SCREEN-L Archives

June 1994


Options: Use Proportional Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
David Desser <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Thu, 9 Jun 1994 14:47:12 -0500
text/plain (46 lines)
>> On to the question--one thing it tells us is that people will see almost
>> anything.  _Maverick_ is a hit.  Even more depressing, however (since I
>> enjoyed _Maverick_ but found it "disappointing" which means I hoped for
>> more!) is the success of _The Flintstones_ which is a terrible movie!
>> David Desser,UIUC Cinema Studies
>I can imagine the British saying the same thing  about their 19th-century
>theater so I'm not too sure how valuable a "people will see almost anything"
>analysis might be. However, the success of _The Fugitive_ and _Maverick_ and
>Flintstones_ and most of the other TV ripoffs might say something about
>the state of the mainstream film industry. Perhaps they have
>blockbustered themselves into a situation where, instead of choosing any
>number of obscure scripts, studios/producers choose instead a presumeably
>sure-fired hit that is guarenteed to strike a chord with movie-goers.
>It's probably nothing new in Hollywood, just more manic and perhaps a
>good deal more cynical than ever before.
>BTW, without giving away too much of the plot, what is "terrible" about
>_The Flintstones_?
Most of the above I agree with, especially the "sure-fire hit."  But I do
believe there is a "crisis in creativity" where not only to producers,
executives, agents  not know what is good, but people writing scripts have
little left to say.  An over-abundance of media entertainment?  Do we
really look forward to 100+ channels of television, and still little worth
   As for _The Flintstones_ the point of the film seemed to be to duplicate
in "live action" effects that appeared in the cartoon.  Little,
old-fashioned things like "character," "plot," "theme" were completely
missing.  There was little to hold on to, little to engage the viewer (in
fact, almost nothing).  It was a depressing waste of time and effort.  All
of the "creativity" seemed to go into how many puns and other variations of
"rock," "stone," etc. they could come up with. The best of these comes
right at the start, when they attend a drive-in's all downhill
from there.
David Desser,UIUC Cinema Studies
2109 FLB/707 S. Mathews, Urbana, IL  61801