Badmovies.org Forum

I hope I am not offending anyone with this topic but if it does offend anyone then go ahead and delete it......


What are the worst kind of remakes?

Sad to say black remakes.

And even sadder--the black folks making these terrible remakes don't seem to understand that even black audiences hate most of these remakes.

Now I don't mean to sound racist--that is not my intent--nor is it my intent to offend anyone, but I am just so sick of these black remakes of originally white movies/tv shows.

You already have...

The Johnson Family Vacation--which is a black remake-almost character for character of the National Lampoon Vacation movies.

We got The Honeymooners-a black remake of a sitcom that originally starred white people.

The Wild Wild West was remade recasting a white character as a black one,

And how can we forget The Nutty Professor--a remake of the Jerry Lewis classic.

And Back To School with Cedric the Entertainer is in the works-a remake of the Rodney Dangerfield flick--as well as All Of Me a remake of the Steve Martin movie--but starring the horrible Queen Latifa in his role.

And then there are the movies based on real life people.....

Walking Tall: not only a remake using a black guy in the white guy's role--but based on a real incident as well.

The same goes for Gridiron Gang and Yours, Mine , and Ours.

They really happened-those people were real people--and yet they decided to change these white people black.

Now if a Roots or a movie about MLK or a movie based on the Cosby Show was done using white people in the roles you would hear all kinds of ruckus.

But of course the biggest problem with these black remakes isn't  really that they are black--it's that these remakes are ONLY targeted at the black audiences--whereas the originals were targeted at anyone regardless of race.

Now these people--with the exception of Latifa--who did these movies are all fine actors.

And I go back and forth on most remakes.

But the black remakes Hollywood keeps pumping out seem to be just for the sole reason of making money off the black community--IMHO they are telling the black comunity that they aren't good enough or worthy enough to have an original movie done with them.

Does it really matter?

Scripts are often written with characters in mind. Yes, the writer may have intended for the original character to have been black or white, but this is often due to whether the writer was black or white.

The Wild, Wild West and National Lampoon's Family Vacation are works of fiction where Roots is an historical dramatization of a family's heritage spanning many generations. You can't compare taking a vacation movie with a black family to putting a white family in Roots; it's not the same thing.

Just because Cedric the Entertainer or Queen Latifa are in a movie does not make it a movie specifically for any audience. Yes, there are movies obviously oriented to audiences but, with the over-abundant glut of movies oriented to a white audience which seems to have gone unmentioned in this thread, what's the big deal.

The color of one's skin is simply superficial; except to those who think it means something and harp about something as silly as a black man playing a role previously played by a white man.

If you are looking to make a point and keep credibility in making that point, don't preface your arguement with 'I am not a racist'. This comes off the same as someone saying 'nothing personal', 'trust me', and 'this is for your own good'. Of course things are going to be personal, people lie, and nobody is going to do things for your own good.

If you don't want to consider yourself a racist, great for you, but your comment suggest that you are at least predjudiced to a degree.

uhhh....nothing personal :tongueout:

The worst remake of all time: Psycho (1998).  Vince Vaughn as Norman Bates?!  Horrible.

And what about the movies about real white people played by black people? I'm not "predjudiced to a degree" as you like to claim---it's just that if there was EVER a movie done that centered on a real black person--say MLK or Rev. Jesse Jackson with a white person in the role there would be all sorts of griping about "racism" from black communities--not all mind you but a good majority. Yet these same folks have no problem with a several movies about white people-real life white people mind you---but played by blacks.

Why is it that "race isn't important" only when it's in favor of the black community?

Martin Luther King played by a white guy would certainly get a scream of racism--but the fact that they have had black actors play real white people gets no reacts among the public---why is that?

You're not a little bit predjudiced, but you keep harping on this issue?


And how about all of the real white people played by black actors?

The only one which comes to mind is Radio in which the real life radio is white but was portrayed by Cuba Gooding Jr.; might I add at much praise from the real Radio's white family.


All of these roles of real white folk played by blacks? How about checking your movie history over the decades. Next time you watch Moses, count how many black Egyptians you see.


Our past is rife with social disintegration based solely on one's skin color. Aside from blatant civil rights violations and murder of people of color, we have decades of Blacks, Asians, Mid-Easterners, and others being played by white actors.

What? A role or two may have had a black man portraying a white man? Oh, the horrors; the number of times the case has been the opposite outnumbers it thousands to one.


You are not predjudiced to a certain degree? Yet, you keep digging for the minimalist evidence to substantiate your position? I am not mistaken.

 Hmm. If you recall,not to long ago,all blacks in film WERE played by whites..in "blackface",and in a very derogatory manner...and even the blacks that DID appear in films,had minor "Stepin'fetchit" type roles. Now...If a movie that originally starred whites,and is remade geared to a black audiance...so what? Is it hurting you in some way? If the target audiance(ie.blacks) enjoy it...so what?! Cool. If you don't like black remakes...don't watch them. Simple as that. It seems you are offended by blacks moving in on your territory. Movies starring whites are still in the majority...I heard a redneck type say once...in regard to BET.."Whut if there was a WET...?" And I said ...ther is. Says he...whut...?"

Most every other TV station,dumbass!
 
If your offended by blacks remakes of movies...well,sir...you are a RACIST. No if, ands or buts. Either sh!t, or get off the pot.

Not only well put, but amazingly readable for you. :teddyr:

You earned karma for that. (not like you're going to be running out of it any time too soon :tongueout:)

 Coming from the fearsome Menard...I kinda feel honored...and a little dirty...like caught having sex with sheep...( Ikid! I kid!...gulp...) :buggedout: :thumbup:




Oh by the way respectmeordye....bad choice of screen name for someone who shows little respect for any body outside their little narrow minded view of the world beyond their own...to gain respect..you need to give respect.

Personally, I really don't care who stars in the remake as long as they are good.
Now for certain movies though, I suppose race could matter. I mean imagine a remake of SHAFT with a white guy in the lead. I don't understand how that could be done.

I agree with flackbait ~ as long as the film is good, I'm not much bothered who plays who, what race, what gender, doesn't matter, the film is the thing. I actually enjoyed Walking Tall where the roles were reversed: The Rock playing the role originally played by Joe Don Baker and Mr Johnny Knoxville playing the role originally played by Felton Perry, if I remember correctly. Names were changed as well, but that was also OK.

RCM ~ karma point for your comment on what to do.  :teddyr:

My opinion is that the final result is the most important aspect.  I am often interested when a movie is taken and then remade with an obvious target of "changing it for a different culture."  The best example of this that I can think of is "The Wiz."  On the other hand, and it has been years since I watched the film, I remember thinking that "The Wiz" was a pretty wacky ride.  It was a neat remake.

Funny thing, another that comes to mind is "The Last Dragon" and that was also by Motown Productions.  Taimak's hero character in that one is definitely my favorite part of the film.  I am going to pull a paragraph directly from my review:

*****
I must take a moment to comment on Taimak's portrayal of the main character, because it really makes the movie. Bruce Leroy talks in a soft voice that is almost a whisper. When very angry or confused it gains a subtle edge, but not enough to disturb the illusion of an inner calm. No, our hero has a heart of gold and a face that always seems to be on the edge of breaking into an unabashed smile. Even when kicking butt, he looks nothing more than intent. Not angry, not dangerous, not hateful, but serious.
*****

Remakes are generally a warning sign for movies, no matter what was done with the cast.  Sometimes we get lucky and the remake is a good one.

What was wrong with the Nutty Professor? I actually didn't mind that one...

But Black Remakes of "White" films??  Come on...

I mean, sometimes changing race is a great preface for a different style of film.  On that note, changing genders can work wonders as well!

Of course, there's also the terrible ones.  Let's face facts here: 90% of remakes are pretty sub par, whether it be changing race, gender or species...

My main problem with black remakes is that they direct them ONLY at the blacks. And there are several other movies based on real white people wherein they changed it to a black person(had no idea Radio was a true story-any good?) but there is Walking Tall,Yours Mine And Ours, GridIron Gang, etc. My main problem is that if whites did a movie on Martin Luther King you would hear the black community practically asking for a hanging over "racism" for having a white guy play a black person. but the fact that several movies have had black people play real life white guys is okay.

And the so called racist "blackface" movies? It was basically proven that it wasn't racist when the Wayans Bros. did the same thing--a white face movie---and yet they were applauded and the movie was called a hilarious piece of humor. If a white guy had done a blackface recently you would have that idiot Jesse Jackson on his soapbox.


All I am trying to say is that there is a majority of the black community who seems to think that being black should allow you to be racist towards whites. iF ANYONE FINDS THIS TOPIC OFFENSIVE GO AHEAD AND DELETE THE FREAKIN' TOPIC! I already said I'd understand if it ruffled feathers to the point of getting deleted! sheesh.

And the name respectmeordye3 isn't connected to hate of anyone or anything--it's part of a joke on a long since gone message board I used to go to. that's all. nothing more nothing less. I chose it because it's easy to remember.

The difference in comparing MLK with those other instances is that MLK's story is highly race based, where as walking tall's main story is not race based (you could verbally tell the story and no one would know if the characters were black or white).  Of course you'll never see MLK played as a white the same way you'll never see Abraham Lincoln played as a black.

Wow this topic is just totally beyond my understanding. I can't say I ever considered the term "black remake" or even saw a difference between that and a "white remake"...

You say this, and claim you aren't prejudice? That is EXACTLY what you are doing, , you are PRE-JUDGING the black community for what they have not done yet. . .Prejudice = To Pre-Judge. . .

As for The Nutty Professor, , , If you consider that to be marketed to Black people only, , then you have a very strange sense of reality. I live in a small town of ~3400 or so people, with less than a dozen African Americans in it, and The Nutty Professor was one of the harder movies to get ahold of at the local vid store, , they were always already rented out. . . .

The fact is the the basic stories of movies these days are all re-makes or slight variations or existing movies.

The point is that many black actors are popular, , hard to put them in a roll OTHER than playing a black person. Will Smith was in Wild Wild West, , was that really a re-make? If so, how many people knew this? How many people cared? Did his being black ruin the movie? I don't think so, I thought the dialog between him and the spider-leg guy was funny as heck, , all the racist comments going one way, , teh cripple jokes going the other, , hard to do had it been Harrison Ford in his place. Walking Tall: Most people don't care abou tthe original, , The Rock was a popular item at the time, , so the put him in a movie to draw a buck out of his popularity.

For each of those half-dozen or so movies you mentioned, I could name (and others here probably moreso) many re-makes and original movies that suck, regardless of race. ..

This thread focuses *way* too much on race.  99% of the time a movie is remade with the sole intention of deviating from the target audience of the original.  This extends to every conceivable demographic:  age, class, country (language), etcetera ad nauseam.  And chances are, if you enjoy the original film (as you were its target market), you'll dislike the remake.  Common sense, come on.  If they weren't going to change the target audience, everyone could simply rent the original.  :)

OK, with that off my chest, let me move on to my vote:  Foreign remakes.  Most of the time these lose out because the "culture" is Americanized while the story is kept the same and thus the context is utterly lost.  This seems to be particularly the case with translations of Asian and Indian dramas, wherein the repose and modesty of the characters needs to play a direct role in the evolution of the central conflict.  Shall We Dance comes to mind, though I'm sure if I gave it more thought I'd think of hundreds of other examples.  But I'll spare you having to read such a list.  Haha.  But seriously, how ghastly would it be if someone remade Wong Kar-wai's In the Mood for Love?!?!

Those are some very fine points.  If you are going to change the demographic, you must adapt the story to speak to that demographic.  "Ran" did this rather successfully.

I must agree, I don't find remakes, with a few exceptions, to be any better than the originals, and in most cases they're actually worse.
As far as the other black, white, brown, yellow, green whatever, aside from the cultural ones the only physical difference between us is that some of us have a little more pigment than others. That is not something that should matter to any of us.

And what about all these Japanese horror movies being remade with white people... 

I get into this coversation too often with comic book fans.  In Daredevil, we had Michael Clark Duncan playing the originally white Kingpin.  I didn't mind it.  You know, it really depends on the character.  If the race plays an important part of who the character is, then you do mess things up when you change it. 

This topic is about as relevant as saying "Blonde remakes" or "Blue eyed remakes".

The only black/white gripe I ever had with hollywood and movies in general is the whole "he's black so that just automatically makes him dumber but cooler than the white folks in the film" thing. That just irritates me, I've always believed that we're no different no matter where we're from or what our genetic makeup is, perhaps because I live in the UK, I dunno, but I often find it irritating in movies where the white/black thing comes in and it's treated as if there's some kind of massive clear line between us.

A good example of  race not making a difference are Romero's LIVING DEAD films...in all of them,the lead is black,but the part was written for a human being...not a sterotype.

When you get down to it, there is only one race, all else is just variation on a theme.

The human race, in all it variaty, is still driven by the same range of emotions and motives.
Cultural differances are matters of method and style, with the core drives being the same.

Whe i watched the Godzilla series, i wondered about the cultural differances, but caught the same drives i had. Hence, i could get into them. I liked the actors, and could follow the stories. Same with the Samauri pictures. People are people. But boy, can they confuse each other!

Yep, and it's never mentioned anywhere in the original film (can't recall about the others) that the character is black, even in the heated arguments with Cooper. It's simply a non-issue.

 + Karma. Perfectly put. Managed to say it all in basically a single sentance.


Would you say the same if they decided to change a "real person" from brown hair to blonde hair? From Irish to Welsh?

Let me put my 2 cents in this.  Me personlly, a movie is a movie.  There is no ifs, ands, or buts, black, whites, or hispanics about it.  As far as black remakes are concerned, maybe the dude would feel better if Soul Plane was remade for the white community.  There is no way to compare a white remake of Malcom X or MLK to the Honeymooners or the Nutty Professor.  That's like comparing a real person to a TV show.  It's like this:  The movie RAY, for example, there is only ONE Ray Charles played by ONE type of actor: Black Men.  Where as Ralph Cramden, made famous by Jackie Gleason can only be played by ONE  type of actor: Fat Men.

 

 :teddyr:

why are all these remakes being made anyway? did Hollywood forget how to write new movies? give me Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory over johnny depps michael jackson impression any day.