|
Post by mmderdekea on May 14, 2008 0:02:35 GMT -5
Half of what names, Melmac? Aside from "gook", "Commie's/Pinko's (and those aren't that bad), Bill's language was fairly tame. "Creeps" is a favorite as we all know, but he was by no means racist (we get that set straight right in the pilot when his partner is Black and Bill's obviously very upset when John is dead), and he although he acted chauvinistic (as men of his generation were supposed to), we all know how much he liked and respected Pam, and was protective of her.
Ralph walks around saying "Damn" all the time, particularly when he screws up (three or so times in five minutes in O:SS, when Bill is kidnapped, is the most concentrated Damn usage by Ralph that I know of), but chastises Bill for using "what the hell" to JJ Beck--overall the language of the series was, as expected, pretty G-rated. Hardly the nasty, expletive laden garbage spoken by characters on TV nowadays! Cannell relies much more on his main characters having the rare and creative gift of speaking in poetic metaphors, with which he gorgeously endowed Bill Maxwell, (and Culp spoke wonderfully), although Bill wouldn't know what a metaphor was if it shot him in the arm.
All in all, Bill's language is brusque, curt, abrasive, but also polite, respectful and sweet, depending on who he's chatting with and the situation. However, it was rarely not "politically correct".
Mona
|
|
|
Post by culpkatt on May 14, 2008 0:29:31 GMT -5
Do you suppose that the Bill Maxwell character is a bit more edgier now than when the show was on the air? Political correctness is so ingrained into the mainstream of our sociey now that I tend to think that if a GAH movie is ever made, the Maxwell character would be more restrained. There are certain lines in this show that would never make it to air these days: off the top of my head, the scene in 'Wizards and Warlocks' where Maxwell is briefing Carlisle and mentions "the guys with the black dish towels on their heads."
|
|
|
Post by MelMac on May 14, 2008 2:06:50 GMT -5
Half of what names, Melmac? Aside from "gook", "Commie's/Pinko's (and those aren't that bad), Bill's language was fairly tame. "Creeps" is a favorite as we all know, but he was by no means racist (we get that set straight right in the pilot when his partner is Black and Bill's obviously very upset when John is dead), and he although he acted chauvinistic (as men of his generation were supposed to), we all know how much he liked and respected Pam, and was protective of her. Ralph walks around saying "Damn" all the time, particularly when he screws up (three or so times in five minutes in O:SS, when Bill is kidnapped, is the most concentrated Damn usage by Ralph that I know of), but chastises Bill for using "what the hell" to JJ Beck--overall the language of the series was, as expected, pretty G-rated. Hardly the nasty, expletive laden garbage spoken by characters on TV nowadays! Cannell relies much more on his main characters having the rare and creative gift of speaking in poetic metaphors, with which he gorgeously endowed Bill Maxwell, (and Culp spoke wonderfully), although Bill wouldn't know what a metaphor was if it shot him in the arm. All in all, Bill's language is brusque, curt, abrasive, but also polite, respectful and sweet, depending on who he's chatting with and the situation. However, it was rarely not "politically correct". Mona Mona, just because I make an observation based on today's society I am not right or wrong. Also, as I've said elsewhere I never have seen Bill as racist - far from it. I am curious as to why you are looking too much into my comments and opinions about Bill to have a bone to pick with me though, as I feel that my comments are based on what could happen in a "GAH" movie of today. As I mentioned in my earlier post, and as culpkatt also mentions a bit further, today's society is hypersensitive to names and stereotyping, even the tame ones that Bill says, i.e. "gink" and "pinko." People can get their butts fired for just saying "Nice dress" to a woman at work, because she thinks it's sexual harassment, etc. Cartoons, such as "Tom and Jerry" are edited to remove characters that look like they're in blackface. Most kids wouldn't even get that reference, but it's clearly missing now. What was perfectly fine in the days of Bill's vocabulary is considered offensive today by this "I'm easily offended" society. Do I like it this change to be PC? - no, but that's what I see. Simply put, Bill would be rewritten to not be as "politically incorrect" by today's standards as he was then for those reasons. And, personally I think that would be an insult to Culp's portrayal of Bill. But, that's today's POV on yesteryear's comments. (Also - as far as damn and hell, back in the 1980s it was starting to make an entrance in mainstream dialog on TV. Note too that Ralph went from saying "Damn" in the first season to doing what SJC did - use witty comments and banter. I wish more writing were like that today instead of sounding like Twiki from "Buck Rogers." )
|
|
|
Post by culpkatt on May 14, 2008 2:46:00 GMT -5
Mel, you bring up an interesting point about PC censorship regarding older cartoons. A lot of those old Warner Brothers Bugs Bunny cartoons have been banned in this country because they're so politically incorrect.
Ahhh, Twiki...the ultimate phallic symbol.
|
|
|
Post by mmderdekea on May 14, 2008 9:02:55 GMT -5
I do not believe at all Bill would have to be rewritten to be 100% "politically correct"; as I said, his descriptions of that sort "dish towels" were spewed fairly rarely, but were a part of his personality. Why homogenize the man in today's even more lenient language allowances of television? With the shows on TV, now, it would not be necessary. If they keep the humor and the creative metaphors, and the complex personality (not parody Bill, but show all his layers of decency, loyalty, vulnerabilities, etc), and have some Bill sometimes say "inappropriate" words, I doubt that would be a problem at all for TV or the audience today. I think he would wind up the fascinating character he was 24 years ago.
Mona
|
|
|
Post by MelMac on May 14, 2008 11:07:27 GMT -5
I do not believe at all Bill would have to be rewritten to be 100% "politically correct"; as I said, his descriptions of that sort "dish towels" were spewed fairly rarely, but were a part of his personality. Why homogenize the man in today's even more lenient language allowances of television? With the shows on TV, now, it would not be necessary. If they keep the humor and the creative metaphors, and the complex personality (not parody Bill, but show all his layers of decency, loyalty, vulnerabilities, etc), and have some Bill sometimes say "inappropriate" words, I doubt that would be a problem at all for TV or the audience today. I think he would wind up the fascinating character he was 24 years ago. Mona I don't disagree with that concept, but the sad state of affairs, and given current remakes of shows into movies, they could possibly do that to Bill - maybe would - but I will say too not just him. If they did, it'd be a shame too, because that is what makes Bill who he is. This is an opinion only, not a statement of fact. The same goes true for Ralph and Pam's personalities, and we've seen what can happen as far as Ralph if you tinker with a characterization in "GAHeroine." Ralph was not the same Ralph, even though Katt did a great job with what he had. They also, IMHO only, parodied Bill instead of keeping him the tough Fed in "Heroine," which I felt was an injustice to the character. Out of the three, Pam was the closest to the original, but Connie also said very little in the story. (I don't know if it's because of the chopped suey story or she couldn't appear much because of "Hotel") I say this too because IMHO, any movie, any character in classics (film remakes or TV shows) that are redone into movies have redone their characters this way. Artemus Gordon, Jim West, John Steed and Emma Peel, several of the "Mission: Impossible" characters (actually, it's gone from group effort to the Ethan Hunt show), etc., are all great examples of this. Result - all pale in comparison to the originals. As to "Why homogenize the man in today's even more lenient language allowances of television?" Simple - in my opinion it's to try to rework the system to make more money and get more people to come watch. Producers from what I've seen lately simply do not want to make large screen versions based on the original concept, my guess afraid that people won't come because it's "old." Look at the movie rumor and "TGAH 2008" for the show - there's things there that aren't in step with the show simply to make them unique (agree/disagree aside). "I, Spy," is another keen example - they didn't even bother watching the original show when they wrote the script. Result? - very poor story. "Speed Racer" is a current version of this - use all the money for the fantastic effects, but little plot (the anime was very plot-heavy at times) - and it's going to take a miracle for them to make up the cost to film. Personally, I feel that if they do bring the show back, either as a TV series, TV movie or large screen production, they don't tinker with the concept, including characters if they insist on Ralph, Pam and Bill there. But, as in this example, odds are they'd probably do that and rework the original trio into characters that are way different from their original, and Bill is probably the one who'd change most for those reasons I say above in previous posts. I've yet to see a TV series that's turned into a movie that do not rework the characters in some way, shape or form. Hence, I feel that unless they do a reunion movie (unlikely given their ages), I'd prefer they retire the characters and continue with a new duo, keeping vague how many handovers they've had and who so no one can debate the canon issue.
|
|
|
Post by maxwellian on May 14, 2008 11:08:55 GMT -5
I do not believe at all Bill would have to be rewritten to be 100% "politically correct"; as I said, his descriptions of that sort "dish towels" were spewed fairly rarely, but were a part of his personality. I think Bill said it best: "Kid, I know that I'm not exactly right on the mark what you'd like me to be.... You can take me to weekend seminars til moss grows out of my ears, it's not gonna happen. I'm not gonna change. Period." And I think that's how it SHOULD be! He wouldn't be Bill otherwise. ;D He's a good and decent guy and he's not perfect. Making him politically correct, ugh... That's part of his charm, not afraid to come right out and say what he's thinking, unfiltered.
|
|
|
Post by MelMac on May 14, 2008 11:13:55 GMT -5
I do not believe at all Bill would have to be rewritten to be 100% "politically correct"; as I said, his descriptions of that sort "dish towels" were spewed fairly rarely, but were a part of his personality. I think Bill said it best: "Kid, I know that I'm not exactly right on the mark what you'd like me to be.... You can take me to weekend seminars til moss grows out of my ears, it's not gonna happen. I'm not gonna change. Period." And I think that's how it SHOULD be! He wouldn't be Bill otherwise. ;D He's a good and decent guy and he's not perfect. Making him politically correct, ugh... That's part of his charm, not afraid to come right out and say what he's thinking, unfiltered. This is why too I wish they'd ditch any ideas of bringing back the original trio and do a movie such as Mortimer's where it's a new team with the original characters possibly appearing in cameo. But, if they're insistent on bringing the trio back (a mistake IMHO), I think we'll end up with this possible scenario. It's a hunch, based on many things I see in the industry. Now, if that's right or wrong depends if they actually go through with it.
|
|
|
Post by culpkatt on May 14, 2008 12:21:45 GMT -5
I do not believe at all Bill would have to be rewritten to be 100% "politically correct"; as I said, his descriptions of that sort "dish towels" were spewed fairly rarely, but were a part of his personality. I think Bill said it best: "Kid, I know that I'm not exactly right on the mark what you'd like me to be.... You can take me to weekend seminars til moss grows out of my ears, it's not gonna happen. I'm not gonna change. Period." And I think that's how it SHOULD be! He wouldn't be Bill otherwise. ;D He's a good and decent guy and he's not perfect. Making him politically correct, ugh... That's part of his charm, not afraid to come right out and say what he's thinking, unfiltered. I find the Bill Maxwell character even more refreshing today in a society that's become hyper sensitive regarding political correctness. The character almost seems rebellious now. I think the point Melmac was making is that the Bill Maxwell character as portrayed in the original series would have to be toned down to reflect todays sensitivities where everything seems so "vanilla" in order not to offend particular groups.
|
|
|
Post by mmderdekea on May 14, 2008 13:33:42 GMT -5
Hello, Culpkatt,
I know what Melmac's point was; I think it's incorrect. As I said, in today's television society, Bill Maxwell, uncensored, would be fine. Are folks aware of the language and plots and NASTY characters of TV today? Bill might say an inappropriate word now and then, but what a great thing to see that "good and decent man", with his flaws, showing folks how to protect the country, the world, one's friends, innocent people, with a wonderful sense of humor, with courage, with a gun aimed only to wound. So what if he says a stereotype or two; people do that in real life, and Bill was very realistically presented. He would and should be a great character, just as he was.
Mona
|
|
|
Post by MST3Claye on May 14, 2008 14:13:59 GMT -5
With as sensitive and PC the world is today. I wouldn't be surprised if someone complained just to complain. Not sure how many are gamers here, probably not that many at all, but recently a space type action/rpg (role playing game) video game came out for the XBox 360 that of course was rated Mature. Well the usuals came out of the woodworks, the anti-video game people and a lot of Fox News type folks came out complaining that the game was about having sex with characters and creating a female version of your character with certain body parts augmented with over-the-top features. Truth be told after the smoke cleared it turned out that it wasn't true at all of this game. The player creation was not over-the-top and the sex scene? At least if not LESS than a 20 or so second clip that is played after SEVERAL hours of game play (though I think it's supposed to happen at the end) so the original complainer/analysis of the game had to make a correction/sorta apology for it. So yes, Bill wasn't a racist but who knows who would have a problem with his anti-communist/pro USA type talk, no matter how much or less he actually does it. I'm not saying he overdoes it. I'm saying if there are folks to complain about the above, don't be surprised that someone would complain about that.
|
|
|
Post by MelMac on May 14, 2008 14:22:18 GMT -5
Hello, Culpkatt, I know what Melmac's point was; I think it's incorrect. As I said, in today's television society, Bill Maxwell, uncensored, would be fine. Are folks aware of the language and plots and NASTY characters of TV today? Bill might say an inappropriate word now and then, but what a great thing to see that "good and decent man", with his flaws, showing folks how to protect the country, the world, one's friends, innocent people, with a wonderful sense of humor, with courage, with a gun aimed only to wound. So what if he says a stereotype or two; people do that in real life, and Bill was very realistically presented. He would and should be a great character, just as he was. Mona Again, it's an opinion, that does not mean it's right or wrong. An opinion is open to interpretation by others, and here I can see you disagree with my opinion, which I respect. That said, I also agree and disagree with your opinion, as I can see a possibility that they could change Bill knowing this day and age's sensitivities to even mild terms such as the ones he used in the show. I'm not saying it would happen, but there's always one person somewhere in America who has their heads in the clouds and would take offense to Bill's comments over a bad guy's simply because he's the good guy. ... Here's where I agree with you: I would hate to see that happen to Bill if they so choose to bring back the three characters. In real life, I'm a lot like Bill - anti-PC, and hate the fact I have to write any race of person who's an American as a "hypenated-American." We're all Americans, regardless of the color of our skin, and frankly feel that sometimes people are still living in decades that we've passed some time ago. So, that's also why I get burned when I have a feeling they'd do that to Bill. This said, maybe I should've clarified my reasons better in my first post, but the movie industry is frankly wonky that way about toning down the wrong person and making them less "offensive" to the common viewer (and, this comes from experience). Also, I'm quite aware about the "language and plots and NASTY characters of TV today" given what I've seen on YouTube (some cases before said offensive items were removed). They do need to tone down on that stuff, as you can have truly evil people without resorting to some of the stuff they do now (sexual humiliation, over emphasis on torture/gore, using the "F-bomb" and other crass language, etc.) But, I've never understood Hollywood's infatuation with going to those realms and levels to begin with. Sometimes it works yes, but a lot of times it's too excessive. ("Final Destination 3" springs to mind when they have a nail gun fire about 10-15 more nails into the person's head after the person is already clearly dead). All this said, the thing is, from observation of the industry the tendency is lately that if a bad guy says epithets or uses stereotypes it's fine, but if it's the good guy it's bad. (Frankly, this also might be why "The Wild Wild West" with Will Smith as Jim West bombed). So who usually gets toned down? - the good guy. Personally, I love the fact that Bill is anti-PC: it balances out Ralph's gushy and mushy stuff (I admit, he tends to be too positive at times). Then again, I feel all three are great as their own flaws and all, as I've seen Ralph and Pam types. Holly is the only person whom I have seen that isn't portrayed normally, so that's why I say let them stay a team and move on, giving the suit to another different team who may/may not know Ralph, Pam and Bill.
|
|
|
Post by ralphssister on May 16, 2008 20:39:52 GMT -5
Thank you for the welcome, I have actually visited this board over the last two years...happy to see it. I understand that the Kevin Hinkley issue may be forced, but it could turn interesting and provide a logical flow. If he inherited the suit from Ralph, that would explain the continued lack of instruction book, mystery around his father's activities, and continuation of story in the generational context. Remember, Bill had a diary, Kevin finds it - it is the instruction book. Imagine Ralph & Bill passing into the great beyond as their time does come or the opportunity- leaving Kevin his inheritance. 27 years later - Kevin is about 35-36, which is a good age to inherit. Interestingly, Kevin's mom was an actress, plus Pam as an influence - could be an interesting dynamic - maybe his partner could be a woman. Such as wishes go. Stephen Cannell was WAY, WAY ahead of his time by creating a very human superhero. Note the success of the recent Spiderman movies, Superman, and Batman (Dark Knight) movies - they all were acclaimed not for the powers possessed or action, but by the humanness and slanted realism of the characters. As someone noted, it is about the characters. Which brings another point: Superman was defined in a book many, many years ago with a mythology. Most people agree that Christopher Reeve defined Superman - he brought a 2D character to life. The key difference with TGAH is that William Katt IS Ralph Hinkley who IS the GAH, the mythos was defined as a defined story and character. Plus, TGAH was entirely reflective of "true" American society, issues, and problems (cold war, nuclear issues, divorce, increasing diversity, 80's materialism, political corruption). Barring the dumbness of Beast in Black and the electric alien, of course (which Cannell wrote to appease the idiots at ABC). Either you update and redefine the story exactly as it is (i.e., Superman I - which was a darn good revision) with modifications for today OR you create a new GAH for the generation and repeat the "You Don't Mess Around With Jim" scenario. Otherwise it will not work. The Greatest American Heroine failed because it created a cartoon and extreme exaggeration (of liberalism, of environmental consciousness) out of everything; from Ralph on SNL to her love of the whales. It was totally implausible and deviated from the original premise. Oddly enough, if you almost combine a "reality show" slice of life story with a supersuit, then the magic of GAH is captured. The cool thing is "anyone" could walk out into the desert and be a candidate for a supersuit - any good person at least. (except not Palmdale, so many houses there now. ) Plus, the melding of diversity into a unified partnership, a nice theme for today's melting pot of people. Dukes of Hazzard was a cartoon, so was the A-Team - much less gravity involved there. Not a big deal to translate - uh, shooting cabbages at bad guys - lot of thought-provoking build and character development - yah. Ralph and Bill, Pam, much more 3 dimensional, as were the stories - some of which weren't too far off from plausibility - things were crazy enough where a scenario like "Operation Spoilsport" could be true - makes you think a bit. They lose that dimension, so goes the GAH. Anyway, those are my comments on that. If you do some research, some folks a few years ago analyzed some of the social ramifications or messaging involved in The Greatest American Hero - such as the fact Ralph & Bill metaphorically represented the generational gap of the times and the rise of the businesswoman/professional feminist female - Pam. Interesting stuff. There is a little bit more than a "cartoon superhero" or guy flying into walls involved. Like another commentator once said: Like Ralph and the supersuit, life has no instruction book, we learn by trial and error and adapt to our situation accordingly. Ralph Hinkley sure loved metaphors.
|
|
|
Post by culpkatt on May 16, 2008 21:27:31 GMT -5
Thank you for the welcome, I have actually visited this board over the last two years...happy to see it. I understand that the Kevin Hinkley issue may be forced, but it could turn interesting and provide a logical flow. If he inherited the suit from Ralph, that would explain the continued lack of instruction book, mystery around his father's activities, and continuation of story in the generational context. Remember, Bill had a diary, Kevin finds it - it is the instruction book. Imagine Ralph & Bill passing into the great beyond as their time does come or the opportunity- leaving Kevin his inheritance. 27 years later - Kevin is about 35-36, which is a good age to inherit. Interestingly, Kevin's mom was an actress, plus Pam as an influence - could be an interesting dynamic - maybe his partner could be a woman. Such as wishes go. Stephen Cannell was WAY, WAY ahead of his time by creating a very human superhero. Note the success of the recent Spiderman movies, Superman, and Batman (Dark Knight) movies - they all were acclaimed not for the powers possessed or action, but by the humanness and slanted realism of the characters. As someone noted, it is about the characters. Which brings another point: Superman was defined in a book many, many years ago with a mythology. Most people agree that Christopher Reeve defined Superman - he brought a 2D character to life. The key difference with TGAH is that William Katt IS Ralph Hinkley who IS the GAH, the mythos was defined as a defined story and character. Plus, TGAH was entirely reflective of "true" American society, issues, and problems (cold war, nuclear issues, divorce, increasing diversity, 80's materialism, political corruption). Barring the dumbness of Beast in Black and the electric alien, of course (which Cannell wrote to appease the idiots at ABC). Either you update and redefine the story exactly as it is (i.e., Superman I - which was a darn good revision) with modifications for today OR you create a new GAH for the generation and repeat the "You Don't Mess Around With Jim" scenario. Otherwise it will not work. The Greatest American Heroine failed because it created a cartoon and extreme exaggeration (of liberalism, of environmental consciousness) out of everything; from Ralph on SNL to her love of the whales. It was totally implausible and deviated from the original premise. Oddly enough, if you almost combine a "reality show" slice of life story with a supersuit, then the magic of GAH is captured. The cool thing is "anyone" could walk out into the desert and be a candidate for a supersuit - any good person at least. (except not Palmdale, so many houses there now. ) Plus, the melding of diversity into a unified partnership, a nice theme for today's melting pot of people. Dukes of Hazzard was a cartoon, so was the A-Team - much less gravity involved there. Not a big deal to translate - uh, shooting cabbages at bad guys - lot of thought-provoking build and character development - yah. Ralph and Bill, Pam, much more 3 dimensional, as were the stories - some of which weren't too far off from plausibility - things were crazy enough where a scenario like "Operation Spoilsport" could be true - makes you think a bit. They lose that dimension, so goes the GAH. Anyway, those are my comments on that. If you do some research, some folks a few years ago analyzed some of the social ramifications or messaging involved in The Greatest American Hero - such as the fact Ralph & Bill metaphorically represented the generational gap of the times and the rise of the businesswoman/professional feminist female - Pam. Interesting stuff. There is a little bit more than a "cartoon superhero" or guy flying into walls involved. Like another commentator once said: Like Ralph and the supersuit, life has no instruction book, we learn by trial and error and adapt to our situation accordingly. Ralph Hinkley sure loved metaphors. [glow=red,2,300][/glow]WOW!!! That's probably one of the most insightful, analytical posts I've read on this board. Thanks for the effort on this. It was a pleasure to read.
|
|
|
Post by HoudiniDerek on May 16, 2008 22:22:41 GMT -5
Ralphssister, I am going to disagree with some of the things you said. You bring up the best reason I have seen though to have Kevin inherit the suit and under the right circumstances. I like that scenario overall, but I think that you have to account for HEROINE too, so that it is more of a DON'T MESS AROUND WITH JIM idea that includes the HEROINE component to some degree. It could also account for new powers that Bill discovered with Holly. After all, Bill's diary would include her. Apparently, you are not a realistic watcher of the A-TEAM. Those four had character arcs and dimensions along the same level as GAH, especially when being written by SJC or Frank Lupo. Some shows were not that way, naturally, just like some GAH shows were not that way overall. Both shows worked because of the chemistry moreso than the personal growth as characters, although in both shows it played a part. I agree that there needs to be a story that is a complete revision like Superman or that takes on the JJ Beck idea. However, I don't agree with the reason that HEROINE failed. HEROINE failed for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the campy way which it was done. It also failed because it was cut short of what it should have been. (Imagine if SJC had been forced to make a one-hour GAH pilot). Plus, it took a character that everyone knew and loved and changed him to match the partner and not have a brand new team. HEROINE could have succeeded, but too many things worked against it. At the moment, I hope those forces convene to keep GAH off the big screen.
|
|
|
Post by ralphssister on May 17, 2008 15:29:49 GMT -5
:)Ralphssister, I am going to disagree with some of the things you said. You bring up the best reason I have seen though to have Kevin inherit the suit and under the right circumstances. I like that scenario overall, but I think that you have to account for HEROINE too, so that it is more of a DON'T MESS AROUND WITH JIM idea that includes the HEROINE component to some degree. It could also account for new powers that Bill discovered with Holly. After all, Bill's diary would include her. Ralphsister Replies: Thank you and with all due respect, The Greatest American Heroine represents a discontinuity of plot and story. The Greatest American Hero ended with VANITY SAID THE PREACHER. Consider who shot JR with Dallas - a dream sequence. HEROINE is a "what if" scenario, dreamt by a disillusioned Ralph who wishes he could just hand off the suit and Bill, get the recognition he feels he deserves, and forgets the whole thing. That would be Ralph's wish, wouldn't it. Yes a stretch, but could be written off and discarded from the continuity of the "real" storyline. Apparently, you are not a realistic watcher of the A-TEAM. Those four had character arcs and dimensions along the same level as GAH, especially when being written by SJC or Frank Lupo. Some shows were not that way, naturally, just like some GAH shows were not that way overall. Both shows worked because of the chemistry moreso than the personal growth as characters, although in both shows it played a part. RalphSister replies: Ah, true, my brother was more into the A-TEAM. The A-Team was on a different level than TGAH. Consider that the characters were defined exactly by their names "Mad Dog" Murdoch, "FACE", B.A. Barackus - more 2D, I recall that at 8:47 p.m. the team would always confront the bad guy with some new contraption uniquely devised to terminate them, no one was shot and killed, and the interesting thing was - gee how many car flips this episode. That was a very formulaic and "shallow" show compared to others that Cannell did. It was different and meant to be different - largely because - at that time - the networks wanted bang-bang-shoot up junk - got ratings. An A-TEAM movie may also be very different with more actual development and story today, but the essence can still remain. Call the A-Team, war veterans with speciality areas to help solve your problem (bounty hunters) and run from the gov't looking to turn them in. Works fine today also. I agree that there needs to be a story that is a complete revision like Superman or that takes on the JJ Beck idea. However, I don't agree with the reason that HEROINE failed. HEROINE failed for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the campy way which it was done. It also failed because it was cut short of what it should have been. (Imagine if SJC had been forced to make a one-hour GAH pilot). Plus, it took a character that everyone knew and loved and changed him to match the partner and not have a brand new team. HEROINE could have succeeded, but too many things worked against it. At the moment, I hope those forces convene to keep GAH off the big screen. Ralphssister replies: Agree. It was the campiness and departure from the "reality" of the "GAH universe" which is rather parallel to our real world. Plus there was a departure from character - after everything Ralph went through - he would doubtfully ever corrupt and crave limelight...everything that happened in that entire episode was just so discontinuous and illogical. HEROINE could have succeeded if, and only if, it continued logically. It is not likely that Ralph would choose a successor as J.J. Beck did not choose him, the aliens did. She would not be so slanted toward a cause, open-mindedness was a key factor. The entire partnership would terminate, no Bill and someone. Ralph would NEVER act in that way...etc. Otherwise, yes, complete agreement any big screen adaptation is slated to fail - I won't support it as I am sure many core fans wouldn't, unless it is done in accordance with the original SJC Universe laws. I will check out the TGAH2008 project, small niche fan based projects do sound interesting. Only wish I had thought to do something like that.
|
|
|
Post by HoudiniDerek on May 17, 2008 16:25:37 GMT -5
:)Ralphssister, I am going to disagree with some of the things you said. You bring up the best reason I have seen though to have Kevin inherit the suit and under the right circumstances. I like that scenario overall, but I think that you have to account for HEROINE too, so that it is more of a DON'T MESS AROUND WITH JIM idea that includes the HEROINE component to some degree. It could also account for new powers that Bill discovered with Holly. After all, Bill's diary would include her. Ralphsister Replies: Thank you and with all due respect, The Greatest American Heroine represents a discontinuity of plot and story. The Greatest American Hero ended with VANITY SAID THE PREACHER. Consider who shot JR with Dallas - a dream sequence. HEROINE is a "what if" scenario, dreamt by a disillusioned Ralph who wishes he could just hand off the suit and Bill, get the recognition he feels he deserves, and forgets the whole thing. That would be Ralph's wish, wouldn't it. Yes a stretch, but could be written off and discarded from the continuity of the "real" storyline. A dream sequence is more likely to me. I like the DALLS connection better than people who try to pass it off as never happening. Although, I think it would be Bill's nightmare before Ralph's. To keep a movie simple, especially if it builds off the old series, it would probably include HEROINE though, especially since it was released on the DVD set. Had it been done before DVD sets, it might have worked differently. Mad Dog? That is not his name. His call sign was "H.M." It stood for "Howling Mad" but that was not his name. B.A. stood for his name too, but people teased him calling him "Bad Attitude." The characters were different so the chemistry was different, but it was the same there as it was for GAH. The chemistry made the show more than anything overall and the actors had great chemistry. Coincidentally, people did die and members of the team were often injured, which is very realistic SJC. It did not happen in every episode of GAH either. Being a huge fan of both, it is easier for me to see the parallels than fans of only one of the shows. As for the contraption at the end, that was part of the gimmick of the show, just like Ralph had this gimmick of not really understanding the suit and somehow he managed to always stop the bad guys with Bill. The same overall ingredients, but it formed a different recipe.
|
|
|
Post by MelMac on May 19, 2008 13:20:19 GMT -5
As far as I know HD, there's still stuff going on with "TGAH 2008" - though the last time I read anything "new" it was a press release that pretty much had all we already knew in it. Haven't heard anything really new in over three months, possibly four.
|
|
|
Post by mmderdekea on May 19, 2008 14:28:08 GMT -5
Yeah, the Ralph to Holly hand-over always struck me as odd. Here we have the GG telling Ralph that his ego is out of control and thus he has to lose the suit. However, the GG continue, we believe you are still clear-headed and lucid enough to chose someone else for us....huh? If he's that clear-headed and lucid, then why not give him a second chance? If he's an egomaniac out of control, then why trust him to be able to chose the right person? It seems that that GG would have a complicated vetting process themselves to be able to chose the suit-wearer and their partner, giving them incredible powers to use or abuse, and not simply rely on Ralph walking around and choosing some random chick with a kid. Although the GG, based on JJ Beck and GAHeroine, seemed to do magnificently choosing partners to the suit-wearers--Marshall and Bill holding true to the vision--but kind of didn't do so good with suit-wearers, both of whom lost the suit due to irresponsibility. Now, Ralph fans, don't jump on me, I'm just analyzing what we saw--remember, I don't like GAHeroine either, or Ralph's poor representation in it. Mona
|
|
|
Post by HoudiniDerek on May 19, 2008 14:43:08 GMT -5
If you think about it though, it makes sense that the suit wearer would always be the one to finally foul up. They have the power overall in the suit and they are the ones that have to fight the temptation to use it and are forced to hide it. The partners can encourage or discourage it, but at the end of the day, they are like a Vice President: Along for the ride.
|
|