Hacker, SASS #55963 Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 The True Grit starring the only Rooster Cogburn is on AMC tonight at 8pm EST. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowboy Junky Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 They are both real....that's just the first one on film from the book.But you do have to like the Duke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Montana, SASS #23907 Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 Been tryin' to get to the theater since the movie came out and finally got there. Just got home in fact. I liked the movie, but I would say they are vastly different. The John Wayne movie was about Rooster Cogburn helping a girl catch her father's killer. The Jeff Bridges movie was about a girl trying to catch her father's killer and enlisting the help of whomever she could, in this case Reubin Cogburn. I liked them both, but I like the first one best. Cinematography of the 21st century was better though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hacker, SASS #55963 Posted March 1, 2011 Author Share Posted March 1, 2011 As I recall from the original, "Rooster" was merely his nickname while Reuben was his given name. IMDB reference of Rooster Cogburn The Rooster Cogburn character entry in imdb is pointed to by both movies. So there is no difference in name. Same guy. Wikipedia has it as Reuben J "Rooster" Cogburn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Utah Bob #35998 Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 Been tryin' to get to the theater since the movie came out and finally got there. Just got home in fact. I liked the movie, but I would say they are vastly different. The John Wayne movie was about Rooster Cogburn helping a girl catch her father's killer. The Jeff Bridges movie was about a girl trying to catch her father's killer and enlisting the help of whomever she could, in this case Reubin Cogburn. I liked them both, but I like the first one best. Cinematography of the 21st century was better though. In that respect, the new movie is more in line with the excellent book. It was always difficult to make a film with John Wayne that he didn't dominate by the strength of his Dukeness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SGT. QUINCANNON, SASS #32999 Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 I believe the "real" Rooster Cogburn died in about 1903 or therabouts. If a fictional character can be called real at all, that is. Why is John Wayne's portrayal more "real" than Jeff Bridges? Or Warren Oates, for that matter. Bet a lot of people didn't know that Warren Oates played Rooster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hacker, SASS #55963 Posted March 2, 2011 Author Share Posted March 2, 2011 Sgt, For me, most of the remakes are less than the original movie. Don't matter who plays who. I just like the original better. Besides in this case John Wayne makes and defines, for me, the character of "Rooster" Cogburn. The remake may be a fine movie but it is not the original. In many remakes the acting is not up to the original and the lines appear to be forced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red River Ray SASS#33254 Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 I love em both an fixen ta watch it now. RRR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hacker, SASS #55963 Posted March 2, 2011 Author Share Posted March 2, 2011 Obviously, and for the record, ANY western is better than any sitcom, reality show and most everything else. Few exceptions! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Utah Bob #35998 Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 Sgt, For me, most of the remakes are less than the original movie. Don't matter who plays who. I just like the original better. Besides in this case John Wayne makes and defines, for me, the character of "Rooster" Cogburn. The remake may be a fine movie but it is not the original. In many remakes the acting is not up to the original and the lines appear to be forced. It is not a remake of the original move. It is a film adaptation of the novel. The producers have made that clear. Both stand on their own merits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hacker, SASS #55963 Posted March 2, 2011 Author Share Posted March 2, 2011 UB, The creators of a movie would rather start from a book then a movie. So since they both start from a book then they appear EQUAL. Yet the 2nd one has the first one to be compared to and learn from. You are right and I agree they both stand on their own merits. Yet I still like the first one more and always consider it to be the real movie. The 2nd one I consider to be a remake, a forgery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dog Ears Wilson, SASS #77948 Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 In that respect, the new movie is more in line with the excellent book. It was always difficult to make a film with John Wayne that he didn't dominate by the strength of his Dukeness. Don't want to hijack the thread, but up until the ending, I felt the original was closer to the plot line of the book than the remake. Both are good films, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdgun Quail, SASS #63663 Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 I liked the Jeff Bridges version better than the John Wayne version, which was good. The book was best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Woodrow Cahill, SASS # 54363 Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 Bet a lot of people didn't know that Warren Oates played Rooster. Yep - a made-for-TV movie that was also the pilot episode for what was supposed to be a TV series. It didn't get picked up unfortunately. Might have been pretty good. In keeping with his attempts to turn movies into TV series, he also once played Charlie Allnut - the Humphrey Bogart character in The African Queen - when they tried to turn that into a small screen show as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marshal Max Henry Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 The wife can only take so many "Cowboy" movies so i had to record it. Cant wait to watch when she is gone i have never seen it. LOved the new one. I dont know why but i have been watching a lot of stuff (interviews and such) of the Duke and I never really liked the old movies but i am going to give them a chance because I respect John Wayne so much. He seems like a down to earth guy, Gun activist and such I see why people who grew up with him fight for his versions so hard. The man had class and a huge stage presence. I have a whole slew of movies to watch now. hehe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Gauntlet , SASS 60619 Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 John Wayne was in some good movies. I'd never seen any of them until I started with SASS, even though I was born in 1948, but I went back and watched a lot of classic Westerns, including his, when I got interested in CAS. A lot of his movies were better than I expected them to be, and he was a better actor than he is sometimes given credit for. My favorites, when all is said and done, are Stagecoach, The Searchers, and The Shootist, and there are some other real good ones. True Grit was pretty good, too. He was also, of course, a patriot and a very fine man. But I have never at all been able to understand the awed, idol status so many attribute to him, to the point that it is sacrilige to "remake" one of "his" movies. This always seems very strange to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hopalong Strong Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 I just watched the John Wayne one last night. It brought back fond memories of my childhood, watching it with my dad. Now I want to go out and see the new one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.