This movie is so right-wing extremist - True Grit (1969) Discussion

[–] mcgill_j 14 years ago

Rooster believes in JUSTICE.. and back then, justice was found at the end of a rope in Judge Parker's court.. should he say.. "I'm going to give you a stern talking to here Mister? That's just wrong wrong.. you shouldn't have killed that guy.. I'm giving you a TIME out."

Maybe his cavalier attitude is his way of DEALING with what it is he HAS to do.. because.. I don't know.. maybe he doesn't want to end up full of bullets? He has no sympathy for Ned Pepper, although I always liked that he did have a sense of honor.. He did give the man a chance to LEAVE.

And you seem to forget in the final shoot out.. He is STILL out numbered, even with his sharpshooter, at least 2:1.

Do you think the bad guys feel bad since they outnumbered him? probably not.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] pking-2 14 years ago

Maybe you could rewatch looking for the elegaic intent of True Grit which shows how the time of Cogburn, Wayne, and their law-and-order themery had past by 1969?

What "frowning down" on Cogburn's extremism should have been added, say to the final act when it serves him well vs. the gang of killers across the field...

How should Mattie, Rooster, and LaBeouf have instead persued justice in the old west, considering the type of characters they were? I'd like to hear how you would have made True Grit better by being more politically liberal...after all, law-and-order types get to be presented positively on occasion too; the luxury of celebration is not reserved just those whom you agree with politically.

And no, I'm not setting you up to tell you you're wrong...like Wayne I respect freedom of opinion too much. It might be interesting, though I wouldn't expect the same "oh, you're such a wise, modern Democrat" on this board that you might desire...unless you're trolling of course.

reply

[–] TigersWood 14 years ago

Themery?

Mwuhahahahhaaa!

reply

[–] pking-2 14 years ago

Themism? ("theming" is a boring word...)

reply

[–] TigersWood 14 years ago

Here's a word you might enjoy - dictionary.

Mwuhahahahhaaa!

reply

[–] pawtrax67 14 years ago

I wish all you right wing fascists and left wing psychos would just kill each other off and let the sensible, logical people take over.

Face it, left or right the deck is stacked against you.

I believe in what works, screw politics. Just shut the hell up and enjoy the movie.

If you don't like the movie, that's fine too. That's called choice. That's what democracy is all about.

Too bad people are too busy labeling everyone. They don't want to listen if the other persons point of view has merit, or discuss things based on facts.

reply

[–] misspaddylee 14 years ago

All the talk in this movie about how they can't wait to "hang" the antagonist is rather sickening. I hope that when the Coens remake it, they are wise enough to make the story a little more complex.

True Grit is a revenge tale, like many westerns. Mattie Ross has hired Rooster to track down and bring to justice the murderer of her father. Justice meant that Tom Chaney should pay with his life. It's not political, it's personal.

Rooster Cogburn: Why, by God, girl, that's a Colt's Dragoon! You're no bigger than a corn nubbin, what're you doing with all this pistol?
Mattie Ross: It belonged to my father, he carried it bravely in the war, and I intend to kill Tom Chaney with it if the law fails to do so.

"Madame meets many people, but she usually avoids the mad ones."

reply

[–] IceboxMovies 14 years ago

I don't require that Tom Chaney be a more sympathetic character or that he not be arrested for his crimes. But the best Westerns don't revel in the hawkish fantasies of their heroes; they look at them objectively. All of the best Ford/Hawks/Peckinpah/Huston Westerns, for that matter. True Grit, as you guys have put it here, is little more than a simple revenge story. The object of the game is that Tom Chaney must die--and we're supposed to feel good about that. I get very little out of that.

One reason I have high hopes for the new version coming up is because the Coens don't have a bloodthirst for uncivilized violence; they prefer to look at the issue more objectively, as they have in Blood Simple, Miller's Crossing, Fargo and No Country for Old Men. I'm hoping to get that out of their remake, and not the same "old-fashioned justice" celebratory techniques that Hathaway and Wayne installed in the original.

"What I don't understand is how we're going to stay alive this winter."

reply

[–] misspaddylee 14 years ago

The object of the game is that Tom Chaney must die--and we're supposed to feel good about that. I get very little out of that.

I've never felt that was the object of the movie. The core of the film is the growth of Mattie's character and her bond with Rooster. Revenge and the pain wrought by that need are important elements of the story.

"Madame meets many people, but she usually avoids the mad ones."

reply

[–] Rockonwithyoursockson 14 years ago

Yes, because the bloodthirst in "No Country" was very civilized...

Heart attack never stop ol' Big Bear!

reply

[–] IceboxMovies 14 years ago

Yes, because the bloodthirst in "No Country" was very civilized...

No Country for Old Men was amazingly poetic in its depiction of a land where there was no peace at the end of the violent struggle. That is why I feel the Coens will make a smarter True Grit.

Hathaway's True Grit is not so objective: it is a film that not only sympathizes with hangmen's justice, but endorses it.

"What I don't understand is how we're going to stay alive this winter."

reply

[–] devildog1982z 8 years ago

No Country for Old Men was amazingly poetic in its depiction of a land where there was no peace at the end of the violent struggle. That is why I feel the Coens will make a smarter True Grit.

Hathaway's True Grit is not so objective: it is a film that not only sympathizes with hangmen's justice, but endorses it.

Yeah it was so poetic when he pierced the skulls of his innocent victims with his captive bolt pistol or when he was choking the life out of the Deputy. You are simply delusional.

reply

[–] rennogsd1996 14 years ago

Perhaps you should speak to Mr Portis (is he even alive). I read the book and wow the movie sticks to it pretty close. don't blame the movie or John Wayne..he played a role. just enjoy it if you can. I watch it at least once a month.

reply

[–] sadarm 13 years ago

You must really hate the Clint Eastwood westerns. They almost exclusively deal with revenge and retribution. And they rock...

reply

[–] joecool_90069 13 years ago

I haven't seen the Coen's version yet, but I just read the novel. Despite what people are thinking, this 1969 version by Hathaway is completely true to the book regarding the intended and actual fate of Tom Chaney. Yes, by then Wayne had been in some more responsible pictures with stories getting away from bloodthirsty revenge. But this movie was based on an extremely popular book and that is the story they needed to present. While the 1969 film follows the action of the book almost scene for scene until the coda, it does shift the focus of the film and makes it The Duke's picture. The book is told by Mattie in the first person, and it is definitely HER story. While she is as eager to employ capital punishment as anyone else in her day, the remarkable thing about this story is the unusually strong young female character. So I think this movie has both right- and left-wing views, embodied in the generation gap characters of Rooster and Mattie, which were also reflections of the late 60s war-era conflicts.

reply

[–] baran_erik 9 years ago

"Coens don't have a bloodthirst for uncivilized violence" and you list Fargo as an example? As they say today, really?

reply

[–] devildog1982z 8 years ago

One reason I have high hopes for the new version coming up is because the Coens don't have a bloodthirst for uncivilized violence; they prefer to look at the issue more objectively, as they have in Blood Simple, Miller's Crossing, Fargo and No Country for Old Men. I'm hoping to get that out of their remake, and not the same "old-fashioned justice" celebratory techniques that Hathaway and Wayne installed in the original.

You do realize that the movies are based on a book, a book about a rougher time when justice wasn't always neat and tidy? The Coens in particular stayed very true to the book in all it's "bloodthirstiness". Your mistake is that you seek to compare and then judge the story to present times and then politicize it. It was a different age with different people that inhabited it. It's the same as trying to compare the Earp's and their actions at the OK Corral with current law enforcement tactics.

reply

[–] SimplemindedSociety 14 years ago

I love when people bring politcs into each and every subject ; it must seem so intellectual and ecletic.
If I said I like hamburgers over hotdogs,some bored pseudo-intellectual would make a politcal-reference about it.
(yes,all the right-wings,left wings,middle wings,so silly)

reply

[–] jlavine66 14 years ago

Wait a second you like hamburgers over hot dogs? Why that's just not right It's supposed to be the other way around. Oh wait I like both so forget it.

reply

[–] SimplemindedSociety 14 years ago

'Oh wait I like both so forget it'.
-------------
Exactly,I wish more people would.

reply

[–] rennogsd1996 14 years ago

it takes place in the late 1800's I don't think there was much other than Capital punishment for the crime of murder.

reply

[–] irishhick89 14 years ago

IceboxMovies:

It was the Old West, in the 1870s...what do you expect? As far as the Coens liberalizing or modernizing the themes, I think they have enough clout as filmmakers to faithfully adapt a Western in all of its truth, gore, and glory.

And I argue that Thomas Dunson and Ethan Edwards were FAR more cold-blooded killers than Rooster Cogburn.

reply

[–] IceboxMovies 14 years ago

And I argue that Thomas Dunson and Ethan Edwards were FAR more cold-blooded killers than Rooster Cogburn.

Yes, I know. I elaborate on this in my original post: John Ford and Howard Hawks illuminate on the racism and bloodthirst of Wayne's characters in both of their respective films--rather than simply endorsing his character's actions the way Hathaway does with True Grit.

Ford and Hawks don't ask us to root for either Ethan Edwards or Thomas Dunson; they're antiheroes. But in Hathaway's True Grit, Wayne's Rooster Cogburn is portrayed as the heroic executioner who will make a man pay with his life and then get rewarded for it. The message, basically, is hang the bastard and ask questions later.

"What I don't understand is how we're going to stay alive this winter."

reply

[–] misspaddylee 14 years ago

But in Hathaway's True Grit, Wayne's Rooster Cogburn is portrayed as the heroic executioner who will make a man pay with his life and then get rewarded for it.

In terms of the story, isn't this the way Mattie sees Rooster? Whether we approve or not, it is her goal to see Tom Chaney pay for murdering her father and she puts her faith in Cogburn to accomplish that end.

"Madame meets many people, but she usually avoids the mad ones."

reply

[–] bastasch8647 14 years ago

Yeah, like it or not, Rooster becomes in a strange way Mattie's "dream come true". He avenges her father's death and saves her life.

I don't agree with the OP that the director wants us to see Rooster's methodology as an unmitigated good to be emulated, a throwback to a sadly-missed, nostalgically-mourned "better day" where the Law has all the rights and citizens - accused of crime or not - have none.

But I do think - along with the adaptation of author Portis' seemingly authentic attempt to authentically portray the old times and even the language - that the director wants to take us back to a time and a place where the only Law there was, was enforced by types like Rooster.

For example, I never cared much for the behavior of Whites or Indians in movies like Black Robe and Last of the Mohicans, but some of my moral approbriation was put on the back burner of "suspend your moral outrage". And that's because the film showed historical people doing - mostly - what they thought they had to in order to survive. Same deal with Rooster and his methods.

Yes, sometimes Rooster wants to be judge, jury and executioner, instead of being just what he's paid to be - a Marshall who needs to take prisoners to jail. Yes, he takes too much on himself - and that's always bad in a lawman, and worse when he perhaps too hastily executes his quarry even before he can get a chance to take them prisoner.

But other than this single horrific (lethal to others) character flaw, Rooster is portrayed as doing what he has to in order to get the job done AND to ensure his own survival.

I don't know anyone who admires Rooster - except for his courage and his offbeat "curmudgeonly" humor. Nobody I know who has watched the film took away a message that says "Yeah, that's the way it should be - let the marshalls and sheriffs and cops and detectives shoot 'em up and to hell with the legal system and civil rights." The director, Portis, and the screenplay all consciously portray Rooster as a man of the PAST - even in this film about the "Old" West, Rooster is already, quickly, becoming an anachronism. He's one of the last dinosaurs. We can admire his courage and cleverness, but not always his methods and philosophy. And most of us don't want to _BE_ Rooster Cogburn, or have him for our local law enforcement.

reply

[–] jkholman 13 years ago

To IceboxMovies,
I very nearly pushed the ignore button on you, but then I took a look at your resume' . You are worth keeping even if you get on my nerves the way little Mattie gets on the nerves of many viewers on this 'board.
Yes, I will judge a person (I decided to do things like that when I got back from the war). Life is too short to suffer fools. Oddly enough, my life is better and richer for it (Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance). As to your charges that this film is pro-capital punishment and even endorses it, I think you are off track. You may go through some hard lessons in life to learn that.

You may not understand what I am getting at. I expect that batasch8647 (who knows me) does and Miss Paddy Lee may.

On this subject, which I dismiss, I recommend that the three of you watch another Western. One that I saw many years ago, and that I have in my library, but will not watch again. It is: Welcome to Hard Times. Not the Bronson film, but the Western with Henry Fonda, Aldo Ray, Warren Oates and Janice Rule. While a very good film it will leave you feeling violated and pathetic. Ray's bad guy surpasses Fonda's "Frank" from Once Upon a Time in the West. Ray's bad guy takes things from his victims (both individually and collectively).
Someone on these boards referred to Rooster Cogburn's character as a force of nature. Ray's villain is also a force of nature, but one of purely wicked intent. His villain not only commits crimes, he has to hurt those around him, to include impact on spectators. Ray's bad guy can make you miss having Rooster Cogburn around.

- JKHolman

"Men sleep peacefully in their beds at night because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf" - George Orwell

caveat - this is a very brutal film, so steel yourself Miss Paddy Lee.

reply

[–] IceboxMovies 13 years ago

Today I got a chace to see the Coens' remake. Here are my thoughts on it, previously posted in another thread:

**********************

There were times watching Joel & Ethan Coen's True Grit when I was quite certain that I was watching not just the best movie of the year, but one of the best movies ever made. At this writing I can say this, at the very least, it is better than the novel by Charles Portis, and it is way better than the original Henry Hathaway film.

If True Grit falls short of a cinematic masterpiece, it's because I think the Coens are ultimately unable to rise above Portis' dubious material. Is it fair for me to say that they made a great film out of a story that is simply banal?

What has Mattie Ross LEARNED from her adventure? That there's power in cold-blooded revenge? That there's power in killing a man? What's insightful about that?

There's a famous scene in Eastwood's Unforgiven in which Will Muny mutters, "It's a hell of a thing, killing a man. You take away everything he's got, and everything he's ever gonna have." Did it ever occur to the Coens while making this film that True Grit is a complete rejection of this theme? That the story is pro-vengeance and pro-capital punishment?

Now, there's so much I love about this film that I can't whine forever. All of the performances by Bridges, Damon, Steinfeld, Pepper and Brolin are terrific. So is Deakins' cinematography. So is Birdwell's score. So is the Coens' direction.

But the Coens' screenplay misses out on a grand opportunity to give this story a sense of purpose. To make a pathetic coward like the Tom Chaney character an empathetic individual and not just a deranged murderer. To make Mattie Ross' journey feel like it was a trip worth taking. That's where I think the Coens falter. They are overly faithful to the Portis text, which suffers from this same failure to act on what is morally right.

This is a great film. It is not quite everything I was hoping for. But, then again, I guess it is what the public wants. It is what fans of the book want. It is not a masterpiece, but... it's close enough. And surely the Coens, of all filmmakers, have earned the right to make a film that is just that: close enough.

reply

[–] joeyjoey104 13 years ago

Why would I want to see a movie, based off of a book, that deviates from the actual story. If your making a movie from a book, the best a filmmaker could do is stick to the book. You seem to want the Coens Brothers to implement far-left ideology into a JOHN WAYNE movie. It is bad enough that libs like Matt Damon and Jeff Bridges are donning such characters, Wayne would be turning over in his grave. If you don't like revenge stories or pro-do it yourself kind of movies, or shows like Dexter, then skip them. But don't claim this movie is "right wing extremist," just because you don't like capital punishment, and would prefer hugging and forgiving Tom Chaney. Because losing a family member due to being shot and killed, and wanting justice is right-wing extreme (Really?)

reply

[–] Wuchakk 13 years ago

Re: "What has Mattie Ross LEARNED from her adventure? That there's power in cold-blooded revenge? That there's power in killing a man? What's insightful about that?"

She learned there's satisfaction in JUSTICE (amongst other things). It wasn't so much a matter of revenge as as it was of JUSTICE. Someone who murders another should pay with his/her life -- if you choose to take life then your life will be taken as payment/punishment. Not to mention this protects society so that no one else gets murdered by the perpetrator. Also, other potential murderers will think twice before killing since no one wants to lose their most precious possession -- their life. There's nothing complicated about this. It's simple basic logic based on an equalitarian standard.

If someone murdered your wife, daughter, son, sister, mother, etc. you'd perfectly understand why the murderous scumbag must die -- for justice, punishment and the protection of society, i.e. the innocent.

reply

[–] franzkabuki 11 years ago

"She learned there´s satisfaction in JUSTICE".

Let´s see... she lost an arm as a result of his quest to have the murderer dead. And when we see her in the final coda, as a middle-aged woman, she seems to be an embittered, lonely spinster. So that much about any ´satisfaction´ in the long run - if anything, the message is quite the opposite. And in a civilized society, what is or isn´t "justice", is determined in the court of law, not by some roving gunmen.

"Someone who murders another should pay with his/her life".

Are you living in Medieval times or something?

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

[–] Wuchakk 11 years ago

What is it about "If you intentionally take someone's life (murder) you pay with your life" you don't understand?

It's simple equalitarian justice.

To pamper evil killers in prison at the tax payer' expense or turn them back to society is what's really uncivilized.

reply

[–] franzkabuki 11 years ago

Why don´t you try and ask questions that actually make sense? And the problem with death penalty is that, for one thing, it´s an unethical, barbarian custom. If killing is illegal in a society, it must be that for everyone, including the state (not to mention assassins on horseback).

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

[–] Wuchakk 11 years ago

The death penalty is MORAL if it's meted out to those who choose to take life without justification (i.e. intentional murder). Life for life; it's simple but you're understanding is too darkened or fogged up to get it, no offense.

If the state doesn't have the right to kill when justified or necessary then our nation would inevitably be taken over by tyrants and their armies; and that would be bondage. The state having the power of execution actually promotes justice and freedom.

The fact that you desire a peaceful, loving society is good, but it's never going to happen during this age because of the corruption of the human condition.

It will only happen in the age to come.

reply

[–] franzkabuki 11 years ago

"The death penalty is MORAL".

Yeah, strange view to hold in the 21st century.

"Then our nation would inevitably be taken over by tyrants and their armies".

Sorry, but this is pretty hilarious stuff. Besides - are you sure your society hasn´t already been overtaken by "tyrants and their armies"?

"But it´s never going to happen during this age because of the corruption of the human condition".

Pray tell what, exactly, has any "corruption of the human condition" have to do with the implementation of death penalty?

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

[–] Wuchakk 11 years ago

It's moral IF the person is guilty of intentional murder. If a person chooses to murder someone (which is unjustifiable killing) they will have to pay with their life. They get what they give. What is it about this simple equalitarian form of justice you don't understand?

You said the state shouldn't have the right to kill, which would include killing invaders and going to war and such (just wars). If the state doesn't have the power to do this and doesn't have any allied nations to support them the state will inevitably be conquered. This is just common sense, but it evidently eludes you.

You seem to desire a wholly peaceful, loving society -- and so do I -- put it's not going to happen during this present age. Why? Because the human condition is intrinsically corrupt. We see this in everything -- crime, wars, injustice, sexual immorality (rape, moslestation, etc.). Hence, there will always be people during this age who choose evil above righteousness. Those who choose intentional murder and the like will have to pay for it with their lives. If they don't then we -- as a nation -- becomes immoral and unjust because we refuse to mete out justice and instead pamper murderers (and the like) because we're so "enlightened." Get real.

If murderers don't want to be executed then they shouldn't kill people. It's that simple. Why you don't get this is a mystery (too much academic brainwashing, I'm sure).

Many nations and states practice this to this day, including in the USA, so I guess it's not as archaic and "unenlightened" as you say it is.

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Wuchakk 11 years ago

"Revenge. Retribution."

Actually, equalitarian justice, but justice is a concept that eludes you.

"we´re talking about criminal law here for f-cks sake."

You're so mature and sophisticated!

"kindergarten level view of criminal justice"

How is justly giving criminals what they dish out "kindergarten level"? It's actually real criminal JUSTICE.

"barbaric"

What's barbaric is to advertize to criminals that they can do whatever wicked deeds they want and we'll just let 'em get away with it; we won't protect the victims and we won't punish the perpetrators. That's not only barbaric, it's perverse!

A quick example. That cowardly scumbag in Aurora, CO, who shot up a bunch of people while they were simply enjoying a Batman movie last July. Give him a chance to make his peace with God and then execute him. That's as much mercy as he deserves.

If you think that's "barbaric" and "fascist" then you're a fool.

reply

[–] smitty1941 11 years ago

Well argued, Wuchakk, though I can't believe such a self-evident idea needs defending.

reply

[–] pherfer 13 years ago

What has Mattie Ross LEARNED from her adventure?

Mattie Ross: You must pay for everything in this world, one way and another. There is nothing free except the grace of God.

She learns that there is always a consequence for your actions. everything you do costs you. She loses an arm, her beloved horse, and her innocence in the journey.

The message of the movie is that revenge and justice have a price.

reply

[–] Haaken78 12 years ago

pherfer- you are totally right. Mattie paid dearly for her adventure. I haven't seen the 69 version of this yet, but in the newer version, the way blasting Cheney knocked the girl backwards into an inescapable pit wasn't exactly a subtle metaphor.

reply

[–] goodthingsjohn 13 years ago

icebox---You need to realize that your liberal viewpoints are opinion and not fact. Your definition of what is and what is not "morally right" is different than the opinions of others. Wake up and realize this. You are so brainwashed I pity you.

reply

[–] Captain_Augustus_McCrae 12 years ago

OP,
You need to make your own movies, and leave the rest of us in peace. Honestly, you sound like you are educated beyond your intelligence.

"It ain't dying I'm talking about, it's LIVING!"
Captain Augustus McCrae

reply

[–] thesnowleopard 12 years ago

What do 21st century politics have to do with a film made in the 60s about the 19th century American frontier? Come on. Talk about projection and a poor sense of history.

As for Cheney, he is no innocent. He killed a man and the penalty in that time was often a hanging. Though sometimes, it was a few years in prison (which was not at all a pleasant place to be, but still...a few years?) and often, the killer got off, due to a corrupt or cowed jury. Justice was decidedly imperfect, with innocents dying needlessly and brutal killers murdering and getting away with it, just by riding to another part of the territory.

This is the world of Cogburn *and* Cheney. The only way for the new world of Mattie Ross to get justice on a killer from the old world is to hire another killer who represents the "law" (such as it was in Cogburn's youth) to bring him to book.

To compare this to The Searchers seems a bit silly. In The Searchers, the eventual intent of Wayne's character is to hunt down and kill the niece who was kidnapped by Indians. Her only "crime" was surviving being kidnapped and raised by the enemy. She's an innocent. Cheney is anything but. He completely deserves his fate and we know that from the start. There's nothing morally unclear about this revenge, despite the high price Mattie must eventually pay.

Innsmouth Free Press http://www.innsmouthfreepress.com

reply

[–] devildog1982z 8 years ago

There were times watching Joel & Ethan Coen's True Grit when I was quite certain that I was watching not just the best movie of the year, but one of the best movies ever made. At this writing I can say this, at the very least, it is better than the novel by Charles Portis, and it is way better than the original Henry Hathaway film

You are so full of yourself. It is virtually the same movie with different actors. Both movies took heavily from the book. The main difference being that the second movie had a couple of extra scenes. You just wanted to be offended by the first and so to continue that narrative you proclaim the Coen's geniuses.

reply

[–] marktayloruk (2378) a year ago

Just.enjoy.the movie. I believe that people did talk like that back.then.
Anyone ever think of a prequel dealing with Cogburn's earlier life?

reply

[–] misspaddylee 14 years ago

When Mattie asked the Sheriff about marshals, he doesn't exactly give Rooster a ringing endorsement: "Bill Waters is the best tracker. The meanest one is Rooster Cogburn, a pitiless man, double tough, fear don't enter into his thinking. I'd have to say L.T. Quinn is the straightest, he brings his prisoners in alive." It's her decision to go with the "meanest" instead of the "best tracker" or the "straightest".

"Madame meets many people, but she usually avoids the mad ones."

reply

[–] Mat-37 13 years ago

"I don't know anyone who admires Rooster - except for his courage and his offbeat "curmudgeonly" humor. Nobody I know who has watched the film took away a message that says "Yeah, that's the way it should be - let the marshalls and sheriffs and cops and detectives shoot 'em up and to hell with the legal system and civil rights." The director, Portis, and the screenplay all consciously portray Rooster as a man of the PAST - even in this film about the "Old" West, Rooster is already, quickly, becoming an anachronism. He's one of the last dinosaurs. We can admire his courage and cleverness, but not always his methods and philosophy. And most of us don't want to _BE_ Rooster Cogburn, or have him for our local law enforcement."

What he said.
And,Icebox, you want the remake to be "more complex"? By having a hero who's flawless, one the viewer can admire and relate to, a hero who's 100% good and a villain who's 100% evil?
Sorry, but this would be less complex, not more.

- A point in every direction is the same as no point at all.

reply

[–] franzkabuki 11 years ago

"By having a hero who´s flawless, one the viewer can admire and relate to, a hero who´s 100% good and a villain who´s 100% evil?"

Apparently, you haven´t understood a single word Icebox wrote.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply