re: flopped tv remakes

[hobub]

I know there's been a series of them (pun intended). I haven't seen Land of the Lost with Will Ferrel but I've heard not so good reviews. And I did see when he slaughtered Bewitched and that was enough that I don't have to see it.

I don't understand why they do these if they are just going to be a stupid parody. I can understand with the The Brady Bunch, that was kind of funny, them being stuck in the 70's but it just started the bandwagon. Starsky and Hutch, Bewitched, Planet of the Apes (all IMO stunk). You take a good thought out concept and destroy it by just making it a mockery. Why do it at all? Just dumb.

Now with Bewitched for instance, if they simply would have used Jim Cary to portray the original "Dick York" as Darren, with Nicole Kidman, who was a deadringer for Samantha, and put it together similar to the original first season as originally written but updated to contemporary times, it would have been a hit. I only mention this now because when I just searched videos, I saw and watched a couple of these and I can see how funny Jim Cary would be as "the straight man Darren" being the but of all jokes. No 'ingenius' rewrites needed. It would have been brilliant, instead, they took it and and smashed it to pieces. But check these out..

Watch Bewitched Pilot Episode And Episode 54 "And then there were three" Pretty funny stuff.

[ctc]

>You take a good thought out concept and destroy it by just making it a mockery. Why do it at all?

The Brady Bunch movie made a LOT of money.... so of course it set the new standard. And that standard's gonna be followed until something else happens to make a lot of money.

>put it together similar to the original first season as originally written but updated to contemporary times

Well.... there are problems with straight remakes too. Shows are part of the time they're made. Dominant cultural attitudes and production standards have tangible effects on the show, and when you change those you invariably change the show. Since most shows follow pretty basic concepts, once you "update" them you usually end up with whatever the CURRENT generic standard is, with a few names slapped on.

Straight remakes can run into all sorts of problems 'cos of this cultural shift. So, for Bewitched; Sam's subservience and Darren's pushiness was seen as part of the joke, but a modern audience would probably be waiting for family services to show up. And that's not neccessarily 'cos we're all more touchie-feelie-politically-correct these days: since the 90's MOM is the brains of any sitcom family. The template shifted and classic Sam doesn't fit any more.

....'course, the STORIES are all exactly the same, they just sorta juggle around the power structure.

So sometimes they decide to juggle things around a bit. Lately that's meant "wacky comedy," which is probably seen as the safe money 'cos you'll draw the folks who like the original AND the folks who hated it. Not too long ago that meant "dark and gritty it up!" ("With a touch of emo" if you remember the FOX Doctor Who. I REALLY don't miss the 90's....) And sometimes that really misses the point. As per your examples:

>The Brady Bunch, that was kind of funny,

Meh. In a lot of ways THIS movie started the problem.

>Starsky and Hutch

THERE ya go! Take what was once considered the most violent show on TV and make it a buddy cop comedy. It's BRILLIANT! AND every buddy cop movie since "Lethal Weapon."

>Bewitched

This one is an oddity for me. I actually thought the premise was neat. (That they're remaking the show and a real witch auditions for the part.) But they did such a ham-fisted movie....

>Planet of the Apes

There's anopther one. The original movie was pretty much a shot at organized religion, but all that got sucked out for the new one. That bothered me 'cos they seemed to be aware they were doing it! "No soul here!" In the original Zaius wasn't really a bad guy, he was a guy doing what he thought was right. In the new one Caeser is DEFINITELY a bad guy. Which sucked the disocurse right out of the story. But they had a giant ape fight scene! *sigh*

DOn C.

[mazinz]

Another reason is the dumbing down of America in mainstream society, especially when it comes to film and entertainment

[Mikey]

Besides Brady Bunch, the only other remake movie I can watch is Beverly Hillbillies with Jim Varney.
I actually think Hillbillies was well put together and does keep some of the original series spirit.

[ctc]

>Another reason is the dumbing down of America in mainstream society, especially when it comes to film and entertainment

I hear that a lot; but I don't think entertainement (overall) is any dumber now than it ever was. The 50's were a pretty stupid period. (Ever watch one of them "juvenile delinquenrt" films?) The 60's had their share as well; and the 70's.... Disco. Need I say more? And the 80's....? *shudder*

'course, at this point a bunch of you are thinking "but... I LIKE Disco!" Sure, but it's not particularly intelligent music: simplistic rhythms, simplistic lyrics and comcepts.... AND it swiped from OTHER branches of music just as much as modern rap. (DAMN YOU, DISCO STAR WARS!!!!) But when you first heard it you were young, and uninformed. You didn't have a lot to compare it to for purposes of some sort of quantitative analysis. So there was a lot of appeal. Which is one reason "the old days" SEEM so much better to people: 'cos you're seeing them with your younger eyes, and emotions. You don't remember Disco so much as you remember the FEELINGS that were associated with it.

As you get older you have more to compare with, and you see the same things over and over. (Like how every sitcom has been pretty much the same since the 50's.) So new stuff doesn't have the emotional charge 'cos it lacks novelty. But you don't notice because to YOU, you've been the same person all along. Since you live in your own head you aren't aware of the changes that have happened since you were a kid, and so you ascribe the "changes" in quality of entertainment EXTERNALLY. That is, "new stuff all blows!"

Whe in reality, it doesn't blow any more NOW than it ever did. Not overall.

Don C.

[Riffster]

Addams Family remakes were good.

can't make a list of horrible remakes without mentioning I-Spy or Dukes of Hazzard

[toys2cool]

Addams Family remakes were good.

can't make a list of horrible remakes without mentioning I-Spy or Dukes of Hazzard

Loved Addams family 1 & 2

[mazinz]

>Another reason is the dumbing down of America in mainstream society, especially when it comes to film and entertainment

I hear that a lot; but I don't think entertainement (overall) is any dumber now than it ever was. The 50's were a pretty stupid period. (Ever watch one of them "juvenile delinquenrt" films?) The 60's had their share as well; and the 70's.... Disco. Need I say more? And the 80's....? *shudder*

'course, at this point a bunch of you are thinking "but... I LIKE Disco!" Sure, but it's not particularly intelligent music: simplistic rhythms, simplistic lyrics and comcepts.... AND it swiped from OTHER branches of music just as much as modern rap. (DAMN YOU, DISCO STAR WARS!!!!) But when you first heard it you were young, and uninformed. You didn't have a lot to compare it to for purposes of some sort of quantitative analysis. So there was a lot of appeal. Which is one reason "the old days" SEEM so much better to people: 'cos you're seeing them with your younger eyes, and emotions. You don't remember Disco so much as you remember the FEELINGS that were associated with it.

As you get older you have more to compare with, and you see the same things over and over. (Like how every sitcom has been pretty much the same since the 50's.) So new stuff doesn't have the emotional charge 'cos it lacks novelty. But you don't notice because to YOU, you've been the same person all along. Since you live in your own head you aren't aware of the changes that have happened since you were a kid, and so you ascribe the "changes" in quality of entertainment EXTERNALLY. That is, "new stuff all blows!"

Whe in reality, it doesn't blow any more NOW than it ever did. Not overall.

Don C.

Although understood I do disagree with you. I have seen the changes, and I have seen it decline down more so since the early 90's

[ctc]

>I have seen the changes, and I have seen it decline down more so since the early 90's

I'd go back further and say the last decline happened during the mid-80's. That's when "the formula" gelled and experimetation dropped considerably. The EARLY 80's were an up period, 'cos there was so much stuff coming out; muisic, movies, tv.... people were still taking chances. But by the middle of the decade comics were all superheroes, music fell into three or four readily identifiable genres, and tv was either latenight dramas, talk shows or Cosby. (ALL of which relied heavily on formula. OLD formula.)

To me, it's not a question of intelligence. Intelligence isn't all that useful. The IMPORTANT factor is imagination. The ability to see things differently, and step out of the usual. THAT'S what's missing. People fall into their rut and stay there. It's not 'cos they're stupid; but they lack the imagination to try something different.... to see that different can have value. Why can't you discuss religion and politics with people? 'Cos most people have already made up their minds on those topics. If you disagree you're wrong. No imagination to see the other point of view. (And for an emotionally charged topic like those we're not talking a small amount.) And concurrently, no ability to actually argue their own point 'cos they've never had to step outside of it and therefore can't put their thoughts into terms that other folks would understand. Watch any debate about the qualities of a new movie and see how quickly it degenerates into the same points over and over, but louder. ("Shouting: The next best thing to being right.")

So for me, an "up" period is any where there's a lot of different things going on, right out in public view. Gives people more choices, and more importantly MAKES them confront new and different. (To them, at least.)

Don C.

[Mikey]

For me, the 80's was a wasteland of movies I couldn't stand .....
It seemed bloated with mostly teen movies (which was the new thing).
You couldn't throw a rock without hitting another "hit" teen movie....

And most of the sci fi that came out of the 80's was pretty aweful as well ...

[toys2cool]

For me, the 80's was a wasteland of movies I couldn't stand .....
It seemed bloated with mostly teen movies (which was the new thing).
You couldn't throw a rock without hitting another "hit" teen movie....

And most of the sci fi that came out of the 80's was pretty aweful as well ...

it was the 80's so you could'nt really expect too much....I was really young so I enjoyed all the teen flicks

[mazinz]

>I have seen the changes, and I have seen it decline down more so since the early 90's

I'd go back further and say the last decline happened during the mid-80's. That's when "the formula" gelled and experimetation dropped considerably. The EARLY 80's were an up period, 'cos there was so much stuff coming out; muisic, movies, tv.... people were still taking chances. But by the middle of the decade comics were all superheroes, music fell into three or four readily identifiable genres, and tv was either latenight dramas, talk shows or Cosby. (ALL of which relied heavily on formula. OLD formula.)

To me, it's not a question of intelligence. Intelligence isn't all that useful. The IMPORTANT factor is imagination. The ability to see things differently, and step out of the usual. THAT'S what's missing. People fall into their rut and stay there. It's not 'cos they're stupid; but they lack the imagination to try something different.... to see that different can have value. Why can't you discuss religion and politics with people? 'Cos most people have already made up their minds on those topics. If you disagree you're wrong. No imagination to see the other point of view. (And for an emotionally charged topic like those we're not talking a small amount.) And concurrently, no ability to actually argue their own point 'cos they've never had to step outside of it and therefore can't put their thoughts into terms that other folks would understand. Watch any debate about the qualities of a new movie and see how quickly it degenerates into the same points over and over, but louder. ("Shouting: The next best thing to being right.")

So for me, an "up" period is any where there's a lot of different things going on, right out in public view. Gives people more choices, and more importantly MAKES them confront new and different. (To them, at least.)

Don C.

But when most of it is lacking both imagination AND intelligence, this is why the theory basis of dumbing down of America was created and why we see that phrase being thrown around quite a lot these days

[Brue]

I also liked Brady Bunch, Bev Hillbillies and Adams Family. The first worked, liked stated earlier, because it juxtaposed the 70's characters against a 90s world. The latter 2 were primarily just straight remakes and done well.

I, like Len, don't understand why we need so many spoof/camp remakes like Starsky and Hutch and Bewitched. But I understand the reason they are made. People can watch and feel nostalgic and usually have a laugh or two while studios get to put put out fairly safe return on investment films.

[grayhank]

It's interesting to note that way back in the pre-cable days a lot of TV shows were based on or inspired by movies: M*A*S*H, The Odd Couple, Planet of the Apes, Logan's Run).

Now the opposite has occurred where movies are based on TV shows. I think alot of this has to do with us 'baby boomers" who want to see those nostalgic old shows on the big screen using big budget special effects instead of cheap quality stage effects (Star Trek for example). Sometimes they work (Brady Bunch, Addams Family, Beverly Hillbillies) but often they don't (Wild Wild West, Lost In Space, Bewitched) because they don't cast the right people for the parts or they change the formula.

Will Smith just didn't work as James West because it was such a drastic change of using a black actor for a white character, especially considering the post Civil War time period of the show/movie. Lost In Space was also a flop because it was poorly cast and the character attributes were drastically changed. Gary Oldman did a decent job playing Dr. Smith and even Matt LeBlanc was tolerable as Don, but the rest of the cast seemed very out of place. The chemistry just wasn't there.

Charlie's Angels worked to some extent because they didn't try to remake the TV series using the same characters, so it felt more like a continuation of the show with "new" Angels but they still acknowledged the old ones (i.e. Jacklyn Smith appearing as Kelly Garrett).

[Brue]

It's interesting to note that way back in the pre-cable days a lot of TV shows were based on or inspired by movies: M*A*S*H, The Odd Couple, Planet of the Apes, Logan's Run).

Now the opposite has occurred where movies are based on TV shows.

True dat

Star Trek Wild Wild West, Lost In Space,

Charlie's Angels worked to some extent because they didn't try to remake the TV series using the same characters

Oh yeah - I hadn't thought about these - I agree on Charlie's angels working and Wild West being bad (I think it is one of the worst films ever) BUT contrary to many opinions I loved Lost in Space!!!!

StarTrek Is almost an entity in itself and is hard to put in this TV to Movie category (even though it did that)

[/QUOTE]