Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

steaming mad over true grit remake.


kimpunkrock

Recommended Posts

As a HUGE John Wayne fan I am steaming mad over this True Grit remake. Matt Damon????VOMIT. I think I hurled 10 times when I read about the talentless wastes of space known as the coen brothers remake of this american classic. Read somewhere that Matt Damon never even seen the original. VOMIT AGAIN.

 

No Coen Brothers just because you guys together are not even half the man John Wayne was, doesnt mean u can remake his movie to try and regain some sort of respect after the garbage u have been peddling. I am sure u guys and that other janitor of Hollywood Judd Apatow are having dinner talking about how else to make the worst movies on the planet. Granted Barton Fink and O'Brother were good movies when u remake a John Wayne film your asking for it. Ya time is up and now u need to rip off others work and RUIN it as well.

 

 

I am sure John is rolling over in his grave.

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=JonasEB wrote:}{quote}

> Fantastic.

>

> You are aware that True Grit was based on a novel, right?

 

 

The fact that it was a novel is not the reason they are remaking it. Read somewhere that Glen Campbell's character is butchered by Matt Damon and the girl that plays Maddie is some pretty, talentless actress. First of all no one can replace Glen in that role, second of all Maddie is suppose to be an unpretty tomboy not some Brittany Spears look a like.

 

I wonder who is playing Robert Duvall's character, probably some other talentless actor that is going to butcher that role. You just dont remake a John Wayne, movie, ya just dont. What a waste of millions upon millions of dollars. I know of many other ways to spend that money. I could use a few grand myself to pay for surgery.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, according to a few published reports and rumors, this won?t be the same sort of movie as the original 1969 version. A lot, I mean a lot of changes are going to be made. So, while the title might be one and the same, the films won?t or really have anything so solidly in common. Naturally, talk is that the novel was way different than the original film; this probably gives credence to the Coen brothers to say or feel a remake isn?t what their version will be about. One can expect lots of graphic scenes of violence and perhaps some sex once the Coen brother?s version makes it to the screen at the end of this year.

 

There is reason to say that the Coen brothers have assembled an impressive, partially all-star cast! Looking at the list of players, these are without question ?big guns? of the motion picture business! This is especially the case with recent Academy Award winner Jeff Bridges in the role of ?Marshal Cogbum.? Certainly, the list of supporting players seems to make this production one of the biggest of the year. While I?m not crazy about remakes, (having been a fan of ?Duke Wayne? all my life) it stands to reason that this is the way of things these days.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that its gonna be hard to remake this movie, but we have the coen brothers who I adore, love all their movies, and maybe when its done we won't even reconize it as the same movie so if thats the case I think we can relax most people I would bet haven't even seen the original film

cat

Link to post
Share on other sites

MovieProfessor wrote of the Coen brothers proposed remake:

 

"One can expect lots of graphic scenes of violence and perhaps some sex once the Coen brother?s version makes it to the screen "

 

You may be right about the violence (although there are many current filmmakers who have far more and worse violence in their work than the Coens) but there is rarely much sex in a Coen brothers film, and certainly no graphic sex that I can think of. In fact, sex isn't really their "thing". Existentialist philosophy with a strong mix of humour and wit, often a little suspense, maybe some very strong narrative ability, is their thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

-First off lets make it clear that we need more westerns on the big screen. Second, there is no one a more devoted John Wayne fan then yours truly. When I read the news of a remake I was also very upset and outraged. They were going to remake a classic John Wayne western, how dare they.. But and it's a big but {NO pun intended}, they are making a new version of the book which is a bit different then the film we all know and love.We had a long discussion months ago in the Western forum on the remake. SPOILER*****SPOILER******SPOILER*********

The book begins as a old one armed woman in 1928 tells the story of her quest to find the killer of her father years earlier. The central figure is the girl and all the rest are supporting characters..

I am a big fan of the Cohn Bros., and while they don't hit it out of the park everytime their batting average is impressive. The cast they have asssembeled is impressive also. Jeff Bridges is no slouch and there is no better older actor around today that can fill the Rooster role, I can't see Brad Pitt or any other biggie doing it. Then there Matt Damon. Matt is no Glen Campbell, THANK GOD, Campbell was awful in that role. The only reason they hired him was because of the tie in with the hit song. Henry Hathaway was against him and was quite verbal about it. Kim Darbey was about the fourth or fifth choice for the role of Mattie Ross. John Wayne hated her "She was the worst leading lady I ever worked with" and the feeling was mutual as far as she was concerned.But with all the problems they still made a Western classic.Barry Pepper as "Lucky" Ned Pepper, no problem as with Josh Brolin as Tom Chaney...

I'm hoping when it opens on Christmas day, we all will be pleased or almost all and it'll be a nice Christmas present for Western fans especially.......

Link to post
Share on other sites

*Iconic John Wayne Role Redone*

 

by Jonathan Crow ? August 18, 2010

movies.yahoo.com

 

 

*In 1969, John Wayne played Rooster Cogburn in "True Grit" -- a grizzled, drunken U.S. Marshal hired by a 14-year-old girl to track down her father's killer. The role ended up winning the aging Western star his first and only Oscar, prompting him to make a rare sequel -- "Rooster Cogburn" -- opposite Katherine Hepburn in 1975. The image of Wayne's craggy, eye-patched visage from "True Grit" has become a cinematic icon.*

 

 

So film mavens everywhere were taken aback when it was announced last year that Joel and Ethan Coen would been making their own version of "True Grit." But don't expect a straight remake; this movie is based more closely on the Charles Portis novel. And Jeff Bridges, fresh off his Oscar win, was tapped to play Cogburn; that's right, the Duke has been replaced by the Dude.

 

 

 

The movie will also star another Coens alum, Josh Brolin, along with Barry Pepper and Matt Damon.

 

"I've never even seen the original John Wayne movie" Matt Damon, who plays Glen Campbell's old role of LaBeouf in this new version, told Entertainment Weekly. Unlike the old flick, this LaBeouf reportedly doesn't sing. "Our movie is totally different."

 

This week, the first photo of the Coen Brothers' effort (see below) was released, hinting at other differences. The most obvious being is that Mattie Ross, who is a fourteen year-old girl in the book, is actually being played by a fourteen year-old girl -- newcomer Haile Steinfeld. In the original, Kim Darby was 21.

 

But what fans of the original are all wondering is how the Dude's Cogburn going to stack up next to the Duke's. The photo shows Bridges, looking ornery and weathered, sporting a beard and that famous eye patch. Wayne, a staunch Republican during the height of the '60s, was resolutely clean-shaven.

 

A quick comparison reveals that Wayne and Bridges sport their patches on opposite eyes. The Duke covered his left eye as a nod to his longtime collaborator John Ford, who lost vision in that eye when he removed bandages too soon after a cataract operation. No word on why Bridges decided to cover the other side.

 

When he was making his "True Grit," John Wayne was 61 years old. He was too unhealthy to perform his own stunts and, thanks to having an entire lung removed years prior, could barely walk more than 30 feet before heavy breathing. You might be forgiven, when looking at side-by-side photos, for assuming that Bridges is five or ten years younger that Wayne when he shot his version. In fact, Jeff Bridges turns 61 in December.

 

"True Grit" opens December 25, 2010. See the full photo of the movie below.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BridgesRoosterCogburnTrueGrit.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

With regards to the comment 'But don't expect a straight remake; this movie is based more closely on the Charles Portis novel':

 

I wonder if someone like Movieprofessor or Arturo know where one could get any stats related to remakes. i.e. What percent are 'straight remakes'?

 

My gut tells me that less than 10% of remakes are 'straight remakes'. In other words most remakes take the original source material, write a new screenplay and go from there. i.e. they are based on the original source material and not a prior movie version of said source material.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fredb,

 

I heart you! And I say this as perhaps the most appreciative John Wayne fan in these here parts (see many of my posts about Duke). Am I upset that *True Grit* is being remade? Nope, I am looking forward to how Jeff Bridges essays this great role.

 

He is an incredible actor in his own right and will essay the role in that vein.

 

Should there be more westerns? Da** straight. This one, I hope is worth the journey. I think it will be.

 

As for Matt Damon, he is a much better actor than Glen Campbell who got the role because he could carry a tune, was riding a big wave of popularity and they wanted a Top 40 tie-in. Yeah, I'm old enough to remember all that because as FrankGrimes likes to point out on occasion, I am older than dirt.

 

So, I'm looking forward to this new version of *True Grit*.

Link to post
Share on other sites

*Stagecoach* has been remade twice, *Red River* has been remade, *The Spoilers* (itself a remake) has been remade, *Hondo* was turned into a TV series...

 

The earlier versions are still around, still enjoyed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure why there's so much Glen Campbell hate, but I think he's just swell in his role. As is Kim Darby, even if John Wayne wanted Karen Carpenter and the studio wanted Mia Farrow. While I'm not upset that there's going to be a remake, I have less than zero interest in seeing one. I'd love to see more Westerns, but original ones would be nice. We already have a perfectly swell, *True Grit* .Another version is utterly unnecessary.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Glen Campbell is great in the role as is kim darby, I cannot even imagine another actress playing the role.

 

I think that Jeff Bridges is absolutely horrible for this role, although he was great in Wild bill. I would also like to see more westerns but originals, not remakes. Maybe Jeff will do a great job because he did such a great job in wild bill, True Grit is just so Iconic with John Wayne.

 

Now Barry Pepper is great! Good to see him in this movie. But I HATE remakes, absolutely hate them esp nowadays when the economy is bad who needs another remake done for way too much money.

 

As for the other remakes mentioned, they have been forgotten, thank god but were made in a different time rather than now.

 

if they put in gratuitous sex, I will be enraged. There is no room for gratuitous sex in this film. I can see them adding some rape scene because where else would add it other than the outlaws **** some girls, how much u want to bet there is a rape scene. This is the kind of crap they add to films nowadays.

 

John Wayne loved the fact that his films were for the whole family, there is not enough of that nowadays.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that shot of Jeff Bridges with the Duke from "Wild Bill" or "True Grit"?

 

Iz If anyone is older then dirt around here it's yours truly. I turned 69 last Sunday, but I don't feel a day over 68. And you, why you're just a little whipper snapper, barely old enough to belly up to the bar with the boys and have a few shooters....

 

PS..I don't hate Glen Campbell. I still have some of his albums. But as an actor he leaves a lot to be desired

"Both hand and gun will fight again"

 

Edited by: fredbaetz on Aug 21, 2010 3:11 AM

 

Edited by: fredbaetz on Aug 21, 2010 2:21 PM

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree Campbell was alful in this movie I think I read that someone acturally thought he was the best wow how people think differently. I just found out about this and now I look forward to it love their work and hope the film is good thats all we can ask for.

cat

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you explain how an original movie is better for a bad economy than a remake? If a remake is 'done for way too much money' than that money gives many people jobs. A remake has the same job as an original movie except maybe the rights paid for the original source material.

 

I can see hating remakes after viewing them (i.e. comparing a remake to the original and liking the original movie a lot more), but I'm just not getting any of the other reasons so many people 'hate' remakes.

 

With regards to Campbell: He was a really fine guitar player and was a major studio picker. I have a few of his albums where all he did was play (i.e. no singing). But his backers felt he was too good looking to just be a guitar player so they had him sing and become a front man entertainer as well as acting. He did "OK" in these but in some ways guitar nuts like me lost out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=ValentineXavier wrote:}{quote}

> I like the Coen Bros. work. They've done just about every genre but a Western. So, it's about time they did one. Plus, it stars the Dude! I'm looking forward to it.

 

yeh exactly it stars "the dude" and who couldnt hold a candle to "the duke". compare the dude with the duke and you see exactly what is wrong and has gone wrong with this country. We have gone from strong, courageous, hero of a man.,...to a stoned out waste of space that wouldnt do anything at all for anyone including himself.

 

exactly why even though bridges was great in wild bill, that using him in this movie is just a big draw for coen brothers fans and nothing less. I can think of many other actors that might do better and bring respect into the role besides "the dude".

 

As far as remakes and money is concerned, I think that the money is better well spent on an original western done right, or nothing at all. I am glad it gave the lower level workers money and jobs but what i am talking about in being a waste of money in these times is the salary that is being paid to actors and actresses that are way over paid, not the crew getting 12 bucks an hour, but the higher ups taken loot like they were goldman sachs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Any comparison to Duke and ?The Dude? is not feasible or comprehensible to the point that while the storyline might have a link between the old film as opposed to the new one, the Coen brothers are producing a very different version. So, there shouldn?t really be any love lost about what this new version represents. The Coen brothers knew from the beginning what might transpire with this idea of recreating the Duke?s greatest technical triumph, in that he ended up being awarded an ?Oscar;? most likely Duke won as a result of his long and respected career in motion pictures. Everybody at the time knew that Duke?s win was more symbolic than having any solid merit towards his acting abilities. He had already proved himself a far better actor in other films from his long and celebrated career.

 

What we have here is another in a series of cinematic controversies that the Coen brothers are so noted for. This time up, they?ve decided on tackling a project that would obviously make a lot of heads turn their way! This is a situation that has the brothers turning towards a reality of sorts that changes or affects the premise of past thinking and the apparent devotion Duke Wayne as acquired and remains in tack after so many years. What is happening these days transcends itself towards walking on the thin line of what is a remake or different interpretation of a once classic story or beloved motion picture. For years now, Robert Redford has toyed with the idea of making a new version of ?Random Harvest.? Redford has received a bit of distain over this issue, since nobody can figure out whether or not the new version would be updated or kept in its original time frame. This debate has all but place Redford?s plans on hold or at least delayed him with enough time to think about; he?s been thinking about it for 20 years!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...