Iconic John Wayne Role Redone

Gravdigr • Aug 19, 2010 5:12 am
[SIZE="1"]by Jonathan Crow, via Yahoo! Movies[/SIZE]

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 And Jeff Bridges, fresh off his Oscar win, was tapped to play Cogburn; that's right, the Duke has been replaced by the Dude.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 • Aug 19, 2010 8:24 am
I'm not sure cinema lends itself to "covers."
fargon • Aug 19, 2010 8:45 am
Keryx says "some movies don't need to be remade"
Shawnee123 • Aug 19, 2010 8:53 am
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 • Aug 19, 2010 9:23 am
I want a new western, but the use of the True Grit name to put butts in the seats is annoying.
Flint • Aug 19, 2010 11:52 am
Griff;677480 wrote:
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 • Aug 19, 2010 12:09 pm
Side Salad: A healthy alternative which goes well with rattlesnake.
jinx • Aug 19, 2010 12:16 pm
Shawnee123;677471 wrote:
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 • Aug 19, 2010 12:23 pm
Not yet, but I sure want to!
BigV • Aug 19, 2010 1:16 pm
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 • Aug 19, 2010 3:37 pm
Griff;677463 wrote:
I'm not sure cinema lends itself to "covers."


fargon;677466 wrote:
Keryx says "some movies don't need to be remade"


Griff;677480 wrote:
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 • Aug 19, 2010 3:41 pm
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 • Aug 19, 2010 3:45 pm
That did sting.
Shawnee123 • Aug 19, 2010 3:53 pm
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 • Aug 19, 2010 5:12 pm
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.
Griff • Aug 19, 2010 8:14 pm
I get the idea flint is trying to make a point.
squirell nutkin • Aug 19, 2010 9:48 pm
snap.
side salad was hilario
Gravdigr • Aug 20, 2010 3:10 am
Shawnee123;677577 wrote:
OMG could you imagine a remake of The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly? No no no.


Behold: The Good, The Bad, & The Weird

[YOUTUBE]SukNDHx4Qs8[/YOUTUBE]
Griff • Aug 20, 2010 6:32 am
Enter the sushi western.
wolf • Aug 20, 2010 10:37 am
Or whatever the Chinese version of undercooked fish is called ...

Of course, you could just make some popcorn and watch 7 Samurai ...
Pete Zicato • Aug 20, 2010 10:40 am
I don't think there's any movie that's so iconic, so sacrosanct that a remake shouldn't be even attempted. I'm sure some people said that about Ocean's Eleven. I mean, how can you beat the rat pack? But I think the Clooney version is the better. Father of the Bride and Parent Trap are far from iconic, but still the newer versions outshine the former.

That's not to say it isn't a huge risk. If you're going to remake Harvey, you'd better have a top-notch script with something original going for it. I could see Tom Hanks in the role, maybe.
BigV • Aug 20, 2010 11:54 am
Griff;677670 wrote:
Enter the sushi western.
wish granted.

Sukiyaki Western Django

Sukiyaki Western Django (スキヤキ ウェスタン ジャンゴ, Sukiyaki Uesutan Jango?) is a 2007 Japanese film by Takashi Miike. The title of this English language western refers to the Japanese dish, sukiyaki, as well as Sergio Corbucci's spaghetti western film, Django. It also takes inspiration from the "Man with No Name" stock character variously used in the spaghetti western genre but most notably in Akira Kurosawa's jidaigeki film Yojimbo.

Inspired by the historical rivalry between the Genji and Heike clans, which ushered in the era of samurai dominance in Japanese history, Sukiyaki Western Django is set "a few hundred years after the Genpei War". The Genji and Heike gangs face off in a town named "Yuta" in "Nevata", when a deadly gunman comes into town to help a prostitute get revenge on the warring gangs. The film contains numerous references both to the historical Genpei War and to Wars of the Roses, as well as the films Yojimbo and Django.


It's pretty awesome. I have it at home. Grindhouse meets the Wild West. The demented love child of Quentin Tarrantino and John Ford.

[YOUTUBE]nluPs-nGngk[/YOUTUBE]
Shawnee123 • Aug 20, 2010 12:28 pm
Like Kurasawa I make mad films
Okay I don't make films
But if I did they'd have a samurai
Pete Zicato • Aug 20, 2010 12:47 pm
Shawnee123;677744 wrote:
Like Kurasawa I make mad films
Okay I don't make films
But if I did they'd have a samurai

:D
Gravdigr • Aug 21, 2010 5:08 pm
The demented love child of Quentin Tarrantino and John Ford.
BigV • Aug 21, 2010 6:10 pm
@Gravdigr: hahahahaha!

Watch it and then come back with your report. :lol2:
BigV • Aug 21, 2010 6:18 pm
Gravdigr;677649 wrote:
Behold: The Good, The Bad, & The Weird

[YOUTUBE]SukNDHx4Qs8[/YOUTUBE]


Want!
Griff • Dec 30, 2010 8:55 pm
Flint;677515 wrote:
It is the name of the novel it is based on. What do you expect them to call it?


Umm... yeah, Flint is completely right the Coen Bros True Grit is the best damn movie I've seen in a theatre in a long long time. I will now do the upside down thing and buy the novel. I'm going to guess that a 2010 audience is much more prepared for an intense 14 yo Mattie than the 1969 audience would have been. Great dialogue and Blackie will make you misty.
Sundae • Jan 1, 2011 2:38 pm
Pete Zicato;677723 wrote:
I don't think there's any movie that's so iconic, so sacrosanct that a remake shouldn't be even attempted.

The Wicker Man.

Oh no, sorry. That's not about a remake ever being attempted, it's just about such a limp sandwich of a remake being made.
kerosene • Jan 1, 2011 10:09 pm
I loved True Grit remake. It was so simply and beautifully done. I never saw the original.
Flint • Jan 2, 2011 1:00 am
Sundae Girl;702792 wrote:
The Wicker Man.
To my knowledge, this is the absolute worst remake ever. It is beyond words to describe how far wrong they went with this.

If anyone has never seen the original (1973) Wicker Man, see it. If you have the thought to see the Nic Cage version, please stab your eyes out.