39 replies to this topic

[Loomis]

Originally posted by Jaelle

refusing to acknowledge any debt or gratitude or appreciation to the original series strikes me as unbelievably arrogant.  

Not sure that "any debt or gratitude or appreciation to the original series" was called for. Paramount/Cruise had bought the rights and were entitled to do what they liked with the property. In other words, they owed nothing to anyone, IMO.

Similarly, I don't believe the makers of the Bond films are under any obligation whatsoever to show any fidelity to the original works of Fleming. If they wanted to, they could have Bond as a heroin-addicted kleptomaniac in BOND 21, and it would be all good.

Besides, I'm sure a heck of a lot of videos and DVDs of the original "Mission: Impossible" TV series flew off shelves thanks to the two Cruise films.

[Jaelle]

EON consistently titles the films "Ian Fleming's James Bond." While the cinematic Bond has moved quite far from the literary Bond, they don't forget the origins of the character. Neither do they attempt to wipe out any association with him. Without Fleming, there would be no series (or franchise as it has now become).

Hollywood does this all the time...it plunders literary sources and then shows no acknowledgement of the source material. Disney billed its animated film THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME as "Disney's HUNCHBACK..." Excuse me, that was a novel by Victor Hugo and his name didn't appear anywhere in the PR material. I don't care about legality or financial obligations, I'm simply talking about ethics and respect for original source material. Hollywood has consistently shown little to no respect for writers. It's only recently that they've been paid relatively well.

I'm also reminded of Julia Roberts' failure to even acknowledge the real Erin Brockovich in her Oscar acceptance speech. If you profit from someone else's idea, I have always believed that you should do more than just pay them for it. You should acknowledge the fact that it was their idea in the first place. It's just a simple matter of respect and integrity, imo.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by Jaelle

If you profit from someone else's idea, I have always believed that you should do more than just pay them for it.  You should acknowledge the fact that it was their idea in the first place.  It's just a simple matter of respect and integrity, imo.  

But the makers of MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE did acknowledge the fact that their film was based on someone else's idea. There's a credit that reads "Based on the Television Series Created by Bruce Gellar", or something like that.

[Jaelle]

Originally posted by Loomis
But the makers of MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE did acknowledge the fact that their film was based on someone else's idea. There's a credit that reads "Based on the Television Series Created by Bruce Gellar", or something like that.

Did they? Then I stand corrected. Nice to see they did that. Still don't understand the zeal to wipe out any presence of the old MI episodes during the film's run, but there you go.

[Jaelle]

Hey folks, I just read that SOMETHING'S GOTTA GIVE (a chick flick written and directed by a woman) trounced LAST SAMURAI at the box office this weekend.

[Number Six]

Jaelle,

I'm sure that putting Hugo's name on the movie would just increase the amount of spin-action his grave was already getting from the hap-hap-happy ending that Disney tacked onto his masterwork.

--Eric

[Robinson]

Originally posted by Jaelle
Did they?  Then I stand corrected.  Nice to see they did that.  Still don't understand the zeal to wipe out any presence of the old MI episodes during the film's run, but there you go.

It's probably the same tactic used by the SciFi Channel regarding BATLLESTAR GALACTICA. In the lead up to their 2 night miniseries. SciFi made a conscious decision NOT to air the original 3hr. pilot, released back in '78. While SciFi did have a Battlestar marathon a couple of months ago, the series pilot was ommitted. This was done in large part to deflect any comparisons and contrast their "re-imagination"(go to www.cylon.org or www.battlestargalactica.com for details) of the series would face had they aired the original. SciFi was covering their considering the fallout and backlash from the original series' fans as well as the creators and others who had worked hard to push for a continuation series that was scrapped by USA Networks and SciFi.

I was wondering about MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE and why the reruns hadn't been on television for years (they used to air on Channel 5 back in the 70s here in NYC). A show like that would be perfect on TV Land or even the Hallmark Channel.

BTW, I hear that MI:3 is gearing up for production. According to Darkhorizons, Jason Isaacs is being considered for the villain.

[Tarl_Cabot]

Originally posted by Jaelle


I'd love to but it'll have to wait until after the holidays I'm afraid.  By then you might not be interested anyway.  I'm about to leave town for a few weeks for the holidays and have too much to do before leaving.

:mad:










Ok...How about a simple thumbs up or down?

[Jaelle]

Originally posted by Number Six
Jaelle,
  I'm sure that putting Hugo's name on the movie would just increase the amount of spin-action his grave was already getting from the hap-hap-happy ending that Disney tacked onto his masterwork.
--Eric

True enuf.

From Tarl:


On a scale of 1-5 (5 being "outstanding" and 1 being "BLECH!"), in my more generous mood, I'd give it a 3.5. In a more obnoxious mood, I'd give it a 2.5. Have you seen it Tarl?

[Tarl_Cabot]

Have you seen it Tarl?"

No. I don't see Tom Cruise films-I can't stand him.Like you said, "I'd rather watch paint dry..." Although I did pay to see and enjoyed 'Jerry Macguire'.That was a perfect part for him; he was in his proper element and the script was good enough that he didn't annoy me. When he wants to be a Vampire or mini-007 or a Samurai (!) I pass.HBO has to offer some value other than a chance to see stuff I already paid to see.