally unlike all the other "suggested by Philip K Dick" movies.

      --
      In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
    9. Re:How about something new? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      The problem is that a lot of good written SF just doesn't translate to the screen without a really good rework. And then its a different story. I saw elements from a lot of great books in Avatar. The animals are very Niven, the Tree reminds me of A case of Conscience by James Blish. The ship was inspired by Robert Forward. All this stuff gets used eventually.

    10. Re:How about something new? by nine-times · · Score: 1

      Lets get some NEW stuff

      Meh. Either way, "NEW stuff" is going to be rehashes of old stuff. Whether it's a "reboot" of an old property, it's still going to be Shakespeare in space or a Greek tragedy set 20 years in the future or some Isaac Asimov story rewritten. There's nothing new under the sun. The question is, will it be clever and well done?

    11. Re:How about something new? by eth1 · · Score: 1

      But WHY? The books are far better than any movie of them would be. I'd rather just re-read the book. I think the only non-completely-disappointing movie-from-a-book I've seen was the LotR extended edition trilogy, and even that left big chunks of story out.

    12. Re:How about something new? by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      > Did you see Moon? First real Sci-Fi movie I've seen in years.

      Agreed! Moon was original (for a sci-fi movie) and (more importantly) told a fascinating story on a shoestring without the cardboard and scotch tape showing too much. Highly recommended. We need more films like this.

      Can anyone else recommend some reasonably novel, recent Sci-Fi movies?

      No. And that's the problem. (Don't DARE say "Avatar". Just don't. Novel movie-making technology does not equal novel story.)

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    13. Re:How about something new? by flygeek · · Score: 1

      Fred Saberhagen's Berserker series would make a great series of movies. Enough robots and explosions to make the general public happy, and some interesting story lines underneath. Or some of Niven's Known Space stories. Wasn't somebody working on a project to bring Ringworld to the big screen?

    14. Re:How about something new? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's part of a post I wrote on Boing Boing some months ago.

      -*-*-*-*-*
      Is it too hard to take a dozen scifi books from the 50's to the early 80's and make good movies out of them? I've read at least 100 books that if well translated into film would smash any movie produced in the last 30 years.

      Here are some examples including but not limited to the above genres:

      Inherit the stars (and following books of the "Giant Series") - James P. Hogan.
      Mission to Universe - Gordon R. Dickson (1965).
      The year of the quiet sun - Wilson Tucker (1970).
      Cybernia - Lou Cameron (1972).
      The fury out of time - Lloyd Biggle Jr. (1965).
      War with the gizmos - Murray Leinster (1962).
      The time factor - Rex Gordon (1962).
      Depression or burst - Mack Reynolds (1974).
      The Searing - John Coyne (1980).
      Stardeath - E. C. Tubb (1983).
      Tau Zero - Poul Anderson (1970).
      Those gentle voices - George Alec Effinger (1976).
      Bound in Time - D. F. Jones (1981).
      The rival rigelians - Mack Reynolds (1967).
      Firebird - Charles L. Harness (1981).
      Time Thieves - Dean R. Koontz (1972).

      As you can see there is no Clarke, Asimov, Heinlein, Dick, Silverberg etc. in that list. You don't need to pay a shitload of royalties to get a good plot for a film. Do you read me, Hollywood?

    15. Re:How about something new? by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      LOL, Dude, you nearly have the exact same subject that I used.

      But I do not like watching old grainy stuff. In fact I nearly never watch, read or listen to something twice.
      I have my memories to remember that stuff. Where it is much more beautiful than it originally was. (E.g. the old BSG is just plain horrible to watch nowadays.)

      I only want good new stuff.
      What I do not get, is why dou see a good story and good FX as if they were mutually exclusive. Look at Matrix 1. Great story (one that literally made me jump in my seat out of excitation, because I cared so much, and that changed how I looked at the world), and great FX.
      Books are only story, and therefore only need story.
      For movies I expect both (And for radio plays and pictures too).
      And for games, I also expect good gameplay mechanics on top of that.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    16. Re:How about something new? by roystgnr · · Score: 1

      How about Heinlein?

      I think I speak for a lot of Heinlein fans when I say:

      No. We used to think that letting Hollywood make his books into movies was a good idea. We were wrong. Please stop now.

    17. Re:How about something new? by MikeyToo · · Score: 1

      Another vote for "The Man From Earth". It's an incredible movie.

      --
      "Well Ranger Brad, I'm a scientist. I don't believe in anything." - Dr. Roger Fleming
    18. Re:How about something new? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One good thing the early 21st century Twilight Zone series did was a sequel (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0734791/) to the original series episode "It's A Good Life". In "It's Still A Good Life", Anthony, played again by Bill Mumy, has a daughter who has inherited his powers. Anthony's daughter is played by Mumy's daughter, Liliana, who bears a remarkable resemblance to her dad and turns in a performance just as creepy as her dad's, 42 years earlier.

    19. Re:How about something new? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree that there are many interesting science fiction stories that I would love to see made into shows. Asimov's Foundation seres or his robot stories alone could be a 5 year story arc. Larry Niven's known space series would make a great arc! I would make the Ringworld book into a movie or two hour special... After seeing what was done with Avatar, I know that someone could do justice to The Mote In God's Eye.

    20. Re:How about something new? by Phoobarnvaz · · Score: 1

      It's annoying when all Hollywood seems to consider is remakes, "original" stories that aren't often good science fiction, and maybe things by Philip Dick. There are literally hundreds of great sf stories that could make fine films and TV series.

      Would enjoy some HP Lovecraft...since the last movies made from his stuff was from the 80's.

      My roommate has tons of David Weber books...very prolific writer. Haven't read his stuff...due to my eyes getting worse & worse the older I get.

      --
      Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It's already tomorrow in Australia. - Charles M. Schulz
    21. Re:How about something new? by dwye · · Score: 1

      > E.E. Smith's classic Lensman series?

      J. Michael Strasinsky (of Babylon 5 "fame") was supposedly working on something along this, with Ron Howard as executive producer (thus, enough money that it will not be *guaranteed* to be crap).

    22. Re:How about something new? by dangitman · · Score: 1

      Rather than remake something, or have some ignorant Hollywood producer create some new but clichéd and/or stupid story, why not go look to the great science fiction writers and put them on the screen (suitably updated)?

      Because it's fucking difficult to adapt books to the screen. Science Fiction novelists aren't screenwriters. So, to make a successful adaptation, you'd need writers with talent. It's much easier to produce formulaic drivel. And formulaic drivel tends to be more popular than well-crafted Science Fiction.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    23. Re:How about something new? by Tynin · · Score: 1

      Funny you mentioned Avatar after I finished reading this. Avatar could have been taken from Pocahontas, check this out... http://failblog.org/2010/01/10/avatar-plot-fail/

    24. Re:How about something new? by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      David Webber has some stuff that should easily translate. ScFi Military battles would look good too.

    25. Re:How about something new? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Funny you mentioned Avatar after I finished reading this. Avatar could have been taken from Pocahontas, check this out... http://failblog.org/2010/01/10/avatar-plot-fail/

      Yeah James Cameron plots are either silly or unoriginal. I love the film for the world building though. But the inevitable battle at the end between the baddie in the exoskeleton and the good guys was a bit of a drag. Not hard to see how that one would end up. Its been done before.

    26. Re:How about something new? by Anomalyst · · Score: 1

      My roommate has tons of David Weber books...very prolific writer. Haven't read his stuff...due to my eyes getting worse & worse the older I get.

      http://www.webscription.net/10.1125/Baen/0743435710/0743435710.htm
      Here ya go, complete 1st novel free in the series "On Basilisk Station", thank you very much Eric Flint.
      Change the font size on your browser to something comfortable and ya got a personal "Large Print Edition"
      Other free novels: "Retief!" (in the series: "West of Honor", "Changer of Worlds","Crown of Slaves","The Honor of the Queen","The Shadow of Saganami") here:
      http://baen.com/library/

      --
      There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
    27. Re:How about something new? by halcyon1234 · · Score: 1

      why not go look to the great science fiction writers and put them on the screen (suitably updated)?

      Masters of Science Fiction

      I highly recommend you hop onto your nearest torrent site, and grab the 6 (or 8) episodes they made. Great, prime-time, hour long sci-fi dramas. Killed off before it finished airing, obviously.

      For what it's worth, I'd love to see a weekly anthology series set on Ringworld.

    28. Re:How about something new? by throbber · · Score: 1

      I love the bit of subtly in your post there ;-)

    29. Re:How about something new? by psych0munky · · Score: 1

      Lets get some NEW stuff - the enjoyment from the show should come from the plot/characters/message rather than the latest special effects or rehashes of To Serve Man.

      Avatar anyone? Even though the special effects were good, I didn't find them "mind-blowing" enough to not want an original story...I found them seemless enough that I failed to notice them (which IMO is why the special effects are so great in this movie), which made the rehashed "Dances-with-wolves" meets "Fern Gully", good vs. evil, corporate vs. private citizens, settlers vs. natives type story a little too "ho-hum"... That being said, the movie was still enjoyable enough to not feel I had wasted 3 hours of my time.

    30. Re:How about something new? by psych0munky · · Score: 1
      Oh yeah, in completely bad internet form, I reply to myself only to say:

      At least is wasn't as bad as that drivel Lucas produced when he brought back Star Wars just to show off LucasFilm and ILM's latest tech...

      <Ducks from fanboi's throwing Jar-jar dolls at him />

    31. Re:How about something new? by jonwil · · Score: 1

      As long as they dont let the writer, director or main actors from I, Robot near ANY future Asimov efforts...

    32. Re:How about something new? by Phoobarnvaz · · Score: 1

      He loans me the CD out of the books...so got something new to look at whenever he gets a new book.

      --
      Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It's already tomorrow in Australia. - Charles M. Schulz
    33. Re:How about something new? by Grizzley9 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I'd rather see a series on Arthur C. Clark's RAMA series. Ton's of material from the books and lots of possible storylines.

    34. Re:How about something new? by mqduck · · Score: 1

      !!eleventy!!!

      Wouldn't that parse to "!!110!!!"?

      --
      Property is theft.
    35. Re:How about something new? by westlake · · Score: 1
      I'd rather see the nice old b&w Twilight Zones, grainy old BSG, the 1 or 2 seasons of Firefly, than ALL NEW DISNEY PIXAR TWILIGHT ZONE 3D ON ICE !!eleventy!!!

      The geek who doesn't want to see more SF from Pixar needs to get his head examined.

    36. Re:How about something new? by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Why not a TV series based on Pohl's Heechee stories? Maybe an Iain Banks novel, as someone mentioned above. How about Heinlein? Asimov? Charles Stross? Larry Niven?

      Three words, just three words.

      Lowest Common Denominator.

      Rule 1 in Hollywood. Always make a move appeal to the widest possible audience.

      Rule 2 in Hollywood. Never make a movie too hard for the dumbest possible audience member to understand.

      These rules prevent you from making a movie that requires the audience to think or is too heavily seated in a single genre. All Sci Fi movies have to be crossed with an action movie and a love story in order to drag in three separate audiences and neither of these can be so in-depth that they cannot be understood by a 5 year old child. This is how we end up with travesties like Pocahontas in Space, Sorry I mean James Cameron's Avatar being considered good movies. Unfortunately we'll never see a thinking mans sci-fi again so Heinlen, Niven or Pohl are out of the question. BTW I still play Frederick Pohl's Gateway every few years, excellent story, it's also a shame we dont see too many good adventure games with that depth any more.

      I have to hold up Destrickt nien (sorry, District 9 in a bad saffa accent) as movie of 2009 because it broke a few rules, they used ordinary actors with actual South African accents instead of the generic Hollywood mega star (no doubt doing a terrible American accent poorly disguised as South African). They used South African mannerism and attitudes instead of the watered down generic non offensive American. Despite the fact that yes, it was an action movie and followed the formula a bit it was done so extremely well, one could not help but feel sorry for Wickus by the end of it nor help despising the mercenary colonel from the word go.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    37. Re:How about something new? by ResidentSourcerer · · Score: 1

      It would be nice to see a set of mini-series based on some of the better SF novels. A Peter Jackson LOTR style treatment -- containing most of the book. * The Moon is a Harsh Mistress * The Fountains of Paradise * All of Larry Niven's "Known Space" (The Ringworld books alone could go for 5-6 years.)

      --
      Third Career: Tree Farmer Second Career: Computer Geek First Career: Teacher, Outdoor Instructor, Photographer.
    38. Re:How about something new? by lymond01 · · Score: 1

      Well, while your opinion is appreciated, the article is talking about reboots. As far as "new" what about Fringe or Sanctuary?

    39. Re:How about something new? by waibati · · Score: 1

      Well, as to Heinlein, they farked up "Starship Troopers", IMO. It only made me want to go back and recover from it by reading the book again. More appropriately for US tastes would be "Marching Morons". Oh, except it's already been done, although I forget the name of the actual film. It was, however, quite moronic...but I guess it really was supposed to be!

    40. Re:How about something new? by Tynin · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the suggestion. I went home last night and watched it over netflix streaming. It was truly a great story.

  6. The Matrix and Highlander by oldspewey · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Because the original set of sequels did so much damage to the original (awesome) films, that a series reboot could go nowhere but up.

    --
    If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
    1. Re:The Matrix and Highlander by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      What exactly was so bad about the Matrix sequels? I don't think I've heard anyone actually say.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    2. Re:The Matrix and Highlander by frankmu · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What Matrix sequel?

      --
      Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
    3. Re:The Matrix and Highlander by mozumder · · Score: 1, Funny

      Nothing was bad about them.. just some morons that didn't get the series.

      Matrix was an okay movie, but it really needed Reloaded and Revolution to be a complete story. Each sequel made the whole story better and better, completing it.

    4. Re:The Matrix and Highlander by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Highlander the source, is one of only two films that made me think that the star wars prequels, and the last Indiana Jones film, actually wern't that bad. The other one being Steve Seagal's Attack Force...

    5. Re:The Matrix and Highlander by gmuslera · · Score: 1

      Matrix is perfect for a continuation, putting all the "real world" experience being another layer of Matrix itself, as the characters never left it. There are story around it (start/end) that still can be told, taking away Neo as someone so central, or doing the Dune/Ender approach for them (as in a new and improved main character appearing somehow). But won't be a reboot.

    6. Re:The Matrix and Highlander by nomadic · · Score: 1

      Because the original set of sequels did so much damage to the original (awesome) films,

      Highlander wasn't a very good movie by any reasonable standard. The best you could say was it was a moderately watchable B-movie.

    7. Re:The Matrix and Highlander by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mostly that there was no need for sequels. The story was told and finished, then they had to reopen the book and try to fit in some more story.

    8. Re:The Matrix and Highlander by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They were boring. The first film was great because it was new and different; once the novelty wore off, the fight scenes started to feel too long and the dialogue became increasingly tedious. One sequel might have worked. Two was just stretching things too far.

    9. Re:The Matrix and Highlander by RKThoadan · · Score: 1

      The movie overall may only be a B, but the Kurgan is a AAA villian, which raises the overall quality significantly.

    10. Re:The Matrix and Highlander by Golddess · · Score: 1

      Looks like there's already a Highlander reboot for sometime this year.

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    11. Re:The Matrix and Highlander by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, Matrix did feel incomplete. Was a shame they never finished the story.
      xkcd

    12. Re:The Matrix and Highlander by Saint+Fnordius · · Score: 1

      Matrix is actually good for a series format, each episode pulling back another onion skin to reveal more of what is really going on. Neo isn't "awoken" until the cliffhanger at the end of the first series, the second series deals with Neo being our eyes and ears as Morpheus explores the world, trying to piece together what really happened: was it Terminator-style man versus machines, a war between two human cultures and the Matrix is an attempt to keep Humans alive until the environment recovers, or is the Matrix the demonspawn of Microsoft, Blizzard, Google and Disney, a construct that was left with instructions not to let the customers log out? Does Zion really exist?
      After a few seasons, the storyline could wrap up with the crew of the Agamemnon forced to decide whether to heal the ailing Matrix, kill it (and let the captive humans die) or do something else entirely.

      In a series format, things like "using humans for batteries" could be presented in one episode, debunked a couple of episodes later, and finally revealed to be a metaphor (the power taken from humans isn't electricity or heat, but the power of imagination).

    13. Re:The Matrix and Highlander by gmuslera · · Score: 1

      And in each episode a new layer of "I know kung fu" to the Nth level?

      BTW, i like better the use of "humans as batteries" in Hyperion: using the human brain as CPUs while connected. Imagination isnt bad anyway. Or take advantage of a mystical "intuition" that enables to get right answers from insufficient data that most humans could had in the serie, as in Foundation's Edge.

    14. Re:The Matrix and Highlander by mpeskett · · Score: 1

      The trilogy was originally conceived as The Matrix, 1 sequel to complete the story, and a prequel telling the story of the original human/machine war. Then they realised that the prequel wouldn't be able to have the same characters, so they stretched 1 film's worth of story out into two sequels and put some of the ideas for the prequel into The Animatrix.

      Consequently a large part of the middle film is filler. It's well executed, visually impressive filler, but still filler. Just look over what actually happens, in terms of plot points rather than screen time, and it's really rather sparse. Take Reloaded and Revolutions, and a good editor... I'll bet you could cut together a damn fine Matrix sequel, so it's not that the sequels are bad, just that they're about two hours too long.

  7. How about none? by Dirtside · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How about none? There's a million* SF ideas out there that have never gone much beyond the printed word. Why do we have to keep rebooting old franchises? How about turning the Vorkosigan saga into a miniseries? Or something by Cory Doctorow or Charlie Stross, if you want to be a little more up-to-the-minute? How about a miniseries based on Hyperion, or A Deepness in the Sky?

    Or even just forget about things that have already been written -- commission Doctorow or Stross (or someone) to create a TV miniseries based on new SF material.

    * Not precisely 1 million.

    --
    "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
    1. Re:How about none? by frogzilla · · Score: 1

      I agree. Forget replaying the old. Let's see some new stories.

    2. Re:How about none? by 0racle · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Seriously, this. How about trying something new.

      --
      "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
    3. Re:How about none? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or something by Cory Doctorow or Charlie Stross, if you want to be a little more up-to-the-minute?

      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Cory Doctorow?!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

    4. Re:How about none? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Dude, Hollywood doesn't work with imagination, they rehash the same old shite over and over.

    5. Re:How about none? by CRCulver · · Score: 4, Interesting

      How about a miniseries based on Hyperion

      I was recently reflecting on Simmons' Hyperion myself, as I read it several times in my teens. I know there's long been talk of making a film or television adaptation of it, but I now see a number of obstacles to trying to bring this book to a more mainstream audience. One is that it's just a bit too nerdy. I mean, one of the major structural points of the book is the life of the early Romantic poet John Keats, and people want explosions instead of sensitive young men who write verse. Also, the subplot of the cruciform or the Jewish man drawn to sacrifice his daughter might offend religious sensibilities.

      Hyperion is a decent work of science-fiction (though I think of it more as a young-adult choice than a universal classic), but it might just not be right for Hollywood.

    6. Re:How about none? by Zocalo · · Score: 1

      Another vote for "none"; there are plenty of books and comics out there just crying out for being made into movies or series. Personally, I'd like to see someone tackle Richard Morgan's "Altered Carbon" trilogy as an after-the-watershed show so they don't have to shirk away from some of the more brutal moments; three movies or a "based-on" series works for me, although the latter might need some work given the need to continually re-cast the actor playing the main protagonist, Takeshi Kovacs.

      Why remake a series when they can re-run at least some of the originals episodes if they want to? In fact, for some series I wish they *would* re-run the originals, some of the classic "Doctor Who", "Outer Limits", "Twilight Zone" episodes for a start... Assuming, of course, that the original media hasn't been lost or allowed to perish like happened with some of the Hartnell/Troughton era Dr. Who episodes.

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    7. Re:How about none? by Kemanorel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Can I get a Snow Crash movie or mini-series here?

      --
      Mess not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.
    8. Re:How about none? by vlm · · Score: 1

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legacy_of_the_Aldenata

      Plenty of shoot em up with the Posleen ...

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    9. Re:How about none? by vlm · · Score: 1

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1632_series

      1632 series aka 'ring of fire' series. Only vaguely scifi but could make a nice drama / action / adventure / steampunkish / special effects showcase type of movie.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    10. Re:How about none? by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Hyperion was a great series, with a terrible last book. I was well and truly disappointed in it.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    11. Re:How about none? by R2.0 · · Score: 1

      That would be awesom. Then we can move on to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paladin_of_Shadows

      Plenty of guns, bombs, naked chicks, presidents who aren't douchebags, BDSM, black helicopters, rape, ...

      On second thought, http://baencd.thefifthimperium.com/11-UntotheBreachCD/UntotheBreachCD/Princess%20of%20Wands/index.htm

      Good Christian mom, martial arts expert, guns, demons, beheadings, thinly disguised SF authors getting killed in gruesome ways, BDSM, secret FBI departments...

      You know, I'm thinking Ringo's stuff isn't going to make it to the big screen. At least, not unless they do a reverse Starship Troopers on it.

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    12. Re:How about none? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Indeed. I'd love to see some of the Asimov short stories and novels done well. The film versions of Nightfall and I, Robot were abysmal, they took great stories and ruined them.

      You could do a Robots+Foundation series that would last literally years; start with the I, Robot stories, continue with the Baily trilogy, then on to The Stars Like Dust and the others, followed by the Foundation books. Towards the end of his life Asimov had cemented all of these to where they all fit together; it would make a great series. The drawback would be that they would probably ruin them without the right producers and directors.

      I waited thirty years for LOTR, I wonder if they'll do this one in my lifetime?

      They couldn't do Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom because Disney would never let them, and even if they would the drug references would make any studio shy away. It would, however, make a great movie.

      I'd also like to see Pratchett's work on the big screen. If well done they would be hilarious.

    13. Re:How about none? by Azureflare · · Score: 1

      I know there's long been talk of making a film or television adaptation of it

      http://www.themovieinsider.com/m4713/hyperion-cantos-/

      http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1213645/

      I think it's more than talk now.

    14. Re:How about none? by Jawn98685 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Amen.
      So when, oh when, will someone do "Neuromancer" on the big screen? Maybe the whole trilogy, even? So OK, Johnny Mnemonic was a mess, but Gibson's vision, done well, would be glorious to see.

    15. Re:How about none? by cyphercell · · Score: 1

      I've been reading about the whole Cyberpunk movement and just thinking to myself "too bad everyone says it's dead".

      --
      Under the influence of Post-Cyberpunk Gonzo Journalism
    16. Re:How about none? by KharmaWidow · · Score: 1

      I am with you. But any sci fi written today will be about the environment and health care - a dated subject. I'd like to see A Brave New World made into a serial.

    17. Re:How about none? by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      A TV series based on "Little Brother" would be a lot of fun (and offer a lot of great opportunities for commentary on our fear-based modern society).

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    18. Re:How about none? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can get something close: The Diamond Age is going to be a 6-hour miniseries, produced by George Clooney.

    19. Re:How about none? by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>Or even just forget about things that have already been written -- commission Doctorow or Stross (or someone) to create a TV miniseries based on new SF material.

      I'm with you on that, except I can't stand either Doctorow or Charlie Strauss. Way too gee whiz / whiz bang, combined with horrendous characterization. And the whiz bang doesn't even make sense, either.

      I'd prefer seeing more of what HBO is doing right now, making GRR Martin's Song of Fire and Ice into a TV show. I even have some hopes that they won't totally butcher it, since GRRM is involved in the production.

      Some studios have been looking at Brandon Sanderson's Mistborn and Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series, and that could be pretty cool.

      But seriously, folks, learn from the horrible Star Trek remake and just let old shows die.

    20. Re:How about none? by spun · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Cory Doctorow? Really? Stross is a solid, workmanlike writer, but Doctorow? He's a hack. I could name a half dozen current Science Fiction writers better than Doctorow and Stross combined. Greg Bear. Stephen Baxter. John Barnes. Iain Banks. Peter Hamilton. Greg Egan. And that's just current authors, off the top of my head.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    21. Re:How about none? by cyphercell · · Score: 1

      What was wrong with "I, Robot" in particular? Sci-Fi is risky anyways because sci-fi fans aren't usually joe sixpackers, but when we complain endlessly about what the industry does give us it doesn't help. "I, Robot" at least brought the general public the notion of the three laws, that's a win I think.

      --
      Under the influence of Post-Cyberpunk Gonzo Journalism
    22. Re:How about none? by DrMaurer · · Score: 1

      Would like to see something of Alistair Reynolds' made into a movie. With the Avatar success, I think someone could make one of those worlds pretty well...

      But, you know, something totally original is good too.

      --
      Dan
    23. Re:How about none? by vlm · · Score: 1

      You know, I'm thinking Ringo's stuff isn't going to make it to the big screen. At least, not unless they do a reverse Starship Troopers on it.

      True for most of his stuff, but "Legacy of the Aldenata" is so freaking huge you could just "skip over" any questionable stuff.

      Off the top of my head, what was "really bad" in the Aldenata series? The bit with the hottie and the miscalibrated radiation detector in Hells Faire, although questionable behavior, was hilarious in a national lampoon / porkys fashion, with proper application of soap suds I can't see that worse than PG-13, could be tamer than a "Go Daddy.com" TV-commercial. The posleen dining habits were pretty gruesome, its all up to the director how much detail they'd like to show, I'm sure they could achieve "MA" if they try hard enough, or they could keep it pretty tame all the way down to "PG". Cally got into some pretty interesting situations with men later on, which if left out, would leave at least 99.999% of the story, so I'm really not seeing a problem here.

      Its not nearly as futile as trying to make a G rated "fight club". I would imagine a free-public-TV edit of fight club would be about one commercial break long. The entire "PG-13" Aldenata series would only be about 15 minutes shorter than a reasonably low-gore "R" Aldenata series. Now if they go for max gore Halloween horror movie, that could be bad.

      presidents who aren't douchebags

      Yeah, just to make sure we realize its "a fictional story" he has been putting stuff like that in.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    24. Re:How about none? by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      Another vote for "none"; there are plenty of books and comics out there just crying out for being made into movies or series.

      Short stories cry to be made in movies. Any story longer than about 50 pages, though, is far too long to be adapted into a movie that isn't a travesty against the original. OTOH, there are plenty of books out there just crying out to be made into long-running TV series.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    25. Re:How about none? by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      I think part of the appeal of remakes is that SOOO often the original ideas are complete and utter crap. If they started with Babylon 5 as a base for example, then I at least know they're starting with something good and have to try to screw it up (possible though - Star Wars TPM proves that). If it's something completely new though, it has about a 95% chance of sucking.

      In general I think people are just tired of playing the odds.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    26. Re:How about none? by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      This. You might as well say that a movie version of 2001: A Space Odyssey would be just fine so long as it had a monolith in it. Really? Are your standards so low that having just one element of similarity between the book and the movie is its vindication? (This is not a strawman, I consider my example directly equivalent to 'at least [...] the three laws' as a singular justification.)

      If you're too lazy to come up with your own material, you damn well better get the structure of the original right, or nobody will like it. The original is popular and loved for what is, not what some hack director or producer wants it to be. Of course a book has to be adapted to the medium, but any changes beyond the most necessary will be seen usually as detractions, stark flaws sourced in the hubris of somebody too deficient to create anything but a derivative work but too conceited to leave somebody else's work unadulterated.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    27. Re:How about none? by tophermeyer · · Score: 1

      Would like to see something of Alistair Reynolds' made into a movie. With the Avatar success, I think someone could make one of those worlds pretty well...

      But, you know, something totally original is good too.

      Yes. I would absolutely pay to go see Pushing Ice, as long is it was well made and faithful to the characters and scope of the novel. However I would hate to see a poorly made film based on one of Alistair Reynolds' books.

    28. Re:How about none? by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      Can I get a Snow Crash movie or mini-series here?

      It would need some serious updating. I reread it fairly recently and was struck by how much of it is grounded in extrapolating 80s technology, or the worst of the 80s society, or how much humor is poking fun at 80s pop culture, etc. I was surprised at how dated it had become so quickly.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    29. Re:How about none? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      It was misleading. It had littole in common with the original stories. Would you have been happy with LOTR if they'd had a completely different story than the book, but just a few charactres named Frodo and Bilbo, and maybe a magic ring and that's it? I know if they'd done that I'd have been incredibly disappointed.

      Bicentinial Man wasn't bad, they at least followed the book as closely as most movies do (which usually isn't very close).

    30. Re:How about none? by vlm · · Score: 1

      How about a "Red Mars" "Green Mars" "Blue Mars" trilogy?

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    31. Re:How about none? by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      Indeed. I'd love to see some of the Asimov short stories and novels done well. The film versions of Nightfall and I, Robot were abysmal, they took great stories and ruined them.

      Well, in the case of I, Robot, they didn't take a great story to begin with. They took a completely unrelated story and slapped the "I, Robot" label on it.

      I don't think Foundation could be made into a movie or TV series. It would either be nothing like the original, or it would look like it belonged on History Channel, but with less action and excitement than your typical History Channel program. Maybe more PBS...

      Elijah Baley's trilogy of stories could make for some good movies, though.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    32. Re:How about none? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would LOVE to see Aral, Cordelia, and Miles Vorkosigan on screen. Cast Angelina Joli with appropriate wig as Cordelia and let her kick ass in Shards of Honor and Barrayar. Make Civil Campagn into a movie...it's a romantic comedy that appeals to sf fans and their wives. Memory is a suspense detective story.

    33. Re:How about none? by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      So when, oh when, will someone do "Neuromancer" on the big screen? Maybe the whole trilogy, even? So OK, Johnny Mnemonic was a mess, but Gibson's vision, done well, would be glorious to see.

      Johnny Mnemonic suffered from some bad press. A lot of people went into the theater mistakenly thinking it had something to do with the Gibson story by the same name... :p

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    34. Re:How about none? by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 1

      and people want explosions instead of sensitive young men who write verse.

      Really? Because it seems to me like people have been eating up the sensitive young man bit quite well these days. Let's see here, there was Spock in the new Star Trek, the entire character set of the Twilight series, the tubby kid from the new SGU series (maybe he's gotten better, but for the first have of the season I watched, he spent all his time pining over a girl rather than pursuing her), the supposedly hardcore marine from Avatar that was incapable of functioning with passion or purpose until he met an alien woman that stole his heart, A Christian Bale from the new terminator movie that was more concerned with what was right and wrong and what whether or not he was leading like he was supposed to rather than blowing the shit out of every single robot he saw, and everything else that go in his way (like Arnie from number 2), A Christian Bale in the Dark Night that wanted to whine and cry about a dead Katie Holmes rather than just punch the Joker in the face like we all know Val Kilmer would have done, and a Harry Potter that has taken 5 whole movies just to shoot a friggin' malicious spell at someone (maybe that's how the books went, I don't know, but people sure seem to love a confused and angsty teen boy these days). Oh, and don't even get me started on that God-foresaken tragedy that was the portrayal of Anakin Skywalker in the newest three movies.

      So, while I agree that Hollywood should try some new material, I must say anything that has a sensitive male subject in it seems to make it perfect for mass consumption these days. I, for one, want Bruce Willis to punch some more aliens in the face while making out with a hot redhead chick.

    35. Re:How about none? by Monkey-Man2000 · · Score: 1

      Amen, but how about also "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress". That would be rather easy to make into a movie since it's a nice, simple, story. While Snow Crash would be quite hard to depict convincingly with the rapid changes in POV during key parts.

      --
      This post was generated by a Cadre of Uber Monkeys for Monkey-Man2000 (603495).
    36. Re:How about none? by R2.0 · · Score: 1

      Don't get me wrong - I'm a big Ringo fan. I was pointing out that, once you get past the first "trilogy" (it was supposed to be one, but the last book got split into 2), his stuff get a LOT more complex, which Hollywood doesn't do so well. In addition, there's a lot of back-story needed for comprehension. Strip Aldenata down to basics, and it's bug-eyed monsters. Which is totally awesome in my book, but Hollywood's record lately hasn't been so hot.

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    37. Re:How about none? by ppanon · · Score: 1

      Seriously? That would be terrific if they can do a decent job. Heck, even a half decent job would help more people adjust to the future shock wave that is coming down the pipe.

      --
      Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
    38. Re:How about none? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      The Foundation series had a lot of action and suspense, and it was broken up into TV show sized chunks. The prequel novels were especially action-packed, what with Seldon's martial arts, his son's knife work, etc. It would only look like a History Channel show if it were badly directed. But even the original trilogy had a lot of action and suspense.

      The hardest part, I think, would be characterizing the second foundation characters.

    39. Re:How about none? by krou · · Score: 1

      Agreed. Why have a reboot when there's obviously so much great new stuff out there? Not sure about Doctorow or Stross's stuff, but there are plenty out there. Just look at something like Flashforward that came from Robert J. Sawer's novel of the same name, which is shaping up to be a pretty decent science fiction series.

      The only reason I can think of that reboots are favoured is because the studios probably already own the rights to the story. Plus, there's the added bonus of a captured audience that are older with more money to spend who remember the original show from their teens, which makes them prime marketing material. In other words, they view it as safe, and therefore they don't have to take major risks on it.

      Probably the only "reboot" I may be in favour of would be a live action series based on the Stand Alone Complex series from the Ghost in the Shell world. Done well, that has the potential to be brilliant.

      --
      'If Christ had tweeted the sermon on the mount, it might have lasted until nightfall.' - John Perry Barlow
    40. Re:How about none? by Dirtside · · Score: 1

      I've read a couple of the RoF novels; it'd be better as a miniseries (way too many characters to cram into a movie). Most novels in general, actually, are better turned into miniseries rather than feature films.

      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
    41. Re:How about none? by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      One is that it's just a bit too nerdy. I mean, one of the major structural points of the book is the life of the early Romantic poet John Keats, and people want explosions instead of sensitive young men who write verse.

      How is that nerdy? That’s not nerdy. That’s half of the good films out there! I don’t know what people you mean, but the society around me is practically void of the retards that are constantly shown as the major opinion on TV and in industry presentations. In fact I call bullshit on it, and say that in reality, the industry has gotten so incompetent that they can not come up with a single idea that can drag you in. So they fall back to big booms, because they still seem to excite people. And then bigger booms, and bigger booms.
      But give us something truly great, and people will love it, even if it contains no explosions at all. (And ignore that one loud retard trying to be louder than the nine of us who are not dumb enough to be that annoying.)

      Also, the subplot of the cruciform or the Jewish man drawn to sacrifice his daughter might offend religious sensibilities.

      Sorry, but caving to such bullshit rules from delusional is just perverse.
      To those who say: “Oooh, this offends me!”, I say: Get over yourself and quit whining. You are not entitled to anything, it does not hurt you. Instead YOU are oppressing US with your bullshit, forcing us into your fucked-up rules. No thanks. I do not need any votes, and I don’t need you. if you don’t like it, how about you LOOK AWAY!?!

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    42. Re:How about none? by Dirtside · · Score: 1

      I knew for a fact the anti-Doctorow-Stross committee would show up, but I had to name someone. :-) Greg Egan's novels could never really be turned into visual fiction, not properly; maybe you could do Quarantine or Permutation City, but Diaspora? Incandescence? Not a chance. Too abstract. (And keeping in mind, Diaspora is my favorite novel ever.)

      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
    43. Re:How about none? by OverZealous.com · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Worse than talk, supposedly they are planning on making a single movie out of both Hyperion and Fall of Hyperion. There are at least 6 or 7 tales told in those two books, each one would almost be capable of filling 2 hours.

      I think the only way the Hyperion Cantos could make out of book form would be a long-running serial. Something with a really decent production team, that allowed each character time to build up the story.

      Of course, one major problem with that is these stories are fairly depressing. Especially the 5 framed stories in Hyperion. Nothing good happens to anyone, really.*

      (And then they are apparently planning on making a single movie out of Illium and Olympos, probably two of the most confusing [and amazing] stories I have ever read. I truly don't understand how that book could be made into a movie.)

      -----
      * I just received Hyperion and Fall for Christmas, and I'm currently re-reading Fall of Hyperion. I had completely forgotten how the end of the first book just hangs there!

    44. Re:How about none? by Dirtside · · Score: 1

      Oh my Godzilla, that would be colossal. It'd have to be a miniseries, though; those books are way too long for feature films.

      However there's still a great deal of them that wouldn't work in visual format. Long stretches of those books are characters thinking about society, politics, philosophy, theology, geology... if you only kept in the action-based parts, you could have something. There's also the fact that the book's chronology spans more than a century, but follows most of the same characters (thanks to life-extension tech), which would be challenging.

      The Mars Trilogy is truly one of the most epic things I've ever read, and it might be better left that way.

      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
    45. Re:How about none? by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      Easy answer for why not none:
      "With luck we'll all meet again in Spaceballs 2: The Search for more Money."

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    46. Re:How about none? by Flounder · · Score: 1

      A RoF series would probably work fairly well as a Sci-Fi Channel series (sorry, I refuse to use their new name). Apart from some minimal special effects depicting the actual Ring, the rest would be costumes and weapons (most left over from previous Sci-Fi fantasy movies) and they film enough in former eastern-bloc countries, moving to Central Germany wouldn't be a huge leap. And there's so much content already generated (between the books and the canon fan-fic), and the show would have a lot of the intrigue we loved and miss about early BSG.

      --

      No boom today. Boom tomorrow. There's always a boom tomorrow. - Cmdr. Susan Ivanova

    47. Re:How about none? by JackDW · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Wasn't Gibson one of the producers of Johnny Mnemonic? I remember being very shocked to see that in the credits, as in "how did this go so wrong?"

      --
      You're an immobile computer, remember?
    48. Re:How about none? by jabithew · · Score: 1

      It would be great to explore the universe of Revelation Space in a series of films, but I can't help but feel it just couldn't live up to his writing.

      --
      All intents and purposes. Not intensive purposes.
    49. Re:How about none? by spun · · Score: 1

      There's nothing wrong with being a mediocre writer, like, say, Stross or Alan Dean Foster. In fact, mediocre sci-fi often makes for better movies than good sci-fi.

      But there's no place in this world for the likes of Doctorow. It isn't just that his plots are derivative and unimaginative. It isn't just his reliance on stock phrases and cliches. It's his endless grandstanding and insufferable arrogance, and the fact that it works. He has so many people fooled into thinking he's brilliant, when he is merely loud.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    50. Re:How about none? by BigSlowTarget · · Score: 1

      Honor Harrington by Weber anyone? I mean come on series was almost born for movies.

    51. Re:How about none? by LukeWebber · · Score: 1

      Bingo. But I'd rather go back than buy into all the Singularity/Nanotech stuff we're seeing these days. Showing my age, I guess.
      Give me some good old Zelazny - Lord of Light and This Immortal. Ender's Game (but not the sequelae). The Stars My Destination. And yes, Miles is fertile ground, and very popular; I'd love a movie of A Civil Campaign.
      And please, don't try to bring everything into the present/future. I'd love to see some old Heinlein stories set in their original backgrounds. No compromises.

    52. Re:How about none? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Iain Banks

      Word.

      Let's get a Consider Phlebas or Matter (or whatever) movie to kick-off a whole Culture series. Superb books that, while holding a chronology, can be read in whatever order you find them.

    53. Re:How about none? by dwye · · Score: 1

      >I'd like to see A Brave New World made into a serial.

      It was. And unless you have no taste, you wouldn't "like to see" that. Same with The Martian Chronicles, before you ask.

    54. Re:How about none? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's nothing wrong with being a mediocre writer, like, say, Stross or Alan Dean Foster. In fact, mediocre sci-fi often makes for better movies than good sci-fi.

      But there's no place in this world for the likes of Doctorow. It isn't just that his plots are derivative and unimaginative. It isn't just his reliance on stock phrases and cliches. It's his endless grandstanding and insufferable arrogance, and the fact that it works. He has so many people fooled into thinking he's brilliant, when he is merely loud.

      How many of his books or stories have you read, then? In my opinion, science fiction is about ideas and plot and exploring the utopias and dystopias that technology opens. Doctorow does that. He does not write beautiful prose and lifelike conversation, but neither did Asimov.

      Point: I do not want beauful prose; the result is usually some plotless touchy-feely shell that reads like a Bronte novel.

    55. Re:How about none? by spun · · Score: 1

      See? The good Mr. Doctorow has you hornswaggled into believing that, despite the fact that he can't turn a phrase with a steam shovel, his plots make up for it. Bullshit. His plots are ripped straight from the minds of greater men. And his poor characterizations do not stem from poor dialogue alone. They are simply lifeless, cardboard, and unrealistic depictions of human beings. And that's just the men. What female characters you may find in his writing simply point out the fact that Doctorow has little, if any, experience with women.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    56. Re:How about none? by natespizer · · Score: 0

      Hamilton, really?

    57. Re:How about none? by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

      I think part of the appeal of remakes is that SOOO often the original ideas are complete and utter crap. If they started with Babylon 5 as a base for example, then I at least know they're starting with something good and have to try to screw it up (possible though - Star Wars TPM proves that). If it's something completely new though, it has about a 95% chance of sucking.

      In general I think people are just tired of playing the odds.

      But they can screw anything up. That's the thing. The fact that they started with something you like only makes you think there's a better chance of it not going wrong.

      Let's take Babylon 5, for instance. For sure, there's lots of things that could have been done better... But Babylon 5, as it exists, is something I like. Why mess with it?

      --
      Bow-ties are cool.
    58. Re:How about none? by Rary · · Score: 1

      Wasn't Gibson one of the producers of Johnny Mnemonic?

      According to IMDB's credits list, he wrote the screenplay, and that's it.

      A lot can happen between writing a screenplay and then having it actually turned into a movie. Then again, maybe the screenplay was just crap. Some stories are just better books than movies.

      --

      "You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein

    59. Re:How about none? by spun · · Score: 1

      The stuff after 'The Reality Dysfunction' is much, much better. And even TRD is decent space opera. But yeah, he's the fricken ringer I had to throw in there because I wrote 'a half dozen' and then got lazy. He is more along the lines of Foster or Stross, or (in the fantasy realm) Robert Jordan.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    60. Re:How about none? by bertok · · Score: 1

      Iain Banks

      Word.

      Let's get a Consider Phlebas or Matter (or whatever) movie to kick-off a whole Culture series. Superb books that, while holding a chronology, can be read in whatever order you find them.

      I second that.

      Any of Iain Bank's works would be fantastic if done right, but his books are so complex that I think Hollywood would entirely miss the subtle themes of betrayal and abuse of power and turn the whole thing into LOUD EXPLOSIONS... IN SPACE!

      I hope that Banks refuses to give out the movie rights until he's approached by someone decent like Peter Jackson.

    61. Re:How about none? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dunno, I quite liked Down And Out in the Magic Kingdom. Eastern Standard Tribe was okay, nothing special, but hardly so unoriginal as to be offensive. My wife keeps pestering me to read Little Brother.

      He strikes me more as overly enthusiastic rather than arrogant. He's also indefatigable, which means he's all over the place all the time. *shrug*

    62. Re:How about none? by cyphercell · · Score: 1

      "(This is not a strawman, I consider my example directly equivalent to 'at least [...] the three laws' as a singular justification.)"
      I disagree, the monolith was a prop, the three laws of robotics is a phenomenal thought experiment that pretty much underpinned all of Asimov's robot fiction.

      --
      Under the influence of Post-Cyberpunk Gonzo Journalism
    63. Re:How about none? by Dirtside · · Score: 1

      the industry has gotten so incompetent that they can not come up with a single idea that can drag you in.

      It has nothing to do with competence; the problem is that the major media outlets are all controlled by a small handful of gigantic corporations, which are inherently averse to risk-taking, and so (with rare exception) they go for the lowest-common-denominator garbage.

      And they're extremely good at it. Incompetence has very little to do with it.

      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
    64. Re:How about none? by Dirtside · · Score: 1

      Any story longer than about 50 pages, though, is far too long to be adapted into a movie that isn't a travesty against the original.

      Really? The Godfather was a travesty? No Country for Old Men? Lord of the Rings? Sideways? Sense and Sensibility? L.A. Confidential? You consider those movies to all be "travesties"?

      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
    65. Re:How about none? by Dirtside · · Score: 1

      We almost considered naming our first son Miles, but ruled it out on the grounds that my wife and I both have named starting with "M" and that would be a mean thing to do to the kid. (We're both very picky about names.)

      Angelina Jolie? Really? Nah. There's a lot of other actresses I think would come off better. Angelina's got too many weird associations. She looks inhuman. How about Lena Headey, or Cate Blanchett?

      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
    66. Re:How about none? by spun · · Score: 1

      I don't hate Doctorow or anything. I just have never understood the rabidness of his fans, and so I like to antagonize them.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    67. Re:How about none? by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 1

      What about Iain Banks or Alastair Reynolds? And i would recommend they write something *for the silver screen* rather than try to adapt something.

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
    68. Re:How about none? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I mean, one of the major structural points of the book is the life of the early Romantic poet John Keats, and people want explosions instead of sensitive young men who write verse.

      The recent film Bright Star was well received (at least here in the UK), and it was all about John Keats...

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    69. Re:How about none? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Gibson's vision, done well, would be glorious to see.

      Blimey, I just found out on IMDb that Neuromancer is in pre-production already!

      Much as I love Neuromancer, I think a movie version would look oddly old-fashioned if it kept to the representation of cyberspace as a collection of big abstract coloured shapes, rather than the virtual reality of the Matrix or Snow Crash.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    70. Re:How about none? by gravis777 · · Score: 1

      Shoot, I would love to see, oh what's his name, is it Elijah Baley, from Asmov's Robots of Dawn series? A futuristic crime show? Shoot, crime shows are all the rage now, I am sure those would do fairly well.

      As far as a reboot, Buck Rogers or Flash Gordan would be good. Or something like Seaquest with a decent story and decent writters. Shoot, I would like to see Lost In Space Rebooted a second time (taht cast in the movie would have worked if the characters weren't so freakin flat). Take people similar to the original cast, flesh out a GOOD set of stories, and extend them over a series instead of in a single movie. Kill the monkey. And keep the Stargate Universe writters away from it - I really do not want to see the whole Robinson family fighting with each other and sleeping together (shudders).

      That's one. I know we are only one season in, but reboot Stargate Universe. God, that show sucks! Thanks for killing the francise, SGU!

    71. Re:How about none? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      OTOH, there are plenty of books out there just crying out to be made into long-running TV series.

      It's hard to sell a TV series to a network that can't be joined by a viewer mid-way through a season at a random episode.

      Fortunately for art, TV networks will soon be extinct.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  8. Twilight zone by flogger · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well this got a reboot in the 80s with the movie, maybe a re-reboot is in order?

    There are too many sci-fi stories out there that need to hit the screen before we get reboots of old ones. Where is? Ender's Game, Antares Dawn, Startide Rising, Fire in the Deep, Armor?

    I'd love to see Ender's Game in 3d. "The enemy's gate is down..." and our orientation would switch appropriately....

    --
    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
    "First things first -- but not necessarily in that order"
    -- The Doctor, "Doctor
    1. Re:Twilight zone by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Where the hell is Asimov's Foundation series? Where is Zelazny's Lord of Light? We have well over a century of science and speculative fiction that has barely, if ever been touched, and yet all anyone can ask for is retreads of Star Trek.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:Twilight zone by nebaz · · Score: 1

      Twilight Zone got a re-reboot in 2003. It only lasted one season.

      --
      Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
    3. Re:Twilight zone by frogzilla · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Have you read the Foundation series as an adult? It's not really very good. There are certainly some good ideas but the writing is trapped in the 1950s. It seems really awkward in places and overall (in my opinion) it hasn't aged well. It's nice to have classics in whatever genre but don't live in the past. There is a lot of fine writing now.

      The movie and TV business is risky and they want to minimise their losses so they rehash what has worked in the past.

    4. Re:Twilight zone by OglinTatas · · Score: 1

      Sounds like it is ready for the reboot in question, then

    5. Re:Twilight zone by biryokumaru · · Score: 1

      I want to see Last and First Men and Star Maker.

      --
      When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
    6. Re:Twilight zone by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I reread it about seven years ago, and enjoyed it as much as I did when I was first read it at 15. Yes, some of the ideas are caught in the "atomic age" notions of the period, but the main plot line, of a Foundation preserving technology in a fading empire, and of a Second Foundation of psychics, along with an extraordinary antagonist like the Mule, well, that's a damned good set of stories. Modernize it a bit, and you're on your way.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    7. Re:Twilight zone by pavon · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I read the Foundation series for the first time last year and I thought the books were very good, up until the "Scooby-Doo" ending of some of them (The Gods Themselves had the same problem). I don't think they would make a very good movie or miniseries though.

    8. Re:Twilight zone by cyphercell · · Score: 1
      --
      Under the influence of Post-Cyberpunk Gonzo Journalism
    9. Re:Twilight zone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The funniest irony of all is that if they did do the 'Foundation' series every kid out there that never read the original or checked it's copyright date would say, 'Hey that Trantor planet,
      that's just a rip-off of Corusant'....

    10. Re:Twilight zone by alteredcarbon · · Score: 1

      Id prefer to see some new movies/series. How about PKDs "three stigmata of palmer eldritch" or "ubik" turned into a mini series or movie? Brilliant books.

    11. Re:Twilight zone by icebrain · · Score: 1

      Get some Heinlein out there, too... do The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress or Starship Troopers. Or maybe a series off of Scalzi's Old Man's War universe.

      Niven's Draco Tavern collection would be a great seed for a series, as would Clarke's White Hart stores.

      Or even something original (gasp!), as long as the physics are mostly realistic and self-consistent, the acting is good, the effects decent, and any aliens not just dressed-up humans with bits of latex and body paint.

      --
      The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
    12. Re:Twilight zone by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Did you see the 2007 Flash Gordon? Compare the portrayal of Ming in that, to Ming in the original comics. The same sort of update could be applied to Foundation, retaining the main points of the plot but removing the horribly dated parts.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    13. Re:Twilight zone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bump on Armor, an excellent scifi piece for either a movie or mini-series. And how about remaking Starship Troopers while we're at it and, you know, actually following the book?

    14. Re:Twilight zone by kattphud · · Score: 1

      Most people don't have the intellect to read *any* of Asimov's works and make sense of them, let alone the Foundation series. Some things are best left in print, lest they suffer the same fate as Heinlein's Starship Troopers

    15. Re:Twilight zone by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      They also did a new TW series back then. Some of them where great but they kept watering it down.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    16. Re:Twilight zone by AP31R0N · · Score: 1

      i'd love a faithful version of Foundation. i'd do the entire Asimoverse in green screen with a 50's look like Sky Captain. It would be orgasmic.

      --
      Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
    17. Re:Twilight zone by R2.0 · · Score: 1

      "Zelazny's Lord of Light? "

      After finally reading the book, I think it could only make sense if the cast, crew, director, producer, and audience were stoned.

      On the other hand, the Chronicles of Amber is just sitting there, especially the Guns of Avalon - hoards of demons with MP-5's vs. humans with swords? What's not to like?

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    18. Re:Twilight zone by Brackney · · Score: 1

      Armor

      Thank you! We can get Steakley's Vampire$, but not Armor? The mind boggles...

    19. Re:Twilight zone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where the hell is Asimov's Foundation series? Where is Zelazny's Lord of Light? We have well over a century of science and speculative fiction that has barely, if ever been touched, and yet all anyone can ask for is retreads of Star Trek.

      Well said! I'd love to see either, but I find Lord of Light especially evocative...

      "We are the spirits of Hellwell damned,
      the banished ones of Fallen Flame!
      We are the race undone by man,
      so Man we curse!
      Forget his name!
      This world was ours before the gods -
      in days before the days of gods and men.
      And when the men and gods are gone,
      this world will then be ours again!"

    20. Re:Twilight zone by R2.0 · · Score: 1

      Dammit, "hordes", not "hoards".

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    21. Re:Twilight zone by ragefan · · Score: 1

      Where the hell is Asimov's Foundation series?

      Considering how bad I, Robot was compared to the original short stories, I say: "No thanks!"

    22. Re:Twilight zone by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      The first time I read Lord of Light, I was about fourteen, and I just remember thinking "WTF?" I struggled through, didn't get it, and put it down. I picked it up about five years later, reread it, and then it clicked. I've reread it a couple of times since, and I have to say that it stands in my mind as being one of the greatest works of SF ever written. The underlying concept is extraordinary, the world he constructed brilliant and evocative, and the character of Sam such an amazing combination of huckster, prophet of saboteur that he jumps to the top of the great protagonists of the genre.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    23. Re:Twilight zone by digitalhermit · · Score: 1

      I just reread Lord of Light (brought on by a reading of American Gods and Anansi Boys). Though it is my *favorite* Zelazny novel, I would enjoy seeing the Chronicles of Amber brought to the screen. It seems perfect for it... though some would make the comment that "It's a Sliders ripoff" :D Come to think of it, Damnation Alley was once made into a movie, though I heard it sucked.

    24. Re:Twilight zone by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      Hey I know right? Just like that Jules Verne guy... he can't seem to get with the times and keeps writing about reaching the moon via a giant cannon as though there had never been any Apollo Program. I mean what's wrong with these science fiction writers allowing themselves to be so influenced by the times they lived in and shit. Pfff.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    25. Re:Twilight zone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd rather see side-stories for any of the classics, which in no way interfere with canon, but touch it every once in a while.

      Foundation Series, Dune (possibly...), Matrix (see Animatrix for concept reference...), early Star Wars timelines (several hundred years prior to ep. 1), Ghost in the Shell (non-Anime), something Steakpunk a-la Difference Engine (Baroque, Victorian-era tech altered)..... And that's from existing, or semi-existing material.

      Are writers seriously out of ideas when it comes to Sci-Fi? I don't believe for one instant that it has 'all been written'.

    26. Re:Twilight zone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Flogger: I think the 80s twilight zone wasn't as good as the new outer limits...So yes, it could use a reboot.
      Your suggestions for movies are all good...I was just recommended Startide Rising by a friend and can't wait to read it.

    27. Re:Twilight zone by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      Where is Zelazny's Lord of Light?

      Better yet, the Chronicles of Amber. Would require five seasons of TV, though, or ten if you include Merlin's stories.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    28. Re:Twilight zone by kandela · · Score: 1

      Last and First Men, interesting choice, but how would you tell the story on screen without a main protagonist to follow? You'd have to be creative, maybe use the style of a History Channel style documentary? I haven't read Star Maker yet but by all accounts its the only book like Last and First Men ever written so maybe you'd probably have to tell it in much the same way. Creatively, artistically these seem like really worthy choices, but I do wonder if any studio would ever consider risking telling a story like that.

      --
      Conservation of angular momentum makes the world go round.
    29. Re:Twilight zone by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      Oh dear...

      I can easily imagine good movies set in the Foundation universe. I cannot imagine a decent Foundation movie that bears much resemblance to the book. It's a great book, but it's not movie material...

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    30. Re:Twilight zone by Omestes · · Score: 1

      How about PKDs "three stigmata of palmer eldritch" or "ubik" turned into a mini series or movie? Brilliant books.

      Don't say that. How many PKD adaptions didn't turn into absolute crap? Blade Runner (which had very little to do with the novella), and A Scanner Darkly are the only two movies based on his writing that wasn't "big media" Tom Cruise pap. I have some hope for the Radio Free Albemuth movie coming out, but its a small production, almost an art house movie. Owl in the Daylight might also turn out well (pure art house), but it really isn't based on much.

      Though if they announced VALIS the movie, I would see it.

      Dick is like Poe and Lovecraft, great ideas, decent writing, but doesn't translate to the big screen at all.

       

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    31. Re:Twilight zone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where the hell is Asimov's Foundation series?

      The Foundation series might be somewhat difficult to translate to screen entertainingly. The idea of multiple stories creating a bigger picture have been used often recently and that might provide some leverage for acquiring a large cast of new actors. A miniseries could provide the desired decrease of risk for the project.
      How about a bastard child of Blade Runner, Neuromancer and Kurzweil's signularity themes? Biological corporate brains providing a new life in the colonies, a chance to begin again. A crime occurs and the blade runner is called to the colony in question. Uh, that sounded like the Naked Sun, but with somewhat darker overtone and a change of some additional action scenes and philosophical possibilities. The final destruction of "otherness", breaking the American movie tradition by not solving a violent problem with additional violence but leaving the end open so that the audience can construct the next move like in the first Matrix movie, being potentially cheesy and expensive flop, possibly a reasonable action flick or series with not much new to say.

    32. Re:Twilight zone by krou · · Score: 1

      Yeah, exactly. I never understood why TV science fiction continually avoids trying to push the boundaries. You just need to look at the Science Fiction Masterworks series to fully appreciate just how much good science fiction there is out there from 1950 onwards. Surely there's *something* in there that would make someone go, "Hmm, that's a good idea."

      --
      'If Christ had tweeted the sermon on the mount, it might have lasted until nightfall.' - John Perry Barlow
    33. Re:Twilight zone by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1

      Have you read the Foundation series as an adult? It's not really very good. There are certainly some good ideas but the writing is trapped in the 1950s. It seems really awkward in places and overall (in my opinion) it hasn't aged well. It's nice to have classics in whatever genre but don't live in the past. There is a lot of fine writing now.

      The movie and TV business is risky and they want to minimise their losses so they rehash what has worked in the past.

      I agree, I read the whole series and it was a decent story overall, but not exactly in the same league as Tolstoy as far as writing goes.

      Asimov's concepts were interesting, but his characters were as flat as pancakes. Plus, the concepts and plot devices he used in the books work well for written word fiction, but would be impossible to translate into a movie without taking substantial artistic license. Look at the scathing criticism people threw at iRobot, a collection of short stories that would have looked like crap if the director had stayed 'true to the book,' but with the way he did it it actually turned out as good movie in its own right IMHO, and still preserved the core point of the original story. Some people can't get it into their heads that movies and books are two different media, and if you want to transcribe a story from one to the other then you have to make a lot of changes to make it work. Being 'true to the book' is getting the book's original point across (even if you have to take a few liberties here and there), not making a chapter-by-chapter re-enactment.

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
    34. Re:Twilight zone by ppanon · · Score: 1

      Actually, I thought Donald Kingsbury did a decent job of that with Psychohistorical Crisis. It was better than the overhyped trilogy by the 3 B's. The final product could have been polished a bit better maybe, without needing to resorting to the "start in the middle of the story" trick that Kingsbury's used before. But Kingsbury's second empire were actually a pretty decent update/reboot of the original concept, and all the errors in applying psychohistory to a muddled past (which partly includes our present) are a hoot. It's also a great commentary on pseudo-spiritualism. I think you could do a pretty decent movie in PHC's world.

      --
      Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
    35. Re:Twilight zone by huckamania · · Score: 1

      Ender's Game, Antares Dawn, Startide Rising, Fire in the Deep, Armor

      Great list. I would add "Legacy of Heorot", which would be easy to adapt and has a similar story to "Avatar" without making the majority of the humans look evil. Maybe when Arnie stops being a politician and returns to bad acting, er, acting bad, he could play Cadman Weyland.

      I can't believe they made Vampire$ into a movie and not Armor. Although, the Starship troopers movie is more like Steakley then Heinlein.

    36. Re:Twilight zone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Foundation and Lord of Light are books, and should remain so.

    37. Re:Twilight zone by corbettw · · Score: 1

      The Twilight Zone (and The Outer Limits) wasn't a series, per se. It was a collection of vignettes. As such, there's nothing to reboot. And while I'd love to see a return of short-form storytelling (vignettes on TV and short stories in literature), it just doesn't seem like something people want anymore.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    38. Re:Twilight zone by marsu_k · · Score: 1

      For the love of $DEITY, leave Asimov alone. Not everyone likes his writing style, personally I find some of his work outstanding, but that's beside the point. I don't think his works would ever translate well to the big screen, something like "The gods themselves" would be nothing short of impossible to film; and the efforts so far yielded horrible results.

      I'll just ignore "I, Robot", or "Hardwired" as it actually should be called, it didn't even try to adapt the novel (which would be hard, given it is a collection of short stories). But my favourite short story by Asimov, "The Bicentennial Man", was adapted into an over-the-top emo crapfest with Robin-fucking-Williams in the lead role. I mean, seriously, Robin-fucking-Williams. The original short story is IMHO a very good contemplation into what defines a human, where to draw the distinction between a machine and a living being; and the movie adaptation? All emotion (and badly done), no thought. No depth whatsoever. Starring, you know who. If you haven't seen the film, don't; I know I was scarred for life having read the short story beforehand.

      And now we have the Foundation trilogy in the works, naturally as a trilogy of movies (it seems every movie has to be made into a trilogy nowadays). First of all, it could be, perhaps, made into a decent miniseries. Again I don't think Asimov's work is very adaptable, but a miniseries would be much better as the actual three books are more a collection of stories than three separate entities. But to add insult to injury, the man behind the project is none other than Roland Emmerich, known for works of high art such as Independence Day and 2012.

      Now, if the Foundation films turn out to be great, I'll be first to admit my prejudice. And I know I'll see them; at least rent them, if not in the theatre. But I'll grab the lube beforehand, as I'm sure it will be another assrape by Hollywood. So, no, please no Asimov. There are other authors much better suited for film (although I'm sure they would get the Hollywood treatment as well).

    39. Re:Twilight zone by cptdondo · · Score: 1

      Lasa Mason's Arachne.
      Janet Kagan's Mirabile.

      Both could easily be adapted, both offer a rich world that could be serialized, and both offer human interest plots that are suitable for non-techies in a bizarre environment with enough twists to warp your mind.

    40. Re:Twilight zone by HornWumpus · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I Robot (not iRobot) was a short story as well as a collection in which it appeared.

      I hoped (not really I knew they would make crap) they would have made a movie out of the story. Novels are too long to make into movies IMHO. What we got instead was one concept from the original story (robots turning murderous) plus a lot of stuff blowing up real good. IIRC the short story lacked even one explosion or gunshot.

      Have you ever actually read Tolstoy? It's OK. Nobody actually finished anything by him. They are _all_ just lying! Even the guy that wrote the 'Cliffs Notes' skipped most of it (knowing the teachers did the same 30 years earlier when they were supposed to have read it). Same as all of "whats his drunk Irish fuck"'s books.

      Asimov was far superior, even if he was no great word smith like Twain or Thompson!

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    41. Re:Twilight zone by Serious+Callers+Only · · Score: 1

      The premise of the plot is good, I agree - Asimov was always good at that side of things. However the writing is atrocious, the characterisation paper-thin, and the pseudo-science around the psychohistory pseudo-science is really a little tiring after a while. I'd say his earlier books have better writing. Haven't read the original short-stories though - maybe they'd be a good jumping off point.

      As to updating the science fiction used - why? The value of stories is not in the imaginary context in which they take place, but in what they tell us which feels a universal comment on human life - much of sci-fi (Foundation included) is really speculative fiction about dystopias, utopias and every muddled type of social organisation in between.

    42. Re:Twilight zone by pydev · · Score: 1

      There are certainly some good ideas but the writing is trapped in the 1950s.

      That's why a screen adaptation with some changes could actually greatly improve on the original.

    43. Re:Twilight zone by alteredcarbon · · Score: 1

      True. Have you seen "imposter" starring gary sinise? It's a short film adaptation of a PKD story. That wasnt too bad to be honest.

    44. Re:Twilight zone by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

      Well this got a reboot in the 80s with the movie, maybe a re-reboot is in order?

      To me, the main problem with any new attempts at making "Twilight Zone" material is that people just seem to miss the point. I think people fixate on the trick ending, which was a big part of the show, but not the only thing... And any time I hear somebody trying to imitate Rod Serling I just want to smack 'em.

      --
      Bow-ties are cool.
    45. Re:Twilight zone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Man, forget about his Foundation series. Why not his Robot stories?

      The FX work would be childs-play these days. Tell the stories that take place behind the walls of US Robotics & Mechanical Men. Susan Calvin. Their field test guys (whose names I cant recall at the moment). HUGE scope for additional stories, some intersting science-fiction, even some interesting issues on human-machine rights.

    46. Re:Twilight zone by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1

      Yes I've read Tolstoy, the only bits I skipped were some of the philosophical digressions in War and Peace. The rest was pretty good. You might not have been able to finish anything he wrote but that's no reason to project your shortcomings on others.

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
    47. Re:Twilight zone by bertok · · Score: 1

      Man, forget about his Foundation series. Why not his Robot stories?

      The FX work would be childs-play these days. Tell the stories that take place behind the walls of US Robotics & Mechanical Men. Susan Calvin. Their field test guys (whose names I cant recall at the moment). HUGE scope for additional stories, some intersting science-fiction, even some interesting issues on human-machine rights.

      Hollywood tried, and they made "I, robot", which is basically an action movie where Will Smith takes his shirt off so that a smoking hot Susan Calvin, played by the airhead model Bridget Moynahan, can stare at his manly shoulders and learn about love.

      To quote Adams: it is almost, but not quite, entirely unlike Asimov's works.

      There are robots at some point.

    48. Re:Twilight zone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The most irritating part about that crapfest was that it wasn't even based on Asimov's stories; they just took a script called Hardwired and then Asimoved it up a little.

      And added an infomercial for the first 10 minutes.

    49. Re:Twilight zone by Chubby_C · · Score: 1

      It's funny that this comes up as I've been thinking about some of the classic sci-fi novels sitting on my shelf and wondering if I should give the Foundation trilogy another read. Now I may just to see if it has held up, its probably been 15 years since I last read them.

      --
      - My question is: Can Slashdot be Slashdotted? -
    50. Re:Twilight zone by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Your just lying like the rest of them.

      Though the lie is getting to you and you hedge by saying you skipped the 'philosophical digressions': those being pages 11-2152.

      Next you'll claim you read 'Finnigan's Wake.'

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    51. Re:Twilight zone by hey! · · Score: 1

      Asimov was not by in large a writer concerned with the human condition in the way, say, Hemingway was. He was not a mordant social critic like, say, Mark Twain. He was not even an extrapolator of current trends to future dystopia (too numerous to name, but Wells to name one), nor was he an imaginer of future advances in technology (also too numerous to name, count Jules Verne among their number).

      What Asimov was, in my opinion, was a philosopher of narrow questions. That's why he also dabbled in mystery writing, where that kind of thing is quite common. What are the unspoken, wrong assumptions in an "impossible" locked room murder? If a being had morality wired in (Asimov's robots) could it still be used to harm people? Those are epistemological questions. How do we know what we "know"? How do we justify it?

      By "narrow" I mean not grounded in universal human experiences -- feelings and thoughts we've all had. By that standard, even the question of psychohistory is "narrow". It's a technical question, in a way: "if history were put on an equally scientific basis with chemistry, would there *be* any more history?" That's not at all like, "How to people deal with the fact that they will inevitably die?" That's a universal question.

      The usual answer to all those "narrow" questions turns out to be, "it's more complicated than you think." Otherwise it wouldn't be interesting. Nobody was better at Asimov at spotting the flaw in the obvious answer to a narrow question.

      In any case, in many of Asimov's stories, the characters are quite two dimensional. They're given enough individuality to perform their function in the story, and that's that. Does that mean Asimov is a *bad* writer? Not at all. In fact where it is necessary to explore his theme he does all those things I just said are not characteristic of him. But you can explore the question of robot murder without having fully realized human characters. You can't explore the issue of human mortality that way.

      In fact, psychohistory is a clear example of this. The entire notion starts with the assumption that individual characters are insignificant. Of course since "things are more complicated than you think", he goes on to undermine this assumption, but need only go so far as necessary to carry his point.

      I feel strongly that there is one and only one valid measure of a writer's worth: does he repay the time you spend reading him? Payment in any coin imaginable is valid: entertainment, enlightenment, guilty pleasure, even feelings of contemptuous superiority to the author (many a person of taste has devoured _The Da Vinci Code_ in pursuit of that peculiar literary fetish). Any other measure than repayment is somebody trying to sell you their pet literary theory (e.g., "characters should be plausible according to my understanding of Freud.").

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    52. Re:Twilight zone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I first read the series as an adult. I thought it was a fascinating idea. I don't even remember the 50s-era cliches, but I do remember lots of things that are timeless. The Foundation series isn't really about technology like most sci-fi, but about a fictional science (sci-fi in the truest sense) called psychohistory and about a future history of how a galaxy guided by that science plays out. The technology aspects are easily replaceable with whatever current sci-fi technology trends you want to use. The real heart of the Foundation series will be good for as long as we don't have a real galactic empire or real psychohistory to make it look quaint.

    53. Re:Twilight zone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "secret" to "Twilight Zone" was the writing. It was rooted in the times and in the issues. That can be done again. A producer with even a nodding acquaintance with Rod Serling's vision and the resources to realize it could re-vitalize the "Twilight Zone" franchise.

    54. Re:Twilight zone by TheFaithfulStone · · Score: 1

      I've always wondered how you'd pull this off. I mean, even in the books, it's obvious from the first sentence that the drunk fisherman is Felix, and the whole "hey, he's the king of the universe" thing comes off kind of hackneyed. But it would be pretty awesome to watch the battles.

    55. Re:Twilight zone by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1

      Asshole.

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
    56. Re:Twilight zone by bhiestand · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, I'm quite confident it won't be based on the books... at all.

      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
    57. Re:Twilight zone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I second Zelazny's Lord of Light.

  9. Misfits of Science by dmomo · · Score: 3, Funny

    Oh wait. That'd be Heros.

    1. Re:Misfits of Science by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      or Heroes

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    2. Re:Misfits of Science by Coltman · · Score: 1

      Well I have to say Thank you. When I was a kid I caught an episode of this show, and until now wondered what the name of it was.

      Thank you. Finally, I am sure I can find a torrent of this and watch it.

      Colt

      --
      - my $.02? - you can't have it...it's all I have!!
    3. Re:Misfits of Science by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      Actually Heroes would be a reboot of The Tomorrow People.

      except with blood, and violence and a time traveling otaku.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    4. Re:Misfits of Science by dmomo · · Score: 1

      I'm actually reluctant to do that. I remember liking that show a lot. I suspect it's because it was simple and had a cartoony feel to it. I can only suspect it will be bad and it will ruin my memory of it. Like the time I found a zip file of every atari 2600 game ever created.

      Then again, in that case, it may not be that the games were bad. It may have been the fact that I was able to sample and discard them all so rapidly that it cheapened their real value. So, yeah, I saw the graphics and heard the bleeps, but I didn't re-live the challenge and the skill involved with playing that one cartridge for weeks.

      Forgot my point. Oh, yeah. Let me know if that show is as bad as I fear.

    5. Re:Misfits of Science by stephencrane · · Score: 1

      There's a show called 'Misfits' on UK tv right now. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misfits_(TV_series) It's good. Not exactly Misfits of Science, but in the same area.

    6. Re:Misfits of Science by mgblst · · Score: 1

      When Courtney Cox was hot... the only thing I remember about that show.

  10. Maybe by daveime · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Maybe screenwriters and filmmakers could come up with an ORIGINAL idea for a change. Getting tired of inferior remakes, all they do is cause me to download and watch the original again.

    1. Re:Maybe by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      Maybe screenwriters and filmmakers could come up with an ORIGINAL idea for a change. Getting tired of inferior remakes, all they do is cause me to download and watch the original again.

      I don't think remaking something inherently means the remake will be bad, I think remakes are often bad because studios decide to half-ass a remake merely to squeeze as much money out of a dead show as they can.

    2. Re:Maybe by Knara · · Score: 0, Redundant

      One or two remakes is one thing. Turning "using the name and characters of a franchise to make a new series than only superficially resembles the original" has turned into an excuse to not develop new IP, however.

      Put me down for "no more reboots, ever".

    3. Re:Maybe by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1, Insightful

      There are no more Original Ideas, there are only rehashes of existing ideas, set in places nobody has imagined before.

      This is why I liked Avatar. The plot was a rehash of a couple other movies, done on some alien world.

      Of course, the geeks who didn't like the movie because it was "too spiritual" or failed on some Physics law or whatever, entirely miss the point.

      Avatar did for me in my mid 40's what Star Wars did for me in my teens, it was awesome spectacle to watch. And looking at StarWars today, it seems kind of cheesy, and the plot was, as many have already mentioned, a rehash of other works, just set in an alien "galaxy".

      If you want original, stop watching movies, you'll only be disappointed.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    4. Re:Maybe by bkaul01 · · Score: 1

      Like District 9?

    5. Re:Maybe by nyctopterus · · Score: 1

      To be fair, some are superior remakes. The new Battlestar Galactica is far better than the old one.

    6. Re:Maybe by itsdapead · · Score: 1

      Like District 9?

      Sorry... substitute sour milk for catfood and you have Alien Nation.

      (Although, to be fair, although both were based on the idea of alien refugees and subtle-as-a-brick allegories about racism, District 9 was still pretty original)

      --
      In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
    7. Re:Maybe by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Is suggesting a reimagining of Alien Nation in response to a request for something original your idea of irony?

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    8. Re:Maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly.. I like how it's being referred to the era of the "reboot" rather than just a complete lack of creativity and originality.

    9. Re:Maybe by Serious+Callers+Only · · Score: 1

      There are no more Original Ideas, there are only rehashes of existing ideas, set in places nobody has imagined before.

      Oh really? When did that happen? When the very first story was told? Or the second? How many stories are there in your learned opinion?

      This is why I liked Avatar. The plot was a rehash of a couple other movies, done on some alien world.
      Of course, the geeks who didn't like the movie because it was "too spiritual" or failed on some Physics law or whatever, entirely miss the point.

      Or maybe they thought it was trite, vacuous, nonsense dressed up in pretty special effects, which didn't even bother to be internally consistent. Maybe they thought there was no discernible point to the whole spectacle?

      If you want original, stop watching movies, you'll only be disappointed.

      2 far superior sci-fi movies came out last year, both of which were pretty original - Moon and District 9. I'm sure you can find some antecedents which are similar in some way on Wikipedia, but not films which combine all of those elements in the same way. If you choose to watch unimaginative tripe like Avatar though, I guess you will remain perpetually unsurprised and can continue to believe that there is nothing that you haven't seen before.

    10. Re:Maybe by Rary · · Score: 1

      Personally, when I see a movie, if it's entertaining and perhaps even a little thought-provoking, I don't give two and a half shits if it's a remake, a reboot, or a rip-off. If it's good, it's good. If it's bad, it's bad. Some remakes suck, and some don't. Some original movies suck, and some don't.

      --

      "You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein

    11. Re:Maybe by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

      To be fair, some are superior remakes. The new Battlestar Galactica is far better than the old one.

      I really haven't seen the new Galactica - but I have to say I think the original tends to be grossly underrated. For sure the old series had its weak moments (for instance, the two-part episode that was like a dry run for Quantum Leap - except without the all-important mirror gag or, in fact, any productive use being made of Apollo's "assumed identity" at all... Or, you know, every frikkin' episode of "Galactica 1980") - but Dirk Benedict as Starbuck was great, and the chameraderie there was palpable. People rag on the show because the effects weren't that great, the villains were those chrome toaster things, and the annoying little kid had an annoying little robot ewok, but it was good TV.

      --
      Bow-ties are cool.
    12. Re:Maybe by postmodernistic · · Score: 1

      Pocahontas!

    13. Re:Maybe by captjc · · Score: 1

      Don't forget Lorne Greene. None can compare to the "Voice of Canada" and Badass cattle rancher, Lorne "Adama Cartwright" Greene.

      --
      Slow Down Cowboy! It's been 1 hour, 47 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
    14. Re:Maybe by daveime · · Score: 1

      My list of remaks that were better than the original :-

      1. The Fly (Jeff Goldblum).
      2. ???

      Nope, that's it.

    15. Re:Maybe by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 1

      I've got an original idea. I just don't have a TV/film production deal.

  11. reboots are so 2009 by saiha · · Score: 1

    Lets get some fresh stories.

  12. And the correct answer is... by tylersoze · · Score: 1

    None. Come up with some new ideas already.

  13. Maybe they should Re-Reboot... by PGOER · · Score: 0

    Startrek. It doesn't seem like this new series is going to go anywhere, or is it just me?

    --
    I am not a nerd, I just play one in real life. My avatar thinks I'm a total loser.
    1. Re:Maybe they should Re-Reboot... by biryokumaru · · Score: 1

      Whoa now, wait a sec. There's a new new series?

      --
      When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
    2. Re:Maybe they should Re-Reboot... by PGOER · · Score: 0

      I meant the series of movies, but maybe you were sucked through a time warp and missed the start of it. If so, you are so lucky. Personnally I hope I get sucked through I time warp and can tell myself not to watch it, or if I go forward, maybe George Lucas will get around to finishing Star Wars.

      --
      I am not a nerd, I just play one in real life. My avatar thinks I'm a total loser.
  14. The obvious one? by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 1

    All Star Wars movies made in the last 20 years.

    --
    Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    1. Re:The obvious one? by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

      All Star Wars movies made in the last 20 years.

      You want those movies to get made again? I'd rather just move on and forget 'em. Just take one piece of useful information with me from episodes 2 and 3: "George Lucas is not a sufficiently talented storyteller to provide a compelling explanation of how a cute little kid can grow up to be the meanest, most villainous motherfucker in movie history."

      --
      Bow-ties are cool.
  15. Farscape by hd6303 · · Score: 1

    Frelling great show.

    1. Re:Farscape by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      Again, I think people are unclear on the whole "reboot" concept.

      Farscape, like Firefly, was a great show, but I'm pretty sure right now all of their fans would prefer that they just continue with new stories featuring the same cast, production studio, etc rather than "reboot", ie recast and tell the same story over in a different way...

    2. Re:Farscape by jgtg32a · · Score: 1

      Its very very difficult for a Serial type show to catch on.
       
      Scorpius was just far too awesome

    3. Re:Farscape by sco08y · · Score: 1

      Again, I think people are unclear on the whole "reboot" concept.

      Pretty sure they're clear on it, you're the one who doesn't use Windows too often.

  16. what? by drDugan · · Score: 1

    Many of those show I'd never heard of. Significantly disappointed Lexx made but not Farscape. I wanted Farscape to continue.

    What I really want is a live action series out of Starblazers - does anyone else remember how awesome that story was, or I am just making a childhood memory better than it really was?

    1. Re:what? by jcaliff · · Score: 1

      You're in luck. They're making a live-action version of the Japanese original, Space Battleship Yamato. Hopefully it'll be brought overseas.

    2. Re:what? by Capt.DrumkenBum · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You are seriously "just making a childhood memory better than it really was". I watched it through a few months ago. Honestly it is best left in your treasured childhood memories. For me, Star Trek the Animated Series wins hands down as worst piece of crap that I liked when I was a kid.

      --
      If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
    3. Re:what? by frogzilla · · Score: 1

      I too discovered Star Blazers by accident as a young lad sometime in the very early eighties. It sure seemed amazing to me then but I suspect that adult eyes would view it differently.

    4. Re:what? by cyphercell · · Score: 1

      A little off-topic but I was checking out the He-man reboot from 03' I believe, that was a really good series that died rather quietly.

      --
      Under the influence of Post-Cyberpunk Gonzo Journalism
    5. Re:what? by kandela · · Score: 1

      I watched the first 10 episodes of the first Season on YouTube recently. The storyline is still good it is at times more cartoon than amine though, if you know what I mean. I think Robotech survives the ravages of age a bit better.

      --
      Conservation of angular momentum makes the world go round.
    6. Re:what? by Dan667 · · Score: 1

      Yes, Starblazers would be awesome. Kind of reminds me when I discovered that Robotech was actually a collection of three anime series. There is a lot of rich story to work with there in a number of those shows.

    7. Re:what? by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

      I watched the first 10 episodes of the first Season on YouTube recently. The storyline is still good it is at times more cartoon than amine though, if you know what I mean. I think Robotech survives the ravages of age a bit better.

      Whatcha say we put "Shadow Chronicles" in a cage with "Macross Frontier" and see which one comes out alive...

      --
      Bow-ties are cool.
  17. My favorite by inode_buddha · · Score: 1

    "Revenge of the Teenage Vixens from Outer Space"

    --
    C|N>K
    1. Re:My favorite by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Did anybody here see Flesh Gordon? That movie was hilarious, if I remember correctly. However, I was a teenager working at the drive in theater when I saw it, if I saw it today I might think it was stupid.

      Not FLASH Gordon, mind you, Flesh Gordon was a bawdy parody of Flash Gordon.

    2. Re:My favorite by jgtg32a · · Score: 1

      I'm fairly certain that's a Calvin and Hobbs reference

    3. Re:My favorite by Omestes · · Score: 1

      if I saw it today I might think it was stupid.

      Yes, you would, and you would be right. But this should never subtract from the enjoyment of utterly crappy camp movies. I have it on VHS, and sometimes, I'll still throw it on with some friends over, just for the hoot. When I was younger, we'd do a monthly Rocky Horror/Flesh Gordon night of binge drinking, good times.

      But then again what do I know, I think Zardoz and Barbarella are still great cinema.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    4. Re:My favorite by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Brbarella was, IMO, Raquel Welch's best movie. haven't seen that since I was young, either.

    5. Re:My favorite by Omestes · · Score: 1

      Jane Fonda. :)

      Raquel Welch's early cheese is definitely up there, though.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    6. Re:My favorite by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Brbarella was, IMO, Raquel Welch's best movie. haven't seen that since I was young, either.

      Jane Fonda was the lead in Barbarella.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    7. Re:My favorite by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Hmmm, you're right, I told you it was a long time since I've seen it.

  18. Buck Rogers in the 25th Century by Artifex · · Score: 4, Funny

    Princess Ardala, Col. Wilma Deering, and little robots that want to be your best friend.
    What more could any nerd boy want?

    --
    Get off my launchpad!
    1. Re:Buck Rogers in the 25th Century by 0x537461746943 · · Score: 1

      You beat me to it. I loved that show as a kid! Beedeebeedeebeep. I did try to watch an old episode of it again with the wife and it didn't keep my attention much.

    2. Re:Buck Rogers in the 25th Century by krakelohm · · Score: 1

      Biddy Biddy Biddy.

      --
      You are all a bunch of idots.
    3. Re:Buck Rogers in the 25th Century by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Funny

      What more could any nerd boy want?

      The second season not to have happened?

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    4. Re:Buck Rogers in the 25th Century by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      I always thought Farscape, while not a remake, was more than a little bit homage to Buck Rogers. It has the same setup, basically, except replace "frozen in time" with "shot through a wormhole."

      I'd like to see more Farscape, but considering it just ended I don't think that's likely for another 20 years until it gets rebooted probably.

    5. Re:Buck Rogers in the 25th Century by R2.0 · · Score: 1

      "Princess Ardala, Col. Wilma Deering, ... What more could any nerd boy want?"

      I'm not a nerd boy anymore; I'm a nerd MAN, and the "more" I want is Ardala and Deering naked in a lesbian scene.

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    6. Re:Buck Rogers in the 25th Century by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I talked with Gil Gerard at DragonCon this year - he's trying to get it rebooted. (as a producer not an actor)

    7. Re:Buck Rogers in the 25th Century by fermion · · Score: 1
      Buck Rogers, itself a renake, is pretty typical. The writers appeared to have trouble coming up with enough new material, so it sank the first season(Las Vegas in Spaaaace!). It was completely remade for season two. I am not sure what they would do with it now, though I am surprised no one has taken it to cable.

      We have other lesser known shows that are might work equally fine, like VR.5. As silly as it was, it was a pretty good show, at least for the mid 90's.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    8. Re:Buck Rogers in the 25th Century by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't South Park already do this?

    9. Re:Buck Rogers in the 25th Century by Krishnoid · · Score: 1

      Your wish is granted.

    10. Re:Buck Rogers in the 25th Century by sparky1974 · · Score: 1

      Who knows, and maybe white leather jumpsuits will come back in style. We can all dream can't we?

    11. Re:Buck Rogers in the 25th Century by Artifex · · Score: 1

      I talked with Gil Gerard at DragonCon this year - he's trying to get it rebooted. (as a producer not an actor)

      Sweet.

      --
      Get off my launchpad!
    12. Re:Buck Rogers in the 25th Century by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I always thought Farscape, while not a remake, was more than a little bit homage to Buck Rogers. It has the same setup, basically, except replace "frozen in time" with "shot through a wormhole."

      Well certainly the whole fish-out-of-water and "an astronaut getting to explore far more of space than he'd ever dreamed of" aspects was very much like the Buck Rogers TV series, but I don't know if you could even call it a homage. Remember in the TV show, Buck Rodgers ends up working as basically an interplanetary military intelligence agent for the basically benign future government on Earth (as I recall, it was usually only a few shades grayer than Gene Roddenberry's Starfleet). While he still has to adjust to the passage of centuries, he's at least has a direct connection to his home planet and species.

      In contrast, basically the minute John Crichton exits the wormhole he becomes a wanted man for one of the dominant cultures of the region he finds himself in, and fairly soon after that he's wanted by the other major power in that sector of space because of what he might know about Wormholes. Furthermore, most of his friends and traveling companions are escaped convicts, misfits, and people from the margins of their respective society (i.e. the type of people, that if anything, Buck would be working against); and nearly all of the major extraterrestrial societies were portrayed as morally ambiguous or worse (in Buck's milieu there were a number friendly and non-oppressive advanced civilizations) . So the two are significantly different in terms of both basic premise and sociopolitical undertones of the setting.

      I'd like to see more Farscape, but considering it just ended I don't think that's likely for another 20 years until it gets rebooted probably.

      I think a new series in the same setting focusing on how that part of the galaxy has changed since the Scarran-Peacekeeper treaty, possibly with the various Terran political groups starting to explore the region and interact with the different alien species could be interesting. Perhaps have a few cameos and guest appearances of characters from the original series, but it should focus on new characters.

    13. Re:Buck Rogers in the 25th Century by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      Why would you type such a thorough and intelligent post without logging in first?

    14. Re:Buck Rogers in the 25th Century by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would you type such a thorough and intelligent post without logging in first?

      Because I never bothered getting an ID on Slashdot, even though I've been reading this site off and on for years. Of course you are still free to quote and comment what I've posted, even though I'm "just" an AC.;)

  19. QUARK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This show needs to be brought up to date.

    1. Re:QUARK by Thud457 · · Score: 1
      A idea I can get behind! Upgrade it by adding the character "Betty" to the cast with "Betty" and "Betty". KEEP the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders in Space uniforms.

      can I get an "Amen"?

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    2. Re:QUARK by Flounder · · Score: 1

      AMEN!!

      --

      No boom today. Boom tomorrow. There's always a boom tomorrow. - Cmdr. Susan Ivanova

    3. Re:QUARK by uncle+slacky · · Score: 1

      Damn! Beat me to it! It's out on DVD now, at least.

      I'm sure that's where 3rd Rock from the Sun got the idea for "The Big Giant Head".

      --
      Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it.
  20. they should turn 'land of the lost' into a movie by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Funny

    maybe anchor it with a hip contemporary comedian?

    i'm sure it would make lots of money

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  21. The Tripods by HebrewToYou · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...although supposedly a movie is in development, slated for a 2012 release. I think a series/mini-series might be a better fit for the subject matter.

    --
    I'm not popular enough to be different.

    Homer Simpson, The Simpsons

    1. Re:The Tripods by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      There was a BBC TV series of it which, apart from the ultra low budget, was a good adaptation (although did some weird things that weren't in the books once they got inside the city). Unfortunately, the series was cancelled after the second season (corresponding with the second book).

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    2. Re:The Tripods by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reason it was cancelled was because Michael Grade hated Sci-fi. He also cancelled Doctor Who (possibly because it got in the way of broadcasting snooker), gave Neighbours two slots in the day because his daughter could not watch it in the day time and then sodded to ITV where the share price went from 150 to 17 pence. It is up to 58 pence today.

    3. Re:The Tripods by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I heartily agree. I read the Tripod Trilogy (and the prequel) many times as a kid, and revisited it last summer. Was shorter than I remembered, but was just as gripping. A miniseries would definitely be in order, I don't think a trilogy of movies would work, nor would packing the entire thing into one 105 minute movie. Also, with expected viewership and ROI, they shouldn't really want to put a TON of money into it. I'm imagining something like the Earthsea miniseries from a few years back, but better casting.

    4. Re:The Tripods by HebrewToYou · · Score: 1

      I've seen this series, hence my suggestion it be rebooted.

      --
      I'm not popular enough to be different.

      Homer Simpson, The Simpsons

    5. Re:The Tripods by kandela · · Score: 1

      I agree. I thought the BBC series was quite good and it survives quite well without needing too much of a reboot. I'd maybe start with Before the Tripods Came though.

      --
      Conservation of angular momentum makes the world go round.
    6. Re:The Tripods by dangitman · · Score: 1

      I don't think that there are enough Gitzo and Manfrotto enthusiasts to make a show about camera supports commercially viable.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    7. Re:The Tripods by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 1

      The BBC made a miniseries out of it. Alas, you can only get the first season on DVD (possibly due to negotiation over movie rights).

  22. Battlestar; Just the 4th Season by LibertineR · · Score: 1
    Or maybe just the ending?

    Suggestions: Kara aint no ghost, but a clone or maybe.....A CYLON, bitches?

    Let the President live to set foot on Earth, before killing her off, heartless bitches?

    Dont kill the hot black chick via suicide; let her F#$@ her way to an early grave?

    Must we RAM the BASESTAR? I mean, really?

    Go back to Season 2's "Exodus" for inspiration. Do that shit again!

    1. Re:Battlestar; Just the 4th Season by 93,000 · · Score: 1

      As much as I liked D (both her character and her dirty hotness), her suicide was one of the more memorable moments of the series for me. That's not to say that your suggestion wouldn't have been equally memorable, of course . . .

    2. Re:Battlestar; Just the 4th Season by jgtg32a · · Score: 1

      Um shit, I didn't pay attention to your subject line. I haven't actually made it to season 4 yet.
       
      Well my fault not yours

    3. Re:Battlestar; Just the 4th Season by Tekfactory · · Score: 1

      Season 4, last 2 hour episode about 1 hour in

      Adama says Jump, anywhere

      Kara puts in coordinates and hits the button...

      Screen fades to credits

    4. Re:Battlestar; Just the 4th Season by TheFaithfulStone · · Score: 1

      You could fix BSG with clever editing and a different title card at the end. Rather than have them DISCARD antibiotics and advanced industry, just point out that 30,000 people aren't enough to actually sustain an industrial society. ie. "We're out of tylium, the antiobiotics are gone, we're running an energy deficite. We've got thirty years at most before we're all fighting over the scraps." Then move the the "landing" up to about 5,000 years ago and make Hera the MRCA rather than mitochondrial eve (which they misunderstood anyway) and voila. Then they've actually made an interesting point, since the arrival of the Colonist actually corresponds with the very beginning of "civilization" on Earth.

  23. Depends on how the "reboot" is done. by Snyper1000 · · Score: 0

    Please, not another Star Trek. That thing was so awful...If not Star-Trek, totally different names, planets, etc, ok, would have been a great fun movie. Had they stuck with the Trek story, and had the Temporal Integrity Commission go back and set things right, again, great movie. Spitting in the face of the well known Star Trek Story, awful piece of junk. Don't do this to any other good Sci-Fi series, please! (Feel free to do it to bad ones though and make them good. Don't have examples, I don't watch bad Sci-Fi :) )

    1. Re:Depends on how the "reboot" is done. by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Isn't it just a split timeline in the multiverse? That's how I see it. The original continuity exists but a few Planck distances away... I generally don't like time travel stories, but I have to admit using it to reboot a series *was* sort of an interesting idea. I just wish the villain had more reasoned motivations.

    2. Re:Depends on how the "reboot" is done. by Snyper1000 · · Score: 0

      I understand the split universe concept, but you're going against a so called prime directive in the original series. Just doesn't seem right to me (and many other trek fans). Even if they had not destroyed Vulcan (Like Kirk managed to stop it, or something) it would have been fine. But to simply wipe out billions of people in the universe as a split universe splitting from a time travel error, which the universe claimes to have a self correctign system for...its just crazy...I just can't take that as Trek, anything else, would have been great. Anyhow, back to my so called real work... :)

    3. Re:Depends on how the "reboot" is done. by Chris+Burke · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Had they stuck with the Trek story, and had the Temporal Integrity Commission go back and set things right, again, great movie.

      No, that would have been awful, because it would have meant we're stuck with the forty years of canon that has been bogging the series down so badly. The series was toppling under its own weight, but trekkies wouldn't let go of a single scrap of that history. Such that their opinion of any Star Trek media is based almost entirely on how well it sticks to that history to a tee. Ugh.

      Splitting off the timeline, freeing the series from that history while simultaneously respecting it, was the best thing that could have happened to Trek. And if doing that means going against Trek's standard temporal theory where time is linear and the Time Cops come around and "fix" it whenever someone mucks with it, then so be it. Actually, expunging that piece of Trek canon was in and of itself a great move by itself. Because when your sci-fi series shares the same theory of time travel as a Van Damme movie, that's a hint that your theory is dumb.

      Thank God JJ Abrams came along and saved the series from the Trekkies.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    4. Re:Depends on how the "reboot" is done. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't help being really pedantic about it, but any time that time travel occurs in Star Trek, changes to the past always rewrite the future, not split the timeline. If I accept Star Trek 2009, it means the old universe is gone. I know I'm being the worst kind of nerd and fan by saying this, but I just can't help it.

    5. Re:Depends on how the "reboot" is done. by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      Thank God JJ Abrams came along and saved the series from the Trekkies.

      This, this, a thousand times this. What the GP doesn't realize is that blind obesiance to 40 years of crap is a serious bug, not a feature, to the vast unwashed masses who actually pay for these big budget releases. He and the rest of the Comic Book Guys hanging out in the nerdcave quite simply cannot do this. The even movies of ST were traditionally accessible. The odd ones, much less so.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    6. Re:Depends on how the "reboot" is done. by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Because when your sci-fi series shares the same theory of time travel as a Van Damme movie, that's a hint that your theory is dumb.

      OK, so what's the alternative non-dumb theory of time travel?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    7. Re:Depends on how the "reboot" is done. by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Pretty much any theory where your solution to time travel paradoxes isn't the Time Cops going around preventing them from happening, or worse, "fixing" them once they've already occurred.

      "Oh no, someone changed history so the Nazis won the war and the Federation never came to be!"
      "Then how the fuck are us Federation Time Cops still here?"
      "We won't be unless we fix the time line, and fast!"
      "That doesn't even make sense..."

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    8. Re:Depends on how the "reboot" is done. by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      but you're going against a so called prime directive in the original series

      Hey, science gets updated all the time. :-) Temporal physics doubly so. :-D

      My feelings about the movie are definitely mixed, but I actually though destroying Vulcan was pretty ballsy from a dramatic standpoint. I was totally expecting them to save the planet, and then I was expecting them to use the timeship to go back and fix it. For once a Trek film plot wasn't so easily predicted. :-)

      I just hope they *do* something with it- incorporate the plight of the Vulcans in the next film. A Vulcan diaspora, perhaps.

    9. Re:Depends on how the "reboot" is done. by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      This, this, a thousand times this. What the GP doesn't realize is that blind obesiance to 40 years of crap is a serious bug, not a feature, to the vast unwashed masses who actually pay for these big budget releases. He and the rest of the Comic Book Guys hanging out in the nerdcave quite simply cannot do this.

      Indeed, and I think it's a bug for anyone who simply wants high-quality material in the Trek universe.

      I mean, I love the original series for what it actually was: A campy, low-budget "Wagon Train in space" that managed to have some really powerful episodes that explored sci-fi/human concepts in an inspiring way. It's a great setting for story telling, but the point is the story, not the baggage of minutiae that comes with it.

      Stardates were just random numbers they thought sounded cool for the Captain to say, episodes were written by a bunch of different writers who hadn't even seen all the episodes before, and in any case they made up whatever they felt like to suit the story they were trying to tell and their budget. This idea Trekkies have that every detail from every episode taken together should form some coherent, self-consistent whole just doesn't mesh with what the creators of the show actually did. They didn't give a shit about "canon".

      Take my favorite example -- Klingons. They were re-imagined for The Search for Spock to make them more menacing villains. And while Trekkies hated this, once it was done they had to accept it as the Holy Gospel. So even though Captain Kirk had never seen any Klingons who looked like that but didn't bat an eye when he saw the "new" Klingons, as far as Trekkies were concerned it was an in-universe fact that Klingons once had smooth heads, and now have ridged heads. They even tried coming up with convoluted explanations (because "Gee maybe the movie had a bigger costume budget than the show" wasn't good enough), until Enterprise finally bothered to actually fill in the totally pointless backstory behind smooth-headed Klingons.

      And what were the Trekkies biggest complaints about Enterprise? Not faithful enough to canon! Sheesh!

      Get all that baggage out of the way. Just tell a story in the Trek Universe, without worrying that every decal on every panel is "historically" accurate.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    10. Re:Depends on how the "reboot" is done. by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      This is at its worst in comic book fandom (of the cape and tights sort of comic books). The latest issue of Superman needs to be consistent with ~700 issues of one book, ~500 of another, hundreds of spinoffs, hundreds more crossovers, etc. So bad for the past few decades that every few years they need a big 'event' that wipes the slate clean and starts over again.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    11. Re:Depends on how the "reboot" is done. by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Wow that sounds awful.

      But hey, at least they do the 'reboot' thing instead of trying to hold up the toppling tower. :)

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    12. Re:Depends on how the "reboot" is done. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hear, hear.

      Star Trek is like a five-hundred pound shark... with an eight-hundred pound remora attached to it. Every time the shark gets a taste of real meat, the remora pulls it off course, screaming "MORE CHUM!!!"

    13. Re:Depends on how the "reboot" is done. by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      The problem being that they typically don't reboot anything, but write a tortured explanation for why everything that has ever happened HAS happened and doesn't contradict the other stuff that has happened.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
  24. Silent Running by jsimon12 · · Score: 1

    I hesitate to say it because the original was frankly one of the best Sci-Fi movies of all time but I think the message is still pertaent and as long as they stay true to the original it could be a very good movie to remake.

    1. Re:Silent Running by geek2k5 · · Score: 1

      That's one of my favorite SF movies. I was very glad to find a copy of it on DVD a few years ago.

      I sometimes wonder how much the Disney movie "Wall-E" and the Miyazaki movie "Castle in the Sky" draw from "Silent Running." Robots taking care of plants? An ecosystem drifting off into space? "Silent Running" predates both movies by at least a decade.

    2. Re:Silent Running by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      Are you kidding? The ONLY good thing about that movie was the Douglas Trumbull effects. The plot was retardedly... retarded (launching forests into SPACE?), the acting was passable at best, and the Joan Baez soundtrack wailing hurt my ears. And it's dated horribly.

      Oh, and even the good effects were constantly re-used. (How many times did we see a biodome launched into space from the same angle? 10? More?)

      The ecological message was done much better in, for example, Soylent Green. If that's the part you admire.

    3. Re:Silent Running by nwf · · Score: 1

      I thought it was somewhat interesting, but way, way too simplistic. Seems they were trying to push more their ideals and not a plot so much. And that sound track. Just horrible, horrible crap.

      And Soylent Green was indeed a way, way better movie. It actually had a plot that was given more than 5 minutes of writer time. Of course, now that everyone knows the secret, I'm not sure a remake would work too well.

      --
      I don't know, but it works for me.
    4. Re:Silent Running by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought I was the only one who remembered Silent Running! Great film, and although I'm against the idea of reboots, this old gem deseerves a shiny new version.

      Also deserving of reboot:

      ROBOTECH!

  25. Max Headroom by Mashhaster · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The original was prophetic in more ways than I can count, and groundbreaking in many ways while being entertaining. I would love to see what they'd come up with this time.

    1. Re:Max Headroom by s0litaire · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately we've caught up with the 10 mins into the future of Max Headroom.

      It's basically tuned in to "YouTube" where everyone can stream a TV channel 24/7 from their caravan....

      lol!! But love to see a reboot / remake of it!

      Max Headroom 2: "Max Tube"

      --
      Laters Sol "Have you found the secrets of the universe? Asked Zebade "I'm sure I left them here somewhere"
    2. Re:Max Headroom by OldeTimeGeek · · Score: 1

      How about they just release it to video?

    3. Re:Max Headroom by Hatta · · Score: 2, Informative

      The entire run of Max Headroom is available for torrent via dapcentral.org if you're unable to wait.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    4. Re:Max Headroom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      right there with you. I'd love to see a reboot of that show. Not necessarily like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWdgAMYjYSs

    5. Re:Max Headroom by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 0, Troll

      The entire run of Max Headroom is available for torrent via dapcentral.org if you're unable to wait.

      Don't know if its any better now, but 2-3 years ago when I tried to torrent it, it was literally 4 weeks to get all the bits.

    6. Re:Max Headroom by PsychoSlashDot · · Score: 1

      This is me, rather annoyed that a day after my mod points expired without comments I felt informed enough to moderate... you post this.

      Please consider this my +1 Insightful.

      --
      "Oh no... he found the .sig setting."
    7. Re:Max Headroom by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's the trouble with niche interests and torrents. Torrents are a popularity contest, niche interests are by definition unpopular. At least the folks at DAP are dedicated enough to keep it seeded, so it will finish, eventually.

      I'm pretty sure the rips are available at TvTorrents too, if you have an account there.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    8. Re:Max Headroom by /.Rooster · · Score: 1

      Indeed.. the early episodes focusing on the mass consumerism of viewers viewing habits not to mention the digital divide between the have and have nots was awesome. However not sure anyone could really fill Matt Frewer's shoes in that respect as it is hard to do a wacky Max without looking like a complete idiot. Still the stories were awesome and way ahead of it's time.

      --
      Rooster - A friend. "Anyone's friend in particular or just generally well disposed to people?"
  26. A colder war by oh2 · · Score: 1

    Charles Strosss "A Colder War" short story has enough material to drive several seasons of Ctulhu-esque cold war goodness. If you havent read it, do. Does it get any better ? Entities from the abyss, cold war politics and lots of interesting historical characters.

    --

    Now the world has gone to bed, Darkness won't engulf my head, I can see by infra-red, How I hate the night.

    1. Re:A colder war by KriticKill · · Score: 1

      I absolutely second this. That would quite possibly make for an outstanding tv show. Lets get the petition rolling. Might actually make this channel worth watching (sometimes).

    2. Re:A colder war by cranq · · Score: 1

      I just read this before Christmas and I agree, it's a skillfully done blend of alternate history, ancient terrors, and freaky tech.

      --
      Regards, your friendly neighbourhood cranq
    3. Re:A colder war by UtterCoward · · Score: 1

      I read this yesterday, and I have to agree with you. Bringing this to TV could be tremendous. I wish that I knew Damon Lindelhof, so I could recommend it to him.

  27. How about Honey I Shrunk the Kids? by greenguy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'd love to see that done with darker, grittier feel.

    --
    What if I do the same thing, and I do get different results?
    1. Re:How about Honey I Shrunk the Kids? by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      How many poor ants do you need to see murdered by scorpions!

    2. Re:How about Honey I Shrunk the Kids? by corbettw · · Score: 1

      I dunno. Honey, I Vivisectioned the Kids doesn't have the same ring to it.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    3. Re:How about Honey I Shrunk the Kids? by greenguy · · Score: 1

      How did I get "insightful?" I was going for "funny."

      --
      What if I do the same thing, and I do get different results?
    4. Re:How about Honey I Shrunk the Kids? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, and with Christian Bale in the father's role, 'cause no-one does dark better than Christian Bale!

    5. Re:How about Honey I Shrunk the Kids? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and with Christian Bale in the father's role, 'cause no-one does dark better than Christian Bale!

      Oooh, he can use the angry-Howl voice at the ants. Oh, um, I mean the Batman voice.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  28. Ringworld by foobsr · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Would make for a couple of life injections.

    CC.

    --
    TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
    1. Re:Ringworld by enilnomi · · Score: 1

      I should p'bly mod you down, since you're a bit off-topic -- I'm not aware of a Niven-in-film series/work that needs re-booting. But instead I'll join you in off-topic-land...Ringworld would be a perfect series of texts to adapt to film: Sets would be easy, and Weta would love the character work (just not sure if there'd be an uncanny valley prob with Chmee and Nessus ;-). There's so much published backstory that a screenwriter could go deep into "Known Space" -- showing us the rise and resolution of the Puppeteer's excess heat problem, showing us the Kzin homeworld (with maybe a few vignettes of the Man-Kzin Wars), devoting a few minutes to Phssthpok's heroic voyage to Sol System, etc. Bog, but I'd love to see a Trinoc or Bandersnatch....

      The original stories have everything modern films want: hetero-sex (Teela Brown and tons of rishathra), cool boats (Long Shot, Needle, flycycles), battles (esp. in the 3rd Ringworld book), McGuyverisms, and huge "message" potential (nudge-nudge, Mr. Cameron) from the role of ARM in Earth culture, to Flatlanders vs. Belters, to Puppeteers-as-power-elite, to Chmee's journey of learning patience and diplomacy, and the ultimate fun of Niven's alternate Genesis tale of the Pak.

      So if any "reboot" is broad enough to attempt restoring science fiction films to former glory, I'm with ya on Ringworld. Or, another great way to go would be either of two sets of work by Herbert -- Destination: Void is tragically undervalued (along with its follow-on works); it's the earliest fiction I know of that tackles construction principles of an AI. Or Herbert's two Jorg McKie books (Whipping Star and mostly The Dosadi Experiment...maybe the Tea Partiers could get excited enough about the Bureau of Sabotage to let the subtle consciousness-raising that Dosadi's solution induces soak in undetected.....

      --
      education is no substitute for intelligence
    2. Re:Ringworld by zerocool^ · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, but no.

      I read Ringworld for the first time a couple of months ago, and to be honest, I was entirely underwhelmed. The premise was silly in the first place, the characters might have looked good once but now seemed to be simple caricatures of silly stereotypes from the dawn of modern sci-fi, and the writing was not very good.

      There was nothing at all resolved - why was this ring built? Who built it? Why did they build it? What happened to it? Where did they go? How long ago did they leave? What has happened in the mean time? What else is on the ring? Are there any civilizations that are modern remaining on it?

      And on top of that, the author has NO concept of falling action. Literally, the main plot point (how do we get off this thing?) was resolved (maybe, kind of), and three paragraphs later, the book was over.

      I was completely underwhelmed. My wife tells me there are sequels, but without the first book actually being finished, I think that they've got to be just finishing up the story that was essentially abandoned.

      Now, I guess I would have to concede that if you are talking about making a show about the whole series, including all the information in the sequels (which is substantial, according to what I'm reading on Wikipedia), then maybe. But the book its self left me extremely unsatisfied.

      ~W

      --
      sig?
    3. Re:Ringworld by pgrove2 · · Score: 1

      The concept of the organ banks in Niven's known space collection would make for a real interesting ethical discussion in our current society where we debate stem cell research. Sure, we have seen hints of it in Coma, and The Matrix, and even in the forthcoming vampire movies, but Niven just makes it part of the universe. They can do the CGI on all of those aliens now. Saberhagen's Berserker series would make for a great action movie too!

    4. Re:Ringworld by straponego · · Score: 1

      Ringworld would be quite filmable. Great pace, visuals, some sex, ideas that should translate well enough to screen. And the science isn't *completely* hand-waving, unlike Trek. But could we really stand to listen to all the bitching about it being a Halo ripoff?

    5. Re:Ringworld by foobsr · · Score: 1

      I'm not aware of a Niven-in-film series/work that needs re-booting.

      Hmm, if a project is frozen, one might reboot it?

      CC.

      --
      TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
  29. Which /. Submitter should take English lessons? by ground.zero.612 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    It's pretty sad that people still get this wrong. It seems like a script could be written to prevent you from submitting articles when your title has such an ugly mistake.

    --
    "Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
  30. SciFi? by bbbaldie · · Score: 1

    When I read OMNI magazine in the 70's, The handle 'SciFi 'was considered gauche. The correct term was SF...

    1. Re:SciFi? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      It just gets worse with time, doesn't it? Now they've got "SyFy". What's wrong with just calling it "science fiction"? Are people so lazy these days they can't make a few more keystrokes?

    2. Re:SciFi? by briareus · · Score: 1

      You're missing the point -- SyFy can be trademarked.

    3. Re:SciFi? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently SyFy also covers Professional Wrestling. Luckily, since the SciFi network changed their name so they could trademark SyFy, they're probably going to fight any attempt to let SyFy be used as a generic label for Science Fiction.

    4. Re:SciFi? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      I see little point in misspelling a common word just to trademark it, especially if it's going to alienate your customers/viewers. Yes, the customers are the advertisers, but if you alienate your viewers you lose the actual customers.

      Why do they even need a trademark? It's not like their product is stellar or in any way different; now someone could name a channel the SF channel, if they had quality science fiction SyFy would go bankrupt despite their cheezy trademark..

    5. Re:SciFi? by ppanon · · Score: 1
      --
      Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
  31. Is This What They Mean By "Mash-Up Culture"? by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The mind boggles: We are reading an article about another article about which TV Shows should be re-done. Is there not one self-respecting Creator of Original Stuff left? Is this why Young People Today are so angry about the length of copyright?

    1. Re:Is This What They Mean By "Mash-Up Culture"? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      New doesn't always mean good. There are things like the original Battlestar Galactics, where the premise had a lot of potential, but the execution was terrible. Then there are things like Babylon 5, where the setting left a huge amount of unexplored scope. There's nothing wrong with taking a good idea from a poor execution, and producing something good from it, and there's nothing wrong with expanding existing good shows (although not like B5 Crusade). There's no reason to abandon good ideas just because they aren't new or original.

      That doesn't mean that original ideas are bad, and that you shouldn't create them, but some people consider the reimagined version of The Tragical History of Romeus and Juliet to be one of the greatest works of English literature, so you shouldn't discount recycled ideas.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    2. Re:Is This What They Mean By "Mash-Up Culture"? by bit9 · · Score: 1

      New doesn't always mean good.

      Yes, but old and rehashed ad infinitum always means bad.

    3. Re:Is This What They Mean By "Mash-Up Culture"? by netsavior · · Score: 1

      Especially Dark Knight, Avatar, The Lord of The Rings, Spiderman, The Lion King, I am Legend, Iron Man, King Kong, James Bond, The Chronicles of Narnia... Sorry I just got tired of listing the top grossing films of all time, which were old rehashed plots and characters.

    4. Re:Is This What They Mean By "Mash-Up Culture"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      partly. but the length of copyright in the United Stattes currently lies beyond the powers granted to our federal government by our constitution.

    5. Re:Is This What They Mean By "Mash-Up Culture"? by Dirtside · · Score: 1

      partly. but the length of copyright in the United Stattes currently lies beyond the powers granted to our federal government by our constitution.

      Good luck convincing SCOTUS of that; Larry Lessig wasn't able to (although I think he took the wrong tack by attacking the length; he should have argued that copyright this long in no way "promotes the Progress of Science and the useful Arts").

      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
    6. Re:Is This What They Mean By "Mash-Up Culture"? by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 1

      Actually, I've invented an original SF series idea. I just don't have connections with producers, writers, actors, etc.

  32. How about Rebooting Reboot? by hguorbray · · Score: 2, Insightful

    A canadian animation that took place initially inside of a game console, although the second series also included the internet. A bit like Tron, but with a richer world inside the computer hardware.

    Bob the guardian, his girlfriend Dot and the great villains Megabyte and Hexadecimal.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReBoot

    Actually it looks like they are reviving it already, so -asked and answered as they say.

    -I'm just sayin'

    1. Re:How about Rebooting Reboot? by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'd be happy just to get a boxed set of the whole series on DVD. Some friends and I actually looked into how much it would cost to buy the rights and produce/sell the DVDs. Didn't get very far. :-(

    2. Re:How about Rebooting Reboot? by kannibal_klown · · Score: 2, Informative

      A canadian animation that took place in

      I agree on the sentiment...

      But it was inside a Computer, not a game console. The "User" just happened to like playing the occasional game.

      I believe they said it out right in an episode, plus one day they were all impatiently waiting for a new upgrade.

      Then again I could be wrong.

      Fun series. They continued via a Comic a little later, but I hadn't heard of a revitalization.

    3. Re:How about Rebooting Reboot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They will have a hell of a time replacing the late Tony Jay as the voice of Megabyte. Tony Jay was simply awesome, and Megabyte fit him perfectly. Anyone else would just be...playing at the role (can you imagine someone else doing Optimus Prime's voice?)

    4. Re:How about Rebooting Reboot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about a porn version of Tron? Just need to think of a name.

    5. Re:How about Rebooting Reboot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it was inside a Main Frame.. (which was also the name of their "city")
      The Main Frame was connected to the Web.

  33. There is only one worthy by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Far Out Space Nuts

    You know you want it.

    But, seriously, I agree with others who say "Do something new".

    How about some retro space opera? Lensman or Perry Rhodan? Maybe a Stainless Steel Rat series?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perry_Rhodan

    1. Re:There is only one worthy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Far Out Space Nuts

      I said LUNCH, not LAUNCH! Awesome.

    2. Re:There is only one worthy by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

      Ooooh. Lensmen with modern tech. And all the sexism and racism and . . . Hmm. Maybe not. :-)

    3. Re:There is only one worthy by Deliveranc3 · · Score: 1

      Kudos on the Stainless Steel Rat idea, with the right actor that would capture the imagination of millions.

      There's already about 20 books made, it would make a fantastic trilogy.

    4. Re:There is only one worthy by Dirtside · · Score: 1

      Maybe a Stainless Steel Rat series?

      One word:

      Retief.

      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
    5. Re:There is only one worthy by khallow · · Score: 1

      Ooooh. Lensmen with modern tech. And all the sexism and racism and . . . Hmm. Maybe not. :-)

      Strip that out then. I imagine a lot of our current stuff will appeal hilariously immoral to our more distant successors simply because that sort of thing changes over time (well except that it's always "right" at the time).

    6. Re:There is only one worthy by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      Well, der, of course you'd update it to more modern sensibilities. The basic story does not change.

  34. Why Firefly? Here's why... by IBitOBear · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That and un-kill Wash and Sheppard Book.

    Oh, and get rid of the whole Miranda bullshit. The people who ply the lanes of space would neither "overlook" nor "forget" an entire main planet over the course of less than 20 years. Nor could such a thing be hidden as, outer-most or not, it would show up on everybody's orbital computations as a huge perturbation in their plots. Let alone one ten-year-old with binoculars.

    Oh yea, and drop that whole "all the planets orbiting one sun" nonsense since it isn't workable. Miranda would have been frozen ice-ball _or_ the "inner planets" would be molten slag.

    Don't get me wrong, I loved the show. The movie needs to be declared out-of-cannon before the series would be workable.

    I could have come up with a better "reason for the reavers" in my sleep. The original one from the series (mental erosion from facing the emptiness of space etc) was good enough. Hell, the movie contradicted the series directly. If the Pax caused reaverdom, the the episode where the one guy got tortured and became a reaver himself woudln't have worked unless the reavers carry a supply of the otherwise secret Pax around and deliberately pre-expose potential recruits to it before deciding who to kill, rape, and eat (in that order, if you're really lucky).

    So yea, it needs a reboot.

    --
    Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
    --"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
    1. Re:Why Firefly? Here's why... by ByOhTek · · Score: 1

      Actually, the tortured boy could make sense - just as much as it would for people who'd been away for too long. He became a reaver because it was the only way he could cope with what he saw. Not from being away from society, or "in the black" too long.

      Different causes, same symptoms.
      http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=10/01/11/1629214#
      Miranda would have been fine in a setting that wasn't based on one star system.

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    2. Re:Why Firefly? Here's why... by dlaudel · · Score: 1

      Oh yea, and drop that whole "all the planets orbiting one sun" nonsense since it isn't workable. Miranda would have been frozen ice-ball _or_ the "inner planets" would be molten slag.

      It was their way dealing with the issue of no FTL travel. And a rather good one at that. Partly terraformed planets led to the many barren landscapes they visited, and they could get to another planet/moon within a reasonable amount of time (ie, before they run out of food and water).

    3. Re:Why Firefly? Here's why... by chrysrobyn · · Score: 4, Informative

      Agreed, un-kill Wash and Shepard Book. Although, honestly, a 7 year run could take place in the intervening year between the end of the series and movie. Not sure a sane genius class River would improve a continued show any.

      Miranda is easy to accept, though. She's not a planet that's forgotten or overlooked, not a perturbation on plots or anything. She was a young colony that was still new to people's minds. Mal even knew "terraforming didn't take or somesuch". She was publicly known to be a failure, and even the mangnitude of the failure was known. The nature of the failure was the only unknown.

      Human history is filled with similar misdirected failures.

    4. Re:Why Firefly? Here's why... by Tekfactory · · Score: 1

      Not looking to rationalize this, but its easy to forget 'Miranda, that poor place that got took over by the Reavers, and the Alliance didn't do anything about it'.

      You could probably tell one season's worth of stories post Objects in Space and before Serenity.

      Does anybody want to know what happened to Jubal Early?

      The Reaver Kid is a really freaky form of Stockholm Syndrome.

    5. Re:Why Firefly? Here's why... by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      That and un-kill Wash and Sheppard Book.

      Yes, please.

      Oh, and get rid of the whole Miranda bullshit. The people who ply the lanes of space would neither "overlook" nor "forget" an entire main planet over the course of less than 20 years. Nor could such a thing be hidden as, outer-most or not, it would show up on everybody's orbital computations as a huge perturbation in their plots. Let alone one ten-year-old with binoculars.

      Knowing there's a body there and knowing there's a colony there are two different things. It can easily be "hidden" simply by being lost in the crowd.

      Oh yea, and drop that whole "all the planets orbiting one sun" nonsense since it isn't workable. Miranda would have been frozen ice-ball _or_ the "inner planets" would be molten slag.

      Really? What is the stellar type of the main star, and the size of the "Goldilocks zone"? Since neither of there are defined in the series, your speculation above has no basis. There's no reason to think the system they're in doesn't have a Goldilocks zone large enough for hundreds of planets, when it's explicitly stated that it does and there's no scientific reason to reject that idea. Not to mention many if not most of these worlds could easily be moons of gas giants. Each "super-Jupiter" could have dozens of habitable worlds orbiting it, not to mention a few worlds at each trojan point.

      I could have come up with a better "reason for the reavers" in my sleep. The original one from the series (mental erosion from facing the emptiness of space etc) was good enough. Hell, the movie contradicted the series directly. If the Pax caused reaverdom, the the episode where the one guy got tortured and became a reaver himself woudln't have worked unless the reavers carry a supply of the otherwise secret Pax around and deliberately pre-expose potential recruits to it before deciding who to kill, rape, and eat (in that order, if you're really lucky).

      It doesn't need to be deliberate. I can come up with three different reasons in my sleep why they'd be unintentionally exposing anyone they bring aboard one of their ships.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    6. Re:Why Firefly? Here's why... by icebrain · · Score: 1

      Well, what about this?

      Even in the real world, we sometimes see cases of people that just go nuts, and even spread that craziness to others. It's not unreasonable to assume that, given long periods of isolation and such, a few guys might go crazy on their own, and essentially become Reavers--but their craziness doesn't spread much and dies out because the "host" dies off too soon (kind of like how some diseases don't spread far because they kill their hosts too fast).

      Then, let's say that Pax did indeed trigger the start of the Reavers in large numbers, numbers enough to sustain themselves through Stockholm syndrome (like the poor guy in the series) or simply making some victims go crazy like that just to survive. So in that case, the Pax starts them off, but isn't a necessary condition to continue the Reaver line, such as it is.

      (note: I am not saying that it's a pathogen or something physical that infects, just that it spreads like one)

      Sound plausible?

      --
      The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
    7. Re:Why Firefly? Here's why... by chaim79 · · Score: 1

      If you read through the Firefly RPG sourcebooks they actually explain some of the science behind this, it's not all planets in one system, it's four stars orbiting a fifth, each with a bunch of planets and moons, they figured out how to ignite brown dwarfs into proto stars and adjust the gravity of planets to be close to earth norm, between those three developments they were able to take what would have been a small handful of livible planets and turned them into more than a hundred, all within reasonable non-light-speed-breaking travel (we figured out with Fireflies propulsion system, it would take a month and a half to go from the Core planets to the star system that held Miranda).

      It also worked for keeping Miranda quiet, the star system it was part of was mostly corporately owned by Blue Sun corporation, farthest star out from the core star (white sun), and Miranda orbited around a ex-brown dwarf proto star 23 AU out from it's primary (so somewhere between Uranus and Neptune) putting it out of normal travel. Also, considering how much is computerized today, how many people do you think would have done the orbital math to figure out that there is another planet out there, and how many would have trusted that the computer told it to go here from there. :)

      --
      DEMETRIUS: Villain, what hast thou done?
      AARON: Villain, I have done thy mother.
      Shakespeare invents 'your mom'
    8. Re:Why Firefly? Here's why... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      NThe people who ply the lanes of space would neither "overlook" nor "forget" an entire main planet over the course of less than 20 years. or could such a thing be hidden as, outer-most or not, it would show up on everybody's orbital computations as a huge perturbation in their plots. Let alone one ten-year-old with binoculars.

      Well yeah, that's how they knew how to get there. River's psychic memory didn't even tell her what Miranda was, much less give coordinates. Once they figured out what it was, they knew right how to find it from records. But nobody but the Serenity crew was crazy enough to want to go there because it was in Reaver territory, nor did they have a reason to.

      The original one from the series (mental erosion from facing the emptiness of space etc) was good enough. Hell, the movie contradicted the series directly. If the Pax caused reaverdom, the the episode where the one guy got tortured and became a reaver himself woudln't have worked

      "Mental erosion" is okay, but doesn't explain how such a large population of Reavers came to be and gathered together, rather than just being random isolated cases of craziness. Pax shows how an initial population was formed. However neither explanation precludes others suffering from mental breakdowns once exposed to the insanity of the Reavers. Why would you assume that "Pax causes reaverdom" to mean "only Pax can cause reaverdom"?

      That guy wasn't tortured btw... he only saw what they did to others (and lived because they didn't know he was there). Which makes perfect sense, even if the end result was him merely being a violent crazy, not technically a "Reaver". You need an explanation for why Reavers came to be. It doesn't take much explaining at all to see why someone else could be driven mad by exposure to Reaver's inhumanity.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    9. Re:Why Firefly? Here's why... by Your.Master · · Score: 1

      Devil's advocate:

      Couldn't almost all of the planets in fact be moons, which would therefore be in essentially the same solar orbit?

      Hypothetically, couldn't they also be around a series of planets with, cosmically speaking, relatively close orbits to one another around a star with a relatively wide habitable belt? It seems that even in our Solar system, Venus, Earth, Earth's moon, Mars, and maybe some Jovian moons might all be terraformable so at least some of the planet is habitable, by sufficiently advanced aliens with sufficient time and a shitload of resources, which seems to be a precondition anyway. Venus is far too hot but that's atmospheric to a large extent. Mars is too cold (to a less severe degree), but that's also atmospheric. There are other issues with both planets, and all the other moons, obviously. It seems unlikely to me that the Sol system is the most suitable system for humanity, other than Earth itself of course by virtue of us having evolved there, so they could go to a system with planets where terraforming is a little less difficult, too.

      Might be an unlikely solar system, but if I were evacuating an overpopulated Earth on generation ships, that's the sort of solar system I'd head to.

      Also, why is it that Pax-created reavers can't make more reavers through torture (I admit, this bothers me too).

    10. Re:Why Firefly? Here's why... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Agreed, un-kill Wash and Shepard Book. Although, honestly, a 7 year run could take place in the intervening year between the end of the series and movie.

      Yeah, I gotta disagree with this one. I don't want a series where nobody can die (and wanting to undo their dramatically significant deaths suggests this desire). Especially in the "movie is still canon, and this happens before it, so you know exactly who is still alive and when," sense. That would be the worst.

      Not sure a sane genius class River would improve a continued show any.

      Yeah I have to agree with you there.

      I'm going to be honest here. While it is truly a shame that the series was cut short, I think it's best left alone outside of some supplementary filler like the comics and whatnot. I don't think you could just hop right back in and recapture the magic. Hell, I even have a sneaking suspicious that in some ways the short run of the series was a godsend, since the end result is that pretty much every episode is a home run. But that's only a suspicion... If I had a time machine and a Fox-exec-calibrated-clue-stick, I'd go back and ensure that it wasn't taken off the air.

      But barring that? Let's just let Firefly stand on its own.

      She was publicly known to be a failure, and even the mangnitude of the failure was known. The nature of the failure was the only unknown.

      And nobody cared to find out, because to do so you had to go through Reaver territory.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    11. Re:Why Firefly? Here's why... by IBitOBear · · Score: 1

      Terraformign didn't take? Given that the war was there, and before the war there was a how many years or centuries for the aliance to grow up, grow dispised, grow dispotic, and engender warfare; well the system has been around a mighty long time. Everybody would have knows Miranda (the planet) was habitable long before the need to develop the Pax came about.

      Hell, the firefly class being "good for smuggling" means that there was smuggling, which means that if Miranda (the planet) was ideally terraformed then everybody would have been there, and if it were a teraforming disaster, all the people who didn't want to be where all the people were woudl use it as a base just like they do everything else.

      In the scale of things, having Miranda go unnoticed and discovered the way it was has the credibility of Atlantis. That is, it is as likely as finding out on the news this eventing that a land mass the size of Australia was just "discovered" _anywhere_ on the earth, and it had been hidden by the UN because 20 years ago they decided they needed a secret continent of their very own.

      You just cannot hide a planet. And the _planet_ was hidden (watch the movie again, look at all that "nothing" in the CGI rendering of the not-the-internet when the discover the planet). yes, planet.

      There just is no excusing that whole planet thing. Hell I came up with a way for the 28 Days Later people to pull off their originally preferred ending (watch the DVD extras) and that was _easy_ in that mythos. But outside of Buck Rodgers, circa 1930, you just _don't_ get license to hide a whole freaking planet co-orbiting a star occupied by multi-planetary spacefaring society full of smugglers and rebels.

      Now, to be honest, when required to argue the other side in a different context, I took the position that the perturbations of navigation were hidden in the navigation system software. Nobody would have any cause to double-check the computer as long as the easy-to-computer compensations worked and everybody ended up at their destinations.

      But I was defeated by the ten year old with binoculars. There is no way that a planetary mass, habitable and life sustaining at that, let alone one _surrounded_ by a cloud of reaver ships has an albedo low enough to hide, or even go unnoticed traversing the night sky of a few dozen planets and moons.

      I love Joss' imagination. His vision is good. Like any bond villian, he needed to find him 5 year old to bounce his evil plan off of before putting it to paper. There is no excuse for Miranda.

      --
      Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
      --"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
    12. Re:Why Firefly? Here's why... by IBitOBear · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I agree that Miranda would have been fine in a system where they weren't all orbiting one star.

      And I would give you Reavers being the result of Pax if it were said that, perhaps, Pax was or caused a prion disease of the brain like Mad Cow disease etc. Easily done there.

      Then again, the less-than-twenty (and likely less than ten) year timescale would belie Reavers being an old wives tale.

      Draw out the time scale on paper sometime. Reavers would have been absolute fact, and a new fact at that, if the movie is cannon. They'd have exploded across the whole star system pervasively, and been hunted to extinction. They just wouldn't have the longevity (what with unshielded reactors and having to replenish their ranks and food supplies, since there isn't a 'reaver farmer' growing grain and we know food is scarce in that reality etc. In the absence of a reaver economy the would have been starved out of orbit at Miranda in like a month. etc.)

      The whole thing reeks of vampire fan-boy logic. Hundereds of vampires inhabit 1840 Paris/Moscow/New York/New Orleans (as they have for hundreds of years etc), each one draining the blood from one human each night, year in and year out. So even in WWII where people die and go missing all the time 365.24 * 100 is, on average 36,524 people gone missing from one city each year. The numbers just don't work if you even glance sideways at the math.

      To fix the problem with least effort: Keep the Pax, but try it on a cruise ship or a space station (e.g. "The Miranda" instead of "The Planet Miranda", or hell on a couple dozen people in a lab. Start with a smaller population. Make it properly contagious like the aforementioned prion disease (raver decides to rape you first, or feed you some of his flesh or blood, and _maybe_ you convert if you live long enough or get left behind) instead of a mystically repeatable experience that somehow has a predictable morphology, common enough for Mal to know the exact progression well enough to narrate it 8-). Same evil government, same evil plot, harder to come up with an armada of Ravers granted, but workable. Hell you even get to cut a word and some "look at the nothing" computer interface mock-up CGI from the script. Everybody wins. 8-)

      --
      Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
      --"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
    13. Re:Why Firefly? Here's why... by IBitOBear · · Score: 1

      Coulda, sure, but the script and mythology already have habitable planets and moons, and even with a very, very, very wide/deep habitable zone, there is a minimum distance apart that 1-gravity-or-so planets would have to be separated by in order for them _neither_ become one large N-gravity planet _or_ pull each other into bits. After that they would have to be even further apart to keep them from giving each other gravity boosts into some very unlivable orbits.

      So no, there is no excuse. Since their habitable planets have some habitable moons, you now have moons with moons of their own, all at about 1-gravity, orbiting a very huge and very distant sun so that you have a habitable zone as wide as the zone from earth to about neptune and about as far away from the central gravity well such that the nearest planet is about as far from the primary as (pulling a distance from my ass without any math at all 8-) Pluto is from Sol. (I make that totally wild guess just by trying straight scale-up the width of our habitable zone to carry seven plus planets of about earth normal gravity, Remembering that Venus is earth gravity or so but Mars is not, and both are marginally outside the prime habitable zone.)

      That said, Making the Pax transmissible is super easy since I am editing the whoel ideal wholescale. It wasn't a "gas" it was a particulate aerosol introduced in the air handling system of a central facility (not the terraforming facilty plant) (or just sprayed from an airborne craft). In the field, possibly because of the idiosyncrasies we know every teraformed world developed (see "The Train Job") caused a prion disease (improperly folded protein). In most people the prion caused an amplified pacifying effect by destroying the aggression centers of the brain the original drug targeted. In some it destroyed the inhibition centers instead. The particulate is long gone, but the prions persist. Close contact with a reaver can infect you with the prion, especially if they maybe do the raping and maybe some of the eating, but then don't get around to the killing.

      It's all fixable. Almost.

      You just do _not_ get to "hide" a planet in the last minutes of the the last 1/5th or less of 100 or more years of planetary occupancy. If nothing else smugglers and criminals will occupy any gravity well that the Alliance doesn't. So a failed terraform would lead to a nice juicy "safe but abandoned" place, with a planet to hide behind and mine and whatnot, as resources and safety for, say, a brown-coat base during a civil war....?

      Miranda, as presented in the movie, was just lame and was a total speed bump for my suspension of disbelief. I got over it to enjoy the rest of the movie.

      Between the "one solar system" and "the secret planet" the movie took the mythos from "workable" to "cheap framework for space opera". Still loved the characters and the presentation, but they could have just called the whole place 'the forbidden zone' after pulling that much completely unnecessary mcguffen out of its ass.

      --
      Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
      --"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
    14. Re:Why Firefly? Here's why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The planet isn't hidden. They covered up the Pax with a terraforming disaster. And since it is behind Reaver territory people are quite unlikely to visit it and check.

      captcha: inexact

    15. Re:Why Firefly? Here's why... by Labcoat+Samurai · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure it's a bad thing to know for sure that characters aren't going to die. I've finally gotten around to watching Farscape after all the years it has been around, and I can plainly see on the later DVD box sets that everyone is still around, for at least a few more seasons. I'm not exactly cursing myself for looking at them, either. That someone is going to live isn't a big spoiler to me. That someone is going to die is a whole different story, though.

      Another example: I'm a big fan of Dexter, and, when I was watching season 2, I already knew there was a season 3, so I felt pretty confident he wasn't going to get caught, no matter how close he came. But knowing something intellectually and feeling it in the moment are two very different things. I *felt* like Dexter could be caught, despite knowing he couldn't, and sometimes I *feel* like characters can die, even knowing they can't. Contrast that with, say, children's cartoons, where you never really get the sense that the heroes are in any real danger of losing.

    16. Re:Why Firefly? Here's why... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Eh, sure, I understand where you're coming from. It only really bothers me when it's a prequel situation. Normally, you know the hero isn't going to die no matter how imminent it might seem because if they did the series would end (or drastically morph). And when you are watching a series that's been out and see all the cast alive in season 3, well, all you really know then is that they didn't kill anyone off in season 2, but you can still put yourself in the shoes of someone watching it for the first time who didn't know that for sure.

      But in a prequel, it just feels so contrived. Imagine watching a series that took place after Firefly but before Serenity. Everyone on the crew would be clinically immortal, since it's not just that the writers choose to keep everyone alive, they have to be alive to be in the movie. So how can you watch it knowing that even as it was being produced, much less aired, there was zero chance that any of the crew could bite it? It'd be like the Star Wars prequels, where there were literally two characters who we didn't already know exactly what was going to happen to them. That's boring.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    17. Re:Why Firefly? Here's why... by Labcoat+Samurai · · Score: 1

      You're right that it's different. Seeing characters safe and sound on a DVD box cover gives it away in a meta sort of way, while having a prequel gives it away in universe.

      However, I don't think that's why the Star Wars prequels didn't work. I think that was all about execution. You may not have any familiarity with it, but I think Crisis Core: Final Fantasy VII was one of the best games in the Final Fantasy series despite the fact that you go into it knowing exactly how it will end. In some ways, knowing the end makes it much more powerful. Lost also has been showing things that happen in the future, and Babylon 5 made it pretty clear what was going to happen at the end of it all, which, once again, made the ending that much more powerful, knowing what everything was leading toward.

      Granted, in most of those cases, the ending has an element of tragedy to it, and knowing the end is akin to knowing the manner of your own death and experiencing the sadness that comes with recognizing its imminent approach. But there is tragedy in the ending of Star Wars, too. It's just not a tragedy I could bring myself to care about.

    18. Re:Why Firefly? Here's why... by chrysrobyn · · Score: 1

      Nobody ever said the war even had a single battle on Miranda, so let's drop that paragraph. "Uninhabitable. Terraforming didn't hold, somesuch, a few settlers died" "Was it right before the war?" "I believe so." (1:04:55)

      Miranda was basically just opening up. "There was a call for settlers..." Not much of a population, even if a few cities were set up. Based on the number of Reavers, it would appear that at most we're talking about a few tens of thousands of people -- hardly enough to justify a lot of interplanetary smugglers to add it to any kind of regular route. Even if it were a few million on the edge of the solar system, the label "uninhabitable" would probably keep away all those who required air to breathe. Besides, if you had a bunch of people on the news talking about how all their relatives in St. Louis were suddenly not answering their phones or writing back, and the government said the sanitary system had suddenly failed and wasn't worth repairing, would you go investigate for yourself? You might notice it on a navigator's map and explicitly go around it.

      Miranda never went unnoticed. To use your Atlantis metaphor, it'd be like finding out Atlantis was this one island that was on all the navigational charts all along, but not on any of the population charts. Oh, and the map maker drew a big death head on it and a little nuclear warning next to it. It's there, you can go around it, and you don't come up with any reasons to visit. Take a look at 1:04:33 or 1:05:30 and tell me the planet is missing.

      Now, if you'd like to concentrate on Wash saying "There's nothing about it on the Cortex. History, astronomy, it's not in there", you have to listen to Mal's response -- "Half of writing history is hiding the truth". Heck, I didnt even know about Haumea or Makemake until I went looking for them specifically and I can't tell you how long I've peered into the night sky with binoculars.

      These days, excluding Pluto from a lot of those things would be acceptable -- it's been demoted from a planet. Or is that where Osama bin Laden is really hiding?

      Firefly wasn't your thing. Fine. I get it. It's not for everybody. Just don't pick it apart out of ignorance. Even if a suspension of disbelief is necessary, getting into a war of trivia with a fan isn't too smart. :) You'd be better off asking about the energy required to leave orbit and then safely land as often as they do and asking where and how all the fuel is stored.

    19. Re:Why Firefly? Here's why... by IBitOBear · · Score: 1

      Apparently you have blotted out part of the movie to save yourself from the cognitive dissonance the horrible hidden planet engendered within your soul.

      The planet was hidden. Go back and look at the scene when they are looking for the name Miranda and then looking at the empty orbital plot. How they puzzle about how there is nothing there. etc.

      Since, by definition, it wasn't "in Reaver territory" before there were Reavers, there were dozens if not hundreds of years for people to go there when Miranda was just the outer-most planet in the system. Go there often. Perhaps weeky, delivering construction supplies. Inhabit it at least as well as they can inhabit empty space. Use it as a military base or a smugglers hide out. Use its gravity in slingshot maneuvers to get between the second and third outward most planets as they fulfilled the 500-year orbits dictated by the planets being far enough away from a main-sequence star so big it can afford a good dozens planets a stable orbit in its "habitable zone".

      Or otherwise we hide this planet while the adventurous pioneering souls of spacefaring civilization all collectively forget the invention of the telescope and generally stop looking at the lights that move in the night sky.

      And if you have ever hung out with people who go out to sea and make it back, were the place inherently bad prior to the Pax and the Reavers, then there would be drunken bar stories and warning beacons and all manner of record on the existence of the planet and its exact condition.

      Not to even begin on the topic of all those dead people having families, heirs, and bank accounts; and some of them being nascient brown-coats or who went to college with investigative journalists; or who owed big money to that evil Russian Dude...

      There is just _no_ excuse for Miranda.

      --
      Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
      --"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
    20. Re:Why Firefly? Here's why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The movie needs to be declared out-of-cannon before the series would be workable.

      CANON: considered to be a legitimate portion of a larger body of work

      CANNON: a big-ass gun, or a 70's prime-time drama series starring William Conrad.

    21. Re:Why Firefly? Here's why... by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      there is a minimum distance apart that 1-gravity-or-so planets would have to be separated

      I read somewhere that part of the 'verse terraforming process was to compress the planet(oid)s or use some "gravity booster" gadget to give them a 1g surface gravity. So most of the "planets" we see are actually very small (ignoring that they would have very close horizons).

      After all, they don't have zero-G on the ships and space stations, they obviously DO have some gravity generation technology, which is probably related to the space drive they use, as that's also obviously not pure rocket -- maybe they need that to get to orbit.

    22. Re:Why Firefly? Here's why... by lymond01 · · Score: 1

      I believe Josh Whedon said that the movie Serenity was the proposed finale of the show from the very beginning. He had always had a planet encircled by reaver-space in his over arching plot line. The annihilation of the human populace and the ability for the Alliance to cover it up was part of the Alliance's aura of evil.

    23. Re:Why Firefly? Here's why... by Comrade+Ogilvy · · Score: 1

      Miranda and its secrecy is easy to believe IMO. By its nature, one might expect Miranda to be a bit hush-hush, at least until it was a proven success. It was a risky experiment that might become the prototype for re-engineering the human race. That something like that might go wrong was obvious. That something might go so catastrophically wrong so quickly was not. It was always plausible that they might need to employ Pax 1.1 or Pax 2.0 or Pax 3.2, before bragging to the whole galaxy. The Alliance had the wisdom to pick a far corner of space that was out in the boondocks, in the first place. Once the Reavers were unleashed, no one was going to poke around a dangerous neighborhood looking for a failed terraforming effort.

  35. Bucky O'Hare and the Toad Wars by jcaliff · · Score: 1

    I'd love to see something else done with Bucky O'Hare, keeping it true to the comic and with fantastic animation. They can keep the theme song from the original cartoon though, that thing is catchy! BUCKY! Captain Bucky O'Hare He goes where no ordinary rabbit would dare

    1. Re:Bucky O'Hare and the Toad Wars by residieu · · Score: 1

      As long as they get rid of the annoying kid that tags along with them.

  36. Nice try Charles by Botched · · Score: 1

    We all know you post here!

  37. Firefly was already a reboot by name_already_taken · · Score: 1

    Firefly was already a reboot of Blakes 7 - although perhaps unintentionally, but it was almost as similar to Blakes 7 as RDM's Battlestar was the the original Battlestar.

    Paul Darrow, who played Kerr Avon on Blakes 7 has said that he thought that Firefly was basically an updated version of that show.

    Firefly doesn't need to be rebooted, it just needs to go back into production and be picked up by someone.

    --
    Putting moderation advice in your .sig lowers your karma!
    1. Re:Firefly was already a reboot by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      > Firefly was already a reboot of Blakes 7 - although perhaps unintentionally, but it was almost as similar to Blakes 7 as RDM's Battlestar was the the original Battlestar.

      Except, you know, good.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  38. People of the Wind by argent · · Score: 1

    How about People of the Wind, by Poul Anderson? Make the CGI people REALLY stretch themselves instead of just painting humans blue.

  39. Star Trek, use the last movies cast by Shivetya · · Score: 1

    because the camaraderie of the new crew was leaps and bounds beyond any of the series that followed TOS. While it was not "Trek" for all people it was fun to watch the characters interact.

    As for the rest, some must remain as is to maintain the status they had. Babylon 5 (is it really 15 years old?) was great for what it was when it was. While I would not mind seeing new stories based on that universe I don't want to see the old stories again. Part of its allure was the interaction of the characters in the show, G'Kar and Londo, Sheridan and Delenn (even Sinclair and Delenn) let alone Bester. I would love to see the Dilgar War and earth coming of age, that would be great.

    1999/UFO. Both were good for their times, but science has come a bit further and more pressing concerns are at home. Unlike distant Sci-Fi they would be a little too close to our age for comfort.

    Firefly? No. Leave it or bring it back with the SAME people. Rebooting it would be like, oh I don't know, somehow claiming the original was flawed because of the characters. It was very character driven. Probably why I liked it almost as much as B5 or the new Trek. The SciFi part doesn't have to be amazing if the characters truly are interesting/believable

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
    1. Re:Star Trek, use the last movies cast by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      When G'Kar and Lyta Alexander headed out into the galaxy, I thought now *there* is your spinoff series. Two of my favorite characters from the show, and a totally wide open premise.

    2. Re:Star Trek, use the last movies cast by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      'Gone beyond the rim' was a euphemism used in the series for 'the actor who played this character died'. Lyta was too powerful to be a regular character. It's difficult to think of any difficulties that the audience can easily relate to which would be a problem for a character who is almost omnipotent to escape from. G'Kar had a lot more potential, but no one other than Andreas Katsulas could pull of the rôle.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    3. Re:Star Trek, use the last movies cast by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      I would love to see the Dilgar War and earth coming of age, that would be great

      It might be great. Or it might be as bad as In The Beginning, where it's incredibly difficult to suspend disbelief that all of the main characters from the show, who met each other for the first time on the show, were so closely involved during the Earth-Minbari War. The Dilgar War would be an interesting setting, because it set the scenes for the Minbari War. It was the first human encounter with hostile aliens and the hubris after the victory caused rash action with regard to the Minbari. It would only work without cameo appearances by characters from the original show though.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    4. Re:Star Trek, use the last movies cast by jaggeh · · Score: 1

      I totally agree

      However there are more stories in the universe, if only they could be told without a cheesey script (rangers) or poor visual effects.

      --
      I would give everything i own for a little bit more.
  40. Space 1999 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    1. Re:Space 1999 by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      A shame that the whole of Hollywood missed the opportunity to make a movie and launch it world-wide on september 13th, 1999....

    2. Re:Space 1999 by Luminary+Crush · · Score: 1

      Better make it Space: 2099. We are a way off from having a moonbase....

    3. Re:Space 1999 by racasper · · Score: 1

      I would love to see a "next generation" version of this show, call it SPACE 2099. The cast would be the children and grandchildren of the original characters, maybe an alien or two. Figure they only have one or two Eagles left, hacked together with spare parts. They probably have some new type of spacecraft they designed. There may only be about a dozen survivors left by that time, and they are still drifting through space on moonbase Alpha, experiencing weird space phenomena and aliens who may be helpful, disinterested in humanity, or dangerous.

      Or, and please let them still be using the 1960's era computer that you program by pushing buttons and get output on little strips of paper!

    4. Re:Space 1999 by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Actually that would be cool. A cross of Space1999 and City of Ember. they have been making the old tech work for 100 years and it's all failing....

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  41. WarGames by nkcaump · · Score: 0

    I think you could probably refresh the tech in WarGames and make it infinitely better by updating the cast.

    --
    Yep.
  42. Soylent green is people!!!!!!!!!111oneone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think they've been trying also to re-make Logan's Run for some time.. which would be ok I guess.

  43. Time Tunnel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow...just dated myself on that one

  44. B5: Crusade by happy_place · · Score: 2, Informative

    I always wanted to see this series completed. never happened. and the series had issues, like the music, and the main actor was Mr. Brady from the Brady Bunch movies, but it had potential until TNT execs tried to turn it into "Wrestlemania/Sexromp in Space"... ironically, SyFy channel has since been plagued by the meme of the same execs. :)

    --
    http://www.beanleafpress.com
    1. Re:B5: Crusade by mindwhip · · Score: 1

      ++ this.

      From what I remember the Crusade story arc seemed like it was going to be even better than B5.

      Then the execs started making changes...

      --
      [The Universe] has gone offline.
    2. Re:B5: Crusade by mindwhip · · Score: 1

      Replying to my own post...

      This would possibly also involve more reboots than just the series... I seem to remember all the B5 and Crusade external shots were all created on the Amiga...

      I hope someone still has the files stored away...

      --
      [The Universe] has gone offline.
    3. Re:B5: Crusade by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      the series had issues, like the music

      I never saw a single episode of Enterprise, as I couldn't get past that God-awful theme song. From what I hear the show itself was just as bad, so maybe I didn't miss anything.

    4. Re:B5: Crusade by happy_place · · Score: 1

      well, I would've said Babylon5 (B5) but I know they'd just ruin it. I still watch it with my kids today, and it's amazing how many of the stories relate perfectly to our times and the human reactions to war, terror, intrique, love and the shadows... :)

      --
      http://www.beanleafpress.com
    5. Re:B5: Crusade by maxume · · Score: 1

      Gary Cole enjoys a good deal more fame as Lumberg. He was also the voice of Harvey Birdman in the Cartoon Network series, and of various characters on Family Guy.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    6. Re:B5: Crusade by maxume · · Score: 1

      It is a better television show than either TOS or TNG, but it isn't as Star Trekky.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    7. Re:B5: Crusade by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      What? The theme was the best part! (Alas, this just confirms what you said about not missing anything if you tuned out after it...)

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    8. Re:B5: Crusade by Flounder · · Score: 2, Informative

      B5 is one of my all-time favorite TV shows, and I've been introducing my fiancee to it. Half-way through S1 right now, and a lot of the storylines really do hold up. Sure, the CGI is dated, and the acting is a bit stilted (but does get better), but the stories are still superior to a lot on TV today.

      --

      No boom today. Boom tomorrow. There's always a boom tomorrow. - Cmdr. Susan Ivanova

    9. Re:B5: Crusade by cenc · · Score: 1

      I had the luxury of downloading the entire series aired, so I could just skip the super gay theme song (also why I changed the channel when it was on TV and never watched).

      The series itself is one of my favorites of all the Star Treck series. It has to at least be better than the Next Generation which took all the mystery and danger out of space by exploring the hollow-deck on their luxury liner where everyone is above average. Or how about deep space 9 with the incredibly forced acting and to 'boldly go nowhere' plot. It also put hot chicks back in to Star Treck, and dropped the feminist / everyone is equal after school special crap being pushed through the rest of the series.

      I honestly think it was much closer to the original series than any of the others, and most importantly the tradition of the womanizing fly by the seat of his pants kirk alone in a dangerous and unknown universe. Lots of morally ambiguous situations for the captain to debate, such as sleeping with the hot Vulcan first officer or raiding another ship. If you watch it a few times, you will also see how they really went out of their way to stay consistent with the original series story and history, and still make the other unimaginatively dead series make sense.

    10. Re:B5: Crusade by UtterCoward · · Score: 1

      I thought that the music was one of the strengths of Crusade. It was very different, and I didn't care for it at first, but it really grew on me. I loved the series, and it's terrible treatment at the hands of TNT hurts as much as the abuse that has been heaped on many wonderful shows by FOX.

  45. Not so much a reboot as a restart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Threshold was one of the best shows that ever got canceled first season. Good scripts and an excellent cast. It even managed to be inventive in a subject that had been done to death. I actually never saw it during it's original run but caught a couple of episodes on scifi channel and wound up buying the whole series. The last episode was a little silly but otherwise it was a solid show.

  46. Jetsons? by filesiteguy · · Score: 1

    I was trying to be funny when I wrote this - as I didn't notice it on the list. However, In typing it out, however, my ADHD mind thought of a million ideas for a realistic comedy based on a robotic future with a working Joe dealing with life as his wife, kids and robotic maid (can we use the word, 'android,' without pissing off PK Dick?) work through various scenerios.

    Or maybe we can find a new movie in which Sigourney Weaver can wake up from hyper sleep and then take on some alien presence... ...what? I saw that this weekend?

    Nevermind.

    1. Re:Jetsons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (can we use the word, 'android,' without pissing off PK Dick?)

      I'm pretty sure he doesn't care considering he's been having a dirt nap 27 years.

    2. Re:Jetsons? by filesiteguy · · Score: 1

      I was actually referring to the recent news items discussing Motorola's recent issues with the estate since calling the Android phone the Nexus One - http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/01/07/cnet.google.nexus.one.blade.runner/

    3. Re:Jetsons? by corbettw · · Score: 1

      Everybody Loves RAY-M0nd, with a robotic father who's creators live across the street. Sounds like a winner.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
  47. How bouts... by thestudio_bob · · Score: 1

    Ultraman, Johnny Rocko, Buck Rogers?

    --
    The real Sig captains the Northwestern. This one captains /.
  48. Star Wars by wizardforce · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Which SciFi stories could use the breath of life

    Starwars. Episodes 1, 2 and 3 especially.

    --
    Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    1. Re:Star Wars by tool462 · · Score: 1

      Word. I, for one, would love to see how the movie might have changed if Han shot first!

    2. Re:Star Wars by Rary · · Score: 1

      Which SciFi stories could use the breath of life

      Starwars. Episodes 1, 2 and 3 especially.

      How about all of them?

      Seriously. I love the originals, but I'd love to see a complete reboot. Let's see what somebody else would've done with the basic premise of Star Wars.

      After watching the latest Star Trek a couple days ago, I vote for Abrams.

      --

      "You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein

    3. Re:Star Wars by wizardforce · · Score: 1

      Depending on how the reboot of the first three goes, the timeline may be significantly changed enough to necessitate the last three be altered as well.

      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    4. Re:Star Wars by dark_requiem · · Score: 1

      Hell, I'd settle for getting my hands on a 1080p copy of IV, V, and VI without all the Special Edition crap. I'd even settle for getting them on a DVD with anamorphic encoding. Sucks that George Lucas was swapped for a pod person in 1995...

    5. Re:Star Wars by wizardforce · · Score: 1

      Sucks that George Lucas was swapped for a pod person in 1995...

      It looks like you forgot that he also did the Star Wars Christmas special...

      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    6. Re:Star Wars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which SciFi stories could use the breath of life

      Starwars. Episodes 1, 2 and 3 especially.

      How about all of Star Wars? Seriously, between the EU and the games they're trying to turn Star Wars into something it wasn't originally intended for... adults. Games are trying to balance the universe for gameplay and you can't do it with the universe as it is (news flash, everyone wants to be a jedi and, new flash, jedi are overpowered and if they weren't they wouldn't be jedi). EU is trying to make Star Wars into some great adult epic fantasy when it was originally a kids movie.

      Sorry folks, Star Wars is a fantasy kid flick. I'm not talking about the prequels, I'm talking about all of them. Not saying you can't enjoy them because they're kid flicks, just saying you've been trying to make it into something it's not for the past 30 years. Get over yourselves, the prequels were aimed at the same audience it was 30+ years ago. If we want Star Wars to be what we want it to be, let's reboot the damn thing and give it the adult feel.

      A required PvPOnline comic that suits this: Trek-On

    7. Re:Star Wars by Narpak · · Score: 2, Funny

      Starwars. Episodes 1, 2 and 3 especially.

      Lets let Uwe Boll remake them, should be an improvement.

    8. Re:Star Wars by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      Interestingly, I just introduced my 6 year old son to Star Wars. We just watched Episode 4 and his reaction was mixed. He loved it during the "fast parts" (space battles, garbage mashers and such) but hated it during the "slow parts" (Han and Luke talking, Luke and Ben talking, pretty much anyone just standing around and talking).

      Of course, he's probably too young to appreciate why the "slow parts" are needed, but it got me to thinking: What would Star Wars be like if it were recreated today? Leave Lucas out of the picture (to better cut ties from the previous version) and suppose the studio was just launching it fresh. I'd guess that someone like Michael Bay would be made the director and some big names would be brought in to play Luke, Han, etc. I'd also guess that the battle scenes would be doubled in length and the "boring stuff" cut as much as possible. In short, it'd wind up being just another loud, summer popcorn action flick that would take in millions and then be forgotten until the inevitable sequel.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    9. Re:Star Wars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which SciFi stories could use the breath of life

      Starwars. Episodes 1, 2 and 3 especially.

      That will probably happen within 5 years of Lucas's Death.

      To paraphrase/misquote:

      "Suddenly, one life was extinguished, and it was as if Billions cried out in triumph!"

      Seriously though -- I don't wish anyone ill... but George really wrecked the series..

      I for one would LOVE to see some of the much much later stories told...

      I think the X-Wing Series would do well on the big screen, lots of action and space battles... with characters we all know...

      But for me... Bring on the Yuzhon Vong. The Vong wars were the darkest, deadliest period the Star Wars "Galaxy" ever saw, had the death of Chewbacca, Anakin Solo, and well.. the GOOD GUYS blew up a planet.

      I mean, if that's not full of moral ambiguity and action, I dunno what is.

      Great series, that. Oh, and loved how the Republic Fails and needs to start up a Galactic Alliance with the Empire Remnant!

      Politics... always makes for strange bedfellows.

      Would be an amazing series.

    10. Re:Star Wars by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      It looks like you forgot that he also did the Star Wars Christmas special...

      Do you really expect that to be taken seriously?

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    11. Re:Star Wars by penguinchris · · Score: 1

      I don't think Star Wars needs to be "rebooted" in the same sense as Star Trek was... there is so much in the "expanded universe" or even just the video games that endless movies/shows could be produced without even having to come up with new stories - they're already out there, waiting. A lot of it is crap, but there's good stuff too.

      If you did want new stuff, just commission a good writer to come up with a story. You can have a whole new set of characters, who of course will interact at least a couple of times with some of the original characters. If you set it after Return of the Jedi, you can even use the original actors. We don't need further prequel stories, though - Lucas screwed that up pretty badly already. The Clone Wars animated shorts were pretty much better than the films, which is sad (whatever CGI clone wars show they have now looks awful, though). I thought they were going to do a live-action Star Wars show, actually... don't know what happened to that. Could have been good.

      Lucas gave us an interesting (if relatively simple) universe to work within, and there are endless possibilities. Of course, it would be perceived as a cash-in on the Star Wars name, so it would *have* to be pretty darn good - it would be held to a higher standard than a wholly new story.

  49. Logan's Run by Eglembor · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Logan's Run could use some reboot loving it was a fairly entertaining serie with potential for some good "revival"

  50. He-Man... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and the Masters of the Universe? Bleah.

  51. Reason for Reavers by IBitOBear · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Here were my ideas.

    1) from the series, yep, some people go crazy when they spend too long on the edge of that much nothing.

    2) in the series it was mentioned that, despite the rumors, there have never actually been any aliens or alien artifacts found. What if there were something so alien way, way out there, but attractive enough to draw people in, that was so alien that it broke the mind. (Would have dove-tailed in with River being prescient and mad, suppose the blue-hands were working from "the only reliable evidence" ever beamed back, trying to unlock the secrets and abilities of the thing without bringing on reaver madness.)

    3) Evil government experimentation, version "not-dumb", something infectious. Call it Pax if you want. Give it the same reason and history, but instead of a "chemical" or in _addition_ to it being a chemical have raverdom be an Infectious Prion form of the original chemical (see mad cow disease). Still need to drop Miranda and the one central sun, but now being force-fed a little reaver flesh would maybe make you one of the family. Hell, "The Miranda" could have been a freaking cruise ship and the thing would work, but not a planet.

    At a minimum, some serious retcon needs to take place to repair the plot damage the movie inflicted on the franchise.

    I just wish they would ask me about this stuff before the script goes into production. 8-)

    --
    Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
    --"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
    1. Re:Reason for Reavers by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      Regarding note two - one of the more interesting aspects of firefly for me was that there were no aliens.

    2. Re:Reason for Reavers by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 1

      have raverdom be an Infectious Prion form of the original chemical (see mad cow disease). Still need to drop Miranda and the one central sun, but now being force-fed a little reaver flesh would maybe make you one of the family.

      Hell no. That just turns Reavers into vampires that can fly spaceships, and we all know what happens when you hand Joss Whedon vampires... Spikeification...

    3. Re:Reason for Reavers by IBitOBear · · Score: 1

      No so much vampires. but you have a point about how it might turn out. I'd think of the prion as the ultimate sexually transmitted (in the medical sense here, not the common usage) disease. But hey, I am trying to leave as much of the original story structure intact with these suggestions.

      My favorite is the truely profoundly mind-breakingly alien thing. Note that I didn't advocate adding aliens themselves, just the artifact. Like a space station or a communication device that drives humans mad.

      --
      Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
      --"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
  52. The Starlost by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 1

    The only show I could really get behind a reboot (even after the successful reboots lately) would be the Starlost. And the reason for that is that it didn't have a proper chance the first go round.

    Get Ellison behind it for real and it would be a great show.

    1. Re:The Starlost by stephencrane · · Score: 1

      I recently watched the entire series in 2 sittings. Such a good idea. Such bad video camera technology. Loved it.

    2. Re:The Starlost by Ped+Xing · · Score: 1

      You are exactly right. A fantastic series conceived by Harlan Ellison and involving some of the greatest Science Fiction writers of the time, destroyed by bad acting, bad production, and bad pretty-well everything else. If you want a sense of how frustrating working on the series was, read Ben Bova's The Starcrossed. I especially like the early concept for the Internet, a booth where you can sit and ask a virtual person questions. Even his delivery was stuttering and with strange emphases in places, suggesting that his replies were composed of spliced together phonemes.

      See this video for an introduction to the brilliant concept that was so ham-fistedly delivered in the original series.

    3. Re:The Starlost by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Hear! Hear! Earthship Ark, a generation ship made up of a bunch of interconnected biodomes, each of which would take about three days to walk across. An accident of some form takes out the bridge, and a couple of the fusion reactors. Radiation causes the biodomes to be sealed off from each other, and over the centuries it takes for the radiation to clear, the cultures within the various domes have progressed (or regressed) in various ways.

      Three people from the biodome Cypress Corners, a strict religious agrarian culture much like Mennonite/Amish, escape from the repressive leadership and find themselves in the supply tubes interconnecting the biodomes. As they travel, they discover that they are on a space ship, not on a planet, and they further discover that the ship is on a collision course with a star. As they travel to try to get help to get the Ark back on course, they meet many of the strange cultures that have grown up inside the isolated domes and the radiation poisoned tubes.

      I don't know about getting Ellison to do it, though. He may be a brilliant writer, but he is abrasive, argumentative, and "possibly the most contentious person on Earth". Someone who could fly off the handle if things don't go his way is not someone you really want involved in a project. On the other hand, he is also also well known for being litigious, so having him on the project may keep you out of the court room. Plus, he is a brilliant writer.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  53. Firefly by Weaselmancer · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Mod me redundant - I don't care.

    Firefly Firefly Firefly.

    The more times someone sees this, the more of a chance it will happen.

    MORE FIREFLY.

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
  54. Starman by furby076 · · Score: 1

    I liked that show. Alien kills dude to inhabit his body, by accident, and takes care of the guys son as they are fleeing the law. Though the son is OK with the alien sounds a bit far fetched...kind of like "yea shit happens, might as well move on with my life and deal with the cards that were dealt to me". Still i would see this.

    --

    I do not support "The Man". I also do not support your irrational stupidity
  55. Three words: by Sicily1918 · · Score: 1

    Thundarr the Barbarian!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thundarr

    1. Re:Three words: by kungfugleek · · Score: 1

      And me without my mod points. Demon dogs!!!

    2. Re:Three words: by stephencrane · · Score: 1

      A Thundarr/Zelazny's Lord of Light crossover! Thundarr meets his god.

    3. Re:Three words: by MightyMait · · Score: 1

      I was wondering if I'd see anybody mention this gem. It was such a refreshing breath of fresh air compared to the other Saturday morning fare. I just love me a good post-apocalyptic dystopia.

      --
      Nothing interesting to say...MUST...NOT...REPLY...ohtheheckwithit.
  56. Let's have something original instead by roc97007 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    For God's Sake, can't we have something original? Reboots are for tired old franchises that have a diminishing following and need a kick in the pants to get going again. Otherwise, it's a remake, not a reboot, and I'm frakking (reference intended) sick and tired of seeing stories from 30 years ago rehashed yet again. So just stop it, ok? We all act like there's only 10 or 12 properties in all of science fiction.

    That said, I would have to vote for Firefly returning. A reboot is absolutely not necessary -- I do not need to see the same stories with different actors -- just continue the story, perhaps as a limited series of 6 to 13 episodes once a year, like they do in England.

    I think the problem with Heroes was that they just plain ran out of story. The first two seasons worked because they had a preplanned story arc. The last seasons are floundering because they don't. Rebooting will not help -- it'll just move the problem to a different set of actors. Let Heroes die and allow us to remember the first seasons -- when it was still good -- with fondness.

    In the case of Star Trek and James Bond, a reboot was necessary if we were going to have more of these franchises. Not having more of these franchises was -- in my opinion -- an acceptable alternative, but the idea of a reboot was interesting, and proved fruitful. Continuing with increasingly elderly actors and every film trying to be exactly like the previous film was clearly not working.

    Here, I'll give you an idea for free that combines a story that hasn't been done yet with a current franchise, making it simultaneously new and marketable. Make a series from Andre Norton's "Star Rangers", but make it part of Trek canon. It's thousands of years in the future, and a old limping spaceship from the broken fragments of a federation crash lands on a planet that used to have a high level of technology. The survivors of the crash attempt to survive from the remnants of old technology found in the dead cities. At the end of the story, (first season) they stumble upon Star Fleet Headquarters and realize they've found Earth.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    1. Re:Let's have something original instead by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      For God's Sake, can't we have something original?

      Nope, sorry. The Greeks used up all the possible stories. We just keep making remakes, whether we label them as such or not. Sometimes we do remakes of remakes. How many times have William Shakespeare's remakes of Greek tragedies been remade with different names?

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    2. Re:Let's have something original instead by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      > Nope, sorry. The Greeks used up all the possible stories. We just keep making remakes, whether we label them as such or not.

      Absolutely not true for film. It may be true that in literature all stories have already been explored, although I think there are people who would argue with that, but only a very very tiny subset of existing stories have been aired on screens of any size. There's a huge amount of literature out there that "front row sam" has never seen because it has never been filmed. Some reasonable subset of that is filmable, but the studios insist on remaking 30-year-old sitcoms instead.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  57. Movies based on R.A. Lafferty short stories by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 1

    R.A. Lafferty is a "different" kind of SF author. Too odd even for many geeks, Lafferty stories are to science fiction what Salvia Divinorum is to hallucinogens. Wildly different and completely disruptive. Great creative fodder there just waiting to be mined.

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
    1. Re:Movies based on R.A. Lafferty short stories by mshannon78660 · · Score: 1

      Lafferty has always been one of my favorite authors. That said, it would be really hard to translate most of his stuff into movies that didn't suck really badly - they're just not written with visual action in mind. Maybe the Barnaby Sheen stories could work, but I'm drawing a blank on any others...

    2. Re:Movies based on R.A. Lafferty short stories by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 1

      I was thinking "Primary Education of the Camiroi" and an entertaining take on our current educational system, or perhaps "Snuffles" but I think you're right. Too cerebral for most of duh populace. "Narrow Valley" would work pretty well for this day and age of special effects though.

      Good to know I'm not the only person who liked this guy. I've never met another person physically who's even *heard* of him. I think his obscurity is undeserved.

      --
      Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
  58. Re:SciFi? vs SF by geek2k5 · · Score: 1

    I remember attending a science fiction and fantasy convention and finding a note in the program explaining the difference between SF and SciFi. 'Old school' science fiction fans used the term SF and considered SciFi to be an insult. They did, after all, have do endure some of the worst of what Hollywood put out back when going to the moon was pure science fiction. Newer science fiction fans use SciFi and are used to some of the better quality science fiction in media and print.

  59. Re:they should turn 'land of the lost' into a movi by Snarkalicious · · Score: 1

    All snark aside, it would be a great way to put Brendan Frasier in the Wednesday post-primetime slot on TBS he so richly deserves.

  60. Space 1999 by Lumpy · · Score: 1

    That one had the potential to Rock really hard.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  61. Star Blazers by Tepar · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Used to race home from school to watch this. I wanted them to fire the wave motion gun in every episode. :-)

    http://www.starblazers.com

    1. Re:Star Blazers by bcullman · · Score: 1

      StarBlazers is based on the Japanese cartoon "Space Battleship Yamato". And, good news - a Japanese live action movie is being released later this year. Watch the trailer here: http://www.slashfilm.com/2010/01/03/space-battleship-yamato-international-teaser/

    2. Re:Star Blazers by Luminary+Crush · · Score: 1

      I used to get up early in the morning before school to watch this :-)
      I have all three seasons of it at home. Very cool :-)

    3. Re:Star Blazers by happy_place · · Score: 1

      Um that's good and bad news. Good news is they're making a live action movie. The bad news is, it's a Japanese live-action movie... :D

      --
      http://www.beanleafpress.com
    4. Re:Star Blazers by Liger-Zero · · Score: 1

      This show is getting rebooted, there are already new episodes in 100 Digital format being made, Youtube has them, no fansubs as of yet. Starblazers was a KICKASS SHOW!

    5. Re:Star Blazers by Tepar · · Score: 1

      The effects look good. Will definitely have to check this out!

  62. Flash! Oh-oh by Caption+Wierd · · Score: 1

    What about Buck Rogers or Flash Gordon? Neither has had a movie or show that lived up to the original newspaper comics for originality or imagination. (Yes, I see the oxymoronic combination of 'reboot' and 'originality'.)

  63. Earth: Final Conflict by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was off to a great start in Season 1 and then they completely ruined it by killing off William Boone. It was all crash and burn from there on.

  64. or Johnny Mnemonic by RingDev · · Score: 1

    Agreed. It could make such an awesome franchise, but the risk to this classic is great.

    Another option that could be done would be Johnny Mnemonic. I rather enjoyed the Shadow Run inspired environment and would love to see it drawn out.

    -Rick

    --
    "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
  65. Science Fiction versus Science Fantasy by unixguy43 · · Score: 1

    There's so many good sci-fi stories out there that Hollywood shouldn't need to resort to rehashing old ideas into modern blockbuster performances. The problem is that with the emphasis that is placed on sex appeal and special effects, most of what's good about science fiction gets left out, and turned into what I like to call "science fantasy". Now I've always been a big fan of Star Trek, and was impressed with the treatment that was given to the latest movie, but I still consider it to be in the realm of science fantasy as well. It's showy, and glitzy and impressive, but the story gets sacrificed in order to get butts into the seats. Science fiction, while providing excellent entertainment, also maintains a strong intellectual element. That gets lost once the focus is put into other areas, and the whole genre suffers as a result.

    Science fiction afficionados are able to sit and watch something that is more cerebral without getting bored with it, and appreciate the story more than the general public. All of the focus on reboots and sequels is making science fiction stagnate. It doesn't make it more mainstream, but it pollutes it with all of the elements that Hollywood needs to make money. Take a look at "I, Robot" for example. There's a good example of a story (set of stories, actually) that had excellent potential to become a great science fiction movie, but got bastardized by Hollywood in order to sell more tickets. by the end of it, other than the title, Asimov's "3 laws" and a few minor story elements (lying robot, mind reading robot, Susan Calvin, USR) there was nothing that even identified the movie to Asimov's original text. To me, that's poor story adaptation, and made for poor science fiction.

    I'd like to see Hollywood take a real chance on some proper science fiction. They probably won't get a $300 million blockbuster out of it, but they'd get a good movie for a change.

    1. Re:Science Fiction versus Science Fantasy by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 1

      If you think that I, Robot got shafted, go read The Postman. That book is one of the finest SF books I've read, up there with Childhood's End and The Last Question. Yes, it's that good.

      You probably didn't think it was Science Fiction until just now, did you?

      I don't know what the hell happened between the book and the movie. I'd seen the movie years ago as a teen. I read the book more recently, got my wife to read it, then we rented the movie (Believe it or not, it's available on DVD, and it has no ads or FBI warning. You put it in and it starts playing. This says something profound about the chances of someone pirating the movie, although I half expected it to be just the crest and the text "Really?")

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    2. Re:Science Fiction versus Science Fantasy by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      Take a look at "I, Robot" for example. ... To me, that's poor story adaptation, and made for poor science fiction.

      Actually, it wasn't story adaption at all. They acquired the rights to "I, Robot", then slapped the name on a script that had already been written with no intention of being an "I, Robot" movie and just renamed a few characters and the name of the company making the robots.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    3. Re:Science Fiction versus Science Fantasy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know what the hell happened between the book and the movie.

      I know exactly what happened, it can be summed-up in two words "Kevin Costner". As you can see from this sidebar Costner not only played the lead role, he was also the Director and one of the four Producers. When you have one person in those three roles it is almost impossible to keep a film from becoming a vanity project (the only way to make it more certain would be if he was one of the screenwriters as well).

      Oh and just be thankful you saw the movie before you read the book. I read the book a few years before the film and hold it in similar esteem as you do, I wasn't expecting a perfect adaptation going in but after the first 20 minutes or so the plot had almost no relation to book beyond the names of the main characters. I promised myself I would never purchase a ticket or DVD for a movie where Kevin Costner was anything more than a supporting actor!

  66. Star Trek by CaptnMArk · · Score: 1

    Just reboot back to the ST:TMP.

    1. Re:Star Trek by Logic+Worshipper · · Score: 1

      I would kill for more Deep Space Nine. Yeah, I know, the books. The Dominion War in DS9 was the true hayday for Star Trek and science fiction. It was all downhill after that.

  67. ALF! by SlappyBastard · · Score: 5, Funny

    I've said it before, but I'll say it again -- the darker re-imagined ALF would be a blockbuster (I'm seeing this version of ALF as a movie, just to be clear).

    We could establish with the big effects piece: the destruction of Melmac. We could shock the audience right away by killing off Lucky. Pretty soon it's a hunted man movie -- this year's District 9 -- and away we go!

    We'd do all the big character surprises, too. Willie would be a female, maybe a hard-drinkin' fighter pilot with a bit of the reckless sex streak. The nosy old lady next door could be a transvestite (very edgy). Before the first act is done, ALF is halfway across the country -- a vast break from the original series, I should add -- and has left a trail of broken lives and broken promises behind him. There would the climactic fight. Willie avenging her dead cat. Lots of dialogue -- total ripoff of Kill Bill's climax. And the final blow. ALF is dead.

    --
    I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
    1. Re:ALF! by MightyMait · · Score: 1

      Oooooh!! I like the way you think! Would somebody please hire this person to run their studio?

      --
      Nothing interesting to say...MUST...NOT...REPLY...ohtheheckwithit.
  68. Needs More by Master+Moose · · Score: 1

    .. Wrestling! (which I believe is actually getting a reboot)

    --
    . . .gone when the morning comes
  69. Starship Troopers by cthulu_mt · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Do it right this time; the world is ready for power armor.

    Do it for the Lieutenant!

    --
    Virginia is for lovers. EVE is for griefers.
    1. Re:Starship Troopers by MrTester · · Score: 1

      Oh HELL yes.
      The book would make a GREAT movie. The only thing they took from the book the first go around was "Humans are at war with bug like aliens". WTF? Did they really need to buy the right to the book for that?

      And while were at it, how about a Star Wars reboot? Not eps IV,V and VI. Just I, II and III. Please?

    2. Re:Starship Troopers by cthulu_mt · · Score: 1

      Lucas should remake the original trilogy. With a fresh cast of young actors he can easily make the sequel trilogy.

      --
      Virginia is for lovers. EVE is for griefers.
    3. Re:Starship Troopers by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

      And I expect your names to SHINE!

    4. Re:Starship Troopers by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Come on, the book was about two things:

      1. The politics
      2. The powered armour

      Just because both those things were missing from the movie... oh, wait, I see your point now.

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    5. Re:Starship Troopers by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

      Some things are best left in print, lest they suffer the same fate as Heinlein's Starship Troopers

      And what was wrong with Starship Troopers?

      It wasn't five hours long, with four of those hours devoted to Johnny's time in boot camp and OC school, listening to Heinlein's sockpuppet characters rant about social responsibility?

      Either that or "no powered suits", I forget which... XD

      The anime adaptation of Starship Troopers was excellent, IMO. Mecha design by Studio Nue doesn't hurt, either. XD

      --
      Bow-ties are cool.
    6. Re:Starship Troopers by olman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The movie caught pretty damn well the fascism is all right, m'kay theme and made serious fun about it.

      Pretty hilarious, unlike the book which was just serious about it all, really.

    7. Re:Starship Troopers by cmburns69 · · Score: 1

      And while were at it, how about a Star Wars reboot? Not eps IV,V and VI. Just I, II and III. Please?

      I don't know why you'd stop just after the first three. Have you SEEN episodes episodes 4, 5, and 6 recently? They're terrible! I still love them (childhood memories and all that), but the quality is about the same as 1, 2, and 3. They have the same lame comedy relief, the same cliches, and the same bad acting (though I'll admit that Harrison Ford is an exception).

      Case in point: Ewoks (killing the empires best troops on the Endori moon surface). /RANT

      --
      Online Starcraft RPG? At
      Dietary fiber is like asynchronous IO-- Non-blocking!
    8. Re:Starship Troopers by kattphud · · Score: 1

      Have you read the novel? The writer of the screenplay didn't. I'm not being facetious. He had never even heard of the novel when he started writing the screenplay. Even when someone pointed out that the novel and the screenplay shared the general premise of a war between Earth and a race of arthropods, the screenplay writer read just enough to plagiarize the title and a few character names before he got bored. I could forgive the film or even like it for being a campy "so-bad-it's-good" movie like Dragon Wars or somesuch, but I will never forgive it for pretending to have been inspired by Heinlein's work. I had to reread the book three times to blot the movie from my mind.

    9. Re:Starship Troopers by Animaether · · Score: 1

      I have, and I know how to put distance between novels/comics/movies - otherwise the movies always tend to disappoint anyway.

      I'm not saying "reboot Starship Troopers" as envisioned by Heinlein. I'm saying "reboot Starship Troopers as it was laid out in the movie" - as regardless of the obvious disconnects between the movie and the book, it was still a very enjoyable movie and could have had excellent sequels/prequels... when instead it got completely f'ed over by the direct-to-dvd movies' executions. ./nokarma as this is one heck of an old thread to reply to ;)

  70. Better Off Ted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It may not be Sci-Fi, but it's a good show. Last episode even had a wink at Dr.Who, with a Dalek at the back of a room.

    And yet, there's talk about ABC cancelling it. After making next to no promotion for it, giving it a bad time slot, etc.

    So I say forget about it. If a show requires any amount of brain power, the american networks will cancel it and replace it with a new singing/cooking/dancing/whatever so-called reality show. Like it or not, there's a lot of idiots out there and they're now the biggest marketshare.

    The best recent example would be the SyFy network. Only a fucking moron would write Sci-Fi like that. It's not syence fyction for crying out loud. And they're supposed to be the network for science-fiction shows.

    Cue "Idiocracy" comments in 3, 2, 1...

  71. Outer Limits...but then again by treeves · · Score: 1

    I loved the show as a kid, but I recently saw a couple of the remake episodes and they were terrible. Someone who must have never seen the original series must have done it, just trying to cash in on the name. Similar sentiments for The Twilight Zone. Don't get my hopes up like that.

    --
    ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
  72. Star Wars Christmas Special by Ukab+the+Great · · Score: 2, Funny

    On Naboo with JarJar. George Lucas needs to outdo his last Christmas Special.

    1. Re:Star Wars Christmas Special by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      On Naboo with JarJar. George Lucas needs to outdo his last Christmas Special.

      I thought that's what fighting Yoda was.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:Star Wars Christmas Special by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 1

      I thought that II would have ended way better with Yoda walking in and yelling "Dooku!" a la Voice, and having him snap out of it.

      "Yoda? What? Where... where am I?"

      But I would have put that somewhere in Episode I.

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    3. Re:Star Wars Christmas Special by Cassander · · Score: 1

      On Naboo with JarJar. George Lucas needs to outdo his last Christmas Special.

      I thought that's what fighting Yoda was.

      Hey! I thought that seeing Yoda fight in a light-saber duel (presumably throwing his own body around with force-telekinesis) was one of the only good moments in the otherwise unspeakably horrible prequel trilogy. Don't take that away from me!

      --
      Knowledge != Intelligence
    4. Re:Star Wars Christmas Special by Hamsterdan · · Score: 1

      midi-chlorians prety muched killed it for me

      --
      I've got better things to do tonight than die.
    5. Re:Star Wars Christmas Special by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 1

      Oh God in Heaven! What Hell have you unleashed upon the world!?!!?!?!

  73. Some Don't Seem Clear on what "Reboot" mean by Knara · · Score: 1

    Reboot does not mean "make more episodes of a series" or "adapt a series for TV/film"

    Reboot means, "restart a series in a way that likely will have very little similarity with the original."

    Strangely, american comics are better at doing this than tv/film writers are. The only example of something I recall that I *like* how the reboot is going is the recent Batman movies, but that is, ironically, a reboot that resulted from the ridiculous things that the previous run had become.

    More new ideas, please. Stop just using the shells of classic shows for their name recognition and nostalgia value.

    1. Re:Some Don't Seem Clear on what "Reboot" mean by stevey · · Score: 1

      I have to say that I thought that "Batman Begins" was a fantastic film, and easily my favourite of the whole series.

      Mostly though I'd agree with other comments there are a few series that would be nice to be reset, but on the whole I'd rather see new things.

      (e.g. My personal pick would be Dark Angel.)

  74. And? by BancBoy · · Score: 1

    And then do what?!

    --
    [UID-HeinzIntel]
  75. Mike Resnick has the most ready-for-tv by Botched · · Score: 1

    Fiction out there. It's space opera, damned good space opera. The humor and flavor is in the characters, not the special effects budget. If you pick up Santiago, the Widowmaker series, hell, just about any of his books you could make a good episode from each chapter.

  76. Dark Angel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dark Angel was a good one

  77. Reboot Star Wars without George Lucas by u64 · · Score: 1

    I can tolerate SW 3-4-5. There's even brilliant moments.
    (1-2-3 dont even qualify as mediocre Star Wars)

    I suggest re-borrow the good ideas from Stargate, with
    ascension and telekinesis and so on. Make The Force into
    real sci-fi, rather then Fantasy/Religion thingy.
    And make it for grown-ups this time.

    And bring back Jar-Jar for two seconds and drop an 5000kg
    anvil on him.

    1. Re:Reboot Star Wars without George Lucas by Kolie · · Score: 1

      I can tolerate SW 4-5-6..

      Fixed that for you.

  78. Re-reboot Stargate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I like Stargate: Universe for what it is, but honestly SG-1 and Atlantis were better just because they were fun. They didn't take themselves too seriously, and it worked. It was good sci-fi that occasionally acknowledged how cheesy sci-fi can be. I want a series where every once in awhile the leader character will stop and ask the brain questions like, "If that thing lets you walk through walls, why don't you fall through the floor when you turn it on?"

    1. Re:Re-reboot Stargate by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, SG-1 went on too long. I actually like Mitchell, it wasn't the casting changes at the end, the problem was that they'd taken things past the point of the story universe of being a useful setting for stories. The problem is, when your basic meta-story is about a war against the gods themselves, once you actually win, you run out of challenges...

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
  79. Slashdot by Zarf · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... no seriously. Slashdot needs to have a reboot with a younger cast. The cast of Slashdot had too little diversity. I'd like to see some more female leading characters... maybe a range of ages and some interesting quirky characters. The whole "Evil Bill" thing got old too. Perhaps we could make a new enemy?

    --
    [signature]
    1. Re:Slashdot by WormholeFiend · · Score: 1

      And turn CowboyNeal into a female character!

    2. Re:Slashdot by Zarf · · Score: 1

      And turn CowboyNeal into a female character!

      yah, I like that... Starbuck and all that. Very cool. Maybe Commander Taco could be played by a girl too?

      --
      [signature]
    3. Re:Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... no seriously. Slashdot needs to have a reboot with a younger cast. The cast of Slashdot had too little diversity. I'd like to see some more female leading characters... maybe a range of ages and some interesting quirky characters. The whole "Evil Bill" thing got old too. Perhaps we could make a new enemy?

      If it were any younger the Bill Gates Borg would have to be replaced by a Teletubie.

    4. Re:Slashdot by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 2, Funny

      The whole "Evil Bill" thing got old too. Perhaps we could make a new enemy?

      I nominate kdawson...the biggest advantage is that it has that whole, evil but insider to the good guys' organization twist going for it.

    5. Re:Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just as long as KDawson gets the boot I'm all for it.

    6. Re:Slashdot by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Yes! Let's have a reimagined Geeks in Space!

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    7. Re:Slashdot by coaxial · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The whole "Evil Bill" thing got old too. Perhaps we could make a new enemy?

      You're right. Hating Microsoft is like hating the Ottoman Empire or Prussia today. They're irrelevant. The real threat today is Larry and Sergie.

    8. Re:Slashdot by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      And then it ends up like Stargate Universe. With stupid social topics, day-long crying, redneck philosophies, and no sci-fi or tech whatsoever.
      (Seriously. Avoid SU like the plague. After the first episodes I feel like watching the Star Wars Christmas Special again, just to get excited.)

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    9. Re:Slashdot by 32771 · · Score: 1

      >The whole "Evil Bill" thing got old too.

      No - don't poke fun of this, this is important. They are still fucking up open standards (svg) and have an even less likable guy in power now. What else would you want? Monsanto or AIG have nothing to do with computers so I guess we are stuck with MS.

      --
      Je me souviens.
    10. Re:Slashdot by Dirtside · · Score: 1

      I've got it! This time around, the trolls look just like us!

      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
    11. Re:Slashdot by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      ... no seriously. Slashdot needs to have a reboot with a younger cast.

      Yeah, far too many old farts around here... XD

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    12. Re:Slashdot by moreati · · Score: 1

      That was called LugRadio, it was good whilst it lasted.

    13. Re:Slashdot by 32771 · · Score: 1

      >The cast of Slashdot had too little diversity

      Unicode support would do maybe? Multilingual Slashdot even? That would fit in nicely with that other dimension of diversity idle was supposed to add ;).

      --
      Je me souviens.
    14. Re:Slashdot by selven · · Score: 1

      So close and you missed the million dollar idea! We should make a movie of Slashdot!. We'll have people in their mother's basements remotely piloting bombers against the Evil Triumvirate (RIAA, MPAA, BSA) with their pathetic attempts to find a girlfriend as a cheesy subplot! We could make millions*!

      *Millions of Zimbabwean ISK, that is.

    15. Re:Slashdot by Kingrames · · Score: 1

      You know, Slashdot already has just about everything you could use to build a tv show.

      Although they might get in trouble trying to create the Natalie Portman episode...

      --
      If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
    16. Re:Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anne Hathaway. Nuff Said.

    17. Re:Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I notice you didn't mention it needed to be "darker" and "edgier". Is there some reason for that?

    18. Re:Slashdot by aug24 · · Score: 1

      You suggesting you, me, and everyone in between should, after ten years or so, go and get a life?!

      Nah, it'd be rubbish.

      Just.

      --
      You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
    19. Re:Slashdot by Zarf · · Score: 1

      I've got it! This time around, the trolls look just like us!

      Brilliant!

      --
      [signature]
    20. Re:Slashdot by Zarf · · Score: 1

      Isn't this the premise for "Big Bang Theory"?

      --
      [signature]
    21. Re:Slashdot by Zarf · · Score: 1

      You know, Slashdot already has just about everything you could use to build a tv show.

      Although they might get in trouble trying to create the Natalie Portman episode...

      Wait? What? This isn't a TV show?

      --
      [signature]
    22. Re:Slashdot by Zarf · · Score: 1

      >The whole "Evil Bill" thing got old too.

      No - don't poke fun of this, this is important. They are still fucking up open standards (svg) and have an even less likable guy in power now. What else would you want? Monsanto or AIG have nothing to do with computers so I guess we are stuck with MS.

      Well, when they replaced "Evil Bill" with Eviler Bill ... what's his name? Stephan Baller or something? Lame character. Nobody would really be like that in real life.

      --
      [signature]
  80. Wht redo stuff by rossdee · · Score: 1

    When theres a heap of good SF books that (with the aid of modern CGI) could be put on screen.

  81. Reboot! by argent · · Score: 1

    Reboot "Reboot"!

  82. well.. by Theodore · · Score: 1

    I do agree with the people pushing Blakes 7.
    It's a crime that that series is so forgotten.

    Then again, I'd like to see more than 1 or 2 eps in an entire series of star trek from the Spock's beard EEEEEEvil universe.
    Make is a series.
    There's plenty of space there to make the Klingons and Romulans scream "WTF? STOP!"

    If you want original though, I'd like to see McDevitt's "Hutchins" series, or Reynolds' "Revelation Space" series filmed... (Galactic North is all short stories, which should fit in an 'outer limits' format easily).

  83. How about another "unknown" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sentenced to Prism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentenced_to_Prism
    Alan Dean Foster... with the CGI available now this could be a truely beautiful work

  84. Nothing by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

    I will make few, very few exceptions for good shows/movies whose ideas need revisited. Star Trek did not need a reboot. Batman desperately needed one since he still remained an interesting character and needed divorced from the Schumaker mess. Bond had gotten pretty stale and silly and hadn't been any good for a decade or two. Casino Royale was a real shot in the arm. I've been enjoying the new Dr. Who series for the past few years.

    But as far as your traditional scifi goes, make a new goddamn show. You're allowed to show your roots but make it something new. Babylon 5 was new. It was great. JMS hasn't been able to do anything else with it since. Let the show rest in well-deserved peace.

    Firefly came out of nowhere. The basic premise was easy enough to elevator pitch. "Hey, you know Han Solo and Chewie? Ever wonder what kind of stuff they were doing before they met Ben and Luke?" But Firefly didn't just look like a rehash of Star Wars, it was a brand new universe with new ideas and clever twists on old ones.

    I will go so far as to accept new stories in established universes. The Japanese tend to do this like with Gundam. Same robots, same sides, but different wars and different characters. Some of these are side stories, some are in the main continuity, they're only united by the Gundam bits. Star Trek went this way but has sucked so hard for so long I just can't be arsed to care anymore. Babylon 5's follow-on projects have had hard luck and keeping up at it only risks pushing it to Star Trek territory.

    Put me squarely in the "do something new" camp. Show me something I haven't seen before. If you do something that's been seen before, put a twist on it that makes it fresh. If I wanted to see the same shit I've seen before I've got Netflix and a DVD player. I can watch the old ones again.

    --
    Kwisatz Haderach
    Sell the spice to CHOAM
    This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
  85. Buck Rogers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would love to see a reimagining of Buck Rogers. =-) Found myself watching the two-hour pilot Saturday night on Netflix ... Such incredible potential. Such a short life. The series didn't have a single point to its plot -- instead, seeming to be a hodpodge of episodes like 'Star Trek' -- but maybe a reboot could fashion it in the form of the Great Epic Story of 'Babylon 5'.

  86. Why not SyFy? by Minwee · · Score: 1

    Not long ago Wired ran their own list of which SciFi (not SyFy!) shows were in need of another go 'round

    Couldn't "SyFy" have a reboot? Maybe it could go back to having a less inane name and try airing programs that were worth watching.

    1. Re:Why not SyFy? by Recovery1 · · Score: 1

      Well said. Return the name Sci-Fi and put back on the shows that made the channel Sci-Fi. While you're at it make some decent branding for the station again. I loved the Sci-Fi channel of 1992 with it's quirky hourglass, that long 30 second fly through the alien tunnel, and FTL Newsfeeds and Sci-Fi Buzz. I hated the Sci-Fi and SyFy of present days with bumpers that leave you with a WTF every time you see them.

  87. A couple of Classic Brit Sci-Fi's for a reboot.... by s0litaire · · Score: 1

    How about "Space1999" & U.F.O. I'd love to see a reboot of those shows.

    It might be a good time for a Reboot of U.F.O. since it's getting the big screen treatment for 2011
    (Gerry Anderson's got a hand in it so it won't be a disaster like the Thunderbirds movie!!!)

    They have already got "Joshua Jackson" (Fringe) signed on. But there's a push to get "Neal McDonough" (Minority Report) cast as Ed Straker

    --
    Laters Sol "Have you found the secrets of the universe? Asked Zebade "I'm sure I left them here somewhere"
  88. Quark by proslack · · Score: 1

    Quark That show was brilliant.

    --


    Floating in the black seas of infinity without a paddle.
  89. Takeshi Kovacs by witherstaff · · Score: 1

    Uplift would make an amazing set of movies. Although for action/sci fi my hope would be a Takeshi Kovacs trilogy. Everything from a detective story to martian ghosts.

    1. Re:Takeshi Kovacs by alteredcarbon · · Score: 1

      Id love to see the Kovacs trilogy on the big screen. Altered Carbon is one of my favourite sci-fi novels of all time. Brilliant.

    2. Re:Takeshi Kovacs by itsdapead · · Score: 1

      my hope would be a Takeshi Kovacs trilogy. Everything from a detective story to martian ghosts.

      Well, Altered Carbon was supposed to have been optioned as a film ages ago, but the page seems to have vanished from IMDB.

      Probably the studio found out that the main protagonist kept hopping bodies (so you couldn't use a Big Star) and/or spotted the anti-Catholic storyline.

      --
      In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
  90. Legend of Galactic Heroes by jgtg32a · · Score: 1

    When it comes down to it I guess its hardly SciFi but I just finished the first arc and I love it.

  91. Dune....Definitely Dune by CodeBuster · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I would really like to see the definitive version of the Dune saga done right ; without the sort of budget and casting constraints that have crippled previous outings (i.e. "the original" which was a David Lynch 80s style film and the SciFi channel remakes which, while better and more ambitious, still suffered from obvious budget constraints). The Dune saga really deserves better treatment than it has received at the hands of previous studios and directors. The success of Avatar has proven the market for high-quality 3D "epic" Science Fiction films and Dune would look really great if it was done in a similar fashion; with the budget and length required to do justice to the story. IMHO, either James Cameron or Steve Jackson would be good choices to direct, but others may have different opinions. If Lord of the Rings can be done well, then so can a sophisticated and high-brow SciFi epic like the Dune saga.

    1. Re:Dune....Definitely Dune by jgtg32a · · Score: 1

      I actually liked the funny hats version, yes it could have used better acting but hell most series can.

    2. Re:Dune....Definitely Dune by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, let Dune die already. With that mediocre miniseries and the craptacular new novels I think it's time to re-bury the corpse.

    3. Re:Dune....Definitely Dune by MadUndergrad · · Score: 1

      If you're going for a big flashy spectacle, please don't let them use Dune. It deserves more than that. James Cameron? No.

      You know, I doubt that live action film is right for Dune. Maybe it'd have had a chance with Jodorowsky, but I'm just not seeing it at this point. How about getting a good anime studio to pick it up, turn it into a series. I think each novel could be nicely divided up into a dozen episodes. The guys who did GITS could do it justice, maybe.

    4. Re:Dune....Definitely Dune by CodeBuster · · Score: 1

      The guys who did GITS could do it justice, maybe.

      You mean Production IG? They did a good job with GITSAC, which was good quality for a television series, but Dune is not anime-style action riot police; it requires a very different look, feel and pacing. No, Dune would require someone more like Miyazaki Hayao who can create really unique and different worlds with organic characters and settings. Except I doubt that Miyazaki himself would be interested, because most (all?) of his films have used original characters and settings of his own creation whereas Dune already has many set pieces which have to be included or done in certain ways. I like the anime series suggestion though; it has promise and could be done well for less than the 0.5-1 billion or so that a live action series of films at that scale might cost nowadays. The real problem though is finding the right director and enough skilled animators who really care about the project to see the vision through to completion.

  92. Lexx by Nadaka · · Score: 1

    Because it could be even stranger.

  93. Edmond Hamilton's Captain Future by WormholeFiend · · Score: 1
    1. Re:Edmond Hamilton's Captain Future by An+ominous+Cow+art · · Score: 1

      "The Star Kings" and "Return to the Future" would probably adapt well.

  94. Sapphire and Steel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone remember this series from the early 80's BBC? Good show and would work well in a reboot...

  95. Looks like a job for Sarcastro! by Botched · · Score: 1

    Yeah, sure, like I'm gonna act in your low-budget TV show.

    1. Re:Looks like a job for Sarcastro! by jameskojiro · · Score: 1

      Looks like a job for "Hello, I'm BRAIN BLESSED!!!!"

      --
      Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
  96. Starship Troopers by Trails · · Score: 1

    Needs a show, true to the book.

    In the pilot, they should horsewhip and then shoot an unnamed director who commits the cultural crime of taking an amazing book and turning it into a shitastic movie.

    The other setting I'd like to see expanded into new media is wh40k.

  97. Try some old movies for ideas by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

    Go back to the great old Science Fiction movies, instead of just remaking lousy old TV shows

    Buckaroo Bonsai
    Plan 9 from Outer Space
    It
    Them

    --
    Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
  98. How about something from my childhood... by tiberus · · Score: 1

    While I like some of the suggestions, although I would say FireFly is more in need of a transfusion (hmmm, or maybe the network execs need a brain transplant), they lack a certain level of moldy-ness.

    How about Ultraman or Johnnie Socko and His Flying Robot but, please leave in the bad dubbing.

  99. A similar writing style- Harry Harrison by Botched · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The Stainless Steel Rat could be a lot of fun.

    1. Re:A similar writing style- Harry Harrison by R2.0 · · Score: 1

      Deathworld. Concise plot, current enviro-friendly themes, cool weapons, wisecracking protagonist with coy love interest.

      Eh, Hollywood will fuck it up.

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
  100. Reboot these though I agree new ideas are better by Marrow · · Score: 1

    Johnny Quest as live action
    Starblazers
    Ghost in the Shell
    UFO
    Space 1999
    My favorite martian
    Dresden Files
    Probe (yeah, you never saw it, I know)
    MacGuyver

  101. Muppet Star Wars by Jackie_Chan_Fan · · Score: 1

    Punch it!

  102. Why the false dichotomy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Rebooting old franchises is in no way mutually exclusive with creating new ones.

    1. Re:Why the false dichotomy? by Dirtside · · Score: 1

      Given the finite talent pool in the world, I'd rather have all of it dedicated to creating new material rather than rehashing old crap.

      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
  103. Cartoons from my childhood by August26 · · Score: 1
    On a serious note: Star Blazers

    On a less than serious note: G-Force

  104. Re:Lords of Light by Botched · · Score: 1

    It also makes sense if you have intrest in and knowledge of religions. A better mash-up of hinduism, buddhism, and christianity has not been done, and it's facinating from that standpoint.

    Though I'm biased, I want to see the amber series released as a five part movie (I can pass on the second 5 novels, I liked them but they drifted).

  105. The Star Wars Prequels by aibrahim · · Score: 1

    They really could use serious re-imagining.

    Done well it could even follow through the "original" 9 features Lucas envisioned.

    New director and writers though.

    Heck, I'll do it. I'd be happy to. I'd like to see 3D IMAX happen too. These movies can be absolutely huge again, and there is a good story thread throughout the saga- including the parts we haven't seen yet after the fall of the emperor.

    --

    Don't post innacurate information
    If you do, I swear by my pretty floral bonnet I will end you.
  106. Star Wars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Star Wars, clearly. As long as George Lucas is let nowhere near it.

  107. The spelling you're looking for is "sci-fi". by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ugh.. by such prominent capitalization and lack of hyphenation in the summary -- i.e. using "SciFi" -- you're supporting the idea that dilution and trademarkability are viable concerns, thus validating the channel's change to the name "SyFy". The abbreviation for "science fiction" is "sci-fi" . It's not capitalized, and should probably be hyphenated. "SciFi" is the old name of the channel, and the use of this spelling is the only reason the clarification was even needed.

    </rant>

  108. Ghostbusters by jellomizer · · Score: 1

    There is a place in my heart for ghostbusters but unfortunately now it is so 80's we need a more modern ghost busters.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    1. Re:Ghostbusters by What+the+Frag · · Score: 1

      Ghostbusters III was actually announced already! http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1289401/

  109. Fat Guy Stuck in Internet by Colonel+Korn · · Score: 1

    I think FGSiI could use an update for modern audiences. Maybe let The Gemberling gain a few more pounds and then have every episode be based around Maze Master dance sequences.

    --
    "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
  110. What SciFi Should Get the Reboot Treatment Next? by Liger-Zero · · Score: 1

    Shows that need a Reboot, Space 1999 although since it is 2010 now they should also rename it as 2099. Farscape!, I seen people talking about Rebooting Reboor, well it really doesn't need to be Rebooted, JUST MAKE MORE EPISODES! :-D That is my two cents on the topic

  111. Space, Above and Beyond by Dani+Filth · · Score: 1

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Above_and_Beyond Cool stories, action, aliens, etc.

    1. Re:Space, Above and Beyond by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It jumped the shark by having them pilot space ships while also serving as infantry. Even George Lucas would not have come up with something so stupid.

  112. Star Wars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can we please have a grown up version of Star Wars? I love the idea of Star Wars so much but the official material is garbage (lots of cool fan fiction). I think a "Batman Begins/Dark Knight" grown up approach to Star Wars would reboot it into wickedness...

    Make the Sith really fucking evil...

  113. Scalzi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why won't that take some of Scalzi's stuff and make miniseries/tv shows?

  114. Not to be insulting by Botched · · Score: 1

    But to say every story is a rehash of another story is just silly. Here are some examples of original stories:

    Blood Music - Greg Bear
    A Fire Upon the Deep - Verner Vinge
    Singularity - Charles Stross
    Dragon's Egg - Robert Forward
    Candle - John Barnes
    Spin - Robert Wilson

    And many more. To compare them to cowboys and smurfs in space is insulting.

    1. Re:Not to be insulting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would like to see GRRM's Tuf Voyaging . Break it up into a few movies to do a decent job. I can't see it happening in the US though since it would rile the fundies too badly.

  115. New Farscape by Tekfactory · · Score: 1

    Claudia Black was being interviewed for the new Farscape DVDs or Dragon Age or something and she was mentioning that they are trying to do new Farscape as Webisodes, but were still trying to figure out the financing.

  116. You smell like bacon... by Lilith's+Heart-shape · · Score: 2, Informative

    The only Star Wars movie that didn't suck, The Empire Strikes Back, was written by a woman named Leigh Brackett.

    1. Re:You smell like bacon... by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Brackett was one of the greats of the Golden Age. The Last Days of Shandakor is an incredible story. You could probably make a pretty good miniseries out of her Mars stories, which beat out Bradbury's in my mind.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:You smell like bacon... by corbettw · · Score: 0, Troll

      That explains all that touchy-feely crap near the end. "I love you", "I'm your father", "We've got to go back." Blech. Less feelings, more exploding planets!

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    3. Re:You smell like bacon... by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1

      The only Star Wars movie that didn't suck, The Empire Strikes Back, was written by a woman named Leigh Brackett.

      Quoth wiki:

      Brackett worked on the screenplay for The Empire Strikes Back. The movie won the Hugo Award in 1981. This script was a departure for Brackett, since until then, all of her science fiction had been in the form of novels and short stories.

      The exact role which Brackett played in writing the script for Empire is the subject of some dispute. What is agreed on by all is that George Lucas asked Brackett to write the screenplay based on his story outline. It is also known that Brackett wrote a finished first draft which was delivered to Lucas shortly before Brackett's death from cancer on March 18, 1978. The screenplay was revised for filming by Lucas and Lawrence Kasdan, and both Brackett and Kasdan (though not Lucas) were given credit for the final script.

      Many reviewers believed that they could detect traces of Brackett's influence in both the dialogue and the treatment of the space opera genre in Empire.[3] However, Laurent Bouzereau, in his book Star Wars: The Annotated Screenplays, states that Lucas disliked the direction of Brackett's screenplay and discarded it. He then produced two screenplays before turning the results over to Kasdan, who did not work directly with Brackett's script at all. By this scenario, Lucas' assignment of credit to Brackett was a mere courtesy or mark of respect for the work she had done during her illness.[4] Support for this view comes from Stephen Haffner, owner of the press that printed Martian Quest: The Early Brackett, who has read Brackett's script, and claims that—outside Lucas' storyline—nothing of Brackett's personal contributions survives in the finished movie.

      Brackett's screenplay has never been published. According to Haffner, it can be read at the library of the Eastern New Mexico University in Portales, New Mexico, but may not be copied or borrowed off-site.

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
    4. Re:You smell like bacon... by Lilith's+Heart-shape · · Score: 1

      So, basically, you want Death Star-on-planet action? Be careful what you wish for; Rule 34 is a bitch.

    5. Re:You smell like bacon... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not quite. She wrote the first draft of the screenplay, and got credit for writing the screenplay (along with Lawrence Kasdan), but the final version was mostly by Lucas and Kasdan. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leigh_Brackett#The_Empire_Strikes_Back

      - Coward, Anonymous

  117. Re:Reboot these though I agree new ideas are bette by WormholeFiend · · Score: 1
  118. War of the Worlds, the series, Alien Nation by spribyl · · Score: 1

    The first not so good but with potential.
    The second excellent with potential.

    1. Re:War of the Worlds, the series, Alien Nation by Gudlyf · · Score: 1

      Writer Jane Espenson said once that she thought it should be Alien Nation. And, wouldn't you know it, it is happening: http://clak.us/tjlv

      --
      Trolls lurk everywhere. Mod them down.
    2. Re:War of the Worlds, the series, Alien Nation by Knara · · Score: 1

      A reboot of Alien Nation would just be an episodic version of District 9. No thanks.

  119. not a TV show or movie but by schroet · · Score: 1

    Terra Nova: Strike Force Centauri by Looking Glass Software

  120. Re: Maybe a Stainless Steel Rat series? by rnturn · · Score: 1

    There were a couple of scenes in Avatar that reminded me that I'd been meaning to reread the old Stainless Steel Rat novels. (Maybe it's just me but bits of Pandora reminded me of the planet Pyrrus in the Deathworld trilogy.) Making one or more of them into movies would be great. Not really a reboot since, IFAIK, they've never been in the theatres or on TV before.

    --
    CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
  121. Re:they should turn 'land of the lost' into a movi by mcgrew · · Score: 1

    I don't care how much or little money they make, I only care of the movie sucks or not. A lot of sucky movies made tons of money, lots of ones I loved lost money.

    Only the film's backers should care if it makes any money.

  122. Cyberpunk by Aggrajag · · Score: 1

    I would like to see Neuromancer: the mini-series.

  123. Crossing Over with John Edward by guitardood · · Score: 1

    I would love to see "Crossing Over with John Edward" get the reboot.........ooops I mean theboot. :) I mean this show had nothing to do with Sci-Fi.....Nor does WWE Smackdown for that matter. There will be no good sci-fi so long as morons are in charge of what gets produced. And speaking of reboot......don't we have anybody creating original ideas any more?? Special effects does not an interesting story make and the only reason for these reboots are to suck our pockets dry on big-screen candy and the same old tired drivel. Have a nice day:)

    --
    -- L8R, guitardood
  124. Twin Peaks by Fieryphoenix · · Score: 1

    And rather than starting where it left off, it should start when Agent Cooper is the older man seen in his visions.

    1. Re:Twin Peaks by Tynin · · Score: 1

      And rather than starting where it left off, it should start when Agent Cooper is the older man seen in his visions.

      I'd pay good money just to read the intended ending of that show. That show is high on my list of great TV, but the cliff hanger ending... it has to be one of the greatest (i.e. worst) cliff hangers to have a show canceled on, ever. That said, Kyle MacLachlan was making some noise last year about resurrecting the show on the internet in 5 minute parts. I'm hopefully, although without Lynch at the helm, it will never be the same. And I have serious questions if 5 minutes is enough time to build much story. Here is the short article, I've not heard anything new beyond it. http://www.imdb.com/news/ni0835522/

  125. It's dead, Jim. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We need to let Firefly go.

    Had the show naturally progressed into its second season, it would've been amazing. But that ship has sailed...right before it sank.

    Restarting now would mean coping with the "damage" done by the movie. The entire River/Reaver backstory resolved. Wash and Book dead. A brave new 'verse. It would not be in Joss' nature to simply ignore the movie, or jump back into the time before the events of the movie. He would truly be rebooting the series, not just resuscitating it.

    1. Re:It's dead, Jim. by VGPowerlord · · Score: 1

      It would not be in Joss' nature to simply ignore the movie, or jump back into the time before the events of the movie. He would truly be rebooting the series, not just resuscitating it.

      Really? I'm pretty sure Joss did something like that when he started the Buffy the Vampire Slayer TV show. The even of the movie are largely ignored, even giving us the excuse that Buffy "set the gym on fire" in her last school as the pretext to moving to Sunnydale in the first episode.

      --
      GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
  126. Sliders by lyinhart · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What about Sliders? Fun show, great ensemble cast, interesting concept that postulated about alternate Earths. The first couple of seasons were great, but then they changed the tone to become a lot more dark and dreary. They whacked John Rhys-Davies, added Kari Wuhrer and started ripping off various sci-fi films for plots. Cleavant Derricks's character became serious and less of a comic relief character. They started fighting an unnecessary recurring antagonist, the cro-mags. Sabrina Lloyd was written out, Jerry O'Connell got his brother on the show and then they had some weirdness about two Quinn Mallories merging or something.

    --
    Freedom is drinking a beer in the park when you're supposed to be at work.
    1. Re:Sliders by D+Ninja · · Score: 2

      I second this. Sliders is a very excellent idea which went haywire due to various reasons (as stated by the parent). I just got brought back into this series due to the fact that the first three seasons are now available on Hulu. But, I do agree - after John Rhys-Davies was yanked, the show just continued to go downhill from there. Plus, while I realize the show needs a plot, can it stop being from the standpoint of, "Quinn decides to be dumb and save a damsel in distress and gets everybody into a heap of trouble" and instead have something more imaginative.

    2. Re:Sliders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The show ended for me (or jumped-the-shark, so-to-speak), when they killed off John Rhys-Davies. Until then, it was a good show... sigh...

    3. Re:Sliders by RyoShin · · Score: 1

      A big part of almost every episode involved the Sliders changing the world they landed on to some huge extent. I've always wondered how the worlds turned out afterward; it would be nice to have a series that didn't necessarily reboot Sliders, but followed a second group of Sliders that got stuck following their footsteps. They have to deal with any problems caused by the original Sliders, as well as exploring more the planets that we only got glimpses of (at the beggining or end of an episode).

    4. Re:Sliders by DedTV · · Score: 1

      Sliders is definitely one deserving of a remake. The premise was fantastic. The writing and execution just went badly off the rails. Another Jerry O'Connell show that could use a remake would be My Secret Identity. It'd fit right in with half of Disney's current hit shows. I'd also like to see Quantum Leap remade. And of course, MacGyver has to be remade at some point.

  127. Re:SciFi? vs SF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They did, after all, have do endure some of the worst of what Hollywood put out back when going to the moon was pure science fiction.

    I think they should do a reboot of the moon landings. It probably lack something without Kubrick directing it but they could make it more politically correct starring maybe a bald frenchman who thinks he's english, or an african american, or a woman, or a time-travelling dog owner.

  128. Something that sucked by assertation · · Score: 1

    Seriously.

    No reason to remake something that worked. You disappoint people if you don't do at least as well and if you do, the fans feel disrespected.

    Better to do something that sucked, better. Like Battlestar Galactica.

    1. Re:Something that sucked by Moldiver · · Score: 1

      The old galactika didn't suck - it is the new one that is utter junk.

    2. Re:Something that sucked by assertation · · Score: 1

      I used to think the same thing until I watched the old BSG again.

  129. My SciFi Reboot List by Orion+Blastar · · Score: 1

    Logan's Run, it wasn't done right the first time it needs better acting and better special effects.

    Silent Running, didn't have very convincing robots or plot, bad acting and needs a complete and total rewrite.

    Buck Rodgers in the 25st Century only this time when ratings go down don't try to make it a Star trek clone.

    Flash Gordan, keep the Queen soundtrack it was the best thing of that movie. That Syfy series wasn't very good and I think it can be done a lot better.

    Blake's Seven better special effects, better acting, different ending.

    Red Dwarf, make it funnier more like the Novels.

    Space: 1999 make it Space: 2099 instead of a nuclear reactor explosion on The Moon, have a Large Hardon Collider malfunction and turn into a gravity drive that creates mini-black holes that turn into wormholes and suck in the Moon and it randomly pops up all over the galaxy.

    2001: a Space Odyssey make it 2101: a Space Odyssey have IBM make the HAL hardware and Microsoft the HAL software, due to a defect HAL flips the wrong bit and goes psychotic trying to kill off the crew. Until Dave Bowman an Angry Astronaught with a Screw Driver finds a way to defeat him.

    Space: Above and Beyond it was canceled before it started to get good. Have the Earthers violate the Chig colonies that starts up a war, but the Space Marines are not aware of that fact until they discover it later that Xenophobic leaders and military had done the Chigs dirty and that is what started the war. Then see if it has a different ending, does everyone in the Angry Angels die, survive, make a truce with the Chigs, or get captured as POWS and another Space Marine group has to rescue them?

    --
    Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
    1. Re:My SciFi Reboot List by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Freudian slip?

      Large Hardon Collider

  130. must we? by Ephemeriis · · Score: 1

    Yes, there's been some good rebooots...

    And I understand the appeal - if it was popular the first time around, you can assume it'll be popular the second time around...

    And from the fan's perspective, it's always good to see more of your favorite shows...

    But do we have to keep rebooting everything? How about some new content?

    --
    "Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
  131. Galactica 1980 by CongealedSalad · · Score: 1

    Galactica 1980 would have been an awesome series, if it had been well funded.

    --
    In theory I am an agnostic, but pending the appearance of radical evidence I must be classed as an Atheist.
  132. Plenty of ideas in Anime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've been watching a number of old cheesy anime series lately - some SiFi, some not. It seems like there are plenty of ideas there that haven't been used much if at all in American TV/Movies.

    Then again, probably the American public can't rap their heads around some of the concepts. How about a live action movie based off the classic Ranma 1/2? That sound you hear is the sound of a million sexually insecure American's heads exploding.

  133. I want another 35 seasons of galactica. by Turbosatan · · Score: 0

    i was sad when it finished. not just because it was a sad ending but because i knew there wouldnt be another sifi series like it for such a long time.

    1. Re:I want another 35 seasons of galactica. by Moldiver · · Score: 1

      And thank the lord for this. The new galactica was a bad rape of the old series and it's makers should burn in hell for it...

  134. Exosquad! by Plastic+Pencil · · Score: 1

    Exosquad! Hands-down best Sci-Fi-action show of the '90's, live or animated.

  135. Geeky/nerdy can work if done right by syousef · · Score: 3, Informative

    This show is a sit com in which Schrodenger's cat was explained.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Big_Bang_Theory#U.S._standard_ratings

    The reason most sci-fi tanks is that it's so poorly done.

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    1. Re:Geeky/nerdy can work if done right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would suggest that the reason this show gets ratings is instead because it is just a standard sit-com with all the usual cliches, one liners, sexual innuendo, canned laughter and ridiculous stereotypes.

      The "intellectual content" is just thrown in there to make the show appear different than the multitudes of other sitcoms that are almost exactly the same, only in a different setting.

      Futurama might perhaps be a better example for the point you seem to be making?

  136. Space 1999 by Gnaythan1 · · Score: 1

    what the hell happened to that moon colony? And the cyborg uprising?

  137. Lensman. by dwiget001 · · Score: 1

    The Lensmen series, done well, would be mind blowing, IMHO.

    1. Re:Lensman. by dwiget001 · · Score: 1

      Correcting my partent:

      Lensmen should get an initial book, not a re-boot. Sorry.

      As far as a full on re-boot, I would have to say Star Trek, again.

    2. Re:Lensman. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would need to be done as a 1950's view of the future. Zoot suits, lots of flashy vehicles with fins, James Earl Jones as the voice of Mentor. Really, do a seriously retro SF thing.

    3. Re:Lensman. by dwiget001 · · Score: 1

      If done well, and not "1960's Batman-esque", I could go for that.

  138. Roger Zelazny's 9 Princes in Amber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    or Lord of Light.

    Lord of Light was a Hugo & Nebula awards winner, but I did like them both.

    He really was a good author that never had a screenplay get anywhere near the original.

  139. Mostly, regurgitated shit will still be shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Firefly: no thanks

    The Outer Limits: err, no

    Quatermass: Yes as a horror, quality science fiction drama based around an old scientist. No otherwise.

    Earth 2: never heard of it

    The Fantasic Journey: Although I've somewhat vague though fond memories of this... no

    UFO: Could actually be good.

    Space Above and Beyond: What little I saw of this was good.

    The Starlost: Never seen or heard of it. Annoying kids in the shot so no.

    Blakes 7: Avon made the show, a BSG style remake could be okay.

    The Superman/Aquaman Hour of Adventure: Yet another super hero fantasy, hell no!

    Space 1999: Weirded out to the max and somehow making even less sense than the original. Hmmm.

    Galaxy Rangers: ... Roll eyes

    Roswell: That show was utter shit. No.

    Babylon 5: Mixed bag the first time round. While it's influenced everything since for the better, it was a fine balance between brilliance and awfulness. A spin off about war with the telepaths (a parable on privacy) could be interesting and horrific without ever being cheesy.

    Max Headroom: I remember the (blipvert) movie well, the TV show not so much. Someone could do that in in blender, most bands on myspace have access to a web cam. The DIY version would probably be more interesting.

    MST3K: Never screened in the UK to my knowledge.

    The Greatest American Hero: I recall a "Some mothers do 'ave 'em" wannabe plus a leotard and minus any worthwhile humour. Pass.

    Dark Skies: Liked what I saw of it but didn't go out of my way to watch the original. Pass.

    She-Wolf of London: Never seen or heard of it.

    Star Cops: I think I saw one episode... thought it was crap. A police in space show could be good, Total Recall 2070 style.

    Invasion America: Never watched cartoons

    Thunderbirds: Could be done live action but it'd probably be silly. Pass.

    Salvage 1: Never seen or heard of it.

    Automan: Garbage, no.

    Space Rangers: Never seen or heard of it.

    Quantum Leap: Crap, so no.

    Lexx: Never quite new what to make of that one.

    Manimal: Utter shit wasn't it? No.

    Airwolf: Physics be damned, a helicopter can break the sound barrier! No.

    1. Re:Mostly, regurgitated shit will still be shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, you're so cool. We get it. You can eff off now, junior.

    2. Re:Mostly, regurgitated shit will still be shit by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 1

      I think the only MST3K episodes that were broadcast in the UK (depending on how you mean that term) were on the Sci Fi Channel's international channels.

      As for the Starlost, I am not sure what you mean by "annoying kids." There weren't any kids in that series that remember. Harlan Ellison wrote the book for the series and he disowned it early on because his ideas were basically ripped apart during development. It still has good concepts.

  140. Re:A couple of Classic Brit Sci-Fi's for a reboot. by An+ominous+Cow+art · · Score: 1

    I was wondering whether anyone would mention U.F.O, Space:1999, The Man from U.N.C.L.E (which I've never actually seen... I wonder whether Netflix has any of it on DVD?) or Captain Scarlet (which I've also not seen, though supposedly there was a CGI version put out fairly recently).

    Other series ripe for 1960s/1970s nostalgia would be Lost in Space, Land of the Giants, and Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea.

  141. Re:Old Man's War - John Scalzi by Phrogman · · Score: 1

    Honestly I would love to see a series set in this universe. Plenty of things to discuss and a lot of opportunity for character development and all in an environment that would allow for kick-ass special effects. This book and its successors are nothing short of brilliant.

    --
    "The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
  142. Re:Lords of Light by dsvick · · Score: 1

    I agree - the Chronicles of Amber would be terrific!!! It would have to be at least 3 movies, but 5 might be a bit too many to keep people coming. I agree the second set with MErlin were ok, but no where near as good as the original series.

  143. Earth 2 by edbob · · Score: 1

    I really enjoyed this show and it seemed that it got canceled just when it was starting to get good.

  144. UFO - No Question by Phrogman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I imagine most of you have never seen this excellent British SF Series but you should. Despite those elements which date it horribly, it was still far far ahead of its time. This was my favorite show as a kid without doubt and in many ways its still an excellent show and aged well. It deserves a reboot if anything does.
    However, it needs to be redone by the British, not Americans, or at least a co-production. Letting American writers and producers loose with it would ruin the show I think - it had an air of understatement that American TV shows and Audiences seem unable to maintain. A US production would be totally over the top and I think that would be a mistake.
    By far the best show in the entire list - and amazingly ignored in all the comments I read.

    --
    "The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
    1. Re:UFO - No Question by EvilEvolutionist · · Score: 1

      +1 Gerry Anderson's UFO totally rocked in its time and would do so again if it's in the proper hands. Evil(tm) Evolutionist

    2. Re:UFO - No Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd rather see more of Star Cops.

    3. Re:UFO - No Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a movie in Development from the Robert Evans company.

      http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118011722.html?categoryid=1236&cs=1

    4. Re:UFO - No Question by IronChef · · Score: 1

      Good call. UFO was like an X-COM tv series. I'd love to see a modern take on it.

      Give it to Joss Whedon or Christopher Nolan. :)

    5. Re:UFO - No Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good call. UFO was like an X-COM tv series. I'd love to see a modern take on it.

      Give it to Joss Whedon or Christopher Nolan. :)

      Um technically, the original X-COM was a partial homage for the UFO TV series and the book Alien Liaison by Timothy Good, or at least that's what the game's creator implies in this article.

      Oh and no disrespect to Whedon or Nolan, but IMHO J. Michael Straczynski would be a much better person to head a UFO TV series reboot.

  145. The Gap Cycle by Donaldson by dkragen2006 · · Score: 1

    Personally, I'd love to see the Gap Cycle on the big or little screen. Probably too dark for regular TV without destroying the series though.

  146. Varley's "Titan" series by Dr.+Manhattan · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The Titanides from the Titan series by Varley are the perfect application for the motion-capture and facial animation technology developed for Avatar.

    --
    PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
    1. Re:Varley's "Titan" series by Painted · · Score: 1

      That's a very good point- I hadn't thought of it. A series set in Gaia, start with a movie for the climb to the top, and then a series with the Wizard & Sidekick Gabby, exploring the world- You wouldn't even really need to get to the events in Wizard or Demon for a long, long time...

      --
      http://marsandmore.com - Posters of space, spacecraft, and astronomy.
  147. Dune? Star Wars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm amazed nobody has mentioned Dune yet. Or Star Wars.

    Alien?

    1. Re:Dune? Star Wars? by johnkzin · · Score: 1

      Dune was already re-done, as 2 mini-series on the Sci-Fi/syfy channel. Much better than the original theatrical movie.

      I think that if Dune needs anything, it's like Firefly: it doesn't need to be re-done, it needs to be continued. The remake had 1 mini-series for the first book, 1 mini-series for the 2nd and 3rd books. It'd be interesting to see the rest of the main novels done.

  148. The SyFy Channel by Baloo+Uriza · · Score: 1

    I realize that the question was "NOT SyFy," but really, what's to like about the network in it's present form? Reboot it.

    --
    Furries make the internet go.
    1. Re:The SyFy Channel by multicsfan · · Score: 1

      Best idea yet in this discussion. I'm pretty sure I could do a better job.

      I'm also going to have to rewatch my Blake's 7 videos. Maybe a Blake's 7 weekend ;)

  149. King of the Rocket Men by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    King of the Rocket Men. Or Crash Corrigan and the men from Atlantis.

    Definitely up for a reboot

  150. How about SciFi itself? by jd2112 · · Score: 1

    Changing the name to Syfy is an obvious sign they have jumped a whole school(?) Of sharks. (too lazy to look up what a group of sharks are...)

    --
    Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
  151. SF != Battlestar Galactica by Phrogman · · Score: 1

    Everyone is well aware that Hollywood can't seem to get away from attempts to recreate the last successful show to come along of course, but I really hope they lose the idea that every new show must be done in the style of Battlestar Galactica to ensure it will be popular. That show worked - although personally I only ever watched about half a season if it, I do intend to watch it eventually and I could see its potential.
    I am watching Stargate:Universe now as my wife and I are longtime fans of Stargate (despite a lot of cheesiness at times), and I have to say its awful so far. Awful because they have tried to create the same atmosphere as BG, and as a result none of the characters are likeable and I care about none of them. Everything is conflict and every character is a bit of an asshole and thats the best thing you can say about any of them.
    BG remade worked well because they had an original style and presentation and good writing. That isn't a formula for success, though. Not every show needs to be BG repeated. Let some originality shine through - of course this is Hollywood where originality is often strangled at birth I know.

    --
    "The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
  152. Starship Troopers by Animaether · · Score: 1

    Some things are best left in print, lest they suffer the same fate as Heinlein's Starship Troopers

    And what was wrong with Starship Troopers?

    I know what was wrong with the follow-up direct-to-DVD movies, but the original? I wasn't a big fan of the campy commercials - would've been better had they been proper propaganda ads - but other than that..

    Heck, hereby my vote... reboot Starship Troopers.. that is to say... do a prequel, and then do some sequels to the first movie.. consider the other movies as having not existed.

  153. Barbarella by huckamania · · Score: 1

    Barbarella, which I haven't seen in a while, would be interesting to reboot. It would need to steal some elements from Iaan M. Bank's Culture universe. I would say just make a Culture movie, but the Hollywood suits would not have a frame of reference.

    I have proof that Dora the Explorer is an agent of Culture. I'm just not sure if she is in Contact or Special Circumstances.

  154. There's no such thing as a good reboot by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

    Every reboot I've ever seen was a total suckfest. They seem to remove anything good from the source material and give us something dark and totally stupid.

    --
    Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
  155. FUCK ALL REMAKES by Latinhypercube · · Score: 0

    Like it says on the tin. FUCK ALL REMAKES.

  156. none? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about no more reboots... Star Trek was really watered down in the new reboot movie, and it was just another lame summer action movie, with Star Trek thrown into the mix. Wheres my 2371? I want to see the future of the Federation and other powers, not some past alternate universe crap where a lame wannabe kirk drives an ancient earth car through some desert. No more reboots!!! Sequals, spinoffs, thats fine, make a Star Trek comedy based on a Ferengi family or a Romulan spy, just no reboots!

  157. Nu Blakes 7 - Cast by jameskojiro · · Score: 1

    Avon - Andrew J Robinson (though he is getting old)
    Villa - David Hewlitt (Stargate Atlantis)
    Servelan - Morena Baccaraine (firefly)
    Tarrant - Joe Flanagin (Stargate Atlantis)

    My short list so far...

    --
    Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
  158. Zelasny's Amber Novels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, thats the ticket

  159. How about something NEW for a change? by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

    Is anyone else tired of everything the old media presents us with is either a remake, a sequel, a prequel or parallel to something already existing in some other way?

    How about final closure on Star Wars, Star Trek, Babylon 5, Galactica, etc?
    And how about something new?

    The only thing I can remember, that was original, was District 9. And even that was more two old things together, to make something new.
    And before that, Matrix. THAT was something really new (to me) and great.

    How about more of that (totally new stuff)?

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    1. Re:How about something NEW for a change? by corbettw · · Score: 1

      District 9 wasn't new. It was The Odyssey with an alien father in place of Odysseus and an alien boy in place of Penelope. Add in some commentary on apartheid and race relations and you've got your movie.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
  160. Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency by kandela · · Score: 1

    I would love to see this with a Mike Hammer style voice over. Adams' comedy is based on taking tangents on the current events. To do that well you need a narrative tool. It just so happens that narrating in that way is traditionally how detective stories were told on screen. It's too perfect! Personally I actually liked Dirk Gently better than Hitch Hikers, I realise this makes me weird. Possibly I am alone in the universe on this point but whatever it would make a damn fine movie or even series.

    --
    Conservation of angular momentum makes the world go round.
  161. Will miss Bill Bixby, though... by plasmasurfer · · Score: 0

    My Favorite Martian! I loved Uncle Martin's flying saucer.

    --
    To spot the expert, pick the one who predicts the job will take the longest and cost the most.
  162. Tripping the Rift by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The original short was hilarious, the tv series was so-so but still funnier than most of what is on today
    http://www.trippingtherift.com

  163. Greatest American Hero by uiucgrad · · Score: 1

    This would be perfect for a reboot tv series:
    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081871/

  164. Other new ones by it_guy_2 · · Score: 1

    I'm for new ones as well. Most reboots are lame, even if they benefit from modern CGI/etc. I saw The Clash of The Titans is about to be rebooted and thought, What a shame.

    How about The Foundation series? What about The Amber series? Thomas Covenant? Yes, I'm definitely bleeding into the fantastical but that's another point - there are tons of solid pieces out there that have not been done, that probably couldn't have been done until now.

    I'm still waiting for Atlas Shrugged too. Perhaps it is a simple drama piece and not Sci Fi or Fantasy but it could be seen as speculative fiction no matter how on the money it is these days.

  165. No More Remakes! New stuff based on by PRB_Ohio · · Score: 1

    Heinlein, Asimov, Bova, Clarke, Niven - Hell, just mine the HUGO Award winners!!! I want a FAITHFUL version of Starship Troopers!! Tell me what would happen if "I Will Fear No Evil" was made into a HARD 'R' movie? At least a half dozen stories from the "Expanded Universe" collection could make great films!

  166. The movie by phorm · · Score: 1

    The movie plotline would need to be dropped (or the series done in prequel), since it killed off several main characters.

  167. Micheal McCollum's Antares series by stephencrane · · Score: 1

    I always thought the Antares trilogy would make a great miniseries or tv series. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Antares Alas, Babylon and Farnham's Freehold would be great too. Last but not least... ARMOR. ARMOR. *sniff* Armor. *sob* Damn you, NPH.

  168. (Not) Flame Bait. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not Flame Bait: Harry Potter.

    Flame Bait: Fantasy and SciFi are the same thing.

  169. Re:A couple of Classic Brit Sci-Fi's for a reboot. by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

    The problem with Space 1999 is that it's basically impossible to tweak the premise in such a way that it's not completely ridiculous. They are kicked out of Earth's orbit and travel past a different planet every week. To do this, they must be going at several times the speed of light, and yet their Eagles can take off, land on the nearest planet, and then catch up with the moon. In spite of this feat, the same Eagles could not just evacuate them all back to Earth. You simply can't fix this. Either the moon is going at a plausible speed, in which case they've got months to be evacuated and there's no show, or the moon is superluninal, in which case they're stuck on it.

    UFO, on the other hand, could work quite well.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  170. What about Alf? by HikingStick · · Score: 2, Funny

    Just think--the graphics in the dream scenes where Alf fillets the family cat would be killer!

    --
    I use irony whenever I can, but my shirts are still wrinkled...
  171. Re:UFO - Wikipedia Link by Phrogman · · Score: 1

    I forgot to include a link to a description of the series in my original post

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFO_(TV_series)

    Reading it, it seems a remake is already in the works and it will be done in England. I hope it actually gets completed.

    --
    "The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
  172. Bring back MST3K by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Forget rebooting a series, just bring back MST3K.

  173. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are way too many un-tapped Sci-Fi stories to reboot old material. I would love to see a series based on Arthur C. Clarke's Rama novels.

  174. Re:XKCD by unknownroad · · Score: 1
    Matrix Revisited

    http://xkcd.com/566/

  175. Soylent Green: the Musical by srobert · · Score: 1

    How about Soylent Green: the Musical?

  176. Lost in Space w/o the absurdity by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 1

    "Lost in Space" could be an edgy serious dramatic series in the Battlestar Galactica vein with very little effort. It has all the ingredients for conflict, tension, interesting ethical questions (e.g. Do you feed your son the fuel or do you save it to get back home?). Rebooted, with a spaceship and crew that gets nastier and dirtier the longer the series continues would be a real ratings getter (What critical system breaks this week? Is Dr. Smith gay and what about his relationship to Will, who may also be gay?). Lots of potential.

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
  177. two [would be] great movies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    soylent green & westworld
    two of the all time greatest 'movies for a rained out ballgame'

  178. Max Headroom by jzarling · · Score: 1

    Max Headroom - or rather to world of Max Headroom should be rebooted, and tooled into a new show.

    --
    It is better to be the hammer than the anvil.
  179. Spaceballs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about Spaceballs?

    1. Re:Spaceballs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mork and Mindy

  180. Robotech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One word: Robotech.

  181. I vote for none of the above. by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

    I can't think of a single SF series that I dislike enough to suggest that they should be treated to the crapification process that constitutes reboots today.

  182. NONE by Sleepy · · Score: 1

    You have to remember folks - yesterday's SciFi was made FOR sci-fi fans.
    How much of today's sci-fi - series or movies - can really claim the same?
    Compromises are made to attract mainstream, non-scifi audiences and to satisfy Scientology investors and really bad, closet Scientology actors (*cough* Wil Smith *cough*).

    Half of the appeal of old sci-fi was lack of (imposed, or self-imposed) censorship.
    If you made something fantastic and sufficiently intellectual, fewer mainstream people would pay attention, and you could get away with ANYTHING.
    You could question the morality of the established culture, or at least hold a mirror up to it.. and you would not be blacklisted as a communist or subversive.
    (For the most part anyways.. the rest of Hollywood suffered, but sci-fi escaped a lot of that treatment).

    Twilight Zone TOS, Outer Limits, Start Trek TOS, Logan's Run, and Planet of The Apes all dealt with "human" issues like slavery, race relations, apartheid, the Cold War, resource depletion, "settling" on occupied land uninvited, feminism, the needs of the one vs. the needs of the many.

    Not that it was perfect - Gene Roddenberry faced tons of network pressure for his parables about the Cold War, using "Klingons" and "Romulans" as proxies for Soviets and Chinese. You just could not make a show that dealt with these issues in a modern context, period.

    I will admit that Battlestar Galactica was a well-done reboot, especially towards the end. I watched some sci-fi friends shift uncomfortable about some of the issues raised, like genocide and torture of prisoners and the effects that has on all parties.

    (Mind you, the "kill them all" type considered this an example of the "liberal elite disrespecting the US military" by showcasing the rape of Six so soon after organized rape and torture at Abu Ghraib, etc)

  183. Re:Old Man's War - John Scalzi by Parts09 · · Score: 1

    Honestly I would love to see a series set in this universe. Plenty of things to discuss and a lot of opportunity for character development and all in an environment that would allow for kick-ass special effects. This book and its successors are nothing short of brilliant.

    I am with you... Make a trilogy out of the first three books and I think it would do well. Downside is that there are some similarities to Avatar, which may have some people's hackles up.

    --
    My opinions are completely my own and do not reflect those of any entity I may be associated with - including the voices
  184. SciFI Reboot Idea by bobby50371 · · Score: 1

    I want SOMEONE to do a reboot of seaQuest DSV...the technology has improved so much that the show could afford to do more than what they could do back then. Bring Back seaQuest!!!

  185. New by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Honestly, there are SOOO many good stories out there. Make something new and leave the classics alone. 1. This will enrich our selection of stories to watch as a society. 2. You will not get the complaints from the fans. 3. You will have shown yourself as an artist, and not just a money hound.

    I know, sequels and remakes make money. But so will something new.

    How about making the Wheel of Time series? Or a series based on the game Paranoia or Shadowrun?

  186. Twilight Zone?! Outer Limits?! by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1

    The Twilight Zone and The Outer Limits were all self-contained episodes. How on earth can you do a 're-boot' of these? Re-make the original series with a modern spin? I don't think so.

    --
    Drill baby drill - on Mars
    1. Re:Twilight Zone?! Outer Limits?! by grumbel · · Score: 1

      The same way they rebooted them last time?

  187. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  188. Anything but Wrestling and Ghost Hunting. by cpufrier37075 · · Score: 1

    Anything, absolutely anything but wrestling and ghost hunting. Hell, the history channel has more scifi than SyFy.

  189. The Starlost by Urban+Garlic · · Score: 1

    Link for those who haven't heard of it.

    Maybe Harlan Ellison could come back and salvage his original vision. Maybe this time the Magicam will work.

    --
    2*3*3*3*3*11*251
  190. Firefly? (no) Babylon 5? Highlander? Space:1999? by johnkzin · · Score: 1

    Firefly doesn't need to be rebooted. It was fine the first time around, and it was envisioned just right. What it needs is not a reboot, it needs a revival/continuance.

    Babylon 5 ... the nature of the production "network" messed up the second half of season 4, and ruined season 5 (IMO). Further, the sequel series was ruined by various other issues (chiefly the network airing it). It would be interesting to see how JMS would re-do the whole thing if he had the chance.

    Highlander ... there are like 2 or 3 different attempts at a back story, several disconnected movies, 2 different tv series, movies that are based on the series and not the original movie(s) .... it's a huge mess. I'd be nice to see a story that has a central arc (like B5, where it's known up front and told in a slowly revealed and sophisticated manner... not like BSG, where they made up "the arc"/"the plan" as they went along, and just barely pulled it off), but more importantly, it has a definite continuity that the existing mess lacks.

    Space:1999 ... obviously, they have to change the title. But it was one of my early favorite shows. I'd love to see what a talented writer could do with it. Again, I'd want it to be an arc story, that is pre-envisioned, and not made up as they go along.

    The article referenced brings up Buck Rogers. If they could do it more like the original 1930's, and not like the 1980's, then go for it.

    Dune was already re-done, on the sci-fi/syfy channel ... like Firefly, it doesn't need a reboot right now, it needs a continuance (the rest of the books).

    One other idea: The Six Million Dollar Man. Only, NOT done by the people who did the reboot of "The Bionic Woman". That was AWFUL.

    What about that old kids show: Arc 2? With the vehicle that drives around a post-apocalyptic planet trying to find a way to re-build civilization? That might do well right now.

    Or the Shazam/Captain Marvel show of the same era. With or without Isis.

    Oh... and... what about Mad Max/Road Warrior? I think Mel is too old to pull off a sequel at this point, so why not a fresh look at it.

    Someone mentioned Aliens ... maybe. Or even a complete revamp of the Terminator story (and, again, done with forethought, and not "what can we shove into the sequel this time, and pull out of our butts to sort of make it work?").

  191. Starship Troopers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I enjoyed the book and was shocked to see how badly Hollywood mangled it. They turned the first movie into a teeny-bopper romp and I couldnt even sit through the second (and I really like bad movies). The powered armor was completely omitted and the book also had a fairly deep discussion about what it meant to be a citizen. A complete travesty even by Hollywood standards.

  192. Heinlein novel again relevant today by rbrander · · Score: 1

    I won't bother wishing that "Starship Troopers" could be re-made correctly with the combat suits and the "Heinlein was Fascist" commentary from Paul Verhoven removed - too late now.

    The movie of his other novel that made for great movie material (lots of action and icky scares), "The Puppet Masters" was made on a tight budget with unknowns (save Donald Sutherland in a supporting role) is mostly forgotten already. Among other misses, it failed to bring out the cold-war paranoia that the guy next to you on the sidewalk could be the Enemy about to enslave your brain and steal your body.

    A remake today could transfer that to War On Terror paranoia: imagine scenes of everybody lining up for a TSA-type full-body scan (and random strip search)...not to get on an airplane, but to go anywhere, especially a movie theatre. Total Surveillance state justified by the War on Aliens.

    One of the best-loved things about the original Star Trek, and most-praised about the BSG reboot, was the sly (or, sometimes, blunt) commentary on issues of the day.

  193. B5 by merikari · · Score: 1

    Yeah, B5. The star is getting dim...

    The spinoffs and TV movies were for the most part horrible, but I think the universe has a lot of potential. Not sure if JMS would be interested or up to the job. He is not that old... 56, but still. Some bold casting decisions, good writing, a budget, and a studio that gives creative freedom to the team. Ok... nevermind...

    --
    My other SIG is a Sauer.
  194. Starlost for the Win by rtrifts · · Score: 1

    Series prime for a reboot?

    #1 Starlost: A crappy Canadian 70's Saturday morning kids SF show. Based on a Harlan Ellison story/script. There is a lot to work with here. This could work very well.

    For those unfamiliar with the original - there is a generation ship out of control headed owards a star. The ship is a massive nework of geodesic domes. Each dome is essentially its own culture. The series' heroes are looking for the bridge and a way of saving the ship. Most dome/cultures are oblivious and do not even realize they are on a ship in the first place.

    #2 Logan's Run: Another novel turned into a 70s movie that spawned a short lived series that could work. I do think it would work better as a one-off movie, however.

    #3 Micronauts: The toys were cheesey but the original comic series #1 by Marvel had huge potential. This could work very well.
       

    --
    .Robert
  195. Why re-boot? by eyenot · · Score: 1

    There are plenty of great scientifictions out there that were never made into radio operas let alone screenplays. Egads, why spend all this money just rehashing something that already exists as a complete and finished work? The better investment would be to breech some new subject into being, to expand the artistic collective of scientifictions overall, thus enriching the minds and lives of people who as of yet have absolutely no idea what the amazing future holds in such far-off worlds as the amazing year 2050!

    THERE WILL BE:

    Personal Rocket-Jet Propulsion Backpack CHECK!

    Aerial Autocar CHECK!

    Bees the size of small hummingbirds that are so domesticated you can direct them to supple out your nose perfectly clean using their robust and godgiven kneebritches CHECK!

    SO MUCH MORE awaits us in the Amazing year Twenty-Fifty that the human race will fail to become aware of if all we manage to do is keep telling the same OLDE-TIMEY TALES over and over and over again! If that's all we ever did then, by golly, we would still believe that mankind is the center of the universe! Or that beans and peas are totally unrelated! We would believe that rockets are only for children to play with, and look at what we know today: "KEEP OUT OF THE REACH OF CHILDREN"! There's no telling what leaps of evolution we may take if we learn to adapt more of the as-yet-unadapted bookwritten scientifiction tales of MARVEL AND WONDER into radio-operas and "talkie" motion pictures!

    Or else -- we may NEVER get to see the amazing year 2050!

    --
    "Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
  196. From The Earth to the Moon by tverbeek · · Score: 1

    I nominate Verne's "From The Earth to the Moon", not so much because it needs updating, but because the premise seems to have become science fiction again.

    --
    http://alternatives.rzero.com/
  197. Is rebooting a good thing ? by kegon · · Score: 1

    Seriously, how many reboots have been good, ever ? I can count them on one hand: BSG, Smallville, um, er... I absolutely agree: Doing something new would be a much, much better idea.

    BSG was really well done if you can ignore the ending: When they got to Earth and found it was devasted, that was inspired. Then we should have seen Bill Adama wandering around the beach they visited, cut to Colonel Tigh saying "Frak!", the end. Would have been a whole lot better then the mish mash they cobbled together afterwards.

    Batman Begins was like a reboot of a reboot. The first Tim Burton one was good but I didn't like the Joker that much. After that it got dull very quickly, the scriptwriters seemed to forget what kind of character he is. Jump forward to the reboot; well it's not bad but I was really hoping to see how Bruce Wayne became Batman. Instead, he disappears to China and all of a sudden he is a pretty good fighter and all round tough guy who just needs a bit of ninja training.

    Superman Returns was pants. Should have been a Smallville movie. Or not. Anyway, any one episode of Smallville is 10x better than that movie. Star Trek TNG was good if you consider it a reboot; but Enterprise, not so good. What were they thinking ? And we all know what happened with the Star Wars reboots: Han didn't shoot first, WTF ?

    I think the reboot I am least looking forward to is Predator. It's going to be difficult for them not to ruin a classic movie. One reboot that might be good, is Tron, but only because the original was too ambitious.

  198. I agree with most of this by Weaselmancer · · Score: 1

    I would really like to see the definitive version of the Dune saga done right

    Hell yeah. I'll make your wish come true too if I ever win the lottery. I'm serious.

    The Dune saga really deserves better treatment than it has received at the hands of previous studios and directors.

    Again, hell yeah and amen.

    IMHO, either James Cameron or Steve Jackson would be good choices to direct, but others may have different opinions.

    Here is where we differ. Steve Jackson? No fscking way. Don't get me wrong - I liked his LOTR. It looked right, and had scenes that were 100% canon. But he made too many "my story ideas are better" changes to the storyline. It's why nobody has gotten Dune right.

    These stories (LOTR, Dune) are finely tuned masterpieces. You can't simply swap out part of it with your own ideas and have them work. Here's an example:

    Elrond showing up and giving Aragorn the sword halfway through the journey. "Hey thanks you bastard if you were committed to walking all this way we sure could have used your @%@%# help with the Balrog. Thanks for the sword though. I've really been needing a good sword these last six freaking months."

    You just can't drop in your own ideas into the story and have them work. So in the spirit of that I would do NO SUCH THING to my hypothetical treatment of Dune. If it's not in the book, it doesn't make it to the screen. So I'd say that Peter Jackson is probably the exact wrong person to make Dune. YMMV of course.

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
  199. Outer Limits? Wut? by nsayer · · Score: 1

    How is it a reboot when the series itself is an assortment of more or less unrelated short stories? The Outer Limits did have a revival back in the 90s, and it was... well, the same show that it was in the 50s (except for being in color, having better effects, and worse writing).

  200. Great points, PapayaSF by sgt_doom · · Score: 1

    I like your thought processes. Poul Anderson's Operation Changeling (short story in F&SF which was later expanded to Operation Chaos), Stirling's Drakon, a true SF action and tech opera extraordinaire, Iain Banks' stuff, as you suggested, along with Sturgeon's classics.

    The great thing about the original Outer Limits was that it utilized stories by Heinlein, Asimov and many others (and I recall Harlan Ellison's knockout, The Glass Hand, or some similar title, with actors Robert Culp and Maria Perez).

  201. RED DWARF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not one person mentioned Red Dwarf.

    Communal PHAIL.

  202. MST3K by nsayer · · Score: 1

    I know, the MST3K folks are off doing new things, and that's good. All the more reason for a reboot - bring in new talent, a new idea for a series story arc... There are plenty of lousy movies out there to deconstruct. All it takes is a crew of interns to chase down the rights to them...

  203. Logans Run? by Candera · · Score: 0

    Why not Renew Logans Run?

    --
    ~Candera
  204. The Starlost by Tisha_AH · · Score: 1

    This will really date me, the series that only lasted less than a year;

    The Starlost

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Starlost

    It was kinda early 70's funkadelic (groovy baby) but it had a great deal of potential.

    A multi-generation colony ship where the crew dies, leaving only the colonists living in domes. The domes looked exactly like the structures used in the movie Silent Running but much larger.

    The colonists are locked off from each other, hundreds of years have passed and everyone has forgotten that they are on a ship. The ship is damaged and heading for certain destruction.

    There are hundreds of domes, this ship contains the last survivors of the human race. The ship is thousands of miles across. Each dome contains a different culture and some have diverged wildly from what they may have started as.

    Imagine a dome, 50 miles across that is nothing but wacked-out Islam, a Amazonian dome with jungles....

    The potential varieties are amazing. All of this without even leaving the ship.

    Three people have accidentally gotten out of their dome. Think of their culture as 19th century Amish. They gradually

    --
    Tisha Hayes
  205. Fan Scripts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.stillflying.net/
    Although we'll probably never have new real episodes, the site above has fan-made scripts -- based on Whedon's drafts -- for a completed 1st season and a 2nd season that retells "Serenity" over many TV-length episodes. I enjoyed these nearly as much as the real shows.

  206. It's partly about attitude. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How many of those SF classics would fit modern attitudes towards storytelling though? I remember EE Smith's "Triplanetary" (first book of "Lensman") having square-jawed American scientist heroes mercilessly destroying the people who threatened them. If Hollywood told a story like that today, wouldn't it mutate into an international force of angst-ridden beautiful people battling the corrupt government to save the misunderstood, spiritually pure aliens?

  207. Batman? by Peganthyrus · · Score: 1

    From the first article:

    Batman
    The Dark Knight has been cleverly, and even subversively, lightened up by the run of the enjoyable Batman: The Brave and the Bold. On screen, the cowled hero has mostly remained locked either in clumsy camp or gritty noir, but nothing beyond.

    Both versions of the Caped Crusader rule, but Batman could benefit from an anime upgrade or perhaps a temporal distortion that pushes him into Buck Rogers’ timestream. The idea is not necessarily new: From the Bat-anime of Batman: Gotham Knight to the appearance of Bat-mechas in recent animated series, Bat-updates have been flirted with, brilliantly. Let’s go all the way.

    I guess these guys were completely oblivious in 1999-2001, when WB was broadcasting Batman Beyond, set in 2039. Or was it not cool because it was made by an American crew or something?

    --
    egypt urnash minimal art.
  208. While on the topic of rebooting... by jmoo · · Score: 1

    ...can we reboot a few book series?

    Loved Rendezvous with Rama (something that still needs to be made into a movie). The books that came after, not so much. The fourth book is cringe worthy bad.
    The Foundation series, with the right author, could be continued. Not going to say that would be easy, but Second Foundation Trilogy put out a few years ago didn't really go anywhere.
    I haven't read all of the Ringworld series yet, but I feel it hasn't aged quite as well. Maybe not a reboot, just some rewriting?

    On the other hand there needs to be a stop to all the endless Star Wars and Star Trek novels being pumped out.

    --
    The world isn't run by weapons anymore, or energy, or money. It's run by little ones and zeroes, little bits of data.
  209. Smegging 'Dwarf anybody? by Droid+Rot · · Score: 1

    I don't know if anybody has mentioned it yet, but personally, I'm still waiting for a Red Dwarf The Motion Picture.

    1. Re:Smegging 'Dwarf anybody? by DigitalSorceress · · Score: 1

      Did you miss "Back to Earth"? They DID reboot it with the original actors (minus Holly), but it was only so-so. Made me sad, but certainly didn't keep me from buying it in Region 2 format to get it as early as possible.

      --

      The Digital Sorceress
    2. Re:Smegging 'Dwarf anybody? by Huzzah! · · Score: 1

      Would you like some toast?

  210. Star Wars (IV, V, and VI) by bcullman · · Score: 1

    A few have mentioned the Star Wars prequels, but not much has been said about the original trilogy. My take on it is that *eventually* everything that is successful is redone and/or rebooted. The way I see it is that Lucas has two choices here. 1) He does not want the original Trilogy to be rebooted. Fine. Everyone waits until Lucas is dead and then they fight over Star Wars copyrights, and *eventually* an original Trilogy reboot is produced. Results: Money is made hand over fist. (Note: This is not too different that how the Star Trek reboot happened.) 2) Lucas comes to the realization that the first scenario will happen if he does nothing, so instead, he gives the green light to do a Star Wars original trilogy reboot, provides some basic direction and ILM, but is otherwise hands off. Results: *LUCAS* makes money is made hand over fist.

  211. How about Space 1999 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe now it could be renamed to Space 2099, but i loved that show.

  212. Some old series by Darth+Cider · · Score: 1

    Here are a few semi-cheesey series that might fit the bill.

    7 Days Not too bad as is.
    Code Name Eternity Very low budget feel.
    Earth 2 As mentioned by others.
    First Wave Not a terrible premise.
    Harsh Realm Came out the same year as The Matrix.
    Level 9 Hackers working for the government?
    Space Above And Beyond
    Space Precinct 2040 Like Barney Miller in space.
    Starhunter Interesting premise.
    TekWar William Shatner's trashterpiece.
    The Invaders The most retro of the lot.
    The Secret Adventures Of Jules Verne Too British.
    The Sentinel Featuring Fiona Apple's brother.
    The Starlost With Keir Dullea - already mentioned.
    Time Trax Tootsie as the computer interface?
    Total Recall 2070 Could have been better.
    Welcome To Paradox

    I think Harsh Realm and Level 9 would be the most interesting.

  213. StarBlazers (aka Battleship Yamamoto) by wsgeek · · Score: 1

    StarBlazers!!!! Come on, this would be AWESOME. I liked this show far more than RoboTech and I hear that's getting the big-scren treatment... Toby MacGuire, etc.

  214. Has to the potential to be Tragic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most of the good stuff has been done, or was recent to begin with (Sure wouldn't mind more Firefly though). Moreover, sometimes the temptation to meddle can be unpleasant. I can't imagine, for instance, a remake of E.T. somehow topping the original. Sure, the special effects would be far superior but almost inevitably the story telling would be poorer and even if somehow managed to be an improvement, many would detest it anyways.

    If the Star War's prequels proved anything, it's that childhood Nostalgia is an impossible standard to live up to. Were the prequels great? No, but neither were the originals to be honest. Most children probably prefer the prequels to the originals since the effects are better and they have no particular nostalgia for the originals . . . Ever try to get a kid to sit down and watch a 30 year old movie? No matter how good you thought it was when you were a child, they just aren't interested.

  215. Michael Moorcock's Jerry Cornelius Quartet by MuChild · · Score: 1

    I say this knowing that it would really make a great film(s) if they re-worked the characters and plots of at least the Final Programme. I have seen the original '70's version and, while it has it's upsides, it could really be done much better today.

    It's got sex, drugs, humor, rock and roll, time-travel, hermaphroditic super-beings...you name it!

  216. I dream of jeannie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about this: I Dream of Jeannie? with a real serious side. edgy, gritty...

  217. Otherworld by Mi1ez · · Score: 1

    Kinda surprised NOBODY has mentioned "Otherworld" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otherworld_%28TV_series%29) I used to LOVE that show.

  218. Re:Brave New World by KharmaWidow · · Score: 1

    BNW a serial? I'll have to look for it for the sake of looking. I know there was a movie that was kinda crappy.

    MTV might make Dawn of the Dead a series... read that this weekend. Also, check out Hulu for Kirill

  219. Dune by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Throw out the move and that awful mini-series. Revealing some of the wonderfully captured Jihand and religious/political/economic issues of a desert war over scarce resources would be... oh, wait, never mind, the 6 o'clock news is on.

  220. Revive Red Dwarf... or something! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bring back Red Dwarf... Reboot Red Dwarf... Continue the story with the same cast or a different cast... I don't care, just bring it back somehow! And whatever happened to the on-again off-again movie anyway?

    For a movie... must have all of the original cast and writers! There! That's all!

    Oh, and agreed with all of the above regarding the hundreds upon hundreds of great Sci-Fi already out there in paperback. A lifetime of great NEW material!

  221. Starhunter by TClevenger · · Score: 1

    How about Starhunter 2300? It ended in a cliffhanger, for crying out loud.

  222. It's Alive! Nueromancer on the way... by HenryKoren · · Score: 1

    Fear not.... William Gibson's Neuromancer movie is slated for release in 2011

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1037220/

  223. Tons! by rfernand79 · · Score: 1

    Flash Gordon, Buck Rogers, The Day of the Triffids, Chocky, The Tomorrow People, ...

  224. YES! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd definitely go for a Hyperion series. Or how about "Pandora's Star". Or "Ender's Game"... good stuff, and (of course) ignored by hollywood.

  225. Runner! by Flere+Imsaho · · Score: 1

    Logan's Run would make a great darkly paranoid reboot.
    It would be a nice commentary on the cult of youth / ageism and disposability that seems prevalent in western culture at the moment.

    I was thinking about the previous recommendation of Iain M Banks' Culture novels, but they'd just fuck them up and ruin some great reading :-(

    --
    It gripped her hand gently. 'Regret is for humans,' it said.
  226. Timeslip by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Timeslip. Because adults won't get good sci-fi tomorrow if children don't see it today.

  227. The Stainless Steel Rat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Forget reboots lets get something new, Harry Harrison's SSR series would be awesome as a TV Mini Series and would have mass appeal.

  228. Flatland - 3D by peterofoz · · Score: 1

    I vote for a 3-d version of Flatland

    http://www.geom.uiuc.edu/~banchoff/Flatland/

    Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions is an 1884 satirical novella by the English schoolmaster Edwin Abbott Abbott. Writing pseudonymously as "a square" [1], Abbott used the fictional two-dimensional world of Flatland to offer pointed observations on the social hierarchy of Victorian culture.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatland

  229. Galactica by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

    Don't forget Lorne Greene. None can compare to the "Voice of Canada" and Badass cattle rancher, Lorne "Adama Cartwright" Greene.

    Yeah, I felt so sorry for him when I was watching Galactica 1980. It just seemed like he was really giving it his best, despite it all...

    --
    Bow-ties are cool.
  230. Re:they should turn 'land of the lost' into a movi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh good god that movie was terrible.

  231. robotech? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Robotech anyone? I know there's talk of a live action movie but I'd much rather see it as a BSG-style series.

  232. Space 1999 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What about space 1999, but call it Space 2099. I love that show, even though the outfits are hilarious!

  233. P.S. 28 days later. by IBitOBear · · Score: 1

    A real life friend asked about the reference so...

    If you watch the alternate endings on the DVD of 28 days later, they wanted to have a symmetrical ending where the main male lead would sacrifice himself to save the girl's father. Medically they wanted to "cure" to be a huge sacrifice, where it takes one person surrendering their life to save any other from the disease.

    The ending scene would then have the male lead tied down to the table watching the scenes of violence on the monitors, in a poetic juxtaposition to the monkey in the opening scene.

    They realized they "couldn't do that" because the disease was too infectious for them to do the whol-body blood transfusion they envisioned. They were, of course correct, no transfusion could do it...

    So here is the "patch" for the movie to give them their ending, both visually and "technically" at least to the degree of "technically correct" established by the rest of the movie.

    PATCH: The cure is basically the original virus that was engineered to become the super weapon. You give that to an uninfected donor person. Then as they go mad the original, slow way you give them a shot of bone marrow collected from the person you want to cure. This contains the infected immune cells of the intended recipient. The donor's immune system, primed with the more robust but slower original virus produces antibodies to unique viral strain created by the fast virus and the recipients genetics. The donor's blood serum now contains an antibody uniquely matched to the recipient which will jump-start their immune system. The donor cannot be re-used since introducing a second bone marrow sample would produce an immune complex that would simply kill the second recipient systemic organ rejection.

    Okay, its all techno-babble, but it's _good_ techno-babble. It can be acted out on screen with big pantomime gestures. I has all the dramatic elements the writers and cinematographers were after. It actually makes more sense than a disease so virulent that it can drive you mad in seconds.

    But that is the essence of a good patch, it changes the minimum while correcting the flaw and allowing for the desired outcome.

    --
    Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
    --"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
  234. Re:And the correct answer is... NOT NONE by RileyBryan · · Score: 1

    Allowing Hollywood dipshits would write something that would appeal to your average slashdotter would be an epic fail. What we need, is for somebody to sort out the decent fiction, and then, find somebody to direct & produce it who wouldn't make a complete abomination out of something that is awesome and classic.

  235. Written works by SlowMovingTarget · · Score: 1

    For work not previously made into movies or TV how about:

    1. C.J. Cherryh's Foreigner series (forget the Navi, show me some Atevi)
    2. Anne McAffrey's Dragon Riders of Pern
    3. David Drake's Hammer's Slammers
    4. Niven and Pournelle: The Mote in God's Eye

    For reboots, how about a truer version of Jim Butcher's The Dresden Files.

  236. Mod me redundant, wait and see by Weaselmancer · · Score: 1

    You can't take the sky from me.

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
  237. More Good, Well Written Sci Fi Please by this_is_art · · Score: 1

    I really like a lot of the suggestions, but my personal TV favorite is still Babylon 5. Whatever gets rebooted however, I want to see the result of good writing and good production quality. Cheers

  238. Please, not Firefly! by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

    Please do not 'reboot' Firefly!

    And I'm not saying that because I dislike it. I like it very much, and it is one of those few shows with a special quality resulting from good writing (mostly) and a very realistic between the characters.

    That interaction will not be the same with a 'reboot' unless the same actors are available. If those actors are not available - at least a couple of them to maintain the dynamic - it would make any relaunch a likely failure with existing fans.

    Think of the last (couple) seasons of Stargate SG-1, after Richard Dean Anderson left. The show sucked because what little dynamic SG-1 had was lost by the removal of a pivotal character.

    --
    ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    1. Re:Please, not Firefly! by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Please do not 'reboot' Firefly!

      Don't take it seriously, the editors just added that to guarantee an additional 12,000 page views.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  239. Re:they should turn 'land of the lost' into a movi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I find when a movie like "Land of the Lost" is sooooo overhyped that it falls flat to it's expectations...

    I enjoy it more.... Because I have NO expectations.

    We watched it on the home theatre, and laughed quite a bit. Dorky, Campy, and oh.. ridiculousness of Will Farrell..

    Maybe I'm the only one that thought it was ok. But I do believe that Hollywood overhypes itself sooo much to make opening weekend ratings, that people feel 'oversold' and then word of mouth is vicious.

  240. Re:A couple of Classic Brit Sci-Fi's for a reboot. by erktrek · · Score: 1

    I dunno maybe you could have that nuclear waste pile explosion blow open a temporary dimensional wormhole causing the moon to bounce around the universe or something. Then you could pass by a different planet / system each week and still maintain some semblance of scifi cred.

  241. Man from Atlantis; The Phoenix,etc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about some older shows like the Man from Atlantis, the Phoenix, Invaders, Kolchak (ok NM, X-files ruined writers for that for a couple more decades), UFO, Sapphire and Steel, Six Billion dollar Man(inflation!), the Tomorrow People (with effect that finally didn't blow goats), Space 1999, Blake's 7, Greatest American Hero, etc.

    There are TONS of older properties that could be re-done in interesting ways or sequalized, etc,etc. Too bad the crowd here seems to dine on crappy japanese anime ripoffs and awful battlestar reinventions (not that the original was anything to write home about)

    Then again, why not dip into truly old Serials, and re-ivent some cool old properties in modern ways?

  242. Re:Quark - MOD PARENT UP PLEASE by Dexter+Herbivore · · Score: 1

    I had been hopelessly scanning the replies looking for any mention of Quark, wondering whether I had dreamed of this garbage scow in space. I'd previously found the wiki entry but no-one I know could remember the series ever being shown here. For me, this stood out as a shining moment in comedy scifi during my youth.

  243. everything - avatar++ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    3d and all that, y'know

  244. somthing from JMS by JayAEU · · Score: 1

    I'd really like to see JMS finish up some of his older stories, preferably Jayce and the Wheeled Warriors. If this came out in Hollywood quality, it'd really be a blast.

  245. Killing Wash by mcvos · · Score: 1

    Also, because that ass Whedon thought it'd be "edgy" or something to unnecessarily, unceremoniously, and inelegantly kill Wash. What the hell, man? The heroes are supposed to be essentially immortal, unless their death is a Sacrifice for the Greater Good. Just killing Wash like that was a complete failure to adhere to the principles of Good Storytelling.

    His death did serve a function. It's exactly like you say: heroes are supposed to be immortal, and that would have made the ending of the movie terribly unexciting. Exactly because Wash and Book were dead, was the audience able to believe that the entire crew was going to die.

    I'm not against killing off major characters if it servers the experience like that, but you're entirely correct that the movie tried to wrap up too many loose ends all at the same time.

    Also, space has suddenly become a lot smaller in the movie. In the series it takes them ages to get anywhere, but here they zip around at warp 10 with a giant fleet at their tail.

  246. Odyssey 5 by tengu1sd · · Score: 1

    Generally well written, a background story arc and long shot odds. Peter Weller was way cool.

    1. Re:Odyssey 5 by mahsah · · Score: 1

      Agreed, if nothing else that series had a really cool premise.

  247. Sure. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    Your tastes are law.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
    1. Re:Sure. by spun · · Score: 1

      No, but they are my tastes, and I'm entitled to share my opinions, yes?

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  248. WOK by grikdog · · Score: 1

    Studio Ghibli apparently held (or was at least thinking about, once upon a time) some sort of rights to a Miyazaki version of James H. Schmidt's Witches of Karres. See http://www.nausicaa.net/miyazaki/books/miyazaki/#karres for a cover illustration for the Japanese edition of the book. An anime version would be awesome.

    --
    ``Tension, apprehension & dissension have begun!'' - Duffy Wyg&, in Alfred Bester's _The Demolished Man_
  249. Space Above and Beyond by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I want Space: Above and Beyond.. was a great show, but the network execs killed it before the end of the first season..

  250. How about... by XDirtypunkX · · Score: 1

    How about we reboot Hollywood and the media in general so that they can come up with some original ideas. You know, something new and awesome.

  251. Instead of a reboot, some real SciFi by dgbrownnt · · Score: 1

    Ender's Game, made correctly, with all of its darkness, and a warning that those on anti-depressents may need to increase their dosage.

  252. The History of Civilisation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    aka the "Lensmen" series. It deserves better than the two failed anime attempts to date.

    Unfortunately, the way TV is heading, we'll end up with a re-tread of Holmes and Yo-Yo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holmes_&_Yo-Yo

  253. Star Blazers, in adult tone. by master_p · · Score: 1

    First of all, there is a Space Battleship Yamato live action film coming out of Japan at the end of the year.

    I'd like to see Star Blazers done in an adult tone. There is a great depth in Space Battleship Yamato that was almost lost in the translation to Star Blazers.

  254. Captain Power! by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

    Reboot Captain Power, get JMS back on, keep it as awesome as the original, and this time, keep on with the second season (and beyond.) That show was *not* a kids show. The episode with the plague kid, the episode with Pilot needing to infiltrate a Dread base, the finale....that was some damn fine television.

    --
    Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
  255. Have Mercy, Start with Season 5 by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    God love JMS, and B5 1-4 were the best TV ever, but, man Season 5 stunk of rotten fish eggs. And flower children. And Commander Supermodels.

    At least he sobered up* for Crusade.

    * high on brilliance and success, not drugs, necessarily.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  256. SciFi, SchmiFi by jman.org · · Score: 1

    What about Quark? Would be nice to see Gene/Gene on the airwaves again.

    BTW, Forrest J. Ackerman coined the phrase "Sci-Fi" to honor early science fiction editor Hugo Gernsback, who was also into radio (think Hi-Fi).

    Forrey was a great man, but really blew it with this horrid nickname. Trufen pronounce it "Skiffy".

  257. Firefly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Firefly.

    I don't care how sick most of you are of hearing it (my friends are too), I love that show and always will keep hope alive for more Firefly content to be produced.

    Burn the land and boil the sea, you can't take the skies from me.

  258. Space 1999 by Deth4U · · Score: 1

    Was an awesome show in it's time.

  259. SPACE 1999 and SPACE: ABOVE AND BEYOND by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    Not sure if I got the names exactly right, but I loved both when I was younger, and both could be rebooted successfully.

  260. Hey! by sootman · · Score: 1

    How about Spider-Man?

    --
    Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
  261. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  262. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  263. Star Wars is still not finished yet by name_already_taken · · Score: 1

    Is it just me, or didn't George Lucas say he was going to do more? (A very long time ago)

    Ok, the clone wars is ok... but I remember watching George Lucas on TV back when the Ep. V came out he was talking about getting ready to do Ep. VI, and he said the first three movies were actually the middle of the story, and that he wanted to go on to make not only Episodes I-III, but also VII, VIII and IX.

    The story's not over with the death of Vader and the Emperor.

    --
    Putting moderation advice in your .sig lowers your karma!
  264. Space 1999 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Reboot as Space 2199 :)

  265. It's about time they Reboot SPACE 1999 !!! by Ragooman · · Score: 1

    It's about time they Reboot SPACE 1999 !!! just change the damn year