Remake of Interview with a Vampire - MORE WOKE/RACIST GARBAGE

[Baron Von Murderpaws]

 

[shockedcanadian]

For years I have been wanting to watch the original, I've only seen clips. Maybe I will watch both, but not before I see the original first.

 

[Ringel05]

It's the end of the world as we know it
It's the end of the world as we know it
It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine.

Wasn't impressed with the first one, have no intention on seeing the remake.

 

[konradv]

OMG, a black vampire! Is that it?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

The remake is a shame. Anne Rice would never have permitted it.

I really did not like Tom Cruise as Lestat. Like Rice herself, I saw Julian Sand in every word. No one knowing about the history of the Interview would accept this bastardization.

 

[Lastamender]

What moral lessons can a vampire teach anyone?

 

[Lastamender]

OMG, a black vampire! Is that it?

For a racist like you, why not?

 

[konradv]

For a racist like you, why not?

Then you tell me the point of the OP.

 

[MisterBeale]

I'm sure it won't be any worse than the defiling they have already done to Star Trek, Star Wars and Lord of the Rings.

 

[Lastamender]

Then you tell me the point of the OP.

I can tell you to ask the OP yourself. Simple.

 

[Baron Von Murderpaws]

The remake is a shame. Anne Rice would never have permitted it.

I really did not like Tom Cruise as Lestat. Like Rice herself, I saw Julian Sand in every word. No one knowing about the history of the Interview would accept this bastardization.

Anne Rice didn't even want Cruise in the original movie, she thought he was the worst choice.
But they said she didn't have any say in the matter, after selling the rights to the movie.

 

[Calypso Jones]

Pitt wasn't a good choice either in my opinion. Actually...i think the movie might have done better had both those roles been played by someone else. The only good acting in it was Kirsten Dunst. Remarkable performance for such a young actress.

 

[Synthaholic]

Here's an idea: don't watch it if your fragile ❄ sensibilities are offended by diversity.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

I'm sure it won't be any worse than the defiling they have already done to Star Trek, Star Wars and Lord of the Rings.

What's been ruined is a long list.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Here's an idea: don't watch it if your fragile ❄ sensibilities are offended by diversity.

Have you noticed that diversity never improves?

 

[22lcidw]

Pitt wasn't a good choice either in my opinion. Actually...i think the movie might have done better had both those roles been played by someone else. The only good acting in it was Kirsten Dunst. Remarkable performance for such a young actress.

They can play characters who are a bit darker. But this was much worse than that. It is like the audience expects a certain level of depravity from their acting favorites. Low level people, antiheroes, and characters with flaws are acceptable. This was dark.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

If the acting is good, it doesn't bother me.
What is bad, is if "affirmative action" in a film brings us shitty acting.
Like in Rings of Power... I don't care there was a black Hobbit.
Who gives a shit as long as the dude can act?

In the original, IMO - Pitt greatly out classed Cruise. Cruise was too much like all the other roles he has played.
Brad Pitt, on the other hand, portrayed his character with waaay more depth and feeling.

 

[MisterBeale]

Here's an idea: don't watch it if your fragile ❄ sensibilities are offended by diversity.

It really isn't about the diversity of a cast for me. I don't have a problem with that.

What bothers me, is remaking perfectly good movies and TEE VEE shows, why not make new stuff?

The reason they want to remake a lot of the older stuff? Is they have no new ideas, this is easier, it is lazy.

I'm honestly not offended by "diversity," unless it actually goes contrary to something that is inherent to the plot and characterization, simply to push a political agenda.

The old Soviet Union and Communists used to do this. They controlled artists. If an artist had themes in their artwork that did not glorify the ideals of the party? They were not allowed funding by the state, or they could not exhibit their work in the public sphere.

At this point? It ceases to be art, and becomes propaganda. It is no longer something beautiful, but something ugly and vulgar.

This is what folks unanimously commented on the video of the Prime Trailer, the day after it dropped on the Super Bowl, and this is pretty much what folks are telling you. Most folks don't think it has anything to do with, "diversity." It has to do with trying to infuse politics into art.

And because of ESG investing metrics now, any mass media that does not conform to, and push a certain paradigm, does not get instituional investment activity now. This is really, not a whole lot different than the bullshit that went on in the former Soviet Union, or what goes on in China.

This leads to bizarre type shit, like women portraying what should be male characters, or black folks portraying historical white figures in history. Homosexuals being shoe-horned into what is known as folks that were heterosexual characters, either in history, or in source material. Folks don't like it.

But if the reverse were done? That would not be allowed. IT isn't about, "free artistic expression," or having an open mind, it is about destroying the culture, and twisting narratives.



AND NO, I don't support any of it. It destroys history, and the vision of artists.

 

[MisterBeale]

 

[konradv]

I can tell you to ask the OP yourself. Simple.

I know what I think. You’re just trolloing.