Discussion in 'Off Topic Area' started by Van Zandt, Dec 25, 2009.
I've never forgiven Chuck.
At least Bruce killed Chuck. Not to mention Bob Wall and Jackie Chan.
Hey didnt Jackie Chan kill Bill Wallace in The Protector? Anyway it still should have been called kungfu kid its not like its the 60's when nobody knew what kungfu was and everything was branded "karote"
When you kill Bill Wallace, he doesn't die. He just gets angrier.
I'm thinking of the puzzled look on the faces of parents and their kids when they go to a Karate school after watching the film expecting the same art (Wushu) in the new Karate Kid film.
I can just see it now "... Mum, this isn't Karate, they didn't do this or dress the same in the film!"
It was a bit like my previous club when Kung Fu Panda came out.
"Mommy, there aren't any giant pandas."
A few of my thoughts on the new Karate Kid film. As my dojo rented out a private screening for it, I'll be seeing it opening day (and would regardless, as I'm a cinemaholic).
First, I think the original is a classic, hands down. Maybe not a great film, especially by today's standards, but it has a lot of great elements, and a lot of bad. In the end, still a classic. And I'm as ****ed off as the next guy with Hollywood remaking the classic, yet I do understand the need for some as it does update them for a newer audience that can't stomach a film that's over 10 years old. Perhaps it'll help to think of this as a mis-named "adaptation" rather than a "remake".
Second, I'm not too happy, as others have stated, that it is being called the Karate Kid even though (insert all the other posts here). But then again, how many authentic martial arts movies have there been in the popular culture? I'll cringe, but I think I'll live with it. I don't have the time and effort to wage a campaign of moderation of American martial arts cinema (and where was all the outcry on Ninja Assassin not showing proper ninjutsu?). Besides, it's for entertainment.
Thirdly, it should be entertaining. It's obviously geared to entertaining younger audiences, families, and not geared to entertaining us martial artists. If you go in expecting one thing and not another you will most certainly be disappointed. That said, it will probably have its fair share of cool moments, groaners, and try to instill its own set of morals and ideas to the audience.
Even if it is not Karate, we can't really blame American cinema for giving the wrong impression of martial arts just on this one movie, lol. I think if it inspires people to actually learn MA, be it JMA, CMA, MMA, or anything else, all the better. Once someone steps foot into a class, if they really want to learn martial arts over learning to do flashy movie stuff, they'll learn what is proper from a good instructor.
I mean, heck, I grew up watching the horribly dubbed Hong Kong Kung Fu popcorn flicks, and Karate Kid, inspiring me to get into martial arts. Though I haven't done any kung fu or karate (instead Judo, Jujutsu, and To-Shin Do), it was these movies that got me to do it, as bad as they were as movies, and I respect the other martial arts for what they are, even if I haven't trained in them yet.
Anyways, the movie will probably suck. But even with its obvious flaws, perhaps it'll be entertaining, and if one doesn't go into the theatre with too harsh of a judgement, they should probably find their money well spent (if anything to give a legitmate reason from having seem the film to bash it)! :hat:
Muawijhe, you posted a reasonable response. That isn't allowed here!
Kidding, good post
No vamps in capes in Price's film,which was only film close to Matheson's book.
Omega Man was about a million miles away from the story.
Smith's was updated for explosions-the look of a contemporary film.Bad "savior" crap at end,too.
Hey,Bill asked for it-he was a reeeallly bad man.Didn't he beat Chuck's kid to death?In the film,of course!
Chuck's kid had it coming.
Not sure if the jury can accept your testimony as unbiased!
I thought we already had the discussion of "why its still called Karate Kid and not Kungfu kid".
Kung Fu Kid was already a copyrighted title and hence not taken. Also with Will Smith really wanted to keep this as a remake. Chances are the name "Karate Kid" (title) will be used in dialogue terribly like.
"Hey this isn't Karate, kid"
Kind of like how they wrote in dialogue to explain Arnies, Van Dammes accents by either "When I was in the Army in Berlin" or something other.
Did Daniel san join the 'Outsiders' before or after he joined Miyagi Dojo? Will Smith needs to keep an eye on his kid since even Daniel San went bad. Only his "connected" Cousin Venny could pull some 'strings' to get him off on that murder rap.
Cousin Vinnie is awesome
No, no, no, and no. Where do I start? Calling it "The Karate Kid" when they don't even do Karate, trying too hard to make it "hip" which is a complete turn off for people who have more than one brain cell, using Jackie Chan of all people to be the "Miyagi" persona, and Jayden Smith is no Daniel Larusso so his character loses the whole wussy-becomes-competent-martial-artist effect. I think that this is an insult to the original, and I think it will do more to turn people away from the arts than inspire them to sign up. I wouldn't mind it at all if it wasn't called "The Karate Kid", but the fact that they would dare attach this modern film to such a classic is a slap in the face. Is nothing sacred anymore, lol?
No, nothing is sacred anymore!
But your post brought up a common pitfall with remakes. Just how much do you stick to the original, especially one that is a classic and not even that old (compared to the history of cinema as a whole)?
For example, Jaden is not Daniel Laruso. Chan is not Miyagi. But if they were, had they hired a cast to replicate the original cast, and the story played out exactly like the original, it wouldn't be worth making/seeing as you'd know exactly what was to be said/done. =P
So what does a studio/producer do? They change, or "adapt", it in ways they feel will make it a bit fresher and more akin to the audience. Ever watch a movie and say to yourself, "Man, that was good. But had I made the movie, I'd have done..." Same thing for makers of the new Karate Kid. They want to add what they'd have done if they'd made the movie.
It's one of the main pitfalls of doing a remake of a "classic", especially one whose primary audience is still alive and of relatively sound mind. It's one thing to remake and update a film from the 20s or 30s, or some obscure B-movie that had a sweet premise but never made it on its own. And another to update a film that's old and would honestly benefit from updated special effects technology (i.e. King Kong). But don't fix what is not broken.
So we really have to hope that they keep what we, individually, liked from the original film, whilst adding to it elements we personally would like to see. And that's not easily done. In fact, that's much of the same problem with making a sequel: adding fresh new things that keep an audience engaged, whilst at the same time retaining what made the first installment good without just rehashing all the same elements. I'm sure we've all seen countless examples of either end of these spectrums in sequels, and probably remakes, too.
So when remaking a movie that was already successful, what does one really hope to add but money to their pockets? :bang:
End of my rant. Thanks for reading. :hat:
Umm..... not to mention Hayden Christenson was in Return of the Jedi...
This is nothing to do with the producers attempting to add substance to Hollywood by reactivating an already successful franchise. Like they say, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
This "remake" is just an attempt on Will Smith's part to turn his son into the next action hero. But it won't work because: a) his son can't act, b) his son isn't skilled enough to even be considered for a martial arts role, and c) his son can't act.
I agree with points "a" and "c", though perhaps with training he'll learn (I won't hold my breath).
As for "b", that's an iffy. He'll never be Tony Jaa, ie, a martial artist in cinema. But, with the way stunt martial arts and their coreography are done for movies, there's chance. There is a difference between real martial arts and stage arts. Similar, and perhaps having a background in one will help with the other.
Still, all they need to do now is teach you what you need to do for the short close-up snap of footage, and you're fine. Not like Ralph or Pat were experienced martial artists. Bullet Proof Monk, anyone? =P
Separate names with a comma.