Fox Revivals for Disney

Reviving or rebooting a film is not always a bad thing. But my impression on Disney wanting to do reboots for movies that Fox has done leaves me wondering why. Four franchises they are aiming at are Night at the Museum, Cheaper by the Dozen, the Wimpy Kid movies, and Home Alone. I don't know how you can replicate most of them. If they go through with them, I don't see audiences being happy about it.

We'll get the obvious out of the way with Home Alone. The first two films are generally well liked by movie goers and watchers. Some have said about the other sequels being bad, I agree for the most part. But the thing is, the first two are sacred in many people's eyes. Not to mention what worked in 1990 may not work today. Unless you get Macaulay Culkin back to be an adult Kevin McCallister, the demand for it may not be as big as Disney may hope. To be creative with traps and slapstick will be another concern.

The only one that might work is Wimpy Kid. A kid going through school and his ups and downs. It could work as a TV show. As a movie, it could work, but it depends on where they go and how much they are dedicated to doing a few films. I don't think Cheaper by the Dozen would work, but like Wimpy Kid, depends on where they go. It doesn't need big name stars to appear, but you got to have some level of competence and create enough stuff for the entire family. Night at the Museum seems like a very bad idea. It would be very expensive to do compared to the other three, making it a huge risk. Then you have the wonder of it being its own movie or adapting it from the book and the accuracy of it.

All but Home Alone I believe are based on books. But overall, I don't see them doing well in theaters, hence the whole thing with the Disney streaming. Disney better have an idea of the angles they go with these films if they want audiences to be into them. But they can also look at flops and other films that aren't family friendly as well. Fox has a vast library of films. Best to utilize them and not just the G and PG rated material.

The House of Fox and the Mouse

One blog I had in mind last year was this, but that was put on a back burner. With the  news settled in on what happened March 20th, you'll understand. As of now, Fox is now owned by Disney. What seems like a funny joke from The Simpsons is now in reality. What exactly does this mean?

For well over a year, the idea of Fox being bought was there. Despite being around since 1935, they have had some huge movies the last 50 years. Alien, Porky's, Die Hard, Home Alone, Ice Age, Avatar. One offs like Point Break, Mrs. Doubtfire, M*A*S*H, The Towering Inferno, Titanic. So many movies. My suspicion on why there was a deal was so Disney could get the rest of the Marvel properties that Fox had. I honestly think that was their only reason just because they want that stupid cinematic universe garbage the way they envisioned it. I'm hearing they might try to reboot X-Men, which I think is a really bad idea. Turning those guys into the same low I.Q. popcorn flicks as the other adaptations will save some people time and not see them in theaters.

Fox has it's own network, and I believe they still have control of their own stuff. As far as own produced programs, I would assume it's under Disney. I really don't know. Within the last 15 years, the House of Mouse has mostly reverted back to being a company that's more so for kids. While that's been their moniker since its inception in the 1920s, they took chances 35 years ago with their Touchstone label.  Stuff like Splash, Ruthless People, Roger Rabbit for fuck's sake. Without Roger, Spielberg doesn't do all those 90s cartoons. No Tiny Toon, no Animaniacs.  It's why I have a little concern now for Fox.

You look at FX and FXX and the original stuff they have is R-rated type material. What will happen to Always Sunny? Or American Horror Story? Or even regular Fox? A lot of their big shows are TV-14 programs. I can't imagine Disney interfering that much or neutering them.

Disney got themselves out of a rut about 10 years ago and have been making more huge hits than duds. However, they don't take too many chances anymore. It could happen to Fox depending on the kind of projects that are made. I have a really bad feeling about the future of film and TV entertainment.

Alien Covenant: A Potential Return?

It's numbers were decent for Thursday showings, but Alien: Covenant is another attempt to have the franchise back on the path of success. Ignoring the last fifteen years of films that involve an Alien, but there hasn't been a solo film in the series since Alien Resurrection back in November 1997. With Ridley Scott at the helm for directing it, it could determine if people are still interested or if Fox should just stop. Here's my very quick thoughts on how the film could perform.

Sure, it may not have the strongest box office numbers, but people definitely want a film in the franchise that could be as good as the original Alien and/or Aliens. It's hard to top those two in terms of either wanting action or horror. I think just having Scott, who directed the original back in 1979, could convince people that it could equally good. How that fares is a different story. Considering how Prometheus did with Scott directing it, it could be something like Planet of the Apes where moviegoers are hungry for more and could potentially make more movies of Alien.

This could be the film that is number one this weekend over Guardians of the Galaxy Volume 2. It's going to have steep competition for the next few weeks. Baywatch and the fifth Pirates film from Disney come out this upcoming week. Captain Underpants and Wonder Woman headline the start of June. It could be a top 3 film, performing possibly behind Pirates depending on how well that film does.

Horror has changed a lot since the 70s. The biggest question is whether Alien can deliver. We can only find out after this weekend.

Bill O'Reilly: Unstable Journalist

I know this is a political blog and one of my intentions was to avoid it, but this could have very serious implications as far as ratings go and a different network being the top cable news channel.

http://sullivanentertainment.blogspot.com/2017/02/what-is-this-blog.html

My thoughts on cable news is that it is a joke. MSNBC, Fox, and CNN are all power hungry for ratings and will do whatever is necessary to spread their political views across. One of the clear victors has been Fox for a long time, but it could come tumbling down in the wake of Bill O'Reilly's departure. One of their mainstays, he was let go following a scandal of sexual harassment, which other Fox people have been accused of. It ends a run of "The O'Reilly Factor", one of the biggest, if not, biggest news show in all of cable.

It all starts at the very top with Roger Ailes, who created Fox News in 1996 and was in charge of the channel for a very long time. Last year he was sued by Gretchen Carlson, who worked on the network, for sexual harassment. Some people inside the company were not fond of him as well, In the end, Fox ended up paying millions to Carlson. That's what's happening right now with O'Reilly. A lot of women were not fond of him. They didn't act like the way he acted. Obviously, when there's accusations, there are others that will open up and say they were harassed. It's not hard to see why he is a hated figure and a powerful one.

O'Reilly was one of Fox's rating kings. He was someone that could get people to listen to him over a lot of controversial topics. Pretty good for a guy who used to work on Inside Edition. ("We'll do it live!") My impression of the guy is that he was unstable and came off as a loudmouth male version of Nancy Grace. For as much I didn't care about Barack Obama, the interview he did a few years ago on the then President was one of the most unprofessional and very rude interviews I have ever seen out of anything judging by the few snippets. I would say he is a step above comedy news people like the unfunny bitch Samantha Bee and idiot Stephen Colbert who try to be armchair journalists, but not by much.

It really wouldn't surprise me if O'Reilly did mistreat and harass women. He seems like the kind of person that would combined with his approach to stuff. However, there has to be actual evidence in order to show that. Saying what happened may not always guarantee a win for victims. Whatever the case, it's not a stretch to say Fox News is going to struggle for a while. With a number of their big name people gone in the last few years, it's a tough sell to listen to newcomers compared to other networks that have people like Wolf Blitzer.

If what is confirmed is true, it'll be a black eye for O'Reilly and Fox News. It would be tougher to get women to work at the network due to being afraid of what could happen. They're not the first network to deal with this, but their reputation could be a lot more damaging than sports broadcasters scandals. Life is going to be hell for who knows how long and be a punching bag for late night comedy and The Simpsons.

Fox On The Map: Married... With Children at 30

Last year was 30 years of the Fox Network. When they started out, they really had nothing in October 1986 and would continue that way the first few months of 1987. That would change on April 5th of that year when they introduced a few new shows on Sunday nights that would help take them seriously. Along with The Tracey Ullman Show and a week later with 21 Jump Street, Married... With Children paved the way for Fox. It's approach to comedy might be primitive today, but back then, it was a fresh change from what was seen in 87. I'm not sure if this show could exist today.

The biggest comedy and sitcom at the time was The Cosby Show, which was near the end of its third season on NBC when Married...With Children started airing. Other big sitcoms like it were Family Ties, and Growing Pains. A typical episode has something happen and the characters learn their lesson. These families were successful and could do many great things in the future. However, the Bundy family was the complete opposite of all that. They were crude. Life was miserable. And yet, they still were together along with their neighbor.

Without it, there is no The Simpsons, no NFL, nothing. And it starts off with the characters. I would say Al Bundy, played by Ed O'Neill, is one of the most famous characters of that decade and the 90s. He is a misogynistic shoe salesman. Most of the time, he deals with obese women and hurls a few insults that you wouldn't think were possible. Depending on the episode, he may show displeasure or be proud of his family, usually the former. He would get involved in certain schemes to get richer or and have it backfire most of the time. The same is said for some revenge tactics. For as much as he can't stand his wife, he never attempted to cheat on her, which showed he still loved her, even if it isn't the best. It is a shame O'Neill was typecast as Al until his current role in Modern Family. Even when the show was still airing, people expected him to still be the funny man in other projects.

Married... With Children not only saw the rise of O'Neill. It also saw actress Katey Sagal become a leading lady for TV shows over the years with programs like Futurama and Sons of Anarchy. Her character, Peggy, was the housewife. Unlike the typical character at the time for television, she was the opposite of Clair Huxtable. She was lazy. She didn't clean, didn't look for a job. She would rather shop, eat bon bons, and watch TV. One of the show's biggest gags was her sex drive and constantly wanting to have sex or just love Al, which he would say no to or some sarcastic remark. Some episodes would feature Peg as someone that is competent at doing something right or good, only to revert back to her normal way of living life. And you thought your parents were horrible.

Like some of the 80s sitcoms, the kids shown were teenagers. The Bundy family had the really dumb blonde Kelly, played by a young Christina Applegate, and the smart but can never score with girls Bud, played by David Faustino. It played out like your typical sibling rivalry. They couldn't stand each other and most of the time didn't want to see the other achieve at anything. Individually, both had their flaws. Kelly is the definition of stupid and simple minded, but easily gets guys if they don't get beaten up by Al or anyone else. She has a few shining moments, but that is often thrown to the side. Bud was the brains of the Bundys but seemed to lack any real effort to get girls. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree considering he always had schemes like Al and most of the time would result in something horrific happening to him. That being said, the family does stick together despite the dysfunctional aspects of them. And when push comes to shove, they'll fight back whatever is oppressing them.

Then there is the neighbors. As the show began, it had Steve and Marcy Rhoades, with David Garrison and Amanda Bearse as the young couple. They seemed pretty innocent and gullible, not knowing how psychotic the Bundys were. After the first few seasons, they became frustrated at them, causing pain and destruction that was brought forth by the family. Garrison would leave the show midway through the 1989-90 season, and would make a handful of appearances after that from 1992 to 95. Within the next season, the writers would have Marcy married again, but to a new character, Jefferson D'Arcy, played by Ted McGinley. Unlike Steve, he was more like a combination of Al and Peg. He loved to get involved in schemes that Al would cook up. He had a pretty face and body, but lazy like Peg. Even Marcy addressed that in an episode late in its run saying it was like being married to her. The character would stay for the rest of the shows run to its final episodes in 1997.

You can go back to those early episodes and really see how much Married... With Children changed over time. They feel very down to earth despite the fact it was the polar opposite of The Cosby Show. You can look at this show, Roseanne, The Simpsons and a few others to see the kind of realism they were going for back in the late 80s. Then, it got into a groove that garnered a lot of controversy. If it aired in this present time, it would be cancelled immediately. A housewife did not like the content, particularly with Al, and protested for the show to be taken off the air. Instead of driving people away, it got people to gravitate towards Fox and get huge ratings. It would be made fun of in a late episode. Speaking of which, one episode was filmed, but didn't air on Fox due to the content being questionable. For the typical sitcom, certain things could be tackled, but writers had to be discreet on the subject. Even Seinfeld's Contest episode in 1992 was very risque despite the discreetness and being completely different from other sitcoms. The episode, I'll See You in Court, was kept off the airwaves until FX, who got Married... With Children for syndication in the 2000s, aired it.

Some of the stuff that was seen was very taboo. As the show progressed, it got very cartoon like depending on the episode and repetitive. You can only do realism for so long. Two episodes come to mind. One was Wabbit Season from 1990. Al goes to war against a rabbit who steals his carrots from his vegetable garden. He floods Marcy's home, shoots his own foot and sets fire to his own foot and the fence between the Bundys and Rhoades homes. It ends with him planting an explosive in the rabbit hole not realizing as Bud warned him about putting it near a gas line, causing an explosion and obliterating both homes. It is very funny the stuff that occurs, but the change was noticeable. The other was How Green Was My Apple, where a fight between an apple tree causes tension between the Bundys and D'Arcys. Some noticeable stuff include Marcy getting electrocuted in a pool, the D'Arcy house being tilted off its foundation, and the Bundy house getting blown up.

Even with that, people still wanted to see what occurred on Married... With Children. Fox was on the fence of whether to cancel or renew and decided to end it in 1997. It may not be heralded as much, but it gave rise to two things. One was the rise of the dysfunctional family and pushing the envelope that you didn't see back then for the non-Cosby like shows. As mentioned before, it put Fox on the map. Without it, there's no Simpsons or anything. Who knows if the network would have survived past the 90s if it didn't have the shows that changed the way we viewed television.

Would this show air today? For as funny as it is, probably not, unfortunately. With the all the stuff that went on, especially Al and Bud, there would be huge protests. Not to the level of criticism that happened to The Simpsons early in its run, but enough to get possibly cancelled. It's a product of its era, which can be said for a number of shows. Assume your Fox viewing positions whenever you get a chance to watch Married... With Children. You'll get a good laugh at a lot of the antics.

Stop by the blog on April 19th, where I'll review the first ever appearance of The Simpsons as it turns 30.