Interesting Article: "Why Studios Keep Cranking Out TV Remakes, Despite the Flops"

[JamesG]

Why Studios Keep Cranking Out TV Remakes, Despite the Flops
By BILL CARTER
Published: December 27, 2009


In the fall of 2000 all the buzz in the television business was about a new drama on CBS on Friday night.

Not “CSI” — that had no buzz at all. All it had was ratings. No, the buzz that fall was about the remake of “The Fugitive,” the classic innocent-man-on-the-run series from the 1960s.

The redo seemed a can’t-miss idea. But it lasted 23 episodes.



And then there was “Bionic Woman.”

The NBC remake in 2007 of that sci-fi chestnut from the 1970s started out as the hottest new show of that fall season — and was gone after all of nine episodes.





There might be a lesson in there somewhere, but you would not know it from looking at the development lists at three networks this winter.

Among the most prominent projects under consideration as new series next fall are these familiar names: “The Rockford Files” on NBC; “Charlie’s Angels” on ABC; and “Hawaii Five-O” on CBS.

All of the projects were announced with some fanfare by their networks, though the program creators and top network entertainment executives were reluctant to discuss any specifics about the new versions yet, saying they were still in the writing stages.

But the network executives expressed genuine excitement about the possibilities for the projects.




It is easy to understand why. “It’s a good idea to try,” said Warren Littlefield, who was the top programmer at NBC and is now an independent producer. “Movies have proved you can do well with a presold concept.”

That is another way of saying it is only natural to turn to familiar titles because they attract attention. The question is whether the series that result will attract viewers.





The track record does more than suggest not: it screams not. In the history of network television, no remake of a previous hit series has ever become a hit itself on network television.

Plenty have been tried. In recent years there have been efforts to revive both “Beverly Hills 90210” and “Melrose Place” on the CW network. No one would claim either approaches the success of their predecessors, or even passable hit status.

NBC created a splash when it brought back “Knight Rider” — featuring a talking car — as a two-hour movie in 2008, but a series version later that year hit the skids quickly.



Earlier in the decade the highly successful “Law & Order” producer Dick Wolf tried a remake of the hoary classic “Dragnet” and barely made it through one season. (Who remembers that Ed O’Neill played Joe Friday and that one of the co-stars was Eva Longoria?)

How many people could pass a quiz on who replaced Rod Serling as host of UPN’s 2002 version of “The Twilight Zone”? (Forest Whitaker, actually.)

Digging through the files of series past, one could perhaps make an argument for some shows spawned from original hits. “Star Trek,” of course, gave birth to four separate series, but those were all spinoffs. They were not remakes of the original with the same characters.




All of those characters appeared instead in a series of theatrical movies, where television remakes have been far more successful: “Mission: Impossible,” “Get Smart,” “The Addams Family” and “The Brady Bunch,” to name a few.


“Battlestar Galactica,” a flop on ABC in 1978 (21 episodes), returned to a more favorable reception on the Syfy network in 2004, but that was on cable, not broadcast television.


“Dragnet” itself looks like a potential outlier. It started as a radio series and made it to television in 1951. That run ended in 1959.

But “Dragnet” came back in 1967 and was again a success. That would seem to qualify it as a remake hit.

But the second show was less remake than revival: It still starred Jack Webb playing Joe Friday with the same ominous theme music and intro about names being changed to protect the innocent.





The familiar titles on the current development slates are true remakes:

“Charlie’s Angels” will star three new actresses as young women who are knockouts in looks and martial arts

“Hawaii Five-O” is still expected to be led by a no-nonsense type named McGarrett (and maybe even backed by a young aide named Danno);

and “The Rockford Files” will inevitably feature a detective named Jim Rockford.



Perhaps more important for that show is that it will also feature a creator with one of the best recent résumés in television.

“Rockford” is being written by David Shore, the chief creative force behind the hit drama “House.” Mr. Shore has said that “Rockford” was one of his favorite shows growing up and that he hopes to find a way to replicate its mixture of comedy and action.

But replicating a star on the level of James Garner, who played Rockford, may prove more challenging.


Mr. Littlefield said having a talent like Mr. Shore running the show would be a great advantage to a new “Rockford,” but he added, “I don’t think there are many gumshoe detectives around anymore, so the key will be how they reinvent the character.”




“Hawaii Five-O” is being created by the team of Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci, who wrote the scripts for the most recent “Star Trek” movie as well as the two “Transformers” films.

The issue of how much to remake and how much to reinvent has dogged previous efforts at bringing back familiar shows and characters.

Fans and those who merely have heard of the old hits have tended to turn up for the initial episodes (and for two hours’ worth of a movie rendering), but have not stayed around once they got a whiff of what the new version was really like.

“The identity of a hit TV series is so intimately tied to the original stars, style and attitude that made it a hit in the first place that any deviation from that creates a real sense of aesthetic dissonance,” said Robert J. Thompson, a professor of television and popular culture at Syracuse University.



“This may be one case where an established brand is more a liability than an asset. In television, it’s a much safer approach to rip off an old idea than to try to remake one. It’s a perfectly plausible plan to develop a new TV show about three beautiful women fighting crime in fabulous clothes; maybe not such a good idea to call it ‘Charlie’s Angels.’ ”

Mr. Littlefield said that the woeful track record of previous remakes should not discourage network programmers from continuing to buy projects based on old hits. “But there has to be a series there,” he said. “It can’t be like a movie. You can’t trick them.”



Mr. Littlefield suggested a formula that could work: “At the risk of being oversimplistic: it also has to be good.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/28/bu...28remakes.html

[Marvo301]

What the studios don't seem to understand is that it wasn't the titles or story lines that made the original shows classics. It was the personality and charisma of the actors and actresses who starred on these shows. And, as the networks are finding out, that is extremely difficult to replicate!

[Mr. Television]

Originally Posted by Marvo301

What the studios don't seem to understand is that it wasn't the titles or story lines that made the original shows classics. It was the personality and charisma of the actors and actresses who starred on these shows. And, as the networks are finding out, that is extremely difficult to replicate!

You are so right Marv. These networks may own the titles but the heart and soul of the characters belong to the actors. Most of these shows have been in syndication for years and many are being released on DVD. Why would anyone want to watch a remake when they can watch the original?

[big bertha]

Part of the reason for the success of Hawaii Five-o was that Jack Lord and the rest of the cast worked so hard to make sure the show would be successful. I truly doubt any actor today has the same dedication to his craft and is willing to work 24/7 towards the success of a show. I believe the budget was probably alot more than the average shows of the time because you can tell when you watch it on dvd now that great care was taken with every scene-just beautiful Hawaii. I doubt any actor today would have the same respect for the native Hawaiian people and customs like Jack Lord did. There is no one like him. The same goes for James Garner. And people-remember he is not dead!! What is next-a remake of Murder She Wrote? If the networks had a clue they could create new shows instead of going back and creating fake remakes of shows that were popular. Hey-here's a novel idea-why not show reruns of these shows instead? I say that would work if the networks want to bring back viewers to their networks. Now that would really be something. Book em Danno!!

[robyrob]

a remake has to be able to stand on its own as a show - too often the studios completely rely on the name recognition and just assume that people will watch it because they associate it with the original.

[megamanj2004]

And to add to this of flop revivals in this decade:

Night Stalker (2005) - revival of the original one-season cult show Kolchak: The Night Stalker: this version of Night Stalker lasted even less longer than the original 1974 version.

Kojak (2005) - although with this one they kept Kojak's line of "Who loves 'ya baby?" it still wasn't enough. Not even Ving Rhames could pull this turkey off like Telly Savalas did. This show originally aired on CBS (1973-78) and USA (a divison of NBC) revived this turkey badly lasting for no more than 10 episodes.

Hunter (2003) - actually this revival of the original 1980s series could've had some things going for it. I mean it still had Fred Dryer and Stepfanie Kramer reprising their original roles. But due to NBC's poor promotion of it coupled with a lower budget than what it was on the 1980s version, it flopped.

[Impressions]

The only successful remakes are the ones that are imported from a foreign country and Americanized. The most prominent ones being The Office, Three's Company, Sanford & Son, etc.

[JamesG]

Originally Posted by Impressions

The only successful remakes are the ones that are imported from a foreign country and Americanized. The most prominent ones being The Office, Three's Company, Sanford & Son, etc.

There were some failures from that as well; like the US versions of Kath & Kim and Number 96.

[Marvo301]

Originally Posted by JamesG

There were some failures from that as well; like the US versions of Kath & Kim and Number 96.

Not to mention not one but two failed American attempts at remaking Fawlty Towers. There was also a failed American attempt at remaking Red Dwarf.

[jimpickens]

The networks like the studios haven't had an original idea in six years.

[JamesG]

Originally Posted by Marvo301

Not to mention not one but two failed American attempts at remaking Fawlty Towers. There was also a failed American attempt at remaking Red Dwarf.

Actually there were three attempted remakes of Fawlty Towers.

- Snavely with Harvey Korman and Betty White in 1978. I believe only the pilot aired.

- Amanda's with Bea Arthur that aired 10 episodes in 1983.

- Payne with John Larroquette that aired 8 episodes in 1999.



The US version of Red Dwarf, Red Dwarf USA, never made it to airing. This was supposed to be shown in 1992 on NBC.

[Big3sCompanyFan]

If they remake Charlie's Angels they better do it with 2 hot brunettes and a hot blonde just like the original!!

No need to get so PC about everything. You don't need to bring an Oriental in and ruin the makeup of the original show. Why not have an Oriental, a black, and a Nepali? LOL!

They need to HONOR and be TRUE to the original concept.

There is nothing racist or wrong with having 2 brunettes and a blonde and that's what they should do!!

[megamanj2004]

Originally Posted by JamesG

There were some failures from that as well; like the US versions of Kath & Kim and Number 96.

And/or:

- Coupling

[*Pleasant Tomorrow*]

Originally Posted by Marvo301

What the studios don't seem to understand is that it wasn't the titles or story lines that made the original shows classics. It was the personality and charisma of the actors and actresses who starred on these shows. And, as the networks are finding out, that is extremely difficult to replicate!

I totally agree. It's hard to accept new actors playing the characters you love. Maybe that's why some of these shows, with the little popularity they have, are only accepted by younger people who aren't familiar with the original.

I also think the writing is very important. A lot of it now is just awful.

[Marvo301]

Originally Posted by *Pleasant Tomorrow*

I totally agree. It's hard to accept new actors playing the characters you love. Maybe that's why some of these shows, with the little popularity they have, are only accepted by younger people who aren't familiar with the original.

I also think the writing is very important. A lot of it now is just awful.

Good point Ashlee! The writing on TV shows these days is very poor compared to the writing on the original classic TV shows.