About 3 weeks ago, I wrote a rather long blog post about the use of Guns and Violence in the first Season of the MacGyver Reboot (Minor Spoiler Alert for Season 1): https://dashboardonfire.wordpress.com/2017/...s-and-violence/


Not sure if you read my blog posts regularly - but I'm aware that not everyone can comment on Wordpress.

So if you want to discuss it (or yell at me because I made mistakes referencing the Blood-Brothers-Episode of the Original) in here, feel free. I also don't mind if you use examples for Season 2 since looking at recent tweets of the Season 2 Premiere Episode yesterday, they didn't change anything about it.

It's a well written, from the heart blog post. Unfortunately politics are the #1 reason as to why guns 'must' be included in the reboot. Too controversial and ratings risky to be an anti-gun dude in this day, age and NRA influence ...... regardless of the series history, tradition and (former) code of ethics.

Yeah, I've read your blog post about a week or so ago? It's a great read! Very interesting!

See my problem with it is that the original MacGyver had a reason for his behavior that was easy to understand, even if you didn't agree with it. You knew why he did what he did. He had purpose.

That purpose? To help people because he cared about them.

MacGyver 2.0, you're not really sure what drives him. He's not in enough situations where having a gun would cause a problem. So... that begs the question... if doesn't hate them, why doesn't he use one? If he's not using one, what's his reason?

I'm sure it's one of two things... either poor writing, and the reason is going to be explained in a later episode. I really don't get the vibe he hates guns though... so I'm interested in seeing what they come up with as a reason... if they even do.

The other thing, is... why does he do the things he does? Does he care about people? Was it something that he just decided to do for a living because he was good at it? Or is there a motive?

At least with original MacGyver, he was a bit more up front. He was just a nice guy that wanted to help others, and it landed him where he was at that point.

MacGyver 2.0 doesn't have that much depth to him... yet. I'm assuming, and I may be giving them too much credit, that they are keeping people guessing to keep them watching.

That's my guess. Feel free to disagree. I'm tired, so my brain is no longer with it. XD

No Jedi, I think you hit on some really valid points. The new Mac's motivation does seem to missing. Original Mac would give his shirt off his back to help people out, and frequently gave a good deal of his bonus pay to a good cause. There's a lot missing in the making of the new Mac. I think part of it is because they are trying to remake the whole Mac theme by hitting on so many points that people readily recognize (SAKs are a biggie), while also trying to make it appealing to a whole new generation of viewers. It's hard to pin character traits on a character that basically shares the name only with the original Mac.

I work the overnight shift, and maybe should have waited to type this as I have a feeling it makes no sense whatsoever LOL!!

Thank you! This means a lot to me because it was not easy to write.


It would have been such a great opportunity to make a difference in the landscape of modern TV shows and it's a pity they didn't take it.

I think CBS wanted to have the guns and big kabooms, and the writer are still trying to include that order in with MacGyver being an ex-soldier, but still not carrying a gun.

But that's difficult to do, and I get why they don't get it right all the time. It's a constant compromise. You just can't. How can you implement Jack Dalton as an Ex-Delta-Sniper if you can't let him shoot every once in a while in the episode, regardless if he's on a mission with Mac or not? How do you handle that if another gun-wielding character (Sarah and now Samanta Cage) is with you on the team as well?

It wouldn't make sense for Jack or Samanta not using their guns, but it still doesn't make sense that Mac tolerates it.

And I guess if you're not strictly anti-gun yourself, maybe you don't even realize that certain scenes you've just written / approved don't fit the core point of the original show.

[QUOTE=DashboardOnFire,1 October 2017 - 10:55 AM] [QUOTE=Joe SAKic,1 October 2017 - 03:47 AM]
It wouldn't make sense for Jack or Samanta not using their guns, but it still doesn't make sense that Mac tolerates it.
And I guess if you're not strictly anti-gun yourself, maybe you don't even realize that certain scenes you've just written / approved don't fit the core point of the original show. [/QUOTE]


I don't know about this. I don't think their rapport, camaraderie, yes, background!, and the overall team modus operandi and closely associated 'I've got your back' code of ethics would ever tolerate dissention/debate on that topic/stand between the characters. Would it?

Btw, I've mentioned this before ------ I did not know that Mac was antigun when watching the series in it's original airings .... nor would I've really cared. Was so fixated on the techie tricks, the music, the natural settings etc that it just never ever registered nor (obviously) mattered..... albeit I only watched episodes every now and then and was never really riveted to it.

I am pro-gun (within reason) and now that I fully understand his(Mac's) stand on the issue - would prefer it as per the original series and for the record!

Thank you, Jedi!

Well put!

For a new viewer who doesn't know the original, it must be weird having no explanation why MacGyver who is obviously a vet doesn't use guns. There must me questions or maybe mild curiosity about it?

It makes sense that there's no need for explanation with Jack, but Riley must have asked about it? Also, Cage knows he was in the army, but she never questions it either why he didn't bring a gun with him. Obviously, Bozer didn't know about it either in Episode 8 - but if they've been best friends for years, wouldn't he know? Wouldn't he have questioned it when Mac announced he just quit University to join the military?

For all of Season 1, I've been waiting for an episode centering about this. Nada. Well, it's difficult to make a Mac-centered episode if they always want to include all the team members equally. But little scenes with Mac and Jack "bromancing" in the car isn't really enough to get to know them and what drives them.

I really feel like I know next to nothing about any character's motivation and what drives them. I guess Jack just follows wherever Mac goes. But why did Mac join DXS? We kinda know about his motivation to join the military and become an IED tech. But he could have gone back to University after that. Why did Nikki decide to take the position at the CIA? I didn't really get her explanation in the Pilot Episode - it was full of riddles to me and we never came back to it. Why did Thornton switch sides? They never visited Thornton in her cell; they never interrogated her.

You're right Jedi, they love to keep the audience guessing. But I'm not sure if they do it to keep us watching. It sometimes feel to me like they were too lazy to hash everything out. Or they think it's funny to mention something a dozen times (e.g. Cairo or Jack and Matty's backstory) without ever really telling it *sigh*.

I don't need a sobfest with everyone spilling their feelings, but maybe I could connect better to the characters if I knew more about their backstories and their relationships with each other. I really hope we get some of that this season.

In one sense, I kind of like the fact that this reboot doesn't whack you over the head with Mac's anti-gun stance the way the original series did. Not that I'm a huge fan of guns, but I often felt the original series got way too preachy. But the problem with Mac not using a gun in this show is that he's part of team. By going into dangerous territory without a gun, and relying on his teammates to help him, he becomes a liability. And since the show never offers any explanation for why he doesn't carry a gun, it's even worse. It's bad enough he can't drive himself anywhere, but to also rely on others to protect him with guns, it's too much. As I said in another thread, since he clearly has no objection to guns being used to protect him, he might as well carry one himself. Sure, it would completely contradict the original character, but at least it would make sense.

I haven't posted in a while, so hello to all of you Just thought of sharing this article from moviepilot, but I didn't really know where to put it. It fits this section best, I think. It also talks about how the reboot is family friendly. According to the one who wrote it, violence is toned down and it doesn't have too much of the sex or gore found in most shows today. I do believe this is true to some point.

But what I don't agree on is the author's opinion that Lucas Till's version is much more relatable than RDA's version. I like Lucas Till's portrayal, but overall RDA's MacGyver is the much more relatable one, especially in those episodes wherein he was more of a humanitarian/activist/everyday normal guy who just wants to help the little guy. I feel a little bit of it in Till's version but it's not shown as dominantly as RDAs.

https://moviepilot.com/p/macgyver-remake-pe...ight-tv/4382014

It makes sense that Mac needs both hands free for his MacGyverisms during car scenes, but he really seems too reliant on others too often.

It's not necessary to have all MacGyverisms thrown together while being on a car chase - that's one of the reasons why they're done too fast because he always has to make them while either running or chasing or matching some time limit.

Yes, I read this article and I agree on this point.

There are many posts on social media praising the show for being family-friendly like the original and that this is a show they watch together with their kids.

Some episodes of "Hawaii Five-0" are rated FSK16 in Germany (so age 16 and older), so they can't be aired at 8pm. I doubt this would ever happen with the Reboot. I assume it's rated FSK12 here like the Original.

This right here is a huge part of why I wasn't terribly interested in the reboot to begin with: I was positive they'd never have the stones to talk about the real world as bluntly as the old show did.

Which was a big part of my enjoyment of the show. To me, MacGyver worked nicely as a liberal counterpart to watching a Donald Bellisario show like JAG or reading a Jack Ryan novel by Tom Clancy - that is, yes, it's a thriller/adventure series and a lot of the appeal comes from that, but it also has something to say about the world around it and isn't afraid to say it. I tend to disagree with Clancy and Bellisario a lot more and occasionally am pissed off by what they're saying, but I still appreciate that they're doing it instead of tiptoeing around my feelings.

(And of course, that doesn't even mean you're avoiding politics and making statements. It just means you're tailoring them to the Generic Audience Member's views, or at least what you think those views are).

I think part of the problem here is that with the ongoing obsession with prequels and origin stories, it rarely occurs to writers anymore that a person could have a motivation as simple as "to help people because he cared about them." They need to have had a cause-and-effect origin story [A event happened, causing B reaction in the main character, leading him to do C]. To put it in the superhero terms that everyone's using these days, writers are comfortable with the "criminals killed Bruce Wayne's parents, therefore he became Batman so that he could fight crime and no one would have to endure what he did" origin story; but the "Martha and Jonathan Kent raised their kid as best they could to value ordinary decency, and he acted accordingly as a grown-up" origin story is increasingly incomprehensible to them. Either that or they think the audience wouldn't go for a hero who was that good, which it very well may not.

That's exactly what I disagreed with while reading the article as well.

Yes, RDA's MacGyver worked for the government occasionally while not working for Phoenix as a Think Tank, but many of his adventures happened because he stumbled over some Kind of injustice and wanted to help.

The rebooted Version sees MacGyver mainly as a spy/agent. He works for the government; the Think Tank is only a cover. There's maybe 2 episodes where there wasn't a Mission to begin with, but Mac got roped into helping someone.

So for me, RDA's MacGyver is more relatable because he's more of an everyday guy who works in the Research Departement of a Think Tank and occasionally gets hired to help woth government stuff that's not of the Research kind. Till's MacGyver is an Agent who gets hired for missions and uses the Think Tank as a cover.

I agree with this too: it's another huge and overlooked part of the character's appeal. MacGyver was the guy for whom nobody's troubles were too small to stop and lend a hand.