Why the WWW Film Failed: An Opinion
Printed from: THE WILD WILD WEST @ wildwildwest.org
Topic URL: http://www.wildwildwest.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=3146
Printed on: 06/09/2026
Topic:
Topic author: Dr. Loveless
Subject: Why the WWW Film Failed: An Opinion
Posted on: 07/29/2009 13:49:52
Message:
Here's where I think it ran wrong:
1)Their conception of Jim West: In modern films, they don't usually have heroes, they have anti-heroes; people who are constantly at odds with their bosses & the powers that be, the edge of society kind of people (Imagine the X-Men's Wolverine, and you'll get the idea). I think their conception of West was more anti-hero than hero.
2)Will Smith. A great actor, and good in many things. But his natural default persona at that time, and the way audiences perceived him, was as the wisecracking young guy who shakes things up (Like Men In Black). I think Smith has shown that he can do great in serious roles now, but in 1999 audiences really just knew him as the comic guy, and there was nothing WWW did to make their Jim West more serious.
3) The Producers. I don't know how many of you are aware of the time Kevin Smith was writing a Superman film for Tim Burton to direct and Nick Cage to star in. It failed, and after it's failure, Smith said one of the things that drove him crazy was one of the producer's desire to see a giant robot spider in the film. A few years later, a giant mechanical spider appears in WWW, a film produced by the same producer who wanted a mechanical spider in Superman. I think this shows that this whole film was more about the producers ego, and their desire to get whatever whim filled their head at the time, than making a quality film of any kind. I don't blame the onscreen talent as much because of this.
4) Their Loveless blew! Why not write Loveless the way he was in the original show, the way Michael Dunn played him? There are many talented little actors today, and I'm sure somebody like Warwick Davis would have done a fantastic Loveless.
What worked:
Salma Hayek & Bai Ling in period garb. 
The brief take on the Surreal McCoys.
Replies:
Reply author: California gal
Replied on: 07/29/2009 14:10:42
Message:
I can't give you an opinion on the movie because I've never seen it and have no intentions of ever watching it.
As soon as I heard Will Smith was going to play James West I knew it would be a disaster. As you say, Will Smith is a fine actor in both comedic and, now, dramatic roles. But he's not Jim West. (As far as that goes, I don't think there is or ever well be another Jim West as portrayed so perfectly by Robert Conrad.)
The majority of movies made these days based on old TV shows, and some old movies, are pretty much disasters as far as I'm concerned. Now I hear a "Green Hornet" movie is in the works. I'm sure it'll be just as bad as the others.
IMO, they should either leave classics alone, or strive to emulate the classic instead of making them into slapstick and/or bathroom humor movies.
Reply author: chibbi
Replied on: 07/29/2009 14:40:47
Message:
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Loveless
4) Their Loveless blew! Why not write Loveless the way he was in the original show, the way Michael Dunn played him? There are many talented little actors today, and I'm sure somebody like Warwick Davis would have done a fantastic Loveless.
Totally agree that Warwick Davis would have made a good Loveless.
Reply author: SpottedPony
Replied on: 07/29/2009 15:17:18
Message:
I think in order to do a classic series justice with a movie, the producer, directer and screen writer have to be fans of the origional show, or at least watched it enough to know why it worked, and to try to do the movie the same way. Basicly they should be trying to make another episode, but with different actors playing the parts. I think Maverick, with Mel Gibson worked because of this. The Wild, Wild West movie didn't work because TPTB didn't care about what they were basing it on.
I've also heard that there is a possibility of a Have Gun Will Travel movie remake. Supposedly 'rap star' M & M,(not how it's spelled) is being considered as Paladin. They're also considering bringing it into modern times. Why bother if they are going to change it like that? Why link it at all in that case? Just do it however they want and let it stand on its own.
Spotted Pony
Reply author: Dr. Loveless
Replied on: 07/29/2009 15:22:44
Message:
If your Have Gun, Will Travel story is true... why on earth! There is nothing in the old show that fans of Eminem would dig, and there is nothing about Eminem in a modern setting that would appeal to HG,WT fans.
Insanity!
Reply author: chibbi
Replied on: 07/29/2009 15:29:57
Message:
Can you see rapper Eminem being a former military, well-educated, cultured, sophisticated and gentlemanly individual? Paladin was all that and more.
Reply author: Pidgeon
Replied on: 07/29/2009 15:30:16
Message:
I honestly tried to watch the Abomination movie. I tried...but it was so absolutely sickening...I am not kidding....that I quickly surrendered and turned off the tv.
They had no idea of what true brotherhood was between West and Gordon. The writing was horrible, the actors were horrible.
You're absolutely right. Ego ruled there. And it shows. 
Reply author: California gal
Replied on: 07/29/2009 15:31:20
Message:
I know that the version of Battlestar Galactica that just finished a very successful run on SciFi/SyFy was highly praised and very popular.
But as soon as I learned they were going to cast a woman as Starbuck, I knew I couldn't watch it. I loved the original.
I don't know, maybe their reasoning is that the young people today won't know anything about the classic version so why not... whatever? If that's the case, why bother to use the series name and character names? Time and again, these remakes are unsuccessful anyway. Why don't they learn anything from that?
Plus as said, Maverick was successful because it did stick to the real thing. The MI series is successful but it has little to do with the TV series other than the title!
I understand someone named Seth Rogen is up for the lead as Brit Reid, The Green Hornet. I've seen pictures of him but have never seen him on film. The picture is enough. He is NOT Brit Reid. 
Reply author: California gal
Replied on: 07/29/2009 15:33:02
Message:
quote:
Originally posted by Pidgeon
I honestly tried to watch the Abomination movie. I tried...but it was so absolutely sickening...I am not kidding....that I quickly surrendered and turned off the tv.
They had no idea of what true brotherhood was between West and Gordon. The writing was horrible, the actors were horrible.
You're absolutely right. Ego ruled there. And it shows.
You know, Batman was very successfully reinvented with Christian Bale. (Superman not so much so.) Why can't someone try again with WWW and get it right--as in bring in people like RC and Bruce Lansbury and any others who are around still!
Reply author: Pidgeon
Replied on: 07/29/2009 15:35:36
Message:
They're trying to do something edgy and completely different, CalGal. I think that if these Powers That Be are anything like the people I knew in college (Visual and Performing Arts), they really want to be known as someone who thinks out of the box. That they're different somehow and uber-creative.
What they don't realize is that it's not creative in a productive sense. You have to know the rules before you can break the rules. If you've got that down then you also know what rules not to break. In other words: what works and what doesn't work.
Reply author: Dieter Epping
Replied on: 07/29/2009 15:36:57
Message:
I guess the only real successful remakes of old shows turned out to be The Fugitive, and just now, Star Trek. ST was the biggie, with over 250 million so far. They made that one appeal to the audience and the critics too. Mostly good reviews all around.
Reply author: Pidgeon
Replied on: 07/29/2009 15:37:22
Message:
Now what was really creative and fun was The Incredibles. Based on superheroes, the producers really took a creative spin on something we're all familiar with. And it was GREAT!! 
Reply author: Dieter Epping
Replied on: 07/29/2009 15:38:52
Message:
quote:
Originally posted by California galquote:
Originally posted by Pidgeon
I honestly tried to watch the Abomination movie. I tried...but it was so absolutely sickening...I am not kidding....that I quickly surrendered and turned off the tv.
They had no idea of what true brotherhood was between West and Gordon. The writing was horrible, the actors were horrible.
You're absolutely right. Ego ruled there. And it shows.
You know, Batman was very successfully reinvented with Christian Bale. (Superman not so much so.) Why can't someone try again with WWW and get it right--as in bring in people like RC and Bruce Lansbury and any others who are around still!
HA! Forgot about Batman. The Dark Knight was the biggest and Best I thought. Heath Ledger as The Joker stole the show though!
Reply author: chibbi
Replied on: 07/29/2009 15:41:08
Message:
quote:
Originally posted by California gal
I know that the version of Battlestar Galactica that just finished a very successful run on SciFi/SyFy was highly praised and very popular.
But as soon as I learned they were going to cast a woman as Starbuck, I knew I couldn't watch it. I loved the original.
I don't know, maybe their reasoning is that the young people today won't know anything about the classic version so why not... whatever? If that's the case, why bother to use the series name and character names?
Well, it is practically a generation (25+ years) since the original Battlestar was on the air. They did take some liberties (Starbucks sex change
) but they kept the Cylons and the search for earth in the story line. It did run longer (season wise) then the original show and in science fiction I think people are a bit more forgiving when it comes to changes.
Reply author: California gal
Replied on: 07/29/2009 15:54:10
Message:
quote:
Originally posted by chibbi
Well, it is practically a generation (25+ years)...
That's no excuse. You could use the same for WWW, Brady Bunch and a host of others. I still say, why bother if you're not going to be true to the original?
Reply author: Silver
Replied on: 07/29/2009 16:00:07
Message:
quote:
Originally posted by California gal
The MI series is successful but it has little to do with the TV series other than the title!
I was going to be a good girl (just for once
) and not mention that abominationn and Tom may-he-rot Cruise. The series was about two things, really, showcased through their assignments. It was about teamwork and trust. So in the travesty they kill the team off in the first 15 minutes, and then have the group leader be the villain (AND they made it actually Jim Phelps! and cast Peter Graves!) Team and trust out the window. Jim Phelps would have accepted any fate before he would betray his people. And the same goes for the rest of them.I'll admit, it's a perfect example of everything we're saying here about these movies "based" on old series.
Reply author: Artiespet
Replied on: 07/29/2009 16:21:32
Message:
IMHO if you are going to remake something remake it DON'T rework it. They messed up changing some of the main dynamics. Like they did with the new Battlestar Galactica. I was really not impressed when they did things like change the gender of the main characters. If it's a minor one fine but you don't mess with main characters or plots (if you reuse old plots as they did).
Reply author: nittanyapple
Replied on: 07/29/2009 18:19:30
Message:
Well Dr. Loveless, I think you are right about the producer's ego. I did see the movie, looked forward to seeing it, though in the back of my mind and in my heart I knew it would NOT be the same at all. I should have listened, but I soooo wanted to see Jim and Arte again that I thought it would be fine.
Sorry, just thinking back makes me want to cry! How thrilled I was to see the dvd's.
Reply author: Dr. Loveless
Replied on: 07/29/2009 18:24:59
Message:
I don't mind reimaginings, or other versions... I like to think of Dracula - if the role of Dracula ended with Bela Lugosi, we would have never gotten Christopher Lee's count. If Sherlock Holmes ended with Basil Rathbone, we wouldn't have gotten Jeremy Brett in the part.
The original WWW rocks, there is no way about it. But the film just had both hands tied behind it's back, the wrong leads, the wrong ideas, evil producers... it couldn't succeed.
Reply author: nittanyapple
Replied on: 07/29/2009 18:39:25
Message:
The thing that is sickening, with all of us ready for WWW, it could have been a HUGE hit.
Reply author: Beckers
Replied on: 07/29/2009 18:41:18
Message:
I just remember going to the abomination/movie -- getting halfway through it, squirming in my seat, and resisiting the urge to get up and leave (I was a WWW and Kenneth Branaugh fan so I had to stick with it). Besides, it HAD to get better, right? ... and then, when it ended, with NO applause from anyone in the theatre, people rushing to get out of the theatre -- and I was one of them.
VERY disappointed. Will Smith was just incredibly miscast. I don't care how good an actor he is -- he just did not work as Jim West -- and Kevin Kline wasn't much better as Artemus. He had zero charizma, unlike our RM.
THE FUGITIVE was incredible, well paced and well acted by ALL.
The two BATMAN remakes were great (the 2nd moreso then the first), M:I - IMO - was really bad. I could never understood the remakes when the original was so bad ...
Hit and miss, my friends -- just hit and miss.
Reply author: Dieter Epping
Replied on: 07/29/2009 20:54:52
Message:
It makes all the difference in the world who you cast to play a role. There could be another good James West out there somewhere. Prob not as great as RC was, but you never know. Look how many different James Bonds we had after Sean Connery. I liked all of them as Bond with the exception of Timothy Dalton. He just didn't appeal to me as much as all the rest. And I am a true Bond fan along with www.
Reply author: chibbi
Replied on: 07/29/2009 21:09:57
Message:
quote:
Originally posted by Beckers
-- and Kevin Kline wasn't much better as Artemus. He had zero charizma, unlike our RM.
When I first heard of the movie I was elated. Then I was "What!?
" when they said that Will Smith was cast as James West. However when I heard that Kevin Kline was going to play Artemus I didn't think that was too bad of a casting. He is a talented actor but when I saw him in the movie (yes, I paid money to see it) it was terrible! I almost got the impression that he didn't care. It truly must have been awful to work on the film if someone like Kevin Kline acts so badly.
Reply author: Mr. Schemes
Replied on: 07/29/2009 21:11:01
Message:
you all have valide points but the one you all seem to miss is that when you have a new person, do a remake of anything you get a change in something. even if it is a sutle change. something WILL change. take the 3:10 to Yuma movie. i love the remake. i think it is great. but one huge change is that Charley Prince was a minor character in the first one and is the number two guy from Rusell Crowe's gang in the new one. another thing that new movies have over the old ones is the acurracy of weapons in new movies. all the old westerns had the heros and villians with 1873 Colt model P's(later called Peacemakers) and 1892 Winchesters. even if the timeline of the movie is in the late 1860's!
take the movie Quigly Down Under starring Tom Selleck. Mr. Selleck is the only person in the movie with a cartridge firing gun! a Sharps single shot rifle. everyone else had cap-and-ball revolvers and muzzleloader rifles. that is way more accurate.
and about the new www movie starring Will Smith. it would have been a great movie if they would have changed the names. if they would have had two Secret Service agents but not Jim and Artie. the idea was good, but not for a new Wild Wild West.
Reply author: Beckers
Replied on: 07/29/2009 21:24:28
Message:
quote:
Originally posted by chibbiquote:
Originally posted by Beckers
-- and Kevin Kline wasn't much better as Artemus. He had zero charizma, unlike our RM.
When I first heard of the movie I was elated. Then I was "What!?
Oh, I like Kevin Kline too. I think that's why I was so disappointed that he didn't do a good Artie. High hopes and all.
Reply author: nittanyapple
Replied on: 07/29/2009 21:36:55
Message:
quote:I had high hopes too. Then I read where Kline said he didn't care about watching what RM did in the old show, this was a new one, or some such nonsense. I lost a lot of respect for Kline after I read that.
Originally posted by Beckersquote:
Originally posted by chibbiquote:
Originally posted by Beckers
-- and Kevin Kline wasn't much better as Artemus. He had zero charizma, unlike our RM.
When I first heard of the movie I was elated. Then I was "What!?
Oh, I like Kevin Kline too. I think that's why I was so disappointed that he didn't do a good Artie. High hopes and all.
Reply author: YankeeGal
Replied on: 07/30/2009 06:11:31
Message:
I never saw that abomination in the theater, and I actually tried watching the first five minutes of it when it was on tv. I turned it off, disgusted, and turned it on again an hour later to see if it improved. Of course it didn't. They knew very well as they were making the movie that it was a fiasco.
Reply author: Dr. Loveless
Replied on: 07/30/2009 18:31:21
Message:
There was only one other major Will Smith miscalculation after this film... Men In Black II. That film tried to make him the "straight man" to Tommy Lee Jones' "young agent" after his mindwipe, but this caused both actors played against their strengths and consequently it's hard to watch and enjoy on any level.
Now, if they'd learned their lesson with the WWW feature film, then MIBII need never have happened... fortunately, Smith found his groove after than, and has been in better and better projects that have expanded his screen personna.
Reply author: Torry
Replied on: 07/30/2009 20:36:52
Message:
[quote]Originally posted by Dieter Epping
It makes all the difference in the world who you cast to play a role. There could be another good James West out there somewhere. Prob not as great as RC was, but you never know. Look how many different James Bonds we had after Sean Connery. I liked all of them as Bond with the exception of Timothy Dalton. He just didn't appeal to me as much as all the rest. And I am a true Bond fan along with www.
[/quote
I may be risking excommunication here, but there were things about the W3 movie that I laughed at, things I loathed and things I didn't mind. Sorry! My Bad. 
Will Smith didn't bother in me in the role, Not sure why. He just didn't. Maybe because I like him as an actor.
Kevin Kline did a lousy job in his role, which surprised me cause he IS talented, AND just on a technical thing, he'S WAAAY too tall to make anyone think he was Ulysses Grant! sigh. JMHO, but RC should have been tapped to play Grant.
Kevin Branagh's part was the part I hated most. There were and are scores and dozens of talented 'little people' actors who could have taken that role and run with it, wonderfully.
To do what they did with their version of 'Loveless' was a profound insult to Michael Dunn, W3 and all those actors.
But, maybe this is where I'm really gonna get in trouble. 
I think with W3 fans as the advisors, consultants producers and directors, instead of egomaniacs like Tim Burton and Jon Peters, there could have been a fine remake on film, and it could have brought in an amazing cast.
So that being said, [yes, Dieter, I'm agreeing with you] here would be my suggestions:
James Cameron as director and producer. He's good, he's technically brilliant and he's got a sense of humor
or wait,
what about Richard Donner, is he still around?
Kevin Spacey as AG, Yeah, he'd need a 'rug', but otherwise he is amazingly talented
Robert Conrad as Ulysses Grant
Danny Woodburn [from Seinfeld and movies] as Loveless
and
Brad Pitt as JW, he's got the swagger, and he's a pretty darn good actor, but his eyes AREN'T GREEN!
Stockard Channing, Michelle Pfeiffer, and
Quebecois singer Mylene Farmer as the devious, gorgeous ladies!
Reply author: chibbi
Replied on: 07/30/2009 20:54:11
Message:
quote:
Originally posted by Torry
Kevin Spacey as AG, Yeah, he'd need a 'rug', but otherwise he is amazingly talented
Now he might be a good pick for AG. If he studied the AG character as well as he studied Bobby Darin. I'd think "Wow"!
Reply author: Dieter Epping
Replied on: 07/31/2009 16:01:16
Message:
We should just ask the real James West--Robert Conrad--his choice of who should become the next West for a future revival of the show. I know he didn't agree with Will Smith just like all the rest of us. I honestly can't think of anyone right now who could take on the part as well as RC did.
Reply author: chibbi
Replied on: 07/31/2009 16:04:08
Message:
quote:
Originally posted by Dieter Epping
We should just ask the real James West--Robert Conrad--his choice of who should become the next West for a future revival of the show. I know he didn't agree with Will Smith just like all the rest of us. I honestly can't think of anyone right now who could take on the part as well as RC did.
That would be a good question to pose to RC but I'd like know who'd he like to see play RM's AG role.
Reply author: Dieter Epping
Replied on: 07/31/2009 16:10:42
Message:
quote:
Originally posted by chibbiquote:
Originally posted by Dieter Epping
We should just ask the real James West--Robert Conrad--his choice of who should become the next West for a future revival of the show. I know he didn't agree with Will Smith just like all the rest of us. I honestly can't think of anyone right now who could take on the part as well as RC did.
That would be a good question to pose to RC but I'd like know who'd he like to see play RM's AG role.
I agree-- He's the expert on the whole subject and may know who could be the best Artie too. Someone as talented as Ross Martin is very hard to find these days!
Reply author: Dr. Loveless
Replied on: 07/31/2009 18:10:26
Message:
quote:
Originally posted by Dieter Eppingquote:
Originally posted by chibbiquote:
Originally posted by Dieter Epping
We should just ask the real James West--Robert Conrad--his choice of who should become the next West for a future revival of the show. I know he didn't agree with Will Smith just like all the rest of us. I honestly can't think of anyone right now who could take on the part as well as RC did.
That would be a good question to pose to RC but I'd like know who'd he like to see play RM's AG role.
I agree-- He's the expert on the whole subject and may know who could be the best Artie too. Someone as talented as Ross Martin is very hard to find these days!
If it's appropriate fodder for Mr. Conrad's show, that would probably be an interesting topic. Who would make a good new: West, Gordon, Loveless, Antoinette, Voltaire?
Who would be a good director?
Who would be a good writer?
Reply author: Mr. Schemes
Replied on: 07/31/2009 20:35:48
Message:
brad pitt would NOT make a good James West.and kevin spacey would NOT make a good Artemus Gordan. though both of those men are good actors they would not do good as the men who played the heros of our childhood. i feel that brad pitt as James West is worse that Will Smith. i saw Brad in "The assasination of Jesse James by that coward Robert Ford" and i was not pleased. i think westerns are his weak spot. he does not make a good "cowboy" (excuse the pun)
kevin spacey wold not make a good "cowboy" either. if you watch "the life of David Gail" you will see spacey as a coledge professor accused of rape. and the story is how his life spirals down and he is later accused of rape and murder and a young reporter tries to uncover the truth before he is executed. he plays a powerful role and plays it well. also in "the negotiator" with samuel L. Jackson another smashing job, but having said all that he would not a make a good Artie. those are the type of films that work good for and with him.
now the consept of a black James West did not bother me but i wish they would have used an actor how played a serious Jim West like in the series.
(all of the above is my sole opinion. please no one take offense.)
Reply author: Dieter Epping
Replied on: 07/31/2009 23:17:33
Message:
I do agree that Will Smith was so wrong the choice to be Jim West. He was mostly a comic--I still see him all the time on Fresh Prince of Bel Air and always shake my head that he ended up as Jim on the dumbass WWW movie. He's a great guy and a great actor, but was never capable of doing what RC did on the classic show.
Reply author: Torry
Replied on: 08/01/2009 02:45:48
Message:
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Schemes
brad pitt would NOT make a good James West.and kevin spacey would NOT make a good Artemus Gordan. though both of those men are good actors they would not do good as the men who played the heros of our childhood. i feel that brad pitt as James West is worse that Will Smith. i saw Brad in "The assasination of Jesse James by that coward Robert Ford" and i was not pleased. i think westerns are his weak spot. he does not make a good "cowboy" (excuse the pun)
kevin spacey wold not make a good "cowboy" either. if you watch "the life of David Gail" you will see spacey as a coledge professor accused of rape. and the story is how his life spirals down and he is later accused of rape and murder and a young reporter tries to uncover the truth before he is executed. he plays a powerful role and plays it well. also in "the negotiator" with samuel L. Jackson another smashing job, but having said all that he would not a make a good Artie. those are the type of films that work good for and with him.
now the consept of a black James West did not bother me but i wish they would have used an actor how played a serious Jim West like in the series.
(all of the above is my sole opinion. please no one take offense.)
No offense taken. I tried to watch 'The Assassination of Jesse James..." a few months ago and the whole danged movie was painful. Badly directed, badly written, I'm not sure I'd even blame the cast. It was a mess that dragged on for about an hour and a half longer than it needed to. Sigh.
Question though, even though it's been discussed here before, instead of saying who couldn't take on those two roles, since neither of the originators can, why not suggest who could?
I don't get CRN but it sure would be interesting to know what RC's answer to that question is, since he knows the show AND he knows a lot of people still in 'the industry'.
I'd be willing to bet it's a subject he's given some serious thought to, since the travesty with Branagh, Kline and Smith was released. I wouldn't even be surprised if he had some idea of who could produce, direct and write it. Maybe I'll post the question to RC's thread.
Reply author: Dieter Epping
Replied on: 08/01/2009 16:38:12
Message:
That's my thought exactly is who RC thinks could qualify to take over the roles of Jim, Artie, Dr. Loveless, Antoinette and Voltaire, etc. He knew them better than everyone else for all those years together. I bet he's got some choices. I know he likes Jackie Chan alot as far as best fighter/stuntman that could do the same, but gotta think someone in their early 30's or so for Jim. Someone in their 40's or younger for Artie. The rest--who knows? Can you think of any famous 8-foot tall guys to play Voltaire right now?
Reply author: Wildfan
Replied on: 08/02/2009 08:10:58
Message:
I know we've covered this before, but in laymans' terms, that movie s*cked on all levels of s*ckability.
Reply author: SordoTheBandit
Replied on: 08/02/2009 12:38:05
Message:
A while back, I forced myself to watch it on CBS Television as I wanted to try and open my mind and form an opinion.
I about heaved. It made me angry, it was a complete insult. 
Reply author: ArtemusFan
Replied on: 08/02/2009 12:59:34
Message:
I think the whole idea was ridiculous. They've been remaking classic shows for awhile now, and they're uniformly awful. TWWW would be particularly hard to get right. There was only ONE Ross Martin, and I don't think there's an actor alive who could play AG as well as he did. There are plenty of good-looking athletic actors out there, so I suppose one could approximate JW, but only approximate.
Even if the right actors could be found, it's sure as shootin' that the script would be garbage: acronyistic and tasteless.
That's one thing that really bugged me about the two TV movies. TWWW may have been silly and unrealistic much of the time, but it was never tasteless.
Reply author: Dieter Epping
Replied on: 08/02/2009 13:20:18
Message:
Still to this day I never watched the whole WWW movie and never plan to. Just the few parts I saw on TV turned me off within just a couple minutes. The interaction between Will Smith and Kevin Kline just blows! They didn't seem anything like RC and RM were on the show. Wasn't it Kevin Kline that had never seen a single episode of WWW before doing that movie? And just went into it however he felt like.
I really would love to see a new version as close to the original as possible, like what Wanderer Jim seems to be doing. He's more on track to doing a better update than Barry Sonnenfeld ever did!
Reply author: SordoTheBandit
Replied on: 08/02/2009 16:39:41
Message:
Kevin Kline as Artemus Gordon....LMFAO! What a joke. That hyped moron is proof that it's not what you know, it's who you know. He's not even a tenth of what Ross Martin was.
ROSS MARTIN FOREVER!
Reply author: Dieter Epping
Replied on: 08/02/2009 17:34:22
Message:
I totally agree with what you said, Sordo!! Kevin Kline has zero talent and personality compared to Ross Martin! Worst choice to be Artie in that lousy movie!!
Reply author: California gal
Replied on: 08/05/2009 06:00:51
Message:
And now, Gunsmoke, the movie. Who are they going to get to play Matt? Shaq? You'd think if CBS is connected they would want to honor the original but don't count on it. I'm sure they have $$ signs in their eyes. I'm not very impressed by the credentials of the people involved as far as creating a western is concerned. 
CBS Films will light up 'Gunsmoke'
By Steven Zeitchik and Borys Kit
Guns CBS Films is headed back to Dodge.
The movie unit is developing a feature reboot of “Gunsmoke” and has hired “National Treasure: Book of Secrets” writer Gregory Poirier to pen the screenplay. Craig Baumgarten, who has produced such pics as journalist drama “Shattered Glass” and martial arts tale “Never Back Down,” will produce the new take.
The action-adventure will re-imagine Marshal Matt Dillon, the hero of the classic Western, for modern audiences. The story will be set in the same American West as the original but will feature a contemporary look and modern action twists.
Poirier is said to be close to completing a first draft of the script.
“Gunsmoke,” which holds the title of the longest-running primetime scripted drama (it had been the longest-running primetime series until “The Simpsons” eclipsed it this year), revolves around a number of characters in Dodge City, Kan., at the time of westward expansion.
It focuses principally on three characters: Dillon, the crimefighting leader of Dodge; town physician Galen “Doc” Adams; and Miss Kitty Russell, owner the Long Branch Saloon. The show’s plot lines revolve around dramatic, sometimes gritty, events and a fair share of outlaws and desperadoes.
Originally conceived and aired by Norman MacDonnell and John Meston as a CBS radio serial starring William Conrad as Dillon, “Gunsmoke” morphed into a CBS television series in 1955, with James Arness as the marshal. It received a boost from John Wayne, who was at the peak of his popularity and helped promote it.
The series held the top spot in the Nielsen ratings for a number of years in the late 1950s and early ’60s and concluded its run in 1975, with much of the cast remaining on board throughout the 20-season run.
The WME-repped Poirier is no stranger to action pics or frontier tales: He’s the scribe behind the upcoming Jackie Chan action comedy ‘The Spy Next Door” as well as Disney’s update of the stranded-family saga “Swiss Family Robinson.”
The move marks one of the first attempts by CBS Films to plumb its vast television library for titles that merit a big-screen reboot. The Amy Baer-led division is set to release a number of pics during the next 12 months, including the medical drama “Crowley,” the Jennifer Lopez romantic comedy “The Back-Up Plan” and the high school fairy tale “Beastly.'
Reply author: Pidgeon
Replied on: 08/05/2009 06:24:39
Message:
You know if they went back to basics they could have a real money maker (concerning Gunsmoke). They'd have to get unknowns to play the parts and very good writers. They'd have to have egos filtered out completely because that's what's killed many a good show in recent years.
What a concept. Go for quality and they will come.
Reply author: California gal
Replied on: 08/05/2009 06:58:42
Message:
I don't like this part of the article:
quote:
The action-adventure will re-imagine Marshal Matt Dillon, the hero of the classic Western, for modern audiences. The story will be set in the same American West as the original but will feature a contemporary look and modern action twists.
You can just imagine what Matt & Kitty's relationship will be like. Modern writers never heard of the word subtle. I don't even want to think of what they'll do to Doc and Chester.
Reply author: chibbi
Replied on: 08/05/2009 08:05:47
Message:
quote:
Originally posted by California gal
The action-adventure will re-imagine Marshal Matt Dillon, the hero of the classic Western, for modern audiences. The story will be set in the same American West as the original but will feature a contemporary look and modern action twists.
Scary description. "...same American West as the original but will feature a contemporary look and modern action twists."
From that description I can't quite tell if they are putting it in the same era or not.
quote:
The movie unit is developing a feature reboot of “Gunsmoke” and has hired “National Treasure: Book of Secrets” writer Gregory Poirier to pen the screenplay. Craig Baumgarten, who has produced such pics as journalist drama “Shattered Glass” and martial arts tale “Never Back Down,” will produce the new take.
Double scary.
If they were trying for an update they should have gotten those who did that 3:10 to Yuma movie.
Reply author: California gal
Replied on: 08/05/2009 08:11:21
Message:
I'm sure they won't bother to consult anyone still living who participated in Gunsmoke, like James Arness or Burt Reynolds, let alone any writers or directors.
Reply author: Silver
Replied on: 08/05/2009 08:36:21
Message:
quote:
Originally posted by California gal
I don't like this part of the article:quote:
The action-adventure will re-imagine Marshal Matt Dillon, the hero of the classic Western, for modern audiences. The story will be set in the same American West as the original but will feature a contemporary look and modern action twists.
You can just imagine what Matt & Kitty's relationship will be like. Modern writers never heard of the word subtle. I don't even want to think of what they'll do to Doc and Chester.
*SHUDDER* I wonder how many scenes will have Matt discussing the villain with Kitty... AS PILLOW TALK!
Reply author: Wildfan
Replied on: 08/05/2009 08:45:03
Message:
quote:
Originally posted by Silverquote:
Originally posted by California gal
I don't like this part of the article:quote:
The action-adventure will re-imagine Marshal Matt Dillon, the hero of the classic Western, for modern audiences. The story will be set in the same American West as the original but will feature a contemporary look and modern action twists.
You can just imagine what Matt & Kitty's relationship will be like. Modern writers never heard of the word subtle. I don't even want to think of what they'll do to Doc and Chester.
*SHUDDER* I wonder how many scenes will have Matt discussing the villain with Kitty... AS PILLOW TALK!
Just as long as there's no pillow talk between "Doc" and "Chester"!
Reply author: California gal
Replied on: 08/05/2009 09:04:18
Message:
quote:
Originally posted by Wildfan
Just as long as there's no pillow talk between "Doc" and "Chester"!
I wouldn't bet against it consider the past history of remakes of classics!
Reply author: Wildfan
Replied on: 08/05/2009 09:06:22
Message:
quote:
Originally posted by California galquote:
Originally posted by Wildfan
Just as long as there's no pillow talk between "Doc" and "Chester"!
I wouldn't bet against it consider the past history of remakes of classics!
Maybe they could rename it "Gunsmoke Mountain"!
Reply author: Silver
Replied on: 08/05/2009 09:23:21
Message:
quote:
Originally posted by Dieter Eppingquote:
Originally posted by chibbiquote:
Originally posted by Dieter Epping
We should just ask the real James West--Robert Conrad--his choice of who should become the next West for a future revival of the show. I know he didn't agree with Will Smith just like all the rest of us. I honestly can't think of anyone right now who could take on the part as well as RC did.
That would be a good question to pose to RC but I'd like know who'd he like to see play RM's AG role.
I agree-- He's the expert on the whole subject and may know who could be the best Artie too. Someone as talented as Ross Martin is very hard to find these days!
This is going to seem really outrageous,
so please don't be upset with me for making the suggestion, but I can actually think of a very talented actor who could do the role justice, considering the very different types of characters he has successfully played. He's does serious VERY well, but he's also one of those actors who always plays characters who are slightly off-center, which I believe would fit Artemus Gordon. No one could ever hope to do Artie anything like exactly the same as Ross Martin, our wonderful acting god.I'm thinking of (Artie would be the short one this time, and balding to boot) Paul Ben-Victor. Aside from my favorite roll of his, Bobby Hobbes (a short, balding, bi-polar, sematic version of James Bond) on The Invisible Man, he's played everything from Moe Howard in the Three Stooges tv biopic to Spiros 'Vondas' Vondopoulos, a very viscious and unsavory Greek bad guy on season 2 of 'The Wire'. And the man can do SEXY like you wouldn't believe.
Look at the variety in these pictures (including the totally unrecognizable Mexican gunman from 'Tombstone') before you decide I've totally lost it.
http://www.stipko.net/paulbenvictor/gallery/ *click on the photos to show the gallery*
I hope I'm not now banned for life, especially from the ranks of the worshippers of Artemus?
Reply author: ArtemusFan
Replied on: 08/05/2009 10:45:53
Message:
when they remake this stuff, and the promos contain the words "contemporary" and "modern" that's code for "it's gonna have a lot more sex, and at the same time will be oozing political correctness."
Reply author: California gal
Replied on: 08/05/2009 11:00:29
Message:
quote:
Originally posted by ArtemusFan
when they remake this stuff, and the promos contain the words "contemporary" and "modern" that's code for "it's gonna have a lot more sex, and at the same time will be oozing political correctness."
Not to mention loads of special effects at the expense of anything resembling a plot and/or relationships and character development.
Reply author: chibbi
Replied on: 08/05/2009 11:19:07
Message:
If it's "contemperary" it will just be a movie called Gunsmoke. I don't think anyone who appreciated the old series will even bother putting the two together. Unless of course the advertising is blatent with character name dropping.
Reply author: ArtemusFan
Replied on: 08/05/2009 16:44:31
Message:
quote:
Not to mention loads of special effects at the expense of anything resembling a plot and/or relationships and character development.
That, too. I often wonder if they make these movies in order to show a loss at tax time.
Reply author: California gal
Replied on: 08/05/2009 16:48:35
Message:
quote:
Originally posted by ArtemusFanquote:
Not to mention loads of special effects at the expense of anything resembling a plot and/or relationships and character development.
That, too. I often wonder if they make these movies in order to show a loss at tax time.
Kind of like "The Producers," huh? I've often thought of that too.
Reply author: chibbi
Replied on: 08/05/2009 17:37:21
Message:
quote:
Originally posted by California galquote:
Originally posted by ArtemusFanquote:
Not to mention loads of special effects at the expense of anything resembling a plot and/or relationships and character development.
That, too. I often wonder if they make these movies in order to show a loss at tax time.
Kind of like "The Producers," huh? I've often thought of that too.
"Springtime for Hitler in Germany...."
Reply author: bob1xxx
Replied on: 08/08/2009 16:56:32
Message:
No offense taken. I tried to watch 'The Assassination of Jesse James..." a few months ago and the whole danged movie was painful. Badly directed, badly written, I'm not sure I'd even blame the cast. It was a mess that dragged on for about an hour and a half longer than it needed to. Sigh.
Question though, even though it's been discussed here before, instead of saying who couldn't take on those two roles, since neither of the originators can, why not suggest who could?
I don't get CRN but it sure would be interesting to know what RC's answer to that question is, since he knows the show AND he knows a lot of people still in 'the industry'.
I'd be willing to bet it's a subject he's given some serious thought to, since the travesty with Branagh, Kline and Smith was released. I wouldn't even be surprised if he had some idea of who could produce, direct and write it. Maybe I'll post the question to RC's thread.
[/quote]
Well the assassination of jesse james was a historic hollywierd mess it was re written, scenes added and reshots and what seemed to be 15 edits and it still was train wreck mess (almost made WWW the movie seem semi sucessful LOL) The La times sunday movie section did a story about AofJJ and how great actors CAN NOT save a horrible script, bad direction and production from its fate to be a turd LOL. WWW the un movie was similar first was a truely horrible horrible lame asre script written after someone smoke crystal draino for three days. Second was tim burtton, who did not understand WWW or care about it fans honest most of burtons films leave me cold (charle and the child molester oops chocolate factory really creeped me out) he want a CGI steam punk film not a buddy flick western drama and we have the turd WWW the un movie was. Finally casting I like will smith but sorry he black ! He simple doesn't work as west, at that stage of his action career he was mostly a comedian (so so at that) although WWW the tv show could be campy with some comedy at times The best episodes are fairly straight forward dramas (which why honestly I like season 1 the best) Instead of a buddy flick western drama we got a Pee poor scripted, psychotically direct steam puke cgi toilet flushing , acted out gross mismatched actors ill suited for the roles yeap a huge un movie train wreck with huge budget Blech!
Reply author: Desert Roger
Replied on: 08/08/2009 17:43:42
Message:
quote:
Originally posted by bob1xxx
No offense taken. I tried to watch 'The Assassination of Jesse James..." a few months ago and the whole danged movie was painful. Badly directed, badly written, I'm not sure I'd even blame the cast. It was a mess that dragged on for about an hour and a half longer than it needed to. Sigh.
Question though, even though it's been discussed here before, instead of saying who couldn't take on those two roles, since neither of the originators can, why not suggest who could?
I don't get CRN but it sure would be interesting to know what RC's answer to that question is, since he knows the show AND he knows a lot of people still in 'the industry'.
I'd be willing to bet it's a subject he's given some serious thought to, since the travesty with Branagh, Kline and Smith was released. I wouldn't even be surprised if he had some idea of who could produce, direct and write it. Maybe I'll post the question to RC's thread.
Well the assassination of jesse james was a historic hollywierd mess it was re written, scenes added and reshots and what seemed to be 15 edits and it still was train wreck mess (almost made WWW the movie seem semi sucessful LOL
) The La times sunday movie section did a story about AofJJ and how great actors CAN NOT save a horrible script, bad direction and production from its fate to be a turd LOL. WWW the un movie was similar first was a truely horrible horrible lame asre script written after someone smoke crystal draino for three days. Second was tim burtton, who did not understand WWW or care about it fans honest most of burtons films leave me cold (charle and the child molester oops chocolate factory really creeped me out) he want a CGI steam punk film not a buddy flick western drama and we have the turd WWW the un movie was. Finally casting I like will smith but sorry he black ! He simple doesn't work as west, at that stage of his action career he was mostly a comedian (so so at that) although WWW the tv show could be campy with some comedy at times The best episodes are fairly straight forward dramas (which why honestly I like season 1 the best) Instead of a buddy flick western drama we got a Pee poor scripted, psychotically direct steam puke cgi toilet flushing , acted out gross mismatched actors ill suited for the roles yeap a huge un movie train wreck with huge budget Blech![/quote]
bob1xxx, are you ready for AMC's remake of THE PRISONER this winter?
will be interesting to see what they do with it
too bad that Number 6 passed away last year and will not see it
Roger
http://www.rogerblakely.com/apps/photos/photo?photoid=47296341
THE WILD WILD WEST @ wildwildwest.org : http://www.wildwildwest.org/forum/
© WildWildWest.org