Random Pop Culture Question of the Week is a bi-weekly journey into the headspace of the Review to Be Named gang, in which a pop-culture question is posed, answers are sought, and discussions are generated about issues and hypotheticals from throughout the realm of pop culture.
This week’s question comes from our own Jordan, who asked,
What tired trope or overused cliche still works for you? What keeps it fresh or funny or affecting enough that it doesn’t annoy you even with endless repetition?
With that question in mind, here are the responses from several Review to Be Named contributors. Comment and let us know what we missed!
Chris:
As the resident comics contributor, I’ll offer up a comics related answer. The trope that I will always love and probably never tire of is “the old order changeth” issue, or the team gathering issue. What I’m referring to is a common practice in team books such as The Avengers, or The Teen Titans, where most of an issue, (usually the first issue of a new creative team’s tenure on a title, or if it is a new book, the #1 issue, or first story arc) is devoted to a character or small group of characters going around to gather the various members that will comprise the team. Yes these issues tend to be pretty formulaic and if you’ve read one, you definitely have a good idea of what to expect from every subsequent type story, but I for one always enjoy these team building stories and probably always will. It’s a great opportunity to introduce your characters to new readers, to tease what the team dynamic will be for the series, and it allows the writer to really explore the strengths and flaws of their characters in justifying why they are right for or why they want to (or don’t want to) be on said team.
One of my favorite examples of this type of story is Brad Meltzer’s first arc on Justice League of America. This arc featured Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman sitting down in the Batcave with a head shot of just about every superhero running around the DCU to have an extensive conversation about just who should be invited to join the new Justice League. All the while, a mysterious villain sets events in motion that attracts the attention of a number of other heroes who come together by following the threads of a larger conspiracy. A lot of fans panned this arc as a boring snooze fest, and yes, there really wasn’t a lot of action to speak of until the arc’s penultimate sixth issue, but I for one don’t really ascribe to that kind of thinking. Yes I like a great action sequence, but even more I enjoy good character work. And seeing the DCU's most iconic heroes thoroughly analyzing and debating their peers lead to a whole lot of great character insights both about the heroes they were discussing and about the big three themselves. But a new Justice League was already forming without their assistance, and as we saw Green Lantern, Black Canary, and Arsenal (a twist on the usual trio of GL, Black Canary, and Green Arrow) chase down leads on their missing teammate Red Tornado, of Vixen's determination to retrieve the source of her powers after getting sucker punched by a couple C level villains, Meltzer revealed why these characters deserved to be in the League, and just how much chemistry they would possess as a team.
Jordan:
Since this was my question, I feel like I should have a direct, simple answer. Yet frequent readers of this blog should know by now that brevity is not my strong suit, so instead I have three answers this week. Deal with it.
First off, I will never get tired of that joke from old time-y movies and children’s entertainment in which a group of people running from the antagonist run one way down a hall and then immediately run back the other way. This comes up most often in Muppet movies and Scooby Doo, but no matter how many times I see it, I will always laugh. It’s just so completely absurd that I never get tired of it.
Next, because I’m a huge softy, I have to admit that the big speech at the end of a romantic comedy will pretty much always get to me, even if the movie isn’t very good (and a whole lot of them aren’t very good). My go to for a great example is the ending of When Harry Met Sally, but you can see examples of this in pretty much every romantic comedy ever made. Sure, it is a complete cliché, but something about the grand romantic gesture just warms my heart, whether I even like the rest of the movie it’s in.
Finally, I know I’m supposed to find the blatant anachronism jokes in shows like Mad Men, Boardwalk Empire and the British series Life on Mars (which I’m watching as we speak) really annoying, but mostly I just find them funny. When Mad Men does its “hey, weren’t things different in the ‘60s?” schtick (whether it makes the joke about everyone’s alcoholism or blatant misogyny) I generally just chuckle, probably because things were different then. From a critical perspective I know these are cheap jokes and that an over-reliance on them is bad writing, but it’s a dumb joke that for some reason just connects with me.
Rachel:
It didn’t take much thinking for me to find my answer. I will (most likely) never get sick of the tried and true trope of the Bad Boy who’s actually just a damaged softy. This is, of course, not at all surprising if you know me and my affinity for this type in real life. But for me, there’s something special in a guy with a hard edge who is actually just emotionally devastated from something in his past. Extra points if said man rides a motorcycle or is an artist or possesses startling intellect or comes from the wrong side of the tracks or forms an adorably endearing bond with a cute animal or child. Tears can help, but only in moderation, because there’s really nothing sexy about a cry baby.
For me personally, this goes back to James Dean and Marlon Brando, who both, really, were just sex on legs. I’m also thinking Matt Damon in Good Will Hunting, Heath Ledger in 10 Things I Hate About You, and even Robert Pattinson in the much maligned (but really not so bad) Remember Me. While this character archetype is pretty typical in shitty RomComs, I swear I buy into it every time.
Sam:
For this question I had to dig deep because, as I thought about which tropes I really enjoy, I came up empty. First let me get my secondary answer out of the way. I still have a soft spot for the buddy cop movie. One cop is by the book and the other is a rogue who is days away from retirement. They hate each other at the start of the movie and by the closing credits they’re like family. Still get a kick out of it from the likes of Lethal Weapon and Rush Hour. That’s a fun time at the movies as far as I’m concerned. But the trope that I really do love belongs to television.
The “will-they, won’t-they”, when employed with writers who have at least some foresight in terms of planning their show, makes me very happy. Maybe it’s a cheap way to get the audience invested in characters but it provides real emotional development over the course of a long period of time that works best in long form narratives like a television program. The best examples of this, off the top of my head are Jim and Pam on The Office and their original British counterparts Tim and Dawn, April and Andy on Parks and Rec, (kinda) David and Keith from Six Feet Under and lastly Donna and Josh from The West Wing. There are many others (Ross and Rachel) that I don’t really care about either because I didn’t watch the program or it was sloppily handled. But a good “will-they, won’t they” is a television trope I don’t think I’ll ever grow tired of.
Read more Random Pop Culture Question of the Week here
Got ideas for future installments of Random Pop Culture Question of the Week? Well let us know! Follow us on twitter @reviewtobenamed (follow us here), or shoot us an e-mail at reviewtobenamed@gmail.com.
Showing posts with label Random Pop Culture Question of the Week. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Random Pop Culture Question of the Week. Show all posts
Saturday, March 26, 2011
Friday, March 11, 2011
Random Pop Culture Question of the Week: Erasing Movies From an Entertainer's Career
Random Pop Culture Question of the Week is a bi-weekly journey into the headspace of the Review to Be Named gang, in which a pop-culture question is posed, answers are sought, and discussions are generated about issues and hypotheticals from throughout the realm of pop culture.
This week’s question comes from our own Rachel, who asked,
Hypothetically speaking, if the movies Gods came to you and gave you the opportunity to act as a temporary savior for your favorite star (or director) what role/production would you remove from their career and why?
With that question in mind, here are the responses from several Review to Be Named contributors. Comment and let us know what we missed!
Sam:
When thinking about this hypothetical there was a wealth of options to choose from. My first reaction was to remove ugly performances/projects from the career of some of my favorite filmmakers and actors. Do I remove the Apebraham Lincoln stain from Tim Burton’s career thanks to Planet of the Apes? Or do I try to salvage some respect for our greatest actors worst money-grubbing roles like Jack Nicholson’s Anger Management or Dustin Hoffman’s Mr. Magorium’s Wonder Emporium? But what I settled on was erasing a movie I actually love. I wish that Terry Gilliam’s The Adventures of Baron Munchausen just never happened. It’s a great film that shows off what Gilliam does best. Fantastical and unapologetically wacky, it is the prototypical Terry Gilliam movie that praises the power of storytelling and cinematic fun. But the reason that I would love this film to be wiped from the collective memories of everyone on the planet has to do with the horrific production story that came with Munchausen. The movie was a financial disaster that basically put a giant WARNING label on everything Gilliam would make to this day. Terry Gilliam is now a pariah of sorts in the Hollywood community, fighting to finance his always-ambitious projects. Remember those first, bland as rice cake, Harry Potter films? Well, Terry could have spiced those up had he not scared the crap out of every major studio head. Didn’t like Zack Snyder’s style over substance Watchmen film? Maybe Terry could have made the only Alan Moore approved film (or television series) to ever be released. Lastly, Gilliam’s pet project, The Man Who Killed Don Quixote has been marred with production issues for years. He’s been forced to seek purely European funding (which he set a record for and still was miles behind most Hollywood budgets) for a movie that is just too ambitious [cursed by voodoo movie spirits] for a glorious release. Sorry Terry, I love Baron Munchausen as much as the next nerd, but I’m doing it for the good of your fans everywhere.
Jordan:
This was a really god damn hard question, Rachel. First off, I knew I wasn’t going to do an actor, because I can always rationalize that they did it for the money or for the role (there are certain roles that I think you take, regardless of the quality. If they offer you Batman, George Clooney, you get a pass for taking the role.) My first thought, like Sam’s, was removing Planet of the Apes from Tim Burton’s career, but on second thought, he made a good movie after that (Big Fish ranks among his best in my mind) and I don’t think erasing that would stop the quality free-fall he’s been in for the last several years. He may just be beyond saving.
Even the worst movies by some of my favorite directors aren’t that bad. I could erase The Ladykillers or Intolerable Cruelty from the Coen Brothers oeuvre, but neither of those movies are as bad as their reputation, and I really like that the Coens get a movie out pretty much every year. I hated Gangs of New York, but I can’t really fault Scorsese for making it, and Daniel Day Lewis is pretty great in it. I think its tough to pin point the movie that started Woody Allen’s downslide, and I’m not sure erasing it would save him.
Finally, I thought about erasing Elizabethtown, which promptly ended my love affair with Cameron Crowe, who made one of my favorite movies of the last decade, Almost Famous, and also made Vanilla Sky, a pretty solid remake of Abres los Ojos. But his follow up, We Built a Zoo is yet to hit theaters, and I fear I may be erasing Elizabethtown without saving him from falling into an endless well of whimsy, Manic Pixie Dream Girls, and awfulness. So I’m going to throw myself on the filmic cross to erase a movie that I think might actually have a grand effect on cinematic history. At the risk of futility, I’m going to erase Star Wars: Episode I: The Phantom Menace. Ideally, this would stop Lucas from making the entire disastrous trilogy and preserve the legacy of the Original Trilogy. Hell, if he wasn’t planning Phantom Menace, there’s even a chance he wouldn’t have done those terrible re-releases in the late ‘90s (Greedo shoots first? Really?). I’ve already talked at length about my theory of Lucas’ artistic death, but if I could stop him from shitting on his own legacy and crushing the dreams of legions of fanboys, it would mean that people could mention Star Wars without saying “but...” And even if he still made another trilogy of Star Wars movies, and still messed with the originals, I at least would have spared the world Jar Jar Binks. Which is good enough for me.
Chris:
Swept Away. I’ve never seen Swept Away. I never intend to see Swept Away. I only know that it marred the otherwise genius streak of Guy Ritchie’s fun crime thrillers that include Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels, Snatch, and RockNRolla. Is Ritchie kind of repetitive and formulaic when it comes to plotting? Yes. However when you do your niche that well, an argument can be made for not deviating from it. And that argument is Swept Away.
Rachel:
Ok listen. I’m probably going to catch a lot of crap for this, but I’m going to go with it anyway. Because the boys are entirely too serious to consider an actor for this question, and I like to think I bring this whole operation a much needed dose of the low brow.
James Franco. I love him. In my eyes, he can do very little wrong. He’s stupid pretty (duh), he’s getting a PhD in English (swoon), and he’s made it clear recently that he (shock and awe) knows how to read, and that he does it often. Unfortunately, he’s taken a lot of really, really shitty roles. I can explain away the stint on General Hospital as a giant fuck you to Hollywood and an uber-meta piece of performance art (in the show he plays a performance artist, and Franco is a fledgling performance artist, and the cycle goes on and on and on until my head explodes). But he was an absolutely exquisite Allen Ginsberg, I adored him in Milk, and I cannot wait to see him as Hart Crane.
My love for Franco is relatively new, and as a convert, I refuse to hold him all that accountable for the shit that actors need to wade through when they’re getting started. It would be like an ex-post facto judgment and, as a former Constitution nerd, I’m just not down with that. But I have absolutely no qualms about criticizing him for contemporary roles. And I have only three words to levy a major criticism against my new obsession:
Eat .Pray. Love.
Generally, I wouldn’t mind if this atrocious, sappy, pointless movie was erased forever and I could forget that a slew of actors I liked stuck their hands into this cesspool. But the one that hits the hardest is Franco.
Why, James? Just why? Why subjugate yourself to a piece of fluffy (albeit tasty) man candy? I’ve come to expect more from you. And your fruit loop of a character was honestly barely redeemable (although definitely the best of all the men in the movie, except maybe for Billy Crudup’s character, whose only crime was wanting to go back to school, something I can really never fault anyone for). But when your competition is a super obnoxious Julia Roberts and a crybaby Javier Bardem, being the lesser of the evils isn’t really saying much. My love (sometimes, and at least for movie stars) is largely contingent on their ability to maintain artistic integrity. And nothing about Eat Pray Love says integrity.
Stick to the meaty roles, James. Because if you keep taking this shit, I’m going to have to re-allot my time from justifying your enigmatic Twitter behavior, and really, neither of us can afford that.
Read more Random Pop Culture Question of the Week here
Got ideas for future installments of Random Pop Culture Question of the Week? Well let us know! Follow us on twitter @reviewtobenamed (follow us here), or shoot us an e-mail at reviewtobenamed@gmail.com.
This week’s question comes from our own Rachel, who asked,
Hypothetically speaking, if the movies Gods came to you and gave you the opportunity to act as a temporary savior for your favorite star (or director) what role/production would you remove from their career and why?
With that question in mind, here are the responses from several Review to Be Named contributors. Comment and let us know what we missed!
Sam:
When thinking about this hypothetical there was a wealth of options to choose from. My first reaction was to remove ugly performances/projects from the career of some of my favorite filmmakers and actors. Do I remove the Apebraham Lincoln stain from Tim Burton’s career thanks to Planet of the Apes? Or do I try to salvage some respect for our greatest actors worst money-grubbing roles like Jack Nicholson’s Anger Management or Dustin Hoffman’s Mr. Magorium’s Wonder Emporium? But what I settled on was erasing a movie I actually love. I wish that Terry Gilliam’s The Adventures of Baron Munchausen just never happened. It’s a great film that shows off what Gilliam does best. Fantastical and unapologetically wacky, it is the prototypical Terry Gilliam movie that praises the power of storytelling and cinematic fun. But the reason that I would love this film to be wiped from the collective memories of everyone on the planet has to do with the horrific production story that came with Munchausen. The movie was a financial disaster that basically put a giant WARNING label on everything Gilliam would make to this day. Terry Gilliam is now a pariah of sorts in the Hollywood community, fighting to finance his always-ambitious projects. Remember those first, bland as rice cake, Harry Potter films? Well, Terry could have spiced those up had he not scared the crap out of every major studio head. Didn’t like Zack Snyder’s style over substance Watchmen film? Maybe Terry could have made the only Alan Moore approved film (or television series) to ever be released. Lastly, Gilliam’s pet project, The Man Who Killed Don Quixote has been marred with production issues for years. He’s been forced to seek purely European funding (which he set a record for and still was miles behind most Hollywood budgets) for a movie that is just too ambitious [cursed by voodoo movie spirits] for a glorious release. Sorry Terry, I love Baron Munchausen as much as the next nerd, but I’m doing it for the good of your fans everywhere.
Jordan:
This was a really god damn hard question, Rachel. First off, I knew I wasn’t going to do an actor, because I can always rationalize that they did it for the money or for the role (there are certain roles that I think you take, regardless of the quality. If they offer you Batman, George Clooney, you get a pass for taking the role.) My first thought, like Sam’s, was removing Planet of the Apes from Tim Burton’s career, but on second thought, he made a good movie after that (Big Fish ranks among his best in my mind) and I don’t think erasing that would stop the quality free-fall he’s been in for the last several years. He may just be beyond saving.
Even the worst movies by some of my favorite directors aren’t that bad. I could erase The Ladykillers or Intolerable Cruelty from the Coen Brothers oeuvre, but neither of those movies are as bad as their reputation, and I really like that the Coens get a movie out pretty much every year. I hated Gangs of New York, but I can’t really fault Scorsese for making it, and Daniel Day Lewis is pretty great in it. I think its tough to pin point the movie that started Woody Allen’s downslide, and I’m not sure erasing it would save him.
Finally, I thought about erasing Elizabethtown, which promptly ended my love affair with Cameron Crowe, who made one of my favorite movies of the last decade, Almost Famous, and also made Vanilla Sky, a pretty solid remake of Abres los Ojos. But his follow up, We Built a Zoo is yet to hit theaters, and I fear I may be erasing Elizabethtown without saving him from falling into an endless well of whimsy, Manic Pixie Dream Girls, and awfulness. So I’m going to throw myself on the filmic cross to erase a movie that I think might actually have a grand effect on cinematic history. At the risk of futility, I’m going to erase Star Wars: Episode I: The Phantom Menace. Ideally, this would stop Lucas from making the entire disastrous trilogy and preserve the legacy of the Original Trilogy. Hell, if he wasn’t planning Phantom Menace, there’s even a chance he wouldn’t have done those terrible re-releases in the late ‘90s (Greedo shoots first? Really?). I’ve already talked at length about my theory of Lucas’ artistic death, but if I could stop him from shitting on his own legacy and crushing the dreams of legions of fanboys, it would mean that people could mention Star Wars without saying “but...” And even if he still made another trilogy of Star Wars movies, and still messed with the originals, I at least would have spared the world Jar Jar Binks. Which is good enough for me.
Chris:
Swept Away. I’ve never seen Swept Away. I never intend to see Swept Away. I only know that it marred the otherwise genius streak of Guy Ritchie’s fun crime thrillers that include Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels, Snatch, and RockNRolla. Is Ritchie kind of repetitive and formulaic when it comes to plotting? Yes. However when you do your niche that well, an argument can be made for not deviating from it. And that argument is Swept Away.
Rachel:
Ok listen. I’m probably going to catch a lot of crap for this, but I’m going to go with it anyway. Because the boys are entirely too serious to consider an actor for this question, and I like to think I bring this whole operation a much needed dose of the low brow.
James Franco. I love him. In my eyes, he can do very little wrong. He’s stupid pretty (duh), he’s getting a PhD in English (swoon), and he’s made it clear recently that he (shock and awe) knows how to read, and that he does it often. Unfortunately, he’s taken a lot of really, really shitty roles. I can explain away the stint on General Hospital as a giant fuck you to Hollywood and an uber-meta piece of performance art (in the show he plays a performance artist, and Franco is a fledgling performance artist, and the cycle goes on and on and on until my head explodes). But he was an absolutely exquisite Allen Ginsberg, I adored him in Milk, and I cannot wait to see him as Hart Crane.
My love for Franco is relatively new, and as a convert, I refuse to hold him all that accountable for the shit that actors need to wade through when they’re getting started. It would be like an ex-post facto judgment and, as a former Constitution nerd, I’m just not down with that. But I have absolutely no qualms about criticizing him for contemporary roles. And I have only three words to levy a major criticism against my new obsession:
Eat .Pray. Love.
Generally, I wouldn’t mind if this atrocious, sappy, pointless movie was erased forever and I could forget that a slew of actors I liked stuck their hands into this cesspool. But the one that hits the hardest is Franco.
Why, James? Just why? Why subjugate yourself to a piece of fluffy (albeit tasty) man candy? I’ve come to expect more from you. And your fruit loop of a character was honestly barely redeemable (although definitely the best of all the men in the movie, except maybe for Billy Crudup’s character, whose only crime was wanting to go back to school, something I can really never fault anyone for). But when your competition is a super obnoxious Julia Roberts and a crybaby Javier Bardem, being the lesser of the evils isn’t really saying much. My love (sometimes, and at least for movie stars) is largely contingent on their ability to maintain artistic integrity. And nothing about Eat Pray Love says integrity.
Stick to the meaty roles, James. Because if you keep taking this shit, I’m going to have to re-allot my time from justifying your enigmatic Twitter behavior, and really, neither of us can afford that.
Read more Random Pop Culture Question of the Week here
Got ideas for future installments of Random Pop Culture Question of the Week? Well let us know! Follow us on twitter @reviewtobenamed (follow us here), or shoot us an e-mail at reviewtobenamed@gmail.com.
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Random Pop Culture Question of the Week: Dream TV Spinoff
Random Pop Culture Question of the Week is a bi-weekly journey into the headspace of the Review to Be Named gang, in which a pop-culture question is posed, answers are sought, and discussions are generated about issues and hypotheticals from throughout the realm of pop culture.
Welcome to the inaugural installment of Random Pop Culture Question of the Week, a new feature that will give the contributors here at Review To Be Named the chance to probe each other’s minds with our own with pop culture queries and hypotheticals. This week’s question comes from our own Chris, who wondered,
If you could helm the spinoff of any character or group from any TV show, spinning it out from any time in that show’s history, who would you spinoff and what would be the premise of your show?
With that question in mind, here are the responses from several Review To Be Named Contributors. Comment and let us know what we missed!
Jordan:
My immediate thought when I heard this question was, “Which Joss Whedon show would I most like to spin off?” While I did think of some fun ideas there, it seemed a little bit obvious. Next, I considered the idea of a Twin Peaks spinoff focusing on Gordon Cole and the FBI that Lynch had created. Everything in that organization is a few steps off the beaten path, a little odd, and ultimately endlessly fascinating. Delving into the strange code they communicate with (including the Blue Rose and Lil, the dancer Cole uses to communicate information to his agents), the nightmarish cases they investigate, and the mysterious nature of the world and their place into it would all be fascinating. Plus, we would inevitably get to dive into what happened to Chester Diamond and, more importantly, who the hell Phillip Jeffries is and where he disappeared to. Which would be cool.
Ultimately, however, the spinoff idea that excited me most, the one that made me wish it had really occurred, is the idea of a spinoff of The West Wing focusing on Sam Seaborn as a congressman. Though in the show’s continuity he lost (because Rob Lowe stupidly wanted to leave the show, something I have only started to forgive him for now that he is so excellent on Parks and Rec), my spinoff would presuppose that he won, and thus was a freshman congressman on his way to fulfilling President Bartlet’s prediction that he would someday sit behind the big chair in the Oval Office. Sam’s disappearance from the show hurt The West Wing almost as much as Aaron Sorkin’s, and the fact that he was dropped from the show kept the potential of his growth into a formidable politician from ever being realized. If given the chance, I would have changed that.
Sam:
My wish for a spin-off comes from an obvious place if you know me well (or at all, really). It’s Chief Wiggum P.I. from "The Simpsons Spin-Off Showcase" episode from season eight. The Spin-Off Showcase offered three different possible new series based around beloved Simpsons characters. In addition to Wiggum P.I., host Troy McClure offered up The Love-Matic Grampa, a show based around the dead Abe Simpson’s soul returning to Earth in the Love-matic machine in Moe’s bar. The other show offered up was The Simpsons Smile Time Variety Hour, a take-off of similar projects from the likes of The Brady Bunch where (nearly) the entire cast returned for a variety show that included very 70’s guest stars, like Tim Conway. But Wiggum P.I. really took the cake. Like the other two shows it was terrible if it existed as a show outside of The Simpsons universe but it’s take on the buddy cop genre could have been a gem. Wiggum is joined by his son Ralph (who could probably hold a show of his own on a more allowing channel like Adult Swim or Comedy Central) and Principal Skinner, who quit his job and is now “Skinny Boy.” The duo have been relocated to New Orleans to face stereotypical bayou crime lords while managing life in The Big Easy. Great setting plus great characters could make for a good show. The police procedural cartoon sit-com had only been done once before with Disney’s Fillmore (very well done I may add) and The Simpsons writers could make something equally enjoyable for an adult crowd. At the end of the episode, when the evil “Big Daddy” gets away from the law, Wiggum thinks aloud that they will meet again in future episodes “in a more exciting and sexy way.” If only.
Rachel:
I thought long and hard about my response to this fantastic question. The consummate overachiever, I wanted to look good. I considered going cult-classic, with a Freaks and Geeks spinoff (clearly it would follow Daniel, because I think his character had a lot of unexplored potential. Also James Franco is stupid-pretty). Sticking to the stupid-pretty reasoning, I thought about a House spinoff following Thirteen on her various escapades after learning about her Huntington’s diagnosis (I pine for the days of witty, pre-rehab House banter). Then there’s the sheer spectacle of a True Blood spinoff following Pam (definitely the most criminally underused character on the show. Every word out of Kristin Bauer’s mouth is pure gold). But I wanted something meaningful. So I settled on Rugrats.
If you were lucky enough to be a 90s baby, Rugrats was a cornerstone of a slew of amazing Nickelodeon cartoons (kids these days are missing out. I-Carly? Hannah Montana? WTF is that shit?). And if you didn’t like Rugrats, there was clearly something wrong with you. Talking babies—awesome. An incredibly baller dog—every child’s dream. But, with the distance of a decade between me and my Rugrats days, I’d want to see a spinoff focusing on the parents. Mostly because the Rugrats: All Growed Up edition was seriously disappointing.
Stu Pickles, in addition to being an amazing dad, was a super cool inventor. His wife Didi was a schoolteacher (and had two spectacular Jewish parents who I would totally want to make consistent appearances. Maybe coming to live with the Pickles as a foil for Grandpa Lou). Angelica’s mom Charlotte was an uber-powerful CEO who, when paired with Betty Deville, the quick witted, Venus-sign sweatshirt wearing jock and Chaz Finster, the sensitive widower single dad, were surprisingly cutting edge for a children’s show, pushing the boundaries of typical gender roles. Then there’s Dr. and Mr. Carmichael (the Rugrats’ Cosbys), she a Harvard-educated doctor and he a successful cartoonist. Around the periphery of the episode, these characters managed to do way more than hem in the hijinks of their precocious little tots. They balanced out plot lines so well, they distracted us from the fact that they seemed to be borderline negligent of their kids. I’d love to see what they were up to while the kids were off getting into trouble.
Ashley:
Before Showtime became a network with somewhat respectable, HBO-esque programming, it was the network with the gay shows. The worst of these was the exploitative, poorly written, and consistently frustrating series The L Word, which ran from 2004-2009. In addition to having what may be the worst theme song in television history, The L Word wasted a lot of talent; capable actresses like Pam Grier, Jennifer Beals, Mia Kirshner, and Marlee Matlin were mired in silly, melodramatic story arcs. But perhaps the most egregious example of unrealized potential can be found in the characters of Shane McCutcheon (Katherine Moennig) and Alice Pieszecki (Leisha Hailey). Best friends, as well as resident voices of reason, Shane and Alice were the only reasons why I watched all six seasons of this godawful show (to be fair, I also wanted to have sex with both of them, possibly at the same time). I would have loved a spinoff that gave the two of them and their assorted exploits (Alice’s adorable, and ultimately tragic, relationship with Dana; Shane’s failed attempts at monogamy) more screen time. The Alice & Shane Show would certainly lean more towards comedy than drama, and ideally include a more realistic supporting cast so that it looks less like a lesbian soap opera (in which everyone is beautiful, skinny, famous, wealthy, and femme) than its originating series. There’s a lot of support for this particular spinoff idea on YouTube; in case you needed a Shane and Alice tribute montage set to the theme from Free Willy to support my argument, it’s available.
Chris:
Battlestar Galactica SPOILER ALERT
Battlestar Galactica is probably my favorite show of all time. However if I had one critique of the series (aside from the standalone episodes that SyFy forced on them) it's that one of the more fascinating elements of the series never received the full attention I felt it deserved, the status quo altering introduction of a second Colonial warship, the Battlestar Pegasus.
Ideally, I would have liked to see a Battlestar Pegasus, spinoff that would have served as a concurrently running companion series to Battlestar Galactica, beginning during the season 2 break of Galactica. The show would probably have a limited shelf life, as it could only exist so long without dramatically altering the events of Galactica.
Battlestar Pegasus would give the creators of Galactica to tell two very fascinating stories that were only touched on in the made-for-tv-movie Razor:
1.) Flashbacks that would reveal the backstory of the Pegasus, from the attack on Scorpion Fleet Shipyard to their discovery of Galactica and her civilian fleet. Rather than running from the Cylons, Admiral Cain decided to engage in all out guerrilla war, hunting them with an obsession to rival Ahab himself, despite massive losses to her crew and ship. Cain personally executed officers who disobeyed her orders, drafted civilians into military service at gunpoint, and left a fleet of civilian ships helpless after stripping them of any useful components Pegasus could use. It's clear that Pegasus was a very dark environment, as evidenced by the atrocities committed by Lt. Thorn and the fact that Pegasus quickly became the focal point of the Fleet's black market after Cain's death. However nothing in the world of Galactica was ever as black and white as it seemed as there were still many good people serving on Pegasus (Lt. Hoshi), and many more who were haunted by the guilt of their actions (Major Kendra Shaw). Throw in the spineless and corrupt Col. Fisk, and the civilian Deck Chief Laird, who was forced into service when Admiral Cain threatened to kill his family, and you have a really solid cast.
2.) The second storyline would focus on the present. Following the death of Admiral Cain, Lee Adama takes over as Commander of the Pegasus and finds a ship in disarray, where fear, mistrust, and brutality were the environment cultivated by his successors. This would allow for some great story lines as Lee struggles to get his command in order, facing numerous power struggles with crew members that worshipped Cain, and tries to shut down the black market that had been running through Pegasus during Fisk's brief time in charge. The series could also heavily focus on Lee making the difficult transition from a soldier to a general, ordering men into battle rather than leading them personally. Finally, having seen Lee clash with his father numerous times throughout the series, making Lee responsible for the lives of an entire crew would only escalate the tension between him and his father if Admiral Adama made military decisions that Lee didn't agree with.
Alas this will never come to be, for like I said, Razor already touched on many of these elements, albeit lightly, and any Battlestar spinoff will most likely be a prequel, but I can't help but take a longing look back at what might have been.
Read more Random Pop Culture Question of the Week here
Got ideas for future installments of Random Pop Culture Question of the Week? Well let us know! Follow us on twitter @reviewtobenamed (follow us here), or shoot us an e-mail at reviewtobenamed@gmail.com.
Welcome to the inaugural installment of Random Pop Culture Question of the Week, a new feature that will give the contributors here at Review To Be Named the chance to probe each other’s minds with our own with pop culture queries and hypotheticals. This week’s question comes from our own Chris, who wondered,
If you could helm the spinoff of any character or group from any TV show, spinning it out from any time in that show’s history, who would you spinoff and what would be the premise of your show?
With that question in mind, here are the responses from several Review To Be Named Contributors. Comment and let us know what we missed!
Jordan:
My immediate thought when I heard this question was, “Which Joss Whedon show would I most like to spin off?” While I did think of some fun ideas there, it seemed a little bit obvious. Next, I considered the idea of a Twin Peaks spinoff focusing on Gordon Cole and the FBI that Lynch had created. Everything in that organization is a few steps off the beaten path, a little odd, and ultimately endlessly fascinating. Delving into the strange code they communicate with (including the Blue Rose and Lil, the dancer Cole uses to communicate information to his agents), the nightmarish cases they investigate, and the mysterious nature of the world and their place into it would all be fascinating. Plus, we would inevitably get to dive into what happened to Chester Diamond and, more importantly, who the hell Phillip Jeffries is and where he disappeared to. Which would be cool.
Ultimately, however, the spinoff idea that excited me most, the one that made me wish it had really occurred, is the idea of a spinoff of The West Wing focusing on Sam Seaborn as a congressman. Though in the show’s continuity he lost (because Rob Lowe stupidly wanted to leave the show, something I have only started to forgive him for now that he is so excellent on Parks and Rec), my spinoff would presuppose that he won, and thus was a freshman congressman on his way to fulfilling President Bartlet’s prediction that he would someday sit behind the big chair in the Oval Office. Sam’s disappearance from the show hurt The West Wing almost as much as Aaron Sorkin’s, and the fact that he was dropped from the show kept the potential of his growth into a formidable politician from ever being realized. If given the chance, I would have changed that.
Sam:
My wish for a spin-off comes from an obvious place if you know me well (or at all, really). It’s Chief Wiggum P.I. from "The Simpsons Spin-Off Showcase" episode from season eight. The Spin-Off Showcase offered three different possible new series based around beloved Simpsons characters. In addition to Wiggum P.I., host Troy McClure offered up The Love-Matic Grampa, a show based around the dead Abe Simpson’s soul returning to Earth in the Love-matic machine in Moe’s bar. The other show offered up was The Simpsons Smile Time Variety Hour, a take-off of similar projects from the likes of The Brady Bunch where (nearly) the entire cast returned for a variety show that included very 70’s guest stars, like Tim Conway. But Wiggum P.I. really took the cake. Like the other two shows it was terrible if it existed as a show outside of The Simpsons universe but it’s take on the buddy cop genre could have been a gem. Wiggum is joined by his son Ralph (who could probably hold a show of his own on a more allowing channel like Adult Swim or Comedy Central) and Principal Skinner, who quit his job and is now “Skinny Boy.” The duo have been relocated to New Orleans to face stereotypical bayou crime lords while managing life in The Big Easy. Great setting plus great characters could make for a good show. The police procedural cartoon sit-com had only been done once before with Disney’s Fillmore (very well done I may add) and The Simpsons writers could make something equally enjoyable for an adult crowd. At the end of the episode, when the evil “Big Daddy” gets away from the law, Wiggum thinks aloud that they will meet again in future episodes “in a more exciting and sexy way.” If only.
Rachel:
I thought long and hard about my response to this fantastic question. The consummate overachiever, I wanted to look good. I considered going cult-classic, with a Freaks and Geeks spinoff (clearly it would follow Daniel, because I think his character had a lot of unexplored potential. Also James Franco is stupid-pretty). Sticking to the stupid-pretty reasoning, I thought about a House spinoff following Thirteen on her various escapades after learning about her Huntington’s diagnosis (I pine for the days of witty, pre-rehab House banter). Then there’s the sheer spectacle of a True Blood spinoff following Pam (definitely the most criminally underused character on the show. Every word out of Kristin Bauer’s mouth is pure gold). But I wanted something meaningful. So I settled on Rugrats.
If you were lucky enough to be a 90s baby, Rugrats was a cornerstone of a slew of amazing Nickelodeon cartoons (kids these days are missing out. I-Carly? Hannah Montana? WTF is that shit?). And if you didn’t like Rugrats, there was clearly something wrong with you. Talking babies—awesome. An incredibly baller dog—every child’s dream. But, with the distance of a decade between me and my Rugrats days, I’d want to see a spinoff focusing on the parents. Mostly because the Rugrats: All Growed Up edition was seriously disappointing.
Stu Pickles, in addition to being an amazing dad, was a super cool inventor. His wife Didi was a schoolteacher (and had two spectacular Jewish parents who I would totally want to make consistent appearances. Maybe coming to live with the Pickles as a foil for Grandpa Lou). Angelica’s mom Charlotte was an uber-powerful CEO who, when paired with Betty Deville, the quick witted, Venus-sign sweatshirt wearing jock and Chaz Finster, the sensitive widower single dad, were surprisingly cutting edge for a children’s show, pushing the boundaries of typical gender roles. Then there’s Dr. and Mr. Carmichael (the Rugrats’ Cosbys), she a Harvard-educated doctor and he a successful cartoonist. Around the periphery of the episode, these characters managed to do way more than hem in the hijinks of their precocious little tots. They balanced out plot lines so well, they distracted us from the fact that they seemed to be borderline negligent of their kids. I’d love to see what they were up to while the kids were off getting into trouble.
Ashley:
Before Showtime became a network with somewhat respectable, HBO-esque programming, it was the network with the gay shows. The worst of these was the exploitative, poorly written, and consistently frustrating series The L Word, which ran from 2004-2009. In addition to having what may be the worst theme song in television history, The L Word wasted a lot of talent; capable actresses like Pam Grier, Jennifer Beals, Mia Kirshner, and Marlee Matlin were mired in silly, melodramatic story arcs. But perhaps the most egregious example of unrealized potential can be found in the characters of Shane McCutcheon (Katherine Moennig) and Alice Pieszecki (Leisha Hailey). Best friends, as well as resident voices of reason, Shane and Alice were the only reasons why I watched all six seasons of this godawful show (to be fair, I also wanted to have sex with both of them, possibly at the same time). I would have loved a spinoff that gave the two of them and their assorted exploits (Alice’s adorable, and ultimately tragic, relationship with Dana; Shane’s failed attempts at monogamy) more screen time. The Alice & Shane Show would certainly lean more towards comedy than drama, and ideally include a more realistic supporting cast so that it looks less like a lesbian soap opera (in which everyone is beautiful, skinny, famous, wealthy, and femme) than its originating series. There’s a lot of support for this particular spinoff idea on YouTube; in case you needed a Shane and Alice tribute montage set to the theme from Free Willy to support my argument, it’s available.
Chris:
Battlestar Galactica SPOILER ALERT
Battlestar Galactica is probably my favorite show of all time. However if I had one critique of the series (aside from the standalone episodes that SyFy forced on them) it's that one of the more fascinating elements of the series never received the full attention I felt it deserved, the status quo altering introduction of a second Colonial warship, the Battlestar Pegasus.
Ideally, I would have liked to see a Battlestar Pegasus, spinoff that would have served as a concurrently running companion series to Battlestar Galactica, beginning during the season 2 break of Galactica. The show would probably have a limited shelf life, as it could only exist so long without dramatically altering the events of Galactica.
Battlestar Pegasus would give the creators of Galactica to tell two very fascinating stories that were only touched on in the made-for-tv-movie Razor:
1.) Flashbacks that would reveal the backstory of the Pegasus, from the attack on Scorpion Fleet Shipyard to their discovery of Galactica and her civilian fleet. Rather than running from the Cylons, Admiral Cain decided to engage in all out guerrilla war, hunting them with an obsession to rival Ahab himself, despite massive losses to her crew and ship. Cain personally executed officers who disobeyed her orders, drafted civilians into military service at gunpoint, and left a fleet of civilian ships helpless after stripping them of any useful components Pegasus could use. It's clear that Pegasus was a very dark environment, as evidenced by the atrocities committed by Lt. Thorn and the fact that Pegasus quickly became the focal point of the Fleet's black market after Cain's death. However nothing in the world of Galactica was ever as black and white as it seemed as there were still many good people serving on Pegasus (Lt. Hoshi), and many more who were haunted by the guilt of their actions (Major Kendra Shaw). Throw in the spineless and corrupt Col. Fisk, and the civilian Deck Chief Laird, who was forced into service when Admiral Cain threatened to kill his family, and you have a really solid cast.
2.) The second storyline would focus on the present. Following the death of Admiral Cain, Lee Adama takes over as Commander of the Pegasus and finds a ship in disarray, where fear, mistrust, and brutality were the environment cultivated by his successors. This would allow for some great story lines as Lee struggles to get his command in order, facing numerous power struggles with crew members that worshipped Cain, and tries to shut down the black market that had been running through Pegasus during Fisk's brief time in charge. The series could also heavily focus on Lee making the difficult transition from a soldier to a general, ordering men into battle rather than leading them personally. Finally, having seen Lee clash with his father numerous times throughout the series, making Lee responsible for the lives of an entire crew would only escalate the tension between him and his father if Admiral Adama made military decisions that Lee didn't agree with.
Alas this will never come to be, for like I said, Razor already touched on many of these elements, albeit lightly, and any Battlestar spinoff will most likely be a prequel, but I can't help but take a longing look back at what might have been.
Read more Random Pop Culture Question of the Week here
Got ideas for future installments of Random Pop Culture Question of the Week? Well let us know! Follow us on twitter @reviewtobenamed (follow us here), or shoot us an e-mail at reviewtobenamed@gmail.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)