This, in my opinion, was better than the original. Since the entire movie is about dancing, the lack of trained dancers in the original was frustrating.
The remake was just as ridiculous but ten times more entertaining.
"When chemists die, we barium".
"Since the entire movie is about dancing"
The entire movie is about the freedom to dance, regardless of skill. That is why the one guy has to actually learn to dance.
They aren't supposed to be trained dancers - they are supposed to be high school students. Bringing in actors who've graduated from dance school only makes it look fake.
[deleted]
The town BANNED dancing. Half the kids have never even learned to dance. Why all of a sudden would they best half the Russian Ballet the second some music comes on.
Have you ever actually seen what teenagers, normal teenagers, look like when they dance? Nine times out of ten, they suck total balls. But it's not about being good when it happens, it's about just letting loose and having fun, regardless of how that looks to outsiders.
Flynn 24
If this movie was going for realism, they wouldn't have had an American town ban dancing in 2011. The entire thing is meant to be purely entertaining, so it makes sense the dancing should be entertaining too.
And let's face it, trained dancers entertain better than amateurs.
"When chemists die, we barium".
Your post reminds me of Greese 2. What a disaster that was.
"a movie supposedly revolving around dance"
Wow. That's like saying The Dark Knight is a movie about bats. There is a plot to this movie under all that dancing. People's inability to see that explains why we keep getting so many plotless spectacles barfed into the theaters.
There is barely a plot under all that dancing. It's essentially a vehicle for dance sequences.
"When chemists die, we barium".
"People's inability to see that explains why we keep getting so many plotless spectacles..."
You just proved my point. You say the new one is better but lighter on plot. I say that leads to movies that are essentially dance porn getting distributed. We differ on whether or not that is good, but with so many dance shows on TV is it necessary?
"You say the new one is better but lighter on plot."
No, I do not say that. Both the original and the remake had the same pointless, implausible, hair-thin plot. Since the original had such a poor plotline, dressing it up with showy dance numbers was probably the best way to make it palatable. That is what the remake did.
"When chemists die, we barium".
I'm guessing you either did not live through or do not remember the Reagan years. The plot was not "implausible" then because it was based on a dance ban that had only recently been lifted after 100 years in Elmore, OK. But please continue on with your theory that facts are implausible.
share
Forgive my ignorance. I was unaware of this and I should have looked it up before making a broad generalization like I did. I still stand by my assertion that Footloose is not a very good movie, and not a great plot, even if it was based on true events.
"When chemists die, we barium".
But it's supposed to be fake!
There is absolutely nothing realistic about this movie! Therefore having trained dancers was a WAY better move.
"When chemists die, we barium".
It just makes it look more ridiculous to me. It is not even realistic at all that these small town kids would possibly dance like professionals. I still like the original version better just because it seemed more authentic overall. If you look at the trivia section of the original version you will find this:
Loosely based on events that took place in the small, rural, and extremely religious farming town of Elmore City, Oklahoma in 1978. Dancing had been banned for nearly 90 years until a group of high school teenagers challenged it.
Who said the original didn't have trained dancers? There WERE trained dancers, there's just a division between what's acceptable dancing now and then. You are judging their skill based on modern dancing skill/trend. That's like sayin' "Oh those stupid swing dancers from the 40s!". Oddly enough, I don't think many dancers are that critical regarding past dancing styles. It's like art, music and the such. People who do that stuff have mad respect for those who've come before them, because progression means building upon that which came before, and even now, what is considered the "standard" will be outdated in no time.
I frankly didn't find it more entertaining. While Dennis Quaid, Andie MacDowell and others did passable performances, the original really hit a home run regarding the acting. I think John Lithgow's Shaw felt more like a believable "over-protective preacher daddy" than Quaid's. The original was basically the gist without the fluff(all the elaborated stuff tossed into the remake).