Didn't Pixar do A Bug's Life? That movie, btw is just a re-hash of Magnificent Seven, which is the American adaptation of Seven Samurai by Akira Kurosawa.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
The Karate...I mean, Kung-fu Kid
Collapse
X
-
There's a very important difference between inspired by/based on, and derivative remakes/sequels. Also, the basic plot of the 7 Samurai is quite simple in it's makeup to the point where there's probably buckets of films that follow a similar plot without even meaning too.All units: IRENE
HK MP5-N: Solving 800 problems a minute since 1986
Comment
-
Another thing to remember is that producers don't like to to risk their investment on original and untried material. More often than not, they will look at something that has performed well in the past (or in another country) and try to give it a modern American look. That's why there are so many remakes these days. It pisses me off, because it looks like Hollywood has no original thoughts left.
(Though God bless whoever produced Friday the 13th and My Bloody Valentine. I love me some sweaty Padalecki and Ackles in tight shirts)
If you were looking for originality, you should pay more attention to Independent Film Festivals.
As for the Karate Kid, I have no plans on seeing it. Not because I don't agree with the casting choices, but just because it looks really crap."Having a Christian threaten me with hell is like having a hippy threaten to punch me in my aura."
Josh Thomas
Comment
-
The fact that Jackie Chan moves like he does is a detriment to his ability to play Mr. Miyagi. I mean, sure, Morita-Miyagi happened to kick 11 different kinds of ass, but I just can't see the character moving quite like him. Miyagi seemed more conservative in his movements, a smarter fighter, perhaps. Chan's style is more like seat-of-your-pants, improvisational, sray-and-pray fighting.
And don't get me started on the new version of Robin Hood...
Comment
-
Originally posted by jackfaire View PostAnyone who has an issue with Japanese actors playing chinese and vice versa I have to ask what about Australians playing Canadian mutants, English actors playing American Doctors etc.
Call a Japanese person Chinese, and you're in for an ass whoopin'. It's taken as a vicious insult. Same for the other Asian cultures.
You know why? Look at history a bit, how many relatively recent, bloody, utterly savage wars there have been. Much more recent than between any two major Anglosphere cultures.Bartle Test Results: E.S.A.K.
Explorer: 93%, Socializer: 60%, Achiever: 40%, Killer: 13%
Comment
-
Originally posted by Fire_on_High View Post
Call a Japanese person Chinese, and you're in for an ass whoopin'. It's taken as a vicious insult. Same for the other Asian cultures.
.Jack Faire
Friend
Father
Smartass
Comment
-
Originally posted by the_std View PostUhm, how about every single one of Pixar's creations? They've almost all been massive hits, and they were all originals.
I hate it when people say that Hollywood no longer does anything original. Yes, the remake factory sucks (they've even remade Death At A Funeral, for crying out loud and the original wasn't even five years old!), I hate that they can't just let things go without trying to make money out of them one more time, but that isn't *all* they do. Hollywood still does good things... On occasion.
Heck, even Harry Potter has been rather original (well, the books have been and the movies haven't been done before). I'll also throw sequels in with the "remakes" - it's generally the same movie but with a different bad guy.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Wingates_Hellsing View PostSequels at least deserve a chance. There are plenty that manage to do their own thing while remaining true to the previous installments.
The best non-storyline sequel was Star Trek II - The Wrath of Khan (but that later turned into a storyline with this as the beginning).
Originally posted by jackfaire View PostAnd then you have HighlanderLast edited by draggar; 05-20-2010, 01:00 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Fryk View PostThe fact that Jackie Chan moves like he does is a detriment to his ability to play Mr. Miyagi. I mean, sure, Morita-Miyagi happened to kick 11 different kinds of ass, but I just can't see the character moving quite like him. Miyagi seemed more conservative in his movements, a smarter fighter, perhaps. Chan's style is more like seat-of-your-pants, improvisational, sray-and-pray fighting.
And don't get me started on the new version of Robin Hood..."Never confuse the faith with the so-called faithful." -- Cartoonist R.K. Milholland's father.
A truer statement has never been spoken about any religion.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Arcade Man D View PostExcept that Jackie Chan is pretty clearly not Mr. Miyagi. If you actually watch the trailers, the movie is going to have Jackie Chan be a kung fu master, teaching Jaden Smith kung fu. The only reason they kept the original name of Karate Kid was because of a marketing decision. To attach it to the movies we loved, and probably because "dumb Americans think karate is a synonym for martial arts".
Comment
-
Originally posted by Arcade Man D View Post"dumb Americans think karate is a synonym for martial arts".Originally posted by Hobbs View PostThat's exactly my point. It shouldn't be the Karate Kid or attached to the franchise because Jaden is clearly not learning Karate.
The only thing that makes your argument hold any weight is the fact that the it takes place in China.
CHSome People Are Alive Only Because It's Illegal To Kill Them.
Comment
-
Excuse me? Karate is not the same as Shaolin Kung-fu. The styles are radically different. They may be the closest rooted fighting styles, but they're not the same. It would be the same as saying iaido is the same as taijijian. Yes they both have a sword, but that's pretty much where it ends.
Comment
Comment