I watched "V" last night. Seemed like they condensed the beginning, and seemed hurried, but I liked it. The Leader Lady is beautiful!

I think they wanted to jump right into the story and spare us the slow introduction of the series and it's many sub-plots. I liked it, as someone who watched the original series as a kid, I think this version will do well by the original.

I am a HUGE fan of the original mini-series, the second mini-series and even the failed series

THAT BEING SAID

I do not like the direction of this new V.

Even before the show I was worried they were going to take the route of "Who can you trust?" and it seems they are.

I liked how the original was more on the drama of a struggling resistance led by scientists and regular folks and NOT on the aliens themselves.

From the first episode this just seems watered down...

Granted I'll watch it, as there really isn't any other SciFi to watch...but I will do so under protest

I enjoyed the original series,however nothing stays the same. I also enjoyed the new show so far also. Let's give it chance. I liked seeing seeing the Serenity cast( Alien Leader & the FBI agent's partner). Can Mal be far behind!

It was good. By coincidence (?) the original V showing on SciFi channel. I had a little fun watching one, then the other. Looking forward to a good retelling.

I didn't like the fast pace.
I could follow it with no problem.
I understand it is a style of storytelling, just one I don't like.

When the FBI woman was sitting with the priest and said,
"We need to start a resistance."
I thought "To what?"

What have the Visitors done? So she was attacked by her
partner, so what? And why go right to a resistance movement?
Shouldn't we try diplomatic channels through our government,
then our military?

All of the events that would explain how the Visitors had gained
control of the world were glossed over.

I liked the original mini-series' way of showing the encroachment
into our society. The eroding of civil rights. The establishment
of fascism.

All of that was explained away by a nutcase ranting at a group
of people in a warehouse.

We don't need to see a story unfold! Just use one scene to set up
the long action sequences, and the series' premise! Emmy gold!

:drunk:

I think I will pass.

Two potential Science Fiction shows down the tubes:
Battlegate Universe
Battlestar V

P.S. What's with this "devotion" theme?

Basic TV stuff. Nothing more, nothing less (IMO).

Yeah, the "tell me, doctor" scene was a bit much. Instead of a shocking reveal that these beautiful aliens are lizards, this looney just tells us.

And they did the impossible - made Morena Baccarin look... I dunno, odd.

Still, it wasn't awful, and I can stand watching Morena and Elizabeth Mitchell for an hour, even if the show is medicore.

Eh....been there, done that.

Still looking for more movies based on award winning novels like Ringworld, The Forever War, etc.

Felt rushed, but I'll give it a chance for a few weeks...

The Mother ship was cool and I liked the beagle dog face looking shuttle craft.

I did not mind it. If one searches for too much perfection and detail in a TV show or Film...your not looking to be entertained. Turn off the juice and just go with it...have some fun. We need more fun in the crazy mortal coil were stuck in.

But another remake / retelling?

Aren't there any original ideas left?

Nope.

I really, really want to see another futuristic show about space travel and adventure that has nothing to do with Trek or any other spin off, franchise, retelling or otherwise. I'd love to get to know another crew, another ship and mission with new locales and places I've not heard of before. But seeing as the film makers have no interest in anything new, I guess I'll fire up the XBox 360 and play 'Mass Effect'. The guys that make games seem to have more imagination these days.

But another remake / retelling? Aren't there any original ideas left?

Sure there are. Two which immeadiately come to mind are Firefly and Virtuality. Both had potential well beyond what made it to the screen. Firefly especially left me wanting more.

John O.

But another remake / retelling?

Aren't there any original ideas left?

A relatively recent series that comes to mind is Farscape.

Back on topic though...When I first heard that there was a remake of V, I should have contacted the network and told them that it was a must miss for me.

Sure there are. Two which immeadiately come to mind are Firefly and Virtuality. Both had potential well beyond what made it to the screen. Firefly especially left me wanting more.

John O.

Ah, but remember how many people accused Firefly of ripping off Outlaw Star and Cowboy Bebop, and how Mal was nothing more than a Han Solo clone?

But another remake / retelling?

Aren't there any original ideas left?

There are almost uncountable stories from award wiining Sci-Fi novels that have not been done in movies or mini-series.

Seems that "hollywood" doesn't want to risk making something new, just re-making past successes. Even Stargate is getting milked for all it can.

Personally, I'd like to see some mini-series made
for:

1) Ringworld
2) The forever War
3) Foundation trilogy

I wish Spielberg would revisit making this into a film.

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

A relatively recent series that comes to mind is Farscape.


Don't forget about Andromeda as well.
Would love to see a return to the Babylon 5 universe as well. It's about due to be brought back isn't it?

There are almost uncountable stories from award wiining Sci-Fi novels that have not been done in movies or mini-series.

Seems that "hollywood" doesn't want to risk making something new, just re-making past successes. Even Stargate is getting milked for all it can.

Personally, I'd like to see some mini-series made
for:

1) Ringworld
2) The forever War
3) Foundation trilogy
I've got good news/bad news for you. A film version of the Foundation trilogy is in the works. The bad news it is being directed by Roland Emmerich.

Details here: http://scifiwire.com/2009/10/emmerich-foundation-film.php

BEBruns said:I've got good news/bad news for you. A film version of the Foundation trilogy is in the works. The bad news it is being directed by Roland Emmerich.

Details here: http://scifiwire.com/2009/10/emmeric...ation-film.php

I read the Foundation trilogy in High School.
I liked it.
I would like to see a film version.
I hope the story isn't butchered just to pander to audiences.

Just read the article. This has me worried:

Emmerich says the challenge facing him and screenwriter Robert Rodat (Saving Private Ryan) is finding a throughline for the film. "There's not one character going through, so Bob Rodat came to me and said, 'I'm like a fanatic reader of ... Foundation,' and I ... talked with him. ... He said, 'We have to consolidate the characters.' And that's what we did, and that's what's worked really, really well in the context. And I think that if Asimov ... would have ... conceived this as a science fiction trilogy or series from the very beginning, he would have done that, too. But he didn't. ... I think in spirit [the movie is] totally Foundation, but it has consolidated characters which go through the three movies."

Why does there have to be the same character/s throughout
the films? What, are we too stupid to follow a trilogy otherwise?
Make the books into films as they are. That would be a novel idea!

Just read the article. This has me worried:



Why does there have to be the same character/s throughout
the films?
Because that is what drama is: a character with a goal, facing an escalating series of obstacles, until he makes a decision that results in success and failure.

It is possible to not follow the classical model, for instance 2001 has only one section that follows it, but there aren't may Kubricks around.

What, are we too stupid to follow a trilogy otherwise?
Make the books into films as they are. That would be a novel idea!
If they made "the books into films as they are" it would be a bad film. The fact is, the first book largely consists of people sitting around talking about what is going on in the galaxy.

There's a reason very little of Asimov and post-Stranger in a Strange Land Heinlein has been filmed. People sitting around explaining things is simply not good drama.

Because that is what drama is: a character with a goal, facing an escalating series of obstacles, until he makes a decision that results in success and failure.

I thought drama was: a prose or verse composition, especially one telling a serious story, that is intended for representation by actors impersonating the characters and performing the dialogue and action.

That definition does not necessarily mean the same character throughout
the whole story.

I thought drama was: a prose or verse composition, especially one telling a serious story, that is intended for representation by actors impersonating the characters and performing the dialogue and action.

That definition does not necessarily mean the same character throughout
the whole story.
So by your definition, a film of two guys walking down the street, describing what they did the day before would be drama? Would you want to watch it?

Maybe I should said my definition is for "effective" drama.

I think you were asking the wrong question when you said "are we too stupid to follow a trilogy otherwise?"

Drama is not about facts. It is about an emotional experience. Which means that the audience needs to identify with the characters. Which means you need a character with a clear, understandable, and specific goal.

Even movies that apparently don't follow my definition at least play with the elements. For instance, in 2001 the Discovery sequence pretty much follows the classic dramatic structure. You can look at the rest of it as very long preludes and codas. In fact, I think most people would agree that Dave Bowman is the protagonist of the movie, even though he doesn't show up until almost an hour into the movie. Why? Because he is the one character who has a clear goal and must overcome a series of obstacles to reach it.

Even films like Pulp Fiction or Nashville are essentially made of a several stories that follow the classic structure.

How many effective movies can you name that don't feature a strong central character with a clear objective?

What Y'all said, I agree..... I still have hope.
The Lord of the Rings film trilogy had a lot of character consolidation in order to keep the films fit the movie presentation time limits but it still turned out pretty good. If they must "create" a character to span the length of the three books, I'm hoping it is as an "observer" of the book characters and their roles.

Still, if these guys don't have a clue as to how to create films of stories that span more than a person's lifetime, they should watch John Houston's movie "The Bible". It does a pretty good job of spaning more than a lifetime of events in it's storytelling.

I don't see any reason the "characer" spanning the films can't be the Foundation itself. It's what the story's bout, after all.

Finally got to see it tonight.
It was... interesting. Good to see that Ken Johnson was involved in it though.
They kinda fast-forwarded through the whole set-up of the original, and added an almost They Live twist with the "they've been here a while, sowing the seeds".
Fifth Column (if that's what they're called this time) showed up a lot sooner.
Dunno, I'd be interested to see another couple of episodes before I pass judgement.