Tomorrow People and the CW

I just saw the preview for the new Tomorrow People show on the CW. It doesn't look so good. I know I'm far from the target audience, but they jazzed it up and modernized it so much I fear they've lost the heart of it. It was about people who were different proving that they could lead humanity to a more moral place, but now it looks to be all about cool powers and sexy people. I am not too thrilled.

To be honest, I wasn't expecting much from this. The last TP update back in the 90s was a bit of a misfire and I was fully expecting another. I loved the Tomorrow People, but the show was very much of its time and that time was the 1970s.

tony ingram wrote:but the show was very much of its time and that time was the 1970s.

I suspect you're right. And it's kinda sad why it's of the 1970s. The 1970s still had a bit of the best of the 1960s, where people thought new was good, that change was possible, that if we all cared about the world and each other we could make things better. That's gone in a cloud of cynicism and hipster ennui. And we're all the worse for it.

Very, very true. At it's heart, Tomorrow People was an upbeat, optimistic show that predicted a potentially wonderful future for humanity where our descendants would evolve into superbeings and be accepted into a galactic brotherhood of enlightened races. Nobody would believe that now. They'd have to be a persecuted minority fighting a facist state or something. Much as Stan Lee's optimistic and largely carefree X-Men of the early 60s gradually became an angst ridden bunch of embittered outsiders by the 90s.

tony ingram wrote:They'd have to be a persecuted minority fighting a facist state or something.

I watched the premiere. This is almost exactly what it is. A really bad X-Men ripoff. Paranoid, cliched, violent. Pointless. Remake what you will, it doesn't take anything from my love of the original, but this is just the worst kind of mishmash with no clear point, other than looking cool and edgy.
No, no thanks.

So, worse than the last remake, then? The law of diminishing returns strikes again...

tony ingram wrote:So, worse than the last remake, then? The law of diminishing returns strikes again...

I never did watch the one in the 90's. I can't judge. This one was just bad, IMO. Whatever appeal the original had to me this one has none. Which is sad, it could have been modernized without losing the brighter elements, I think.

The principal underyling theme in The Tomorrow People back in the 70s was hope. Hope for the future, hope that humanity was moving toward better things. From what you've said, I'd say the new one has missed the point entirely.

tony ingram wrote:The principal underyling theme in The Tomorrow People back in the 70s was hope.

Exactly. And that is what this one is entirely devoid of. I think it's the same as with Man of Steel, it's so brutally ugly that people (children, mostly) think it's "hopeful" because someone survives. But that's not at all it. So, just no on this one.

Thank heavens for Doctor Who, is all I can say.

tony ingram wrote:Thank heavens for Doctor Who, is all I can say.

Coming back to this for a bit, I was rewatching the original TP, and I found something interesting. And bad, I think. They were clearly meant to be pacifists, incapable of killing and prone to non-violence. But, they simply used "Saps" to do that kind of thing for them. That, to me, is a problem. Shouldn't they have found ways of dealing with violence without using proxies? The writer(s) might have missed a step there.

Mbast1 wrote:

tony ingram wrote:Thank heavens for Doctor Who, is all I can say.

Coming back to this for a bit, I was rewatching the original TP, and I found something interesting. And bad, I think. They were clearly meant to be pacifists, incapable of killing and prone to non-violence. But, they simply used "Saps" to do that kind of thing for them. That, to me, is a problem. Shouldn't they have found ways of dealing with violence without using proxies? The writer(s) might have missed a step there.

You're not the first person to point that out! The series appears to have been designed along certain lines, with rules against the homo superior resorting to violence, but these constraints seem to have been too much of a challenge for the writers who simply found lazy ways around them by having the TP use their less evolved brethren do their dirty work for them. Later, tey gave us Tyso, who in theory was te only Tomorrow Person capable of killing, presumably in order to be able to dispense with thekr Sap helpers. Lazy writing which rather unfortunately completely undermines the point of the show...

tony ingram wrote:You're not the first person to point that out!

Aw, man, I wanted to be the first...

tony ingram wrote:The series appears to have been designed along certain lines, with rules against the homo superior resorting to violence, but these constraints seem to have been too much of a challenge for the writers who simply found lazy ways around them by having the TP use their less evolved brethren do their dirty work for them. <snip> Lazy writing which rather unfortunately completely undermines the point of the show...

Lazy writing is certainly what it seems to be. Which is both annoying and understandable. I guess it would be hard to write characters who are morally superior to you, in that you wouldn't really know what they would think of, would you.
Mark Waid was asked about writing Brainiac 5, and he said he had him (B5) solve a problem in a second that Waid would have taken a week to solve. But I think that's different, in that it was a mechanical problem, or mathematical. TP requires you to conceive of a character who is not only faster in thought and capable of solving physical problems better, but one who is able to think (and regularly does so) and act in ways you literally can't understand.
Still, I wish it had been otherwise.

Although, that makes me wonder if it was ever said that the TP were actually smarter than "Saps". They had powers, but WERE they smarter? I would hope so, but I don't remember ever hearing it said.

Mbast1 wrote:
Although, that makes me wonder if it was ever said that the TP were actually smarter than "Saps". They had powers, but WERE they smarter? I would hope so, but I don't remember ever hearing it said.

All the available evidence would seem to suggest not. John was presumably quite bright and Liz was supposedly a teacher, but Stephen and Mike didn't really seem to be the sharpest tools in the box, and Kenny woud have lost a battle of wits with a cauliflower.

tony ingram wrote:All the available evidence would seem to suggest not. John was presumably quite bright and Liz was supposedly a teacher, but Stephen and Mike didn't really seem to be the sharpest tools in the box, and Kenny woud have lost a battle of wits with a cauliflower.

As I thought. You'd think people creating the future of humanity might think increased intelligence was a good thing, but what do I know?

Mbast1 wrote:

tony ingram wrote:All the available evidence would seem to suggest not. John was presumably quite bright and Liz was supposedly a teacher, but Stephen and Mike didn't really seem to be the sharpest tools in the box, and Kenny woud have lost a battle of wits with a cauliflower.

As I thought. You'd think people creating the future of humanity might think increased intelligence was a good thing, but what do I know?

Thing is, making the likes of Mike and Stephen brighter would have denied John the opportunity to deliver moralistic homilies to the audience via them...

Mbast1 wrote:You'd think people creating the future of humanity might think increased intelligence was a good thing, but what do I know?

If we were to create the perfect human, would she be intelligent, or would we prioritise other qualities? Discuss.

Are the happiest people you know also the cleverest people?

Sadly, I suspect the answer to that last question is 'no'. Ignorance is bliss.

Lucy McGough wrote:If we were to create the perfect human, would she be intelligent, or would we prioritise other qualities? Discuss.

Are the happiest people you know also the cleverest people?

I think that's two separate things.

In the current world, where people are a conglomeration of almost random genetic traits, many very smart people ARE unhappy, it's something I've read about for years. That said, if we were creating them, we'd have to think more about it. Is intelligence a useful trait? Yes, I think very much so. Can we create people who are very smart AND able to be happy? If we can, then we should. I would. But, then, I'm not sure that "happiness" in itself should be the most/only important criterion.

That is, if a very smart person can be creative and do things they find useful, if they are less happy than they might otherwise have been (and I don't know how you'd know that, given that you only get the one life) it might be worth it. It would for me. And, maybe, the satisfaction of being able to do more would outweigh the existential angst. I don't know.

And I don't know that we'd HAVE to prioritize one thing over another. It would depend. Are we talking about creating them fictionally? Then we can do almost anything we want (depending on how realistic you'd want it to be). Are we limiting it to any certain technology? Then it would have to be done within the limits of that technology. That is, given the right technology, you might be able to reset the hedonic set-point, AND have high intelligence, among other things. Too many unknowns to say, I'd think.

Mbast1 wrote:That is, if a very smart person can be creative and do things they find useful, if they are less happy than they might otherwise have been (and I don't know how you'd know that, given that you only get the one life) it might be worth it.

Surely 'being creative and doing things you find useful' is the way to maximise happiness. Both are things that make people very happy, and the effect doesn't wear off like it does with alcohol or other drugs.

Lucy McGough wrote:Surely 'being creative and doing things you find useful' is the way to maximise happiness. Both are things that make people very happy, and the effect doesn't wear off like it does with alcohol or other drugs.

I agree. But, there is a perception that highly intelligent people are easily or often depressed. And that is true for some of them, especially what they term existential angst. But, there is actually research that shows that there's a lot of them who are happy. And I think it has to do with whether or not they're allowed to express their intelligence and capabilities to their satisfaction.
Also, some of the problem has to do with social stigma. A LOT of people don't like people who are very smart. Many men can't deal with highly intelligent women. If we're talking about The Tomorrow People, they could get around that to some extent by realizing they have their own society, with its own standards.

Just some thoughts.

Those are interesting thoughts

Perhaps highly intelligent people who are also deeply depressed and unhappy attract more attention/coverage, thus making it seem as if they're all like that, even if they're not.

Clever happy people
*Shakespeare
*Kant
*Einstein
*Wordsworth (most of the time)
*William Blake
*Stephen Hawking
*Leonardo Da Vinci

Lucy McGough wrote:Perhaps highly intelligent people who are also deeply depressed and unhappy attract more attention/coverage, thus making it seem as if they're all like that, even if they're not.

That and it reinforces a perception the majority seem to have.

Lucy McGough wrote:Clever happy people

Very nice list!

Cool, thanks!