Young Macgyver -- Sequel to Macgyver

MooCow · Post by **MooCow** » Sat Feb 08, 2003 5:06 pm

So apparently, the WB is going to do a "Young Macgyver" series, which focuses on Macgyver's nephew (Macgyver).

www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,10694,00.html

Who will play Young Macgyver? TV Guide has some ideas www.tvguide.com/newsgossip/insider/030207a.asp

So does anyone else just see this sucking? Will the Phoenix foundation be run by Young Pete? Will Young Macgyver constantly battle Young Murdock?

I've never liked sequels that seemed to basically be copies of the originial. Things like Star Trek: The Next Generation are ok, because they take place 70 something years in the future. Everything has changed, so you have lots of new stories. But stuff like Babylon 5: Rangers, Knight Rider 2000, etc end up sucking massively.

Cash · Post by **Cash** » Sat Feb 08, 2003 7:18 pm

Babylon 5: Rangers, Knight Rider 2000

*shudder* Legend of the Rangers just sucked froom the get go. Knight Rider 2000 had some promise.

FlakJacket · Post by **FlakJacket** » Sat Feb 08, 2003 9:07 pm

Cash wrote:*Shudder* Legend of the Rangers just sucked froom the get go.

Never actually seen that. Was it really as bad as some people make out?

MooCow · Post by **MooCow** » Sat Feb 08, 2003 11:33 pm

Never actually seen that. Was it really as bad as some people make out?

It's a comparitive thing. Compared to Star Trek, no it wasn't bad. But compared to the first four seasons of B5, it was a blight upon humanity.

Wildfire · Post by **Wildfire** » Sun Feb 09, 2003 12:49 am

IMO, LotR was not nearly as good a Bab5, but far better than Crusades, which really felt like 18 different cool ideas and one guy with a bunch of duct tape trying to stick them all together.

Bethyaga · Post by **Bethyaga** » Sun Feb 09, 2003 1:02 am

Wildfire wrote:IMO, LotR was not nearly as good a Bab5, but far better than Crusades, which really felt like 18 different cool ideas and one guy with a bunch of duct tape trying to stick them all together.

LotR? LotR? Ooooooooooh... Legend of the Rangers! I get it. At first I couldn't figure out why you were dissin' my Frodo.

Cash · Post by **Cash** » Sun Feb 09, 2003 2:36 am

Wildfire wrote:IMO, LotR was not nearly as good a Bab5, but far better than Crusades, which really felt like 18 different cool ideas and one guy with a bunch of duct tape trying to stick them all together.

Bab5::LotR was the concept of "Well my bad guy is bigger and badder than yours." Really now...The Hand? I was making bad TMNT jokes all night. Yes, it was that bad. To top it off, someone at WB lost all the CGI files for all the ships. That's why you don't see any of the "normal" Bab5 ships. the exceptions were a low res rendering of a Whitestar and a low res rendering of a Nial. If you look carefully in the background when the Liandra takes off you can see both of them far off in the distance. Take a look at the Nial fighter. It's flying backwards.

Crusade was a victim of Turner and TNT. Proof why micro-management is a bad thing.

Silent Sniper · Post by **Silent Sniper** » Sun Feb 09, 2003 3:44 am

And let's not even mention the Omni-Directional Kung Fu Cannon.

MissTeja · Post by **MissTeja** » Sun Feb 09, 2003 4:14 am

I've been in love with MacGyver since I was about 7. Know how all 12 year old girls have a heart-throb? Mine was RDA. Heh. (I know, I know.....heh)

Anyways, do I think that a MacGyver sequel could rock? Hell yeah it could.

Why? Sure, it'd be a hell of a risk to cast Mac's "nephew" and obviously, pretty much, a whole slew of another cast and try to get them to pull off the ratings. Especially without it being on one of the main-major networks. But what's the first thing you think of when you think of MacGyver other than RDA, Murdock, and Pete? Girls, girls, girls, and blowing shit up. Heh. It's risky, but if they do it right and if this gets in the hands of some decent producers, directors, etc., they could actually make it pretty fucking cool. Will it survive for 20 seasons? Probably not, unless ABC takes it over and gives it the 9:00pm Wednesday night slot. But I know I'd sure as hell watch it. And I know plenty of others who would too.

As, always though....just my two cents.

MooCow · Post by **MooCow** » Sun Feb 09, 2003 4:38 am

Girls, girls, girls, and blowing shit up

Well granted, it's been 11+years since I last watched MacGyver.... But That's not what I think of. I associate MacGyver with relatively intelligent scripts, scenarioes, etc. Granted, I was 14 when this went off the air, so I could be mistaken.

But what I do know, is that the WB is not known for that type of show. They do things like Dawsons Creek and Smallville. Both are good in their own way, but not how I would like to see a MacGyver sequel. The Shows that Warner Bros. produces for it's own station are fun shows, but not terribly high class shows.

I'll give it a chance.... but I have yet to see a sequel series that I liked.

MissTeja · Post by **MissTeja** » Sun Feb 09, 2003 4:51 am

MooCow wrote:But what I do know, is that the WB is not known for that type of show. They do things like Dawsons Creek and Smallville. Both are good in their own way, but not how I would like to see a MacGyver sequel. The Shows that Warner Bros. produces for it's own station are fun shows, but not terribly high class shows.

I have to be in agreement there. (Praying my sis never reads Bulldrek cause she works on WB shows and would kick my ass...). The WB seems to look to attract a younger viewing audience in most instances. Maybe they figure with Mac's nephew, that is what this will do. However, I think if they do that, they're signing the show's death warrant. MacGyver /did/ have very intelligent storylines and plots, and I think the writers were key in that aspect. I dunno. I really think that this sequel could do well. Obviously not as good as the original, but with the technology and abundancy of special effects available now, there is just a lot that crew could do to make this a good series in and of itself. I just don't know if the WB is capable of pulling that off.

Big Jim · Post by **Big Jim** » Sun Feb 09, 2003 5:10 am

MooCow wrote:It's a comparitive thing. Compared to Star Trek, no it wasn't bad.

*cough* Care to expand on this a little more, mister?

MooCow · Post by **MooCow** » Sun Feb 09, 2003 5:33 am

*cough* Care to expand on this a little more, mister?

What more is neccesary? Star Trek sucks.

Ok, lets look at Next Generation, which was the only series I watched beginning to end. The characters had very little development over 7 years. Plots were almost always self contained within 1-2 episodes. Characters would have major life changing events happen.... then we would never hear of them again. And just the minor stuff.... O'Brian was a different rank every time we saw him. And it wasn't always a promotion!! They would have the same actors play different people in different episodes. Reoccuring characters would flucuate ranks. Is it too hard to keep a log book of what actor played what character and what their rank was?

The writing in all the Star Treks had a tendency to lean towards "This episode was written by a committee". There is obviously no thought given to a long range plot line.

I like Next Gen, and watch it several times a week. But in terms of writing, story telling, etc.... Shows like Babylon 5 and Farscape kick it's ass.

FlakJacket · Post by **FlakJacket** » Sun Feb 09, 2003 5:45 am

Silent Sniper wrote:And let's not even mention the Omni-Directional Kung Fu Cannon.

Lets. Someone care to give an explanation of aforementioned item/thing/person?

3278 · Post by **3278** » Sun Feb 09, 2003 7:30 am

MooCow wrote:I associate MacGyver with relatively intelligent scripts, scenarioes, etc. Granted, I was 14 when this went off the air, so I could be mistaken.

But what I do know, is that the WB is not known for that type of show.

They type of show known for intelligent scripts, scenarios, etc? On the WB? With action, drama, and comedy? Golly, I can't think of one.

MooCow wrote:They do things like Dawsons Creek and Smallville. Both are good in their own way, but not how I would like to see a MacGyver sequel.

You have to keep in mind that, while they're airing on WB, and they're the shows the WB wants to see made, the WB doesn't write the scripts or even make casting decisions, with the exception of "pilot recommendations." By which I mean, there isn't really a "WB type of show," except inasmuch as they're types of shows enjoyed by 18-25 year olds.

MooCow · Post by **MooCow** » Sun Feb 09, 2003 2:30 pm

They type of show known for intelligent scripts, scenarios, etc? On the WB? With action, drama, and comedy? Golly, I can't think of one.

Yes... You are refering to West Wing. However, while done by Warner Bros, West Wing is not done for the WB per sey. It's done for a completely different audience then what is typically shown on the WB. In Chicago West Wing isn't shown on the WB (It's on NBC). Maybe they show it in Michigan.

By which I mean, there isn't really a "WB type of show," except inasmuch as they're types of shows enjoyed by 18-25 year olds.

Yes, but what they are currently showing is not a style of show that I think would do justice to a MacGyver sequel. If that's what 18-25 year olds like that's fine, but I hope they don't make that their target audience for Young Macgyver.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Sun Feb 09, 2003 3:33 pm

MooCow wrote:
They type of show known for intelligent scripts, scenarios, etc? On the WB? With action, drama, and comedy? Golly, I can't think of one.
Yes... You are refering to West Wing. However, while done by Warner Bros, West Wing is not done for the WB per sey. It's done for a completely different audience then what is typically shown on the WB. In Chicago West Wing isn't shown on the WB (It's on NBC). Maybe they show it in Michigan.

*sigh* You had no way of knowing this, but I was talking about Angel, not West Wing.

MooCow wrote:
By which I mean, there isn't really a "WB type of show," except inasmuch as they're types of shows enjoyed by 18-25 year olds.
Yes, but what they are currently showing is not a style of show that I think would do justice to a MacGyver sequel. If that's what 18-25 year olds like that's fine, but I hope they don't make that their target audience for Young Macgyver.

Oh, then you're out of luck, I'm guessing. They're trying to catch the tail end of the last people who were obsessed with the show, and the generation just behind them, is my guess. And look: that's the WB's demographic.

Jeff Hauze · Post by **Jeff Hauze** » Sun Feb 09, 2003 6:13 pm

[quote="3278"]*sigh* You had no way of knowing this, but I was talking about Angel, not West Wing.

A huge AYE! to that one. Far better than the original show the spin-off was based from, and becoming better as it goes on. But it lives under the same shadow all shows on the WB network contend with. They are, in fact, on the WB. Therefore, they receive generally nothing but shit reviews and critiques, simply because they are on the "Dawson Creek" network.

The Traveler · Post by **The Traveler** » Sun Feb 09, 2003 8:44 pm

Jeff Hauze wrote:A huge AYE! to that one. Far better than the original show the spin-off was based from, and becoming better as it goes on.

Now if they'd just get rid of the current Connor and Cordelia storyline. I realize Charisma Carpenter is pregnant and all, but did they have to work it into the plot? It just seems so shoehorned in, not at all in keeping with the usual writing style.

Salvation122 · Post by **Salvation122** » Sun Feb 09, 2003 8:56 pm

3278 wrote:*sigh* You had no way of knowing this, but I was talking about Angel, not West Wing.

Angel would be the exception to the crappiness that is The WB.

MooCow wrote:By which I mean, there isn't really a "WB type of show," except inasmuch as they're types of shows enjoyed by 18-25 year olds.

Much younger audience than that. In middle school and Freshman year of highschool - say, twelve to fourteen - everyone was talking about what happened on Dawson's Creek. Now, most people think that it sucks. Whether this is a result of age or a decline in the show I leave as an exercise to the reader.

"What happened to puberty? Bad skin and insecurity? And who the fuck is Felicity? 'Cause I got problems of my own."

Cash · Post by **Cash** » Sun Feb 09, 2003 9:07 pm

Obviously not as good as the original, but with the technology and abundancy of special effects available now, there is just a lot that crew could do to make this a good series in and of itself.

That's what made the original so great. It had a low techy feel. It seemed like Joe Average building something to get his bacon out of the fire. I have a feeling that the new show will be very horrible or only mediocre. Of course, I'll still watch...

WillyGilligan · Post by **WillyGilligan** » Sun Feb 09, 2003 10:58 pm

To me, it always felt like the show was written by an Odyssey of the Mind team that also liked English. As long as they bear in mind that Mac never used a gun, and always had to improvise his shit rather than pull out his ultra-cool wacky gizmo, they should do alright.

So what is up with Angel, anyway? I haven't had actual television for almost two years now, but I just started using Kazaa and am trying to catch up. So, Angel has a son? (just watched Soulless, which is the first episode I've seen since the end of Season 2, I hate to jump around like that, but it seems like I'll have to take what I can get) And what's his deal, since he was kicking some demonic ass and they were talking about Cordelia changing his diapers at some point before having sex with him. Is he a half-vampire or something?

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Sun Feb 09, 2003 11:37 pm

fucking Angel this. I downloaded Angel that.

God damned fag.

WillyGilligan · Post by **WillyGilligan** » Sun Feb 09, 2003 11:51 pm

What? I'm waiting on more West Wing, it seems like everyone who has the Sopranos is uploading them slightly faster than if they were sending each little bit by carrier pigeon, and I just figured out that I can get slightly better porn than they have at the hun if I'm willing to wait two weeks for it, so whadoIdo? Find more shit to queue up. I'm two days in and the machine hasn't been idle yet. *looks at Paul's avatar* Yeeeesss, maybe some jackamoe out there has old cartoons. The search is afoot!

I gotta get back to work. The rainy weekends are killing me.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Sun Feb 09, 2003 11:57 pm

I like your signature, can I buy you Lunch?

Serious Paul winks suggestively at Willy

The Traveler · Post by **The Traveler** » Mon Feb 10, 2003 12:37 am

WillyGilligan wrote:As long as they bear in mind that Mac never used a gun

Well, he did, that one time. Remember? In the nuclear reactor episode? He knocked out the magazine on the thing and used it as a wrench.

MooCow · Post by **MooCow** » Mon Feb 10, 2003 1:06 am

*sigh* You had no way of knowing this, but I was talking about Angel, not West Wing.

Well yes, I had no way of knowing. I seemed to recall you were a West Wing fan, so I made a leap in logic. Looks Like I leaped off a cliff.

Haven't watched Angel except for the first couple of episodes. I got real bored with Buffy and Angel didn't look like it would be much different.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Mon Feb 10, 2003 1:32 am

Giggle. Well, it's a little different. It's Buffy for adults.

Marius · Post by **Marius** » Mon Feb 10, 2003 5:09 am

I hate it when he giggles.

lordhellion · Post by **lordhellion** » Mon Feb 10, 2003 5:33 am

I thought that was what the WB did with all thier shows: Go out of thier way to advertise and promote them to the younger audience to the point of alienating the older (which for the WB means 19 and up) audience? From a marketing stance, it's a good idea, but it loses the company respect in the process.

Jestyr · Post by **Jestyr** » Mon Feb 10, 2003 7:56 am

Willy, fwiw you can more reliably get tv episodes off IRC.

Check out irc.tv-eps.net, channel #tvseries. They mostly focus on sci-fi, action and thriller shows, but with some comedy and drama thrown in. /Lots/ of the servers have pretty complete stocks of Angel.

Eva · Post by **Eva** » Mon Feb 10, 2003 8:46 am

The Traveler wrote:
Jeff Hauze wrote:A huge AYE! to that one. Far better than the original show the spin-off was based from, and becoming better as it goes on.
Now if they'd just get rid of the current Connor and Cordelia storyline. I realize Charisma Carpenter is pregnant and all, but did they have to work it into the plot? It just seems so shoehorned in, not at all in keeping with the usual writing style.

SPOILERS, GODDAMMIT!

Please, please, please keep in mind that we're almost a season behind on y'all. Many thanks.

The Traveler · Post by **The Traveler** » Mon Feb 10, 2003 8:56 am

Eva wrote:SPOILERS, GODDAMMIT!

Please, please, please keep in mind that we're almost a season behind on y'all. Many thanks.

Oops. I thought I'd kept it vague enough to be safe, considering Charisma Carpenter's pregnancy is public knowledge seperate from the series.

Eva · Post by **Eva** » Mon Feb 10, 2003 10:17 am

No worries, you did. Plus, I'm a little ahead of the .nl episodes because I watched them while in the US. But anything that comes after Connor and Cordelia shagging is a mystery - and I'd like to keep it that way. :o)

Dennis · Post by **Dennis** » Mon Feb 10, 2003 10:29 am

Connor as in Angel's son Connor?

Eva · Post by **Eva** » Mon Feb 10, 2003 11:04 am

Did I say shagging? I meant talking. They talked. Conversationally. That's all. Honest.

Jestyr · Post by **Jestyr** » Mon Feb 10, 2003 11:12 am

Angel has a son?!

Dennis · Post by **Dennis** » Mon Feb 10, 2003 12:08 pm

Damn! I thought Cordelia and Angel would finally do a little sum'ing-sum'ing together, and now his fucking son [and yes, he has a son] gets the goods before he does!?

Sheeeeeeeet.

Eva · Post by **Eva** » Mon Feb 10, 2003 6:41 pm

That's pretty much the reaction I had, too. I mean, I get that perfect happiness isn't an option for the dude, but a little would be nice?

Dennis · Post by **Dennis** » Mon Feb 10, 2003 7:56 pm

Dude! I wouldn't even deny my worst enemy a bit of primo cordelia action.

Gunny · Post by **Gunny** » Mon Feb 10, 2003 8:09 pm

when I first saw the title of this thread I thought to myself...

hmm. I wonder if it'll be as much suckage as The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles. anyone remember that piece of shit??

oh, and Angel sucks ass.

Dennis · Post by **Dennis** » Mon Feb 10, 2003 10:40 pm

Gunny wrote:oh, and Angel sucks ass.

Fire with fire; nuh-uh!

Daki · Post by **Daki** » Mon Feb 10, 2003 10:42 pm

*Is just waiting for someone to stomp their foot and say "Does too!"*

Gunny · Post by **Gunny** » Mon Feb 10, 2003 10:43 pm

Dennis wrote:Fire with fire; nuh-uh!

uh huh times infinity!

Cash · Post by **Cash** » Mon Feb 10, 2003 11:11 pm

Dennis wrote:Dude! I wouldn't even deny my worst enemy a bit of primo cordelia action.

I would...she bears too much of a resemblence to my sister. Ewww!

MooCow · Post by **MooCow** » Tue Feb 11, 2003 12:09 am

Dude! I wouldn't even deny my worst enemy a bit of primo cordelia action.
I would...she bears too much of a resemblence to my sister. Ewww!

In which case I'm sure Deev feels the same way about your sister.

MooCow · Post by **MooCow** » Tue Feb 11, 2003 4:12 am

Dude! I wouldn't even deny my worst enemy a bit of primo cordelia action.
I would...she bears too much of a resemblence to my sister.

Incest is the best! Put your sister to the test!!!

*MooCow wanders off to get on the short bus to Hell*

Cash · Post by **Cash** » Tue Feb 11, 2003 8:53 pm

If you can't keep it in your pants, keep it in the family.

FlakJacket · Post by **FlakJacket** » Wed Feb 12, 2003 6:51 am

Gunny wrote:uh huh times infinity!

Uh huh times infinity plus one!

Cash · Post by **Cash** » Thu Feb 13, 2003 12:38 am

FlakJacket wrote:
Gunny wrote:uh huh times infinity!
Uh huh times infinity plus one!

Uh huh times infinity plus infinity!