Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Trailer for 2010 remake of True Grit
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Glock &#039;em down" data-source="post: 1301956" data-attributes="member: 684"><p>Ok guys and gals. I've sat and thought about this new version of <em>True Grit</em>. Hell, I even popped in the 1969 classic today and watched it closely. There was plenty of violence but nothing like the Coen brothers are gonna put in their version. </p><p></p><p>There have been a few posts about how this new version is a darker tale of the story and a more true portrayal of the characters in the novel. First of all, let me say that the novel itself (yes, I have a copy) isn't really what I would call a "dark" story. Sure, it's about a young girl avenging her father's murder, but as for it being a "dark" tale? I just don't see it. <img src="/images/smilies/headscratch.gif" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":scratch:" title="Headscratch :scratch:" data-shortname=":scratch:" /> I suppose one could say that the very act of murder is dark enough in and of itself.</p><p></p><p>And while we're on the subject of "dark" tales, why do most of you enjoy seeing such a display? I deal with misery day in/day out. I don't need to see a bunch of blood and guts when watching a motion picture to be entertained. I mean, in the '69 version, when you saw a guy get shot, you didn't see his chest explode and a gallon of blood pour out of the GSW. Hell, the only really "gross" part of the entire movie is when Quincy chopped off Moon's fingers in the dugout, sending them flying. And even with <em>that</em> scene, if you blinked, you missed it. <img src="/images/smilies/ugh2.gif" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":ugh2:" title="Ugh2 :ugh2:" data-shortname=":ugh2:" /></p><p></p><p>John Wayne didn't think we needed to glamorize the act of killing and he damn sure didn't see the need to display such gory, macabre images that today's film makers and stars rely on to boost ticket sales. I mean, back in the day, when a guy got killed, you knew it! You didn't need to see his head explode...Jesus! <img src="/images/smilies/rolleyes2.gif" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":rolleyes2" title="Rolleyes2 :rolleyes2" data-shortname=":rolleyes2" /></p><p></p><p>All I'm saying is why should this tale be retold with a more "dark" portrayal? Is it because we Americans have become so evil and so bloodthirsty that we can't enjoy a good quality film without it containing a bunch of bloody scenes? That seems to be the norm nowadays. I for one have seen enough carnage in my life that I don't care to see any more. <img src="/images/smilies/disappoint.gif" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":disappoin" title="Disappoint :disappoin" data-shortname=":disappoin" /></p><p></p><p>Ok...I'll shut the hell up now. <img src="/images/smilies/grumble.gif" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":grumble:" title="Grumble :grumble:" data-shortname=":grumble:" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Glock 'em down, post: 1301956, member: 684"] Ok guys and gals. I've sat and thought about this new version of [I]True Grit[/I]. Hell, I even popped in the 1969 classic today and watched it closely. There was plenty of violence but nothing like the Coen brothers are gonna put in their version. There have been a few posts about how this new version is a darker tale of the story and a more true portrayal of the characters in the novel. First of all, let me say that the novel itself (yes, I have a copy) isn't really what I would call a "dark" story. Sure, it's about a young girl avenging her father's murder, but as for it being a "dark" tale? I just don't see it. :scratch: I suppose one could say that the very act of murder is dark enough in and of itself. And while we're on the subject of "dark" tales, why do most of you enjoy seeing such a display? I deal with misery day in/day out. I don't need to see a bunch of blood and guts when watching a motion picture to be entertained. I mean, in the '69 version, when you saw a guy get shot, you didn't see his chest explode and a gallon of blood pour out of the GSW. Hell, the only really "gross" part of the entire movie is when Quincy chopped off Moon's fingers in the dugout, sending them flying. And even with [I]that[/I] scene, if you blinked, you missed it. :ugh2: John Wayne didn't think we needed to glamorize the act of killing and he damn sure didn't see the need to display such gory, macabre images that today's film makers and stars rely on to boost ticket sales. I mean, back in the day, when a guy got killed, you knew it! You didn't need to see his head explode...Jesus! :rolleyes2 All I'm saying is why should this tale be retold with a more "dark" portrayal? Is it because we Americans have become so evil and so bloodthirsty that we can't enjoy a good quality film without it containing a bunch of bloody scenes? That seems to be the norm nowadays. I for one have seen enough carnage in my life that I don't care to see any more. :disappoin Ok...I'll shut the hell up now. :grumble: [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Trailer for 2010 remake of True Grit
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom
