RKMBs Forums .::Robegories::. Media The Dude plays The Duke

He played Wild Bill Hickock fairly well. But there's no way he could play a halfway passable John Wayne.

It's a good thing he's playing Rooster Cogburn then and not John Wayne.

...Are you really that stupid?

John Wayne was the same character in every movie he ever made.

You don't go to see a John Wayne movie for his "acting." You go to see John Wayne.

Sadly, if you replace "John Wayne" with any number of actors and actresses (and change pronouns accordingly), it works...

Its hardly "sadly" if people are happy to go see people like that is it?
Fer fucksake, Sean Connery has had a huge career playing Sean Connery, and I dont see many people saying "Sadly he still has a career!"

It was actually a not-so-subtle nod to all the talentless film personalities that have somehow become popular. For instance, Megan Fox.

Who goes to see a film she is in based on purely on her being in it?
And how many lead roles has she had?

Lead roles? Not too many.
Who goes to see her? People who can't get enough of her tits and/or ass.
Another example -- I know dozens of people who'll see anything Johnny Depp stars in. While he's not talentless, he certainly has taken on quite a few shitty roles. Ditto with Bruce Willis and others. Oh. And Adam Sandler.

I understand Pariah's point. Cogburn is, in many ways, Wayne's signature role and he made the character his own. Not unlike, say, Eastwood and Dirty Harry.

That being said, I think Bridges could play the character well. It wouldn't be John Wayne's Rooster Cogburn but it could be a lot of fun.

I agree with the part that says Snarf is stupid. I'm too lazy to scroll up again.

She hasnt had any lead roles, she has had supporting roles.
Once again, you still dont get the point, people do not go to see a movie purely based on her being in it, unlike John Wayne, Sean Connery and Johnny Depp etc, because she doesnt have the kind of screen prescence they have/had.

Your second example fails because people like those actors, and go to see them for a reason, either they can act or people find them funny.
Like or hate them, those three have a fanbase for a reason.

Regardless of whether they have been in shit movies or not is neither here nor there, the fact is, with people like Depp, shit movies have been made watchable just by putting him in it.

Are you trying to say that its wrong to like an actor so much that you will give any film a try just because of them?
Lets face it, how do you know a film is shit until you see it?
Do you only believe what others tell you?
A lot of people here say that the Thomas Jane Punisher film was shit, but you like it, does that mean you shouldnt like it then?

Depp, Sandler and Willis have all earned their fanbase, so why the hell should that fanbase not feel that theres a good chance that anything they are in is gonna be good?

Do you also say that someone shouldnt buy all albums by a band they like, cause sometimes bands produce clunkers of albums?

A good actor/actress/comedian will always garner a loyal fanbase, and will always attract people who have enjoyed their previous films, but someone the likes of Megan Fox will never be enough to sell a film to people.

As a good example of one of her upcoming movies, Jonah Hex.
People that dont generally like westerns, will not go to see it.
Now if Depp or Willis was in it, you can bet that the clout that they bring to it would certainly attract their fans, even if they do not normally like westerns.
Its the same reason why people who were John Wayne fans watched Waynes war movies, when maybe normally they were not a fan, but were fans of westerns.

...unless it's a porn film.

Thats the whole point though isnt it.
Certain roles are very much an extension of the actor, and were who they were because of the actor.

When an actor remakes a film or takes over a role, then they in turn have to make that character their own.
The worst thing Brandon Routh did was try to be Christopher Reeve as Superman, rather than give his own interpretation.
Its one of the things that has always seperated each actor on the Bond movies. None of them has ever tried to play the character the same as the actor before.

Some will bemoan that nobody else should play Cogburn and complain that its nothing like the film they love, but what they are forgetting is, if you remake a film, it shouldnt be identicle, otherwise whats the point of remaking it?

I suppose the real question is "why bother remaking some films that still hold up as they were".

thats just like your opinion, man.



sadly he is.

To appeal to the younger generation that doesnt watch older movies.
Most teens and early 20s people these days have never watched anything prior to 1990.

Hell, I'll be the first to admit its very rare for me to like any pre-70s movies, as I find them horribly dated (and yes, the 70s are dated, but I grew up with those movies).

Yeah, because nothing says "box office draw" to a group of teenagers like the name "Jeff Bridges."

But its a modern film, and on the back of his Iron Man role, he is at least a known name. (and then of course there is the upcoming Tron film and that Goats film)

The point is, the story is (I'd imagine) a good story, thus it wont be sold on the actor.
Dont forget, when they cast Downey as Iron Man, he was hardly a box office draw at the time.

Oh, and another reason they do it is pretty obvious.
What happens every time a film is remade?
The studio re-releases the original on DVD and bulks up their profits by selling a film that sales have dried up on.

Rollerball, Deathrace 2000, Get Carter & The Italian job, among others, all got reissues when the new versions came out, and usually its an ultra special edition that not only attracts those interested in seeing the original after seeing the new one, but also attracts those fans of the original that have either not got round to buying it or are the sort of people who have to have the bells and whistles version.

Yeah, but Downey was being cast in a superhero movie, not a western. I don't think there's been a hit Western in the US since "Unforgiven."

And?
It matters not.
Edward Norton was a more bankable name, yet Hulk didnt do anywhere near as well as Iron Man.

A superhero movie is no more a guaranteed success than a western is, just ask Thomas Jane, Eric Bana or Haley Berry (Catwoman not X-Men).

3:10 to Yuma did well enough at the box office worldwide, and that was a remake of a relatively unknown movie name.
True Grit, even if you have never seen it, is a well known name.
Probably even more well known than a superhero comic like Iron Man.

Iron Man, TRON 2.0, the massive following of Big Lebowski...you underestimate the power of The Bridges...

Tombstone!

3:10 to Yuma?

Add Open Range to the list as well.

The original Get Carter was awesome. The stallone version is shit.

And I usually can't brng myself to say that about a Rachael Leigh Cook movie.

Not saying it was any good (cant say I have seen either version), just that the remakes are an excuse to bump up profits by reissuing the original!

While Tombstone and Open Range were both great films (haven't seen 3:10), the western is still something of a risky genre. When you can only come up with four good movies in what's roughly a 20 year span for a genre, that's not good.

In the 50's and 60's, the western was everywhere, in theaters and on the television screen (Gunsmoke, Bonanza, The Wild Wild Wild West, etc.); I wonder why the western dropped in popularity so significantly.

Any genre is risky, you moron, as I pointed out with the super hero genre.

For every successful super hero movie there is an equally unsuccessful one.

In fact, of the mainstream westerns released in the last 20 years, of which there as only been a handful, most have been successful, even if they do not reach the top spots.
To me, that suggests westerns are less risky because they are not produced in the same numbers, meaning western fans are almost guaranteed to go see them all.

Snarf, I'm going to have to agree with Nowhereman here, especially about this bit...

Pariah is right and both King Snarf and PCG are idiots. Again.

The Young Guns movies were fun.

You guuuys! You guuuys!! Did you see the size of that chicken? That cock-a-goddamn-doodle-doo?!

Best dollar eighty I ever spent!

I could've killed you, Dick. I could've killed you...

Excuse me, but aren't you the same poster who insists that every film is a success due to DVD/video sales and TV airings?