|
Post by mikev on Oct 13, 2012 12:56:14 GMT -5
It's official, Hollywood has run out of ideas and is creatively bankrupt. Star Trek is the only series that has a modicum of success because they went with a whole new cast and premise rather than try and recast the old characters. Even the recent new Star Trek movie has the crew at the beginning with a whole new slate of adventures to come. They tried it with the New Monkees in 1987 and it flopped big time. Munsters with a Twilight spin? No thank you! Best 60's show IMO; The Twilight Zone. Most seasons are now available on Netflix- many I have never seen before.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Oct 13, 2012 15:42:34 GMT -5
Best 60's show IMO; The Twilight Zone. Most seasons are now available on Netflix- many I have never seen before. We do Amazon Prime streaming and they're all on there, too. As are most of the original "Star Trek." Now if they'd only put on "The Avengers" (the Mrs. Peel "Avengers") and "The Prisoner."
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Oct 13, 2012 16:39:46 GMT -5
Lost in Space over Star Trek??? I think that's pushing the envelope a bit. Lost in Space was pretty juvenile compared to Star Trek IMO. Yes, LOST IN SPACE was juvenile compared to STAR TREK -- but I still love it. I'm not sure how it's 'pushing the envelope' when I am only merely stating that it's my personal preference! (By the way, I have come to enjoy the original TREK!) . There's hope for you yet Joe! ;D "Dammit Joe, I'm a Beatles Fan not a Lost in Space lover!" ;D "Danger Joe Karlosi, Danger!!!" ;D
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Oct 27, 2012 10:09:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Oct 27, 2012 12:43:32 GMT -5
Thank you Sayne for once again adding some sanity to our discussion here!
See folks? New Munsters might actually be fun! Hey, all I am saying is give New Munsters a chance. Maybe this new show takes a sad show and makes it better!
|
|
|
Post by winstonoboogie on Oct 27, 2012 12:51:06 GMT -5
Yes, I watched it. It was.....interesting. It reminded me of the "Addams Family" movies (with Raul Julia etc.) with their morbid humor. Better than I expected -that's for sure! Did anyone else watch it?
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 27, 2012 17:46:15 GMT -5
Thank you Sayne for once again adding some sanity to our discussion here! See folks? New Munsters might actually be fun! Hey, all I am saying is give New Munsters a chance. Maybe this new show takes a sad show and makes it better! Well, from YOUR perspective the original Munsters is a "sad show". I love it, and so do others. Since you don't care for the original show, I can see you wanting to give this new one a try -- but I see no reason why I should bother. Furthermore, I see no reason why they couldn't just make some other "new family" up, with no ties whatsoever to THE MUNSTERS or the ADDAMS FAMILY. Man, they are so bankrupt of original new ideas....
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Oct 27, 2012 21:17:23 GMT -5
. . . Man, they are so bankrupt of original new ideas.... Yeah, kinda like the Beatles doing Twist and Shout.
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Oct 27, 2012 22:02:04 GMT -5
Thank you Sayne for once again adding some sanity to our discussion here! See folks? New Munsters might actually be fun! Hey, all I am saying is give New Munsters a chance. Maybe this new show takes a sad show and makes it better! Well, from YOUR perspective the original Munsters is a "sad show". I love it, and so do others. Since you don't care for the original show, I can see you wanting to give this new one a try -- but I see no reason why I should bother. Furthermore, I see no reason why they couldn't just make some other "new family" up, with no ties whatsoever to THE MUNSTERS or the ADDAMS FAMILY. Man, they are so bankrupt of original new ideas.... I started watching it on NBC.com. There are a lot of nods to the old Munsters-but it IS different. So far I am enjoying it. Might be tough to make it a regular series since Portia is returning to Arrested Development.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 28, 2012 6:38:15 GMT -5
. . . Man, they are so bankrupt of original new ideas.... Yeah, kinda like the Beatles doing Twist and Shout. No, NOTHING like the Beatles doing Twist and Shout. That is the silliest and most inapt analogy I ever heard. While the Beatles were recording 'Twist and Shout' they were still composing all sorts of new songs of their own and trail blazing as well. We know that The Beatles are highly noted for "changing the face of music", and always introducing new ideas and conquering new frontiers. Just because they happened to do some cover songs on the side too is beside the point. Your analogy is "cherry picking" exceptions. It's not like today's TV SHOWS and MOVIES are as ground-breaking in 2012 as the Fabs were in their day. I would say "nice try"..... but it wasn't.
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Oct 28, 2012 6:40:33 GMT -5
Well, from YOUR perspective the original Munsters is a "sad show". I love it, and so do others. Since you don't care for the original show, I can see you wanting to give this new one a try -- but I see no reason why I should bother. Furthermore, I see no reason why they couldn't just make some other "new family" up, with no ties whatsoever to THE MUNSTERS or the ADDAMS FAMILY. Man, they are so bankrupt of original new ideas.... I started watching it on NBC.com. There are a lot of nods to the old Munsters-but it IS different. So far I am enjoying it. Might be tough to make it a regular series since Portia is returning to Arrested Development. Just finished watching the whole thing on-line. I think this show would struggle as too dark for younger kids and not enough bite (pun firmly intended) for older kids. It's not my kids' father's Munsters.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Oct 28, 2012 11:48:56 GMT -5
Yeah, kinda like the Beatles doing Twist and Shout. No, NOTHING like the Beatles doing Twist and Shout. That is the silliest and most inapt analogy I ever heard. While the Beatles were recording 'Twist and Shout' they were still composing all sorts of new songs of their own and trail blazing as well. We know that The Beatles are highly noted for "changing the face of music", and always introducing new ideas and conquering new frontiers. Just because they happened to do some cover songs on the side too is beside the point. Your analogy is "cherry picking" exceptions. It's not like today's TV SHOWS and MOVIES are as ground-breaking in 2012 as the Fabs were in their day. I would say "nice try"..... but it wasn't. Once again, you missed the point. I could have said Anna or Matchbox or Till There Was You or any other cover song. The point is that the new Munsters is a "cover." Just as some of us prefer the original and knee-jerkingly dismiss the remake, there are people who say the same thing about cover songs. Many people here may not like a cover song done by the Beatles, but they are okay with them doing it, but boy are they harsh on people covering Beatles songs. They say things like, "The songs are perfect the way they are" or "No one can do the song as well as the Beatles did" and so on. There are people who go off on remakes of movies and TV shows, but not music. THAT's the point. It's contradictory to be okay with one and not the other. As for Twist and Shout, to my ears, although the Beatles version has become the standard, I don't think there particularly is a significant difference to the one done by the Isleys. The Beatles play it faster , but it is basically the same. For some people's taste, some could say, "The Twist and Shout" was perfect the way it was" or "The Isley Brothers are smooth, man. Why mess with their song?"
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 28, 2012 15:45:07 GMT -5
Once again, you missed the point. I could have said Anna or Matchbox or Till There Was You or any other cover song. The point is that the new Munsters is a "cover." Just as some of us prefer the original and knee-jerkingly dismiss the remake, there are people who say the same thing about cover songs. Many people here may not like a cover song done by the Beatles, but they are okay with them doing it, but boy are they harsh on people covering Beatles songs. They say things like, "The songs are perfect the way they are" or "No one can do the song as well as the Beatles did" and so on. There are people who go off on remakes of movies and TV shows, but not music. THAT's the point. It's contradictory to be okay with one and not the other. I understood exactly what you were getting at, that the Beatles also did "covers"... and that the New Munsters is also a "cover". I got all that. But this all began when I said "there is no originality anymore", and you challenged that by mentioning TWIST AND SHOUT as an older "similar example". (So how else was I to take your point in that context, except that you were responding with: "Well, un-originality has been around forever -- just consider TWIST AND SHOUT!")...? But you've missed MY point, I think. That being, it's perfectly fine for the Beatles do do covers as well as new songs, because they were always writing their own music and changing the world and creating all sorts of innovations and changing the music world forever. So what's the big deal in them doing covers? There are more than enough new Beatles original masterpieces to go around... ...however, TV and MOVIES today are largely "retreading". I would say that the "remake" of a TV SHOW or MOVIE in 2012 is the rule rather than the exception. There simply was more originality in the past, with more open and unexplored frontiers left to conquer. How could that playing field get any wider as time marches on? The more time goes onward, the more it's the same 'ol, same 'ol. I do think there is a significant difference in the Beatles' version -- the way Lennon rips his lungs out and shreds his vocal chords apart while screaming it. However, of course someone may say "I prefer the Isleys' version instead of the Beatles' " (or vice-versa)... but I have always felt that MUSIC was more "fair play" when it came to doing cover versions than remaking TV SHOWS and MOVIES. To me, we're talking apples and oranges when comparing MUSIC and FILM(TV, Movies)... And how many recent revisitations of older TV Shows and Movies have been as good as their originals, let alone better...?
|
|