I did not see the original miniseries, so I can't compare the two. I'm curious to hear from anyone who did.
My capsule review is that I thought it didn't suck.
I am disappointed that there seem to be so many elements that are repeats of well worn themes. Aliens arrive, appearing to be beneficent, but do they have an ulterior motive (Earth: Final Conflict). They are already hiding among us (The Invaders). We need a Resistance to counter them but the leader is a flake (Earth: Final Conflict again). Conflict between adult and rebellious offspring (The 4400) in how to deal with them. And of course the obligatory budding young romantic involvement between One of Us and One of Them (take your pick). etc.
Still and all, the setup was overall good, there are a number of interesting plot lines, it will be fun to see what is done with them.
I'm a bit of a "where have we seen him/her before" actor/actress junkie, always running to IMDB, so I'm having fun with seeing actors from previous shows, especially SF. So far I've counted two from Firefly, one from Lost, and one from The 4400 (not to mention two from short-lived (non-SF) series The Nine.)
Somewhat reserved acting kudos of the day go to Morena Baccarin as Anna, the Visitor leader. I sat there for some time asking aloud, "Why am I finding her so disconcerting?" eventually realizing that it was her ability to consistently retain a much too solid trying-hard-but-not-quite-sincere smile. I found it very under-the-skin creepy, exactly what was needed to make you think "She really wants me to trust her, and that makes me really not trust her." I just hope that as the series develops she'll have the opportunity for more depth and doesn't get stuck in one-dimensionality.
In general, sci fi (syfi?!!) suffers from the "60's" syndrome. Everything we knew in the 60's is taken as gospel while the 21st Century doesn't exist. In particular, real planets orbiting real stars elsewhere in the galaxy don't exist. There was a reason for that in the mid 20th Century. No one had any proof real planets existed beyond our solar system.
That's not true today. And, as one who is scripting a story line revolving around a real planet, one that we're all but certain has organic life, being real make all the difference. It doesn't have to be logical.
I can't think of one sci fi (syfi) author who imagined a planet bulking 8 times as large as Earth, yet with a gravitational field the same as ours because it is literally all water, even the core. Even more astounding, it orbits a small red dwarf star and its bathed in infrared sunlight. Also, it happens to be 3 billion years older; and, best of all, it's 20.3 light years away.
Waterworld is only the first of what will be millions of planets that we discover in the next two decades. Maybe they will need to change the name of sci fi to sci fact.
Repeating Sam Clemens, "truth is stranger than fiction because fiction has to make sense. Truth isn't."
I liked the first V better. It was made 26 years ago. Pre-Hubble. I never missed it. I liked the newer one enough to watch to the end, but I won't be going back. Like you, Mr.B, I feel the themes are tired. Wish they'd stop making remakes. If they want to film something with lots of action and occasion for special effects and actual character development, I wish someone would make Weber and Ringo's Prince Roger trilogy.
The original pretty much sucked. There wasn't any suspension of disbelief. The faces of the aliens were so lizard shaped that I couldn't see how they could fit the masks over them. Stupid mistake. I haven't seen the new one yet. I DVR'd it and will watch tonight.
Len, I don't see it as 60's syndrome. True a lot of popular SF suffers from a lack of connection with accurate/modern science. But that is nothing new. SF in the 60's (or 70's or...) was the same way. Heck, remember Sturgeon's Law. 90% of it is crap.
Lack of good science in science fiction is a result of the economics of the mass market. Most readers neither demand nor have the patience to wade through a lot of science. I do think the situation has gotten work post-60's as scientific ignorance in this country has progressed.
I watched it, thought it was OK. I'll reserve judgement til after a few more episodes. I was sorry to see Alan Tuvek's character bite it so early on. (I like the actor.)
I also waffle on the remake concept. Look at Superman, Batman,and Arthur; they've been remade to death and are still popular. There are only, what is it 17 basic plotlines? Everything else is in the talent of the storyteller. I'm willing to let this one tell a little more of his story before passing on it just cause it is a remake.
The dearth of ideas is the primary reason I read fantasy sci-fi. The boxes are prettier.
I loved the original V. I thought that it was a great mini series.
The original was an allegory to the Final Solution / Nazi domination. Instead of rounding up the Jews, the Visitors rounded up all the Scientists and "re-programmed" them or got rid of them. The Hitler Youth was the Youth Ambasadors, the Resistance Fighters - even the symbol was a computerized Swastika! - it was all there and it was very well done in my opinion.
I have only seen the first episode of the re make and so far I liked it.
I agree Dottielu, I liked the original series and it was very much about Nazi style oppression brought into modern terms. It's a story that every generation need to be reminded of if we're to keep it from happening again. Jumping down from my soap box now...
I like the show but I'm reluctantly curious as many viewers probably are, as to where it's headed. Will it simply be a parody of the original with updated special effects or will there be some action to keep us on the edge of our seats? With the first two episodes aired, the characters are really not anything special thus far and I've yet to see any actual surprises in the story line. Hopefully that trend changes soon or I for one will get bored and fall asleep.
For the record....the original "V" mini-series was a huge, huge success!
TV execs being as dull then as they are now, thought, "Hey, since the mini-series was so great, why don't we make a weekly show out of it." They did. Not knowing anything about science fiction, they stripped it of all the excitement, nuances and character development ... made it into a night-time soap opera.
Result: the weekly "V" program bombed so loud that dinosaurs 20 light years away died!
It ranks as one of the more memorable program failures in TV history.
Execs were left scratching their heads: how could the mini-series do so well, and the weekly program fail so miserably?
I watched the original "V" mini-series and luvved it. I watched the original "V" weekly show, one or three times, and hated it. I did not watch "V - 2009" and won't. Don't have the time or inclination.
I watched the original V weeekly show and I liked it (not as much as the mini-seires), as I recall - it was just ok. I only watched it because I really loved Micheal Ironside!
