There’s no way to compare the Oscar chances of the Spielberg version compared to original multi-awarded WSS as the original was so awarded and I can’t think of anyone of his caliber taking on a movie of its caliber before. However...
The original True Grit was nominated for 2 Oscars (actor, song) and won for actor.
The Coen brothers version was nominated for 10 Oscars and won none. I could see something similar happening here except for maybe some technical awards. Both films are remakes (by well renowned award winning directors) of beloved classics although the original True Grit was less regarded/awarded than the original WSS. I’m not wishing it ill. I’m excited for it as well.
Of course, it’s all speculation right now. And we don’t know what the year will bring. I’d say none of the films nominated for best picture this year were on anyone’s radar last year this time.
Jeffrey Karasarides said: "But don't you think that if the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, thatthe movie itself should be left alone warts and all?"
In this case no. This is a different version they’re doing. We see revivals of these shows that reimagine them all the time, and this looks like an excellent reimagining.
And as much as I love the original movie, there’s a lot of warts. While cinematic, it often leans into being too theatrical, there’s far too much dubbing, a lot of the actors are extremely hammy, and there’s just so much brownface. The movie’s accomplishments overcome all this, but it’s all there and it’s very noticeable.
jacobsnchz14 said: "Jeffrey Karasarides said: "...warts and all?"
I love the film. Love it. But they brown-faced actors to try to look like us.
"
Yeah, Rita Moreno and George Chakiris’ performance are excellent and earned well deserved Oscars, but its really undercut by that awful brownface.
I can’t tell what’s worse actually, that Chakiris as a white man was browned up (along with Wood and all the other Puerto Ricans), or Moreno, as a woman ethnically correct for the part was still browned up.
NameGreg said: "Jeffrey Karasarides said: "But don't you think that if the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, thatthe movie itself should be left alone warts and all?"
In this case no. This is a different version they’re doing. We see revivals of these shows that reimagine them all the time, and this looks like an excellent reimagining."
But the difference there is that a great work can spend decades off the Broadway stage before it returns to dazzle a whole new generation of theatergoers. Conversely, movies live forever on the DVD shelf, or can be instantly accessed through streaming services. There's always a way to see them.
NameGreg said: "In this case no. This is a different version they’re doing. We see revivals of these shows that reimagine them all the time, and this looks like an excellent reimagining.
And as much as I love the original movie, there’s a lot of warts. While cinematic, it often leans into being too theatrical, there’s far too much dubbing, a lot of the actors are extremely hammy, and there’s just so much brownface. The movie’s accomplishments overcome all this, but it’s all there and it’s very noticeable."
This 100%. Also I would like to add that while I appreciate the original film on a technical level, I kind of believe that Robert Wise's next musical film The Sound of Music is superior to it in every way that it's not just my favorite musical film. It's my favorite film of all time.
Now if we were talking about the upcoming new film adaptation of Fiddler on the Roof directed by Thomas Kail, that actually remains to be seen.
Yeah I’m not really looking forward to a Fidler remake. The original film is a pretty perfect adaptation, staying quite loyal to the original (think there’s only one missing song) stage version while being very cinematic. It’s aged like a fine wine, I really don’t have any complaints for it.
I mean, I'm sure the new Fiddler on the Roof will be a good movie with Thomas Kail and screenwriter Steven Levenson on board. But I can't help to think that no matter what they do, it will probably fall into the shadow of the incredible 1971 film.
I agree it’ll likely be good, but there’s really just nothing to improve on or change from the original film.
I’m not very interested in the Little Shop of Horrors remake,, but I can see a creative use in doing it, as there’s a good deal of differences between the stage version and the original film, so this one could be a bit truer to the original vision. With Fiddler, I just don’t currently see a reason to do it again, and I can’t fathom it being better.
I never saw a version of Fiddler on the Roof before. I do like some of the songs from it. Being Catholic myself, stories about Jewish characters don’t usually appeal to me.
Personally, I don't get mad or upset whenever a remake, readaptation, reimagining, etc is announced and made. I like seeing reinterpretations of stories. We get revivals, so why can't we embrace movie re-adaptations? The original films will always be there, and you don't have to watch the new movies. We readapt Shakespeare, Austen, Dickens, etc. Why can't the same be for film? Also, I wasn't born when the original West Side Story or Mary Poppins were released. It has been thrilling watching these classic musicals get reinvented in my lifetime. Finally, similar to the Disney live-action remakes, I love seeing stories delve deeper than what their originals did. I loved that the Cinderella remake spent the first 25 minutes or so basically being backstory by explaining Cinderella's childhood, how her parents influenced her personality, how she came to have a stepmother, and how she became a scullery maid, while the original movie told all that in a 2 minute prologue.
All that to say is I think it's fine for old works to be remade again. The new Little Women was so good, the Lindsay Lohan Parent Trap is pretty much a classic, and I hope this West Side Story retelling will be its own classic one day.
Well here's my take on this whole thing: if there is a creator/director/studio out there with a vision and a raison d'etre for doing a new film adaptation, or adapting something for the first time on film, of any work then I am 100% on board. But there is a reason to be cautious and to wait until more info can be revealed because no one knows necessarily why a creator or studio would want to do something again when it was done so extremely well the first time around. But once more info comes out, then it becomes clear.
As for West Side Story 2021, I am 100% on board with this new film adaptation because Steven Spielberg seems to have the vision and raison d'etre to pull this off. I guess we'll know soon if it all pays off come December 10th.
NameGreg said: "^ There’s a lot more to the show than the characters’ religion, same with any decent story examining a specific group."
Thank you for providing an answer that is about a million times less caustic than I could muster.
I AM Jewish, and have enjoyed stories about all sorts of people regardless of their religion, because we are human.
If we're not having fun, then why are we doing it?
These are DISCUSSION boards, not mutual admiration boards. Discussion only occurs when we are willing to hear what others are thinking, regardless of whether it is alignment to our own thoughts.
BwayLB said: "What I said last night about Anita, what I hope for is if her role is getting expanded, I hope she gets the closure she deserves."
Really don’t think Anita needs a new ending, her’s is already a strong final scene. She’s nearly raped after her boyfriend has just been murdered, it makes sense that she’s done with everyone else’s **** and leaves. It’s a tragic story, and her ending is suitably tragic.
If she shows up to witness Maria's ending breakdown, that will be fine. If the film wants to keep Anita's original exit, that will be fine too. Works either way.
A fictional character doesn't NEED closure. That's a psychological or human need. It's not like "Anita" is sitting in hospital bed somewhere, rocking, because she didn't get closure.
If we're not having fun, then why are we doing it?
These are DISCUSSION boards, not mutual admiration boards. Discussion only occurs when we are willing to hear what others are thinking, regardless of whether it is alignment to our own thoughts.
Mentioning Spielberg doing additional musicals, I still think he’d make for a great cinematic director of Hadestown. I know he saw it, I believe he did so in preparation for directing this project.
In such a scenario, I could see Zegler as Eurydice. Don’t know about the others, frankly I’m not too interested in anyone playing Hades, Persephone, and Hermes than Patrick Page, Amber Gray, and André De Shields.
Musical Master said: "NameGreg said: "In this case no. This is a different version they’re doing. We see revivals of these shows that reimagine them all the time, and this looks like an excellent reimagining.
And as much as I love the original movie, there’s a lot of warts. While cinematic, it often leans into being too theatrical, there’s far too much dubbing, a lot of the actors are extremely hammy, and there’s just so much brownface. The movie’s accomplishments overcome all this, but it’s all there and it’s very noticeable."
This 100%. Also I would like to add that while I appreciate the original film on a technical level, I kind of believe that Robert Wise's next musical film The Sound of Music is superiorto it in every way that it's not just my favorite musical film. It's my favorite film of all time.
Now if we were talking about the upcoming new film adaptation of Fiddler on the Roof directed by Thomas Kail, that actually remains to be seen."
whoa whoa whoa-a new Fiddler??? When was that announced and why??? It’s so unnecessary!