FLM films - My Webpage

2003-11-23 11:51:11-08:00 - Re: Don't miss Tarzan tonight at 9pm/8pmCentral - (Hank Tiffany <davidt@cet.com>)


On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 porter@nyc.com wrote: > This is a show that is too good to miss. One episode and you'll be > hooked. I challenge you to watch it on Sunday Nov 23rd (9pm Eastern on > the WB). You won't regret it. Watched the premire, mostly made it through by trying to figure out where in the books they were getting stuff from. Couldn't finish the 2nd episode (zzzzzzz!) havn't been back. Hank -- Hitler, he only had one ball/Goering, had two but they were small Himmler, was very simmlar/But poor old Goebbels had no balls at all

2003-11-23 12:22:07-05:00 - Re: Don't miss Tarzan tonight at 9pm/8pmCentral - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


Why would anyone want to watch Tarzan when it's cancellation has already been announced? Are they giving it a second chance or something? http://www.mediaweek.com/mediaweek/headlines/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=2019316 WB Cancels Freshman Drama Tarzan John Consoli NOVEMBER 06, 2003 - The WB, which just yesterday gave freshman drama One Tree Hill a full-season order, is cancelling another freshman drama, Tarzan, reports John Consoli. The network has ordered production to be stopped on the series and is expected to air the remaining three episodes that have been shot during the remainder of the November sweeps. WB executives have not yet decided what will air in Tarzan's Sunday 9 p.m. time period in December. The network has reality shows High School Reunion and Surreal Life ready for mid-season, and one could be called up for duty on Sunday nights at 9 p.m. beginning in January. Tarzan, through five telecasts, recorded a household rating of 2.6, considerably lower than its lead-in, Charmed, which is averaging a 3.6, according to Nielsen Media Research data. On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 17:14:40 GMT, porter@nyc.com wrote: >"This ain't your parent's Tarzan." > >If you aren't watching the WBs Tarzan, you're missing out on one of the >best new shows of the season. I know what you're thinking, how good can >a remake of Tarzan be. You're talking about a guy that runs around the >jungle in a loin cloth, swinging from vines and yodeling. Oh and saving >wimpy girly girl Jane from the wild beasts that raised him like one of >their own. > >But it isn't your parent's Tarzan. First off, this Tarzan isn't in the >jungles of Africa but rather the urban jungle of modern day New York >City. And there's no loin cloth (but for those that like some nice eye >candy he does go shirtless a few times). And yes he has a knack from >climbing trees and such but there's no yodeling and no little monkey >buddy named Cheetah. There's also no monosyllabic vocabulary. Nor is >there a wimpy and swooning Jane constantly in need of saving. > >What there is is John Clayton Jr, the only survivor of a plane crash 20 >years ago in the jungles of the Congo. He wasn't raised by the apes but >did manage to survive on his own and did learn a lot by watching the >animals around him. Including how to hunt and fish, how to climb trees >and so on. He's smart and a quick learner and trying to figure out the >rules of this world. What there is is Jane Porter, a by the book, >slightly obsessive (in that keep things orderly and clean kind of way) >cop who is still trying to rise in the ranks as a Detective in the NYPD. >And there's Richard and Kathleen Clayton, the estranged siblings who are >fighting tooth and nail for the share of controlling stocks in the >family owned Greystoke Industries that their brother John Clayton Sr >left behind when he died. These shares (and additional money equaling >several billion dollars) have been held in trust since the crash. >Richard wants the trust to gain control of Greystoke, Kathleen wants to >give it away to charity as a tribute to her lost family members. > >Unlike Tarzan's of the past, this show is hip and smart. It's more than >just a Romeo and Juliet romance, more than a cop show, more than a >conspiracy story, more than a drama. It's all this at it's best. And the >cast is truly amazing. Who would have thought that an underwear model >could possess the skills to convey in a look what most people would take >a small soliquy to express. Or could express so much in only a few >words. (as one reviewer said "The guy that played Tarzan didn't really >have much to say but even after a few grunts he showed more acting >acumen then the entirety of Tom Welling's two season run.") And to his >credit, Travis Fimmel obviously spends a lot of time working on the >physical aspects of the character. He does almost if not all of his own >stunts and his animal-like moves look totally natural, unlike the cheesy >stunts of his predecessors. When he moves, you see that he's no >superhero. Muscles strain and ache. When he is tossed off the hood of a >car, he doesn't pop right up but slowly and painfully gets to his feet. >And Travis's chemistry with leading lady Sarah Wayne Callies is perfect. >She is not only totally believeable as the woman completely entranced >and completely confused by John, she's one heck of a kick ass cop. She's >not afraid to get down and dirty and she doesn't wait for John to jump >to her rescue. She even steps right into the line of fire to help him >escape from pursuers. And gets in a few hits in the process. Mitch >Pileggi and Lucy Lawless as the Clayton siblings are icy hot and >perfectly matched. You can feel the tension in the room when they are >together. > >This is a show that is too good to miss. One episode and you'll be >hooked. I challenge you to watch it on Sunday Nov 23rd (9pm Eastern on >the WB). You won't regret it. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes)

2003-11-23 13:07:04-05:00 - Re: Don't miss Tarzan tonight at 9pm/8pmCentral - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 18:04:45 GMT, forge <forge@deathtoallspammers.youneedageek.com> wrote: >In article <tuq1svk9gpbu4h5rr017o1nsm4a82d4bqf@4ax.com>, EGK ><me@privacy.net> wrote: > >> Tarzan, through five telecasts, recorded a household rating of 2.6, >> considerably lower than its lead-in, Charmed, which is averaging a 3.6, >> according to Nielsen Media Research data. > >And that's REALLY sayin' something - if you can't even hold Charmed's >ratings, you SUCK. Heh. Heh. Angel wasn't able to hold the ratings for Charmed last year either was it? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes)

2003-11-23 17:14:40+00:00 - Don't miss Tarzan tonight at 9pm/8pmCentral - (porter@nyc.com)


"This ain't your parent's Tarzan." If you aren't watching the WBs Tarzan, you're missing out on one of the best new shows of the season. I know what you're thinking, how good can a remake of Tarzan be. You're talking about a guy that runs around the jungle in a loin cloth, swinging from vines and yodeling. Oh and saving wimpy girly girl Jane from the wild beasts that raised him like one of their own. But it isn't your parent's Tarzan. First off, this Tarzan isn't in the jungles of Africa but rather the urban jungle of modern day New York City. And there's no loin cloth (but for those that like some nice eye candy he does go shirtless a few times). And yes he has a knack from climbing trees and such but there's no yodeling and no little monkey buddy named Cheetah. There's also no monosyllabic vocabulary. Nor is there a wimpy and swooning Jane constantly in need of saving. What there is is John Clayton Jr, the only survivor of a plane crash 20 years ago in the jungles of the Congo. He wasn't raised by the apes but did manage to survive on his own and did learn a lot by watching the animals around him. Including how to hunt and fish, how to climb trees and so on. He's smart and a quick learner and trying to figure out the rules of this world. What there is is Jane Porter, a by the book, slightly obsessive (in that keep things orderly and clean kind of way) cop who is still trying to rise in the ranks as a Detective in the NYPD. And there's Richard and Kathleen Clayton, the estranged siblings who are fighting tooth and nail for the share of controlling stocks in the family owned Greystoke Industries that their brother John Clayton Sr left behind when he died. These shares (and additional money equaling several billion dollars) have been held in trust since the crash. Richard wants the trust to gain control of Greystoke, Kathleen wants to give it away to charity as a tribute to her lost family members. Unlike Tarzan's of the past, this show is hip and smart. It's more than just a Romeo and Juliet romance, more than a cop show, more than a conspiracy story, more than a drama. It's all this at it's best. And the cast is truly amazing. Who would have thought that an underwear model could possess the skills to convey in a look what most people would take a small soliquy to express. Or could express so much in only a few words. (as one reviewer said "The guy that played Tarzan didn't really have much to say but even after a few grunts he showed more acting acumen then the entirety of Tom Welling's two season run.") And to his credit, Travis Fimmel obviously spends a lot of time working on the physical aspects of the character. He does almost if not all of his own stunts and his animal-like moves look totally natural, unlike the cheesy stunts of his predecessors. When he moves, you see that he's no superhero. Muscles strain and ache. When he is tossed off the hood of a car, he doesn't pop right up but slowly and painfully gets to his feet. And Travis's chemistry with leading lady Sarah Wayne Callies is perfect. She is not only totally believeable as the woman completely entranced and completely confused by John, she's one heck of a kick ass cop. She's not afraid to get down and dirty and she doesn't wait for John to jump to her rescue. She even steps right into the line of fire to help him escape from pursuers. And gets in a few hits in the process. Mitch Pileggi and Lucy Lawless as the Clayton siblings are icy hot and perfectly matched. You can feel the tension in the room when they are together. This is a show that is too good to miss. One episode and you'll be hooked. I challenge you to watch it on Sunday Nov 23rd (9pm Eastern on the WB). You won't regret it.

2003-11-23 17:37:28+00:00 - Re: Don't miss Tarzan tonight at 9pm/8pmCentral - (porter@nyc.com)


EGK wrote: > Why would anyone want to watch Tarzan when it's cancellation has already > been announced? Are they giving it a second chance or something? > no, it has not been cancelled. Mediaweek jumped the gun (as did the tvguide.com). the decision has not been made and won't for another couple of weeks. This was reported in the Hollywood Reporter and confirmed by the WB. not only that the fans have been emailing, mailing, calling the WB etc like mad since the halt was announced. if you go to thewb.com you'll see some of the feedback on various pages.

2003-11-23 17:57:00+00:00 - Re: Don't miss Tarzan tonight at 9pm/8pmCentral - (JJ Karhu <kurgan@modeemi.fi>)


On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 17:14:40 GMT, porter@nyc.com wrote: >"This ain't your parent's Tarzan." Too bad it got the axe after 5 episodes or so. // JJ -- I actually liked the pilot

2003-11-23 18:04:45+00:00 - Re: Don't miss Tarzan tonight at 9pm/8pmCentral - (forge <forge@deathtoallspammers.youneedageek.com>)


In article <tuq1svk9gpbu4h5rr017o1nsm4a82d4bqf@4ax.com>, EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote: > Tarzan, through five telecasts, recorded a household rating of 2.6, > considerably lower than its lead-in, Charmed, which is averaging a 3.6, > according to Nielsen Media Research data. And that's REALLY sayin' something - if you can't even hold Charmed's ratings, you SUCK. Heh.

2003-11-23 18:08:32+00:00 - Re: Don't miss Tarzan tonight at 9pm/8pmCentral - (porter@nyc.com)


EGK wrote: > On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 18:04:45 GMT, forge > <forge@deathtoallspammers.youneedageek.com> wrote: > > >>In article <tuq1svk9gpbu4h5rr017o1nsm4a82d4bqf@4ax.com>, EGK >><me@privacy.net> wrote: >> >> >>>Tarzan, through five telecasts, recorded a household rating of 2.6, >>>considerably lower than its lead-in, Charmed, which is averaging a 3.6, >>>according to Nielsen Media Research data. >> >>And that's REALLY sayin' something - if you can't even hold Charmed's >>ratings, you SUCK. Heh. > > > Heh. Angel wasn't able to hold the ratings for Charmed last year either was > it? I was just about to say the same thing.

2003-11-23 18:09:43+00:00 - Re: Don't miss Tarzan tonight at 9pm/8pmCentral - (porter@nyc.com)


JJ Karhu wrote: > On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 17:14:40 GMT, porter@nyc.com wrote: > > >>"This ain't your parent's Tarzan." > > > Too bad it got the axe after 5 episodes or so. it hasn't been axed, merely halted.

2003-11-23 18:46:11+00:00 - Re: Don't miss Tarzan tonight at 9pm/8pmCentral - (nospam@nospam.com)


In article <HJ6wb.38334$NX5.2206@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com>, <porter@nyc.com> wrote: > JJ Karhu wrote: > > > On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 17:14:40 GMT, porter@nyc.com wrote: > > > > > >>"This ain't your parent's Tarzan." > > > > > > Too bad it got the axe after 5 episodes or so. > > it hasn't been axed, merely halted. I saw that on futoncritic and in the Hollywood Reporter.and I saw that it was cancelled on tvguide.com (all in the same day). and something in my gut said that something wasn't right. The Hollywood Reporter is a major industry paper, not a fan rag. They don't care about hurting someone's feelings so they don't hedge what they report. ANd they get the information from the source. So why would they report that the show was halted and under review if it was flat cancelled from that moment. Also, something else doesn't feel right. They cancel the show but then show the last 3 eps and during sweeps. November sweeps is supposed to be the most important of all the sweeps. Why would they air something that is losing them money due to poor ratings during such an important time. You say, they had them why not air them. sure that sort of makes since but when you are having to repay the advertisers from lost numbers doesn't it make more sense to air something you know will get better ratings and let the advertisers have the time at the original (and likely lower) price. Plus if they got poor ratings when the last Tarzan's aired it would hurt the networks average ratings and that can hurt their position as well. there was another article a few days ago about how the ratings seem rather wacky right now. In it, Jordan Levin speaks about Tarzan's mediocre performance and how he was on the side of giving it a chance to find its audience. The ratings slide does seem like it has reached its bottom (eps 5, 6, and 7 were all very close in score to one another). And I went and trolled around the web when I heard about all the campaigns, just out of curiosity. I don't think I've ever seen this kind of movement. It's way more than anything done to keep Buffy on the WB or to keep Firefly on the air. I think it might be more than the Roswell fans did during season one of that show. I even saw a couple of mentions on cast members official sites and in web chats that they know what's going on and they hope it works. I hope it does also. As I said in another thread, I think Tarzan has a lot of potential to be a good show. Heck, Angel's own Mere Smith in one of the writers. that alone is enough to make me hope the show gets a chance to find an audience. Cause I've met Mere and she's a really great person

2003-11-23 23:12:03+00:00 - Re: Don't miss Tarzan tonight at 9pm/8pmCentral - (Buckaroo Banzai <blackhole34@yahoo.com>)


Two big problems with this show- First, the actress portraying Jane is totally off-putting and not really that attractive, I mean the guy playing John is prettier than her. Second, the show is called *Tarzan*... the guy should at least refer to himself as Tarzan if no one else will. <porter@nyc.com> wrote in message news:4W5wb.17830$vp4.9033@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com... > "This ain't your parent's Tarzan." > > If you aren't watching the WBs Tarzan, you're missing out on one of the > best new shows of the season. I know what you're thinking, how good can > a remake of Tarzan be. You're talking about a guy that runs around the > jungle in a loin cloth, swinging from vines and yodeling. Oh and saving > wimpy girly girl Jane from the wild beasts that raised him like one of > their own. > > But it isn't your parent's Tarzan. First off, this Tarzan isn't in the > jungles of Africa but rather the urban jungle of modern day New York > City. And there's no loin cloth (but for those that like some nice eye > candy he does go shirtless a few times). And yes he has a knack from > climbing trees and such but there's no yodeling and no little monkey > buddy named Cheetah. There's also no monosyllabic vocabulary. Nor is > there a wimpy and swooning Jane constantly in need of saving. > > What there is is John Clayton Jr, the only survivor of a plane crash 20 > years ago in the jungles of the Congo. He wasn't raised by the apes but > did manage to survive on his own and did learn a lot by watching the > animals around him. Including how to hunt and fish, how to climb trees > and so on. He's smart and a quick learner and trying to figure out the > rules of this world. What there is is Jane Porter, a by the book, > slightly obsessive (in that keep things orderly and clean kind of way) > cop who is still trying to rise in the ranks as a Detective in the NYPD. > And there's Richard and Kathleen Clayton, the estranged siblings who are > fighting tooth and nail for the share of controlling stocks in the > family owned Greystoke Industries that their brother John Clayton Sr > left behind when he died. These shares (and additional money equaling > several billion dollars) have been held in trust since the crash. > Richard wants the trust to gain control of Greystoke, Kathleen wants to > give it away to charity as a tribute to her lost family members. > > Unlike Tarzan's of the past, this show is hip and smart. It's more than > just a Romeo and Juliet romance, more than a cop show, more than a > conspiracy story, more than a drama. It's all this at it's best. And the > cast is truly amazing. Who would have thought that an underwear model > could possess the skills to convey in a look what most people would take > a small soliquy to express. Or could express so much in only a few > words. (as one reviewer said "The guy that played Tarzan didn't really > have much to say but even after a few grunts he showed more acting > acumen then the entirety of Tom Welling's two season run.") And to his > credit, Travis Fimmel obviously spends a lot of time working on the > physical aspects of the character. He does almost if not all of his own > stunts and his animal-like moves look totally natural, unlike the cheesy > stunts of his predecessors. When he moves, you see that he's no > superhero. Muscles strain and ache. When he is tossed off the hood of a > car, he doesn't pop right up but slowly and painfully gets to his feet. > And Travis's chemistry with leading lady Sarah Wayne Callies is perfect. > She is not only totally believeable as the woman completely entranced > and completely confused by John, she's one heck of a kick ass cop. She's > not afraid to get down and dirty and she doesn't wait for John to jump > to her rescue. She even steps right into the line of fire to help him > escape from pursuers. And gets in a few hits in the process. Mitch > Pileggi and Lucy Lawless as the Clayton siblings are icy hot and > perfectly matched. You can feel the tension in the room when they are > together. > > This is a show that is too good to miss. One episode and you'll be > hooked. I challenge you to watch it on Sunday Nov 23rd (9pm Eastern on > the WB). You won't regret it. > >

2003-11-24 01:08:48+00:00 - Re: Don't miss Tarzan tonight at 9pm/8pmCentral - (nospam@nospam.com)


In article <79bwb.19053$Wy4.10487@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>, Buckaroo Banzai <blackhole34@yahoo.com> wrote: > Two big problems with this show- First, the actress portraying Jane is > totally off-putting and not really that attractive, I mean the guy playing > John is prettier than her. yeah well no one on Angel is all that attractive. > Second, the show is called *Tarzan*... the guy > should at least refer to himself as Tarzan if no one else will. And then you'd complain about what a dumb name Tarzan is. Of course I shouldn't be surprised that you'd pick those two things as 'big problems'. You've always been known for a wacked view of things

2003-11-24 01:50:08+00:00 - Re: Don't miss Tarzan tonight at 9pm/8pmCentral - (sweick@aol.commmmmmmm)


nospam@nospam.com wrote: >In article <79bwb.19053$Wy4.10487@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>, >Buckaroo Banzai <blackhole34@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> Two big problems with this show- First, the actress portraying Jane is >> totally off-putting and not really that attractive, I mean the guy playing >> John is prettier than her. > >yeah well no one on Angel is all that attractive. Ignoring that AA and ST are at least cute on the attractive scale and MM is a total babe, saying a show that used to have Charisma Carpenter, Stephanie Romanov, Julie Benz, et al on it of not having actresses that were all that attractive is just plain wrong. Hell, it's friggin' moronic. I'm assuming we're ignoring the men cause men are ruggedly handsome, not "pretty". (OK, so it's an issue with me.) As I'm very sure some of the Spike fans would lambaste you if you were claiming James isn't attractive. Just as more than a couple would attack you about DB, AD, and maybe even one or two for Andy. And while I disagree with BB's statement that the actress who plays Jane is unattractive, making a even dumber statement does not impress. So Spam elsewhere. Stephen Weick (Who wasn't all that impressed by the couple of episodes of "Tarzan" he did watch.) Stephen Weick (Hey, what are you looking down here for?)

2003-11-24 02:08:12+00:00 - Re: Don't miss Tarzan tonight at 9pm/8pmCentral - (Buckaroo Banzai <blackhole34@yahoo.com>)


<nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:231120031708386542%nospam@nospam.com... > In article <79bwb.19053$Wy4.10487@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>, > Buckaroo Banzai <blackhole34@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > Two big problems with this show- First, the actress portraying Jane is > > totally off-putting and not really that attractive, I mean the guy playing > > John is prettier than her. > > yeah well no one on Angel is all that attractive. Bite your tongue! Sure Charisma Carpenter's so-so, but Amy Acker and Stephanie Romanov- Schwing!!!! > > > Second, the show is called *Tarzan*... the guy > > should at least refer to himself as Tarzan if no one else will. > > And then you'd complain about what a dumb name Tarzan is. No, not considering that I live in the city of Tarzana... > > Of course I shouldn't be surprised that you'd pick those two things as > 'big problems'. You've always been known for a wacked view of things I bet a lot of people agree with me...

2003-11-24 02:50:13+00:00 - Re: Don't miss Tarzan tonight at 9pm/8pmCentral - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <4W5wb.17830$vp4.9033@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com>, porter@nyc.com wrote: > "This ain't your parent's Tarzan." Why do I get the feeling this comes directly from the WB's marketng department?

2003-11-24 10:38:51-08:00 - Re: Don't miss Tarzan tonight at 9pm/8pmCentral - (Mark Jones <sinanju@pacifier.com>)


porter@nyc.com wrote: > "This ain't your parent's Tarzan." Strike one right there. If I'm gonna watch Tarzan, I want TARZAN, dammit. You know, loincloth clad ape-man marauding through the jungle, killing his enemies and being entirely too macho for his own good. > If you aren't watching the WBs Tarzan, you're missing out on one of the > best new shows of the season. I know what you're thinking, how good can > a remake of Tarzan be. You're talking about a guy that runs around the > jungle in a loin cloth, swinging from vines and yodeling. Oh and saving > wimpy girly girl Jane from the wild beasts that raised him like one of > their own. Uh...that's what people _liked_ about Tarzan. That's why the books were popular. That's why the movies kept being made. That's what Tarzan _is_. If you're going to try to appeal to Tarzan fans, you might try giving them, you know, TARZAN. Not some warmed over night-time soap that bears little or no resemblance to the real thing. > But it isn't your parent's Tarzan. First off, this Tarzan isn't in the > jungles of Africa but rather the urban jungle of modern day New York > City. You are aware, aren't you, that Tarzan has been to the big city before, right? > And there's no loin cloth (but for those that like some nice eye > candy he does go shirtless a few times). And yes he has a knack from > climbing trees and such but there's no yodeling and no little monkey > buddy named Cheetah. There's also no monosyllabic vocabulary. Nor is > there a wimpy and swooning Jane constantly in need of saving. Nor was there in the original Tarzan. Tarzan was quite well-spoken. > And there's Richard and Kathleen Clayton, the estranged siblings who are > fighting tooth and nail for the share of controlling stocks in the > family owned Greystoke Industries that their brother John Clayton Sr > left behind when he died. These shares (and additional money equaling > several billion dollars) have been held in trust since the crash. > Richard wants the trust to gain control of Greystoke, Kathleen wants to > give it away to charity as a tribute to her lost family members. Yawn. A soap opera. > Unlike Tarzan's of the past, this show is hip and smart. "Hip and smart" invariably means "mocking the source material" in my experience. Strike two. > It's more than > just a Romeo and Juliet romance, more than a cop show, more than a > conspiracy story, more than a drama. It's all this at it's best. Trying to be all things to all people means failing at all them. > And the > cast is truly amazing. Who would have thought that an underwear model > could possess the skills to convey in a look what most people would take > a small soliquy to express. Or could express so much in only a few > words. (as one reviewer said "The guy that played Tarzan didn't really > have much to say but even after a few grunts he showed more acting > acumen then the entirety of Tom Welling's two season run.") Strike three. Dissing the competition, even by proxy. I'm no Tom Welling fan, but he's no less acceptable than countless other tv leads. And at least Smallville gives me what I want (and expect) from a show about the guy who will eventually be Superman. Feats of super strength, speed and toughness, supervillains, action, secret identity angst, and so forth. > Lucy Lawless as the Clayton siblings Oh yeah. Lucy Lawless is in this thing. Well, that might have tempted me to watch, if I'd remembered. But too late now. RIP Tarzan.

2003-11-24 12:01:44-08:00 - Re: Don't miss Tarzan tonight at 9pm/8pmCentral - (Hank Tiffany <davidt@cet.com>)


On Mon, 24 Nov 2003, Mark Jones wrote: > porter@nyc.com wrote: > > > Lucy Lawless as the Clayton siblings > > Oh yeah. Lucy Lawless is in this thing. Well, that might have tempted > me to watch, if I'd remembered. But too late now. Only reason I tried to watch the 2nd episode. Still lost interest before the 1/2 hour. Hank -- Hitler, he only had one ball/Goering, had two but they were small Himmler, was very simmlar/But poor old Goebbels had no balls at all

2003-11-24 16:03:11-05:00 - Re: Don't miss Tarzan tonight at 9pm/8pmCentral - (Randy Money <rbmoney@spamblocklibrary.syr.edu>)


nospam@nospam.com wrote: > In article <HJ6wb.38334$NX5.2206@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com>, > <porter@nyc.com> wrote: > > >>JJ Karhu wrote: >> >> >>>On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 17:14:40 GMT, porter@nyc.com wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>"This ain't your parent's Tarzan." >>> >>> >>>Too bad it got the axe after 5 episodes or so. >> >>it hasn't been axed, merely halted. > > > I saw that on futoncritic and in the Hollywood Reporter.and I saw that > it was cancelled on tvguide.com (all in the same day). > > and something in my gut said that something wasn't right. > > The Hollywood Reporter is a major industry paper, not a fan rag. They > don't care about hurting someone's feelings so they don't hedge what > they report. ANd they get the information from the source. So why would > they report that the show was halted and under review if it was flat > cancelled from that moment. > Not really to argue about Tarzan, which I haven't watched yet, but ... The Hollywood Reporter is an industry rag, that means it rarely says anything to upset anyone in the industry. Now it has been 20+ years since I looked at it, so it may have changed and drastically, but as I recall they regularly give moderate to good reviews to movies and shows that, frankly, stink. If you read it long enough you start to note the way they phrase a review so you get the idea that maybe a thing isn't all that good, and occasionally they would pan something really rock bottom, but if you didn't read between the lines you'd think they liked it. I don't think they are a truely unbiased source. Randy M.

2003-11-24 20:06:51+00:00 - Re: Don't miss Tarzan tonight at 9pm/8pmCentral - (Rowan Hawthorn <nobody@nowhere.com>)


"Mark Jones" <sinanju@pacifier.com> wrote in message news:vs4k1snr55gf27@corp.supernews.com... > porter@nyc.com wrote: > > > "This ain't your parent's Tarzan." > > Strike one right there. If I'm gonna watch Tarzan, I want TARZAN, > dammit. You know, loincloth clad ape-man marauding through the jungle, > killing his enemies and being entirely too macho for his own good. > Check. > > If you aren't watching the WBs Tarzan, you're missing out on one of the > > best new shows of the season. I know what you're thinking, how good can > > a remake of Tarzan be. You're talking about a guy that runs around the > > jungle in a loin cloth, swinging from vines and yodeling. Oh and saving > > wimpy girly girl Jane from the wild beasts that raised him like one of > > their own. > > Uh...that's what people _liked_ about Tarzan. That's why the books were > popular. That's why the movies kept being made. That's what Tarzan > _is_. If you're going to try to appeal to Tarzan fans, you might try > giving them, you know, TARZAN. Not some warmed over night-time soap > that bears little or no resemblance to the real thing. > Check. But then, that wouldn't fit into the current trend of "Let's take some extremely popular story/character that was created by someone else and see how bad we can completely F%#& IT UP!" > > But it isn't your parent's Tarzan. First off, this Tarzan isn't in the > > jungles of Africa but rather the urban jungle of modern day New York > > City. > > You are aware, aren't you, that Tarzan has been to the big city before, > right? I'd bet not. I'd also bet the producers aren't. > > > And there's no loin cloth (but for those that like some nice eye > > candy he does go shirtless a few times). And yes he has a knack from > > climbing trees and such but there's no yodeling and no little monkey > > buddy named Cheetah. There's also no monosyllabic vocabulary. Nor is > > there a wimpy and swooning Jane constantly in need of saving. > > Nor was there in the original Tarzan. Tarzan was quite well-spoken. > In French, no less, since he learned that before learning English - and he taught himself to *read* English before learning either spoken language. <snip> > It's more than > > just a Romeo and Juliet romance, more than a cop show, more than a > > conspiracy story, more than a drama. It's all this at it's best. > > Trying to be all things to all people means failing at all them. > Not to mention: like we *really* need more cop shows and conspiracy stories. -- Rowan Hawthorn

2003-11-25 04:20:56+00:00 - Re: Don't miss Tarzan tonight at 9pm/8pmCentral - (David Brewer <davidbrewer@blueyonder.co.uk>)


Rowan Hawthorn wrote: > > "Mark Jones" <sinanju@pacifier.com> wrote in message > news:vs4k1snr55gf27@corp.supernews.com... > > porter@nyc.com wrote: [...] > > > If you aren't watching the WBs Tarzan, you're missing out on one of the > > > best new shows of the season. I know what you're thinking, how good can > > > a remake of Tarzan be. You're talking about a guy that runs around the > > > jungle in a loin cloth, swinging from vines and yodeling. Oh and saving > > > wimpy girly girl Jane from the wild beasts that raised him like one of > > > their own. > > > > Uh...that's what people _liked_ about Tarzan. That's why the books were > > popular. That's why the movies kept being made. That's what Tarzan > > _is_. If you're going to try to appeal to Tarzan fans, you might try > > giving them, you know, TARZAN. Not some warmed over night-time soap > > that bears little or no resemblance to the real thing. > > > > Check. But then, that wouldn't fit into the current trend of "Let's take > some extremely popular story/character that was created by someone else and > see how bad we can completely F%#& IT UP!" A friend of mine used to be paid occasionally for telling stories. He won competitions and stuff. He'd just come back from a telling and I asked him if it was an original story of his own that he told. "No," said he "it was one that I acquired through the traditional story gathering process. I stole it." This is the nature of storytelling. Someone tells a story, someone hears it and repeats it differently. Over repeated generation of telling the strong elements of the story survive, and the weak ones disappear. There is no authenticity in storytelling. [...] > <snip> > It's more than > > > just a Romeo and Juliet romance, more than a cop show, more than a > > > conspiracy story, more than a drama. It's all this at it's best. > > > > Trying to be all things to all people means failing at all them. > > > > Not to mention: like we *really* need more cop shows and conspiracy stories. He's a tree-hugging billionaire psycho monkey-boy. She's a tough New York Cop. Together... they fight crime! I'll keep watching it. It's so awful I think of it as this year's Birds of Prey. -- David Brewer "The mentally disturbed do not employ the Theory of Scientific Parsimony: the most simple theory to explain a given set of facts." - P.K.Dick (from VALIS)

2003-11-25 05:06:19+00:00 - Re: Don't miss Tarzan tonight at 9pm/8pmCentral - (Rowan Hawthorn <nobody@nowhere.com>)


"David Brewer" <davidbrewer@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:3FC2D8A5.F960F5A5@blueyonder.co.uk... > Rowan Hawthorn wrote: > > > > "Mark Jones" <sinanju@pacifier.com> wrote in message > > news:vs4k1snr55gf27@corp.supernews.com... > > > porter@nyc.com wrote: > [...] > > > > If you aren't watching the WBs Tarzan, you're missing out on one of the > > > > best new shows of the season. I know what you're thinking, how good can > > > > a remake of Tarzan be. You're talking about a guy that runs around the > > > > jungle in a loin cloth, swinging from vines and yodeling. Oh and saving > > > > wimpy girly girl Jane from the wild beasts that raised him like one of > > > > their own. > > > > > > Uh...that's what people _liked_ about Tarzan. That's why the books were > > > popular. That's why the movies kept being made. That's what Tarzan > > > _is_. If you're going to try to appeal to Tarzan fans, you might try > > > giving them, you know, TARZAN. Not some warmed over night-time soap > > > that bears little or no resemblance to the real thing. > > > > > > > Check. But then, that wouldn't fit into the current trend of "Let's take > > some extremely popular story/character that was created by someone else and > > see how bad we can completely F%#& IT UP!" > > A friend of mine used to be paid occasionally for telling stories. > He won competitions and stuff. He'd just come back from a telling > and I asked him if it was an original story of his own that he > told. "No," said he "it was one that I acquired through the > traditional story gathering process. I stole it." > > This is the nature of storytelling. Someone tells a story, someone > hears it and repeats it differently. Over repeated generation of > telling the strong elements of the story survive, and the weak > ones disappear. There is no authenticity in storytelling. > Of course not, but there's quite bit of difference (to me, anyway) between doing an original character who's very loosely *based* on XXXXX and doing a story "about XXXXX" when the character in the story obviously bears no resemblance to XXXXX. If you're telling a story that's supposed to be about a certain character, *tell it about that character.* It especially hacks me off when fairly recently created characters get the treatment. It's not like Robin Hood, for instance, whose stories have been told and retold and evolved over seven or eight hundred years. > [...] > > <snip> > It's more than > > > > just a Romeo and Juliet romance, more than a cop show, more than a > > > > conspiracy story, more than a drama. It's all this at it's best. > > > > > > Trying to be all things to all people means failing at all them. > > > > > > > Not to mention: like we *really* need more cop shows and conspiracy stories. > > He's a tree-hugging billionaire psycho monkey-boy. > > She's a tough New York Cop. > > Together... they fight crime! > <gag!> > I'll keep watching it. It's so awful I think of it as this year's > Birds of Prey. > Another show that would have been a *hell* of a lot better if they'd stuck closer to the original characters - the modern-day Huntress, in particular, I've always considered one of the most underrated characters in comics. And then when we actually got her on screen, there was little resemblance to the source. Although, I have to give them credit for some great camera work and nice sets - and the stage sets were good, too... -- Rowan Hawthorn

2003-11-25 08:16:21-06:00 - Re: Don't miss Tarzan tonight at 9pm/8pmCentral - (Avatar <avatar@donoteventhinkaboutit.com>)


On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 12:01:44 -0800, Hank Tiffany <davidt@cet.com> wrote: >On Mon, 24 Nov 2003, Mark Jones wrote: > >> porter@nyc.com wrote: >> >> > Lucy Lawless as the Clayton siblings >> >> Oh yeah. Lucy Lawless is in this thing. Well, that might have tempted >> me to watch, if I'd remembered. But too late now. > >Only reason I tried to watch the 2nd episode. Still lost interest >before the 1/2 hour. > >Hank Watching Lucy Lawless with no lesbian subtext just isn't worth it. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sooner or later, all of our names wind up on a Post-It. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2003-11-27 03:47:41+00:00 - Re: Don't miss Tarzan tonight at 9pm/8pmCentral - (David Brewer <davidbrewer@blueyonder.co.uk>)


Rowan Hawthorn wrote: > > "David Brewer" <davidbrewer@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message > news:3FC2D8A5.F960F5A5@blueyonder.co.uk... > > Rowan Hawthorn wrote: > > > > > > "Mark Jones" <sinanju@pacifier.com> wrote in message > > > news:vs4k1snr55gf27@corp.supernews.com... > > > > porter@nyc.com wrote: > > [...] > > > > > If you aren't watching the WBs Tarzan, you're missing out on one of the > > > > > best new shows of the season. I know what you're thinking, how good can > > > > > a remake of Tarzan be. You're talking about a guy that runs around the > > > > > jungle in a loin cloth, swinging from vines and yodeling. Oh and saving > > > > > wimpy girly girl Jane from the wild beasts that raised him like one of > > > > > their own. > > > > > > > > Uh...that's what people _liked_ about Tarzan. That's why the books were > > > > popular. That's why the movies kept being made. That's what Tarzan > > > > _is_. If you're going to try to appeal to Tarzan fans, you might try > > > > giving them, you know, TARZAN. Not some warmed over night-time soap > > > > that bears little or no resemblance to the real thing. > > > > > > > > > > Check. But then, that wouldn't fit into the current trend of "Let's take > > > some extremely popular story/character that was created by someone else and > > > see how bad we can completely F%#& IT UP!" > > > > A friend of mine used to be paid occasionally for telling stories. > > He won competitions and stuff. He'd just come back from a telling > > and I asked him if it was an original story of his own that he > > told. "No," said he "it was one that I acquired through the > > traditional story gathering process. I stole it." > > > > This is the nature of storytelling. Someone tells a story, someone > > hears it and repeats it differently. Over repeated generation of > > telling the strong elements of the story survive, and the weak > > ones disappear. There is no authenticity in storytelling. > > > > Of course not, but there's quite bit of difference (to me, anyway) between > doing an original character who's very loosely *based* on XXXXX and doing a > story "about XXXXX" when the character in the story obviously bears no > resemblance to XXXXX. If you're telling a story that's supposed to be about > a certain character, *tell it about that character.* It especially hacks me > off when fairly recently created characters get the treatment. It's not > like Robin Hood, for instance, whose stories have been told and retold and > evolved over seven or eight hundred years. I'd say it was exactly the same as Robin Hood. Most people haven't read Burroughs, but they think they know the Tarzan character from animated cartoons and comics and television and (50+) films. And they know and like that character (as per Mark Jones above). So retellers can play with that as they choose. The books remain uncorrupted. This year it's a cop show, next time it could be Tarzan, Tarzan, Tarzan and Jane, attorneys-at-law. If it doesn't work it gets taken out round the back and shot in the head, and another iteration rears it's oddly beardless head. AFAIK, Joss Whedon doesn't own the character "Buffy the Vampire Slayer". In fifteen, thirty or fifty years time it could be "This ain't your parent's Buffy the Vampire Slayer". And good luck to them. [...] > > I'll keep watching it. It's so awful I think of it as this year's > > Birds of Prey. > > Another show that would have been a *hell* of a lot better if they'd stuck > closer to the original characters - the modern-day Huntress, in particular, > I've always considered one of the most underrated characters in comics. And > then when we actually got her on screen, there was little resemblance to the > source. [...] Which comic? The one with Helena as a mafia daughter (unrelated to Batman), fighting Omerta the mafia super villain? I bought them. Is there a more recent iteration? BoP represents well what I'm saying about story elements living and dying in a survival-of-the-fittest-like way. Supreme beardy Alan Moore wrote a one-shot prestige non-cannon Batman story called "The Killing Joke" in which the shooting and crippling of Barbara Gordon was a throwaway scene. Now it's DC cannon and one of the cornerstones of a short-lived TV show. It was an element that worked, it lives on. -- David Brewer "The mentally disturbed do not employ the Theory of Scientific Parsimony: the most simple theory to explain a given set of facts." - P.K.Dick (from VALIS)

2003-11-28 18:24:34+00:00 - Re: Don't miss Tarzan tonight at 9pm/8pmCentral - (nospam@nospam.com)


In article <3FC2720F.4060901@spamblocklibrary.syr.edu>, Randy Money <rbmoney@spamblocklibrary.syr.edu> wrote: > The Hollywood Reporter is an industry rag, that means it rarely says > anything to upset anyone in the industry. Now it has been 20+ years > since I looked at it, so it may have changed and drastically, but as I > recall they regularly give moderate to good reviews to movies and shows > that, frankly, stink. I read it all the time and for the most part, their reviews are much better than in the past. There is still bias due to personal taste but it's not as pandering as it used to be. And their news reporting (which is what this would be) is on the mark. They don't lie or pick words. What's really interesting is that I got curious after that little spam went out and I went cruising around the web during my turkey coma yesterday and found various posts about folks calling the WB, the production offices etc, and asking if the decision had been made (they were told not yet), about the mods from the network messages boards saying 'on hiatus' just a few days ago and so on. And again, something in my gut says that things aren't adding up. Now it could have just been all that food talking back, but why would a network that is still trying to establish itself run the risk of all that bad press if they had made the decision. Why be careful with their words. Sure folks would be upset about their favorite shows being cancelled. But if you trust the ratings, that's not that many folks. However, on the flip side, as a fan of another WB show, I would be pissed off at the network for lying to any group of fans, regardless of how crappy I thought the show in question was. Because if they would lie to one group of fans, what's to stop them from lying to the rest of us.

2003-11-29 22:11:38+00:00 - Re: Don't miss Tarzan tonight at 9pm/8pmCentral - (Rowan Hawthorn <nobody@nowhere.com>)


"David Brewer" <davidbrewer@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:3FC573DC.7626C61@blueyonder.co.uk... > Rowan Hawthorn wrote: > > > > "David Brewer" <davidbrewer@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message > > news:3FC2D8A5.F960F5A5@blueyonder.co.uk... > > > > > > > > Check. But then, that wouldn't fit into the current trend of "Let's take > > > > some extremely popular story/character that was created by someone else and > > > > see how bad we can completely F%#& IT UP!" > > > > > > > > > This is the nature of storytelling. Someone tells a story, someone > > > hears it and repeats it differently. Over repeated generation of > > > telling the strong elements of the story survive, and the weak > > > ones disappear. There is no authenticity in storytelling. > > > > > > > Of course not, but there's quite bit of difference (to me, anyway) between > > doing an original character who's very loosely *based* on XXXXX and doing a > > story "about XXXXX" when the character in the story obviously bears no > > resemblance to XXXXX. If you're telling a story that's supposed to be about > > a certain character, *tell it about that character.* It especially hacks me > > off when fairly recently created characters get the treatment. It's not > > like Robin Hood, for instance, whose stories have been told and retold and > > evolved over seven or eight hundred years. > > I'd say it was exactly the same as Robin Hood. Not really. Tarzan, like most modern characters, was created originally as a single story, less than a hundred years ago and still easily available. Robin Hood was *always* an oral tradition based on legends and half-remembered realities, a fluid character changing and evolving with the telling until someone finally wrote down the earliest known stories. But he was a well-known character in popular mythology long *before* those first stories were written down. > Most people haven't > read Burroughs, but they think they know the Tarzan character from > animated cartoons and comics and television and (50+) films. And > they know and like that character (as per Mark Jones above). So > retellers can play with that as they choose. The books remain > uncorrupted. This year it's a cop show, next time it could be > Tarzan, Tarzan, Tarzan and Jane, attorneys-at-law. May I say - eww... > If it doesn't > work it gets taken out round the back and shot in the head, and > another iteration rears it's oddly beardless head. > <sigh> Unfortunately true. > AFAIK, Joss Whedon doesn't own the character "Buffy the Vampire > Slayer". In fifteen, thirty or fifty years time it could be "This > ain't your parent's Buffy the Vampire Slayer". And good luck to > them. > > [...] > > > I'll keep watching it. It's so awful I think of it as this year's > > > Birds of Prey. > > > > Another show that would have been a *hell* of a lot better if they'd stuck > > closer to the original characters - the modern-day Huntress, in particular, > > I've always considered one of the most underrated characters in comics. And > > then when we actually got her on screen, there was little resemblance to the > > source. > [...] > > Which comic? The one with Helena as a mafia daughter (unrelated to > Batman), fighting Omerta the mafia super villain? I bought them. > Is there a more recent iteration? There was a series running 19 issues from 1989-1990 which established the modern-day Huntress as Helena Bertinelli, daughter of a murdered Mafia don (this is the series that featured Omerta.) IIRC, the Huntress mini-series in 1998 made a few changes to the original background, but I can't remember all the particulars now. It's still essentially the same character. The *original* Huntress was the daughter of the Batman of one of the alternate Earths, but even then the character was considerably different from Huntress of the TV show. > > BoP represents well what I'm saying about story elements living > and dying in a survival-of-the-fittest-like way. Supreme beardy > Alan Moore wrote a one-shot prestige non-cannon Batman story > called "The Killing Joke" in which the shooting and crippling of > Barbara Gordon was a throwaway scene. > Now it's DC cannon and one > of the cornerstones of a short-lived TV show. It was an element > that worked, it lives on. > Yeah, I have that. But I'm not so sure that was intended as a throwaway scene, as "The Killing Joke" came out *just after* the Batgirl Special titled "The Last Batgirl Story." -- Rowan Hawthorn

2003-11-29 23:56:01+00:00 - Re: Don't miss Tarzan tonight at 9pm/8pmCentral - (David Brewer <davidbrewer@blueyonder.co.uk>)


Rowan Hawthorn wrote: > "David Brewer" <davidbrewer@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message > news:3FC573DC.7626C61@blueyonder.co.uk... > > Rowan Hawthorn wrote: > > > "David Brewer" <davidbrewer@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message > > > news:3FC2D8A5.F960F5A5@blueyonder.co.uk... > > > > > > > > > > Check. But then, that wouldn't fit into the current trend of "Let's take > > > > > some extremely popular story/character that was created by someone else and > > > > > see how bad we can completely F%#& IT UP!" > > > > > > > > This is the nature of storytelling. Someone tells a story, someone > > > > hears it and repeats it differently. Over repeated generation of > > > > telling the strong elements of the story survive, and the weak > > > > ones disappear. There is no authenticity in storytelling. > > > > > > Of course not, but there's quite bit of difference (to me, anyway) between > > > doing an original character who's very loosely *based* on XXXXX and doing a > > > story "about XXXXX" when the character in the story obviously bears no > > > resemblance to XXXXX. If you're telling a story that's supposed to be about > > > a certain character, *tell it about that character.* It especially hacks me > > > off when fairly recently created characters get the treatment. It's not > > > like Robin Hood, for instance, whose stories have been told and retold and > > > evolved over seven or eight hundred years. > > > > I'd say it was exactly the same as Robin Hood. > > Not really. Tarzan, like most modern characters, was created originally as > a single story, less than a hundred years ago and still easily available. > Robin Hood was *always* an oral tradition based on legends and > half-remembered realities, a fluid character changing and evolving with the > telling until someone finally wrote down the earliest known stories. But he > was a well-known character in popular mythology long *before* those first > stories were written down. OK. "Exactly" was a poor choice of word. "Essentially" would have done better. Tarzan is a well-known character of popular mythology, whether or not he begins from a single known recent source. His story will be retold, recycled and reinvented forever. Everyone has heard the name and knows the character, while almost no one has read Burroughs books. Is it acceptable to have a James Bond that isn't an 80 year old WW2 veteran submariner? Bruce Wayne should be pushing... 100 years old? Spiderman should be in his... 50s? Pulp characters need to be refreshed and updated periodically. [...] > > [...] > > > > I'll keep watching it. It's so awful I think of it as this year's > > > > Birds of Prey. > > > > > > Another show that would have been a *hell* of a lot better if they'd stuck > > > closer to the original characters - the modern-day Huntress, in particular, > > > I've always considered one of the most underrated characters in comics. And > > > then when we actually got her on screen, there was little resemblance to the > > > source. > > [...] > > > > Which comic? The one with Helena as a mafia daughter (unrelated to > > Batman), fighting Omerta the mafia super villain? I bought them. > > Is there a more recent iteration? > > There was a series running 19 issues from 1989-1990 which established the > modern-day Huntress as Helena Bertinelli, daughter of a murdered Mafia don > (this is the series that featured Omerta.) IIRC, the Huntress mini-series > in 1998 made a few changes to the original background, but I can't remember > all the particulars now. It's still essentially the same character. The > *original* Huntress was the daughter of the Batman of one of the alternate > Earths, but even then the character was considerably different from Huntress > of the TV show. So what would you want to change? Referring to Huntress's status as "half-metahuman" was very, very silly, but I thought the background was otherwise OK. With DC's heroes living in made-up cities you get a problems that Marvel doesn't get. The casual non-comics-reading audience of a Spiderman film isn't going to stop and question whether the Fantastic Four or Daredevil (or whomever) shouldn't be appearing to stop the Green Goblin from destroying New York, but the casual audience of BoP might just wonder why Batman isn't to be seen about his Gotham City. > > BoP represents well what I'm saying about story elements living > > and dying in a survival-of-the-fittest-like way. Supreme beardy > > Alan Moore wrote a one-shot prestige non-cannon Batman story > > called "The Killing Joke" in which the shooting and crippling of > > Barbara Gordon was a throwaway scene. Now it's DC cannon and one > > of the cornerstones of a short-lived TV show. It was an element > > that worked, it lives on. > > > > Yeah, I have that. But I'm not so sure that was intended as a throwaway > scene, as "The Killing Joke" came out *just after* the Batgirl Special > titled "The Last Batgirl Story." OK, I don't know that story. Does she get blasted and crippled in that? Maybe I've been giving Alan Moore too much credit in this case. Moore's had a couple of stories get the movie treatment recently (From Hell, LXG) and they were both travesties (of course) and he just shrugs his shoulders and says "why would I care? nothing to do with me, all my work retains it's own integrity" and goes out and spends the huge fat cheque. Have you read or seen The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen? The characters are strictly public domain and the story from Moore's comic is completely different to that in the film. They paid him some huge amount of money for... a five word title. Nice work if you can get it. I wonder how much Burroughs got in his lifetime. -- David Brewer "The mentally disturbed do not employ the Theory of Scientific Parsimony: the most simple theory to explain a given set of facts." - P.K.Dick (from VALIS)

2003-11-30 01:21:17+00:00 - Re: Don't miss Tarzan tonight at 9pm/8pmCentral - (Rowan Hawthorn <nobody@nowhere.com>)


"David Brewer" <davidbrewer@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:3FC93211.D9789FFD@blueyonder.co.uk... > Rowan Hawthorn wrote: > > "David Brewer" <davidbrewer@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message > > news:3FC573DC.7626C61@blueyonder.co.uk... > > > Rowan Hawthorn wrote: > > > > "David Brewer" <davidbrewer@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message > > > > news:3FC2D8A5.F960F5A5@blueyonder.co.uk... > > > > > > > > > > > > Check. But then, that wouldn't fit into the current trend of "Let's take > > > > > > some extremely popular story/character that was created by someone else and > > > > > > see how bad we can completely F%#& IT UP!" > > > > > > > > > > This is the nature of storytelling. Someone tells a story, someone > > > > > hears it and repeats it differently. Over repeated generation of > > > > > telling the strong elements of the story survive, and the weak > > > > > ones disappear. There is no authenticity in storytelling. > > > > > > > > Of course not, but there's quite bit of difference (to me, anyway) between > > > > doing an original character who's very loosely *based* on XXXXX and doing a > > > > story "about XXXXX" when the character in the story obviously bears no > > > > resemblance to XXXXX. If you're telling a story that's supposed to be about > > > > a certain character, *tell it about that character.* It especially hacks me > > > > off when fairly recently created characters get the treatment. It's not > > > > like Robin Hood, for instance, whose stories have been told and retold and > > > > evolved over seven or eight hundred years. > > > > > > I'd say it was exactly the same as Robin Hood. > > > > Not really. Tarzan, like most modern characters, was created originally as > > a single story, less than a hundred years ago and still easily available. > > Robin Hood was *always* an oral tradition based on legends and > > half-remembered realities, a fluid character changing and evolving with the > > telling until someone finally wrote down the earliest known stories. But he > > was a well-known character in popular mythology long *before* those first > > stories were written down. > > OK. "Exactly" was a poor choice of word. "Essentially" would have > done better. Tarzan is a well-known character of popular > mythology, whether or not he begins from a single known recent > source. His story will be retold, recycled and reinvented forever. > Everyone has heard the name and knows the character, while almost > no one has read Burroughs books. > > Is it acceptable to have a James Bond that isn't an 80 year old > WW2 veteran submariner? Bruce Wayne should be pushing... 100 years > old? Spiderman should be in his... 50s? Pulp characters need to be > refreshed and updated periodically. > I guess what it boils down to is that, IMO, there's a difference between updating - which obviously *has* to be done at some point in order to keep the character from, as you say, becoming an 80-year-old superspy - and essentially creating a totally different character under the same name. I don't know. If there can be such a thing, I'd call it a fine line with a wide gray area...or something like that... > [...] > > > [...] > > > > > I'll keep watching it. It's so awful I think of it as this year's > > > > > Birds of Prey. > > > > > > > > Another show that would have been a *hell* of a lot better if they'd stuck > > > > closer to the original characters - the modern-day Huntress, in particular, > > > > I've always considered one of the most underrated characters in comics. And > > > > then when we actually got her on screen, there was little resemblance to the > > > > source. > > > [...] > > > > > > Which comic? The one with Helena as a mafia daughter (unrelated to > > > Batman), fighting Omerta the mafia super villain? I bought them. > > > Is there a more recent iteration? > > > > There was a series running 19 issues from 1989-1990 which established the > > modern-day Huntress as Helena Bertinelli, daughter of a murdered Mafia don > > (this is the series that featured Omerta.) IIRC, the Huntress mini-series > > in 1998 made a few changes to the original background, but I can't remember > > all the particulars now. It's still essentially the same character. The > > *original* Huntress was the daughter of the Batman of one of the alternate > > Earths, but even then the character was considerably different from Huntress > > of the TV show. > > So what would you want to change? Referring to Huntress's status > as "half-metahuman" was very, very silly, but I thought the > background was otherwise OK. With DC's heroes living in made-up > cities you get a problems that Marvel doesn't get. The casual > non-comics-reading audience of a Spiderman film isn't going to > stop and question whether the Fantastic Four or Daredevil (or > whomever) shouldn't be appearing to stop the Green Goblin from > destroying New York, but the casual audience of BoP might just > wonder why Batman isn't to be seen about his Gotham City. > The show kinda combined several "versions" of the DC universe into one. I didn't have nearly as much problem with the background as I did with the characterization. (And the only problem I had with the "meta-human" thing is that - as far as I remember - Catwoman was never portrayed as a meta, either. Although some of the recent "off-continuity" works I've read have suggested that Batman may have a trace of the metahuman gene.) Huntress in the comics just has a harder edge, more serious - aw, hell, let's face it, I'm just waiting for someone to take a comic and actually film it *the way it was written.* And be serious about it. I thought BOP went a long way towards that in some areas, but dropped the ball in others. > > > BoP represents well what I'm saying about story elements living > > > and dying in a survival-of-the-fittest-like way. Supreme beardy > > > Alan Moore wrote a one-shot prestige non-cannon Batman story > > > called "The Killing Joke" in which the shooting and crippling of > > > Barbara Gordon was a throwaway scene. Now it's DC cannon and one > > > of the cornerstones of a short-lived TV show. It was an element > > > that worked, it lives on. > > > > > > > Yeah, I have that. But I'm not so sure that was intended as a throwaway > > scene, as "The Killing Joke" came out *just after* the Batgirl Special > > titled "The Last Batgirl Story." > > OK, I don't know that story. Does she get blasted and crippled in > that? Maybe I've been giving Alan Moore too much credit in this > case. > No, TKJ *occurs* just after TLBS in the DC timeline, as well. In TLBS, Barbara decides to retire as Batgirl. TKJ was almost certainly in the works at the same time. > Moore's had a couple of stories get the movie treatment recently > (From Hell, LXG) and they were both travesties (of course) and he > just shrugs his shoulders and says "why would I care? nothing to > do with me, all my work retains it's own integrity" and goes out > and spends the huge fat cheque. > > Have you read or seen The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen? Not yet, but I've heard from a number of people that it was pretty bad. I'll catch it when it hits video, I almost never go to theaters anymore. > The > characters are strictly public domain and the story from Moore's > comic is completely different to that in the film. They paid him > some huge amount of money for... a five word title. Nice work if > you can get it. I wonder how much Burroughs got in his lifetime. > Not nearly enough, I'd guess, considering how much money has been made from his works. -- Rowan Hawthorn

2003-12-01 02:44:32+00:00 - Re: Don't miss Tarzan tonight at 9pm/8pmCentral - (David Brewer <davidbrewer@blueyonder.co.uk>)


Rowan Hawthorn wrote: > > "David Brewer" <davidbrewer@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message > news:3FC93211.D9789FFD@blueyonder.co.uk... > > Rowan Hawthorn wrote: > > > "David Brewer" <davidbrewer@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message > > > news:3FC573DC.7626C61@blueyonder.co.uk... [bored of Tarzan now] > > [...] > > > > [...] > > > > > > I'll keep watching it. It's so awful I think of it as this year's > > > > > > Birds of Prey. > > > > > > > > > > Another show that would have been a *hell* of a lot better if they'd stuck > > > > > closer to the original characters - the modern-day Huntress, in particular, > > > > > I've always considered one of the most underrated characters in comics. And > > > > > then when we actually got her on screen, there was little resemblance to the > > > > > source. > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > Which comic? The one with Helena as a mafia daughter (unrelated to > > > > Batman), fighting Omerta the mafia super villain? I bought them. > > > > Is there a more recent iteration? > > > > > > There was a series running 19 issues from 1989-1990 which established the > > > modern-day Huntress as Helena Bertinelli, daughter of a murdered Mafia don > > > (this is the series that featured Omerta.) IIRC, the Huntress mini-series > > > in 1998 made a few changes to the original background, but I can't remember > > > all the particulars now. It's still essentially the same character. The > > > *original* Huntress was the daughter of the Batman of one of the alternate > > > Earths, but even then the character was considerably different from Huntress > > > of the TV show. > > > > So what would you want to change? Referring to Huntress's status > > as "half-metahuman" was very, very silly, but I thought the > > background was otherwise OK. With DC's heroes living in made-up > > cities you get a problems that Marvel doesn't get. The casual > > non-comics-reading audience of a Spiderman film isn't going to > > stop and question whether the Fantastic Four or Daredevil (or > > whomever) shouldn't be appearing to stop the Green Goblin from > > destroying New York, but the casual audience of BoP might just > > wonder why Batman isn't to be seen about his Gotham City. > > The show kinda combined several "versions" of the DC universe into one. I > didn't have nearly as much problem with the background as I did with the > characterization. (And the only problem I had with the "meta-human" thing > is that - as far as I remember - Catwoman was never portrayed as a meta, > either. Although some of the recent "off-continuity" works I've read have > suggested that Batman may have a trace of the metahuman gene.) Huntress in > the comics just has a harder edge, more serious - aw, hell, let's face it, > I'm just waiting for someone to take a comic and actually film it *the way > it was written.* And be serious about it. I thought BOP went a long way > towards that in some areas, but dropped the ball in others. I've seen neither, but I hear that The Road to Perdition is very similar to the comic it was taken from. Ghost World is supposed to look and feel right, but with a different story. > > > > BoP represents well what I'm saying about story elements living > > > > and dying in a survival-of-the-fittest-like way. Supreme beardy > > > > Alan Moore wrote a one-shot prestige non-cannon Batman story > > > > called "The Killing Joke" in which the shooting and crippling of > > > > Barbara Gordon was a throwaway scene. Now it's DC cannon and one > > > > of the cornerstones of a short-lived TV show. It was an element > > > > that worked, it lives on. > > > > > > Yeah, I have that. But I'm not so sure that was intended as a throwaway > > > scene, as "The Killing Joke" came out *just after* the Batgirl Special > > > titled "The Last Batgirl Story." > > > > OK, I don't know that story. Does she get blasted and crippled in > > that? Maybe I've been giving Alan Moore too much credit in this > > case. > > No, TKJ *occurs* just after TLBS in the DC timeline, as well. In TLBS, > Barbara decides to retire as Batgirl. TKJ was almost certainly in the works > at the same time. Oh good. I've told lots of people how clever Moore was for that twist and it's shockwaves. It's much like Frank Miller and his work on Daredevil (etc.). There's so much mediocre work in comics that gets (quite justifiably) forgotten and so little that makes an indelible mark. > > Moore's had a couple of stories get the movie treatment recently > > (From Hell, LXG) and they were both travesties (of course) and he > > just shrugs his shoulders and says "why would I care? nothing to > > do with me, all my work retains it's own integrity" and goes out > > and spends the huge fat cheque. > > > > Have you read or seen The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen? > > Not yet, but I've heard from a number of people that it was pretty bad. > I'll catch it when it hits video, I almost never go to theaters anymore. It's very much something to come into expecting a complete disaster. > > The > > characters are strictly public domain and the story from Moore's > > comic is completely different to that in the film. They paid him > > some huge amount of money for... a five word title. Nice work if > > you can get it. I wonder how much Burroughs got in his lifetime. > > Not nearly enough, I'd guess, considering how much money has been made from > his works. He seems to have lived well, judging by his bio at www.tarzan.org. -- David Brewer "The mentally disturbed do not employ the Theory of Scientific Parsimony: the most simple theory to explain a given set of facts." - P.K.Dick (from VALIS)

2003-12-01 04:10:49+00:00 - Re: Don't miss Tarzan tonight at 9pm/8pmCentral - (Rowan Hawthorn <nobody@nowhere.com>)


"David Brewer" <davidbrewer@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:3FCAAB10.4DD8F8AD@blueyonder.co.uk... > Rowan Hawthorn wrote: > > > > "David Brewer" <davidbrewer@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message > > news:3FC93211.D9789FFD@blueyonder.co.uk... > > > > The > > > characters are strictly public domain and the story from Moore's > > > comic is completely different to that in the film. They paid him > > > some huge amount of money for... a five word title. Nice work if > > > you can get it. I wonder how much Burroughs got in his lifetime. > > > > Not nearly enough, I'd guess, considering how much money has been made from > > his works. > > He seems to have lived well, judging by his bio at www.tarzan.org. No doubt, considering the Tarzan series was popular enough to get 25 or so entries, plus his several other series. And then the first movie was done only about four years after the book. Jeez, something like *60* films! Howdja like to be getting a royalty from those? -- Rowan Hawthorn "I love humanity, it's PEOPLE I can't stand!" - Linus Van Pelt