![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
So the other day I decided to try the first episode of The Persuaders! to see how it all began. I had assumed both characters were probably equally distasteful of each other, but while Danny definitely disliked Brett, Brett actually didn't seem to dislike Danny, merely to find him an annoyance. And Brett was actually the one who seemed to behave the most jerkish of the two, which I was a little disappointed by. Of course, Danny was being a little pushy about the bartender including two olives in Brett's drink instead of one, but he seemed to honestly be trying to be friendly and share the version of the drink he liked, even though Brett had previously irritated him. (On the other hand, it's possible Danny really was trying to be cheeky.) And then it's Danny who actually wants to fight about it when Brett absolutely doesn't want the drink that way, ROTFLOL. So Danny is definitely being immature even though Brett is being a bit of a jerk. And then Brett is being immature too when he agrees to the fight even though he really hadn't wanted one.
What's interesting, however, is that even while they're fighting and immediately afterward, they're not hating each other; they're starting right in with the banter that they developed through the rest of the series. You can immediately see that there's something awesome here, and by the end of the first episode they seem to be on the path to genuinely liking each other. I love how the episode ends with a callback to earlier, when Brett gets in the elevator and the doors shut before Danny can get in. At the end, it happens again, only then Brett opens the doors and tells him to come on in, he isn't going to leave Danny standing out there. Squeeee. I can think of other shows that would have just had Brett keep Danny out of the elevator again and leave it on that obnoxious note, so to end in a squeeable way thrilled me indeed.
I think I've seen three full episodes now and pieces of a couple of others. (Then Adobe Flash finked out and made it impossible to go on. But it and other things are updated now and Flash has been working a lot better since then.) I've seen more than enough to know that I must own this show, so maybe I won't watch any more and just focus on trying to get the DVD set as soon as possible. This series is just overflowing with friendship squee! The other episode I saw had the bad guys kidnap Brett and hypnotize him to obey their commands, and poor Brett instead thinks there's a double of him doing these things because he just doesn't remember. At one point he attacks Danny and they have a huge fight in an alley. Danny shows up the next morning angry, haunted, and hurt, saying Brett tried to kill him. Brett honestly doesn't remember and insists it was the double. Finally Danny figures out what's going on and has to rush to stop Brett from killing a businessman the bad guys are trying to knock off. I am so in love with this show.
I've also been having a conversation with a friend that has included some talk of the All Dogs Go to Heaven franchise. I have to admit, while in the past I was all over the TV series, I haven't been as enthusiastic about it for years. I am still amused by the detective/spy parodies, but even with them, there's really no comparison with the depth of the first film.
This is basically what I've been thinking lately:
Charlie Barkin in the first film is wow, quite a dark character, actually: a wild crook and a gambler who becomes obsessed with the idea of taking revenge on Carface after Carface tries to murder him. He's boistrous, loud, and loves to live a riotous life. But he still has a heart deep down, even if he is loathe to admit it. Frankly, he reminds me of the way I've fleshed out the Snakes Tolliver character.
Charlie Barkin in all other parts of the franchise has been lightened to varying degrees to make him more kid-friendly. It's like the writers of the second movie and the TV series kind of are aware of the basic parts of Charlie's personality, but they don't put them together quite right and thus, don't create the same character. On the one hand, I can kind of see how first movie Charlie might get bored of Heaven eventually, and yet, it's disappointing to think about because he was supposed to be okay with being there by the end of movie 1 (and it seemed like he was going to liven up Heaven in very interesting ways). Now, perhaps his attempts to do so kind of epically failed and he grew bored, but I really don't think that was Don Bluth's intention with the character and it made me kind of sad. (That said, I did love that he got a second chance at life at the end of the second film.)
The TV series is basically standard cartoon fare and mostly has the kind of plots that you can find in many other sources, even a Freaky Friday episode. Which, when you think about it, makes very little sense. Charlie and Itchy lived together in an OLD CAR for who knows how long and they apparently didn't have any problems. But when they have a whole apartment to move around in, suddenly they can't abide each other's living habits and Anabelle has to switch them to teach them a lesson? I suppose one could argue that having a much bigger space made them spread out a lot more and be more "in your face" with their habits, but it's definitely started to make me scratch my head in confusion.
I also have a very hard time imagining first movie Charlie doing something dumb like creating copies of himself to take care of various things he needs to do that day. He's definitely always looking for a quick solution, but somehow I can't imagine him thinking that would be a good one. Again, it's basically standard cartoon fare and could happen with pretty much any Saturday morning characters if they were presented with the way to do it. I doubt first movie Charlie wants to be a detective either, or that many other TV series events quite align with the first movie.
Of course, the TV series is really a continuation of the second movie, which was made by different people and naturally wouldn't capture the feel of the first movie. One interesting thing, however, is that I believe Itchy and Killer carry the same personalities throughout the franchise, or at least, are usually much closer to their first movie selves than the other characters. (There's still Itchy's illogical behavior in the Freaky Friday episode.) I always said Itchy and Killer were the only characters that absolutely could not be replaced by other voice actors, and of course, now Dom DeLuise and Charles Nelson Reilly are both dead. Not that I think there will ever be any other attempts to revive the franchise, really.... The Christmas movie was a pretty good place to leave things off and I'm pretty sure that it will remain that way.
Now, I also realize that people who didn't come in on the first movie may not have the same problems with characterization that I do. Maybe even some who did wouldn't have such problems. I used to not. I don't remember exactly when it was, but one time I was watching the TV series and thinking "... This is really silly." And I never have felt the same about the series since. As I said, to me, even the episodes I still like are pretty much standard cartoon fare compared to movie 1. That doesn't mean they can't just be enjoyed on their own merits. They should be, really. That's pretty much the only way I can enjoy them now. When I try to think of them relative to movie 1, I hit a brick wall. I know they're supposed to be the same characters from movie 1, and yet, they're not. If I think too hard about the differences and try to reconcile them, I won't get anywhere and will just drive myself nuts.
(A whole other can of worms is the differences between Vic Tayback's menacing Mob boss Carface and Ernest Borgnine's softer, more humorous portrayal. Even Ernest's Carface's freak-outs are usually funny rather than downright scary.)
As a closing thought, back to Snakes. The thought of trying to write Snakes differently so he'd be more kid-friendly kind of makes me go "...". I just don't think it could be done without dismantling or dumbing down his character. It's rather a scary thought. Although at the same time, part of me is darkly, dementedly amused by it.
What's interesting, however, is that even while they're fighting and immediately afterward, they're not hating each other; they're starting right in with the banter that they developed through the rest of the series. You can immediately see that there's something awesome here, and by the end of the first episode they seem to be on the path to genuinely liking each other. I love how the episode ends with a callback to earlier, when Brett gets in the elevator and the doors shut before Danny can get in. At the end, it happens again, only then Brett opens the doors and tells him to come on in, he isn't going to leave Danny standing out there. Squeeee. I can think of other shows that would have just had Brett keep Danny out of the elevator again and leave it on that obnoxious note, so to end in a squeeable way thrilled me indeed.
I think I've seen three full episodes now and pieces of a couple of others. (Then Adobe Flash finked out and made it impossible to go on. But it and other things are updated now and Flash has been working a lot better since then.) I've seen more than enough to know that I must own this show, so maybe I won't watch any more and just focus on trying to get the DVD set as soon as possible. This series is just overflowing with friendship squee! The other episode I saw had the bad guys kidnap Brett and hypnotize him to obey their commands, and poor Brett instead thinks there's a double of him doing these things because he just doesn't remember. At one point he attacks Danny and they have a huge fight in an alley. Danny shows up the next morning angry, haunted, and hurt, saying Brett tried to kill him. Brett honestly doesn't remember and insists it was the double. Finally Danny figures out what's going on and has to rush to stop Brett from killing a businessman the bad guys are trying to knock off. I am so in love with this show.
I've also been having a conversation with a friend that has included some talk of the All Dogs Go to Heaven franchise. I have to admit, while in the past I was all over the TV series, I haven't been as enthusiastic about it for years. I am still amused by the detective/spy parodies, but even with them, there's really no comparison with the depth of the first film.
This is basically what I've been thinking lately:
Charlie Barkin in the first film is wow, quite a dark character, actually: a wild crook and a gambler who becomes obsessed with the idea of taking revenge on Carface after Carface tries to murder him. He's boistrous, loud, and loves to live a riotous life. But he still has a heart deep down, even if he is loathe to admit it. Frankly, he reminds me of the way I've fleshed out the Snakes Tolliver character.
Charlie Barkin in all other parts of the franchise has been lightened to varying degrees to make him more kid-friendly. It's like the writers of the second movie and the TV series kind of are aware of the basic parts of Charlie's personality, but they don't put them together quite right and thus, don't create the same character. On the one hand, I can kind of see how first movie Charlie might get bored of Heaven eventually, and yet, it's disappointing to think about because he was supposed to be okay with being there by the end of movie 1 (and it seemed like he was going to liven up Heaven in very interesting ways). Now, perhaps his attempts to do so kind of epically failed and he grew bored, but I really don't think that was Don Bluth's intention with the character and it made me kind of sad. (That said, I did love that he got a second chance at life at the end of the second film.)
The TV series is basically standard cartoon fare and mostly has the kind of plots that you can find in many other sources, even a Freaky Friday episode. Which, when you think about it, makes very little sense. Charlie and Itchy lived together in an OLD CAR for who knows how long and they apparently didn't have any problems. But when they have a whole apartment to move around in, suddenly they can't abide each other's living habits and Anabelle has to switch them to teach them a lesson? I suppose one could argue that having a much bigger space made them spread out a lot more and be more "in your face" with their habits, but it's definitely started to make me scratch my head in confusion.
I also have a very hard time imagining first movie Charlie doing something dumb like creating copies of himself to take care of various things he needs to do that day. He's definitely always looking for a quick solution, but somehow I can't imagine him thinking that would be a good one. Again, it's basically standard cartoon fare and could happen with pretty much any Saturday morning characters if they were presented with the way to do it. I doubt first movie Charlie wants to be a detective either, or that many other TV series events quite align with the first movie.
Of course, the TV series is really a continuation of the second movie, which was made by different people and naturally wouldn't capture the feel of the first movie. One interesting thing, however, is that I believe Itchy and Killer carry the same personalities throughout the franchise, or at least, are usually much closer to their first movie selves than the other characters. (There's still Itchy's illogical behavior in the Freaky Friday episode.) I always said Itchy and Killer were the only characters that absolutely could not be replaced by other voice actors, and of course, now Dom DeLuise and Charles Nelson Reilly are both dead. Not that I think there will ever be any other attempts to revive the franchise, really.... The Christmas movie was a pretty good place to leave things off and I'm pretty sure that it will remain that way.
Now, I also realize that people who didn't come in on the first movie may not have the same problems with characterization that I do. Maybe even some who did wouldn't have such problems. I used to not. I don't remember exactly when it was, but one time I was watching the TV series and thinking "... This is really silly." And I never have felt the same about the series since. As I said, to me, even the episodes I still like are pretty much standard cartoon fare compared to movie 1. That doesn't mean they can't just be enjoyed on their own merits. They should be, really. That's pretty much the only way I can enjoy them now. When I try to think of them relative to movie 1, I hit a brick wall. I know they're supposed to be the same characters from movie 1, and yet, they're not. If I think too hard about the differences and try to reconcile them, I won't get anywhere and will just drive myself nuts.
(A whole other can of worms is the differences between Vic Tayback's menacing Mob boss Carface and Ernest Borgnine's softer, more humorous portrayal. Even Ernest's Carface's freak-outs are usually funny rather than downright scary.)
As a closing thought, back to Snakes. The thought of trying to write Snakes differently so he'd be more kid-friendly kind of makes me go "...". I just don't think it could be done without dismantling or dumbing down his character. It's rather a scary thought. Although at the same time, part of me is darkly, dementedly amused by it.
