|
|
Post by politicidal on Oct 15, 2017 2:01:21 GMT
Just saw it on TCM this week. What a mess. It got me thinking though, what if taken more seriously, this could have beaten Raiders of the Lost Ark by six years. Why make it so campy and ott? Not just that, it looks cheap. The jungle scenes looked like the set of an Irwin Allen series. I keep hearing about Shane Black and Dwayne Johnson doing a reboot which would be cool though I think someone like Chris Hemsworth would be better.
|
|
|
|
Post by geode on Oct 19, 2017 2:05:59 GMT
Just saw it on TCM this week. What a mess. It got me thinking though, what if taken more seriously, this could have beaten Raiders of the Lost Ark by six years. Why make it so campy and ott? Not just that, it looks cheap. The jungle scenes looked like the set of an Irwin Allen series. I keep hearing about Shane Black and Dwayne Johnson doing a reboot which would be cool though I think someone like Chris Hemsworth would be better. I missed it, but have friends that like it. I fear it was a poor swansong for George Pal. |
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Oct 19, 2017 2:51:51 GMT
I strongly suspect the thought of a serious action flick with a super smart blonde Aryan hero was not kosher for the studio bosses.
At this time the message was "America sucks-strong white men are failures."
The only two exceptions I can think of are John Phillip Law in Golden Voyage of Sinbad (he is playing an Arab) and Doug McClure in the Kevin Conner films but those are small studio endeavors.
Do not hold your breath expecting a serious old fashioned Doc Savage film.
No chance.
If Hemsworth did it they would make him completely subservient to a multicultural team or they will just get the Rock to portray him.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Oct 19, 2017 6:10:02 GMT
I thought Ron Ely and the actors who played the Fabulous Five were very good and well-cast in their roles, but the emphasis of the film was too much on silly comedy and not enough on cliffhanging action.
|
|
|
|
Post by poelzig on Oct 19, 2017 6:16:01 GMT
I watched it years ago and wasn't impressed. I have it on my dvr from last weeks TCM showing but haven't watched it yet. I thought maybe I didn't give it a fair chance originally but your post makes me think i did.
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Oct 19, 2017 16:27:53 GMT
I thought Ron Ely and the actors who played the Fabulous Five were very good and well-cast in their roles, but the emphasis of the film was too much on silly comedy and not enough on cliffhanging action. Agreed. The cast is actually solid which irritated me more. At this point in film history, I don't get it. Genre films as a whole began taking themselves far more seriously by the 1970s. Star Wars, Superman, and The Man Who Would Be King. So why they decided a camp approach like the Batman series would be a good creative decision is baffling. The closest I can compare it to are those 'Lost World' movies starring Doug McClure and those took themselves way more seriously than this did. |
|
|
|
Post by geode on Oct 19, 2017 16:46:18 GMT
I strongly suspect the thought of a serious action flick with a super smart blonde Aryan hero was not kosher for the studio bosses. At this time the message was "America sucks-strong white men are failures." The only two exceptions I can think of are John Phillip Law in Golden Voyage of Sinbad (he is playing an Arab) and Doug McClure in the Kevin Conner films but those are small studio endeavors. Do not hold your breath expecting a serious old fashioned Doc Savage film. No chance. If Hemsworth did it they would make him completely subservient to a multicultural team or they will just get the Rock to portray him. There is this review left on the IMDb: Disappointing, and I know why... 3/10 Author: mhfca from Fresno, CA 29 May 2006 I was fortunate enough to meet George Pal (and still have my DS: TMOB poster autographed by him) at a convention shortly after the release, and asked him why he chose to do the film "camp". Before he could answer, two studio flacks intercepted and lectured me on how the studio "knew best" and how "no one will take such a film seriously". I had been reading the Bantam reprints for a couple of years thanks to a friend (ComiCon attendees of the 1970s will recall Blackhawk and his band? I was in a couple of years of that with him), and had higher hopes than what we got. The flacks insisted that no high adventure would ever be done seriously, and so doing 'camp' was the only way. Several other fans jumped in on my side, with Pal listening as best he could. At the end of the little event, Pal came up to us and apologized, wishing he could have done more and better. STAR WARS put the lie to the flacks, and a year after Pal's death, Spielberg and Lucas proved that Doc Savage could have easily been the next major movie franchise...if it hadn't been for the flacks. Tear out the memory or history of Doc, and the film would have been worth a 6/10 rating as nothing more than a mindless popcorn seller. But destroying the legacy like that was no less an abomination than killing a baby in the crib. Doc Savage can still come to the screen, and survive the inevitable comparisons by the ill-informed to Indiana Jones, but it would have to be done in all seriousness and earnest to reclaim the glory that we should expect from the First American Superhero. SIDENOTES: Yes, there was a second script for ARCHENEMY OF EVIL, and it's a lot more serious. Yes, there was simultaneous footage shot, but mostly establishing shots and very little with actors. And, yes, there _is_ a one-sheet of Ron Ely leaping over a brick wall and blasting at something over his shoulder with a specially built bronze pistol. Ely's wearing a duster over a button down white shirt with a bronze tie, and the words "DOC SAVAGE: ARCHENEMY OF EVIL...Coming Next Summer!" POSTSCRIPT: If anyone knows who the studio flacks were that accompanied George Pal in 1975 to San Diego for the convention, smack the idiots up the side of the head and call them the idiots that they are. At the time, they were doing dorkknobs and Fu Manchu in stripes and baggy canvas pants, and carrying Paramount portfolios. |
|
|
|
Post by taylorfirst1 on Oct 19, 2017 17:09:47 GMT
Yes, they really missed the boat on this one. It was a good cast lead by the perfectly chosen Ron Ely. When I watched the movie I kept thinking that it felt more like a pilot for a TV series (like Wonder Woman) instead of a theatrical movie. It was just bad. I hope the reboot does better. It does not need to be a dark melodrama. It still needs to be fun but it needs to balance it with real action and adventure and a good story (like Indiana Jones).
I wonder if the studio that made this movie kicked themselves in the head when Raiders of the Lost Ark came out.
|
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Oct 19, 2017 17:54:13 GMT
The thing with Raiders is that while the idea of the Ark is serious, Indiana Jones is a jokey character. he gets beaten up, comical things happen to him, and he loses the Ark in the end.
There had been serious adventure films done for years and years--Secret of the Incas is basically a serious Indiana Jones film.
|
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Oct 19, 2017 20:47:22 GMT
I also think this attitude is what killed John Carter. Not a perfect film but I think the studio brass despised the concept of an America dude going to Mars and being a superman there.
They got to have their heroes with jokes or some other baggage to take away from the traditional depiction. For the studio folk movies are intended to be propaganda, nothing more.
Luke Skywalker was not a hero in the Flash Gordon tradition either-he was a nerdy goofy unsure type. Totally different from a Flash Gordon or Doc Savage.
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Oct 19, 2017 23:00:31 GMT
There was a great comic book series by Chris Roberson in 2013 that served as an epic retelling of the entire Doc Savage saga and the evolution of his ideals. It featured the original Fabulous Five and a rotating cast of successors over nearly 70 years; yes Doc is alive the whole time because he invented some de-aging formula or some claptrap like that.
|
|
|
|
Post by geode on Oct 27, 2017 15:02:11 GMT
There was a great comic book series by Chris Roberson in 2013 that served as an epic retelling of the entire Doc Savage saga and the evolution of his ideals. It featured the original Fabulous Five and a rotating cast of successors over nearly 70 years; yes Doc is alive the whole time because he invented some de-aging formula or some claptrap like that. Maybe some of this could be adapted in a new movie? |
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Oct 27, 2017 17:48:46 GMT
There was a great comic book series by Chris Roberson in 2013 that served as an epic retelling of the entire Doc Savage saga and the evolution of his ideals. It featured the original Fabulous Five and a rotating cast of successors over nearly 70 years; yes Doc is alive the whole time because he invented some de-aging formula or some claptrap like that. Maybe some of this could be adapted in a new movie? Honestly, I'd hope so. It started in the 1930s, the stories take place in each decade, and the series wound up in like 2008 or 2010. They fought mad scientists with death rays, eco-terrorists that hijack a space station, and a villain I'm certain was meant to be a parody of Lex Luthor. What was really interesting was how in each story they somewhat riffed the trends in comics and pulp stories at the time. Over the course of the plot, the cast becomes more diversified but it didn't seem forced; Doc Savage has this 'dark and edgy antihero' midlife crisis in the 70s and 80s; and there's a concluding story which I think was meant to be in line with stories like Marvel's Civil War or DC's Kingdom Come. It ends on a far lighter note though. Worth a read. |
|
|
|
Post by geode on Oct 29, 2017 14:27:47 GMT
Maybe some of this could be adapted in a new movie? Honestly, I'd hope so. It started in the 1930s, the stories take place in each decade, and the series wound up in like 2008 or 2010. They fought mad scientists with death rays, eco-terrorists that hijack a space station, and a villain I'm certain was meant to be a parody of Lex Luthor. What was really interesting was how in each story they somewhat riffed the trends in comics and pulp stories at the time. Over the course of the plot, the cast becomes more diversified but it didn't seem forced; Doc Savage has this 'dark and edgy antihero' midlife crisis in the 70s and 80s; and there's a concluding story which I think was meant to be in line with stories like Marvel's Civil War or DC's Kingdom Come. It ends on a far lighter note though. Worth a read. Quite a mix. |
|
|
|
Post by geode on Jun 26, 2019 20:09:13 GMT
I think Doc Savage needs another shot.
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Jun 26, 2019 21:48:15 GMT
I think Doc Savage needs another shot. Well Shane Black is attached to directing a reboot. Whether it'll happen is anybody's guess.
|
|
|
|
Post by geode on Jul 11, 2019 22:35:24 GMT
I think Doc Savage needs another shot. Well Shane Black is attached to directing a reboot. Whether it'll happen is anybody's guess. Time will tell.
|
|
