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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.