It’s hard to accept, but the reality that there’s hardly an original artistic idea left in Hollywood is a sobering one.  The latest case in point is the new rendition of The Karate Kid coming out this summer.  Let me preface this by saying that I love the original movie, not just because it’s the version that I grew up with (but that certainly weighs heavily in my pre-judgment of the remake), but also because it’s a good movie.  Below are the trailers for both the 1984  original and the 2010 version, respectively.

1984:

2010:

In fairness, the trailer for the new movie looks pretty good.  I’m going to see it when it comes out this summer.  And I like the casting of Jackie Chan in the Mr. Miyagi role.  He’s funny and actually knows martial arts in addition to “movie martial arts,” which can only be a plus..  Nevertheless, I still have several issues with what I’ve seen thus far of new version.

Firstly, the movie’s title is The KARATE Kid.  So, why on earth is the kid being taught kung fu?  They’re different martial arts.  I’d have much less of a problem with the movie if it were titled The Kung Fu Kid because then it would tie in directly to the movie.  What’s with the weapons training?  Something as seemingly innocuous as that scene could ruin the entire spirit of the movie.  “Karate” means “empty hand,” so let’s the save the staff training for other martial arts movies. Some may just say that I’m just being a grouch, or that it’s semantics and that it doesn’t matter.  But it does matter, especially when this is a remake of a movie as highly revered as The Karate Kid.  And yup, I’m being a grouch.  Grow up with something, have people “update” it 25 years later, and see how you feel about the new version.

Secondly, the Miyagi character isn’t supposed to want to teach Daniel karate at first.  In the 2010 trailer, it’s unclear just how active a role Chan’s character takes in promoting the instruction.  Again, the spirit of the movie will be radically different from the 1984 version–and dare I say not nearly as effective or meaningful–if the Miyagi character is more aggressive in wanting to teach the kid.  Fidelity to the spirit of the original is all I ask.  (Well, OK, not all, but it’s a major factor.)

Thirdly, the best part of the first movie (for me, anyway) was the constant infusion of “life lessons” Mr. Miyagi gave Daniel.  It’s an approach I bring with me into the classroom: not only am I teaching music theory and aural skills, but lessons that my students can take with them and apply to other areas of their lives.  Without those lessons, the Miyagi character is just another martial arts instructor.  I think Jackie Chan is capable of delivering a performance that includes those “life lesson” pearls of wisdom, like the “Life will knock us down, but we can choose to get back up” line.  I can only hope there are more like this.

Lastly, and perhaps most simply, why mess with a gem?  The way I see it, just leave well enough alone.  In this case, it’s far more than merely “well enough.”  The original is a classic film.  I see no need for a remake.