|
Post by bigshotjones on Aug 4, 2010 13:20:23 GMT -5
That's it. He died just a few weeks later.
|
|
|
Post by bigears on Aug 4, 2010 13:58:52 GMT -5
It would have been interesting to have some of the original Rascals in the remake. I could see Butch as the guy who ran the lumber yard or Dickie Moore as the banker.
As far as my least favorite rascals: besides the obvious choices of Mickey or Froggy, mine are Alfalfa (please don't throw rotten tomatoes at me, but his voice kind of got on my nerves) Breezy (he seemed a little bossy and didn't fit in that well with the rest of the kids) and Harry (his voice was whiney in the talkies).
As far as the antagonists of the gang go, I think that sometimes they are a lot more interesting characters than the heroes. Some of the best shorts had a snobby Jerry, a mean Butch or a sissy Sherwood in them to shake things up.
|
|
|
Post by littlerascal4891 on Aug 4, 2010 16:50:21 GMT -5
I would have liked to see some original Rascals in the '94 movie as well. A cameo or two would have been nice... I think it would have been nice to give a little salute to the "Our Gang" crew. Instead we got random appearences from Whoopi Goldberg, Donald Trump, the Olsen twins, and a bunch of other celebrities that had nothing to do with "The Little Rascals."
|
|
|
Post by myhomeo on Sept 2, 2010 17:11:36 GMT -5
If I understand correctly, it wasn't just not being included; Spanky didn't want the movie made AT ALL. And while I don't completely agree, I can certainly understand his attitude. Granted, the shorts were fictional and he was theoretically playing a character but it was still more or less him. It couldn't have been fun to have someone else impersonating him and his childhood friends, even as their fictional alter-egos, without their permission.
As for why they opted to use Uh-Huh, my guess is it allowed an easy running gag: All he ever says is "Uh-huuuuuuuuh."
|
|
|
Post by mtw12055 on Sept 2, 2010 21:08:35 GMT -5
Now I can see why Spanky wouldn't want a Rascals remake. Whenever he was asked about what he thought the secret to the series' success was, his answer was always, "We did it right the first time".
|
|
|
Post by axlegrease on Sept 2, 2010 23:07:50 GMT -5
Alfalfa, although I don't really dislike him that much. Also, learning about Breezy's true age kinda creeps me out a little when I watch his appearances.
|
|
|
Post by axlegrease on Sept 9, 2010 13:21:33 GMT -5
I hate to say it, but I have to add that my least favorite minor Our Ganger has to be Bouncy. He was only in three shorts, but just watch his performance in the Pooch, and maybe you'll see where i'm coming from . . .
|
|
|
Post by rascalwatcher on Sept 9, 2010 21:09:48 GMT -5
I wonder how Froggy and Mickey would have done as Hal Roach Rascals instead of MGM Our Gangers?
For that matter, some of the greats like early Spanky, Stymie, Wheezer and many others might not have been as great had they appeared during the MGM years. It can be hard to differentiate between the talent of the actor and the quality of the writing/directing.
|
|
|
Post by zootmoney on Sept 10, 2010 0:53:41 GMT -5
Agreed. That's why I think Janet Burston gets a bad rap. I think she gave the directors exactly what they asked for.
|
|
|
Post by myhomeo on Sept 11, 2010 14:25:41 GMT -5
One could counter that Mickey and Froggy might not have gotten IN the Hal Roach Gang, but that's a little weak. After all, ALL the kids' performances did indeed take a serious nosedive in the MGM shorts, including Spanky.
One tends to forget how much of the kids' charm was due to skillful and careful direction. They were coached along, the younger ones fed their dialogue a little at a time, with the film-makers doing their best to bring out their natural personalities. When other directors simply told them to 'act,' they did the best they could but it wasn't quite as good.
|
|
|
Post by mtw12055 on Sept 11, 2010 15:15:56 GMT -5
Speaking of the Roach vs MGM periods, I always wondered something about Froggy. If Roach had hired Billy Laughlin to be a part of the Gang, it seems unlikely that he would have hired him because he could imitate Popeye's voice. Anybody else want to discuss this?
|
|
|
Post by myhomeo on Sept 11, 2010 16:11:21 GMT -5
Well, he does have a unique face. The Roach people tended to like kids who stood out.
|
|
|
Post by rascalwatcher on Sept 12, 2010 16:34:30 GMT -5
Well, he does have a unique face. The Roach people tended to like kids who stood out. Maybe he would have been called "Specs", or something in reference to his glasses. Was "Four Eyes" used in the late 1930s, or is that a more recent thing to call kids who wear glasses?
|
|
|
Post by bigears on Sept 13, 2010 11:38:55 GMT -5
Speaking of the Roach vs MGM periods, I always wondered something about Froggy. If Roach had hired Billy Laughlin to be a part of the Gang, it seems unlikely that he would have hired him because he could imitate Popeye's voice. Anybody else want to discuss this? If Froggy had been in the Roach shorts, they probably would have only given him a line or two to say in each short in his frog voice instead of making him a star. (Sort of like the character of Uh-Huh).
|
|
|
Post by littlerascal4891 on Sept 13, 2010 19:01:14 GMT -5
^I think so too. I don't think he would have been one to carry the series if he was cast in the Hal Roach shorts.
|
|