You have to wonder with a show like that, though, would it actually work long-term?
First, you've got to deal with all the actors' schedules because film usually pays better than TV and leads to greater exposure, so actors don't want to turn down those roles for a TV show. Then, you've got to have writers who can make the schtick work consistently without getting boring or just plain stupid. Ideas that work great for a 90 minute movie don't always work over a season of episodes. Also, jokes that work on film don't always translate to TV, and that is another part of the equation. The actors are potentially problematic too. Someone like Jack Black, who gets away with being totally outrageous on film, is often "too large" when packaged for the small screen.
If this were a film, I bet it would be a hit. But as a TV show, I'm not sure it would have longevity.
Nonetheless, TV execs can be amazingly boneheaded. I'm often astounded by the scripts that studios turn down or the shows that are canned. Firefly and Farscape spring to mind.
And I gotta add a couple of things to my last post - now that I've actually seen this pilot.
Fake bad acting is rarely funny long-term to most audiences. Worse yet, in this case, the lines between fake bad acting and real bad acting blurred. I kept wanting the MST3K guys to help make me laugh, and that's a bad sign.
Actors playing themselves or similacrums (i.e. Ron Silver) are also often not funny and usually bring the audience out of the work. The idea that actor Ron Silver works for NASA and is an uber-bad-ass hunting a rogue astronaut is potentially funny, but doesn't work well in this piece, in my opinion.
I guess what I'm saying is that if I were making decisions for a network, this one wouldn't get my vote. Then again, I'm not a huge Ben Stiller or Jack Black fan, so maybe I just don't get the comedy in this one. I tend to like all the films that no one else likes and can't stand most of the blockbusters out there. I think that M. Night Shyamalan is a hack and that Brad Anderson is a genius.
M. Night Shyamalan maybe to clever for his own good at times but he is far from a hack. He has to good a grasp of metaphor and symbol to be called a hack. He may be a little to fond of playing with the twist ending but the man has far more solid skill at what he does than most of hollywood these days.
as to Brad Anderson all I can say is Frankenstein's Planet of Monsters!
Granted, Frankenstein's Planet of Monsters isn't going down as a Hollywood legend anytime soon. But Next Stop Wonderland and Happy Accidents were fabulous.
My problem with Shyamalan is that his grasp of metaphor is a bit more like a death grip.
But, it's all good. The best thing about movies is that everyone can find something he likes, and we don't have to agree about it. I have students who can't believe I haven't seen Big Momma's House yet.
Remember that in 1999 niether Owen Wilson nor Jack Black had hit their stride yet so it probably would not have been to much of an issue on scheduling. Truth be told though I dont much like Jack Blacks version of comedy and Owen Wilson is little better, but I know most people I know do like them. Ron Silver though was awesome.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
First, you've got to deal with all the actors' schedules because film usually pays better than TV and leads to greater exposure, so actors don't want to turn down those roles for a TV show. Then, you've got to have writers who can make the schtick work consistently without getting boring or just plain stupid. Ideas that work great for a 90 minute movie don't always work over a season of episodes. Also, jokes that work on film don't always translate to TV, and that is another part of the equation. The actors are potentially problematic too. Someone like Jack Black, who gets away with being totally outrageous on film, is often "too large" when packaged for the small screen.
If this were a film, I bet it would be a hit. But as a TV show, I'm not sure it would have longevity.
Nonetheless, TV execs can be amazingly boneheaded. I'm often astounded by the scripts that studios turn down or the shows that are canned. Firefly and Farscape spring to mind.
From:
no subject
Fake bad acting is rarely funny long-term to most audiences. Worse yet, in this case, the lines between fake bad acting and real bad acting blurred. I kept wanting the MST3K guys to help make me laugh, and that's a bad sign.
Actors playing themselves or similacrums (i.e. Ron Silver) are also often not funny and usually bring the audience out of the work. The idea that actor Ron Silver works for NASA and is an uber-bad-ass hunting a rogue astronaut is potentially funny, but doesn't work well in this piece, in my opinion.
I guess what I'm saying is that if I were making decisions for a network, this one wouldn't get my vote. Then again, I'm not a huge Ben Stiller or Jack Black fan, so maybe I just don't get the comedy in this one. I tend to like all the films that no one else likes and can't stand most of the blockbusters out there. I think that M. Night Shyamalan is a hack and that Brad Anderson is a genius.
From:
no subject
as to Brad Anderson all I can say is Frankenstein's Planet of Monsters!
From:
no subject
My problem with Shyamalan is that his grasp of metaphor is a bit more like a death grip.
But, it's all good. The best thing about movies is that everyone can find something he likes, and we don't have to agree about it. I have students who can't believe I haven't seen Big Momma's House yet.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
I'm glad that it stayed in the pilot stage, though.