It seems different enough that it's akin to the Karate Kid remake, It's a very similar premise and some plot points, but getting from point A to B to C should be different enough.
This is about how I feel. I mean, they could call Karate Kid "Jaden Smith's Big Time China Adventure" or they could just be honest and call it what it is. Pretty sure if they created a story about a kid who learns kung fu from an old Chinese guy in order to stand up for himself there'd be a number of people calling it just that.
They could at least call it "The Kung Fu Kid" which has a badass sound to it, like a western where people get punched in the throat.
I think that's actually the plan, outside of North America. But in NA, I guess they want to capitalize on the Karate Kid franchise? I don't know. Kung-Fu Kid would be fine, especially with Chan's involvement.
That and most Americans don't know, or care about, the difference between karate and kung-fu.
Whereas if that movie came out in Japan with the title 'Karate Kid', there'd be a lot of people in the audience going "What the fuck? That's not Karate."
Ooooh I get it, this is only about recent remakes and how Hollywood hasn't been a continual story of self-plagiary since the beginning, and how that doesn't happen in all art. And somehow this indicates THE END TIMES for cinema.
Right. Carry on.
Robman on
0
Options
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
I personally like the US version of The Office quite a bit more than the original, though that's probably because I loathe Ricky Gervais. So I usually cite it as the exception that proves the rule of American remakes of British shows being terrible.
I like the UK version more. The US version is just a random "wacky American" sitcom set in an office, it has less to do with cubicle life than The Drew Carey Show, let alone coming close to something like Office Space. I'm not sure why they even stick with the documentary-style cinematography anymore, the show would work just as well if the camera pulled back to the standard 4th wall POV.
The exceptions that prove the rule are Sanford & Son and All in the Family. Of course, those had the benefit of Norman Lear.
You are high as fuck. You either don't know anything about abysmal American Sitcoms or you're simply confused.
Anyone just find it offensive they feel the need to take the movie and design a remake specifically for black people? Like black people require their own specifically made movies? There was a time for blaxploitation films, and they were hilarious and bad and reinforced negative stereotypes and pretty racist on the whole. But this film looks like they're being serious. This isn't like Black Dynamite - that shit was trying to be like Foxy Brown, Coffy, Bucktown, or Blackula. This feels like that Look Who's Coming to Dinner remake with Ashton Kutcher playing the part of Sidney Poitier and Bernie Mac in the role of Spencer Tracy.
It feels like they are dumbing it down for black people. That is what it feels like. It's a little offensive.
It seems different enough that it's akin to the Karate Kid remake, It's a very similar premise and some plot points, but getting from point A to B to C should be different enough.
This is about how I feel. I mean, they could call Karate Kid "Jaden Smith's Big Time China Adventure" or they could just be honest and call it what it is. Pretty sure if they created a story about a kid who learns kung fu from an old Chinese guy in order to stand up for himself there'd be a number of people calling it just that.
They could at least call it "The Kung Fu Kid" which has a badass sound to it, like a western where people get punched in the throat.
I think that's actually the plan, outside of North America. But in NA, I guess they want to capitalize on the Karate Kid franchise? I don't know. Kung-Fu Kid would be fine, especially with Chan's involvement.
That and most Americans don't know, or care about, the difference between karate and kung-fu.
Whereas if that movie came out in Japan with the title 'Karate Kid', there'd be a lot of people in the audience going "What the fuck? That's not Karate."
Karate is the Dane Cook of martial arts, to quote Archer.
I think the Karate Kid remake does look fairly awesome though.
Anyone just find it offensive they feel the need to take the movie and design a remake specifically for black people? Like black people require their own specifically made movies? There was a time for blaxploitation films, and they were hilarious and bad and reinforced negative stereotypes and pretty racist on the whole. But this film looks like they're being serious. This isn't like Black Dynamite - that shit was trying to be like Foxy Brown, Coffy, Bucktown, or Blackula. This feels like that Look Who's Coming to Dinner remake with Ashton Kutcher playing the part of Sidney Poitier and Bernie Mac in the role of Spencer Tracy.
It feels like they are dumbing it down for black people. That is what it feels like. It's a little offensive.
Maybe.
But is the alternative that 'black only' versions shouldn't exist any better? Was the original Death at a Funeral so universal that non-whites could look at it and go 'Hey! That's just like me!'?
I say let the target audience decide for themselves if this is a good idea.
I had never seen nor heard of the original British version prior to the start of the US series. Now I've seen both and, to be honest, find the US take much more entertaining.
hahah no.
Greg USN on
FFXIV Petra Ironheart Infinity Mog 21 and over Free Company Sargatanas Server. Recruitment currently closed.
Anyone just find it offensive they feel the need to take the movie and design a remake specifically for black people? Like black people require their own specifically made movies? There was a time for blaxploitation films, and they were hilarious and bad and reinforced negative stereotypes and pretty racist on the whole. But this film looks like they're being serious. This isn't like Black Dynamite - that shit was trying to be like Foxy Brown, Coffy, Bucktown, or Blackula. This feels like that Look Who's Coming to Dinner remake with Ashton Kutcher playing the part of Sidney Poitier and Bernie Mac in the role of Spencer Tracy.
It feels like they are dumbing it down for black people. That is what it feels like. It's a little offensive.
Maybe.
But is the alternative that 'black only' versions shouldn't exist any better? Was the original Death at a Funeral so universal that non-whites could look at it and go 'Hey! That's just like me!'?
I say let the target audience decide for themselves if this is a good idea.
The problem is that 'black only' versions, by and large, are filled to bursting with negative black stereotypes, and generally utilize a cruder form of humour. The original version of this film was a sophisticated comedy. This movie appears to be lowbrow - the assumption is that black audiences wouldn't appreciate an intelligent comedy. The assumption is racist. Reinforcing negative black stereotypes is harmful.
Wash on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
edited March 2010
I liked the British version of the movie. This version is entirely unnecessary
Fencingsax on
0
Options
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
Anyone just find it offensive they feel the need to take the movie and design a remake specifically for black people? Like black people require their own specifically made movies? There was a time for blaxploitation films, and they were hilarious and bad and reinforced negative stereotypes and pretty racist on the whole. But this film looks like they're being serious. This isn't like Black Dynamite - that shit was trying to be like Foxy Brown, Coffy, Bucktown, or Blackula. This feels like that Look Who's Coming to Dinner remake with Ashton Kutcher playing the part of Sidney Poitier and Bernie Mac in the role of Spencer Tracy.
It feels like they are dumbing it down for black people. That is what it feels like. It's a little offensive.
Maybe.
But is the alternative that 'black only' versions shouldn't exist any better? Was the original Death at a Funeral so universal that non-whites could look at it and go 'Hey! That's just like me!'?
I say let the target audience decide for themselves if this is a good idea.
Surely the target audience might not realize they're being patronized so awfully.
Anyone just find it offensive they feel the need to take the movie and design a remake specifically for black people? Like black people require their own specifically made movies? There was a time for blaxploitation films, and they were hilarious and bad and reinforced negative stereotypes and pretty racist on the whole. But this film looks like they're being serious. This isn't like Black Dynamite - that shit was trying to be like Foxy Brown, Coffy, Bucktown, or Blackula. This feels like that Look Who's Coming to Dinner remake with Ashton Kutcher playing the part of Sidney Poitier and Bernie Mac in the role of Spencer Tracy.
It feels like they are dumbing it down for black people. That is what it feels like. It's a little offensive.
Maybe.
But is the alternative that 'black only' versions shouldn't exist any better? Was the original Death at a Funeral so universal that non-whites could look at it and go 'Hey! That's just like me!'?
I say let the target audience decide for themselves if this is a good idea.
Surely the target audience might not realize they're being patronized so awfully.
Clearly it's less patronising to be the arbiter of somebody else's opinions.
Lowbrow it might be, but people like that kind of stuff.
Anyone just find it offensive they feel the need to take the movie and design a remake specifically for black people? Like black people require their own specifically made movies? There was a time for blaxploitation films, and they were hilarious and bad and reinforced negative stereotypes and pretty racist on the whole. But this film looks like they're being serious. This isn't like Black Dynamite - that shit was trying to be like Foxy Brown, Coffy, Bucktown, or Blackula. This feels like that Look Who's Coming to Dinner remake with Ashton Kutcher playing the part of Sidney Poitier and Bernie Mac in the role of Spencer Tracy.
It feels like they are dumbing it down for black people. That is what it feels like. It's a little offensive.
Maybe.
But is the alternative that 'black only' versions shouldn't exist any better? Was the original Death at a Funeral so universal that non-whites could look at it and go 'Hey! That's just like me!'?
I say let the target audience decide for themselves if this is a good idea.
Surely the target audience might not realize they're being patronized so awfully.
I kind of assumed white people would still be the majority audience
like with the shittier end of hip-hop.
The Cat on
0
Options
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
Anyone just find it offensive they feel the need to take the movie and design a remake specifically for black people? Like black people require their own specifically made movies? There was a time for blaxploitation films, and they were hilarious and bad and reinforced negative stereotypes and pretty racist on the whole. But this film looks like they're being serious. This isn't like Black Dynamite - that shit was trying to be like Foxy Brown, Coffy, Bucktown, or Blackula. This feels like that Look Who's Coming to Dinner remake with Ashton Kutcher playing the part of Sidney Poitier and Bernie Mac in the role of Spencer Tracy.
It feels like they are dumbing it down for black people. That is what it feels like. It's a little offensive.
Maybe.
But is the alternative that 'black only' versions shouldn't exist any better? Was the original Death at a Funeral so universal that non-whites could look at it and go 'Hey! That's just like me!'?
I say let the target audience decide for themselves if this is a good idea.
Surely the target audience might not realize they're being patronized so awfully.
Clearly it's less patronising to be the arbiter of somebody else's opinions.
Lowbrow it might be, but people like that kind of stuff.
Just because people like it, doesn't mean it's okay. If so many black people love fried chicken, and even self admit they love fried chicken, is it less wrong to patronize black people over loving fried chicken?.
mrt144 on
0
Options
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
Anyone just find it offensive they feel the need to take the movie and design a remake specifically for black people? Like black people require their own specifically made movies? There was a time for blaxploitation films, and they were hilarious and bad and reinforced negative stereotypes and pretty racist on the whole. But this film looks like they're being serious. This isn't like Black Dynamite - that shit was trying to be like Foxy Brown, Coffy, Bucktown, or Blackula. This feels like that Look Who's Coming to Dinner remake with Ashton Kutcher playing the part of Sidney Poitier and Bernie Mac in the role of Spencer Tracy.
It feels like they are dumbing it down for black people. That is what it feels like. It's a little offensive.
Maybe.
But is the alternative that 'black only' versions shouldn't exist any better? Was the original Death at a Funeral so universal that non-whites could look at it and go 'Hey! That's just like me!'?
I say let the target audience decide for themselves if this is a good idea.
Surely the target audience might not realize they're being patronized so awfully.
I kind of assumed white people would still be the majority audience
Anyone just find it offensive they feel the need to take the movie and design a remake specifically for black people? Like black people require their own specifically made movies? There was a time for blaxploitation films, and they were hilarious and bad and reinforced negative stereotypes and pretty racist on the whole. But this film looks like they're being serious. This isn't like Black Dynamite - that shit was trying to be like Foxy Brown, Coffy, Bucktown, or Blackula. This feels like that Look Who's Coming to Dinner remake with Ashton Kutcher playing the part of Sidney Poitier and Bernie Mac in the role of Spencer Tracy.
It feels like they are dumbing it down for black people. That is what it feels like. It's a little offensive.
Maybe.
But is the alternative that 'black only' versions shouldn't exist any better? Was the original Death at a Funeral so universal that non-whites could look at it and go 'Hey! That's just like me!'?
I say let the target audience decide for themselves if this is a good idea.
Surely the target audience might not realize they're being patronized so awfully.
Clearly it's less patronising to be the arbiter of somebody else's opinions.
Lowbrow it might be, but people like that kind of stuff.
Just because people like it, doesn't mean it's okay. If so many black people love fried chicken, and even self admit they love fried chicken, is it less wrong to patronize black people over loving fried chicken?.
We live in a world where original pap like Bride Wars exists. If I hadn't already turned of my 'offended for others' sensor long before that, I might get downright indignant that movies marketed to people who aren't me exist.
Seriously, this line of thinking is trending toward unfortunate implication territory. Why this has to be used as the example that Hollywood long ago lost it's ability for original thought and not, oh...Clash of the Titans, can say things that are unpleasant.
Tread carefully. The line between concern and condescension is thin indeed.
Ooooh I get it, this is only about recent remakes and how Hollywood hasn't been a continual story of self-plagiary since the beginning, and how that doesn't happen in all art. And somehow this indicates THE END TIMES for cinema.
Yup.
Fact of the matter is, some times the remake is better, sometimes it is not. Sometimes it becomes something different entirely. But frankly, the fact that they got clear inspiration from somewhere else is fine. It's all in whether or not they actually make something good.
I personally like the US version of The Office quite a bit more than the original, though that's probably because I loathe Ricky Gervais. So I usually cite it as the exception that proves the rule of American remakes of British shows being terrible.
I like the UK version more. The US version is just a random "wacky American" sitcom set in an office, it has less to do with cubicle life than The Drew Carey Show, let alone coming close to something like Office Space. I'm not sure why they even stick with the documentary-style cinematography anymore, the show would work just as well if the camera pulled back to the standard 4th wall POV.
The exceptions that prove the rule are Sanford & Son and All in the Family. Of course, those had the benefit of Norman Lear.
You are high as fuck. You either don't know anything about abysmal American Sitcoms or you're simply confused.
The Office US isn't even about cubicle life, it's about people hooking up who just happen to be working in an office. It's like saying Friends was about coffee shops.
Secondly, Carrell's character is much too likeable to fill the "worst boss ever" role. His likeability lessens the whole dysfunctional mechanic of the office. There no cases of people delaying their dreams in favor of staying at a place they hate with a boss they loathe because they're scared of standing on their own, because the US office isn't a place they hate and Michael Scott isn't a boss they revile. Gervais' character flaws are whitewashed into Carrell's quirks - oh, he thinks Chili's is high-end cuisine, what a lovable goofball! Oh look, now he thinks he's Jamaican, complete with fake dreads and rasta hat. How hilariously adorable!
Thirdly, The Office US constantly sets up punch lines and gags. It's why the show has spawned a catchphrase. It's one of the reasons sticking with the documentary style camera is so bizarre, because it's structured very much along traditional sitcom lines. Reliance on an ever-growing cast of secondary characters in the US version is another classic sitcom exercise, most blatantly seen in The Simpsons.
This isn't to say that what the US version doesn't do what it does very well. It's a funny, well-written show. It's also much, much closer to the classic American sitcom formula than the UK version.
BubbaT on
0
Options
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
I personally like the US version of The Office quite a bit more than the original, though that's probably because I loathe Ricky Gervais. So I usually cite it as the exception that proves the rule of American remakes of British shows being terrible.
I like the UK version more. The US version is just a random "wacky American" sitcom set in an office, it has less to do with cubicle life than The Drew Carey Show, let alone coming close to something like Office Space. I'm not sure why they even stick with the documentary-style cinematography anymore, the show would work just as well if the camera pulled back to the standard 4th wall POV.
The exceptions that prove the rule are Sanford & Son and All in the Family. Of course, those had the benefit of Norman Lear.
You are high as fuck. You either don't know anything about abysmal American Sitcoms or you're simply confused.
The Office US isn't even about cubicle life, it's about people hooking up who just happen to be working in an office. It's like saying Friends was about coffee shops.
Secondly, Carrell's character is much too likeable to fill the "worst boss ever" role. His likeability lessens the whole dysfunctional mechanic of the office. There no cases of people delaying their dreams in favor of staying at a place they hate with a boss they loathe because they're scared of standing on their own, because the US office isn't a place they hate and Michael Scott isn't a boss they revile. Gervais' character flaws are whitewashed into Carrell's quirks - oh, he thinks Chili's is high-end cuisine, what a lovable goofball! Oh look, now he thinks he's Jamaican, complete with fake dreads and rasta hat. How hilariously adorable!
Thirdly, The Office US constantly sets up punch lines and gags. It's why the show has spawned a catchphrase. It's one of the reasons sticking with the documentary style camera is so bizarre, because it's structured very much along traditional sitcom lines. Reliance on an ever-growing cast of secondary characters in the US version is another classic sitcom exercise, most blatantly seen in The Simpsons.
This isn't to say that what the US version doesn't do what it does very well. It's a funny, well-written show. It's also much, much closer to the classic American sitcom formula than the UK version.
Yeah, but you're saying it's more like Everybody Loves Raymond than anything else.
mrt144 on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Anyone just find it offensive they feel the need to take the movie and design a remake specifically for black people? Like black people require their own specifically made movies? There was a time for blaxploitation films, and they were hilarious and bad and reinforced negative stereotypes and pretty racist on the whole. But this film looks like they're being serious. This isn't like Black Dynamite - that shit was trying to be like Foxy Brown, Coffy, Bucktown, or Blackula. This feels like that Look Who's Coming to Dinner remake with Ashton Kutcher playing the part of Sidney Poitier and Bernie Mac in the role of Spencer Tracy.
It feels like they are dumbing it down for black people. That is what it feels like. It's a little offensive.
Here's the deal with that.
If I were a Black person, I'd probably be offended for many reasons, not the least of which would be the insult to my intelligence.
The reality, however, is that the films that tend to make the most money by drawing in largely Black audiences are of a very specific type. With very little exception, they're generally ensemble comedic melodramas with heavy emphasis on family and faith, starring several A-list Black stars. And by most academic standards, they're poorly written and condescending.
But when there's a good shot at money to be made, these things are going to happen. They'll stop making them when people stop going to them in droves.
Atomika on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Tread carefully. The line between concern and condescension is thin indeed.
Exactly.
Plus, remakes aren't inherently bad things, just only when they're remaking something that was good enough the first time. Sometimes good ideas are executed poorly. Sometimes good ideas don't have the budget to get everything right the first time.
The Departed is a remake. Ocean's Eleven is a remake. The Magnificent Seven is a remake. 3:10 to Yuma is a remake. The Thing is a remake. Insomnia is a remake. Even The Dark Knight is a kind of remake.
See? Not so bad.
From all of my time studying film, the advice that stuck with me the most was this: There are no bad ideas, just bad executions.
Atomika on
0
Options
Muse Among MenSuburban Bunny Princess?Its time for a new shtick Registered Userregular
edited March 2010
I'm a young'un. I didn't get to see a lot of old movies because I was too young or not born. I can appreciate why so many people are disappointed with the glut of remakes and sequels, but I personally I can't bring myself to dislike the principal of creating a remake, especially if it will be for an audience who hasn't seen the source material. I could watch the source material, and often I do, but I won't get the social aspect of visiting the cinema. And remakes quite often turn out to be markedly different from the source, effectively making it a different movie with similar elements/tropes as compared to something else.
Sequels I can take or leave. Sometimes the sequel is awesome; would you rather it not exist in favor of something original? There is no guarantee that this new original film will be any better than this sequel, but you can hope (with reason) that the sequel will be about as good as what preceded it considering that the same people are working on it.
I would absolutely love to see more original films, but sequels and remakes deserve a little love every now and again.
EDIT: Oh hey, it seems I'm agreeing with Ross.
Muse Among Men on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Sequels I can take or leave. Sometimes the sequel is awesome; would you rather it not exist in favor of something original? There is no guarantee that this new original film will be any better than this sequel, but you can hope (with reason) that the sequel will be about as good as what preceded it considering that the same people are working on it.
The only sequels I'm against are cash-grab sequels, i.e., sequels to movies that really didn't ask to be serialized, such as The Whole Nine Yards. Funny, light, forgettable . . . but then comes the sequel: just plain awful. But the first one made money, right? So let's just trot out all the same people again and see if it'll work a second time. Bah.
Another example is the Matrix trilogy. The Wachowskis clearly ended the first one with a dangling participle, leaving us wanting to see how that world would play out. Unfortunately, they didn't really have any better idea of that ending than, "Uh . . . and then everybody fights each other. With robots. Yeah."
I guess what I'm saying is that every movie is different, and nothing about their origins, be they original, sequel, remake, prequel, reimagining, whatever, has anything inherently to do with the quality of their production. I mean, look at Broadway; people still go to see West Side Story and Carmen, and those are downright ancient. Execution is really all that matters.
Atomika on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Tread carefully. The line between concern and condescension is thin indeed.
Exactly.
Plus, remakes aren't inherently bad things, just only when they're remaking something that was good enough the first time. Sometimes good ideas are executed poorly. Sometimes good ideas don't have the budget to get everything right the first time.
The Departed is a remake. Ocean's Eleven is a remake. The Magnificent Seven is a remake. 3:10 to Yuma is a remake. The Thing is a remake. Insomnia is a remake. Even The Dark Knight is a kind of remake.
See? Not so bad.
From all of my time studying film, the advice that stuck with me the most was this: There are no bad ideas, just bad executions.
Yes, But Death at a Funeral came out about 3 years ago.
Fencingsax on
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
Tread carefully. The line between concern and condescension is thin indeed.
Exactly.
Plus, remakes aren't inherently bad things, just only when they're remaking something that was good enough the first time. Sometimes good ideas are executed poorly. Sometimes good ideas don't have the budget to get everything right the first time.
The Departed is a remake. Ocean's Eleven is a remake. The Magnificent Seven is a remake. 3:10 to Yuma is a remake. The Thing is a remake. Insomnia is a remake. Even The Dark Knight is a kind of remake.
See? Not so bad.
From all of my time studying film, the advice that stuck with me the most was this: There are no bad ideas, just bad executions.
Yes, But Death at a Funeral came out about 3 years ago.
The American version of The Ring came out only four years after the Japanese version. And there are only six years between Seven Samurai and the Magnificent Seven.
Tread carefully. The line between concern and condescension is thin indeed.
Exactly.
Plus, remakes aren't inherently bad things, just only when they're remaking something that was good enough the first time. Sometimes good ideas are executed poorly. Sometimes good ideas don't have the budget to get everything right the first time.
The Departed is a remake. Ocean's Eleven is a remake. The Magnificent Seven is a remake. 3:10 to Yuma is a remake. The Thing is a remake. Insomnia is a remake. Even The Dark Knight is a kind of remake.
See? Not so bad.
From all of my time studying film, the advice that stuck with me the most was this: There are no bad ideas, just bad executions.
Yes, But Death at a Funeral came out about 3 years ago.
The American version of The Ring came out only four years after the Japanese version. And there are only six years between Seven Samurai and the Magnificent Seven.
Tread carefully. The line between concern and condescension is thin indeed.
Exactly.
Plus, remakes aren't inherently bad things, just only when they're remaking something that was good enough the first time. Sometimes good ideas are executed poorly. Sometimes good ideas don't have the budget to get everything right the first time.
The Departed is a remake. Ocean's Eleven is a remake. The Magnificent Seven is a remake. 3:10 to Yuma is a remake. The Thing is a remake. Insomnia is a remake. Even The Dark Knight is a kind of remake.
See? Not so bad.
From all of my time studying film, the advice that stuck with me the most was this: There are no bad ideas, just bad executions.
Yes, But Death at a Funeral came out about 3 years ago.
in 3 years i want to see a black version of sherlock holmes with Will Smith and Denzel washington!
That's your response? As if that would make a difference in the apocalypse bringing Death at a Funeral remake? Would it have been better if it had been called Passed Away? Would the 'original' Death at a Funeral be worse if it was called Passed Away?
The longer you try to defend your position, the more this looks bad.
Yes, but those at least have the excuse of different languages.
That is such a weak argument. 'Yojimbo and A Fistful of Dollars are acceptable because of different languages. But Death at a Funeral isn't because the languages are the same.'
I really, really, really don't want to dig any deeper into just why the 'new' Death at a Funeral is such a travesty of film making. Or even why it's somehow acceptable that the 'old' Death at a Funeral exists when there have already been so many other 'crazy shit at a wake/funeral' movies and TV episodes.
This is a terrible argument from a flimsy position. 'It just is' isn't good enough.
Posts
Money. Duh.
Whereas if that movie came out in Japan with the title 'Karate Kid', there'd be a lot of people in the audience going "What the fuck? That's not Karate."
1943
1951
And
1942
1951
Ooooh I get it, this is only about recent remakes and how Hollywood hasn't been a continual story of self-plagiary since the beginning, and how that doesn't happen in all art. And somehow this indicates THE END TIMES for cinema.
Right. Carry on.
You are high as fuck. You either don't know anything about abysmal American Sitcoms or you're simply confused.
It feels like they are dumbing it down for black people. That is what it feels like. It's a little offensive.
Karate is the Dane Cook of martial arts, to quote Archer.
I think the Karate Kid remake does look fairly awesome though.
Maybe.
But is the alternative that 'black only' versions shouldn't exist any better? Was the original Death at a Funeral so universal that non-whites could look at it and go 'Hey! That's just like me!'?
I say let the target audience decide for themselves if this is a good idea.
hahah no.
Infinity Mog 21 and over Free Company Sargatanas Server. Recruitment currently closed.
The problem is that 'black only' versions, by and large, are filled to bursting with negative black stereotypes, and generally utilize a cruder form of humour. The original version of this film was a sophisticated comedy. This movie appears to be lowbrow - the assumption is that black audiences wouldn't appreciate an intelligent comedy. The assumption is racist. Reinforcing negative black stereotypes is harmful.
Surely the target audience might not realize they're being patronized so awfully.
Clearly it's less patronising to be the arbiter of somebody else's opinions.
Lowbrow it might be, but people like that kind of stuff.
I kind of assumed white people would still be the majority audience
like with the shittier end of hip-hop.
Just because people like it, doesn't mean it's okay. If so many black people love fried chicken, and even self admit they love fried chicken, is it less wrong to patronize black people over loving fried chicken?.
Like with all hip hop.
I actually really enjoy Ludacris' lyrical skill... it's modern poetry for people too bad to admit they enjoy the medium.
And he was in Be Kind, Rewind and Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy - which was a horrible adaptation, but still, he was in it.
We live in a world where original pap like Bride Wars exists. If I hadn't already turned of my 'offended for others' sensor long before that, I might get downright indignant that movies marketed to people who aren't me exist.
Seriously, this line of thinking is trending toward unfortunate implication territory. Why this has to be used as the example that Hollywood long ago lost it's ability for original thought and not, oh...Clash of the Titans, can say things that are unpleasant.
Tread carefully. The line between concern and condescension is thin indeed.
Yup.
Fact of the matter is, some times the remake is better, sometimes it is not. Sometimes it becomes something different entirely. But frankly, the fact that they got clear inspiration from somewhere else is fine. It's all in whether or not they actually make something good.
Be Kind, Rewind was an absolutely incredibly bland yet saccharine movie, and I loved every minute of it.
The Office US isn't even about cubicle life, it's about people hooking up who just happen to be working in an office. It's like saying Friends was about coffee shops.
Secondly, Carrell's character is much too likeable to fill the "worst boss ever" role. His likeability lessens the whole dysfunctional mechanic of the office. There no cases of people delaying their dreams in favor of staying at a place they hate with a boss they loathe because they're scared of standing on their own, because the US office isn't a place they hate and Michael Scott isn't a boss they revile. Gervais' character flaws are whitewashed into Carrell's quirks - oh, he thinks Chili's is high-end cuisine, what a lovable goofball! Oh look, now he thinks he's Jamaican, complete with fake dreads and rasta hat. How hilariously adorable!
Thirdly, The Office US constantly sets up punch lines and gags. It's why the show has spawned a catchphrase. It's one of the reasons sticking with the documentary style camera is so bizarre, because it's structured very much along traditional sitcom lines. Reliance on an ever-growing cast of secondary characters in the US version is another classic sitcom exercise, most blatantly seen in The Simpsons.
This isn't to say that what the US version doesn't do what it does very well. It's a funny, well-written show. It's also much, much closer to the classic American sitcom formula than the UK version.
Yeah, but you're saying it's more like Everybody Loves Raymond than anything else.
Here's the deal with that.
If I were a Black person, I'd probably be offended for many reasons, not the least of which would be the insult to my intelligence.
The reality, however, is that the films that tend to make the most money by drawing in largely Black audiences are of a very specific type. With very little exception, they're generally ensemble comedic melodramas with heavy emphasis on family and faith, starring several A-list Black stars. And by most academic standards, they're poorly written and condescending.
But when there's a good shot at money to be made, these things are going to happen. They'll stop making them when people stop going to them in droves.
Exactly.
Plus, remakes aren't inherently bad things, just only when they're remaking something that was good enough the first time. Sometimes good ideas are executed poorly. Sometimes good ideas don't have the budget to get everything right the first time.
The Departed is a remake. Ocean's Eleven is a remake. The Magnificent Seven is a remake. 3:10 to Yuma is a remake. The Thing is a remake. Insomnia is a remake. Even The Dark Knight is a kind of remake.
See? Not so bad.
From all of my time studying film, the advice that stuck with me the most was this: There are no bad ideas, just bad executions.
Sequels I can take or leave. Sometimes the sequel is awesome; would you rather it not exist in favor of something original? There is no guarantee that this new original film will be any better than this sequel, but you can hope (with reason) that the sequel will be about as good as what preceded it considering that the same people are working on it.
I would absolutely love to see more original films, but sequels and remakes deserve a little love every now and again.
EDIT: Oh hey, it seems I'm agreeing with Ross.
The only sequels I'm against are cash-grab sequels, i.e., sequels to movies that really didn't ask to be serialized, such as The Whole Nine Yards. Funny, light, forgettable . . . but then comes the sequel: just plain awful. But the first one made money, right? So let's just trot out all the same people again and see if it'll work a second time. Bah.
Another example is the Matrix trilogy. The Wachowskis clearly ended the first one with a dangling participle, leaving us wanting to see how that world would play out. Unfortunately, they didn't really have any better idea of that ending than, "Uh . . . and then everybody fights each other. With robots. Yeah."
I guess what I'm saying is that every movie is different, and nothing about their origins, be they original, sequel, remake, prequel, reimagining, whatever, has anything inherently to do with the quality of their production. I mean, look at Broadway; people still go to see West Side Story and Carmen, and those are downright ancient. Execution is really all that matters.
Yes, But Death at a Funeral came out about 3 years ago.
The American version of The Ring came out only four years after the Japanese version. And there are only six years between Seven Samurai and the Magnificent Seven.
Max Headroom was always 'British'. Why? What do you think changed?
Yojimbo - 1961
A Fistfull of Dollars - 1964
in 3 years i want to see a black version of sherlock holmes with Will Smith and Denzel washington!
That's your response? As if that would make a difference in the apocalypse bringing Death at a Funeral remake? Would it have been better if it had been called Passed Away? Would the 'original' Death at a Funeral be worse if it was called Passed Away?
The longer you try to defend your position, the more this looks bad.
That is such a weak argument. 'Yojimbo and A Fistful of Dollars are acceptable because of different languages. But Death at a Funeral isn't because the languages are the same.'
I really, really, really don't want to dig any deeper into just why the 'new' Death at a Funeral is such a travesty of film making. Or even why it's somehow acceptable that the 'old' Death at a Funeral exists when there have already been so many other 'crazy shit at a wake/funeral' movies and TV episodes.
This is a terrible argument from a flimsy position. 'It just is' isn't good enough.
I truly think that would be an improvement. Scoff, but I wouldn't mind seeing that.
Would it be any different than Wild Wild West?
Wild Wild London
How is that a bad thing?