Sometimes They Come Back

A few years ago, if you had asked me if I'd like to have one of my favorite fandoms/franchises come back into the light, I'd have given you a resounding "yes!" Remakes, reboots, sequels, updates (for brevity: "revivals")... any of these would certainly make me happy, for one or more of the following reasons:

*A revival would signify that my fandom still had value & importance.

*A revival would potentially bring new people to the fandom, increasing its overall "value."

*Merchandise!

*Something new to watch and enjoy.

For years, it seemed like everybody else's fandoms got shiny new shows, remakes, and sequels, while my fandoms sat idly back in history, remembered by few and forgotten by most. My brother's favorite franchises, in particular, always seemed to be thriving. He liked James Bond (currently at 26 films), Star Wars (8-odd films, with more to come), and Star Trek (currently clocking in at 12 movies and 6 shows).



My fandoms didn't produce as much material, and certainly not as often as my brother's did. Mine also went through some serious dry spells. My fandoms have included Lois & Clark (canceled in 1997), Mystery Science Theater 3000 (canceled in 1999), The Pretender (2001), Harry Potter (last book in 2007; last movie in 2011), DuckTales (canceled in 1990), Indiana Jones (a 19-year film gap between films III and IV), Nancy Drew (mediocre TV movie in 2002, rotten film in 2007), Beauty and the Beast, Back To The Future, Anne Of Green Gables, Full House, and Pride & Prejudice.

Back To The Future, one my favorites (both as a kid and a young adult), had two sequels (1989 & 1990) as well as an animated TV series, so that was fortunate for us fans. I also loved Beauty and the Beast (1991), which... um, well, also had 2 sequels (horrific abominations that they are.) Another fave of mine, My Girl (1991) got a sequel in 1994, which I really liked. On the other hand, Father Of The Bride, a favorite go-to film of my preteen years, had a less-desirable sequel of its own in 1995. Father Of The Bride Part 2 may have been my first indication, at the tender age of 15, that revivals aren't always great.

Eeeek!

Then there are remakes & updates. The two that stand out for me are The Parent Trap (original: 1961/remake: 1998) and Freaky Friday (original: 1976, remakes: 1995 and 2003). Both of the original films had a fun premise, but by the 90's, it was clear the earlier versions needed updating. The original Parent Trap has a weird, sort of flippant encounter with domestic violence, and the girls dancing to Annette Funicello records is just a bit too old-fashioned to even be quaint. The original Freaky Friday mom is stuck in an antiquated female role (Dishwashing! Cleaning! Mending! Baking!) and seems to like it, while the dad is a sexist douche. Annabel's friends say things like "far out" and one is literally named Bambi. FF's two updates both did a fair job, though I won't be surprised if another Freaky Friday comes along in the 2020s.

This is how it tended to go for most of my life. Every few years, there'd be some kind of fandom-related revival to look forward to. Even if the final product itself wasn't great, the revival could pave the way for something better. Like Indiana Jones and the Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull. The movie may have been a bummer, but its release prompted a lot of cool merchandise, including multiple LEGO sets and video games.

But within the past couple of years, something strange has been happening with my fandoms. In a short time period -- the last two years, in fact -- a bunch of my fandoms have come swarming back from the land of relative obscurity and into the limelight. Crashing, more like. All at once. So much for that "every few years" thing....


2016 & 2017

• DuckTales: After Treasure Of The Lost Lamp in 1990, DT had a 23-year dry spell. In 2013, they remade the video game (DuckTales Remastered). Now -- oh what the heck -- they're rebooting the freaking show!!

• Anne Of Green Gables revivals are rampant these days. Admittedly, it seems like Kevin Sullivan releases some new Anne-related product every time there's a new moon, but not counting him, just in the last decade we've had books (Before Green Gables and Looking For Anne Of Green Gables), a movie (PBS's Anne Of Green Gables, with 2 sequels planned), and a Netflix series (Anne With An 'E'). Those last two came out within the last eight months. Two entirely independent productions about the same fiery Canadian redhead in less than a year!

I'm thinking of climbing a wild cherry tree to get away from it all...

• Full House: Only in my wildest teenage dreams could that show have come back, but it has -- as Fuller House for Netflix. It premiered in February, 2016. With 90% of the original cast on board, it is already filming season 3. I don't like it, but... it's there.

• Mystery Science Theater 3000: I could have never imagined it would be back. I resigned myself to enjoying Rifftrax in all its humorous glory. But... they brought it back. The actual show. I mean, there's a new Joel/Mike character, and the bots sound different, and Tom Servo can, um, fly now? But it's still shadows in a theater making fun of cheesy movies, as if they've been carrying on that way for 18 years, no big deal.

Finally, there's...

• Beauty and the Beast. I loved the original. Top 3 films of all time. For years I had wanted, and thought about, a live-action version. Probably ever since they did those live-action 101 Dalmatian movies with Glenn Close in the 90s. I imagined this new BATB being darker than the original, more adult. Angsty. Romantic. Heart-wrenching. Beautiful.

Y u no luv me?

Well, I do know some people who loved it!

Just the other day, it was announced that the 90's cartoon series Animaniacs may be coming back. While that show wasn't one of my personal favorites, it was important to people I know. Maybe those people are currently feeling excited. Or maybe they're feeling the way I am. Which is...

NO. STOP. LEAVE IT ALONE. BACK AWAY, HOLLYWOOD. PUT DOWN THE CAMERA. BACK, I SAY!

*Backs away slowly*

*Hides under a pop culture-less rock*

Women's Stuff

Recently I decided that I wanted to, and should, and by gum would read Little Women.

I had read Little Women -- or thought I had -- back in elementary school. I remember someone in my class trying to spoil it for me partway in by telling me that Beth dies. Prepared for the worst, I read on -- but, lo, Beth didn't die! She got ill, but she lived. My classmate was clearly a liar.

Then I saw the 1994 Winona Ryder movie, and... oh... yeah... Beth dies. Plus there's all this other unfamiliar stuff going on. Jo gets married? Meg has kids? Amy and Laurie... OH NO THEY DIDN'T.

Somewhere along the way, I realized that "Little Women" is actually two books, the original and its companion, or sequel, Good Wives. The latter is the one where Beth dies. And the two have been regularly paired, as one book, for over a century. However, when re-printing Little Women for young readers, often just the first volume is included.

In conclusion, I had not read BOTH volumes until recently.

Survey says?

Louisa May should've stopped at one.

Okay, okay, the second volume is interesting as a sequel; I mean, it's sort of... nice... to see what happens to the March sisters as they become, ugh, good wives. It's actually pretty depressing from a 21st-century standpoint to see what these ladies do with themselves in Volume 2. Except for Jo, of course, who's awesome. Unfortunately, the second volume gives us very few chapters about Jo. Instead we get a bunch of mush about Amy and Laurie, and how Amy wants to be wealthy and marry rich, but she loves Laurie despite his richness; and all this other jazz about how Laurie transfers his romantic affections from one sister to the other. Ew. We're also treated to The Life & Times of Meg And Her Husband, John Brooke, getting a look at their domestic trials, and being subjected to chapters about the misadventures of their precious, brilliant toddlers. 

Which is why... I think... this is one instance in which the movie adaptations kind of improve on the novel. 

In certain ways.

Let's talk about the movies. Actually, there have been many. But there are four that are widely available:

The 1933 Version

Starring: Katharine Hepburn as Jo

Katharine is great in the role of Jo, but the other sisters look like painted dolls. Overall I liked it, though.

Speaking of that version, a few years ago I ran across this printing of the novel:

Four famous girls... and Laurie, the boy two of them loved.

I don't know what's up with that tagline. It could be argued that ALL the March girls "loved" Laurie, as a brother and a friend. Only one of them ever did romantically, and that was Amy. And the girls certainly aren't "famous" in the novel.  They're famous to readers, yes... but otherwise.... Anyway, it made me laugh because it's just so weird.

Okay, so then we have....

The 1949 Version

(which is very similar in to the previous film, as if they were working off the same script)

Starring: June Allyson, Margaret O'Brien, Janet Leigh, and Elizabeth Taylor

I liked this one slightly more than the 1933 version, even though they were so similar. This one sort of improved on its predecessor. It's interesting to see how far the film industry had come in just 16 years as far as technological improvements were concerned. The 1949 version LOOKS better than the 1933 one, and the actresses don't look as creepy.

The 1978 TV Version

Starring: Susan Dey (The Partridge Family) as Jo, Eve Plumb (The Brady Bunch) as Beth, Meredith Baxter (Family Ties) as Meg, and William Shatner (Star Trek) as Professor Bhaer

I didn't expect this version to be that good, considering the era -- other 1970's TV adaptations of classic books, such as BBC's Anne Of Avonlea and The Secret Garden, seem low-budget and look pretty mediocre today. But I actually enjoyed this one. Sure, there are some cheesy moments, and the movie, strangely, twists Laurie and his Grandfather's relationship into a rather dysfunctional one. But Susan Dey is great as Jo, and I have to give props to Eve Plumb for doing such a good job as Beth that I momentarily forgot she used to be Jan Brady.

However... all three of these versions suffered from one awkward problem: They employed only one actress to play Amy. Amy's supposed to be 12 when the whole thing starts, and by the time things begin to wind down -- pretty much when Jo and Friederich get together -- about ten years have passed. While some actresses could, perhaps, play 12 to 22 convincingly, Amy is an odd character who starts out whiny and bratty and horrid, and then evolves into an elegant, stylish lady. And anytime you get an actress who's outgrown her teens (in the case of the Amy-actresses of 1933 and 1978, who were in their 20's) playing a bratty pre-teen, it starts to feel like you're watching one of those Freaky Friday-type movies where the daughter is now in the mother's body. It's just hard to buy.

SO. When 1994's version of Little Women rolled around, they decided to hire TWO actresses to play Amy.

Who, I always thought, looked nothing alike.

 But in these pictures they kind of do. Except for the eyes, the lips, and the facial shape. 

OH NevERmIND

The 1994 Version: 

Starring: Winona Ryder as Jo, Claire Danes as Beth, Trini Alvarado as Meg, and Kirsten Dunst AND Samantha Mathis as Amy.

And Susan Sarandon as Marmee.

And... and... HIM....

LAURIEEEE!!!

Laurie, you may be kind of obnoxious in the book(s), but on-screen, you're smokin' adorable.

Although let's get one thing straight: facial hair? BAD.

Sad fact: when I first saw 1994's Little Women, in the theater, I was not impressed. A few years later, I ended up renting the movie from Blockbuster. Then again. And again. And many more times until I finally just bought it. And now it's actually one of my favorite films.

And I will probably continue to watch it as often as I ever did.

The book, on the other hand...

Okay, so reasons why the book may be superior to any of the films:

*It's long. Lots of little vignettes and subplots going on. If you tried to make a faithful film adaption, we'd be talking about a 10-hour movie. If you're one of those people that likes to spend as much time as possible with a group of characters, the book should meet your needs.

*There's a lot of morality stuff which would probably bore modern moviegoers, but, when given out in small doses in the novel, are actually kind of inspiring. Until things start to get preachy. Then not so much.

*The language, especially in the first volume of the novel, is lively and often funny. While any of the films could replicate the words or dialogue, a film would be hard-pressed to capture most of it, and definitely couldn't get all of it (unless the film was 10 hours long; see above.)

*Every actress I've seen playing Jo has portrayed her in a slightly different way. I've seen tomboyish and hot-tempered, decorum-less and goofy, and loud, awkward and wild, and yet none of them quite capture ALL of who Jo is in the novel, though they certainly try.

*The dad, Mr. March, gets seen and mentioned a lot more in the book than in any of the films. In fact, in the 1994 version, after he returns from the battlefield you barely see or hear from him again. You almost forget he even exists, unless you're paying close attention and see that, oh yeah, he IS there in the background occasionally.

*If you're a huge fan of Amy or Meg, the book should be right up your alley. In the films, the focus sometimes swings toward Jo and she becomes the central character -- it certainly does in the 1994 version -- and the others' plots don't get as much attention. On the other hand, if you ARE, in fact, a huge fan of Amy or Meg... Seriously? SERIOUSLY? We need to talk.

So those are some of the things the book has going for it.

Would I read it again? Sure. But I may only re-read the first volume, if I do.

And I'll continue to love the films, of course.

Fun Little Women Novel Fact: The word "feminine" isn't found once in Volume 1.

Volume 2 uses the word "feminine" eight times. We have:

Feminine appreciation (chapter 24)

Feminine respect (chapter 34)

Feminine eyes (chapter 37)

Feminine ideas (chapter 38)

Feminine delusion (chapter 41)

Feminine interest and curiosity (chapter 43)

Feminine devotion (chapter 45)

and

Feminine fib (chapter 46)

That's a lot of femininity.

Where Are They Now: Minor Made-for-TV-Movie Actors Edition

When I think of all the made-for-TV movies I enjoyed as a kid, it saddens me that so many of the actors have slipped into the depths of obscurity. 

Or have they?

Maybe they've gone on to do great things, just... not in front of the camera. 

Perhaps they've earned university degrees... become directors... raised happy families... or have worked toward solving social problems.

Or maybe they're all dead.

HEY, LET'S FIND OUT TOGETHER!

Here are ten actors from TV-movies from my childhood or youth who I'm curious about.

- - - - - - - - - - -
1. Schuyler Grant

Known For: Playing Diana Barry in Anne Of Green Gables (1985), Anne Of Green Gables The Sequel (1987), and... that other one. She was originally up for the role of Anne, but was demoted to Diana when the producers decided that the actress playing Anne ought to be Canadian.

Schuyler Then:



Schuyler More Recently:

Yep, she's blonde. And a yoga instructor! It looks as though Schuyler hasn't done much acting besides Anne, save for an episode of Law & Order, a movie I've never heard of, and a brief stint on All My Children. She married in 1995 and has two children. 

- - - - - - - - - - -

2. Barret Oliver

Known For: Among other things, playing Dickon in The Secret Garden (1987). You also may remember him from D.A.R.Y.L. and The Neverending Story. His last film came out in 1989.

Barret Then:

Barret More Recently:

Uh, nope, sorry, not going to show you the photo I found on Google where -- if that IS indeed him -- he's rocking a hobo beard, and is crushing my childhood... crush. NOPE. WILL NOT ALLOW IT. 

Oh but wait, there's more....

According to Wikipedia: In his teens Oliver left acting to join the Church of Scientology's Sea Org and was stationed at its Gold Base compound.^[4] As is common practice among teenagers in the Sea Org, he married a fellow Scientologist at age 19.^[5][6] He has since divorced.^[7] Later Oliver became a printer and photographer specializing in nineteenth century processes such as collodion and Woodburytype. His work has been displayed in museum and gallery exhibitions and used in films. In 2007 he published A History of the Woodburytype.^[8]

Tears. Cold, brutal tears. MOVING ON....

- - - - - - - - - - -

3. Sophie Wilcox

Known For: Playing Lucy in the old-school Narnia series (1988-1989)

Sophie Then:

Sophie More Recently:

After Narnia, Sophie seemed to take a break from acting, returning for a brief stint in several 90's projects... then another hiatus... and finally a role in a 2011 film called Gangster Kittens.

Sorry, not those kind of kittens.

- - - - - - - - - - -

4. Whip Hubley

Known For: His role as Lancelot in the Keshia Knight-Pulliam version of A Connecticut Yankee In King Arthur's Court (1989). He also appeared in Top Gun and St. Elmo's Fire.

Whip Then:

Whip More Recently:

Now in his 50's, Whip is still acting. Over the years he's guest-starred on shows like Profiler, The Division, Charmed, The District, and he has a movie coming out this year called Drones. He is married and has three children.

- - - - - - - - - - -

 6. Lisa Jakub

Known For: Playing the daughter in the 1996 TV-movie Bermuda Triangle. She also played Robin Williams's daughter in Mrs. Doubtfire and appeared in Independence Day.

Lisa Then:

Lisa Now:

Well, check out her website (there's a photo of her there!) According to the site, she is now married, a writer, and enjoys traveling and yoga -- and acting, for her, is a thing of the distant past.

- - - - - - - - - - -

7. Ciarán McMenamin

Known For: Playing the adult David Copperfield in the 1999 BBC production of, um, David Copperfield.

Ciarán Then:

Ciarán Now:

In 2011, he got the lead role in the fifth season/series of the British TV show Primeval. He has also made a few feature films in recent years, but does not seem to have forgotten his TV-movie respect -- having made half a dozen since Copperfield. Nice, nice....

- - - - - - - - - - -

8. Jodelle Ferland

Known For: Her portrayal of a young girl who's lost her father in Mermaid (2000). She also played Hollis in Pictures Of Hollis Woods (2007).

Jodelle Then:

Jodelle More Recently:

From a role in the Twilight saga to the voice of Aggie in Paranorman to somewhere around a dozen movies in the last two years alone, yes -- this girl's still acting. She turned 18 in October.

- - - - - - - - - - -

9. Tasha Scott

Known For: Playing Jennifer, Candace Cameron's cabinmate in the crazypalooza Camp Cucamonga (1990). She also appeared in the legendary Troop Beverly Hills and guest-starred on Full House and Quantum Leap (which lended her some actual cred.)

Tasha Then:

Tasha Now:

A singer (who once competed on Star Search), Tasha has recorded several R&B songs in recent years.

- - - - - - - - - - -

10. Ryan Merriman

Known For: Being a TV-movie-starring fiend in movies like Everything That Rises (1998), Smart House (1999), The Luck of The Irish (2001), and A Ring Of Endless Light (2002) (and yes, I've seen them all). He also played "Young Jarod" on the TV series The Pretender and I had a huge crush on him, but felt awkward about it because he was -- gasp -- 3 years younger than me!

Ryan Then:

Ryan Now:

Hello.

Still acting, Ryan has seven (7!) movies coming out in 2013. He married at age 21, but is now divorced. He remains attractive.

- - - - - - - - - - -

(See Also: Where Are They Now: Minor Sitcom Stars Edition)

- - - - - - - - - - -