Recycling old TV shows is lazy movie-making

  David Holmberg To reach Holmberg in his
dark corner where he laments the invention of television, you can
contact him at [email protected].

Recycling may save the environment, but it is not making
Hollywood any better.

Whenever times are slim, the easiest, and cheapest, place to
find material is in the dark and dusty film studio archives ““
storerooms that given the amount of piffle every company has
produced, must be truly awe-inspiring.

Ah, the irony that what was once only good enough for
second-rate television airwaves can now be turned into hugely
popular and successful summer blockbusters.

If action is not taken immediately, our children may be at
serious risk. Imagine the horror of walking down the peaceful
Sunday morning sidewalk only to see the local theater marquee
displaying signs for “Dawson’s Creek: The Movie”
and “The Blair Witch Project 2030.”

This disturbing fantasy may quickly become reality if care is
not taken at once. Indeed, past film and television inanities are
already being filmed with more and more regularity, as movies such
as “Charlie’s Angels: The Movie” and “Shaft
2000″ fumble onto the screen and home video.

While shows from the 1970s keep grooving into the theaters,
there still remain decades of television left untapped.

While a few series from the 1960s have achieved silver screen
status, the glory days of President Reagan and the Yuppie
Revolution have gone largely unnoticed.

Potential screenwriters take notice: a gold mine is at your
finger tips!

Or perhaps not. There may be a reason 1980s gems are not being
filmed, and why there will never be “Charles in Charge: The
Movie.” Popular 1980s and 1990s shows seem to be missing that
certain something ““ that glittering disco ball of coolness
that radiates the living room is just not found during these two
decades of entertainment.

Sprite may not agree, but image is everything. If the ’70s
got one thing right, it was the acknowledgment that cool sells.
Clothing and music are integral parts of society, and these alone
can generate success.

While they may differ from today’s standards of attire,
styles of this past era are still respected as
“vintage” and hip.

Sure, bell-bottoms are a staple for circa 1970s entertainment,
as is the ideology of funk. But there must be something else making
these ’70s shows and movies so appealing to audiences
today.

This is not to say, however, that reworking all old productions
will lead instantly to success or entertainment. Some work, while
others are already out of style.

Last year saw two films, “Charlie’s Angels: The
Movie” and “Shaft 2000,” both based on popular
1970s shows and movies, remade, although with different
results.

The original “Charlie’s Angels” series drew in
women with its fashion and style, and attracted men with its
attractive women. Farrah Fawcett, Kate Jackson and Jaclyn Smith
were the original Angels on the ABC series, which lasted through
various cast changes from 1976 to 1981.

The series was hip in a ’70s way, yet the show was also
conscious of its own timeless vapidity.

The new “Charlie’s Angels” film, which was
just released on DVD, is aware that it is mindless fluff, and in
fact relishes in it. Director Joseph McGinty Nichol allows his
Angels ““ whose form-fitting outfits are filled perfectly by
Cameron Diaz, Drew Barrymore and Lucy Liu ““ to play every
scene with so much camp even the writers of the original 1960s
“Batman” series would be jealous.

It is quite obvious that everyone involved was aware that
“Charlie’s Angels” is more about breasts than
brains, and all seem quite fine with this interpretation.

The newest movie version of “Shaft,” however,
emerges without quite so much bounce. The original 1971 film,
starring Richard Roundtree and directed by Gordon Parks, was the
African American answer to contemporary white secret agent, James
Bond.

With Isaac Hayes’ Academy Award winning score providing
moral support, Roundtree redefined the term “badass.”
As the “black private dick who’s the sex machine to all
the chicks,” he made turtle-necks and leather pants into a
fad, which admittedly is a difficult task.

Roundtree’s Shaft was so popular that he spawned several
sequels, most notably “Shaft’s Big Score” and
“Shaft In Africa,” which although inferior, still had
that funktified jive that made the original such a success.

There is no denying that Samuel L. Jackson is a badass in every
sense of the word. And if anyone were to embody the modern day role
of detective John Shaft, or rather his “nephew,” it
would be this bad mutha.

However, Jackson’s coolness alone is not enough to rescue
John Singleton’s “Shaft 2000.” Even moderately in
tuned audiences can sense that the poorly written dialogue shows no
connection with today’s culture.

Any fan of the original will be left cowering in their
turtlenecks, begging for the travesty to end.

At their funk laden souls, both new adaptations rely on the
original concept for inspiration. Here “Charlie’s
Angels” has a clear advantage, because the ’70s series
left room for improvement that the movie capitalized on.

“Shaft,” however, was as “can you dig
it” exciting in 1971 as it would ever be, leaving little room
in those leather pants for a remake.

This ultimately leads back to why shows from the 1980s and 1990s
are not being revitalized for theaters. They don’t revolve
around high concepts and instead focus on characters and their
interactions.

The most definitive representative of television in these eras
is “Seinfeld,” the self-proclaimed show about nothing.
Today’s shows are, at best, about a half an hour of partially
interesting nonsense, and it is doubtful they could sustain two
full hours of movie going excitement.

Nevertheless, I am afraid. The shows on TV tonight will somehow
find their way to a nostalgic producer 30 years down the line, just
as shows from 30 years ago do today.

So embrace the idiocy of pop culture, because it is better than
sitting in a dark corner lamenting the invention of television.