Originally Posted by
dookey67
Granted, the buzz I've heard is that they (The Coens) undertook a new cinematic adaptation of Charles Portis' novel, rather than re-making the Henry Hathaway 1969 film, but I still don't get it.
The original filmed version of the book with John Wayne is so iconic (Wayne even won an Oscar for the part of Rooster Cogburn, plus it spurned a sequel that wasn't based on a novel) that re-making the film (even if you are stating that it's a new interpretation of the novel) seems kind of pointless.
To me it would akin to somebody saying that they were going to film a new adaptation of 2001: A Space Odyssey. They might say that they are merely re-interpreting the novel, but again when there already exists a film interpretation that is so iconic, what is really the point of doing it again? (the same could be said for somebody who wanted to re-interpret A Clockwork Orange or Farenheit 451, amongst other classic/cult novels that have received stellar cinematic interpretation).
PS
anybody else notice that they seem to have switched the eye patches?
(Wayne has his on his left eye, and the pix I've seen of Bridges, he's wearing one on his right eye...)
PPS:
anybody seen True Grit: The Further Adventures, starring Warren Oates (!) as Rooster Cogburn?