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

Steven Spielberg to remake The Grapes of Wrath


Recommended Posts

Yep, Michael. It's kinda sorta lookin' like ya might wanna consider addin' the topic of "Spielberg" and/or maybe that of "Remakes" to that list of verboten topics we can't discuss around here TOO, huh! ;)

 

LOL

 

(...which reminds me...I seem to have been SO busy in THIS thread today that I've PLUMB forgot to check out mongo's VERY non-controversial and fun "Candids" thread today to see who's birthdays it is...and so, see ya later folks...though I DO have to say I just can't wait to read of the "bombshell new angle" that's comin' in THIS one...who knows, maybe it WILL change my opinion about this whole remake thing and I'll start to believe that it's somehow "sacrilegious" too ...stranger things HAVE happened, ya know!)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Clore, :)

 

Here are some funny reviews of THE LONE RANGER:

 

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_lone_ranger/

 

"Somewhere, around the hour-and-a-half mark, The Lone Ranger makes the fateful decision not to end. Worse, the movie keeps not-ending for another full hour"

 

"The good bits are like the seeds that end up on the bottom of bird cages, tasty tidbits momentarily visible before getting covered in ****".

 

"Overblown, stupid, loud, unfunny, and completely maddening in its undisguised assumption that you'll swallow this nonsense whole."

 

"Disney spent over $200 million to prove The Lone Ranger is too old-fashioned for such a newfangled, smart-aleck world."

 

I guess I just like old-fashioned films. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

>I'm surprised you feel that it would be silly to try to make a modern version of TGOW.

 

The OP insinuated it would be a re-make of the movie.

 

But it might be a re-make of the novel, on film. That would be different. I can't imagine Spielberg trying to duplicate any of the original film.

 

He might try a whole new take on the story of the novel.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no intention of seeing The Lone Ranger but I'm glad it was made, if only because Fred shared that zinger from a review:

 

"Somewhere, around the hour-and-a-half mark, The Lone Ranger makes the fateful decision not to end. Worse, the movie keeps not-ending for another full hour"

 

Now THAT"S Funny!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Believe me, when I first heard of the idea of making a new Lone Ranger, my first thought was "why?"

 

It's been 30 years since the other Lone Ranger film flopped big time. Meanwhile, what's been done with the property? No comics, video games, TV shows - nothing that would entice the current 12-24 moviegoers since they don't even know the character.

 

I know four people my age who have seen it. One hated it, two thought it was mediocre and way too long (but their A/C is broken and that's why they went) and the other one walked out of it halfway through.

 

Disney would have been better off launching their own character. If it clicked, they would not have had to share with the Wrather people and now what they have on their hands is another *John Carter On Mars*.

 

I expect some managerial changes soon at the mouse house.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

> The OP insinuated it would be a re-make of the movie.

>

> But it might be a re-make of the novel, on film. That would be different. I can't imagine Spielberg trying to duplicate any of the original film.

>

>

> He might try a whole new take on the story of the novel.

>

I Googled "Spielberg Grapes of Wrath" yesterday and maybe half the sites listed referred to it as a "remake" and the other half just referenced his trying to get the rights as the story headline.

 

Some sources noted that next year marks the 75th anniversary of the book, some mentioned that Spielberg was in competition with Robert Redford who was also trying to negotiate for the rights for a mini-series.

 

But it's funny that the OP's tone initially appeared negative, but once I brought up Eastwood as director (just my own preference, not implied anywhere), now he seems favorably inclined.

 

Meanwhile, I'm proceeding on casting ideas, and have Chris Cooper in mind for Grandpa, but that's if Robert Duvall passes. Maybe Billy Bob Thornton as Muley.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Something interesting about the original film is that they actually filmed the trip, on location, along old Route 66, including the Indians at or near Laguna, the cliffs at Gallup, the old bridge across the Colorado River, the old Inn at the Painted Desert, the California border fruit inspection stop, all of which I saw during our family trip to California in 1953, and most of which are no longer there now. In 1932, 1940, and 1953, old Route 66 was a two-lane that went right through the middle of every little town along the way.

 

The original film was made so close to the era in the book, most of the real places shown in the original film were real places where the original events took place, and of course all the cars and clothes, hats, etc. and some of the tourist camps (real campgrounds) and squatters camps.

 

I can't think of anyone who could be better than Henry Fonda or John Qualen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

>I can't think of anyone who could be better than Henry Fonda or John Qualen.

 

Agree one hundred percent.

 

By the way, THE FUGITIVE is coming up on TCM tomorrow night. It's another Ford-Fonda collaboration and is muy excelente.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whoever does it will have a daunting task. There's no getting around that, but it goes with the territory if you're going to do a period piece as well as a remake. I prefer to be optimistic at this point, but I do reserve the right to lose enthusiasm depending on the talent hired for the film.

Link to post
Share on other sites

...most of the real places shown in the original movie were real places where the original events took place....

 

All the more reason not to do a re-make, these places are no longer there!

 

...and let us not forget the lighting in the original movie which also cannot be duplicated in this day and age.

 

Imagine re-making CITIZEN KANE and the lighting that was used in That movie ?

 

Twink

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think what you say about "personal" opinions hits the mark. Films are very personal to movie goers, however, having said that, I've found some re makes beautifully re done like A Star Is Born (guess I better say Judy Garland) and An Affair To Remember. An amusing "personal" view of mine came a week ago on The Essentials with Drew Barrymore. She said of Auntie Mame, that "I want to see this character stay alive, make a remake", etc. I was like, "really? Someone is going to top Roz Russell?

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=TomJH wrote:

> }{quote}Fred, I think that John Carradine's performance as Casey would be rather difficult to equal, as well. How about John Malkovich for the role?

You read my mind Tom. As I've already set Eastwood in my head as director, he's done two films with Malkovich, so that's a possibility of happening again. ;)

 

I also thought of Steve Buscemi, but he's not rural enough for me - he'll have to test for the part if he wants it. Brad Dourif is another contender.

 

Edited by: clore on Jul 6, 2013 7:38 PM

Link to post
Share on other sites

*clore wrote:As I've already set Eastwood in my head as director, he's done two films with Malcovich, so that's a possibility of happening again. ;)*

 

clore, if only we could get the word to Eastwood and Malkovich that they've been cast. Oh yeah, that Spielberg guy has something to say about it. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

>She said of Auntie Mame, that "I want to see this character stay alive, make a remake", etc. I was like, "really? Someone is going to top Roz Russell?

 

There must be something about the concept of a re-make that young people like and that I have forgotten about. I think I used to feel that way when I was a kid and young teen, but I eventually got over it.

 

I do recall liking a lot of 1930s movies when I saw them on TV in the 1950s, but I also remember thinking that all the clothes and cars were way out of style and old fashioned, and I thought that the 1930s were ancient times, like cave-men days.

 

But, as I gradually watched more of the old films on TV over the years, I began to enjoy seeing the old fashions and old cars, and I began imitating some of the stuff, including buying myself a 1938 Studebaker for $100. I went to old second-hand thrift stores and bought old style fedoras to wear, and khaki work shirts and pants. I was delighted to be able to see THE GRAPES OF WRATH in an old theater in Charleston West Virginia when I lived there briefly in 1962, and I bought my old Studebaker in 1964. :)

 

So I had my own Route 66 experience in 1953, I saw the film in 1962, and I was driving my own 1930s car and wearing 1930s type clothes in 1964. That was 60, 51, and 49 years ago. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good lord - I had to fix my post. I have a good friend who spells his last name "Malcovich" and I'm forever making that mistake with the actor who has a "K" instead of the "C" - gets me just about every time.

 

Meanwhile, I'm stuck on Ma Joad. Conchata Ferrell is a possibility, a long time favorite since *Heartland* in the late 70s. I just don't want people looking for the two-and-a-half men that she is associated with these days. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see no evidence to suggest 'young people' like the concept of a re-make. My guess is that most of them don't think about it at all. i.e. that unless they were told a movie was a re-make they wouldn't even know it was AND that after they are told they could care less that it was.

 

I also assume that re-makes are made NOT because the concept of a remake is something young people like but instead because the producers feel that the source material is good. Again, it is mostly about the original source material and NOT about prior movie versions of said source material.

 

I also assume that the people so narrowly focused on these prior movie versions instead of the source material are associated with studio era movie forums like this one, due to one's love for those prior movies. Well I'm one that loves the original source material as well and I'm interested in alternate interpretations.

 

For example, my favorite movie is the 1936 version of The Petrified Forest. But I have seen multiple performance of the play, the TV special (with Fonda) and the 2 or more remakes (one being a western with Joel McCrea). While I didn't enjoy any of these as much as the 36 movie I welcomed them just the same.

 

A so called remake doesn't have to be better for it to have merit. Oh, and a remake of Mame done by Lansbury around the same type she was doing the play MIGHT of been better than Roz.

Link to post
Share on other sites

>I see no evidence to suggest 'young people' like the concept of a re-make.

 

My response was in response to the earlier statement. Maybe you can respond to that earlier statement and give your opinion about it, as to why Drew would want to see a re-make of a film she just saw and said she liked.

 

The earlier statement was:

 

>She said of Auntie Mame, that "I want to see this character stay alive, make a remake", etc. I was like, "really? Someone is going to top Roz Russell?

Link to post
Share on other sites

>I also assume that re-makes are made NOT because the concept of a remake is something young people like but instead because the producers feel that the source material is good.

 

Well, I grew up listening to classical music, classic operas, seeing classic paintings in art books, etc., which can't have "re-makes", and I tend to feel that way about good classic films too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it appears we will just continue to disagree here. To me the examples of classical music and classic operas are examples of remakes.

 

i.e. good source material that is re-interpreted by a new artist.

 

Note 'remakes' are very common in jazz; we call them jazz standards. Now a jazz musician will know what is called the definitive version of a standard. This is the version most feel is 'best', but that doesn't prevent generation after generation from playing this song and if we are lucky releasing the song to the public. Oh, and while we have heard others play the song that is not what motivates us to play the song. What motivates us is the source material which is the actual sheet music. Thus any 'remake' becomes something that reflects our interpretation of this sheet music.

 

Thus to me the key to what people are calling movie remakes is the screenplay.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

>Wow ! ...that must have been a real 'chck magnet" huh ?!

 

I was dating a chick at that time who told me that I needed to see a movie titled CITIZEN KANE. She was a few years older than me, but she was a movie buff. :)

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