NBC releases 'Rosemary's Baby' teaser

[Mysterious Benefactor]

'Rosemary's Baby': Zoe Saldana says Roman Polanski's version 'does not exist in my nature'

[David]

My interview with Zoe Saldana & Patrick J. Adams:
www.fangoria.com/new/rosemarys-baby-zoe-saldana-patrick-adams-interview/

[Mysterious Benefactor]

Wow, the first part, anyway, landed with a thud in the Fast Overnights, bringing in only an average of 3.7 million viewers. And what's worse, while the first hour had 4.1 million, the second hour fell to 3.3, so apparently hundreds of thousands of people weren't too impressed with what they saw in that first hour and they tuned out.

I DVR'd it last night, but I haven't watched it (or read any of the reviews). But a huge amount of people are going to have to have DVR'd and then actually watch for this to become even the slightest hint of a hit once the Live + 7 DVR numbers get factored in!

[KMR]

Whatever becomes of this version on the ratings front, it seems that it's setting itself up for failure with the critics by being stretched out into a two-night, four-hour broadcast.  The book is not a long one, and has a very narrow focus.  There just isn't enough stuff there to make such a long film!  They're going to have to throw in a lot of extraneous material and/or just s-t-r-e-t-c-h things out pointlessly.  But this is America, where to make something better you have to make it bigger.

[Mysterious Benefactor]

'Rosemary's Baby': Zoe Saldana wishes she cared 'about what other people think'

[michael c]

the trailer was singularly unimpressive...


I smell a total dud.

[Mysterious Benefactor]

Not surprising given the ratings for the first part, but, whoa, the second part did even worse in the Fast Overnights, averaging only 3.3 million viewers.

[michael c]

even thought this is being touted as an *adaptation*  of the novel and not a remake of the original movie there are some classics that are just so indelible that cannot be remade or improved upon.

this was almost destined to crash and burn.

[Mysterious Benefactor]

I still haven't watched this yet, but I can see their point that the original's Rosemary was certainly a woman of a different time - a pre-Women's Lib woman who, as they put it, "was very respectful and obedient of her husband." So, I can see why they felt the story was ripe for an updating to today's world. But I suppose that if that sort of update is going to work in an "adaptation" to a story that, let's face it, greatly depended on the wife being so "respectful and obedient" to her husband, said adaptation has to be careful to still make the situation Rosemary finds herself in believable - or at least suspension of disbelief believable. And like I've said, I haven't watched it yet, but if they tinkered with things to the point that the central plot makes little sense because the audience can't accept that a more independant Rosemary would ever find herself in the situation that she's in, then, yes, the whole thing was destined to crash and burn.

[michael c]

yes...


part of the reason Rosemary (in the book and in the original movie) found herself in the situations she was in was because she was subservient to not only her husband but also a series of male doctors in who's care she put herself in and who's increasingly bizarre demands she submitted to.

her sense of helplessness was what fueled much of the drama.

there was also a subtle dig at a woman "asserting herself" (getting "above her place") because it was Rosemary who wanted to take the apartment over a less expensive one her husband had already selected and was made to pay for her request dearly.

like some of our DS "damsels in distress" Rosemary was very much a product of a different time and place that is hard to replicate in a way that makes any sense.