In article
n1g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
TBerk yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 12, 2:20 am, George Peatty
copper.net> wrote:>> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 17:41:46 -0700 (PDT), TBerk
yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>>Well, I don't have to be the star, (wait I'd be doing a voice over
>>>anyway, so it's OK) I'd like them to recreate a faithful to the
>>>source version of Doc Savage, the Man of Bronze- he was a hero from
>>>the pulps of the later twenties, thirties era.
>>
>> It's been done. Problem is, when you see it up there on screen, in all it's
>> pulpy glory, you realize just how cornball the whole idea is ..
>
> - Chemistry indeed. Harumph. Although I _have_ been known to 'monkey
> around'.
>
> - the Glory that is Pulp; Play it straight, introduce to the film
> crew (animators/producers/talent) the work being done with properties
> like the recent Batman animated series. It's churned out real-quick
> like for weekly public consumption, just think what they can do if
> it's a feature.
>
> Also, PULP in and of itself isn't a bad thing. Yes, Doc is a boyscout,
> but visually you can get a lot more depth into his character. (Mr.
> Spock's raiser eyebrow is a good example, albeit a different
> character.)
>
> Some really good archetypes came out of the time period; Early 20th
> Century; Superman, Batman, the Shadow, the Phantom (er, maybe he is
> second gen), this guy is at least derivative -->
http://thespiritmovie.com/
The Phantom is from 1936; 3 years after Doc Savage. He predates
Superman and Batman, and The Shadow (as what we think of him anyway).
He's as first generation as it's likely to get.
> ,
>
> Anyway, I was a bit early with my decades but this time period, with
> it's imaginative settings, characters, and the duality's of the need
> for escapism from economic reality as well as the unfolding of so many
> technological wonders creates a very rich vegetable patch to garden
> in.
>
> Respect for the source material, the intended audience of today and
> the original (and over the years, contributers), well to balance all
> that is a chore, esp difficult if you factor in the elbow joggling
> from the producers and money men and star handlers, etc, etc.
Unfortunately 'respect for the source material' is something you seldom
get in movies. I watched the Disney Tarzan cartoon for the first time
this morning, and was trying to figure out why Jane is brunette and has
an English accent, when Tarzan doesn't. I mean, they aren't even
trying. Don't get me started on Pellucidar being accessed from a hole
next to the treehouse, or the gravity being upside down in it. Or a
rope that reached straight to the bottom.
The Mangani have weird accents as well, but I'm not sure if they're
speaking English or Jane is speaking Mangani so I gave up on that one.
>
> I still think the time is upon us to patch some realistic enough, even
> stylized character 'skins' ove4r some trained physical actors and make
> some classics +of_ the past, _for_ the future.
I've said it before, but one more time: When Peter Jackson had 1933
Manhattan sitting around, damn, they should have shot some pulp movies.
Even low budget 75 minute ones. Hell, black and white would be fine.
Make them look like they were shot in the era.
