How is it outdated? And wasn't the kid more about continuing the storyline?

Your really going to have to explain how you think National treasure isn't like MacGyver? hunting clues, using his knowledge to fit the clues together, improvising things.. not MacGyver? I thought the first movie had a real MacGyver feel to it... you didn't?

And in either case your question was...

And Indy and National Treasure are both good examples of that very thing, both movies did pretty well (money wise) too I believe, which I think proves that people want an entertaining move. And sex and violence is the easy way out for lazy film makers. People watch it because it's in the movie, they don't' watch the movie because it has sex or violence. And the fact that National Treasure and Indy did well at the box office proves that point.

Zito's playing his mind tricks on us people! Don't let him get away with it!

Thats me, trying to make my namesake come to live, thanks to the internet . Actually I had an idea, we could make a thread where everyone of us would post in the style of many famous MGs characters. Id post as Dr Zito obviously. You could be Mac. In that particular thread I'd end killing you for disagreeing with me on this very thread That could be cool .. or not

you're going to have to explain to me how you do this multiquoting thing, but anyway you make some good points, and I agree with most of what you said and I think some of our supposed disagreement comes more from a misunderstanding. Id love to see a movie made with MG unusual morals, and guidelines, theres no doubt that could work too, but my point is that it goes against the trend, much more than it was in the 80s where hollywood wasnt as blatantly obsessed about violence, sex and especially youth as they're now. Yes of course those three have always been the big themes throughout humanity but in terms of movies you watch your mainstream movie from the 80s and one from the present time and instead of 30 years it appears to have past more than a century, theres so much discrepancy between morals and ethical elements that embodied MacGyver.

What I meant with national treasure is that it was a movie addressed to younger audiences, kids and teenagers mostly. Indy was a bit of a disaster as a film, IMO, but as a benchmark for the ageist thing I think pretty valid. The focus of the story was switched to an incredibly annoying kid because general audiences can't bear the main plot of the film on a 60 YO and a few adults, they need a teenager to relate to. This is the issue, hollywood producers nowadays make films for teenagers, thats their main target. There was not long ago a study on the BBC, with several interviews with important producers that admitted that much. So from there comes my main worry that they're going to make a massive facial lifting to the cast, not literally Im touching on wood (*DR Zito touches his head*), but they're going to lower the age of the main characters to appeal to the masses. Perhaps the way to go is to make Mac a high school outcast who one day discovers he likes to drink blood, and then starts a race of vampires amongst his science classmates.

It's called a quote button.

Sounds like the answer to me. Touch of The Stringer here than but perhaps better done.

It has more twists than isms but Mac also did run his own investigations in the show. This was a darker storyline. What's wrong with that? Plenty of dark episodes in the show. Try Lesson in Evil.

If they go to Jerry Bruckheimer as a producers, you'd most likely end up with Trevor Rabin or maybe Hans Zimmer in the best case scenario.

The dude invented the theme.

I just don't know where you get that from. We're living in a PG-13 era of movies. There's almost nothing allowed anymore in films compared to the 80's and 90's movies. Violence is one thing but they'd tame it down, hardly showing blood or anything. If the movie is worked out and there's hardly to no blood, you might say there was more blood in the show than in the movie. Look at his cut in The Outsiders or his face in Stricktly Business. And tons of sex... jeez. Make it sound like a porn movie. The only actioner that involves an explicit sex scene that I know is Fair Game with William Baldwin and Cindy Crawford. If we talk about more we're in another genre. Bruce Willis would not be my choice to play Mac (although they did consider RDA for the role of John McClane). A younger cast is avoidable but would they do it? Mostly I didn't like the more teen-related episodes much though. Rick Mittleman's episodes are a good example of that: Live and Learn, Twenty Questions, The 'Hood, Off The Wall.

That's why they have to try it. Maybe it could be a succesful formula and not only in the treasure hunting genre.

It's so hard the other way around. They don't make them like in the 80's or 90's anymore. If The Fast And The Furious movies were made in the 80's and 90's they would've been rated R and not PG-13. Not that you hear me complain but everything would be more explicit. If they wanna use violence and language and all the other elements, use them or don't use it at all. What's the use of having one bad word in a whole film that would've been rated R anyway in the '90's. If they remake movies like Lethal Weapon, Die Hard, The Last Boyscout now they would flop because of the PG-13 rating. Or if they made them PG-13 in the first place they would've flopped anyway.

Continuity. I'm part of the general audience and I wouldn't care about a 60 year old carrying the film. Again Rocky, Rambo, Indy. Harrison Ford was still carrying the film and as far as I remember Shia LeBeouf only had his moment of the film during the jungle chase. I think it should stay that way. As long Harrison gets his shares of stunts and mostly fights (even if it's one blow) like it was in the last one, you won't hear me complain.
But somewhere I get your point. Movies with an adult cast are indeed rare. That's actually one reason I like the Saw-films. No screaming teens and such. Or The Fly is also a good one. Bu these are horrorflicks. On action I'd stick with those who were great in the 80's and 90's.

The way to utter failure indeed.

Dr. Zito, what kind of movies have you been seeing? I wonder where you got all those clichés from.

Besides, what you're saying isn't true. I've seen lots of movies with 'old' guys and gals that were very successful.
Successful directors/producers like the Coen Brothers work with 'old' actors all the time and the result is commercial successes ànd lots of Oscars.
Look at the nominees for the best pictures, and directors, and actors etc, all very old men and women.

Maybe you should define 'old' versus 'young'. Maybe you should define 'violence' and 'sex'. Because I don't see it. Not in this era.

What I'm saying is I don't agree with you at all. So kill me and eat me.

Should we serve red or white wine with you, Traveller?

Its very strange that you and others don't see the point, not I, but hollywood producers are making time and time again. I wont eat you though, you seem a bit bitter J/K

I'm puzzled by most of the answers on this thread to be honest with you, hey, but its nice to see people who think traditional values are still the core of hollywood. I personally think youth above all, and sex and violence are the main catalysts for movies nowadays. Do you really think the Hostel movies would've been a success in the 80s? The Twilight movies which are absolutely braindead, yet they made more money than any teenage comedy I can think of from the 80s. Why? because they show beautiful teenagers with almost no plot at all. That kind of movies used to hardly make the top 10 in the box office back in the 80s, now its amongst the highest grossing movies of all time. An entire genre, torture porn has flourished not only in hollywood but around the world, what used to be a subgenre dedicated to video stores, now is a mainstream type of film that gives a lot of money.

I mean all the signs are there, its pretty obvious, its a trend that has been discussed hundred of times in film magazines, forums and tv shows. If you want to disagree about the violence and sex things, which I find utterly strange and disconnected with reality, its ok you can, but are you really telling me that the average age of your typical hollywood character hasnt lowered several years? c'mon.

I think we're getting a bit side tracked here.

The simple facts are that, regardless of who made it, National Treasure was an action adventure movie which succeeded without sex or violence, and in fact did well enough at the box office that they made a sequel to it. That says that a MacGyver movie can work in today's market if done correctly.

It won't be an 80's version of MacGyver though. It's going to have to be updated to suit today's market, but the underlying theme of brains over brawn can still work; that maybe because it'll be something so different to today's audiences.

In fact if you think about the kind of TV and films mentality we had back when MacGyver first came out, we had a lot of bash-em and trash-em type stuff, we even had some stuff we thought at the time was pretty racy, so MacGyver went against the tide then as well. Everything goes in cycles. MacGyver went against the tide and worked back in the 80's is there really any reason why it can't go against the tide and work again today if it's updated?

I dont think the 80s hollywood panorama (and mac will be a hollywood product make no mistake about it) was that similar to the current one. Ive never doubted that such a film can be done, and I hope it gets done. I also think it'd be highly unusual.

But my main worry is , and its a personal one and seems not shared by anyone else on this forum, that I dont want them to do with mac like they did with star trek or even an example mentioned as something well updated, like Indy. I didnt like the need to impose a younger cast and I hope they dont do the same in MC. Thats the thing, when you see a younger character naturally introduced into the plotline I dont have any problem with it, hell I dont have anything against younger characters, but when its a forced thing to please the demographics that hollywood producers have decided are the key age group, then I dont like it.

One simple example, and its a terrible one because the original series was not very good, but when they did again melrose place, they made most characters 5 or 10 years younger. In jonathan ross film show he interviewed several film critics and well known hollywood producers to ask them why hollywood films are making their plots so adolescent, and all agreed that its the demographic the producers think can repeat the same movie most times and go in groups, therefore produce more money for the industry. As a consequence they try to make most mainstream movies with a younger cast that will appeal to that key age group.

Hopefully now you understand my concern, which is only a concern, theres nothing certain about mac becoming a high school romantic comedy, or something silly of that sort, but Im afraid that in the process of updating the show they'll lose something valuable. I would think that was a concern more widely shared here or anywhere but perhaps I came across too strong or i didnt phrase it well, or perhaps like a friend says, people love to disagree on the internet even when you make a valid point.

Regardless I hope the movie gets done and its a massive success and we can all celebrate it together. Hopefully I won't eat any of you, though Im starting to get hungry.

Have a read through our first movie discussion. I think you'll get a much better understanding of what people think.

I don't think there is a case of people wanting to disagree in here, for me it was more the way you phrased it. The message I got was that you don't see any way a MacGyver movie can work in today's movie "climate" and that was what I was disagreeing with.

But anyway take a look through that other thread I linked for you. You'll get a much better understanding of the general view.

A nice fat red Nuits St. Georges would be splendid, thank you Lothi.

yes, I get that, I'm a bit extreme in my pessimism, and yes at first glance I see why you get that idea.

but I definitely think its possible to make a good and updated (in the good sense) movie out of MacGyver. Hopefully the real Dr Zito will return, not the actor, but the character.

I was probably ranting about hollywood and somehow I involved Mac in the mess. Not that I dont think some of my points, or rather hollywood's realities, aren't there and won't affect MC, but , like always, I was a bit extreme. I'm extreme for the good too, though. I'm a passionate fellow but I hope I didnt upset anyone

cheers

W. Morgan Sheppard is the real Dr. Zito. Just like RDA is the real MacGyver.

Maturity has not robbed Mr. W. Morgan Sheppard of one iota of his ability to completely creep me out!

I loved seeing him as Ducky's nemesis in the episode of NCIS titled 'Broken Bird'. Really awesome performance.

On the subject at hand, I'd have to say that I would like to see RDA revise his role, as an older MacGyver. Sure, he won't be runnin' and jumpin' and poppin' up like a jack-in-the-box--that just means he'd have to rely more on his macgyverisms!

We just need someone smart enough to write a good script!

I really can't see them bringing Zito back -- he was a minor villain in the overall scope of the show. The only bad guy they'd be likely to reprise is Murdoc, although that's likely to be a retread of an overtrodden path. And there's no guarantee that they'd want to reprise anything -- we're guessing madly, after all.

Here's a question which we may have had before, but I'm gonna ask again anyway.

Other than Star Trek, has there been a TV series in the past 15 years which transferred to theatrical movies and kept the original cast?

Firefly and Serenity!

And Richard Sharpe--there were 14 episodes in the series, and they brought back most the characters that they didn't kill off at Waterloo, original cast members.

Yeah. Power Rangers The Movie. All the Rangers where the orginal actors just like Bulk and Skull. There were indeed a few alterations. Though the movie is set in LA just like the show the movie was shot in Australia. The Command Centre, Alpha 5 and the bad guys (Rita, Lord Zedd and Goldar) had a another design of custome just like the Ranger suits, weapons and Zords.

Maybe this was due the fact the movie was shot while they were finishing up season 2 where in a couple of episodes it is shown the Rangers are going on a field trip to Australia on the moment Rita was coming back. That movie is by the way kinda of remade in the third season four-parter Ninja Quest. So the movie was made the Power Rangers reached their highlight popularity while they were still making the show.

To be honest, I'd like to see another Power Ranger movie with the original Mighty Morphin concept nowadays, especially (even though how bad it may be for some) after the Transformers movies. It would be interesting to see how a Zord-fight would look like now.

I don't know if animated shows count but The Simpsons movie is also one of them.

And with luck, depending on how things are going, maybe a 24 movie. There's already one made-for-tv but I've heard rumours about a theatrical movie. Talks are been going on forever though since season 3 or 4. If it's made there's no doubt about it Kiefer Sutherland would play the lead anyway and maybe Mary-Lynn Rajskub or Elisha Cuthbert might be part of it as well. Though she wasn't in the made for tv-movie. But if Kiefer Sutherland plays the lead it's all well and good to me.

Add 'Stargate' to the list... two movies with original cast members.

Does 'Sex & the City' count, or are you looking for action movies?

Them ain't theatrical and the theatrical one didn't have them actors yet. RDA still had a mullet back than.

Don't matter, good example though.