Seth MacFarlane re-imagining the Flintstones

[4NDR01D]

The rights holders aren't going to let Seth McFarlane turn Flintstones into Family Guy. For those that don't think somebody can be crude one minute and kid friendly the next go watch Eddie Murphy Delirious, then watch Meet Dave. Or listen to some old Ice-Cube/N.W.A. and then watch Are We There Yet?


At least Rosie O'Donnell won't be anywhere near this!

[4NDR01D]

the check amt. to get
him involved must've been pretty high.

Seth McFarlaine seems to be the one who persude getting this done. He's a billionaire by now and this probably his dream pet project. I think it's going to be great and I'm a huge Flintstones fan. I hope he revamps the Gruesomes as their neighbours.

[huedell]

Seth McFarlaine seems to be the one who persude getting this done. He's a billionaire by now and this probably his dream pet project.

Please excuse me if I have to see him say it before I believe it.

[Mikey]

Remaking Flintstones will take a knack that most people don't have.

The Flinstones was a direct "rip-off" of the Honeymooners.

To this point anyone who ever tried bringing the Flintstones back failed miserably because they used the original series as a start to remake ...

You can't do that.

It's like making a copy of a copy ...... which you know what that comes out like.

In order to do a decent remake you need to start with the Honeymooners as original source material.

[MEMEGO]

I think he can pull it off, and lets hope dino will talk throughout the series, i always wondered why he walked on 2 legs, was taller and could think and talk like a human when he first appeared, and afterwards he was reduced to just a plain dog like character. i also want gazooo in the remake.

[Dark Shadow]

My question is why? If Seth has any creativity left, why the need to dip into someone else's creative bucket? If it's because he's creatively stumped, then please hand the baton on to someone else and let them step up to the plate with something new and fresh.

Remakes rarely "fly" and I can't imagine why this would be contrary to the rule.

Does anyone really find any of the later Looney Tune efforts to be as good as or superior to the originals? I find that even the episodes that were produced in the 70's paled greatly in comparison to the earlier offerings.

All these reboots & remakes are really beginning to trouble me. Have we really reached the point (artistically) where there are no new avenues from which we can express ourselves?

[huedell]

My question is why? If Seth has any creativity left, why the need to dip into someone else's creative bucket? If it's because he's creatively stumped, then please hand the baton on to someone else and let them step up to the plate with something new and fresh.

Well, I don't see how that will stop the larger portion of your complaint
from still existing... in other words... the remake will happen no matter
WHO makes it.... and taking it away from Seth when he COULD offer
something fresh to give it to an unknown... a guy that hasn't proven
himself to me... I wouldn't like it.

Remakes rarely "fly" and I can't imagine why this would be contrary to the rule.

Does anyone really find any of the later Looney Tune efforts to be as good as or superior to the originals? I find that even the episodes that were produced in the 70's paled greatly in comparison to the earlier offerings.

Tiny Toons was just as good as the originals IMHO... and the
newer Bugs stuff had some charm.... and even if that wasn't
the case, and it's just a complaint about "THE ODDS"... well,
as a fan, I'll roll the dice... I can't lose... if I don't like the
revamp, I'll turn it off... and if I like it... well that's obviously awesome.

All these reboots & remakes are really beginning to trouble me. Have we really reached the point (artistically) where there are no new avenues from which we can express ourselves?

It troubles/concerns me that anyone would figure that the reason
stuff like this happens is because Hollywood execs & artists think
there's "no new avenues"... when it should be known that the
ACTUAL reason reboots/remakes occur is because of the built in
audience factor and the previous success factor etc. etc.---

Hollywood runs on money just like every other business...
and because of people like me that will give this new venture
a chance partly because I recognize the brand name "Flintstones"
and am curious, the revamps/reboots rightfully occur on a regular basis.

[ctc]

>It's like making a copy of a copy ...... which you know what that comes out like.

There's a really good speech about that in "The Simpsons," about how animation is BUILT on the principle of ripoffs and remakes.

Don C.

[Cosmicman]

The dirty Flintstones.....I can see how nasty this show will be. We don't need it for characters we grew up with that we thought were funny....not in this type of humor.

Don't get me wrong, I like a Family Guy and American Dad show here and there but not the Flintstones. Let them be.

[huedell]

The dirty Flintstones.....I can see how nasty this show will be. We don't need it for characters we grew up with that we thought were funny....not in this type of humor.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3129/5743729210_16c9c039b9.jpg

Don't get me wrong, I like a Family Guy and American Dad show here and there but not the Flintstones. Let them be.

Thing is... posts like yours assume too much.
We have no idea if there will be scenarios akin to
simulated ... um... whatever that is pictured above.

Additionally... I must point out the seeming irony, in that,
despite your "anti-smut Flintstones" post/stance,
you still apparently are comfy enough with
smutty Flintstones one panels (that Seth had nothing to do with)
to share them with the board.

[ctc]

>My question is why?

Name recognition. Sadly, the same trait that makes folks excited for a new Batman movie also makes bringing back durned near every old property appeealing to the execs.

The Flintstones are a weird one. When they first aired it wasn't intended to be a kids show. I hate using the term "general audience" ('cos it brings to mind the idea of kids entertainment) but that's what the show originally was: geared to the overall primetime viewing crowd. So I'm kinda lukewarm on MacFarlane doing it, 'cos in a way the original WAS the "Family Guy" of it's time.... or "The Simpsons" a few decades earlier. Considered irreverent and a scootch controversial. (Somewhere around "American Dad" would be about right....) 'Course I'm leary of remakes in general 'cos right off the cuff you get an attitude afraid of new, and I really don't want to see the same old again and again and again.

Don C.

[huedell]

>My question is why?

Name recognition. Sadly, the same trait that makes folks excited for a new Batman movie also makes bringing back durned near every old property appeealing to the execs.

The Flintstones are a weird one. When they first aired it wasn't intended to be a kids show. I hate using the term "general audience" ('cos it brings to mind the idea of kids entertainment) but that's what the show originally was: geared to the overall primetime viewing crowd. So I'm kinda lukewarm on MacFarlane doing it, 'cos in a way the original WAS the "Family Guy" of it's time.... or "The Simpsons" a few decades earlier. Considered irreverent and a scootch controversial. (Somewhere around "American Dad" would be about right....) 'Course I'm leary of remakes in general 'cos right off the cuff you get an attitude afraid of new, and I really don't want to see the same old again and again and again.

Well, the "same old" has many definitions, eh?

Someone could make a new Flinstones that resembles more of
a Honeymooners remake than Flintstones, eh? (Mike might like that...wink!)

Or someone could make a "new" cartoon about a wacky family
living in the Stone Age and call it "The Stoners" while
it resembled the Flintstones just enough so the rights holders didn't sue.

Don.... what you said earlier about FAMILY GUY being simply
a modern day FLINTSTONES equivalent due to it's being an adult geared
animated sitcom, is something I wanted to articulate in this thread,
but was too lazy to word correctly.

[Mikey]

I think the Cleveland show proves MacFarlane's creativity is spent.

[Dark Shadow]

Well huedell, I don't see it happening, but if this effort actually gets off the ground and is renewed after the completion of it's 2nd season, I'll buy you a beer.

[huedell]

Well huedell, I don't see it happening, but if this effort actually gets off the ground and is renewed after the completion of it's 2nd season, I'll buy you a beer.

All I'm doing is taking a more positive approach because it's
a cherished franchise that someone I admire is taking a swing at...
and admittedly I'm taking that "Han Solo 'Don't Tell Me The Odds"
approach, when the reality is that this is a tough mountain to climb.

That being understood.... I'll still take ya up on beer... if and/or when