This should be illegal.....

[Merelan]

http://www.killermovies.com/h/harvey/articles/2875.html

That's just not right....

 

[SweetCherry]

When I was in high school, my drama club did that play. Somehow, Travolta doesn't seem right in the part, if you ask me.

 

[Lost Cause]

Absofuckinglutely!

It should be illegal!

I know the end is near when they redo "Singing in the Rain" and "It's a Wonderful Life."

Fucking all the originality has been played out, every situation, now all that's left is to feed on the bodies of the real classics!

Parasites.

 

[Merelan]

I wasn't the remaking so much as who was playing Dowd. Geesh, of all the "incredible" talent out there... Travolta??? Holy crap.

A few years ago they did a tv version with Harry Anderson of Night Court in the lead, I can see that. Not that I saw the version, but he could pull it off. But Travolta?

I feel ill.

 

[Lost Cause]

I agree.....

There's very few actors that can handle the straight role in that movie.

 

[BgMma]

Travolta should shot to save the rest of us the horror of seeing his name.

 

[crappie master]

Well I like Travolta (ducks for cover)

but I think Tom Hanks would be a much better choice to play any role made famous by Jimmy Stewart.

 

[BgMma]

YES! Tom Hanks would be much better.

 

[Eumenides]

Dustin Hoffman could play it. Or Kevin Spacey. And no matter how good they might be, it would never compare to Jimmy Stewart. Some things are just too good to try and recreate.

 

[BgMma]

I do agree with that. Sometimes the original is the best, no matter which way you slice it.

 

[kotori]

I like Travolta too (New Jerseyans unite!). He can do light commedy (anyone remember "Barbarino"? I mean that's where he got his start). What about "Michael"?

 

[Eumenides]

Actually, he does have a certain Dowdness to him. I think it would be hard to get through a film without that all-knowing smirk, of his.

Hi, kotori.

 

[kotori]

G'mornin', Eu.

Yeah, it's kinda funny, the disconnect between Theatre and Film. In Theatre, it's almost expected that works will be reinterpreted generation after generation--in Film, it's as though it's cast in stone, not celluloid. I hope the setting is contemporary, and not period--I think that would be a mistake.

 

[sweet soft kiss]

It's bad... it's evil... it's wrong...

But It's not as bad... or as evil... or as wrong as Adam Sandler standing in for Gary Cooper in Mr. Deeds...

The only compensation was that the movie BOMBED... Big Time

 

[Bogey77]

I look at it this way:

If a movie/song is good enough to be re-made, it shouldn't be re-made.

I really doubt you can improve on anything Jimmy Stewart did.

 

[The Heretic]

Actually, I think Travolta could pull it off - he does have a good range of characters he can play - but I will agree that Tom Hanks would be better, I just doubt he would take it; he has played comedy much of his life and now seems to want to do drama (I think he "Castaway" will go down as a classic).

 

[The Heretic]

I look at it this way:

If a movie/song is good enough to be re-made, it shouldn't be re-made.

I really doubt you can improve on anything Jimmy Stewart did.

Maybe, but not necessarily; a number of classics have been redone well; take a look at "Twelve Angry Men" - I have seen both movie versions, both were excellent and both were remakes (there was the TV original and I think a play too). There are a number of other classics that were redone well, although I will say that because Hollywood tends to lack originality and do remakes because they are too lazy and cheap to do something original and correctly, remakes often lack the quality of the original. If they choose to tackle the project properly then it tends to be well done.