Amph The Style of Spielberg

Agree, Casey Affleck should do it.

 

When I saw this thread title, I instantly thought of Depp; but after reading the comments, I can definitely see Bale doing this.

 

Depp looks more like him.

 

Jurassic Park is on right now. Haven't seen it in years. That or the Lost World for that matter.

 

[image=http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_wUCyfCNseRc/SZ8jryKpOvI/AAAAAAAAELE/8zHhymwE0tc/s400/John_wilkes_booth.jpg]

[image=http://findmeaninja.com/pages/Shoulda%20been%20a%20ninja/Images/john%20wilkes%20booth.jpg]

[image=http://www.sinepil.org/imaj/berryberk/johnny-depp-sleepy-hollow.jpg]

[image=http://matildakay.com/images/depprollingstone.jpg]

 

A picture is worth a thousand words.

 

Steven Spielberg's next film will be 'Harvey'
by Tim Stack

"According to Variety, Steven Spielberg has decided his next project will be an adaptation of the Pulitzer Prize-winning play Harvey, which also was the subject of a 1950 film starring Jimmy Stewart. Harvey focuses on a man and his friendship with a six- foot-tall invisible rabbit. The new film will be based on a screenplay by author Jonathan Tropper (This is Where I Leave You)."


Noooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!

 

Where did this come from?

 

Wah? I mean, technically it's not a remake because it's another version of the play. And I suppose it could be okay... but I highly doubt it'll be able to match the charm of the original film. That film was simply made in an era better tailored to the story. We don't have a Jimmy Stewart anymore (I also once saw the play with Don Knotts and that was good, too).

So yeah, not sure how I feel about that. I love that movie. I used to have a pet rabbit name Harvey.

-sj loves kevin spacey

 

It came from EW

 

I just can't see this working without Stewart.

 

He'll never work in this town again.

 

At least the original had the giant rabbit who ran the savings and loan

 

Casting: Jake Gyllenhall in the Stewart role, and as Harvey, the actor who played Frank in Donnie Darko.

 

Sure we do. Tom Hanks. Ok so maybe he is too busy being SUPER-SERIOUS-ACTOR-MAN! But we have seen him be just as lovable and charming as Stewart and make a simple minded man seem more innocent than crazy. And I am sure there are any number of actors out there that can do the job just as well. I've seen Jim Carrey do some terrific riffs as the leading character (though they were always Stewart impressions which would be all kinds of wrong for the film). So its not impossible.

Plus its Spielberg, a man who defines childlike innocence and wonder in the body of an adult.

I am actually really looking forward to this one. Even if its terrible it won't ruin the original for me, but cast the right lead and with Spielberg at the helm I have faith they will do a fantastic job.

 

He probably will cast Hanks in the Stewart role

 

Spider-Fan, you really think Hanks has anything on Stewart's charm? Let alone Carrey being any kind of substitute for James Stewart, which even on his best day (which is probably Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind)... just no.

I have always respected your opinion, but I believe that extra hyphen has ruined you.

Harvey is a great film that has no need to be remade.

 

No film needs to be remade. But they will be anyways. Nothing can be done about it 'cept not go see it.

Hanks has always had a great charm tempered with dramatic chops. His early comedic work remains some of the best stuff from the 80s. His turn in BIG took a premise that could easily have been terrible and has made the whole thing memorable. And can you honestly hear his voice in Toy Story and not be charmed? Like his films or not, he remains capable of comedic roles as the straight-man, the absent-minded well-meaning fool (Forrest Gump, The Terminal etc) but can turn powerful memorable Oscar worthy performances (Philedalphie, SPR etc) Ok so he may not be Jimmy Stewart, frankly no one can be. But he is still capable of being that simple, lovable Dowd we all love.

I would also like to point out that I am not the first person to make the comparison between Hanks and Stewart either.

And I wasn't stating that Carrey could be a substitute for Stewart (I was establishing that he pulls off the role of Elwood rather well right down to the sparkle in his eye) but he too is quite capable of balancing charm and seriousness. It drives me crazy that people only ever remember him for his Mask-like performances and point out Eternal Sunshine as an exception in his work, when his talent reaches far beyond either film. He is far more talented than people give him credit for.

 

Or who did so until 1993, at least.

 

I think its still there, he's just tackling more serious stuff as of the last 15+ years. I still see that same sense of childlike wonder in AI and The Terminal.

 

Which are two of his worst efforts in the post-Schindler era. When he can bring the feeling back in a GOOD movie, I'll concede the point.

 

Thats a matter of opinion, not fact. Some would say that everything he has done post-Schindler was terrible. And between Tin Tin and Harvey I would say his inner-child is still going strong. Then again I have yet to see a Spielberg film I didn't enjoy on some level.

 

I still like most of the stuff Spielberg does, and I'm pretty sure people just complain about him because he's popular.

S-F, did I not mention Hanks? I meant to say it seemed likely Hanks would get the role and that he might be the only person who could pull it off (not just acting-wise, because I'm sure there are many actors who could pull off the acting. But any Stewart film plays on the fact that he's *Jimmy Stewart*.) But still, I just don't have a feeling that it's going to be very good. I'm just not sure it would work in today's world. Not to mention, it's a short film and needs to be, and if they make it longer, I'm not sure what they'll add.

It's a moot point, though. Because Hanks said that he's not doing it, according to Variety. He passed without even reading the script. Probably a smart move.

But S-F, I actually don't agree that *no* movie needs to be remade. Mediocre or just bad movies with good premises can definitely be reworked into better takes now (see: Shop Around the Corner -> You've Got Mail). It's not unreasonable, and a lot of the time few ever realize they're remakes because no one cares about the originals. However, good, solid films to GREAT films shouldn't be remade.

 

My point wasn't that good movies can't come from a remake, but that the world will survive without them. Its not entirely necessary to make them, but that won't stop Hollywood from doing so and it doesn't eliminate the possibility of them being good off hand. I don't agree that all remakes are necesarily bad outright, despite a majority of failures, but when it comes right down to it they still don't need to be remade. The world will be no worse of for not having seen it be redone.

It bothers me that people state something shouldn't be done, when it really has zero effect on them or their lives. I see it all the time on the internet, armchair critics getting up in arms about a movie not even made because the simple principle of something they love being touched and possibly being ruined. What i don't understand is how if can possibly be ruined or tarnished? The original still exists as is and if you don't want a sequel/prequel/remake/reboot/etc then don't watch it. It doesn't have to effect you. In the case of remakes the original can still exist as is, untouched, untarnished. And if anything a remake can spark interest in seeing the original in someone who hasn't previously had any interest.

Case in point Dawn of the Dead. I had zero interest in zombie films once upon a time, thought they were low budget, low brow excuses for gore and cheap horror. But I found myself bored with cash to spare and was near a theater after work and had seen everything else that was showing. I left actually having enjoyed the film. It wasn't the best but it was interesting enough to get me curious about the original...and from their my eyes were opened to a whole new world I had never previously explored, and now I have an obsession with Romeroesque zombie films and stories of a similar nature (ie 28 Days Later which you and I have talked about at length).

So while the remake pales in comparison it wasn't a total loss and introduced to me to something new. Remakes may not necesarily live up to the original but they can still serve a purpose.

With Harvey I see a similar situation. I love the original and always will. The existence of a remake can never change that for me in any regard, and there is always the possibility that I might end up loving the remake as well. Perhaps I am the odd man out but I don't see the need for the default cynicism so many adopt at the mere announcement of these things.

 

Well *no* film *needs* to be made. Very little that ever happens *needs* to happen. So that's kind of a silly distinction to make

And actually, the remake obsession *does* affect me personally. As a filmmaker, of course it affects me if Hollywood gets overly obsessed with remakes to the exclusion of original stories or new adaptations.

Still, I understand your point. The thing is, though, most people won't see the original. Many never know there is an original. And if they do, they often think 'oh, but I don't want to watch an old movie'. It's sad but a true state of affairs. Which still, doesn't really affect the original. But regardless, it does affect the industry to have doomed remakes being made. I'm not saying this one necessarily is, but if it's a case where the remake doesn't have a hope of being better than the original, I don't get the point of remaking it in the first place.