list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Get Smart [TV Series] on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/Get_Smart_TV_Series/374616/default.aspx Title: Get Smart [TV Series]
Year: 1995
Number of blog posts: 3
]]>Thu, 05 Mar 2009 15:00:20 GMTGet Smart [TV Series]19953http://www.spout.com/images/no_image.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Get_Smart_TV_Series/374616/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2009/3/5/40839.aspxPost By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 3/5/2009 10:00:20 AM
Body: Many smart cinephiles and comic book geeks will avoid watching Watchmen this weekend. Not to avoid the crowds of opening weekend, and not to patiently await word of mouth from friends and reactions from critics. No, these bright few will ignore the out-of-season blockbuster event because there is absolutely no reason to see this movie. They recognize that any Watchmen adaptation (particularly this one that’s been made) is completely unnecessary. Well, for anyone not out to profit from it, anyway. Of course, even Warner Bros. might have been better off not producing the thing, since the studio won’t be making as much money as it had initially envisioned thanks to that profit-participation settlement with Fox. The point of this post is not to call Watchmen watchers stupid. Rather, our list of five reasons the film is unnecessary is to help moviegoers get smart. After reading this, though, if any of you are still determined to waste your time sitting through almost 3 hours of redundant, rehashed, irrelevant, ridiculous and inescapably disappointing superhero cinema, we’ll be left with no choice but to consider you mindless sheep, the kind that deserve to be duped. And if Dr. Manhattan chooses to vaporize us (or fans choose to curse us out in the comments section) for exposing the truth about this enterprise of excess, then so be it. We believe we’ve served justice here. 1. Faithful adaptations of graphic novels are redundant Comic books and movies, though both visual and (for the most part) processive forms of storytelling, are certainly different mediums. Yet there is good reason for people to believe film adaptations of graphic novels are easy, particularly when they’re meant to be faithful reproductions. Recreating a comic panel exactly and then giving it motion isn’t necessarily a simple process, but it is a pointless one. In the past, such redundancy has been fully evident in the sinfully unnecessary movie Sin City, and now Watchmen is furthermore putting the super in superfluous with its attempt to mostly please fans of the classic comic by meticulously replicating Alan Moore’s script and Dave Gibbons and John Higgins’ artwork for the big screen. But in addition to indulging the narrowly satisfied fanatics, a movie as resembling of its source material as Watchmen is may be accepted as substitute and partly render the graphic novel obsolete to newcomers. This is of course a problem with adaptations in general, regardless of the type of medium being adapted. Yet it’s all the more potentially displacing when the film is both based on a visual work and intended to be as precise an imitation as possible. Recently, writing for ThePlaylist, Christopher R. Adams pointed out that, “the best comic book films (”The Dark Knight”, “X-Men 2″ and Iron Man) were not adapted word-for-word and panel-for-panel to the screen. They weren’t even culled from one single story!” So why would anyone think it a good idea to make an exact copy of a graphic novel? Well, defenders of both Sin City and Watchmen will undoubtedly argue that it’s “neat” to see the two-dimensional and relatively static images from the book given the added depth and movement, but then so is it similarly curious to see what happens when you drive a car into a wall. So, devout Watchmen readers, why not simply honor the graphic novel by letting it stand alone and experiencing it in its intended medium? 2. So many movies satirizing and subverting superheroes already exist Watchmen may or may not have been the first subversive twist on superhero comics, but the movie is hardly the first of its kind. From the really lame (Superhero Movie) to the really great (The Incredibles), films making fun of or merely playing on the concept of superheroes have been around for about as long as the Watchmen graphic novel has been in print. And so, like our list of movies that made the recent Get Smart obsolete, it would be quite easy to name examples of movies and TV shows that, whether or not they were directly influenced by the Watchmen comics in the first place, have seemingly superseded the Watchmen story and therefore made its film adaptation a stale, or at least surplus, endeavor. Why should anyone unfamiliar with the graphic novel need to see Watchmen after experiencing Hancock, Mystery Men, The Tick, The Dark Knight, Iron Man, Hellboy, Unbreakable, The Specials, Sky High, My Super Ex-Girlfriend, The Meteor Man, Blankman, et al.? Well, there may be those superhero movie completists who will see any example of the genre, but such people are likely to be the most unimpressed with a story as seemingly dated and done before as Watchmen’s. Really, in a way, The Incredibles was the best possible movie to come out of the graphic novel’s wake, and The Dark Knight was the darkest and most realistic. Comparatively, even a decently made Watchmen adaptation should seem a pale wannabe. That’s why it’s easy to side with IMDb user Richard Brunton’s concern from years ago: “There is so much similarity to The Watchmen that those who haven’t read the graphic novel will be saying ‘That’s the Incredibles movie’ when Watchmen finally comes to fruition.” And already someone made the mashup trailer to encourage such a concern. 3. Watchmen has no contemporary relevance A movie of Watchmen in 2009 has a problem of relevance in two regards. One relates to the previous point about how plenty of subversive superhero movies have already been made prior to this adaptation. Yet even without the preexistence of all those titles the Watchmen movie, as it’s been made, would fail on other levels of innovation and relevance. Paul DeBenedetto of the comics blog Wednesday’s Child, writing us in defense of his decision not to bother with the movie, says, “The greatness of Watchmen (the book) lies not so much in the story as it does the storytelling. Thus a great adaptation of the book would not be a straight retelling of the story, no matter how accurate.” Indeed, when Watchmen was published it was groundbreaking in its medium, totally revolutionizing the art of superhero comics. But not just because of how it played with superhero character conventions, because it also deconstructed the superhero comic’s narrative style. True Watchmen fans, and likewise comics experts, should therefore see no purpose in a Watchmen movie that isn’t analogously cinematically groundbreaking. This Watchmen movie will unfortunately have no notable affect on the film medium, despite being helmed by an alleged “visionary director” (as the film’s marketing has labeled Zach Snyder). The other way in which a current and faithful adaptation of Watchmen is problematically irrelevant is due to its retention of the book’s setting. The book’s themes might not translate completely were the story updated, but the movie could be better off for developing its own themes, whether to modernize certain elements (Vietnam becomes Iraq; Bush is substituted for Nixon) and comment on contemporary abuses of power or to hypothesize how real-life superheroes might deflect the desire for a super-president like Barack Obama. Such a movie would barely be recognizable to fans of the book, but again, adaptation is best when not directly lifted. As the movie was in fact directly lifted, it only functions as a curiosity, like a “What If…” comic or an alternate history novel, both of which are slightly interesting though mainly dispensable works. 4. What was once intended for realism now comes off as ridiculous Considering how the Watchmen comics aimed to take superhero conventions and adapt them to see how they’d function in the real world, it’s a great shame that the Watchmen movie looks and is being criticized for being quite silly (one indirectly reported response compared the adaptation to the live-action Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movies, while The Hollywood Reporter’s Kirk Honeycutt labeled it campy soap opera). But it shouldn’t be surprising that directly lifting from the pages of a dark, serious and relatively realistic comic would result in camp. Because realism on the page is hardly the same as realism on the screen. And because many literary techniques, even those working with visual cues, don’t translate well to audio and visual media. A Watchmen movie shouldn’t look as cartoonish as this one does, but due to the artificial feel of the sets, the stylish cinematographic style and the garishness of the costumes, it seems to have more in common with Joel Schumacher’s Batman movies than with Christopher Nolan’s. 5. There was only ever room for disappointment As with anything as highly anticipated as the Watchmen movie, there isn’t much room for satisfaction. Even if the Star Wars prequels weren’t as bad as they are, for instance, they’d still have been unavoidably disappointing to a majority of fans. Maybe not to the biased diehard fanatics, who will forever defend The Phantom Menace, the Matrix sequels, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, The Godfather Part III or Watchmen, but certainly to those whose expectations were so high they could only focus on whatever flaws the respective films have. Last month, Graeme McMillan wrote at io9 that only the fans will be disappointed due to how much they’ve been building the film up in their minds, and that Warner Bros. should have therefore concentrated the marketing at mainstream audiences. Yet really, for those familiar with the Watchmen comic, the movie might not be as faithful (i.e. as redundant) as hoped or it might be too faithful (i.e. irrelevant and silly looking), but they will enjoy it for the most part. However, those unfamiliar with the comic are likely to be the most disappointed, because they’re the ones going into this in response to the immense hype and recommendation that’s come with the book for more than 20 years. It’s the same reason that some of us who read the graphic novel late had a “that’s it?” response. Those bypassing the book, however, won’t get at least the benefit of reading a quality work that merely seems overrated (due to the unfortunate perspective of high expectations). And their “that’s it?” will be, to them, even more of a “that’s all it will ever be.” Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Thu, 05 Mar 2009 15:00:20 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com3/5/2009 10:00:20 AMMany smart cinephiles and comic book geeks will avoid watching Watchmen this weekend. Not to avoid the crowds of opening weekend, and not to patiently await word of mouth from friends and reactions from critics. No, these bright few will ignore the out-of-season blockbuster event because there is absolutely no reason to see this movie. They recognize that any Watchmen adaptation (particularly this one that’s been made) is completely unnecessary. Well, for anyone not out to profit from it, anyway. Of course, even Warner Bros. might have been better off not producing the thing, since the studio won’t be making as much money as it had initially envisioned thanks to that profit-participation settlement with Fox. The point of this post is not to call Watchmen watchers stupid. Rather, our list of five reasons the film is unnecessary is to help moviegoers get smart. After reading this, though, if any of you are still determined to waste your time sitting through almost 3 hours of redundant, rehashed, irrelevant, ridiculous and inescapably disappointing superhero cinema, we’ll be left with no choice but to consider you mindless sheep, the kind that deserve to be duped. And if Dr. Manhattan chooses to vaporize us (or fans choose to curse us out in the comments section) for exposing the truth about this enterprise of excess, then so be it. We believe we’ve served justice here. 1. Faithful adaptations of graphic novels are redundant Comic books and movies, though both visual and (for the most part) processive forms of storytelling, are certainly different mediums. Yet there is good reason for people to believe film adaptations of graphic novels are easy, particularly when they’re meant to be faithful reproductions. Recreating a comic panel exactly and then giving it motion isn’t necessarily a simple process, but it is a pointless one. In the past, such redundancy has been fully evident in the sinfully unnecessary movie Sin City, and now Watchmen is furthermore putting the super in superfluous with its attempt to mostly please fans of the classic comic by meticulously replicating Alan Moore’s script and Dave Gibbons and John Higgins’ artwork for the big screen. But in addition to indulging the narrowly satisfied fanatics, a movie as resembling of its source material as Watchmen is may be accepted as substitute and partly render the graphic novel obsolete to newcomers. This is of course a problem with adaptations in general, regardless of the type of medium being adapted. Yet it’s all the more potentially displacing when the film is both based on a visual work and intended to be as precise an imitation as possible. Recently, writing for ThePlaylist, Christopher R. Adams pointed out that, “the best comic book films (”The Dark Knight”, “X-Men 2″ and Iron Man) were not adapted word-for-word and panel-for-panel to the screen. They weren’t even culled from one single story!” So why would anyone think it a good idea to make an exact copy of a graphic novel? Well, defenders of both Sin City and Watchmen will undoubtedly argue that it’s “neat” to see the two-dimensional and relatively static images from the book given the added depth and movement, but then so is it similarly curious to see what happens when you drive a car into a wall. So, devout Watchmen readers, why not simply honor the graphic novel by letting it stand alone and experiencing it in its intended medium? 2. So many movies satirizing and subverting superheroes already exist Watchmen may or may not have been the first subversive twist on superhero comics, but the movie is hardly the first of its kind. From the really lame (Superhero Movie) to the really great (The Incredibles), films making fun of or merely playing on the concept of superheroes have been around for about as long as the Watchmen graphic novel has been in print. And so, like our list of movies that made the recent Get Smart obsolete, it would be quite easy to name examples of movies and TV shows that, whether or not they were directly influenced by the Watchmen comics in the first place, have seemingly superseded the Watchmen story and therefore made its film adaptation a stale, or at least surplus, endeavor. Why should anyone unfamiliar with the graphic novel need to see Watchmen after experiencing Hancock, Mystery Men, The Tick, The Dark Knight, Iron Man, Hellboy, Unbreakable, The Specials, Sky High, My Super Ex-Girlfriend, The Meteor Man, Blankman, et al.? Well, there may be those superhero movie completists who will see any example of the genre, but such people are likely to be the most unimpressed with a story as seemingly dated and done before as Watchmen’s. Really, in a way, The Incredibles was the best possible movie to come out of the graphic novel’s wake, and The Dark Knight was the darkest and most realistic. Comparatively, even a decently made Watchmen adaptation should seem a pale wannabe. That’s why it’s easy to side with IMDb user Richard Brunton’s concern from years ago: “There is so much similarity to The Watchmen that those who haven’t read the graphic novel will be saying ‘That’s the Incredibles movie’ when Watchmen finally comes to fruition.” And already someone made the mashup trailer to encourage such a concern. 3. Watchmen has no contemporary relevance A movie of Watchmen in 2009 has a problem of relevance in two regards. One relates to the previous point about how plenty of subversive superhero movies have already been made prior to this adaptation. Yet even without the preexistence of all those titles the Watchmen movie, as it’s been made, would fail on other levels of innovation and relevance. Paul DeBenedetto of the comics blog Wednesday’s Child, writing us in defense of his decision not to bother with the movie, says, “The greatness of Watchmen (the book) lies not so much in the story as it does the storytelling. Thus a great adaptation of the book would not be a straight retelling of the story, no matter how accurate.” Indeed, when Watchmen was published it was groundbreaking in its medium, totally revolutionizing the art of superhero comics. But not just because of how it played with superhero character conventions, because it also deconstructed the superhero comic’s narrative style. True Watchmen fans, and likewise comics experts, should therefore see no purpose in a Watchmen movie that isn’t analogously cinematically groundbreaking. This Watchmen movie will unfortunately have no notable affect on the film medium, despite being helmed by an alleged “visionary director” (as the film’s marketing has labeled Zach Snyder). The other way in which a current and faithful adaptation of Watchmen is problematically irrelevant is due to its retention of the book’s setting. The book’s themes might not translate completely were the story updated, but the movie could be better off for developing its own themes, whether to modernize certain elements (Vietnam becomes Iraq; Bush is substituted for Nixon) and comment on contemporary abuses of power or to hypothesize how real-life superheroes might deflect the desire for a super-president like Barack Obama. Such a movie would barely be recognizable to fans of the book, but again, adaptation is best when not directly lifted. As the movie was in fact directly lifted, it only functions as a curiosity, like a “What If…” comic or an alternate history novel, both of which are slightly interesting though mainly dispensable works. 4. What was once intended for realism now comes off as ridiculous Considering how the Watchmen comics aimed to take superhero conventions and adapt them to see how they’d function in the real world, it’s a great shame that the Watchmen movie looks and is being criticized for being quite silly (one indirectly reported response compared the adaptation to the live-action Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movies, while The Hollywood Reporter’s Kirk Honeycutt labeled it campy soap opera). But it shouldn’t be surprising that directly lifting from the pages of a dark, serious and relatively realistic comic would result in camp. Because realism on the page is hardly the same as realism on the screen. And because many literary techniques, even those working with visual cues, don’t translate well to audio and visual media. A Watchmen movie shouldn’t look as cartoonish as this one does, but due to the artificial feel of the sets, the stylish cinematographic style and the garishness of the costumes, it seems to have more in common with Joel Schumacher’s Batman movies than with Christopher Nolan’s. 5. There was only ever room for disappointment As with anything as highly anticipated as the Watchmen movie, there isn’t much room for satisfaction. Even if the Star Wars prequels weren’t as bad as they are, for instance, they’d still have been unavoidably disappointing to a majority of fans. Maybe not to the biased diehard fanatics, who will forever defend The Phantom Menace, the Matrix sequels, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, The Godfather Part III or Watchmen, but certainly to those whose expectations were so high they could only focus on whatever flaws the respective films have. Last month, Graeme McMillan wrote at io9 that only the fans will be disappointed due to how much they’ve been building the film up in their minds, and that Warner Bros. should have therefore concentrated the marketing at mainstream audiences. Yet really, for those familiar with the Watchmen comic, the movie might not be as faithful (i.e. as redundant) as hoped or it might be too faithful (i.e. irrelevant and silly looking), but they will enjoy it for the most part. However, those unfamiliar with the comic are likely to be the most disappointed, because they’re the ones going into this in response to the immense hype and recommendation that’s come with the book for more than 20 years. It’s the same reason that some of us who read the graphic novel late had a “that’s it?” response. Those bypassing the book, however, won’t get at least the benefit of reading a quality work that merely seems overrated (due to the unfortunate perspective of high expectations). And their “that’s it?” will be, to them, even more of a “that’s all it will ever be.” Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/7/24/33020.aspxPost By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 7/24/2008 11:01:19 AM
Body: Earlier this year, I thought that it was way too late for a Sex and the City movie. But then it made a ton of cash, so I guess I was wrong. Still, I’m going to continue similarly thinking it’s too late for another X-Files movie. And even if I’m proven wrong and the masses get out to theaters this weekend in search of the truth, I’ll keep on believing that X-Files: I Want to Believe is way past its time. To celebrate Mulder and Scully’s tardiness, here are 10 other movies that came out too late: The Godfather Part III (Released in: 1990; Should have been released in: 1976) - Never mind the fact that had this third installment been made years earlier, Sofia Coppola wouldn’t have been cast and therefore wouldn’t have given her terribly infamous performance. The more important matter is that sequels arriving more than a decade after the previous installment are almost always doomed. The longer the wait, the higher the expectations, and the greater the disappointment. Of course, not everyone agrees that it was also too late for Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, Live Free or Die Hard, Rambo, Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace, etc. Snakes on a Plane (Released in: 2006; Should have been released in: 2005) - By the time it finally hit theaters, there was already a major backlash to the hype behind SoaP, and that backlash was apparently well-deserved when audiences saw just how lame the movie ended up being. It was an early indicator that a lot of internet buzz and popular viral marketing does not necessarily equal a lot of money at the box office. More than a year later, though, fears of another SoaP-like disappointment came with the hype behind Cloverfield, yet the monster movie fared much better. Of course, no movie seemed to be more ridiculous a web sensation than The Dark Knight, the record-breaking success of which could still prompt more SoaP-type disasters in the future. Home on the Range (Released in: 2004; Should have been released in: 1994) - When you Google the words “ill-timed” “release” and “film”, this is the first thing that comes up, probably because it’s legendary for marking the (temporary) end of 2-D Disney animation. It actually came out almost a decade after the first Pixar feature signaled the doomed future of these kinds of films, and a number of 2-D animations were actually quite successful in that ten years. But Home on the Range is notable for both having begun preproduction before the release of the first Toy Story and for having been announced as the last traditionally animated Disney feature. Now, of course, the studio has changed its mind, so we’ll just have to see if Home on the Range was indeed too late or simply too bad. Infamous (Released in: 2006; Should have been released in: 2005) - One of many unfortunate movies to come out on the heels of another film dealing with the same subject. Similarly late, similarly redundant efforts include Deep Impact, Mars Attacks!, Volcano, The Forbidden Dance, Red Planet, Wyatt Earp and Valmont. But Infamous seemed more the loser of its race because of Phillip Seymour Hoffman’s Oscar win for Capote. The Simpsons Movie (Released in: 2007; Should have been released in: 1997) - It may be funny enough, but this movie still suffered a bit from being past the TV series’ prime. A lot more people would have been a lot more excited about the spin-off if it had come out ten years earlier. The Onion Movie (Released in 2008; Should have been released in: 2003) - Should this not be included because it actually never came out in theaters in the U.S.? Whatever. I’m still accepting it as one of the worst examples of shelving a film for way too long. From the unbearable bits I attempted to watch, the jokes were quite dated, though I have to admit they might not have been all that funny when (mostly) filmed five years ago. As an alternate, in case you don’t accept this title: The Adventures of Pluto Nash, which was also shelved for a few years, but which was probably made too late anyway. Get Smart (Released in 2008; Should have been released in: 1978) - When it opened earlier this summer, I wrote a list about how this movie was obsolete before it was even made. Check out those 10 reasons here. Eyes Wide Shut (Released in: 1999; Should have been released in: 1998) - It may still have been received as poorly, but if this film had been able to be finished and to come out before Stanley Kubrick’s death, it might have at least been a stronger work. Angela’s Ashes (Released in: 1999; Should have been released in: 1995) - How long is too late for a film adaptation of a best-selling book? Considering there are still successful movies based on works such as “The Iliad” and “Beowulf”, there’s apparently no limit. But for some reason this cinematic version of Frank McCourt’s wildly popular memoir bombed at the box office. I guess compared to those early works, “Angela’s Ashes” had been read by everyone in America by the time the movie arrived, and few of its fans needed to go through the depressing events a second time. Glitter (Released in: 2001; Should have been released in: 1991) - Maybe if it had opened before 9/11, as it was supposed to, instead of directly following the tragedy. Or, better yet, maybe if it had opened in the mid ’90s before people stopped giving a damn about Mariah, it wouldn’t have bombed so horribly. Actually, because Mariah eventually became popular again, and thanks to VH1, so did the 1980s, Glitter may also be considered a movie that was too early. Perhaps one day it can find success as a Broadway show, a la Xanadu. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Thu, 24 Jul 2008 15:01:19 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com7/24/2008 11:01:19 AM Earlier this year, I thought that it was way too late for a Sex and the City movie. But then it made a ton of cash, so I guess I was wrong. Still, I’m going to continue similarly thinking it’s too late for another X-Files movie. And even if I’m proven wrong and the masses get out to theaters this weekend in search of the truth, I’ll keep on believing that X-Files: I Want to Believe is way past its time. To celebrate Mulder and Scully’s tardiness, here are 10 other movies that came out too late: The Godfather Part III (Released in: 1990; Should have been released in: 1976) - Never mind the fact that had this third installment been made years earlier, Sofia Coppola wouldn’t have been cast and therefore wouldn’t have given her terribly infamous performance. The more important matter is that sequels arriving more than a decade after the previous installment are almost always doomed. The longer the wait, the higher the expectations, and the greater the disappointment. Of course, not everyone agrees that it was also too late for Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, Live Free or Die Hard, Rambo, Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace, etc. Snakes on a Plane (Released in: 2006; Should have been released in: 2005) - By the time it finally hit theaters, there was already a major backlash to the hype behind SoaP, and that backlash was apparently well-deserved when audiences saw just how lame the movie ended up being. It was an early indicator that a lot of internet buzz and popular viral marketing does not necessarily equal a lot of money at the box office. More than a year later, though, fears of another SoaP-like disappointment came with the hype behind Cloverfield, yet the monster movie fared much better. Of course, no movie seemed to be more ridiculous a web sensation than The Dark Knight, the record-breaking success of which could still prompt more SoaP-type disasters in the future. Home on the Range (Released in: 2004; Should have been released in: 1994) - When you Google the words “ill-timed” “release” and “film”, this is the first thing that comes up, probably because it’s legendary for marking the (temporary) end of 2-D Disney animation. It actually came out almost a decade after the first Pixar feature signaled the doomed future of these kinds of films, and a number of 2-D animations were actually quite successful in that ten years. But Home on the Range is notable for both having begun preproduction before the release of the first Toy Story and for having been announced as the last traditionally animated Disney feature. Now, of course, the studio has changed its mind, so we’ll just have to see if Home on the Range was indeed too late or simply too bad. Infamous (Released in: 2006; Should have been released in: 2005) - One of many unfortunate movies to come out on the heels of another film dealing with the same subject. Similarly late, similarly redundant efforts include Deep Impact, Mars Attacks!, Volcano, The Forbidden Dance, Red Planet, Wyatt Earp and Valmont. But Infamous seemed more the loser of its race because of Phillip Seymour Hoffman’s Oscar win for Capote. The Simpsons Movie (Released in: 2007; Should have been released in: 1997) - It may be funny enough, but this movie still suffered a bit from being past the TV series’ prime. A lot more people would have been a lot more excited about the spin-off if it had come out ten years earlier. The Onion Movie (Released in 2008; Should have been released in: 2003) - Should this not be included because it actually never came out in theaters in the U.S.? Whatever. I’m still accepting it as one of the worst examples of shelving a film for way too long. From the unbearable bits I attempted to watch, the jokes were quite dated, though I have to admit they might not have been all that funny when (mostly) filmed five years ago. As an alternate, in case you don’t accept this title: The Adventures of Pluto Nash, which was also shelved for a few years, but which was probably made too late anyway. Get Smart (Released in 2008; Should have been released in: 1978) - When it opened earlier this summer, I wrote a list about how this movie was obsolete before it was even made. Check out those 10 reasons here. Eyes Wide Shut (Released in: 1999; Should have been released in: 1998) - It may still have been received as poorly, but if this film had been able to be finished and to come out before Stanley Kubrick’s death, it might have at least been a stronger work. Angela’s Ashes (Released in: 1999; Should have been released in: 1995) - How long is too late for a film adaptation of a best-selling book? Considering there are still successful movies based on works such as “The Iliad” and “Beowulf”, there’s apparently no limit. But for some reason this cinematic version of Frank McCourt’s wildly popular memoir bombed at the box office. I guess compared to those early works, “Angela’s Ashes” had been read by everyone in America by the time the movie arrived, and few of its fans needed to go through the depressing events a second time. Glitter (Released in: 2001; Should have been released in: 1991) - Maybe if it had opened before 9/11, as it was supposed to, instead of directly following the tragedy. Or, better yet, maybe if it had opened in the mid ’90s before people stopped giving a damn about Mariah, it wouldn’t have bombed so horribly. Actually, because Mariah eventually became popular again, and thanks to VH1, so did the 1980s, Glitter may also be considered a movie that was too early. Perhaps one day it can find success as a Broadway show, a la Xanadu. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/6/16/31288.aspxPost By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 6/16/2008 5:01:14 PM
Body: The best time for a Get Smart movie would have been the late ’60s, when the original television series was still on the air. In fact, there was a theatrical Get Smart film in the works during the run of the show, but it was canceled when the theatrical release of Munster, Go Home! bombed at the box office. Many years later, in 1980, a Get Smart feature titled The Nude Bomb was released to theaters, but it also performed poorly. Now we’re getting a remake version starring Steve Carell in the role that was so iconically defined by the late Don Adams. Will it do the show justice? Reportedly the budget was $80 million, a significant amount of which was probably put towards pointless effects. But the best thing Warner Bros. could have done with that money is to give a large amount to series creators Mel Brooks and Buck Henry, who probably even today could churn out a better script than Failure to Launch scribes Tom J. Astle and Matt Ember. Despite its lack of original Get Smart talent, though, it could still be marginally funny. Yet the real problem is that it may be too outdated and obsolete for audiences to care. In the four decades since the show went off the air, there has been plenty of similar-themed movies, from spy spoofs to films with bumbling heroes. The following ten titles are the best evidence of why this new Get Smart movie is completely unnecessary: Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery - It’s interesting that Get Smart is going up against a Mike Myers movie this weekend, because in a way it’s also going up against Myers’ Austin Powers movies, as well. Sure, spy parodies have been around in spades since around the time of the first James Bond movie, but nothing has been as popular as this series, which of course includes the much bigger-grossing sequels, Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me and Austin Powers in Goldmember. Inspector Gadget - The original animated series was based on Get Smart and even featured the voice of Don Adams. Also like Get Smart, it was remade into a feature film with a different cast. However, it did find room to employ both Adams (as the voice of the dog, Brain) and Andy Dick (who had played Maxwell Smart’s son in a 1990s Get Smart series). Regardless, it was still a failure, both in terms of its box office gross and the way it ruined our childhood memory of the beloved cartoon. Perhaps if the Get Smart movie is good enough, then it could make up for Inspector Gadget (and its sequel), but it would have to be really, really good. The Pink Panther - You might say that Get Smart came about as a response to both the Bond films and the original Pink Panther movies, which featured a bumbling police inspector instead of a bumbling spy. The recent remake of The Pink Panther already showed us that some characters should really be forever remembered by their most iconic portrayer. In this case Steve Martin was nothing compared to Peter Sellers, while in the case of Get Smart, Steve Carell is only muddying the memory of Don Adams. Even if he does a good job, he’s just not the real Maxwell Smart. He should just be in another lame generic spy spoof instead. Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgandy - Want to see Steve Carell act clueless? Watch Anchorman again, because he can’t top his performance as Brick Tamland. “I love lamp.” The Naked Gun: From the Files of Police Squad! - The show Police Squad was in a way like Get Smart, only with a clueless detective rather than a clueless spy (I guess it could be seen as more like The Pink Panther then?). Fortunately that series only took a few years to spin-off a feature film, and thanks to the genius of Jim Abrahams and the Zucker Bros., who are almost equal in spoofing ability to Mel Brooks, it is funnier than any single episode or film of Get Smart can be without Brooks’ involvement. Spy Hard - Leslie Nielsen starred as the bumbling detective in the Naked Gun movies and then later played a bumbling spy in this spoof. The result: if Nielsen hadn’t already supplanted the Maxwell Smart character earlier, he did so here, even if really, really poorly. The Man Who Knew Too Little - More clueless spy stuff, this one an underrated movie starring Bill Murray. It actually made less money than The Nude Bomb (even without an inflation adjustment), but I enjoyed it a lot, probably more than I’ll enjoy Get Smart. Johnny English - Yep, I’m still just listing the other recent spy spoofs. But, really, there’s a point. When even Rowan Atkinson has done the bumbling spy bit, it’s time to hang up on the idea. I Spy - Did I already point out that #s 6-10 are more spy comedies? And there’s a lot that I’m not even including! This one is significant because it’s also based on a hit TV series. And it was a huge bomb. Spies Like Us - The thing I like best about the original Get Smart, as well as a number of the films on this list, is that the incompetent hero isn’t really aware of how incompetent he really is. The best movie to utilize this premise, though, has to be Spies Like Us. But that movie came out toward the end of the Cold War, when spy stuff was seeming ridiculously outdated. Comparatively, Get Smart arrives post 9/11, when the fact that American intelligence is incompetent is not so funny anymore. I think that now audiences would much prefer to see more serious spy films, like the Bond reboot Casino Royale (note the significance of this film being kind of a remake of a Bond parody) and the Bourne Identity franchise. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Mon, 16 Jun 2008 21:01:14 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com6/16/2008 5:01:14 PMThe best time for a Get Smart movie would have been the late ’60s, when the original television series was still on the air. In fact, there was a theatrical Get Smart film in the works during the run of the show, but it was canceled when the theatrical release of Munster, Go Home! bombed at the box office. Many years later, in 1980, a Get Smart feature titled The Nude Bomb was released to theaters, but it also performed poorly. Now we’re getting a remake version starring Steve Carell in the role that was so iconically defined by the late Don Adams. Will it do the show justice? Reportedly the budget was $80 million, a significant amount of which was probably put towards pointless effects. But the best thing Warner Bros. could have done with that money is to give a large amount to series creators Mel Brooks and Buck Henry, who probably even today could churn out a better script than Failure to Launch scribes Tom J. Astle and Matt Ember. Despite its lack of original Get Smart talent, though, it could still be marginally funny. Yet the real problem is that it may be too outdated and obsolete for audiences to care. In the four decades since the show went off the air, there has been plenty of similar-themed movies, from spy spoofs to films with bumbling heroes. The following ten titles are the best evidence of why this new Get Smart movie is completely unnecessary: Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery - It’s interesting that Get Smart is going up against a Mike Myers movie this weekend, because in a way it’s also going up against Myers’ Austin Powers movies, as well. Sure, spy parodies have been around in spades since around the time of the first James Bond movie, but nothing has been as popular as this series, which of course includes the much bigger-grossing sequels, Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me and Austin Powers in Goldmember. Inspector Gadget - The original animated series was based on Get Smart and even featured the voice of Don Adams. Also like Get Smart, it was remade into a feature film with a different cast. However, it did find room to employ both Adams (as the voice of the dog, Brain) and Andy Dick (who had played Maxwell Smart’s son in a 1990s Get Smart series). Regardless, it was still a failure, both in terms of its box office gross and the way it ruined our childhood memory of the beloved cartoon. Perhaps if the Get Smart movie is good enough, then it could make up for Inspector Gadget (and its sequel), but it would have to be really, really good. The Pink Panther - You might say that Get Smart came about as a response to both the Bond films and the original Pink Panther movies, which featured a bumbling police inspector instead of a bumbling spy. The recent remake of The Pink Panther already showed us that some characters should really be forever remembered by their most iconic portrayer. In this case Steve Martin was nothing compared to Peter Sellers, while in the case of Get Smart, Steve Carell is only muddying the memory of Don Adams. Even if he does a good job, he’s just not the real Maxwell Smart. He should just be in another lame generic spy spoof instead. Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgandy - Want to see Steve Carell act clueless? Watch Anchorman again, because he can’t top his performance as Brick Tamland. “I love lamp.” The Naked Gun: From the Files of Police Squad! - The show Police Squad was in a way like Get Smart, only with a clueless detective rather than a clueless spy (I guess it could be seen as more like The Pink Panther then?). Fortunately that series only took a few years to spin-off a feature film, and thanks to the genius of Jim Abrahams and the Zucker Bros., who are almost equal in spoofing ability to Mel Brooks, it is funnier than any single episode or film of Get Smart can be without Brooks’ involvement. Spy Hard - Leslie Nielsen starred as the bumbling detective in the Naked Gun movies and then later played a bumbling spy in this spoof. The result: if Nielsen hadn’t already supplanted the Maxwell Smart character earlier, he did so here, even if really, really poorly. The Man Who Knew Too Little - More clueless spy stuff, this one an underrated movie starring Bill Murray. It actually made less money than The Nude Bomb (even without an inflation adjustment), but I enjoyed it a lot, probably more than I’ll enjoy Get Smart. Johnny English - Yep, I’m still just listing the other recent spy spoofs. But, really, there’s a point. When even Rowan Atkinson has done the bumbling spy bit, it’s time to hang up on the idea. I Spy - Did I already point out that #s 6-10 are more spy comedies? And there’s a lot that I’m not even including! This one is significant because it’s also based on a hit TV series. And it was a huge bomb. Spies Like Us - The thing I like best about the original Get Smart, as well as a number of the films on this list, is that the incompetent hero isn’t really aware of how incompetent he really is. The best movie to utilize this premise, though, has to be Spies Like Us. But that movie came out toward the end of the Cold War, when spy stuff was seeming ridiculously outdated. Comparatively, Get Smart arrives post 9/11, when the fact that American intelligence is incompetent is not so funny anymore. I think that now audiences would much prefer to see more serious spy films, like the Bond reboot Casino Royale (note the significance of this film being kind of a remake of a Bond parody) and the Bourne Identity franchise. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog