A STAR IS BORN REMAKE!!!

Bradley Cooper in talks to Direct and Lead A STAR IS BORN opposite Beyonce? Thoughts??
A STAR IS BORN REMAKE

---

What a terrible idea. They already remade it twice. One was great, the other terrible.

There's three versions. The best one with Janet Gaynor, then the Judy, then the Barbra.

I'm slowly getting sick of Bradley Cooper and the less we see of Beyoncé acting, the better.

---

Thank God Eastwood is gone after Jersey Boys he shouldn't be allowed to touch another musical ever again.

Updated On: 3/24/15 at 08:46 PM

As with anything on a forum your opinion is just as valid as mine so no hate on my behalf. :)

"There's three versions."

Four, actually. There's also a Bollywood film with plot similarities, if you want to count it.

What Price Hollywood?

Updated On: 3/24/15 at 10:04 PM

We enjoyed Jersey Boys as well.

---

If possible.

"Thoughts??"

This is not me being snarky. I seriously had to check the date when I saw the headline because I thought it was an April Fool's Day joke. I've only seen the Judy Garland version and I'm not precious about the property but nothing about this sounds like a good idea.

Pippin, go and learn something about "A Star Is Born" and get back to us.

Can you imagine if the internet existed back in the day what people would have posted about the Garland/Mason version.

I could see it now: "Noooo!!! No one can top Janet Gaynor!! NO ONE!!"

"This remake is so unnecessary, the original is PERFECT, so why bother?"

"Judy Garland?!! Isn't she too old for the part? She has too many personal problems. I don't see her getting through it."

"They're adding music?!! Ugh, they're just going to ruin the whole story!!! If it ain't broke don't fix it!"

"Let's start an online protest to get this stopped!"

#TeamJanetGaynorVersion


....and the beat goes on...

Updated On: 3/25/15 at 05:38 AM

Bravo, Carlos!

Noname, What Price Hollywood? you mentioned, perhaps, a typo, was a Bollywood movie. It's not. It's the 1932 Constance Bennett movie with plot similarities so blatant that its director, George Cukor, refused the offer to direct the "first" 1937 A Star is Born, although decades later he accepted the offer to direct the Garland-Mason remake.

Yes, "What Price, Hollywood?" is the unofficial first version of this story.

The 1937 "Star Is Born" with Gaynor and March is the first official version.

Garland's was a remake.

Streisand's was a remake.

So this new incarnation will either be the fourth or fifth go-around, depending on how you keep score.

In my opinion, they have all gone progressively downhill in degrees from the 1937 film.

Garland's performance is terrific, but the camera spends way too much time on her pitying Norman and herself, and the film is bloated and melodramatic (even Douglas Sirk would cringe). My grandfather worked on this version. It was his last film at Warner Bros. after a 30-year career there as VP.

The reason the Gaynor version is best has to do with May Robson as Grandma. She's in the opening scene, Esther's only family member who believes in her. Then at the end of the film, she comes back and emotionally "slaps" Gaynor awake in a snap-out-of-it moment that grounds the film and moves it out of self-pity and morose tears. Thank GOD. She puts the story and Esther's life and career into perspective. None of the other films have that, and none of the other films are anywhere near as good, as a result.

---