Nobody will ever be half the Rooster Cogburn that Wayne was.
If it were any other director(s), I would agree. But I think the Coen Brothers will make something worth seeing.
Im cautiously hopeful that the Coens will do something original in their interpretation. I'm going to read the book before the new movie comes out (and re-see the Wayne dvd)...if they were looking to redo a Wayne western, I would've rather see them tackle "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance", I think that could have been amazing!
All I can say is they better not let Clooney do the Cogburn role.
Ain't they got no respect? Maybe I should just give them the same treatment that "Lucky" Ned Pepper got?
Oooo... don't even go there. I don't want to think about who's gonna try to play Rooster.Adam Sandler?
"Abbie doobie Fill your hands, you son of a..." **close up filling the screen with a mean face and unintelligible mumbling**
|
The more important question is: When will Hollywood stop with the remakes and make original films again? I'm getting tired of them rehashing and repackaging the same films I grew up with.
"There is nothing new under the sun".
Can't remember who said that, some crusty ancient Greek dude I think, but it's true. There are no new plots, themes, tones, no new anything. I can take every "original" movie/novel/whatever and find the same story a thousand times throughout our collective written history.
Everything is a repackaged something. I'm sure whoever played the crusty old codger helping someone avenge their father's death in some play by Aristophanes was rolling in their grave when they found out The Duke was playing "their role". Who knows, maybe the title of that (admittedly hypothetical) play is Greek for "True Grit".
"Originality" is just someone's ability to make the old seem fresh again, nothing more.
|
And yet another insult - The Three Stooges movie.
Even more insulting IMO is linking the comedy of the three stooges to the movie Dumb and Dumber. Ick. Maybe they'll start doing Abbot and Costello remakes now, and Laurel and Hardy, of course with new actors thereby missing the entire point. What is wrong with some new duo or trio simply using their own names?
The more important question is: When will Hollywood stop with the remakes and make original films again? I'm getting tired of them rehashing and repackaging the same films I grew up with.
I don't mind a remake that's done well - which also usually requires a significant reimagining or refocus of the original film. I think projects that are significantly different can be quite good. Think of Gladiator or the 1959 remake of Ben-Hur. Both were significantly different from their precursors, in the latter case partly because of much more advanced technology. And both were excellent. Ocean's Eleven was a significantly better story and movie than it's original from most movie-making standards (though if you are a big Rat Pack fan, I can certainly understand affection for the original since it was a vehicle for the Rat Pack to show off their personalities) and significantly reinterpreted the setup and execution of the burlary plot.
Admittedly, those were done a long time after their original versions as well. That certainly helps.
And yet another insult - The Three Stooges movie.
That does seem to be a pretty serious mistake to me. The same would be true of any Abbott and Costello remake and so on. Part of the point of the Three Stooges stuff was the particular guys involved in their movies. They had continuity of personality from movie to movie, in essense, actors playing meta-characters who then performed in movies as other characters. Same with the Marx Brothers.
But then again, if they took a Three Stooges movie, removed it from the idea of 3 guys playing the meta-roles, and played it straight as a comedy with 3 bumbling guys, each one paralleling a Stooge but not trying to copy him, then it could be well done. Then it could be something along the lines of what West Side Story is to Romeo and Juliet, though ideally without the singing.
|
|
And yet another insult - The Three Stooges movie.That does seem to be a pretty serious mistake to me. The same would be true of any Abbott and Costello remake and so on. Part of the point of the Three Stooges stuff was the particular guys involved in their movies. They had continuity of personality from movie to movie, in essense, actors playing meta-characters who then performed in movies as other characters. Same with the Marx Brothers.
But then again, if they took a Three Stooges movie, removed it from the idea of 3 guys playing the meta-roles, and played it straight as a comedy with 3 bumbling guys, each one paralleling a Stooge but not trying to copy him, then it could be well done. Then it could be something along the lines of what West Side Story is to Romeo and Juliet, though ideally without the singing.
John Turturro's Brain Donors is pretty much a Marx Brothers homage/rip off (A Night at the Opera, I think), but at least it wasn't obvious unless you knew about them. Not a good movie or anything, just another example to back up Bill's point.
Pardon me, mack, but could you spare a couple of movie rights to a fellow American who's down on his luck?
John Turturro's Brain Donors is pretty much a Marx Brothers homage/rip off (A Night at the Opera, I think), but at least it wasn't obvious unless you knew about them. Not a good movie or anything, just another example to back up Bill's point.
I should check that movie out.
I'm content to have movies trade on my cultural literacy, use parallel construction, have characters as analogs, all sorts of things that are fun to sit back and watch and try to figure out how they fit in to the cultural tapestry sitting in my brain.Unfortunately, for every film that seems to do that, there are several decidedly undeft attempts at remaking works that are not so well conceived or handled.
Pardon me, mack, but could you spare a couple of movie rights to a fellow American who's down on his luck?
<we need a Bugs Bunny avatar>
::flips a boilerplate Hollywood IP adaptation contract to him::
Hit the road!