Quantum Leap to return. NBC picked up the sequel
- Thread starter Moviefreak
- Start date
JiminSTLouis
Sr Member
They just showed a Quantum Leap teaser during the NFL preseason game. “Coming This Fall”.
Quantum Leap Trailer
Quantum Leap Trailer
NakedMoleRat
Master Member
Tells me literally nothing about the show.
JiminSTLouis
Sr Member
I learned it was coming in the Fall. I didn’t know that.
I saw HUNT in the theaters. I never once thought Jones being an Admiral was unusual for the time. No one I knew ever mentioned it. I also don't ever remember it being discussed.
The only things controversial I remember 1990 was the Phallic symbolism in the Little Mermaid poster that resulted in it being pulled from stores, Two Live Crew being banned, and Madonna's Justify My Love video being yanked from MTV.
I cherish Quantum Leap. I don't think a sequel/reboot will ever have the charm of the original. TV was different back then. Sensitive and controversial topics were handled more subtle, more mature to be thought provoking. Modern writers can't do that. They've been too "radicalized" so to speak.
Last edited:
The choice (James Earl Jones) was unusual enough that they talked about it in a DVD extra (probably from the early the 2000s).
I saw the movie in the theater too. I recall it being a little bit unexpected. Enough that it registered in your mind as different. Not enough that you talked about it for half an hour afterwards or anything.
By 1990 I think most of the public was willing to accept minorities in high positions. But the numbers were still low because of the generational lag. The civil rights movement was barely 20-25 years earlier. It takes a long time to reach a high rank like Admiral. Jones was around 60yo in the movie.
I saw the movie in the theater too. I recall it being a little bit unexpected. Enough that it registered in your mind as different. Not enough that you talked about it for half an hour afterwards or anything.
By 1990 I think most of the public was willing to accept minorities in high positions. But the numbers were still low because of the generational lag. The civil rights movement was barely 20-25 years earlier. It takes a long time to reach a high rank like Admiral. Jones was around 60yo in the movie.
NakedMoleRat
Master Member
Fair enough.
JiminSTLouis
Sr Member
;^ )
Axlotl
Master Member
In 1990 4 star general Colin Powell was head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and orchestrated operation Desert Shield. He was kind of a superstar here in the U.S. at the time.
So casting James Earl Jones as an Admiral wasn't that big of a stretch. We already had a real world example.
So casting James Earl Jones as an Admiral wasn't that big of a stretch. We already had a real world example.
Riceball
Master Member
What does that even mean, cheap cash grab? It's not like the originals were made as high art or anything like that. Most everything, with few exceptions, made for TV and theaters were and still are produced with the intent of making money. Sure, the actual people who write these shows and movies and produce might have a creative vision, but the studios/networks that bankroll and release them are in it for the money. With that in mind, why wouldn't these studios and networks produce sequels, prequels, and reboots when they sell and sell well at that too? As much as I like an original production, if I were a studio head or head of greenlighting productions, I'd probably greenlight most of these sequels/prequels./reboots too because they make financial sense and in that position, I can't afford to be producing anything but art when there's easier/cheaper projects that can be done that would prove likely to be as or even more profitable. If, as someone who says yea or nay to what gets produced, I'd get fired pretty quickly if I consistently ignored the easy money projects in favor of gambling on something new all of the time.
Last edited:
Honestly I don't understand the disconnect here. By your own definition, a reboot, sequel, prequel, spin off IS an easy cash grab. Taking a recognized (or owning the rights to) a successful IP and making more of it is easy money for a movie studio.
No one is against a studio making money. Why is that constantly being implied? It's a business. I get that. That's not what this is about. That's besides the point. The point is that almost all the major studio projects ARE from pre-existing properties. They tried rebooting Doogie Howser. Was THAT really a property worth saving? They did a reboot of Overboard. They did a remake of Nightmare on Elm Street. I can't even count how many versions of Halloween have been out since the original. How many versions of Batman or Spiderman, or Predator/ Alien/ Terminator/ Star Wars/ Star Trek do we really need? I get that not every film is an arthouse picture, but there is so little originality in the theater anymore that it's no wonder they need to cater to the overseas market in order to survive.
It's no wonder the streaming services who are creating their own original content are absolutely crushing the old studio system, because Hollywood has become too big, too complacent, and they're almost a decade behind the curve with making truly original content, and those who have managed to produce their own are scrambling to catch up. The Disney Star Wars original shows are barely working (if at all) because they can't produce content fast enough, and the material suffers as a result. The fact that Kenobi had to premiere two episodes back to back on the day of release, and Andor is reportedly releasing three episodes at the premiere tells you how desperate Disney is to catch up to services like Netflix who has dozens of original programming to satisfy just about any taste. More affordable than going to a theater, diverse content, wider net, wider viewership, more subscriptions, more money.
The studios made themselves almost obscelete and the theater experience is nearly dead because of it. Plus easy money may keep the business solvent for a time, but that's the short term gains on an even greater risk, which is to not evolve to meet the market's demand for new types of stories. Netflix, Hulu, or Apple have proven that there IS a market for new types of stories and ones that aren't dependent on a decades old IP to be successful. So the constant excuse that Hollwood is incapable of creating new types of content or that they can't make money on original stories, completely ignores the evidence to the contrary. They're only treading water before they drown. So they better start swimming.
No one is against a studio making money. Why is that constantly being implied? It's a business. I get that. That's not what this is about. That's besides the point. The point is that almost all the major studio projects ARE from pre-existing properties. They tried rebooting Doogie Howser. Was THAT really a property worth saving? They did a reboot of Overboard. They did a remake of Nightmare on Elm Street. I can't even count how many versions of Halloween have been out since the original. How many versions of Batman or Spiderman, or Predator/ Alien/ Terminator/ Star Wars/ Star Trek do we really need? I get that not every film is an arthouse picture, but there is so little originality in the theater anymore that it's no wonder they need to cater to the overseas market in order to survive.
It's no wonder the streaming services who are creating their own original content are absolutely crushing the old studio system, because Hollywood has become too big, too complacent, and they're almost a decade behind the curve with making truly original content, and those who have managed to produce their own are scrambling to catch up. The Disney Star Wars original shows are barely working (if at all) because they can't produce content fast enough, and the material suffers as a result. The fact that Kenobi had to premiere two episodes back to back on the day of release, and Andor is reportedly releasing three episodes at the premiere tells you how desperate Disney is to catch up to services like Netflix who has dozens of original programming to satisfy just about any taste. More affordable than going to a theater, diverse content, wider net, wider viewership, more subscriptions, more money.
The studios made themselves almost obscelete and the theater experience is nearly dead because of it. Plus easy money may keep the business solvent for a time, but that's the short term gains on an even greater risk, which is to not evolve to meet the market's demand for new types of stories. Netflix, Hulu, or Apple have proven that there IS a market for new types of stories and ones that aren't dependent on a decades old IP to be successful. So the constant excuse that Hollwood is incapable of creating new types of content or that they can't make money on original stories, completely ignores the evidence to the contrary. They're only treading water before they drown. So they better start swimming.
Last edited:
jts1031
Sr Member
Hollywood having an original idea is the exception, not the norm, and it's always been that way. There were multiple versions of Wizard of Oz before the 1939 version was released. A lot of the classic films are based on novels like The Thin Man, Gone with the Wind, or The Maltese Falcon, and Casablanca was an unproduced play. Citizen Kane and Star Wars, original works, are just not that common.
I think that is Disney's own fault. The only deadline bearing down on those shows is the quarterly earnings reports. The studio could take longer and make the content better. They choose not to.
Viewers (and the studio) demanded their 'Game of Thrones' finale to arrive on a schedule. Then they cried a river when the content was compromised. Everyone on all sides needs to grow up a little. Quality goes down when you rush things.
Last edited:
Axlotl
Master Member
.
It was hubris that killed GoT, nothing else.
Game of Thrones wasn't compromised by a schedule, it was compromised by a horrible script. They had 2 years to deliver an amazing ending, and they rushed out a first-draft script and spent the rest of their time and money on special effects polishing a turd.
It was hubris that killed GoT, nothing else.
Book adaptations, Plays, etc are standard practice for sourcing new content for Hollywood/ Streaming productions, so I'm aware that not every new show or movie comes out of the ether. The problem is that so much of the content now is riffing on existing movies that have long worn out their welcome and originality. Those films you named were diverse enough concepts, that whether they originated from a book or play, or short story or whatever, at least they had a unique vision or interesting premise enough to feel fresh.
Speaking of the Wizard of Oz, remember that failed attempt a few years ago to build a Harry Potter style or MCU style franchise out of it? Yeah barely anyone remembers, because not every story needs fifty sequels, even if there were a series of books to base it on. Remember The Mummy with Tom Cruise, and the failed attempt to build an MCU type franshise out of the Universal Monsters? Yeah that was a flop too. Some stories need to end. Not everything has to be franchised. Some reboots are just a bad idea. Whether it's because the original was fine, or because the original premise was mediocre. I know creativity and art may not be a priority to corporate Hollywood, but eventually the demand for this stuff will die and then the money they used to make off it will go away with it. At some point the bubble is going to burst and people will just stop watching content from their favorite IP's because there's nothing left to say, even the market at large will shift over time to demand other kinds of stories.
Plus when people vote with their wallets, that's the only way Hollywood listens.
One big chunk of truth right there ^
I can’t even imagine going to the theaters to see a drama anymore.
cboath
Master Member
Netflix is losing subscribers and dropping shows left and right these days. Their last couple years, their MO is to kill a show after 2 or 3 seasons when the show was solid and doing well purportedly because that's when cast etc had to get new deals and they didn't wanna pay. They also spread themselves too thin trying to make new stuff for every conceivable demographic out there. HBO Max is getting dumped into Discovery after that merger and dropping stuff left and right as well. Right now you get the masses paying for reruns of My 600lb life or whatever it's called. Things go that way and original stuff will die PDQ. Why fork out a few million for a show when you can get people off the street to stick a camera crew on them for weeks on end for less than peanuts?
Personally, I blame survivor for the death of a lot of scripted shows. That came out, and became a hit - you knew everyone and their dog would try and do the same thing (which they did). Stick a crew on a remote locale for 30 days. Pay the contestants next to nothing except the winner. Your actual real paid cast is 1 guy. Uber cheap stuff, and now it's all over. That stuff is nearly half the schedule of the major networks it seems.
It seems the only places doing routine quality scripted stuff (or trying to) is Amazon (who people have for other reasons) and Disney (who people don't like for a different set of reasons).
Hell, i can remember loving the History Channel and TLC (The learning channel) back in the day as they had quality stuff on history. Like, stuff you'd learn in a college class level stuff. Now, I don't know if TLC even exists and the History Channel puts reality garbage on the air.
It's seems to parallel more of a decline of the intellect of the country in general as opposed to anything else. Yeah, companies are lazy and want to expend the least amount of effort possible to make as much as humanly possible. But what do you expect when people lap up the utter garbage that is out there lumped under the bs term 'reality' when none it it bears a resemblance to true reality?
Bigdaddy
Master Member
I enjoyed the original show when it came out but the concept grew old for me pretty quickly. I kept watching because of the performances and because it was something my mom and watched together. I have a hard time enjoying time travel stories anymore, the obvious paradoxes involved get in the way for me.
Quantum Leap was interesting, then cute, then silly. I can't imagine why anyone would want more other than to ride the nostalgia train.
Quantum Leap was interesting, then cute, then silly. I can't imagine why anyone would want more other than to ride the nostalgia train.
My friend, you hit the nail on the head right there. We are slowly becoming dumber, as a culture, and are no longer a serious group of people.
We are a silly people obsessed with increasingly silly things.
If someone showed me, while I was in college, the future headlines of today, I would think they were showing me headlines from The Onion that could not possibly be true.
I don’t think this is our future:
I think this is:
Last edited:
Similar threads
