| Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format |
| MacGyver Online Forums > General Reboot Discussions > 10 reasons the old Mac is Better..... |
| Posted by: Frog 14 November 2016 - 03:44 PM |
| Just came across this while browsing... A lot of points that we are making here. http://www.tvovermind.com/tv-news/10-reasons-old-macgyver-better-one |
| Posted by: Joe SAKic 14 November 2016 - 04:46 PM |
| Not a bad assessment. You gotta tee up the macgyverisms, don't ya? The new series is missing the foreplay to the main course. What is the foreplay? I don't know exactly, but it has to do with the cinematography, music, and accordingly the intensity/buildup to the act/scene of macgyverization. I'm not articulate enough to describe/define it any better but the new series is somehow lacking in this 'main event'. WTF UP Executive Producers!!!! |
| Posted by: RadiantRose 14 November 2016 - 04:48 PM |
| What the actual flip-flop? The fake Mac endorses torture? I wouldn't have referred to him as a "fake Mac" until now, but, assuming this is correct, they've really, really, really disrespected the original character and original series. |
| Posted by: Joe SAKic 14 November 2016 - 05:45 PM |
| Guns are such a political football in the US. They are doing right by towing the line, as such and in order to survive the ratings crunch. For the record, I watched the original series and it totally flew over my head that Mac was anti-gun. And it doesn't really matter one way or the other and for the love of the series, imo. |
| Posted by: denizen 14 November 2016 - 08:13 PM |
| I agree with most points. Old Mac is FAR superior to new Mac. It had the potential to be something but each episode is "MEH". I have yet to see one single episode that has made me think, "Wow". For someone who was a "Fan" Lenkov is sure missing the mark. Hell, i could write better. |
| Posted by: DashboardOnFire 14 November 2016 - 09:54 PM | ||
I don't think the article is new to be honest, but was reposted (because the date on the article says November 14). I think I've read this shortly after the premiere of the pilot episode  Many reviews criticized the "torture thing" in the pilot, but I really didn't see it. I think Jack stapled the bad guy (Vinnie Jones) through his clothes into the ground (similar to the original show where MacGyver did this in an episode; maybe "There but for the Grace"?); he didn't really hurt him by stapling his leg or something like some reviews stated. |
| Posted by: Miasma 15 November 2016 - 09:22 AM | ||||||
| Not a bad list, though I have some issues with it. They kind of cheated with #3 and #4, though, since they're essentially the same points:
I find #5 kind of interesting:
Mac never struck me as somebody with "deep-seated pain." Did anyone else see him that way? (other than the author of the article, of course.) Considering how many times he'd been betrayed, and how many of his friends died throughout the years, he always seemed remarkably good-natured and cheerful. And that bring us to #9:
Again, I don't quite agree with this. If anything, I think the original Mac had more spark. We saw a lot more humor from the original Mac than we do from this one, and he seemed to have a tremendous number of "very good friends" who randomly popped up throughout the years. In this new version, it seems like Mac's only friends are Bozer and Jack (oh, and Penny, who appeared for about 5 seconds.) Regarding the "torture scene"-- that's really really overstating it. Jack stapled some guy's pants, that's it. He threatened to do more, but never actually did, and I'm sure Mac knew he wouldn't. So although I do agree that the original Mac was better, I don't quite agree with all their reasons. |
| Posted by: RadiantRose 16 November 2016 - 12:57 AM |
| I think Mac had some deep-seated pain, maybe more about the deaths of his parents and grandmother than about other people who had died. As for the betrayals ... he did have commitment issues. I think RDA didn't entirely help matters by giving so many interviews where, when he was asked why he was still single, he implied he had actual commitment issues rather than saying that wasn't anyone else's business. I think by the time of "The Lost Amadeus" and "MacGyver's Women", the writers were making not-so-subtle allusions to it. But Mac had actual reasons to be suspicious of potential love interests. |
| Posted by: RadiantRose 16 November 2016 - 01:07 AM | ||
Guns are indeed a controversial issue in the USA. And, for me, the fact  was so strongly opposed to them is what makes me a fan. |
| Posted by: RadiantRose 16 November 2016 - 01:11 AM | ||
But the old Mac would have objected. |
| Posted by: KiwiTek 16 November 2016 - 02:35 AM | ||
Even when he specifically stated "I hate guns" in the Flames End episode or when Pete talked him out of shooting in MacGyver DOA episode when he told MacGyver "You don't use guns. You hate them" or when he told Diego in The Gauntlet episode "I do much better without them"? How about the WHOLE episode of Blood Brothers which tells us why MacGyver hates guns? How about The Eraser where he tells Jimmy there are other ways than using a gun? Or Halloween Knights when he tells Murdoc no guns? Or Serenity where he gets ridiculed for not carrying a gun in the old west? Or every time he disarmed a bad guy he kicked or threw the gun away instead of using it? You really missed all that?  I know there are more, but these are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head. |
| Posted by: Joe SAKic 16 November 2016 - 03:45 AM | ||||
Yes, sorry dad, I guess I must have. Focused on what he did like, not what he (occasionally) ranted or preached about. He liked hockey, good food, travel, tech, and the out of doors. Gun were a part of the series, whether he gave his stamp of approval or not. That's enough for me. If, it turns out, that he was some kind of Patron Saint for an emerging anti-gun lobby, and those who worshipped would not have done so had he carried a firearm .... then I would be surprised but not shocked in this day and age.  |
| Posted by: RadiantRose 16 November 2016 - 03:51 AM |
| I imagine that for some viewers, it doesn't matter that was aiming to temporarily incapacitate his enemies rather than to kill them. But it matters a lot to me. Doesn't make me a better fan with different reasons for liking him, of course. |
| Posted by: RadiantRose 16 November 2016 - 03:57 AM | ||
If he'd liked to use guns, I would have got to mid-November 2016 just thinking, "Oh, yeah, this was on TV when I was in my teens and early 20s, and now it's on one of many, many TV channels. May as well have it on in the background. If I can't find anything else to watch." I certainly wouldn't be on this forum. |
| Posted by: Joe SAKic 16 November 2016 - 04:05 AM |
| 'Carrying' a gun to protect yourself, friends and colleagues in a high risk industry does not have to mean that you would prefer killing over incapacitating thy enemy. He could easily have carried a gun for clever diversions, ruses, expedited sos', wilderness substance, and never wounded another human. That would be okay. Indiana Jones carried a gun but improvised much of the time with his whip & wit - he shot one bad guy with his revolver and that the whole world laughed at. |
| Posted by: RadiantRose 16 November 2016 - 04:31 AM | ||
I am not disputing any of your statement. I will consider my previous comment and think about whether to retract it (not delete it or edit it because then the discussion wouldn't make sense to anyone reading it) and make a different comment that reflects my views more accurately. |
| Posted by: Jediferret 16 November 2016 - 05:57 AM | ||
I can't agree more with this. I know I'm being biased, but I have to admit it... after giving the reboot a fair shot, it's just not the original. I'm pretty sure RDA is the reason why. Sure, the guy may not have been a rocket scientist, but he had personality... As far as the deep-seated pain, that was pretty obvious he was carrying around some emotional baggage from the guilt of losing his grandmother, father, mother and Jessie. I don't think Mike's death helped either. Not to mention the deaths of other loved ones, and many betrayals. Honestly, this not only makes him more relatable, but also makes him more human. Just because he has some baggage doesn't mean he can't be optimistic and cheerful. It's all about mindset. |
| Posted by: RadiantRose 16 November 2016 - 06:20 AM |
| Having thought about it a little, I have come to the conclusion that I can't see a reason why Mac would take a gun into the wilderness (assuming he wasn't anticipating encountering Bad Guys). In terms of survival, he would have found another way of frightening off bears, etc, if he needed to. And we never saw him try to capture any birds or mammals to eat. Let me try and be very clear about this, 'cos I'm not saying he was vegetarian. He clearly wasn't. We know that he came from a hunting background. As a child, he made a duck decoy for his grandfather ("Target: MacGyver"). We know that his grandfather also hunted "game" - there is a reference to how animals tended not to look down when they were running in an episode with a water clock and a boat. I don't think there's anything that makes us think that the adult Mac had any inclination to trap animals. We know he ate chicken, lizard and whatever was in that stew when he was on assignment. We know that, beyond one reference to fishing being "violent" in "Humanity", he had no problem with eating fish. Caught them as recreation, caught fish in the great outdoors on trips, cooked them at home. Or tried to cook them. What we don't have is any evidence that when he was being an outdoorsman, travelling light, living off the land, he would have wanted to shoot animals. Kill and eat fish, yes, kill lizards and other small reptiles for food, yes, probably kill a whole lot of edible insects (although we can't be sure). Take eggs from nests and cook them - probably. We know from "Blood Brothers" that he has some issues with killing birds. Not to the point of never eating them, but definitely some kind of issue. In conclusion, even if things had gone differently in "Blood Brothers", and Jesse had never died, and Mac had never had a problem with guns ... there's still a strong case for saying that when he was living off the land, he wouldn't have used a gun to shoot birds or mammals in order to eat them. |
| Posted by: Joe SAKic 16 November 2016 - 06:26 AM |
There's also the age thing. Most of us original series fans were younger than Mac, first time around. Now that has flip-flopped. This is not a make or break characteristic, but this was an air/authority to the old Mac's age/voice/demeanor that Till cannot possibly light a candle to. Same thing has happened in hockey, I just can't view the players of today in the same light as when I was younger and more impressionable fan. The players are big, stronger, and faster today but there is a softness too them that has crept into the game & society. I watched one player interviewed not long ago that had to cut his talk short because he had a Justin Bieber concert to go to.    |
| Posted by: Miasma 16 November 2016 - 06:41 AM | ||
But that "deep-seated pain" only appeared in a few episodes of the original, and only when it served the plot. He always got over it by the end of the episode. The reboot did the exact same thing, actually, when we saw him struggling with his guilt over the death of his mentor in the bomb episode, and we also saw him going through some angst about his relationship with his father. And while it's true that we saw more instances of Mac struggling with pain in the original series, that's because the show had 7 seasons to show it. This reboot has had less than half a season so far. It would be a pretty depressing show if they managed to cram as much heartache into half a season as the original did into 7 seasons. |
| Posted by: Miasma 16 November 2016 - 06:43 AM | ||
Very true. This bothered me from the moment they announced who would be playing Mac. He just looked too much like a kid for me to take him seriously as a top-secret government agent. I wish they had gone with somebody closer to 40 years old. |
| Posted by: Joe SAKic 16 November 2016 - 06:55 AM |
| Yes, there is a certain age line that one crosses and determined by having 'lived life' that becomes written on your face and entwined in your movements and gestures and which somehow telegraphs your curriculum vitae and vocational experience. For some it's 35, some 40, others 45. RDA had this going easily .... but ya gotta take a leap of faith and buy into this for a few hundred bucks with Till's portrayal. |
| Posted by: Jediferret 16 November 2016 - 09:51 AM | ||||
Well, you asked if anyone other than author saw Mac that way. All I said was that Mac had some emotional baggage, which he did. MOST people have emotional baggage of some sort, and Mac definitely had some... otherwise he wouldn't have the fear of commitment that he did. My conclusion is based on my experiences with my close guy friends. Many of them acted like they were okay until they got home, then they sulked. The problem with the reboot is that the angst and drama is anticlimactic. It feels forced and unrealistic. I'm not saying that I want MacGyver crying his eyes out in every episode, or crying at all... but there is a big difference in the actor's believability. I don't think this is Lucas' fault either as I actually like him as MacGyver. I just want him to be able to shine a bit more in the role. I believe script and directing is the problem at this point. =P New Jack: I can't do my thing if I'm worried about losing you every minute! Old Mac: Stop behaving like a grandmother. I think RDA's snarkiness also makes a big difference. I loved him in Stargate because his one-liners are hilarious. |
| Posted by: RadiantRose 16 November 2016 - 03:35 PM | ||
I think RDA brought the exactly the right balance of hardness and softness to ... |
| Posted by: Joe SAKic 16 November 2016 - 05:27 PM | ||
Well, Mac was a bit superhuman and had nine lives to boot. Nothing wrong with using a gun to kill an animal and in order to sustain oneself in a dire or life-threatening situation. So many carnivores in the animal world; hawks, eagles, crows, tigers, lions, bears, etc, etc. but more & more nowadays and in the Peta-sized world, if a human does it - it's classified as total taboo. Not condoning trophy hunting, any kind of bait hunting or even decoy hunting of ducks, or the archaic, middle-ages fox hunting protocol ... but one on one, mano a mano hunting for sustenance is just basic animal nature, and does more to perpetuate a species, than it does any harm. |
| Posted by: RadiantRose 17 November 2016 - 02:54 AM |
| I am not against anyone killing to survive. And if I were going anywhere where I might encounter a bear, I might take a gun with me (but this scenario is unlikely to happen). However, a lot of time people seem to come up with stuff about animals "giving their lives to sustain us" when they don't actually need to eat the animal to survive. That is my personal opinion. I am aware that my opinion does not coincide with Mac's or RDA's. |
| Posted by: Joe SAKic 17 November 2016 - 03:46 AM |
| I walk through dense bear country all the time without a gun. The only bears that are really dangerous are those that get too accustomed to humans and of course any sows with cubs. The rest don't want anything to do with you(I've only come face to face with 3 in a lifetime in the woods) and I do carry a whistle for any potential springtime encounters. You can also easily smell areas with heavy bear activity .... and so to avoid or take precaution. They really stink and especially on wet, damp days. Peee ewwww!!!! As for sustaining yourself in the wilderness ..... in winter .... true, you don't 'need' a gun ... but it sure helps ... unless you're really into spruce needle tea or the inner barks/sap of select trees .... good for a few days but the tummy is gonna start getting a bit growly after that! |
| Posted by: Barry Rowland 17 November 2016 - 05:25 AM |
| I own several rifles and shotguns and grew up shooting, but I've found that the older I get, the more I enjoy "primitive" weapons, and get a real kick out of actually hitting a target I've set up with one of them! Probably my favorite is the traditional bow followed by the sling shot. My son has used an Atlatl for several years and I've enjoyed slinging arrows with him. Like Joe, we've a lot of bears around here but rarely do they make an appearance. Usually when they do, it's only for a minute then off they go into the woods and obscurity. Typically, if a bear does attract, it's thru an error made by someone that just doesn't know what they've gotten into. |
| Posted by: Widowmaker 5 April 2017 - 01:06 PM | ||
Without immediately looking at the list, one thing is the original was more commanding and tough enough not to need "muscle" to help him out of jams. This is even considering the original Mac was by no means some badass warrior. And what's more galling about the reboot is that they made JACK DALTON some big tough military guy when he was always a weasily, scheming coward who himself relied on MacGyver to get him out of tough situations. I want to see the new Mac eventually become the man taking charge rather than the whiz kid who allows the tougher, burlier older man to protect him while he mixes his chemicals and messes with circuits and paperclips. |
| Posted by: MacGyverOnline 7 April 2017 - 01:39 AM | ||
This is probably my biggest complaint about the new show and also the biggest let down. The whole point of MacGyver was that he could think his way out of a situation. He didn't need a body guard or a constant team helping do the stuff he couldn't do. Occasionally he would get help, but the help worked under his supervision to achieve his goal. This new MacGyver [b]COMPLETELY misses that entire concept[b]. He's constantly followed by an idiot who's first response to anything is violence AND carried a gun with him and a team ready to shot back first. Of coarse it's an unrealistic idea.. but so is what they do in the CSI shows but it didn't stop them from doing it and the show drew a large interest into CS science. The point is to provide an entertaining presentation of the concept so people become interested in the idea and start incorporating it into what they do. I honestly don't know how someone can be a fan of MacGyver and miss this fundamental concept of the show. |
| Posted by: uniquelyjas 7 April 2017 - 04:59 AM | ||
That is also one of my biggest pet peeves of the reboot. Mac was always in charge. Sometimes having normal civilians help but he was the leader AND protector. Also, from what I've seen on the reboot, "Mac" is more into fundamental science (not sure if that's the proper term). I recall at least one episode where they showed him envisioning complicated mathematical calculations...I think it was over a game of pool. The real Mac broke his thoughts down so that the average person (often another character) could understand. He also seemed to have extensive knowledge outside physics and chemistry such as biology, legends and myths, gods, archaeology, etc. as well as just being able to think outside the box in what would generally be ordinary situations. But he still came off as a charismatic, normal human being, not some whiz kid. |
| Posted by: Dancer 7 April 2017 - 07:52 AM |
| My father was looking forward to this new MacGyver coming on TV as he was a fan of the old one.... He's watched about 3 episodes and says it's total s**t and wont watch any more episodes. LOL |
| Posted by: Joe SAKic 7 April 2017 - 10:10 AM |
| The information & technological revolution started together with the original series in 1985. It was a dead heat! You couldn't get a more perfect scenario and tandem hitting the bricks together. The real beauty of the TOS was the contrast and juxtaposition of technology with the Macgyverisms. That particular 'fusion' was incredibly intoxicating and compelling - just on its own right. The relationship doesn't work nearly as well in 2017 mostly because the shock & awe is long gone, the technology is too invasive and doesn't lend to teeing up the macgyverisms nearly as well. This is just my opinion and based on being a professional in the tech industry and having watched both series. The concept is not necessarily passed it's time, but it is in the way that it has been presented in the reboot. |
| Posted by: angus20 10 May 2017 - 07:41 AM |
| just like Joe SAKic, I have the same feeling. This world has changed so much during the last 25years... at that time Macgyver as a TV show was massive, if you miss an episode probably you will have to wait like 3 or 4 months to re-watch it, now you just need to wait 1 single day. Since Internet wasn't widely used by everyone at that time, every Macgyverims was like magic and everyone was happy with the show + add RDA. Now is really easy to judge every new episode but this new team and concept are not what I already understand as Macgyver. However as per ratings this new version is succeeding at some point. |
| Posted by: Jediferret 10 May 2017 - 08:38 AM |
| The reboot isn't awful, and has it's redeeming qualities. There are a lot of differences though. The original show gave a damn... the reboot only seems to care about ratings. That is the turn off for me, but I know that's what most shows on TV are all about. MacGyver 2.0 is kinda like junk food television, where as original MacGyver was comfort food television. XD |
| Posted by: DashboardOnFire 10 May 2017 - 12:52 PM | ||
That's a problem, but it's not the reboot or the showrunner's fault. Remember "Limitless" on CBS last year? The show had an average rating of 7 million live viewers and 1.34 in the 18-49 age demographics. It got cancelled after 1 Season. Season 1 of the MacGyver Reboot had an average rating of 7.7 million live viewers, but only 1.08 in the 18-49 demo. It probably got a pass because Fridays are different when it comes to ratings and because MacGyver is already a well-known brand internationally with potential for a franchise. It sold very well last year despite them only showing parts of a pilot that they already knew would be scrapped and reshot. That's why they kept pushing for a September premiere. And it shows. Many episodes feel rushed and soulless because of the necessary re-casting and re-locating and re-writing all the scripts they might have had. I guess it gets better this season, but I'm not so sure if it gets another renewal if the ratings continue to fall. |
| Posted by: Jediferret 10 May 2017 - 04:26 PM |
| It greatly depends. I think the show will do just fine, as it's not a bad show at all. There are many things about the reboot I like and would like to see continue. But production and quality of the show isn't my beef. MacGyver has a reputation, and so far they haven't lived up to it. I would like to see MacGyver 2.0 tackles problems of the real world, like the original did. I know, I know... some feel it wouldn't work, but I'm not so sure. I feel there's a bit of a hunger for positive role models lately. Maybe it's just me... but, meh... =P It's really just my personal opinion. I just would like to see some old school Mac in MacGyver 2.0, that's all. |
| Posted by: denizen 10 May 2017 - 07:57 PM |
| I personally dislike the new show. Just put in another episode of old Mac the other day and wow! Superior by far. Music, style, character focus, Mac as a lone wolf taking the audience with him from the get go. I was immediately hooked. Not bad for a 30 year plus show. The new one doesn't seem try anymore. No opening gambits of note. Just jokes and more jokes. No SAK. Hair getting shorter and shorter. Robots. Its completely foreign. Its CSI. Why not call it CIA? That's what it basically is. Find it very odd. |
| Posted by: Barry Rowland 11 May 2017 - 12:01 AM |
| I can't say I dislike it, but it's just not the same. Sort of like coming home after years abroad. I'll still take my 80s Mac anyday!! |
| Posted by: uniquelyjas 11 May 2017 - 04:56 AM |
| I totally agree, Barry. I started watching the show and found it OK as long as I didn't think of it as MacGyver. Then I found the original MacGyver reruns and slowly stopped watching the reboot. I still think it would be easier to swallow if the new MacGyver was somehow related to or influenced by the original Mac. But the studio made such a big deal of insisting he IS MacGyver, and that just doesn't work for me and probably not for most fans of the original and RDA. And I doubt it would matter for people new to the show. It's OK for what it is, but it is NOT MacGyver. |
| Posted by: denizen 11 May 2017 - 05:53 AM |
| But isnt that the whole argument? It aint Mac. Its CSI.  If it was MacGyver then yes. But they have taken the shell of the character and placed him into another show. Totally foreign. The fact that its a well produced show or has a respectable budget are semantics. It' like taking 007 and putting him into a romance novel. It just isnt Bond. You can call him Bond. He can walk around with his Walther PPK but it still isnt Bond. |
| Posted by: Barry Rowland 11 May 2017 - 09:24 PM |
| Exactly. |
| Posted by: MacGirl 4 July 2020 - 07:54 PM |
| I agree with just about everything mentioned here. I liked the show when it started out, and thought it was pretty promising. But after most of the way through the second season, I gave up on it. Two main reasons: Mattie, and the cast growing too big. I found Mattie seriously annoying. I had no problem with her being a dwarf, as some fans did. My problem with the character was how she acted towards the team. She treated them like they were little kids just waiting to pull their next naughty stunt, rather than as professional adults who actually knew what they were doing. Patricia Thornton (LOVED this nod to the character of Pete!) might have been rather chilly, but at least she conducted herself like a pro. Was very disappointed when she left. As for the rest of the cast... they should have kept it to Jack and Mac, or, at worst, Jack, Mac, and Riley. Bozer was a decent character, but I'm not sure he should have been in the show at all, or maybe made an occasional appearance. When he came on board with the rest of the team, it began to feel rather forced, like "Ok, here's another addition to the team- what's he going to do?" Then they added Cage... and it just got out of control, IMO. Oh, and one more thing... small, but annoying. The episode titles. Seriously, what were they thinking, naming episodes after tools? It's just weird. |
| Posted by: MacGyverGod 5 July 2020 - 05:30 AM |
| The adding of Riley was a good move. Getting Bozer on board was a poor move, just as kicking Patricia out halfway season 1. Matty did become a bit more likeable but stuffing an episode with three storylines is just a big no-no if you only have 45 minutes to do so. Even two seemed kinda of full. The show clearly has it's flaws. Flaws that could've been prevented no doubt with a bit of decent guidance, but I can like and watch the show at least. |
| Posted by: Mac2Nite 17 July 2020 - 08:18 AM | ||||
YOU NAILED IT!!! I had to stop watching after the second season and have never even been tempted to watch it again. RDA as MacGyver was a loner who thought on his feet and used whatever was at hand to get out of, or solve a situation. He used hits wits, science and common sense. There is absolutely nothing to admire in the rebooted MacGyver. I've said it before, and I'll say it again and again, they should have called the reboot "The Phoenix Foundation" and then Mac's place in the "group" would have made more sense the way he's written and portrayed in it. IMHO |
| Posted by: Krug 17 July 2020 - 09:33 AM | ||||||
I've had the same thought often... ...but "The Phoenix Foundation" doesn't quite sell a potential watcher like "MacGyver" does. |