Iconic John Wayne Role Redone

[Gravdigr]

by Jonathan Crow, via Yahoo! Movies

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 And Jeff Bridges, fresh off his Oscar win, was tapped to play Cogburn; that's right, the Duke has been replaced by the Dude.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.

[Griff]

I'm not sure cinema lends itself to "covers."

[fargon]

Keryx says "some movies don't need to be remade"

[Shawnee123]

I agree, but it's the Coen Brothers. Surely won't be the same movie.

There was talk a couple years ago about remaking Harvey and I'm like "HUH WHAT NO!"

[Griff]

I want a new western, but the use of the True Grit name to put butts in the seats is annoying.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Griff

I want a new western, but the use of the True Grit name to put butts in the seats is annoying.

It is the name of the novel it is based on. What do you expect them to call it?

[Griff]

Side Salad: A healthy alternative which goes well with rattlesnake.

[jinx]

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

I agree, but it's the Coen Brothers.

Enough said. Although I have no problem with remakes in general.

(Anybody see A Serious Man? I just put that on my que...)

[Shawnee123]

Not yet, but I sure want to!

[BigV]

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 The Dude held John Wayne's promotional headshot next to his own reflection in the mirror, he knew which side to put the patch on. No word on why he didn't also match facial hair.

[Gravdigr]

Originally Posted by Griff

I'm not sure cinema lends itself to "covers."

Originally Posted by fargon

Keryx says "some movies don't need to be remade"

Originally Posted by Griff

I want a new western, but the use of the True Grit name to put butts in the seats is annoying.

Agreed, on all counts.

BTW, the last western I watched that I really liked was "South of Heaven, West of Hell". It's kinda quirky. One of the secondary characters (a man, btw) wears a dress on top of his normal clothes all the time. Seems when he was a kid, Indians came and were killing the men and boys, so Mom put a dress on him. Now he thinks if he's wearing a dress the Injuns won't get him. It actually is a good flick. Really.

[Gravdigr]

And no one even mentioned the real tragedy in all this...

"I've never even seen the original John Wayne movie" Matt Damon...told Entertainment Weekly

[Griff]

That did sting.

[Shawnee123]

Yeah, but my boy is wicked smaht.

Well, then he can interpret it his own way. Like the Harvey thing, the least I thought whoever ended up starring could do was not even TRY to be Jimmy Stewart.

OMG could you imagine a remake of The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly? No no no.

[Flint]

One time at this comic book convention, a heckler tried to slam the maker of the new Superman move, asking him "Why did you have to change the costume?" (trying to make a point for purism) and the guy replied "Change it from what?" and went on to explain how the Superman costume the heckler was regarding as the "correct" one had itself been changed from the real, original costume.