The Farrellys don't understand the Stooges

Most Stooge aficionados know that there were a grand total of six Stooges, and almost a seventh. The lineups were as follows:

Larry,Moe, and Shemp (Although you could argue they weren’t really the 3 Stooges yet.)
Larry,Moe, and Curly
Larry, Moe, and Shemp (again)
Larry, Moe and Joe
Larry, Moe, and Curly Joe

If Moe hadn’t died when he did there would have been Moe, Curly Joe and Emil. That’s not counting a few live appearances of Curly Joe, Mousie Garner, and Frank Mitchell.
The point is that all of the Stooges were comic actors playing caricatures of themselves, using their own names or nicknames. I think Moe would have been pleased at the idea of a new Three Stooges film 35 years after his death, but that he would want their legacy to continue in the same fashion–new actors creating new characters based on themselves.

I had no idea a Stooges movie was in the works. (I just Googled it.)

I don’t get what your post is trying to say, however.

Will Iggy Pop be in the movie?

If you were any smarter you’d be an ignoramous!

I think he’s saying that the movie will have characters named “Moe”, “Larry”, & “Curly” playing parts the same or similar to those of the original Stooges. Whereas he’d prefer that they characters be named “Benny”, “Dick”, and “Johnny”, and play exaggerated versions of themselves, instead of just recreating the originals.

He’s got a point - Curly, Shemp, Joe & Curly Joe were all pretty distinct characters.

True. Which is why these special people called “actors” with their magical abilities called “acting” will “act” as these distinct characters to make a kick-ass movie.

They’re doint it because the concept worked so well with Laurel and Hardy

Yes, that’s it exactly. I think the secret to their longevity was that the replacements carried on the spirit of the group without trying to copy their predecessor’s schtick. If slapstick hadn’t gone out of favor we could have had a continuous succession of Stooges to this day.

O.K., probably not, but it’s fun to think about.

Iggy probably would make a good Stooge. He’s got a good stage name, he doesn’t seem to mind risking bodily harm, and he’s used to playing a caricacture of himself. He could probably bring along Jos Grain as a writer.

Huh. Apparently F. Murray Abraham thinks he’s not good enough to work a glory hole for two bucks a pop, and instead had to fall back on making that movie.

That would be confusing as hell to everyone who’s not already a Three Stooges fan.

I’ve never seen any video of the Three Stooges that lasted longer than 10 seconds, but if you asked me their names, I’d tell you “Larry, Moe, and Curly.” I bet the same is true for 95% of the people who could name the Stooges at all. Parting from the common expectation is not a good way to get people to see a remake.

We can be sure that Klaus Nomi won’t be.

Obvious solution: cast Larry, Mo, and Curly!

Yeah, but…

Chaplin worked. W. C. Fields and Me didn’t. Ann Jillian did a tv movie called Mae West which doesn’t get a bad rating. Donald O’Connor’s The Buster Keaton Story isn’t fondly remembered, while Dick van Dyke’s The Comic, also based on Keaton, is. Frank Ferrante’s performance in the play Groucho: A Life in Revue, written by Arthur Marx, Groucho’s son, is remarkable.

Do I think that a Three Stooges movie by the Farrelly Brothers will be a ten-alarm disaster to avoid like subcutaneous itchy boils? Yes, I do. But not because you can’t do good work about legendary comics. Because it’s so hard to.

The 2000 3 Stooges TV biopic was good, though I had completely forgotten about it until just now.

I was surprised when I learned a few months ago about the plan to replace Larry with Emil Sitka. He was such a big part of a lot of the classic shorts in supporting roles, so it’s just weird to think of him almost being an actual Stooge.

Definitely solid. It was a unique movie, blending slapstick and biopic. I think it could be argued that it fictionalized events a bit too much, but, hey, that’s what biopics are for.

But those were biopics. Unless I’m mistaken this project is supposed to be a Three Stooges film, not a film about The Three Stooges. I think the Dragnet movie wouldn’t have even gotten one star on IMDB if they hadn’t played them as “next generation” characters.

I don’t think a new Three Stooges film will appeal to those whose familiarity ends with “Curly, Moe and Larry”. They’ll just watch “Disorder in the Court” on YouTube and then go on about their lives. If there’s an audience for it, it’s going to be the hardcore fans.

Now if there were any actors who could do justice to the original characters, I’d want to see Curly, Moe, and Shemp. Nothing against Larry, I just always wished we could have seen the three brothers working together.

Those are all different. Their biopics of comedians. There was a nice TV biopic of the Stooges a few years ago.

What the Farrellys plan to do is do a slapstick comedy with three new actors and call them the Three Stooges, much like that “Laurel and Hardy” film. They’d be better served by doing a straight slapstick film and have people comment on how it was like the old Stooges.

The only other film I can think of where actors impersonated a comedy team that wasn’t a biopic would be the 1994 version of The Little Rascals, which wasn’t terrible, but basically trashed the entire concept of Our Gang.

Hollywood money will never be spent on anything that is just for hardcore fans- just ask any comic book fan (actually, don’t ask any comic book fan- they seem to always tell themselves “next time will be different!”).

Anyway, is there consensus among hardcore fans as to whether a new film should be a new trio of comic actors doing their own schtick vs. a newly casted “Larry, Moe, and Curly”?

A good publicist could, I do believe, explain to the masses why the new film features “Benny”, “Dick”, and “Johnny”- but it could have to be a very well executed publicity campaign.

“Larry, Moe, and Curly” seems the obvious way to go to sell a movie called “The Three Stooges” to a mass audience. This doesn’t mean I think it’s a good idea- I don’t. Still, going the other way would be the choice that I’d be surprised by.

If you were to have three new comics doing their own schtick, I think it would only work with three comics who each already have a schtick AND those three schticks would have to naturally balance each other in a dynamic similar to the dynamic established by the Howard/Fine/Howard teams.

Also, I’d like it if those three comics already had previous work relationships and/or personal history. Those three comics should be personally invested (I don’t mean financially) in a new Three Stooges project with a commitment to a series of films (if the first one does well). They should be prepared to promote the film working in character as a trio- television appearances etc.

Basically, three new stooges would have to develop organically from first finding three comics who have chemistry and can make that dynamic work. It shouldn’t be to start with “Let’s make a Three Stooges Movie!” then to cast actors who are only on board as actors doing a hired job.

If a new Stooges project were to come about as described in the second scenario I laid out, it could be good and I would be interested in seeing it.

“Larry, Moe, and Curly” is a bad idea- but it is what I would expect for a project with a lot of Hollywood money in it.

“Benny, Dick, and Johnny” with three actors simply hired to play the roles is also a bad idea.
(incidentally, IMDB only lists “Bennie” and “Dick”. ** muldoonthief**, who’s “Johnny”???)

I would go see a Stooges movie featuring George, Matt, and Brad.

Actually, that already exists as Ocean’s Eleven.

I don’t know any other hardcore Stooge fans IRL, so I don’t know whether anyone else thinks the same way I do. So far it looks like you may be the only other one. I think that if there is a place for a real Stooge revival it’s not Hollywood, it’s the net. A web series or podcast of short videos, distributed like Chad Vader or Ask a Ninja. I kind of doubt that C3
would approve of anything like that, so it would have to be called something different.