Rockateer,

Honestly I didn't know we were talking about two different movies here. If you can explain to me in simpler form on what's going on, then I'll understand. I must of misread of these two different movies.

um.. well if you go back and read the news topic at the start of this thread, it kinda explains it, but basically MacGruber is a parody skit on Saturday Night Live, whihc is now being made into a movie.

Probably going back through our other news topics will give you a better understanding.

Thanks, I just did.

Well I just hope MacGruber dosen't ruin todays generation minds of MacGyver. I do believe you do have to a sense of humor these days but there is some shows or movies that you just don't make fun of.

well they have a storyline for the MacGruber movie it just sounds so dumb (if this has already been posted then please remove it.)

MacGruber movie

Yeah it does sound stupid, but then what do you expect from MacGruber.

At least there is no mention of RDA being in it yet, so that's a hopeful sign.

MacGruber as his equal? MacGyver being outsmarted or beated by someone who's everything that MacGyver is not? Well what the *beep*?

Here's that quick synopsis of the MacGruber plot which seems to be getting mentioned in various blogs now.

Read the full article with more information here

It sounds bad already!

yep.

I can't help thinking this is going to go beyond the SNL skits and taking a full on assult of the whole MacGyver show in the style of Naked Gun and Scary Movie.

The idea of him being retired and living as a monk is a rip-off of Rambo II, and that was already spoofed in Hot Shots Part Deux. So it seems MacGruber will be a rip-off of a rip-off. Sheesh.

If this movie is anywhere NEAR as funny as the Naked Guns movies, I'll be surprised. The SNL skits don't even make me crack a smile. At least the Naked Gun movies have their moments.
I have nothing against poking fun at MacGyver-- it was a campy show, and it certainly had some cornball moments that deserve to be mocked-- but MAKE IT FUNNY. The SNL skits completely miss the mark.

yeah I thought about Rambo when I read that monk bit too.

But as far as being a rip off of a rip off and completely unoriginal... That's kind of what I expect from these idiots.

I hope the movie crashes and burns and needs to be rescued from it's Mongolian captures by the real MacGyver.

That was Rambo III.

Good one!

We need good old fashioned action/adventure/drama here.

It seems that MacGruber is going to happen before the (possible) MacGyver movie.

If that is going to be the case, then I hope it does really well. Not because I think MacGruber is the least bit funny or that I want it to spawn sequels, but because if it does due well it may create more interest in the real MacGyver movie and get that ball rolling quicker.

Truth be told, I rather not see a MacGruber movie at all of course. But if it fails miserably it may put the MacGyver movie in danger since it is mainly just an idea floating around right now, so it is very fragile.

I can't believe MacGruber is actually happening. It reminds me of the Gieco cavemen almost getting a TV series. It just doesn't seem like there is enough there to go ahead and make a movie.

Ever thought of the fact that if it fails miserable (which I hope it does) the creators of the movie and maybe other crewmembers of the show might get the feeling to set things right for the fans. Maybe not making it up for us because they haven't done anything bad. I just hope they realise it's their responsibility to make to movie how it should be for us and most of all to teach SNL a lesson of how it's supposed to be done and to not mess with us!!! Because I never like the fact (as I said before) that when things got rolling for the movie, they all of a sudden showed up and started their joke about a parody on high speed!

When I read the name of the MacGruber villain character, I thought "Oh boy, we're all in trouble now."

Seriously, that's a censor-friendly spelling of a swear word, and incredibly unoriginal.

That would be like me writing a script and calling my villain "Embison"...

Boy, this sure is giveing me a headache of how dumb this movie is.

That's actually a good point that I hadn't considered. I think the producers of the "real" movie will definitely be keeping an eye on how well MacGruber does to see if it's worth investing in a MacGyver movie. If MacGruber totally bombs, it will send a clear signal that the general public doesn't care enough about MacGyver to warrant making a proper movie.
On the other hand, if MacGruber does really well, the producers of the MacGyver movie will realize there's still a strong market for the character.

Well, either way, I'm not going to bother seeing this. If it means no real Mac movie, so be it.

I doubt they'll feel any obligation to make it up to the fans. We die-hards are a fairly small breed. Talking to most people I know out there in the real world, they either remember MacGyver as "kind of a cool show" or "campy 80s TV." Most people aren't going to take offense to a parody. Hell, I consider myself a pretty die-hard fan, but even I don't find it offensive that they're mocking it... I just wish they did a better job of mocking it.

If this bombs, it's extremely unlikely that the producers are going to say, "Well, nobody cared enough to see a MacGyver parody, so now we're going to invest a lot MORE money to make a real MacGyver movie!" That's not the way it works.
More likely, the mentality will be, "Well, nobody cared enough to see a MacGyver parody, so there clearly isn't much interest in the character anymore. Maybe we should just scrap our plans for a MacGyver movie and focus on a character the public still cares about." They're interested in what could conceivably bring in money, not on keeping a small circle of diehard fans happy.

Maybe nobody care about a mockery but maybe they do care about the proper treatment the character rightfully deserves.

Possibly, but I don't know if that's a gamble they'd want to take on a project that would cost millions. Time will tell.

If they're doing a mockey, though, I still wish they'd take my idea: "Team 80's", a movie in which a bunch of 80's heros, including Mac, Michael Knight, The A-Team, Scarecrow & Mrs. King, Air Wolf, etc (all played by the ORIGINAL actors) are called out of retirement for one last mission.
I mean, does it really get any cooler than watching RDA, Mr. T and David Hasselhoff taking on bad guys together?
I think not! lol.

Well maybe if you add Tom Selleck to that bunch.

Actually I think that logic has a major flaw.

If the Dukes of Hazzard movie or the Starsky and Hutch movie bombed, would that mean that no-one was interested in the original TV shows any more? The answer of coarse, is no. It would mean those movies were rubbish.

Likewise if the sequel to a movie bombs, that doesn't mean that no-one liked the first movie, it means the sequel was a dud.

The success or failure of a parody movie really is no reflection on peoples attitudes of the original show being spoofed. In the case of MacGruber it will be completley about how popular the skit is and what kind of reviews it gets.

I was just sitting here thinking about the skits, and it's occurred to me that MacGruber isn't really a parody of MacGyver because they don't actually make fun of the show. They've taken a couple of elements from the show and made a stupid little scenario which they thought was funny. I think the only reason people know it's suppose to be a spoof of MacGyver is because they told people. I'd bet money that without all the media attention explaining that MacGruber is a spoof of MacGyver, most viewers wouldn't have made the connection.

So I actually think this movie will have little to no impact on the MacGyver movie, unless there's some sort of connection made by the media (reviews etc) back to MacGyver.

You don't think the similar name, the identical logo, the hair, the scenarios, the fact that he's trying to use common objects to save the day, and the fact that RDA sometimes shows up would clue people into the fact that it's related to MacGyver? I'd be willing to take your bet!

Your assuming they know enough about MacGyver for those things to mean something to them.

Remember we're talking about a show that ended some 15 years ago. The majority of people born in the 90's onwards probably have never seen a full episode of MacGyver, so wouldn't make the connection.

I think of it this way-- I never watched Magnum PI at all, but if SNL did a skit called "Man-Gun PI", featured a guy wearing a Hawaiian shirt and a bushy mustache, occasionally guest starring Tom Selleck, I'd be able to make the connection that it was a parody of Magnum PI. Some things are just well-known enough for most people to get them, even if they were never fans or watched the show.

Maybe that's not the best example, since Magnum PI was on in the 80s when I was around. So let's go back further. If SNL did a skit called Silligan's Island, about a bunch of idiotic cast aways shipwrecked on an island, I would get that it's a reference to Gilligan's Island, even though Gilligan's Island was before my time, and I never watched it.

And if they then made a movie of the Man-Gun PI or Silligan's Island skits, would it make you more interested in seeing the original shows?

Or if those movies bombed, would it make you less interested in the original show?

Personally, no. But I still think if a movie studio was considering making a Magnum PI movie, and then they saw that nobody had any interest in a Magnum PI parody, it might make them cautious.

Of course, I don't think that's true for all franchises. For example, if a Star Wars parody failed, it certainly doesn't mean Lucas would say, "Well, I'd better not make a new Star Wars movie." But with MacGyver, we're talking about a franchise that has been dead for a long time, so it's riskier to invest money in bringing it back. The studio needs some way to determine whether or not people still have an interest in the character/franchise, and it seems like the response to a parody of the character would be at least one way that they might measure it.

But then again, I may be wrong. I do think, though, that they'll want SOME way to measure interest in the franchise before proceeding. Maybe it won't be through MacGruber. Maybe it'll be through Mac DVD sales or syndication ratings or activity on Mac message boards. I don't know. But investing millions into a long-dead franchise is risky business.

They're not investing into a dead franchise. They're making a movie, and I think they will follow the same process they would with any other movie to decide if it goes ahead or not.

Most movies don't have old fan bases or old francises. They look at the script and decide if it they think it will work or not.

I can't see why they wouldn't follow that same process here. They didn't worry about old fans for Dukes of Hazzard, or Starsky and Hutch, they followed the process and decided to go ahead and make the film.