I’ve seen it the last time a few years ago, and I don’t remember him being integral to the plot in any way. He’s just the annoying neighbor who always complains about the noise in Holly’s apartment, as a comic relief. Yeah, very comical.
ETA: and I also hated the ending, it felt so much shoehorned in and contradicted the whole plot of the movie and Holly’s character. I like some Blake Edwards films, but this really didn’t age well. And I’m still sorry for the cat, what an asshole move by Holly.
That’s because you know the code, that trains going into tunnels, or panning from a kissing couple to a roaring fire, means SEXSEXSEX! If you didn’t know the convention, then, it’s just a train, or a fire.
For me, I got that ending seeing the movie when I was in late elementary school. I don’t think I would have got the roaring fire implication at that age.
I alwasy said that Blazing Saddles couldn’t be made today, until Mel Brooks went and did it. And it’s so much a remake that Richard Prior got a writing credit 17 years after he died!
Finian’s Rainbow was one of our high school musicals. The director got around the cringe factor by simply substituting a Black actor for the white one during those scenes.
Ah. I see what you mean. That could (and should) have been handled better (which wouldn’t even have taken any chance to the overall plot of the movie (unlike RotN which has the problematic parts built deeply into the plot)).
Are they supposed to be good? “Animal House”, if only for Tom Hulce pushing the 14-year-old passed out drunk 14-year-old girl in a shopping cart.
“Fast Times at Ridgemont High,” which, despite being somewhat true-storyish, could not be made today. And “Moving in Stereo” would be a lesser-known song.
If anything goes, the “Porky’s” films could not be made today.
“Soul Man” - a white guy goes blackface to get into a college.
“Short Circuit” - “Time is fun when you are having flies” - yet a non-indian guy making jokes like that (in an Indian sort of accent).
There are extremely few movies that couldn’t use a “woke” remake, because a huge proportion of them show criminal acts, violence etc all of which are extremely unacceptable behaviours. Pretty much every car chase involves heavy totally undeserved property damage and often crashes that would cause significant if not lifechanging injury even if not shown. Any number of movies depict people who commit serious criminal acts, and often they are the heroes of the movie. Most Westerns involve extrajudicial killing, manslaughter and murder by the score. This isn’t even close to being a complete list.
I suppose the OP specifically asked about films that have “poorly aged” and so only covers films that show things that were acceptable at one time but are not now - which seems an odd dividing line. Why is it OK to show something that has always been bad, but not OK to show something that used to be OK but now isn’t?
I suppose of the films I mentioned, some editing could un-woke or whatever the term would be. Can Sean Penn drive on Quaaludes in “Fast Times?” And all the smoke that comes out of their van before school? Probably not.
Brad and his visions of Phoebe Cates in Fast Times? I guess without that and Jeff Spicoli (Penn) there’s not much left.
Kim Cattrell as Lassie in Porky’s? How was that even made in the early 80’s?
There’s a “Twilight Zone” with George Takei that was banned till about 10 years ago. Dunno if the show is still in syndication, yet that can now be shown.
Bugs Bunny and the 'Nips? Or as Hitler? Nope.
Edit Mickey Rooney out of “Breakfast at Tiffany’s” and it’s neither better or worse.
Was “Black Like me” racist? The blackface had the very racist senator transformed to learn what it was like being black. Okay, i will buy cringy, but the reason is clearly anti-racist.
There’s a remake?
War propaganda vs an evil foe is acceptable- when it was made. Watch today for it’s historical content.
I cannot speak to syndication broadcasts, but I have the complete series on DVD, and that set includes “The Encounter,” which is the episode you’re referring to.
After reading everybody’s comments about all of the above films I started to wonder if it would be possible to “fix” D. W. Griffith’s Birth of the Nation. I can’t even begin to imagine how that could be done.
Because fiction is propaganda, as Brecht told us. There’s a massive difference between “this is a fantasy behavior that you’re not going to engage in” and “we’re depicting something harmful as harmless fun in a way that might convince some viewers it’s harmless,” and there’s a third category of “we’re depicting harmful stereotypes in a way that reinforces those stereotypes in the audience’s mind.”
Certainly you can argue that action movies encourage violence and should be condemned for that; I’ve got relatives who make exactly that argument, much to my exasperation. I see those as clear fantasies, though, and think that most audience members can recognize it as such, whereas rape and racism are super common, and it’s not a great idea for fiction to argue on their behalf.
Exactly. It should (but certainly isn’t always) be clear from the tone and context of the film what is being endorsed/condoned, what the film is ambivalent/not bothered about and what it condemns. There will be older films that clearly lean towards the former, when these days they (should) lean, or firmly point, towards the latter.
