Ripp Off


This is a ripp off of a Danish movie. Exactly copied from
Gamle mænd i nye biler (2002)
aka "Old Men in New Cars: In China They Eat Dogs II" - (English title)
aka "Old Men In New Cars" - (English title)

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

That's because he didn't write Vet Hard. Perhaps a 'based on characters written by' credit would be appopriate. But I've never seen the Danish movie, and Vet Hard might as well have nothing to do with it. Maybe it was just inspired by it, nothing more.

Perhaps the only similarity is the groundbreaking action.

''De Cock, with C-O-C-K''

reply

[deleted]

In the opening credits they credit the writer of the danish movie and show the title... You know, like: based on "Danish title" by "writer"

Saw the movie this afternoon. BTW, the news that it is a remake was very much in the news. I even can remember it being on tv when the were filming. :-)

reply

Only similarity?? even the characthers have the same name.
I suggest you go see the danish one.

reply

Duuh... in the intro that's allready said...:9

reply

This is becoming the smartest discussion I’ve ever read. It's a bit annoying that one of the user comments praises the director of the Rip Off. Maybe you should comment on those remarks instead of being second in noticing a Rip Off and starting to compensate your lack of reaction speed by attacking the faster person and pretending that it’s obvious and everybody already knows. Cut your losses and get a live.

reply

I found it very amusing that on the official website the director of this horrible 'movie' (let's call it that for arguments sake) explained how he improved the original. The original (old men in new cars) was actually a very good movie while this is the biggest load of b**llsh**t I ever had to endure.

nuff said

reply

You're the biggest load of b**llsh**t I ever had to endure.

reply

You're the biggest load of b**llsh**t I ever had to endure.

Come now, we all have different opinions.

Help! I lost some weight and I can't find it anymore!

reply

Just wait, next they "remake" the other movie -In china they eat dog's-
wich was also very good!
Lasse spang olsen is ok.

I do agree that its a ripp off, or should i say it lacks originality?
A bit cheap not?.

Except from bits and pieces and the trailers, i refuse to watch this movie,
since those bits and pieces i did see excact copies were.

Perhaps this is a new way to get rid of the subtitles?

reply

Except from bits and pieces and the trailers, i refuse to watch this movie,
since those bits and pieces i did see excact copies were.


It does seem to be a very literal remake; I saw a trailer for Gamle mænd i nye biler and it looked like the same movie with different actors.

War is simply the continuing of diplomacy through other means

reply

I have seen both of them (vet hard first) and i have to say Vet Hard is far better than Old Men. Where i laughed my ass off with Vet Hard almost the entire movie the Danish version i hardly ever laughed.

reply

I guess the language barrier also matters here; if you don't speak or understand Danish you're forced to rely on the subtitles, which take away the impact a lot of the jokes. I watched Vet hard with English subtitles once and it really felt weird. Also, if Vet hard really is such a literal remake, the jokes in Gamle mænd i nye biler will seem old. Or vice versa, depending on the order in which you watch both movies.

War is simply the continuing of diplomacy through other means

reply

[deleted]

Dutch90... in case of the language problems concerning jokes... that's why a moviemaker has to implementate jokes which are internationally understood. Now you can take this real literally and come up with jokes which has the emphasis on the situation, rather than the words in a certain language.

I see what you mean. Some verbal jokes can be much funnier when the actors deliver them well; for instance I just love Jack Wouterse's acting in this movie; he really knows how the play the cynical a$$hole but remain funny (also in Grijpstra & De Gier). Of course, you won't get this if you don't speak the language. I guess English-language flicks rarely have this problem because many people all over the world understand English.

Anyway... big up to Tim Oliehoek for arranging such a big production deal... but a movie which costed 3,4 million Euro... and only grossed 1 point something million, can be considered a failure. Let's see if they will earn their money back with the dvd-rental.

Yup. Never heard any comments about Vet hard being a failure, but domestically it is one based on these figures. Some movies still manage to break internationally, but in this movie's case the only other country it screened in on a national scale is Belgium. A bigger country, so they could have made € 2 million here if they were lucky and the same percentage of people showed up. I guess it also made some money in Cannes. Anyone know the gross figures for Belgium?

I guess in the end, with money from Belgium, Cannes and DVD rentals, Vet hard will turn in a profit, but it is certainly disappointing.

EDIT: Fixed IMDb's childish 'bleep'.

War is simply the continuing of diplomacy through other means

reply

[deleted]

MR. WHITE
"Was the guy pissed off?"

NICE GUY EDDIE
"How the *beep* would you feel if everytime you had to piss, you had to perform a *beep* handstand?!"

In Dutch

MR. WHITE
"Was hij boos"

NICE GUY EDDIE
"Hoe zou jij je verdomme voelen als je steeds op je handen zou moeten staan, om te pissen???!!!"

The joke has 2 jokes in it. One is the verbal joke in English. Pissed off in relation to pissing. The other joke is the weirdness of a handstand in relation to urinating. As you can see... the first joke can not be correctly translated in Dutch, so we will miss out on the first layer of the joke... but still, if translated, it holds a great bunch of the impact it originally had in English.


What about having Mr. White say 'pissig' instead of 'boos'? Not only does it also carry the second joke in Dutch, it's a better translation of 'pissed off' anyway.

I think that Tim Oliehoek had a too big of a budget which in my opinion all got wasted in the hiring of well-known actors/actresses. That is just waste of money and tells me that this kid is not spending the money in the right corners. If he would use less-known actors/actresses (theatre actors/actresses for instance), he could have allocated more money into other aspects of the movie. Anyhow, a movie which costs 3,4 million euros, is considered to be a big production and can not excuse itself if it remains a non-profitable project. Such productions... if success... has to make profit in the first month. Otherwise it's a failure. Because the movie has fully got the attention in order to draw people to the theatres at its premiere, but still hasn't managed to earn the money back. If he would spent as much as a million, his production would broke-even and could not be called a failure.

I guess he thought people wouldn't be interested by action and comedy alone, so he decided to hire some well-known faces. They were obviously doing everything they could to give Vet hard the best possible chance. Having the movie premiere in February would avoid box office competition from American summer blockbusters. I do wonder why so few people showed up for the movie, because the trailer promised lots of great slapstick humor and action unlike anything previously seen in Dutch cinema (even topping what Dick Maas pulled off at his peek in the 80's). I guess people didn't have high hopes for Dutch cinema.

People say one should be on the look-out for further productions coming from this Tim Oliehoek. But if he will continue the way he makes movies as in Vet Hard, I'm afraid he is not the next Paul Verhoeven.

I recently heard from someone he was planning another similar project, but I question this person's reliability; she said she heard it on TV somewhere. She also said he had to cut back on his ambitions for the TV series Shouf shouf for budget constraints.

War is simply the continuing of diplomacy through other means

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

I agree, this is a very pittyful rip-off. A remake? An exact copy of a film that is still for rent in the local rental DVD shop in Holland? There were no clear references to the original; this was a major cash-in project. I am glad they failed making a profit.

This film is a big disgrace to the Dutch cinema.

Daar zullen jullie het mee moeten doen; ik kots op deze bagger.

"Now if that's true, then tell me: am I lying?"

reply

[deleted]