|
|
Post by wheezer on Dec 27, 2015 20:36:04 GMT -5
Recently, I re-watched the 1994 film. As much as it gets a bad rep for being awful -- personally, I think the 2014 film deserves the title of awful -- I have to thank it for ultimately reintroducing me to the Our Gang franchise as a whole.
One thing I think was good of them to do was have the kids watch some of the original shorts -- as seen from Travis Tedford's instagram -- because clearly, that's what helped them ease into their roles. Living up to the expectations of many fans -- from ages 3 to 9 -- is never easy, to which I can only applaud them for as well as they, in my opinion, did. Though, I'm not the biggest fan of some of the character's interpretations, in this movie. What purpose does Uh-Huh serve, aside from the one gag at the end? Why are Jane and Mary Ann's characters reduced to giggling airheads that hardly have any substance, on their own? Froggy seems to have a little purpose, in the film, though he's probably not what the casual fan would remember. Everyone obviously has their favorites -- personally, I'm bitter that Scotty didn't have at least some role, even as a background rascal -- and because you can't have too many characters in a cast, there's going to be some negativity regarding the cast choices. I also find the subtle hints towards the presence of Scotty and pre-leader Spanky in the role of Porky and Buckwheat to be charming, most notably within Porky's crooked cap, and his shrugs.
Obviously, everyone's going to have their complaints. For me, one of those isn't the casting. I think the main rascals were well suited for their roles, appearance-wise. One exception to this, I find, is Waldo. Blake Mciver Ewing did do pretty well, in the role, but he strayed far from Darwood Kaye's more modest look. Mary Ann also had a very... questionable look, in my eyes. Froggy, too. Despite this, I still find the casting more good than bad. Why didn't they do both of Pete's eyes correctly?
What's with their clothes? While some outfits look pretty modern -- Darla's blue dress, Waldo's attire, etc -- some characters looked like they stole their clothing straight from the 1930's. Spanky is a good example of this; his clothes hardly fit!
The acting from some of the kids was pretty atrocious, as well. Clearly, Brittany Ashton Holmes can't stop looking at the camera. Actually, most of her acting was pretty bad. Sure, she had some cute lines, but the writing of Darla in general was just pretty bad. Why was she so mean and spiteful? Sure, maybe Darla Hood encompassed those traits, in some of her shorts, but in others, she managed to be the sweet one people ended up rooting for Alfalfa to end up with. Many people loved the acting from Ross Bagley and Zac Mabry, on the contrary, and I have to agree.
Many people complain about the useless celebrity cameos in this movie, rather than having the old actors appear. I'll admit a laugh came from me and my family upon seeing Donald Trump as Waldo's father, though most of the cameos just seemed pointless. Why not bring together the old and the new interpretations of something people love?
Even with its flaws, I can't say I even dislike this movie. It introduced me to Our Gang -- something that I can't find a single person of my young age to be a fan of -- and I have to pay it some respects again. It managed to at least somewhat popularize the rascals, again, bringing new fans to something so timeless. Even if my views of it are somewhat biased, I still find it as one of my favorite movies. Much better than the 2014 film.
|
|
|
|
Post by mtw12055 on Dec 28, 2015 0:52:18 GMT -5
Good write-up! Some additional thoughts: Recently, I re-watched the 1994 film. As much as it gets a bad rep for being awful -- personally, I think the 2014 film deserves the title of awful -- I have to thank it for ultimately reintroducing me to the Our Gang franchise as a whole. . Having grown up with the 1994 movie, it's still a guilty pleasure for me. I think it was most successful at recreating the basic Our Gang concept of free-range children having the adventures kids would want to have. As a kid, I certainly remember envying the Rascals of the '90s, just as much as others before me envied the Rascals of the '30s. While the 2014 movie didn't do much for me, I appreciate the effort. One thing I think was good of them to do was have the kids watch some of the original shorts -- as seen from Travis Tedford's instagram -- because clearly, that's what helped them ease into their roles. Living up to the expectations of many fans -- from ages 3 to 9 -- is never easy, to which I can only applaud them for as well as they, in my opinion, did. Though, I'm not the biggest fan of some of the character's interpretations, in this movie. What purpose does Uh-Huh serve, aside from the one gag at the end? Why are Jane and Mary Ann's characters reduced to giggling airheads that hardly have any substance, on their own? Froggy seems to have a little purpose, in the film, though he's probably not what the casual fan would remember. Everyone obviously has their favorites -- personally, I'm bitter that Scotty didn't have at least some role, even as a background rascal -- and because you can't have too many characters in a cast, there's going to be some negativity regarding the cast choices. I also find the subtle hints towards the presence of Scotty and pre-leader Spanky in the role of Porky and Buckwheat to be charming, most notably within Porky's crooked cap, and his shrugs. Obviously, everyone's going to have their complaints. For me, one of those isn't the casting. I think the main rascals were well suited for their roles, appearance-wise. One exception to this, I find, is Waldo. Blake Mciver Ewing did do pretty well, in the role, but he strayed far from Darwood Kaye's more modest look. Mary Ann also had a very... questionable look, in my eyes. Froggy, too. Despite this, I still find the casting more good than bad. Why didn't they do both of Pete's eyes correctly? I'm pleasantly surprised to hear that the '90s cast watched some of the original shorts. It does show in some of their performances, particularly Travis Tedford's and (especially) Bug Hall's. Ultimately, I think the producers had to make careful decisions when it came to the characters. From a creative standpoint, it would have been a better idea to do what Roach did - grab a diverse group of kids who aren't professionally trained actors, but rather normal kids. Let them play themselves. But understandably, it would be difficult to sell a Little Rascals anythinng without featuring familiar faces from the original shorts. King World seemed especially keen on making money off of the likenesses of Alfalfa, Buckwheat, etc throughout their nearly 40 year association with the franchise. Despite the fact that characters from the original shorts were used in the feature film, the writers never really got any of them quite right. Stymie is a bit too much of a deadpan snarker, stripping him of his charm. Spanky and Darla both come off as unlikeable (I even sensed this as a kid). I'm not sure why it was decided Waldo should be the bad guy. The only time he ever really played a rival was in "Three Men in a Tub," where he seemed so caught up in his book-filled world that I don't think he completely realized he was a threat to Alfalfa. The only one who came close to resembling his original character, I felt, was Alfalfa. As far as which characters were used, I think it all came down to a process of elimination. The Gordon Douglas set of Rascals seem to be the ones most people immediately recognize. This same set was the one King World used in their many attempts at re-doing the Rascals. Stymie is also pretty recognizable, and certainly memorable, despite being from an earlier era. He too is often tossed into the reboots. Naturally, the writers couldn't throw too many Rascals in, as that would mean too many characters to juggle. Having a small amount of favorites made sense. Mary Ann and Jane (I'm pretty sure the latter is supposed to be Jean Darling. Little Heather Karasek looks like Jean, anyhow) were likely tossed in just to give Darla a couple of girlfriends. They could have been given any character names and the results would have been the same. That and, sadly, not enough of the silent films were accessible at the time for the writers to really get a feel for the characters. Mary Ann was always the bossy tomboy who could easily beat up any one of the guys. Jean was always the practical joker, frequently teasing the boys. Considering the whole 'boys vs. girls' storyline, these two characters would have fit in perfectly. Froggy may have been tossed in to appease the Turner company, who may have had some uncredited involvement with the film. But that's merely a guess. Can't figure out why "Uh-huh" was there, considering he was only in about four or five shorts. It was nice for Miss Crabtree to get an acknowledgement, but since she never appeared in a film with Spanky, the interactions between the two characters don't have that 'epic' feel the writers were probably going for. I definitely feel like Zach Mabry was meant to be Porky crossed with Scotty. Sure, the kid looks like Porky, but so much of Scotty is there. And besides, Porky was always Buckwheat's sidekick, not Scotty. It's possible that the producers just decided to combine the two, sort of like what Garry Marshall did with Arnold and Al for the "Happy Days" stage musical. What's with their clothes? While some outfits look pretty modern -- Darla's blue dress, Waldo's attire, etc -- some characters looked like they stole their clothing straight from the 1930's. Spanky is a good example of this; his clothes hardly fit! One of the confusing things about both this and the 2014 movie is the setting. It feels like the 'modernized' Rascals are in a strange modern-day setting that's just slightly behind the times. Naturally, placing either film completely in the 1930s would mean spending a lot of money on creating the 'right' setting and costumes. But the kids' clothing, slang, etc. are an awkward mix of the Depression era and the modern day. The Rascals seem especially out of place in the 2014 movie. Having the Rascals in the wrong time period, à la "The Brady Bunch Movie," would have been an interesting and funny idea. But I don't think any of the charm would be there. The acting from some of the kids was pretty atrocious, as well. Clearly, Brittany Ashton Holmes can't stop looking at the camera. Actually, most of her acting was pretty bad. Sure, she had some cute lines, but the writing of Darla in general was just pretty bad. Why was she so mean and spiteful? Sure, maybe Darla Hood encompassed those traits, in some of her shorts, but in others, she managed to be the sweet one people ended up rooting for Alfalfa to end up with. Many people loved the acting from Ross Bagley and Zac Mabry, on the contrary, and I have to agree. Like I said, even as a kid I found Darla to be pretty unlikeable in this movie. I think that partially had to do with how her character was written, though. I try to remember that not all of the original Gang were perfect actors. Heck, Wheezer used to look at the camera frequently - especially in the earliest talkies. Bagley and Mabry feel like the most 'natural' of the bunch. By that I mean I feel like they were playing themselves instead of characters. Some of their scenes feel improvised (at least one was). That's the sort of thing I would have liked have to seen more of in this movie. Either way, this group has a whole feels more charming than the 2014 cast, all of whom have this bland 'acting school' vibe. Many people complain about the useless celebrity cameos in this movie, rather than having the old actors appear. I'll admit a laugh came from me and my family upon seeing Donald Trump as Waldo's father, though most of the cameos just seemed pointless. Why not bring together the old and the new interpretations of something people love? Yeah, some of the original Rascals were kind of peeved about that, too: articles.latimes.com/1994-08-06/entertainment/ca-24243_1_director-penelope-spheerisIt's a shame, since there were so many great oppurtunities for ex-Our Gang kids to pop up. The old gent with the cane that Spanky and Alfalfa bump into during the go-kart race is a perfect example. If Spanky McFarland were still alive, he would have been the perfect one to yell out, "You little rascals!" In fact, my dad used to think that guy was Spanky. Even with its flaws, I can't say I even dislike this movie. It introduced me to Our Gang -- something that I can't find a single person of my young age to be a fan of -- and I have to pay it some respects again. It managed to at least somewhat popularize the rascals, again, bringing new fans to something so timeless. Even if my views of it are somewhat biased, I still find it as one of my favorite movies. Much better than the 2014 film. I'm 21, and have been a fan of the original Rascals since I was about 10 (my young, immature age shows in a lot of my old posts on this forum). It always surprises me to find someone from my generation who is at least aware of the original Rascals. My frustration with this movie generally doesn't come from the film itself, but rather from the following it has gotten. It's a fine movie, sure, but it's not "Citizen Kane." The '90s movie gets plenty of respect, especially since a lot of people that grew up with it are now in 'the business.' The IMDB page for the film is filled with great behind the scenes photos. Most of the cast members even have profile pictures on their respective IMDB pages. Heck, there was even a cast reunion and photoshoot not too long ago. The comments found on the official Little Rascals Facebook page are both humorous and frustrating. The page never gives any attention to the original shorts, but plenty to the 2014 movie (prior to its release, the page was largely dedicated to the '90s movie). I'm guessing it's run by somebody associated with Universal. 90% of the comments are from 90s kids complaining about how "The Little Rascals Save the Day" is a disgrace to what they consider a 'classic.' Most of these people are still unaware of the original Gang. This isn't their fault, by any means. Hollywood simply doesn't want to give much (if any) attention to the series for multiples reasons. About 10% are aware of the series, but most refuse to give it a chance because of a strange black-and-white film phobia. About 10% of that 10% have become fans of the original shorts. Closing thoughts: I think anyone who attempts to redo the Rascals deserves some respect for at least trying. From making certain decisions in order to please as diverse of an audience as possible, to working with both animals and children on a daily basis, making a new Rascals film is no easy task. So kudos to Penelope Spheeris, Steven Spielberg, Alex Zamm, Norman Lear, Walt Kelly, Hanna-Barbera, Romeo Muller, and anyone else who was given the task of bringing the Gang back for their efforts, even if the end result wasn't perfect. |
|
|
|
Post by wheezer on Dec 28, 2015 12:44:42 GMT -5
The acting from some of the kids was pretty atrocious, as well. Clearly, Brittany Ashton Holmes can't stop looking at the camera. Actually, most of her acting was pretty bad. Sure, she had some cute lines, but the writing of Darla in general was just pretty bad. Why was she so mean and spiteful? Sure, maybe Darla Hood encompassed those traits, in some of her shorts, but in others, she managed to be the sweet one people ended up rooting for Alfalfa to end up with. Many people loved the acting from Ross Bagley and Zac Mabry, on the contrary, and I have to agree. Like I said, even as a kid I found Darla to be pretty unlikeable in this movie. I think that partially had to do with how her character was written, though. I try to remember that not all of the original Gang were perfect actors. Heck, Wheezer used to look at the camera frequently - especially in the earliest talkies. Apparently, according to the Coca-Cola promo cards released with the movie, Darla is "a tough-minded girl who can beat the He-Man Womun Haters at their own game". Now that I think about it, though, those little snippets of information were at least a little bit of insight into the characters each actor portrayed. Spanky is the rough, tough leader of the Rascals, and apparently you'd know him by his dimples. Porky just plays into his Scotty imposter-act with an obsession with his baseball cap, as well as being a pickles worst nightmare. Stymie is smarter than average, and everybody's best friend -- is that their excuse for having him with all the younger kids? -- and so on. It's not the greatest excuse for poor writing, but I do see it as interesting. Buckwheat's card is also pretty interesting: "Wrote the book on getting into trouble-- but everything turns out 'otay' in the end!" Could they even do their research on whose signature line it was? |
|
|
|
Post by tboneator64 on Dec 28, 2015 14:32:56 GMT -5
Like I said, even as a kid I found Darla to be pretty unlikeable in this movie. I think that partially had to do with how her character was written, though. I try to remember that not all of the original Gang were perfect actors. Heck, Wheezer used to look at the camera frequently - especially in the earliest talkies. Apparently, according to the Coca-Cola promo cards released with the movie, Darla is "a tough-minded girl who can beat the He-Man Womun Haters at their own game". Now that I think about it, though, those little snippets of information were at least a little bit of insight into the characters each actor portrayed. Spanky is the rough, tough leader of the Rascals, and apparently you'd know him by his dimples. Porky just plays into his Scotty imposter-act with an obsession with his baseball cap, as well as being a pickles worst nightmare. Stymie is smarter than average, and everybody's best friend -- is that their excuse for having him with all the younger kids? -- and so on. It's not the greatest excuse for poor writing, but I do see it as interesting. Buckwheat's card is also pretty interesting: "Wrote the book on getting into trouble-- but everything turns out 'otay' in the end!" Could they even do their research on whose signature line it was? In some of the later Hal Roach 'Our Gang' comedies (1938), and more so subsequently at MGM, Darla could be downright fickle, in a very non endearing way. To be fair, insofar as the Porky-ism 'otay' being wrongly attributed to Buckwheat, it seems to me that mistake is often made even by those whom one expects would/should know better. Now that I think of it, this may be partly caused by fans so readily associating Buckwheat and Porky with each other, and subsequently sometimes get a little mixed up over each one's mannerisms/catchphrases. While I haven't viewed either "Little Rascals" remake, the 1994 version does appear to me as a decent attempt to capture the essence of the original series. On the other hand, the 2014 direct to video release likely didn't have a sufficient budget to conduct any kind of research, which could have reaped more benefit all around. Oh, and Welcome to the Forum, Scotty! CHEERS!  |
|
|
|
Post by myhomeo on Dec 28, 2015 16:55:28 GMT -5
If I understand correctly, the original Spanky was very much opposed to the remake. And to be honest, I kinda see his point. It's a bit tricky but in many ways he wasn't playing a character in the old shorts: He WAS Spanky. It'd be if someone made a movie about your childhood and didn't bother to consult you.
As for why Uh-Huh was used, I suspect it was mainly for the obvious running gag: Someone would ask him a question and he'd reply, "Uh-Huh..."
I didn't 'grow up' with the movie but I did go to see it in the theater when it came out and while I didn't exactly like it, it wasn't the abomination I was half-expecting. Travis Tedford was adorable and Bug Hall captured my heart with his little 'Ta-dah!' gesture at the end of 'You Are So Beautiful' and his outtake comment, "I winded my ear up!" I didn't really think we needed an Alfalfa farting joke but I guess with current audiences it could've been a lot worse.
To some extent, I have to confess they probably took the right route. One complaint about trying to bring back The Little Rascals is that kids nowadays are too self-aware and start 'acting' if a camera is turned on them. It only makes sense to give them characters to play and let them make use of their talents while also letting their natural charm shine through as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by wheezer on Dec 28, 2015 17:21:30 GMT -5
I didn't 'grow up' with the movie but I did go to see it in the theater when it came out and while I didn't exactly like it, it wasn't the abomination I was half-expecting. Travis Tedford was adorable and Bug Hall captured my heart with his little 'Ta-dah!' gesture at the end of 'You Are So Beautiful' and his outtake comment, "I winded my ear up!" I didn't really think we needed an Alfalfa farting joke but I guess with current audiences it could've been a lot worse. Even if Travis Tedford captured no resemblance to George McFarland, I still think he was well-suited to the role. That's a good thing about this movie: many of the actors involved had charm to their portrayals of what you could, yes, hardly call characters. I know quite a few people who thought Tedford was adorable, as a kid -- I do agree, but regardless -- and the same goes for Porky. It had appeal, especially with the ages they tried to draw in to The Little Rascals, as a whole. I'm rereading the back of the DVD case, and it states "Recapturing the sense of innocent fun and unabashed pandemonium that has made the original series a classic and favorite for decades, their new adventures begin at an emergency meeting of the "He-Man Womun Haters Club". Even if they fell off a bit short within recreating the magic that the originals had, I still think there were things done well with this, as well as generally bringing attention back to Our Gang. With 90's movies, the bad gags we did get -- the farting jokes, any of the scenes comparing his cowlick and something else, Alfalfa losing his underwear in Waldo's pool -- may seem awful, though they were generally the norm in terms of movies in that time. How else would you keep kids " useless, tiny attention spans" without jokes like that? |
|
|
|
Post by mtw12055 on Dec 28, 2015 19:02:36 GMT -5
The earliest indications I can find of this movie being 'in development' are from 1987. According to David Permut, who was the film's initial producer, several years were spent on the script. That may explain why five writers (including director Spheeris) are credited. Not that that's bad. Some of the best Rascals shorts were helmed by a big team of gag writers.
Deborah Dean Davis pitched a sequel to the film during the mid-90s, but it never made it past planning stages. However, it did lead to Davis being hired by Mr. Spielberg for future projects.
|
|
|
|
Post by tboneator64 on Dec 29, 2015 11:32:53 GMT -5
While not related to either of the remakes, I thought I should note that John "Uh-Huh" Collum was, much to my surprise, in a lot more than "4 or 5" 'Our Gang' comedies! John's total number of Rascals' appearance was in fact, a lot closer to 2 dozen! It was actually some recent reading of Leonard Maltin & Richard W. Bann's THE LITTLE RASCALS: THE LIFE AND TIMES OF OUR GANG, that I spotted his name in a surprisingly high number of 'Our Gang' shorts, from FREE WHEELIN' (1932) to THREE MEN IN A TUB (1938). The thing with John Collum was, he almost always had very little to no dialogue, and tended to be very much in the background most of the time. "Uh-Huh" was a mostly very unassuming, yet undeniable part of 'Our Gang' history, and only really remembered for his brief dialogue, as delivered in the 1933 two reel comedy, MUSH AND MILK. CHEERS! |
|
|
|
Post by mtw12055 on Dec 29, 2015 15:00:38 GMT -5
While not related to either of the remakes, I thought I should note that John "Uh-Huh" Collum was, much to my surprise, in a lot more than "4 or 5" 'Our Gang' comedies! John's total number of Rascals' appearance was in fact, a lot closer to 2 dozen! It was actually some recent reading of Leonard Maltin & Richard W. Bann's THE LITTLE RASCALS: THE LIFE AND TIMES OF OUR GANG, that I spotted his name in a surprisingly high number of 'Our Gang' shorts, from FREE WHEELIN' (1932) to THREE MEN IN A TUB (1938). The thing with John Collum was, he almost always had very little to no dialogue, and tended to be very much in the background most of the time. "Uh-Huh" was a mostly very unassuming, yet undeniable part of 'Our Gang' history, and only really remembered for his brief dialogue, as delivered in the 1933 two reel comedy, MUSH AND MILK. CHEERS! Right, you are, Tony! When I said "4 or 5," I was referring specifically to the character, rather than the actor. Despite Johnny being around as an extra into the late 30s, the Roach staff evidently realized that not much could be done with the character and thus dropped him. At least Dorothy DeBorba was a little bit luckier when her "Echo" persona was axed! On the plus side, John did get some lines in his last short, "Three Men in a Tub" (though apparently, his lines were written for young Gary Jasgur). If John was in "Free Wheeling," his scenes were cut. I couldn't find him in it! To the best of my knowledge, the only official "Uh huh" shorts were "Fish Hooky," "Forgotten Babies," and "Mush and Milk." I'll count "A Lad an' a Lamp," too, even though he said "Mmmm hmmm" in that one! |
|
|
|
Post by tboneator64 on Dec 29, 2015 16:44:56 GMT -5
While not related to either of the remakes, I thought I should note that John "Uh-Huh" Collum was, much to my surprise, in a lot more than "4 or 5" 'Our Gang' comedies! John's total number of Rascals' appearance was in fact, a lot closer to 2 dozen! It was actually some recent reading of Leonard Maltin & Richard W. Bann's THE LITTLE RASCALS: THE LIFE AND TIMES OF OUR GANG, that I spotted his name in a surprisingly high number of 'Our Gang' shorts, from FREE WHEELIN' (1932) to THREE MEN IN A TUB (1938). The thing with John Collum was, he almost always had very little to no dialogue, and tended to be very much in the background most of the time. "Uh-Huh" was a mostly very unassuming, yet undeniable part of 'Our Gang' history, and only really remembered for his brief dialogue, as delivered in the 1933 two reel comedy, MUSH AND MILK. CHEERS! Right, you are, Tony! When I said "4 or 5," I was referring specifically to the character, rather than the actor. Despite Johnny being around as an extra into the late 30s, the Roach staff evidently realized that not much could be done with the character and thus dropped him. At least Dorothy DeBorba was a little bit luckier when her "Echo" persona was axed! On the plus side, John did get some lines in his last short, "Three Men in a Tub" (though apparently, his lines were written for young Gary Jasgur). If John was in "Free Wheeling," his scenes were cut. I couldn't find him in it! To the best of my knowledge, the only official "Uh huh" shorts were "Fish Hooky," "Forgotten Babies," and "Mush and Milk." I'll count "A Lad an' a Lamp," too, even though he said "Mmmm hmmm" in that one! Regarding John Collum's casting in FREE WHEELIN', I was going by his cast listing in the aforementioned Leonard Maltin/Richard W. Bann Book, though even they make a mistake once in awhile, and these shorts were much less readily accessible in 1992, when the last edition was published. For what it's worth, IMDB does list that appearance as "Unconfirmed". Admittedly, I'm somewhat less familiar with FREE WHEELIN' than some of the other 'Our Gang' shorts, so for me, that Title may bear checking! CHEERS! |
|
|
|
Post by wheezer on Jan 2, 2016 23:13:14 GMT -5
I was actually looking for some of the images I have seen before on Travis Tedford's instagram once I remembered I had this post. It's basically some of the old behind the scenes from The Little Rascals, and whatnot. Here are some throwback Thursdays and behind the scenes stuff from Zac Mabry, too. |
|
|
|
Post by mtw12055 on Jan 30, 2016 15:16:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by wheezer on Feb 3, 2016 22:16:57 GMT -5
It bugs me, without fail, that the fact that Porky and Spanky were brothers was just kind of... ignored, for this movie. It ALSO bugs me that, on the cover of the movie, Spanky and Porky look incredibly similar. It bugs me that an image exists ( here ) of them acting very much like brothers. It bugs me that the only thing that'd hint towards this -- aside from it literally being true from the 1922-1944 series -- is sites that show what the actors look like today, saying that Mabry played the role of "Spanky's brother, Porky". Maybe it wholesomely bothers me so much because it's such a little thing? But, since Spanky and Porky were my favorites, in the movie, my mind pushes me forward. Sucks that they ignored lots of things just for the sake of the cast, really. (This could be accompanied by the fact that Stymie and Froggy are in the same general group, together, even though their eras were completely separate.) |
|
|
|
Post by mtw12055 on Feb 3, 2016 22:23:52 GMT -5
It bugs me, without fail, that the fact that Porky and Spanky were brothers was just kind of... ignored, for this movie. It ALSO bugs me that, on the cover of the movie, Spanky and Porky look incredibly similar. It bugs me that an image exists ( here ) of them acting very much like brothers. It bugs me that the only thing that'd hint towards this -- aside from it literally being true from the 1922-1944 series -- is sites that show what the actors look like today, saying that Mabry played the role of "Spanky's brother, Porky". Maybe it wholesomely bothers me so much because it's such a little thing? But, since Spanky and Porky were my favorites, in the movie, my mind pushes me forward. Sucks that they ignored lots of things just for the sake of the cast, really. (This could be accompanied by the fact that Stymie and Froggy are in the same general group, together, even though their eras were completely separate.) They were only identified as brothers in "Little Sinner," and I suppose it was implied in "Follies of '36" ("Didn't I tell you to watch him?!"). Our Gang almost never had continuity, so the fact that Spanky and Porky aren't related doesn't bother me at all. Spanky meeting Miss Crabtree on the other hand never felt quite right.  |
|
|
|
Post by mtw12055 on Feb 6, 2016 21:04:21 GMT -5
One more thought (maybe). The old 75th Anniversary Universal logo that opens the 1994 flick brings back so many great memories for me. It immediately reminds me that I still have a soft spot for the movie. Music by the great James Horner. www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5cl_w3lVYcNow I have the urge to go and rewatch the darn thing! |
|
