M*A*S*H now S*P*Y*S?
Someone please explain this to me
shareIt's an unrelated film with the same stars.
You're gonna need a bigger thread.
MovieChat Forums > S*P*Y*S (1974) Discussion > M*A*S*H now S*P*Y*S?
Well, it's like this...
Donald Sutherland and Elliott Gould had big success with M*A*S*H. However, S*P*Y*S, an unrelated movie 4 years later could not recapture the magic that happened in M*A*S*H. The two men did their best in a very bad situation, but this film just isn't that good, at all.
The special feature on the DVD explains part of it, but a miracle couldn't put this film out of its misery. The book was good, but then I saw the film.
I read the M*A*S*H books back in the 70s...which included "MASH goes to Maine", and about a half dozen others. Truthfully, I stopped paying attention when the plots seemed to run a little thin. The author of these was Richard Hooker. The books, like the movies had the *** between letters, etc. Of course, his book M*A*S*H was what the movie was based on.
Well, early in the 70s he also wrote the book S*P*Y*S. The book was ok. Not as good as the MASH books I read...partly because we had all come to know the characters from the movie and TV show. While the TV show took the characters a different direction, in the early/mid 70s they were somewhat true to the book's depiction. So the run of MASH books at least did not require us to get to know many others.
SPYS, however, just did not work as a movie. To begin with, I think they would have been better to NOT try to capitalize on the MASH success and packaged it differently...including with different actors. But...that is why. The author of MASH felt that SPYS would be a good new plot to write on. Some Hollywood types obviously saw $$ because of the MASH movie and subsequent television success. Thankfully, there was not a S*P*Y*S go to Maine...or any other such follow up. Remember, when this movie was made, M*A*S*H the TV show was really making a splash.
(Let's see...MASH books I know of: MASH goes to Maine, To Hollywood, To New Orleans, To San Francisco...I am sure there are more. And...they are not that bad. Quick reads, and characters you know.)
Very interesting explanation of the franchises. Why exactly did Richard Hooker (what a name!) use the asterisks in the titles? Was it just an affectation, or was it explained in the books?
shareI don't know if the astericks was used in the SPYS book or not but it seems to me it was almost a subliminal thing to remind people of M*A*S*H. The studio knew they had a dud and tried to lure audiences in. It didn't work.
shareI suspect you're right about the subliminal association. It was an affectation that didn't work, but the film probably would have bombed regardless of the title.
shareI agree. It's a terrible movie regardless. I actually looked it up and the astericks were not in the book OR in the title credit on screen. Sure enough it was only in the marketing that this ploy was put to use. Kind of cheap if you ask me but apparently they knew what kind of dog they had.
shareI saw both this movie AND "Whiffs" at a drive-in. 3 and a half hours of almost no laughs. You wonder what happened to the once hot-as-a-pistol Elliot Gould? Movie roles like the above two, plua many more that were not just mediocre, but entirely unwatchable. I know, because I was fool enough to watch them. Want another? Okay. Take "Matilda" (please), which featured Gould and a boxing kangaroo. However, instead of using a real kangaroo, the producers dressed a guy up in a Skippy suit, and tried to make us believe it was genuine. S*P*Y*S falls into this category. Gould and Sutherland want you to believe they are spies, but no one is buying that premise. It's as if Trapper and Hawkeye retired from doctoring just to go to Europe and act silly.
Fortunately for Sutherland, he chose his post-M*A*S*H films more carefully, thus, he has been more successful over the years. But this is one I'm sure he wishes he could erase from his resume. Too bad the same can't be said for Gould. Without these films, his resume could fit on a postage stamp.
PS The scripts for both "Whiffs" and "S*P*Y*S" were co-written by the guy who wrote for the TV show "Dark Shadows". Nothing he ever wrote for DS, however, could have been scarier than the thought that producers looked at his two Gould-starring scripts and decided to put them on film, doing so with a straight face and without a trace of irony. Now THAT'S blood-curdling.
I never saw Whiffs but have always wanted to just out of curiousity, much like this movie. Yes Gould made some bad career choices (Matilda was never even released here in Chicago where I am) but I wouldn't say Sutherland chose any more carefully. Though we should forget them let me remind you of such trash he made as "Bear Island," "The Disappearance," "Gas," "Lady Ice," and "Nothing Personal." All duds. So as to not let Gould off the hook you can also include "The Lady Vanishes," "I Will, I Will...For Now" and "Escape to Athena." So both actors had their share.
shareRegarding the MASH books on MASH, MASH goes to Maine, and MASH Mania were written by Hooker. The others while credited as being written by Hooker they were really written by William E. Butterworth.
shareI don't see any mention of Hooker writing a novel called Spys anywhere. I don't see it listed anywhere in a Hooker bibliography or in credits for SPYS.
I think they wrote it that way on the poster for marketing purposes, to lead people to believe it might be tied in to MASH somehow.