I agree with this, but I guess my point is in trying to appease the masses then you have to look at things from a mass appeal. Critics can be a very singular set. I mean, let's look at the Oscars. They seemingly deplore movies which are blockbusters, but favor movies that are not widely seen. Why is that?
I guess my point is we have to come to a point between what the masses want and what only a few understand or want. Another question, is there an ability to have both?
Well I'm not even gonna pretend to have a definitive answer to that question, lol. I personally don't think there is. Because these niche shows appeal to a great deal of people. Just because that great deal doesn't equal the majority doesn't mean their tastes don't matter.
The masses have plenty of shows to enjoy. Those who like their entertainment to be a little different than the norm should have shows to enjoy as well. All of my favorite creators are the people who create THOSE shows, and those are usually the ones never given a fair shot
because they're different. Doesn't mean they're not awesome.
Flick...I love you (I really do)...you have put that down so succintly it's difficult for me to argue with that point.
Aw, you're not so bad yourself.
I guess I'm saying there has to be room in TV and movies for both, and the Munsters, being a remake should include both since it's remake. If they were going to make something original that is artful then why not do so? Why would these accredited and acclaimed TV makers choose to rehash a 60s TV show instead of making something original?
It's a remake of an already weird show, though. I mean, if you took the original as is and aired it today, it would be dramatically different from the rest of the TV landscape. As such, I don't see why getting a guy with a crazy imagination to do the modern take on the concept is anything but a good way to go. You don't remake the
Munsters to make a generically accessible show ala
Two and a Half Men or
NCIS. It's silly to expect such a thing with such a kooky concept, imo.
The claim they are trying to make something that is ART is lost when you are rehashing what has already been done. While I don't think we should have green munsters....how much ART can Fuller really inject into a story that a lot of people already have memories of because they grow up with those stories and these characters? How much originality can be had from that?
I think you'd be surprised. I'm a big fan of re-visionist takes on old concepts. A BIG fan.
Brazil, one of my favorite movies of all-time, was basically pitched as Terry Gilliam's take on
1984.
The Munsters has such a simple concept that you could basically take that as a starting point and do anything with it. I loved what we were hearing about the series potential when Fuller was talking about using this as a platform for bringing all of Universal's classic monsters into one world. But we'll likely never see that now. Oh well.
LOL...my parents could describe the show in exact detail...as they did for me when I was finally able to watch the show after I came back from an extended deployment.
While I agree with most of your points, I think it must be mentioned that entertainment doesn't or shouldn't be exclusive. EVERYONE should be able to enjoy it for different reasons. What I think you are missing is that when the vast majority cannot be entertained then they are excluded. Does that mean the show is not entertaining? No, it does not, but if you make a show that the vast majority cannot find entertaining then it's not entertaining for most and only includes a few who can be entertained...or a niche...which do understand it. Again, my question is why can't shows be entertaining for everyone?
There seems to be a divide between shows and movies that are critically acclaimed and those that masses find entertaining. Entertainment is not and should not be limited to having a higher level of understanding or thought process. In the olden days, people who couldn't read or write were entertained by Shakepeare because even in the simplest aspect the story had some resonance in their own life.
IMO, entertainment should never be limited to a select few, or the imaginations of people who create that entertainment is stifled by the "high brows"....
I believe ALL entertainment is exclusive to a point, simply because there's no one thing that everyone likes. Not one. Good comedy, good drama, good fantasy...all art is subjective. What I find funny and what my parents find funny are two VERY different things. And yes, there are certain things that more people like than others, but that does not diminish the worth of any of those things loved by the minority. Besides, the trends of the majority are ever-changing. Those niche shows are already far more "mainstream" than they were, say, 20 years ago thanks to the internet and TV on DVD/Blu-ray and all that.
Basically, I think the kind of "all-appealing" entertainment you're describing is ONE kind of entertainment - the same kind represented by the
Transformers movies in multiplexes - and entertainment should NEVER be limited to just one type of appeal. There's obviously a place for that kind of entertainment, but I don't think all entertainment should be forced to be like that, either. I mean sure, the majority seem to love those movies, but there are still large hordes that kind of hate them, too. Obviously, these niche shows attract smaller but very devoted audiences, so there is and
should be a place for them, too.
As for critics, I find that I respect their opinions more than the average viewer because unlike, say, my mom, critics
have to watch everything there is. They've seen it all because they don't have a choice. It's their job. Therefore, they have more points of comparison. Nobody knows what's more run-of-the-mill or uninspired than a critic, because they've almost certainly seen the inspirations for everything they're watching. They know if something is ripping something else off, or if some other show does the same thing better, etc. I feel like if someone's seen just about everything the medium has to offer, when they single out something as the cream of the crop, I tend to believe 'em. I don't believe most of them are snobs, I just think they just get sick of watching garbage and understand their excitement when something extraordinary comes along.
t:
