My brother and I have this game we have been playing for at least the last 10 years.
We call it "Who is that and what were they in before," basically us showing off our skills in knowing different actors' filmography.
We watch a movie/TV show and if an actor we know comes on screen we have to call their name and name a movie/TV show they've been in before. You get points for every name and movie/TV show you can mention. It really gets funny when you've named every major actor and their movies, because then you get down to the "That Guy" actors, such as Peter Stormare and Clint Howard because then you get to start "bluffing", which means that you just make up movie/TV show titles and see if they stick, however, if you're called on it you lose a point.
I've noticed that this game is not only fun and gives me a little bit of cultural capital, but it actually has helped me in social situations because by training my mind to remember those I only interact with para-socially, I also remember people's faces in other social situations.
Does anyone else play this game? Or are we just the biggest geeks ever?
The Remake Conundrum
So this year a couple of remakes were released. such as A Nightmare on Elm Street, only it's not called a remake anymore but instead they are being promoted as a re-imagining of the story. This seems to be a newly formed pattern when it comes to promoting remakes nowadays, this non-use of the word remake. Instead words like re-imagining, re-starting, tribute, Americanization, and, my own favorite, rebooting is being used whenever Hollywood decides to recycle.
It seems today the word remake has gotten a negative connotation to it, and whenever a remake is in talks, the fans of the original will undoubtedly come out of the woodwork to loudly complain about it, and in almost every case, not one of those fans has seen any of the footage from the remake. It almost seems that the complaints that the fans of the original have are just a knee jerk reaction to the word remake and if you as a fan of the original don't complain about it, well then you are seen as not being a fan at all.
However, I'm going to take the opposing view to this. I say remakes are good. Now I'm not talking story wise because let's face it, remakes almost always get it wrong, but when I say remakes are good, I mean they are good for the original. I say this because if a remake is being done, in most cases there is also a lot of buzz about the original, which in turn will make more people see it, hence, the original, which in almost all cases is seen as the epitome of film making, will get more fans.
This can also be seen when books are adapted for the silver screen. The book being portrayed will either be sold more at bookstore or borrowed more often from the library.
This is because in the end, people want to know the source material, and they want to know why this specific movie is being remade or why that book is being filmed. People are naturally curious and they think knowing trivial things like what and when something is being made into a movie will get them more culture capital and make them cooler.
So the next time one of your friends want to see the newest remake, don't follow your gut reaction, take a breath and ask them if they want to see the original beforehand. Maybe this way one of your favorite films will gain a fan.
It seems today the word remake has gotten a negative connotation to it, and whenever a remake is in talks, the fans of the original will undoubtedly come out of the woodwork to loudly complain about it, and in almost every case, not one of those fans has seen any of the footage from the remake. It almost seems that the complaints that the fans of the original have are just a knee jerk reaction to the word remake and if you as a fan of the original don't complain about it, well then you are seen as not being a fan at all.
However, I'm going to take the opposing view to this. I say remakes are good. Now I'm not talking story wise because let's face it, remakes almost always get it wrong, but when I say remakes are good, I mean they are good for the original. I say this because if a remake is being done, in most cases there is also a lot of buzz about the original, which in turn will make more people see it, hence, the original, which in almost all cases is seen as the epitome of film making, will get more fans.
This can also be seen when books are adapted for the silver screen. The book being portrayed will either be sold more at bookstore or borrowed more often from the library.
This is because in the end, people want to know the source material, and they want to know why this specific movie is being remade or why that book is being filmed. People are naturally curious and they think knowing trivial things like what and when something is being made into a movie will get them more culture capital and make them cooler.
Mel Brooks' Dracula; Dead and Loving It
Last night I re-watched Mel Brooks' Dracula; Dead and Loving It and I was kinda shocked at how un-dated it feels. The movie was made 15 years ago but it still holds up, at least to me, and I can't really say the same for Scary Movie. So why do I still like Mel Brooks' movie but not Scary Movie?
I can't really put my finger on it but it might have something to do with the fact that Brooks stuck to doing a consistent parody of one other movie while Scary movie features small bits of parodies of every scary movie that was hip at the time. It might also have to do with the fact that while Brooks' movie does have a sexual tone to it,it is still subtle but Scary Movie is as unsubtle as can be with its dick-, fart-, and boob jokes.
I mean,take the scene where Mina requests Jonathan to touch her, he says no but she makes him touch her breast and then her father comes in to the room and discovers Jonathan's hand on her breast and gets outraged... at a couple that has been engaged for 5 years! This scene cracks me up even after the 10th time watching it.
In comparison, the sperm fountain scene in Scary Movie. I admit, I laughed the first time I saw it but then the second time I just shrugged my shoulders and every time after that I didn't find it funny because it was so over the top.
In the end, I figured that both movies reflect two different eras, two different types of writers and two different types of style. Mel Brooks is an old-school writer that sticks to the classic slapstick comedy while the Wayans brothers are younger and cruder that appeals to the 12 year old in all of us.
I can't really put my finger on it but it might have something to do with the fact that Brooks stuck to doing a consistent parody of one other movie while Scary movie features small bits of parodies of every scary movie that was hip at the time. It might also have to do with the fact that while Brooks' movie does have a sexual tone to it,it is still subtle but Scary Movie is as unsubtle as can be with its dick-, fart-, and boob jokes.
I mean,take the scene where Mina requests Jonathan to touch her, he says no but she makes him touch her breast and then her father comes in to the room and discovers Jonathan's hand on her breast and gets outraged... at a couple that has been engaged for 5 years! This scene cracks me up even after the 10th time watching it.
In comparison, the sperm fountain scene in Scary Movie. I admit, I laughed the first time I saw it but then the second time I just shrugged my shoulders and every time after that I didn't find it funny because it was so over the top.
In the end, I figured that both movies reflect two different eras, two different types of writers and two different types of style. Mel Brooks is an old-school writer that sticks to the classic slapstick comedy while the Wayans brothers are younger and cruder that appeals to the 12 year old in all of us.
Superman versus Batman
This week I was discussing Superman versus Batman with a group of friends when, imagine my surprise, I realized I was the only one out of about ten people who actually liked Superman more. I also found it amusing how in a group of people were everyone was American preferred the "vigilante" while me, the Swede, is all about the "Truth, Justice and the American Way" superhero.
I didn't really get to explain all the reasons for why I liked Superman more before I was booed but I guess I'll talk about the key reasons for liking the blue guy here instead.
Reason number one; I find the fact that Superman has all of these powers; invincibility, heat vision, freeze breath, flying, Super strength and more, and doesn't use them to take over the world a very admirable trait. He could literally destroy Earth but instead he rather help the people.
Reason number two; He doesn't kill, ever. Aside for the 60's TV show, Batman was and is quite vicious and seems to have no patience for "rehabilitating" the criminals. Superman, on the other hand, believes that no matter how many times Lex Luthor, or any other criminal, breaks out of jail, the justice system is something to believe in.
Reason number three; There is a lot of debate about this but I actually think Superman is Clark Kent at heart. I think he was raised by good people who taught him right from wrong so strongly that it translates into everything Superman does. I then think that the AI, built upon the image of his biological father Jor-El, just added to what the Kents had already taught his Kal-El. Bruce Wayne, however, is really Batman at heart. Even though Bruce Wayne grew up with a wonderful caretaker in Alfred and big shoes to fill when it comes to his philanthropist father Thomas Wayne, I believe the death of his parents cloud that so much that the only thing left is a shell of a man and Batman.
Reason number four; Someone once said that Metropolis is New York by day and Gotham is New York by night. I think this starkly shows the difference between Superman and Batman. One brings light and hope while the other one brings vengeance and operates in the shadow.
Reason number five; Despite being an alien, Superman is the epitome of humanity.
And that's why I like Superman more.
I didn't really get to explain all the reasons for why I liked Superman more before I was booed but I guess I'll talk about the key reasons for liking the blue guy here instead.
Reason number one; I find the fact that Superman has all of these powers; invincibility, heat vision, freeze breath, flying, Super strength and more, and doesn't use them to take over the world a very admirable trait. He could literally destroy Earth but instead he rather help the people.
Reason number two; He doesn't kill, ever. Aside for the 60's TV show, Batman was and is quite vicious and seems to have no patience for "rehabilitating" the criminals. Superman, on the other hand, believes that no matter how many times Lex Luthor, or any other criminal, breaks out of jail, the justice system is something to believe in.
Reason number three; There is a lot of debate about this but I actually think Superman is Clark Kent at heart. I think he was raised by good people who taught him right from wrong so strongly that it translates into everything Superman does. I then think that the AI, built upon the image of his biological father Jor-El, just added to what the Kents had already taught his Kal-El. Bruce Wayne, however, is really Batman at heart. Even though Bruce Wayne grew up with a wonderful caretaker in Alfred and big shoes to fill when it comes to his philanthropist father Thomas Wayne, I believe the death of his parents cloud that so much that the only thing left is a shell of a man and Batman.
Reason number four; Someone once said that Metropolis is New York by day and Gotham is New York by night. I think this starkly shows the difference between Superman and Batman. One brings light and hope while the other one brings vengeance and operates in the shadow.
Reason number five; Despite being an alien, Superman is the epitome of humanity.
And that's why I like Superman more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)