Sign in to follow this  
FlyBackTransformer

Steven Spielberg to remake The Grapes of Wrath

341 posts in this topic

What about casting?

 

The only person who could ever have matched Charley Grapewin as Grandpa would have been Victor Jory in the late 1960s or early 1970s.

 

Kathy Bates might be able to pull off the Jane Darwell role. But whoever they get to play Tom will face unending comparisons to Fonda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I don't know what amuses me more...Dargo's levity or TopBilled's pretentions.

 

 

The fact remains, this remake is yet to have even entered into the earliest stages of production. For all we know, it might NOT even get done. Therefore all panning, griping and presumptions of how good or bad it will be are extremely premature. Most assumptions of course, are based solely on the bad record most remakes have, so I suppose many feel safe in their negative critique of a yet to be made movie. But one thing some people seem to forget about is that we are discussing the MOVIE BUSINESS.

 

 

And there ARE no "sacred cows" in business!

 

 

Spielberg has every right to remake this movie, considering he's secured the LEGAL rights. As someone earlier stated, DON'T go see it if it bothers you so much. But remember this; You've NO business dismissing it WITHOUT seeing it!

 

 

Sepiatone

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>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.

 

Now ya see TB, and no offense intended here ol' buddy, BUT this very inability of yours to appreciate the more serious aspect to my personally is yet ANOTHER example of that "close-mindedness" you admitted you possess to Lavender while I was gone most of yesterday...and something of which I'm NOT so sure I personally would be all that "proud" to boast about if I were afflicted with more than my share of it too!

 

smirk

 

And so I must conclude that you DID actually read my admittedly "uncharacteristically" serious, thoughtful and very rationally presented rebuttal(which of course also contained my "characteristic" overuse of the uppercase type in order emphasize certain key words in my text in order to give it more of a "conversational feel" to 'em) to all this "Spielberg will be desecrating the very memory of the great John Ford if he goes forward with this project", BUT you decided INSTEAD to just "shoot the messenger" and his known image of being a smartazz around here, and instead of specifically replying to my supposition I presented in it and then possibly attempting to rationally debunk what I wrote. Yep, you COULD have even overused the uppercase type in efforts to mock my style while doing that IF you wanted to, 'cause I certainly wouldn't have minded.

 

(...well, so much for me thinking that YOU are one of the more intelligent, insightful and knowledgeable folks around these here parts, anyway...I AM always very much appreciative of gettin' these little sorta "heads ups", ya know!!!)

 

smirk...again

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chanches are about zero this movie will be as good or better than the classic, and I base that experience. There is almost nothing they can do to improve the earlier movie.

 

This is like Microsoft coming out with Windows 8 and expecting everyone to use touch screens when nobody owned them on PCs.

 

PS Miracle on 34th Street was tried too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>I don't know what amuses me more...Dargo's levity or TopBilled's pretentions.

 

Well then Sepia ol' buddy, I certainly hope that you were even MORE than USUALLY amused by my most recent attempt at levity(which contained just a sprinkling of some "uncharacteristic" "seriousness" of course) in my most recent reply to the usually insightful Mr.TopBilled here!

 

(...and who I've just discovered might not possess as much as that "insightfulness" as I have been led to believe after all this time around here!) ;)

 

****

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Soooo, TB! Would you NOW care to attempt to debunk my earlier supposition in which I attempted to correlate the idea that to immediately dismiss this possible Spielberg film sight-unseen would be akin to how those two "religious" themed films I mentioned earlier were also dismissed by people with "closed minds" sight-unseen?

 

Or would you rather just stick with your initial assessment that I was bein' "preachy" earlier???

 

(...MAN, I'm lovin' this...yep, there's NOTHIN' in all the world I love MORE than to debunk the idea that I'm some kind of "lightweight" in the I.Q. department by use of my razor sharp wit!!!)

 

**** some more here now!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thumbs down, Dargo to your comment Posted: Jul 6, 2013 9:31 AM in this thread. I certainly dislike much of your recent posting. I have enjoyed many of your posts in the past and hope I will be able to do so again in the near future...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please stop saying I am close-minded. Folks may think you are parroting lavender, and it is annoying. Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chances are about zero this movie will be as good or better than the classic, and I base that on experience. There is almost nothing they can do to improve the earlier movie.

 

You summarized it best MovieMadness ! :)

 

Twink

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>I don't know what amuses me more...Dargo's levity or TopBilled's pretentions.

 

I was not the first (nor will I be the last) to voice concern about a GRAPES OF WRATH remake. There is no pretense in what I have been writing on this thread. However, you seem pretentious about my alleged pretentiousness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clore, What does What Price Glory ? have to do with THE GRAPES OF WRATH ?

 

 

 

Two different movies !

 

 

 

Twink

 

Edited by: twinkeee on Jul 6, 2013 1:30 PM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Clore, What does Price of Glory have to do with THE GRAPES OF WRATH ? Two different movies !

 

Amen. It's apples and oranges.

 

What we have here are Spielberg fans who want to chip away at Ford's reputation, because they know deep down that the nay-sayers are right that Spielberg is no match for Ford's talents in remaking this classic story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=twinkeee wrote:}{quote}Clore, What does What Price Glory ? have to do with THE GRAPES OF WRATH ?

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Two different movies !

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Twink

>

>

> Edited by: twinkeee on Jul 6, 2013 1:30 PM

>

It's quite simple - If Ford can remake Walsh's classic, then someone else gets to remake Ford's classic. It's only fair.

 

By the way, I have no particular fondness for Spielberg. It has nothing to do with bias, just fairness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>If Ford can remake Walsh's classic, then someone else gets to remake Ford's classic. It's only fair.

 

And a third party gets to remake Spielberg's films. Better yet, we get to remake Spielberg's version of THE GRAPES OF WRATH.

 

Fair is fair is fair. Goose-gander-goose. Duck duck goose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It may be "fair", however, that does not mean it will be better (which is impossible), or even 'as good as'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=twinkeee wrote:}{quote}It may be "fair", however, that does not mean it will be better (which is impossible), or even 'as good as'.

If you will examine my posts, at no point did I say that it will be better or as good. As far as I know, the ink isn't even on the contract with the Steinbeck estate, how can I possibly judge the finished product at this point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a really good "argument" I am waiting to introduce later in the thread. I want things to continue running their course as they are now, then when we exhaust this angle, I am going to post the next angle. Let us allow the Spielberg fans to dance around the campfire for awhile, not understanding they are over a barrel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now c'mon TB, sorry, you pretty much admitted it yourself in one of those replies to Lavender, didn't YA?!

 

Im mean, I hate to use people's "own words against 'em", but I think you might wish to re-read your OWN earlier words to her here:

 

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.

 

YA see, I don't know about you here, but the way I read that it seems you're pretty closed-minded already about what "Spielberg intends to do in his film". wouldn't ya say?! And ah, I KNOW you are an intelligent man and thus I'm sure can see that when people are being "presumptuous" such as this, they USUALLY have already "closed their minds" to most of the possibilities which can come about in the future, both "good" AND "bad".

 

Now look, I'm sorry if you now think I'm "picking on you" here, but IF ya don't want people to think things about you, then it's really very simple isn't it?

 

Specifically in MY case, just supply me with a rational response to my "uncharacteristically serous" comment I made earlier.

 

(...oh and one MORE thing here, my friend...WHY does it seem that when "some people" fail to supply sufficient evidence to support some opinion of theirs, OR to supply a continuance of evidence to support a rebuttal to their initial opinion, they often seem to resort to the hackneyed line of such as "Hey, that's just how I feel about it, and so please don't insult me and hurt my feelings for my now being unable to further debate the issue by use of some more corroborating evidence!"...yep, I WONDER why that is, EH?!...'cause I suuuuure seem to be reading a whole of that THIS kinda cryin' in this thread TOO!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Now c'mon TB, sorry, you pretty much admitted it yourself in one of those replies to Lavender, didn't YA?!

 

I was 'playing' to lavender. Lavender was frustrated with me yesterday and in my view started some verbal attacks.

 

I do not need LOL's and smirks to telegraph humour. And I do not need parenthetical expressions to substantiate or more clearly define my arguments. Not that there is anything wrong with folks who do that in their posts. We all have a different style.

 

I am being nice here, but I have less desire to communicate with you, Dargo, than ever before. I wish 'tweren't so.

 

And I do not think you are picking at me. You're picking at table scraps is how I see it. While other people are picking their noses reading this gibberish.

 

Let us have no more sour grapes of wrath. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Btw TB, don't worry, once I get you to "see the light" here, I shall return to being my usual "humorous" and ineffectual and light-weight self around here!

 

(...oh, and btw, and before you might claim that I'm now being "presumptuous" and "putting words into your mouth", PLEASE notice that I ONLY encapsulated the word "humorous" up there, as I certainly wouldn't want you to think that I think YOU think I could ever be correctly described by those latter two additional adjectives, as I REALLY DO appreciated that you at least appreciate my sense of humor around here...yep, I really do!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joe, what a few people here still don't understand is that Spielberg isn't planing on making a remake of the 1940 film TGOW, instead he planning on making a film based on the book TGOW by John Steinbeck.

 

 

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