Steven Spielberg to remake The Grapes of Wrath

[FlyBackTransformer]

Won't be directing it himself though. Sure, why not? Lets deface another classic. I say just colorize the 1940 film. :^0

[Terrence1]

Please, please, someone tell me this is a cruel joke. How can one improve on perfection?

[clore]

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

> Won't be directing it himself though. Sure, why not? Lets deface another classic. I say just colorize the 1940 film. :^0

 

Let me get this straight, remake bad, colorization good.

 

OK, in either case, as long as the original continues to be available, I have no problem.

[Dargo2]

Hmmmm...I wonder in THIS one if they'll have Tom Joad flying over The Mother Road on a bicycle and with a large Moon in the background???

 

(...I can see it all now..."Wherever there's a cop beatin' up a guy, I'll phone home, Ma!")

[twinkeee]

I agree Terrence, how can anyone improve on perfection ? That's why I dislike re-makes.

[Sepiatone]

 

Spielberg's gotten more personalized with the way he handles actors, and besides, if he's not directing this one, he might just pick a director who can handle it well.

 

 

My major concern would be the screenplay, and the cast. Who could be Tom Joad in this day and age? Or Casey? And it's hard to top the original Muley.

 

 

Sepiatone

 

 

[Arturo]

say it ain't so....is modern day Hollywood that bankrupt for new ideas? this is one of the reasons I hate hearing Drew Barrymore on the Essentials...she's already suggested remakeing LIBELED LADY and AUNTIR MAME. Cant they leave well enough alone? wasnt the recent remake of THE WOMEN a cautionary tale for them to heed.....

[twinkeee]

I know Arturo, THE WOMEN was a total Joke ! You would have thought they had learned a lesson from that movie !

[Dargo2]

In all seriousness here, I don't think this is that bad of an idea.

 

I mean, just look at the vast majority of movies out presently, most often little more than overly special effects-laden mindless pap. And so to take a true classic American piece of literature and to then attempt a new version of it in order to bring this story to a new generation(a generation that in most cases now days wouldn't sit through a B&W movie on a bet, and no matter HOW well Ford made it) AND maybe which might bring some new insights into the saga of the Joads, then I say...GO FOR IT!

[lavenderblue19]

That was EXACTLY my thought when reading this thread, Dargo. Exposing a younger generation to classic literature, done in the right hands is a good idea. Most of the younger generation probably would not sit thru the original films made, so exposure in the form of a new updated film, nothing wrong with that.

[FredCDobbs]

>I agree Terrence, how can anyone improve on perfection ?

 

I agree 100%. The problems with re-makes like this, in my opinion, is like the problem of re-making THE WOMEN, THE WIZARD OF OZ, and GONE WITH THE WIND.

 

I think that most people don?t read novels. But most people go see films. So I think of these three films as being "stand alone" films. Whether they were based on a novel or not, it doesn't matter, because what is famous in our minds now are the movies, not the novels. I don't think there are any message boards that talk about these novels like we talk about these great films.

 

Films like this become classics, not necessarily because of the original story, but because of everything about the film itself, such as the cast, the screenplay (the dialogue), the sets, the photography, the camera angles, etc.

 

For example, the lighting, the cast, and the dialogue of the classic scene in GRAPES OF WRATH, with Muley telling Tom and the Preacher about the "dusters" and what ruined all the farms, is one of the most iconic in all of film history. I haven?t read the novel, but I would guess that the film scene is far more classic than the same episode in the novel, since we can see what?s on the film, we can visualize it, and we can hear it.

 

The cast was perfect, the lighting, as if by a single candle, was remarkable, and John Qualen played his role and spoke his dialogue as if he were a real person. I have memories of this film scene almost as if I witnessed a real scene in real life.

 

So, my point is, in order to be as good or better than this in a re-make, is impossible. And if anyone could duplicate it, it would have to be shot in 4:3 and B&W, and if they did that, then why re-shoot it?

[FredCDobbs]

>Most of the younger generation probably would not sit thru the original films made, so exposure in the form of a new updated film, nothing wrong with that.

 

In order to do that, they'll have to add a lot of car chases, shoot-outs, and explosions, and they'll have to make Tom Joad a super-hero who can fly or jump between tall buildings.

[twinkeee]

....the lighting,as if by a single candle, was remarkable...

 

No one could have said it better babes'

It is the lighting in the classic movies that I am always impressed by which to me seems like a 'lost art' !

 

Twink

[lavenderblue19]

I said in the right hands. Steven Spielberg, I believe would treat the material in a responsible, sensitive way. He did a great job with Lincoln, he is capable of making a film without the car chases and shot 'em up scenes. If you are going to quote me, please use the whole quote.

[Dargo2]

>Films like this become classics, not necessarily because of the original story, but because of everything about the film itself, such as the cast, the screenplay (the dialogue), the sets, the photography, the camera angles, etc.

 

Hey Fred! You forgot to mention the "hotter pre-code babes" and the "smirking Sam Spade" instead of the "more matronly women" and the more serious Sam Spade" here! LOL

 

Okay, before you get all hot under the collar here because I dare kid you about your affinity for the first "Maltese Falcon" over the REMAKE, and which almost everybody but yourself thinks is a superior version, MY POINT here is that just because YOU feel some films are "sacrosanct" and shouldn't be remade, doesn't mean that the sheer idea that ALL attempted remakes should be confined to the dustbin of cinema history before one feet of film is filmed.

 

 

>So, my point is, in order to be as good or better than this in a re-make, is impossible. And if anyone could duplicate it, it would have to be shot in 4:3 and B&W, and if they did that, then why re-shoot it?

 

And the next thing I question in your post would be the above comment and why you would possibly think that a widescreen and color version of this story about desperate people traveling this beautiful country of ours and in the OUTDOORS would have to ONLY be produced in the now archaic media of of 4:3 and B&W in order for it to capture the feeling of Steinbeck's story?

 

(...'cause my friend, remember, this ain't no story about people trapped in the dark and seedy underbelly of a large city as in a classic Film Noir)

[FredCDobbs]

Just expressing my personal opinion, Dargo.

 

Is that ok with you?

[FredCDobbs]

>And the next thing I question in your post

 

Are you a cop or something?

 

Why all the insults all the time?

[Dargo2]

Nope, nothin' at all wrong with that, Fred. Nope, nothin' at all.

 

However, I just asked you a question down there about possibly supplying me(and I'll bet a few other folks who might be reading this thread) with more of your rationale as to why you feel so strongly about this and in particular about your contention that a remake of Steinbeck's story would have to be done in that archaic format in order for it to be done "right".

 

And so, sorry, but to now end the discussion with somethin' such as the simple "Well, that's just my opinion, and end of story" seems to me to be just a bit disingenuous.

[Dargo2]

>And the next thing I question in your post

 

>Are you a cop or something? Why all the insults all the time?

 

"INSULTS"?! "A COP"???!!! And just because I "dare" question a comment of yours?????

 

Eeh! Just forget I responded to you at all in THAT case, 'cause evidently to question the great FredCDobbs of THIS website is sometimes tantamount to questioning and "insulting" his namesake in that movie about a search for gold in the Mexican highlands.

[jamesjazzguitar]

clore; Good to see someone else feels the same about remakes as I do. I just don't understand the claim that remakes harm the original. In fact remakes bring attention to the original. If TGOW is remade it will only increase the odds that those that never knew there was an original will seek it out.

 

It also doesn't matter how good the original movie was. If the source material is good (yea folks that would be the book by Steinbeck, and THAT is the actual original), than it makes sense that another 'team' try to see what they can do with this great source material.

 

 

[lavenderblue19]

 

James, it isn't just Clore you are agreeing with, Dargo and I both feel the same way.

 

 

[clore]

There was a time when a remake would keep an earlier version from being exhibited. I'm thinking of MGM in particluar, who kept the 1931 *Jekyll and Hyde*, the 1935 *Show Boat* and the 1940 *Gaslight* off the screen in order to advance their respective remakes.

 

However, and especially when it comes to literary adaptations, I can't find a reason why we would have to limit ourselves to one version and that is it. We wouldn't have the 1959 *Ben Hur* or the 1939 *Hunchback of Notre Dame* if that were the case.

 

John Ford's *My Darling Clementine* was the third time around for an adaptation of the Stuart Lake source material. He even cast the same drunken Indian as appeared in the 1939 version *Frontier Marshall*.

 

 

[sfpcc1]

A few years ago a movie was made called *Wendy And Lucy*. It was was about an improvrished woman, Played by Michelle Williams, stuck in an Oregon town. It has some similarities to The Grapes Of Wrath, but it stands on it's own as a great movie.

 

 

Maybe a remake of The Grapes Of Wrath would work, maybe not. But with a movie like Wendy And Lucy around it might not be neccissary.

[FlyBackTransformer]

Christopher Lloyd for Muley! :^0 :^0

[FredCDobbs]

That is a great video, FlyBack. Very artistic and creative !