h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

1. Don't try and give it a "contemporary twist"
2. Don't "reimagine the concept for a new generation"
3. Don't try and tackle "the issues that matter to young people"
4. Don't introduce a new sidekick (apart from when it's an integral part of the original show - e.g. Dr Who, The Avengers etc)
5. Don't attempt to alter the demographic of the cast in order to be PC (e.g. if there were no women/men/children/lesbians/white people/wheelchair-users in the show originally, don't add one just for the sake of it)
6. Don't use self-referential irony to squeeze an easy laugh out of remaking an old show ("at least we're not wearing '70s shirts" >wink, nudge&lt.
7. If the character wasn't handsome/beautiful in the original, don't make them handsome/beautiful in the remake (hunky cast members are a cheap marketing ploy).


Anyone like to add any?

I think you've pretty much covered everything there

What about:

When remaking a show that has a large exsisting fanbase who watched the original show as kids. Remember to aim at the now 30 year old audience, not the then 8-14 year old audience that watched the original.

Also remember that the fanbase views the original with rose tinted glasses. So though the new series may be equal in terms of quality to the original, fans will see the new series as rubbish, because it doesn't match their view of the original


(I've seen this mistake made a few times, especially by George Lucas)

What of pastiches, remington Steel used to be straight famous film homage steals for plots. Isn't this fraught with problems?

* Before making the show, listen to the fans, because they know why it was good in the first place.

* After making the show, DON'T listen to the fans, because they will rip you to shreds regardless of how perfect a job you've done.

* "Wasn't Crap, ha ha?" is a sketch, NOT a series.

* If you're going to muck with the basic format of the original, stop and think; perhaps it would be better just to make a NEW SHOW?

* Don't obey any ad-hoc sets of rules, especially ones which are bullet-pointed.

Heheh.

I agree with all that list, especially #5. Death to political correctness.

What are the rules for shows not made in the last 50 years?
What if they brought back 'The Four Just Men', I know the show's title, and saw it in comic annuals as a child but have no other memory of it, bar that the characters were a group who were bringing in the TV series German War Criminals to justice, though the Edger Wallace book characters were bringing criminals who had escaped justice to book, and were First World War veterans, so to bring that forward two Yugoslavian veterans of both sides wanting to bring to justice criminals that have eluded the UN so far, plus an American and an Arab to round it off, playing it to the politics of now, would this work or not? Plus they would have the use of present day computers, mobiles, transport, ect.

Can anyone shed any light on what the new battlestar galactica was about? *wanders away to spend days rolling his eyes*

- Write all new scripts, don't just redo the old ones because no-one will forgive that.

- Make it a continuation of previous series, rather than trying to replace all the characters with new actors. This means that the show has to be one that can be done with new actors (eg Dr Who)

>>5. Don't attempt to alter the demographic of the cast in order to be PC (e.g. if there were no women/men/children/lesbians/white people/wheelchair-users in the show originally, don't add one just for the sake of it)<<

Well yes and no. Don't alter the demograhpic just for the sake of it. But do alter the demographic if you want your show to be relevant to 2005 and beyond.

Case in point. Cult TV British cop series The Professionals was remade in the 90s by the original creator Brian Clemens. It was a dog, mainly because it tried to transplant the original characters into the 90s with no acknowledgement that we don't live in the late 70s now.

Clemens himself said he wasn't going to pander to political correctness by including significant women characters in the 90s version. It's beyond me how he could have been so stupid as to not understand that a huge portion of the fanbase was women who liked The Professionals not because they have the hots for the male leads but because they see themselves as the action hero leads. Duh.

The only reason I can watch the old series is *because* it was made in the late 70s/early 80s and the sexism can in part be excused because it is of it's time. To make such a sexist series in the 90s just doesn't make any sense.

All shows tend to be a reflection of the times they were made in .
Even most sci~fi can be dated by the charactors behaviour towards eachother and the prevailing political climate.
You have to make some allowances for the realities of a changing world but if that means altering a show too fundamentally then you should not bother ~ just make a new show

When bringing a series forward, gentle reminiscences of the original show are good, but only if done tastefully and, if possible, with the original actors brought forward (see Star Trek TNG with Scotty or Spock). DO NOT pretend like time hasn't passed. (I'll never forgive the Starsky and Hutch movie)

> All new scripts

Yes and no. Look at flywheel, seyster and flywheel - old marx bros scripts being redone. And little britain, and the boosh - all radio scripts modified for TV, not to mention goodness gracious me

It doesnt have to be totally original to be good. The radio and TV versions are similar yet each has there good and bad points.

From what I've heard of the dads army radio shows, not all were adapted (I'm having diffculty remembering the TV episodes matching the Radio ones) - if they were to be done for TV then they'd be original in terms of veiwing and cast but not original scripts

What about converting a comic or a book to screen, often you feel shortchanged if they do not match your imagination, or seem to have lost the zest of the original.

I cant think of many comic books that have gone from print to TV. Especially in more recent times, the trend is to go straight to the cinema (as they can pretty much beat TV on obtaining rights)

I meant the silver screen, but your quite right they go to cinema first today, I wonder why certain companies don't take their own products to screeen, I know Dark Horse did with The Mask and Men in Black but their an exception, I was thinking of the company that owns Denis the Menace they made the cartoon, couldn't they open their cartoons to colleges or is the trouble with that, they would want across all the consistency?

The main problem is that making a film is incredibly tricky to do
prepare for splurge about the film industry:

In the thirties there were 8 major film companies, now there are only five roughly depending on how you count them (MGM has been bought by Sony pictures, so its all change at the moment).
These five include the likes of Warner Bros, 21st century Fox, Miramax.

Now when you make a film, you sell that film to a distributor. They can choose to make one print, or hundreds for there region, and so control which films are widely seen (e.g. Donnie Darko only originally had a few prints for the UK, where as Spiderman had about 250+)

They then make prints of the film which they rent to cinemas for a fee. When people pay to watch a film, the money filters back up the chain. Thus the distributors take a fairly large amount, followed by the producers, then the makers and then the company (iirc).

Now the best way to save money is to own a production AND a distributor. That way all the money is the companies and thus, maximum profit. And why stop there? Why not own the cinemas and the advertising (WARNER village cinema, time WARNER aol...)

Now for someone to come into this is incredibly hard. Firstly, a huge amount of money is needed - as an example spiderman ended up costing nearly 300million dollars rather then 100 million, as a lot went on prints and advertising.


For a company to make a film takes a huge investment. If you go look at the two examples, they wouldnt have done it alone and I'd take a stab at Warner being the folks behind Men In Black because it was advertised to hell.
Not just that, but if a distributor doesnt like it, then they can make three prints and theres nothing you can do. Lets face it, would warner distributors want to distribute a non warner film thats going to compete with there products?
Distributors are like Gods in the movie industry, because they decide on success and failure. The Matrix reloaded is a great example. Usually they get a profit cut on some films, rather then rent them for a too high price. Usually about 20%. With the Matrix reloaded it was nearly 70%, because demand was so high by the audience and because it was being flogged to death.


As a side note, theres already a denis the menace film, with john clease iirc.

On a side note, there are only two people in the world who work outside this system - two people who can decide to make a film and get it exactly how they want, on as many screens as they want, etc

George Lucas and Steven Spielberg

Any movie connected with these two will not only been green lighted for production, but will likely get shown on 100 screens or more. Think about it - these guys make HUGE films (Jurassic Park, Indiana Jones, that thing called Star Wars..)

I've been writing British Super Heros, latterly retitled British Action Heros, I wouldn't normally write about comics but having dredged my mind of their concepts amazed Hollywood or lametable local industry hasn't gone with a few of them. They say the shorter easier concept sells, it can't be that simple, what are the bbuffer levels for an idea, who actually reads the script, who kicks in where?

Ahh a high concept film then.

A high concept film is where you can sell it within two sentences, script or no script.
Sounds strange, but the biggest films (and those that get the highest budget) of our time have been high concept.

Examples:
Titanic - a love story, on the titanic
Jurrasic park - A dinosaur theme park that goes wrong
The Passion - the crucifixtion of jesus

Theres even better examples:
Aliens versus Predator - cheque please
Freddy versus Jason - more money please
Superman - hes a man.... you've got the rest
Die Hard 4 - Bruce Willis said he'd do it, can I have my cheque now

Iirc, but ill check monday, a producer will read the script and then pitch it. If they can sell it as a high concept then there likely to sell it and production can begin. If not then companies feel a little uneasy and start worrying/asking questions.
Remakes and icons are easy examples of high concept, but thats not it. Look at Rocky - its the American Dream with an ethnic minority.

I'm trying to think of a high concept movie without sequels, but there usually isnt - there so simplistic that the average joe will buy it, and the average joe has the most money at the box office.