Everyone keeps saying the original is based “loosely” on the original. But it is not. It is very close to the novel. What am I - or other folks - missing?
The original movie isn’t told as a flashback, Mattie keeps her arm, Chaney is played by an actor 30 years older than the character in the book, LeBouf is on his trail for love in the movie and for money in the book, Duke has his “usual” weapons assortment (pistol and large loop rifle) while in the book Rooster wields 2 Navy 6s, the movie clearly happens in Colorado (a “classic” western area) as opposed to the Arkansas/ Oklahoma area of the book. Then there’s the over all tone, the book is more brutal and more humorous (gallows humor but humor all the same) than the first movie.
Nothing. The Duke has an emotional connection with most of us on FR (as he was a patriot) that tends to cloud judgment. I thought the new TG was excellent and stands on it's own merit. I thought it was well done and Bridge's was excellent. As was the little lass. This does not minimize the Duke's work. There are many Actors who's work stands the test of time.
I agree with you. The only changes, besides a couple of missing scenes that weren't critical to the plot action were that LeBouf didn't die in the novel, Mattie lost her arm, and they aged Rooster and Chaney for the movie. In the book, Cogburn was forty and Chaney 25.
I think where they say it's loosely based on the book is more about the aura of the movie. John Wayne dominated a movie because he had a screen presence. He was also a more likable character than Cogburn was in the book. While Rooster definitely had affection for Mattie in the book, his character was not capable of expressing it. It was revealed when he stopped LeBouf from whipping Mattie and later in the text when he tried to trick her into taking a nap so he could sneak off to take Pepper and Chaney without putting her at risk.
I agree with you though, that as far as movie interpretations of novels, it's about as close as you'll find.