Status
Not open for further replies.
Looking at it, it was a Congenital Heart Defect (i.e. something you're born with). Those can be tricky. If you catch them in time you can sometimes get them surgically fixed. But they can be really hard to find without getting a full checkup by a cardiologist (EKG, stress test, etc.) and cardiologists usually don't see you unless you have a known heart issue. John Ritter had a similar issue kill him early. Possible to change if there's a reason to suspect a defect.
Understood; you just do what is right for the timeline.
Could be - Rothman or no Rothman, James Cameron being a perfectionist, budget-hog and a diva could've easily convinced Fox to shut it down midway.
For all his (numerous) flaws, Cameron is eerily good at making blockbuster successes out of most his films.
OK, so the way I see Mel Brooks potentially approaching Deadpool is not approaching it like a traditional superhero film, but more like a Scorsese film: an anti-Taxi Driver, if you will. Think a 70s or 80s period piece set in the New York of that time period.
Is Deadpool going to even exist in the form we know him for.? The fourth-wall-breaking wisecracker came after his original appearance after all; one thing making Rob Liefeld divisive with fans is his insistence that he alone is responsible for DP being both who AND what he is.
 
Is Deadpool going to even exist in the form we know him for.? The fourth-wall-breaking wisecracker came after his original appearance after all; one thing making Rob Liefeld divisive with fans is his insistence that he alone is responsible for DP being both who AND what he is.
We're presuming that all of the grimdark comics took place to such an extent, that parodying them would be considered a good idea.

Deadpool was introduced in 1991 by Liefeld; Deadpool's breaking the fourth wall didn't happen till Joe Kelly started writing him in 1997. Kelly said later, "With Deadpool, we could do anything we wanted because everybody just expected the book to be cancelled every five seconds, so nobody was paying attention. And we could get away with it."
 
If not Deadpool, She-Hulk started doing the 4th Wall breaking thing in 1989.

I was amused by this bit of info on her Wikipedia page:

If She-Hulk defeats Deadpool as the final opponent in Marvel vs Capcom 3: Fate of Two Worlds, she will say "You know, if this game were made in 1991, I'd be the one whacking YOU with a health bar."
 
Last edited:
For all his (numerous) flaws, Cameron is eerily good at making blockbuster successes out of most his films.
Yeah, but the way his directing style goes, you always wonder if this time is when he'll finally write a cheque he can't cash. Take right now: I loved Avatar when it came out, but three sequels, thirteen years later? Come on, there's no way he can possibly make another billion... right?
 
Not here to defend him. mind you, just pointing out his reputation. Also, if we grade every exec on the "hit that they turned away" they'll all fail. Choosing what to greenlight is hard. and even the best ideas can fail miserably.

That said, he was clearly a serious micromanager who chased away talent. Probably should have stuck to the finance side and let others handle the creative.
I am going to make the deeply controversial argument that sometimes the "talent" needs to be chased away, or at least hit with a stick until it remembers it is working in the movie business.

There is also a slightly unhinged quality to the attacks on Rothman. On the one hand he is a micromanager who gets into every detail and ruins everything, but on the other he has no impact on the successes that occur under his watch which all occur despite him. Is he a nightmare to work with? Possibly. But then so were Kubrik, Cameron, Hitchock and almost any other great director you care to mention. I'm not comparing Rothman to any of them, but the reason Jim Henson stands out so much is that getting to the top and being nice is very rare.

There is always a clash between art and business and the art side will always have the better PR, because the people on that side are the better story tellers (hopefully), are often more photogenic and can appeal to the general dislike of corporations and big business. So in any of the clashes I always expect the criticism of the business side to have been over-blown, because you only ever hear one side.
 
Yet if somebody manages to upset the art and business sides (which he's done twice), there's a solid chance that they're just all-around unpleasant to work with.
 
Putting Things Right
Putting Things Right…Quantum Leap (1989-1995)
From The TV Obsessive, by Hanmii Dahri-Mote, a regular column in TV Guide and other publications


Life is unfair. Bad things happen to good people, while bad people grow rich, grow old, and die in luxury. We seek solace in religion and philosophy and fantasy, hoping to find justice and rightness in a world that refuses to be right or just. I recently lost someone that I love and saw the perpetrator escape with little consequence due to his connections, so such things have been on my mind of late. And while this column is usually a fun deviation into nostalgia, the truth is that the entertainment that we consume is quite often, it seems, the world as we wish it to be, where fairness and justice always win and the evil and the self-serving get their comeuppance.

Quantum_Leap_%28TV_series%29_titlecard.jpg


That’s why I’m suddenly finding myself binging old VHS copies of Quantum Leap (1989-1995)[1], a show about Cosmic Justice using a science fiction pretext. The show, from Belisarius Productions, featured Scott Bakula as Dr. Sam Beckett, a quantum researcher who, due to an experimental accident, “leaps” into different bodies from people within his lifetime[2]. Assisted by the holographic projection of his crusty partner Al Calavicci and an artificial intelligence named “Ziggy”, he remains trapped in the other person’s body until he’s able to “put right which once went wrong”, typically in the form of preventing the death of an innocent or other injustice, before he can leap to the next body, forever hoping to one day leap back into his own life in the near future. It’s overtly nostalgic for the past times that each episode is set within, but also doesn’t shy from addressing the problems of that era, from racism to sexism, to homophobia.

quantum-leap-movie.jpg

(Image source “slashfilm.com”)

The show takes the form of a murder mystery of sorts and usually centers around themes of justice, typically social justice but also financial or environmental or legal justice. It deals with some “wrongness” that had happened in the past and puts it “right”. It could be a black man suffering at the hands of the segregated south, a young man driven by school bullies into a situation that would prove fatal, or a housewife that’s the victim of abuse. The dark subject matter was softened with comedy and situational irony, with Scott Bakula frequently appearing in drag or otherwise pushed into circumstances way out of his comfort zone. His “Oh, boy…” catchphrase captured both the sheer weight of the circumstances and the inherently wholesome and innocent nature of Sam himself. You had to root for this guy, and not just because of the inherent good that he was doing.

Quantum-Leap-Sams-Dinner-Date.jpg

(Image source “ascmag.com”)

The formula struck a chord with audiences, who tuned in in huge numbers, making Quantum Leap a certified hit. Not only was it a fun show, but it’s what we wish could happen when we look back at the terrible things that happened in our lives, from the preventable death of an innocent or good person to the avoidance of some catastrophe. And it does this, at least in the early seasons, with a good scoop of humor and naturalistic drama. Later seasons delved into more overtly spiritual areas, particularly seasons 5-7 on Hyperion, which individual viewers either loved or hated, though arguably from a strictly writing standpoint it killed some of the mystery that carried the show forward as much as did the clever writing, great chemistry between Bakula and Stockwell, and inherent sense of justice.

sam-black-man.jpg

(Image source “billprickett.com”)

The show holds up well for the most part, though it is, like the original Star Trek, both ahead of its time and a product of its time. The show is unafraid to touch the third rails of race, gender equality, and even LGBTQ issues (in one episode, the issue of gays in the military was addressed, which was timely in the era but also bravely taking a stance against hate when this was a controversial stance to take). On the other hand, it relied heavily on the White Savior trope, which was honestly nigh unavoidable given the very premise of the show. The frequent use of Sam in drag can be seen either as an ahead-of-its-time acknowledgement of nonbinary gender identity, or seen as an anachronistic throwback to “drag as heteronormative comedy”. And Al’s Standard ‘80s/’90s Comedy Misogyny and the use of Male Gaze don’t play as well today, even as they were standard comedy fare at the time. But such anachronisms aside, the show’s inherent sense of Justice is what makes it work so well even today.

Is this just mindless wish fulfilment? It certainly makes for good television, but is it, as some have accused, setting up false promises of justice and rightness in an unjust world? Does it make the pain of losing a loved one all the more painful by giving us a subconscious feeling that this is “not the way it’s supposed to be?” Is it, in a few words, making the pain of injustice worse with a Pollyanna-like view of the universe?

quantum_leap_sam_al_baseball.jpg

(Image source “themindreels.wordpress.com”)

Perhaps we seek such fictional justice for a reason? Perhaps it’s a critical part of how we learn to develop a sense of justice and avoid cynicism and hopelessness. Perhaps this is how we inspire others to seek to achieve justice? Who knows? I’m no philosopher.

400x400_410037f65fb6fbc216e38e39bde7c2bd093594fc4b1b810e38bcbf66.jpg

(Image source “icv2.com”)

It’s easy to dismiss shows like Quantum Leap as mindless wish-fulfilment and escapism from an unjust world, but perhaps we need to give it and things like it a closer look.



[1] Hat tip to @Clorox23.

[2] I figured that Bellisario was working from his own personal set of objectives and with a high degree of independence. As such, there’s reason to expect second order butterflies can apply here.
 
Last edited:
Interesting look at Quantum Leap the premise is unchanged from OTL it seems but it does much better getting 2 extra seasons and is on Hyperion.

The ‘issues’ highlighted seem to be somewhat judging an old show by modern standards, which seems unfair, though I guess it’s right a modern viewer be warned in advance.

Does the show still have the ambiguous ending or does Sam finally get home?

Looking forward to more @Geekhis Khan
 
Kingdom of heaven

I have a very soft spot for Kingdom of Heaven. It's one my very long equal favourite movies. Admittedly it does whitewash Saladin, is probably grossly historically inaccurate, connects modern middle eastern politics to the crusades (which is probably helpful for Islamic extremists) and does the lazy thing of characterising Balian as a good person by writing his character/dialogue with modern sensibilities rather than trying to show an almost completely alien culture/mindset and the goodness/heroism of the protagonist regardless.

It's still a very entertaining and interesting movie with amazing music, stunning visuals, solid acting (especially from Edward Norton and Ghassan Massoud), powerful-quotable dialogue, showed the ugliness, stupidity and destructiveness of war and warmongers in contrast to the beauty, intelligence and progress which can be achieved with peace and peacemakers, sparked interest in history and the middle ages and clearly wanted peace, respect and friendship between christians and muslims.


@Migrant_Cocunut Why did you dislike it? How would you improve on it?

The Lion King

In regards to The Lion King do we necessarily have to follow the Hamlet plot-line at all?

It would be very interesting If you set the movie against the plot-line of Shakespeare's play 'King Lear'.

Sample speech from the play.

The filmmaker/screenwriter could then play with themes of ageing, mental instability, greed, familial bonds, inheritances, loving honesty vs cloying lies, suffering and how/if it is possible to die well.

It would be hard to lighten those themes but I believe Geekhis Khan mentioned that Henson believed fear was good for children's development so it could be done.
 
Never watched Quantum Leap nor was ever interested in it, but if you do/did, hope you enjoy this!
Interesting look at Quantum Leap the premise is unchanged from OTL it seems but it does much better getting 2 extra seasons and is on Hyperion.
I can only imagine how two extra seasons could bring butterflies, via crew and cast. Maybe one actor who was only in very minor roles gets in this and is a stepping stone to a larger one.
 
Since they were considering another version of Invasion of the Body Snatchers around this time in OTL, I have the perfect person to play Dr. Miles Bennell (if they go back to the small town setting of the 1956 version and novel): Jeff Goldblum. He starred as Jack in the 1978 version (which is very good, IMO), and it'd be interesting to see him as the hero...
 
Never watched Quantum Leap nor was ever interested in it, but if you do/did, hope you enjoy this!

I can only imagine how two extra seasons could bring butterflies, via crew and cast. Maybe one actor who was only in very minor roles gets in this and is a stepping stone to a larger one.

Well, in OTL last season the evil version of the Quantum Leap project made a multi episode appearance, it never openly stated to who they actually answer but frankly it is made it pretty clear as it heavily implied who is the one that send Sam in his trip...maybe this fight is stretched in a multi season arc
 
Well, in OTL last season the evil version of the Quantum Leap project made a multi episode appearance, it never openly stated to who they actually answer but frankly it is made it pretty clear as it heavily implied who is the one that send Sam in his trip...maybe this fight is stretched in a multi season arc
Plus if you take the events of the episode "Boogieman" at face value Sam met up with the devil. Or a figure claiming to be the devil. Not to mention the mysterious "angel" they met up with or the fact that a mummy got up and strangled a guy to death off-screen.
 
I am going to make the deeply controversial argument that sometimes the "talent" needs to be chased away, or at least hit with a stick until it remembers it is working in the movie business.

There is also a slightly unhinged quality to the attacks on Rothman. On the one hand he is a micromanager who gets into every detail and ruins everything, but on the other he has no impact on the successes that occur under his watch which all occur despite him. Is he a nightmare to work with? Possibly. But then so were Kubrik, Cameron, Hitchock and almost any other great director you care to mention. I'm not comparing Rothman to any of them, but the reason Jim Henson stands out so much is that getting to the top and being nice is very rare.

There is always a clash between art and business and the art side will always have the better PR, because the people on that side are the better story tellers (hopefully), are often more photogenic and can appeal to the general dislike of corporations and big business. So in any of the clashes I always expect the criticism of the business side to have been over-blown, because you only ever hear one side.
Yet if somebody manages to upset the art and business sides (which he's done twice), there's a solid chance that they're just all-around unpleasant to work with.
The whole art/money clash, you may have noticed, is a big part of this TL. Personally, at the risk of sounding too "golden mean", there's a reasonable middle ground to have. You can't just ignore fiscal reality (e.g. American Zoetrope) but turning a studio into an ego-driven soulless cashbox that treats your creative artists like props will eventually backfire on you, as it allegedly did for Rothman when he got booted from Fox.

On Rothman, it's really hard to separate the legitimate criticism from the Fanboy Hate. We the Geekdom love to bitch about the Executive Meddling that makes the franchises we love arguably suck (e.g. later X-Men films) while simultaneously really wishing there'd been some Executive Meddling in other cases (e.g. Star Wars Prequels), so there's plenty of inconsistency here and 20-20 Hindsight. Rothman was behind greenlighting a lot of great films, and was the one who made Fox Searchlight, which gave a lot of smaller artistic creators a chance for more than indy nanobudget stuff, so he's certainly not the Eternal Epic Failure that Geekdom makes him out to be. That said, there are just so many stories with Rothman going beyond just being a meddling executive and into being a egoistical ass whose enforced changes seemed to be more about imposing his personal will as a power play than actually injecting meaningful change that it can't all be dismissed as Fanboy Whining.

The buzz in the biz was that he made big returns, like the quoted 13%. If that's true (given the vagaries and questionable legality of Hollywood Accounting practice I always take such numbers with a grain of salt) then yea, let me grab some of that stock. But there's also the complication of quarterly vs. long term returns. The X-Men films for example made good returns at the B.O., but how many people are re-watching them? How many home media copies sold in the long run? Would a less constrained X-Men franchise have become a cash cow rather than just a "good return"? Who knows?

And yes, some directors deserve being held to a similar standard. I mean damn, Kubrick wasn't just an asshole to work with, he was an abusive and manipulative prick who, rather than use coaching or persuasion to get the performances that he wanted from his actors, resorted to psychological and emotional manipulation (I can't watch Shelly Duval on The Shining without cringing, knowing the reprehensible things he did to her to get that performance). Not only should the producers/execs have reigned that in, but I have to ask where in the hell the SAG was? Isn't it the entire purpose for its existence to protect their members from such abuse? Sorry, rant over.

Anyway, yes, the eternal fight of money vs. art. It's been a theme of this TL. It will continue to be so. I'd sort of neglected Rothman, but he seems like someone I need to put some focus on for precisely the reason that he's controversial for that very reason.

Does the show still have the ambiguous ending or does Sam finally get home?
Well, I just saw an interview with Don Belisario who flat out says that Sam never gets home because Sam feels duty bound to keep doing good. I assume that he'd push the same here.

Seems like there’s a mistake here.
It was. Fixed!

Well, in OTL last season the evil version of the Quantum Leap project made a multi episode appearance, it never openly stated to who they actually answer but frankly it is made it pretty clear as it heavily implied who is the one that send Sam in his trip...maybe this fight is stretched in a multi season arc
Belisario didn't like the Evil Leaper idea, actually. The extra seasons could certainly expand on the idea of divine vs infernal gamesmanship behind the leaping. I didn't get into those weeds, but seems like exactly the type of "well, we're running out of ideas" thing for a Season 6-7 arc.

Since they were considering another version of Invasion of the Body Snatchers around this time in OTL, I have the perfect person to play Dr. Miles Bennell (if they go back to the small town setting of the 1956 version and novel): Jeff Goldblum. He starred as Jack in the 1978 version (which is very good, IMO), and it'd be interesting to see him as the hero...
Jeff Goldblum in Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Wow. I'm not sure whether that's brilliant or insane, so I'll answer "yes" to that question. I may steal that.
 
Jeff Goldblum in Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Wow. I'm not sure whether that's brilliant or insane, so I'll answer "yes" to that question. I may steal that.
Yes, he played Jack in the 1978 version (if you haven't seen it) and he also starred in the remake of The Fly (both IOTL and ITTL, I would assume)...

By all means, steal that, @Geekhis Khan; for an extra bonus, have Geena Davis play Becky Driscoll (Goldblum and Davis were married for a couple of years in OTL)...
 
Well, in OTL last season the evil version of the Quantum Leap project made a multi episode appearance, it never openly stated to who they actually answer but frankly it is made it pretty clear as it heavily implied who is the one that send Sam in his trip...maybe this fight is stretched in a multi season arc
i personally found adding the religion/ god/devil point of view rather annoying
 
i personally found adding the religion/ god/devil point of view rather annoying

Well from the start Al said to Sam that God, Time, The Universe whatever he want to call it had took control of the program so a certain supernatural element existed from the beginning.

Edit: Regarding Belisario, well a longer Quantum Leap can have some consequence on his next production aka J.A.G. and while not many will remember the show, his spin off is much more famous, i'm talking about NCIS and all the other spin off series (at the moment 3)
 
Last edited:
@Migrant_Cocunut Why did you dislike it? How would you improve on it?
I don't dislike it. I said "bad and/or mismanaged," meaning that Tom Rothman inexplicably cut out 45 minutes from Kingdom of Heaven and turned what could've been the next Oscar-sweeping epic into a summer blockbuster with cheap social commentary. Check the Director's Cut: it puts those 45 minutes back and fixes pretty much everything wrong with the theatrical run.
The Lion King

In regards to The Lion King do we necessarily have to follow the Hamlet plot-line at all?

It would be very interesting If you set the movie against the plot-line of Shakespeare's play 'King Lear'.

Sample speech from the play.

The filmmaker/screenwriter could then play with themes of ageing, mental instability, greed, familial bonds, inheritances, loving honesty vs cloying lies, suffering and how/if it is possible to die well.

It would be hard to lighten those themes but I believe Geekhis Khan mentioned that Henson believed fear was good for children's development so it could be done.
I suspect Disney will adhere to the Don Bluth school - drag the kids through whatever hell you can imagine, but give them a happy ending to make it all worth it. And there's very little room to be ending King Lear on a high note.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top