Reasons why the Karate Kid remake will SUCK!

To bring the story to a new audience - Sure you can show kids these days Karate Kid but they won't be exposed to the story on their own and not every kid will be able to relate to a 30 year old movie - It's fresh, using actors they're familiar with.

 

Most of you are instructors, right?

Don't you have any business sense? This movie is a godsend. Yall need those bandanas with the blue dot over the third eye. And you need to teach crane style.

things that expose' the martial arts to young audiences with parent's who have the money to waste at theaters is a good thing.

ladies and gentlemen: Duh.

 

Pretty much how I see it - We have posters all over our dojo and are planning on trying to coordinate with our local uniplex theater to do a "Kids Night Out" type of event for our current students while having several instructors outside with a booth giving out dojo related goodies.

I can remember when Kung Fu Panda came out that this was the exact type of marketing magazines like MAsuccess were garnering and passing around to help dojos gain students.

 

what other things do people who own MA gyms do to advertise and attract students?

I'd sure like to teach tai chi in a few years....

 

he does kung fu?

 

Movies in general are unnecessary. Entertainment is a luxury. And if people are entertained by Jayden and Chan, then it's automatically validated itself as much as the original has.

 

Stuart - you've already bought the Jayden Smith t-shirt, haven't you? Don't deny it.

 

I deny nothing. As Jayden's dad said in "The Pursuit of Happyness," if you want something, you go get it. Period.

Works a wonder with t-shirts.

 

there's a hell of a lot of closed-minded comments on here...

1) it's still called Karate Kid even though it's about Kung Fu this time...
- they actually wanted to call it kung fu kid, but Columbia made them call it Karate Kid as they weren't happy with just a remake of the concept but instead wanted the recognisable name as well, just to ensure people realised what it was.

2) grrrrrr Urban/Hip-Hop comments
- Now who's being stereotypical....just because the kid's name is Dre in the film, so what?just because the kid is black it doesn't automatically make it an 'urban movie'....last time i checked anyway.

3) he's only 8 so no violence/relationship stuff
- so what? It's not supposed to be a carbon copy of the film, and in fact that encourages me to think it might not be terrible. Really bad remakes try to do everything the same as the original, better ones try to do the story differently. Core concept is young kid, can't defend himself but needs to for some reason, leanrs martial arts via some mechanic, yada yada yada.....a story that's been told hundreds of times and isn't exclusive to 'The Karate Kid'


I disagree with whoever said remakes are bad....sometimes they are but sometimes they can completely be the right thing. Look at TRON, for example...this is a film with a brilliant concept that was done well, but when it was made technology only allowed certain effects/features - it;s not been cinfirmed that the new TRON isn't a remake but a sequel, but i think that either could have been awesome....it all depends on how the film is done and isn't just determined by the fact it's a remake.


I also think that we should wait and see before judging Jaden Smith - every painted Will Smith with a one-character paintbrush and then he delivered Ali, I Am Legend, Hancock and Seven Pounds, along with The Pursuit of Happiness (which Jaden was actually in and did a decent job)....

 

the karate kid videogame for the NES sucked.

www.playNES.net

 

I saw a trailer on youtube, and I thought it looked cool. Then again, I like the "bully gets his" type movies. I liked the "Miyagisms" in the original movie, more than the movie itself, Ralph Macchio always looked like he was horribly off balance when even walking..much less doing Karate.

 

I would hardly call keeping the character's age the same a carbon copy. I think Fighter and Never Back Down would've made better remakes than what this movie is going to be. A romance between 11 year olds is just not very realistic, not to mention compelling.

 

Shame they had to CGI Jaden Smith's high kicks

 

I'm waiting for the remake of 'Ben Hur' set in modern day India or how about 'Enter the Dragon' being set in a cowboy story line?

BTW, Has the concept of an 'original thought' died in Hollywood?

 

Yep, I am Legend has been remade three or four times now.
The original had Vincent Price being chase by Vampire in capes.

I might have seen adverts for two or three movies that weren't automatically recognized as remakes, though most of those were romance films.

 

Might be a reference to me, although I never said remakes were bad, I said they were usually unnecessary; I said it is pointless remaking a good film.

Not if you look in the right places.

A film can be influenced by previous films, stories and ideas and still be original. In fact, it's virtually impossibly to make a truly original film, if by original we mean not dependent on some other ideas. I think the originality can come from the execution of ideas or if something new is added. A technique might not be new, and a story might not be new, but combine them as you get an extremely original idea, e.g. Reverse chronology isn't new; man seeking revenge isn't new; memory loss isn't new. But combine them and you get Memento. Amazing.

 

the whole 'originality in hollywod' concept depends on your school of thinking....Kurosawa was a big advocate of the principle that there are only 7 different stories that can ever be told - everything is a twist on one (or combinations) of the following:

- (wo)man vs nature
- (wo)man vs (wo)man
- (wo)man vs the environment
- (wo)man vs machines/technology
- (wo)man vs the supernatural
- (wo)man vs self
- (wo)man vs god/religion

or a different list of seven is
- tragedy
- comedy
- overcoming the monster
- voyage and return
- quest
- rags to riches
- rebirth

there are other concepts, from only 1 concept (conflict - that one's a bit cheap for me) down to 20/36, which are a slightly more detailed expansion on the lists above.

Whichever school of thought you follow, if you think of the sheer number of films that get made/books that get written etc (and also films written that never get made), then most things are going to end up resembling something else. The most obvious example recently is Avatar - so many people rip on it saying it's not original, and is just a rip off of Dances with Wolves, but it's not like Dances with Wolves was the first time that story was ever told - it's a fairly common story that is taken from a history of native cultures being taken over/destroyed to x degree by other cultures more developed that are expanding, multiple examples of which can be found all over the world in history.'

Some studios are a lot more obvious about it (like Karate Kid, for example - taking the same name as well as just retelling the story), but the chances of ever seeing a truly original story are so remote nowadays - that's why more and more focus is being put on new ways of displaying the story instead (like with the camera rigs in the Matrix allowing those slow-down 360 degree shots to be taken fo rthe first time, or like Avatar being the first major budget film to be filmed fully in 3D)

The best we can really hope for is people applying a unique twist to an already established theme.

 

I, for one, don't mind people using an original concept and telling it in a new way.

But stay away from the Karate Kid, man. It just ain't holy what Will Smith and his cronies have done :cry:

The moment they try and re-do a Bill Wallace film, without Bill -- or me -- is the day I burn Hollywood to the ground.

 

I'm still upset with Chuck Norris killing Bill Wallace in one of his movies. BAD FORM on Chuck's part.