True Grit

tn_truegritThis movie’s gettin a squeeze of the ol’ limelight again on account of the Minnesota Coens are doing another version of the same book.

In this first version John Wayne plays U.S. Marshall Reuben “Rooster” Cogburn, who everybody talks about as a mean old bastard but let’s be honest, he’s really a lovably eccentric curmudgeon. I mean even if he says no at first it doesn’t take a whole lot to convince him to go on a bounty hunt with a 15 year old rich girl. And then he doesn’t rob her or slap her around or anything. In fact the big turning point in the story is when the Texas Ranger who’s going along tries to spank the girl with a switch, Rooster decides to put his foot down and enforce an anti-spanking policy.

I see plenty of room for Coen humor here with Mattie Ross, the spanking victim in question who hires Rooster to catch her father’s killer. She has a Barton Fink sense of entitlement (“My family owns property and I want to know why I’m being treated this way!”) and her repitition of the word “grit” (“I’m looking for someone with grit,” “I hear he has grit?” “Is this what you in Fort Smith call grit? Back in Yell County we have a different word for it,” etc.) would be right at home in any Coens movie.

mp_truegritMattie is played by Kim Darby (you know, the professor from TEEN WOLF TOO) and she was in her early 20s, but her gestures and SOUND OF MUSIC haircut make her believable as a teenage nerd of the old west. Some of my buddies complain that she’s too old, but I can’t lie, I thought she was a young boy in the first scene. Not an adult woman. So it worked for me. To me Mattie is a really funny character – I’m sure she’s too annoying for some people, but I think the way she takes charge, seemingly oblivious to why somebody like her doesn’t belong on the trail of outlaws and killers, is kind of endearing. Rooster first hates her, but starts to call her “baby sister” and be protective of her. It’s sweet how he grows to really like her. But he never says, “Baby sis, you have grit,” even though that’s obviously the compliment she’s fishing for. She wants to have grit. She tries.

Wayne won an Oscar for this. Conventional wisdom says it was rewarding him for his career, not for that specific role. But that’s not giving the performance enough credit – this was a huge stretch. Rooster is a totally different character for Wayne because he wears an eyepatch. Only one eye, but John Wayne in real life had two (I looked it up). What a chameleon!

Okay, so it’s just John Wayne with an eyepatch, but I gotta say I really like this character. He’s a feared marshal known for having shot a high number of suspects. He lives with a Chinese shop owner named Chen Lee (who he chastises for not knowing the language since he doesn’t know the word “lustrum”) and a cat named General Sterling Price (who he considers a roommate, not a pet). He likes to bicker, but he’s a big old softie. He’s always outnumbered, always having to shout over hills pretending to have a whole posse with him, and yet he’d prefer to work alone. And he trusts the little girl more than the Texas Ranger. (I guess he could throw her farther.)

Although his name is Cheney the guy who killed Mattie’s father is not exactly the terror of the old west. He’s just a dumb drunk who shot Mr. Ross for trying to keep him out of trouble. Luckily he’s running with Lucky Ned Pepper (Robert Duvall), a guy Rooster would like to get his hands on. Rooster shot Ned in the lip once and would like to take care of the rest of him.

I talked to a couple people who had seen this and told me it was terrible. I guess I understand. It’s a corny old style western – director Henry Hathaway was 71 years old and had been directing westerns since 1932, and here he is doing the same thing five years after FISTFUL OF DOLLARS played westerns like Jimi played the Star Spangled Banner. But I don’t care, I enjoyed it for these two goofy characters bouncing off each other. And it has some of those odd, unexpected moments I watch movies for. When Mattie finally comes face to face with Chaney he tries to play the part of the villain, but he’s too pathetic to do a good job. She’s ceremonial about it, she rattles off the crimes he’s responsible for. And he whines, “I been through all that and now I’m shot by a child!” Like he’s begging for someone to feel sorry for him. “Everything is against me!” he keeps crying. The poor baby.

After watching the movie I read the book by Charles Portis, which I was assured was way better. Well, it’s a great book, but I was surprised how faithful the movie is. I mean, especially back then alot of movies would just take the basic idea and characters of a novel and then go off to movieland. For example the movie of Elmore Leonard’s THE BIG BOUNCE (“The second worst movie of all time” –Elmore Leonard) came out that same year, and so did THE MAGIC CHRISTIAN (which was co-headlined by Ringo Starr as a character not even in the book by Terry Southern). TRUE GRIT stays very close to the original storyline and pretty much all the great lines are straight out of the book. I didn’t get the sense that Rooster was meaner than in the movie. It’s the same deal – they tell you what a drunk he is, but he’s never a violent drunk or an angry one. He doesn’t have any amends to make or anything.

There are two areas where I think the Coens will be more faithful though. #1, the book is told from the perspective of a grown-up Mattie looking back, and we already know that they’ll be following that for the movie. So we’ll probly get some of the funny narration and some of the things she mentioned that take place later on, some of them tying in to Rooster’s past as a Confederate soldier. (I never said he was a role model.) #2, the climactic scene that takes place in a pit full of snakes is more harrowing in the book, in ways that would’ve been difficult to film in the ’60s but not so much now. So there’s probly gonna be a couple shocks there that could be classic cinematic moments for the ages.

I don’t know how good the Coens version will be (I’m guessing very) or how beloved Jeff Bridges’ version of Rooster will be. But this could definitely come back as a franchise, even without Bridges. I am speaking of course of THE WAR JOURNALS OF GENERAL STERLING PRICE, which could be a syndicated TV series of stories from the perspective of Rooster Cogburn’s cat roommate. But it takes place during the civil war, before he met Rooster, leading up to when he saves Chen Lee’s life. It would have all kinds of knowing historic cameos like John Brown, Dr. Samuel Mudd, Frederick Douglass, etc. as seen through the unique feline perspective. Also I think maybe the cat should have an eyepatch this time, and there should be an annoying kitten that he has to help.

This entry was posted on Sunday, April 11th, 2010 at 11:45 pm and is filed under Reviews, Western. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

41 Responses to “True Grit”

  1. Good review Vern, and great poster you’ve dug up. John Wayne did actually make a sequel, simply called
    Rooster Cogburn, in which he provides escort to Katherine Hepburn, a minister’s daughter who wants to bring her father’s killers to justice.
    It contains a lot more comedy than True Grit and Rooster takes along a gattling gun to good effect!

    I hadn’t heard that the Coen’s were doing this but sounds excellent, and Jeff Bridges would make an excellent Rooster Cogburn.

  2. Saw this a couple of months back and liked it. It was weird seeing such a young Dennis Hopper in this at one point, and jeez, did Robert Duvall EVER have a full head of hair?

  3. I saw this a long time ago, i don’t remember much of this, but i liked it, and Wayne had great lines.

  4. I just recently had a discussion about actors who don’t change much from film to film, but still work great. Y’know there are these chameleons like Johnny Depp or Jeffrey Combs who are not afraid of changing their whole appereance and going all kinds of crazy, where other actors would play it save, and then there are actors who are accused (often rightfully) of always playing the same character, like Denzel Washingon or Jack Nicholson (or John Wayne).
    We came to the result that “always the same character” is acceptable if you are either great in showing convincing emotions and selling your lines to the audience without taking them out of the movie (like Denzel) or have a huge assload of charisma (like Jack Nicholson, Clint, Sean Connery or John Wayne).
    I forgot now what I really wanted to say, but I’m sure it all came down to “Some actors don’t have to be chameleons”.

  5. David Lynch should do the cat-centric prequel series. He hasn’t done much on television in a while, and could use a good hit series to apologize for Twin Peaks.

  6. Movies that are nothing like the book: The Bourne franchise could not be further from the Ludlum novels if they tried. Which maybe they did. That’s not a complaint, just an observation.

    I don’t know, I’m sort of bummed to see the Coens doing a remake, even if they are going to Coen-itize it. I’d just rather see them making actual Cone Brothers movies, as opposed to Coen brothers versions of other peoples movies. Do you know what I mean?

    Plus having read the book that they are supposedly doing an adaptation of, Michael Chabon’s “The Yiddish Policemen’s Union, I think they potentially have a masterpiece on their hands. So I’d rather see that.

  7. Brendan

    I saw their version of the ‘The Lady Killers’. I know exactly what you mean…

    Anyways I always really enjoyed this one, not my favorite Wayne movie (that would be Quiet Man) but one I always go back and watch.

  8. Why does David Lynch need to apologize for Twin Peaks?

  9. There is one certainty as great as gravity: Jeff Bridges will do a much better acting job then John Wayne. As a screen presence, he’s legendary, as an actor he was not only terribly limited but also over-rated. An icon, not an actor.

  10. David Lynch appologising for TWIN PEAKS? He should be damn proud, both TV show and movie. Were i a filmmaker, i would kill Michael Bay and burn his carcass as a sacrifice to the gods of cinema for the privilege and honour of having TWIN PEAKS TV show and movie in my CV.

  11. Brendan – I take your point, though I get kinda picky when it comes to this stuff = making an adaptation of a book that has been adapted previously shouldn’t really be considered a remake. They want to make a film of the book, the fact it’s been adapted before shouldn’t really be an issue or considered a waste of their talents.

    I got around to watching Raising Arizona a few months ago (fantastic) so I’ve now seen the Coen’s entire filmography. It’s kinda sad to reach that point, they’re some of my favourite directors, and knowing that I’ll just have to wait every few years for another Coen Bros. film is sad. Favourite Coen’s film? For me it’s ‘The Man Who Wasn’t There’ or ‘Miller’s Crossing’.

    As for Wayne I’ve actually never seen any of his weterns, he’s a strange figure, kind of accepted as being not a great actor, but people still love his films. I’m going to pick up Stagecoach or The Searchers at some point as they’re talked highly of.

  12. They could remake Young Guns II for all I care. A Coen Brothers western with Jeff Bridges in it is something I want to see.

  13. GoodBadGroovy- I’m not saying that that’s not an option, I’m much more lenient on remakes and reboots and reupdates then other people. Shit, I’m halfway through Battlestar Galactica, I better be cool with it.

    It’s just, the Coens have been talking about their ideas for a Western for years and it sounded insanely fucked up awesome, like a Cormac McCarthy book that he never thought to write. So to see them dump that and instead work off old matireal, it’s a bummer to me. Yes, Jeff Bridges will rock, and the movie will have my opening day money, but I still can’t be behind it 100%.

  14. GoodBadGroovy – you don’t have to wait a few years for the Coens, that’s the best part about them (well actually the best part would be how great their movies are). They make a movie pretty much every year now. They kinda took a break after Ladykillers, remembered how awesome they could be, and haven’t really let up since then.

  15. Jareth Cutestory

    April 12th, 2010 at 8:23 am

    Another idea for a spin-off television show: TEENAGE NERDS OF THE OLD WEST.

    Sabreman: Apologize for TWIN PEAKS? Say what? The dude should get a medal for enduring the network’s attempt to ruin that show. Not to mention how they screwed over his two other attempts to make something for television, ON THE AIR and MULHOLLAND DRIVE. I think it’s safe to say that Lynch is done with television.

  16. Brendan – I think you’re forgetting that the Coens have already made a great western.

    They won the Oscar for it.

  17. Also guys don’t forget that Coens’ TRUE GRIT w/ Bridges has also casted Matt Damon and Josh Brolin.

    Can’t wait for Christmas. When we’ll also get TRON LEGACY, which could be decent. I mean Two Bridges for…well, the price of two Bridges. Bridges aren’t cheap.

  18. Jareth Cutestory

    April 12th, 2010 at 9:04 am

    RRA: What is it about TRON that interests you most? Not being snarky; I really don’t understand the whole TRON thing.

  19. I came to Tron late in life, so there’s no nostalgia in my love of it. it’s one of those subversive, Verhovian anti-establishment message movies smuggled into a sci-fi adventure popcorn flick that are so popular round these parts. I’m hoping the new one will have more of the same, but if it’s just awesome neon speeder bikes and a double dose of the Dude then I’ll be cool with that too.

  20. Jareth Cutestory – Mr. M has it hit on the head to a point, but I would also add that I do respect in terms of FX storytelling how much those guys did while virtually in the dark and not really doing what the hell they were doing. It’s not like AVATAR where you have instant rough draft feedback on the CGI. Back then the “CGI” could only be seen done after the fact. So if it sucked, you’re screwed.

    But besides the FX pioneering, I’m impressed still with how well cut that whole lightcycle race sequence is. Especially considering this was back when they didn’t yet figure out how to combine CGI and live-action footage together in the same frame. Watch it again on youtube, and you’ll notice that little problem they worked around it.

    So yeah, basically AVATAR of its time in the FX department, with thin story to boot.

    As for LEGACY, I’m just intrigued to see where that 1982 analog world be in 2010 digital times.

  21. I haven’t seen the original Tron yet, but I’m sure I’ll like it. That trailer for Tron Legacy just really sells it, and I’ve heard the story is kind of like Apocalypse Now in a computer. I haven’t much warmed up to 3D yet, but this seems like a movie that’ll actually use it to draw us into the world, which is maybe why the original Tron had problems finding an audience…

    Also, that Dragon movie used 3D pretty well too, I must say.

  22. vern;
    red sun aka soleil rouge.
    this is important.

  23. edc: https://outlawvern.com/2005/01/01/red-sun/

    Majestyk: Wait, where do you see Verhoeven in that movie? Is it because the bad guy is a corporation?

    I don’t get the Tron thing. Of course it’s a brilliant piece of design and effects work, but I couldn’t get past the ridiculous premise of people living inside a computer. A little too Osmosis Jones for my tastes. And I think it’s kind of funny that the Modern Geek is expected to be filled with patriotic zeal by watching a feature length attack on Star Wars part 2 but to also believe the original TRON and CLASH OF THE TITANS are untouchable masterpieces.

    And hopefully that doesn’t turn this into Tron central but I’m gonna post a ROOSTER COGBURN review anyway as backup.

  24. The Verhovian element that I see in Tron is basically that Tron himself is a heroic suicide bomber. I don’t know, maybe I was overreaching. But when I finally got around to watching it for the first time a few years ago I saw all kinds of allegories and shit in there that I don’t think it ever got credit for.

  25. so important you went back in time and wrote the review before it was asked for.

  26. If the Coens are doing a Western, we better fucking see Sam Elliot in there somewhere! On the subject though of this coming out five years after Fistfull of Dollars, does anyone think a Clint/Wayne team up western could have been any good? Like the rough idea of For a Few Dollars more, but instead of Lee Van Cleef, John Wayne is the older cowboy who doesn’t entirely get along with Clint?

  27. Timmy – I think its interesting in an ironic way that LEGACY built sets to set in tone with the original TRON, considering that one used computers to simulate what a computer world would look like.

    Vern – I’m not one of those nerds who hold CLASH OF THE TITTANS or TRON in high standard. Hell I think CLASH sucked. I do like TRON, in spite of a paper-thin story and well lucky that’s narrative is able to sustain just long enough before it ran out of gas at about the right time.

    Besides, didn’t geeks for decades piss on TRON before this past decade?

    Stu – Perhaps if Eastwood and Wayne’s egos could have coexisted. Which they didn’t. Wayne for some reason thought Eastwood was part of why America went to hell culturally in the 60s/70s, which is ridiculous considering Eastwood hated the hippies, voted for Nixon, all that.

    There’s that anecdote of on SHOOTIST when Don Siegel kept badgering Wayne to act like this and that, like how Eastwood would do it. Finally Wayne snapped back “well I aint goddamn Eastwood!” or something to that effect.

    Too bad, an Eastwood/Wayne western was definately a blown opportunity.

  28. Jareth Cutestory

    April 12th, 2010 at 6:50 pm

    Mr. Majestyk and RRA: Thanks for the crash course in TRON. Does the trailer for the new film look promising to you guys? Frankly, I spotted ten or twelve cliches in the first 30 seconds. Even though I don’t really care for the original TRON, I’m not sure I’d say cliche was part of the problem.

    And I like how the faces look in Tronland, all glowing black and white. That’s really neat.

  29. Jareth – Let me hijack a NRA bumper sticker…

    “Cliches don’t kill movies, Hacks do.”

    It’s all in the execution.

  30. Jareth Cutestory

    April 12th, 2010 at 8:01 pm

    Words of wisdom, RRA, words of wisdom.

    Vern: By “feature length attack” are you referring to Plinkett’s reviews over at Red Letter Media? Are those reviews not your cup of tea? Can film criticism and pizza rolls co-exist?

  31. Jareth: I think the new trailer looks great. It’s updated, but not too updated. It keeps the simple, graphic look, which really appeals to me. I’m looking forward to it.

  32. Yeah, I am definitely not for that whole holding up a movie on a pedestal just because it’s from when you were a kid. The original Clash sucked, and I wanna see Tron only cuz this new one looks like a good movie.

    Let’s go back to this, shall we? I want to see this now, mainly because Vern’s review is awesome but also cuz the Coens are doing their version. If I end up liking the older version of True Grit, then I’ll consider that an added bonus to what hopefully will be a great movie. Remake/visitations/imagining/hashes can have that benefit, I suppose: moving people to unearth the original and see what they think. I’d rather they do original stuff though.

    That being said, yesterday I saw a trailer for the same movie with with two different sets of actors. It’s the SAME STORY and I think both movies come out this summer, Tom Cruise is in one, Ashton Kutcher’s in the other!

    So I guess Hollywood can’t do original stuff anymore either.

    Hey look, a book*!

    *I meant Netflix Instant Queue

  33. Jareth: Yeah, that’s what I’m talking about. I haven’t actually watched the new one. When everybody here told me to watch the first one I watched some of it and from what I saw it was very clever. I definitely give the guy credit, but otherwise I sort of agree with Mr. McWeeny, I am so tired of people complaining about those movies and don’t know why people are acting like he’s Malcolm X or something for further re-re-re-re-re-examining the unanimous nerd hatred of those movies that came out more than ten years ago.

    But that’s not why I bring it up, I just think it’s funny that everybody is so microscopically examining everything that they don’t like about those prequels but are completely incapable of seeing anything wrong with TRON.

    I don’t mean to trash those movies either though. As dull and corny as I think CLASH is the animated monsters are untoppable. I haven’t heard anything good about the new one but I hope they at least put some elbow grease into the effects.

  34. time to chime in, since you used a japanese poster. the japanese title of the movie as seen on the poster is “Yuuki aru tsuiseki,” which translates literally to THE CHASE WITH COURAGE but less awkwardly to BRAVE CHASE, i guess. the tagline on the right says, “Seibu otoko futari ga tachiagatta!” which translates literally to “Two Western men stood up!” don’t really know how to render that more naturally, i suck at translating. but advertising copy is especially hard to translate between english and japanese (i have had some experience doing it for work).

    anyhoo, of course i am excited for the coen bros’ movie, what kind of interweb nerd would i be if i weren’t? but if i had my druthers i guess i would prefer the brothers c to work on original material more, though of course they have hit it out of the park with adaptations (NO COUNTRY and O, BROTHER if it counts), more often than they have failed (LADYKILLERS, which is the only coen movie i consider to be downright bad – i am one of the few people who thought INTOLERABLE CRUELTY was decent).

    as for TRON and CLASH, i was a little kid when they came out, so i have a huge amount of nostalgic feelings for them – they were both staples of slumber parties in the 80’s. i am not blind to their flaws, but my nostalgic affection allows me to forgive them. i watched TRON for the first time since i was a kid a few years back, and i actually was still pretty impressed with it. the design and atmosphere of the computer world is phenomenal, jeff bridges is great as both flynn and clu (i love that introductory shot of him playing the arcade game), david warner, and the lightcycle scene is fucking phenomenal, it gets me excited every time i see it, and the design and the sound effects are just so damn cool. the only real problem with the movie is that it gets pretty boring in the middle story-wise. i don’t think it’s nearly as egregious as the SW prequels in the story department, but i am not trying to compare the two. i watch the red letter media reviews because they are funny/entertaining. as for the original CLASH, i have it on dvd. yes, it’s super cheesy and the lead actor is lame, but that naive earnestness is kind of part of its charm. but as vern says the monster effects are great and iconic. the medusa scene is fantastic. i really like the design and use of the calibos (sp?) character. plus, it’s got burgess meredith, maggie smith, ursula andress, and laurence motherfucking olivier. oh, and boobs. in PG!! god, how i miss the PG boobs days… from everything i have read about the new CLASH, i will probably be skipping it.

  35. The new CLASH just has absolutely no personality whatsoever, and the action and effects aren’t really enough to compensate. And for God’s sake, don’t see it in “3D”. I took my glasses off at one point and barely noticed the difference.

  36. Jareth Cutestory

    April 13th, 2010 at 6:47 am

    Timmy: When you wrote that “the original Clash sucked” I thought you were suggesting that the album CUT THE CRAP was better than LONDON CALLING. Then I realised that you were talking about CLASH OF THE TITANS. Way to scare an old guy.

    Vern: I like how Plinkett builds into his reviews a kind of fictional self-critique, as if his problems with women are a tacit acknowledgement of a larger disfunction that includes his nerdy, pathological explication of lousy films. It’s all very cartoony, but it’s an enjoyable cartoon.

    You’re probably right that he has endeared himself to geeks because of his attention to excruciating detail, and because he couches his remarks in the kind of negative hyperbole that the geeks seem to love. But I also like to think that the skill with which he’s constructed his persona and his fluency in film language is what (rightfully) earns him a certain amount of praise.

    It’s like when you review a movie I don’t care about; I still read the review because of the quality of the insight and the skill of the articulation.

  37. Jareth, do you think the woman-hating themes and the nerdy voice are meant as sort of a self-criticism, and a way of saying “yeah, yeah, we nerds get carried away with this stuff.” Or is it just something he thought was funny and he chose to mix it with his obsessive hatred of Star Wars prequels? I honestly can’t tell. I mean, it seems like that’s why you would include something like that, but on the other hand his dissection of the movies seems too passionate for him not to be completely serious about it.

    Anyway, whatever the intent, I saw it linked on more than one websight that basically said, “Check out the great stuff this guy says about Star Wars! But he talks in an annoying voice.” I was more into the form, they were into the content.

  38. David Mamet borrowed a line from TRUE GRIT for THE SPANISH PRISONER (“I put a thief in my mouth to steal my brain.”) and I am the only one who prefers Packard to Plinkett?


  39. Jareth Cutestory

    April 13th, 2010 at 12:58 pm

    Vern: In the realm of Outsider Critics, I guess I’d situate Plinkett somewhere between you and Neill Cumpston.

    Both you and Plinkett are capable of critical insight, but Plinkett doesn’t seem committed to being a good critic or even inclined to demonstrate the restraint that you show with your stylistic flourishes, most of which have become less pronouced since the days you referred to yourself as “ole Vern.” If the new Plinkett video is any indication, he seems to be moving away from actual criticism and more into the dramatization of his persona, which is the opposite of what you’ve accomplished.

    Like Cumpston, Plinkett seems to enjoy the pure spectacle of showmanship, even letting it derail his arguement, yet he hasn’t drifted off into the Valley of Tourette’s where Cumpston resides.

    I like to think that there is a self-depricating intent to what Plinkett does, and that he’s making a larger comment about YouTube culture in general, but who knows? Maybe the guy just likes cruel jokes about abusing women. It’s certainly not something I’d tolerate over a long period of time, although I’ll admit that there is skill involved in what he’s done so far.

    I also don’t know how geek-specific his persona is; it seems more like a Shakes the Clown kind of deal to me. I think that anyone going to his videos strictly for STAR WARS bashing is missing the show. I mean, I know he loves STAR WARS and STAR TREK, but I wouldn’t be surprised if he branches out.

    Anyway, it feels kind of stupid to have written five paragraphs about something that may amount to no more than an internet fad like that Rick Astley thing.

  40. Who the hell told you this was terrible?

    My Dad isn’t that into movies. He’s always calling stuff “Far-fetched” (that’s what he said after taking me to see Ghostbusters, for instance…). But every now and then he’d get excited about something coming on the telly and demand I tape it. This was one of them. He literally jumped out of the couch and said “Fill yer hands you son-of-a-bitch!” And when I looked at him cluelessly he was like – “Oh yeah, you haven’t seen it. You’re nine.” So I taped it, and watched and loved it. He sold me on the bad assery of Mr. Cogburn. That was the whole movie to him – this old fat drunk with a Winchester, a Colt and the reins in his teeth.

    Very important film for me, I guess. I’m sure the Coens will do a nice job, but I think it’s a strange project. I wish they’d do another McCarthy adaptation more than a remake, Child of God would be perfect for them.

    I think you’d like The Shootist, though I feel like you’ve mentioned it before.

  41. Whoops! I wouldn’t have thought anyone would actually take me seriously about David Lynch needing to apologize for Twin Peaks and seeing a project about following the Civil War adventures of Rooster Cogburn from the perspective of his cat as a way for him to do so. I shouldn’t have tried the joke, I guess, since I couldn’t add more detail without making it less funny.

    To explain: when I thought a moment about a prequel series about Cogburn’s cat, my reaction was “insanely batshit awesome! No director in his right mind would dare try it though!” To which another side of my mind answered, “David Lynch.” To which the first side of my mind replied, “Vorpal insanely batshit awesome + 10! There is no way a network would allow him to do it though! And his work is admittedly kind of an acquired taste, so it’d be hard to sell to enough audience to justify the effort of seeing him try it. Especially after what happened with–”

    Thus the gestation of my comment.

    I will add that I would still be interested in seeing someone trying a prequel from the perspective of Cogburn’s cat, even if Lynch wasn’t involved. (Maybe especially, since though I respect the guts of his artistic license he’s still an acquired taste that I haven’t acquired myself. {g})

    Meanwhile–how did this talkback mutate into a discussion of Tron and Plinkett in two days?? (But that’s why I love this site. {s!})

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>