Options

Signs that the End is Near [Hollywood Edition]

135

Posts

  • Options
    Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Inter_d wrote: »
    in 3 years i want to see a black version of sherlock holmes with Will Smith and Denzel washington!

    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?

    I meant from the point of view of it being any good. I almost said 'Replace Denzel with Kevin Kline and you've got a deal!' Maybe that would've been the better joke...

    Officially, I wouldn't care if they 'remade' Sherlock Holmes as suggested.

    Santa Claustrophobia on
  • Options
    Muse Among MenMuse Among Men Suburban Bunny Princess? Its time for a new shtick Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Sherlock Holmes was really only decent anyway. Moving on?

    Muse Among Men on
  • Options
    AtomikaAtomika Live fast and get fucked or whatever Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    I certainly think the remake of Death at a Funeral is a bad idea, because it's an obvious cash-grab. What I was saying earlier is just that the mere occurrence of a remake doesn't inherently doom it to ignominy.

    Black Death at an Urban Funeral will likely be crap because it seems like the only reason it exists is someone saw the original and went,

    "Wow, this is a dramedy about a family gathering. If we just made the whole cast Black and threw in some stuff about Jesus and some what-would-be-considered-racist-if-it-weren't-obviously-pandering-to-Black-people-already jokes, we'll mark off every box on Tyler Perry's How To Successfully Stereotype Black Folks While Somehow Making It Seem Respectful Ticklist™. And that dude has made a killing, so somebody call Tracy Morgan and let's go warm up the cameras."

    Atomika on
  • Options
    RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    I enjoyed the new Holmes movie, it was exactly the same sort of pulpy indulgence that the Holmes stories were in their day.

    Robman on
  • Options
    Muse Among MenMuse Among Men Suburban Bunny Princess? Its time for a new shtick Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    I don't know why, but it just didn't grab me. I'm sorry :( Glad you enjoyed it though. Granted, I was put off (of all things) by little historical inaccuracies nobody else noticed, though I do believe I am justified when I say I am tired of too-close close calls.

    Muse Among Men on
  • Options
    Al_watAl_wat Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    tallgeeze wrote: »
    cloudeagle wrote: »
    Mr Bubbles wrote: »
    Who is it that thinks British entertainment is good enough to remake anyway? Most of American remakes have been superior by a large margin, I for one am looking forward to this:
    http://www.coronacomingattractions.com/news/american-remakes-torchwood-doctor-who-being-planned

    Remember when that American Dr. Who TV movie was made? Good times, good times.

    The Office is pretty much the only British show to survive an American remake in the last decade or so, maybe ever.

    Oh, and rumor has it the Warner Bros. execs originally wanted to transfer the Harry Potter kids to America. Thank God J.K. Rowling put her foot down.

    I never saw it, but I heard American Dr. Who was...........interesting. Yeah, I will use that word:P

    American Torchwood could work given the nature of the show, but I read that they wanted Jack to be straight, which kills the character.

    Besides Who and Torchwood the only UK show I watch is Spooks. I'm a sucker for a spy drama and it's the best I've seen.

    As much as I want the American Torchwood to be successful and awesome (and I do), I would be very surprised it if doesn't end in cancellation and bitter disappointment.

    Al_wat on
  • Options
    ScrumScrum __BANNED USERS regular
    edited March 2010
    I am going to see the original Death at a Funeral now. Also, I dislike the American Office.

    Scrum on
  • Options
    QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Anyone ever watch the Japanese The Grudge? That was just horrible. American one came out not a year later and while not amazing was at least scary.

    I'll also take CGI King Kong with Jack Black over rubber and wood King Kong with Robert Armstrong.

    Quid on
  • Options
    Inter_dInter_d Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    alright FINE! no will smith or denzel, instead we'll be rolling with Jamie Foxx and Terrence Howard. awwww, yeahhhh.

    with rosario dawson taking rachel mcadams role, and Chiwetel Ejiofor as lord blackwood. Forest whitaker as the bumbling police chief guy.

    Inter_d on
  • Options
    RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Chiwetel Ejiofor would actually make a great Watson, I think.

    Robman on
  • Options
    Inter_dInter_d Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Robman wrote: »
    Chiwetel Ejiofor would actually make a great Watson, I think.

    You are correct, sir, but i couldn't think of a decent actor for blackwood. Sam jackson would butcher that role and no way don cheadle could pull that off, i doubt cuba gooding or common could do it.


    also the new bruce banner will be played by mos def, you most definitely wouldn't like him when he was mad.

    Inter_d on
  • Options
    RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    See but Mos Def would make a really good Bruce Banner

    You know who would make an amazing Moriarty? Don Cheadle. He has that calm menacing air.

    The problem when you start getting "ridiculous" with casting is you start picking out genuinely talented actors over people who "fit" the part. Goddamn I want Cheadle to be the Moriarty of the new Holmes series now.

    Robman on
  • Options
    SamSam Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Slider wrote: »
    BubbaT wrote: »
    2001:
    groupshot_s2.jpg


    2005:
    the-office-cast-full-photo-smaller.jpg


    Am I doing this right?

    Yes.

    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.

    see, this is why people say Americans have horrible taste.
    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.
    Twilight

    Sam on
  • Options
    Inter_dInter_d Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Sam wrote: »
    Slider wrote: »
    BubbaT wrote: »
    2001:
    *snip*


    Am I doing this right?

    Yes.

    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.

    see, this is why people say Americans have horrible taste.
    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.
    Twilight

    twilight would work better if you took out bella and edward.

    Inter_d on
  • Options
    CptHamiltonCptHamilton Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Quid wrote: »
    Anyone ever watch the Japanese The Grudge? That was just horrible. American one came out not a year later and while not amazing was at least scary.

    I'll also take CGI King Kong with Jack Black over rubber and wood King Kong with Robert Armstrong.

    I saw Ju-On but never saw the American remake. It was god-awful. The little boy showing up in weird places was mildly creepy, but the rest of the movie didn't make enough sense for it to be frightening. I was too busy trying to figure out who was who and when it was taking place to ever be frightened.

    The remake of The Eye wasn't bad, either. Not necessarily better than the original, but not really worse, either.

    CptHamilton on
    PSN,Steam,Live | CptHamiltonian
  • Options
    CptHamiltonCptHamilton Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Inter_d wrote: »
    Sam wrote: »
    Slider wrote: »
    BubbaT wrote: »
    2001:
    *snip*


    Am I doing this right?

    Yes.

    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.

    see, this is why people say Americans have horrible taste.
    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.
    Twilight

    twilight would work better if you took out bella and edward.

    While vampire/human romance is a hackneyed cliche at this point, it's not an inherently bad idea. It is, as the quote said, just a horrible execution of that idea. True Blood is the same core concept and is at least watchable.

    CptHamilton on
    PSN,Steam,Live | CptHamiltonian
  • Options
    SliderSlider Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Robman wrote: »
    I enjoyed the new Holmes movie, it was exactly the same sort of pulpy indulgence that the Holmes stories were in their day.

    The 1939 movie called, simply, "The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes" seems to be the original source for the present day Holmes movie.

    Slider on
  • Options
    JustinSane07JustinSane07 Really, stupid? Brockton__BANNED USERS regular
    edited March 2010
    The remake for DaaF doesn't seem to be all "CRAZY BLACK PEOPLE!" If you actually watch the trailer, Chris Rock's character is rather mild mannered, if not a bit pissed off. Danny Glover is the guy's old cantankerous brother. Even Martin Laurence seems to have toned down his normal wild self. The only one playing the CRAZY BLACK PERSON role is Tracy Morgan. Because that's what Tracy does.

    This not is like the Honeymooners remake with Cedric the Enterainer, or Who's Your Caddy, or one of those other low brow "We'll remake a movie and put black people in it!" schticks. It seems like they changed the cast to a black family and actually put in some effort.

    Now, I could be totally wrong and when the movie comes out it could be utter shit, but I think a lot of you are jumping the gun on the "THEY REMADE A WHITE MOVIE INTO A CRAZY BLACK MOVIE!" just because of the actors chosen.

    JustinSane07 on
  • Options
    Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Quid wrote: »
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    Hustle

    vs.

    Leverage

    The latter is broken, so broken.

    As far as I know Leverage is not based on Hustle. And in fact, the only real similarity is "Likable group of con men con bad people" which didn't exactly start with Hustle. But either way both are good shows.

    Burn Notice is one of these shows as well.

    I haven't seen Hustle, but I find Leverage incredibly annoying. It reminds me of CSI.

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Options
    Inter_dInter_d Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    White people should really just retaliate by remaking black movies with white people! You could do, Friday, Barbershop, Soulplane, Shaft, Soul food, boyz in the hood, Malcom X, and many more!

    I'd watch a white Dolemite lay the smackdown.

    Inter_d on
  • Options
    LawndartLawndart Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Inter_d wrote: »
    White people should really just retaliate by remaking black movies with white people! You could do, Friday, Barbershop, Soulplane, Shaft, Soul food, boyz in the hood, Malcom X, and many more!

    I'd watch a white Dolemite lay the smackdown.

    They call him...Dolewhite!

    Also, a Caucasploitation version of Soul Plane would be the best thing ever.

    "Can you imagine how wacky it would be if there was an airline...owned by white people?!"

    Lawndart on
  • Options
    Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Quid wrote: »
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    Hustle

    vs.

    Leverage

    The latter is broken, so broken.

    As far as I know Leverage is not based on Hustle. And in fact, the only real similarity is "Likable group of con men con bad people" which didn't exactly start with Hustle. But either way both are good shows.

    Burn Notice is one of these shows as well.

    I haven't seen Hustle, but I find Leverage incredibly annoying. It reminds me of CSI.

    Leverage is an okay show. But I get the feeling they're not going 'far enough' with the concept. The pilot episode was pretty good, but then the tone kind of changed and it feels...wimpier...somehow. As if they're too hamstrung by the 'bad guys being good guys' thing.

    Santa Claustrophobia on
  • Options
    Bionic MonkeyBionic Monkey Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited March 2010
    Talleyrand wrote: »
    [*REC]

    Quarantine

    Not terrible, just entirely unnecessary.

    That's an interesting example. My wife and I have seen both, but we watched them in different orders. I saw Quarantine first (because [*REC] wasn't available yet) without my wife, and later [*REC] with my wife after it had come out. She enjoyed it, and wanted to see Quarantine too.

    Both of us feel they're pretty equal in quality, and Quarantine doesn't deserve the hatred it recieves. But... I personally enjoy Quarantine more, and she enjoys [*REC] more. I'm guessing it's because those are the first version we each saw, and all things being equal, the first version is going to have a stronger impact.

    Bionic Monkey on
    sig_megas_armed.jpg
  • Options
    CptHamiltonCptHamilton Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Quid wrote: »
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    Hustle

    vs.

    Leverage

    The latter is broken, so broken.

    As far as I know Leverage is not based on Hustle. And in fact, the only real similarity is "Likable group of con men con bad people" which didn't exactly start with Hustle. But either way both are good shows.

    Burn Notice is one of these shows as well.

    I haven't seen Hustle, but I find Leverage incredibly annoying. It reminds me of CSI.

    Leverage is an okay show. But I get the feeling they're not going 'far enough' with the concept. The pilot episode was pretty good, but then the tone kind of changed and it feels...wimpier...somehow. As if they're too hamstrung by the 'bad guys being good guys' thing.

    Have you watched all of it? The end of Season 2 goes a good deal further out. I thought, anyway.

    CptHamilton on
    PSN,Steam,Live | CptHamiltonian
  • Options
    Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Quid wrote: »
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    Hustle

    vs.

    Leverage

    The latter is broken, so broken.

    As far as I know Leverage is not based on Hustle. And in fact, the only real similarity is "Likable group of con men con bad people" which didn't exactly start with Hustle. But either way both are good shows.

    Burn Notice is one of these shows as well.

    I haven't seen Hustle, but I find Leverage incredibly annoying. It reminds me of CSI.

    Leverage is an okay show. But I get the feeling they're not going 'far enough' with the concept. The pilot episode was pretty good, but then the tone kind of changed and it feels...wimpier...somehow. As if they're too hamstrung by the 'bad guys being good guys' thing.

    Have you watched all of it? The end of Season 2 goes a good deal further out. I thought, anyway.

    Yes, I have thanks to the wonder that is Netflix streaming. I like the show, but it's...lacking. Sending Nate back to the drink wasn't exactly 'edgy'. I'm still wondering exactly how these nobodies know where to find this group of con-men.

    Plus, the nature of their getting paid seems to be glossed over or ignored because it might potentially make them out to be 'bad guys' for getting paid.

    And the fact that both seasons end with the same basic premise... It feels desperate somehow. A kind of artificial drama that a show somewhat on the bubble doesn't need. If they keep doing it, one year it'll backfire horribly.

    Santa Claustrophobia on
  • Options
    Inter_dInter_d Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Gary Oldman is Shaft, a hard rolling ex-cop who's trying to take the son of a wealthy real estate tycoon, played by will smith, who commits a racially motivated murder but escapes the country before he could be prosecuted.

    Jeff Bridges is Lazarus, a deeply religious farmer and former blues guitarist who chains a young lady played by Zoe Saldana and tries to help her deal with her life problems in White Snake Moan.


    -okay, i'm done.

    Inter_d on
  • Options
    RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Inter_d wrote: »
    Gary Oldman is Shaft, a hard rolling ex-cop who's trying to take the son of a wealthy real estate tycoon, played by will smith, who commits a racially motivated murder but escapes the country before he could be prosecuted.

    Jeff Bridges is Lazarus, a deeply religious farmer and former blues guitarist who chains a young lady played by Zoe Saldana and tries to help her deal with her life problems in White Snake Moan.


    -okay, i'm done.

    See, neither of these movies sound bad.

    Robman on
  • Options
    QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Leverage is an okay show. But I get the feeling they're not going 'far enough' with the concept. The pilot episode was pretty good, but then the tone kind of changed and it feels...wimpier...somehow. As if they're too hamstrung by the 'bad guys being good guys' thing.

    Have you seen Hustle? It's not so much bad guys being the good guys so much as bad guys being pickier about who they steal from.

    Also, I like Leverage for the deliberate over the topness of it all.

    Quid on
  • Options
    Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Quid wrote: »
    Leverage is an okay show. But I get the feeling they're not going 'far enough' with the concept. The pilot episode was pretty good, but then the tone kind of changed and it feels...wimpier...somehow. As if they're too hamstrung by the 'bad guys being good guys' thing.

    Have you seen Hustle? It's not so much bad guys being the good guys so much as bad guys being pickier about who they steal from.

    Also, I like Leverage for the deliberate over the topness of it all.

    Haven't seen Hustle. I mostly got into Leverage through John Rogers' blog. It's a fine show but to me, something seems 'off' somehow.

    Santa Claustrophobia on
  • Options
    NastymanNastyman Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    The US Office, would not work at all if it didn't use the documentary style camera work. Just imagine it. The camera makes the entire show. Yeah, it doesn't make that much sense but the whole thing would be lifeless without it.

    Nastyman on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Quid wrote: »
    Leverage is an okay show. But I get the feeling they're not going 'far enough' with the concept. The pilot episode was pretty good, but then the tone kind of changed and it feels...wimpier...somehow. As if they're too hamstrung by the 'bad guys being good guys' thing.

    Have you seen Hustle? It's not so much bad guys being the good guys so much as bad guys being pickier about who they steal from.

    Also, I like Leverage for the deliberate over the topness of it all.

    Haven't seen Hustle. I mostly got into Leverage through John Rogers' blog. It's a fine show but to me, something seems 'off' somehow.

    I'd recommend checking out the first season at least where the stories are actually kind of plausible. Very little reliance on flash backs to crazy improbable stuff that you happened to not see and more reliance on just making a realistic grift. And then getting rich off of it, squandering the money, and repeating like the criminals they are.

    Though it certainly gets more outlandish as seasons progress.

    Quid on
  • Options
    Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Quid wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Leverage is an okay show. But I get the feeling they're not going 'far enough' with the concept. The pilot episode was pretty good, but then the tone kind of changed and it feels...wimpier...somehow. As if they're too hamstrung by the 'bad guys being good guys' thing.

    Have you seen Hustle? It's not so much bad guys being the good guys so much as bad guys being pickier about who they steal from.

    Also, I like Leverage for the deliberate over the topness of it all.

    Haven't seen Hustle. I mostly got into Leverage through John Rogers' blog. It's a fine show but to me, something seems 'off' somehow.

    I'd recommend checking out the first season at least where the stories are actually kind of plausible. Very little reliance on flash backs to crazy improbable stuff that you happened to not see and more reliance on just making a realistic grift. And then getting rich off of it, squandering the money, and repeating like the criminals they are.

    Though it certainly gets more outlandish as seasons progress.

    I'll keep an eye out when Netflix starts streaming it.

    What I'd have liked to see was a series or series of movies about Simon Templar from the '97 movie. But just the stuff when he was in it for himself before the movie begins.

    I think I just have some thing against the Leverage crew being 'good guys'. It's not quite so much fun if they aren't doing it for their own greed. (Plus, how the hell do some of their clients even know how to find them? I sure as fuck don't know where to go to find a group of people to 'Robin Hood' some unscrupulous prick.) Hustle sounds mainly like what I'd prefer to see.

    Santa Claustrophobia on
  • Options
    Bionic MonkeyBionic Monkey Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited March 2010
    Personally, I don't watch Leverage for realism, and internal consistency. I watch it because it's quirky, has entertaining characters, and is usually well written. It doesn't really bother me that much that I can't figure out how they make money, or how their clients find them. Was anybody so hung up on figuring out how people found the A-team?

    Bionic Monkey on
    sig_megas_armed.jpg
  • Options
    Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Do you want a cookie for that?

    Santa Claustrophobia on
  • Options
    BubbaTBubbaT Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    mrt144 wrote: »
    BubbaT wrote: »
    mrt144 wrote: »
    BubbaT wrote: »
    Nechriah wrote: »
    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.

    I'd say it's more like Just Shoot Me.

    But yeah, compared to the UK version, the US Office leans much more towards Raymond.

    BubbaT on
  • Options
    SliderSlider Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    I'm watching a few British television comedies, but they only seem to be sketches, rather than, I don't know, stories.

    Is this a popular thing in England? Seems like a lot of the same Monty Python stuff to me.

    Slider on
  • Options
    Curly_BraceCurly_Brace Robot Girl Mimiga VillageRegistered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Jesus. This is entirely unnecessary, Hollywood! I mean, I like Chris Rock and all, but the first Death at a Funeral was fine! It even had a pretty wide (but not EVERY DAMN MOVIE THEATER EVAR) release. The amount of silly goose-ery that must go into a decision like this is mind-boggling.

    Curly_Brace on
  • Options
    AtomikaAtomika Live fast and get fucked or whatever Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    The remake for DaaF doesn't seem to be all "CRAZY BLACK PEOPLE!" If you actually watch the trailer, Chris Rock's character is rather mild mannered, if not a bit pissed off. Danny Glover is the guy's old cantankerous brother. Even Martin Laurence seems to have toned down his normal wild self. The only one playing the CRAZY BLACK PERSON role is Tracy Morgan. Because that's what Tracy does.

    This not is like the Honeymooners remake with Cedric the Enterainer, or Who's Your Caddy, or one of those other low brow "We'll remake a movie and put black people in it!" schticks. It seems like they changed the cast to a black family and actually put in some effort.

    Now, I could be totally wrong and when the movie comes out it could be utter shit, but I think a lot of you are jumping the gun on the "THEY REMADE A WHITE MOVIE INTO A CRAZY BLACK MOVIE!" just because of the actors chosen.

    Chris Rock being the quiet pissed-off guy, Danny Glover being a grumpy old man, and Tracy Morgan acting like a retard doesn't sound like laziness?

    Atomika on
  • Options
    BubbaTBubbaT Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Jesus. This is entirely unnecessary, Hollywood! I mean, I like Chris Rock and all, but the first Death at a Funeral was fine! It even had a pretty wide (but not EVERY DAMN MOVIE THEATER EVAR) release. The amount of silly goose-ery that must go into a decision like this is mind-boggling.

    It made less than $9 million in the US, and only opened in 260 theatres. The Chris Rock version will probably create more interest in the original UK version than if the UK version was given away for free on DVD.

    BubbaT on
  • Options
    Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Slider wrote: »
    I'm watching a few British television comedies, but they only seem to be sketches, rather than, I don't know, stories.

    Is this a popular thing in England? Seems like a lot of the same Monty Python stuff to me.

    Monty Python is still highly influential. And they were influenced by similar groups before them.

    Also, Sketch Comedy is as old as the hills. Though it wasn't really until Monty Python caught on that Absurdist Sketch Comedy seemingly became the standard everywhere.

    Santa Claustrophobia on
Sign In or Register to comment.