Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
MacGyver Online Forums > News Desk > MacGyver movie is still going ahead.


Posted by: MacGyverOnline 26 February 2010 - 01:47 PM
In a recent interview for the http://lifehacker.com/5480477/the-man-behind-MacGyver-swiss-army-knife-or-duct-tape website, MacGyver creator Lee David Zlutoff said that the MacGyver movie is still going ahead and is currently having a script written, for which he was “anxiously looking forward to seeing how it turns out.”

He also commented briefly about his lawsuit over the MacGruber movie, saying that while he found the MacGruber skits to be hysterical, he felt that the production of a movie was a step too far by entering the same market place as his movie: “it’s one thing to do a skit on Saturday Night Live, it’s another thing to enter the exact same marketplace, with a feature-length movie, while we’re in the process of trying to put together a real MacGyver movie.”

He went on to indicate that he perceived the difference between MacGruber and other “send up” movies such as Austin Powers to be that Austin Powers is a send up of the whole spy genre, while MacGruber is a send up of only one show, but again came back to the idea that the real problem is that the MacGruber movie is "entering the same marketplace" as the MacGyver movie.

An interesting side note to come from the interview was that the production company backing the MacGruber movie, Reality Media, originally took an interest in Zlutoff’s MacGyver movie before they went with MacGruber.


http://lifehacker.com/5480477/the-man-behind-MacGyver-swiss-army-knife-or-duct-tape


Posted by: Beachbead 26 February 2010 - 07:15 PM
i hope he gets the MacGruber movie takein down and I'm glad they are working on the Script i hope it turns out for the best.

Posted by: Lothithil 26 February 2010 - 09:18 PM
VEeeeeeery interesting! Thanks for posting this, Rock! biggrin.gif

Posted by: MacGyverGod 28 February 2010 - 10:14 AM
I never intended to see the trailer but my brother did and quickly figured out it had to be a parody on MacGyver so I ended up watching it. Got to admit, looks like my kind of humor. But the fact that:
QUOTE
He also commented briefly about his lawsuit over the MacGruber movie, saying that while he found the MacGruber skits to be hysterical, he felt that the production of a movie was a step too far by entering the same market place as his movie: “it’s one thing to do a skit on Saturday Night Live, it’s another thing to enter the exact same marketplace, with a feature-length movie, while we’re in the process of trying to put together a real MacGyver movie.”

He went on to indicate that he perceived the difference between MacGruber and other “send up” movies such as Austin Powers to be that Austin Powers is a send up of the whole spy genre, while MacGruber is a send up of only one show, but again came back to the idea that the real problem is that the MacGruber movie is "entering the same marketplace" as the MacGyver movie.


That's where the itch is. Things get going, than SNL is trying to "take" that away. If things can be sorted out like adults, I wouldn't mind the MacGruber film I think. Looks like Lee David Zlotoff is prepared to talk. Even though MacGruber might almost be in his post-production, you think it would hurt to delay that release until the actual film is made and released? Sounds like a good deal to make up for the fuzz they caused.

Posted by: MacGyverOnline 28 February 2010 - 12:46 PM
Anyone else notice how Lee Zlutoff kinda looks like MacGyver?

Maybe they should cast him in the lead role.

user posted image

Mind you my initial reaction was that he looked like Gil Grisim from CSI. But I don't think a MacGyver look is much of a stretch either.




Posted by: Flyboy16 28 February 2010 - 04:20 PM
I though it looked familiar, well its good to know the movie is still on

Posted by: MacGyverGod 28 February 2010 - 04:26 PM
QUOTE (Rockatteer @ 28 February 2010 - 09:46 PM)
Anyone else notice how Lee Zlutoff kinda looks like MacGyver?

Maybe they should cast him in the lead role.

user posted image

Mind you my initial reaction was that he looked like Gil Grisim from CSI. But I don't think a MacGyver look is much of a stretch either.

I don't think he wants that job.

Posted by: MacGyverOnline 1 March 2010 - 05:31 PM
I just had a thought...

If Lee is talking about MacGruber damaging the MacGyver movie... I wonder how similar the MacGruber storyline might be to what they worked out for MacGyver?

Maybe MacGruber not only ripped off MacGyver, but the movie storyline? (or part of it) hmm.bmp






Posted by: Flyboy16 1 March 2010 - 06:32 PM
if this movie goes through, I think it will have a chance to take a shot at indiana jones movie, and james bond

Posted by: angus20 2 March 2010 - 08:05 AM
Good this it's going to be the real movie then.

I hope they manage to join RDA on it.

Posted by: Dennman 12 March 2010 - 05:00 PM
RDA or nobody as fair as I'm concerned. I couldn't see anyone else trying to fill those shoes. Besides, he looked great in that MacGyver spoof commercial a couple years ago with the bomber jacket and attire.

Posted by: InVader 18 March 2010 - 09:27 PM
I think they're probably worried about Macgruber being a turkey that ends up hurting the market for their film. A lot of people have no idea what MacGyver is and if the first one to come out is bad it'll probably reflect on the real one. I'm sure they wouldn't have a problem if they released MacGruber after the official Movie is released.

Posted by: MacDriver 23 March 2010 - 01:45 AM
QUOTE (InVader @ 19 March 2010 - 05:27 PM)
I think they're probably worried about Macgruber being a turkey that ends up hurting the market for their film. A lot of people have no idea what MacGyver is and if the first one to come out is bad it'll probably reflect on the real one. I'm sure they wouldn't have a problem if they released MacGruber after the official Movie is released.

That's fair enough. I agree, in the absence of MacGyver from this generation, the first one probably would somehow function to be more normative of the character. I always watch the "real" movie before the parody. If you don't, it really isn't as funny.

I can't believe they still haven't even casted the MacGyver movie yet! Geez Lee, how long you have to wait to make the dang thing, til RDA is bald enough to play Pete?

Posted by: MacGyverGod 23 March 2010 - 03:38 AM
I once heard people getting gray won't get bald.

Posted by: MacGyverOnline 23 March 2010 - 10:22 AM
Pete's hair was gray and he was mostly bold.

It has nothing to do with hair color.

Posted by: Ryan 22 April 2010 - 01:28 AM
RDA looked GREAT in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stargate:_Continuum and that was only 2 or 3 years ago. I agree, RDA should be cast for the movie

Posted by: MacGyverOnline 22 April 2010 - 09:45 PM
You think a 60 year old MacGyver in a 1987 setting will work?

He'll be older than all his friends and even his boss.


Posted by: MacGyverGod 23 April 2010 - 01:32 AM
I'd be happy if they get the 1987 feel in 2010. In other words the third season feeling after 23 years.

Posted by: MacGyverOnline 23 April 2010 - 02:42 AM
yeah well you wont get that with RDA playing the lead role. Not unless they start in present time with RDA and then flashback, or follow on from the end of the series and go with the father/son deal, but that's not really a pure MacGyver and I'm not really sure I'd like to see it go down that path to be honest.

You know what might be quite a funny thing they could do... Have RDA play some kind of "Jack O'Neill like" colonel that Pete has to work with, kinda like the guy in Human Factor, or Silent World. laugh.gif

But seriously, the only way I can see RDA working in this movie is to start off in present day with MacGyver maybe getting someone out of a jam or something, so we get to see RDA being MacGyver and pulling off some sort of MacGyverism happy_dance.gif and then doign something like saying he's been in worse situations and flashing back to a story which is the main part of the movie and using younger actors."

I'd love to know what if anything the writer has come up with so far.


Posted by: deepfathom393 24 April 2010 - 09:43 AM
Not having RDA as MacGyver would be like not having Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones! ohmy.gif
RDA IS MacGyver, and anybody else would have a hard time filling those shoes and pulling it off convincingly.

Posted by: Traveller 25 April 2010 - 01:49 AM
Rockatteer wrote:
QUOTE
But seriously, the only way I can see RDA working in this movie is to start off in present day with MacGyver maybe getting someone out of a jam or something, so we get to see RDA being MacGyver and pulling off some sort of MacGyverism  and then doign something like saying he's been in worse situations and flashing back to a story which is the main part of the movie and using younger actors.


I heartily agree with you, Rock.

And in the fan fiction Library MacBeth is doing just that. Starting with the MacGyver of today and then flashing back to the MacGyver as we know him. And it's got Murdoc in it!
It's called Reverb and it's a Work in Progress.
Brilliant story, very well written, great plot. Every time I read a chapter (more, please, Beth!) it's like watching a movie.

So until the real movie is or isn't made, we here at MOL have our own movie.


Posted by: SakLumberjack 25 April 2010 - 04:31 AM
Even Noah Antwiler (The Spoony One) doesn't like the MacGruber movie. It's in his newest vlog.

Go Spoony!

Posted by: lostsouls 25 April 2010 - 11:19 AM
QUOTE (Rockatteer @ 23 April 2010 - 10:42 PM)

But seriously, the only way I can see RDA working in this movie is to start off in present day with MacGyver maybe getting someone out of a jam or something, so we get to see RDA being MacGyver and pulling off some sort of MacGyverism happy_dance.gif and then doign something like saying he's been in worse situations and flashing back to a story which is the main part of the movie and using younger actors."

That sounds so cool!
I want to see RDA, definitely happy.gif

Posted by: Dr Zito 25 April 2010 - 09:08 PM
As much as I love RDA and the MacGyver character I can't see Zlotoff or anyone related to the MG series not paying attention to what is successful in today's film market, and thats young leading men, almost teenagers. Im very afraid that they'll give it a similar treatment than Star Trek, where you were hardpressed to find anyone over 25. I can see RDA being a sort of mentor for someone a la Shia LaBeouf (I feel like puking while I type this). I hope Im completely wrong but you can rarely see nowadays any action mainstream movie with the main actor over 40, and most of the time most of the characters are below 30, so that would rule out Pete and others.

Basically Im afraid they'll youngen up the entire cast and plot. Hope they hire Randy Edelman for the score, instead of someone from mediaventures because if they hire a MV composer I can actually imagine a god awful techno score with the MacGyver tune updated to a more "hip" style.

Frankly I gotta be honest, and I hate to be a partypooper, but for me Mac is a completely outdated character in todays world. It doesnt speak well of our world, but can you imagine in 2010 an action movie about a guy who doesnt believe in carrying guns, has no explicit sex on screen, and most of his friends are over 40? Mac is from another era.

Thats my view anyway, kind of grim, I'm sorry.

Posted by: MacBeth 25 April 2010 - 09:46 PM
QUOTE (Traveller)
And in the fan fiction Library MacBeth is doing just that. Starting with the MacGyver of today and then flashing back to the MacGyver as we know him. And it's got Murdoc in it!
It's called Reverb and it's a Work in Progress.
Brilliant story, very well written, great plot. Every time I read a chapter (more, please, Beth!) it's like watching a movie.

So until the real movie is or isn't made, we here at MOL have our own movie.

blush.gif Thank you!

I actually started writing that story, the opening sequence in particular, because I wanted to envision how the character might function in the current, technology-saturated world. It's working very well -- yes, the next chapter is progressing nicely and is almost ready to post, and it's back in the current day, complete with Twitter and iPods and YouTube and internet conspiracy junkies.

I've always seen MacGyver as being enough of a technological adept that he would move forward quite comfortably as things progressed, chosing what technological innovations to use, and not feeling pressured to adopt everything. He'd be in control of the level of technology in his life, rather than it controlling him.

Posted by: lostsouls 25 April 2010 - 11:29 PM
I see Dr Zito's point and I agree with some parts.For instance I have never seen a single episode of Star Trek,so I watched that new version a bit late,thinking whether there will be parts that I can't get.However it was entertaining for me.I can even say I wanted to see the episodes of it after that smile.gif
But I'm sure how hard it must be to satisfy the hard-core fans of the show.

Same goes with MacGyver.Yet I don't think he's too outdated character to come back.They can easily revive the practical things he's made throughout the show using today's technology...even better.So yeah...his age and about his friends.That's the tricky part.As long as they keep his age same with the pilot episode,I will be cool with that.The younger than that can be bad.If Pete will also be there,an actor who is in the late 40s age may be good.just an idea...

Shia LaBeouf (I feel like puking while I type this)

eww,and I feel the same while reading his name! =)

Posted by: Traveller 25 April 2010 - 11:53 PM
QUOTE
Frankly I gotta be honest, and I hate to be a partypooper, but for me Mac is a completely outdated character in todays world. It doesnt speak well of our world, but can you imagine in 2010 an action movie about a guy who doesnt believe in carrying guns, has no explicit sex on screen, and most of his friends are over 40? Mac is from another era.


May I remind you, that when MacGyver was introduced on American television, his character was just as outlandish as it would be now. Action heroes with guns were everywhere, the MacGyver-approach was completely new. So I think the opposite of you, dr. Zito. I believe that the MacGyver way of thinking – trying to find solutions without waving a gun – could be very attractive to the public of today.

And for the rest: MacGyver can concoct huge explosions and that never gets old.

Posted by: MacGyverOnline 26 April 2010 - 12:43 AM
QUOTE (Dr Zito @ 26 April 2010 - 05:08 PM)
can you imagine in 2010 an action movie about a guy who doesnt believe in carrying guns, has no explicit sex on screen, and most of his friends are over 40? Mac is from another era.

You mean like National treasure? or Indiana Jones?


Posted by: MacGyverGod 26 April 2010 - 02:53 PM
@ Dr. Zito.

Why not? Star Trek was quite good. I'm not so familiar with the original series though, but I got the feeling the movie was quite succesful with the fans. That's also why I set my 'hopes up' to JJ Abrahams for the movie as a director.

QUOTE
Hope they hire Randy Edelman for the score, instead of someone from mediaventures because if they hire a MV composer I can actually imagine a god awful techno score with the MacGyver tune updated to a more "hip" style.

I think I can live with Trevor Rabin for the score. But my main hope is an orchestral score with either Randy Edelman (he has experience with big movies) or James Newton Howard will also be a good choice or Michael Giacchino if it JJ Abrahams was the director.

QUOTE
Frankly I gotta be honest, and I hate to be a partypooper, but for me Mac is a completely outdated character in todays world. It doesnt speak well of our world, but can you imagine in 2010 an action movie about a guy who doesnt believe in carrying guns, has no explicit sex on screen, and most of his friends are over 40? Mac is from another era.

Euhm... Rocky, Indiana Jones, Rambo mean any bells? OK, the best example is Rocky. Indy does carry a gun and Rambo is a walking armory. Lately everything is PG-13, not too much violence, blood or sex. My point is use it or don't use it. But don't use it to make more money. There's plenty of PG-13's that could be rated R's. And I can think of many films that would've made good R's instead of PG-13's. Always keeping in mind that this or that would not be fit for children. I mean come on. But of course for Mac a PG or a PG-13 would be great.

Something in style of National Treasure or Sahara would be great for a Mac-movie except that's it not a treasure hunting thing. Too easy and not in the originally sense for Mac. Something like Casino Royale would be much better in type of secret agent thing with missions and such. And Casino Royale was one of the better actioners in the way an action film should be.

Posted by: Dr Zito 26 April 2010 - 04:22 PM
QUOTE (Rockatteer @ 26 April 2010 - 08:43 PM)
QUOTE (Dr Zito @ 26 April 2010 - 05:08 PM)
can you imagine in 2010 an action movie about a guy who doesnt believe in carrying guns, has no explicit sex on screen, and most of his friends are over 40? Mac is from another era.

You mean like National treasure? or Indiana Jones?

Indy is an outdated character as well, and may I say the name of the beast again tongue.gif , but they had to shoehorn an almost teenager into the plot, the leboeuf kid. National Treasure is a disney film and not exactly similar to MacGyver, IMO.

The trekkies i talked to liked the film but didnt think it was a true star trek film. Perhaps thats what'll happen with MG. In anycase the two movies that were made were hardly typical, one of them didnt feel like a MacGyver story at all (I think it was the one about the doomsday day or something)

Trevor Rabin, perhaps the worst composer working right now in Hollywood, would be a nightmare of a choice, I cant think of anyone more unfitted. Edelman is the man, pun intended biggrin.gif or anyone but the MV crowd. Would you really like the armageddon feeling in the background while mac disarms a bomb?

Its true that you could have a megastar bruce willis type in the main role, those are few cases though, and to counterbalance they'll usually make it up for with tons of sex, violence or a younger rest of cast. To have all those elements, a mostly grown up cast, no sex and no guns, all in the same action movie is pretty, pretty unusual nowadays.

I agree that with a good amount of ingenuity you could get away with it, and let me make myself clear, that I'd love to see a Mac movie that defies cinema's modern conventions (when it comes to hollywood anyway), but Im just making the point that making such a movie would be against the run of things. Of course Id love it but I think the commercial aspect of a film is something that producers will have to take into account

Perhaps Im just being a cynical basta$% as usual, dont pay any attention to me wink.gif

Posted by: MacGyverOnline 26 April 2010 - 09:44 PM
QUOTE (Dr Zito @ 27 April 2010 - 12:22 PM)
Indy is an outdated character as well, and may I say the name of the beast again tongue.gif , but they had to shoehorn an almost teenager into the plot, the leboeuf kid.

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

QUOTE
National Treasure is a disney film and not exactly similar to MacGyver, IMO.

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...

QUOTE
can you imagine in 2010 an action movie about a guy who doesnt believe in carrying guns, has no explicit sex on screen, and most of his friends are over 40?


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.

QUOTE
Perhaps Im just being a cynical basta$% as usual, dont pay any attention to me
Zito's playing his mind tricks on us people! Don't let him get away with it! boxing.gif

laugh.gif


Posted by: Dr Zito 27 April 2010 - 01:24 AM
Thats me, trying to make my namesake come to live, thanks to the internet biggrin.gif . 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 tongue.gif 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.

jeep.gif

Posted by: MacGyverGod 27 April 2010 - 01:51 AM
QUOTE
you're going to have to explain to me how you do this multiquoting thing

It's called a quote button.

QUOTE
Indy is an outdated character as well, and may I say the name of the beast again  , but they had to shoehorn an almost teenager into the plot, the leboeuf kid. National Treasure is a disney film and not exactly similar to MacGyver, IMO.


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

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

QUOTE
In anycase the two movies that were made were hardly typical, one of them didnt feel like a MacGyver story at all (I think it was the one about the doomsday day or something)

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.

QUOTE
Trevor Rabin, perhaps the worst composer working right now in Hollywood, would be a nightmare of a choice, I cant think of anyone more unfitted.

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.

QUOTE
Edelman is the man

The dude invented the theme.

QUOTE
Its true that you could have a megastar bruce willis type in the main role, those are few cases though, and to counterbalance they'll usually make it up for with tons of sex, violence or a younger rest of cast.

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.

QUOTE
To have all those elements, a mostly grown up cast, no sex and no guns, all in the same action movie is pretty, pretty unusual nowadays.

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

QUOTE
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.

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.

QUOTE
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.

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.

QUOTE
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.

The way to utter failure indeed.

Posted by: Traveller 27 April 2010 - 04:07 AM
ohmy.gif

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. harhar.gif

Posted by: Lothithil 27 April 2010 - 02:27 PM
QUOTE (Traveller @ 27 April 2010 - 06:07 AM)
What I'm saying is I don't agree with you at all. So kill me and eat me. harhar.gif

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

Posted by: Dr Zito 27 April 2010 - 04:56 PM
QUOTE (Traveller @ 28 April 2010 - 12:07 AM)
ohmy.gif

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.  harhar.gif

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 biggrin.gif 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.

Posted by: MacGyverOnline 27 April 2010 - 10:05 PM
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?

Posted by: Dr Zito 27 April 2010 - 10:55 PM
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.

Posted by: MacGyverOnline 27 April 2010 - 11:30 PM
Have a read through http://www.macgyveronline.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=5190. 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.

Posted by: Traveller 28 April 2010 - 12:39 AM
QUOTE
Should we serve red or white wine with you, Traveller?


roller.gif

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

Posted by: Dr Zito 29 April 2010 - 10:20 PM
QUOTE (Rockatteer @ 28 April 2010 - 07:30 PM)
Have a read through http://www.macgyveronline.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=5190. 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.

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

Posted by: MacGyverGod 30 April 2010 - 01:52 AM
QUOTE
Hopefully the real Dr Zito will return, not the actor, but the character.

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

Posted by: Lothithil 30 April 2010 - 07:01 AM
Maturity has not robbed Mr. W. Morgan Sheppard of one iota of his ability to completely creep me out! laugh.gif

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! biggrin.gif

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

Posted by: MacBeth 30 April 2010 - 07:40 PM
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.

Posted by: MacGyverOnline 30 April 2010 - 08:23 PM
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?

Posted by: Lothithil 30 April 2010 - 10:05 PM
Firefly and Serenity! smile.gif

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.

Posted by: MacGyverGod 1 May 2010 - 12:27 PM
QUOTE (Rockatteer @ 1 May 2010 - 05:23 AM)
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?

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.

Posted by: Lothithil 1 May 2010 - 01:47 PM
Add 'Stargate' to the list... two movies with original cast members. biggrin.gif

Posted by: Traveller 1 May 2010 - 02:05 PM
Does 'Sex & the City' count, or are you looking for action movies?


Posted by: MacGyverGod 1 May 2010 - 02:11 PM
QUOTE
Add 'Stargate' to the list... two movies with original cast members. 

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

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

Don't matter, good example though.

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)