5 thoughts on “Tweet of the Day, Just Got In Under The Wire edition.”

  1. This came out in ’99. Damn.
    They screwed it up for a couple reasons:
    -the story was pretty bad from what I remember. They tried to go for the campy fun of the original, but ran into the other problem…
    -played too much to the comedy side of things. There was a few shows from when the original series ran that did this. Campy, but played dead serious. The biggest example I can think of is Adam West in Batman. Smith seemed to be up to the task, but Cline, Hayek and the Director seemed to believe they were in a straight comedy. Branagh gave it everything he had* but you cannot do much as a torso stuck on spider legs. It sounds cooler than they could make it look and that completely destroyed the villain.

    *Oh dear Lord. I just remembered an exchange that Branagh and Smith had where they are insulting each other. Branagh made quite a few jokes that would literally have him burned at the stake these days. I guess Smith’s jokes could get him in some trouble as well. Branagh was making fun of Smith for being black, Smith was making fun of Branagh for being disabled. Memorable though- and not much about that movie can be described that way.

  2. But in reply to the original tweet, League should have been better than it was. Mr Bond, YOU PASSED UP PETER JACKSON’S THE LORD OF THE RINGS TRILOGY AS GANDALPH ONLY TO PLAY ALAN QUARTERMAIN IN THIS?!?!*
    *I think he would not have done a great job as Gandalph. Théoden? He would have kicked ass as Théoden.
    League was no where near stacked as Wild Wild West was for talent as far as actors go though. You had Connery. That gal from Le Femme Nikita TV show (Peta something?) and… I do not remember anyone else.

    1. One of the interesting things about League being worse than it should have been is that the source material adapts so straightforward to a movie – they didn’t have to make major adaptations to get things to fit, not really. They worked at it to screw it up.

      And then they had no idea how to use the changes they did make. Example: They include Tom Sawyer as a “spray and pray” gunslinger detective. They never make use of any of Sawyer’s insights into people, or his fast talking abilities. Then at his one-on-one climax with the Invisible Man, he doesn’t use his rapid shot style with his Colt when it would have really worked! When I can tell, in the moment of watching, that you failed to utilize the character right, your narrative ability has failed. (If realize it after the moment, your plot failed).

  3. I recall quite enjoying Wild Wild West, myself. It did get kind of silly at some points, but it was still fun to watch. Admittedly, I went into that theater not even knowing that the earlier TV version existed, so that might have been part of it.

  4. In this context, it is worth searching for Kevin Smith’s speech / discussion on “Superman Lives” and his interactions with that project. At the end, he ties it into “Wild Wild West” and many things make more sense.

    And yes, I loved the original, was excited for the movie, thought the actors were really talented and the production value was very good… and still felt terribly disappointed in the movie.

Comments are closed.