![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
neadodsT3 link: lj user="neadods"> a href="http://neadods.livejournal.com/929522.html">is dubious about the Fox remake
So, the flist is buzzing about RTD and his creative team remaking Torchwood in the US under the aegis not of BBCA, but Fox. (I've already seen it dubbed "Foxwood.")
Let me rephrase this.
The guy who said he was moving on to fresh stories is instead continuing to recap an old project...
... in a completely different country than where the brand was successfully built up...
... a country in which this show only gets big numbers when compared only to the usual viewing numbers of a cable channel that doesn't appear in many markets...
... and he's doing this under the financial support not of that comparatively tiny cable company for which he got those ratings...
... he's doing it under the financial support of a company that got its financial ass handed to it the last time it tried to do an American reboot of the parent property.
And he is apparently going to continue to use the name of (and thus the concept of) a British group founded by a British Queen to forward British interests because of course America cares deeply about this sort of thing and doesn't have any baggage about the British Empire...
...and he's going to hang the show off of an actor that nobody outside of the fandom has heard of because he built his reputation in British theater and TV, not America.
When you look at it like that, it couldn't possibly be dubious news or (if real) remotely doomed to failure.
So, the flist is buzzing about RTD and his creative team remaking Torchwood in the US under the aegis not of BBCA, but Fox. (I've already seen it dubbed "Foxwood.")
Let me rephrase this.
The guy who said he was moving on to fresh stories is instead continuing to recap an old project...
... in a completely different country than where the brand was successfully built up...
... a country in which this show only gets big numbers when compared only to the usual viewing numbers of a cable channel that doesn't appear in many markets...
... and he's doing this under the financial support not of that comparatively tiny cable company for which he got those ratings...
... he's doing it under the financial support of a company that got its financial ass handed to it the last time it tried to do an American reboot of the parent property.
And he is apparently going to continue to use the name of (and thus the concept of) a British group founded by a British Queen to forward British interests because of course America cares deeply about this sort of thing and doesn't have any baggage about the British Empire...
...and he's going to hang the show off of an actor that nobody outside of the fandom has heard of because he built his reputation in British theater and TV, not America.
When you look at it like that, it couldn't possibly be dubious news or (if real) remotely doomed to failure.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-20 05:35 pm (UTC)As it is, it'll mostly be an exercise in schadenfreude, waiting for RTD to find out that in LA he isn't the television god he thinks he is.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-20 10:32 pm (UTC)waiting for RTD to find out that in LA he isn't the television god he thinks he is.
I've been thinking *that* ever since he moved. On the other hand, if there was a role for someone to crank out generic summer blockbusters, he'd be a shoo-in. No need for characterization or plot, as time has proven - just lots of explosions and emotional manipulation.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-20 11:11 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-21 01:44 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-21 05:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-21 12:15 am (UTC)He really should try writing for SyFy's "original movies." Definitely a shoo-in for that.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-21 01:47 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-22 02:54 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-22 03:05 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-25 05:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-25 09:09 pm (UTC)