No, it wasn't. >In July 2000, it was announced Summit Entertainment had purchased screenwriter Simon Kinberg's spec script Mr. and Mrs. Smith with Weed Road Pictures slated to produce.[8] Kinberg had written and sold the screenplay while working as a grad student for Columbia University's film program.[8]
It was a remake of the 90s show "Mr. And Mrs. Smith" about two spies who inadvertently find themselves entangled in a conflict between their spy duties and their relationship duties.
No, it wasn't. >In July 2000, it was announced Summit Entertainment had purchased screenwriter Simon Kinberg's spec script Mr. and Mrs. Smith with Weed Road Pictures slated to produce.[8] Kinberg had written and sold the screenplay while working as a grad student for Columbia University's film program.[8]
what was it a remake of?
[...]
It was a remake of the 90s show "Mr. And Mrs. Smith" about two spies who inadvertently find themselves entangled in a conflict between their spy duties and their relationship duties.
you idiots, it's a remake of Mr. & Mrs. Smith (1941) by Alfred Hitchwiener
[...]
It was a remake of the 90s show "Mr. And Mrs. Smith" about two spies who inadvertently find themselves entangled in a conflict between their spy duties and their relationship duties.
No, those just share the name and don't have anything to do with this movie. You're all borderline moronic except me. Gotta frick off now, keep being stupid and taking those troony pills. Peace
[...]
No, those just share the name and don't have anything to do with this movie. You're all borderline moronic except me. Gotta frick off now, keep being stupid and taking those troony pills. Peace
No, you fricking moron. The show was about two spies who didn't even know each other and were stuck together so they had to pose as a couple.
The movie's about a married couple who are both secretly spies.
there’s an inherent logical flaw in reactionary thinking. >whites did the best of these things, so whites are the best
…it just doesn’t take into account socioeconomic history. humans exist through pure chance, pure chemical accident. whites became dominant in a similar manner, and then, through the wealth and privilege granted via that, exploited others. they’re dominant in history the way christians are dominant. nobody would seriously credit all the scientific and artistic achievements of christians to christianity, it was merely dominant when those things occurred. likewise, nobody can attach whiteness to the many achievements of european history, which came about solely because whiteness was dominant via chance at the time. it’s the same logic. you’re experiencing a tiny biased fraction of human history and mistaking precedent for fact. the ascent of china and the east is in the process of proving the right wing delusion wrong
Cool cope, but you might wanna take a look at IQ rates and standardized testing scores across races. Make sure you take a look at the differences even after adjusting for class, too.
Don't expect another response from me. Just do some research, and you'll find that your "pure chance" theory of intellectual and socioeconomic dominance to be deeply flawed.
>it was only by chance that the aboriginals didn't invent the wheel, if the coin had landed the other way they'd have had a didgeridoo flag on the moon a hundred years before Neil Armstrong was ever born
Also even if it was a matter of chance (I suppose everything is a lottery-one that we won apparently) it doesn't take anything away from the accomplishments of europeans. They did it and no one else did, doesn't matter how or why.
But for all I know the only reason europeans did what they did was just a matter of climate-some place like france has better farmland than libya and no lions or fricking rhinos meaning humans were able to develop better and had the time to be 'cerebral' and creative
I see what you're getting at and it's definitely a valid argument but my own bias wont let me believe you
>mr and mrs smiff
You homosexuals know the 2005 remake was a remake, right?
No, it was not.
Yes, it was.
No, it wasn't.
>In July 2000, it was announced Summit Entertainment had purchased screenwriter Simon Kinberg's spec script Mr. and Mrs. Smith with Weed Road Pictures slated to produce.[8] Kinberg had written and sold the screenplay while working as a grad student for Columbia University's film program.[8]
It was a remake of the 90s show "Mr. And Mrs. Smith" about two spies who inadvertently find themselves entangled in a conflict between their spy duties and their relationship duties.
>spec script
That means he was hired to write a script for an existing property/idea.
you idiots, it's a remake of Mr. & Mrs. Smith (1941) by Alfred Hitchwiener
No, those just share the name and don't have anything to do with this movie. You're all borderline moronic except me. Gotta frick off now, keep being stupid and taking those troony pills. Peace
The name was coincidental.
Incorrect. 2005 was a remake of the 90s.
No, you fricking moron. The show was about two spies who didn't even know each other and were stuck together so they had to pose as a couple.
The movie's about a married couple who are both secretly spies.
>The remake wasn't exactly identical so it wasn't a remake
So then this new show isn't a remake of 2005.
correct, it's actually a remake of the 1996 tv show
the 2005 movie isn't the one getting remade
lol his and hers RPGs that looks painfully terrible.
pretty sure those are stingers without the actual targetting equipment on them
It wasn't coincidental moron. They literally had to pay for the rights in the brad pitt movie.
what was it a remake of?
Mr smith goes to Washington
people actually watched the originals?
>$486,124,090 Million worldwide in 2005 money
yeah
I watched it for Angelina Jolie. I can understand why Brad left Jennifer for her
>"now brad, kiss her deeply like you're in love with her"
>"again"
>"again"
>"one more time"
and he got paid to do it
there’s an inherent logical flaw in reactionary thinking.
>whites did the best of these things, so whites are the best
…it just doesn’t take into account socioeconomic history. humans exist through pure chance, pure chemical accident. whites became dominant in a similar manner, and then, through the wealth and privilege granted via that, exploited others. they’re dominant in history the way christians are dominant. nobody would seriously credit all the scientific and artistic achievements of christians to christianity, it was merely dominant when those things occurred. likewise, nobody can attach whiteness to the many achievements of european history, which came about solely because whiteness was dominant via chance at the time. it’s the same logic. you’re experiencing a tiny biased fraction of human history and mistaking precedent for fact. the ascent of china and the east is in the process of proving the right wing delusion wrong
You’re too smart for this website. Don’t bother.
Cool cope, but you might wanna take a look at IQ rates and standardized testing scores across races. Make sure you take a look at the differences even after adjusting for class, too.
Don't expect another response from me. Just do some research, and you'll find that your "pure chance" theory of intellectual and socioeconomic dominance to be deeply flawed.
>just read some vague shit I won’t summarise or send you, I win
lol
little dumb chud resorts to buzzwords
crustman
strawman
cool story, Black person
>blah blah blah i love Black folk
Painfully obvious samegay
>it was only by chance that the aboriginals didn't invent the wheel, if the coin had landed the other way they'd have had a didgeridoo flag on the moon a hundred years before Neil Armstrong was ever born
Also even if it was a matter of chance (I suppose everything is a lottery-one that we won apparently) it doesn't take anything away from the accomplishments of europeans. They did it and no one else did, doesn't matter how or why.
But for all I know the only reason europeans did what they did was just a matter of climate-some place like france has better farmland than libya and no lions or fricking rhinos meaning humans were able to develop better and had the time to be 'cerebral' and creative
I see what you're getting at and it's definitely a valid argument but my own bias wont let me believe you
Impressive bait, good job
Oh you mean THE mr. and mrs. smith? That sacred institution that is essential to the very fabric of American culture??
Do people actually like Dong Lover?
>translated from Spanish
but the queestion remains, how long is his big black trench?
194673302
All you're saying is that whites are indeed superior but it is just chance that they ended up that way. you're not smart.
Also does not take into account that in modern times whites excel when given same or worse opportunities than Black folk.
I want whites to suffer
>chud gives cowardly non reply and still can’t into logic
>remake film everybody likes and doesn't need to be remade
>but cast non-whites in it
Do they expect this to do well?
The original movie was a remake. They even say this in interviews.
I'll watch the superior spy family show instead, thank you very much.
You and I will be called troons but it's legit a blast to watch. Great voice acting too.(Subs at least)
movie was only good until the husband and wife teamed up
It wasn't even good before that either. It felt like pure garbage for women.
that brunette looks hotter than angelina
You should be hanged for sexual deviancey.
nice. another strong black male.
yup another strong black male.
No I don't think I will.