Anna Friel cast in Wil Ferrel's Land of the Lost

[Seeker]

[huedell]

Seriously though---I'd love to see any argument---any counterpoint to any of
my points that make any sense.

Its one thing to imply that someone is clueless with some "Internet hip" graphic---
but its another to accurately address a post.

What did I say that was so off the wall clueless?

Any takers?

(Or just irritated oldtimers who haver strange expectations about cherished
TV shows from decades ago that are lying around collecting dust instead of making
some decent "cinema money".)

[apes3978]

Huedell...

The first season of LAND OF THE LOST, with David Gerrold at the helm is quite good. It was well laid out, well executed and Gerrold had the connections to get a lot of top writers for the show. I think you're letting the fact that it was a KROFFT show cloud your judgement. SIGMUND AND THE SEA MONSTERS it ain't.

I also get the feeling that you think it's "outdated" due to the stop motion dinosaurs and other areas of the show's production. (And yes, I know you didn't outright say it, but it's the sense I get from what I'm perceiving from the tone of your post.) Remember, you have to put it into the context of what it was at the time. In the commentary on the first season DVDs, Wesley himself said something like "It looks hokey as hell now since things like Jurassic Park, but it was very advanced at the time."

Even the second season holds up very well, and in my own opinion, it's the third season that is the poorest one by far. Not only in terms of production, but all of a sudden Chaka is talking, Will is singing, and the stories are sub-par. How in the world Ron "Uncle Jack" Harper can say with a straight face that the writing on that third season was better than the writing on the APES TV series is beyond me. Maybe he's seeing something I don't, cause I sure don't get it.

As far as your comment: "Why do you think that most of today's movies based on old TV franchises are parodies/satires--- its because they CAN'T be translated onto screen and have at least a fighting chance of not getting totally negged by the public and critics any other way", I don't see where you're coming from at all. Those vintage shows COULD be done in the style they were done originally, for instance a cop "buddy show" COULD be done as a cop "buddy movie" without changing the entire format. Starsky and Hutch didn't have to be done as a moron-fest, it could have been kept in it's original action/dramatic context, just updated somewhat. The public and critics know what these shows were at one time, and going in to them, they're expecting at least some of the same "flavor" that they had originally. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've never heard Roger Ebert say "Boy, that was excellent the way they made this dramatic title in a comedy". Do you really think that making a show into a farce is going to make it any more appealing to today's audience? I sure don't. There's nothing wrong with taking a vintage show's CONCEPT and adapting it to "today's version" of what that concept is, but to totally make it into something it never was and was never meant to be is just idiotic. MIAMI VICE is a good example of the latter. It was an updated, (and from what I hear from some, even better) version of the 80s series. It didn't sell itself out for cheap laughs and it managed to be a hit.

I also don't get this mentality: "PLUS...the crotchedy oldtimers get a resurgance in their classic TV shows' popularity to boot....win/win/win." How do you figure this. Let's hypothetically say that a "comedy verion" of a classic dramatic series is a hit. Anyone who's first introduction to a product with that name is the new product is going to expect it to be "funny" as well. Can you imagine their disappointment when they'd go out and buy the (usually rushed out to cash in on the hype) DVDs of the original series and see it was a drama? They'd be confused and/or mad, feeling they were ripped off because the title they bought on DVD doesn't match what they just seen at the theater. And, the "old timers" as you call them don't win. Most of them will just see another one of their favorite things being exploited. Again, they don't win either, because any "resurgence" in the name/franchise will be focused on the new version of it and whatever attention/credit that is given to the original one is just kind of like "Here's your little pat on the head, now go back into your corner and die so all the attention is paid to our new take version. They treat the original version like some cheap novelty at best and they'd rather forget it ever existed.

[huedell]

A lot of good points...some of which I agree with.

However...here's the thing...about trying to make some movies that have a serious slant
into parodies...and why it makes sense.
Doing this RETAINS the vibe of the original show without making it a straight period piece
---the "period piece" being a thing which a huge section of the movie-going audience
DOES NOT want to go see----and if you "update it to 2008"--well, then you've lost
something ICONIC there that was in the original show...something that can be mined for
comedy or, at least, quirkiness

That is why I said: "Why do you think that most of today's movies based on old TV
franchises are parodies/satires--- its because they CAN'T be translated onto screen and
have at least a fighting chance of not getting totally negged by the public and critics
any other way

STARSKY & HUTCH?
I think STARSKY and HUTCH was (just about) as good a movie as was possible if it was
to retain a lot of the old show's iconic stuff---but ONLY because it was played as a
parody---or, at the very least a light comedy....and it did okay at the box office.

The BRADY BUNCH movie was even more successful because of their fresh approach
parodying the old show, playing up the iconic stuff with no restraints of heavy drama.

And you saying this:

"Here's your little pat on the head, now go back into your corner and die so all
the attention is paid to our new take version. They treat the original version like some
cheap novelty at best and they'd rather forget it ever existed.

...is a solid take on the attitude of what happens in these cases but it is not the full
picture---it seems biased---as I won't believe that it is the studio's intent
to eliminate the old version of a given franchise---I mean, really ---it doesn't make
any sense for them to do that---why settle for one version that rake in cash when you
can have two?

Finally, you said it yourself---the only "solid consistent quality" "serious" writing on
LAND OF THE LOST took place in Season One--and then it spun off into goofier stuff-
-so ---really what constitutes what I---or anyone else remembers about the vibe of
the show?

[HardyGirl]

Well, for what it's worth, here's my response...

One of the reasons, (though not the sole reason) why stuff was so cool back in the day was originality. You can say whatever you like about Sid & Marty Krofft, but they were the kings of Saturday morning TV in the 70s b/c they pushed the envelope and did things no one else would think of. Charlie's Angels back then did something no other show had dared to do, cast not one, but 3 beautiful women in indepedent, capable roles, and had them doing things that previously only men did on TV. Sure things were remade back then, but not as much as they are now. My opinion of this is for 2 reasons: The almighty dollar, and coming up w/ your own ideas is too much like work when you can ride the coattails of someone else's previous success. In the last 10 years we have seen remakes of:

Charlie's Angels
Josie & The Pussycats
Fat Albert
Garfield
The Grinch
The Cat In The Hat
SWAT
Starsky & Hutch
The Mod Squad
Underdog
Bewitched
The Brady Bunch
Spider-Man
The Hulk
Batman
Fantastic Four
and some others I'm sure I'm forgetting. But compared to real thing, these are cheap imitations. If the originals didn't translate well to modern audiences, no one would ever bother w/ video and DVD releases, b/c they just wouldn't sell. Retro is big now. The adults who remember and like it for nostalgic reasons, and the kids think it's cool b/c they've never seen stuff like this before. I bring videos of classic stuff in and my kids are transfixed. These are shows and movies w/o CGI special effects, but they don't care about that. If the story is good, it'll hold up no matter what the age of the timeline. But even in remakes there are rules. Christopher Reeves Superman did so well b/c they pretty much stuck w/ the original story, but along the lines of the times they were filmed in. Even the Spider-man movies are pretty much based on the original comic book character. But when you take a cop drama like Starsky & Hutch and turn it into a comedy, you've broken the rule. There have got to be writers out there who can keep the spirit of the original series and make a successful movie, but instead they take the easy way out and go for filler and cheap humor. It doesn't take a lot of talent to do that. What does take talent, true talent, is coming up w/ your own idea, something no one has dreamed of doing and making it into a reality. Original thinking is risky, but folks in the 70s were risk takers and that's why this stuff has fared so well. We need more people like that in Hollywood, and less who just wanna jump on whatever bandwagon happens to be riding by. Land of The Lost had some great stories in the first and second season. Sci-Fi writers like DC Fontana wrote eps for this show. It had gripping plots and made you think while enteraining you. Instead of making a great adventurous movie, they're taking the easy way out and making a comedy out of it, and casting Will Ferrell in the lead. This movie is gonna fall flat on its face. The DVDs are already out there. There's a chance that the Sci-Fi channel will air these again, but that's doubtful, since they've gone w/ they aren't showing kid shows anymore. So I don't see this as a win-win situation.

That's MY 2 cents.

[Seeker]

Your exactly right about the high end sci fi writing for the concept Hardygirl.

The whole closed universe/ parallel earth/Human prehistoric past meets Sleestaks future was a pretty high concept to introduce to a kids morning show.

Sure the everyday scripts were dumbed down but you could tell somewhere someone started with a great idea.



I also agree with you on the lack of originality these days and the needless use of childish humor as an attempted substitute.

One of the reasons I dislike Will Ferrel and the like is that they are funny for about the lenght of time of a usual SNL skit after that it just drags. And whats really bad is that SNL humor is nothing close to the cutting edge stuff that it first came out with.

[ctc]

>sensibilities that wouldn't sell in today's market....simply because the audience's
comedy and drama sensibilities have evolved over 30 years.

Although I wouldn't use the term "evolved" I do think you've hit on one of the key problems with this sdort of thing. Like I said in another post; part of the formula of a show is the times in which it was made. There would be all sorts of attitudes, opinions and perspectives that filter into a show wether or not the creators intentionally put it there. The people making the show ARE a part of their environment, and would be affected by it on some level. That's an aspect of a remake that can be tough to capture.

>Ferrell will play a disgraced paleontologist who, with his assistant and tour guide, find themselves in a world inhabited by dinosaurs,

See? Nowadays every hero HAS to be an anti-hero; so the good doc CAN'T just be a squarejawed type who happened upon a lost world. Well, he COULD; but that'd be considered a risk, since it deviates from the current formula. And the film industry DOESN'T take risks.

>I won't believe that it is the studio's intent to eliminate the old version of a given franchise

I think the problem HERE is that you're all overthinking the attitude of entertainment management. They just want a film and don't CARE about content. As long as it sells. Production doesn't care either; so they usually take the name and some of the imagry and slap it onto the standard story. NOBODY puts all that much thought into it. Well, not NOBODY; but it's usually by accident or superhuman effort that someone who cares gets in.

>One of the reasons, (though not the sole reason) why stuff was so cool back in the day was originality.

ZING! There it is! But even originality was a product of the time. Saturday morning tv DIDN'T have huge budgets, so they could afford to take more chances, and indeed HAD to. You needed something new to get people's attention and the only way to do that with tv effects and budget was conceptually. My problem with remakes is what I said earlier; I'm gonna get the same old story I've been avoiding for the last 15 years with the name of an old show attached. I MUCH prefer the old, cheapie stuff 'cos I could never be sure of what I was gonna get. ("LOOK OUT! A giant salt-shaker with a gun!!!")

>Sure things were remade back then, but not as much as they are now.

When I went back and looked I was ASTOUNDED at how much of my youth was recycled. Remakes have ALWAYS been popular 'cos they're seen as less of a risk. (Ripoffs follow the same idea. HOW MANY "Scooby Doo" clones have I been subjected to over the years? Most of which were perpetrated by HB themselves! "No, it's DIFFERENT 'cos the kids have a TALKING SHARK!")

>I bring videos of classic stuff in and my kids are transfixed.

Kids fill in the blanks themselves and are a lot more accepting of stuff than adults. I know, 'cos I remember what I was like when I was a kid. Not that I'm a lot different now.... ("A TALKING SHARK?!?! Cool!")

Don C.

[apes3978]

Well, for what it's worth, here's my response...

One of the reasons, (though not the sole reason) why stuff was so cool back in the day was originality. In the last 10 years we have seen remakes of:

Josie & The Pussycats
Fat Albert
Garfield
Underdog

Spider-Man
The Hulk
Batman
Fantastic Four

and some others I'm sure I'm forgetting. But compared to real thing, these are cheap imitations.

Well, I can't say that a big screen version of something that is usually seen as a comic book entity is a "remake". The four Superhero titles you mentioned above were big screen adaptions. Yes, there were the previous television series of The Incredible Hulk and Spiderman, but look at them, they could be seen as "cheap imitations" of their originals in the comic book field. And, The Fantastic Four also had their TV run as an animated series, but, same as above, these cartoons could be seen as cheap imitations of the FF4 comic. And Batman has been around for forever and a day. Exactly where do you start at with him? He was a comic first, and then I think there were some serials (but I may be mistaken with that). Then there was the 1960s TV series and then in the 70s, he was all over in animated forms. 1989 brought him to the bigscreen in yet another incarnation, but again, I ask you, which of the incarnations of Batman do you say is the "original" and which is the remake. The truth is, it's the comic that started it all, and yet again, everything that followed it could be seen as a "cheap imitation".

And, as far as the animated series you mentioned above, again, I don't see where they're remakes? They're adaptions of animated series, and two of them (Josie and the Pussycats and Garfield) both started out as comics or comic strips so the cartoons of them are the original "remakes" if you wanna call them that, even though they're not. They were television series adapted from other source material.

Christopher Reeves Superman did so well b/c they pretty much stuck w/ the original story, but along the lines of the times they were filmed in.

Question: How can Superman not be in your "remake" catagory along with the other Superhero franchises? As with Batman, Superman has been around for eternity it seems. Comics, serials, the George Reeves TV series, animated series, etc. all predate the Superman with Christopher Reeves in it, yet you don't call it a "remake"? It was a remake of a remake of a remake of a remake going by what you're saying. I guess I don't see where you're coming from when everything mentioned so far was a "remake" of another version of it at one time or another. Big screen adaptions (or even television adaptions) of source material aren't remakes in my book.

To me, a remake is "King Kong" or "War of The Worlds" or something like that.

As far as the whole "Land of the Lost" thing, that's not a remake so much as it is a big screen adaption. But, in the case of LOTL, it's a farce. I don't like when they change the whole concept. i.e. A dramatic title gets played for laughs.

But when you take a cop drama like Starsky & Hutch and turn it into a comedy, you've broken the rule.There have got to be writers out there who can keep the spirit of the original series and make a successful movie, but instead they take the easy way out and go for filler and cheap humor.

I agree with you here.

It doesn't take a lot of talent to do that. What does take talent, true talent, is coming up w/ your own idea, something no one has dreamed of doing and making it into a reality. Original thinking is risky, but folks in the 70s were risk takers and that's why this stuff has fared so well. We need more .

Despite what not only you, but quite a few people seem to think, the 1970s weren't all that great. They were remaking things then, at least going by what seems to be defined as "remaking" in your post. I mean does the Star Trek animated series fall into the catagory of a remake? How about the Gilligan's Island animated incarnations: Were they remakes or just another play on the concept of seven stranded castaways? Or are they free from being called remakes if it's something you choose to like 'cause it's from the 70s and "retro" (and I don't neccessarily mean you as in Hardygirl, I mean you as in whoever picks and chooses what they call a remake.)

The 1970s had no more risk takers than any other decade. Just about everything around has it's origins from somewhere else. Star Wars originated in the Saturday morning serials. Mego created it's first action figure (Action Jackson) by seeing the success Hasbro had with GI Joe. They copied the idea from them. And even a "legendary" 70s band like KISS copied it's makeup idea from all of the mimes running around.

[HardyGirl]

I didn't say Superman wasn't a remake, I said the reason it did so well is b/c it stuck to the rules. Yes, that was a remake, and, I was referring to the cartoons being remade into live action movies.

And I don't care what other people think, the 70s were that great!

[huedell]

You can surely prefer the 70s or any other decade you like...

... but it is too true that every decades' entertainment has been derived in
some way or another from somewhere else---with varying degrees of
"stamps of originality"

I don't buy that today's standards are so awfully different than those of the past.

I mean, you can make the case that because of technological advances there's just
more mediocre stuff to wade through--- but you're going to find the SAME amount of
quality stuff....if not more. Yes, I'm pretty sure culture and art has not disintegrated
that rapidly in 40 years to eliminate the number of quality level of writers, directors, etc.
off the face of the Earth. I still see just as many brilliant movies in present day
as I have in decades past.

As far as "remakes by name"/"franchise reduxs go---in this day and age of
"entertainment overload" there's alot more direct revitalization of franchises
---and the results run the gamut.

----and I don't get too wrapped up in it all---its just entertainment
and humans are wired a certain way----to cater to that "wiring" you're bound to see
repititon (and familliarity) exploited into infinity----and that's not a bad thing---its a
human thing.

[apes3978]

However...here's the thing...about trying to make some movies that have a serious slant into parodies...and why it makes sense.

Doing this RETAINS the vibe of the original show without making it a straight period piece---the "period piece" being a thing which a huge section of the movie-going audience DOES NOT want to go see----and if you "update it to 2008"--well, then you've lost something ICONIC there that was in the original show...something that can be mined for comedy or, at least, quirkiness.

Please explain this better, as it makes no sense to me what-so-ever.

If you change the theme (i.e. drama, comedy, action, etc.) of an iconic show, how can you not be change the entire "vibe" the show had to begin with?

You're going to set there and tell me that by changing a dramatic show into a comedy that that won't change it's whole "vibe", and that it will retain whatever it had to begin with? I think not. By changing the content, you retain NOTHING the original had.

. I won't believe that it is the studio's intent to eliminate the old version of a given franchise---I mean, really ---it doesn't make any sense for them to do that---why settle for one version that rakes in cash when you can have two??

Well, believe what you want, but it's a fact that it happened at least once within "recent" history. FOX pretty much acted like the original series of APES films didn't "exist" because they only wanted the attention to be on their new "reimagined" version in 2001. Around the time of that thing coming out, there were some book about the classic APES series and the authors of those books were denied access to photos from the originals and things of that nature because FOX didn't want anything to compete with the "new" version. FOX did NOT want to compete with themselves!

. Finally, you said it yourself---the only "solid consistent quality" "serious" writing on LAND OF THE LOST took place in Season One--and then it spun off into goofier stuff--so ---really what constitutes what I---or anyone else remembers about the vibe of the show?

`
Hmm, funny I don't remember seeing that in my post. Please show me where I said that. I said that in the first season, it was a laid out very well and executed, and that David Gerrold had the connections to get top writers. I didn't say that was the only "solid, consistent quality, serious writing."

I clearly said that the second season also holds up very well. The only disparaging comments were about the third season. That season is where things got out of whack.

I can't speak for anyone in particular, but I'd guess that when most people think of the show, they think of Marshall, Will, and Holly on their routine expedition... I'd guess that the public at large that recalls watching the show won't even recall the third season. They're gonna remember The Marshalls, the Sleestaks, Enik, Chaka, the dinosaurs, etc. Those are the "icons" of that series and messing with them to turn them into an extended Saturday Night Live skit as a vehicle for Mr. Ferrell is just a bad idea.

[huedell]

In reply to apes3978...

Well, believe what you want, but it's a fact that it happened at least once within "recent" history. FOX pretty much acted like the original series of APES films didn't "exist" because they only wanted the attention to be on their new "reimagined" version in 2001. Around the time of that thing coming out, there were some book about the classic APES series and the authors of those books were denied access to photos from the originals and things of that nature because FOX didn't want anything to compete with the "new" version. FOX did NOT want to compete with themselves!

Sounds legit to me...altho' it swings the other way more often I'd say---I've always
heard about a resurgance of classic franchise merch around the time of a movie
remake...DVDs, books, shirts, etc. etc.

Hmm, funny I don't remember seeing that in my post. Please show me where I said that. I said that in the first season, it was a laid out very well and executed, and that David Gerrold had the connections to get top writers. I didn't say that was the only "solid, consistent quality, serious writing."

Is how I expressed what you said really that "funny"?

Apologies for taking some liscence--- but the simillarity between: "it was a laid out
very well and executed show" and "solid, consistent quality, serious writing." rings close
enough to me...and, yes, that was regarding the first season.

You said the second season also held up well?

Well it must not have been said as "clearly" as the other stuff---guess I'll go back
and re-read...but admittedly it IS why I used the word "consistent" originally---if that's
not the case---just substitute your original exact words---and you'll STILL get the end result of you
saying that half of the whole LOTL paltry 3 season run was shaky going on "out of whack".

You wanted me to explain the following:

Doing this (remaking a serious vintage show---that's obviously dated
in some fashion and making it into a light comedy) RETAINS the vibe of the original
show without making it a straight period piece---the "period piece" being a thing which
a huge section of the movie-going audience DOES NOT want to go see----and if
you "update it to 2008"--well, then you've lost something ICONIC there that was in the
original show...something that can be mined for comedy or, at least, quirkiness.

Your reply...

You're going to set there and tell me that by changing a dramatic show into a
comedy that that won't change it's whole "vibe", and that it will retain whatever it had
to begin with? I think not. By changing the content, you retain NOTHING the original had.

I'm going to say...fine..I misstepped using the word "vibe"---more a recognition---or
an attachment to iconic things within the series that helped define the series more than
the dramatic subgenre itself.

After all these years...what remains strong---and mine-able are the icons
(people, places things that define the show)...above all else....

and what you said here actually hurts my point a bit...

I'd guess that the public at large that recalls watching the show won't even
recall the third season. They're gonna remember The Marshalls, the Sleestaks, Enik,
Chaka, the dinosaurs, etc. Those are the "icons" of that series and messing with them
to turn them into an extended Saturday Night Live skit as a vehicle for Mr. Ferrell is just a bad idea.

Making something lighter in tone than darker sounds like a good enough idea to me
only IF you keep the iconic stuff people remember. If they are nixing the Marshalls,
and having no Sleestaks, Enik or Chaka...then I'm not so pleased with the direction...
but I'm willing to wait and see as I really like Will Ferrell and think that this will be
amusing at the very least.

And for those of you that severely love this show...and can't even handle hearing
about the movie and any substantial changes...I will admit---I felt the same way about
DUKES OF HAZZARD--- didn't even give the remake a chance----still haven't---but I knew
I always had my old Dukes episodes to cherish---I relished the (short)
resurgance---and because of that stuff (no offense) I did not complain about the
new movie to any lengthy degree unless someone straight up (in person) asked me
what I thought-
--and even then I said "Good for them."

Would I have done the project differently? Yep.
Would it have sold more tickets? Nah. And that's really what these guys are trying to do.

For the record I don't know what the box office reflected, but I thought the
STARSKY & HUTCH remake was ten times better than the POTA remake--
I just go for that kinda stuff.

Heck, if they woulda cast BEN STILLER and WILL FERELL as BO & LUKE DUKE I may have
changed my mind about going to see the dang thing!

[apes3978]

And for those of you that severely love this show...and can't even handle hearing about the movie and any substantial changes...I will admit---I felt the same way about DUKES OF HAZZARD--- didn't even give the remake a chance----still haven't---but I knew
I always had my old Dukes episodes to cherish---I relished the (short)
resurgance---and because of that stuff (no offense) I did not complain about the new movie to any lengthy degree unless someone straight up (in person) asked me what I thought---and even then I said "Good for them."

As far as the short resurgence of The Duke Of Hazzard, I don't think the film had anything to do with that at all... I'd say the fact that it was in reruns on CMT and things like that had way more to do with it. And, from what I understand, The Dukes are still going strong. There was just a Dukes-fest type of thing that attracted I believe over 6,000 people, so if conventions like that can draw that big of a crowd, I'd say that the Dukes will be around for quite awhile. (The film version not included, as that seems to be on the clasic Dukes fans s*** list.)

As far as the Land of the Lost project goes, the biggest reason I'm against it is because it IS going to be "played for laughs", which I can't see being good at all. I don't know how the others feel about it, but if they said they were going to do a Land of the Lost big-screen adaption that would be more dramatic and/or darker in tone than the original TV series, I'd see that.

And, as far as "complaining", I wouldn't say I'm complaining about it. I'm just flat out saying I don't like that they're going to try to reinvent the concept.Besides that, this board is the only place that has brought this subject up, so it's the only place I can even talk about it. Nobody I know of in "the real world" would even bother asking me what I think of the LOTL movie idea, so it's the MM that it gets discussed in.

Would I have done the project differently? Yep.
Would it have sold more tickets? Nah. And that's really what these guys are trying to do.

And, you know, maybe if the Dukes of Hazzard movie had kept it's "homespun" style in tact it would have sold more tickets. Die-hard fans of the series didn't like that they made the film "dirty" in spots and lost its family appeal because of that. Didn't the guy who played Cooter even rally the Dukes of Hazzard fans to NOT see the film due to it's racy over-tones?


And, to end this post, I have to say that you should cahnge your tag from "The Talkative Member" to "The Argumentative Member"

[huedell]

Actually apes---during this thread I have had more second thoughts than usual on my
original post(s) and I hope my more recent posts reflect that---if you consider me to
be "argumenative"---well, its how how ya slice it--I don't argue just to argue---I'm not
on EVERY thread debating everything---just things I disagree on or am inspired to
debate.

My thoughts are: "If you don't want to argue/debate...then, simply, don't do it."

I apologize if the word "complain" (re: towards remakes) is an offense in any way---but
I handle things like this differently, even though I FEEL quite the same as you--as I
described above using the DUKES remake as an example...so I just describe it THAT way

As far as how the DUKES fans and cast members (Cooter etc,) reacted to the remake--
-well, they reflect much the same views you have---it doesn't mean I particularly agree
with them...I can't say much more as I never bothered seeing the DUKES movie...
I WILL say that making it more "homespun" and "less racy" probably would have hurt the
movie more than helped it (it was a new movie for a new generation)

[apes3978]

Actually apes---during this thread I have had more second thoughts than usual on my original post(s) and I hope my more recent posts reflect that---if you consider me to be "argumenative"---well, its how how ya slice it--I don't argue just to argue---I'm not on EVERY thread debating everything---just things I disagree on or am inspired to debate.

The "argumentative" comment was said in jest. Nothing to take seriously.

(Although in some other threads, I have seen you on the rampage like a mad pitbull with rabies. JK)