Spielberg remakes Harvey
- Thread starter Lonemagpie
- Start date
Oh, Too Much - you're breaking my heart here! This is almost as shocking as my declaration that I'm not that crazy about McCoy! 
But even if you don't like Jimmy Stewart, come on - "anything" won't be an improvement. I can think of some pretty horrible things that someone could do to even a movie I don't like, and I know you can, too.
But you really might want to give Harvey a try - before it's too late. It's not the usual Jimmy Stewart movie by a long shot. It's not the standard movie by a long shot.
But even if you don't like Jimmy Stewart, come on - "anything" won't be an improvement. I can think of some pretty horrible things that someone could do to even a movie I don't like, and I know you can, too.
But you really might want to give Harvey a try - before it's too late. It's not the usual Jimmy Stewart movie by a long shot. It's not the standard movie by a long shot.
Sure since the rabbit is, y'know, invisible.
They can have it both ways- it does appear at the very end of the movie, after all
I was really hoping Spielberg would turn his attention to Interstellar, the sci-fi flick he's developing with Dark Knight writer Jonathan Nolan. Oh, well.
I just hope that Speilberg doesn't "dag" it. (dag = to do a remake but make it "Darker And Grittier" than the original.)
--Ted
--Ted
Meh.
Hollywood has been remaking since the beginning. Nothing new. It just brings more appreciation for the original. No sense in complaining about it. It been done countless times and the originals survive, more popular than ever. No ones forcing us to watch. There are tons of good orginal movies to chose from every year. There will always be remakes.
The idea that Hollywood (and other mediums, i.e. theatre's liberal re-use of Shakesperean material) has been remaking films and producing multiple versions from similar or the same source material is a sensible argument against a lot of the knee-jerk reactions that I've read. But, on the other hand, I wonder what the ratio of remakes, adaptations, and originals is today compared to cinema fifty years ago. Moreover, I wonder what the ratio is when it comes to films that are given the largest budgets. Are things as stagnant as the argument suggests, or, has Hollywood really shifted away from original material?
And, as a follow-up question, has the time between films and their remakes grown shorter recently than in the past? I suspect, knowing of three versions of The Maltese Falcon produced in relative short order (1931, 1936, 1941) that the answer is no, but that is, I admit, only one example.
And, as a follow-up question, has the time between films and their remakes grown shorter recently than in the past? I suspect, knowing of three versions of The Maltese Falcon produced in relative short order (1931, 1936, 1941) that the answer is no, but that is, I admit, only one example.
Now I'm picturing Harvey as the rabbit from Donnie Darko.
Tom Hanks would be perfect.
Oh it will be Hanks alright. Spielberg doesn't seem to work with anyone else these days.
JustKate said:
Sorry, but seriously, the guy annoys the hell out of me with his voice and his body language. If you want to know what I mean, watch the episodes of "The Simpsons" called "Bart of Darkness" and "The P.T.A Disbands" (both season 6) where one of the actors does a spot-on parody imitation of him.
But even though him being a lead generally turns me off a movie, I have to admit the guy had good taste in what movies he picked to appear in. The two big ones I haven't seen are "Harvey" and "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington". I heard they're excellent, but Jimmy keeps me from pulling the trigger on seeing them.
I just think any movies he was in that I liked were good in spite of him, not because of him. I didn't like "Rear Window", but while I did enjoy "It's A Wonderful Life", "The Philadelphia Story", and "Vertigo", I do think those movies would have been just as good, if not better with someone else in the lead role.
I could see Hanks in a role like this. Could be far worse, that's for sure.
