60 replies to this topic

[DLibrasnow]

In our office today we were talking about how Hollywood is bankrupt for fresh ideas...Just look at the movies this past summer:

1. The Italian Job - Remake
2. Tomb Raider - Video game & Sequel
3. League of Extraordinary Gentleman - Graphic Novel
4. X2 - Sequel
5. Hulk - Comic strip
6. Charlie's Angels - T.V. show & Sequel
7. Terminator 3 - Sequel
8. Matrix Reloaded - Sequel.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by Xenobia

You know what...if he stays clean, and loosens up, RDJ wouldn't be a bad choice.  He is a natural chamelon and can play any role.

You know, the more I think about it the more I'm convinced that Robert Downey, Jr. would be an excellent choice for Magnum.

[Tarl_Cabot]

Thomas Jane could pull it off....He does wear a mustache well too...I'd support that 100%.

[Triton]

Originally posted by DLibrasnow
In our office today we were talking about how Hollywood is bankrupt for fresh ideas...Just look at the movies this past summer:

1. The Italian Job - Remake  
2. Tomb Raider - Video game & Sequel
3. League of Extraordinary Gentleman - Graphic Novel
4. X2 - Sequel
5. Hulk - Comic strip
6. Charlie's Angels - T.V. show & Sequel
7. Terminator 3 - Sequel
8. Matrix Reloaded - Sequel.

I really don't know if they are bankrupt of ideas or if they really have a powerful aversion to risk. Making totally fresh and new content is an expensive and risky proposition. It also seems like the movie product today is made by a bunch of marketing and other business people instead of show people. They don't really want to entertain an audience or tell a story as much as they want to appeal to market segments according to marketing surveys and demographics. They also seem to be more interested in product placement, joint marketing agreements, and movie-tie products to be manufactured by other divisions of the company.

It seems that most films today are made from "properties", a word I hate that must have been coined by a marketing person, that were a success in another medium, such as comics, books, or games, or are based on previous hit television shows or movies.

The real problem with Hollywood movies is that there is too much commerce and not enough art.

[Jaelle]

Originally posted by Triton
I really don't know if they are bankrupt of ideas or if they really have a powerful aversion to risk. Making totally fresh and new content is an expensive and risky proposition. It also seems like the movie product today is made by a bunch of marketing and other business people instead of show people. They don't really want to entertain an audience or tell a story as much as they want to appeal to market segments according to marketing surveys and demographics. They also seem to be more interested in product placement,  joint marketing agreements, and movie-tie products to be manufactured by other divisions of the company.
It seems that most films today are made from "properties", a word I hate that must have been coined by a marketing person, that were a success in another medium, such as comics, books, or games, or are based on previous hit television shows or movies.
The real problem with Hollywood movies is that there is too much commerce and not enough art.

Cubby Broccoli in his biography laments the changes in filmmaking in Hollywood throughout the 80s and into the 90s, the studio mergers and buyouts, the takeover by corporations and young beancounters who know nothing about making good films (or any films). He mentions the difference of what the old moguls used to call "picture money" and "Wall Street money." The former refers to revenue the studios got from making successful films that could be used to make more films. It was money that a studio had generated thru its own commitment and risk-taking to making a good film. Whereas the other kind of money was the kind studios borrowed from Wall Street to make films -- money that came with strings attached and that inevitably resulted in more homogenous, corporate films. Cubby says that more and more films are being made with Wall Street money, not "picture money."

DiL's list of the summer films reminds me of the reliance on remakes in the mid-late 50s. They mined a lot of storylines from the 20s, 30s and 40s and made inferior copies. That too was a period when the studios were flailing around to regain lost ground, competing with the increasing power of TV and declining revenues.

The old moguls, including independents like Broccoli and Saltzman, were not pleasant men. Many of them, like Jack Warner, were outright monsters. (Warner made Louis B. Mayer look like Santa Claus). They were businessmen who wanted to get rich. But they also loved movies, and were willing to take risks that today's studios run by visionless CEOs never would. And the market is such that today studios really do lose money with risky films, no matter how good they are. Remember that the old studios used to churn out hundreds of films a year, that's not the case anymore. Plus the massive salaries demanded by A-list stars (for very mediocre work) doesn't help any. Sorry, but Harrison Ford mailing in his performances for his guaranteed $25 million per picture every couple of years doesn't help the industry's creative fortunes very much.

A case like The Lord of the Rings is a rarity -- New Line was willing to take a huge risk with Jackson and his 3 films. I will forever be grateful to them for that.

And kudos to Loomis for coming up with Robert Downey, Jr. as a candidate for Magnum. I love Downey -- he'd be excellent. Tho I do love Tom Selleck (I still think Monica should've stayed with him in Friends, much as I adore Chandler -- that's Chandler played by Matthew Perry!)

[Tarl_Cabot]

And kudos to Loomis for coming up with Robert Downey, Jr. as a candidate for Magnum. I love Downey -- he'd be excellent. Tho I do love Tom Selleck"

sorry Jaelle but that's horrible choice-that's like Mathew Perry as 007. I think this movie is a terrible idea.There is no choice. Magnum was mined dry...it was on for 9 years!!!They got everything they could get out of those characters.I loved the show dearly but when it ended it was time. A new Magnum film would feature kung fu-CGI action aimed at younger MTV reared audiences crap.The show's appeal was it was the ultimate early to mid 80's show, followed by Miami Vice. H-wood is desperately bereft beyond belief.

[Tarl_Cabot]

I loved Magnum.I had a friend who's dad owned one of the Magnum Ferraris used on the show. I was green with envy."-Me

I meant one of the *actual* Ferraris from Magnum PI. My friend's dad lived in hawaii for a few years and bought one from the producers since they had several for use on the show.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by Tarl_Cabot

And kudos to Loomis for coming up with Robert Downey, Jr. as a candidate for Magnum. I love Downey -- he'd be excellent. Tho I do love Tom Selleck"

sorry Jaelle but that's horrible choice-that's like Mathew Perry as 007.  

You don't like Downey, Tarl? How about Ray Liotta (though he's getting on in years now)? Nah, Downey's still my number one choice. Who would you cast as Magnum, if you had to cast someone?

And what does everyone think of Stephen Fry as Higgins? Too OTT? Who else could do it? Michael Caine? Alan Rickman? Connery? The character's a Brit, right? (I'm not too familiar with "Magnum").

[Tarl_Cabot]

I think it's just a role that Tom Selleck made his own. He was once up for Indy Jones but lost out. I can't see anyone else play Indy but Harrison Ford and Magnum is the same.H-wwod should do something new! :mad:

[Triton]

Thinking of Higgins, I am reminded of the actor John Hillerman who portrayed him. John Hillerman was a native Texan who spent several years taking elocution lessons to get rid of his accent. He thought that it was quite humorous that his greatest success came from playing a Brit. Do people in the United Kingdom think he did a convincing job?

[Triton]

Originally posted by Jaelle


Cubby Broccoli in his biography laments the changes in filmmaking in Hollywood throughout the 80s and into the 90s, the studio mergers and buyouts, the takeover by corporations and young beancounters who know nothing about making good films (or any films).  He mentions the difference of what the old moguls used to call "picture money" and "Wall Street money."  The former refers to revenue the studios got from making successful films that could be used to make more films.  It was money that a studio had generated thru its own commitment and risk-taking to making a good film.  Whereas the other kind of money was the kind studios borrowed from Wall Street to make films -- money that came with strings attached and that inevitably resulted in more homogenous, corporate films.  Cubby says that more and more films are being made with Wall Street money, not "picture money."

DiL's list of the summer films reminds me of the reliance on remakes in the mid-late 50s.  They mined a lot of storylines from the 20s, 30s and 40s and made inferior copies.  That too was a period when the studios were flailing around to regain lost ground, competing with the increasing power of TV and declining revenues.

The old moguls, including independents like Broccoli and Saltzman, were not pleasant men.  Many of them, like Jack Warner, were outright monsters.  (Warner made Louis B. Mayer look like Santa Claus).  They were businessmen who wanted to get rich.  But they also loved movies, and were willing to take risks that today's studios run by visionless CEOs never would.  And the market is such that today studios really do lose money with risky films, no matter how good they are.  Remember that the old studios used to churn out hundreds of films a year, that's not the case anymore.  Plus the massive salaries demanded by A-list stars (for very mediocre work) doesn't help any.  Sorry, but Harrison Ford mailing in his performances for his guaranteed $25 million per picture every couple of years doesn't help the industry's creative fortunes very much.

A case like The Lord of the Rings is a rarity -- New Line was willing to take a huge risk with Jackson and his 3 films.  I will forever be grateful to them for that.

And kudos to Loomis for coming up with Robert Downey, Jr. as a candidate for Magnum.  I love Downey -- he'd be excellent.  Tho I do love Tom Selleck (I still think Monica should've stayed with him in Friends, much as I adore Chandler -- that's Chandler played by Matthew Perry!)

Thanks Jaelle for providing us with Albert Broccoli's insights into the new Hollywood. But your example of The Lord of the Rings trilogy further proves my original point. The books have been best sellers for decades and have spawned many successful companion products like calendars and games for years. The BBC also produced a very successful dramatization of the books for radio. I think that New Line was very confident that they would recoup their monies spent making and promoting the motion pictures. I don't think that New Line would have taken a chance with a big budget fantasy trilogy from an largely unknown author.

[DLibrasnow]

Originally posted by Tarl_Cabot

I meant one of the *actual* Ferraris from Magnum PI. My friend's dad lived in hawaii for a few years and bought one from the producers since they had several for use on the show.

Yeah, that's what I took you to mean!

[Tarl_Cabot]

Oh ok, cool. Anyway, I'm amazed how long this thread turned out...I think Magnum is logicaly popular amoung Bond fans. The show was glamorous and funny and had a hero who was cool, someone you'd like to be like...I really don't want to see a Magnum movie! :mad:

How about a new Saint show instead? :cool:

[DLibrasnow]

Originally posted by Tarl_Cabot

 
How about a new Saint show instead? :cool:

That's a topic certain to arouse emotion among Bond fans since I think a good majority of 007 fans are also Saint fans...

[Tarl_Cabot]

The Saint movie sucked so hard. That could have been a great film series. I think Hugh Grant would have been bitchin' as the Saint(not Bond though).

[Loomis]

Originally posted by Triton

Thinking of Higgins, I am reminded of the actor John Hillerman who portrayed him.  John Hillerman was a native Texan who spent several years taking elocution lessons to get rid of his accent. He thought that it was quite humorous that his greatest success came from playing a Brit. Do people in the United Kingdom think he did a convincing job?  

I always assumed Hillerman was an English actor based in Hollywood. I've seen him in small roles in a number of Hollywood films playing American characters, and assumed he was faking an American accent! I got quite a shock when I found out yesterday he was Texan. So, yes, this chap in the United Kingdom thinks he did a very, very convincing job indeed!

[Jaelle]

Originally posted by Triton
Thanks Jaelle for providing us with Albert Broccoli's insights into the new Hollywood. But your example of The Lord of the Rings trilogy further proves my original point.  The books have been best sellers for decades and have spawned many successful companion products like calendars and games for years. The BBC also produced a very successful dramatization of the books for radio. I think that New Line was very confident that they would recoup their monies spent making and promoting the motion pictures.  I don't think that New Line would have taken a chance with a big budget fantasy trilogy from an largely unknown author.

Much has been written of the enormous risk that New Line took in allowing Peter Jackson free reign all the way out in New Zealand (with almost no studio supervision) with a huge budget to make not one, not two, but *three* movies. It is now a commonly told story about how Jackson went around Hollywood for a couple of years desperately trying to find *someone* to finance just *one* LOTR film, and how he was ready to give up because he was turned away by everyone. Only at the last minute, thru a fluke encounter, did he get a meeting with the folks at New Line who thoroughly shocked him when they said that he could go ahead with not just one film, not two but *three* -- and with a very large budget. Jackson had never even thought of making more than one film. He thought it would be hard enuf to sell the idea of just one.

The Hollywood Reporter and Variety reported on how other studio execs thought the guys at New Line were nuts and that it was going to be the end of their business careers. Sequels are made once the first film proves successful -- no studio has *ever* committed itself to *two* sequels--filmed at the same time as the first film--before the first one even came out and proved its box office clout. New Line's huge investment could've set back the studio's fortunes for years.

The popularity of LOTR merchandise and its popularity among *readers* is unquestioned. But unlike comic heroes like The Hulk, Spiderman, Batman, or books like Harry Potter, LOTR was considered by the studio suits that Jackson met with as an old property, no longer relevant, much too complicated and dense, old fashioned, hokey, inaccessible to a teen audience. The guys at New Line were the only ones Jackson met with who found LOTR to be a viable source for profitable films.

BTW, Tarl, I agree that Tom Selleck is the one and only Magnum. But I can't help but like the idea of seeing what Downey would do with the role.

[DLibrasnow]

Wasn't there also talk of an "A-Team" movie??? Is that still going ahead?

[Triton]

Originally posted by Loomis


I always assumed Hillerman was an English actor based in Hollywood. I've seen him in small roles in a number of Hollywood films playing American characters, and assumed he was faking an American accent! I got quite a shock when I found out yesterday he was Texan. So, yes, this chap in the United Kingdom thinks he did a very, very convincing job indeed!

John Hillerman also played Howard Johnson in Blazing Saddles. He is the one who is talking about "Louis Pasteur in France has eliminated anthrax forever."

[Triton]

Originally posted by Tarl_Cabot
Oh ok, cool. Anyway, I'm amazed how long this thread turned out...I think Magnum is logicaly popular amoung Bond fans. The show was glamorous and funny and had a hero who was cool, someone you'd like to be like...I really don't want to see a Magnum movie! :mad:
 
How about a new Saint show instead? :cool:

I would like a new The Saint television show if the producers and "show master" understood who the character was and why fans liked him. We don't need Hollywood to grab a few character names such as Simon Templar and Inspector Claude Teal and then create an entirely different animal on the big screen.

Also, we don't need anything like the series of television films made in the late 1989 with Simon Dutton as Simon Templar.

I think the a new series should be a facsimile of the Roger Moore television series in the 1960s. Remember that "The Saint" first appeared in print in 1928, so I don't know how true we can be with the original literary character.

[Tarl_Cabot]

A period setting "Saint" film series would be awesome! :cool:

[Triton]

Originally posted by Tarl_Cabot
A period setting "Saint" film series would be awesome! :cool:

Which period are you referring to? 1920s or 30s or 1960s?

[Tarl_Cabot]

20'3 and 30's

[worchyld]

Originally posted by Tarl_Cabot  

I meant one of the *actual* Ferraris from Magnum PI. My friend's dad lived in hawaii for a few years and bought one from the producers since they had several for use on the show.  

I loved Magnum as a kid - mainly because of the Ferarri. Tell me, whenever I watched the show I always saw the alloys going backwards when the car was going forwards - did your friend's dad's Ferarri do that? Or is it just an optical illusion?

[Xenobia]

Avery Brooks! I love that name, how could I have forgotten it. And yes, I meant DSN. Sorry.

-- Xen

[DLibrasnow]

Originally posted by Tarl_Cabot
20'3 and 30's

I personally think they should take the character the way Roger Moore played him and simply place that character in the present day....I really don't think that would be a problem. Simon Templar is a character the could easily fit into todays world.

[Jim]

Lord, whatever next? A Remington Thingie film?

Don't answer that.

[DLibrasnow]

Originally posted by Jim
Lord, whatever next? A Remington Thingie film?

Don't answer that.

We all know you would love that Jim!!

[stromberg]

Originally posted by worchyld
... Tell me, whenever I watched the show I always saw the alloys going backwards when the car was going forwards - did your friend's dad's Ferarri do that? Or is it just an optical illusion?

That is an optical illusion, but is not Magnum-specific.
This is because films are shown with a rate of 24 or 25 pics per second (depending on the system), but the wheels don't. So you sometimes get the illusion that in movies wheels turn backwards. Would the wheels spin in exactly the same rate (24/25 rev/second), you'd have the illusion that they don't spin at all.

Bit difficult for me to explain this in English, maybe some native speaker could do better in case something remains unclear.

[DLibrasnow]

I think you did a good job of explaining it Stromberg!!