Sign in to follow this  
FlyBackTransformer

Steven Spielberg to remake The Grapes of Wrath

341 posts in this topic

I did not say Spielberg was a sexist. But I do not consider him a feminist either.

 

And I certainly do not consider him a great director. He has been above-average on some projects. And I am being kind about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, you can always hope LOL John Ford I suppose you feel was a FEMINIST? LOL

 

So is it Spielberg or the making of another *Grapes of Wrath* is that your real issue? What if it was another director, and who is acceptable to you? btw, I don't happen to agree with you. Spielberg is a fine director, imo. Why not ask Daniel Day Lewis what he thinks. I think he's one of the finest of today's actors, he thinks Spielberg was the best experience he's ever had on film, and thinks he's a brilliant director.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Well, you can always hope LOL John Ford I suppose you feel was a FEMINIST? LOL

 

lavender,

 

I am not going to reply directly to you anymore, because I am put off by the way you are using the 'LOL' s in your responses to apparently mock me and my opinion. My opinion will not change. I am not here to convince you to change your opinion, but I do have respect for your rights as a fellow poster, which I feel is more than you are reciprocating to me. Take care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>once you RE-read what I wrote down there, please think about it

 

Dargo,

 

Your over-use of levity in many replies makes it hard for me to take anything you say seriously. I know you mean well, but you are starting to get a bit preachy in my opinion. Please send old Dargo back out to play. Thanks.

 

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>No kidding TopBilled !......about time somebody said something, Good For You !!

 

Thanks. I knew this was going to be a heated thread, because people feel very passionately about these remakes. But it should not have to get personal or to degenerate into rampant disrespect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Top Billed, it was only these last 2 posts I used the much used around here LOL. It was not meant to mock you, I just found that thought funny, that's what it meant. After all, those films that we so cherish were made by and large and that Certainly includes Mr. Ford, by men who were Not feminists. Of course I respect your right to your opinion, I just happen to not agree with it. You backing off because of 2 LOL's is sort of telling. But that's OK. The film will probably be made, time will tell. Whether the film is great or stinks, it really DOES NOT matter. I feel Spielberg has EVERY RIGHT to make this film and the attitude is somewhat similiar to stopping Kane from being made. I think the attitude that remaking a film, not be done, especially one based on fine literature, just does not make sense, especially in the hands of a competent, responsible director. Just don't care for that philosophy.

 

There wasn't and isn't anything personal in this disagreement. Just differing opinions, that's all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

....there are films that are like the Holy Grail and should not be remade...

 

It is an insult to John Ford to even 'Think" about re-making The Grapes of Wrath.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Ford does have feminist sympathies...definitely early on in THE PILGRIMAGE with Henrietta Crosman, and especially in films later in his career like SERGEANT RUTLEDGE and 7 WOMEN. But that is not the point.

 

The point is that mocking others and telling them they are close-minded in order to discredit their opinions is down and dirty. You also tried to slam my comments about Drew remaking E.T. She is always saying Film A and Film B should be remade. Why doesn't she and Spielberg get together and remake one of their own. That's a valid question. Turn it back on them. Stop trying to bast*rdize other artists' work.

 

And so what if people want Spielberg's version to fail. It is their right not to patronize him and his attempts to jump on Zanuck & Ford's great accomplishment. He has a fraction of their talent in my view and I am completely confident that his newer version will not overshadow the original. How could it?

 

We do know that it will have more violence. There will be profanity. And there will be nudity. That is all Spielberg is going to add to the original film version. And who needs that?

 

It does not matter if Spielberg intends to stick faithfully to the novel. He will still take liberties. Plus, we can be sure he has seen Ford's version (probably many times) and he is going to influenced by it as much as Steinbeck's writing. Let's call a spade a spade here. No free pass to Spielberg on this. He has been denied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm hoping to read that Spielberg has hired Clint Eastwood as director. Eastwood grew up on the west coast and was a child of the Depression. I also like the way that he shot great portions of his westerns and his two Depression-era films (*Honkytonk Man* and *Changeling*) with natural light sources. In fact, as little lighting as possible has long been part of his working method and I can't see him trying to tidy up the book either.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest here Top Billed, I'm getting INSULTED by your accusations. I believe that you are over reacting, I did not insult you. By pre judging and deciding a film is NOT good is not keeping an open mind. that's just a statement of fact. I certainly did not intentionally MOCK you as I've already explained. I thought we were having an intelligent disagreement of OPINIONS here. You have every right as I do, to post our thoughts. Our philosphies are different, that's all. Whether the film is made, whether it's good or not has no direct impact on my life and that is not my point here. However, I do believe in the RIGHTS of others. That includes your right to your opinion and Mr. Spielberg's right to make his film. I don't believe that remaking a fine piece of literature is an insult to Mr. Ford, just another way of representing Steinbeck's work. There is NO written LAW that said that Mr. Ford was the only director allowed to make a film based on The Grapes of Wrath. Mr. Spielberg has every right to do so, if that's what he's decided to do. There have been many versions of films that I consider to be wonderful. His Girl Friday, considered to be one of the greatest of all screwball comedies as an example has been reworked 4 times.

 

Again, it's unfortunate that you've chosen to interupt my disagreement with you as personal. It was never meant that way. I've knocked myself out to be honest on your reworking of a thread that was already done on the trivia bds., and many times to be honest I really just did it so that you'd have support on your thread.

But that's neither here nor there, except that that should be an indication to you that I have absolutely nothing against you. I enjoy your many threads, and have respect for you, and your opinions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They will have the bulk of the scenes lit as if they take place in the warm glow of afternoon. That is how cinematography works today. Warm soft lighting for everything.

 

This new version will not look as hard and gritty as the original. Their idea of depicting poverty will be using wardrobe from Walmart.

 

They will get it all wrong. The entire production will be botched. I wish it were already in theatres so I could do a scene by scene analysis of how bad the thing will be. Then we can get back to the business of real classic film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clore, that's an excellent idea. I certainly can see Eastwood directing the film, and yes he grew up in that time period so his attention to detail will most likely be sensitive and accurate. I hope that your brilliant idea occurs to Mr. Spielberg and that Mr. Eastwood would want to direct the film. That is a film that I would go to see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neither have I., mr 6. Mr. Spielberg is NOT known for any of those things, and I don't believe that will happen, even if Clint directs, Spielberg just wouldn't have it. I believe the material will be handled in a responsible, tender way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, what was considered the most shocking scene in Steinbeck's book, Rosasharn breast feeding a dying man, would require some hint of nudity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Actually, what was considered the most shocking scene in Steinbeck's book, Rosasharn breast feeding a dying man, would require some hint of nudity.

 

Of course it would. And those of us who have read Mr. Steinbeck's novel know that. We also know that the Hays Office prevented this from being included in the original version filmed by 20th Century Fox. And it really does not hurt the story for it to be left out. It is better if the story ends shortly after Tom disappears. Once you lose the protagonist, the movie is basically over.

 

But we can probably be sure that Spielberg will use adding this scene as a way to justify a remake.

 

He needs to look at the Sinise-Malkovich version of the 1992 film OF MICE AND MEN and realise that Steinbeck remakes are a tough sell and often not big hits with modern audiences-- with or without breastfeeding.

 

But he has been so caught up in the formula of movie-making and will try to bottle a remake and bring it into our nursery anyway. I am going to throw mine over the crib, have it smash on the floor and let the dogs lick it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, thank you lavenderblue for your support. Eastwood has worked with Spielberg as producer before on *Flags of Our Fathers* and *Letters From Iwo Jima*. Thus, it's entirely possible that Spielberg would want him for another period piece.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>why would you assume such a thing

 

Because I feel like it and because I can. :) I didn't know we were questioning each other's authority to post opinions and thoughts about the idea of a remake. Moving forward...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>I didn't know we were questioning each other's authority to post opinions and thoughts about the idea of a remake. Moving forward..

 

Why do you think some people just can't stand for other people to post their opinions, and they will insult the others in all sorts of ways to try to intimidate them into shutting up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

mr6, YOU have proven by your excellent example of Spielberg's handling of The Color Purple, that he is NOT known for using gratuitous sex scenes in his films. That is Not an opinion, that is a statement of Fact :)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Why do you think some people just can't stand for other people to post their opinions, and they will insult the others in all sorts of ways to try to intimidate them into shutting up?

 

I honestly do not know, Fred. I love to see a diversity of opinions and sharing of feelings. I consider it a fun thing to read others' posts where they passionately state the pros and cons of a topic.

 

But I do think we have some folks on the forum who really feel threatened by different opinions. It becomes a challenge for them to bend or twist the other person around to their side, and if that doesn't work then they try to run them off a thread. I try to make it clear in my responses that nobody will be able to change my views on anything. So they are barking up the wrong tree when they try that with me. Seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=lavenderblue19 wrote:}{quote}You Are Welcome Clore And Thank You Clore, for your support :)

I look at it this way - if John Ford can remake someone else's film, then his films should be granted the same treatment.

 

He made two versions of THREE GODFATHERS, one in 1948 and one in 1919 (as MARKED MEN). But the property had been filmed twice before in 1915 and 1916, with the latter starring Harry Carey whom Ford used in his 1919 adaptation. Which just goes to show that remakes are hardly just a recent trend, they go back to the dawn of film.

 

And would you believe Ford actually had the nerve to shoot the 1948 film in bright Technicolor and he removed most of the dark elements of the lead character, even sticking on a happy ending that the author never intended.

 

 

Ford remade RED DUST as MOGAMBO (it was also the basis for CONGO MAISIE in 1940) and Ford remade Raoul Walsh's WHAT PRICE GLORY - and quite badly also.

 

 

As I noted earlier, his MY DARLING CLEMENTINE was adapted from a novel that had been filmed twice previously.

 

Edited by: clore on Jul 5, 2013 11:12 PM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you think some people just can't stand for other people to post their opinions, and they will insult others in all sorts of ways....

 

....and make fun of other posters and give them a hard time ! .. They do it because they are insecure and they need to be in control so that They can feel superior!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>They do it because they are insecure

 

That. Plus stubbornness and bad manners.

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