This is topic WTF is wrong with the REAL Cooter? in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=004168

---

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 07-24-2005, 10:46 AM:
 
Is he really that pissed he didn't get a part in the movie? OR was he so blind he didn't see Catherine Bach running around in next to nothing on the TV show? Funny guy....

article

'Cooter': Don't Go to 'Dukes of Hazzard' Movie 'Unless It's Cleaned Up'
Wednesday July 13, 11:44 am ET

WASHINGTON, Va., July 13 /PRNewswire/ -- Former Georgia Congressman Ben Jones, who played "Cooter" on the hit TV series "The Dukes of Hazzard," has blasted the new film version to be released in August as a "profanity-laced script with blatant sexual situations that mocks the good clean family values of our series."

In an open letter to the fans of the show on his Web site, Jones says that "rather than honoring our legendary show, they have chosen to degrade it." He closes by saying that fans should send the producers a message that says, "If you don't clean it up, we're not going to see it." He adds, "Maybe a kick in their pocketbook will get their attention."

Jones, who was defeated by Newt Gingrich in 1994, now operates two "Dukes of Hazzard" museums, in Nashville and Gatlinburg, Tenn.

The series is now having a very successful cable run on CMT based in Nashville, Tenn.

Below is the letter as it appears on Jones' Web site http://www.cootersplace.com:

Hey Y'all,

I thought this would be a good time to let everybody know my feelings about the upcoming "Dukes of Hazzard" feature film, since if it weren't for the "Dukes" fans, our show would have been long since "put out to pasture." The folks who love our show have kept it alive and well, despite the lack of respect it has been shown by "Hollywood."

Web sites like ours have been an extraordinary means of communication for the "Dukes" community. The power of the internet has enabled us to not only keep the show viable, but to help make it a hit show all over again. CMT is getting record ratings and the kids of America think it is a new show. In our business, it doesn't get much better than that.

Like our fans, those of us who worked on the show have a special affection for it. For over 25 years we have cared about it, nourished it, and fought for it. And it seems to me that it is time for us to have our voices heard again. From all I have seen and heard, the "Dukes" movie is a sleazy insult to all of us who have cared about the "Dukes of Hazzard" for so long.

You probably know that the creators of this film wanted absolutely nothing to do with the original members of the cast. Doesn't that seem strange to you, given how popular our show is right now, and how popular our cast still is? After all, our huge success for so many years is the reason they are making the film, and the film, after all, is about us.

In the last few years I reckon I've done many hundreds of interviews around the country on radio and television and for dozens of newspapers. I always tell them that ours is a classic family show with positive values, great action, wonderful slapstick comedy, mighty fine country music, and a very gifted cast who had great chemistry. America could tell that we were clearly enjoying what we were doing and for that hour folks could forget their troubles and just have fun along with us. It is exactly the kind of entertainment that families crave right now.

Lately most of the interviewers want to know my opinion of the "movie" version that is coming out in August. I've always tried to be candid with my opinions, and when it comes to this film, I think it would be a mistake for me to pull the punches. Like you, I haven't seen the film, but I have read the script, I've talked to a lot of people who worked on the set, and I've seen the raunchy TV commercial. Frankly, I think the whole project shows an arrogant disrespect for our show, for our cast, for America's families, and for the sensibilities of the heartland of our country.

Unless they clean it up before the August 5th release date I would strongly recommend that true blue Dukes fans hold their noses and pass this one up. And whatever you do, don't take any youngsters to see it. As plain as I can put it, the only thing this movie shares with our show is the title. Oh, they do have the General Lee flying through the air, although according to the New York Times, they didn't even use stunt drivers.

Sure it bothers me that they wanted nothing to do with the cast of our show, but what bothers me much more is the profanity laced script with blatant sexual situations that mocks the good clean family values of our series. Now, anybody who knows me knows that I'm not a prude. But this kind of toilet humor has no place in Hazzard County. Rather than honoring our legendary show, they have chosen to degrade it.

When CMT brought our series back on the air in February of this year, 23 million viewers tuned in on that first weekend. Very few, if any, movies have ever matched those kind of numbers for an opening weekend. Our show is a hit right now! Very young children have fallen in love with the "Dukes" on CMT, just as their parents did 25 years ago. They love the positive values of our show, its wholesome friendliness, and the fact that Bo and Luke are heroes who always make the right moral choice. How can the producers of this film be so cynical, so jaded, so out of touch with America's heartland as to trash a great family show in this way?

Well, there may not be much we can do, but we have to do all we can. Let's send them a message: "If you don't clean it up, we're not going to see it." Maybe a kick in their pocketbook will get their attention.

The Hon. Ben Jones
The BriarPatch
Washington,Va.
 

---

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 07-24-2005, 01:20 PM:
 
Actually, I wondered the same thing, Mike. I don't know this guy from Adam, or the show, but I've seen stills from it over the years. He does have a hypocritical point: Hollywood has indeed gone off the deep end with vile language and toilet humor, particularly in "kid's" movies. It's just not necessary to storytelling.
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 07-24-2005, 02:59 PM:
 
Sounds like his problem is that he's upset at the prospect of his family friendly TV show being turned into a PG-13 frat-boy comedy complete with "Sexual Content, Crude And Drug Related Humor, Language, and Comic Action Violence" (quote from the MPAA rating) ...although he probably isn't all that upset with "comic action violence" as much as he is with the other stuff.

Frankly, it sounds to me like he has a point. You would NEVER have seen such a warning on the TV show. But as usual, the Hollyweird crowd feels compelled to use the lowest form of humor every chance it gets.

Meanwhile, studio execs continue to wonder why attendance is declining.
 

---

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 07-24-2005, 03:22 PM:
 
But isn't all that stuff in the TV show itself except for the language, crude and drug related humor? Lol. I think he's just steamed he didn't get any royalties or wasn't offered a part. I remember him on an interview when the movie was announced or in production, saying something to the effect of "I'm available".
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-24-2005, 09:42 PM:
 

quote: Mark J. Marshall

---

You would NEVER have seen such a warning on the TV show. But as usual, the Hollyweird crowd feels compelled to use the lowest form of humor every chance it gets.

Meanwhile, studio execs continue to wonder why attendance is declining.

---

Oh, come on. Do you think if they made the movie with the same content, production values, etc. as the TV show that they wouldn't have gotten their G-rated butts laughed right out of town?

Raunchy sells because people like it. Look at "Wedding Crashers" and the "American Pie" series. "Dukes" would probably be a hit movie if they had Daisy crawling around naked on the hood of the General Lee and got an R-rating.
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 07-24-2005, 09:48 PM:
 
If the trailer is any indication, "Dukes" is gonna be one big steaming turd.
 

---

Posted by Erick Akers (Member # 875) on 07-24-2005, 10:22 PM:
 
I second that opinion,

Dasy did have the scanty look; but, most of the sexual content was inuendo, which she used for distracting Cleatus and Rosco P.

As things go,
The series was also a far cry from the movie that started it all in the first place!
 

---

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 07-24-2005, 11:24 PM:
 
Catherine Bach was sexy, but she didnt come across as a retarded airhead.
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 07-25-2005, 01:34 AM:
 

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

Oh, come on. Do you think if they made the movie with the same content, production values, etc. as the TV show that they wouldn't have gotten their G-rated butts laughed right out of town?

---

Then why not just make an original PG-13 (or R) comedy about two southern schmucks riding around in a car getting chased by an inept sheriff and his deputy? Why hijack the characters and title of a family friendly TV show?
 

---

Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 07-25-2005, 03:01 AM:
 
Am I missing something? The original premise of the original show was two guys, the heroes, bootlegging alcohol and running from the law, and getting away with it! Wasn't it? Is that particularly family friendly? Whatever "family values" were on top of that would seem a little lost on me.

And that said, I have no interest at all in seeing this anyway. Never mind the fact that I will never contribute anything to Jessica Simpson's career, ever; this movie just has nothing I would want entertainment out of.
 

---

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 07-25-2005, 10:33 AM:
 

quote: Mark J. Marshall

---

Then why not just make an original PG-13 (or R) comedy about two southern schmucks riding around in a car getting chased by an inept sheriff and his deputy? Why hijack the characters and title of a family friendly TV show?

---

Well first off, it may have felt like it was family friendly, but you can disguise just about anything well enough and call it family friendly.

Secondly, if they did a movie with all the same elements, it woudl be a theft of orginal concept material. There would be lawsuits, and no one would care.

By actually PURCHASING the rights to the show, they can make a movie BASED on the tv show, which of couse was stolen from an original movie.

In fact they had to shell out big bucks to get all that dirty laundry taken care of.

The DUKES are easily recognizable, easy to make money with, and just some plain dirty fun, no deep story.

You know, we have too many efforts to make film all kinds of serious, and they usually fall flat and fail. This one makes no kind of pretentious effort at all to come off serious. It is what it is, and people knock it for NOT lying to you about what it is?

I personally will go and have fun. That's all this film is. A big stinking pile of fun. No story, no plot, no acting, just racing cars around and people acting like itiots. It takes none of my remaining brain cells to "figure" this movie out. All it takes is me, three hot dogs, a pack of nachos, a pepperoni pizza, a gigantic diet coke ( by the way, yes I know a DIET coke with all that crap makes no sense, other than to cut out the ungodly amount of sugar in my soda, cuts down on teeth rotting ya know), and I am set.

Afterwards, I go home, sleep, go to work, and not give a flying rats ass if it was good or not, as long as i had fun.

Ciao
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-25-2005, 02:15 PM:
 

quote: Mark J. Marshall

---

Then why not just make an original PG-13 (or R) comedy about two southern schmucks riding around in a car getting chased by an inept sheriff and his deputy? Why hijack the characters and title of a family friendly TV show?

---

quote: Brian Michael Weidemann

---

Am I missing something? The original premise of the original show was two guys, the heroes, bootlegging alcohol and running from the law, and getting away with it! Wasn't it? Is that particularly family friendly? Whatever "family values" were on top of that would seem a little lost on me.

---

Well said, Brian. I'll second that opinion.

The original Dukes of Hazard TV series is NOT a "family show." Catherine Bach may not have had her tits out in full view, but the overall tone of the show made the image of being an outlaw cool. How in the hell can anyone say that's family friendly with a straight face?

We seem to have a really stupid form of "morality" in movies and TV shows. Basically everything is okay as long as there are no naked body parts and a few curse words are bleeped. We can get away with showing brutal acts of violence or glamorizing characters that betray their professional collegues or their spouses in affairs.

Of course one can pose that bigger picture argument of "art is just imitating life versus life is imitating art." Regardless, part of the culture in the United States is pretty vicious. Our murder rate and rate of other violent crimes is much higher than all other developed countries. Our culture sends the message that violence and selfishness are tools for success. But all we're worried about is fuzzing out some harmless titty nipples and bleeping a few curse words. Yeah, that'll get a lot accomplished.

 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 07-25-2005, 06:19 PM:
 
If you have fun watching this, more power to you. It would be a chore for me to sit through though. Kinda like that last Charlie's Angels movie. So I'll be skipping it.

Is that OK?


 

---

Posted by David Favel (Member # 1125) on 07-25-2005, 07:41 PM:
 
Did I read that the MPAA okayed swearing in a movie because it didn't refer to sexual penetration?

By that logic,
You're fucked is O.K.
Where
I'm gonna fuck you is not.
 

---

Posted by Will Kutler (Member # 770) on 07-25-2005, 09:00 PM:
 
To an extent, the original show mimiced historical reality. "Backwoods Bootlegging" was an important source of income for those folks living in this part of the U.S. ...especially during the Great Depression. Moonshining is how these folks were able to put food into their families mouths. Unlike the glorified gangsters of New York, Chicago, etc, ya did not hear a lot about violence revolving around Moonshining. Moonshining is nothing like narcotic dealing!

And what evolved out of the cat and mouse rumrunner vs cop car chases (Dukes style)?....NASCAR!

Cheers

K
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-25-2005, 10:42 PM:
 
Bootlegging did feature lots of fatal car crashes. Even some of the early racing legends (who still did bootlegging work) died in car chase related wrecks.

Although bootlegging is part of early 20th century history -and what led to the creation of NASCAR, I still don't consider it a "family friendly" topic.

This isn't to say I'm completely against kids watching shows like "The Dukes of Hazard" TV series or movies like "Smokey and the Bandit" or this new "Dukes" movie. Parents should supervise their viewing to make sure the kids understand that its just a far fetched show.

I'm just tired of people getting on the news and inventing some perceived controversy -as if Jessica Simpson is somehow doing something more sexually suggestive than Catherine Bach. They do this while ignoring the more subversive content like making destructive high speed car chases appear fun or glorifying the bad boy outlaw mentality.

I think there's greater life harming consequences to indulging in violence than sex. Our so called moral protectors out there trying to guard us from naked hooters don't seem to have a clue.
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 07-25-2005, 10:44 PM:
 
Bobby, do you have a blog? You really need one.
 

---

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 07-25-2005, 11:21 PM:
 
It's ironic that we can afford this man enough respect to call him "the REAL Cooter" but then not allow him to make an authoritative statement about his own show. That said, I stumbled upon a Dukes of Hazzard rerun a few weeks ago and I was struck at how Ms. Bach never played the Daisy character in a sleazy manner. The character seemed as disinterested in her own skimpy clothes as a 7-year-old girl might on a hot day. Meanwhile, every single ad for the new movie shows Ms. Simpson playing the character sleazy.

But the biggest sin this movie commits (which the TV show did also) is reduce the number of 1969 Dodge Chargers that exist in our world today. How many were destroyed over the years just for the sake of telling silly stories about those Duke boys? It's a travesty! Of all the 1969 Dodge Chargers left in the world, what percentage is currently painted to look like the General Lee?
 

---

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 07-26-2005, 12:30 AM:
 
Of course he's allowed to make a statement on his own show, we just don't have to agree with it.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-26-2005, 12:39 AM:
 
How is it that "The Dukes of Hazard" somehow belongs to Ben "Cooter" Jones? He was an paid actor on the show, but I don't think he had the rights to it.

I agree it's sad so many Dodge Chargers got destroyed. But that's pretty typical for any TV show or movie involving cars and chases. It's not as maddening as some rock star taking a nice electric guitar and smashing it.

quote: David Stambaugh

---

Bobby, do you have a blog? You really need one.

---

God help us if that happens.

 

---

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 07-26-2005, 07:26 AM:
 
Greg said; "But the biggest sin this movie commits (which the TV show did also) is reduce the number of 1969 Dodge Chargers that exist in our world today."

I felt the same way! When the show was ending, there was an article in some trade paper about it. I remember reading that one of the stunt coordinators stated they were destroying two Chargers for every three episodes.
 

---

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 07-26-2005, 09:42 AM:
 
Certainly, The Dukes of Hazzard "belongs" to the real Cooter more than it does any of us on this forum. And this guy actually read the script of this new movie. Maybe he knows just a little bit of what he's talking about. Maybe?

I'm just glad to hear someone from a so-called "classic" speak up about a lousy remake during this endless stream of needless, low-performance remakes. The main stars from Bewitched were dead so they couldn't launch an outcry about the new movie version. Gene Wilder said something about Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and then took the opportunity to modify his statement. Who knows whether the real Cooter will have something new to say in a couple of weeks? What if the movie really is as poorly-written and poorly-acted as it looks so far? How many of us will stand up and defend it if it's still a flat-out badly-made movie?

Some people might just say he's a washed-up actor using this moment to propel himself back into the spotlight. Well, why shouldn't he do that? If someone cares enough to pay attention to a movie based on his old TV show why shouldn't he step up and be a part of the attention-grabbing? Give the man his due.
 

---

Posted by Jeremy Fuentes (Member # 2135) on 07-26-2005, 09:54 AM:
 

quote: Greg Anderson

---

What if the movie really is as poorly-written and poorly-acted as it looks so far? How many of us will stand up and defend it if it's still a flat-out badly-made movie?

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

God help us if that happens.

---

 

---

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 07-27-2005, 11:52 PM:
 

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

Our so called moral protectors out there trying to guard us from naked hooters don't seem to have a clue.

---

OMG!! DOES JESSICA SIMPSON GET NAKED IN THIS MOVIE?!!?!!
 

---

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 07-28-2005, 12:41 AM:
 
The movie does look like a stupid but fun car chase film, so more than likely I'll enjoy it. Besides, Burt's in it so it's got that going for it. It will be interesting to see if Cooter changes his tune once he actually sees the finished version of the movie. Knowing how comedies are usually different from the original script with improv and whatnot on the set, I'll bet there's alot that will be different from the version of the script he saw. I just think its funny he didn't see Catherine Bach running around alot in next to nothing during his years on the show. Oh well.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-28-2005, 01:40 AM:
 
One of the male stars (I forget which one) was on Letterman not too long ago and Dave asked him about the movie. Letterman said, "Tell us about the plot." The guy said, "What plot? The whole movie is a bunch of car chases and girls in shorts and stuff" or something to that effect. As such, I'm looking forward to it!
 

---