# Ruined forever



## trappedslider (Mar 27, 2014)

So, with the recent reboot,remakes etc...and Fan reaction it got me wondering...has a tv show,movie,book series, game or whatever even been "ruined forever" as in you just walk away and never have anything to do with it again?

What was it and how was it "ruined forever" for you?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 28, 2014)

I haven't touched any of the Star Trek reboots.  I didn't care for the casting, for one thing- I like Zachary Quinto, but I didn't think he had the gravitas to be Spock.  Too youthful.  And Benedict Cummerbatch as Khan?  Again, I like the actor, but he seems horribly miscast.

And every time I saw a trailer for one of the films, it looked like a generic big budget JJ Abrams film in Trek clothing.  So far, I think the only bit of Abrams' work I've enjoyed is the TV series, Revolution.

Credit where credit is due, though- setting the story in (yet) another alternate dimension was a very good way to reboot the series while still making a big tip of the hat to the original series.  I thought that was pretty savvy and insightful.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Mar 28, 2014)

CSI (LV) ruined when Danson and Shue took over. Not so much by the actors as by the incredibly lazy writing.

L&O: flashbacks to watching it with my ex wife. Seriously bad associations.

CSI:NY when they stopped being about solving crimes and made it more of a soap opera. Really the worst was when the main character admitted to knowing that a cop had killed a helpless suspect, and decided to do nothing about it. And it was an out-of-body experience episode, to really terrible writing.

Bones season 8. The pregnancy in season 7 was bad enough, but the overall writing in season 8 is just an abomination that reaches back to the earliest episodes and tries to strangle the show in its crib.

Series 6 of Doctor Who: again, the holes in the writing, and elements that just don't make any sense.

Torchwood: MD
The series had its flaws, and CoE was pretty terrible, but MD was the tombstone, followed by the backhoe exhumation, followed by an autopsy, cremation, and re-interment.

"Give me Manual Control" from one of the Next Gen movies.

"Mother, I insist you get naked, this instant." from a season3 DS9 episode (one of two grotesque abominations of stories from that season).

The opening credits from Phantom Menace for the entire prequel trilogy.
Season 3 of Clone Wars for the entire Clone Wars cartoon series.

Highlander: The Source.

Tracy Scoggins cast in anything.

Michael Bay as director of anything.

Bumblebee peeing on a federal agent.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Mar 28, 2014)

sabrinathecat said:


> Highlander: The Source Everything after the first movie.
> 
> 
> 
> Michael Bay as director of anything is awesome



Had to fix that for you.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Mar 28, 2014)

I suspect I'm not the first person who watched the second Matrix movie but not the third.

Not as well known of an example perhaps, but the Human Target show a few years ago was getting decent, then underwent a change in management and because utterly unwatchable garbage.

I'm also inclined to agree that certain things about Star Trek Into Darkness really turned me off to this whole reboot.


			
				dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> I didn't care for the casting, for one thing- I like Zachary Quinto, but I didn't think he had the gravitas to be Spock. Too youthful. And Benedict Cummerbatch as Khan? Again, I like the actor, but he seems horribly miscast.



Carol Marcus kills me almost as much. The actress again not necessarily bad but so utterly wrong for the character.


----------



## Elf Witch (Mar 28, 2014)

There have been things I have not liked but not to the extent that it drove me away from the original or ruined it for me forever. 

I have not been thrilled with most of Moffet run as producer of Dr Who. 

I hated second season of War of the Worlds when they completely gutted the show and killed off two characters. 

I can't like the new Trek movies to much makes me go WTF! Though I will watch them, because I just adore Karl Urban and think he nailed Bones. 

Stargate Universe made me go okay time for the franchise to take a rest.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Mar 28, 2014)

Elf Witch said:


> I have not been thrilled with most of Moffet run as producer of Dr Who.



THANK YOU! Moffet is a great writer, but his take on the show just about turned me off completely with series 5


Elf Witch said:


> I can't like the new Trek movies to much makes me go WTF! Though I will watch them, because I just adore Karl Urban and think he nailed Bones.



Yes!  I have a whole rant on that too. KU as McCoy was the only redeeming part of JJATrek.


Highlander 2 could have been good, had they taken their own advice and put all of the footage together in one time, in one place, and done it right. As it was, there was the US release, the European Release, the Director's Cut, and the Renegade Version Director's Cut. All 4 versions had different material not present in other versions.


----------



## Elf Witch (Mar 28, 2014)

sabrinathecat said:


> Elf Witch said:
> 
> 
> > I have not been thrilled with most of Moffet run as producer of Dr Who.
> ...


----------



## sabrinathecat (Mar 28, 2014)

Elf Witch said:


> Simon Pegg did better in the second movie but he was over the top in the first movie. I adore Benedict Cumberbatch but he was just not Khan. I wish they had made him a different villain. He could have been awesome as Kirk old friend gone bad  Gary Mitchell.




Or Finnegan, the academy nemesis. Or just create a new character and storyline entirely. Maybe something (gasp) original? Or at least not something they've tried to rehash 4 or 5 times already?


----------



## Herobizkit (Mar 28, 2014)

Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword (Wii) and The Last Story (Wii) crushed my last hopes for Nintendo as a beloved franchise because of Wii Motion controls.  Seriously, batteries?  BATTERIES?!  The Gamecube controller should have ALWAYS been an option for EVERY Wii game.

That's the strongest reaction I can think of at the moment.


----------



## trappedslider (Mar 28, 2014)

As a fun aside here are the pages that inspired the ruined forever

Let's see how much you agree with

http://tfwiki.net/wiki/Ruined_FOREVER

and then the mother of all list but not the first list 

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Wookieepedia:Ruined_FOREVER


----------



## delericho (Mar 28, 2014)

sabrinathecat said:


> Or Finnegan, the academy nemesis. Or just create a new character and storyline entirely. Maybe something (gasp) original?




They'd tried that repeatedly. Unfortunately, all their villains since have inevitably been compared with Khan, and come up short. Only two (Chang and the Borg Queen) have managed to get _any_ traction; most have been abject failures.



> Or at least not something they've tried to rehash 4 or 5 times already?




Ah, but that's the thing: they actually _hadn't_ rehashed Khan, as such, at least in the movies. In the novels, sure, but only a tiny minority read those; and "Enterprise" had those episodes with the super-soldiers, but only in series 4, after they'd driven away all their viewers anyway.

So it makes a certain sense - if they'd concluded that the crew for their reboot 'had' to be Kirk, Spock, and McCoy, then it's not at all surprising that one of their early villains 'had' to be Khan, for exactly the same reason. As for whether they did the reboot _well_... well, that's another discussion.


----------



## delericho (Mar 28, 2014)

On the topic of the thread: no, I don't think there's anything I'd consider to be Ruined Forever. I do find that the Matrix sequels make revisiting the original less enjoyable, and likewise the Star Wars prequels reduce my enjoyment of the originals. (Which doesn't make any logical sense, but there it is.) But "Ruined Forever"? No.

Oh, actually, there is one thing: the "Dungeons & Dragons" cartoon, which was Ruined Forever by watching it again with adult eyes.


----------



## Elf Witch (Mar 28, 2014)

sabrinathecat said:


> Or Finnegan, the academy nemesis. Or just create a new character and storyline entirely. Maybe something (gasp) original? Or at least not something they've tried to rehash 4 or 5 times already?




A new villain would have been nice. I don't think Finnegan would have worked out with this Kirk. The original Kirk was a serious student at the academy not the playboy the new one is.  I thought the entire point of rebooting the series was to get away from all thje canon and do new things. Something I have not seen so far.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Mar 28, 2014)

delericho said:


> Ah, but that's the thing: they actually _hadn't_ rehashed Khan, as such, at least in the movies. In the novels, sure, but only a tiny minority read those; and "Enterprise" had those episodes with the super-soldiers, but only in series 4, after they'd driven away all their viewers anyway.
> 
> So it makes a certain sense - if they'd concluded that the crew for their reboot 'had' to be Kirk, Spock, and McCoy, then it's not at all surprising that one of their early villains 'had' to be Khan, for exactly the same reason. As for whether they did the reboot _well_... well, that's another discussion.




Star Trek: Nemesis is essentially Wrath of Kahn for the Next Generation. The Enterprise episodes you mentioned (which also threw in so many other excuses (why Kahn's name sounds so similar to the inventor of Data, Lore, and Beta; why Klingons started to look different, etc).
The thing is, there are so many, many, many possibilities, throwing Kahn in right away is just lazy.

So, maybe this Finnegan is the serious student trying to crack down on Kirk and break him into being a good officer--even more harshly than Spock was? It could happen...


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Mar 28, 2014)

There have been a few over the years, but apparently not memorable (one is going to drive me nuts trying to remember what it is!).

The most recent example is Mr. Peabody and Sherman. That was always a great short during Rocky and Bullwinkle, but this new movie ruined the animation, turned Mr. Peabody into a braggart because he has to tell you what he invented instead of allowing you come to that conclusion yourself, has become loud obnoxious and hip*, and has become a corporate shill. Just awful. I _*hate*_ that this is what my kids think is a good version of Mr. Peabody.

*In a bad way, like the Poochie character inserted into Itchy & scratchy on the Simpsons.


----------



## WayneLigon (Mar 28, 2014)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I haven't touched any of the Star Trek reboots.  I didn't care for the casting, for one thing- I like Zachary Quinto, but I didn't think he had the gravitas to be Spock.  Too youthful.  And Benedict Cummerbatch as Khan?  Again, I like the actor, but he seems horribly miscast.




Nimoy was 34-35 when cast as Spock, Quinto 32. Not a huge difference there.


----------



## billd91 (Mar 28, 2014)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> And every time I saw a trailer for one of the films, it looked like a generic big budget JJ Abrams film in Trek clothing.  So far, I think the only bit of Abrams' work I've enjoyed is the TV series, Revolution.




That's interesting. I really like the Trek reboots but dislike Revolution. We're opposites! With respect to these products of JJ Abrams, at any rate.


----------



## WayneLigon (Mar 28, 2014)

trappedslider said:


> So, with the recent reboot,remakes etc...and Fan reaction it got me wondering...has a tv show,movie,book series, game or whatever even been "ruined forever" as in you just walk away and never have anything to do with it again?
> 
> What was it and how was it "ruined forever" for you?




TV shows and movie cannot be 'ruined forever' because _everything _will eventually be rebooted or re-imagined or re-done or whatever. You just need for it to come around again. Right now, to me, most of the DC universe is just plain unreadable. That will change in the future, just as it always has.

Some book series have been, but that's usually from the artist himself having some sort of crisis or he goes insane, or whatever - nothing to do with remakes.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 29, 2014)

WayneLigon said:


> Nimoy was 34-35 when cast as Spock, Quinto 32. Not a huge difference there.




Fair point, but I still think- but for the earliest appearance of Spock (like the Menagerie pilot), Nimoy always came across as more mature- a feeling that only strengthened over time.

To date, Quinto's roles haven't really exhibited that.  I just fret the feeling that- like with Cummerbatch- casters in that franchise are looking at hot actors, not necessarily those best for the roles


----------



## Hussar (Mar 29, 2014)

Something that got mentioned was Torchwood Children of Earth. I still think this is one of the best SF stories ever filmed. This is just great all the way around. Ruin Torchwood?  Really?  I thought this was the capstone for the series. Great stuff. 

Miracle Day?  Not so much.


----------



## billd91 (Mar 29, 2014)

Hussar said:


> Something that got mentioned was Torchwood Children of Earth. I still think this is one of the best SF stories ever filmed. This is just great all the way around. Ruin Torchwood?  Really?  I thought this was the capstone for the series. Great stuff.




I liked Children of Earth, but I liked the previous two seasons of Torchwood much more.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Mar 29, 2014)

Hussar said:


> Something that got mentioned was Torchwood Children of Earth. I still think this is one of the best SF stories ever filmed. This is just great all the way around. Ruin Torchwood?  Really?  I thought this was the capstone for the series. Great stuff.
> 
> Miracle Day?  Not so much.




That would be I. (giant shock)
Torchwood had it's problems from the beginning, trying to figure out what kind of show it was going to be. By the end series 1, it seemed to have it sorted. A few random episodes were a little weird or weak, but by the end of series 2 it was an overall decent show.
CoE. Hmmm... We have 2 organizations for dealing with aliens. One is international military: we aren't going to involve them in any way whatsoever because of PR problems. The other one is lead by a man who knows an embarrassing secret from 60 years ago. If he goes public (which would require exposing his secret immortality, and probably having to prove it in public, and all the embarrassment and humiliation that goes with being a celebrity, not to mention various labs wanting to kidnap him and run tests to unlock the secret), he could expose what this country did (under a completely different government, under a completely different leadership, under a completely different party, under the orders people who are long since dead), but again he would have to vilify himself to do so. No, we can't trust him or his organization. We aren't even going to try to talk to them. Let's blow them up! Wait, I thought the prime minister wasn't even supposed to know about Torchwood? Did that policy change somewhere?
Just about everything is a bombardment of gut, knee-jerk emotionalism, with no one thinking rationally or planning anything intelligent. Or even trying to. So the police and army are being sent to round up all the poor children. Really? Um, there aren't any soldiers whatsoever that would balk at this? That would resist those orders? I would think you'd find more than a few generals willing to lead troops in rebellion against a government that gave those orders. Certainly the police would be resistant.
But no, it's more emotional to show soldiers acting like stormtroopers, ready to steal children and sell them into slavery, no matter how illogical, irrational, and unlikely that would be.
Is this a country or government that The Doctor would ever want to save? Would he still consider humans his favorite species?

The story didn't hold together. In fact, it was bloody annoying. Almost as much as when Owen shot Jack in the back of the head, (not knowing that he was immortal) and was completely forgiven (not just by Jack, but by everyone) with no consequences whatsoever. It was more dramatic, so it was OK.


----------



## delericho (Mar 29, 2014)

sabrinathecat said:


> So the police and army are being sent to round up all the poor children. Really? Um, there aren't any soldiers whatsoever that would balk at this? That would resist those orders? I would think you'd find more than a few generals willing to lead troops in rebellion against a government that gave those orders. Certainly the police would be resistant.




Yep, this all correct. I thought "Children of Earth" was pretty much the best Torchwood had to offer, but it does indeed have all the problems you describe. The above is especially galling.

Plus, it was a bit disappointing that the final resolution boiled down to that age-old Paladin thread we've had here on several occasions: if a Paladin knew the only way to save the world was to sacrifice an innocent child, what would he do?


----------



## billd91 (Mar 30, 2014)

sabrinathecat said:


> Just about everything is a bombardment of gut, knee-jerk emotionalism, with no one thinking rationally or planning anything intelligent. Or even trying to. So the police and army are being sent to round up all the poor children. Really? Um, there aren't any soldiers whatsoever that would balk at this? That would resist those orders? I would think you'd find more than a few generals willing to lead troops in rebellion against a government that gave those orders. Certainly the police would be resistant.




We already have numerous historical cases in which soldiers and the police seemed to have little problem rounding innocent people up, so I'd take that criticism with a grain of salt.


----------



## Melisende (Mar 30, 2014)

Absolutely agree with Moffat dealing with Doctor Who. I love _Sherlock_, for the most part, largely because Martin Freeman and Benedict Cumberbatch are incredibly talented, compelling actors who work with much of what they're given on a high, cerebral level. Doctor Who in Moffat's hands has suffered. For one, Moffat does entirely unconvincing female characters and seems to have a poor grasp of personal relationships. Note how River Song and the Doctor, and _especially_ Clara and the Doctor, behave. 

He seems to have stripped the Doctor of any credible emotional responses, and yes, I realize that a Time Lord has different views on things. Tennant's performances with Billy Piper/Rose show far deeper resonance than Moffat's era with River Song/Alex Kingston. I feel like too many of the storylines recently are either hugely focused on the Ponds (who I'm quite sick of) or became this speedy pastiche dumping a charming young woman (Clara) into a prominent position with as fast an arc as possible. I didn't by that she was so central and key to the storyline, saving the Doctor in different eras. I had little idea of what was critical about her position, and I didn't buy when everything hinged on her. I really think Moffat's strength is in the cerebral plot element, not emotion. He doesn't seem to get emotion beyond being a teenaged boy.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Mar 30, 2014)

billd91 said:


> We already have numerous historical cases in which soldiers and the police seemed to have little problem rounding innocent people up, so I'd take that criticism with a grain of salt.




People is one thing. Most humans have a desire to protect Children.
Even children that aren't their own.
Soldiers and police still usually count as human.
So yeah, I have a hard time believing that there was no resistance whatsoever to the orders to round up children and sell them to an alien race. Maybe I'm overly idealistic. Or maybe the plot was overly simplistic.
You decide.


----------



## Elf Witch (Mar 30, 2014)

sabrinathecat said:


> People is one thing. Most humans have a desire to protect Children.
> Even children that aren't their own.
> Soldiers and police still usually count as human.
> So yeah, I have a hard time believing that there was no resistance whatsoever to the orders to round up children and sell them to an alien race. Maybe I'm overly idealistic. Or maybe the plot was overly simplistic.
> You decide.




I wish that was true but it is not. Look at how many children have died in wars. The vikings would slaughter entire villages including the children. The Germans didn't care that their bombs were killing children the allies didn't care about how many children died in the bombing of Dresden. 

It would be easy to get the army and police to do it exempt their children. Let them know that if we don't do this all the children of the world are going to be destroyed.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Mar 30, 2014)

And look how many soldiers have died Protecting children.

No matter what, consider the only acceptable aftermath of an event like this. If the government was willing to send their children to the aliens, the masses would revolt. No government could survive (by this, I don't mean the government of the day, but the government structure that exists--the entire thing, from the bedrock of the constitutional structure on up). Anyone who played along would be a valid target for the masses collective retaliation. You'd be inviting the French revolution and the October Revolution combined. In England, it would tear down the monarchy, the House of Lords, and the House of Commons, at the very least. And that's for the aliens eventually being defeated.
The notion that the people would just go back to cow-like acceptance just because the other party takes over the government when the PM resigns in disgrace would be very depressing. And that seems to be the assertion. Happy day, problem solved, minimal consequences.
Ironic, given the lecture that Harriet Jones gave the Doctor after having Torchwood blow up the ship during Christmas Invasion (you know, about having to take charge and take responsibility, and consequences, because the Doctor is not always around to save the day).


----------



## delericho (Mar 30, 2014)

billd91 said:


> We already have numerous historical cases in which soldiers and the police seemed to have little problem rounding innocent people up, so I'd take that criticism with a grain of salt.




We do, but it's just not even close to realistic in the UK as it stands today. There's always a certain amount of suspension of disbelief required to watch these things, but that genuinely was beyond credible.


----------



## Derren (Mar 30, 2014)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Nimoy always came across as more mature- a feeling that only strengthened over time.




That has probably more to do with the script which was a product of their time.
The Original Kirk, Spock & Co were experienced and serious officers most of the time, because when the series was made that was kinda the "role model" of the society.
But today? People (at least the ones JJTreck is marketed to) want youthful and cool people who rebel against the system and also have some serious angst filled drama. So the roles of Kirk and Spock got rewritten and because of the "cool youth" and "rebel" requirement they come off as a lot less mature as the original, even though the actors themselves are about the same age.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 30, 2014)

But what's the alternative?  Resist and all the children are taken. Give up some chosen by lottery and the rest survive.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Mar 30, 2014)

Hussar said:


> But what's the alternative?  Resist and all the children are taken. Give up some chosen by lottery and the rest survive.




You seriously have to ask?
Take the gloves off and unleash Torchwood and UNIT! Turn them loose on the menace. If they can destroy the Siccorax space ship, they could have blown the 459 away while they were on approach. (Maybe fire a warning shot first if Harriet Jones isn't Prime Minister). Support the organizations that exist to protect the planet.
And yes, resist. Charge the ships screaming with pitchforks and torches if you have to. Get the re-enactment societies to bring out their trebuchet and catapults.
And if the government is going along, target them as well. No government that betrays its people that way deserves to be in power. And if people that devoid of ethics and morality are in office, it's time to strip the whole system down and start from scratch. (Of course, that would never be the case in the real world  )

Yes, some suspension of disbelief is required. On the other hand, it is the writers' job not to insult the intelligence of the audience be being totally unrealistic.


----------



## Derren (Mar 30, 2014)

sabrinathecat said:


> You seriously have to ask?
> being totally unrealistic.




As you have seen, what is realistic in this situation is pretty debatable. I am on Hussars side and think many people will find a way to rationalize how this is not so bad in order to stay alive and sane.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Mar 30, 2014)

I dont get the outrage. In my opinion i'd rather the writers of these shows focus on what they think is good material and not try to tailor things to an intense fanbase. I have quite enjoyed doctor who under mofatt. Ive enjoyed many of the programs and reboots taking heat here. But if i didnt enjoy them, i would just stop watching. I woulnd't torture myself.


----------



## MarkB (Mar 30, 2014)

I gave up on the webcomic Goblins after the author played with my heart one time too many at the end of the Maze of Many storyline.

I started to watch the UK drama series Spooks, but a certain incident involving a deep fat fryer killed my interest in ever seeing anything more of it.


----------



## Nellisir (Mar 30, 2014)

I can't think of anything that's "ruined forever". The Highlander movies (except the first obviously) are abominations, but the first is still good. I don't like Moffat's Dr Who but I keep watching it (I agree that it seems very shallow and I think they consistently pull back at the last moment in the episodes, so everything ends with a whimper. Also never warmed to whatshisface, fez guy.)

Agents of Shield is boring the crap out of me.

The Postman is a bit earlier than this stuff; that movie must have absolutely ruined the book for a lot of people, which is a shame because it's a great book.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 30, 2014)

Usually, when there is a big-screen or TV adaptation of a book or story,I try to read the original first.

I am USUALLY disappointed.  Earthsea...I, Robot...The Postman...so many others have all fallen well short or were only tangentially related to the original works.


----------



## Tonguez (Mar 30, 2014)

Midichondrians or whatever Lucas called them ruined SW for me. The force went from the mystical space fantasy to lame sci fi mind powerz caused by measurable quantities of galactic bacteria.

Starbuck being a girl I could cope with but the human-cylones did not appeal


----------



## sabrinathecat (Mar 31, 2014)

Derren said:


> As you have seen, what is realistic in this situation is pretty debatable. I am on Hussars side and think many people will find a way to rationalize how this is not so bad in order to stay alive and sane.




Try this:
Your government sends police and soldiers into Your home to take Your child as a sacrifice to aliens. You and your child somehow escape, or your kidnapped child is eventually returned to you.
What bribe could any government possibly offer you as a sop to allow you to permit the government that tried to steal and murder your child to continue to exist?
Obviously, the government does not respect your rights as citizens, humans, or parents.


If the writing is consistently good, or works within a story, I'm all for it. Heck, classic Who and the Star Trek ToS had all sorts of continuity problems and inconsistencies from episode to episode. But during each individual story, they worked. Some were better than others, but they worked. NuWho (and Torchwood), but chaining all the stories together into one continuous drama, must operate in a totally consistent way, across all stories or episodes, in order to work. The inconsistent nature of writers, rules, and plots has seriously detracted from the stories. Other choices have been to the detriment of the series as well. (Series 5 was so bad I was prepared to abandon NuWho altogether. I tried series 6 to see if they could salvage the wreckage, and series 7 in order to see the 50th anniversary).
I've gone over my objections to the show in other threads, and don't feel like retreading the same arguments.
I would like them to ditch the idea of Season Arcs in favor of just writing good episodes. (if the arc works, fine, but it isn't necessary)


----------



## Hussar (Mar 31, 2014)

Umm, you do realise that Torchwood and UNIT were incapable of stopping a single Dalek right?  The 458 were meant to be on that tech level.  There was no stopping them.  Heck, they didn't even have a ship that we ever saw.  

Heck, UNIT was incapable of stopping the Sauntarans (sp).  What makes you think that they could stop these aliens?


----------



## billd91 (Mar 31, 2014)

Derren said:


> That has probably more to do with the script which was a product of their time.
> The Original Kirk, Spock & Co were experienced and serious officers most of the time, because when the series was made that was kinda the "role model" of the society.
> But today? People (at least the ones JJTreck is marketed to) want youthful and cool people who rebel against the system and also have some serious angst filled drama. So the roles of Kirk and Spock got rewritten and because of the "cool youth" and "rebel" requirement they come off as a lot less mature as the original, even though the actors themselves are about the same age.




I think part of it may also be that the original series actors were much older than I was when I first saw them, whereas the reboot actors are all younger than I am. They don't have the same "adultness" in my eyes that the originals had to my elementary school eyes.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Mar 31, 2014)

Hussar said:


> Umm, you do realise that Torchwood and UNIT were incapable of stopping a single Dalek right?  The 458 were meant to be on that tech level.  There was no stopping them.  Heck, they didn't even have a ship that we ever saw.
> 
> Heck, UNIT was incapable of stopping the Sauntarans (sp).  What makes you think that they could stop these aliens?




Um, Ace blew up Daleks with 1963 technology.
UNIT had bullets designed to pierce Dalek casings in 1989.
Torchwood had a Dalek frozen in time at the entrance to their bunker, and if they used the other alien tech, could have done who knows what.

With the right weapons and ammunition, there is no reason that UNIT couldn't take down Sontarans. Oh wait--they did kill more than a few. But UNIT did not have space ships or the numbers on the ground at the beginning of that fight.

If the 458 (or whatever the number) didn't have space ships, what was the thing the probe went into that relayed the video of the children being suspended and fed from? I would call that a "ship" or "vessel" and thus a "Target"!


----------



## delericho (Mar 31, 2014)

Hussar said:


> But what's the alternative?  Resist and all the children are taken. Give up some chosen by lottery and the rest survive.




I can _just about_ see a politician coming to that calculation. (Although even that's doubtful - discussing that option at cabinet level is political, and possibly actual, death for those involved.)

But the _method_ was the big problem. The police and army _would not_ go along with it. In fact, faced with those orders the most likely response is mass desertion - they have children of their own that they need to be at home to protect.

No. If the government decided that this was what had to be done, the method is as follows: calm everyone down, reopen the schools, wait a few days, and then as a "reward" to make up for the disruption you run an "unscheduled school trip" to a "chocolate factory". Because that way all the children are already together, under minimal adult supervision, and can be herded quietly and easily.

The approach the show presented ends only one way: revolution.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Mar 31, 2014)

I think the main one for me would be How I Met Your Mother.  Not only did I stop watching the show, but I found myself enjoying the first two seasons (which were great) a lot less.  Ruined might be a bit strong, but knowing what it turned into... ugh.

Grey's Anatomy is another decent example.  The show did a lot of really cool stuff in its first season with plays on gender roles and did a decent job capturing the diversity of a hospital environment.  Then it became terrible, and I just don't appreciate the first season like I did when I first saw it.

The latter seasons of Heroes had a similar effect for me - highlighted just how shallow the show actually was.


----------



## Jester David (Mar 31, 2014)

I don't put much thought into things being "ruined forever" as they can often easily be fixed. There' same lot if talk of things like Doctor Who and the Abrams Trek, which are things "ruined" until the next person takes over. Franchises are hard to permanently destroy.

Superhero comics are the closest for me. I was unimpressed by the New 52 but stuck out the changes for a couple years until they cancelled Hellblazer to force Constantine into the New 52, at which point I dropped all my regular DC books (sticking out on a few Vertigo books until they end).
Similarly, I dropped Marvel after Brand New Day in the Spidey books. When they basically undid every single Spider-man book I owned. I was growing disenfranchised with Marvel anyway with their constant events that shook the status quo, which all fell flat given the "status quo" had only been in place six months since the last Event ended. I blame Bendis for that, not being the fan for that writer.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 1, 2014)

delericho said:


> I can _just about_ see a politician coming to that calculation. (Although even that's doubtful - discussing that option at cabinet level is political, and possibly actual, death for those involved.)
> 
> But the _method_ was the big problem. The police and army _would not_ go along with it. In fact, faced with those orders the most likely response is mass desertion - they have children of their own that they need to be at home to protect.
> 
> ...




Ehh, I have a lot less faith in things than you.  There are numerous real world examples and not that far in the past, of governments and militaries doing just that.  Particularly when you add in class issues as well.  

I mean, you revolt and all your children die.  End of story.  There was no other alternative.  There was no fighting the aliens.  The reboot universe does not have humanity be all that technologically advanced - i.e. no Dalek penetrating bullets and that sort of thing.  That was the basic premise of the story.  

Then again, I absolutely love stories like The Cold Equations by Goddard.  Not every problem actually can be solved.  There are no timey wimpy, wobbly wobbly solutions sometimes makes a much better story.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Apr 1, 2014)

Hussar said:


> Ehh, I have a lot less faith in things than you.  There are numerous real world examples and not that far in the past, of governments and militaries doing just that.  Particularly when you add in class issues as well.
> 
> I mean, you revolt and all your children die.  End of story.  There was no other alternative.  There was no fighting the aliens.  The reboot universe does not have humanity be all that technologically advanced - i.e. no Dalek penetrating bullets and that sort of thing.  That was the basic premise of the story.
> 
> Then again, I absolutely love stories like The Cold Equations by Goddard.  Not every problem actually can be solved.  There are no timey wimpy, wobbly wobbly solutions sometimes makes a much better story.




But the very first time Torchwood was even mentioned, they DID have the technology to blow up a spaceship.
Even with the losses suffered in "Doomsday", Torchwood still has lots of gear. Lots and lots of gear.
There was a solution.
It may have been more convenient for the story to ignore the pre-existing, established details like that, but it is that sort of thinking that I call "Emotion over substance." Why was this ignored? Because it was easier. Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy.
There was an alternative. From the very beginning. How about "Don't blow up one of the two organizations that could solve the problem"? How about "Use all resources available"? How about "Let's employ rational thinking before descending into emotional stew"?

Now, I put the question to you as well: The Government just employed soldiers and police to steal your children. What could anyone possibly offer you that would allow you to permit that government, or anyone involved in government, to continue to exist?
Because just a few weeks later, it seems like everything is back to being hunky dory in the Torchwood universe awfully quickly.


----------



## Goodsport (Apr 1, 2014)

Completely ruined forever?  None that I can think of off the top of my head.

Sapped the enthusiasm for more new movies in a beloved series?  Accomplished by watching _Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull_ (not that I don't necessarily want any more, just that i went from absolutely _needing_ at least a fifth Indiana Jones movie to being okay with it either way whether they make a fifth one or not). 


-G


----------



## Grumpy RPG Reviews (Apr 1, 2014)

_Hannibal _has ruined me forever on fancy meals, unless I am preparing and know what I put into them. _National Lampoons Vacation_ ruined me on family long-drive vacations. Porn ruined me on sex with the guy who delivers the pizza.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 1, 2014)

Heh..._Hannibal_ is one of the best cooking shows on TV.


----------



## delericho (Apr 1, 2014)

Hussar said:


> Ehh, I have a lot less faith in things than you.  There are numerous real world examples and not that far in the past, of governments and militaries doing just that.  Particularly when you add in class issues as well.




The thing is, though, that we're not talking about some general thing that's happened somewhere at some time in the past. We're talking specifically about the UK in 2009, and in _that_ country at _that_ time, it simply would not have happened like that.


----------



## Lwaxy (Apr 1, 2014)

I generally hate reboots.

While I think the cast for the new Star Trek is fine, I don't like what they have done with it at all. Watched the first movie to see how it is going and, asides from them blowing up Vulcan for no reason at all but to piss off old fans (so it seems to me anyway), thought it was basically a run off the mill action space opera which has little to do with the real Star Trek. Not even to talk of the gaping plot holes and the awful light reflections. 

It would have made a somewhat decent stand alone alternate universe movie. But I doubt I will ever watch another part of that series, or even consider it real Star Trek. Ah yeah, same with Enterprise, too.

Watching Roddenberry rotate in his urn...


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Apr 1, 2014)

sabrinathecat said:


> Now, I put the question to you as well: The Government just employed soldiers and police to steal your children. What could anyone possibly offer you that would allow you to permit that government, or anyone involved in government, to continue to exist?
> Because just a few weeks later, it seems like everything is back to being hunky dory in the Torchwood universe awfully quickly.




Yeah, if they tried to get back to "business as usual" that wouldn't make sense. But the grim reality is that if your government came after you there isn't much you could do about it. After something like that though I'd expect a change in the form of government to something non-democratic.



delericho said:


> The thing is, though, that we're not talking about some general thing that's happened somewhere at some time in the past. We're talking specifically about the UK in 2009, and in _that_ country at _that_ time, it simply would not have happened like that.




How can you be sure of that when aliens are added to the equation? That's when the situation becomes speculative at best.


----------



## delericho (Apr 1, 2014)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> How can you be sure of that when aliens are added to the equation? That's when the situation becomes speculative at best.




The premise of "Torchwood" was that it was supposed to be 'adult' sci-fi. That means taking it seriously: 'real' people dealing with a 'real' (albeit speculative) scenario in a realistic way. But the events depicted were _so far_ from anything even remotely realistic as to blow that out of the water.


----------



## Elf Witch (Apr 1, 2014)

delericho said:


> The thing is, though, that we're not talking about some general thing that's happened somewhere at some time in the past. We're talking specifically about the UK in 2009, and in _that_ country at _that_ time, it simply would not have happened like that.




No it is not the UK in 2009 it is a UK which has numerous incidents with alien species and know what they are capable of. So taking that into consideration especially after the attack of the daleks which wiped out UNIT and took down the big flying carrier that UNIT had the attacks of the Sontarans I can well see a populace being afraid to not give into the demands.


----------



## delericho (Apr 1, 2014)

Elf Witch said:


> No it is not the UK in 2009 it is a UK which has numerous incidents with alien species and know what they are capable of.




Absurd as it may be, it's a conceit of the Doctor Who universe that humanity encounters these aliens, have the world-shaking revelation that we're not alone in the universe... and then promptly forget and get back to life as usual.

Even if that were not the case, humanity also has a 100% success rate against all those alien invaders.

And on top of all that, you're not talking about some nebulous sacrifice here - this is the loss of the _children_ of a significant chunk of the populace. Our government famously failed to take _free school milk_ away from children.

Seriously, "Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol" is more realistic.


----------



## delericho (Apr 1, 2014)

Incidentally, if you want to see a realistic view of how the UK _could_ collapse into a dystopia as a result of alien influence, see the Doctor Who episode "Turn Left". It's not that it couldn't happen here; it's that it couldn't happen here as depicted in "Torchwood: Children of Earth".

Interestingly, RTD wrote both "Turn Left" and the bulk of "Children of Earth". Funny how he often gets it right and sometimes gets it so very wrong.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 2, 2014)

They made the point in the movie I thought. The aliens say something to the effect that millions of children die every year and there is hardly a push to overthrow those governments. There is no huge hue and cry over that. 

So now there would be?  Torchwood could destroy one spaceship but we never even see the spaceship from these aliens. It's been shown numerous times that earth cannot defend itself against the truly advanced tech races. It's always the Doctor that saves them. 

It's not far fetched to me that an alien race could be that far advanced that resistance would be short lived.


----------



## delericho (Apr 2, 2014)

Hussar said:


> They made the point in the movie I thought. The aliens say something to the effect that millions of children die every year and there is hardly a push to overthrow those governments. There is no huge hue and cry over that.




Yes, but there's a big difference between that and _the government taking away_ people's children en masse.



> It's been shown numerous times that earth cannot defend itself against the truly advanced tech races. It's always the Doctor that saves them.
> 
> It's not far fetched to me that an alien race could be that far advanced that resistance would be short lived.




The problem with the argument that "resistance is futile" is that the show itself gives lie to it - the aliens are defeated.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 2, 2014)

But not by the defenders of the Earth. Not by Unit or by any government body. They are defeated through knowledge only available to a time traveller. Had Jack not done what he did there would be no way to defeat the aliens.


----------



## delericho (Apr 2, 2014)

Hussar said:


> But not by the defenders of the Earth. Not by Unit or by any government body.




Jack is a defender of the Earth, and Torchwood is a government body.

In any case, so what? With the resources available, it was possible for Earth to defeat the alien threat. In fact, it turns out defeating the alien threat was _easy_ - it took them about a day, if even that, to figure it all out and get the necessary mechanisms in place.


----------



## billd91 (Apr 2, 2014)

delericho said:


> Jack is a defender of the Earth, and Torchwood is a government body.
> 
> In any case, so what? With the resources available, it was possible for Earth to defeat the alien threat. In fact, it turns out defeating the alien threat was _easy_ - it took them about a day, if even that, to figure it all out and get the necessary mechanisms in place.




Jack is clearly an unusual individual. Pointing out he's a defender of Earth and that Torchwood is basically a QUANGO of sorts is kind of playing with the semantics of the situation. Yes, he technically is those things, but he's also not off this Earth or its technology. He brings an alien element of his own into the situation and thus is not your typical defender of the Earth or member of a government body - which, without his involvement and unique characteristics, would be unable to cope with the situation.


----------



## delericho (Apr 2, 2014)

billd91 said:


> Jack is clearly an unusual individual. Pointing out he's a defender of Earth and that Torchwood is basically a QUANGO of sorts is kind of playing with the semantics of the situation.




No, they're simply facts. It's not right to say the aliens weren't defeated by "the defenders of Earth" because they _were_. It's not accurate to say it wasn't a government organisation because it _was_.



> Yes, he technically is those things, but he's also not off this Earth or its technology. He brings an alien element of his own into the situation and thus is not your typical defender of the Earth or member of a government body - which, without his involvement and unique characteristics, would be unable to cope with the situation.




Again, so what? Using the resources available it was possible to defeat the alien threat. In fact, it was _easy_. The contention that "resistance is futile" is thus clearly wrong - they _did_ resist and they _did_ win.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 2, 2014)

I would not call the events either easy nor a win. 

But it does outline nicely the philosophical point of the show.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Apr 3, 2014)

"Torchwood is the Adult 'Doctor Who'" had major problems as a concept.
At first, it was more like a teenager's Doctor Who--the only things adult about it were sex and swearing. And it wasn't happy adult sex. It was either voyeuristic or "Hah, I nailed you, didn't I." "No, I made You my trophy."
The writing of the characters was vastly inconsistent. There was no overall structure, so events that happened one way would be completely ignored the next time. Other bits just didn't mesh well from episode to episode. Doctor Who could get away with it because each story was in a different place and time. Torchwood was anchored in one fixed era, with a fixed world, and a fixed setting. The episodes Had to mesh together, but usually didn't.
It was some time before the show got down to sorting itself out. Sadly, in the end, it was starting to lose itself again, with no-consequences interactions.
In a way, The Sarah Jane Adventures made a more adult and functional setting, because they were more consistent.

Back to the original topic
Spider-Man: Maximum Clonage. This was a cross-over from about 1995 or 96 that was pointless, annoying, and pretty much burned out my waning interest in comic books. Nail in the coffin.


----------



## delericho (Apr 3, 2014)

Hussar said:


> I would not call the events either easy nor a win.




It was 'easy' in that a handful of people, working unofficially, using Earth-level technology (and not the best of it) were able to put together a solution in a matter of days.

It was a 'win' in that they achieved their objective - the aliens were defeated. That 'win' was not without cost, certainly, but it certainly wasn't the suggested cost, that resistance meant the death of _every_ child.



> But it does outline nicely the philosophical point of the show.




I don't disagree. I only disagreed with the contention that resistance wasn't an option.

The thing is, I can understand that some people might conclude that it was impossible. But in the UK  it's still not all that unusual in the UK to have grandparents who fought in WWII. Indeed, our _current_ Queen was part of the war effort. And Winston Churchill is an almost religious figure to many over here: "We shall go on to the end, ... we shall fight on the beaches, ... we shall never surrender."

The nation that endured that _would not_ so easily capitulate here. Hell, even if it really was a no-win situation, I wouldn't bet against us fighting on anyway. RTD just got it _wrong_.

(Which is a shame. RTD is _very_ good when it comes to writing human-scale drama. But as soon as he moves to the bigger stage, he seems to fall flat. And he really does seem to have some blind spots, particularly around government, anti-Americanism, and in seeing our police and armed forces as faceless jackbooted thugs.)



sabrinathecat said:


> "Torchwood is the Adult 'Doctor Who'" had major problems as a concept.
> 
> At first, it was more like a teenager's Doctor Who--the only things adult about it were sex and swearing.




I don't disagree with that. In general, I find that 'adult' generally just means "boobs & blood". (Or, since this is the BBC and they won't take the gloves off, the occasional hint that someone might have sex once in a while, and the occasional rude word.)


----------



## frogimus (Apr 4, 2014)

The remake of Battlestar Galactica.  That, plus wrestling, put SyFy on my 'skip" channel list.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Apr 4, 2014)

frogimus said:


> The remake of Battlestar Galactica.  That, plus wrestling, put SyFy on my 'skip" channel list.




How about "SciFi Channel" changing to "SyFy Channel". That was pretty much a knell of doom for any future project. Yeah, let's rename our company in such a way as to show we're totally abandoning the company's fundamental market and premise.


----------



## frogimus (Apr 4, 2014)

sabrinathecat said:


> How about "SciFi Channel" changing to "SyFy Channel". That was pretty much a knell of doom for any future project. Yeah, let's rename our company in such a way as to show we're totally abandoning the company's fundamental market and premise.






Yes, that also. But I didn't want to get too wordy. Plus, I figured that 'SyFy' dislike would be universal in this group.


----------

