On this site I’ve mentioned some news on the upcoming remake to The Rockford Files, starring Delmot Mulrooney and Alan Tudyk. I have to admit, my first reaction to hearing the news that one of my favorite shows was being targeted for a remake was “Oh fuck no,” it reminded me of the last time I felt this way about the news of a remake, specifically Battlestar Galactica. This got me thinking on the idea of remakes and why I, and other, might be so initially against them, whether they turn out to be great or not.
First off, there have been a lot of remakes/reimaginings/reboots of classic movies and TV shows for a while now, and they’ve met with various levels of success. On one end of the spectrum, you have stuff like the recent Star Trek movie, Battlestar Galactica and V which have met with much success. On the other end, you have movies like “Planet of the Apes”, “Starsky and Hutch” and TV shows such as Knight Rider, Life on Mars and others which have crashed and burned. I think there a couple of reasons for this disparity among remakes.
First off, some properties are timeless, so they can more easily make the transition from one generation to another. The successful properties I mentioned are notably all science fiction, which isn’t rooted to a particular time or place. They work for other reasons than this, sure, but a timelessness is kind of key here. Properties that fail, like Knight Rider (stuck in the 80′s), Life on Mars (stuck in Britain), “Planet of the Apes” (stick in the 60′s), Starsky and Hutch (stuck in the 70′s) don’t work as well — if at all — because they’re particularly rooted in a particular time or place, and bringing them somewhere else is problematic.
I also think another reason some reboots work and some don’t is because the people behind them don’t fully understand why these properties worked when/where they did, and take the time to translate that to a modern or American audience. This is particularly apparently with shows from Britain that have been brought over here with awful results (Coupling or Life on Mars for example). It’s also true of shows that seem rooted, in our minds, to a particular time. Knight Rider, for example, embodied a type of 80′s cheesiness that just doesn’t really work in a modern setting.
I fear the result will be the same for The Rockford Files. First, the show is one that definitely makes people think of the 1970′s, and bringing that kind of feel nearly forty years ahead will be exceedingly difficult. Secondly, when you have someone like James Garner — a leviathan of an actor — identified with such a well-loved role, plucking any other actor and putting him into that role will be met with resentment and scorn…kind of like what I’m feeling now. However, I felt the same way about Apollo and Starbuck in the new Battlestar Galactica before I saw it, so I could be wrong, but again, Battlestar is a much more timeless show.
If I may be so bold, I kind of hope The Rockford Files fails. Why? Because it’ll hopefully show producers and networks that you can’t just take great ideas from the past and use them today if you’re out of ideas of your own. I’m honestly getting tired of remakes and reboots, no matter how good they are. Sadly, even if it fails, it likely won’t stop the torrent of remakes coming down the pike because some of them do make enough money to convince others to give it a go.
However, will I watch The Rockford Files when it premieres next year? You’re damned right I will. Why? Because first off, I love Alan Tudyk. 
Secondly, and yet more importantly, I want to see how they handle a much-beloved property as this one. It’ll be interesting to see if they can pull it off, and hell, if they prove me wrong and it turns out to be awesome, no one will be happier than I (more for Alan Tudyk being on a show that doesn’t get cancelled than anything else), but time will tell if they have the respect, foresight and intelligence to give the property the proper treatment it deserves.
