30's HEROES IN A 90'S WORLD in '80s and '90s Horror and Sci-Fi Forum

Forum Jump

30's HEROES IN A 90'S WORLD

Author	Comment
davlghry	30's HEROES IN A 90'S WORLD	Lead	[-]
Jan 8 08 5:31 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	In the 1990's, the success of the Indiana Jones and Batman films encouraged the studios to risk five projects featuring larger than life heroes whose adventures were set in the 1930's. Three were based on iconic heroes from the comic strips and pulps and the other two were inspired by them. None of these films were blockbusters and none inspired sequels. These films vary in quality but a couple were actually pretty good. Why weren't audiences interested? Did they seem too retro? Too vanilla? Too "down the middle?" The films I'm talking about are the Warren Beatty DICK TRACY, THE ROCKETEER, THE SHADOW, THE PHANTOM and SKY CAPTAIN AND THE WORLD OF TOMORROW (released in 2004).
	Remove this ad
Dr Acula		#1	[-]
Jan 8 08 6:25 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I personally liked all those films you mentioned - and even liked the goofiness that is Doc Savage: Man of Bronze with Ron Ely. But as to why people didn't like it - I can't really relate to not liking them, but I was running a first run campus theater (no really, we premiered art films first run in Atlanta) at the time of the Phantom, so I booked it second run. I had already seen it in theaters, so was glad to get as a free promotion a literal bucket-full of Phantom skull rings to give away. But there was a guy I knew on campus who worked with student groups, very much a "cool" guy of the day. And he came to see the Phantom, and since I was at the box office when he got out, he let me know it was the stupidest film he had ever seen. I asked him if he could elaborate, and his exact words were: "it was just... stupid". He couldn't even articulate what he didn't like, he just didn't. Thinking about it, maybe part of the problem has to do with so much of our society's cultural products being more heavily in favor of the anti-hero types, as opposed to heroes, and that all those films had good characters who weren't particularly dark & shadowy... even the Shadow wasn't at his darkest. I would rate those films thusly: Doc Savage: Man of Bronze The Rocketeeer The Phantom The Shadow Sky Captain Dick Tracey But even with that, I enjoy them all, not a loser in the bunch. My God, what's Bond doing?... I think he's attempting re-entry, sir. http://www.eccentric-cinema.com/ Cole's Comics: All About Jack Cole http://colescomics.blogspot.com/
HalLane		#2	[-]
Jan 8 08 11:17 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	davlghry wrote: . Why weren't audiences interested? Did they seem too retro? Too vanilla? Too "down the middle?" The films I'm talking about are the Warren Beatty DICK TRACY, THE ROCKETEER, THE SHADOW, THE PHANTOM and SKY CAPTAIN AND THE WORLD OF TOMORROW (released in 2004). It's just a guess, but I'm thinking that while audiences could could identify with 1930's movies -- that is, Hollywood's contemporary take on the 1930's -- they're not really all that interested in the 1930's as a decade. The historical 1930's. Indiana Jones dressed like Charlton Heston. His plane traversed a map like in CASABLANCA. He straddled a truck like in ZORRO RIDES AGAIN. He fought Nazis like in TARZAN TRIUMPHS. And and and.... The other films pretty much visualized pulp magazines or comic strips or 50's EC comics or 80's Pacific Comics, and most people just couln't care less about what the actual 1930's were like -- not when they're conditioned to seeing the World According To Hollywood. My theory, anyway.
Mattel Jones		#3	[-]
Jan 9 08 12:00 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Last Edited By: Mattel Jones Jan 9 08 12:08 AM. Edited 2 times.
Mattel Jones		#4	[-]
Jan 9 08 12:01 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I think the period setting and the lack of shading in terms of the heroes' characters is likely the reason none of those films were able to catch on enough to spawn sequels. One example of a succesful 30s style hero in a 90s film would be the DARKMAN series. While not an overwhelming success story the first film did manage to spawn two sequels and was even in consideration as a TV series. It did well by crossing the cloaked avenger type of 1930s pulp fiction with the scarred vengeful/crazy mad scientist/artist archetype of the same era's Horror cinema. By transplanting the whole deal into an ultra violent 90s B-Crime film, it gave the audience multiple hooks to grab onto. I know you could point to the comic book influence being greater than the pulp one in this case; but isn't it all basically pulp when you get down to it? I mean Bob Kane credits THE SHADOW for inspiring BATMAN, who is of course another 30s hero that succeeded (to an extent at least) by being updated for the 90s audience.
SteveZodiak		#5	[-]
Jan 9 08 12:52 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Why the Phantom, The Shadow, and The Rocketeer failed at the box office is one of the great mysteries of life. I like all of them. That the heros weren't dark enough for modern audiences may be true, but that is a sad statement. My mind is aglow with whirling, transient nodes of thought careening thru a cosmic vapor of invention.
oldmanster		#6	[-]
Jan 9 08 9:18 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Dr Acula wrote: I personally liked all those films you mentioned - and even liked the goofiness that is Doc Savage: Man of Bronze with Ron Ely. But as to why people didn't like it - I can't really relate to not liking them, but I was running a first run campus theater (no really, we premiered art films first run in Atlanta) at the time of the Phantom, so I booked it second run. I had already seen it in theaters, so was glad to get as a free promotion a literal bucket-full of Phantom skull rings to give away. But there was a guy I knew on campus who worked with student groups, very much a "cool" guy of the day. And he came to see the Phantom, and since I was at the box office when he got out, he let me know it was the stupidest film he had ever seen. I asked him if he could elaborate, and his exact words were: "it was just... stupid". He couldn't even articulate what he didn't like, he just didn't. Thinking about it, maybe part of the problem has to do with so much of our society's cultural products being more heavily in favor of the anti-hero types, as opposed to heroes, and that all those films had good characters who weren't particularly dark & shadowy... even the Shadow wasn't at his darkest. I would rate those films thusly: Doc Savage: Man of Bronze The Rocketeeer The Phantom The Shadow Sky Captain Dick Tracey But even with that, I enjoy them all, not a loser in the bunch. I like them all, too, though my ratings are slightly different. Sky Captain is far and away the best of these, imho, followed by The Phantom, The Rocketeer, The Shadow, Doc Savage, and Dick Tracey (as much as I love the classic Tracy comix, I didn't feel much connection with the villains of this film; Beatty wasn't bad as Tracy, though). ... Reed
Andy Sheets		#7	[-]
Jan 9 08 9:23 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I think what separates Indiana Jones from other such films (aside from being directed by Spielberg) is that the Indy films don't condescend to the period or buy into the Hollywood film characterization of the period - the characters in the Indiana Jones movies come across with a world-weariness and cynicism that modern audiences can relate to, whereas other 1930s based adventures frequently buy into the shaky notion that the past was a squeaky clean, cheerfully naive period in which everyone was pretty laidback and upbeat about all this Depression and WWII stuff. The characters too often come across as cartoony caricatures. I'm not talking down to those other movies - in fact I really like them to varying degrees (well, I don't much like The Shadow) - but, for instance, The Phantom is essentially a childrens movie in which a villainess played by Catherine Zeta-Jones turns to the good side merely because Kristy Swanson asks her "Why do you have to be so mean?!" I agree that Darkman is a great example of a film that gets the 1930s pulp fiction vibe more correct than The Shadow (and Darkman was initially supposed to BE the Shadow, except Raimi couldn't get the rights). Personally, I would love to see someone do a slick adaptation of The Spider, but with the way Hollywood approaches the material they'd probably totally neuter the character, who was by far the most violent of pulp heroes.
Omega Man		#8	[-]
Jan 9 08 9:34 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Mattel Jones wrote: I think the period setting and the lack of shading in terms of the heroes' characters is likely the reason none of those films were able to catch on enough to spawn sequels. One example of a succesful 30s style hero in a 90s film would be the DARKMAN series. While not an overwhelming success story the first film did manage to spawn two sequels and was even in consideration as a TV series. It did well by crossing the cloaked avenger type of 1930s pulp fiction with the scarred vengeful/crazy mad scientist/artist archetype of the same era's Horror cinema. By transplanting the whole deal into an ultra violent 90s B-Crime film, it gave the audience multiple hooks to grab onto... I think you're definitely on to something there... Had DARKMAN been set in the 1930s it would not have gone over as well. Unfortunately, that's why we'll never see a decent Doc Savage film -- which to be done right would require a substantial ($100 Million +) budget and have to be set in the '30s (with a PG-13 rating). The '75 Doc Savage movie, by treating the material in campy Batman TV series fashion, was just awful. I remember slumping in my theater seat with embarrassment... and I was only 12 at the time! "Dammit, it's jammed!" www.eccentric-cinema.com
Omega Man		#9	[-]
Jan 9 08 9:37 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Andy Sheets wrote: I think what separates Indiana Jones from other such films (aside from being directed by Spielberg) is that the Indy films don't condescend to the period or buy into the Hollywood film characterization of the period - the characters in the Indiana Jones movies come across with a world-weariness and cynicism that modern audiences can relate to, whereas other 1930s based adventures frequently buy into the shaky notion that the past was a squeaky clean, cheerfully naive period... The characters too often come across as cartoony caricatures... Personally, I would love to see someone do a slick adaptation of The Spider, but with the way Hollywood approaches the material they'd probably totally neuter the character, who was by far the most violent of pulp heroes. Also excellent points! I wholeheartedly agree. You know, if they made a Spider film today -- as exactly written 70-odd years ago -- it would have to be rated R! "Dammit, it's jammed!" www.eccentric-cinema.com
oldmanster		#10	[-]
Jan 9 08 9:47 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	If The Spider is brought back in the same vein as the 30s serial version, we'd hear the long, sad laments from the culture war folks that the violence was increased to pander to modern, depraved tastes. The Spider would be a tough sell in any event, particularly if a new film used some of the character's mannerisms (such as jumping out at bad guys with both hands raised in "scary" claw-like fashion). Do you try to present both the camp factor _and_ the violence? It worked in the 30s because both motifs were understood and accepted by the populace. Today, there would be instant polarization. That said, I agree that the Indiana Jones series -- especially The Temple of Doom -- managed to generate the best of both possible worlds. So maybe there is some hope for The Spider. ... Reed
	Remove this ad
Omega Man		#11	[-]
Jan 9 08 9:54 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	*The Spider shoots to kill... In his view, the only good criminal is a dead* criminal.** "Dammit, it's jammed!" www.eccentric-cinema.com
Mattel Jones	A nice day dream	#12	[-]
Jan 9 08 3:47 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Here's a thought, imagine if Peter Jackson(and Universal) had thought to get the most out of the props, sets, costumes and backgrounds that were employed for the KING KONG remake to have made a DOC SAVAGE film at the same time? I know we still have the problems of getting audiences interested in a vintage 'good guy', but man they could have saved a lot of money on general production costs.
Tom Powers		#13	[-]
Jan 9 08 6:20 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Omega Man wrote: *The Spider shoots to kill... In his view, the only good criminal is a dead* criminal.** And he sees to it that the back alleys of New York are filled with good criminals... The Phantom movie was a bit on the lame side, in terms of charactization. The comic strip Phantom is a pretty grim and intimidating figure, not the smiling, good-natured fish out of water that Billy Zane played. Last Edited By: Tom Powers Jan 9 08 6:23 PM. Edited 1 times.
John T Chance		#14	[-]
Jan 12 08 11:08 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Mattel Jones wrote: Here's a thought, imagine if Peter Jackson(and Universal) had thought to get the most out of the props, sets, costumes and backgrounds that were employed for the KING KONG remake to have made a DOC SAVAGE film at the same time? I know we still have the problems of getting audiences interested in a vintage 'good guy', but man they could have saved a lot of money on general production costs. That's a great fantasy, there, Mattel...sure wish I lived in the alternate reality where that dream became true! Nothing I'd welcome more than a straight-up, true-to-period $100mil. Doc Savage adventure from the likes of Peter Jackson or Sam Raimi. Sadly it'll likely never happen (let alone THE SPIDER, cool as that would be...) As an aside..I'm surprised to see all the love here for THE SHADOW, which I thought was truly abysmal. I remember my best friend and I slinking out of the theater in disgust halfway through the show during its initial release. We were (and still are) both big pulp/OTR/The Shadow fans and to say we were bitterly disappointed in the film, and Alec Baldwin (!!) in the lead, is an understatement. OTOH, I did enjoy THE ROCKETEER (even if the film adaptation left out the characters of Doc Savage and Monk from the graphic novel) and to a lesser extent THE PHANTOM and DICK TRACY. Really, really wanted to like SKY CAPTAIN but it just never caught fire for me. The director got the surface right but didn't understand the core, that the reason those pulp hero tales worked in the first place was because of their iconic, memorable characters and gripping stories. SKY CAPTAIN just went through the motions and so felt hollow to me, just a stylistic exercise. Here's hoping Raimi's wish to direct a big-screen pulp epic comes to fruition some day...
BijouBob8mm		#15	[-]
Jan 12 08 3:24 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	was glad to get as a free promotion a literal bucket-full of Phantom skull rings to give away. Very cool!!! All our theater was giving away was a poster of Zane's Phantom on the stone throne, with a milk moustache as part of the "Got Milk?" campaign. The films I'm talking about are the Warren Beatty DICK TRACY, THE ROCKETEER, THE SHADOW, THE PHANTOM and SKY CAPTAIN AND THE WORLD OF TOMORROW (released in 2004). Well, THE ROCKETEER may have been overshadowed by Costner's ROBIN HOOD PRINCE OF THIEVES, as that seemed to be the film getting the most buzz at the time. As for THE PHANTOM, I can't help but wonder if maybe the prime ticket-buying age group just didn't know the character all that well. (I remember one kid complaining that it seemed too Indy Jones because of the jungle scenes, and another was asking "what's up with that purple suit?") Can't recall what kind of films those other releases were up against. When I saw SKY CAPTAIN, the theater was packed and the audience was really enthusiastic. DICK TRACY was another full theater (don't know if it was because of the character or the cast). As for THE SHADOW...boy, I was so pumped about going to see this, but initially disappointed after I had. (I felt the title character wasn't onscreen enough, and I wasn't overly impressed by the need to have Cranston change his face when he became the Shadow.) Have to admit, though, I did find myself more fond of THE SHADOW when I saw it again. Last Edited By: BijouBob8mm Jan 12 08 3:34 PM. Edited 1 times.
Monsterpal		#16	[-]
Jan 13 08 8:49 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	John T Chance wrote: Really, really wanted to like SKY CAPTAIN but it just never caught fire for me. The director got the surface right but didn't understand the core, that the reason those pulp hero tales worked in the first place was because of their iconic, memorable characters and gripping stories. SKY CAPTAIN just went through the motions and so felt hollow to me, just a stylistic exercise. Same here. I found it uninvolving.
Robert Troch		#17	[-]
Jan 14 08 11:35 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	To me they failed because they simply are not very good movies in the first place. Seeing these characters handled so poorly is part of that problem. Also (as has already been mentioned) the "camp" factor that is injected spoils everything. Back in the seventies I had read lots of Doc Savage (since then I have read all 181 + novels) and was psyched to see the George Pal movie. What a letdown that was. Way too much camp (the music was especially bad), a script that was flat. Any "danger" was handled so tongue in cheek that it fell totally flat. There was one scene (on the yacht) with Doc and the gang that had its moments but otherwise this thing should have NEVER been made. Same with the Shadow. What a letdown that was. Baldwin actually looked pretty cool but after that?? Poor script, Shiwan Khan handled badly, Cranston character used too much. Where was the quick witted Shadow/Kent Allard escaping from some elaborate death trap? In only one scene did he really pull out his twin 45's and fire away like I would expect him too. Where were the Walter Gibson red herrings? etc. The problem comes in these types of movies trying way too hard to appeal to a general audience. There are niches for these films and that is who they should be made for. True..... the budgets will not be as expansive with this approach but so what? A good story is a good story. A good character is a good character. A well thought out/laid out movie would be fine. Now having said that I think Raiders suceeded because the camp factor was kept fairly low on the meter. The excess was trimmed from the finsished product (a la the 1933 King Kong), and the characters were likeable. (except for the Nazis of course)! The production looked cool and the only "darkness" if you will, was the cynical sort of ending. Everything was pretty black and white but in a well crafted way. Not the 70's Doc Savage garbage or even the dissapointing Sky Captain. I was intrigued by the supossed Doc Savage movie being talked about with Frank Darabont directing and starring Arnold as Doc. I really saw some cool possibilities there. Alas it seems like it is dead in the water though. BTW....the Phantom was just bad. It needs no other explantion other than that. The Rocketeer was't really going to be anything more that it was. The source material saw to that! AND funny enough the source material included Doc Savage! Robert T.
Robert Troch		#18	[-]
Jan 14 08 11:40 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	oh and Dick Tracy had nothing going for it except good makeup. The strip worked because of what it was. Simple, and with diabolical characters. There was NO need to include so many of the characters. That was mistake number 1. Number 2 was the Madonna character. Why? The grittiness, toughness, memorable bad guys and simplicity of the strip made it last the movie itself had very little of that. Robert T.
chris schillig		#19	[-]
Jan 14 08 11:50 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I still have my Phantom giveaway ring that I won -- along with some copies of the Phantom 2040 comic book -- from an area theater when the movie played there. It's pretty cool. Of the films discussed here, The Rocketeer is my favorite. It may be one of my favorite 90s films, period. Just a fun adventure that doesn't take itself too seriously. The Phantom and the Shadow are OK, and Sky Captain was a lot of fun, although I haven't had much of an urge to watch it again.
thebrainfollower		#20	[-]
Jan 14 08 4:15 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I actually really liked Dick Tracy as an 11 year old kid. Realistically I don't think Beatty ever intended to a sequel anyway so why not include all the memorable villains? If you liked the Dick Tracy-Flattop wars then you could always watch Macgyver's feud with Murdoc in the 80's which was broadly similiar.
	Remove this ad

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Add Reply

Yuku free message boards

30's HEROES IN A 90'S WORLD

30's HEROES IN A 90'S WORLD