Isn't the act of adapting a novel into a film at all a messing with the original? What I'm trying to get at is: why is it ok to mess with characters when switching to a more popular medium (book to film), when within the same medium you consider it wrong? Isn't it simply that books aren't near as popular as films? I think the relativity here is obvious. When anything is changed to anything else, people ignorant of the original will happily welcome the new, while the fans of the original will immediately deplore the upcoming product (Imagine the uproar if Dennis Quaid was cast as Roland Deschain) regardless of medium. It's simply about popularity. So here we are with this film, and your insistence that the original Cogburn is perfect and anything that would attempt to re-imagine that perfection is wrong. Sorry to say, but Rooster Cogburn has already been re-imagined, and doing it once more will be wrong or right based on the quality of the film (just like John Wayne's version), not any impugning on a false originality owed to John Wayne. My guess is that this new film will be damned good. Fingers crossed.
The Coen's adaption of True Grit will be closer to the original novel than the last one. And everybody stop jumping up to defend John Wayne. Yes, he was good in the original and won an Oscar. He's also probably the most overrated actor ever, a man who pretty much never had an atypical role even once. The Coens are true originals at filmmaking ever since their first film, with their blessed style of irony and way of making the viewer interested in what's happening in each scene off camera. They're no strangers to remakes either, and The Ladykillers was actually one of the BETTER of the billion or so remakes of the last 10 years.
To be fair to the man, he showed a decent amount of range in both "The Searchers" and "The Shootist". That being said, I generally agree with you; he was no master thespian, and there were better action stars out there. I haven't watched the original "True Grit", since I don't want to spoil anything in the new one, but lhprop could be correct if the first one was a truly great/masterpiece picture. However, I'm skeptical considering the reviews I've read of the film as well as how boring and unoriginal another John Wayne-starring, Henry Hathaway-directed film was, "The Sons of Katie Elder". In fact, Hathaway's Westerns all seem to fit the mold of 60's era blockbuster fare, like three segments in "How the West Was Won".
I have seen the original "True Grit" Wayne deserved an Oscar about as much as Nick Cage did for "Leaving Las Vegas" decent performance but I'm sure you could have found better. The Duke got it simply because Hollywood loved him. As for remakes I will almost guarantee this will be better than the original. The actors alone could make the movie superior, throw on top the Cohen brothers and you have an excellent film. Hollywood has gotten lazy and remade dozens of films but I don't really have a big issue with this simply because of the age of the first movie. Many, many people have probably not seen the original True Grit. Tons of people have already seen Karate Kid, Footloose, Bad News Bears ect... so they will be comparing the two films the entire time they watch, the original True Grit came out in 1969 it will seem quite fresh to 85% of the viewers. I am really looking forward to this movie.
I wouldn't call it a masterpiece or anything. It's just that John Wayne was the perfect actor to play Rooster Cogburn. He pulled off the snarly, cantankerous old lawman like no one could. It was the perfect role for him. And I agree that The Duke was far from a master thespian. I'm able to look beyond that and enjoy the movie for what it is. What I can't look past is all of the shitty CG special effects that don't even look remotely real. What does it say about Hollywood when the special effects in the original Star Wars 30 years ago were more realistic than the shit they put out today?
Dude, I don't want to get to far off the thread but what on earth are you talking about? Have you seen Inception or Avatar? The one advantage that every remake has is the technology and special affects.
Actually, I agree with lhprop1. Inception and Avatar were two movies, and a major exception. It's very hard, even today, to attain that standard of quality. The vast majority of expensive CGI films (remember "I am Legend"?) look like absolute shit. Also, "technology and special effects" are irrelevant when you're churning out a remake of "Bad News Bears".
Here's a few more exceptions- Watchmen, Sin City, 300, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, the list goes on. Granted there are CGI shitfests, but to say Star Wars effects are better than comparable SFX technology today is a bit of a hyperbole.
Yeah, I wouldn't go that far, either. However, most CGI does look mediocre, even today. I haven't watched any recent Harry Potter films and don't intend to, but the rest are good examples of awesome visuals.
I am gonna have to disagree. Right now, heresy is being committed. John Carpenter's The Thing is being remade and released in 2011. Rob Bottin's effects from the original are untouchable, because not only were they real, they looked real. When you get a guy that talented in effects like Bottin, Rick Baker or Stan Winston, CGI takes back seat. Bottin did the insanely believable wolf transformations for The Howling, the decompression make-up in Total Recall, the "Toxic Waste Dude" in Robocop, etc. In the original The Thing, the blood and guts and slime and repulsive viscera being thrust everywhere still looks as real as it gets. With CGI, the right dude makes it look great. For animation, none better than Phill Tippett. He did Jurassic Park's dinosaurs and the great effects for the abhorent Starship Troopers. Back in the day, he was a stop-motion guru, resume including the incredible ED209 in Robocop and "RobCain" in Robocop 2.
I hear that. Natalie's OK, but Mila is HOT. Ironically, those two will be competing pretty soon. They're in separate movies, but it's the same premise: Meanwhile, Mila and Ashton were both on That 70s Show, so I imagine they must feel weird about this. Friends with Benefits looks like the funnier movie, but I refuse to watch anything with Justin Timberlake. That guy is such a bad actor. Well, I guess I'll watch it to see if it shows Mila naked.
I highly doubt that Mila or Ashton give a shit about whatever similarities these movies may have. Opinions and Assholes aside, Timberlake has a pass in my book. This might be a separate discussion but I'm pretty sure he's the definition of a triple threat. He's a white Jaime Foxx. I'm guessing Elvis biopic in less than five years from now. And he'll nail it (according to the Academy).
I haven't seen him in any movies, so I can't comment on that, but what are the other two things he's a "threat" at it...and to whom? I LOVE IT. The cash grabs are becoming so blatant and shameless that they release the exact same film at the exact same time, with similar young stars, trailers, and even the same name. Too bad they couldn't make a third film called "Friends with Benefits Means No Strings Attached!" starring the four of them, where they can sleep with the other three, and much shitty humor and melodrama ensues.
I don't remember his parts in Black Snake Moan, but I didn't like him at all in Alpha Dog. I thought the scene where Johnny Truelove tells him he could get life in prison for kidnapping that kid was awful acting on Timberlake's part. A real actor would have shown much more believable emotions in that scene. Timberlake wasn't believable in that scene, and the rest of the movie I just thought he was playing himself. Anyone can do that.
That would actually be better than the crap I saw in those trailers. Just a small correction to my original post on those movies: No Strings Attached comes out in January; Friends with Benefits in July. Still, I would never want to watch two movies with the same exact premise within six months of each other. But I guess it won't matter to the demographic--young college girls who want to fall in love with someone like Ashton or Justin.
Harrison Ford is going senile in his old age. He wants Indy to die in the next installment- <a class="postlink" href="http://scoop.todayshow.com/_news/2010/12/20/5683353-is-it-time-to-kill-off-indiana-jones" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://scoop.todayshow.com/_news/2010/1 ... iana-jones</a> Sorry, studios would never agree to it. I think they'd prefer the James Bond route and use younger actors. Killing the star doesn't make good family films.