Saturday, October 1, 2016

William's words of wisdom!

.
William said:.
I saw the preview of the new Magnificent Seven movie. I've rarely seen a preview that made me want to see a movie less. I don't know if Hollywood can contnue to make any more westerns or Tarzan movies. To bring the underlying mythology of such movies into accordance with political correctness is too great a jolt.......I saw Johnny Depp's Lone Ranger. In that movie, the true heroes of the old west were the Indians, the prostitutes, and the black field hands. The farmers, churchgoers, and cowboys were the villains. You just can't make a politically correct western. There's always Nazis. Make another Nazi movie if you want to make a politically correct action movie.
I think you hit the nail on the head. This movie is an abortion. It is set in the Old West. It makes the villains corporate mine interests instead of Mexican bandits. Seriously? How politically correct can you get?
Then they have a white woman in the 1800's turning to a black man for help. Look if they tried that they both would have been hung from the nearest tree. In fact Denzel would have got a necktie if he just spoke to her out of turn.
This was a Western as written by Hillary Clinton and Pajama boy. Who do they think is going to pay to watch it? Old white guys like me and ed will never watch it in a million years. Millennial's? Hipsters? The Overseas market? Don't they know that movies with black heroes don't sell overseas? 
The Lone Ranger was an interesting case. The original was very cheesy and a function of the times. You might as well try to remake a Buster Keaton movie. Some things can not be recreated. It had it's time. 
As far as Hollywood goes the famous saying of William Goldman rings true today. "Nobody knows anything."

11 comments:

rcocean said...

The 310 to Yuma remake was crap too. And they put in a gratuitous scene where a bunch of bigots are terrorizing Chinese RR workers and Indians.

I agree about M7 its such obvious crap, I won't even watch it. It not just the PC, its the over-the-top action scenes and dumb dialogue and plot.

They don't need good scripts anymore, because 2/3 of their teenage audience is in East Asia and Europe.

edutcher said...

You need Clayton Moore, not some dork called Armie Hammer.

He couldn't do Illya Kuryakin, either.

And it seems a Russian gypsy and a New York Jew did a lot better than all that diversity.

William said...

You have to be ten years old to properly appreciate the Lone Ranger. Some movies like the first Star Wars and the first Indiana Jones make you feel like you're ten years old again. That's what they should have aimed for n the remake. I thought the movie version of the Lone Ranger subverted all the fun and innocence of the Lone Ranger and of being ten years old. It was just mean spirited.......Maybe someday Hollywood will make a movie that subverts all the myths and bullshit surrounding John Reed, Che Guevara, and Abbie Hoffman, but I don't expect it to happen in my lifetime.

Evi L. Bloggerlady said...

Haven't the Indians suffered enough? Casting Johnny Depp as Tonto? WTF?

The Magnificent Seven was the Seven Samurai originally. It worked. The plot was simple and direct. Plenty of action. A great casting ensemble and some amazing cinematography.

Lonesome Dove had a diverse cast. It was actually historically more accurate than most westerns. Great writing.

I have not seen the remake of MS and will not till it is on Netflix.

Evi L. Bloggerlady said...

I am looking forward to Westworld tomorrow...

edutcher said...

William said...

You have to be ten years old to properly appreciate the Lone Ranger

One thing that impressed me mightily was the response to a tribute website set up when Clayton Moore died.

Imagine a 10,000 comment post here or at TOP, that's what it was like. People, mostly men, telling how The Lone Ranger had shaped their lives as kids and how they'd bought the tapes and DVDs so their kids would have the same advantage.

The problem is Hollyweird doesn't want to produce anything like that - it would interfere with their Commie utopia.

And "The Lone Ranger" was a hit with grown-ups as well as kids when it appeared on TV as well as radio.

Evi L. Bloggerlady said...

Lonesome Dove had a diverse cast. It was actually historically more accurate than most westerns. Great writing.

McMurtry has never grabbed me and including Danny Glover in his usual function as the obligatory token Negro (Wifti Goldberg is his female counterpart) absolutely turned me off.

And I can show you a lot of Westerns at least as accurate.

Sixty Grit said...

Buster Keaton, unlike his son Michael and his mother, Diane, was a cinematic pioneer and true comedy genius. Even into his old age he was a physical comedian without peer. His silent films still hold up very well, and some of his scenes display cutting edge movie-making technology.

They can't be remade, at least not without CGI.

edutcher said...

The same can be said for DW Griffith, although the PC crowd freaks at "Birth Of A Nation".

Sixty Grit said...

Yeah, I never saw D. W. Griffith as much of a physical comedian. Director, sure, but with 520 films as a director and 44 as an actor, maybe I missed something.

ampersand said...

The remake of The Manchurian Candidate also switched villains from Commies to "corporate interests". I didn't see it but, I believe, Meryl Streep played an evil blonde senator. Sound Familiar?
Plenty of evil "corporate interests" are portrayed in modern movies except for "corporate interests" that are involved in the movie industry.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Westerns just need a shake-up, is all. THey're bound to no longer be interesting to generations long after the "Western front" has been settled. Hence, the crossover sleeper that I loved, Cowboys and Aliens.

Our treatment of the natives was downright deplorable. Combine that with the aforementioned already "settled" Western front, and there's no need to make cowboys out to be heroes anymore. Maybe some were. Did you see True Grit? There were plenty of outlaws, so why assume that their stock was the definition of righteous? Do we need to assume the Indians were moral exemplars? (Except with their better treatment of the earth). Why do we need to assume our own society is so perfect? Especially when I don't see many conservatives who are willing to confirm our so-called social superiority.