"Never Surrender" – “remake” of a short film Eric Jacobas "Rope-A-Dope" from the young Slovak team "3Media Production".
Never Surrender
Test fight "Capoeira Girl, Capoeira Fight" from "DPXEntertainment". (Sean Charney)
Capoeira Girl, Capoeira Fight
Source: FCS
1. A slightly incorrect formulation of the question.
Parody has a different purpose and a completely straightforward one - to parody. Plus it will make you laugh in the end. Therefore, one cannot say that the original is “better or worse.” Various tasks. For example, in a parody: to exaggerate the features of a genre, style or direction, to emphasize in an ironic way or even to ridicule shortcomings and clichés, to highlight features, presenting them again in an exaggerated form. A parody can be a textbook when studying the features of something. Example: “Hot Shots”, “Top Secret”, etc.
2. Not every parody is made up of superficial pictures.
Not every parody is impersonal. It can be very authorial, be a broadcast of the personality of the author of the parody, and not the object of this parody. Both in the pop genre and in the cinematic genre. In the literature "Parnassus stands on end", in the stage - Chistyakov, Khazanov, in the cinema the same Zuckers and Abrahams, Brooks.
Therefore, comparing a parody with the original is comparing two different genres.
Sweat on topic: (Parody of Marmot) - I agree with Jaidev, why the hell did THIS get filmed?) Absolutely complete nonsense...
In the second video (capuero) only the beginning is cheerful, and then it’s like a manual or video lesson for beginners in this art form. Although most of all, I liked this girl’s athletic ass))
And finally, I was really amused by the pirates thing))) Really well done! And they play well and there is an idea, and most importantly the characters are written! I applaud them)
The video from the Slovak team is not bad at all.
Damn, how tired I am!
Yes Yes Yes. Exactly. And the fees will be wow! The avatar will rest. Maybe filmmakers will take this idea on board!
And it will also become fashionable to cheat on the names of directors.
Cool. For 1 rub. You can make 33 full-length films and one short film. We need to give him this idea. ;)
- And here he would remain Spielberg. Even for 3 kopecks.
What if Spielberg had been given the chance to make a film with a Uwe Boll-level budget? Or would they pass him off as a director? :)
Not too early. He made a lot of comedies and acquired his signature style only in the mid-80s, along with his mascot Chow Yun Fat.
Not true. If Spielberg had directed this film, and Uwe Boll had been included in the credits, it would have been immediately obvious. It's like two different handwritings. Is it really that hard to tell the difference?
A good critic is not a fool.
We can say, but only about the early films, again.
I would like to make some worthy film with a famous director, but not advertise it in any way, and write the name of Uwe Boll in the opening credits and then look at the reaction of critics. I think the result will be predictable.
Comment text
I meant every ARTIST steals. Absolutely. Steals paintings that inspired him. Stunning examples of art in real life.
I don’t find anything like that with Ball.
And at the same time you need to bring your own.
As for Ball, again, he is essentially no different from the average small-time filmmaker. If we take John Woo, for example, and we immediately say - Oh, yes, Woo filmed this, and from the very first frames.
What about the film adaptation of Postal? There he had a good laugh at himself and at the video game. I think that he conveyed the general meaning (if it can be called the meaning) of the game adequately.
And if we return to imitation, the same person who is able to copy stroke after stroke of a painting by Monet, Van Gogh or Aivazovsky has no less talent than the authors of the originals. He is not a creator, but as an artist he will be no worse.
Comment text
Did I say in this post that Quentin is a genius? Not at all. He didn't bring anything of his own to the movie. Moreover, everything he ripped off from was usually much better. I notice that sometimes he worked superbly with music that was quite lackluster in the original. He gave a second life. As well as the actors he filmed, by the way. This is a big plus.
Many have not watched the original source, and say that Quentin is cool. It's like listening to the "Moonlight Sonata" in a modern version.
But Quentin loves cinema and this ardent love is felt in his works. That's why I love KILL BILL. I see from which paintings he painted his brainchild, but he did it with dedication. This deserves some respect. He's a cool dude, but he's not a genius like Buster Keaton or Stanley Kubrick and Sergio Leone.
Ball is criticized for what it is worth, and rightly so. Because he doesn't even have enough brains to steal something.
Good opinion! I also agree that Quentin’s last films were “fuck off”. The bastards are chewing gum. Django is not at all a tribute to the films of Leone, Corbucci or other spaghetti westerns. Italian cinema has always had a spirit. He's not here.
And what is the genius of Tarantino? I’ll answer the question with a question, but still. I don't notice anything special, especially in the latest films. A person floats on the wave of former success, but sooner or later the shore will appear. This is my subjective opinion.
- How is he an imitator and what is his individual advantage?
One of my friends praised Urusevsky so divinely, and when I asked - What is his peculiarity and genius, she mumbled something incomprehensible, like... well, how... uh... well, this...
So Uwe Boll can be included in this list. He is also individual in his own way...
It depends what is considered imitation? In what doses, actions and most importantly - results.
Tony Jaaa, Jackie Chan, John Woo, Andrei Tarkovsky, Isaac Florentine, Dario Argento, Ramesh Sippy are imitators. And with its own personality. I’m generally silent about Quentin Tarantino. A direct imitator of EVERYTHING possible. And he has no personality? Who can argue with that?
I repeat: imitation is not individuality.
- Absolutely right. That's why I don't do parodies.
Exactly. Imitation is not individuality, but a lack of imagination. Why make a cast from the original if you can create something of your own, unique?
Comment text
- A parody cannot be better than the original, because it is a parody, cobbled together from superficial pictures, usually bypassing the original thought of the authors. This essentially cannot happen, because the author is individual.
Imitation is the adoption of a certain model in one’s specific actions. Copying is identical to cloning. That is, a cast from the original. Which even the lazy will not see.
I once saw a short film on the site that the authors dedicated to Hong Kong action films of the 90s. There was some imitation in style, but not copying at all. That was good.
Eric's reaction is quite normal, because he himself shot what could be called a remake of a remake. And these comrades made a remake of a remake of a remake. Eric answered within the framework of such... professional ethics. It doesn’t really matter whether they copy something or not. Another thing is that, in my opinion, these young guys’ short film turned out to be a not very interesting, cheap and very superficial version. They took the principle and form, but did not fill it with any new content. Both from the point of view of meaning and from the point of view of action. Everything is very poor, at the level of amateur performances at a corporate party, a gift for the boss at work or a video about the department)). Or could this be a tribute to something? Dedicated to Jacobus? A bit weak. But there is no need to trample them into the mud, you can only advise them to film something “of their own” for them, this is much more productive. And don't mess around.
Eric's reaction:
Where exactly is this blurry line between imitation and copying? It happens that a parody turns out better than the original (as with Chaplin and the look-alike competition). It is clear that the Slovaks have a very weak result, but constant imitation of Jackie Chan or anyone else is also not an option.
Comment text
She is more progressive and sophisticated so to speak. In its essence and details.
Like our conversation now on VKontakte =D
Oh, exactly what he said. Ha Ha Ha! The main thing is to focus on more useful things. Right.
Your phrase about “your absolute objectivity.” After this phrase, any arguments with you (even with arguments) turn into a waste of time, which can be spent on more useful things.
Argument?
As for me, people don’t like the way I express my opinion, supporting it with MY thoughts and facts. But for some reason many people don’t want to hear him. So you don’t hear.
I wrote everything clearly in the post - what? For what? ...and why?
Didn't you read it?
It's fair to say...
I never said that anyone is right or wrong. I always say that there is TRASH and there are cool things!
Everyone has the right to their own opinion. Again with the facts.
Fuck...that's it and I can do it just like that. Data?
To be honest...you would give this advice to yourself first of all. And then, lately, you have a bad tendency emerging that there are only two opinions in the world, “yours and the wrong”, hence you listen only to those people with whom you agree, and the rest... they are wrong.
- What should I take? That big guys have no idea not only about what BI, cinema, an elementary game is, but also the most important thing - thought?
And there is no need to pour water here about a baby or someone who repeats something after someone else. This is complete nonsense.
Were these guys just born yesterday and started filming? Of course not. They haven't watched a single movie with BI? Of course we looked. So what prevents you from doing an interesting thing with data? But nothing... people saw a cool thing and decided to make fun of it. Just like that...for fun. For them and others this is normal, but for me it’s not. Eric's short film is for me one of the best and most significant events of the last 5 years in BI. I can safely put this creation with the ZODIAC. Despite the fact that it is a short film and has no budget.
And suddenly I see THIS... And accordingly I express my opinion. Am I not entitled to it? This is my opinion and it is supported by strong arguments. Will you challenge it?
We continue:
As for repetitions, Bruce did not repeat after anyone. Jackie didn't exactly follow anyone's lead. They had their own opinion and their own vision. I really respect people with their own inner world. These guys have no peace here. There are only ha ha and hee hee. Nothing else. Can't you see?
And personally, I don’t like this kind of creativity and this approach to business. There is also no need to say that this is the first damn thing that is lumpy and all that. This is a 2 point excuse. You either give it your all or you don’t. And a person who decides to clumsily repeat something, without having his own, is initially doomed. Since it would simply not occur to a normal, thinking person to take something and “rip it off” in this way.
I asked the question - WHY? For some reason no one answered him.
Returning to the original and its creator I will say -
Erik takes Jackie’s style straight, but comes up with his own, and that appeals to me. It is obvious to the naked eye that he has something to say. The other day I found a film about his team online. Well done boys. I see that they tried, searched, tried. And it worked. And in the very first works. You can see it right away whether you have brains or not. When we filmed our FIRST film "Squishy", we also took Jackie's style as a basis. And now we take it. But no one can say that we copied something. For example, ARMOR OF GOD or PROJECT A. Because we came up with our own. Because we have something to realize and something to say to the viewer. In addition, we didn’t just fight, fall and jump, but gave our 100% with an example to follow. For imitation, not copying. My boys and I are absolutely not ashamed of what we did many years ago. On the contrary, when filming my subsequent works, I always ask myself the question - How can I build scenes more interesting than the final battle in KLUPIK? Here's the challenge.
And at the same time you still dare to say that that word applies to me?
Grounds?
Let's not be like those who spit saliva without revealing a single fact in their attack. We are living and seemingly thinking people.
My advice to many is to learn to hear people. This is very developing and helps in our daily life.
Jaidev
Everyone starts with copying: a baby tries to reproduce the speech of his parents, a student in the dojo repeats the movements of the master in order to create (or not create) his own style in the future, a scientist duplicates dozens of times in minor variations the research of his predecessors in order to eventually give birth (or not give birth) something fundamentally new...
And if you are not able to accept this, then the word that you used to describe these guys applies more to you, forgive me.
Hmmm, not Jacobas. Although the ending was funny.
I'll be brief - morons without a future!!! Not your own thoughts, not a game, not a face...sorry, a face, not an action, not anything else.
This is from the first video.
I have one question - Why?
Found an amazing video this morning! There are people who create something in their handwriting that sometimes makes it impossible to tear yourself away from the screen.
Am I a snob and a bore? Maybe. But let me remain like this, I will value quality in many respects and interesting people, and not yard punks!
By the way, here's an interesting video!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukvdpXdL6fc