Yesterday, news spread that Jennifer Garner was slated to star as a "younger, hipper" Miss Marple in a big screen incarnation of Agatha Christie's legendary sleuth. I believe I first saw the story on Yahoo, but I also believe that every outlet that reported the info used the phrase "younger, hipper." Now, just because word came today that maybe this isn't a done deal after all doesn't mean we shouldn't make fun of it.
Do we really need a younger, hipper Miss Marple? Isn't the older, unhip version kind of the point of the whole thing? Just because you can make something shinier doesn't mean you should. Yet Hollywood, which is all about making itself shinier, constantly tries this sort of stunt. I'm already dreading Emily Blunt as a younger, hipper Jessica Fletcher in "Murder, She Wrote: The Movie."
Besides, Jennifer Garner ain't that young and hip. Oh, compared to most traditional (read: correct) screen interpretations of Miss Marple, she is, but big deal. My grandmother's hope chest is younger and hipper than the average Marple.
This project just has disaster written all over it, and who wants to go see a movie called "MISS DISASTER MARPLE"? Not I, said the first little blogger.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment