Someone stop the insanity!!!

[Jdaniels]

Its bad enough that Hollywood must remake venerable classics, but has times really gotten this bad that they must resort to this?

First it was:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093507/

Now this:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0427340/

Past bad movies need to be left alone to wither and die. Not be resurrected.
JD

[SPZ]

Angelina Jolie as She-ra, and all is forgiven.

[Tlalconetl]

This puts the Horr in Horrible. Studios just don't want to invest in new material--they're so scared to lose money and so greedy to make more, so they play it safe and produce re-makes.

[DeSica]

Wasn't the original cartoon a vehicle to sell dolls and toys? Ditto for Care Bears and Strawberry Shortacke?

Do they still make Masters Of The Universe toys, or are they planning to re-launch the dolls once the film is released?

[David Jimerson]

It doesn't really matter that the cartoon was made to sell MOTU figures. All of television was developed to move product.

If it appeals to people who watched the cartoon as kids, it could make money, because they've got lots of money now. But if it doesn't, then it'll die the wretched horrible death it deserves.

My bigger beef is with culture in general. Every aspect of it stopped innovating about 15 years ago, and has since either been stuck in neutral or it glories in the past.

[DeSica]

It doesn't really matter that the cartoon was made to sell MOTU figures. All of television was developed to move product.

If it appeals to people who watched the cartoon as kids, it could make money, because they've got lots of money now. But if it doesn't, then it'll die the wretched horrible death it deserves.

My bigger beef is with culture in general. Every aspect of it stopped innovating about 15 years ago, and has since either been stuck in neutral or it glories in the past.

Yes, the box in the corner's sole purpose is to funnel ads into our homes. What I was talking about was a marketing thing in the 1980's that made the entire show the commerical. This was huge back then, and successful.

Since we vote with our dollars, don't we, as the movie going/consumer public, often get what we ask for, and therefore deserve?

People are always complaining that there is nothing but crap in theatres, for instance, yet they line up to pay and see junk. What other message is the studio suppsoed to get than 'keep making junk?'

[David Jimerson]

Well, there were those who complained that all this digital technology was supposed to "democratize" filmmaking, but instead it simply filed YouTube with millions of hours of unwatchable crap.

But, that's democracy.

[SPZ]

double post, sorry

[SPZ]

Well, there were those who complained that all this digital technology was supposed to "democratize" filmmaking, but instead it simply filed YouTube with millions of hours of unwatchable crap.

But, that's democracy.

But in a million bad attempts, maybe 20 are interesting. And those 20 wouldn't be possible without the Digital Revolution, don't you think?

And we are evolving. We look at the past with nostalgia, and nostalgia is a feeling many of us relate to. Transformers is a "grown up" kids movie- who would feel good while listening to "Autobots, Roll Out"? The 80'ies kids, now in their mid twenties or early thirties. Masters of the Universe is for this generation, too.

We also got the Matrix, an interesting franchise, the Lord of The Rings, 300, Harry Potter, Sixth Sense, Unbreakable, The Village, AI, etc. Etc. Every year there is something new coming in blockbuster entertainment, and also a lot of crap. That's how things are...

I would assume that this movie would work with a 300'ish look, with very stilistic backgrounds (green screened) and brutal fighting. A "Conan" vs "Army of Darkness" vs "300" kind of approach. Please no "Superman Returns" Clark Kent persona exageration (Prince Adam) for He-Man...

But I still would like to see Jolie as She-ra :)

[Jdaniels]

Since we vote with our dollars, don't we, as the movie going/consumer public, often get what we ask for, and therefore deserve?


But who in the viewing public is even asking for this dreck to be reintroduced? I for one sure didnt ask for he-man to show up again.
I caught 15 minutes of the first one that was showing on the late late late late early movie on tv. Turned it off, it was so bad.

The next one, i cant see it being done any better, certainly cant get any worse... Ill pass

JD

[David Jimerson]

But in a million bad attempts, maybe 20 are interesting. And those 20 wouldn't be possible without the Digital Revolution, don't you think?

I never would have expected any more than 20 out of a million . . . but apparently, it comes as a shock to others.

[SPZ]

I never would have expected any more than 20 out of a million . . . but apparently, it comes as a shock to others.

Indeed... That's why real talent is so rare...Real Talent is not only raw, creative genius, but the capacity of putting that genious in something viewable. That requires very hard work. Hard WOrk without talent can give you a piece of crap, Talent without hard work, well, brings you nothing.

Youtube and the likes gave a new exciting window for new talent to come up to the table. Its a good window to show unique creative ideas. The digital revolution gave a chance for individuals to express beyond the boundaries of the broadcast/ film industry. It has pushed for them to evolve.

Nowadays, more and more quality shows come on TV. I believe the Digital Revolution has a big part in that.

I'm not a pessimist in this, David. I believe that the DIgital Revolution gave us the chance to avoid having to spend years assistant producing or directing, or running in TV Stations and Big Production houses. Nowadays, if you got the talent, have a group of passionate people, you can make something that can stand a chance in the market, and have a broad audience. (I'm not saying an internship in these places is not a good thing, far from it. But you don't have to spend years to get a chance to do something. You do not need to put up with attitudes, with social politics inside these institutions, or scratching "big guys" backs, etc. You can just learn, and if they don't give you a chance, do it yourself. You don't have to be cousin, nephew, relative of someone "inside" in order to at least have a chance. EDIT- or a billionaire..)

[DeSica]

But who in the viewing public is even asking for this dreck to be reintroduced? I for one sure didnt ask for he-man to show up again.
I caught 15 minutes of the first one that was showing on the late late late late early movie on tv. Turned it off, it was so bad.

The next one, i cant see it being done any better, certainly cant get any worse... Ill pass

JD

I think their angle is that some of us were kids who watched the popular show back then, and bought the toys, so we may now check it out. Toss in the new generation of kids, some of whom will be taken to see it by parents, or whatever...and you have "instant audience."

Star Wars made the toy marketing angle huge in film business, and now you see many studios try and milk it.

[TwistedLincoln]

I'm sure I'm gonna get blasted for this, but I for one would love to see a new MOTU movie. The first one with Lundgren was pretty horrable, but there's all sorts of possibilities these days...

[Kirk Gillock]

Phew! When I saw this topic title I thought Hollywood was making a Susan Powter bio pic.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2006/healthy.bodies/interactive/timeline.fad.diets/14.1993.powter.jpg

Which, coincidentally, would be the only thing worse than another MOTU. lol :)

[Jack_Felis]

Actually, I liked the first movie with Dolph. It was campy fun and really, the Skeletor makeup was pretty close to being spot-on and freaked me out as a kid. The rest of the movie may have been less than expected for Masters of the Universe, but hey, it was a good B-movie in the end anyway.

I too wonder how people will take to a modern He-man movie. They've got to do it justice and not cut corners at all to even give it a chance. Transformers technically didn't cut corners, even though we didn't get to the good true Transformers stuff we all wanted until the end of the movie, and it still made a ton so who knows!?:undecided

[tmnt]

Right on Jack. I think people forget that watching a 1987 movie in the year 2007 is different to watching it at the time of release, movies date.

Can't say i'm a fan of remakes in general though.

And yes, there is a new line of MOTU figures (if I see turtles or he-man etc at the supermarket I usually have to buy one) released about 3 years ago.

[David Jimerson]

The problem with the original MOTU movie was bringing them into "our" world. That was a serious cop-out.

[tmnt]

Yeah guess it wasn't in the budget. That's what we'll get with the new movie hopefully, we'll be in the MOTU universe.

Courteney Cox's still hot by the way casting people...

[mjjason]

It doesn't really matter that the cartoon was made to sell MOTU figures. All of television was developed to move product.

If it appeals to people who watched the cartoon as kids, it could make money, because they've got lots of money now. But if it doesn't, then it'll die the wretched horrible death it deserves.

My bigger beef is with culture in general. Every aspect of it stopped innovating about 15 years ago, and has since either been stuck in neutral or it glories in the past.

I just made the same exact comment to a friend of mine the other day. Its like the whole world stopped being innovative and just focused on retro.

Its down to the fact that the marketing machine has become much more efficient and broad. They have so many more avenues to get at people that people, for the most part, are no longer creating things but merely being told what to accept. Fashion is the biggest example of this. The whole retro look started around the late 90s. Suddenly people were re-living past cultural styles instead of creating new ones.

That then carried over into the music industry where there are very few good bands out there today. And last, but not least, the movie industry has fallen into this funk.

[snodart]

I think their angle is that some of us were kids who watched the popular show back then, and bought the toys, so we may now check it out. Toss in the new generation of kids, some of whom will be taken to see it by parents, or whatever...and you have "instant audience."

That's my take on it. It is a smart business move. Make a movie about something that a good majority of the now 25-35 population watched (or at least saw) as kids. A good portion of this generation have kids now. They see the movie with their kids... hey look, they have the toys at Target too... etc = $$.

I don't have a beef with it all, but it does get old. I do have a beef with the idiot parents that take their little kids to some of these movies (ie: transformers). Anyway...

Technology precedes art in many cases. I would be willing to bet that once people get over the ohhh and ahhh of how great the cinematic and 3D technology looks today, then we might start seeing some more creative quality (at least for a while). Then again, things like youtube (and the quality) might slow this process down... as people get used to the idea of being entertained by low quality footage. Who knows...

To heck with it. Give me art!!!

[cecil995]

It doesn't really matter that the cartoon was made to sell MOTU figures. All of television was developed to move product.

If it appeals to people who watched the cartoon as kids, it could make money, because they've got lots of money now. But if it doesn't, then it'll die the wretched horrible death it deserves.

My bigger beef is with culture in general. Every aspect of it stopped innovating about 15 years ago, and has since either been stuck in neutral or it glories in the past.

I competly agree. As far as I am concerned, true innovation stopped right around 1995....when it comes to movies, music, tv.....ect. Seinfeld and Friends were really the last great sitcoms to come tv, Rock hit a peak in the early 90's with the seattle movement, people like Biggie, 2pac and Nas made the last of the "rap with a message" music, and movies such as The Usual Suspects were really the last "original" ideas to be made.

Personally, I was a fan of He Man back in the day and I had many of the toys. But, it was not nearly as cool as transformers, gi joe, or voltron, so I can't imagine it having any kind of real success today.

[DeSica]

It will be interesting to see how this particular 'era' of filmmaking will be judged in the future. It does seem rather flat and uninspired, as does most of North American popular culture, I suppose, but how will it be seen from afar?

We have to remember that much of what we view as classic examples of film did indeed borrow from something earlier, like radio, or from the stage....even vaudeville, but I do feel that the last 10-20 years have been filled with rehashed crap and over-extended sequels. (What, 5 American Pies? How many Lethal Weapons?)

We have heard of the 'Golden Age' of cinema, and so forth....is this the nickle plated age?

[SPZ]

You're being a bit harsh with modern cinema, there...

There are some true masterpieces beyond the nineties. Maybe not from Hollywood, but they are there: Directors Like Bazz Uhlrmann, Wong Kar Wai, Kusturica, Shyamalan, Roberto Begnini, Lars Von Trier, SPike Lee, and even veterans like Oliver Stone and Scorcese have contributed to a very interesting end of XXth century and beginning of the XXIst in cinema.

[MattinSTL]

There are several factors at work here... about movies, music, and pop culture in general. Everything that used to be art has devolved into chasing the $10 in your pocket.

A term became popular in the last decade; "The Silent Majority". The simple fact is that there is a more accurate term for society; "The Stupid Majority".

When I hear words like "evolution" used to describe the direction of entertainment, and pop culture in general... I want to puke. It is the OPPOSITE of evolution... because there is no struggle for deeper ideas and appeal to a more sophisticated audience... the struggle is for your $8.50... which EVERY IDIOT has at his/her disposal, and this results in an endless onslaught of stupidity because it's a safe investment... to aim for the center of the stupid majority.

The real evolution happens when somebody creates for everybody... OR creates something that people have to learn to appreciate. Cinema Verite' is a concept that came about through some revolutionary thinkers... now we all do it.

Unfortunately you have to face the fact that the viewing public as a whole isn't sophisticated... so you have to present intelligent ideas in a puddle of fat or they won't eat it... and producers realize you don't need anything but the fat anyway if the point is to make money.

Also don't forget that just as YOU don't want to be judged as one of the stupid majority, even though you may find yourself in the center of that crowd for some movies... there are still good movies that have come along... and you shouldn't say that the entire era has been worthless just because the fat content has been so high overall... that trend will NEVER go away... it's up to you to separate the sophistication from the fat. When the sign says "Old Country Buffet" don't go in.

[SPZ]

There are several factors at work here... about movies, music, and pop culture in general. Everything that used to be art has devolved into chasing the $10 in your pocket.

A term became popular in the last decade; "The Silent Majority". The simple fact is that there is a more accurate term for society; "The Stupid Majority".

When I hear words like "evolution" used to describe the direction of entertainment, and pop culture in general... I want to puke. It is the OPPOSITE of evolution... because there is no struggle for deeper ideas and appeal to a more sophisticated audience... the struggle is for your $8.50... which EVERY IDIOT has at his/her disposal, and this results in an endless onslaught of stupidity because it's a safe investment... to aim for the center of the stupid majority.

The real evolution happens when somebody creates for everybody... OR creates something that people have to learn to appreciate. Cinema Verite' is a concept that came about through some revolutionary thinkers... now we all do it.

Unfortunately you have to face the fact that the viewing public as a whole isn't sophisticated... so you have to present intelligent ideas in a puddle of fat or they won't eat it... and producers realize you don't need anything but the fat anyway if the point is to make money.

Also don't forget that just as YOU don't want to be judged as one of the stupid majority, even though you may find yourself in the center of that crowd for some movies... there are still good movies that have come along... and you shouldn't say that the entire era has been worthless just because the fat content has been so high overall... that trend will NEVER go away... it's up to you to separate the sophistication from the fat. When the sign says "Old Country Buffet" don't go in.

As a filmmaker, I want to tell stories. I don't see misself as an artist, in a sense of a Michaelangelo, or a Picasso. I see myself as a storyteller. Others may see themselves as something different. Others might try to use the big screen has teir canvas to paint an abstract world.

For me, and that's probably very limiting for me, I can only see me pushing for a way to tell stories that I think are relevant... They end up having personal themes- things that I care about. Things that i want to share. Sometimes, its disturbing and at the same time fascinating the unique things the world around me presents. And I would like people to experience how I feel, to think about certain things, or to simply enjoy this journey trough my vision. And I want just not to show this to a very few group of people that already think like me, or feel like me. That would be the easy route.

that's why I admire filmmakers that make films that appeal to a broad audience, but at the same time, are either personal, or have something deep or important to say, at least for the filmmaker.

V for Vendetta, for example, or The Matrix. No artistic masterpiece, but entertaining blockbusters with something to say.

Life is Beautiful, a very personal story told in such a beautiful, unique way- always entertaining

Now are these movies art? Are they timeless?

These movies are the voice of the filmmakers. Is their voice valid? Time is the judge. languages have died troughout time as we evolved trough history. There's no better language, just the language we end up using along the way. Movies are, in a certain way, languages, just like art. Shouts from individuals that mark time- some end up timeless...others, disappear.

Will we continue to see great films coming up? Definetly. Will the movies considered the best, nowadays, praised by critics, be the timeless movies that will define the decade? Maybe not.

What are the songs they teach you in school or everyone knows and have been passed on trough time? Of course, some classsical compositions like beethoven or mozart, but there are always popular folk songs that stand the test of time...

Bottom line: There can be a historically relevant and timeless movie in a blockbuster summer movie that can stand the test of time, as there can be a timeless movie in a critically acclaimed, boundaries pushing avant garde film. Both are equally relevant.

[MattinSTL]

So you're putting The Matrix and the he-man movie in the same category?

I'm not... I loved The Matrix.

Who knows... maybe the he-man movie will be good... my post was a reply to the opening post and a couple that followed.

[SPZ]

So you're putting The Matrix and the he-man movie in the same category?

I'm not... I loved The Matrix.

Who knows... maybe the he-man movie will be good... my post was a reply to the opening post and a couple that followed.

No! Just wanted to stop the bashing on "blockbuster broad appealing movies" in general...

Question for the He-Man movie... Who's directing? The Matrix directors are doing Speed Racer... I wouldn't be expecting anything from this movie untill I knew they were directing...What do they want to say with this movie?

What if Michel Grondy did " He-man"? Or Von Trier?

[David Jimerson]

After what the Wachowskis did to "V for Vendetta," their association with any adaption is suspect in my mind.

[Sad Max]

My bigger beef is with culture in general. Every aspect of it stopped innovating about 15 years ago, and has since either been stuck in neutral or it glories in the past.

I have this feeling that that's a sign of a society on the way downhill. What do you see, toward the lowest points of many a Great Empire? Derivative, bowdlerized crap passing for entertainment, and as art.

Maybe it doesn't really have any sweeping paranoid freaky significance, but unoriginal dumbed-down-for-purposes-of-marketing large-budget homogenized entertainment product, seems like a bad and stultifying thing, all by itself.

[Sad Max]

I'm sure I'm gonna get blasted for this, but I for one would love to see a new MOTU movie. The first one with Lundgren was pretty horrable, but there's all sorts of possibilities these days...

I'll draw some of the fire off you by allowing as there were actually a few moments in the Lundgren MOTU movie, that I found memorable.

[SPZ]

I see globalization as the biggest step "forward" in culture nowadays. Its making traditions from different places that were phisically impossible to influence themselves now merging. We are getting to a point of cultural convergence. That's why there's such a big identity crisis in the World. This talk about "the crusades"and "Holy Wars" is the result of this globalizing World. Its old local traditions fighting the agressiveness of this all conquering "global corporate culture".

Its an interesting debate, no doubt.

[David Jimerson]

I have this feeling that that's a sign of a society on the way downhill. What do you see, toward the lowest points of many a Great Empire? Derivative, bowdlerized crap passing for entertainment, and as art.

Maybe it doesn't really have any sweeping paranoid freaky significance, but unoriginal dumbed-down-for-purposes-of-marketing large-budget homogenized entertainment product, seems like a bad and stultifying thing, all by itself.

It was always dumbed down. It just used to be easier to tell the styles from different decades (or even parts of decades) apart.

And it's not just in this country.

[Sad Max]

Ah, everything was *always* crap.

I feel much better, now.

[David Jimerson]

That's the definition of "popular culture," dude. :)

[DeSica]

Seinfeld and Friends were really the last great sitcoms to come tv,

Friends? Sorry, buddy, but that show does not hold a candle to Seinfeld. It wasn't even original, since it was basically a rip-off of Living Single.

If it wasn't for people waiting to see Seinfeld at 9pm, that show wouldn't have lasted as long as it did. Once Jerry and his pals packed it up, people were so conditioned to watching it, that it just coasted along.

Ever catch Arrested Development? Now there was a great sitcom, and it was a recent one. The sad thing is that it was outlasted by stuff like American Idol and According to Jim.

[Sad Max]

Arrested Development was just brilliant.

Which is possibly why it didn't last.

[MattinSTL]

Arrested Development is my favorite show of all time. In the last season they pushed a couple things beyond funny... which sucked (like mom "using" the fake hand... ahem... that was a bit much)... but overall that show is on it's own level. I almost never buy DVDs and I bought that entire series TWICE... I lend out copies and I have my own that don't leave the house. I sometimes want to send a letter of admiration to Mitch for the brilliant writing... but I figure that's stupid because who am I?

But anytime I hear somebody mention AD I figure that person has got to be pretty smart... because you can't watch that show with half a brain or you won't catch even half of the humor.

[David Jimerson]

Friends? Sorry, buddy, but that show does not hold a candle to Seinfeld. It wasn't even original, since it was basically a rip-off of Living Single.

If it wasn't for people waiting to see Seinfeld at 9pm, that show wouldn't have lasted as long as it did. Once Jerry and his pals packed it up, people were so conditioned to watching it, that it just coasted along.

"Coasted along" . . . for six more years? 60% of its run?

I think you may be overstating your case.

[cecil995]

Friends? Sorry, buddy, but that show does not hold a candle to Seinfeld. It wasn't even original, since it was basically a rip-off of Living Single.

If it wasn't for people waiting to see Seinfeld at 9pm, that show wouldn't have lasted as long as it did. Once Jerry and his pals packed it up, people were so conditioned to watching it, that it just coasted along.

Ever catch Arrested Development? Now there was a great sitcom, and it was a recent one. The sad thing is that it was outlasted by stuff like American Idol and According to Jim.


I guess with that logic Friends is also a rip-off of Three's Company as well. What made Friends unique was having 6 main roles, and the fact that it went 10 years is a testament to how people got attatched to these characters.

I think this argument is more relating to creative thinking that trandsends pop culture. Arrested Development was a great show, but it never had the cultural impact of a Seinfeld or a Friends. There are thousands of very innovative movies and shows that nobody knows about. What needs to happen is some creative idea to show up and change the way the masses approaches things, then that idea will get ripped off over and over till the next one comes along.

[Sad Max]

Three's Company is why I decided to move to Southern California.

Don't you go messing with Three's Company, now.

Every time I hear about 'the masses' I want to reach for my copy of Das Kapital...

[MattinSTL]

Friends had hot chicks and cute guys and a mix of comedy and soap opera type storylines... I wouldn't put Friends in the same category as Seinfeld either... and certainly no where near Arrested Development. The reason AD didn't have the cultural impact of these other shows ties directly into the whole subject of these last few pages. 90% of the viewing public couldn't follow it and didn't get the jokes.

Nobody admits when they don't get jokes... they only say that it's not funny. In Friends you would have to be in a vegetative state to miss the jokes. If AD had a laugh track it probably would have done better among the masses. <that is truth and sarcasm simultaneously.

[DeSica]

"Coasted along" . . . for six more years? 60% of its run?

I think you may be overstating your case.

Nope, not at all. NBC had very little to offer on Thursday nights, so Friends ended up being an important show for them. Jesse was an absolute piece of junk, and it lasted two seasons, due in part to the network trying to build up Thursdays again.

Jason Alexander was on Charlie Rose one day, and he spoke of how NBC was going crazy, trying to solidify it's sitcom base. He mentioned how they had signed the leads from Mad About You for a million bucks each per episode, and questioned if it was worth it, since the show wasn't even top ten in the ratings. This was just after the standoff over residuals. Alexander thought NBC had screwed up by giving him, Richards, and Louis-Dreyfus the ridiculous salaries they asked for instead of a piece of the syndication, and that they opened the door for all kinds of inflated contracts. In the end, NBC was right. They overpaid a few people, but Seinfeld has been a cash cow in reruns, and draws more viewers than some first run shows.

I'm not saying Friends wasn't popular....I'm saying it wasn't great. Wasn't Frasier a superior show? It lasted a long time, beat out Seinfeld for emmys, and was well received by critics.

Arrested Developement was genius.

[David Jimerson]

What you said is that Friends "coasted along," implying that the only reason anyone watched it was because it was on the same night as Seinfeld. It was consistently a top-rated sitcom for its entire run (and continues to do extremely well in syndication), with or without Seinfeld. That's not "coasting."

Were there superior shows? Absolutely. Frasier was indeed one of them (and proof that you don't have to be rude or crass to be side-splittingly funny). But you're being a little too dismissive of how popular Friends was.

[DeSica]

I guess with that logic Friends is also a rip-off of Three's Company as well.

I don't see how.


What made Friends unique was having 6 main roles,No...that was part of what they took from Living Single. That is one of the things that made it derivative. They lifted the concept and "whitened" it up. This was discussed in the media quite a bit at the time.

Having a monkey named Marcel on the show did more to make it unique. What it did for the quality of the show is another matter.


and the fact that it went 10 years is a testament to how people got attatched to these characters. Yup...and how empty the creative vault at NBC was. Kramer was right when he told Jerry that (paraphrsing) "people will watch it because it's on tv."


What needs to happen is some creative idea to show up and change the way the masses approaches things, then that idea will get ripped off over and over till the next one comes along.Perhaps...but Friends isn't one of those shows.

I knew when I originally typed 'coasted' that someone, somewhere, was going to have issue with that statement. What I was getting at was that by the time Seinfeld ended, Friends had a solid fan base, and it used that momentum to continue along. The show never was really that good to begin with, it didn't really get any better, and it didn't really innovate in any way. It was just more of the same, sans simian.

Once again...yes, Friends was a popular show. Pound for pound, it may be the most popular show ever, since it was light on content and heavy on popularity. It was nowhere near great.

I think the word I am searching for in describing Friends is 'overrated'.