0:04

So Dan, I have Muppet

0:07

adaptation news. Not

0:10

an actual Muppets adaptation, but there's a

0:12

news article that's been going around. Someone

0:14

wrote a blog post that's been getting

0:16

a lot of attraction where they ranked

0:18

every Academy Award for best

0:20

picture by how good it would

0:23

be if it were a Muppets, if

0:25

the Muppets did an adaptation. Okay. So

0:27

let me just take your take because I think their

0:29

list is suspect because I

0:32

think it's a funny list,

0:34

but it's not actually considering

0:36

the nuances of the

0:38

Muppets and what would make a good

0:41

Muppets adaptation. Okay. So we're

0:43

just going to do the top 10. The top 10. The

0:45

top 10 best picture winners that would make

0:48

great Muppet films. Okay. And

0:50

you guys can all find this on harddrive.net. I saw it

0:52

linked on Reddit. So number

0:54

10 is The Departed. The

0:57

Departed with Muppets. Yes. The

0:59

Departed with Muppets. Okay. Who

1:01

do you put as the

1:03

Matt Damon Leo DiCaprio characters?

1:07

Which Muppets look enough like each other? Or

1:09

you just do Fuzzy and Kermit and

1:11

you can't tell them apart. Yeah. I

1:14

think that's what you do. That one's

1:16

interesting because there's lots of cursing.

1:18

So the Muppets cursing would

1:20

be interesting, but their number nine is Titanic. Quick

1:23

question. Who do you put as Jack Nicholson? Jack

1:25

Nicholson in that one? Animal.

1:28

Okay. Okay. Yeah. I've

1:31

seen The Departed. Animal would kill that role. Okay.

1:35

Now, my problems with this list is

1:37

like their top 10 are good top 10. I just

1:39

think they're not in a good order because number nine

1:41

is Titanic. Titanic would be a

1:43

good one. I think Titanic would be my number two.

1:46

Okay. Of best picture winners

1:48

with the Muppets. The Titanic with Muppets

1:50

would be amazing. It would be. Yeah.

1:54

Yeah. I think that's what I'm talking about. I'm just

1:56

looking at working. Who's the one human? The

1:58

One human is. What's that? They ain't. That

2:03

would be funny man and began deeply

2:05

in love with us Piggy with miss

2:07

City and then at the end is

2:09

like know I need to save this

2:11

sick and let me on the vote.

2:14

The I think that's a winner or

2:16

I say this. Kramer vs Kramer. Say.

2:22

Okay their see I think that gets it's

2:24

subtle than as they could actually be as

2:26

I don't think you would actually be a

2:29

fun movie like funny to think about Zach

2:31

live very painful divorce between yes Kermit and

2:33

Piggy. But but I wouldn't want

2:35

to actually watch it. But unforgiven.

2:39

Which is their number seven is an

2:41

awesome Muppet movie. Rainman Methods yeah dark

2:43

gritty western deconstructing like yeah. So I

2:45

mean when you mentioned the existence of

2:47

this list might at first thought immediately

2:49

went to No Country for Old Men

2:51

Great moments which is what I would

2:53

want to see but see I think

2:55

that wouldn't be that good of one

2:57

will see it's one of my on

2:59

either saving amounts. I think it would

3:01

be fun. They. Have number six I

3:04

would rank is my number three will be

3:06

said his rocky. Rocky. Who

3:08

has The Muppets? Now they

3:10

would. Works He would works. Yeah,

3:12

Like would it benefit from being

3:14

Muppet ties? Yes. Because you know

3:16

the you have Apollo Creed. Be

3:19

the human. Okay. And

3:21

it's like this guy boxing Muppets.

3:24

Is funny, right? It's funny. In fact,

3:26

you have all the other boxers and

3:28

like you have, lots of humans. And

3:31

then there's just Kermit training to beat this

3:33

giants human being And it's yes And Er

3:36

Doctor at the be really fun. I would

3:38

use guns. oh instead. okay yeah your I

3:40

phone yeah because then the scene where he

3:42

has to choose the chicken around his alley.

3:45

the woodwork better. Number five on

3:47

this was his deer Hunter, which I actually haven't

3:49

seen. The. Dear Hunter, That's.

3:51

Funny because it's an incredibly dark

3:54

Vietnam kind of thing. Again, I

3:56

don't know if it would be

3:59

funny in. Yeah, it, it's

4:01

a deeply tragic. Gut. Wrenching

4:03

story right like clear winner and

4:05

all these is Titanic Titanic with

4:07

them up was would just be

4:09

funny mean it would be charming

4:11

number for. They. Have everything

4:13

everywhere all at once. Which.

4:15

I think it's just that awful decks

4:18

with the mind wouldn't that wouldn't Where

4:20

it's already like the the way they

4:22

are juxtaposing the goofiness of you know

4:24

googly eyes on rocks with the sincerity

4:26

is already the same sticks yeah would

4:29

make them up it's work and says

4:31

you gain nothing Yeah if you start

4:33

with Muppets and then you cut to

4:35

Googly Eyes on Iraq. You. Haven't

4:37

actually changed. And yeah, exactly

4:39

so number three is. There

4:41

are obvious big joke, one

4:43

Schindler list okay, yeah right

4:46

would be. Absolutely terrible. Yeah,

4:48

and that's where I clicked to me I

4:50

write: this list is about how funny it

4:52

is to think of them a mitten, not

4:54

how good they would actually be as movies

4:56

though. Number two is my number one, even

4:58

though it shouldn't. Work the

5:01

Godfather with Muppets know see that would

5:03

that would kill of be would read

5:05

really good that would be so good.

5:07

Yeah so why would the Godfather with

5:10

Muppets work. When. Legs.

5:12

Deer hunter wouldn't They're both kind

5:14

of dark material. And dark

5:16

material and stuff like why does one

5:19

work and not the other. Roof.

5:22

Partly because. Godfather.

5:25

Is already so deep in

5:27

the collective consciousness yeah that

5:29

the audience would respond to

5:32

it better. You. Know the

5:34

tiny handful of people who have

5:36

seen the Dear Hunter? They.

5:38

Would. Go. And they'd say

5:40

oh that's disturbing and everyone else is

5:42

never seen. The Dear Hunter would go

5:44

to the movie and be like this.

5:46

Can't possibly be a real movie drive

5:48

I think. Also, Godfather on in any

5:50

way, you've got a lot of relationship

5:53

dynamics which the Muppets are good at.

5:55

Yeah, and I mean here's my pets.

5:57

So. Marlon Brando Rent. Swedish

6:01

Chef? Swedish? Yes as your lead.

6:03

Well I mean he's. Not.

6:05

Really the lead. It's my i know that

6:07

the lead but that works because you need

6:09

the accent. Yeah and he was doing the

6:12

kind of the up cotton balls in the

6:14

mouth. Thing. Swedish chef would

6:16

work I think Sam the Eagle Swedish if

6:18

is better than to think they you Nothing

6:20

he says can you understand That's the joke?

6:22

Yeah right. Plus the scene where he dies

6:25

and is out in his tomato garden the

6:27

tomatoes could talk That would be. So.

6:29

Great spoiler alert. The

6:33

other nice thing about the Godfather is it

6:35

there's a lot of drama, but they're already

6:37

as a lot of humor in it. Yes,

6:39

And as you know, you've got Sunny, Who's

6:41

you know? Ne'er. Do wells, goofball

6:43

and all these kinds of things. And.

6:46

Not as much violence as people remember because

6:49

the really big violent seen as right at

6:51

the end. Yeah and so I think it

6:53

would translate well. Man. Swedish chef

6:55

as the Godfather that's perfect in

6:57

that that's good or at their

7:00

number one completely. I mean maybe

7:02

make my top ten. It's Lord

7:04

the Rings. I. Just

7:06

don't know. it's is not there

7:08

were that one wouldn't work as

7:11

well. Because. It's

7:13

a hat on a hat yeah Seth Meyers

7:15

says in in. Two. Different,

7:17

already fantastical, goofy things. You.

7:20

Don't need. That. Many

7:22

send testicle goofy things. Now here's the

7:24

thing. If I were writing these

7:26

by the plausibility of the Muppets ever actually being

7:28

able to do this, Titanic. Be

7:30

number one because they don't need moving

7:33

the right thing to do their own

7:35

version of Titanic? Yeah, but learning to

7:37

be number two like I think the

7:39

Muppets could make a pitch for Lord

7:41

of the Rings that possibly could get

7:43

accepted. They were never really had a

7:45

naked pitch. Godfather yes I think they

7:48

give you went to the various property

7:50

holders. I think both are a long

7:52

shot but still I think that whoever

7:54

owns the Godfather right they would be

7:56

like yeah I can totally see this

7:58

know cause I think that that could

8:01

work me to start lobbying man. I'm.

8:03

A little. I mean I understand the list

8:05

is. Best. Picture winners! Yeah but

8:07

that makes me sad because then you have

8:10

to choose Rocky One. Is that a Rocky

8:12

for is Rocky for with Muppets. I

8:15

can see that being a meeting. So.

8:17

Yeah no country for old men. Did make

8:19

number twelve on their list. Know guy brave

8:22

heart was number thirteen. I have watched no

8:24

country like. Ten or fifteen

8:26

times. I love that movie. I.

8:28

Can see it working with Muppets. even know

8:30

I'm probably the only one in the audience

8:33

that would enjoy it. The best one I

8:35

think on their list and the next ten.

8:37

Is Casa Blanca. Casa.

8:39

Blanca with my Muppets. Yeah.

8:42

Yeah. Yeah yeah.

8:46

Ha! Trying to think

8:48

of. Past. Best Picture

8:50

Winners? That would be

8:52

awesome. But. Anyway, we have

8:55

a mood heist. I'll just keep an eye

8:57

out if we ever have other muppet testing.

8:59

Nice guy who now I thought this would

9:01

be I sets a good one. My dig

9:03

it. Okay, so here's the deal with our

9:05

food heist. This. Was sent

9:07

in by. Joshua.

9:09

Homestead. Thank. You very

9:12

much but it is Pay Walt

9:14

so I can read the part

9:16

that says. Truck. Driver

9:18

trades fifty thousand dollars in

9:20

lunch meat for cracked. And.

9:22

Then the little thing pops up.

9:25

So. I know this happened like ten

9:27

years ago. Ah. In one

9:29

of the states within a Alabama,

9:31

Arkansas. I mean, if you're

9:33

trading lunch meat for crack, that's

9:36

a pretty good Arkansas. You could

9:38

have guessed that. Yeah, yeah. specific.

9:40

Of course it's up, right? Yeah.

9:42

So ah, truck driver who was

9:44

transporting lunch meat. Offloaded.

9:46

Fifty thousand dollars worth of

9:48

it. in exchange for crack

9:51

i don't know how much what the

9:53

going exchange rate is between lunch meeting

9:55

crack yeah so i don't know how

9:57

much crack he got for this yeah

9:59

that article won't let me know. My guess

10:01

is probably not enough. Yeah,

10:04

I think that's a pretty good guess. You're

10:07

creating anything for crack. You're not getting enough

10:09

crack. That's advice

10:11

from Uncle Dan. So

10:15

there's our food heist. You should have

10:17

found a sequel food heist because we're talking about

10:19

sequels and remakes today. Ooh. And

10:21

so we should have found someone who stole

10:23

something and installed something again. Yeah, and

10:25

talking about sequels and remakes shouldn't come as a

10:28

surprise because we just talked about Muppet remakes

10:30

for like 10 minutes.

10:32

So there you go. So

10:34

sequels and remakes. Sequels and remakes.

10:37

Yeah, it's interesting. I was chatting

10:40

with my agent earlier this week and he

10:42

was talking about how we're

10:45

getting pretty deep into the

10:47

Stormlight Archive series, right?

10:49

Releasing book five and then we'll

10:51

do books six through ten and

10:53

he was just talking about

10:55

how much he enjoyed there being things like

10:58

trust and things like that that were more

11:00

standalone-ish. But do

11:02

those even count? Because they're in the same universe

11:04

using a character that I had

11:06

already established. Mm-hmm. And so I was thinking

11:08

about the whole idea of sequels and remakes

11:11

and standalones and people

11:13

are very down on sequels

11:15

remakes these days. Well, in

11:18

certain genres they are. Mm-hmm. And I actually

11:20

just last week was having a big conversation

11:22

with Don about this because I

11:25

find it really interesting that like

11:28

when it comes to movies people

11:31

will complain about remakes all

11:33

the time. Mm-hmm. Whereas if

11:37

you're talking about, for example,

11:39

stage performances. Yeah. That's what

11:41

you get. Yeah, there's an

11:43

entire Tony Award category based

11:46

around Best Revival. It is so hard, you

11:48

know, if you're a theater owner and you're

11:50

trying to get people to come to a

11:52

brand new play that some dude just wrote,

11:55

your theater is gonna make way more money

11:57

putting on Shakespeare or some other thing that

11:59

people all already know. You look

12:01

at actors and you know you read their

12:03

bios and one thing they will always talk

12:06

about is, oh he played Hamlet or

12:08

you know he played Lady Macbeth and

12:11

the different ways

12:13

that they bring out the character of

12:15

Hamlet or Lady Macbeth or whoever, like

12:17

that's part of how we know they're

12:20

a good actor. Right. Their Hamlet was

12:22

so interesting and vibrant whereas

12:24

when it comes to movies where

12:26

like you know TV is the

12:28

same, we don't want to

12:30

see the same person play the same role that

12:33

somebody else already played because suddenly that's terrible. That's

12:35

a fascinating observation Dan. Really

12:38

interesting because like

12:41

you will see endless complaints of

12:43

Hollywood is creatively bankrupt because

12:46

they're doing remakes or sequels whereas

12:49

in the stage world not

12:52

a peep on that which

12:54

is obviously we need both but yeah

12:56

really an interesting observation. And there's other

12:59

artistic genres where the same thing happens.

13:01

My wife and I went to the

13:04

symphony last week and that

13:06

was all just Richard Strauss and Prokofiev

13:08

and all these people that have been

13:10

around for hundreds of years. Yeah. And

13:13

it's the same thing and if you own

13:15

a symphony hall and you try to get

13:17

people to come to brand new

13:19

piece that somebody wrote last year that

13:22

happens but it's hard. People

13:25

want to hear the stuff that they know. While

13:28

we were at the symphony they had a piece by Richard

13:30

Strauss and you know in the program

13:32

they were talking about his life and his father

13:35

didn't like the

13:37

kind of music that Strauss was writing because

13:40

this was a time when people were making

13:42

the adjustment kind of out

13:44

of the romantic period into whatever came

13:47

after that. He was very

13:49

influenced by Wagner and Liszt and his

13:51

father was like no you need to write like Beethoven.

13:54

And the quote from his father and

13:56

I find this incredibly interesting was true.

14:00

greatness and this I'm paraphrasing

14:02

this great art does not

14:04

require experimentation and

14:08

Wow, you can see that in

14:11

every form of art and in every period

14:13

of history you've got your traditionalists who are

14:16

like nope please do

14:18

not write a brand new symphony I

14:20

just want to hear Beethoven

14:23

or Mozart or whatever but that

14:26

music exists because someone in a

14:28

previous generation experimented with form and

14:30

style and stuff. In

14:34

writing I

14:36

use the phrase strange attractor sometimes in

14:38

writing education which is something that I

14:40

borrowed from Terry Rocio that he may

14:42

have borrowed from somewhere else. Terry Rocio

14:45

being a famous string writer Aladdin is

14:47

one of he and his writing partner's

14:49

scripts Pirates of the Caribbean and

14:52

he talks about this push and pull between

14:54

the familiar and the strange the idea of

14:56

the strange attractor where you want

14:58

something that is strange in

15:00

some way but is also

15:03

attractive and familiar in some way and

15:05

the best pitches is an essay I'm

15:07

pitching is something that is combining the

15:10

two that is giving you a new

15:12

experience and a

15:14

familiar experience and kind of

15:16

there's this idea in writing that every

15:18

genre and sub genre within that genre

15:20

and every kind of form has its

15:22

own expectations of how much will be

15:24

the strange and how much will be

15:26

the attractor and

15:28

it's always been really

15:31

fascinating for me to look at

15:33

the romance genre novels are

15:35

selling well on Amazon because

15:38

they will often list in

15:41

their descriptions we've mentioned it before what

15:43

the ending is your first

15:45

sentence this is a happily

15:48

ever after with no cheating that's

15:50

like the lead so that people

15:53

know what they're getting and then

15:55

the strange is well she's this

15:57

different job and he's this different

16:00

job, things like that. And

16:02

so in that genre, the

16:04

familiar is far more weighted

16:07

than in, you know,

16:09

what I expect from a lot of the

16:11

books that I'm picking up. And there's no

16:13

value judgment here. It's just really fascinating to

16:15

me that that's more like stage play, right?

16:18

That's more like, I know I'm going to

16:20

go see the foreigner again, because I love

16:22

the foreigner and it's hilarious. Yeah. Versus strange

16:25

experimental play that I've never

16:27

heard of. Like,

16:30

this is a weird example to make because

16:32

we just ate a bunch of ice cream without

16:35

knowing what flavor it was. But we

16:37

did that two weeks ago, Dan. I know.

16:40

Yeah. We consume media differently than food. Everyone

16:42

out there who's like, why would you possibly

16:44

want to know the ending of a book

16:46

before you read it? What would be the

16:48

point of reading it? It's because you enjoy

16:51

that flavor, right? Right. You buy ice cream

16:53

based on the flavor. It is

16:55

extremely rare that you would buy ice cream and

16:58

you want to be surprised by it. Please

17:00

just buy whatever. And when

17:02

I get to the bottom of the

17:04

carton, then, then I'll figure

17:06

out what flavor this was. I think you'll find a lot

17:08

of people in the comments will say, you know what? I

17:11

like to try new flavors. And

17:13

that's what we did. But at the same time, I

17:15

think like I've tried a lot of flavors and I

17:17

know which are my favorite flavors and I will add

17:20

an ice cream shop almost assuredly order one of those.

17:22

Yeah. Even though I'm perfectly happy to do this whole

17:24

taste test thing and enjoyed it a lot. Uh huh.

17:26

Yeah. You know, I'm going to get my problems in

17:28

cream. We have our favorites. I've said

17:30

this for years. I don't think I've ever said it on the

17:32

show. When people talk about

17:34

how they are sick of remakes, what

17:37

I want is a

17:39

remake of Knight Rider, but

17:42

I want a very specific remake. I

17:44

want the exact scripts of the original

17:46

1980s Knight Rider, just with

17:48

a new cast, new production team, new

17:51

everything, treat it as if it were

17:53

Hamlet and just give

17:55

me a modern reinterpretation of the same

17:57

script. I think that would be fascinating.

18:00

You know, I can think of only one case where that's

18:02

ever happened and I've always wondered why it hasn't ever happened

18:04

again It's the movie airplane. Hmm.

18:07

You familiar with the history of the movie

18:09

airplane? Yeah, that it was they got a

18:11

script for a film that had already been

18:13

made They took that script

18:15

with mild tweaks and filmed it as

18:17

is just with some of their jokes

18:19

added in and airplane is hilarious Right.

18:21

Yeah, and it makes me

18:24

wonder why we haven't seen

18:26

more comedy films do that Take

18:29

a script and we talked about the Muppets.

18:31

That's kind of what they do. Mm-hmm or

18:33

did several times Yeah, why haven't we

18:35

seen more of that? Why haven't we seen someone

18:37

say I'm gonna take the exact script Make

18:40

a few tweaks or you know We have seen like

18:42

the remake where it's like we're gonna do a shot-for-shot

18:45

remake I got a shot for

18:47

shot which is an interesting

18:49

experiment, but but it's

18:51

really just an experiment. Yeah the

18:54

whole point of Seeing Hamlet more

18:56

than once is you want to see how

18:58

this new cast or this

19:00

new director interprets Hamlet? If

19:03

it's if it's an identical recreation

19:06

Exactly. Why does it exist? And

19:08

this is why I have never and I think

19:10

we've talked about in the podcast before Understood

19:13

why everyone hates the new Disney remakes

19:15

so much online. Obviously people go to

19:17

see them So, but when you you

19:19

go to the certain circles of the

19:21

internet that I frequent. Mm-hmm Disney

19:24

remakes are a sign that Disney is

19:26

creatively bankrupt. These should not exist. These

19:29

are offenses, right? but I

19:31

actually Have really enjoyed

19:33

watching several of the adaptations go

19:35

from animation to live-action and see

19:37

what different things they do I

19:40

think they have rarely gotten the balance, right?

19:42

Most of them have been kind of disasters

19:44

in one way or another But

19:46

I still uphold that Aladdin worked

19:49

really well in live-action. I haven't seen

19:51

that one. Mm-hmm I really liked the

19:53

Jungle Book one. Yeah, I think that

19:55

the remake of Beauty and the

19:57

Beast is one of the worst movies I've ever. Ever

20:00

seen in my life and see I didn't

20:02

get sick of I heard that from everyone.

20:04

Yeah, why is that like I agree the

20:07

Jungle book free mack worked really well. I

20:09

think that the a land where Mack not

20:11

quite as good been laid worked really well.

20:14

I'll tell you why after with them but

20:17

tell me why So so Beauty and the

20:19

Beast I have a different perspective on and

20:21

lot of people because my friend Make Lloyd

20:23

yeah is a professional animator works in Hollywood.

20:25

She directs lower decks things like that. See

20:28

Sat down with me and some other friends

20:30

and we watched the entire movie together with

20:32

her pausing every now and into say now

20:34

look at this, look at this and. It

20:37

becomes really obvious that.

20:40

The. Modern remake, just.

20:42

Simply. Lose his most of

20:44

the magic things don't read as

20:47

well. All of the little household

20:49

objects like gloomy Air, the candelabra.

20:52

He barely has a face. They

20:54

are for the most part completely

20:56

expressionless because they're trying to be

20:58

very photo realistic about them instead

21:00

of cartoony and so. The.

21:02

Emotion is just visually drained out of

21:04

the movie regardless of how good the

21:07

acting may or may not be. See

21:09

why is it that we have that

21:11

response? Lights when we talk about

21:13

the theater. Where. I

21:16

I have seen better and worse productions

21:18

a certain things but I wouldn't call

21:20

it draining the lights out of it

21:23

right? I wouldn't use phrasing like that

21:25

right? My and I would. I would

21:27

agree with you. Having seen the Milan

21:30

remake I thought the blonde with remake

21:32

was terrible. I wouldn't phrases as draining

21:34

the life that I just say it's

21:37

a bad film than doesn't doesn't work

21:39

but he was really bad. So why

21:41

why are we so harsh on these

21:44

when we aren't on a stage? Play

21:46

like and products will in this particular

21:48

case I it's because of the change

21:50

of medium. They're both films, but one

21:52

is animated in one isn't I guess.

21:55

carefully computer animated one is

21:57

stylistically cartoon in the other

22:00

stylistic photorealistic, which changes like

22:02

I said just the way that we observe

22:04

it, the way that we receive it. And

22:07

so with that comparison in my

22:09

head, I'm suddenly watching something where

22:11

all the colors are more dull than what

22:13

I remember and all of the

22:15

faces are more flat than I remember. And

22:19

that's where that particular phrase

22:21

comes from. But you

22:23

know if I went and saw a production of you

22:26

know funny thing happened on

22:28

the way to the forum that was

22:31

full of really dull wooden actors

22:34

might have the same kind of reaction to it.

22:36

A lot of people might make the

22:38

argument they didn't take enough chances to

22:40

make it different, but they did

22:43

take huge chances in several of

22:45

these adaptations that were bad. The

22:47

Mulan one's an example. Completely different

22:49

sort of tone and feel and

22:51

it just didn't work. Whereas Aladdin,

22:54

the one that I do like, was

22:57

basically the same script.

23:00

I think Aladdin is

23:03

a good example of taking chances

23:05

that worked because you

23:08

can't redo that Robin

23:10

Williams performance. Right. That

23:12

performance warped animated films

23:15

and we are still in the new

23:18

environment that his performance created. Getting Will

23:20

Smith to go in and kind of

23:22

very purposefully not be Robin Williams to

23:25

do a completely different everything.

23:27

That was a chance that

23:29

I think like you say kind of paid

23:31

off. You haven't seen it right? I have

23:33

not. Yeah and we've talked about it before

23:35

because that's kind of point that I've made.

23:37

I mean I think it worked. I enjoyed

23:39

his performance as Genie because you're right he

23:41

did not try to do Robin Williams and

23:43

it gave a very different type of Genie

23:45

which really made that

23:48

movie work for me. Have

23:50

you seen Patrick Stewart's

23:52

Hamlet kind

23:55

of question? What other actors would I want

23:57

to see do the Genie and what would

23:59

they bring? to it that would be

24:01

completely different. Well now I'm

24:03

thinking about that. Who do I want to see play the genie?

24:05

I want to see like... I

24:07

want to see the hot fuzz guy, what's his name? Simon

24:10

Pegg. Simon Pegg. No,

24:12

Nick Frost. Nick Frost, huh? Yeah.

24:15

Nick Frost doesn't get the credit he deserves, in

24:17

my opinion. He's the heart and soul of all

24:19

those movies. I want to see

24:21

a singer do it. Oh yeah, that's a good

24:23

idea. I want like, you know... Donnie Osment. The

24:29

old stoner guy... I was going to say the

24:31

old stoner guy from Rolling Stones. That's everyone from

24:33

the Rolling Stones. Who's the

24:35

one that Johnny Depp was basing his

24:38

performance off of? Keith Richards. Keith Richards.

24:40

Like a Keith Richards genie.

24:43

Or a Willie Nelson genie.

24:45

Like old stoned guy. I

24:50

can see that. Snoop. Oh,

24:53

Snoop. Yes. Yeah,

24:55

he's got the charisma. Yeah.

24:58

I'm not even joking on that one. Snoop

25:00

is the genie. Oh no, I'm with you

25:02

completely. He would give wonderful

25:05

performances. Yeah, Snoop is genie.

25:08

Alright, Hollywood, make it happen. Do another

25:10

Aladdin. Do another Aladdin. So

25:13

why did the new

25:17

Top Gun work? Where almost

25:20

every attempt to do the same thing

25:22

with a old legacy property, bringing

25:24

it forward to the nude audience? The

25:27

nude audience? The nude audience. There's

25:30

some movies that work really well with the nude

25:32

audience. Why have none of

25:34

the others worked? I think one

25:36

thing that the new Maverick did, the

25:38

new Top Gun did, was

25:42

they kept the same tone. It

25:44

was not a modern remake

25:46

where we are parodying

25:49

the original or trying

25:51

to fix the cultural problematic

25:54

elements with the original. It's

25:56

just, hey, if you liked one, you

25:59

will like two. Because they're

26:01

the same tone throughout

26:03

and they aren't really but new maverick is what

26:06

we all thought the old one was Yeah,

26:08

so I agree with you and disagree at the

26:10

same time. I do think that too

26:12

many of these one

26:15

of their goals seems to

26:17

be to out

26:20

with the old Mm-hmm in

26:22

with the new at the expense of

26:24

the old Yeah,

26:26

and so they're making a sequel where? Indiana

26:29

Jones is old and washed up and unloved

26:33

and a bad parent and

26:36

You know like doing things like that

26:40

Even if at the end he gets to have

26:42

adventure and things like it's really sour but Same

26:46

thing like maverick has not gone far He's

26:49

not but for some reason that movie doesn't feel

26:51

like it's like look at this loser maverick You

26:54

know, yeah, a lot of these legacy sequels seem

26:56

to be like look at this loser that you

26:58

all used to love Look

27:00

at Luke Skywalker. He's a loser now loser.

27:02

Isn't that great? See, I think

27:04

a lot of this stems back to

27:06

the Brady Bunch remake That's the first

27:08

one that I remember at least that

27:11

said hey, we're gonna bring back this

27:13

nostalgic thing But we're gonna make fun

27:15

of it. Yeah, and That

27:18

worked for Brady Bunch because

27:20

everyone made fun of the Brady Bunch

27:22

it is kind of an inherently silly

27:25

show Whereas like there's

27:28

nobody who has based

27:30

their personality around the Brady Bunch. There's

27:32

nobody out there who grew up

27:34

to become Architect because

27:36

the dad on the Brady Bunch was

27:38

an architect, right? Whereas You

27:40

know, I studied archaeology in college

27:43

because of Indiana Jones There's that

27:45

element of personal connection to it

27:48

that some properties have and some properties

27:50

don't. Mm-hmm Yeah, yeah,

27:54

I mean it feels like they

27:56

think they're being respectful, but they don't know how

27:58

to be then like Hollywood exists don't

28:00

know how to be respectful. They don't have

28:02

that capacity. And so they

28:04

can only imitate it. They

28:08

can fake respect. I know some Hollywood execs

28:10

who are very nice people, I should say.

28:12

And so I say that a little. But

28:14

I think the machine has trouble with that,

28:16

right? The whole Hollywood machine has

28:18

trouble with how to

28:20

walk that line between letting someone have a life

28:22

and grow and change and

28:26

just ruining everything. And

28:28

a lot of times they just ruin everything. Spider-Man's

28:30

a great example of this. His

28:32

whole gimmick was that he's

28:35

your age. You're a kid reading comic

28:37

books, this guy's a kid too. He

28:40

goes to high school. The girl he

28:42

likes doesn't like him back, like all of

28:44

this stuff. And he was perpetually

28:47

a teenager for decades.

28:50

And then they're like, okay, we're gonna let him

28:52

get married. I think it was only very recently

28:54

that he had a kid. Imagine

28:56

if Spider-Man had grown at

28:59

the same rate as

29:01

his audience. I'm not saying this would have

29:03

been a good thing, but it would

29:05

be interesting to watch that character go

29:07

through every stage of life in one

29:10

continuous story. Yeah, the Harry

29:12

Potter thing where he aged with the audience. That

29:15

would be interesting that couldn't really have worked

29:17

with Spider-Man just because of the way the

29:19

Silver Age was and who it was targeted

29:21

at. I think you'll get some complaints

29:25

in the comments about this from the

29:28

hardcore comic book aficionados because Spider-Man

29:31

got married. He

29:33

did. And then they

29:35

decided that didn't sell. So they came up

29:37

with infamously one of the worst

29:41

reboots in comics history where the

29:44

devil negated his marriage and took the memories

29:46

away so that he could go back to

29:49

being unmarried Peter Parker

29:51

again because they're like, well, we don't know

29:53

what to do with him now that he's

29:55

married. Well, in comics there's such a different

29:58

animal altogether. It's almost not. Fair

30:00

to bring him up. I remember when I was a

30:02

kid In the 80s

30:04

reading some article by some old

30:06

school comic reader who said When

30:09

I was a kid spider-man was a kid And

30:11

now i'm an adult with a family and

30:13

responsibilities in a job and spider-man's still a

30:16

kid like I have aged out of him

30:18

And I find that to be a really interesting thing, but

30:20

that only really comes up with one of these long properties

30:25

You mentioned harry potter. Mm-hmm. And

30:28

so I do want to bring up You

30:30

know the book side of this sequels and

30:32

remakes idea You know right now

30:34

they've announced that they want to make a new harry

30:36

potter I can't remember. It's a new movie series or

30:38

a tv show. I thought it was television whatever it

30:40

is And people are up in arms

30:42

about that But a lot

30:44

of those people reread the harry potter books

30:46

all the time which for me

30:48

is i'm gonna go see hamlet again Right.

30:51

Here's this thing. I love here's this flavor. I

30:53

like to taste i'm gonna go back to it

30:56

And in this case it becomes a case I

30:58

think of ownership I love this

31:00

book because it is the same every time.

31:02

I don't want to see a new interpretation

31:04

of it. I think I'm

31:07

gonna offer a different perspective. Okay kind of the book end

31:09

this Maybe the reason

31:11

we accept it and love it in theater

31:13

is because theater is meant to be ephemeral

31:16

It is an experience that you have And

31:19

that you don't hold on to Whereas

31:21

a book You don't need

31:24

a remake of the book because

31:26

the original experience is still available to

31:28

you I can't go back to

31:31

the first time I saw the foreigner and

31:33

relive that experience Yeah when I saw it

31:35

and had never seen it before and it

31:37

was delightful, but I can go see different

31:39

interpretations Of that experience,

31:41

but I can go back and reread a

31:43

book Or watch a film

31:45

and maybe that's the differentiating factor. I think

31:48

that's a really good point to bring up.

31:50

Mm-hmm I hadn't thought of it in

31:52

those terms, but that makes a lot of sense I

31:57

want to experience ben again for the very

31:59

first time Thank

32:03

you.