• The new B5TV.COM is here. We've replaced our 16 year old software with flashy new XenForo install. Registration is open again. Password resets will work again. More info here.

The Honeymooners

Sinclair

Moderator
I just found out that a Honeymooners movie is coming out.

Here's the official movie website witih info about it, the cast, and trailer.

I think this might actually be a good movie. I like Cedric the Entertainer and I think he probably did a great Ralph Kramden.

Oh, and Gabrielle Union's in it. Mmmmmm....Gabrielle Union. *drools*
 
OK I gotta rant here.

What is it with Hollywood these days where a LOT lately they remake a movie or a character from a classic series or movie, they somehow make a white guy black or vise versa?

I'm not racist, but it bugs me. And it bugs me because theres no LOGICAL reason for it. It doesnt ADD anything to the movie remake. In fact it probably will turn some people off and could ruin the movie.

No, theres no real reason to do it. So the reason that I hate that they do this, is because basically this is some slick marketing fuck saying "Hey, lets show the world we are hip and open minded and are PC with our ignoring the color of someone's skin."

Fucking stupid. If I end up becoming the most famous person in the world, I don't want a movie made after me with some pakistani guy named Abdul Aliackbar playing me. I'm white. I should probably be played by a WHITE guy. Seems like a simple concept, no?

*gets off his rant box and waits for the next remake of Malcom X...to be played by Kevin Spacey*
 
I don't really have a problem with remakes featuring someone of a different race. Now if it were a movie about say Martin Van Buren (a real historical figure) being played by Morgan Freeman, that would be a different story, as Van Buren was, in fact, white.

As a movie made today I think it'll be better off being set in the modern day, as it will probably be more likely to attract a wider audience, like those that didn't grow up with it. The movie may peak a lot more interest in the classic series from younger people.
 
Gotta agree with Sinclair on two points:

1. Gabrielle Union is a goddess.

2. A race switch is OK but only if you look at it as one. Let's say the guy who playes Ralph Kramden is white but thin. Would that be "wrong," because the first Ralph was fat? What if he has blonde hair? If it "has" to be exactly the same, then why bother making a remake? But if there can be differences, why not racial? Yeah, it probably is some PC bullshit, but if it's good, then it shouldn't matter.

Ralph Kramden is a completely fictional character, so there is no "real" Ralph Kramden, so a new honeymooners could have him black or Asian or even reverse the gender roles. It is, after all, a new version. Of course this is all assuming it will take place in the present and not be retro.

What bothers me is when they put black guys in like Shakespeare or something that's set in that time. Denzel Washington in a period setting of Much Ado About Nothing? Uh, no.

Some people complained that one of the main characters in the new Hitchhiker's Guide flick is black. Well, I don't see the problem. It's not like it changes the character, or the action or is relevant to the story or the humor. But if they made, say, Napoleon anything other than a short white French-Italian man, then that would be messed up.
 
Ralph Kramden's behavior was just so white, macho male, pompous stupidity, that it would seem to need to be quite different with a black man playing the part.

On the other hand, there IS a great film where Ossie Davis plays JFK. It's called Bubba Hotep... :D

I am getting sick of all the remakes and TV show movies. The last time I went to the theater, the trailers were Batman, a new Bad News Bears, a new Herbie, and a Pink Panther remake! Nothing original AT ALL!
 
Ralph Kramden's behavior was just so white, macho male, pompous stupidity, that it would seem to need to be quite different with a black man playing the part.

That is kind of what I was trying to get at, with it causing "cultural" problems/differences in the show. I didn't really want to say it because I didn't want anything thinking I was tossing stereotypes around or anything. But Ralph was a textbook white New Yorker male. And hes being played by....Cedric the Entertainer? Puh-LEASE. Hes a fucking goofball who stars in beer commercials. TOTALLY the wrong characterization.

This movie will be an abomination.
 
In general, I think film roles should be looked at as individual roles, not black roles, or white roles. Ford Prefect being black was fine. But if a role is a historical character, or a fictional character with a very definite ethnicity, I think the actor chosen for the part should match. I guess they could do a black version of the Honeymooners. Such a show actually did exist. It was called Amos and Andy, and is now considered racist. It was on when I was just a little kid. I liked it a lot, because I found the characters to be more genuine and human that all those white sitcoms of the period, which seemed very contrived.
 
Well, if they change the pompous white guy, to a jolly black guy, and they update it to today, what really is left of the Honey Mooners, that they need to call it the Honey Mooners? Will they even have "Straight to the Moon Alice"?

I don't have a problem with them doing it, but, it really doesn't seem to me like it should be called the Honey Mooners.
 
This movie will be an abomination.

Well, yeah, but that would probably still be true if it was a white guy anyway.

Re: Cedric the Entertainer- even though this film will suck, and yes he does beer commercials, he's actually a really funny stand-up comic. Like most stand-up comics, it doesn't translate to the screen very well (ie, Chris Rock).
 
2. A race switch is OK but only if you look at it as one. Let's say the guy who playes Ralph Kramden is white but thin. Would that be "wrong," because the first Ralph was fat?
Actually, in the particular case of Ralph Kramden, I think that changing him to a thin guy would be much more antithetical to the character than the race switch. Ralph's size was just sooooo engrained into what that character was. It wasn't just the verbal shots that Alice would take at his weight. It was just such a big part of how he interacted with everybody: the big bellowing blowhard. If you change him into a little (slightly built) bellowing blowhard, it completely changes the perceptions and the dynamics of all of the interactions.

I really don't mind race switches in general (actual historical personages aside). Now if the producers are doing just because they want a race switch to be PC, or to "broaden their audiance", or some such thing even though the best person for the part is the original race ..... well, that's just stupid. However, if the movie deal was for a Cedric the Entertainer vehicle, and Cedric wants to play Ralph Kramden, and he can play the character well enough (sometimes stars need to be saved from themselves in their choice of roles) ..... then I don't see any reason why he shouldn't be able to make a "black Honeymooners".

I don't even mind things like Denzel in Much Ado. It's pretty much the same thing. I don't see why all black actors should be told that the only Shakespeare that they will ever be allowed to play is the title role in Othello.


With respect to the specifics of the casting:
I can see Cedric playing Ralph. I would expect his version to be fairly different from Gleason's, but I can see him still getting the essense of it.

The one that will *really* be tough is Norton. Nothing against Epps, but Art Carney *was* Ed Norton. Through his variety shows, Jackie Gleason resurected the Honeymooners for sketches repeatedly over the years. He recast Alice (and Trixie, for that matter) multiple times without worrying about it. However, even Gleason would never do a Honeymooners sketch without Carney. Ed Norton played any other way is just a completely different character, and changes the whole tone and feel of the entire piece. It wouldn't really be the Honeymooners any more. On the other hand, if you play it the same way then it just becomes an Art Carney impression ..... and you can't win that way. Carney will always be a better Art Carney than you can be. It is something of a Catch-22 of a role.
 
I don't even mind things like Denzel in Much Ado. It's pretty much the same thing. I don't see why all black actors should be told that the only Shakespeare that they will ever be allowed to play is the title role in Othello.

I wouldn't mind if they didn't keep the setting. Shakespeare productions set in different times and locals is very common. Make it take place in a setting where the races could coneivable interact as equals (ie, the modern Western world), and having Denzel in Much Ado would be cool.

Anyway, that wasn't nearly as bad as having Keanu Reeves. This has nothing to do with race, that guy just shouldn't be allowed Shakespeare. Or any speaking roles for that matter.
 
I don't think that the basic plot of Much Ado would make much sense in the modern Western world.

Between the attitudes toward sex and arranged marriage, and criminal codes where lieing to the prince is treated as high treason ..... the whole thing just doesn't fit.

I've seen a fair number of productions of Shakespearean plays reset into other times and places and I have generally liked them. However, there does need to be some logic to it. (I loved the way that the McKellen version of Richard III managed to make the "my kingdom for a horse" line make sense in what was essentially 1930's Europe.)

I've seen that whole play descibed as "Tuscany the way it never was". It is sort of a fantasy version of that time and place anyway (as are many of Shakespeare's plays, particularly the comedies). Since it is that much of a fantasy already, I don't mind having one or more of the characters cast as non-European actors.

Now, in something like Othello there are very good reasons why everybody other than Othello should be cast from the same race and that must be a different race than is cast for Othello. That is central to a lot of what happens in the play. In something like Much Ado, however, I don't see any such imperative intrinsically in the story of the play.

+--------------


Yeah, Keanu as the villain was the worst piece of casting in that production (quite possibly in any of the Branagh Shakespeare movies). I remember there being some concern about mixing Americans (in general) and Brits in the same Shakespearean production, that the natural rhythms of speech would be too incongruous, but I thought that the other Americans fit in pretty well. (Keaton's constable was sort of an odd contrast, but that character is written that way).

I think the "or any speaking roles" bit is a little too harsh, though. He was perfectly cast in Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure.
 
PR, you're right about the setting of Much Ado.

Actually, Denzel's race didn't bother me that much. It was his performance. He's a very intense guy, which works brilliantly in Spike Lee films and some action/dram fare like Training Day, but it was off-putting in the comedy romp of Much Ado.

Also, I did enjoy the Much Ado film anyway, as I always enjoy Branaguh's and Thompson's chemistry. Reeves's awfulness just adds an added dimensions of unintentional comedy, and he really only has one major scene where he talks a lot.
 
I very much enjoyed Much Ado, and was willing to 'suspend disbelief' for Denzel.

I really find that kind of detail is one I harp on if I generally disliked a picture but cheerfully ignore when I like it a lot. :D

And agreed: updating "Much Ado" wouldn't be easy, the entire plot is based on the laws and ways of those times.
 
Bllack or white I'm just glad we can bring back a show about a doofus who frequently threatens to beat up his wife instead of thinking of something new. :D
 
That was one of the things that made playing that character such a delicate balance.

Those lines have to be delivered with enough real irritation (and a complete lack of nudge-nudge-wink-wink joking) to make the audiance relate to the character's (Ralph's) frustration. At the same time, the audiance (and Alice for that matter; actually mostly Alice, because to a great extent the audiance takes their cue from her reaction) can't really believe that he would ever actually do it ..... or it completely ceases to be funny.

I remember a story from a Honeymooners retrospective. It was one of the times that they re-cast Alice; when they got to one of those scenes in the first reheasal, she started crying. Gleason said something like: "What you doing? Alice doesn't cry." The actress replied "My Alice does." leason told her in no uncertain terms: "Alice can't cry because if she does then the audiance will *hate* me."
 
Bllack or white I'm just glad we can bring back a show about a doofus who frequently threatens to beat up his wife instead of thinking of something new. :D

The thing is, we knew that Ralph didn't ever mean it. He would have never laid a finger on Alice.
 

Latest posts

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top