Post by Jojo on Aug 5, 2005 18:51:36 GMT -5
Hey everyone!
For those of you who are apart of the "OurGangFollies" yahoo group, I'm sure most of you saw the post that was left on the Little Rascals movie. The person who left the post seems to really dis-like the movie because it was so UNLIKE the originals (from their point of view).
Anyway, I liked the movie, and you'd have to expect some changes b/c the movie was made 50 years after the LAST Little Rascals episode was made. And you also have to consider that it had to relate to the children of the 1990's. Thats a WHOLE new generation of kids.
But here's that post........
One thing I didn't mention that day (I forgot and mentioned it the
next day) was the infamous 1994 release of "The Little Rascals."
Ever since that day 11 years ago, whenever I tell a younger person
that I like The Little Rascals, they invariably respond with, "Oh, I
like that movie, too!" (And when I tell them that I like the
Beatles, they ask me how many CDs they made. Hrmph!)
Anywho, I've noticed myself liking this film less and less everytime
I watch it, and thought it would be fun to go over some of the things
that irk me about it.
1. The acting:
These kids just aren't convincing. The kid that plays Spanky really
bugs me for some reason, and the little girl playing Darla is really
unexceptional. If they really wanted to bring back the Rascals, then
the first order of the day was to find the right kids. And this has
more to do with natural talent than whether or not they look like the
originals. I'll make an exception for Bug Hall, who does a pretty
good job at playing Alfalfa, even though it was probably the most
challenging role in the film.
2. Potty humor:
Can somebody name me one film comedy from the 80s or 90s that doesn't
have at least one joke involving injury to the male groin? I'm
speaking of the ballet sequence and the Nutcracker gag here. In
fact, there's a generous sprinkling of potty humor in this film,
which seems to betray the Our Gang tradition.
3. The celebrity cameos:
Just when I wanted to see a movie WITHOUT Whoopi Goldberg, there she
is again!
4. Stymie:
Okay, I guess it's unrealistic to think that they wouldn't put Stymie
in the same age group with the younger kids, and the kid they got for
this role is cute and everything, but what they really needed to do
was to find a kid with a whole bunch of charm and personality.
Instead, they just found a normal kid.
5. Uh-Huh:
They couldn't find a kid that could say 'uh huh' the way John Collum
did? They just weren't trying.
6. Froggy:
If they were gonna have an adult dub in the trick voice anyway, then
couldn't they have found somebody that could actually sound like
Froggy?
7. Petey:
The original Pete had a dark patch over one eye, and the ring was
applied over the opposite (patchless) eye. This new dog doesn't have
a dark patch over either eye, and it just looks wrong to me.
Henceforth, I will refer to this dog as "Phony Pete."
8. Three-named child actors:
In the old days, we had names like George McFarland, Billie Thomas,
Jackie Cooper and thingyie Moore. Nowadays, we've got Kevin Jamal
Woods, Blake McIver Ewing, Blake Jeremy Collins, and Brittany Ashton
Holmes. I just don't have the TIME for these celebrities!!!
9. The ghost of Scotty Beckett:
The Porky character has a sideways cap in this film, making him sort
of a Porky/Scotty combo. I'm surprised that in these politically-
correct times, they didn't just name him Scotty. I also noticed that
the "Scotty Shrug" (from "Honky-Donkey") is used repeatedly in this
film.
10. The pronunciation of Switzer:
The filmmakers apparently derived the pronunciation of Alfalfa's last
name from one of those documentaries like "The Our Gang Story." They
should have just watched "Alfalfa's Aunt" or one of the several other
Our Gang films.
11. Ear wiggling:
No, no, no! They're supposed to wiggle near the top of the ear.
12. Butch & Woim:
Since they obviously weren't looking for really talented kids, was it
really that hard to find a Woim that wasn't half-a-foot taller than
Butch?
13. The very IDEA of the thing!!!
Apparently, we're supposed to think that this film somehow pays
homage to the Our Gang tradition, or recaptures the spirit or some
similar slice of baloney. I think it defies the tradition myself.
The original series had originality and evolved over time, finding
new ways to entertain through the adventures of a gang of mischievous
kids. The 1994 film is patently unoriginal, and stagnates the
series, showing us third-rate representations of the earlier kids
rather than coming up with something new. Things like "Leave It To
Beaver," "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate
Factory," "Peanuts," "Rugrats' - these pay better tribute to the
Rascals tradition if only because they find new ways of entertaining
while using children as their main subject. This is essentially the
problem with any remake made decades after the original: You can't
recapture something that wasn't yours in the first place.
Let me know what you all think...
Joel
For those of you who are apart of the "OurGangFollies" yahoo group, I'm sure most of you saw the post that was left on the Little Rascals movie. The person who left the post seems to really dis-like the movie because it was so UNLIKE the originals (from their point of view).
Anyway, I liked the movie, and you'd have to expect some changes b/c the movie was made 50 years after the LAST Little Rascals episode was made. And you also have to consider that it had to relate to the children of the 1990's. Thats a WHOLE new generation of kids.
But here's that post........
One thing I didn't mention that day (I forgot and mentioned it the
next day) was the infamous 1994 release of "The Little Rascals."
Ever since that day 11 years ago, whenever I tell a younger person
that I like The Little Rascals, they invariably respond with, "Oh, I
like that movie, too!" (And when I tell them that I like the
Beatles, they ask me how many CDs they made. Hrmph!)
Anywho, I've noticed myself liking this film less and less everytime
I watch it, and thought it would be fun to go over some of the things
that irk me about it.
1. The acting:
These kids just aren't convincing. The kid that plays Spanky really
bugs me for some reason, and the little girl playing Darla is really
unexceptional. If they really wanted to bring back the Rascals, then
the first order of the day was to find the right kids. And this has
more to do with natural talent than whether or not they look like the
originals. I'll make an exception for Bug Hall, who does a pretty
good job at playing Alfalfa, even though it was probably the most
challenging role in the film.
2. Potty humor:
Can somebody name me one film comedy from the 80s or 90s that doesn't
have at least one joke involving injury to the male groin? I'm
speaking of the ballet sequence and the Nutcracker gag here. In
fact, there's a generous sprinkling of potty humor in this film,
which seems to betray the Our Gang tradition.
3. The celebrity cameos:
Just when I wanted to see a movie WITHOUT Whoopi Goldberg, there she
is again!
4. Stymie:
Okay, I guess it's unrealistic to think that they wouldn't put Stymie
in the same age group with the younger kids, and the kid they got for
this role is cute and everything, but what they really needed to do
was to find a kid with a whole bunch of charm and personality.
Instead, they just found a normal kid.
5. Uh-Huh:
They couldn't find a kid that could say 'uh huh' the way John Collum
did? They just weren't trying.
6. Froggy:
If they were gonna have an adult dub in the trick voice anyway, then
couldn't they have found somebody that could actually sound like
Froggy?
7. Petey:
The original Pete had a dark patch over one eye, and the ring was
applied over the opposite (patchless) eye. This new dog doesn't have
a dark patch over either eye, and it just looks wrong to me.
Henceforth, I will refer to this dog as "Phony Pete."
8. Three-named child actors:
In the old days, we had names like George McFarland, Billie Thomas,
Jackie Cooper and thingyie Moore. Nowadays, we've got Kevin Jamal
Woods, Blake McIver Ewing, Blake Jeremy Collins, and Brittany Ashton
Holmes. I just don't have the TIME for these celebrities!!!
9. The ghost of Scotty Beckett:
The Porky character has a sideways cap in this film, making him sort
of a Porky/Scotty combo. I'm surprised that in these politically-
correct times, they didn't just name him Scotty. I also noticed that
the "Scotty Shrug" (from "Honky-Donkey") is used repeatedly in this
film.
10. The pronunciation of Switzer:
The filmmakers apparently derived the pronunciation of Alfalfa's last
name from one of those documentaries like "The Our Gang Story." They
should have just watched "Alfalfa's Aunt" or one of the several other
Our Gang films.
11. Ear wiggling:
No, no, no! They're supposed to wiggle near the top of the ear.
12. Butch & Woim:
Since they obviously weren't looking for really talented kids, was it
really that hard to find a Woim that wasn't half-a-foot taller than
Butch?
13. The very IDEA of the thing!!!
Apparently, we're supposed to think that this film somehow pays
homage to the Our Gang tradition, or recaptures the spirit or some
similar slice of baloney. I think it defies the tradition myself.
The original series had originality and evolved over time, finding
new ways to entertain through the adventures of a gang of mischievous
kids. The 1994 film is patently unoriginal, and stagnates the
series, showing us third-rate representations of the earlier kids
rather than coming up with something new. Things like "Leave It To
Beaver," "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate
Factory," "Peanuts," "Rugrats' - these pay better tribute to the
Rascals tradition if only because they find new ways of entertaining
while using children as their main subject. This is essentially the
problem with any remake made decades after the original: You can't
recapture something that wasn't yours in the first place.
Let me know what you all think...
Joel