Why must everything be Americanized before anyone will touch it?

[Mahdi]

I jsut heard last night that production is starting on a TV series about The Black Donnelly's.  For those of you who don't know who or what the Black Donnelly's are, they were an Irish-Canadian family living in Lucan township just outside of London, Ontario.  They were a notoriously violent clan that started a fued with the entire township which ultimately ended in an angry mob brutally murdering them. 

The matriarch of the family cursed the vigilante group right before her head was smashed in.  Subsequently, the members of the group died in violent and mysterious circumstances (one was raped to death analy by lumberjacks).

The fued itself was more violent and had a higher body count than even that of the infamous Mason-Dixie line.

It is a very important part of Canadian history, for better or worse, and only happened due to the unique blending of political and religious attributes of this small community.

All in all it's a great set-up for a movie or TV show.

So, you know, no problem so far, but then the TV host says this:

"The story will be relocated to new york, with the Donnelly's being an immigrant Irish-American family."

Wtf?!

You know, not everything ahs to be Americanized to be a success.

[Andrew]

Don't think I've heard of that before.

Found Donnelly's page for info.

Americanization sucks. :P

Well, its probably good for americans so that they can try to relate to it better, but the fact that they are getting a history lesson that is faulty, is sad.

[exatreide]

What? Please, Everything has to be filmed in canada these days for some reasons...

canadiazation sucks...

[Andrew]

Angels in the outfield should have been Blue jays in the outfield...

So what if films are made in canada? Although if it is supposed to take place in new york, yet filmed in vancouver, definitely takes authenticity for city shots.

But when the story changes to accomodate the larger market... that sucks.

[Jack Leaf]

The same was made for The war of the worlds, both in the old movie and the new one.

Original book: Early 20th century, location United Kingdom. New movie: Early 21st century, location United States.  ???

Everything is Americanized nowadays.

[alchemi2]

Damned Yanks rewrite history constantly and even their fiction is faulty. Sad thing is they often believe their movie versions of history/fiction.  ::) :O :(

[Wolf]

As an American -- and an avid historian -- I fiercely reset the implication that all Americans are so guillable as you say. Also;

"Damned Yanks rewrite history constantly and even their fiction is faulty."

Even their fiction is faulty? What a ridiculous comment. By what metric is fiction faulty? That's why it's fiction. I'd also appreciate it if you could cite me specific examples where "damned Yanks" rewrite history. And then prove to me how those examples are indictive of a "constat" process of revisional action. Otherwise, shut up.

And for my two cents on the topic... Probably the reason that North American histories are Americanized for production into mass media into North America is the fact that the majority of the population of the North American continent is, in fact, American. You have to consider the profit motive of the company making the film in the first place to attract viewers. Secondly, myths, legends, histories, and whatnot are rewritten all the time by countries all over the world. The epic of King Arthur is often revised and toyed with, the story of Caesar by Shakespeare is a revision of another country's history -- but that's just a play and people understand the distinction.

[alchemi2]

U-571  ;)

I robot  ;)

To name but two  ::) examples. As a keen historian i am sure you could cite a few hundred historically inaccurate American made movies.

I found "The Patriot" a particularly offensive movie, from a historical point of view.

My apologises that the generalization of "THEY" offended you, I was refering to the broad masses rather than every individual.

Oh well shuting up now  :-X

[Wolf]

Haha, Alchemi, I apologize for telling you to shut up, I agree with you on your points and thank you for clearing up what you meant by "the masses." I just felt somewhat offended at what I saw as kind of a trend in the thread of "Oh, those damn Yanks will believe anything."

Yes, "The Patriot" was somewhat historically inaccurate, though I have to check up on the portrayal of the British commander -- at least one British general was known for being somewhat insane during the Revolution. "I, Robot" didn't really mess up history so much as it just took Asimov's book to an interpretation that that author had not intended. U-571 was just made-up. Wiki has the name of the actual U-Boat that was capture, and I believe it was the British who nabbed it.

[alchemi2]

U-571 is the classic example of hollywoods history perversion, remolding a true story to a fictious one but many people believe it is accurate!!

I Robot claims to be a reworking of Asimov's book and yet totally perverts everything he intended with his robot books IE to dispel the Frankinstien theory of creation.

The main offence of The Patriot is the burning of civillians in the church which never happened but was an offence committed by a Nazi SS officer in WWII to flushout/teach a lesson to partisans.

My main complain is why can't hollywood show historical events accurately if it was the British who did something why change it to Americans. If events happened in Canada and are interesting enough to do a film of, why relocate it.

Is it purely to satisfy American ego? or is it that they underestimate American audiences !

I would find it offensive if producers said we had to dumb it down or foreshorten it because our people can't sit that long or cope with the truth! which seems to be the case with many studios execs.

Again no offence meant.

[Caid Ivik]

Well, if you don't like it, why you talk about it? You are just propagating it. Ignorance is only weapon against mass culture - if you really need to fight against it...

[erjin999]

Well, if you don't like it, why you talk about it? You are just propagating it. Ignorance is only weapon against mass culture - if you really need to fight against it...

Huh ? If I understand you right, you are asking why they are talking about this subject ? I am learning from what they are saying, and it is enlightening me. I never knew I, Robot was any different from the book (Its on my to-read list). I realised before that sometimes accuracy is forsaken for story telling, but this seems to be bigger then I realised.

[alchemi2]

Asimov hated the Frankistein theroy as he called it. Basicly the tenet being God creates man with intelligence man through his superior feelings forsakes god(ie kills god) and create intelliegence ie Robots they in turn destroy man.

Asimov got fed up of this idea believing any robot would have safe guards built in as any machine does so as not destroy its creator.

He created the 3 laws of robotics and then wrote stories based on there principles, none of his robot would kill or try to kill humans. The sheer act of standing by or witnessing a death could/would cause the robot to die/be destroyed.

Hence why the films basic principle is such an outrage and for them to credit Asimov is far from a compliment.

Caid surely the reverse is true ignorance is the whole point, surely by discussing and making people aware of the distortion of history (or fiction)is one way to combat that ignorance.

Or do you believe ignorance is bliss and we should believe hollywoods version of history and novels?

[Tezcatlipoca]

Huh ? If I understand you right, you are asking why they are talking about this subject ? I am learning from what they are saying, and it is enlightening me. I never knew I, Robot was any different from the book (Its on my to-read list). I realised before that sometimes accuracy is forsaken for story telling, but this seems to be bigger then I realised.

Besides the obvious of what alchemi2 mentioned was a major issue in the movie, there's a whole big host of other issues as well.

I'll only name a few, since... as it did when I fist saw a prieview for the monstrosity, talking about it even now upsets my stomach.

1) "I, Robot", by Issac Asimov is a book of *SHORT STORIES* which display his idea of how robots should, and would act in different situations. The only "plot" that linked the whole book was an on going interview with everyone's favorite (retired at this point) robot psychologist.

2) Basically (as stated in a multitude of essays he wrote on the subject) he (against as alchemi2 mentioned) wanted to dispel the whole Frankenstein concept because it was used over, and over, and over again before even *he* started writing books, and he felt that that just didn't make any sense. He also felt that entertainment centered around robots would be *much* more interesting, if it explored how and what they would do as a result of *not* being able to hurt humans, and having these basic laws that he proported. (And if you read the book, you'll probably end up agreeing with him, myself, and many others).

3) The three laws. Asimov clearly states states in his essay entitled "The Laws of Robotics" (found in my resources in the compilation book "Robot Visions" printing 1991 of publisher RoC, with an original copyright (on the essay) of 1979) paragraph 12:

"Indeed, these laws proved so popular with the readers and made so much sense that other science fiction writers began to use them (without ever quoting them directly--only I may do that), and all the old stories of robots destroying their creators died out."

In otherwords, those laws, displayed as written by him, were not to be used by any other commercial ventures. While he was alive, no doubt he held a copyright against this. After he died, that copyright probably went to his heirs. Obviously, someone told the makers of the movie that they could use them, but in my opinion, this is wrong, and insulting to his image, and all that he wanted to create. What he wrote above seems fairly clear to me, even if it was a side note in a single essay.

4) Anyone that's read Asimov, knows that he's a humorous person. He writes humor into his books. But it's a witty, intelligent sort of humor; an "ah-ha!" type of humor, and one that helps makes his stories so fun. In the movie, they ignored this. They thought they had to appeal to stupid masses that like low grade humor about misinterpreted sexual preferences, and large flashy explosions. Let me state also, that I like Will Smith. I think he's a good actor (although very two dimensional; he never seems to change his roll well), and a funny guy using his *own* brand of humor. The problem here is, his humor is drastically different from Asimov's and doesn't work for a movie supposivly based off his works.

I could go on, but I've already gotten way off the topic. Another movie, along the same lines (by the same director) that was produced for the supposed Americanized society at the expensive of the original author's credabilty:

"Starship Troopers"

By god what a disgusting mess. I'm not a big fan of Robert A. Heinlein myself (I've read only about 20 of his 50,000 novels and found them to be pretty repetitive in style and subplots), but "Starship Troopers" was definately one of his best (and one of the few I enjoyed more then just considering it "another book to read," and that movie should burn in hell.

[alchemi2]

You are correct that other authors either assume the laws of robotics or allude to them though they are rarely cited fully in anyones books save Asimov's, although i'm sure i have read them in some works partially quoted.

In the movie Aliens the 1st law is quoted. I still don't get why the couldn't have call the I Robot movie something else as it has no relationship to the book as you have outlined, suppose they hoped and did cash in on a great mans name.

Erin you should get some Asimov books from your local library, he did some realy good detective type stories as well as the sci-fi stuff. The Foundation books are excellent as well. ;D or check out this site.

http://www.asimovonline.com

[erjin999]

I will do, and I would like to say its been interesting reading this. Now I find out that Starship Troopers is also a similar "interpretation" by Hollywood as I, Robot is. I did think the film was as flat as a pancake. It made me cringe, but I never realised it was based on a book.

I dont think I will try to read that one.

[exatreide]

Starship troopers rocked, while it was a bit hokey, it did a good job of portraying a "heinlin democracy" i liked it and own the speciel addiction dvd. And the book which I also enjoy.]

Why must everything be Americanized? Because Americans buy everything, which movie is going to be more succesful a movie for Lichensteinens or a Movie to Americans? Which is going to make more cash?

[erjin999]

Can Americans not watch a movie not about themselves ? Not being bad or trying to insult, but the way you ask the question...

I like to watch Chineese films occasionally for the action (which they tend to do better then american films).

[Caid Ivik]

Well, the question is then not the accuracy of cinematic remakes of books, but their meaning itself. Movies are separate type of culture, as well as book is. When an artist ie paints a scenery of mountains, beauty of his picture is different from beauty of the mountains themselves. So we must think about movies inspired by books, which are the same. Background for creating I Robot book (which is in fact a collection of many short stories) was different than for I Robot movie. Both are separate pieces of (mass) culture, we can say about both as pieces of art too. But they are different, their esthecity lies in other principles. If you try to avoid this truth, you are just emphasing the effect of same name set by movie propagators, which is to lure you. American movies are made by americanly thinking Americans. Fact they use some non-american visual details won't change it.

It could be best seen in case of ie Alien vs.Predator games and the movie. Many fans were also disappointed, but what did they expect? Movie won't give you spear to crush trough xenomorph brains.

[exatreide]

Can Americans not watch a movie not about themselves ? Not being bad or trying to insult, but the way you ask the question...

I like to watch Chineese films occasionally for the action (which they tend to do better then american films).

See my post above yours, You think Germans are going to buy more movies thats are about the French? or more movies about Germans?

Germans obviously. It's not just American.. Let me ask you this.

Can you not watch a movie not about British? Rather hipocrtical of you all saying how bad americanization of everything is. Whats your solution? Canadaize or Britinize it!

Wow, Great plan!

::)

[Mahdi]

Starship troopers rocked, while it was a bit hokey, it did a good job of portraying a "heinlin democracy" i liked it and own the speciel addiction dvd. And the book which I also enjoy.]

Why must everything be Americanized? Because Americans buy everything, which movie is going to be more succesful a movie for Lichensteinens or a Movie to Americans? Which is going to make more cash?

Which reflects poorly on the producers behind such products that they believe there own fellow contrymen cannot and will not watch a story that is not about Americans.  I personally beleive that the general American public will enjoy a good story, American setting with American characters or not.  Look at the recent success of, say Deadwood, whose main character is a Canadian.  But I guess I'm not quite as cynical about the "Ignorant masses" as the producers of this new project. 

"No one ever went poor underestimating the intelligence of the American people"

Might be true, but there's been a lot of successes which haven't underestamated their smarts.

[Megashrap]

By god what a disgusting mess. I'm not a big fan of Robert A. Heinlein myself (I've read only about 20 of his 50,000 novels and found them to be pretty repetitive in style and subplots), but "Starship Troopers" was definately one of his best (and one of the few I enjoyed more then just considering it "another book to read," and that movie should burn in hell.

Well, Hollywood does not produce movies based on historical accuracy or based on a novel to a T for a reason...Entertainment. Blockbuster movies are not made with an assumption that it has to be 'historically accurate'.  Even so, several come to mind that have been that I myself thought were both blockbusters and accurate. Shindlers List, Saving Private Ryan(for it's realistic value) are just 2 that come to mind for me. It would be nice to always have these types produced all the time, But again it's all Entertainment, No one wants to pay 20 bucks to see a movie thats on the History channel. They want their bang for thier buck. Supply and demand, not much more than that.

Angels in the outfield should have been Blue jays in the outfield...

So what if films are made in canada? Although if it is supposed to take place in new york, yet filmed in vancouver, definitely takes authenticity for city shots.

But when the story changes to accomodate the larger market... that sucks.

Nope, it's just buisness as usual, nothing more....http://www.freep.com/entertainment/movies/canada6e_20050706.htm in fact, the last sentence pretty much explains alot of it.

[Jack Leaf]

Saving Private Ryan? Wtf? Accurate? Bullshit!

The battles are so unrealistic that they look like they were took from Commando.

[Megashrap]

Saving Private Ryan? Wtf? Accurate? Bullshit!

The battles are so unrealistic that they look like they were took from Commando.

The landing at Omaha Beach, uniforms, weapons, exact layout of bunkers and positions of german machinegun nests, vehicles etc. landing crafts, and the fact that WW2 Veterans who themselves were actually there helped in that re-creation of the landing and how conditions were.  I'm not talking about the storyline, but realistic value. Try not to read too much into what my personal choices are what a good movie consists of.  ;)

"Although the opening sequences of Saving Private Ryan do not give a completely accurate description of the events at Omaha Beach, they do provide an excellent feel for what conditions on the beach must have been like. The running time of the movie required that the attack on Omaha be considerably condensed. Even an entire three-hour movie on just the attack on Omaha Beach would have been hard-pressed to tell the whole story."      http://www.sproe.com/o/omaha-beach.html

[Jack Leaf]

It doesn't help if the scenery is historically accurate when the rest of the movie is total bullshit of comic book action. That belongs to the "realistic value".

Besides, I'm quite sure there are more than several errors in the German uniforms (and even weapons?). Also did you actually know that the German troops on the beach, before the arrival of the reinforcements, consisted mostly of...

- Retarded and wounded people (deaf, limb losses, etc.)

- Military rejects and other men (who had triend an escape, but had got caught) in "punishment squadrons". Motivation to fight of these troops was probably a zero.

- Russian prisoners

There hardly were any normal troops, not to mention elite ones. The reinforcements included the 12th SS division which was the infamous Hitlerjugend.