BOYCOTT THIS MOVIE

>>>>
Its a bit hypocritical to slate the people who are making this movie because the first one made money, why did Peter Sellers return again and again to a role he had grown tired with and be a complete nightmare to work with? Why did Blake Edwards make Pink Panther films with out-takes from previous Pink Panther films after Peter Sellers had died and continue to a flog a dead horse with yet more dire Pink Panther movies? Blake Edwards himself was willing to taint the earlier films legacy so whats the difference now?
<<<<

The difference between the "bad" films in the original series and the "bad" films in the reboot series can be boiled down to respect and acknowledgment of the original movie.

Obviously the aim both times was to make money, but films like "Inspector Closeau", "Trail of the Pink Panther" and "Son of the Pink Panther" acknowledged the brillance of the original and made an earnest (if failed) attempt to continue the legacy and recapture the spirit that made the franchise so successful. They didn't try to "reimagine" them.


Blake Edwards had directed the first two films, so obviously his later inferior entries were trying to build on his older body of work. He tried to keep the story moving forward and find actors who could carry on Peter Seller's brillance with "Closeau like" characthers (since Edwards acknowledged there could be only ONE person that could capture Closeau himself). He tried and failed three times, and yes he was motivated by greed in trying to squeeze more money out of a dying frachise, but he has to be given credit for trying to keep the original vision alive.


"Trail of the Pink Panther" had a few funny bits from leftover Closeau footage (which would have been better used a deleted scenes featurette tribute, but in 1982 there were on DVDs and Edwards wrongly decided to cobble in together into a movie so viewers could see Seller's excellent work on scene again) Even the really awful "Curse of the Pink Panther" had one or two amusing scenes, particularly Roger Moore's dead on impersonation of Sellers when he's playing Closeau after he had reconstructive surgery "to look like Roger Moore". And while "Son of the Pink Panther" had a bottom of the barrel script, Roberto Beinligi and Herbert Lom put forth a real effort to create the feel of the older Panther movies, completely unlike Steve Martin who was just going through the motions (of playing an idiot that had nothing in common with Edwards films) to collect his paycheck.


"Inspector Closeau" was written by the same people who had written many of the best films in the series like "Return of the Pink Panther" and was meant as a Peter Sellers film. AFTER Peter Sellers turned it down, Alan Arkin accepted the role, and did not try to "reinvent" the characther, but tried to do his best to recreate the role without sounding too much like a Peter Sellers clone. The results were so-so, but the script actually had some pretty fun bits and Arkin was amusing in his own right (though nowhere on the level of Sellers). "Inspector Closeau" would have worked fine as a Sellers film, compared to Steve Martin's "The Pink Panther", which totally ignored everything that made the original great and would never have been made with Sellers playing a role written for Steve Martin.


And as for the lesser entries by Sellers, he always was fun and amazing in the role, even when the script didn't reach the level of his performance.

In short, the folks who made "Inspector Closeau" and the three Sellers-less Panthers gave their best attempt to bring back the spirit of the old movies, and failed, but since nobody knew that until we saw the movie, there's no reason why we shouldn't have at leasted checked out the film and given them a chance.


Compare that to Steve Martin's movies that have nothing in common with the REAL Pink Panther movies except a title and a few characthers with the same names (but are nothing alike) the characthers from the original films. They in NO WAY want to continue the legacy of the "dated" originals -- this is a "reboot" and "Reimaging" that could care less what made the old movies work. The only reason they use the title is try to get gullible people in the theater who recognize the name. The first Steve Martin film was COMPLETELY UNFUNNY and a disasterous take that crapped on everything that made the original so good. Why would we waste time giving him a second chance when it's clear this movie is going to do the same thing? Calling the 11th Pink Panther movie "Pink Panther 2" is acknowledgement by the filmmakers that they want nothing to do with the first nine films. Which is why I, as a fan of the REAL pink panther franchise, want nothing to do with this phony turd.

Thanks for the witty insight and comments. Obviously you must know nothing about movies if you think this will good. By the way you don't need to see a movie to know it will suck. Like The Curious Case of Benjamin Butthead, I did not want to see it because I knew it would suck, but My wife and family insisted that it would be great, they were wrong it sucked! Maybe you should spend your time commenting on the movies from now on and not on other people's comments about movies!!!

It used to be that one or two crummy movies could derail an actor's career for years--that provided a system of "checks and balances" against Hollywood's turning out junk! The better actors would 'pass' on trashy scripts, 'C' list actors would make them out of desperation, and the end-result would land on the backrack at 'RentaFlick'. However, with today's washed-down sense of artistic appreciation, even fine actors like Al Pacino and Harrison Ford will accept idiot scripts.

Yes, films that are universally panned still draw big audiences, IF they have a 'big name' cast. Examples are countless. Well, the only way to recognize junk is to view great cinematography--and discern what makes it so. Sadly, audiences under 30 have been force-fed mainly rotten adventure/suspense flicks with CG effects and feeble, tired comedies for years now -- they don't know the difference between mediocre and quality. Audiences that grew up in the 60's and 70's still watched--and appreciated-- films from the 30's and 40's. Modern audiences have no sense of 'what went before' - no sense of cinematic culture.

Now, Peter Sellers was a brilliant radio comic before he made films. The early 'Clouseau' movies were great fun, and the gags still work, even if Blake Edwards
pushed the envelope too far later on. The British seem to get 'wit'.

However, by and large, the Hollywood Comedy is 'dead' - it died about 20 years ago - and everyone missed the funeral. )--: And people keep saying, "Why aren't films funny anymore?"



:-) canuckteach (--: