|
|
Post by airship27 on Jul 20, 2010 18:25:51 GMT -5
Love the second part of Rivals of Bond. As a teenager, I discovered Donald Hamilton's Matt Helm books and loved them. Then when I saw the first Dean Martin abortion, I was sick at heart. Until a read an interview with Hamilton when he was asked his thoughts on what had been done to his character, he replied, "I cried all the way to the bank."
Kicker is the films did bring him tons more readers and he continued to write the "real" Helm, pretty much ignore those stupid films.
I also devoured every Shell Scott book I could get my hands on. I was a pretty smart 14 yr.old. Ha.
Oh, and for the record, I always thought Janice Rule was wicked sexy. Always had a thing for smart looking brunettes.
Ron Fortier
|
|
|
|
Post by Derrick on Jul 20, 2010 22:16:22 GMT -5
My dad was a big Shell Scott fan. He had about 20 of 'em and let me read 'em when I was kid. Cool guy, my dad.
|
|
|
|
Post by grubl on Jul 20, 2010 22:48:54 GMT -5
I just did some further research and am going to check some of these Shell Scott books out.
A very influential (on me) spy novel from my early teen years was William Golden's MARATHON MAN. An excellent, suspenseful book, which was made into an even better film by John Schlesinger.
Golden wrote a sequel, BROTHERS, several years later that didn't quite work for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by tombitd on Jul 21, 2010 5:44:08 GMT -5
My dad was a big Shell Scott fan. He had about 20 of 'em and let me read 'em when I was kid. Cool guy, my dad. I still own a number of the Shell Scott novels in their original Gold Medal editions--they're like the flipside of the Mike Hammer novels, with Scott as a hardboiled detective trapped in an absurdist world. They're exciting, they're extremely well-written, and they're genuinely funny... And they would seem tailor made to be a movie series in the 50's or 60's...why they never got made is a mystery. |
|
|
|
Post by Eddie Love on Jul 21, 2010 6:15:19 GMT -5
I was a big fan of the Nick Carter books, which were widely variable in quality. As a kid, I didn't realize that these were written by many different hands. (I'd love today to find the few that were penned by Martin Cruz Smith.) We passed these around quite a bit, and um...it wasn't just for the espionage story-lines, as each usually had a few pretty racy episodes.  |
|
|
|
Post by Derrick on Jul 21, 2010 16:40:05 GMT -5
Love the second part of Rivals of Bond. As a teenager, I discovered Donald Hamilton's Matt Helm books and loved them. Then when I saw the first Dean Martin abortion, I was sick at heart. Until a read an interview with Hamilton when he was asked his thoughts on what had been done to his character, he replied, "I cried all the way to the bank." Kicker is the films did bring him tons more readers and he continued to write the "real" Helm, pretty much ignore those stupid films. I also devoured every Shell Scott book I could get my hands on. I was a pretty smart 14 yr.old. Ha. Oh, and for the record, I always thought Janice Rule was wicked sexy. Always had a thing for smart looking brunettes. Ron Fortier I sometime think that writers who books are adapted for movies BMW cry too much at the results. Refreshing to read a a comment from a writer who took a lemon and made lemonade. And I'm not surprised that you're a Shell Scott fan, Ron. I think I was about 14, 15 when my dad passed them on to me. Which is probably the right age to get hold of em. And yeah...(le sigh)...Janice Rule is indeed wicked sexy. Glad you enjoyed the episode! |
|
|
|
Post by geekarino on Jul 23, 2010 14:02:01 GMT -5
Another great episode guys! Keep it up. I agree with Tom. I used to love the Matt Helm movies when I was kid watching them on tv. I recently tried to watch one of TCM and it was torture. The Flint movies hold up nicely indeed. Would love to catch up on episodes of Man From Uncle and The Avengers. Haven't seen any of those since childhood.
|
|
|
|
Post by tombitd on Jul 23, 2010 18:47:45 GMT -5
Another great episode guys! Keep it up. I agree with Tom. I used to love the Matt Helm movies when I was kid watching them on tv. I recently tried to watch one of TCM and it was torture. The Flint movies hold up nicely indeed. Would love to catch up on episodes of Man From Uncle and The Avengers. Haven't seen any of those since childhood. stands as my all-time favorite television series. I rewatched a number of the episodes recently thanks to Netflix and they still hold up--primarily because of Brian Clemens' conscious choice to treat the series like 'and adult fairytale' and letting it be an exaggerated, surreal version of the British identity.... |
|
|
|
Post by Eddie Love on Jul 23, 2010 20:39:10 GMT -5
The Avengers stands as my all-time favorite television series. I rewatched a number of the episodes recently thanks to Netflix and they still hold up--primarily because of Brian Clemens' conscious choice to treat the series like 'and adult fairytale' and letting it be an exaggerated, surreal version of the British identity.... Mine, too. So much so that in 1998 when the movie came out I took the day off of work.  |
|
|
|
Post by tombitd on Jul 23, 2010 22:51:34 GMT -5
Mine, too. So much so that in 1998 when the movie came out I took the day off of work. You know...I do think that the film's reputation for being truly, thunderingly godawful is a tad overexaggerated. It's not very good, but it does have its good moments--Ralph Finnes thoroughly channels John Steed, Connery is obviously enjoying himself (the confrontation between deWynters and Steed in the hedgerow maze is one that I still use dialogue from) and there is an attempt to create that adult fairy tale feel....but there's also a LOT wrong with it. Not the least of which is making the romance between Steed and Peel obvious (I always felt it was there, but never out-and-out stated, unlike the relationship between Steed and King later on). I'd always wondered what the original cut--supposedly a lil' over two hours before test screenings prompted the producers to chop it to the eighty-some-odd minutes we eventually got--was like. because I suspect the air of incoherence that hangs over that second act (and wastes actors like Eddie Izzard) would be cleared up. |
|
|
|
Post by Eddie Love on Jul 24, 2010 0:06:43 GMT -5
You know...I do think that the film's reputation for being truly, thunderingly godawful is a tad overexaggerated. It's not very good, but it does have its good moments--Ralph Finnes thoroughly channels John Steed, Connery is obviously enjoying himself (the confrontation between deWynters and Steed in the hedgerow maze is one that I still use dialogue from) and there is an attempt to create that adult fairy tale feel....but there's also a LOT wrong with it. Not the least of which is making the romance between Steed and Peel obvious (I always felt it was there, but never out-and-out stated, unlike the relationship between Steed and King later on). I've never watched it again since first seeing it, though I'm tempted to after hearing the episode you did on it. I recall it as capturing a bit of the outlandish flavor of the Tara King season. (There were giant, colorful teddy-bears walking around, no?) I thought both the leads were a bit off, Thurman more-so -- she always seems to be a little artificial and just working too hard. In those days, with her English accent, she came across as very drama school, although she looked spectacular. Fiennes was good, but I thought he was too leading-man handsome and erect. The genius of MacNee, for me, was that he epitomized the bowler-hatted Brit, but conveyed a kind of hale likability at the same time. There's nothing pompous or stuffy about Steed. |
|
|
|
Post by grubl on Jul 24, 2010 0:49:21 GMT -5
I know that this goes against one of the oft-mentioned philosophies of the show, and I'll probably hear it for being overly negative, but I feel that some actors put such an indelible mark on a character, or become so synonymous with a character, that it becomes ridiculous for someone else to play that character. Pactrick Macnee as Steed is one such instance (as opposed to Bond, Superman or Batman, who were well recognized and established characters before they made their way to the screen, already open to interpretations - though Roth was a complete embarassment in trying to mimic Reeves rather than making the character his own).
I think that Kirk, Spock and Bones are Shattner, Nimoy and Kelly (though the last film was not bad, those guys weren't K, S and B).
If a show must be redone, take the title and the construct, but put new characters in there.
I cringe when I hear that one of my favorite TV shows is being remade as a movie and tend to avoid it.
I'm trying to think of an instance where I've been wrong (film adaption as good, or even close to as good, as the show), but can't come up with one.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eddie Love on Jul 24, 2010 1:24:19 GMT -5
I'm trying to think of an instance where I've been wrong (film adaption as good, or even close to as good, as the show), but can't come up with one. Are THE FUGITIVE and THE UNTOUCHABLES the best TV adaptations? (I can't say if the original show is better in the case of the first of these, as I never watched it.) But I think both work because they truly are standalone films that were based on a show, versus attempts to launch a film franchise of a TV series. One of the points I was going to make was that The Avengers was such a great episodic series, devoted to capturing the rhythms and flavors Tom described, but not one that I think lends itself necessarily to being a film. In terms of actors stepping into these roles, I think Chris Pine's canny performance as Kirk walked the fine line between tribute and evocation. (Though haven't they tied themselves in knots in terms of what their time-lines are?) If a show must be redone, take the title and the construct, but put new characters in there. . Agree completely -- the worse case of this is the first MISSION:IMPOSSIBLE film where they retain the character of Jim Phelps...and then turn him into a villain? Seriously? For what possible reason other than to piss off the fans? No one else still cares. I actually enjoy the Tom Cruise vanity /action/ franchise. But, I love the original series, so -- for me, there's never really been a true M:I movie. |
|
|
|
Post by grubl on Jul 24, 2010 3:35:28 GMT -5
Okay, I'll give you THE UNTOUCHABLES, one of the rare instances where DePalma doesn't annoy the fuck out of me.
I realize that I am in the minority, but I didn't care for the film adaption of THE FUGITIVE.
The only MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE movie I saw was the second one and I walked out.
|
|
|
|
Post by tombitd on Jul 24, 2010 6:56:39 GMT -5
I've never watched it again since first seeing it, though I'm tempted to after hearing the episode you did on it. I recall it as capturing a bit of the outlandish flavor of the Tara King season. (There were giant, colorful teddy-bears walking around, no?) I thought both the leads were a bit off, Thurman more-so -- she always seems to be a little artificial and just working too hard. In those days, with her English accent, she came across as very drama school, although she looked spectacular. Fiennes was good, but I thought he was too leading-man handsome and erect. The genius of MacNee, for me, was that he epitomized the bowler-hatted Brit, but conveyed a kind of hale likability at the same time. There's nothing pompous or stuffy about Steed. Yes. One of the set pieces involved Connery and the scientists he hired meeting in secret dressed as different colored teddy bears to keep each other's identity from them. And yes--Thurman was thoroughly awful. She never was convincing as Peel; you hit it right on the head with your calling her artificial. I keep thinking that the director's original choice for Peel--Nicole Kidman--was a much, much better fit. |
|
