Sign in to follow this  
FlyBackTransformer

Steven Spielberg to remake The Grapes of Wrath

341 posts in this topic

 

Did you write, "Since many folks here dislike post 1960 movies so much"?

 

 

There's only ONE PERSON around here I've seen use that cutoff point.

 

 

Now, let's see....WHO was that again....

 

 

Sepiatone

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>I was very disappointed with the 1969 version of TRUE GRIT. The film received a lot of favorable pre-release publicity in the media, and that is why I went to see it.

 

>But, to me, Wayne was just old in the film, and that is all...In the film, Wayne played Wayne, Campbell played Campbell, and Darby played Darby (she had played the same Darby character in several TV shows). None of the actors played the characters in the novel.

 

Interesting post, Fred. I think because Duke earned the Oscar, that it automatically qualifies the film as a classic in most folks' minds. But like you suggested, some of the casting is off. I agree that Campbell is not a strong actor and quite frankly, find some of his country music videos unconvincing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> Yes, we are both expressing our personal opinions. And keep in mind that personal opinions regarding movies can vary quite a lot.

 

I agree. The opinions that are posted on these boards fall into the category of subjectivity. The existence of thought from one individual's mind. The thoughts and or opinions belonging to the person rather than the object of thought, opposed to objective thinking.

 

> I was very disappointed with the 1969 version of TRUE GRIT. The film received a lot of favorable pre-release publicity in the media, and that is why I went to see it.

 

The other reason why that film rec'd a lot of favorable press and I am only guessing here is that Wayne had not released a western since The War Wagon and El Dorado in 1967. Plus the fact that due to a lot of negative criticism about his film The Green Berets, I am thinking many people were looking forward to a John Wayne western.

 

And when it came time for the Oscars, I believe a lot of folks were hoping for a renewed John Wayne or at least someone that they all respected especially after making such a terrible World War II film like The Green Berets. Oh, sorry I meant to write a Vietnam War film.

 

> But, to me, Wayne was just old in the film, and that is all. He had more grit when he was younger. Kim Darby was silly looking, with her goofy 1960s hair style, and she didn't look at all like a 19th Century girl. Glen Campbell was silly looking and acting, and he was not an actor. He always had an expression on his face as if he were thinking, "Dang, how did I wind up in this movie??"

 

Well I can see your point about Wayne and his appearance in the film. I think the reason for him looking so old was to try and accurately present Cogburn AS a washed-up, worn out deputy marshal and I really think he captured the look of Rooster Cogburn in the original novel.

 

As far as Kim Darby and her 1970's era hairstyle I agree. The young woman who portrayed Mattie in the 2010 film was robbed of the Best Supporting Actress award in my opinion. As far as Glen Campbell is concerned, he was personally chosen to appear in the film by the Duke himself. Why? I have no idea. To be honest I think the producers probably thought that they needed some comic relief and since Campbell was very hot at the time, especially with his music, that he would fit in very nicely.

 

To me, the producers of the 1969 film could have chosen someone like Stuart Whitman to play LaBoeuf and someone like Mary Badham or Bonnie Bedelia to play Mattie.

 

> In the film, Wayne played Wayne, Campbell played Campbell, and Darby played Darby (she had played the same Darby character in several TV shows). None of the actors played the characters in the novel.

 

I would agree with this.

 

> But in the 2010 TRUE GRIT, I felt the characters were real. The pace moved right along with no lulls. Jeff Bridges was really outstanding and so was Hailee Steinfeld.

 

I totally agree. I thought the 2010 film was the best or at least one of the best films of 2010.

 

This is just my opinion, of course. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>But like you suggested, some of the casting is off. I agree that Campbell is not a strong actor and quite frankly, find some of his country music videos unconvincing.

 

Could have been worse ya know, TB!

 

(...uh huh...at least Glen wasn't sportin' any rhinestones on his cowboy suit in that '69 version!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> Did you write, "Since many folks here dislike post 1960 movies so much"?

 

Yes I did.

 

> There's only ONE PERSON around here I've seen use that cutoff point. Now, let's see....WHO was that again....

 

Well there are actually quite a few. I would get into trouble if I started naming names. If you want to know you'll just have to do the research yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

At the time(1969), the casting, from a box office POV, the casting made perfect sense.

 

 

Westerns weren't really a "hot" genre at the time. John Wayne was the only actor famous for that genre that would get people to the theater. Kim Darby, while having the range of a **** hocked from a stroke victim, WAS considered a "rising" young actress, and Glen Campbell was a "hot" comodity, what with his TV show a hit, and many #1 songs on the charts.

 

 

I never read the book. And I thought the movie was OK, but not worth the hoopla everyone else seemed to make of it. Darby's character sort of got on my nerves. If I were Rooster, I may have blown the back of her head off, and said, "Oops!"

 

 

And SORRY, fx. Only ONE I can think of would bring up that "post 1960" nonsense, and just about EVERYONE ELSE would chime in on how full of S*** he was.

 

 

Sepiatone

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

For the record I would like TCM to most show American movies from the studio-era, which ends around 1968.

 

I enjoy foreign films but still feel TCM should limit the number of these to, say, no more than 5% of their programming.

 

Note it isn't that I dislike movies made after 1968 (there are many fine ones), but I associated TCM with the studio-era and I can see post 1968 movies on other outlets.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> The opinions that are posted on these boards fall into the category of subjectivity. The existence of thought from one individual's mind. The thoughts and or opinions belonging to the person rather than the object of thought, opposed to objective thinking.

 

True to a certain degree, fx. However, the "problem" which often seems to unfortunately arrive a little too much around here(and I suppose in life in general) is that some folks have a tendency to resort to that tired old "fallback measure" in that after their opinion was been expressed about a movie around here, and in which they might fail to supply any OBJECTIVELY derived evidence in support of their opinion, then when their opinion is challenged they occasionally USE said "fallback measure" to say something along the line as "Well, that's just my opinion and I'm allowed to have it", i.e. "This is all just "subjective".

 

And then unfortunately, some folks seem to become personally "insulted" and retreat into a needlessly overly defensive stance, which of course then pretty much ends ALL discussion.

 

(...yep, maybe you have observed that too, eh?!...but if you haven't, I wish I had the time to go back through some of the threads around here in which I've observed this sort of behavior and so I could OBJECTIVELY supply you with the evidence to support this "opinion" of mine)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> And SORRY, fx. Only ONE I can think of would bring up that "post 1960" nonsense, and just about EVERYONE ELSE would chime in on how full of S*** he was.

 

Well Sepiatone, if you look hard enough there are actually some of those posters right here on this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> For the record I would like TCM to most show American movies from the studio-era, which ends around 1968.

 

You are referring to the ending of the Hays Code correct?

 

> I enjoy foreign films but still feel TCM should limit the number of these to, say, no more than 5% of their programming.

 

This category of films do not matter to me. I am not a fan of reading subtitles unless it is shown i the context of an American Indian or World War II film with the Germans and Japanese.

 

> Note it isn't that I dislike movies made after 1968 (there are many fine ones), but I associated TCM with the studio-era and I can see post 1968 movies on other outlets.

 

Well I agree that one could possibly find these post 1968 films elsewhere, but unfortunately you would be hard pressed to find many pre-2000 films on many cable channels today.

 

And with the general demise of channels like TBS, TNT and the Fox and AMC Movie Channel, many of these post 1968 to about 1990 films just aren't being shown in the same numbers as they once were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> True to a certain degree, fx. However, the "problem" which often seems to unfortunately arrive a little too much around here (and I suppose in life in general) is that some folks have a tendency to resort to that tired old "fallback measure" in that after their opinion has been expressed about a movie around here, and in which they might fail to supply any OBJECTIVELY derived evidence in support of their opinion, then when their opinion is challenged they occasionally USE said "fallback measure" to say something along the line as "Well, that's just my opinion and I'm allowed to have it", i.e. "This is all just "subjective".

 

Agreed.

 

> And then unfortunately, some folks seem to become personally "insulted" and retreat into a needlessly overly defensive stance, which of course then pretty much ends ALL discussion.

 

Yes, I agree with what you have written here. It is most unfortunate. Many posters who post here often either do not have the time to post a reply or in the case of some posters are not even willing to try because as far as I am concerned they just do not have the stomach to argue with others.

 

I think the poster you have in mind is one who when he is presented with facts and or beliefs that run counter to his way of thinking goes into the faint "you are attacking me" mode. And then he basically disappears from the thread never to appear again. However he is usually the one person who gets a thread and all of it's other posters riled up to the point where all he sees is disagreement.

 

This is unfortunate because I happen to think he might just have a lot of good things to write about but apparently doesn't like it when he receives a negative feedback.

 

> (?yep, maybe you have observed that too, eh?!...but if you haven't, I wish I had the time to go back through some of the threads around here in which I've observed this sort of behavior and so I could OBJECTIVELY supply you with the evidence to support this "opinion" of mine)

 

You don't have to waste your time. I have already expended much capital doing this and to me unfortunately IT IS a waste of time on my part.

 

Edited by: fxreyman on Jul 17, 2013 1:34 PM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Deleted.

 

Edited by: fxreyman on Jul 17, 2013 2:34 PM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yes, end of the Hays code. While I'm no fan of the code the ending of the code signifies an end of an era.

 

I don't think anyone is a fan of reading subtitles but unlike my wife who speaks and understands 4 languages I only understand one. So subtitles are a necessary 'evil' for me to enjoy foreign films and most of the time I'm glad I watched these films (i.e. the entertainment value I get from first rate foreign films makes up for having to read subtitles).

 

I have said all along that it would be nice if there were 2 TCM type stations. One that focuses on the studio-era and one on post 1968 films that are around 10 years or so old. You're correct that movies from this later period are hard to find and most of the time when they are shown they are not commercial free or they are edited for content.

 

I don't have a problem with TCM showing post 1968 films, but like foreign films, I would like TCM to limit how often they show them. Just my preference.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*After hearing about Kyle in Hollywood passing, it has been hard to concentrate enough to come up with logical posts on the message boards. But I am willing to give it a try.*

 

> Yes, end of the Hays code. While I'm no fan of the code the ending of the code signifies an end of an era.

 

I would agree with that. However the beginning of the end actually started happening in the late fifties to early sixties. A film like Anatomy of a Murder never would have gotten by the code sensors in the forties or even earlier fifties. The Hays Code had pretty much become obsolete by the late fifties. In the early sixties, many foreign films started flooding our shores and even other mainstream films started going where no other film had gone before 1934.

 

> I don't think anyone is a fan of reading subtitles but unlike my wife who speaks and understands 4 languages I only understand one. So subtitles are a necessary 'evil' for me to enjoy foreign films and most of the time I'm glad I watched these films (i.e. the entertainment value I get from first rate foreign films makes up for having to read subtitles).

 

I also agree with this as well. My point was just my opinion about sub-titles. Once my wife and I rented Life is Beautiful. We had a very hard time trying to keep up with reading the sub titles because the vocals were being spoken too fast. Hence, we were not able to concentrate fully on the action on the screen. There have been other instances where there have been subtitles, where I had no real hard time understanding them. In The Longest Day and Dances With Wolves, the sub titles were a lot easier to read only because the spoken language on the screen was slower. When the language is spoken fast and I have to read the sub titles, then it is time for me to find an English-language version of the film.

 

> I have said all along that it would be nice if there were 2 TCM type stations. One that focuses on the studio-era and one on post 1968 films that are around 10 years or so old. You're correct that movies from this later period are hard to find and most of the time when they are shown they are not commercial free or they are edited for content.

 

Yes, you have brought this idea up before, along with several others on the message boards. Unfortunately, I do not think this would ever happen. For one thing, it is awfully expensive to start up a new channel and with today's economy, I do not think that Time Warner would be willing to start yet another channel devoted to post 1968 films. This would IMHO make no economic sense, at least to Time Warner.

 

When you factor in the influence of websites like NetFlix, I would think that this would be a better option to showcase these types of films. But as with many websites, the results you or anyone else might want may not be realized. And that is the same reason for a lot of the anguish on the message boards by those who constantly berate TCM for showing the same movies over and over again, or that they can only get certain films.

 

This leads to many procuring films for their own libraries where they can pull a movie out at any time and watch it at their leisure. Of course many folks do not have the money in many cases to do this. But there are avenues of opportunity for those who can not afford to establish their libraries. There are many places on the web where people can purchase films at very low pricing. Also bargain stores like Big Lots, K-Mart, and Walmart are also places where films can be had for less than $5.00 each.

 

> I don't have a problem with TCM showing post 1968 films, but like foreign films, I would like TCM to limit how often they show them. Just my preference.

 

Well as I researched for July for another thread, I found that 29% of the films being shown during the month were post 1960 films. The breakdown per decade went like this for July:

 

77 from the 1960's

25 from the 1970's

10 from the 1980's

 

And a whopping 71% were from before 1960:

 

1 from the 1920's

9 from the 1920's

59 from the 1930's

97 from the 1940's

110 from the 1950's

 

So as far as TCM showing newer films one could say that an almost 2-1/2 times more pre- 1960 films are being shown on the channel than post 1960 films. To me that is very good.

 

Of course to many, 29% is a very high number. But as long as more than 2/3's of the films being shown on the channel are pre-1960 films, I think we can live with that, don't you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us