Discussion in 'Misc. Films' started by James.B, Jun 29, 2018.
INSANE cast. It probably will top it but my fave version will always be the Ryder/Bale/Dunst/Danes version. I grew up with that version! I was 'shipping' Jo and Laurie before I even know what 'shipping' is!
Yeah, thats about right.
That makes sense.
Is this gonna be set in the modern day?
You can't beat that cast, but how many freakin' adaptations of Little Women do we need?
This. I'm really failing to see what else this can bring to the table that hasn't been done numerous times before, but I guess I'm mildly interested because of the insane cast, and Gerwig who is a talented director.
After thinking about it, I'll tell you the reason why they're making it:
The announced cast so far is comprised of Oscar winners and nominees. You can bet that at the very least, Streep will probably rack up a nomination for this.
It reminds me of the Kate Winslet episode of Extras where she talks about picking films that are strictly Oscar bait.
I'm just surprised that Gerwig is going for a cookie cutter project like this after something like Lady Bird. I wasn't much of a fan of that movie, but at least it was different.
I wonder if this will be a modern re-telling or will they stick with the classic version?
While this cast is obviously superb, it won't be that easy to top the 1994 version. That cast is still mostly relevant and are acclaimed as well. I think the only one that really didn't take off was the one who played Meg. I can't even remember who she is.
Agreed. It also gives the Academy an opportunity to show how progressive they are by lavishing a film with a majority female cast and a female director with multiple noms. Total Oscar bait.
In the last six years, we've gotten five films featuring Spider-Man in a key role. I don't think we should be throwing stones in this glass house of ours.
I try to have an open mind, and I am not even a "fan" of the book or any other version of this story that's been done before on screen... But I was flabbergasted at how bad that film looked when I saw the trailer play in theater when I saw Incredibles 2. Like... there were some really iffy ideas and acting in this trailer alone. The father character even came off... I don't want to get into it but it all felt off in a spectacular way.
I saw it in front of Fallen Kingdom and it looked very Lifetime-ish.
True, but it's not like Jo March is gonna be transported off to Titan to fight Thanos in this version. Each film that Spider-Man has been in has told a different story. Little Women will always be Little Women, even if they change the time period.
Seems unnecessary other then the obvious Oscar bait angle. I'm sure they'll bite.
How many versions does this make?
That's a great cast but I'd rather see something original than another Little Women adaptation. I do love the Dunst version though.
Apparently Friedrich is American and called Freddy now.
Amazing cast, but there is no way it will be better than the 1994 film, which is still timelessly perfect in adapting this story.
It also had an insane cast that included Winona Ryder, Claire Danes, Susan Sarandon, Christian Bale, and Kirsten Dunst.
Update: apparently Meryl Streep is playing Great-aunt March and the film will focus on the second half of the book more.
A bit of color in the cast wouldn't hurt. lol
This is an actually interesting case study in this for me. All of the girls in the film are related, and they're all part of an (at least once, albeit long ago) wealthy family in New England living in an intellectual conclave during the American Civil War.... they're going to be white.
Now given the film is focusing on them apparently as adults (and as I recall Jo winds up living in New York City), there is an opportunity to diversify the cast in that area. But should we insist on diversity in casting a family of characters who historically would all be white?