Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Obviously announcements like this are a dime a dozen, but I have very fond memories of the writing and some of the acting in Blake's 7 and would be interested in a reboot.

https://deadline.com/2026/01/blakes-7-reboot-peter-hoar-matthew-bouch-multitude-productions-1236682580/

Created by Terry Nation, the man credited with inventing the Daleks, Blake’s 7 aired for four seasons on the BBC from 1978 to 1981. The show, which exhibited numerous tropes of the traditional space opera, followed the exploits of political dissident Roj Blake (Gareth Thomas), who leads a small group of rebels against the forces of the totalitarian Terran Federation that rules the Earth and many colonized planets. There have been several reboot attempts down the decades but none have caught fire. Multitude struck the deal with Nation’s estate and casting and writing conversations will commence in due course.

The show was a real example of embracing grey morality and how good writing can elevate poor sets, costumes, make up and fight choreography.

And that when I started watching it on the local UHF station the cast had only 5 people and none of them were named Blake

I hope its a sequel not a reboot.

The_Real_Chris wrote:
I hope its a sequel not a reboot.

The 'Avon ducked' hypothesis.

 Necroagogo wrote:

The_Real_Chris wrote:
I hope its a sequel not a reboot.

The 'Avon ducked' hypothesis.

Be happy to see that - great show

the Liberator was a lovely ship.

Feels a bit late in the day for a sequel.

I’m just about old enough for the show to have aired in my lifetime. Barely. And of course, I am no spring chicken.

I’m expecting some level of reinterpretation and modernising. But whilst not a show I’ve ever really properly watched? I don’t think it needs a huge amount.

It occurs to me that there might be some people who do not instantly remember a 40 year old BBC show never released on DVD in the US. So let me summarize the story and what I thought were the good points.

Blake's 7

It's the future! We live in space! And are ruled by the benevolent Federation!
Perhaps not so benevolent...
Roj Blake, humble clerk learns that he is in fact a former rebel leader captured, discredited and drugged to forget his past.
He joins a band of rebels who plan to bring down the Evil Federation by, uh, destroying food distribution centers and causing riots. Oh?
But it was all a trap. Evil Federation troops, in very cool black uniforms and gas masks come in and kill everyone. Except Blake who is shipped off to a penal colony.

Enroute his ship encounters a space battle and an advanced derelict ship, Blake and a Dirty Dozen style team of convicts are sent to investigate it, since they're expendable. They defeat the security, take control of the ship and rename it the Liberator.
Liberator is faster, better armed and armored, and more advanced than anything the Evil Federation has. It also has teleporting to save on those pesky special effects for shuttles etc.
Two of the initial band stand out - Vila a cowardly thief, and Avon a Machiavellian hacker who butts heads with the idealist Blake.
They are hunted by Space Commander Travis, a captain Ahab type who lost an arm and an eye to Blake. And by Commander Servalan a ruthless cold blooded ice queen who seeks to rule the Evil Federation.
After many adventures (IE seasons 1 and 2) they make it to the Evil Federation's supercomputer Star One to destroy it. Star One runs the economy, space ships, power, everything. This will kill billions of people, cause famines, meltdowns, crashes and all sorts of horrors. Oh and it turns out Star One is running the force field (or whatever) keeping out an invading race from another galaxy. Blake wants to destroy it but now the cold blooded Avon is wary. It gets destroyed anyway (IIRC the aliens had already infiltrated) and now the galaxy is at war and the Evil Federation has lost control. Billions die and half the cast is lost, including Blake.

Now things get weird, the actor playing Blake left and Avon is now the star of the show. There's occasional lip service to finding Blake but really it's now the bad guy vs the worse guys. Plus Vila.
The weakened Evil Federation starts expanding again, this time with mind-control drugs that zombify whole planets.
Season 3 was supposed to be the end, the Liberator gets blown up and the crew is marooned. But it is unexpectedly renewed. So they get a new ship, new guns, new members for Season 4.
They try and make an alliance of the warlords who've grown up in the wake of the war, but mistrust and betrayal causes that to fall apart.
In the final episode they find Blake! He's posing as a bounty hunter while recruiting a new resistance army. But he's old and no longer as certain as he was. And he was right. His new resistance is filled with Evil Federation agents.
In the end Blake faces Avon, Avon thinking he's a traitor shoots Blake. Evil Federation troopers come out and shoot each of the cast in heart-braking slow-mo. In the end Avon is surrounded, he smiles and raises his gun and... fade to black with laser sound effects.

The End

So grey morality, justifications of terrorism, betrayal, failure, and in the end everyone dies.

It's a 70s-80s BBC show with a budget of $1.09, costumes made from carpet remnants, ships made from old hair dyers, sets made from junkshops, "fights" that consisted of middle aged men lazily swinging their arms at each other (I'm sorry, the bad, bad fights really stuck in my craw since that doesn't cost money), alien worlds made from quarries and dry ice machines.
But the writing the courage really made it rise above expectations to the level of genuinely good.
Avon - Paul Darrow - really makes it work both as an actor and as a well-written character.

So yeah, I'd be hyped for Game of Thrones meets revisionist Star Wars/Trek.

I'm a little nervous about the idea of a reboot, mainly because the original was so good. Well, if we conveniently ignore the low budget. Reboots also strike me as an excuse for not coming up with new ideas for shows.

Having said that, the BSG reboot was utterly fantastic in every way... and I say that as someone who enjoyed the original and was also concerned whether a reboot would be any good. So who knows?

There is the argument that telly just has far fewer constraints these days,

That can of course be a double edged sword. When you’ve hard limits, however prudish we might consider them today? You have to find some kind of work around. Could be re-writing the scene, have stuff happen entirely off-screen and communicated to the audience in a different way.

Now, done wrong? Such constraints can water a show down too much. But without them? You may not have the incentive, other than budget, to stop and think if there’s perhaps a better and more interesting way to show and tell a given thing.

Good writing can do a lot with dialogue, there've been a few stories lately with Netflix telling writers to frontload movies with big action sequences and have the characters explain the plot 2 or 3 times for people who are distracted.

Thing is good dialogue and give and take among characters can do the same thing, I can follow that even while washing the dishes or checking work emails.

A good Blake's 7 reboot would rely on a very solid Blake-Avon conflict and their development rather than PEW-PEW and WHOOSH.

For now I'll just take this as wonderful news.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
There is the argument that telly just has far fewer constraints these days,

That can of course be a double edged sword. When you’ve hard limits, however prudish we might consider them today? You have to find some kind of work around. Could be re-writing the scene, have stuff happen entirely off-screen and communicated to the audience in a different way.

Now, done wrong? Such constraints can water a show down too much. But without them? You may not have the incentive, other than budget, to stop and think if there’s perhaps a better and more interesting way to show and tell a given thing.

I would disagree strongly about the lack of "constraints" - they are not the same ones but there are just as present and just as strong. Whatever you views on inclusion, social and gender politics etc - its going to be part of the discussion about any new show and is a potential constraint - some people are going to tell you oh! You can't do x or y to avoid offense or must do a or b to placate a perceived important audience. And if you do all those things - some people are going to flip out because you did.

Modern sci-fi Shows can absolutely tackle the issues that B7 did - look at the politics, moral greyness of characters (or even just darkness) in sci-fi shows such as Foundation, Fallout, BSG, the Expanse, Defiance, the 100 - where people do very bad things for good reasons AND then also suffer consequences - something that I would content other modern shows such as new Star Wars and Star Trek absolutely run screaming from.

I think you’ve misunderstood.

Blake’s 7 existed on a tight budget, and super strict content guidelines. Not necessarily inflicted by the Beeb, but the likes of Mary Whitehouse who could’ve saved telly an awful lot of bother if she just figured out how to change the channel or, even better, just switch her sodding tv off.

And for all those constraints? It still turned out a mature, reflective show. Possibly because of said constraints - it’s hard to say with any certainty.

My concern here is as yet unfounded in the context of this specific show. But, I still caution that “could” shouldn’t be confused with “should”.

It can of course be made a lot grimmer and nastier. Not only is telly more permissive there, but the audience is already there, clamouring for such shows. I mean, look at Andor. But, just because you could include gore, nudity and other such things doesn’t mean the story will actually benefit from them.

Essentially, the nebulous difference between Mature Themes and Edgelord.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Example.

Let’s say this new Federation is shown to be perfectly fine with using methods of torture.

That needn’t be especially graphic. ESB managed it with Han on Cloud City. Left no mistake about what was happening (strapped to machine, screams of pain, Fett’s concern he may not survive it). But it didn’t show an awful lot, instead leaving it to our imagination.

A more graphic or intense scene could be used to illustrate a certain Federation Officer is a particular wrong’un. One applying torture for their own enjoyment, even turning the stomachs of colleagues with the same task.

But if it’s just “right, we need a torture scene, let’s make it as hideous and graphic as possible”? That might run into Edgelord. Being provocative for the sake of being provocative.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I think you’ve misunderstood.

Blake’s 7 existed on a tight budget, and super strict content guidelines. Not necessarily inflicted by the Beeb, but the likes of Mary Whitehouse who could’ve saved telly an awful lot of bother if she just figured out how to change the channel or, even better, just switch her sodding tv off.

And for all those constraints? It still turned out a mature, reflective show. Possibly because of said constraints - it’s hard to say with any certainty.

My concern here is as yet unfounded in the context of this specific show. But, I still caution that “could” shouldn’t be confused with “should”.

It can of course be made a lot grimmer and nastier. Not only is telly more permissive there, but the audience is already there, clamouring for such shows. I mean, look at Andor. But, just because you could include gore, nudity and other such things doesn’t mean the story will actually benefit from them.

Essentially, the nebulous difference between Mature Themes and Edgelord.

Not sure what I misunderstood - you said there were less constraints now on content - I still contend they are there but different. Its somewhat permissive but also, as I said often just as constraining with regards to the content of the show - have you included enough of X or Y etc - are you representing the political views of a certain audience - if so which one and if so can you deal with the fallout.

Budget and CGI are much more of a thing.

Yes you can potentially show more graphic elements - I would agree that it may not add to the quality of the content but I am old and have the lost the excitement of seeing such things to some degree.

Reacting to your example - yes exactly - the torture is off screen and one of the most effective parts for me is the horror when they say "they did not even ask us any questions".

On the other hand can you see the whole Princess Leia and Jabba stuff being done in a "modern" show?

Honestly? Yes.

Because that scene served a purpose. Was the bikini outfit skimpy? Sure. But that tells us about Jabba, and helps portray him as A Slimy Piece Of Worm Riddled Filth.

And we still see Leia off him, with the very chain he sought to demean and control her with.

So the underlying context and storytelling is there. It’s not done purely for audience titillation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I mean, if you mean nudity and that? Game of Thrones, Spartacus Blood And Sand And Rude Bits Absolutely Everywhere to name but two far from shy about contextual nudity and rudeness.

Sure, life in any Roman Villa is a cracking excuse for some filth. Because we’ve historical accounts of them being Filthy Filthy Beasts.